Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington
Yes, agree.
Because of all this we can now also support multiple instances of an FX on a Track.
So we will now introduce FXNavigator.
Let's say we have a Track with 2 ReaEQ's.
Navigation wise, it's a no brainer on the Console1 -- just use a bank like concept to navigate between FX instances.
The C4 is much more free form.
So the real question for you C4 users out there is:
If you map multiple FX would you like to see both ReaEQ's each taking up a row, or do you tend to map the EQ's to A1-A8, the Compressors to B1-B8, etc. in your workflow ?
If everyone maps to a location on the C4 -- e.g. always puts the EQ's at the top -- then it is the same as the Console1, and we can probably go with just that mode of navigation.
If not, we'll have to think a bit more...  |
I have to admit, I have been lost about all the zone, subzone, gozone, nozone talk and can't really grasp all of it, sorry I can't contribute.
But, with C4 mapping I share mixmonkey's workflow, well a lot of it. Mainly that mapping by focused fx is preferred for all of those reasons. I remember when that was added, it was and still is amazing to use vs. cramming as many controls as you can.
If I used the same plugs all the time every time, trackfocused widgets would probably be way better in every way. It would work like a console, that's pretty cool actually. I guess I could have a "console" page and setup a recording template with this in mind...thinking out loud now.
Therefore, if it was possible to choose either, like I think we still do, then both styles win! CSI ftw