.Yes, as already said, all this terms problem is not easy to solve…
Thank you for changing the plugins labels send / return with input / output.
I can be wrong, but I really think that this will avoid some confusion from users and has the merit to be coherent with what we see all over.
But it also means that mappings for external hardware devices will show “MIDI input” followed by the name of the connected MIDI output interface, and “MIDI output” followed by the name of the connected MIDI input interface. When someone someday posts that they find this confusing, I’ll just link to this topic then Wink
So I am ready to receive a lot of complaints !
But honestly, I don’t think that it would be necessary to change this, because the physical inputs / outputs are considered as direct extensions of the softwares.
I have never seen in any audio software a place or a term to “send the output of the software to the internal input of the PCI bus which sends the signal to the physical output” !
What you are writing is something like this.
Even if it is true in the computer, and logical if we follow the path of the bits, it is not relevant for the user.
For him, and for all audio/video softwares UI, the output of the software IS equivalent to the output of the physical interface.
When we select the output of the master bus this also means the external output of the sound card, we don’t want to worried about how it receive the signal from the software.
There is no need to make the things more complicated !
I think that we all are ready to accept this shortcut and have the MIDI Input of the interface being also the MIDI Input of a track…
So, for a Physical Device mapping, a physical Input would have a “to track” option, and a physical Output a “from track” ?
And how about mixer bus mappings: Would you want a mixer send mapping to be labeled input or output? Or should it still use the current send/return labels?
If it is a mater of context, since the bus send / return are relative to a track or to a mixer, it seems logical to keep the current terms, which are also conform to the standard use : the signal is sent from a track and returns to another track.
For the mappings it is more complicate, becaus we see at the same time the plugins and the hierarchic structure.
What makes it even more difficult is that the same kind of mappings is also used for the physical inputs / outputs which are “outside” the tracks instead of “inside” like a plugin.
So you are right, trying to make the same terms used in both situation can make it strange.
What I liked about the send/return labels was that they could fit all types of device mappings.
I remember that I have made some time ago a suggestion for having different namings in the maping dialog depending if it is a plugin or a soundcard. Device mappings AND Plugins mappings ?
If from the point of view of the engine it is the same thing, from the point of view of a user this is really to different things ?
Of course, it is less elegant than having an identical mapping for all the cases, but perhaps that the programing logic is less important than the users logic ?
What if the mappings will be labelled “from track” and “to parent” in the case of a plugin ?
So logically the “input” of a plugin is the track, and its “output” is the parent track.
For a Device mapping, it could be “from track” and “to device” for an output, and “from device” and “to track” for an input ?
???
I hope that you will not be offended by my remarks ?
I just try to help because I whish that Podium could be as much as easy to use as it is powerful…
Perhaps also that I have missed something and that my suggestions are only silly ? 😆
Thanks for your patience !
