Post fader FX

[wjmwpg]

Originally Posted by wjmwpg

So what if, instead of having post fader FX slots, I could just route the gain parameter of my gain plug-in to the fader - i.e. use the nice track fader that's right in front of me to control the gain level of the gain plugin I'm using somewhere in my FX chain?

Ultimately this would achieve exactly the same thing for me as post-fader FX slots would - allow me to have plugins after the place in the signal chain where I am attenuating my level using that nice convenient fader slider that's always right there in front of me.

. . . Wow. Crickets. Either I've misunderstood what people want when they ask for post-fader FX slots, or I've done a poor job of explaining my idea. On the off chance that it's the latter:

I've always just viewed a track fader control as basically a knob that control the gain/volume parameter of a gain/volume plugin, and that gain/volume plugin is placed in a fixed position in your signal chain (after your track's FX chain and before hitting the Master Track or Parent Folder). So if we could "un-fix" the location of this gain/volume plugin, and instead place it anywhere in our FX chain, you could have any number of plugin FX pre or post it - it would be totally up to you. You could even name this gain/volume plugin "fader" so you can easily see in your FX chain which plugins are pre and which are post "fader". With the ability to route the track's fader control to the gain/volume parameter of our "fader" plugin you never have to open the plugin to change your track's volume - just grab and slide the fader that's right in front of you in the MCP. Basically this implementation would mimic what we're seeing in the Mixbus shots.

Furthermore, if you have reason to, you could also choose to route the fader control to a different parameter of a different plugin. Maybe your track is already feeding into a parent folder, and it's the fader on this parent folder track that you use to control the overall volume going to the Master Track, so you choose instead to route the use of your child track fader control to a plugin parameter you access and change frequently on that track. Maybe it's the output trim or threshold on a compressor . . . the wet/dry mix on a verb . . . whatever. The options are endless.

And of course, if you don't need or want post fader FX you just leave your fader in its default state, behaving exactly the way it does now by controlling gain after all the FX and before the Master Track. No harm done to the current workflow.

Okay. I love the idea. I'll shut up now.

[Luster]

Console from Airwindows isn't usable as intended - just tried it again in a mix. Please devs. Please.

[ertugrulgul]

Why none of the developers can't see this. This feature is requested a lot, they need to add this!!

[Luster]

Just found this nice little workaround:
http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...38&postcount=7

It's not the whole party but better some drugs then no drugs.

Ps. Maybe a script-able nice guy can chime in and enhance it a little bit.

[Bouroki]

Reaper and Airwindows seems to be a match in heaven, if only this feature would finally be implemented. Come on!

I agree that the way Ardour/Mixbus have it implemented is just perfect.

[ertugrulgul]

SEE THIS PLEASE!

[mschnell]

Did you ever consider using one of the multiple already existing means described in this and other threads to achieve the appropriate function ?

-Michael

[Luster]

Originally Posted by mschnell

Did you ever consider using one of the multiple already existing means described in this and other threads to achieve the appropriate function ?

Please enlighten me - what multiple ways of achieving post fx slots exist? The workaround I linked has a major drawback: no automation.

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by Luster

Please enlighten me - what multiple ways of achieving post fx slots exist? The workaround I linked has a major drawback: no automation.

E.g., you can use any plugin that features a DAW parameter for volume (such as "Dry" or "Wet"). Any DAW parameter is automatable.

-Michael

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by ertugrulgul

He is being a dick

None of my Christian names is "Richard". (But my father in law's is.)

-Michael

[Luster]

Originally Posted by mschnell

E.g., you can use any plugin that features a DAW parameter for volume (such as "Dry" or "Wet"). Any DAW parameter is automatable.

Yeah, but that doesn't make the FR obsolete neither it is an sufficient workaround. I guess you never work with the mixer just with the TCP. Next you tell me we don't need item volume or take volume because we can use a plugin for that. What's the point? Digital production is a lot about "new" convenience - this FR is totally valid because it would bring the way you can work with the software one step forward.
Do you tell the ARA integration requesters they just have to use ReaTune, everything is fine?

[mschnell]

In fact I don't see the point of the FR. There might be some inappropriately crafted plugins that act differently according to the input level but nonetheless don't feature a gain knob. I suppose they are rather rare, and if someone insists in using one of those, he easily can use some Volume plugin additionally to automate the (otherwise not existing) gain control.

Originally Posted by Luster

Do you tell the ARA integration requesters they just have to use ReaTune, everything is fine?

Of course not. Regarding ARA/Melodyne there is no appropriate way to get the functionality without the DAW providing ARA. Melodyne is not ReaTune, but an automatable volume knob is an automatable volume knob.

-Michael

[Luster]

Originally Posted by mschnell

In fact I don't see the point of the FR. There might be some inappropriately crafted plugins ...

Well, yeah that is your opinion. I don't see an argument in your text. People work differently. A lot of people use fx which work like intended after the fader. You not, fine. A lot of people work with (virtual) faders and want to see there status or movement due to automation and don't want to hide that gain stage in some envelope somewhere in the arrangement or a plugin window which you have to open first. You get the point?

Originally Posted by mschnell

I suppose they are rather rare,

Totally rare. These plugins only appear in your list at full moon.

Ignorance is a blessing.

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by Luster

A lot of people use fx which work like intended after the fader. You not, fine.

I's not that I don't use one. I in fact don't know a single one. But this of course is not an argument. I don't doubt that there are.

Originally Posted by Luster

or a plugin window which you have to open first.

You can "float" the appropriate plugin(s) and have it open, as long as needed.

Originally Posted by Luster

Ignorance is a blessing.

Yep especially ignoring that there are ways to stuff already right now rather easily, without the need of modifying the infrastructure.

-Michael (Trying to find out what in fact the problem is.)

[Luster]

Originally Posted by mschnell

-Michael (Trying to find out what in fact the problem is.)

The problem is, that you can't accept that the current "solution" isn't for other people really working. And since you don't work with such plugins (and you even don't know which exist or what's the benefit of them - your) I am asking you: what is your point here? You are posting in a FR thread. If you can't imagine why this is helpful for users then simply stay out of the discussion.

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by Luster

The problem is, ...

None of such plugins has been mentioned up till now, and the reason why it is a decent problem when adding a plugin for "creating" a volume fader at any desired place in the audio chain was not described in a way that I can understand.

Originally Posted by Luster

why this is helpful for users then simply stay out of the discussion.

It is helpful for those users that would like other improvements to be implemented *) if Cockos is not urged to implement stuff that (as far as I see it) does not seem to be important.

So in fact also a negative opinion to any of the hundreds of "open" FRs might be valuable.

-Michael

*) you mentioned ARA, which supposedly is the most posted FR of all. I never would vote against ARA even if I doubt that I ever would use it. Obviously, there is no decent way for those who want to use the functionality of Melodyne without the ARA API provided by the DAW.

[nofish]

FWIW, one of my uses for post fader inserts would be as follows...

IIEQ has the ability to overlay a spectrum from another track with an IIEQ instance.

For this to make sense (show the 'real picture') the instances would have to be inserted as post fader FX. Seen in the screenshot, the fader of track 1 is fully down but still it shows its spectrum (yellow) of course, because it's pre fader insert.

Same goes for other multi-track analyzer like e.g. MMultiAnalyzer.

[DarkStar]

^^^^
Indeed: https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=167336

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by nofish

FWIW, one of my uses for post fader inserts would be as follows...

I see. (In fact this in this case it's not the plugin that needs signal tweaking.)
-Michael

[timboid]

Thought I'd post something in this thread as I often check changelogs of upcoming versions in hopes of finding post-fader inserts.

Originally Posted by mschnell

I's not that I don't use one. I in fact don't know a single one.

One obvious example would be a dither. Same for brickwall limiter/clipper.
Having those on a master channel totally forces to ignore the master-fader. There are workarounds, e.g. I use a separate pre-master track, which combines all audio, and I link master fader to it, so slaves to it and also an automation mode. This pre-master routes to "master" track (again not default master) with a hardware output. I use this cumbersome setup (I'm thankful to track templates) because my controller has separate master fader and I can do stuff like writing fade-ins or fade-outs by hand.
Airwindows plugins were mentioned too, the Console plugin is intended to be used as a fixed hardware output, you're supposed to mix into it.

Originally Posted by mschnell

without the need of modifying the infrastructure.

I am not sure it is a big change of infrastructure, as it is possible to pick up a signal to send pre or post FX. IMO the workaround is as easy as this:

The FADER can be shown in FX chain and plugins can be dragged from above to below of the FADER.

[ivan.lt]

I totally support the idea of moveable fader position.

However, IMO it would be better to reveal all the routing and add moveable, multiple send positions. (And gain and phase, too.)

The next step would be to allow mixer controls to be bound to any parameter of a track or a plugin. And add and remove mixer controls at will. Fully customizable control window.

Just thinking out loud.

[Gass n Klang]

Nice idea with the Fader Position. There could be a panorama position, too!

[Masi]

Originally Posted by nofish

Same goes for other multi-track analyzer like e.g. MMultiAnalyzer.

This is a usecase I also have. The workaround I use for this is rather clumsy (a track template with precofigured MMultiAnalyzer instances to act as track receives).

I admit I don't quite get other issues, but hey, I'm in for the "post fader fx" or "configurable fader position". Though I prefer the original idea.

Masi

[ertugrulgul]

Originally Posted by timboid

Thought I'd post something in this thread as I often check changelogs of upcoming versions in hopes of finding post-fader inserts.


One obvious example would be a dither. Same for brickwall limiter/clipper.
Having those on a master channel totally forces to ignore the master-fader. There are workarounds, e.g. I use a separate pre-master track, which combines all audio, and I link master fader to it, so slaves to it and also an automation mode. This pre-master routes to "master" track (again not default master) with a hardware output. I use this cumbersome setup (I'm thankful to track templates) because my controller has separate master fader and I can do stuff like writing fade-ins or fade-outs by hand.
Airwindows plugins were mentioned too, the Console plugin is intended to be used as a fixed hardware output, you're supposed to mix into it.


I am not sure it is a big change of infrastructure, as it is possible to pick up a signal to send pre or post FX. IMO the workaround is as easy as this:

The FADER can be shown in FX chain and plugins can be dragged from above to below of the FADER.

I thought the same, a feature like in this photo would be awesome.

[Robert Randolph]

I think the way that Ardour and Mixbus handle this is ideal:



Note that the slots change colours to indicate their pre/post-fader status as well, and the routing lines are also shown.

It works fantastic.

[wjmwpg]

Originally Posted by Robert Randolph

I think the way that Ardour and Mixbus handle this is ideal:



Note that the slots change colours to indicate their pre/post-fader status as well, and the routing lines are also shown.

It works fantastic.

Agreed. Brilliant.

[mutetourettes]

plus one on this ancient FR.

also for me airwindows console is the primary usecase for tracks, and dither for the master.

[Kaldlyd]

I would really love to see the devs implement post fader FX. Either as a "module" like mixbus or as dedicated slots on the track inserts, perhaps?. Could any dev please say if they are planning to implement this feature or no? Any response on this subject would be great.

[Dannii]

Can't believe I missed this one. So, a big +1 from me on this too.


This is great......

Originally Posted by Robert Randolph

I think the way that Ardour and Mixbus handle this is ideal:



Note that the slots change colours to indicate their pre/post-fader status as well, and the routing lines are also shown.

It works fantastic.

[PaulRain]

I like the idea of a modular fader position but pan should be tio, the could be related to the same movable thing.
But what for me is important is to have slots for fx post fader and post pan.
Console by airwindows is only the beginning, in my opinion, of simulated analog console summing ITB, that kind of process must be post fader and post pan.
So I believe this feature should be in the next Reaper 6.

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by PaulRain

I like the idea of a modular fader position but pan should be tio, the could be related to the same movable thing.
But what for me is important is to have slots for fx post fader and post pan.

That already is provided e.g. by the stock "Stereo Channel Volume/Pan/Polarity Control plugin.
I suppose the point of this FR/poll is how these control elements are presented in the GUI.

-Michael

[Luster]

Originally Posted by mschnell

I suppose the point of this FR/poll is how these control elements are presented in the GUI.

You just got it. A lot of FR are requests for more convenience. Surprise.
And the workarounds to this particular FR are very inconvenient.

[PaulRain]

@Michael what exactly is already provided by that plugin?
If you mean I can put a volume and pan plugin before the plugin I want post fader, I don't care about this, I know this is possible.
I want to set the level with faders not with a Plugin, even if I can have the Plugin level on the GUI of the track.
I'm not here to look for workaround, the point is having the possibility to put FX post FADER (the fader), most DAW does this.
If it is not possible that's fine but I believe we are allowed ask.
If Reaper 6 will still not allow this I will use workaround, there is more than one.

[mschnell]

Originally Posted by PaulRain

If it is not possible that's fine but I believe we are allowed ask.

Absolutely !

Originally Posted by PaulRain

If Reaper 6 will still not allow this I will use workaround, there is more than one.

I doubt that such a change will happen, because the functionality already is possible (even if inconvenient) and used only by a fraction of the Reaper users, and hence of low priority and only viable if an implementation would be possible that would in no way bloat the current state of the software look and feel.

-Michael

[Luster]

Originally Posted by mschnell

...and only viable if an implementation would be possible that would in no way bloat the current state of the software look and feel.

Nothing bloating about a visual cue where the fader sits - examples of other DAWs already given. Actually one could simply give the postfader fx a different background PNG in the MCP.

And BTW in that wiring diagram prereleases the fader was visualized which IMHO is a hint that the guys are considering to add moveable faderposition in the signal path in the future.

Airwindows strongest selling plugin was console before Chris changed his business model. And this plugin needs that feature. So this fraction isn't super small.

[nofish]

Originally Posted by mschnell

[...] only viable if an implementation would be possible that would in no way bloat the current state of the software look and feel.

I think it's not up to you to decide what's viable to implement or not in Reaper.

[mschnell]

I did not ever say that I would want to decide anything. It's perfectly up to the devs and no one else, but they might want to listen to pro an con arguments.

In fact to me personally, adding a fader or whatever control that I would never use, is a workaround (as I need to work around it). If you ask all Reaper users what they would want to have added to make their workflow more convenient and you indeed would implement this, you would end with the size of any control element being one pixel. Hard to find and hard to handle .

-Michael

[Luster]

Originally Posted by mschnell

adding a fader or whatever control that I would never use, is a workaround (as I need to work around it)

Ah this is your fear. Well, no need to worry. It's optional - like switching full channel metering or MIDI track controls. No need for a Harrison like implementation. On the other hand - you never know what new ways of working you would accomplish if those advanced features were straight visible.

[b0se]

Can't quite believe that Reaper doesn't support post fader inserts.

Has a dev ever acknowledged the requests/need?

[wjmwpg]

Originally Posted by b0se

Can't quite believe that Reaper doesn't support post fader inserts.

Has a dev ever acknowledged the requests/need?

I hope this . . .

Originally Posted by schwa

And, also, I'll say that the benefits of post-fader FX are certainly clear.

. . . means yes?