|
|
|
02-26-2007, 05:47 PM
|
#81
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 4,294
|
You know, I just remembered...
A many few years back I got into an email "debate discussion" with an engineer at a Large Pro Audio Equipment firm.
I had cited somewhere an idea (this was pre-DAW ubiquity days) that someone needed to come out with a board that had channels setup for specific tasks: a "kick drum" channel; a "vocal" channel; bass channel.. etc... So that you wouldn't have superfluous eq/options designed in, and you could do something like make one or two channels your "Top Quality" channel (class A preamps, etc.) and work down from there... which optimized the utility of the board...
Anyhow... I'm seeing that show up now here and there on analog boards. The idea that I can set up a "starting" template with items on the TCP that I need for specific tasks beforehand is the Next Generation AFAIC. It's the way it should be; I *should* be able to have a TCP panel with what I need on it for bass guitar, a TCP panel for vocals, etc..
The whole idea that each TCP panel is generic and has to stay that way strikes me as something irrelated to the advent of the DAW.
Assignable knobs for plugins...
/ "assignable knobs for plugins on the TCP/mixer"
// (John Cleese voice) "ehhh... it would be right bloody sporting if we could perhaps, say, have knobs on the TCP and mixer channels that we could use to manipulate plugin values..."
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 05:49 PM
|
#82
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,152
|
An fx bin would allow you to arrange plugins, like in CW.
__________________
Midi is not audio, it just sounds like it.
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 11:37 PM
|
#83
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 777
|
Nuendo/Cubase EQ sounds like crap though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by timthetortoise
Okay, so actually two feature requests!
Switched from Cubase SX3 recently and love Reaper so far. However, I really miss having 4-band EQ on each track! So convenient, and just makes things a lot easier.
|
The strip EQ in Noobase would be useful if it sounded anything close to decent! In any event, the eq is defeated by default. The only time it is using CPU cycles is when it is switched on.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 01:11 AM
|
#84
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 4,294
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RokkD
An fx bin would allow you to arrange plugins, like in CW.
|
I'd say (reflexively) if anything is like CW it's "bad, bad"....
The big thing that bugs the crap out of me about the "FX button" is that after you click it, you then have to click again - redundantly. It goes on from there, but if that could be remedied it'd be at least 52.7% better than now.
Assignable knobs for plugins "good"....
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 07:13 AM
|
#85
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 424
|
Just my opinion here
i come from SAW which is set up like an analog mixer, has EQ, COMP, and GATE built into each channel.
i think if you were going to do this you have to do it right and design and build a GREAT eq, with little or no CPU hit.
i think this changes the whole look and feel of reaper, and it may not be a bad thing, but it also may take a LONG time to get it right. i would not want an EQ that wasn't good or one just thrown in there.
I def liked having a great eq, a great comp and a great Gate on each track, but i think the time it would take to write them and support them would be detrimental to all the great things going on in reaper now.
maybe down the road??
the one nice thing about the SAW setup was i could run a decent song with say 24 tracks with comp on each and eq going on each and use up oh about 6% CPU, but thats also because bob wrote his code so well and it was in assembly.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 09:02 AM
|
#86
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,152
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chip mcdonald
I'd say (reflexively) if anything is like CW it's "bad, bad"....
|
oh! soap in your mouth young man.. .....Seriously though, fx bins might be a good solution, but I'm open minded about it.
--
__________________
Midi is not audio, it just sounds like it.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 09:18 AM
|
#87
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,310
|
down with this
Quote:
Originally Posted by trock
Just my opinion here
i come from SAW which is set up like an analog mixer, has EQ, COMP, and GATE built into each channel.
i think if you were going to do this you have to do it right and design and build a GREAT eq, with little or no CPU hit.
i think this changes the whole look and feel of reaper, and it may not be a bad thing, but it also may take a LONG time to get it right. i would not want an EQ that wasn't good or one just thrown in there.
I def liked having a great eq, a great comp and a great Gate on each track, but i think the time it would take to write them and support them would be detrimental to all the great things going on in reaper now.
maybe down the road??
the one nice thing about the SAW setup was i could run a decent song with say 24 tracks with comp on each and eq going on each and use up oh about 6% CPU, but thats also because bob wrote his code so well and it was in assembly.
|
I love this idea... i think it would be amazing to have those integrated just like SAW!! But as you mentioned it has to be TOP Class A Eq etc..
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 09:49 AM
|
#88
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 424
|
one thing i forgot to mention, for every EQ, COMP, and GATE there is an ON switch or button you press to activate it. only then does your CPU go up some, only when you are using it.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:04 AM
|
#89
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 424
|
this is a "track" in SAW, it starts with your meter and you scroll up thru everything you need, from EQ, COMP, GATE, AUX/SENDS, etc etc
not saying Reaper or anyone should mimic this, but thought i would show you what i meant with the SAW stuff
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:05 AM
|
#90
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by trock
this is a "track" in SAW, it starts with your meter and you scroll up thru everything you need, from EQ, COMP, GATE, AUX/SENDS, etc etc
not saying Reaper or anyone should mimic this, but thought i would show you what i meant with the SAW stuff
|
uggggghhhhhh
(no offense)
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:10 AM
|
#91
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 424
|
none taken
its an extremely efficient way to work, but its def not for everyone
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:13 AM
|
#92
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 4,294
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by trock
this is a "track" in SAW, it starts with
|
UHrrrgg.....
The thing about ASSIGNABLE KNOBS is that you don't have to see stuff that you don't want to use. Having said that, glancing at the SAW channel I can think of a number of superfluous things about it that's taking up extra space; for instance, buttons can flip between functions instead of needing extra buttons, etc...
ALTHOUGH, visually I like the photo-realistic approach, it makes it easier to recall settings because knobs/faders *don't all look like each other*.
Which is sort of a problem in Reaper; I don't like that the pan fader looks so much like the volume fader, the FX menus look like each other, controls in the stock plugins look like each other, etc...
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:17 AM
|
#93
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 424
|
i agree
there are functions in SAW, buttons you can hit that jump you to that section so you are not scrolling up and down forever, basically on a screen you see the faders, pan, mute and solo, then you can click on the EQ button and it jumps you to the EQ section
stuff like that. just tossing out ideas here, reaper is coming along by leaps and bounds and i figure the porgrammers have a vision and this may not fit, its just another way to work and may spark an idea or 2
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:18 AM
|
#94
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by trock
stuff like that. just tossing out ideas here, reaper is coming along by leaps and bounds and i figure the porgrammers have a vision and this may not fit, its just another way to work and may spark an idea or 2
|
its totally appreciated, especially screenshots.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:24 AM
|
#95
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 424
|
that def is the killer thing around here that is great, all the input and interaction that works!
its funny but i consider Reaper and Saw underdogs in the DAW world (at this point) but they are just so much better in terms of the team work and back and forth with the actual prgrammers that you can't get ANYWHERE else
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:43 AM
|
#96
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 139
|
Don't know if this was already mentioned, but if Justin was going to implement a per track eq-comp-gate...whatever, wouldn't it be possible to use the Jeusonic plugs that are already in Reaper?
If we're talking something standardized why not use what's already there? The EQ's & Compressors that have been made by the users have a GREAT sound. I'm not too sure how that would look in the mixer tab (maybe just widening each channel to accomadate the parameters) but in my opinion these are terrific when mixing and are low on CPU.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 11:23 AM
|
#97
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: decepticon mothership in a hidden place inside a mountain
Posts: 3,754
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saukar30
Don't know if this was already mentioned, but if Justin was going to implement a per track eq-comp-gate...whatever, wouldn't it be possible to use the Jeusonic plugs that are already in Reaper?
If we're talking something standardized why not use what's already there? The EQ's & Compressors that have been made by the users have a GREAT sound. I'm not too sure how that would look in the mixer tab (maybe just widening each channel to accomadate the parameters) but in my opinion these are terrific when mixing and are low on CPU.
|
No.
Not for me.
Not sound-wise talking at all, but interface-talking (at leasst for the eq): I have too many habits with paragraphic eq, and i just couldn't move faders anymore...
I really need something like that :
... and as i know everybody will have a different opinion, this is why i am perfectly happy with track templates, and vote "no" for this per-track eq..
Last edited by sinkmusic; 02-27-2007 at 11:26 AM.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 11:39 AM
|
#98
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
yes i love interfaces you can just pull around:
[img]http://img187.**************/img187/416/107127133649mydesktopup6.png[/img]
but these CAN be controlled in a minute way by knobs, for instance, just linked to gain of the individual bands.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 12:56 PM
|
#99
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 43
|
The graphic EQ is pretty much what I was talking about anyway. Here's how Cubase does it...
But yeah, I guess that templates are quick enough. Just finished a session using them and it seemed pretty efficient. I'll miss being able to edit the EQ on different tracks in just seconds, but I guess it's just a matter of doing different sessions instead of doing tracking and mixing at the same time.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 02:06 PM
|
#100
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 970
|
that's how the remote should look like. like the one in cubase, fruity loops or any of the ones above but real smal. it could be very smal. it's no problem to adjust it when the mouse moves slowly as soon as you hold the button down on a point of the eq-interface. in fruity loops this works great. left klick mouse down adjusts the frequency and gain, right click mouse down adjusts the q-factor.
maybe because it needs some space, it could be turned 90° (the high frequency up, the lows down)
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 02:36 PM
|
#101
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA?
Posts: 631
|
I have stayed out of this discussion for the most part even though I have requested this very feature myself before this became such a hot topic. I don't have any innovative ideas to add or any alternatives.
After logging in more time with this Reaper I have come to the conclusion that integrated track EQ although handy would probably be a bit pointless given Reapers multitude of FX choices and customization. I could see having some type of streamlined process of accessing it on the fly. How I don't know. Heres a screen shot of CEP's track EQ. I oversized it for visibilty. Notice how you can randomly add as many tracks to this same window so you just click the tab that corresponds to the track you want and, violin! You get the whole assortment of controls too.
This would be great to have, but I think I would be leery of excessive CPU useage, absolutely the only real reason I would vote nay on such a feature.
__________________
Tony
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 04:02 PM
|
#102
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,182
|
The idea to have tracks available as tabs in the FX window (and/or sorted at will by type of plugin) is pure genius, really going with the flow of the mix process.
====
As for built-in solutions (EQ, Compression, spectral ducking) , in Logic some effects had a look-ahead (read-ahead) option, that not only was time-compensated , but also worked 100% with sidechain signals, very easy to set up (a menu: track 1 track 2 etc.).
And by time compensation I mean not that all the other tracks had bigger latency, but the ones with look-ahead on were read quicker.
I guess this solution is only possible with "native plugins".
Last edited by sebas777; 02-27-2007 at 04:55 PM.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 04:19 PM
|
#103
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 706
|
Shoot me if you want, but as a former Vegas user, I love the current paradigm for pulling up the FX chain, and everything that goes with that way of working.
I don't mind change, as long as we can still work by the current methodology as well/instead.
Ben
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 04:23 PM
|
#104
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Zero
I don't mind change, as long as we can still work by the current methodology as well/instead.
Ben
|
this SHOULD be the way it goes, really.
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 05:06 PM
|
#105
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,182
|
Agree 100%
I think, the only additions to the very good existing Reaper FX Window could be:
- quick gathering together of all eqs, compression settings or send levels from MANY tracks to one strip view (as a form of displaying them, not changing their order).
- easier sidechains (simple menu)
- quick sends available directly in the FX window (so you may immediately edit the loop plugins and their send/return levels, without manually creating tracks and clicking a lot).
- fx, i/o and sends visible directly in the mixer, with one click to open the plugin editor or to see its parent/child channels. This display would be OPTIONAL (a small button/keycommand to show/hide some types of data in the mixer).
Such a mixer need not to be big: just look at the Logic mixer, it's small, and it autoconforms to what you do (always there's one slot more for adding a new plugin and one inactive send to route it).
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 05:12 PM
|
#106
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA?
Posts: 631
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebas777
The idea to have tracks available as tabs in the FX window (and/or sorted at will by type of plugin) is pure genius, really going with the flow of the mix process.
|
CEP has similar windows for FX but they are track by track. I don't think Reaper is lacking in this way, but I really think the FX windows could be more concise and minimizable as these are.
__________________
Tony
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 06:58 PM
|
#107
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Underworld
Posts: 1,188
|
"The idea to have tracks available as tabs in the FX window (and/or sorted at will by type of plugin) is pure genius, really going with the flow of the mix process."
It's an excellent idea - when you have say 8 tracks, but when you have 48? That would be much too many tabs, but really the idea is brilliant so you don't have to keep opening and closing FX windows for each track.
Cheers!
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 08:09 PM
|
#108
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 139
|
Just keep it the same. Track & Project templates are great!
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 09:56 PM
|
#109
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA?
Posts: 631
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuX
It's an excellent idea - when you have say 8 tracks, but when you have 48? That would be much too many tabs, but really the idea is brilliant so you don't have to keep opening and closing FX windows for each track.
|
In the case of CEP, and I'm talkin track EQ, the tracks don't automatically appear. Only the tracks you have clicked on will add themselves to the window. So if you aren't working on a certain bunch of tracks they wont show up. And they enter in a first come first served basis, usually meaning the tracks of most importance first, and will display the name you have entered for the track instead of just track #. And you can delete some or all in a flash a still have them active.
I like Reaper much better than CEP, but I really, really, REALLY like this one feature of Cool Edit. Again, its great, but if it eats CPU then it ain't worth it and I would leave Reapers FX window alone entirely. As cool as it looks in CEP it doesn't help work flow. Its to congested and hard to navigate. And CEP only handles Direct X. Imagine what a mess it would be with Reapers FX list!
__________________
Tony
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:08 PM
|
#110
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Justice, IL
Posts: 46
|
Yesssss! Keep it much the same as it is now, except maybe make it easier (more direct access) to get to the FX chain.
Why impose a built-in EQ onto the TCP or the Mixer? It's much more flexible to be able to pick and choose your favorite EQ.
Same goes for compression, reverb, delay, etc.
The way Reaper currently works is not all that bad. It could use some improvement by perhaps adding a small FX strip window to the mixer tracks that displayed the installed effects at a glance (and an on/off toggle per FX). Also would be nice if it had FX drag-n-drop between tracks and FX re-ordering with the mouse directly between channel strips without having to open windows and make selections.
Tony
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 10:26 PM
|
#111
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Coastal Victoria (Australia)
Posts: 13
|
Like the assignable knobs, don't like the "standard eq" scenario.
An added issue for me is that I do a lot of acoustic recording. If I mic correctly, I often use no eq at tracking or mixdown. For me it is a good work practise to *not* have eq instantly available. Having eq as a plugin works better for me.
Everyone is different, this is merely an argument for no "standard" eq, which seems to be the current trend of the forum anyway.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 10:04 AM
|
#112
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 4,294
|
ATTENTION, ATTENTION!!!!
HELLOOOO!!!...
.... pretty much everyone agrees there's no reason to have an "integrated" eq, as opposed to assignable plugin knobs.....
So let's stop talking about it....
EVERY DAY:
Check out this thread:
1) someone posts "I don't like the integrated eq (etc)"
2) I (or someone else) posts "assignable plugin knobs!"
3) that someone goes "oh, ok!"
NEXT DAY:
Check out this thread:
1) someone posts "I don't like the integrated eq (etc)"
2) I (or someone else) posts "assignable plugin knobs!"
3) that someone goes "oh, ok!"
NEXT DAY:
Check out this thread:
1) someone posts "I don't like the integrated eq (etc)"
2) I (or someone else) posts "assignable plugin knobs!"
3) that someone goes "oh, ok!"
(repeat x infinity)
This is the Groundhog Day of feature requests and I'm Bill Murray.
/ steps out in front of traffic
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 10:07 AM
|
#113
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 4,294
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TONDOG64
Heres a screen shot of CEP's track EQ.
|
I like the fluidity of CEP's methods; someone at Syntrillium was thinking efficiently about work flow.
Tabs for tracks once the FX dialog is brought up is a great thing.
/ off to mix legacy projects in CEP... uhg...
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 10:25 AM
|
#114
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
I don't like the integrated eq (etc)
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 10:25 AM
|
#115
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
assignable plugin knobs!
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 10:26 AM
|
#116
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
oh ok!
........................
sorry, multiple personality disorder.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 10:33 AM
|
#117
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 424
|
now THAT was funny!
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 11:23 AM
|
#118
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 354
|
Explains the 'rolling avatar' thing, too...
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 01:24 PM
|
#119
|
Scribe
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Van Diemen's Land
Posts: 12,204
|
Interesting thread ....
I've landed here from Sonar land, where they do have per strip EQ on all audio tracks.
I used to like it, but after two months with Reaper, I've changed my mind. The reason is because of screen real estate.
Sonar has so much on its screens that I needed three monitors to be able to display everything I needed to see. With Reaper, everything fits neatly on the one. I don't have to keep jumping from screen to screen, and there's nothing really missing that I need. Sure, the in-line EQ looked nice, but imho I'm better off without all the on screen clutter.
Now I use one screen for Reaper, one for Adobe Audition when wave editing (thes econd screen is a luxury I don't really need now, but seeing as it's there ....). The third has been packed away for a rainy day.
So I agree with Jason . If this feature is added, please also add a way to turn it off.
|
|
|
02-28-2007, 09:33 PM
|
#120
|
Mortal
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,654
|
I'm surprised you don't use Reaper across the two screens - docker in one, waveforms in the other. Can't live without it! (And someone at today's studio demo went straight off to buy a second screen - hopefully with Reaper to go with it...).
(Didn't know you were an Audition person too - or maybe I knew and forgot).
Afterthought - I should mention that here I am a three screen person - one being the laptop linked to the desktop and its two screens with Synergy. The laptop runs forums while the desktop runs audio.
Last edited by Art Evans; 02-28-2007 at 09:35 PM.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:01 AM.
|