[thcilnnahoj]

Set aside that some users probably would still prefer a global database as opposed to the device mappings stored per project, I guess most of us view the way that plug-ins are handled in Podium as very good – I’m talking about the deep end of customization that goes beyond reordering and renaming plug-ins.
However familiar as it might feel to experienced users, though, I believe we’d only be kidding ourselves if we think it would come as natural to first-time users, or generally anyone “just wanting to make music.”

I create this thread with the intent to gather ideas to simplify as many things as possible, surrounding device mappings.

I’ll start with something hopefully simple to achieve:

>> To make working with busses easier…

… we could have an extra menu entry like or on top (or at the bottom) of the list.

This command would create a new bus instance and assign either the resulting (stereo) send or return mapping to the track. I assume it’s not a problem for Podium to find out which mapping fits.
The command would show up everywhere Podium detects a bus mapping, so it would not be limited to the default Busses folder created automatically.

>> About side-chain mappings

Everyone should know how Podium handles side-chaining plug-ins. (Please correct me if I’m wrong here!)
There are usually two mappings created from a multi-input-enabled VST:
– one which is input- and output-enabled
– one which is input-enabled only (side-in)

There may be plug-ins that allow more than one (stereo) input, but I believe this is the most common setup.

Now, each of these mapping pairs can naturally only be used once per arrangement. If you try to use them a second time, it won’t work, and there’s a warning displayed on the effect slot.
Since you are not dealing with the concept of device mappings at an equally deep level in pretty much every other sequencer, I believe it is not obvious at all how to be able to use side-chains on multiple tracks in Podium for someone new to it. Looking it up in the Guide and figuring out you have to create a “new instance” first is probably easy enough, but is it necessary?

…Actually, while writing this I came up with something: since Podium detects that, when you assign a side-chain mapping somewhere, it already is active on another track, it probably could pop up a dialog explaining the situation and asking if there should be a new instance created instead. The problem with this is that, after it created the new instance, Podium can’t know which of the mappings the user wanted to assign in the first place, or can it? :-k
Also, this may be a solution to the problem of creating new SC’s, but then, there’s still manual cleanup to do afterwards. If you decide to remove an SC mapping pair from the arrangement, and later on want to apply side-chaining again somewhere, I think it shouldn’t be the users’s responsibility to remember if any of the mappings are unused at the moment or whether s/he should create a new instance. 😉

So, anyone have a better idea that would speed it up or simplify the side-chain mapping stuff?

Any other wishes, ideas, gripes with the device mapping system – please post!

[LiquidProj3ct]

I generally agree with those ideas. However i’m pretty busy now, it’s my birthday 🙂 so i’ll post my ideas later, everyone here know them, although

[LiquidProj3ct]

@thcilnnahoj wrote:

>> To make working with busses easier…

… we could have an extra menu entry like or on top (or at the bottom) of the list.

This command would create a new bus instance and assign either the resulting (stereo) send or return mapping to the track. I assume it’s not a problem for Podium to find out which mapping fits.
The command would show up everywhere Podium detects a bus mapping, so it would not be limited to the default Busses folder created automatically.

I didn’t understand very well, because I see the current way very good: If you add any send X and there isn’t any return X, podium ask if you want to create one, it renames and tags it and set it to “automatic solo”. What would be the advantage?

@thcilnnahoj wrote:

>> About side-chain mappings

Everyone should know how Podium handles side-chaining plug-ins. (Please correct me if I’m wrong here!)
There are usually two mappings created from a multi-input-enabled VST:
– one which is input- and output-enabled
– one which is input-enabled only (side-in)

Yes, and you cannto figure how do this without seeing a tutorial or reading the manual. To be honest I don’t think that problem is “sidechain”. The problem are multiple inputs and/or multiple outputs plugins. It’s difficult and tedious use them in Podium for a newbie.

I wouldn’t know how to approach this, but something like that each mixer strip would had a channel settings (1-16), and an special mini zPlugin that would send the audio between channels. Or a matrix screen where you configure each mixer strip channel (or convert it to another channel). Or something like zRoute FR.

This would be a big change… :-k

[thcilnnahoj]

@LiquidProj3ct wrote:

I generally agree with those ideas. However i’m pretty busy now, it’s my birthday 🙂 so i’ll post my ideas later, everyone here know them, although

Hey! Happy birthday! Hope you got some nice presents. 😉

@LiquidProj3ct wrote:

@thcilnnahoj wrote:

>> To make working with busses easier…

… we could have an extra menu entry like or on top (or at the bottom) of the list.

This command would create a new bus instance and assign either the resulting (stereo) send or return mapping to the track. I assume it’s not a problem for Podium to find out which mapping fits.
The command would show up everywhere Podium detects a bus mapping, so it would not be limited to the default Busses folder created automatically.

I didn’t understand very well, because I see the current way very good: If you add any send X and there isn’t any return X, podium ask if you want to create one, it renames and tags it and set it to “automatic solo”. What would be the advantage?

Yes, that works fine… I was talking about creating the actual send/return device mappings that you put on tracks.

The number of sends is limited in most other sequencers, so everything is taken care of by the program (though limiting). To get 8 sends in Podium you have to first create the devices yourself.
The way Podium handles these things won’t be changed very likely, and it doesn’t have to. Some of the low level operations you have to do could, however, probably be defused, like track management has been. The commands to create new busses are a little hidden away, and new users are unlikely to find them when they’re right in the middle of mixing and need a fifth bus. Sure, it’s not hard to do, maybe part of the learning curve, but probably a little steep one.

So this could be made easier if there was a command above/below the bus mappings in the effect selection menu that created a new bus instance automatically. This is a simplistic solution – maybe there’s a better one altogether?
One problem with this is, because it’s so customizable, some users might have their bus mappings arranged differently in the device mapping structure. I.e., there might not be a Busses folder, or multiple folders containing bus mappings. The proposed command would have to be aware of that…

[thcilnnahoj]

@LiquidProj3ct wrote:

Yes, and you cannto figure how do this without seeing a tutorial or reading the manual. To be honest I don’t think that problem is “sidechain”. The problem are multiple inputs and/or multiple outputs plugins. It’s difficult and tedious use them in Podium for a newbie.

I wouldn’t know how to approach this, but something like that each mixer strip would had a channel settings (1-16), and an special mini zPlugin that would send the audio between channels. Or a matrix screen where you configure each mixer strip channel (or convert it to another channel). Or something like zRoute FR.

This would be a big change… :-k

Hmm, I think the way multi-out plug-ins are set up is one of the best in any host, especially since you can drag the whole folder with mappings inside onto the tracklist). One instance of a drum sample is often enough, but not so with side-chains…
It becomes a little more tedious as in other hosts when you need a second instance (and may not know how to create one)!

I’m currently “researching” other hosts’ different ways of modular routing and signal flow display (you know I was kind of against it before :wink:), so that’s a discussion I’ll enter later on.

[LiquidProj3ct]

@thcilnnahoj wrote:

@LiquidProj3ct wrote:

I generally agree with those ideas. However i’m pretty busy now, it’s my birthday 🙂 so i’ll post my ideas later, everyone here know them, although

Hey! Happy birthday! Hope you got some nice presents. 😉

Thanks 🙂

@thcilnnahoj wrote:

The number of sends is limited in most other sequencers, so everything is taken care of by the program (though limiting). To get 8 sends in Podium you have to first create the devices yourself.
The way Podium handles these things won’t be changed very likely, and it doesn’t have to. Some of the low level operations you have to do could, however, probably be defused, like track management has been. The commands to create new busses are a little hidden away, and new users are unlikely to find them when they’re right in the middle of mixing and need a fifth bus. Sure, it’s not hard to do, maybe part of the learning curve, but probably a little steep one.

I understand you now. I never need more that 2 or 3 busses, that’s the reason I never asked myself how to create a new bus. And yes, it’s a good idea.

Hmm, I think the way multi-out plug-ins are set up is one of the best in any host, especially since you can drag the whole folder with mappings inside onto the tracklist). One instance of a drum sample is often enough, but not so with side-chains…
It becomes a little more tedious as in other hosts when you need a second instance (and may not know how to create one)!

It isn’t bad, but I saw better ways to manage that. One of problems I frecuently have is that, as I cannot hide individual mixer/track strips, I prefer to use the version of the plugin that has one input and one output because it doesn’t clutter the screen with unuseful tracks. But later, some times, I realize that I need an extra input or output, and I have to mangle all the track, saving/loading plugin presets… etc. Other host as Orion are pretty cool with multioutputs plugins, you can change all the times you need the number of outputs (which create in the mixer automatically new strips). However it doesn’t support multi input plugins. Other host nice for this is EnergyXT, with multiple inputs and multiple outputs plugins. MuLAB have too a modular enviroment, but it seems to cluttered when you compare it with EnergyXT.

I’m currently “researching” other hosts’ different ways of modular routing and signal flow display (you know I was kind of against it before 😉 ), so that’s a discussion I’ll enter later on.

yes, I remember that :). I think, personal opinion, that the best modular enviroment is EXT 🙂

[Zynewave]

@LiquidProj3ct wrote:

I generally agree with those ideas. However i’m pretty busy now, it’s my birthday 🙂 so i’ll post my ideas later, everyone here know them, although

Happy birthday! I have just uploaded the 2.32 release, so you could consider that a birthday present :clown:

[LiquidProj3ct]

Thanks Frits for your present:

Lowered the minimum size of note events when resized by mouse dragging. The minimum size is now a 1/256 note instead of the current grid value.

It will help a lot! 😀