Suggestions for improved Mixer. **PLEASE RE-VOTE**

*NOTE: This is an update to an old thread/poll. So if you voted before, you may want to revote given the new information added! Carry on!

So, I have a couple ideas for an improved mixer and controlling the mix of multiple sequences more quickly and efficiently.

1. Sequence Groups:

Allows you to 'unify' Track Mixer for a selected amount of sequences. So for example, I can put sequences 1-6 in the same group (or however many sequences I want), and select 1 or more parameters to unify; like track renaming, track volume, track mute, track solo, track pan, track insert on/off toggle, etc. So if I want to lower the track volumes for sequences 1-6, I would put all those sequences into a sequence group and activate 'track gain' as a parameter to unify. So when I move a track fader in any of those 6 sequences, the same track fader in the other 5 sequences follow for that given track. And if I want to unify the pan settings for the 6 sequences, I can modify the group settings to activate panning as well.

Additionally, if I want 'track gain' unified for sequences 1-6, and I want to unify pans for only sequences 1, 2, 3, 5, I can create a new sequence group for those 4 sequences and activate pan. So I would now have two different sequence groups. Also, when modifying a sequence group, you will be allowed to add or remove sequences to/from the group. Adding an additional sequence to a pre-existing group will have that sequence's parameters adjust to whatever the group's set unified parameters was already set to. Removing a sequence from a group will leave any settings in their pre-unified state until you move them. So for example, removing a sequence from a group wont cause that sequence's track gains to default back to 100.

This will make mixing multiple sequences much more efficient for people that mix and tweak while creating, because when you make one fader movement in one sequence, you don't have to make that same adjustment for all of your sequences.

2. Linear Track Mixer

An alternative to the above Sequence Groups idea is something that is much simpler; making the Track Mixer linear. Basically, everything besides midi notes & track automation would be the exact same for a given track in every sequence. So if I name a track, it applies to all sequences. If I change the track program, that track uses the same program in every sequences. I move a fader, it moves for that track in every sequence. I set an effects plugin, it get's applied AS A SINGLE INSTANCE for that track across every sequence, and any tweak I do to the plugin affects that plugin on that track in every sequence. I move a pan knob, you get the idea!

So basically, nothing will change visibly from what we already have now. All the magic will be happening under the hood. This probably wont be as flexible/customizable as the Sequence Groups idea, but it will likely be much easier to implement. Also, this method would probably work perfectly for most people anyway. And maybe have the option to turn this off!

3. Master Mixer:

Another alternative for the above ideas, would be to add yet another mixer. This idea, to me, isn't really ideal nor probably even possible from due to it not being designed into the hardware, but just throwing some other possibilities out there. But it would give the flexibility of having separate mixer controls for each sequence, but still have the tracks from each sequence route into a Master Mixer that allows you to tweak the mixer settings for each sequence globally! Something like the graphic below, but maybe design the Master Mixer to take up the entire screen like an actual DAW mixer!

_______________________________________________________________


Gain Structure and other features:

So in addition to to above ideas, the one thing that is a MUST for the mixer is the Gain Structure. Instead of having the tracks and master output maxed out 100 by default and having a gain range of 0-100, we need:

1. A gain range of -∞dB to +12dB, with 0dB being the default fader settings for both pad mixer and track mixer, as well as submixer and master output!
2. We also need gain meters for pad mixer and submixer.
3. Faders/channel strip for the submixes instead of knobs.
4. Ability to select and move multiple/all track faders at once with the mouse.
5. Numerical gain read-out at the bottom of each track as pictured below.
6. Additionally, as Jigdagod suggested, having gain meters for midi tracks as pictured below (not sure if this one is even possible since there's no audio on these tracks, only midi).

Brilliant idea, for Tracks Mixer inserts issues and program settings it could be great...

Actually I convert sequences to song then convert it, a second time, to a Long sequence to do some stuff like that, but it's painfull to manage ...

I wonder there's a lot of things to improve until we got a supreme hard/soft combo

I know it's the opposite of most people but it's because of this reason and problem that you are trying to get around that I do it. I've been using the program mixer more than the track mixer. I know it routes to the Sub Mixes when you do this but you can still export all of the parts individually by soloing the tracks which contain the MIDI parts and then mix in your DAW of choice.

For work this way all I would need is inserts on Sub Mixes and more Sub Mixes in general. I stay away from the track mixer simply because I cannot go back and change things very easily (so your solution sounds great for that).

When working in Cubase I always route all of my tracks to groups anyway so even though I'm in the Minority I prefer the Sub Mixes in it's current state (if only there were inserts on them), over using track inserts because of the disassociation between sequences.

Yeah, I too have been using the program mixer mostly as well. But having the gain meters on the track mixer feels more like a real mixer and its easier to level out sounds that aren't in the same program much quicker.

DJ Hellfire wrote:I have an idea for a great workflow enhancement. Check it out.

Sequence Groups: Allows you to 'unify' Track Mixer for a selected amount of sequences. So for example, I can put sequences 1-6 in the same group (or however many sequences I want), and select 1 or more parameters to unify; like track renaming, track volume, track mute, track solo, track pan, track insert on/off toggle, etc. So if I want to lower the track volumes for sequences 1-6, I would put all those sequences into a sequence group and activate 'track gain' as a parameter to unify. So when I move a track fader in any of those 6 sequences, the same track fader in the other 5 sequences follow for that given track. And if I want to unify the pan settings for the 6 sequences, I can modify the group settings to activate panning as well.

Additionally, if I want 'track gain' unified for sequences 1-6, and I want to unify pans for only sequences 1, 2, 3, 5, I can create a new sequence group for those 4 sequences and activate pan. So I would now have two different sequence groups. Also, when modifying a sequence group, you will be allowed to add or remove sequences to/from the group. Adding an additional sequence to a pre-existing group will have that sequence's parameters adjust to whatever the group's set unified parameters was already set to. Removing a sequence from a group will leave any settings in their pre-unified state until you move them. So for example, removing a track from a group wont cause that track gain to default back to 100.

This will make mixing multiple sequences much more efficient for people that mix and tweak while creating, because when you make one fader movement in one sequence, you don't have to make that same adjustment for all of your sequences. Thoughts?

This would be amazing.

I like this idea. It's a pain currently when you have 14 seq's with 12 tracks each and you have to go to each seq and adjust the mixer settings. It would be great if one mixer controlled all the seq's.

Completely agree with your idea Hellfire!!

hotboi wrote:I like this idea. It's a pain currently when you have 14 seq's with 12 tracks each and you have to go to each seq and adjust the mixer settings. It would be great if one mixer controlled all the seq's.

This is why I don't ever mix in mpc software...it is a real PAIN!

Traditionally, you create sequences in MPCs that you string together in Song Mode. Then you export the song as a long linear sequence. The mixer settings of the first sequence is applied to all other sequences. Then you accomplish the final mix of the song. This is the MPC workflow since 1987. The draw back of this is that sequences had to be set-up exactly...Sequence 1 Track 1 and to have the same instrument as Sequence 2 Track 1. Otherwise the song would not convert properly.

But now it is 2013 and the MPC line should be advanced where needed. Looking at Song Mode now in the software, the Upper View is completely wasted. At the top of the view, there are thin colored bars that represent sequences. What remains underneath is completely useless and not utilized.

What I would do is insert a dedicated Mixer in Song Mode. So as you are building your sequences, you can insert them in Song Mode, 1 sequence at a time as you like and mix as you continue to build the song. Song Mode Track Mixer is applied to all sequences inserted in this mode.


.............but on second thoughts...

I would probably prefer a linear approach to arranging sequences. I would like to see sequences arranged one-after the other in the Main Mode. So basically, it would look exactly like Song Mode does now, but the grid events would look exactly as they do in the Main Mode. There would be no changes to the Ren's LCD. The software will just show the sequences running side by side. This would merge the typical MPC workflow with the workflow of a DAW.

Just make the track mixer "universal" and let us route the tracks freely to the desired "channels". Even the traditional MPC way JAH mentioned would be better than the current formula.

After 1.3 I'm sure I would be able to do everything I need to do within the Ren software, IF they would change the awful mixer!

hotboi wrote:How does song mode work now in the Ren as I hv never used it? Will it elimanate the need to mix every seq separately or is that still a requirement in song mode?

Yeah, but it's only useful for mixing a completed beat. If you tweak while you're still building your sequences like I do, Song Mode is of no help. Plus if you starting building your song at the same time you're creating, you lose the ability to easily jump between any sequence to the next, since your beat is set up in a linear fashion. This is why some type of universal track mixer would be more ideal, for mixing while you're creating!

I do use the convert > seq in song mode but I haven't tried adjusting this main seq afterwords instead of adjusting each seq. I'm gonna give it a shot, but yes u do hv to mk sure are the track are the same or the concert > seq won't work. Ur sounds will be off if u mix u the tracks.

DJ Hellfire wrote:

hotboi wrote:How does song mode work now in the Ren as I hv never used it? Will it elimanate the need to mix every seq separately or is that still a requirement in song mode?

Yeah, but it's only useful for mixing a completed beat. If you tweak while you're still building your sequences like I do, Song Mode is of no help. Plus if you starting building your song at the same time you're creating, you lose the ability to easily jump between any sequence to the next, since your beat is set up in a linear fashion. This is why some type of universal track mixer would be more ideal, for mixing while you're creating!

I goofed here lol. U caught me before I deleted the post.

I use song mode on evey beat actually bc I use MIDI on every beat and MIDI will skip unless you convert > seq. I was throwed, I'm at work lol

Yeah the way it's structured now, u can't mix until u put all ur seq's into one big seq. Then go to track mixer and adjust there, but the catch is all the tracks have to match or it will not work.

The other day I routed all my track outs on about 15 seq's then I realized I cld hv just done it once if I had convert > seq first then done it. But if we could get the levels right without going through such a tedious process, that wld be great.

Basically, you are referring to a bus for sequences. This is a good point, because as far as i know, this has never been mentioned...

We need track busses!

+1