Here's something better than folders or VCAs?

[karumba]

+1 on the initial idea.

[Argle]

I would definitely prefer this idea over VCAs (for my purposes).

[babag]

it seems to me that this discussion starts to get at some bigger things. on page 109 of the user guide is a signal flow chart. imagine if reaper had a preference page displaying a graphic like this flow chart in which users could freely rearrange the elements into their desired order. it would solve this issue but also address the whole concept.

thanks,
BabaG

[Magicbuss]

+1 to the OP's concept.

I still don't understand VCA's or why I need them. Folders just work for me with the major exception of the send issue.

[tgraph]

Could someone give a concrete example of when the OP's new feature would be of use? What the benefit would be from normal routing procedures?

[Magicbuss]

Originally Posted by tgraph

Could someone give a concrete example of when the OP's new feature would be of use? What the benefit would be from normal routing procedures?

If you group tracks into a folder and you lower or raise the folder volume, any child tracks that have sends (e.g. reverb/delay) will become wetter or dryer because the send levels stay constant while the track volumes change. Thats a real problem. It also makes automating folder volumes (something that would be very useful) kinda useless.

By comparison, you can set individual tracks so that the sends are are POST fader. So the relative level of the sends always matches the track level.

[Travesty]

I ran into this today. Would be a useful option I reckon

[TeaBone]

+1 to child sends following parent channel fader!

[Daveinnit]

+1 child sends following parent channel fader! Sounds good to me

[thebigcheese]

This idea does not make my brain hurt and I love folders, so a big old +1 from me, too.

[planetnine]

I think it's because you might be overthinking VCAs, bigcheese.

If you assign a VCA to a track, any fader gain on the VCA fader is applied on top of the track's fader.

VCA +3dB? -all assigned tracks get +3dB too. VCA -3dB? -all assigned tracks lose 3dB too...

It's just a fader remote control. A way of controlling multiple fader gains on one fader. If live sound engineers can throw them on multiple console channels during seat-of-your-pants events without thinking and keep control, then they're uber-intuitive (my 5yo daughter can assign and use them).


Not that the ideas in this thread aren't a good idea too, I've got to add my support to this, it's another useful method of putting mixes together.

...and I'd really like to see inverse VCAs for use with folder comps




>

[bigjoe]

Hello everyone, first post here.
To me these are not issues.
Comimg from 10 years PT ownership, large format digital and analog consoles i can tell you that this is the usual way DCA and VCA works.
Folders acts as groups on large format consoles.
When you want the fx sends to be affected by a folder or a vca, just add them to that folder/vca.
If you are sharing the same fx with more folders in the hardware domain there's nothing you can do, because of the routing path driving the behaviour of groups and vca.
You need to manually readjust all sends. ( same thing in ProTools).
In Reaper you have parameter modulation. I'm really new to reaper but i guess you can link a vca/folder fader to your sends.
In protools i used to have no effects shared between groups/vca.

I hope to be helpful
Sorry for my bad english

Joe

[kenz]

Originally Posted by planetnine

I think it's because you might be overthinking VCAs, bigcheese.

If you assign a VCA to a track, any fader gain on the VCA fader is applied on top of the track's fader.

VCA +3dB? -all assigned tracks get +3dB too. VCA -3dB? -all assigned tracks lose 3dB too...

It's just a fader remote control.

The term "VCA" is just downright confusing. Remote Control Fader is much better to grasp in the software world and would help make this much clearer if it was stated like that from the beginning.

This is by far the simplest explanation, thanks. Now I understand them as well.

(people always talk with sends, busses, comp tracks, reverb returns, etc etc... when speaking about VCAs, that really is the culprit of the confusion in my opinion)

[planetnine]

That's just how they were implemented in analogue consoles (VCAs as a compinent are also used in many compressors to effect gain reduction). Amplifiers control gain, and Voltage Control was a good way of bussing that control.

The name is just convention for assignable gain-control faders now. People who use that level of console know what they are and it's a succinct way of differentiating from group bussing or other multicontrol methods.

We've got remote control faders in track groups Call them VCAs and people who know VCAs understand they will possess particular combinations of properties.



>

[Banned]

Originally Posted by bigjoe

In Reaper you have parameter modulation. I'm really new to reaper but i guess you can link a vca/folder fader to your sends.

Unfortunately, no, you can't do that. There is support for parameter modulation for many 'native' parameters, such as track volume / pan / mute / solo.

Btw, welcome on this forum!

[Banned]

Originally Posted by kenz

The term "VCA" is just downright confusing. Remote Control Fader is much better to grasp in the software world and would help make this much clearer if it was stated like that from the beginning.

But "remote control" is already used for controlling stuff from outside the app (e.g. MIDI controllers). And "fader" would incorrectly imply that this functionality is only about volume.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by planetnine

That's just how they were implemented in analogue consoles (VCAs as a compinent are also used in many compressors to effect gain reduction). Amplifiers control gain, and Voltage Control was a good way of bussing that control.

The name is just convention for assignable gain-control faders now. People who use that level of console know what they are and it's a succinct way of differentiating from group bussing or other multicontrol methods.

We've got remote control faders in track groups Call them VCAs and people who know VCAs understand they will possess particular combinations of properties.

That's only true for people (like you) who know the term "VCA" in that specific context. I would guess that many other people who already know that term from another context - analog synths seems the most important one - could still be confused by it. And given that many other popular applications (e.g. PT and Cubase, as discussed) arguably abuse the name "VCA" even in the context of mixer groups, it still doesn't necessarily convey particular combinations of properties even to people who know this term n the context of mixer groups.

I wouldn't know a better term either, and I'm ok with keeping it as it is. But it still seems like a very poor term to me, as it is potentially confusing for many, and not informative at all to many others.

[planetnine]

I know what you mean.

But everything has to have a name and not everything is named well. These just happened to exist in a pretty similar form in analogue equipment and the name was appropriated. Wouldn't be the first time that digital software did this

VCAs are the same thing in comps and synthesis -an amplifier controlled by a voltage -theyre just used in different ways. In my analogue consoles, a VCA is just a component in the channel-strip circuits that listens to a voltage buss.

It's in common use in sound engineering and I agree, there doesn't seem to be a better term to replace it.



>

[thebigcheese]

Not sure if this alternative idea has any merit, but I tried it and it seems to work... I'm not super clear on the exact routing so someone correct me if I'm wrong. Let's say I have a reverb track set up and a bunch of drums in a folder. I want only the OHs and the snare to hit the reverb, but instead of sending them directly to the reverb, I send them to channels 3/4 of the folder track. The compressor only hits channels 1/2, but I then send channels 3/4 right back out to the reverb as a post-fader send. Now when I lower the folder volume, the reverb send is also lowered. As far as I can tell, channels 3/4 are never routed directly to the master. Does that seem right?

[amagalma]

Yay! Great idea! It works!.. not very easy to setup, especially if one has not planned early the folder structure.. but nevertheless it works!

[thebigcheese]

Originally Posted by amagalma

Yay! Great idea! It works!.. not very easy to setup, especially if one has not planned early the folder structure.. but nevertheless it works!

If it actually does work, would be really easy to set up a template so you can just load it up whenever you want to record.

[javiramallo]

a BIG +1+1+1.

Summarizing: Strongly We need a "Sends Follow Folder/Parents Tracks" functionality.

Just simple.

From here we can speculate about if is a combination of a VCA and a Folder track or things like that, but the reality is that we need that when we pull down the folder track of our DRUMS, its FX Sends pull down too.

Hoping a gentile developer listen our prayers, I leave partners.

Cheers.

[James HE]

I think simply using the Folder as a VCA for the children and sending the Folder signal PRE-fader to the master/parent bus accomplishes exactly the same thing.

IF you have heavy dynamic effects on the buss, there would be a difference, but if that is the case, it's just bad form to be using that fader as a VCA to begin with. In MOST cases it's not going to matter.

Currently, you can just send the Folder to some other Sub-group (pre-fader), but it would be nice to just check a box on a tracks routing to make the master/parent send pre-fader.

I think this option would be a simpler way of skinning this cat.

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by James HE

... I think this option would be a simpler way of skinning this cat.

And what an improvement that would be! As much as I like VCAs and how cool they are for other stuff when it comes to manage sends I'd rather use an option like this

[planetnine]

I think that should happen (and should have happened a while ago), without question.

Along with options like pre-fade (or other point) metering, I've never understood why post-fade affecting folder groups were not added as standard. It's a functionality hole, and seems another one of those functionality no-brainers /irritation-solvers for relatively little coding-time, but maybe I'm oversimplfying the required changes and they are more work to implement than would first seem apparent.


That all said, however, I'd still like to see an option to "unhook" the parent fader so that VCAs can be used in the folder structure too (and I'd also like to see a VCA "inverted gain" tickbox for its slaves in the same manner as normal track groups "reverse volume").

I'm all for uncomplicated setups and simple ergonomics, but please not at the exclusion of the more powerful tools.


Thank you for listening...





>

[James HE]

Originally Posted by planetnine

That all said, however, I'd still like to see an option to "unhook" the parent fader so that VCAs can be used in the folder structure too

Just for my own clarity here, would having the master send be pre-fader be effectively "un-hooking" the fader as you describe? Or something different?

hmm... I guess there could be a difference if there are post-fader sends from that track. So yeah an option to just separate it might be better.


!taerg eb dluow noitcnuf esrever a ,sey dna

[planetnine]

It's an alternative.

You either use the post-fade option on your folders, OR you unhook the folder parent gain and use VCA assignment for the gain operation, which gets you the desired post-fade functionality.

-The VCA method gives you more flexibility because you can exclude tracks within a folder or incude tracks outside of it.

-The post-fade folder option gives you simplicity -you can set it up without the messing-about with VCAs.


The inverted VCA slave idea would allow you to combine folders and VCAs in a different way -pushing or pulling the level against a compressor or similar plugin with the folder parent compensating gain. Leave the parent fader "hooked", and assigned as a VCA master; set the children as inverted VCA slaves.

• Pushing the parent fader, the VCAs would pull down the child-track gains to back off any level to folder parent dynamic plugins, while the folder parent fader made up that gain to the folder.
  
• Pulling down the parent fader would push the child track levels agains the parent track dynamics, with the parent track compensating.

>

[antiClick]

Please vote
This is from years ago:
http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=1993

Since then, its priority has rised from 6 to 2. Let,s hope it,s soon developed

[daxliniere]

http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...02&postcount=8

Originally Posted by daxliniere

I use these frequently, but feel that a professional DAW such as this should really have true VCA integration, implemented as folder modes.

Folders would get 2 options:
Audio parent [on/off]
VCA master [on/off]


Parent on, VCA off = existing folder behaviour.

Parent off, VCA off = folder is simply used for grouping/'collecting' tracks. All audio from tracks inside folder is routed directly to folder's parent.

Parent on, VCA on = existing folder behaviour, but audio is passed at unity to it's parent track and the folder's fader acts as VCA master for child tracks.
Pressing mute = silence (since audio passes through the folder track).

Parent off, VCA on = folder is used for grouping/'collecting' tracks and its fader is the VCA master. Pressing mute = only disable VCA master signal


To clarify: When Parent is on, audio output of tracks inside folder are summed as the folder's output.

All VCA slave tracks' faders must reflect their own gain * VCA gain.

[d. gauss]

+1 to child sends following parent channel fader!

[daxliniere]

Originally Posted by d. gauss

+1 to child sends following parent channel fader!

It's deeper than just this. If Cockos was to implement it that way, then in the future when we get post-fader FX, it would have to be re-designed again.
The system I've suggested covers that base.

[d. gauss]

Originally Posted by daxliniere

If Cockos was to implement it that way, then in the future when we get post-fader FX, it would have to be re-designed again.
The system I've suggested covers that base.

what is said system, and how easy is it to implement? key word being easy. like others, all i need is sends to follow folder master.

[daxliniere]

Originally Posted by d. gauss

what is said system, and how easy is it to implement? key word being easy. like others, all i need is sends to follow folder master.

Well, I'm no coder, but, with the recent addition of VCAs, all of the building blocks already exist.

Take my example:

Folders would get 2 options:
Audio parent [on/off]
VCA master [on/off]

Parent on, VCA off = existing folder behaviour.

Parent off, VCA off = folder is simply used for grouping/'collecting' tracks. All audio from tracks inside folder is routed directly to folder's parent. (bypassing the folder track.)

Parent on, VCA on = existing folder behaviour, but audio is passed at unity to it's parent track and the folder's fader acts as VCA master for child tracks.
Pressing mute = silence (since audio passes through the folder track).

Parent off, VCA on = folder is used for grouping/'collecting' tracks and its fader is the VCA master. Pressing mute = only disable VCA master signal

Interestingly, I just realised that if we had post-fader FX, this functionality could be VERY easily achieved with what we have right now.

To allow a folder to perform only a grouping function and not actually "funnel audio through it", you would have 2 plugins inserted on the folder, one to send audio signals and one to receive them. Placing the sender pre-fader and the receiver post-fader would effectively bypass the folder's volume fader, which could then be freed up to use as a VCA master.

BAM!

[James HE]

Originally Posted by daxliniere

Interestingly, I just realised that if we had post-fader FX, this functionality could be VERY easily achieved with what we have right now.

To allow a folder to perform only a grouping function and not actually "funnel audio through it", you would have 2 plugins inserted on the folder, one to send audio signals and one to receive them. Placing the sender pre-fader and the receiver post-fader would effectively bypass the folder's volume fader, which could then be freed up to use as a VCA master.

BAM!

HUH?

Seriously, lets not makes this more complicated than it needs to be.

Just let the Parent send have an option to be pre-fader - taking the fader OUT of the signal path, allowing it to be the VCA. this really seems the most straightforward way to go.

You can do this now by creating a send, as I pointed out a few posts above.

IF (it's a big if) REAPER ever gets POST-Fader effects, then perhaps there would need to be some other options there, but simply adding a pre-fader check box would certainly allow a folder to act simply as a VCA as things are now.

[daxliniere]

Originally Posted by James HE

HUH?
Seriously, lets not makes this more complicated than it needs to be.

I'm saying that in the absence of native 'folder modes', which would be easy to implement and easy to use, we could use the system I described. (which is a distant second place for ergonomics to achieve the same goal.)

Originally Posted by James HE

You can do this now by creating a send, as I pointed out a few posts above.

Yes. From each and every child track. No thanks.

[d. gauss]

dax and james...you BOTH lost me there. just need easy way for sends to follow group master. can it be done with out major forethought and effort?

[James HE]

Originally Posted by daxliniere

Yes. From each and every child track. No thanks.

NO, just from each Folder track.

[daxliniere]

Originally Posted by James HE

NO, just from each Folder track.

How does that allow the audio of the child tracks to pass over ('around') the folder track?

[daxliniere]

Hi d. gauss,
The problem with the system of 'remote controlling' sends separately of the track fader is a problem when post-fade FX are introduced.

Just as one example, say you wanted to ride the levels going into a compressor (a very common practice in the studio), you would put that compressor in the post-fade FX position. Any changes the the track fader, including those from a VCA master, would affect the levels going to post-fade sends AND into the post-fade FX (in this example, the compressor).

So,back to the original wording, the request for an option for 'child sends follow parent channel fader'

If you were to add separate VCA-type control of sends, then you wouldn't be controlling the levels going into post-fade FX.

[James HE]

Folders as VCA Masters for Child tracks. RPP attached. master is muted. (unmute at own risk )

Follow the routing, and VCA assignments, it's easy peasy, Just send the folder pre-fader (uncheck parent send) to some other track before the master.

the folder fader, since it's the VCA, controls the children's sends, but is not in the audio path to the master.

The Caveat here, is that the metering on the Folders is still POST fader, thus, useless.



So.. Yeah we need pre fader parent sends, and pre-fader metering... I think that would make a ton of folks very happy.