Mixing board improvement.

[w]

There should be menu selection perhaps within the mixing board that will set the mixing board to be the same as the number of tracks that are open in a project.

Similar to how DigitalPerformer can set mixing boards.

[Jerm]

This is a good idea that I agree should be implemented.... hopefully soon.

[Jerm]

There should be menu selection perhaps within the mixing board that will set the mixing board to be the same as the number of tracks that are open in a project.

What if there are multiple sections?

Should this function assign each track to a new (create) output or rather just trim down the (delete) outputs so there is a 1 to 1 correlation between the tracks and the outputs in the mixer?

Can you give an example with theoretical tracks to how this would work?

[Krushzone]

My take...

I would benefit from the OPTION to have Metro to automatically synchronize the mixer section with the tracks in the Tracks window (and vice-versa).

For example:
If my tracks window has 1 Kick, 2 Snare, 3 Hi-hat, 4 Bass from top to bottom, then the mixer section would sync (automatically transpose horizontally from left to right) to display working faders in the order Kick, Snare, Hi-hat, Bass - without requiring additional steps.
Then, while in the mixer section, if I were to move the Snare fader to position 3 (3rd from left) and Hi-hat to position 2, then I would find them automatically reordered as such in the tracks window. If I were to then add a track 5 Synth in the tracks window, I would find it has auto-generated as fader 5 Synth in the mixer section. If I were to rename a track in one window, it would become renamed in the other, etc...

Users who do their sequencing within the Graphic Editor window may want the option to sync the mixer section with that window as well.

Thanks for reading...

PK

[Scoot]

Then, while in the mixer section, if I were to move the Snare fader to position 3 (3rd from left) and Hi-hat to position 2, then I would find them automatically reordered as such in the tracks window.

Are you expecting the position of the faders to affect the channel numbers as well?

example

Tracks window
1. Guitar CH 1
2. Bass CH 2
3. Drums CH 10

Switching the Guitar with Bass you get
1. Bass CH 2
2. Guitar CH 1
3. Drums CH 10

or do you want

1. Bass CH 1
2. Guitar CH 2
3. Drums CH 10


I can see the point of sliding faders to the left (if you have more outputs than you're using for a device so you slide others over so they're all near the left end).........but I have the tendancy to keep them in the order they reside in the tracks window (of the ones I am using) so in effect the tracks and the mixer window sync anyway.

[Jerm]

What about when the user has a soft-synth assigned? Then the user needs 2 faders, one for the MIDI out to the softsynth and one for the softsynth out to the audio device.

[Krushzone]

Good question.

I suppose I was assuming your "second example" would occur...

" Switching the Guitar with Bass you get
1. Bass CH 2
2. Guitar CH 1
3. Drums CH 10 "

...but perhaps this preference could be an option as well.

Channel-to-instrument assignment is kinda behind-the-scene-setup stuff to me. I don't change channels very often after initial setup, but I do change track order (grouping and hierarchy) a lot when sequencing...which is where I would like to have Metro maintain order of the tracks (north to south) the same as the faders (west to east).

I will think about this while I work in Metro to see if I have a better solution to offer.

PK

[Industro]

My two cents..

1) I like the idea of when you change the order of the tracks in the Tracks Window, the Mixer duplicates that order with the faders, effectively duplicating the Tracks Window (and vice-versa). That keeps everything consistent.

2) I think channel assignments should remain "unchanged" by default when tracks are re-ordered (just like the current method). However, maybe an option to re-assign channels according to track order may be valuable feature to some, but it should be a preference that we can turn on/off. (I probably wouldn't use it because I always rename the channel number to the same as the track name.)

3) Yes, I'd also like the ability to "minimize" the mixer to show only the number of faders corresponding with the number of channels currently used in the project, (while the Mixer automatically adds new faders for each new channel created). However, it would be nice to also have a "maximize" feature to revert back to the current Mixer display (occasionally, I like to pre-set the pan and level of a new fader before I assign a track to it).

Great ideas everybody!

[Scoot]

Therefore a number of window 'states' would be good?

[Jerm]

There should be menu selection perhaps within the mixing board that will set the mixing board to be the same as the number of tracks that are open in a project.

While it is probably not like the DP implementation, Metro 6.3.4 has an option called 'trim outputs to tracks' in the special menu which deletes all unused outputs and rearranges the Metro outputs to be in track order. This does not necessarily mean that the tracks with correspond 1-1 to the mixer however because of things like layering, multiple sections, subsections, etc.

It does mean that one can arrange tracks and then trim. Following the trim, mixer channels will be rearranged corresponding to the track arrangement.

[jthibeault]

I also hope that there will be some improvements to the mixer board setup.

I think that there should be a new mixer window with drop down menus that replace the modify instruments and buses window. Ultimately you will need to separate tracks from inputs/outputs. So there will need to be a tracks tab and an inputs/outputs tab in the mixer window. There should also be a tab for plugins and virtual instruments.

From the tracks tab, you should be able to add/remove MIDI or audio tracks. You should be able to drag across tracks in the mixer and insert the tracks (If you drag across Audio tracks 2-5 it should insert 4 new audio tracks after track 1).

From the Inputs/Outputs Tab You should be able to add/remove inputs, outputs, buses, and aux sends. It doesn't need to be graphically fancy as long as there is color coding and things can be grouped together.

The Tracks Window list should be synced to the new mixer window. The mixer should dynamically update when new sections are opened to only display the relevant tracks. If there is section nesting, maybe you could add another tab to the mixer for nested section mixing. It seems like nested sections could be a nightmare as far as channel conflicts with other tracks that are trying to control the same channels. How is this dealt with now? I don't use sections, so I haven't tried this out. I would imagine that if two tracks were fighting over a channel, then the result would be the difference of the two controller values.

The more I think about the mixer situation, the more I realize that we all want the mixer to be more like other programs. Is there a reason why you would want the mixer input/output configuration to be unique? Or is one of those things that require lots of resources and it was pushed back as long as it could? How are you able to make such high quality software with a minimal crew, when the big companies like Apple and MOTU put out bug ridden garbage on huge budgets?