still missing busfx post and Masterfader

Walterius wrote on 6/13/2000, 1:46 PM
Hi crying out for agree and to make SF doing!
1.
It is very important to set bus fx pre or post.
If you have it post as it now you cant move the fader
without taking affect on the fx in the bus.
2.
A Masterfader is necessary it is a must!
Since 1.0b you get distortion in rendering when you use the
busses like subgroups and set their levels to 0dB.
But you cannot move the faders to the right levels for
rendering, because that affects the bus fx (for ex: if you
have a limiter as busfx the fader adjusts only the input of
the limiter.
Please people agree and make SF doing a MASTERFADER!!!!

(some told me to use the assignableFX as subgroups,
but then there is no function of the trackvolumefader(cause
you have to set the FX pre and "close" the volume) and
there is no chance to have any othe fx set post)

thanks for everyone who supports this
god bless you walter

Comments

pwppch wrote on 6/14/2000, 2:22 AM
Yep, we had to hold off on these.

Q: In the sub buss scenario: Do you want a bus to be assignable to
either a "master bus" or hardware or both simultaneously?

Peter


Walterius Till wrote:
>>Hi crying out for agree and to make SF doing!
>>1.
>>It is very important to set bus fx pre or post.
>>If you have it post as it now you cant move the fader
>>without taking affect on the fx in the bus.
>>2.
>>A Masterfader is necessary it is a must!
>>Since 1.0b you get distortion in rendering when you use the
>>busses like subgroups and set their levels to 0dB.
>>But you cannot move the faders to the right levels for
>>rendering, because that affects the bus fx (for ex: if you
>>have a limiter as busfx the fader adjusts only the input of
>>the limiter.
>>Please people agree and make SF doing a MASTERFADER!!!!
>>
>>(some told me to use the assignableFX as subgroups,
>>but then there is no function of the trackvolumefader(cause
>>you have to set the FX pre and "close" the volume) and
>>there is no chance to have any othe fx set post)
>>
>>thanks for everyone who supports this
>>god bless you walter
blisster wrote on 6/14/2000, 9:10 AM

I know for me, an either/or situation would be fine. I can't imagine
wanting both at once, at least for the way I work.

Would these feature possibly make it into a Vegas Audio 2.0 release?
I haven't updated to video (don't do any video work yet), and was
wondering if I should wait for the Audio upgrade. is there a
projected date? And any features that will be new to the Audio
version?

Peter Haller wrote:
>>Yep, we had to hold off on these.
>>
>>Q: In the sub buss scenario: Do you want a bus to be assignable to
>>either a "master bus" or hardware or both simultaneously?
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
Walterius wrote on 6/15/2000, 10:53 AM
Hi!
It would be really nice to have a bus to be assignable to either
a "master bus" or hardware, i could imagine that both is not
necessary.
Can you give me an idea when this is going to be considered,
because i have many customers i should tell.
thanks
walter


Peter Haller wrote:
>>Yep, we had to hold off on these.
>>
>>Q: In the sub buss scenario: Do you want a bus to be assignable to
>>either a "master bus" or hardware or both simultaneously?
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>Walterius Till wrote:
>>>>Hi crying out for agree and to make SF doing!
>>>>1.
>>>>It is very important to set bus fx pre or post.
>>>>If you have it post as it now you cant move the fader
>>>>without taking affect on the fx in the bus.
>>>>2.
>>>>A Masterfader is necessary it is a must!
>>>>Since 1.0b you get distortion in rendering when you use the
>>>>busses like subgroups and set their levels to 0dB.
>>>>But you cannot move the faders to the right levels for
>>>>rendering, because that affects the bus fx (for ex: if you
>>>>have a limiter as busfx the fader adjusts only the input of
>>>>the limiter.
>>>>Please people agree and make SF doing a MASTERFADER!!!!
>>>>
>>>>(some told me to use the assignableFX as subgroups,
>>>>but then there is no function of the trackvolumefader(cause
>>>>you have to set the FX pre and "close" the volume) and
>>>>there is no chance to have any othe fx set post)
>>>>
>>>>thanks for everyone who supports this
>>>>god bless you walter
pwppch wrote on 6/16/2000, 8:29 AM
The best I can say is that I am looking at it right now. I just can't
say when...

Ditto on the post/pre bus fx.

Peter


Walterius Till wrote:
>>Hi!
>>It would be really nice to have a bus to be assignable to either
>>a "master bus" or hardware, i could imagine that both is not
>>necessary.
>>Can you give me an idea when this is going to be considered,
>>because i have many customers i should tell.
>>thanks
>>walter
>>
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>Yep, we had to hold off on these.
>>>>
>>>>Q: In the sub buss scenario: Do you want a bus to be assignable
to
>>>>either a "master bus" or hardware or both simultaneously?
>>>>
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Walterius Till wrote:
>>>>>>Hi crying out for agree and to make SF doing!
>>>>>>1.
>>>>>>It is very important to set bus fx pre or post.
>>>>>>If you have it post as it now you cant move the fader
>>>>>>without taking affect on the fx in the bus.
>>>>>>2.
>>>>>>A Masterfader is necessary it is a must!
>>>>>>Since 1.0b you get distortion in rendering when you use the
>>>>>>busses like subgroups and set their levels to 0dB.
>>>>>>But you cannot move the faders to the right levels for
>>>>>>rendering, because that affects the bus fx (for ex: if you
>>>>>>have a limiter as busfx the fader adjusts only the input of
>>>>>>the limiter.
>>>>>>Please people agree and make SF doing a MASTERFADER!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(some told me to use the assignableFX as subgroups,
>>>>>>but then there is no function of the trackvolumefader(cause
>>>>>>you have to set the FX pre and "close" the volume) and
>>>>>>there is no chance to have any othe fx set post)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>thanks for everyone who supports this
>>>>>>god bless you walter