Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

yorolpal
Bingo! :-)

 
I guess I'm not following what your objection is to using a track send to accomplish the same thing?
A send *is* exactly the same thing as a track output, except that it has an independent gain and pan control (the send pan can be linked to the track pan)
Sending one one output to two destinations simultaneously requires the signal to be split (or two wires if you prefer to imagine it that way) so its really one and the same thing.

Hi Noel...

One of the differences is that the send does not follow fader automation... As I mentioned above. So it would require duplicating the automation and maintaining any changes in both places...

Or can you link the send level to the fader?


Keni

Or add a simple volume VST (BlueCat do one IIRC) and automate that rather than fader - send and output both inherit the automation from the plug-in. But you can still have an effectively different 'offset' for each output - best of both worlds.

Keni

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

yorolpal
Bingo! :-)

 
I guess I'm not following what your objection is to using a track send to accomplish the same thing?
A send *is* exactly the same thing as a track output, except that it has an independent gain and pan control (the send pan can be linked to the track pan)
Sending one one output to two destinations simultaneously requires the signal to be split (or two wires if you prefer to imagine it that way) so its really one and the same thing.

Hi Noel...

One of the differences is that the send does not follow fader automation... As I mentioned above. So it would require duplicating the automation and maintaining any changes in both places...

Or can you link the send level to the fader?


Keni

Just so you guys know.

All the programs/utilities created by our members are hosted together. We have a sticky thread with all the deatails just for this in the Software forum (where else). I've actually approached all the developers about hosting and this has been the outcome.

http://forum.cakewalk.com/findpost/3238243

Keni

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

yorolpal
Bingo! :-)

 
I guess I'm not following what your objection is to using a track send to accomplish the same thing?
A send *is* exactly the same thing as a track output, except that it has an independent gain and pan control (the send pan can be linked to the track pan)
Sending one one output to two destinations simultaneously requires the signal to be split (or two wires if you prefer to imagine it that way) so its really one and the same thing.

Hi Noel...

One of the differences is that the send does not follow fader automation... As I mentioned above. So it would require duplicating the automation and maintaining any changes in both places...

Or can you link the send level to the fader?


Keni

Noob here, sorry.
 
I can follow what Noel is writing, but I still can not understand the problem.
 
I have created 2 buses, "D" and "E". Both goes to the master, but "D" is inverted. So, when D and E get absolutely the same input I get silence.
 
So, one track has "Output" Bus E and "Send" to Bus D (send with default settings, post). Whatever I do with the track (add FXed, automate volume, etc) I still have silence. The only case when I hear something is when I automate pan. But that is only till I set "Follow track pan" for the send.
 
So, my current conclusion is that according to the proposal it should do exactly that, may be lowering both outputs proportionally to the number of sends+output (since in case you simply connect 2 electrical wires to the same source, that is what going to happened).
 
So, what I get wrong? Sorry again for my noob question.

Keni
Hi Noel...

One of the differences is that the send does not follow fader automation... As I mentioned above. So it would require duplicating the automation and maintaining any changes in both places...

Or can you link the send level to the fader?


Keni

Yes, just make the send post-fader.

A post fader send with send gain and pan set to zero is 100% identical to a single output going to multiple buses.
I imagine DAWs that do it that way would probably implement it internally like a send. Its more visual than an actual routing difference.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
A post fader send with send gain and pan set to zero is 100% identical to a single output going to multiple buses.
I imagine DAWs that do it that way would probably implement it internally like a send. Its more visual than an actual routing difference.

"Follow track pan" should be set for 100% equivalence. For me "Post" Send is "Post fader", but without "Follow" option it is still "Pre pan".

I'm sorta in agreement that "any in to any out", and "any out to any in" would be cool. I used to build gargantuan patchbays for studios (my own included) that provided that level of flexibility - albeit not without drawbacks, it was complex to manage, and it was possible to create some truly awful routes!!

The only software I have ever used that provided that  level of flexibility was Bars & Pipes Pro for the Amiga, but it was MIDI only.

These days I lean towards it ought to be possible, but not the default behavior. It is too easy to lose track of what goes where already! I had this discussion with Ron K a long time ago - the result was that the best way to do this would be to "Add new Bus Output", leaving the current Bus Output limited to one destination. And once you have to insert a second output widget there is no real benefit over using the existing "add send" command.
 
The automation issue - if I am using the Post Fader setting for the send then (I think) automation is already captured.
 
I also think the Post Fader setting captures all the FX bins, but not the FX sends, since those do not return to the channel strip, but that's precisely why one would use a send instead of the FX bin.

So I've stopped thinking about this as a work-around. But that is just me. And now that Keni brought up the automation question I guess I need to go do some experiments... but I've yet to run into a project where it caused problems... at least that  I noticed!
 
HOWEVER, I do use SideChain Mixer from time to time to do things I wish were native to Sonar. As an example, I still like to route delay and reverb outputs to the sidechain input of a compressor or gate. It is a strange effect, and not one you can use on every project, but it can be cool. There are others, none of which come to mind right now (need more coffee!!)

Which makes my vote something along the lines of yeah, add the capability, but don't let me select two outputs from a track too easily. And let me route tracks to tracks, and tracks to side-chain inputs, and, and, and...

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
A post fader send with send gain and pan set to zero is 100% identical to a single output going to multiple buses.
I imagine DAWs that do it that way would probably implement it internally like a send. Its more visual than an actual routing difference.

Thanks Noel, John, and everyone else...

I'll have to experiment with this a bit...

With this new realization, I'm thinking you are correct and that it should work fine...

Keni