Mixxx

Bug #1366203
Comment #6

Comment 6 for bug 1366203

Revision history for this message

Ferran Pujol (ferranpujol) wrote on 2014-09-18: Re: [Bug 1366203] Re: Internal effects send/return

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

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

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 <1366203@bugs.launchpad.net>:

> 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