John T

Nothing can be criticised and discussed on its own individual strengths and weaknesses, everything has to be rolled up into some all encompassing sighing-and-moaning fest.

And yet you constantly confirm that you indeed are one of the greatest protagonists of not allowing any form of fair criticism to appear here.

Ironic that.

I remember only last week referring to my particular preference for the pro-channel's invocation as being totally optional and yet you went to great lengths to try and 'prove' that my preference was invalid and attaching all emotions to my posts that weren't even there.

I'm your friend and not your enemy and I want you to know that I'm there for you if you ever need me.

trimph1


uummmmm...excuse me...but since when is it that these two things...thin channels and only 2 sends allowed per strip have nothing  to do with each other? 

Since they are so thin you cannot place more than 2 sends on them..otherwise you would have even more of a squashed channel strip. 

They stack vertically.

FreezeStudio


Agree
 
it should hav been at least 4 - 6 would be ideal...
 
if you use busses i use send 1 and 2 for effect :-(    
 
Idea: As someone mentioned earlier in this thread: use screensets =
Monitorveiw = 6 sends.( come on Cake)  should be a piece of CAKE
 
 

I could get behind the Screensets solution as long as I could set up a Screenset that displays the Console View with the standard volume slider and widgets like Mute, Solo, Input monitor, Pan along with a stack of sends all the way to the top of the screen (assuming I created that many sends.)

What I'd like to see is a separate, floating Routing View with faders. Imagine a screen that just shows each track and where it's routed to, in a clean graphical layout, with slider send-level controls on each.

This would be very handy for large projects with complex routing. It would help diagnose routing errors. It would be especially handy for Dave's specific application, multiple submixes for monitoring.

Yeah, I'd really like something like that too. Kind of like the Reaper matrix, though I can imagine better and friendlier solutions. Perhaps even a sort of drag-and drop patchbay metaphor could be nice, just drag connections between ins and outs.

I'd like to see a fully modular type of channel strip in the Console View.

In other words the ability to drag out  a section into it's own floating [and dockable] window complete with it's own customisation controls. Sends, I/O, FX Bins, M/S/R Status etc.

A totally seperate "monitor mix" console would be nice.

You define how many of your interface outputs you want to use for foldback/monitoring and they're all added by default as sends on each channel.

Danny Danzi

Karyn


A totally seperate "monitor mix" console would be nice.

You define how many of your interface outputs you want to use for foldback/monitoring and they're all added by default as sends on each channel.

Hi Karyn,
 
Couldn't you do that with busses and just save it as a template? That's how I have mine set up. What would the difference be in having a dedicated monitor system compared to busses and sends? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm seriously curious as to what the difference would be. Thanks. :)
 
-Danny

ok, take my system as an example. The Firestudio 2626 has 8 outputs as standard. 2 are used for the main studio monitors leaving 6 for foldback.  (Additional hardware allows you up to 24 analogue outputs.)
 
I would add an entry to aud.ini
 
FoldbackChan=6
 
This would pre-define outputs 3+ to foldback, up to the number of channels you set in FoldbackChan.
 
The standard console view would remain unchanged and would be used for normal mixing.
A seperate Monitor Console would include on each chanel strip,  gain, basic eq (maybe just tre/mid/bass), 6 Send controls (as defined in FoldbackChan), Mute, Solo, Input select.
 
Mute - mutes that instrument.
Solo - mutes all other inputs to the foldback system.
Input select - Tap the chanel signal

•  Pre-FX (clean input),
• Post-FX (normal),
• Post fader (foldback follows mix volume)

 
Yes, I know you can do this with the existing Console view, that's how we all work, but seperating it out takes away the multiple sends required in CV and allows for seperate EQ just on the foldback.  Basically it simplifies the CV for mixing.
 
Also, each monitor mixer strip can be narrow,  all you have is a series of control knobs, so you'd get loads of chanels on a single screen/window.
 
You could also re-arrange to monitor mixer chanels to match how the musicians are stood in the live room / on stage for real easy identification.

Karyn

Danny Danzi

Karyn


A totally seperate "monitor mix" console would be nice.

You define how many of your interface outputs you want to use for foldback/monitoring and they're all added by default as sends on each channel.

Hi Karyn,
 
Couldn't you do that with busses and just save it as a template? That's how I have mine set up. What would the difference be in having a dedicated monitor system compared to busses and sends? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm seriously curious as to what the difference would be. Thanks. :)
 
-Danny

ok, take my system as an example. The Firestudio 2626 has 8 outputs as standard. 2 are used for the main studio monitors leaving 6 for foldback.  (Additional hardware allows you up to 24 analogue outputs.)
 
I would add an entry to aud.ini
 
FoldbackChan=6
 
This would pre-define outputs 3+ to foldback, up to the number of channels you set in FoldbackChan.
 
The standard console view would remain unchanged and would be used for normal mixing.
A seperate Monitor Console would include on each chanel strip,  gain, basic eq (maybe just tre/mid/bass), 6 Send controls (as defined in FoldbackChan), Mute, Solo, Input select.
 
Mute - mutes that instrument.
Solo - mutes all other inputs to the foldback system.
Input select - Tap the chanel signal

•  Pre-FX (clean input),
• Post-FX (normal),
• Post fader (foldback follows mix volume)

 
Yes, I know you can do this with the existing Console view, that's how we all work, but seperating it out takes away the multiple sends required in CV and allows for seperate EQ just on the foldback.  Basically it simplifies the CV for mixing.
 
Also, each monitor mixer strip can be narrow,  all you have is a series of control knobs, so you'd get loads of chanels on a single screen/window.
 
You could also re-arrange to monitor mixer chanels to match how the musicians are stood in the live room / on stage for real easy identification.

Completely understood...thanks for the in depth explanation, Karyn. Makes total sense to me now. :)

mixmkr


and this is why I still use hardware for monitor mixing.  Personally, I think setups like an Aviom, where the performer can adjust their own mix works pretty good.

Works great if you have that kind of budget.  I use them every Sunday at our church.