• SONAR
  • Me patiently waiting for Track to Track Routing in Sonar (p.4)
2015/08/26 14:56:40
Beepster
That looks pretty fuxxored as well but I'm sure quite logical if I understood it. At least it looks reasonably compact though. I've envisioned all sorts of crazy matrices for Sonar but I'm a n00b so I can't even begin to mentally plot all the intricacies. I just know sometimes I think to myself "This project is huge and a gatdanged mess... I wish I could open a window and look at WTF I did here and send/insert things where I ACTUALLY want them to go/be".
 
It's the MIDI thing I think that dorks it out too much for me. Audio is easy for me to figure out (kind of).
2015/08/26 15:00:31
xbitz
anyway I hope it will be better than this 



http://stash.reaper.fm/23836/Capture.JPG
2015/08/26 15:10:33
streckfus
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Virtual patch points do away with the need for extra "aux tracks". The patch point is essentially like using a patch bay where you can patch any number of tracks or buses to it and then "connect" the patch point output to another track (or bus). If its patched to a track you can then record that tracks patchpoint input just like it was a hardware input.
The feature is in development so any or all of this might change :)


Ooohh, I'm liking the sound of that.  So essentially - knowing full well that since it's under development nothing is set in stone at this point - this "virtual patch bay" approach would completely open up routing flexibility and allow for a variety of functions, whether it be "printing" a mixbus to a new audio track, recording a soft synth, routing two tracks to a single track (such as a top mic track and bottom mic track both patched to a main "Snare" track) thereby allowing for FX processing on that new track, which could then be routed to a drum bus, etc.?
 
And of course these would live in the track pane since it's essentially just another audio track but with this new patch point capability?
2015/08/26 15:12:08
Beepster
Almost looks like one of those "Thought Cloud" thingies that make me nervous about the thought processes of young people destined to control our world as I age (essentially my dumbass generation).
 
I am a firm advocate for chaos and intellectual freedom/experimentation... but in the sense you draw it down and organize it logically, linearly and in a realistically executable manner in the real world (which is governed by mathematics/physics no matter how desperately you try to reject those truisms).
 
Columns, lines and easily manipulated numbers were invented for a reason and have served those reasons well.
 
/getting old and cranky
2015/08/26 15:12:09
Beepster
dupe...
 
*yells at cloud*
2015/08/26 20:30:58
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
streckfus
Ooohh, I'm liking the sound of that.  So essentially - knowing full well that since it's under development nothing is set in stone at this point - this "virtual patch bay" approach would completely open up routing flexibility and allow for a variety of functions, whether it be "printing" a mixbus to a new audio track, recording a soft synth, routing two tracks to a single track (such as a top mic track and bottom mic track both patched to a main "Snare" track) thereby allowing for FX processing on that new track, which could then be routed to a drum bus, etc.?
 
And of course these would live in the track pane since it's essentially just another audio track but with this new patch point capability?



No strip is required to represent virtual patch points. They show up just like input or output ports in the menus.
You can also create groups of tracks routed to other tracks like what you described since the patchpoint knows how to mix. However I don't see the immediate advantage of your example since its probably simpler to use a normal bus to do that. You can also use it to record the metronome bus or to record a submix stem without needing to bounce it.
2015/08/26 20:53:49
John T
I think I'm having a stupid day today, as I'm not quite grasping what this is at the moment. I think probably the main question I have is "how is this different to a bus?"
 
I mean, it obviously is, but I'm not quite understanding what's being said, I think.
2015/08/26 21:28:14
streckfus
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
 
No strip is required to represent virtual patch points. They show up just like input or output ports in the menus.
You can also create groups of tracks routed to other tracks like what you described since the patchpoint knows how to mix. However I don't see the immediate advantage of your example since its probably simpler to use a normal bus to do that. You can also use it to record the metronome bus or to record a submix stem without needing to bounce it.



The advantage would be for those of us who don't like the separation between tracks/busses.  For example, I like to keep the number of busses fairly minimal: instrument groups (drums, guitars, vox, mixbus, reverb, etc.).  Since the bottom mic and top mic both contribute to the snare sound, it would be nice to have a main "Snare" track right there next to the top/bottom mic tracks in the track view.  Or if I want to do parallel compression in a track, I can route the source signal to a track right next to it.  When the track count increases, side-scrolling the separate track/bus sections gets a little tedious.
 
There have been a few requests for giving users the option to move tracks/busses freely as opposed to having them "locked" inside individual panes, so I think (for those of us interested in such a thing) our thought process was that track-to-track routing would allow for an "aux" track of sorts, thereby allowing us to organize tracks/busses as we like.
 
So functionally there's nothing wrong with Sonar's existing track/bus structure.  We certainly can route tracks to busses, busses to busses, etc. to our heart's content, but it can get a bit unorganized, especially when we prefer to organize/group busses in the way I described.  So yeah, more of a convenience thing than a "problem" with the way Sonar currently works.
 
I imagine creating an option to select "Tracks & Busses - One Pane" or "Tracks & Busses - Separate Panes" would probably require a major UI overhaul, and for those who like the setup as is, it doesn't make sense to get rid of the separate track/bus panes altogether, which is why when I saw "Track-to-Track Routing" as an upcoming feature I was seeing it as a way to, in essence, use an audio track as a bus, kind of a hack for those of us who'd like to be able to move tracks/busses freely within a single console pane.
 
I totally get the ability to record/print a synth, track, etc. without having to bounce it, so it'll be a nice feature regardless.  But I initially saw this as a clever way to bypass the limitation of having tracks/busses in separate panes.
 
I did see in an earlier thread about using a plugin with a sidechain input to effectively turn a track into a bus so perhaps I'll look more closely at that.  Or perhaps I'll submit a feature request to allow users to determine whether tracks/busses are organized in separate panes or move tracks/busses freely between panes, but that would require a pretty big overhaul behind the scenes, wouldn't it?  I'd think being able to send a signal from one audio track to another would be a bit less daunting...but I'm no developer so what do I know. :)
2015/08/27 19:49:05
BillWatkins
Oh my gosh....patch points, batch bay.... i' gonna feel like I'm back at Criteria again ! :)
2015/08/27 23:05:27
bluzdog
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
streckfus
Ooohh, I'm liking the sound of that.  So essentially - knowing full well that since it's under development nothing is set in stone at this point - this "virtual patch bay" approach would completely open up routing flexibility and allow for a variety of functions, whether it be "printing" a mixbus to a new audio track, recording a soft synth, routing two tracks to a single track (such as a top mic track and bottom mic track both patched to a main "Snare" track) thereby allowing for FX processing on that new track, which could then be routed to a drum bus, etc.?
 
And of course these would live in the track pane since it's essentially just another audio track but with this new patch point capability?



No strip is required to represent virtual patch points. They show up just like input or output ports in the menus.
You can also create groups of tracks routed to other tracks like what you described since the patchpoint knows how to mix. However I don't see the immediate advantage of your example since its probably simpler to use a normal bus to do that. You can also use it to record the metronome bus or to record a submix stem without needing to bounce it.




I like the way this sounds (no pun).
 
Rocky
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account