Feature Request *senddevice

I’d like to request an extra parameter on the *SendDevice.

It would be very useful to have an Amount (or Gain)-parameter on the output signal, when using the “Keep source”-feature. Instead of using a Gainer after the *SendDevice to control it, you could have that feature embedded in the *SendDevice, making it take less space in the DspChain.

I very often use the *SendDevice + Gainer combination, as I send stuff to a send-channel for Sidechain purposes, but still want to have some amount of the signal on the continuating DspChain (and often wanting to adjust how much).

Something like:

Mode [Mute Source] [Keep Source]  
Amount < > ------I------- 45%  
Reciever < > S00  
Output < > -------------I 100%  


Mode [Mute Source] [Keep Source]  
Amount < > ------I-------- 45%  
Reciever < > S00  
Output < > -------I------- 0 dB  

“taking up less space on the dsp chain” isn’t good enough of a reason to add an ambiguous slider to a metadevice. The metadevices (prefixed with *) don’t alter audio, but perform mechanical functions to indirectly assist in altering it. This is a very important distinction for the sake of clarity and usability.

By the same standard you could have the send options on the gainer effect, or put send options on ANYTHING. You could argue that you could need a lowpass filter slider on the sendDevice because you often use send -> filter2 in your chain.

What i think would solve your problem is the return of the used device list. Having to scroll back and forth along the dsp chain without a real way to quickly assess the scope and overview of the chain is a huge oversight in 1.5, which is puzzling because this very issue was already mended in 1.28. I can’t even begin to describe how awkward it is to drag a device from the very end of a 12-unit chain to the beginning, waiting for the scroll and… ugh.

The Send Device already has an amount fader for how much of the signal is sent to the Send channel (which is only really useful if you want the send amount less than pass if keeping source.) Now by what you saying this shouldn’t exist on the device either. I see no harm in a fader working identically, but on the path continueing down the DSP chain. Personally I think it would be a good adition.

+1 from me.

Complete and utter nonsense, doubly so because you apparently didn’t stop to give it any real thought. The send amount parameter is a direct control parameter of the sound routing, which is apparent on any mixing console with aux sends/returns, to which *sendDevice is a direct equivalent.

The *sendDevice is a routing device, and as such is a tool, not an effect. Don’t get caught up on semantics here because they matter eff all. The distinction device/metadevice is very important for the orderly development of this application, and i expect taktik, martinal & co to be just as much of a nazi about it as i am, if only for the sake of clarity and order.

I realize it’s all very abstract, but it’s an important aspect that sets a properly developed software solution apart from a hasty mishmash of ideas.

*sendDevice, *lfoDevice and their buddies aren’t prefixed with * and put in a submenu called meta devices for the fun of it. They are not sound effects or signal processing units and there is a significant difference between gaining a signal by decibel or altering its send volume through a 100% range.

One final hammer to the head of this entire argument: The *sendDevice doesn’t do ANYTHING to the sound of an individual chain. It can either pass the entire output on to a separate chain. Aside from this, the chain it inhabits couldn’t care less that it exists for signal processing purposes.

Do i have to be clearer?

It’s a sane proposition for the sake of convenience, but to me it reads like convenience for junoir’s particular production style. I have never gained a send right after the device and i make heavy heavy use of them.

And again, it reads like difficulty in managing long chains, which is a separate UI problem altogether.

Well going by the refering it to a real life situation there should be a gainer at the beginning and the volume fader should be at the end of the dsp chain, not at the beginning. All desks I have ever worked on have had a fader at the bottom of the channel, after sends, auxillaries, eq and everything else in the channel.

So what we should really have is a slider in the standard channel dsp which control the level on the exit of the channel. If there wa a send device that did not pass the sound then this fader would do nothing.

Do you agree that this makes sense?

I’ve learned to use a gainer at the end of the chain most of the time. You can get totally different sound depending on if you adjust volume and panning in the beginning or the end of the chain.

Like just recently, I had a snare with reverb and a gate after the reverb… when I pan in the beginning the gate shuts left and right at different time, so I had to pan in the end instead to avoid that weird effect. A compromise, because the reverb also sounds a bit flatter now.

I realise i mustve come off pretty damn grumpy in the past couple of posts. For that i’m sorry. It’s a pet peeve, i really like the modular chain link design of Renoise and i’d hate to see it drown in featuritis.

Kaza yeah i agree it makes more sense from a mixing desk pov. I think it’d break the linear and logical feel of a dsp chain though. It’s easier to grasp the left to right logical flow than a left to right and then back to start again.

Running with your thought, you could say the volume slider on the base device could work as an overall gainer for the end output, whereas the original volume of the sample would be dictated by the sample gain multiplied by the volume of the triggered sample. I think we’re on to something here.

This flow would be something like this:

Original sample volume: 100%
Instrument trigger volume: 50%x
Sample volume at start of DSP chain: 100%
Gainer in DSP chain: 200%
Affected sample volume at the end of the chain: 200%
Standard track DSP gainer setting: 50%
Actual sample volume: 100%

I just confused myself horribly. But still.
But to beat down on myself again, this would mean that the trackVolPan device would be somehow restyled or rebranded to not be a device at all, and part of me doesn’t like that from a usability pov.

Argh confusing and morally frightening :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I think most of these mixing issues will eventually be solved whenever Renoise gets a mixer view of some sort (and we know that is going to happen).

As has already mentioned it’s really not that hard to stick a gainer on the end of a chain if needed.

I just didn’t like how your argument was trying to say it’s was based around a real wor4ld point of view, when the dsp chain is already completely contradictory to the real world with now the volume and panning faders work. It kinda shoots your argument in the foot.

I do understand what you were saying though. I think the above suggestion was more a work around as people have already mentioned having the basic vol/pan dsp device operatate more true to a real world enviroment, byt it never seemed to be taken that seriously…

I still don’t think a keep amount working under the same principles to the send amount slider would be that much of a problem, but as has now been mentioned would not be anywhere near an ideal solution…

OT: You and psychofreud done much new recently? Not checked your web pages for ages now.

Interesting discussion that have been going on here. As mentioned in my first post, it’s merely a feature request of something I’ve been thinking of a lot lately and yes, it’s based on how I work and also by the problem of cluttery dsp-chains.

Btw, thinking of it, my example is more complicated than it really needed to be, here’s a better suggestion;

S. Output < > --------------I 100%  
Amount < > ------I-------- 45%  
Reciever < > S00  

As 0% on the Source Output is the same as [Mute Source] and 100% is the same as [Keep Source], what it adds is the amount of source.

It is still just a suggestion, but I generally like applications where you can do the same thing in more ways than one. Just my 5 cents.

I guess my final word in this topic is that i think the solution to this problem isn’t in altering existing devices, but in giving us a more comprehensive way to manage large effect chains. Going to start a topic on this subject, i think it’s quite important.

OT: Kaza, 'freud is doing quite a bit. Got a lot of shows, getting some records out, things looking good for him. I’m kind of a confused schizo at the moment, so nothing overly positive. I don’t even have a site anymore aside from my myspace thing (http://www.myspace.com/sunjammer)

Cool. Added you although I don’t really use it much…