like: mostly everything
dislike: you know, this question is so complex, but the first thing ticking in my head is MIXER. present mixer is good, but the way it works… its not like in standart DAWs.
Renoise ain’t a standard DAW. It’s KorE; Get used to it 
Dam, i knew i`ll get a reply like this.
p.s. anyway, how mixer works is not a good thing.
Interesting, what about the mixer don’t you like?
oh… ill try to make a complex answer tomorrow...its late here and wanna zzzzz…
I think the short answer is the post mixer doesn’t make sense in certain situations.
some kind of.
so the post mixer not affects much on volume control, and pre mixer affects a lot. but the pre mixer also used for automation, so i dont see here why post mixer is so weak in terms of volume control. also the precision of volume control is strange, i mean in pre mixer it works ok, but when it comes to post mixer section it works not as expected, to lower a volume u need to push the fader nearly to minimum and i think this is not a good thing. also if i want to implement the pan law thing , i just dunno where to use it! if i do -4db on pre mixer, then im fucked, cuz when i start to use automation...u know envelopes, not so easy in renoise... if i make -4db on post mixer it doesnt help much, cuz the ammount of lowered volume level is soooooo small. i hope u all understand what ive said here. )
Anyone?
I almost never use the pre faders because I use a lot of distortion plugins. I have to use the post faders if I want to change volume without changing tone.
This makes it really annoying that it’s the pre faders that are automated, I have to put gainers in there and automate those. Is there some obvious way around this and I’m just being dumb?
Nope. Pre-faders being Automatable, yet Post-faders not is one of the strangest things about the Renoise Mixer/Interface as far as I’m concerned and I really don’t understand it at all as it goes against anything you would ever do on a physical desk but I’ve given up arguing about that point.
I don’t understand why they’ve done it that way, it must have some advantage.
I’m considering just bouncing all my tracks down to pro tools to mix, pain in the arse but tidier than all those fucking gainers.
I’ve never touched the post fader section in the mixer and seem to be doing just fine adjusting the pre faders when necessary, what am I missing out on?
The post fader was deliberately never designed for active involvement into the audio-processing. It is purely meant as an end-mixing solution.
The only flaw it has is when send-devices are used and routing the complete stream towards a send-track. (where the post-fader in the original track becomes useless)
So it was done to keep things simple?
The problem I have with this is that the pre fader functionality is already available in the volume column of the pattern editor, it’s piss easy to lay down some automation there.
However when it comes to automating the final mix you need control at the end of the DSP chain. The only way I can see to do this currently is with a whole bunch of gainers which is just silly.
Thanks for the detailed reply, I appreciate why you wouldn’t want to automate the post faders but surely doing the fx processing before the pre faders would be superior to what’s there at the moment? I can’t see why anybody wouldn’t want that, it might not be as straightforward as the current system but it would be a lot more functional.
End-mixing dynamics is purely a personal choice of how someone would prefer to do active end-mixing. I doubt everybody is using gainers on the end of each track.
If you devote each track to one specific instrument, it would reduce the need for a gainer and in some cases, a compressor at the end of the chain will do the better job for you.
What is your specific reason for using gainers on the end of the chain? Why not using compressors for instance?
A gainer has to be controlled all the time and adjusted all the time in the automation, a compressor does the work for you whenever applicable. You simply set a threshold and whenever the threshold is reached, the compressor hacks in.
My other suspicion for people using gainers:
If the -6.012db headroom would have been made a toggable option in the master-track, i think most people would leave out the gainers here because i suspect this -6db headroom is the cause of most people using gainers in the first place.
(In this particular headroom case, only one gainer would suffice though:one on the master track adding 6db to the output)
As someone who gets super obsessive with getting clean well organised mixes, I’ll offer my 2c:
- Would happily use and automateable Post-Fader. Better than the Gainer because you have more resolution for negative fades.
- As a possible alternative create a new Fader native FX item that has a resolution from -INF dB to 0dB - even more resolution!
This also brings up another related sticky issue of wet/dry control to sends, again a situation often where a post-Gainer is used.
The current situation is workable, there is no problem. But there’s no doubt that it’s annoying, especially if you’re doing a lot of very detailed and fussy mix work.
That certainly seems like the most sensible solution. In fact the two functionalities could simply be swapped.
Allow automation of the post fader , and have the pre-fader behave more like a trim.
et voila! 
i was actually thinking on posting a idea about wet/dry controls on the sends in the ideas forum the other day:)
What do you mean by wet/dry control on the sends?