how do you mixdown tracks created with modplug?

[Sam_Zen]

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.

Remember: a tracker used to be a music tool for small songs that can be distributed.

A basic reference imho

MPT should be treated more like an instrument itself and less like a production studio

A nice expression to support my point.

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.

[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.

[LPChip]

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?)

[hematurge]

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.

[santa]

maybe an external mix-tools for especially modplug would be great

[rewbs]

to 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).

[LPChip]

to 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...

[hematurge]

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.

[m]

we just need something like that:



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.

[speed-goddamn-focus]

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.