Hey Tim, 2013/3/13 Tim E. Real <[email protected]>: > On March 13, 2013 09:50:33 AM Robert Jonsson wrote: <...> >> About the Pan right vs wrong discussion. I saw the thread on LAD also. >> It seems this is quite complicated to do "right". I have no big ideas >> except not changing it too much. I think we need keep it simple enough >> so users understand how to work the controls. > > Yeah, I hear 'ya. Don't get too complicated. > > However I could really use these panners because here's an example: > > I double-track my rhythm guitars, one take for left and one for right. > > Then I feed these two mono wave tracks into one stereo Group track. > I adjust the pan of one wave track all the way left and the other > all the way right so that the stereo Group is operating as two > independent channels. > Then I slap an effect into the rack such as distortion. > This is the convenient part because two copies of the distortion > are used and share the same controls and I don't have to play with > two different copies in two different strips. > > But here's the problem: At this point the sound exiting the strip > is two independent channels all the way to the left and right. > > The positions of the extreme left and right wave tracks being fed > into the Group cannot be touched because then they would start > to bleed into each other in the Group. > > So I'm stuck leaving them at full left and full right to avoid bleeding. > > So these panners would really help because then I could properly > position the two distorted channels as I wish, before they leave the strip, > instead of always being forced all the way left and right. > > Otherwise I'm forced to work with two independent mono strips, > fooling around with two separate copies of the distortion controls.
You know, when there are actual use cases I think there's much more headroom for adding specific solutions. :) But I have to say I do not really understand what you are trying to achieve. Do you want each channel in a stereo-bus to have a pan setting? Sounds cool but very, very specific? Maybe it can be a feature of a group track, giving them more mixing functionality? > > I also often double-track my lead guitar, sometimes even triple for > three-part harmony. > You can see how it becomes a real pain to fool around with > multiple separate plugin copies on separate mono strips... > > An alternative to all of this is to make our strips true multi-channel, > that is, be able to pick and choose which of two stereo outputs are > fed into the next strip. > But as you know I decided against that due to complexity, except > that I allow it for multi-channel soft synths. > > Of course I've always kind of regretted that decision, but in fairness > after all MusE is primarily about making music not studio mixing... > > But as talking to Fons reminded me, we could never take advantage > of such LADSPA plugins as encoders and decoders because we > only ever feed two channels max into them. > Not to mention we have no way of connecting control outputs > and inputs, like compressor outs to ins, as I know that you would so > dearly like to have :) Hehe, true :) > Well I've had some plans for that for a while. Start with a new Route type: > "Control Route"... Neat! > If I attempt this panner stuff I'll try to keep things as easy as possible for > what MusE is all about... > I think users could dig it once they see what it could do. > > Aw c'mon, admit it, don't you think replacing the pan knob with something > as cool as Ardour's graphical panner would look really neat? He he... It might ;) Though I might be missing the point.. I'll look at the ardour mixer later. Regards, Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Lmuse-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmuse-developer
