Maybe it was already requested, but I’ve not seen it.
Anyway, now we have ‘send’ device which simply sends the audio signal preceding the device to a given effects track. What I’m looking for, is a device that would ‘grab’ audio signal from a list of tracks (e.g. normal tracks as well as effect tracks). Why would that be useful? Say you want to make a transition where everything that’s been playing so far is treated with some effect (e.g. filter, reverb, delay, gate etc.) and you want the new section to come in gradually, clean of the above mentioned effect. Currently, to do this you’d have to put a lot of otherwise idle send devices on each track, which is pretty tedious and time consuming; also to program them. With ‘grab’ device it would be much easier, faster and lots more transparent: you’d only have to create one instance of it, you’d only have to automate one track, etc.
And I think, having the ‘send’ device in place already, that should not be very complicated?
Well, perhaps not, but if you know a bit how audio routing works in Renoise, your idea won’t take away the tedious part of having to control many parameters either. The only difference is that you have all the grab devices in one track so for automation that may make things a little easier.
But i already was discussing the way audio-routing works, you still have to automate stuff in the original tracks as well as a grabber cannot be designed to completely stop audio from going to the master since it won’t be in the dsp chain of that track. It can only “tap” into it and zip the audio from it.
I think the dry/wet fader on the send-device is one of the requests that sounds like having the same grounds as your suggestion.
Whadda you are talkin about is called bussing. No, that does not mean taking a bus, in a transportation sense. If you are not familiar with it, you could read some info about it in web, there is heaps of it. You can set up a traditional mixer-like approach to it in Renoise, and save it as template. That will help you a lot in effecting the mix. Setting up routing scheme as template song would require you to do it only once.
Unfortunately we do not have master aux (send master to send track) option, but if you are using sub-buses, like sub-master channels, and use one send track as master, you have heaps of possibilities in routing and effecting. Easiest way to set up routing is to do it in mixer screen: do it in one track, then copy the devices between tracks by dragging and dropping.
Routing and bussing has been discussed here millions of times, and people have generally agreed that, albeit currently possibilities are virtually endless, there could be easier ways to do things, for example send devices are impaired for not having pre/post switch.
Your grab device is, after all, in essence a send track device that does routing reversed. Not a bad idea, but does not really bring in anything new.
Seems I wasn’t clear enough with my description. What I’m looking for, is a device you’d place in one of send tracks and this device - when activated - would intercept the sound from all of the tracks on its list and then of course send it back to the master. After that device in effects chain you could place any effects you’d like, so you could e.g. apply a gradual hi-pass filter to e.g. tracks #1-4, without putting a ‘send device’ nor ‘filter’ on any of those tracks. If any of those tracks 1-4 would be sending its signal to other ‘send tracks’, you’d have to add that ‘send track’ to the list on your ‘grab device’ (or leave it out if that suits your artistic vision).
I know the same result can be achieved by e.g. putting ‘send device’ on each of those tracks and filer on the ‘send track’, or by putting a filter on each of those tracks and automating it using ‘hydra’ or by drawing the filter envelopes. But the idea I presented is much simpler and natural: you need to apply an effect to 4 tracks, then capture their signal, process it and then - after you finished - give it back by disabling the device.
I know all this and I never said it is new or revolutionary idea. Don’t treat my post count as a reflection of my knowledge
edit_Okay, I was being bit of an ass. I think there are at least two more elegant solutions to your problem:
Possibility to put send devices into master channel.
Wrapper device that would collapse dedicated effect devices into one device with control sliders controlling dedicated parameters in devices wrapped, equipped with dry/wet slider and on/off switch. Would take care of your needs perfectly.
Grab device seems like too much of an one trick pony to me.
Do what? Program it myself? I could, but as far as I know Renoise is not open source
Re 1: If you have four tracks, how’d you exclude e.g. track #2 from being sent to send track, because in the end all audio goes to master?
Re 2: You really have difficulties agreeing with someone, don’t you? That would NOT solve my need perfectly, because it would still require me to put all those devices to be wrapped on each of those tracks. With ‘grab device’ I could tell it: “now take tracks 1, 2 and 3” and few patterns later I could say “now take only 3 and 4” etc., without ever doing anything in those tracks. It makes life a lot more easier, but I agree it’s not a big or new feature and can be replicated in many different ways.
But it would be a great feature! The more and flexible routing capabilities the better! Cmn what are you guys arguing here about!
It’ll be a boost in creativeness if you don’t have to struggle with such technical workarounds.
proposed grab device reminds me of Max/Msp’s send & receive objects and that’d gets a +1 from me only when we get the following kind of view added as well:
Senderella also allows you to feed audio to other audio-tracks rather than send-tracks only.
(And you can send from the master to somewhere else, but like i said:you will form a digital loopback if you do this internally.)
Never tested this plugin in the realms of “is it capable of routing audio to other hosts using the same plugin”, but this also comes in mind.
Naturally master aux would be sent to physical output instead of master channel.
I meant sub-buses and such as template, 'cuz u need to do it anyway at some point.
Okay, so your problem was not making mix-wide effects after all?
See former+ I have not. Have you a problem with people not agreeing with you? Why so hostile?
I suggested effect wrapper 'cause you said you want to do mix-wide effects more easily. In master or sub-bus a wrapper would do that.
I see your point now. I still don’t think I would use it, I think it makes routing confusing. I would agree with Jonas here. I like to keep things in certain order. And have no problem doing what you described. And I’m doing it pretty fast, because my ducks are in a row. But that’s just me.
Btw. at what point in the effect chain would the Grab Device take input signal? End? Per-fader? Post-fader?
the send and receive objects in max/msp ( also in reaktor ) are there for making connections between patches inside the main patcher .
In reaktor the s/r modules function as a modulation matrix ( or whatever you can think of ).
Like you said , it wouldn’t have much use in renoise unless we have a modular approach .
well, then exchange “invisibly” with “automatically”.
I don’t see why it would cause confusion.
the idea after all is “when something applies to N - M, and N is very big and M very small, it makes more sense to define stuff for M, and not for N”. As in, when you have an effect on 200 tracks, you’d put it on the master, and when you then find out you wanna have 3 dry channels, creating 197 sends manually is a pain.
Someone who feels that pain and uses the vaguely proposed “macro” way to deal with it, will not be confused, but rather relieved and happy.
Kinda like additive and subtractive geometry: the result is the same, it’s just more convenient in some cases to use one over the other.
Or think of Photoshop, and the difference between selecting what you want, or selecting what you NOT want, and then inverting the selection.
So maybe there really is no need for a new device, just for more options to manage/visualize sends. And even in the scenario of “proper routing” (is that even going to ever happen?), that difference between “positive” and “negative” definition of stuff would still be something to think about. If that situation never occured to you, why even post in this thread? I don’t get it. It’s like someone asking how to make trance and someone saying “yeah well I don’t, I write bossa nova and here is how to do it”. gtfo.
