Signal Processing Track MUTE

Rednroll wrote on 4/23/2004, 8:14 AM
Old topic, reopened discussion.

First off I'ld like to thank the Sony Help and Manual writer people for updating the Vegas "Signal Flow Diagram". This makes much more sense to me now, than it has in the past.

The Channel Mute still doesn't mute a pre-fader send in Vegas 5.0. I've asked this in the past, on this forum but never got a response. Can someone give me how they would use this? This has always been an annoyance if anything to me in the past, and it bothers me that it's still in there, and I feel like it's still in there to keep it consistent with older versions of Vegas, which too me doesn't make it right, it makes it consistently wrong. I want it that if I press the track MUTE, it does that, It mutes every signal coming from that track. If I SOLO a track, it's because I want to listen to only that track, I don't want to listen to that track and any pre/fader sends from OTHER tracks.

It makes me more concerned now more than ever, because now the Mute buttons are automatible in V5. So if this get's changed in Vegas 6, now Vegas 5 projects will be affected, because 1 person out of a 1000 found a use for this and now their V5 automated mutes are screwed up and there mix is not the same.

If we HAVE to keep the mute in that same position in the signal flow diagram, then PLEASE let's have an option in the Preferences that we can check to "change track mute to pre sends". If you look at the signal flow diagram, I think there should be a MUTE block right before or directly after the Track FX block and removed from "Track Volume & Mute" position.

Someone please help me understand the use of where it is, and if this got changed how would it negatively effect everyone. As of right now, I can only think of the drawbacks of the way it currently is, I can not see the benefits.

Comments

cosmo wrote on 4/23/2004, 8:55 AM
Amen. A pre/post switch for mutes at a global level would be tremendous for me. I hate having to diable sends when I want to mute something. It totally kills the whole point of the mute in the first place. I should be able to *quickly* mute a track(or solo for that matter) without having to also disable the sends.
Arnar wrote on 4/23/2004, 10:12 AM
Agreed
Rednroll wrote on 4/24/2004, 9:23 AM
<Bump>
Anyone else for or against?

Here's my thought and maybe Peter could confirm this is how Vegas handles track mutes. I develope DSP amplifiers and we handle mutes the same way in software. In our amplifiers we have seperate EQ's that the DSP loads depending on the source AM, FM, CD, Cassette..etc. So when we do a mode change from FM to CD, the DSP reinitializes and Loads a different EQ. While the DSP is initializing it will send out some random information that would sound pretty aweful through your speakers, so we turn the volume to zero, while the DSP is initiazing and loading the different EQ, then turn the volume back to where it was once the DSP is done doing it's thing. My feeling is that for a track Mute, Vegas is doing a similar thing, where the track fader Value is being set to "-inf" when you press the mute button, although you don't see this in the Vegas UI, this is what's happening internally. So the problem is any signal before the track fader, you will still hear (ie pre fader sends). To fix this there will have to be a seperate function block for the Mutes and not be tied into the track volume fader coefficient. So what's seems like a simple request on the outside, isn't so simple on the inside. This is the way I think Vegas is handling mutes, and it further leads me to believe it's like this because in the signal flow diagram there's one function block labeled "mute and track fader volume".

Peter?
PipelineAudio wrote on 4/24/2004, 11:10 AM
sidechains, and visual confirmations



if you DO make that mute mute pre fader sends then please let me turn the channel to - infinity without it muting. I dont like the mute thing it does

Of ourse I could always send that channel to a buss and just mute the buis no matter what right?
Cold wrote on 4/24/2004, 12:28 PM
Red I agree with you, it would be great to have a mute option for pre or post sends though.
Steve S.
SHTUNOT wrote on 4/24/2004, 12:44 PM
Hey guys...

This is the same topic I brought up with V4. I reminded them during the acid 4.0c beta about the issues and they confirmed that they knew about this but it would take a rewrite so they could add a "solo buss". That would be the right way.

Repro steps...

1) 3 tracks...kick,bass guitar,violin motif...[tracks 123 respectively]
2)insert fx[bbe sonic maximizer]
3)left click on pan dialog...select fx1[track 1]
4)set kick fx to -4db. volume fader to -inf.

Play back tracks. Track one feeds BBe plugin then goes to master. Tracks 2-3 sent to master.

Now playback and set levels.
Right click and set track one to "pre volume".

Now playback and mute track 1...nothing changes to mix...but soloing track one actually works right because all you hear is track one.

Now playback and solo track two...You hear track two but track one is still audible. Muting works fine.

Now I go to track three to tweak the violin and solo it...I still hear track one from the fx1 assignable fx.

Now Peter can you imagine the headache with a 27 track project?

I'm expecting one of two answers...

1)We made a mistake and this will be fixed in a updated 5.0b/c/etc...
2)Just don't do that and we'll consider it for V6.

Please say number 1.

I f you say number two then like the rest of us in this thread please explain when you have a chance how is it that we should use this feature. What were the pros about it when it was discussed in your meetings.

My vote for a "solo buss" in a update.

This upgrade amazes me but this one flaw is the only tarnish to it. Actually one hell of a ugly blotch if you ask me. Keeping my fingers crossed as always.

Ed.

Btw...Red I'm surprised that you didn't catch this early on in the beta. When I got the impression that you were testing it I just assumed you did and they fixed it. Thats the reason why I never asked you prior to the release. My fault for not being thorough.
SHTUNOT wrote on 4/24/2004, 12:45 PM
One more thing...If this can't be fixed in a update to V5 then when it comes to Acid 5 it better be.

Ed.
Rednroll wrote on 4/24/2004, 2:02 PM
"Btw...Red I'm surprised that you didn't catch this early on in the beta. When I got the impression that you were testing it I just assumed you did and they fixed it. Thats the reason why I never asked you prior to the release. My fault for not being thorough."

Oh I did notice it, one of the first things I checked. If you look at my feature suggestions, this was actually listed as one of them. It has always been this way in Vegas. I mentioned it for Vegas 2.0 as a problem. I pointed it out in Vegas 3.0 beta testing. It never got addressed. Users complained for v3.0 release. I mentioned it in v4.0 beta testing, it never got addressed there and got released. When I saw it again in v5.0 betas, I just sighed at that point. I've had a few discussions with Peter and Dave on this in the past, and I believe Peter actually agrees with me that it's wrong, but needed to look at other hardware mixer routings and how the majority of mixers do this. I think, I'm going to do the same. I showed them on my Yamaha digital mixers, the mute is pre fader send, so when you mute it mutes everything from that channel. That's why I'm asking what the use of having it function this way. I don't see the point of having it function this way. If someone could show me a useful reason to have it this way, I could maybe even agree, but not even anyone from Sony has pointed out a use to have it function this way. So it's like I say, it's there for consistancy sakes handed down from version to version, but in my opinion it just makes it consistantly wrong.
SHTUNOT wrote on 4/24/2004, 2:28 PM
So by that statement I should not hold my breath then...;(

Ed.

Btw...During the acid 4.oc beta everyone agreed a "solo buss" was needed. And Joel was the one who I was in contact the most. Just surprised that it didn't make the cut.
MJhig wrote on 4/24/2004, 6:06 PM
I agree with you Red. I didn't answer the post at first because you posed the question as to why the current nature of mute would be beneficial. For the life of me I can't see an advantage.

MJ
doctorfish wrote on 4/24/2004, 6:28 PM
I'll chime in with my vote to have this changed. There have been a number of times with Vegas and Acid when I want to solo something and I end up also having to mute the buses of different tracks because they're still audible. And likewise I can't think of a scenerio where this would be benificial.

What other software do people have? Do the mutes and solos work this way or do they really mute pre fader? I have Sonar but I've used it so little that I don't even know. I'll have to take a look at it.

Dave
Rednroll wrote on 4/26/2004, 12:43 PM
OK,
I did some research digging into a few hardware mixers signal flow routing, to see if I could see how the general consensus handles the Track fader mute.

MACKIE- 32x8 and D8B
These work like Vegas in that if you enable the Track Fader mute, the pre-fader sends do not get muted.

YAMAHA-02R and 03D
Pre-Fader Sends will be muted when track fader mute is active.

Solid State Logic- SSL4000G and SSL4000E
Pre-Fader Sends will be muted when track fader mute is active.

AMS Neve- Logic 1 and Logic 2
Pre-Fader Sends will be muted when track fader mute is active.

Soundcraft-Ghost
Pre-Fader Sends will be muted when track fader mute is active.

Software-Nuendo
This works the same as Vegas.

Some of these mixers like the SSL and Neve's will give you additional mute and solo options that resemble that of Vegas, but you need to enable additional button pushes to have it function that way, but the default operation is to mute the pre-fader send and when you press solo this also mutes the prefader sends from other tracks. So if Vegas's audio signal flow was based off of a hardware mixer configuration, I have a good idea which ONE it was.

If anyone can confirm other hardware mixers or software, which way it works this could be helpful.

PipelineAudio wrote on 4/26/2004, 1:48 PM
Nice research!
drbam wrote on 4/26/2004, 2:55 PM
Yes, nice research indeed. Thanks Red. I've always hated this mute issue on my Mackie 32x8. There are many times when I'm mixing with some efx sends in prefader (long verbs in soundscapes, etc). Its a frustrating PITA! Anyway, I'm looking at upgrading to a Ghost so it won't be a concern after that. ;-)

drbam
PipelineAudio wrote on 4/26/2004, 3:30 PM
the ghost has its own concerns :(

Lets just dream of a day when we dont need a console ( hardware auto input in vegas)

that said I loved and now miss my ghost. Great EQ's, VERY sensible routing with a few exceptions, very tidy layout, nice compliment to vegas, with its alt speaker witch and non mutually exclusive stereo sources
Rednroll wrote on 4/26/2004, 4:23 PM
I did think of one scenario where this is probably important to have it function like it currently is in Vegas. So I guess, if I think about it long enough, I'll finally come up with my own answer.

Cues mixes for the musicians headphones are setup alot using prefader sends. So the engineer could setup a cue mix using prefader sends and feed that out to a seperate bus output feeding the cue amp. Then the engineer while he's recording could mute and solo individual tracks which feeds the control room monitors and the prefader send cue mix would go unaffected. So while in a recording session to have it function this way, some could find this eccential, but in a mix session it makes it more of a Pita.
drbam wrote on 4/26/2004, 4:51 PM
Yes Red, you are certainly correct regarding the cue sends function. I NEVER have a use for that however. I don't need to track full bands so its pretty easy to come up with acceptable cue mixes for 1-3 artists without having to use the aux sends.

drbam
PipelineAudio wrote on 4/26/2004, 5:15 PM
dont kill my sidechain ability!
pwppch wrote on 4/27/2004, 6:31 AM
Red's is right. Guess what we model Vegas' routing on? (Red knew this arleady, because I told him<g>.)

The headphone monitor mix aspect is right out of the Mackie user guides that I have read.

I see the arguements both way, and I actually like the SSL approach as it provides flexability, and that is what software is all about. This will be discussed.

Peter

Rednroll wrote on 4/27/2004, 9:16 AM
"flexability, and that is what software is all about."

I agree and the even greater things is that you're able to overcome the hardware limitations. On hardware you're limited to the amount of sends the hardware offers, so for a recording situation you can use those sends for the cues, and in a mixing situation you can do some patching and use them for FX sends during mixdown.

Now that I understand the functionality and it's purpose a little more here would be a couple of my suggestions of how to implement this in Vegas.

1. Make another bus type and call it a "cue bus". These types of buses should work exactly how Vegas is currently set up. It would also allow you to see a fader on the tracks labeled cue1, cue2, etc., therefore elliminating the confusion between an FX send,bus send and a CUE send. On the SSL there is a seperate cue section, which can be assigned pre or post fader and works exactly how Vegas currently does. For most sessions I use the cue as a post fader send, just to speed up the setup time of having to set up 2 seperate mixes. When I'm recording a live band, I will take the time to setup the cues as prefader sends, so that I can solo/mute and monitor individual tracks without effecting the musicians cue mix during the record session.

2. Switch the sends and bus sends, to work as we're outlining for a mix situation. (ie the mute button, mutes the pre-fader send to each)

3. Along with the Cue buses request feature, on the SSL there is a button called "Quad to cues". What this does is take what's in the master bus and routes it to the cue bus, so the musicians are hearing exactly the same mix that is in the control room. This is a quick way to set up a cue mix for the musicians, that most of the engineers I worked with used on the SSL. While it limits the control of seperate mixes, it's the quickest and easiest way to get up and running, and for some sessions we just get too lazy to have to setup seperate mixes. So by having a similar feature of "Mix to Cues" or "Master to cues" this will take the Master bus and put the same signal into the Cue buses you setup. When in the Mix to cues state, this would eccentially mute the signal coming from the cue sends and just route the master mix to the cue bus.

I think if it was implemented this way, it would give the best of both worlds and even enhance the functionality of Vegas for setting up a cue mix.