JAH wrote:DJ Hellfire wrote:JAH wrote:
They are not on a single page in the software. As soon as you click the Insert tab, the level, pan, and aux are hidden completely unlike the mixers found in the Ren, Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase....you know the rest. These software products with real mixers don't require a convoluted process to mix.
OK, and to get back to those settings is just a single mouse click or button click on the hardware, and your plugin GUI is still on screen and can be tweaked with the mouse in addition to these settings.
With a real mixer there is no need for this. And your single mouse click turns into 128+ mouse clicks when you attempt to create a multi-track mix as you can with any of the leading software products with real mixers.
Actually, there is. Depending on what plugins you use, Waves for example, you lose ability to control Pro Tools with your mouse until you click back outside of the plugin window and back into the Pro Tools software window. Many other plugins cause this as well. But again, it doesn't matter if Maschine cause you to click 1,000,000 times; it still has a mixer!
JAH wrote:DJ Hellfire wrote:JAH wrote:
Above you were discussing using Maschine's mouse to mix to counter the fact that the hardware isn't very intuitive for this purpose. Now you want to discuss the Ren's solo function from the hardware? First...this isn't a very good argument. The reason why you are using the solo function in Maschine is because it doesn't have a dedicated mixer and your are using solo simply to use Maschine's one level meter (not sure why any one would design a product such as this with no multi-channel mixer 
). The fact that the Ren doesn't solo from the hardware in Track Mix mode is not relevant to this discussion. You don't need to use solo in this manner when using the Ren as every track has a channel strip with level meters (you know...like a real mixer found in every other product except Maschine). And while you can't solo from the hardware in Track Mix Mode (a feature that no one has mentioned or asked for), simply clicking the solo button in the software (one solo button for each track) is effortless. This isn't about Maschine taking less than a second to solo a pad (multiplied by up to 16 pads across 8 groups). It's the fact that you have to continue this charade to show that Maschine has a mixer when it clearly doesn't.
Except when you use a plugin on a pad which forces the sound out of one of only 8 submixes, which has no gain meters, forcing you to rely on the single master meter, like Maschine! 
Anyway, my argument, isn't that using Maschine's single meter is better than Ren individual meters. My argument is that individual meters are nice, but they are not necessary to MIX with when you at least have a master meter and know how to use it. Seems like you're steering this discussion into a Maschine vs MPC discussion about which is better. My argument is simply that Maschine has a mixer and mixing is easy, not whether it's better than Ren's or easier or not!
NI claims Maschine's 128 Pads/sound slots are equivalent to MPC tracks. With that said, the MPC Ren Track Mixer has 128 channels with individual gain meters. These channels are routed to master buss out by default. Adding Insert FX slots do not route them to submixes. There is no way you can compare a mixer with 128 tracks to a product with none. I can't see any logic in saying that Maschine without a mixer is easier to mix than these products (Ren, Pro Tools, Logic, etc) with mixers.
I didn't say Maschine was easier to mix with than these products. I said that it does have a mixer, and it is easy to mix with, especially for a person that knows how to actually mix! And it is easier to get an accurate mix in Maschine than the Ren because of the gain structure. It may be quicker to move volumes and pans around in the Ren, but getting an accurate gain is almost impossible without know where your unity is. It's possible in the Ren, but you'd have to rely on one of your 3rd party plugins to show you proper mixer metering, like a limiter, or compressor, or even an EQ. Nothing you just said changes the fact that inserting plugins on pads bypasses Ren's track metering!
Also, the headroom issue. Maschine gives you +10dB of gain headroom to push levels. Ren gives you 0! With that headroom, you can easily push up lower volume sounds instead of having to lower the volume on every other track. And Ren doesn't allow you to group and move all faders at once like actual DAW's do. Neither does Maschine, but it at least has the extra headroom to help avoid having to do this!
JAH wrote:DJ Hellfire wrote:JAH wrote:
The Ren is nicely laid out in this regard. Everything is labeled and it's very intuitive to select Level, Pan, Mute, Send, Insert, or Route from the controller and use the Qlinks to modify param values. I believe this is the best design decision given the layout of the controller so that the Qlinks can be used in every mode. It's night and day compared to Maschine. I certainly prefer the Ren or Studio controller over Maschine's.
I agree. But this is not my point! My point is that when mixing from the controller on the Ren, you still have to page through multiple pages to get to different parameter, like Maschine does. Doesn't matter if the Ren is stronger in this regard, but this does not mean that Maschine has no mixer! I'm sure anyone who's touch both Ren and Machine controllers would prefer the Ren. But again, this isn't what the discussion is about!
I think it is very relevant to the discussion. Not only does the Ren have a mixer, the control of the mixer from the Ren's superior hardware is superb in my opinion. The paging you must do when mixing is completely different than Maschine. It is not comparable. I don't think we will see any feature requests to change the Ren's 128 channel mixer to Maschine's imaginary mixer.
Are you aware NI doesn't make the claim that Maschine has a mixer?
It doesn't matter that the paging isn't comparable. And no one is requesting to change Ren's mixer to what Maschine is. This doesn't even make sense that this is what you're getting out of my side of the discussion.
The bottom line is Maschine has a mixer, it doesn't force you to route stuff where you don't want, and it has proper, accurate gain structuring; like real mixers.
Are you aware that Akai doesn't claim the Ren has NDC? It does have it, although a pretty simple form of it. But it's still "technically" NDC. The manual doesn't tell you this though and Akai doesn't claim to have NDC!
JAH wrote:DJ Hellfire wrote:JAH wrote:
Not relevant at all. Only you are discussing analog mixers. I am discussing the products at hand...software..and the fact that Maschine doesn't have a mixer regardless of the work-arounds you've managed to use. Modern luxury? Automation is a standard feature in all the software products mentioned in this thread. (RAM is also a modern luxury so keep your project sizes under 512 MB of memory. ) Over the course of several years, you are the first person I have encountered that is advocating this drawn out process to mix on Maschine. Other Maschine advocates simply state that they use Maschine's export function or drag-n-drop function in order to mix Maschine projects in a DAW which is better suited for mixing. Others use Maschine as a plugin and route Maschine's virtual outputs to a DAW. But no one, minus yourself, that I have seen or read about is advocating using Maschine in the manner you described to prove that it has a mixer. I applaud you for going all out though. 
It is relevant because you claim that because you can't see all the fancy flying faders with Maschine's automation that Maschine has no mixer. Again, analog mixers had no fancy flying faders, but they were still mixers! The whole automation point itself is irrelevant to this discussion!
Your entire argument is that Maschine has a mixer because you can achieve a mix on it. My argument is not that you can't balance signals across all of its pads. My argument is that it doesn't have a mixer as seen in all other software products. There is no defense you can mount to refute that. I don't believe there is a single person that would advocate all these software developers eliminating their Track Mixers in favor of a workflow like Maschine.
You're right, it doesn't have a mixer AS SEEN IN OTHER SOFTWARE PRODUCTS! It has the mixer it has. Hardware MPCs also do not have mixers as seen in other software products, but they are still mixers. Again, no one is suggesting to eliminate their track mixers to become more like Maschine. Where are you getting this from? I simply said Maschine has a mixer, it's easy to mix on, and it's accurate! Period!
The Ren has a mixer, it's easy to use, and it looks nice, but it's gain structure is uninformative, routing is not 100% flexible, making it not as easy to get an accurate end result mix as it is in Maschine.
JAH wrote:DJ Hellfire wrote:JAH wrote:
Not that this has anything to do with the discussion of the fact that Maschine has a mixer, but for one, the end result is the same, huh? Well, so is the end result of mixing in either Ren or Maschine. Doesn't mean that both products don't need mixer enhancements. The only difference is Maschine's "convoluted" way of mixing doesn't increase your project size by 2000%.
What's "convoluted" is mixing with no headroom or having any idea what unity gain is on any of your faders and master output, as well as all volume levels being maxed by default, and in addition having tiny clip indicators that are hard to see and reset on their own and has no setting to make it stay lit for a short period or until you manually clear it! No "real mixer" (software mixer) operates this way, and neither does Maschine! Maschine only seems convoluted to you because you haven't really put in much time at all actually USING the product and really getting to know it. Ren's mixer is nice looking! But it's missing some CORE functionalities that really makes any real mixer a mixer. Maschine is not lacking those. A graphical layout is insignificant to actual functionality! Channel strip layout is nice, but it's not required to mix!
Spending any more additional time with Maschine will not change my opinion of it...anymore than spending additional time with the Ren will change your opinion about the mixer.
Obviously you have come up with a solution in Maschine and love the solution so much you claim the product has something that it doesn't. No one claimed the Ren's mixer was perfect nor said it didn't need to be improved. But I remain firm that I would rather mix in the Ren than Maschine. If you don't feel the same way, perhaps you are using the wrong product?
If you spend a little more time with the Ren, I believe you will find a solution to your problem....like decreasing the levels of all tracks - 6 db and save as a template.
The difference is I spend an in-depth amount of time on both products, getting to know each one inside and out, actually using them for actual projects, and learning what each one can and can't do as well as which one is stronger or weaker in different areas! It's seems like you have the opinion that the Ren is stronger than Maschine at every angle. Both have several strengths over the other, which someone equally familiar with both would know!
I didn't say I "love" Maschine's solution. I love it's accuracy and ease of end result. There is obviously no denying that it can be improved. But for getting an actual end result without having to do a bunch of guessing, it's very easy and simple!
This is a workaround, which is one that is highly obvious and that I'm completely aware of as the mixer leaves you no choice but to do this! Why do I need to come up workarounds, though, to do a real mix in a "real mixer"? Since we are on the topic of real mixers, it would be nice if Ren's tracks had the track volume constantly displayed at the bottom of the fader like all "real mixers" do instead of having to hoover over the fader to see it!
