More FX insert points?

[Cary B. Cornett]

The discussion about another feature request I made got me to thinking... (dangerous, I know:)

SS offers 2 insert points per track/channel, and then has a menu option for putting the pre-fade FX insert before the EQ/dynamics section. This can sometimes limit what can be done with FX. Could there instead be 4 insert points, one before EQ/dynamics, one between EQ and dynamics, one just before the fader and one after the fader? Could the record tapoff point then be made selectable from the send point of any of these 4 places? IMO, this would both enhance the versatility of the Saw console and make some of its signal flow options more intuitive (feeling more like what we would do with a patch bay in a physical console).

[Bob L]

I'd say the current design offers as much or more versatility than most large consoles already... plus adding the aux send tap-offs pre Fx and Pre Fdr / Pst FX and Pst fader and there really isn't very much you can't do with the signal path routing. :)

Every patch point involves much variable scanning and conditional checks at each buffer in the MT loop and adds cpu load to the loop whether the patch is empty or not.

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

Cary,

I was starting to think along the same lines, I think...

Why not use the "Pre-FX patch point routed before dynamics" option and put one of Jon's Latency Compensators in there to give you your "negative attack" value?

[Cary B. Cornett]

Why not use the "Pre-FX patch point routed before dynamics" option and put one of Jon's Latency Compensators in there to give you your "negative attack" value?The idea is to feed the Key input an advanced signal, but have the comp input at "normal time". The Latency Compensator would advance both together, which would NOT do what I want... :(

[Dave Labrecque]

The idea is to feed the Key input an advanced signal, but have the comp input at "normal time". The Latency Compensator would advance both together, which would NOT do what I want... :(

I'm saying to compensate only the key input. That would mean some kind of split. I guess the Latency Compesator isn't really even needed, then. You could clone the track, and advance one of them a little (slide the MT entry), using that one solely to feed the key of the other track's compressor. Would that give you what you need?

[TotalSonic]

I've never felt the need for more FX insert points - but the one thing I find myself occasionally wanting to do is to be able to move a plug with its settings in tact from being Pre to Post or visa versa - with the same ease that you can already do to reorderer patched plugins just using the + or - key. Maybe a shift-+ and shift-- to do this?

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bob L]

I have that idea on the todo list... for now... simply save the FX settings as a preset, then repatch and load the preset... its really not that big of a deal, especially for the few times you find yourself needing to do that. :)

Bob L

[Cary B. Cornett]

You could clone the track, and advance one of them a little (slide the MT entry), using that one solely to feed the key of the other track's compressor. Would that give you what you need?That's OK if you only need the look-ahead on a single track, once in a while... but I would like to be able to do this trick with MANY tracks, and then it becomes possible to run out of tracks. The look-ahead capability is useful enough, IMO, to be worth being included within a given channel.

[Bob L]

As I said... I hesitate to make the channel strips add latency... I feel they should be able to handle live mode with no issues... plug ins can add all the latency...

I did not design any latency checking code in the channel strip code... on purpose... and really do not have a desire to do so.

My guess is that the concern of using a special keying track and running out of tracks would suggest that most all of your session work is now topping out over 36 tracks... and you would need to use this technique on every track... I'm imagining that is probably not really the case... and you could probably very well handle most all of your desires for look ahead techniques in this manner just the way the code is now without running out of tracks... isn't this really the case? :)

Bob L

[Cary B. Cornett]

As I said... I hesitate to make the channel strips add latency... I feel they should be able to handle live mode with no issues... plug ins can add all the latency...I guess I'll just have to settle for you adding that "look-ahead mode option" to the Levelizer's compressor. I CAN chain 2 or more Levelizers on the same track if I need to, right??


My guess is that the concern of using a special keying track and running out of tracks would suggest that most all of your session work is now topping out over 36 tracks... Not just yet.
I'm imagining that is probably not really the case... and you could probably very well handle most all of your desires for look ahead techniques in this manner just the way the code is now without running out of tracks... isn't this really the case? :)

Bob LOnly because I haven't gotten that ambitious/aggressive with my processing experiments yet! I wouldn't be surprised if I head in that direction, though :eek:

[Bob L]

Cary,

You can patch Levelizers all over the place if you want... back to back in the same patch window or in any combination.

Bob L