This got me thinking of another feature that could be added to the “~Gainer” (I’m with junior here as in one device could do many functions…):
The ‘dual panning’ feature like in Cubase. Check this page for a description.
Basically: the current panning in Renoise is the classical one that changes the volume of L and R channels depending on how you pan. What the ‘dual panning’ does is it lets you adjust the panning of L and R channels separately.
The ‘combined’ option does the same thing but kinda links the L and R channels.
In a “Gainer” device in Renoise it could look like this:
You’d have two panning sliders: one like now and another one below that would be greyed out/disabled by default. Then you’d have a checkbox to enable “dual panning” and then the second slider would enable, acting as a R channel slider and the first one would change to a L channel slider.
You could then pan L and R separately.
or:
You’d have a checkbox to enable “dual panning” and the slider would then work in a way as the ‘combined’ slider in Cubase. For example: When moving the slider all the way to the right the right channel would not be affected, but the left channel would be moved to the center.
The first one gives you more control, while the second one saves space since there is only one slider.
I know this is more like an advanced feature, but I thought I’d mention it anway. It might spark some interest. (like from a l33t Cubendo user )
Is there any technical difference (DSP) between dual panning vs. narrowing+normal panning? I’m not sure. If dual panning can be achieved with narrowing+normal panning and possibly some gain compensation, I’m thinking the interface could be made in a normal doofer. I might be wrong.
Sending your track on two ‘sends’,and then on each ‘send’ putting a stereo expander with negative value and retaining the R for one and L for the other,I think it’s possible
you have just to set the level of each ‘send’ to control
with that configuration,you can modulate level of each channel independendly
I think dual planning is a very useful mixing tool, if integrated right straight into the mixer ( see Cubase, Logic…).
But you also could add better ideas, a dual länger doesn’t have to look as all the other days. You are allowed to think by yourself, just forget all you learned, close your eyes…
Ok now open it again, for example the dual länger, integrated into renoise mixer, could also be visualized as “heatmap” , also in the group and master tracks, so you clearly and intuitively can see which parts of the x-axis are crowded and where space is left.
So a proper way to visualize x-axis in context.
Ah yes, @aprilix goniometer is there, but I think it is not really useful for a exact panning visualization in context. Aspecially a full mix usually just looks like a mess then. Goniometer feels to me something very technical which then was also used for audio, from a time period when they hadn’t better tools. But the approach should be vica versa, first a proper idea of a really helpful visualization, then the tool/code. But maybe I am just not using the goniometer correctly… I actually usually ignore it, only if I try to check for optimal phase and width, then I look at it…
A simple x-axis bar would be enough, so for example you would be able to see the heatmap of the next container track, and if you solo the track, only the panning of the track. There could be a slight delay in the heat spots or whatever.
The “heatmap” could be the background of the panner slider. And you had an alpha’ed area with two ends to move.
Splitting L and R into separate sends is a pretty bad workaround for workflow. The best thing would be to just have two extra faders for L and R right on the track, or a dual pan tool like Bitwig.
It’s not technically the same. Narrowing+normal panning can mess with the signal integrity. You might get similar results in some cases, but not always, and dual panning gives you more control and flexibility.
)
)
I don’t know how i’d use it, but hey
