Multi assigns from output track?

[Cary B. Cornett]

First, a quick "reality check" on the current rules:

1) an output track can be assigned to any other output track, so long as the assignment is to a LOWER number.

2) an output track may be assigned to one and only one place.

3) "nested" output assignments are not permitted (you can't have subs of subs).

It would be a great help is rule #2 could be modified, allowing an output track to be assigned to at least 2 or 3 places, so long as rules #1 and #3 are not violated by any assignment.

Also, is a return permitted multiple assignments?

This would open up some real possibilities, including such tricks as mix-minus outputs.

Any way this could be done??

[dragoodan]

Maybe it depends on what outcome you wish to achieve, do you want to just have it output by many channels, or do you physically have other output devices you wish to playback upon?
Because if you want to do a non-live use of your outputting, maybe you could do it one at a time, changing outputs to each channel upon which you wish to use your source. :D

Dan

[Bob L]

A Return chan works the same as Input chans and may be assigned to multiple Out chans.

Actually an Out chan can be used as a sub and assigned to any higher Out chan destination, as long as that chan is a direct device final destination assignment.

Bob L

[Cary B. Cornett]

My desire to have an output track able to be sent to more than one other output channel is so that I can have an output that is affected by solo bus switching, and have another output with exactly the same sources, except NOT affected by solo switching. This would allow me to have the same mix in CR mon and headphones feed, have the headphones NOT affected by solo bus switching, and still have the use of all of the aux sends for FX.

Recent experience in session has shown me that such an arrangement is highly desirable.

The excuse that "complex mixing" should not start until after tracking is done simply won't wash for two reasons:

1) Clients don't like to be told they can't have what they want because of some, to them, obscure technical reason, and
2) It is possible, in spite of the best production planning and intentions, to discover a need to add parts after the mix is already well along.

In understand the consideration about latency-causing plugs, but it is still possible to have a rather complex and dense mix without having resorted to such.

[DavidandMary]

You have two options then... One, make stems and overdub to the stems so that your complex arrangement doesn't kill your PC. Two, get SAC. SAC is the best of course. You may not be able to afford it. But, you may not be able to "not" afford it...:)

[Cary B. Cornett]

You have two options then... One, make stems and overdub to the stems so that your complex arrangement doesn't kill your PC. Two, get SAC. SAC is the best of course. You may not be able to afford it. But, you may not be able to "not" afford it...:) I understand both options. You are right, the second option is beyond my budget right now, regardless of "need". As for the first....

My "benchmark" in terms of expectations for SawStudio is the studio in Detroit that I first worked in, which had the then-standard 24 track tape machine, 32 input board, and "the usual suspects" in the outboard rack. In some areas of functionality, obviously, SawStudio far surpasses that setup. I have more tracks, a much cleaner mixer, dynamics processing for days, and automation that lets me do things that I didn't even DREAM of in the old place.

There are certain aspects of session "flow", though, that the old Big Iron provided well for that SawStudio does not.... yet. The "lack" that really has my attention now is the inability to simply patch the 2-mix out to the cans and still have full solo bus capability without disturbing the cans mix. The old Neve boards did not require me to do strange dances with multiple subs or run the cans from an aux send to get this functionality.

The very name "SawStudio" is a bold claim, to wit, a studio in a box. When it first came out, I did not really expect it to entirely fulfill that claim. It was basically a recording machine with half a console (input monitoring was not practical through the internal mixer). Bob has since broken some major barriers, notably with the faster mix engine and the elegantly ingenious Signal Switch. Except for the few situations where even a small amount of latency is considered too much, the "studio in a box" goal is now, most annoyingly, just barely out of reach... for us.... but not for Bob. He has the ability and the means, if he chooses, to bridge that gap.

At the current stage of development, there is simply no reason that any commonly used function from the Big Iron Days should not be a part of SawStudio. Getting that last little extra bit of solo/monitor functioning does not require any major breakthrough in coding, and I'm fairly certain it does not require any serious re-configuring of the "engine". If it is to be a STUDIO, it should not need the addition of an external PA mixer to have all the basic studio functions.

If SawStudio was an analog setup, and I wished for a function it did not include, I might well do the mods myself (I've been up to my elbows in the guts of more than one big console). This bit, though, has to be done inside the coding of SawStudio. Even if I was qualified to go poking around in there (which I definitely am NOT), I would still need to have the source code, which Bob rightly does not just hand around for others to tinker with.

So... I am left with a need for a feature that only Bob can provide, a feature that, given the price and the overall quality and power of SawStudio, ought to be part of its core functionality.

I am a LONG way from really needing the multiple personalized monitor mixes that SAC can provide. Wonderful as SAC is, right now I would much rather have just that added bit of solo/monitor functionality that is yet lacking in SawStudio.

Of course, I Bob would rather code a feature that allows me to get a logic "tally" from the computer whenever a Solo is active, I could and would build a little relay box to put the solo buss switching into my monitor controls.

[DavidandMary]

I think you would miss what SAC brings to the table if you ever tried it. Using it for Control Room mixing and soloing; Monitor mixing and soloing; plus all of the options for using it as an EQ for your room is a definite bonus. With EQ on the Control Room outs suited to your room, you can mix in SAW without the confusion of the room factors. Just too much to mention here. But, I think you are just a SAC away from your dream set up. My two cents...:)

[ffarrell]

So what you really need is a way for Studio to buss the cue to a different output then where the main out are bussed. ( It works as a "solo in place" now )

Is this right?

thanks
fvf

[Cary B. Cornett]

So what you really need is a way for Studio to buss the cue to a different output then where the main out are bussed. ( It works as a "solo in place" now )

Is this right?

thanks
fvf Yes... with the cue mix being EXACTLY THE SAME mix as the main mix.

Imagine that the main mix, with solo bus enabled, is on Output 1, and the Cue mix is on Output 2. We have a drum submix on Output 5, guitars on Output 6, and keys on output 7.

Now here is where things go off the reservation: Ouputs 5, 6, and 7 are assigned to Output 1 AND ALSO to Output 2. Currently SawStudio does not allow this. If it was allowed, I could have my cue mix be the same as my main mix, except that the cue mix is not interrupted by the solo bus.

I have learned that there are situations where I MUST have submixes, and I need to be able to send each submix to at least 2 different output pairs.

I understand that SAC can probably do what I want, but I don't need ALL of SAC's wonderful functionality. I feel like I am asking for a small trailer for my little car, and I am being told I must buy an add-on rocket ship so that I can move a little extra luggage. :(

[DavidandMary]

Couldn't you send those submixes to an aux where you can assign it to the two outs then?

[Cary B. Cornett]

Couldn't you send those submixes to an aux where you can assign it to the two outs then? I can create a submix by using an aux, but I cannot assign an Output channel BACK to an aux. I also sometimes need 8 or more submixes (did this on a recent project at client insistence).

I find I need all of my aux sends for FX (including parallel compression that can be sent to more than one place), so I do not want to "give up" an aux send to create a headphone mix.

[DominicPerry]

Cary,

I may have misunderstood, but,

Can you:
Assign each and every input channel to one output channels, as submixes. So in your scenario:
Drums to Output 5
Guitars to Output 6
Keys to Output 7
Everything else to Output 8
Then assign:
Output 5 to Outputs 1 & 2
Output 6 to Outputs 1 & 2
Output 7 to Outputs 1 & 2
Output 8 to Outputs 1 & 2
Then choose Solo Bus Out Device as Output 2
I can do this on my machine. Not sure why you can't assign multiple physical outs from a submix output on yours.

Dominic

[Cary B. Cornett]

Cary,

I may have misunderstood, but,

Can you:
Assign each and every input channel to one output channels, as submixes. So in your scenario:
Drums to Output 5
Guitars to Output 6
Keys to Output 7
Everything else to Output 8
Then assign:
Output 5 to Outputs 1 & 2
Output 6 to Outputs 1 & 2
Output 7 to Outputs 1 & 2
Output 8 to Outputs 1 & 2
Then choose Solo Bus Out Device as Output 2
I can do this on my machine. Not sure why you can't assign multiple physical outs from a submix output on yours.

Dominic Er.... because I can...?? :rolleyes: Here I've been asking for something to be made available that already was! :o All this time I have misunderstood the "rules" of Ouput channel assigns. If you assign an output channel to its own physical output, you cannot assign it anywhere else at the same time. If the output channel is NOT being assigned to its own physical output, it can be assigned to multiple other output channels. I found this out just now by trying the assign buttons.

Looks like I got some more studyin' to do....

[ffarrell]

I've been there also :eek:.

This is what forums are all about.

thanks

fvf



Er.... because I can...?? :rolleyes: Here I've been asking for something to be made available that already was! :o All this time I have misunderstood the "rules" of Ouput channel assigns. If you assign an output channel to its own physical output, you cannot assign it anywhere else at the same time. If the output channel is NOT being assigned to its own physical output, it can be assigned to multiple other output channels. I found this out just now by trying the assign buttons.

Looks like I got some more studyin' to do....

[DominicPerry]

This has been instructional for me. I was surprised that what you were asking for, SAW couldn't do. SAW is so complex, and I'm really not an engineer, so there's loads of things it can do I don't know about, but your need seemed to be something sensible I was sure Bob would have though of it, even if the route wasn't obvious at first. So I've learnt something.

Dominic

[DavidandMary]

Good teamwork everyone. Way to go Dominic!:)