64 Channels

[Sean McCoy]

Originally Posted by Bob L

Had not considered that... never needed more than the 6 in any of the big projects I have done...

But... I'll mark down the idea and see what happens.

Bob L

On my last theatrical 5.1 project (note that I say "last" in hopes there will be many more) I used all the aux's, plus all the JMS Bus sends (a real pain to use without automation) and still had to resort to a fair amount of in-line plugin bypass automation, which can be troublesome when you're working with time-based effects. The six aux's have never been a problem for me during a music project, but post has different needs that can border on the mind-boggling. Thanks for considering it.

[Chris Kress]

Originally Posted by Sean McCoy

While we're on the subject of potential major structural changes, after doing a couple of really big post projects I found what was probably the biggest shortcoming in SS for this type of work is the limited number of aux sends and returns. The workarounds are kludgy to say the least. 12 would be oh-so-sweet! Is that within the realm of possibility, Bob?

+1 for more aux's

[Bud Johnson]

+2
Maybe your house can get by on 220 power, but I need 221 !

[mOjO Fet]

Any chance for more channels in SSBasic?


How about 32?

Michael

[Dave Labrecque]

Originally Posted by Sean McCoy

On my last theatrical 5.1 project (note that I say "last" in hopes there will be many more) I used all the aux's, plus all the JMS Bus sends (a real pain to use without automation) and still had to resort to a fair amount of in-line plugin bypass automation, which can be troublesome when you're working with time-based effects. The six aux's have never been a problem for me during a music project, but post has different needs that can border on the mind-boggling. Thanks for considering it.

Sean -- not the most elegant approach, but have you tried linking two instantiations of SAW to double the number of auxes? If you're using a console, you could easily sum the outputs there, though, admittedly, there'd be no ITB common master processing allowed without looping back in. Although I suppose you could use something like VAC to bring one instantiation's output over to an input on the other and do all the master bus processing in that one.

I guess there'd be a buffer differential 'tween the two, though... hmmm...

Just thinkin' out loud here...

I've always wondered about locking two SAWs together on the same machine, but never could think of a reason... till now.