Topic: Faders

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • April 15, 2011 at 01:33 #2568
    Lion
    Participant

    Is it possible to link faders together?

    And if not, I’d LOVE this.

    Maybe with link range and inverted links.

    April 17, 2011 at 10:25 #20601
    Levendis
    Participant

    Great suggestion Lion!

    I often wish there were inverted links between a track’s fader and a send’s return level. This would then act as a dry/wet mix control.

    That said, I prefer having two automation clips plainly visible on tracks rather than an unseen link working in the background.

    What a conundrum!

    April 20, 2011 at 18:01 #20605
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    When I add support for multi-selection of tracks, it should be easy to add a link fader feature. Supporting configuration of limited ranges and inverse action is more complicated, so I doubt I’ll implement that in the first round.

    May 2, 2011 at 00:06 #20640
    druid
    Participant

    I’d like that if it allowed linking two VST knobs together as well, rather than be fixed just to the Podium UI. Have to admit I wouldn’t use it a whole lot, but it could be good for needing to automate the same controls on some setups, like filters on layered synths, or in one setup that I have where I split the left and right signal of a synth guitar to go to separate distortion VSTs (both of which are the same plugin), if I automate a knob on one I may want to on another the very same (such as level!).

    Naturally, in that case, I could clone one automation clip down to the other lane, and therefore change one and affect the other, but that takes extra vertical space.

    May 2, 2011 at 20:13 #20644
    Pulse
    Participant

    While I can see the positive sides of linking faders, it is somewhat not so important. Maybe it is for other hosts that don’t have the so called “folder tracks”.
    Yet with Podium one could assign the tracks to a Parent Group Track, and from there on control their Volume, Pan etc. values and automate them respectively.

    As for the inverted linking, I prefer the automation route. And yes druid, it will inevitably cause visual clutter. It is exactly this matter that I have thoroughly examined in one of my previous posts, i.e. Automation feature requests.

    It would be quite a bit cleaner and tidier if we could put the automation lanes on top of the track, no matter how many, and when needed choosing from a list which one to show, as well as be able to work with the MIDI notes and the aut. lines simultaneously, without one disabling the other.

    Peace

    CC

    May 5, 2011 at 00:57 #20662
    druid
    Participant

    Er, what I meant was that you could have one automation track that controls multiple controls, saving clutter by avoiding multiple unnecessary automation lanes but still keeping automation separate from the midi/audio data.

    I actually prefer it the way it is, so I hadn’t really given any thought to placing automation on top of midi/audio.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.