Channelstrips only add clutter. I don’t know the real reason why they are not implemented but you can take a fairly good guess. I recall having a discussion with Taktik back in 2002 (somewhere before i decided to register Renoise) regarding this in Skale tracker. It is a bit vague in memory because the discussion ended up in facting up majority of stuff in Skale not working even though the buttons exists.
Being able to hide or show parameters that you want to change imho fits a lot better than just having an amount of knobs present all the time while they are only getting in your way most of the time.
Lets postpone it further then, and let the mixer be crap a few years more 
As I see it, a mixer should try to feel and act like a mixer, regardless of the experience trackers have.
the mixer is actually a good mixer. better than the reason crap… it sure can be made better in some of the features (especially rms metering) but still it is compact and require only the parameters you need on each strip: i don’t want to see stuff like gazillions of eq knobs if i don’t need them. it’s software and should be configurable, it’s not my mackie vlz…
With dsp chains and template song you can already get the channel strip setup
For me Renoise is great because it has that “less is more” approach that doesn’t force you to use more cpu than you need
I just find it a fundamental part of a mixer. I think the mixer in Reaper is the only one i’ve seen that doesn’t have it. Of course it should be selectable.
The problem I have with the mixer today is that it’s quite unusable except for level metering. It’s just a bunch of sliders displayed in an unorganized way. It’s not something that i would use extensively.
Of course, the better solution might be if this was scriptable, basically just requiring grouped dsps and more options when it comes to customizing the mixer graphically. It would be possible making today, but without the level metering. Well. I could script an overlay window replacing the current dsp part of the mixer view, which is basically what is bad. But then there is the problem of not being able to save custom song settings (slider settings like when to use rotary) in lua.
I think kRAkEn/gORe made a good point about the mixer:
are you trying to be funny or just patronizing?
Nope. The reason mixer is state of the art SSL modelled.
The strange thing is that the current mixer view is very non-configurable and that features like the one I suggested makes it more configurable. What you can do today is basically select what sliders to show in a primitive gui - that’s about it.
Neither. I suggested to read what a mixer usually is, since I suspect some people here don’t know very much about it.
I think with ‘configurable’ it is meant that there isn’t any cpu overhead with a forced channelstrip set-up on every channel, but you can choose to save your own template song which has your favorite eq’s/compressors etc set-up / choose which particular sliders to show.
I don’t mind (optionally) having knobs instead of sliders in the mixer for certain devices if that would improve functionality, but I think this would be more of a visual/eye-candy thing, make it look more pro, than have any other impact.
Yeah. That’s exactly what i mean.
Basically:
-
More configurable mixer gui.
-
Possibility to display a default dsp as a conventional channel strip, if you want to.
mmmh. i actually don’t understand all of this. you mean you want to decide if use a knob instead of a slider or are you referring to implement lacking functions?
as i see this, my channel strips are easier on the eyes and better organized than the reason ones… space waste everywhere and i need two pages of the strip to see all the parameters of the eq/dynamics, funny!
what imo could be done better is to allow the strip to have selectable widths, to be more usable in high resolution by giving more horizontal space to meters and compact sliders… yes sliders
Well, then let’s just hope tooling will eventually make it possible for someone to make a more elaborate mixer.
I think it’s quite obvious the mixer needs a big overhaul to be competetive and align to conventions, and it doesn’t feel as if it’s being given proper attention. Overhaul can be done without compromising customizability or disappoint those with minimalistic needs. Perhaps an evaluation could be done on how valuable the mixer is to Renoise users in its current state, and features that are most sought after.
My impression is that it was something rather rudimentary that was thrown in due to total lack, and most users thought it was cool because they have never used a proper mixer console 
Both. The main issues i see with the Renoise mixer in comparison to others is 1) its GUI and 2) its lack of a strip.
This is the reason for my suggestion. It would provide a strip to those who need it that, if it was a bit customizable, also would make the rest of the gui more bearable. If i can have those strip knobs easily distinguishable i could probably live with the rest.
Well if you desire buttons stacked in functional groups i can understand that part of the reasoning. It doesn’t mean that the current way the mixer presents toggles is bad.
You can use the document node API in Lua to save song depending layouts albeit, you also need to take care the saved xml accompanies the song if you distribute the song.
Yeah, kind of. All i see is grey boxes and sliders. I just threw out a suggestion to give some attention to what I think is an issue.
Yes, you’re patronizing.
There are loads of things I don’t like about Renoise’s mixer. Lack of post-fader sends and poor routing capabilities in general are my main complaints. But what you’re suggesting is just “OK, let’s make software look like hardware”. It’s not a real gear, it’s not a simulation of a real gear. It’s 100% software - free your mind and KISS!
I really like the mixer as it is. I don’t need any channel strips. I totally prefer an eq with a graph and movable handles over a parametric one with knobs - what a waste of room to have one or two peaking bands and a high and low shelf. Renoise’s eq10 rules! And also including a compressor in the channel strip means more wasted room so it’ll leave less room for my huge dsp chains and thus losing the overview.
-1
Ok. I clarified my original post.
better routing would be cool indeed, better zoomable metering would be cool also
I’d say what you really want is a combination of the Doofer Device™.
And the ability to set a DSP Chain as a Default For All Tracks (including newly created ones.)
With possibly a couple of more options for GUI, such as knobs instead of sliders in the Mixer view…
Those are both separate ideas I would support and I believe would give you the functionality you want but the way you have presented it in this thread, even with the edited first post, don’t feel right to me.
EDIT: Actually there is on vital aspect to Channel Strips which the above solution would not provide! Namely Send and Return points for sending through effects that aren’t part of the standard DSP Chain. Not sure this could be fitted it with the above solution, you would need some visual separation between the channel strip and user-added effects and something to make it clear at what point this is happening. Unlike the Doofer Device I can only ever see you being able to have one such device per track and the normal (currently existing) DSP chain would sit between the Send and Return point.
True, Kazakoore. I threw out an example of a conventional layout, that IMO a customized Renoise should be able to achieve. Mainly for giving some attention to the mixer and perhaps see new ideas evolve.