Mixing Window

VaultComplex wrote on 9/19/2005, 10:17 AM
I think this is a much needed feature for Vegas. A traditional mixing window, with volume faders, panpots, plug-in chains, and I/O settings is an essential asset to any multitrack audio editor. If I want to do audio mixing, I certainly don't want to have the track view be my only option. I want a nice mixer view, with audio levels for every track. Doesn't anyone else miss having this standard feature that so many other programs have, like protools, DP, etc.?

Comments

bgc wrote on 9/19/2005, 11:31 AM
I actually HATE the mixing window paradigm of other programs. I much prefer the track mixing method. It simply makes sense to me.
The separate mixing window seems necessary only because people have mixed that way in the past.
It also is very difficult to use the mixing window and then switch to the track view to see what you did in the mxing window did in the track window, etc.
Sari wrote on 9/19/2005, 11:58 AM
Undock the mixer pane, resize it and place it whereever you like on your screen. I also agree with bgc that it is much easier for me to work without it.
Geoff_Wood wrote on 9/19/2005, 3:41 PM
No, a 'mixer' emulation is not an asset - it's a limitation. Why pander to those who cannot see past a picture of an obsolete (in this context) hardware device ?!

geoff
drbam wrote on 9/19/2005, 3:59 PM
"Why pander to those who cannot see past a picture of an obsolete (in this context) hardware device ?!"

I personally like Vegas's GUI but to answer your question, its simply because the vast majority of the audio market wants the emulation model. It may be a limitation as you say (I'm not convinced myself), but the fact remains that Vegas has not found a visible place within the mainstream pro audio world. The primary players all have an analog mixer emulation GUI.

drbam
VaultComplex wrote on 9/19/2005, 6:46 PM
Well, even if you don't like the traditional mixing window (which looks like a mixing console, and those that have mixed on a traditional console and continue to do so, the layout makes perfect sense) the current track view still does NOT have that essential thing of audio levels for every track. If something clips (from gain, and effect, whatever) I won't be able to know which of my 24 audio tracks is the one that clipped. It also makes multitrack recording completely useless because again, if a level is hot, I'll have to sit there and solo every single track just to find out what my input problem is. Plus, it still doesn't have essential things like audio In/Out assignments for each track. What if I have a multi out audio interface and simply want to output certain tracks on certain outputs? What if I want to create an aux track to have certain effects and bus the tracks to that one effect plugin so that I don't have to have a plugin for every single track that I want that particular effect on?

There's also the completely logical thought that a traditional mixing console still works on computers for the simple fact that computer monitors are wider than they are tall, enabling you to see more tracks at once while you are mixing. Plus, the addition of the mixing console doesn't mean they'd have to take away what already exists in Vegas.

Also, to respond to the "obsolete" statement, it is not obsolete. Every audio professional I know in this business constantly goes from a physical (mixing console) to a virtual environment (and sometimes using both at once) and having two completely different approaches makes it hard to go back and forth efficiently. I wouldn't care as much if Vegas AT LEAST had all the features in a traditional mixing console. It seems so silly to have tracks, but have no way to assign their output other than the global settings in the preferences.
Chienworks wrote on 9/19/2005, 7:02 PM
Something like this?

http://www.chienworks.com/media/vegasmixer.gif
VaultComplex wrote on 9/19/2005, 11:13 PM
That's the concept of the look, but it is still of no use without the other essential features which will have to be programmed in. The audio level thing would be a fairly simple add on, but the I/O for every channel will have to be something that entails reworking the entire audio system.
bgc wrote on 9/20/2005, 1:54 PM
Hi Chienworks,
My positive comment on your mock-up is that it's quite elegant and unobtrusive.
My "critical" remark is that I've already got that rotated 90 degrees and with more control from the track view.
B.
Chienworks wrote on 9/20/2005, 2:02 PM
bgc, i agree completely with your critical remark. I really would have no need for this at all. On the other hand, i can't really think of any reason not to have it. The main purpose of this mock-up was during a discussion a few years ago with a user who complained that he *had* to assign every track to an individual bus and it was eventually discovered that all he wanted was vertical volume sliders. I suppose the "Mixer View" pane could include as many controls as you wished. The reason i made them that austere was to fit as many as possible in that space.

The one major failing of Vegas' layout is that it's difficult to see more than a few of the track headers at one time. With this "Mixer View" one can see and manipulate dozens of sliders without having to scroll. I can see this as a big advantage when adjusting levels during a mixdown session.