a good track needs of course a good mixdown...
yes you can add to each channel an eq-plugin, but that's not clearly enough
and bacome difficult if you use more than one plugin on a channel.
so i decided to add only effects like reverb/delay/chorus/flanger to the channels (but no eq),
save each channel into an single .wav-file und load-in this into "n-track" to mixdown (eq'ed) it...
modplug is cool, but if you want to mixdown a song you have to see all channels with
it's eq-settings on one screen....
how do you mixdown the songs?
i think with n-track it's a good way (but no the easiest way too).
check out this screenshot if you dont' know what i'm talkin about:
(http://www.harmony-central.com/Newp/2004/n-Track-Studio-40-lg.jpg)
Its not that hard to mix your track with modplug, really. I do it too. Only the end master is where I use an audio editor, to master the track itself.
You can have as many VST instance open for tweaking as your processor allows.
in summary it makes absolutly no fun to mixdown a song with modplug...
you have to load-in the same eq-plugin 16 times for a 16-channel-song
because every channel needs other eq-settings.
ok then you have to add the eq to every channel but if there is used
an effect on the channel you have to output the eq-plugin circular to the
other effect "below"...
a friend got an good idea:
1) you can select an eq-plugin of your choice
2) this eq-plugin is available on ALL channels (on each channel the same plugin, but different settings)
it makes no fun to produce a track when you can't easy change the eq for each channel
while composing a track i want to hear the track like he sounds in the end...
actually you have to produce your track and eq him later...
So your suggestion would be: chose a plugin and MPT would automatically create e.g. 32 instances and assign 1 to each channel? What about VSTis, would we add an instance after each of those too? and how would you control where the EQ gets added in existing chains of effects?
(btw mixdown, were you "poser" on the old forums? I ask because you are requesting the same things in the same way.)
Or... we can just add an internal mixer to modplug tracker?
yup just another tool which is only for mixing down modplug-tracks :-)
this don't have to be complex, just selecting the wav-files, add an eq und mix down it...
but this tool also should save the settings for a track for later use again.
Quote from: "Rakib"Or... we can just add an internal mixer to modplug tracker?
no we can't! :) someone requested this feature months ago but it was refused...
reason: every user likes an other eq-plugin so there can't be an internal mixer with an fixed eq-plugin in mpt
i like the idea of this... a build-in mixer... but the user should then decide WHICH eq-plugin he would use
I use OMPT as the basic tool to create a compo. I don't demand from modplug to make a detailed final mixdown.
There are other apps, multitrack mixers, that will do this job, with much more control.
I usually export a specific group of pattern-channels of the song, mainly stereo-pairs, (by muting the other channels) into a WAV-file. So a 12-channel module would give 6 stereo-tracks, which I load into a multitrack-session, to make the final mix.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"I don't demand from modplug to make a detailed final mixdown.
Very oldskool! You create a track and if he is complete you first hear how he really sounds when you equing it :-)
A modular plugin-manager is a must, also a build-in mixer... don't know where the problem for this is...
In all other music creating tools this is standard...
You guys could really benefit by checking out the mixer in FL Studio 5. They way it's designed you can use any plug in you want.
Quote from: "hematurge"You guys could really benefit by checking out the mixer in FL Studio 5. They way it's designed you can use any plug in you want.
But FL is a sequencer. This kind of mixer is designed for sequencers. MPT is not a sequencer but a tracker. Now, I'm not saying that it is not possible (although it probably requires to rewrite the entire infrastructure which is a tremendous task), but its not what a tracker is designed to do. Remember: a tracker used to be a music tool for small songs that can be distributed. With export capabilities and VST effect, this has been extended above amature levels, but we should be aware of the fact that large changes can change the program to beyond being a tracker and so versatile that it becomes unstable and slow etc...
However, Rewbs will have the final word about adding or not adding a feature. I'd rather have a stable program that doesn't crash and can run vst's than a program that can only run 1 vst because its so rich of features that cpu can't handle the rest.
Quote from: "xxxxx"Quote from: "Sam_Zen"I don't demand from modplug to make a detailed final mixdown.
Very oldskool! You create a track and if he is complete you first hear how he really sounds when you equing it :-)
A modular plugin-manager is a must, also a build-in mixer... don't know where the problem for this is...
In all other music creating tools this is standard...
"all" is a definition that speads too much programs to be even near true. The more popular programs where you must PAY for indeed have a build-in mixer per track, but they were build with another purpose in mind. A modular system is a to-do but is a tedious task, and far from possible at this stage.
Quote from: "mixdown"how do you mixdown the songs?
I use the Instrument Tree to Solo the instruments that I want to be together in a channel, and then Save the song as a WAV file named for the instruments. For example:
Instruments "Violins, Violins Pizzicato, Violins Warm" may be solo-ed in the Instrument tree and then saved as "Violins.wav".
Once I have all of the files that I need, I can load it into WaveLab, Cool Edit Pro, N-Track, or whatever multi-track editor to do the mixdown.
MPT should be treated more like an instrument itself and less like a production studio, IMHO. The sound that comes out of an instrument is rarely what you actually hear on a final track that has been mixed and mastered, so MPT's output should be treated no differently.
The "problem" with adding such a mixer is i.m.o. that sample based and plugin based instruments are so integrated. But sample based instruments gets mixed depending on what channel they're played in, while plugin based instruments are mixed on a per instrument basis. the best solution I can come up with would be removing the channels, not in the editor obviously, but nothing would be channel specific. That's quite a big change, and perhaps it would be better to start from scratch. OpenMPT2 anyone?
Quote from: "xxxxx"Very oldskool!
Might be. I started with this in the early 70's with analog synths and later tracking with FastTracker on a Dos-machine. So . .
But this is not a matter of being traditional or so. I just learned from the reality that different functions in the process can be performed the best if they are separate, dedicated, hardware or software.
I don't like apps that claim to do anything.
An editor can have a final mixing routine to make it a stereo output, ok, nice to have a monitor.
But "hear how he really sounds when you equing it" ? Not in my case. The final sounds are defined already.
The following step of a channel-mixdown is used to "finetune" the song. It's the production-stage.
For example setting positions in the final panorama, 2C, 4C or multichannel.
Quote from: "LPChip"Remember: a tracker used to be a music tool for small songs that can be distributed.
A basic reference imho
Quote from: "MisterX"MPT should be treated more like an instrument itself and less like a production studio
A nice expression to support my point.
Quote from: "speed-goddamn-focus"would be removing the channels, not in the editor obviously, but nothing would be channel specific
I tend to be against such type of change. The channels are a very specific property of a tracker, with its own options.
Quote from: "LPChip"Quote from: "hematurge"You guys could really benefit by checking out the mixer in FL Studio 5. They way it's designed you can use any plug in you want.
But FL is a sequencer. This kind of mixer is designed for sequencers. MPT is not a sequencer but a tracker. Now, I'm not saying that it is not possible (although it probably requires to rewrite the entire infrastructure which is a tremendous task), but its not what a tracker is designed to do. Remember: a tracker used to be a music tool for small songs that can be distributed. With export capabilities and VST effect, this has been extended above amature levels, but we should be aware of the fact that large changes can change the program to beyond being a tracker and so versatile that it becomes unstable and slow etc...
However, Rewbs will have the final word about adding or not adding a feature. I'd rather have a stable program that doesn't crash and can run vst's than a program that can only run 1 vst because its so rich of features that cpu can't handle the rest.
OK ok ok. I should have been more specific. I only meant that the OMPT general tab could be reconfigured to be more mixer like in appearance. The functions wouldnt need to be changed. All I'm goin for is an easier way to manage VST effects, the main list could be done away with in favor of a plugin section for each channel. It would drastically cut down confusion (althought the modular interface could do this as well). The VSTI's should have a section all to themselves to, once again cut down confusion. I'll take a OMPT screenshot and rearrange it in photoshop to better illustrate what I mean.
Quote from: "hematurge"Quote from: "LPChip"Quote from: "hematurge"You guys could really benefit by checking out the mixer in FL Studio 5. They way it's designed you can use any plug in you want.
But FL is a sequencer. This kind of mixer is designed for sequencers. MPT is not a sequencer but a tracker. Now, I'm not saying that it is not possible (although it probably requires to rewrite the entire infrastructure which is a tremendous task), but its not what a tracker is designed to do. Remember: a tracker used to be a music tool for small songs that can be distributed. With export capabilities and VST effect, this has been extended above amature levels, but we should be aware of the fact that large changes can change the program to beyond being a tracker and so versatile that it becomes unstable and slow etc...
However, Rewbs will have the final word about adding or not adding a feature. I'd rather have a stable program that doesn't crash and can run vst's than a program that can only run 1 vst because its so rich of features that cpu can't handle the rest.
OK ok ok. I should have been more specific. I only meant that the OMPT general tab could be reconfigured to be more mixer like in appearance. The functions wouldnt need to be changed. All I'm goin for is an easier way to manage VST effects, the main list could be done away with in favor of a plugin section for each channel. It would drastically cut down confusion (althought the modular interface could do this as well). The VSTI's should have a section all to themselves to, once again cut down confusion. I'll take a OMPT screenshot and rearrange it in photoshop to better illustrate what I mean.
Can you perhaps create an image (perhaps, use office's VBA to design it, and make a screenshot of that) that shows how you'd like to see these controls? That way we all can see what you mean. Rewbs can then decide if the change is worth all the trouble. We do want a better tool, so if this new design does the job, then why not? (in your example, if used VBA, note that it doesn't have to work. Its about the layout right?)
Sorry I don't have MS Office and don't know anything about VBA. This is a photoshopped screenshot. Alright, the single section for effects was taken out and replaced with a dedicated effects section for each channel. The VSTI's I think would be best if handled solely in the Plugin section on the instrument page. These changes would IMO help with mixing and to keep track of effects routing, it'd just go from top to bottom in each channel. I do understand that there's a huge difference between programming and editting a screenshot in PS. This whole thing just a suggestion, OMPT is a great program as is. I hope this makes my vision a little clearer.
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d112/hematurge/omptmixer.jpg)
maybe an external mix-tools for especially modplug would be great
Quoteto keep track of effects routing, it'd just go from top to bottom in each channel.
Hematurge, I don't dislike your GUI suggestion, but I'm strongly against this effect routing paradigm. I don't see why effect chains should ever be restricted in that way. IMFO effect plugins loaded in the track should be available to any channel, instrument, or other plugin output. I'd like to keep routing as flexible as possible. I plan to remove the current routing limitations in OpenMPT + improve the routing GUI, but certainly not add any new limitations...
If you want such a paradigm, I suggest assigning an instance of Xlutop Chainer (a VST plugin+host that provides the linear routing model you describe) to each channel. For even more flexibility I recommend using EnergyXT (a modular VST plugin+host.. insanely cool piece of software).
Quote from: "rewbs"Quoteto keep track of effects routing, it'd just go from top to bottom in each channel.
Hematurge, I don't dislike your GUI suggestion, but I'm strongly against this effect routing paradigm. I don't see why effect chains should ever be restricted in that way. IMFO effect plugins loaded in the track should be available to any channel, instrument, or other plugin output. I'd like to keep routing as flexible as possible. I plan to remove the current routing limitations in OpenMPT + improve the routing GUI, but certainly not add any new limitations...
If you want such a paradigm, I suggest assigning an instance of Xlutop Chainer (a VST plugin+host that provides the linear routing model you describe) to each channel. For even more flexibility I recommend using EnergyXT (a modular VST plugin+host.. insanely cool piece of software).
Rewbs, what if the list assigned to channels is the same everywhere? So instead of having one list as we have now, having the same list on every channel? But I guess its more versatile to leave it as we have it now then...
I'll check out Xlutop sounds like it could be the answer to my woes. Energy XT is quite cool i agree, but it takes too much cpu when using it inside another host. I do thank you for taking my idea into consideration and I can understand your (Rewbs) not wanting limit the routing in such a way. If you guys do manage to get a modular interface added to OMPT all the routing problems will be gone. So, if Xlutop works like I think it will I'll be ok until the modular interface is available. OMPT still kicks ass regardless.
EDIT: Looks like Xlutop is out, can't afford it. BUT the vst effects version of Energy XT seems to be exactly what I need. The demo version doesn't seem to have anything that cripples any of the functions I need. I tried it before but that was the standalone version and I guess I never noticed the other versions. SO looks like all is well and thanks for pointing me at Energy XT.
we just need something like that:
(http://www.berotracker.de/portal/screenshots.php?action=getshot&img=modulareditor.png)
all other solutions are a) outdated b) difficult and c) complex
note that the tracker-communty don't grow, rather than the opposite!
so don't hold on on old features because "they were always like this"
please go ahead with the development of this modular plugin feature and
don't waste time with other needless stuff just for a fringe group.
i'm sure that this feature will enhance modplug extremly,
for me as musician it's more freedom to compose that
what i really want in a fast way.
Quote from: "m"please go ahead with the development of this modular plugin feature and
don't waste time with other needless stuff just for a fringe group.
1. There's nothing in that screenshot that isn't already possible.
2. I strongly disagree that the buzz-style plugin routing system is the only solution. From my experience that type of system tends to get cluttered very easliy. I would much prefer an FL Studio style mixer.
3. What time do you think have been wasted with "needless stuff for a fringe group"? That is, what new features do you think have been a waste of time?
4. In my opinion what OpenMPT needs the most right now is a new file format to allow for future improvements.