fader limitations?

[Till]

it seems that the "Volume Fader Range" (Prefs->Editing Behaviour) also applies to all vertical faders in the entire ReaPlugs-Series. This is extremely annoying.

I changed my Volume Fader Range to -30 - +24 because that's the Range i tend to use.

now the vertical faders in ReaGate/Comp are pretty much useless.
(this also goes for the band gain in ReaEQ although it's a horizontal fader. the range fits well there though)

[General Contact Unit]

Just curious, what do you need -30 - +24 faders for? Why the offset? Why do you find that practical? I keep my loudest fader (kick drum) at -10 to -12 and with the right dynamic range (RMS) the peaks of the full song hit between -3 and -9 dBFS, usually -6. No clips ever. When I normalize that to 0, I get -14 RMS which can be easily pushed to -12 RMS or beyond.

[Tallisman]

nice one Till.
very interesting, I hadn't noticed.
what do you prepose? Another pref that defines the plugin fader range?

.t

[Till]

Just curious, what do you need -30 - +24 faders for? Why the offset? Why do you find that practical? I keep my loudest fader (kick drum) at -10 to -12 and with the right dynamic range (RMS) the peaks of the full song hit between -3 and -9 dBFS, usually -6. No clips ever. When I normalize that to 0, I get -14 RMS which can be easily pushed to -12 RMS or beyond.

hehe... good question actually. bit complicated actually. i master using the masterbus in reaper in my project. in order to bypass the chain without any loudness differences (which lead to major misconceptions of "good sound") i mix with lots and lots of clips (bassdrum and snaredrum always clip way over 0dBFS) which i find helps me stay true to what the actual end result is gonna be. oh my, this is gonna get a huge discussion, i can already see it. so i often need an increasement of volume and never anything below -30 (seriously: who turns a fader down to -60??)

[Till]

nice one Till.
very interesting, I hadn't noticed.
what do you prepose? Another pref that defines the plugin fader range?

.t

um. can you change the fader range of other comps and gates? i think not! so just fix them within a reasonable range! i think this is a point where absolutely no flexibility is needed.

[General Contact Unit]

Not gonna turn into a huge discussion, but I'm even more curious. What would be the problem if you used the level management I described? I think there's a better way of doing things. Try the routing described in

http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12793

You separate Master (master FX), Monitoring (hardware output, volume control+monitoring FX like EQs, mono etc.), Rendering (MASTER) (hard disk output, no processing, just the RMS/peak display - you could have some analyzers here but you could have an Analyzer bus receiving from Master).

If you don't route that way then how do you get this kind of functionality? Though it's described there and it's dead easy to do, I think I'll upload a template some day, if someone else doesn't.

By the way, could you make that volume thing?

[Till]

What would be the problem if you used the level management I described? I think there's a better way of doing things.

Didn't i just...? It's my way of doing it. Clipping the master is way closer to your final result than 20 dB Snaredrum peaks. And it's easier to compare your unmastered to your mastered.

By the way, could you make that volume thing?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how. :D Seriously, i can code anything you want, but tell me exactly HOW.

[Tallisman]

correct, Till. Fixed is best.

[General Contact Unit]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how. :D Seriously, i can code anything you want, but tell me exactly HOW.

No, I mean creating that new volume attennuator thing. :)

What do you think about my proposed way of working (routing the master, rendering and output separately)? What does it lack that is possible with your way - i.e. why wouldn't you adopt that, i.e. what's bad, stupid, awkward about it, and what's good, smart and easy about your way? This is a serious question, I'm not questioning the validity of your way of working - I just want find out what mine doesn't offer and yours does.

[Till]

No, I mean creating that new volume attennuator thing. :)

yes i know. and i'm still waiting for your plan.

What do you think about my proposed way of working (routing the master, rendering and output separately)? What does it lack that is possible with your way - i.e. why wouldn't you adopt that, i.e. what's bad, stupid, awkward about it, and what's good, smart and easy about your way? This is a serious question, I'm not questioning the validity of your way of working - I just want find out what mine doesn't offer and yours does.

man, how old are you? if you can work with your method, it's fine. you remind me a little of sebas777. you guys are thinking way, WAY too hard about EVERYthing.