discuss -new FX, and double naming

[musikBear]

Exelent implementation of the fx, but one thing i do not like, is the need for double naming of instrument and channel
Perhaps i dont understand these 'send-channels' sufiently, but wont the logical name of the channel that is connected to an instrument, still be the name of that instrument?

As i test the workflow now, adding a new instrument would be done as:

• add a FX-channel
• Open song-editor
• add either a preset, or an instrument
• browse to the latest added fx-channel on the instrument
• name the instrument
• open fx-rack
• name the channel

That workflow is ok - its a little odd, that adding of an instrument, first start in fx-rack, but ok!
Its not ok that there are two identical naming events -Its never ok when two identical events has to be made, and this imo should not take place
How about either
Latest added FX has focus in fx-rack
New added preset should either write its name to the FX when user

• LMC on the FX-spindel
• Use an item in the context

I miss this, and double identical events are nono's
Opignions?

[diizy]

On 07/02/2014 05:40 PM, musikBear wrote:

Exelent implementation of the fx, but one thing i do not like, is the
need for double naming of instrument and channel
Perhaps i dont understand these 'send-channels' sufiently, but wont
the logical name of the channel that is connected to an instrument,
still be the name of /that/ instrument?

So what about when you connect multiple instruments to the same channel?

As i test the workflow now, adding a new instrument would be done as:

• add a FX-channel
• Open song-editor
• add either a preset, or an instrument
• browse to the latest added fx-channel on the instrument
• name the instrument
• open fx-rack
• name the channel

I think something like this could work:

• right click the fx selector on the instrument
• context menu gives option: "assign to new fx channel"
• clicking that creates a new fx channel with the same name as the
  instrument, and assigns the instrument to it

Shouldn't be very difficult to implement.

[musikBear]

< So what about when you connect multiple instruments to the same channel?

ahh - so that is a normal use for 'send' channels - Looking forward to see something that explains the benefit of this new feature, but you should not use your good time in wiki rigt now, Vesa :p
(Hope the 'sends' can do something with sidechaining, because that is nor optimal as is)

(btw - woooot you are fast.. had not even corrected my spell mistakes as you answered :)

[diizy]

On 07/02/2014 05:50 PM, musikBear wrote:

< So what about when you connect multiple instruments to the same channel?

ahh - so that is a normal use for 'send' channels - Looking forward to
see something that explains the benefit of this new feature, but you
should not use your good time in wiki rigt now, Vesa :p

Well, I don't know about "normal", but it's something that is possible
and supported behaviour - and not just in the new FX mixer, it has
always been possible to connect multiple instruments to the same FX
channel, even in the old FX mixer.

(Hope the 'sends' can do something with sidechaining, because that is
nor optimal as is)

Sends can send the output of one FX channel to another FX channel.

They don't really have anything to do with sidechaining, you'll have to
use a peak controller for that... although, that isn't very good to use
until sample-exact models are in use, which is in 1.2. That is exactly
why I told you (I think it was you) in another thread that sample-exact
models are the most exciting feature in 1.2... because you'll be able to
do flawless sidechaining very easily,

The difference between the old and new FX mixer is something like this:

Old FX mixer

• Instruments A, B, C send to channel 1
• Channel 1 sends to master
• Instruments D, E, F send to channel 2
• Channel 2 sends to master
  Ie. every channel can receive from any number of instruments, but only
  send to master.

New FX mixer

• Instruments A, B, C send to channel 2
• Channel 2 sends to channels 1, 3, 4
• Channels 1, 3 send to master
• Channel 4 sends to channel 5
• Instruments D, E, F send to channel 5
• Channel 5 sends to channel 6
• Channel 6 sends to master and channel 7
  etc...
  Ie. every channel can receive from any number of instruments, and also
  send/receive from any number of other channels, but only if no infinite
  loops are created

Feel free to use this in the wiki if you like...

[Sti2nd]

It is strange to auto name a FX channel correctly, have talked about it years ago, but I guess it wouldn't hurt unless the users think it looks better with numbers instead of instrument names.

[unfa]

The idea is somewhat resurrected here: #1215

[badosu]

@tresf

The double naming issue is fixed.

The fx mixer assignment via fx selector was implemented.

I guess we can close this one as well..

[tresf]

Closed via #1627. @musikBear you got your wish, thanks to @badosu. :)

[badosu]

Actually, it was @diizy who had the idea, I just implemented it.