View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001087 | ardour | features | public | 2005-09-15 18:38 | 2008-11-21 20:53 |
| Reporter | FishB8 | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Summary | 0001087: number of send outputs needs to be tied to number of channels | ||||
| Description | This is about the Send interface within the Pre or Post-fader Redirects panels or the Track/Bus Inspector. 1) Why is there the option to add or remove outputs? It really makes no sense and presents some useability issues. If the number of outputs is abstracted from the number of channels in the track we are sending from, how do we know which output each channel is sending to? If I have a send from a stereo track with one output, which channel is sent to that output? How do I change that? Currently is such a situation, the first channel is sent to the output. When I then add an output to the send, the second channel is sent to the new output. But then I decide I don't like that setup and remove the new output. Now it turns out _both_ channels are sent to the one output. Now we not only have the issue of not being able to control which channel goes to which output, but we also have an inconsistancy in how the channels are mapped by ardour to the outputs when the number of channels != the number of outputs. The number of outputs should be directly tied to the number channels in the track in the same manner they appear to be for the inserts. There really is nothing to be gained by abstracting the outputs from number of channels. 2) Why is there a minature channel strip in the send interface? It really doesn't offer anything and takes up space. If the user really needs to change the gain level, panning or get a meter reading for the send, then the user can route the send through a dedicated bus and then route the bus to the intended destination. That would provide the same functionality plus other functionality that a bus offers, like automation or grouping. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
Just thought I'd add my two cents... 1) I have an outboard reverb processor with mono in, stereo out, so being able to get a mono send from a stereo track makes sense to me. Flexibility is useful :) 2) having a fader for the send is what I'd expect; this is what's found on analogue consoles. Typical setup would be to have a reverb send on all channels requiring reverb, route all of them to the input of a mono bus then feed the output of that to the soundcard output connected to the reverb. The send interface fader then controls the level of reverb for each channel on the sends themselves, the bus fader controlling the master send level going to the reverb processor. |
|
|
As Kat mentioned both of those have uses to other folks as well. Closing the issue as it has been without comment for such a long period of time. Seablade |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-09-15 18:38 | FishB8 | New Issue | |
| 2005-12-13 13:10 | Kat Manton | Note Added: 0002415 | |
| 2008-11-21 20:53 | seablade | cost | => 0.00 |
| 2008-11-21 20:53 | seablade | Status | new => closed |
| 2008-11-21 20:53 | seablade | Note Added: 0005275 | |
| 2008-11-21 20:53 | seablade | Resolution | open => fixed |
