Send device in doofers only to target sub-doofers

Ideas & suggestions
1

If send and multiband send devices in doofers would be allowed inside a doofer and only could target sub-doofers on the same level or one level below, you would be able to create various signal flows like dry/wet, serial/parallel, band splitting etc.

What do you think about this?

With this, a doofer would stay as an independent unit.

Example:
For the haas panner doofer (see signature) I would like to add a high pass , so low bass would stay mono / untouched. So I would

  • open a new doofer,
  • move my doofer inside the new doofer,
  • move out all controls to the outer doofer
  • add a multiband send on the parent doofer, targeting the sub doofer with the high pass
  • add another macro control connected to the split frequency in the multiband send

Another example:

I would like to add a dry/wet control to my doofer. So I would do

  • create a new doofer
  • move my doofer inside the doofer
  • move out all controls to the parent doofer
  • add a send device to the parent doofer, targeting the inside doofer
  • add a gain after the send device
  • connect gain and send amount to one macro control
2

I think that it should work this way (if it is possible by Renoise design)
ive already made a topic with absolutely same idea but i cant find it right now :slight_smile:
This “bitwig thing” would make Doofers and download area huge :yeah: .

3

common guys this wouldn’t be some ingenious approach? simply because it’s 1. respecting renoise’s minimal device philosophy, 2. reusing already available devices, 3. respecting the doofer as a closed exchangeable unit. Vote now 5 stars!

4

Sounds pretty flexible,

also it seems for the wet/ dry slider example the nested doofer could be just an empty doofer and you can keep all the dsp in the parent chain then.

5

Sounds pretty flexible,

also it seems for the wet/ dry slider example the nested doofer could be just an empty doofer and you can keep all the dsp in the parent chain then.

Ok so you mean the nested one would be the dry amount…

6

Ok so you mean the nested one would be the dry amount…

Yes like if you use a send on a renoise track at the beginning of the DSP chain, routed to a dry send track. It would seem to save: “- move out all controls to the parent doofer”

7

Man this would be so nice!

This “bitwig thing” would make Doofers and download area huge :yeah: .

Yes, tremendous possibilities! I would do some psycho-acoustical reverberation doofer first!

Yes like if you use a send on a renoise track at the beginning of the DSP chain, routed to a dry send track. It would seem to save: “- move out all controls to the parent doofer”

Would save indeed that step. but simply moving controls from one (sub-)doofer to another would be helpful, too. Also rearranging them using drag-n-drop

8

but simply moving controls from one (sub-)doofer to another would be helpful, too. Also rearranging them using drag-n-drop

drag and drop the controls you mean, or are you just talking about dragging doofers?

9

drag and drop the controls you mean, or are you just talking about dragging doofers?

Drag-n-rearranging the order of the macro knobs, or dragging it into parent doofer or vice versa.

10

I see.

11

I still think the most ideal sollution would be to make a ‘Receiver Device’, it makes much more sense and is more user friendly. We have a send device, what would be more logic than to also have receiver device you could put anywhere? (or like the signal follower, to the right of the send device)

12

I still think the most ideal sollution would be to make a ‘Receiver Device’, it makes much more sense and is more user friendly. We have a send device, what would be more logic than to also have receiver device you could put anywhere? (or like the signal follower, to the right of the send device)

But it wont help you if you dont have parallel routing. No?

13

Well, they just don’t care. Maybe it’s better not to loose any more energy while thinking about unrealistic ideas.