Internal effects send/return

[Ferran Pujol]

It would fantastic to be able to have every Mixxx's effects unit in a separate dedicated channel, so its volume level could be adjusted independently of the deck's volume. This is to have the effects in a classical send/return topology. See discussion here: http://www.mixxx.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6590

[RJ Skerry-Ryan (rryan)]

This is already done at the effect-chain level. All effects in a chain are fully wet but the chain itself can be INSERT or SEND and has a dry/wet to control.

[RJ Skerry-Ryan (rryan)]

Terminology wise -- a chain is what many users will think of an "effect unit".

[Daniel Schürmann (daschuer)]

I have just reopened it, because we do not have a "separate dedicated channel"

See discussion at http://www.mixxx.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6590

Related:
Bug #1097070

I also think that the current INSERT SEND nature thing is not working so nice.
I had a discussion with Owen, but i can't find it now.
Maybe we can reanimate it when we start to save predefined chains.

[RJ Skerry-Ryan (rryan)]

Hm, we prepare the effects in a separate buffer in SEND mode:
https://github.com/mixxxdj/mixxx/blob/master/src/engine/effects/engineeffectchain.cpp#L225
and then add it in as output = input + dry_wet * send_buffer
https://github.com/mixxxdj/mixxx/blob/master/src/engine/effects/engineeffectchain.cpp#L244

What does "separate dedicated channel" mean if not that?

I see from Lambolico's description that we don't have a SEND knob that determines how much input enters the effect chain but this could be added. But I believe that is the only thing that is missing.

For clarity, this is how the INSERT/SEND mode functions for EffectChains today:
INSERT mode: output = input * (1-wet) + effect_chain(input) * wet
SEND Mode: output = input + effect_chain(input) * wet

[RJ Skerry-Ryan (rryan)]

Oh, does this mean send out of deck channel completely and return into the master mix?

As implemented, INSERT/SEND just changes whether the original input is affected by d/w.

[Ferran Pujol (ferranpujol)]

Yes, I meant to mix the effects output with the master mix, controlling its
volume with the return knob.

Send knobs are secondary to me. The only use case I am aware of where they
are useful is to smoothly fade the input of the effect from one deck to
another. This is a cool technique, but absolutely secondary. For me this is
a polish bug (wish).

I've just realized that the only thing missing here is the option to mix
the effects output post-fader. The SEND solution that currently is
implemented is not what I meant. effects_chain(input) volume still depends
on two knobs: fader and wet. However, maybe no dedicated effects return
channel is needed if the effects rack output is mixed back post-fader:

master += (input + effect_chain(input) * wet) * fader // Not cool

master += (input * fader) + (effect_chain(input) * wet) // Pretty awesome
:)

Also, mixing back the effects output post-fader allows to cut its input by
just pulling down the fader while leaving the effect tail gently fade out.
This is very useful with reverbs and delays.

Shall I file a bug for post-fader effects?

2014-09-17 22:43 GMT+02:00 RJ Ryan <email address hidden>:

> Oh, does this mean send out of deck channel completely and return into
> the master mix?
>
> As implemented, INSERT/SEND just changes whether the original input is
> affected by d/w.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1366203
>
> Title:
> Internal effects send/return
>
> Status in Mixxx:
> Confirmed
>
> Bug description:
> It would fantastic to be able to have every Mixxx's effects unit in a
> separate dedicated channel, so its volume level could be adjusted
> independently of the deck's volume. This is to have the effects in a
> classical send/return topology. See discussion here:
> http://www.mixxx.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6590
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/1366203/+subscriptions
>

--
Ferran Pujol Camins

[RJ Skerry-Ryan (rryan)]

Ah ok -- a little slow but I'm with you now :). I can confirm that the current system can't do this and probably won't be able to in Mixxx 1.12.0.

[Ferran Pujol (ferranpujol)]

Superseded by https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/1370837

[Swiftb0y (swiftb0y)]

Mixxx now uses GitHub for bug tracking. This bug has been migrated to:
https://github.com/mixxxdj/mixxx/issues/7571