Old 02-26-2018, 08:31 PM   #81
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
ultimately, though, that's what stems are for.
^Absolutely- as long as you have some type of wav or any format recording-your good to go with them files..
Archiving is 1 thing-"holding onto the past" is another...life is about a balance i guess. =)
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 10:14 PM   #82
RobinGShore
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schwa View Post
Please feel free to suggest some specific feature changes or additions to ReaSurround. For example, the specific example in the first post. Within the context of how ReaSurround works, what changes would let it support what you need to do?
I'm not sure exactly how this fits "Within the context of how ReaSurround works", but I find the speaker zones thing really confusing and would like to see a version of Reasurround that is not based around this concept, or that at least obscures it from the user. As someone else mentioned in this thread, the expectation is that if you place a puck over one of the speaker icons, audio should be sent to that speaker and only that speaker. Once you move the puck off the speaker icon audio should immediately start panning towards other speakers. As it stands currently with the speaker zones, this kind of setup is really hard if not impossible to achieve. Seems though like you're experimenting with a way to distort the shape of the zones so that things behave closer to what I'm describing, that would be really great, but I still find all those overlapping curves that represent the zones confusing and hard to look at. Maybe you could add an option to hide them or have them color coded so it's more obvious which lines belong to which speaker. An option to use boxes instead of circles/ovals could help as well. You would get more uniform shaped overlaps zones, and it would make it look a lot closer to the Avid panner we all like.

Quote:

A big +1 on having corners and better defined boundaries. This pentagon shape is a neat idea for a 5 channel panner, though I don't know that it's actually necessary to have a corner for each speaker position. A simple box/rectangle is still more appealing to me as long as all the speaker icons are able to live somewhere along the edge of it. This would make it easier to adapt to different channel counts, and I like having all the front/rear/side speakers lined up with each other on a straight line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by schwa View Post
OK, what would that surround panner look like for simplicity? Just a set of knobs for channel X gain into channel Y?
Ideally it would be the mini UI that people keep mentioning like they have in Pro Tools, Nuendo, Pyramix etc., but I agree that's a down the road kind of thing once you get the main ReaSurround UI in a better spot. At it's simplest I think it could be a set of two or three knobs/sliders. One for left/right panning , one for front/back, one for height. I would want theses knobs to be channel agnostic. You would use them to set where the sound should be positioned and the panner would interpret this and adjust the output gain to the various channels depending on the speaker layout. The same knob would need to be able to work across a basic stereo pair as well as across a row of 5 speakers.
RobinGShore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 04:50 AM   #83
schwa
Administrator
 
schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 15,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by babag View Post
easy for you to say () but i'd be very upset if i lost all of my past work. my workflow involves use of elements as old as 60 years so my perspective on time is a long one. using an older version of the software is a possibility but at some point the os also obsoletes the app. i just want to be able to maintain access to the original work for as long as is practical. ultimately, though, that's what stems are for.
We are very careful not to break old projects. I can't think of a single change ever in REAPER that intentionally made old projects unloadable or even play back slightly differently. There have been occasional bugs that temporarily break backwards compatibility but we try to fix them immediately.
schwa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 06:38 AM   #84
svijayrathinam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlimbic View Post
By coincidence I am right now in the middle of making a surround panner that behaves exactly like the protools one. Me and vijay spent some time reverse engineering it's behaviour, pan laws etc to make sure it will work exactly as expected.

Really Looking forward to this...It would be so cool if cockos permits this plugin to be used as a track panner instead of a plugin..something similar to what steinberg has done with the IOSONO anymix panner in nuendo
svijayrathinam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 06:39 AM   #85
svijayrathinam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice View Post
One thing that I failed to mention...

One very good feature about the Pro Tools, and most other panners, is that there is a corner. That might sound silly, but mixing in the box is often with a mouse or trackball and keeping our eyes on screen is hard enough.

Right now Reasurround lets us move the "puck" way off screen, and therefore passing the isolated sweet spots.

I know... "mix with your ears", but every little bit helps. One less thing to think about. Hardware joysticks have physical limits.

One of the better solutions for 7.1 is Iosono Anymmix Pro, but its a circle. For me anyway, the corners of the box are really helpful.

This is a must have !! +1 for this..corners are very very important..It stops you from panning beyond speakers..
svijayrathinam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 07:35 AM   #86
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by svijayrathinam View Post
This is a must have !! +1 for this..corners are very very important..It stops you from panning beyond speakers..
If a sound is placed beyond the speakers, I would expect the SW to do the phase thing and make the sound appear to come from outside the range of the speakers (i.e. widen) and that is probably best assigned to JS-AutoWiden or whatever floats your widening boat.
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 07:37 AM   #87
svijayrathinam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
If a sound is placed beyond the speakers, I would expect the SW to do the phase thing and make the sound appear to come from outside the range of the speakers (i.e. widen) and that is probably best assigned to JS-AutoWiden or whatever floats your widening boat.

Sorry I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying the corners are not required or required ?
svijayrathinam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 07:43 AM   #88
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

I mean that if there are no corners, then the sound has to actually appear from outside the speaker spread by means of reverse phase.

So, unless a reverse phase algorithm is combined with ReaSurround (which brings all kinds of problems for the unwary user!) corners are a must-have (IMO). If a sound is pushed all the way to the left, I expect only the left channel to carry that sound.
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 07:44 AM   #89
svijayrathinam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
I mean that if there are no corners, then the sound has to actually appear from outside the speaker spread by means of reverse phase.

So, unless a reverse phase algorithm is combined with ReaSurround (which brings all kinds of problems for the unwary user!) corners are a must-have (IMO). If a sound is pushed all the way to the left, I expect only the left channel to carry that sound.
understand ...Thank you for clarity. yes..Corners are a must have
svijayrathinam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 12:31 PM   #90
introvert
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Austin
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schwa View Post
Also, I'd never discourage anyone from making cool plugins, so mrlimbic please don't put your work aside just because we're looking at ReaSurround improvements.
Thank you for looking into this.

And fwiw, what mrlimbic is describing with his panner looks very much like what we need. I'm working in games professionally, but sometimes doing surround mixes film style for pre-rendered cinematics and trailers, so I'm running into the same issue Ice is describing. I've done some surround mixes in Reaper, and to get sounds fixed to specific speakers I'm hard routing stuff and working around the bug in Surround Pan MK2 from Sonic Anomaly, but it's far less intuitive and quick than just having a per-track panner that can do the job.

We're starting to move more into 7.1 and Atmos for our work, so this isn't going to work for me for much longer.

Would it be possible for schwa and Reaper folks in general to take a look at what mrlimbic is doing and possibly integrate that directly into Reaper? It looks very promising.

Again, thanks all for contributing to this discussion. Surround panning is one of the few real challenges left in working in Reaper for me.
introvert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 12:44 PM   #91
babag
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schwa View Post
We are very careful not to break old projects. I can't think of a single change ever in REAPER that intentionally made old projects unloadable or even play back slightly differently. There have been occasional bugs that temporarily break backwards compatibility but we try to fix them immediately.
very appreciative of this here. should have acknowledged it in my posting. i do notice it. got caught up in some potentially big changes being suggested.

thanks,
BabaG
babag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 12:49 PM   #92
babag
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,227
Default

how would any of these suggestions work with stereo input material? most of what i'm seeing in graphics looks like mono files or single input.

thanks,
BabaG
babag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 03:06 PM   #93
ChristopherT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: South
Posts: 587
Default

mrlimbic - any chance we can have more speakers set up with this panner?
ChristopherT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 08:30 PM   #94
RobinGShore
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by babag View Post
how would any of these suggestions work with stereo input material? most of what i'm seeing in graphics looks like mono files or single input.

thanks,
BabaG
Pro Tools does by giving you two side by side interfaces, one for each channel


I think a better option would be to stick with the way Reasurround currently handles input and just put two pucks in the same window.
RobinGShore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 09:17 PM   #95
plush2
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Posts: 2,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinGShore View Post
I think a better option would be to stick with the way Reasurround currently handles input and just put two pucks in the same window.
Yes, or however many inputs are selected. It would also be nice to see a way to gang or lock multiple input groups together to a single location/automation control set.
plush2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 10:25 PM   #96
bcslaam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plush2 View Post
Yes, or however many inputs are selected. It would also be nice to see a way to gang or lock multiple input groups together to a single location/automation control set.
+1

and for there to be boundaries.

Also Schwa you could leave Reasurround as is and do a Mk II (with new vst id)to keep backwards compatibility.

Although I would also prefer it to be inherent in a channel like other DAWs. Perhaps a project setting can be used to keep backwards compatibility.
bcslaam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 05:20 AM   #97
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

Progress report on using the current set of tools with a controller.

I've made a simple Lemur template for controlling two input sources on a surround grid. A little fader for centre channel preference, as I'm testing this on the VST Surround Pan (MK2 by Stige T. 6ch).

See the screenshot below for that.

It uses a custom OSC message to send this data to Reaper, which in turn uses the midi/osc-learn functionality to bind it to the appropriate parameter on the selected track.

The problem is, there's no feedback.

That is in fact Reapers really big fucking problem. I could get feedback by locking down where the plugin sits in the FX Chain, then have the OSC controller address Plugin X / Parameter Y with value Z.

There's no "panner input channel X-position" parameter for surround panners, because they're all plugins in Reaper and because Reaper has no automatic feedback for bound midi or OSC control sources. I already have this problem with Send Mute buttons. They send action commands (/action/41357 to toggle the send mute 1 for example) and thus have no feedback.

The state of the send mutes(all 6 of them on my current dialogue tracks) can be visibly ascertained by looking hard at the little send bars on the MCP. Since the OSC config does not support send mutes(and btw OSC send level indicators are screwed up when midi cc changes the send volume level), I have no send mute state feedback on my OSC controller.


The flexible solution may be to have that kind of automatic feedback IF the users wants it. In the Learn popup window ? Yeah that sounds reasonable.

Else I'm cursed to lock shit down with plugin-only surround panners AND no feedback on custom midi/osc control sources, which is basically everything out there except for gear supported by control surface plugins. That means lots of page flipping or lockdown of plugin order and chain length, as well as per-surround panning plugin setups. All kinds of fun.

If you'll stick to plugins for panning, I humbly request some form of feedback implemented in addition to the OSC config. Much more flexible.




Note on this OSC setup.

I'm only just figuring out how to do this with one box for the panning. It involves arrays, so I'm sticking to this simple setup for the moment.
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom

Last edited by airon; 03-01-2018 at 07:26 AM.
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 01:55 AM   #98
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

A request like that is a major revision thing.

Anyone else think we require either an in-track surround panner , or a feedback mechanism learned parameters ?
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 09:58 AM   #99
Ice
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airon View Post
A request like that is a major revision thing.

Anyone else think we require either an in-track surround panner , or a feedback mechanism learned parameters ?
I'm majorly +1 for an in-track surround panner. I'm just going with whatever traction we get which seems to be plugin panners at this point. I didn't intend to take my foot off the gas for an in-track panner.
Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 10:06 AM   #100
Ice
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 887
Default

This maybe just be me, but one thing I do NOT like about the Pro Tools panner, is the separate side-to-side (Left/Right) parameters for the front and the rear. I understand the theory why this was done, but honestly that has never helped me. Its only made panning when I don't have a joystick even more tedious. And recent Eucon changes have spread the parameters across multiple pages of an artist mix to the point it takes several passes to get even the first attempt of a stereo (unlinked) pair to pan around the room.

Others may feel differently, but for me the left and right position is a single parameter for both the front and the rear.
Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 11:15 AM   #101
RobinGShore
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airon View Post
A request like that is a major revision thing.

Anyone else think we require either an in-track surround panner , or a feedback mechanism learned parameters ?
I'm pretty sure almost everyone working with surround in Reaper wants there to be an in-track panner. I do think that first though, it's important for them to nail down the mechanics and UI of a good surround panner before we think about embedding it into tracks. If the current Reasurround were to be implemented as an in-track panner today, I don't think I'd use it very much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice View Post
This maybe just be me, but one thing I do NOT like about the Pro Tools panner, is the separate side-to-side (Left/Right) parameters for the front and the rear. I understand the theory why this was done, but honestly that has never helped me. Its only made panning when I don't have a joystick even more tedious. And recent Eucon changes have spread the parameters across multiple pages of an artist mix to the point it takes several passes to get even the first attempt of a stereo (unlinked) pair to pan around the room.

Others may feel differently, but for me the left and right position is a single parameter for both the front and the rear.
Definitely, the front and rear knobs in the Pro Tools panner are confusing and not very intuitive. 2-D panning shouldn't need more than 2 position knobs, one for left to right, and one for front to back. Overall the Pro Tools panner is ok, but I don't think it's the end all be all. If we're looking for inspiration for a new Reaper panner, Spanner (http://thecargocult.nz/spanner.shtml) might be a better reference. I particularly like all the neat ways it has of panning multiple input sources around.
RobinGShore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2018, 01:04 PM   #102
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

I'm in favour of the track panner as well.
/track/pana1_x
/track/pana1_y
/track/pana1_z
and so on. An OSC dream for controlling selected tracks.


As for plugin panners, Spanner has looked to be the most useful one for years. Visual panning in the video window was the bomb. I like the balls-to-the-walls option in 3.0. It is PT-only but should still inspire good ideas.
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2018, 08:43 AM   #103
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

Here are some suggestions for 5.1, 7.1 and 3D audio GUIs



In the 3D version, a height fader has been added which moves the audio from the front/side speakers to the ceiling speakers.



A simple 5.1 setup with the speakers in the corners.



Future music I know, but this would be my suggestion for the open-up panel (or big-view) for a typical 7.4.1 setup with a regular 7-speaker layout, together with four ceiling speakers.

Everything within ReaSurround is already there to create these setups, though the lack of symmetry between the ceiling and side/front may create a problem for coding and possibly 'phantom' or non-existent output channels may be the answer, i.e. routing to channels that do not exist!

The idea being that the audio mixer hands on a 12-channel final mix to the mastering room, together with the usual reference signals for centre L-R, top bottom etc. and leaves it to them to create the Atmos or DTS:X and author the DVD, BR, or DCP or whatever the final product is to be.

I do realise that Atmos can deal with 128 speaker channels and DTS:X an infinite number, but the reality is that a relatively limited number of discrete channels works well and is easier to deal with. Given the open-ended way that ReaSurround is built, I assume that the user can add discrete channels if that is required.

What I wanted to achieve here, is the creation of a simple GUI for 3D sound, without the usual pseudo-3D image that can be confusing. The blue dots are ceiling speakers and the old yellow symbols are the side/front speaker channels.

Last edited by The Byre; 03-04-2018 at 09:03 AM.
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2018, 08:44 AM   #104
svijayrathinam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post




Looks Great !! When is this coming out ?
svijayrathinam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 09:28 AM   #105
mrlimbic
Human being with feelings
 
mrlimbic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 669
Default

Made a bit more progress on my square surround panner prototype.

__________________
Vordio - Post Production Toolkit
http://vordio.net
mrlimbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 09:48 AM   #106
RobinGShore
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlimbic View Post
Made a bit more progress on my square surround panner prototype.

Aweome! Can't wait
RobinGShore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:00 AM   #107
Ice
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlimbic View Post
Made a bit more progress on my square surround panner prototype.
Wow you really are getting deep! Looks great!

How many input channels will it accept? Not getting greedy here (yet ). You mentioned 2 channels before and even just mono and stereo input would be an awesome thing.

Will the pucks be different colors to indicate channels? If they're both in the same "box" I'd vote for different colors so we can tell which channel is which quickly.
Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:05 AM   #108
svijayrathinam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice View Post
Wow you really are getting deep! Looks great!

How many input channels will it accept? Not getting greedy here (yet ). You mentioned 2 channels before and even just mono and stereo input would be an awesome thing.

Will the pucks be different colors to indicate channels? If they're both in the same "box" I'd vote for different colors so we can tell which channel is which quickly.
Having colours for pucks is a great idea but also I would add channel numbers to it. So each puck can have a different colour and a number...😀
svijayrathinam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:06 AM   #109
mrlimbic
Human being with feelings
 
mrlimbic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice View Post
Wow you really are getting deep! Looks great!

How many input channels will it accept? Not getting greedy here (yet ). You mentioned 2 channels before and even just mono and stereo input would be an awesome thing.

Will the pucks be different colors to indicate channels? If they're both in the same "box" I'd vote for different colors so we can tell which channel is which quickly.
First version will only have mono mode or stereo mode (basically a dual panner which can also link/mirror both panner parameters if you need) to 5.1 or 7.1. I will add more input/output formats as time goes on. Someone asked for NHK22.2 ouput already!

Yes pucks have different colors depending on mute or solo state. The speakers also will have mute/solo and same color scheme. The scheme at the moment is white = normal, red = muted, yellow = soloed.

I was originally going to have multiple pucks on same panner but people asked me not to because of wanting separate divergence. Of course with more than two panners, they may have to go on the same box then.

However, you could open 3 dual panners for 6 input channels also I suppose.
__________________
Vordio - Post Production Toolkit
http://vordio.net

Last edited by mrlimbic; 03-05-2018 at 10:21 AM.
mrlimbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:15 AM   #110
mrlimbic
Human being with feelings
 
mrlimbic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by svijayrathinam View Post
Having colours for pucks is a great idea but also I would add channel numbers to it. So each puck can have a different colour and a number...😀
In the example the puck is M for mono mode. But could be L and R for stereo mode etc too. I suspect a letter is more friendly than a number.
__________________
Vordio - Post Production Toolkit
http://vordio.net
mrlimbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:19 AM   #111
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 24,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by svijayrathinam View Post
Looks Great !! When is this coming out ?
The Byre is not a developer. That was just a mockup suggestion
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:21 AM   #112
svijayrathinam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlimbic View Post
In the example the puck is M for mono mode. But could be L and R for stereo mode etc too. I suspect a letter is more friendly than a number.
For two channels L and R could be useful but when the number of channels goes higher then I think number would be useful. Also it would be so useful if we could use this as an optional track panner ( instead of the plugin way)
svijayrathinam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:22 AM   #113
svijayrathinam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
The Byre is not a developer. That was just a mockup suggestion
Ok... Thank you
svijayrathinam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:25 AM   #114
mrlimbic
Human being with feelings
 
mrlimbic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by svijayrathinam View Post
For two channels L and R could be useful but when the number of channels goes higher then I think number would be useful. Also it would be so useful if we could use this as an optional track panner ( instead of the plugin way)
I could make letters vs numbers an option.

If cockos putting a surround icon where the track panner is and made that pop up a plugin selected in prefs, then that would be cool, and not too much work for them.
__________________
Vordio - Post Production Toolkit
http://vordio.net
mrlimbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:25 AM   #115
Ice
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlimbic View Post
First version will only have mono mode or stereo mode (basically a dual panner which can also link/mirror both panner parameters if you need) to 5.1 or 7.1.

One feature PT has that we haven't talked about is the linking modes when going over 1 channel of input. Absolute linking mode gets the most use by far, but there is an option for relative linking in PT Prefs (see attached). The option isn't changeable in the PT panner itself.

Its probably a huge pain to implement (the relative mode) but its worth throwing into the conversation as Reaper also considers its panning solutions.
Attached Images
File Type: png PT_Absolute_panning.png (27.4 KB, 144 views)
Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:29 AM   #116
mrlimbic
Human being with feelings
 
mrlimbic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice View Post
One feature PT has that we haven't talked about is the linking modes when going over 1 channel of input. Absolute linking mode gets the most use by far, but there is an option for relative linking in PT Prefs (see attached). The option isn't changeable in the PT panner itself.

Its probably a huge pain to implement (the relative mode) but its worth throwing into the conversation as Reaper also considers its panning solutions.
Post me a gif of any linking modes you want in action. I was planning a few ways to link dual panners anyway but may have missed particular ones you want.

Do you know how to use licecap - the free gif screen capture tool?

https://www.cockos.com/licecap/
__________________
Vordio - Post Production Toolkit
http://vordio.net

Last edited by mrlimbic; 03-05-2018 at 10:35 AM.
mrlimbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:42 AM   #117
Ice
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlimbic View Post
Post me a gif of any linking modes you want in action. I was planning a few ways to link dual panners anyway but may have missed particular ones you want.

Do you know how to use licecap - the free gif screen capture tool?

https://www.cockos.com/licecap/
I haven't used licecap - looks cool though. I'll check that out when I can. Here's a .mov of relative mode:

https://app.box.com/s/91a98f1lluad9anp85yckjmvud7ttk8n

When the "link" button is disengaged, you can move the pucks around at will. Then engaging "link" and moving either puck will move the other, maintaining the relative separation.

Absolute mode is just each puck is exactly in the same position as the other.
Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:43 AM   #118
svijayrathinam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlimbic View Post
I could make letters vs numbers an option.

If cockos putting a surround icon where the track panner is and made that pop up a plugin selected in prefs, then that would be cool, and not too much work for them.
This would be awesome.

Also can you give shortcuts in action list for opening up left right pan envelope, front rear pan envelope?
svijayrathinam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 11:05 AM   #119
Ice
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 887
Default

While I'm still in favor of a dedicated track panner in Reaper, one real advantage of the plugin scenario is the ability to bypass the panner. This is helpful when trying to archive or render out sections, but without any panning moves in the output. This was one of the unexpected benefits I ran across when using Spanner as the PT track panner a while back.

This is only available in PT by turning the entire track automation mode to OFF, but then you lose any other automation on that track as well. Automation mode OFF is a feature request made a while back in Reaper, but is another topic.

This is another thing I'd ask any Reaper development solutions to consider - panner bypass ability.
Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 11:13 AM   #120
mrlimbic
Human being with feelings
 
mrlimbic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice View Post
While I'm still in favor of a dedicated track panner in Reaper, one real advantage of the plugin scenario is the ability to bypass the panner. This is helpful when trying to archive or render out sections, but without any panning moves in the output. This was one of the unexpected benefits I ran across when using Spanner as the PT track panner a while back.

This is only available in PT by turning the entire track automation mode to OFF, but then you lose any other automation on that track as well. Automation mode OFF is a feature request made a while back in Reaper, but is another topic.

This is another thing I'd ask any Reaper development solutions to consider - panner bypass ability.
With a script it would be pretty easy to globally disable/enable all instances of a plugin with a specified name, or all automation for a specified plugin name. A script like one of those may even already exist.
__________________
Vordio - Post Production Toolkit
http://vordio.net
mrlimbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.