How do I unlink the standard track Volume Fader functionality from the track's Volume Fader graphics and envelope ?
If that would be possible this huge discussion thread (this is messagge 121) would not be necessary at all, as somebody else would have suggested this ages before myself .
That supposedly is not what the requesters want. Thy want to use the track slider in it's normal way - only somewhere in the middle of the FX chain and not at the end.
That supposedly is not what the requesters want. Thy want to use the track slider in it's normal way - only somewhere in the middle of the FX chain and not at the end.
-Michael
Yeah, but what I described is the 1:1 representation of what the request wants precisely. 120 posts to realise such a simple solution.
And it is not actually a solution, because there neve was such problem.
Now...
Regarding the Item fade In\Out...
Now, that is where we need some rethinking of post-fader (post-Fade Out) consideration with regards to take\Item-FX as loaded plugins!
As I suggested with the Samplitude video form 10+ years ago.
User Feature Requests are not supposed to dictate a way how something is to be implemented, but just to express the need somebody has to be able to get along.
"We" can't know the best way the Reaper devs can implement something with the less effort and the most viability for the future moves in Reaper.
Of course more detailed suggestions can be discussed, but the impact of such effort might be neglectable. Anyway the most "reaperish" implementation might be preferable / more likely.
And here I feel the decoupling of the fader GUI/envelope control from the track volume (plus providing the fader GUI/envelope control as a source for parameter link) might have some chance for attention, as to me it seems very compatible to the current style, "reaperish" and versatile. (But supposedly not something similar to the working of any other DAW, which for the devs very happily is of no interest at all).
(Of course when allowing to decouple volume, same obviously needs to be done for pan as well.)
...... the decoupling of the fader GUI/envelope control from the track volume (plus providing the fader GUI/envelope control as a source for parameter link) .............
All I see is that it would create more problems that its worth. I think that VCA's could do the job better than decoupling the fader!
Also create in a theme that would clearly show what that track is for.
AFAIK, you can't (easily) use the track's GUI Fader as a source for parameter modulation, yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pashkuli
Why?
See the thread caption. This seems to be what some users desperately want: Use the normal Track (GUI-) Fader to control "something" instead of the track's output volume ("something" mostly being a Volume setting after some plugins and before some others.)
An "unassigned" (but assignable to any plugin parameter) GUI Fader would do this in the most versatile way (e.g. regarding multiple channel-tracks...)
I am not sure what to think of you. Do you need that somebody writes everything already written for you personally again? Seriously please just read the first post! A wonderful example why people want that shit.
It's kind of funny to read two guys in that feature request thread who obviously have no need for that feature talk about it like nobody needs that stuff because they have no use in their workflow. Well guess what, people work differently. For some such stuff is elemental to get their sound.
Where were you in the razor edit (area selection) FR thread or the notation editor FR thread? Did you post there that nobody needs that shit? Nope. So please move on, nothing to see here. Just a bit of text which you too - from the looks of it - are not able to process.
I don't intend to use it right now, but (obviously) I do understand that (and why) there are use cases that would benefit from the track fader not being right at the end of the FX chain (which is what the original FR can be condensed to).
-Michael
I am not sure what to think of you. Do you need that somebody writes everything already written for you personally again? Seriously please just read the first post! A wonderful example why people want that shit.
And... what if I have read it from the beginning?
And... what if I suggested a much more feasible request, which somebody just duplicated in their own new FR?
It concerns the per item fadeIn\Out "built-in automation" (so to say) and how FXs should react to it, there is where post-Fade FX is not available in Reaper and is needed.
A track's Fader has one purpose: to balance the volume of a final output from that track (Sends can be pre-Fader, so unaffected by the track's Fader).
You technically would like to make the track's Fader some sort of a "Volume pseudo-plugin". Well, you have such Volume plugin, automatable.
Yes, I agree with mschnell we should be able to at least group it to the track's Fader (connect them), effectively making the track's Fader assignable to any loaded FX parameter and so on.
And that is it. Simple. No need to make redundant post-Fader.
Yes, I agree with mschnell we should be able to at least group it to the track's Fader (connect them), effectively making the track's Fader assignable to any loaded FX parameter ...
I feel that would be fun, easy learning curve, and does not break anything.
I am not sure what to think of you. Do you need that somebody writes everything already written for you personally again? Seriously please just read the first post! A wonderful example why people want that shit.
It's kind of funny to read two guys in that feature request thread who obviously have no need for that feature talk about it like nobody needs that stuff because they have no use in their workflow. Well guess what, people work differently. For some such stuff is elemental to get their sound.
Where were you in the razor edit (area selection) FR thread or the notation editor FR thread? Did you post there that nobody needs that shit? Nope. So please move on, nothing to see here. Just a bit of text which you too - from the looks of it - are not able to process.
So in Cubase, the post fader slots are not visible until you click on an insert plugin and select "send to post fader slot". So it keeps the inserts uncluttered if you don't want that feature.....
greed a picture..
Very simple and practical way of working.
+1 We really need this.
Just implementing this like in Ardour/Mixbus/Cubase/Nuendo,
would be so great.
I mean, Reaper is already one of the best Tools for Complex Mixing,
and adding that in would greatly increase ease of use for some processes.
But adding it like Sequoia (Volume and Pan can be set independent from each other in the chain), would be even more flexible.
So let's generate some heat around it.
The whole point of a Track\Channel Fader is to control the overall mixed volume of the chained FXs and pluigns and for automation of this level!
No, that is simply your understanding of what a track fader should be. Why have pre/post-fader sends then? Why have monitor FX for the master (which actually IS post fader) or Input FX for tracks when you could just put the FX on the track itself?
The answer is because there are workflows you simply don't understand or don't take into account that many other people, including many professionals use. Maybe users with control surfaces don't want to go through the hassle of mapping JS Volume plugin parameters to faders to do their mixing when track faders are automatically mapped to CS faders by default. Maybe people who use touchscreens want to grab the visual representation of the track fader vs a collection of tiny little JS sliders. Maybe there are 157 reasons you haven't thought of simply because you have your workflow and it works and makes sense to you
Don't assume because a workaround exists in some shape or form that this is an adequate solution to someone else's needs. The more you adamantly argue that a poor workaround that creates unnecessary work and slows down and complicates otherwise simple tasks is completely sufficient, the more you show your lack of understanding for different workflows that are no less valid than yours.
No, that is simply your understanding of what a track fader should be.
1. Why have pre/post-fader sends then?
2. Why have monitor FX for the master (which actually IS post fader)
3. Why Input-FX for tracks when you could just put the FX on the track itself?
The answer is because there are workflows you simply don't understand or don't take into account that many other people, including many professionals use.
Answers: 1. Because current Sends in probably all DAWs are inherited by analogue workflows... and this in Digital is inadequate and quite frankly – a limitation.
Please look here about the Sends\FX (my idea to unify them):
· but for pre-fader Sends it is to make sure a "copy" of the whole chain (FXs, plugins) gets sends as is processed, without any "final" volume level correction (mix\balance' should be applicable to panning as well).
2. Because believe it or not some of us mix using only headphones and we need EQ correction* and binaural implementation (in my case using convolution reverb with BRIRs = Binaural Room Impulse Responses, made in scientific acoustic studio environment)
*same applies for any other speaker correction
3. (quite irrelevant to this discussion) Because Input-FX are for baking in (committing) to a sound treatment (mostly EQ low-shelf cuts) and more predictable phase shift (eventually)
Answers: 1. Because current Sends in probably all DAWs are inherited by analogue workflows... and this in Digital is inadequate and quite frankly – a limitation.
Please look here about the Sends\FX (my idea to unify them):
· but for pre-fader Sends it is to make sure a "copy" of the whole chain (FXs, plugins) gets sends as is processed, without any "final" volume level correction (mix\balance' should be applicable to panning as well).
2. Because believe it or not some of us mix using only headphones and we need EQ correction* and binaural implementation (in my case using convolution reverb with BRIRs = Binaural Room Impulse Responses, made in scientific acoustic studio environment)
*same applies for any other speaker correction
3. (quite irrelevant to this discussion) Because Input-FX are for baking in (committing) to a sound treatment (mostly EQ low-shelf cuts) and more predictable phase shift (eventually)
And thank you for making my point. That one, those questions where rhetorical. And two, that there is indeed a need for all those things. Just as there is a need for post-fader FX.
Also, it's pretty poor form to belittle this specific feature request when you are trying to promote your own in the very same thread. I understand you don't "get it". Even though I took the time to give you a couple very good reasons why it is sorely needed, just as others here have done. Do you know what I do when I don't get someone else's request? I stay out of it.
The thing is, I get it. Hence I comment that it is redundant, against all purpose of Faders as a mixing parameter (final volume automation).
But what do I know...
maybe you need a Volume FX as a post-Fader FX. Wouldn't that be wonderful?! (not a rhetorical question, rather a sarcasm)
I'm glad you get it then. And clearly you have done a lot of film mixing then where it would make complete sense to have to put individual JS Volume plugins on 500-1000 tracks, map the parameters to a control surface instead of the alternative of having track faders automatically mapped to your surface and simply doing...nothing except move faders and mix. And of course then accounting for multiple gain staging on the same track by introducing the JS Volume plugin. And doing all of this under a rigid deadline. Because that really makes so much more sense than simply clicking on a plugin and setting it to post-fader.
I'm glad you get it then. And clearly you have done a lot of film mixing then where it would make complete sense to have to put individual JS Volume plugins on 500-1000 tracks, map the parameters to a control surface instead of the alternative of having track faders automatically mapped to your surface and simply doing...nothing except move faders and mix. And of course then accounting for multiple gain staging on the same track by introducing the JS Volume plugin. And doing all of this under a rigid deadline. Because that really makes so much more sense than simply clicking on a plugin and setting it to post-fader.
Also, rather a sarcasm, don't you think?
Who knows what you are trying to achieve. Maybe show what you need so I can finally understand your scenario\situation.
I might learn something as well.
For the time being... I say it is redundant.
You can pretend the Faders do not exist.
Load your JS Volume fx at end of chain and proceed with your mapping.
Sends might be a bit tricky though as they have pre-FX state (literally a dry "copy" of the input).
It is the unnecessary analogue workflow of the analogue workflow.
Pardon the tautology, but it was necessary (intended).
Who knows what you are trying to achieve. Maybe show what you need so I can finally understand your scenario\situation.
I might learn something as well.
I just explained a basic film mix scenario to you. Are you going to honestly tell someone they should load 1000 JS Volume plugins at the end of every track FX chain? And then parameter map those to their control surface? For 1000 tracks? Rather than just use their control surface to control track faders and bank through them without having to use custom actions? And then tell everyone here it is redundant when your proposed workaround is to "just" load a JS Volume plugin on 1000 tracks, which is the very definition of redundant and unnecessary work?
Your only contribution to this entire thread seems to be "OMG GUYS U KNO U CAN USE A JS ND ITS SUPER AWESOME, AMIRITE GUYZ?"
If that's all you've got, then please do us all a favor and sit this one out. There is a reason post-fader FX is widely adopted and a critical technique used by mixers around the world. A JS plugin workaround is not going to solve the issue for those mixing high track counts, those using control surfaces for mixing (especially with high track counts), those using touchscreens, those who want concise control of gain staging, those working under tight deadlines that don't have time to instanciate a plugin on each track and parameter map each instance. If you had done any of those things regularly, you would realize how terrible the workaround is you are proposing. The fact you don't see the limitations of the workaround and why someone would want a more efficient methodology means that you simply don't understand these other workflows because you haven't been knee deep in them. And honestly, that's fine. But please don't be so self-assured that you are going to sit there and tell professional mixers from all different walks what is and isn't redundant. They already know.
I wanted to do a binaural mix lately. Needed a post-fader insert slot, because panning is post-insert, too. I wanted to "reset" my stereo pannings by making tracks mono in the binaural plugin and so being able to do the panning for the binaural version in the binaural plugin. This way I could have switched between the two mixes by just bypassing the binaural plugin globally. In the end I needed to save a different version of the project and reset all the pan knobs to do the binaural panning in the plugin. While that workaround might work, it's unconvenient and needs double action if there are other revisions requested by the client. Should I have done the stereo panning using panning plugins before the binaural plugin? If so, I wonder why we have pan knobs and faders at all?
Other task: I wanted to do some specific bitreduction effect using a bit reduction plugin and fade into the quantization noise. How to do that? Using an automated volume plugin before the bitreduction plugin? Why not just put the bitreduction plugin post fader? I don't get it.
I just explained a basic film mix scenario to you. Are you going to honestly tell someone they should load 1000 JS Volume plugins at the end of every track FX chain? And then parameter map those to their control surface? For 1000 tracks? Rather than just use their control surface to control track faders and bank through them without having to use custom actions?
So, what were or would you going to load in such post-Fader FX inserts?
For those 1000 tracks you exaggerated...
So, what were or would you going to load in such post-Fader FX inserts?
For those 1000 tracks you exaggerated...
I really am trying to understand the point.
I just gave you two examples. Everyting that doesn't work linear can be interesting here. Why cant I push a drum loop into distortion by using a saturation plugin post fader and automating the volume fader.
I wanted to do a binaural mix lately. Needed a post-fader insert slot, because panning is post-insert, too. I wanted to "reset" my stereo pannings by making tracks mono in the binaural plugin and so being able to do the panning for the binaural version in the binaural plugin.
Why not just put the bitreduction plugin post fader? I don't get it.
I also do binaural (almost 90% of the time). I mix normally as if I would play it on stereo, 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, etc.
I use a very special binauralisation with a convolution-reverb and binaural Impulse Responses + EQ correction.
I load up those either on the Monitoring FX or should I wish to print the binauralisation, just load them (one FX chain file) in the master.
Works like a charm. Can be done with Reaper's native ReaVerb but I found it much more easier to do it with the free (discontinued) ReverberateCore.
With the impulse responses I can choose the width of the near field.
**************************
Regarding the bitreduction scenario.
Same thing as with the Volume plugin, I guess.
I am not against post-fader FX inserts. As far as I see it, this is a bit a special case, I have my own "crazy idea" to unify 'Sends + FX' as explained above.
And I think it will cover the "post-Fader FX inserts" as well.
Because a respective Send slider (send level) could substitute for a Fader slider. And also can pass FX after it.
I just gave you two examples. Everyting that doesn't work linear can be interesting here. Why cant I push a drum loop into distortion by using a saturation plugin post fader and automating the volume fader.
Well, this is more like a input gain.
You seems to prefer to use the track fader as an Input Gain.
It is a whole topic we discussed about gain staging and the need of a Trim\Gain knob.
I do agree that there are specific mixing scenarious, where the Fader (automation) could feed a specific plugin... and generally they would say to use Sends, which bloats the mixers with new Receiver track, etc. so you could send to it other tracks to do the same.
That is why I propose the 'Send + FX' unification, with Fader Pan, FX pass states\combinations.
Well, this is more like a input gain.
You seems to prefer to use the track fader as an Input Gain.
And you seem to not be able to account for workflows you don't understand or use yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pashkuli
I do agree that there are specific mixing scenarious, where the Fader (automation) could feed a specific plugin... and generally they would say to use Sends, which bloats the mixers with new Receiver track, etc. so you could send to it other tracks to do the same.
Yes, avoiding bloat is nice. Like say, not having to put several hundred JS Volume plugins in everyone's session that wants to use fx post fader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pashkuli
So, what were or would you going to load in such post-Fader FX inserts?
For those 1000 tracks you exaggerated...
Maybe i wanted to mix into a console track plugin which will then send to a console buss plugin to emulate analog signal flow. Or any number of ways people use post fader fx. And if you think I'm exaggerating about 1000+ tracks, it simply shows you've never done a major film mix. Even music mixers on films have to sometimes spend a few days pre-mixing just to get down a reasonable track count. Reasonable being < 1000.
I mean really, what would you like to do at this point? Compare credits? Tell me your dad who was a mixer could beat up my dad? I realize you've painted yourself in a corner here because you don't want to address the elephant in the room, which is there are indeed workflows you don't understand. There are indeed reasons to revamp a workflow so that it is more efficient. And you keep responding here simply because you don't want to admit either of those things to save face and just want to cherry pick and ignore all the other use cases that don't make sense to you or you disagree with. It's not a good look. Nor is it in any way valuable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pashkuli
That is why I propose the 'Send + FX' unification, with Fader Pan, FX pass states
And perhaps that is where you should concentrate your energy since again, all you've managed to suggest to OP and everyone else here is "OMG U GUYZ KNO ABOUT JS, RITE??"
I'm not sure why you are attempting to gatekeep mixing, but it contributes nothing to the discussion except how YOU like to work. Here's the thing. No one cares. Yes, Reaper has many workarounds. Proposing a horribly inefficient one and saying it is adequate over and over is simply inaccurate and a disservice to everyone here. It also just puts a bunch of noise in the thread of a features request the devs might actually be considering. I mean, how would you know? Unless you are going to try gatekeeping coding and Reaper development as well? Seems as if you are off to a pretty good start there...
The answer is because there are workflows you simply don't understand or don't take into account...
I just as well easily can imaging workflows where the "track fader" does something completely different instead of being the final track volume control (or some (how many channels anyway???) volume control separating the FX chain at some point (which FX chain if you do parallel processing using pin routing ???) ).
That is why I suggested to allow for the track Fader to be decoupled from the final volume control and be allowed as a source of parameter modulation for any FX.
This would do away with the said ambiguities and allow for Reaperish flexibility.
Seems as if you are off to a pretty good start there...
Yes, I might be.
But with that said, let's say 'post-Fader FX inserts' are possible.
Then what would be the purpose of the track Fader?
All I can see is that with the availability of 'post-Fader FX inserts' we can spare a Send routing (which should be post-Fader obviously).
But then if you need many, many of the same 'post-Fader FXs' or lets say 5 (arbitrarily chosen), then wanting to get all those 5 spread across 1000 tracks...
Well, isn't that what Sends are for.
200 tracks to one of the alleged post-Fader FX (you would need 5 Sends, not 200*5 'post-Faders FXs' for each track).
Yes, I might be.
But with that said, let's say 'post-Fader FX inserts' are possible.
Then what would be the purpose of the track Fader?
Probably the most common use case as others have already mentioned is to use the track fader to mix INTO the plugin. So let's say for example you have a track with a few fx on it like a transient shaper and a delay. You've got it dialed in so you want those pre-fader. However, you then want to route that audio path into a console track plugin, where the amount of harmonics and crosstalk is level-dependent. In this case, you would want that plugin post-fader because you want to mix into it, just as you would on an analog console. Same with a tape plugin. In that scenario you are copying the methodology used where you would use console faders to mix INTO the tape machine, controlling the amount of non-linearity, saturation, etc. simply by moving the track faders. Except in the case of a DAW, that tape machine or track channel or buss input is actually a plugin. That is really why post-fader FX came to exist - to emulate an analog signal flow and mixing on a console. In the case of the DAW, we don't have a separate console, separate tape machine, etc. We have plugins representing those things. And pre-fader/post-fader allows us to emulate the above worklow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pashkuli
All I can see is that with the availability of 'post-Fader FX inserts' we can spare a Send routing (which should be post-Fader obviously).
But then if you need many, many of the same 'post-Fader FXs' or lets say 5 (arbitrarily chosen), then wanting to get all those 5 spread across 1000 tracks...
Well, isn't that what Sends are for.
200 tracks to one of the alleged post-Fader FX (you would need 5 Sends, not 200*5 'post-Faders FXs' for each track).
This is what I am trying to understand.
The part you are missing is delivery of discrete stems. Even for just the music mix, final delivery to the dub stage might be 128 tracks or wider. Everything has to be delivered as separate as possible and so a large number of discrete stems are needed. We can't just buss down to 4 or 5 sends which feed a single stereo/5.1 master. You would need those same 4 or 5 sends for EACH individual stem. So if there were 48 discrete stems being sent to the stage, then you would need 240 sends (not including stereo/multi-channel mixdown) to do what you are proposing.
If everyone were simply mixing down to a single stereo, 5.1 or 7.1, then your proposed workaround wouldn't be as onerous (unless you are mixing on a control surface). But when everything needs to be discrete, then you do in fact get into the scenario where your proposed workaround needs a TON of sends or a TON of JS plugins and then it just is not at all workable. Not to mention if you have ever tried mapping multiple plugin parameters to a control surface vs simply using track faders, you wouldn't even think about trying to use that workaround as every time you bank, the control surface faders are going to be assigned to track faders and you would need multiple button presses to get to the correct plugin and parameter to use CS faders to control them. Film mixers would throw themselves off a bridge before doing that. I know I certainly would.
Probably the most common use case as others have already mentioned is to use the track fader to mix INTO the plugin.
However, you then want to route that audio path into a console track plugin, where the amount of harmonics and crosstalk is level-dependent.
ok, but that is technically a Input Gain knob\slide on the plugin itself and it could be on a Send track or last in FX chain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klangfarben
Not to mention if you have ever tried mapping multiple plugin parameters to a control surface vs simply using track faders... Film mixers would throw themselves off a bridge before doing that. I know I certainly would.
Yes, mapping to a Track Fader is or could be quite handy.
ok, but that is technically a Input Gain knob\slide on the plugin itself and it could be on a Send track or last in FX chain.
That brings up a similar set of problems. How are you going to easily assign an input gain knob of a plugin to a control surface vs just using the track fader which is automatically assigned? And then scale that across multiple tracks? Again, this is contextual. Not everyone out there mixes with a mouse.
Also, many plugins don't have an input gain and in that case you are having to use a JS plugin to control the input. Or use a send. In which case you get into all the same workflow breakdowns I discussed above.
The problem here is that making the argument that something is "technically" the same doesn't mean it actually is the same, especially when that something may or may not exist - like input gain on a plugin. Context matters here. If you propose that workarounds x, y and z are perfectly fine and then someone else shows that x,y and z breakdown and fail in specific scenarios, then they can't be treated as a solution for everyone and shouldn't be repeated over and over.
How are you going to easily assign an input gain knob of a plugin to a control surface vs just using the track fader which is automatically assigned?
ReaLearn or something, I do not know really.
Sure, some scripts or communication (MIDI?) protocol maps the DAW's track faders to an external hardware controller (mixer).
But that is completely different from post-Fader FX.
In my mockup of a rout concept, I have such post-Fader "send" or rout or pre; same to Panning. Also I have introduced track internal sends, technically bypassing whole chain internally, whilst they still send data.
Linear Mode
