You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → TotalMix FX → TMFX UI/UX Problems: Channel Alignment + Dual Mono Stereo Control
Because the main 1/2 channel is located separately from the rest of the channels, it creates an offset in the alignment which... is just really silly from a UI perspective. I can't be the only one to complain about this.
Very annoying, I will never get used to that. It's a total headache for your eyes and brain to deal with that when you're in the middle of a session.
Please align channels
What are you talking about?
We're using different interfaces, and perhaps you are using different outputs for your mains. I have the AOX-D (Dante) which I am going to expand into so it doesn't make sense to have the mains on the last output.
proposed solutions (Maybe this will be in tmfx2?)
The only thing, maybe it is in the manual, but is quick linking channel faders.
I'm coming from Lynx mixer in which they had ctrl/alt/shift mouse click modifiers to either
a.) quick link a fader to the one to its immediate right (for stereo control)
b.) or link all faders
This was just for the duration of the modifer+mouse-click+hold, as soon as user releases mouse click, link is no longer active.
It was very fast and effecient. Even linked/inverted link panners like this.
The only way I can figure out how to do this so far in tmfx, is shift click selecting faders. It's a lot more cumbersome.
The Lynx way is great for those who prefer to have a base structure of mono channels, even when doing stereo output from the DAW, which I do.
I'll take a look in the manual unless someone cares to respond sooner than I can read...
The right-hand side of the bottom row is reserved for the TM FX control room section.
You don’t need to assign channels to the control room, but it’s useful to assign the monitoring outputs so you can access functions like Dim or Mono. It’s also very practical to use "Speaker B" for switching between "Main Out" and "Main Out B" for quick comparisons.
The interface volume control (if present) or ARC USB always controls "Main Out".
So I think it makes perfect sense to have this channel clearly visible in the control room on the right side.
Having control room channels (Main Out, Main Out B, Phones1 .. Phones4) hidden among numerous other outputs is,
in my opinion, counterproductive and reduces clarity / the overview.
The right-hand side of the bottom row is reserved for the TM FX control room section.
You don’t need to assign channels to the control room, but it’s useful to assign the monitoring outputs so you can access functions like Dim or Mono. It’s also very practical to use "Speaker B" for switching between "Main Out" and "Main Out B" for quick comparisons.
The interface volume control (if present) or ARC USB always controls "Main Out".
So I think it makes perfect sense to have this channel clearly visible in the control room on the right side.Having control room channels (Main Out, Main Out B, Phones1 .. Phones4) hidden among numerous other outputs is,
in my opinion, counterproductive and reduces clarity / the overview.
My contention wasn't against MainOut/Control room being on the right, it's that assigning it to 1/2 creates an offset in the rest of the channels.
I figured out how to get the top 2 tows aligned but can't the 3rd bottom row.
it goes
123456...
123456...
345678...(1/2 assigned to main/control room)
As soon as you e.g. assign some channels as mono and some as stereo, you get offsets, there's no way to compensate for everything. Also, if channels are named, the numbers are no longer so relevant.
And in new version of TM one can colorcode individual channels...
My contention wasn't against MainOut/Control room being on the right,
it's that assigning it to 1/2 creates an offset in the rest of the channels.
[..]it goes
123456...
123456...
345678...(1/2 assigned to main/control room)
Yes and I thought it was clear that my explanation is on exactly that point,
that the channels are being moved into the control room section.
Makes no sense to me to have them twice.
A fix order makes only sense to me on e.g. analog consoles where the ports are physically grouped and have a fixed role.
Either input, bus or main out.
But with digital interfaces with the flexibility of TM FX each HW output has the potential to become Main Out and Main Out B, ... in other words a control room output. Makes no sense to me to have them twice in the bottom row.
See also the comment above for the possibility to color channels if this gives you better overview.
And one may decide to remove not used channels from interface at all.... So, RME philosophy is to allow user to remove what is not needed to save the space and make screen tidier....
But still, it might be doable to show empty space (or duplicated control room faders) as configurable feature of TM.
I am not sure how well would work the feature to temporarily group two faders as it is not only about keyboard and mouse, but also MIDI, Mackie and OSC....
What if you allowed users to insert blank panels anywhere they want. And or, the option to show stereo channels as dual mono.
I think I'm going to opt to use all mono channels even in stereo instances... I'm just not sure if tmfx has the same on the fly quick linking controls that the Lynx Mixer had.
Here is a animated gif from my Windows 7 machine with the Lynx mixer still on it:
https://i.imgur.com/vCWyUkX.gif
You can see they have a stereo link/unlink button, and you can see me using various ctrl/alt/shift modifiers to manipulate mono channels in stereo fashion.
Sorry, but I wonder for what purpose. I do not understand the benefit / your use case for that.
I have a quite complex setup, but never had a demand for that.
Sorry, but I wonder for what purpose. I do not understand the benefit / your use case for that.
I have a quite complex setup, but never had a demand for that.
Pertaining to which part of my post?
Why it is bad for you, that the channels that move into the control room are only there and lead to a gap
in the HW outputs (bottom row). I do not see this gap as critical or disturbing. Why is it disturbing you?
This is no criticism against you, I simply want to understand your point.
A combination of OCD and just very particular/critical of UI/UX design... Just the art of getting things just right - whether it be mixing, or studio cable management - cutting custom lengths with just enough slack, etc, etc.
Having to keep track of things diagonally rather than inline, just doesn't really correlate with the symmetry of analog/studio equipment design... topologically it doesn't have the appearance of making sense.
And then also, if doing any sort of pass through routing (input to output), once all the meters are lit up with signal - that is just catastrophically confusing/annoying imo... ie, having to read channel names instead of just being able to understand a straight line top to bottom is the signal.
I understand, it's not a problem for many peoples setups or how they work/utilize tmfx..... But I don't think it would hurt to have options for people to clean this up.... I'm not asking for a paradigm change where everyone gets pissed at me for convincing RME to change something they didn't want changed.
I think this is also tidier for Dante/MADI users that are working with huge channel counts... We've already surrendered to the fact we aren't going to be able to fit everything on a screen (obviously).... and so things could get really messy once you have 100 channels.... and everything is all over the place.
Basically this is what I'm asking for
1.) Option to display stereo channels as dual mono with link/unlink ability. (if you look at the Lynx Mixer, everything is organized into stereo blocks regardless of whether mono or stereo)
2.) Ctrl/Alt/Shift+Click-Hold modifiers for quick linking faders/panners
3.) Ability to add blank panels to account for offsets.
4.) Option to correct channel FX/Option expanded offsets by shifting all rows (blank space or vertical link) to be in line with each other (ie, if you open one channels options, the entire column across all three rows open for that channel# as well)
On #4, think of it as vertical link. Hitting the channel options icon opens up that entire column of channels (which could have uses). It actually sort of makes sense, because if someone for example is minimizing a channels width to save space, they probably want that for all the rows of that channel.
And also being able to click the wrench/gear icon to see the entire topology for a channel number for in/play/out also has its work efficiency uses. see video:
https://imgur.com/vZBmdtF
Is it really that odd what I'm asking for? 
- it makes it more like an actual inline analog console.
*edit*
I'll add one more FR, and that is in channel minimized view... to have a horizontal line fader over the VU that can be grabbed. And maybe a panner line somewhere to follow suit.
*edit*2
Having just rewatched my own video... I didn't even get the channel minimization link demo right because it got some confusing in the process. See what I'm saying? or no?
4.) Option to correct channel FX/Option expanded offsets by shifting all rows (blank space or vertical link) to be in line with each other (ie, if you open one channels options, the entire column across all three rows open for that channel# as well)
On #4, think of it as vertical link. Hitting the channel options icon opens up that entire column of channels (which could have uses). It actually sort of makes sense, because if someone for example is minimizing a channels width to save space, they probably want that for all the rows of that channel.
IMHO, you miss the basic concept of TM. There is no vertical relation of hardware inputs and hardware outputs. Each HW output is submix of possibly all inputs (and SW playbacks). The relations of input are one to many. And relations of outputs are also one to many.
I wonder what should happen if I make In 3/4 minimized (I do not use it)? If I understand well you correctly, also Playback Out 3/4 should be minimized and Out 3/4 shoutl be minimized....
But I use Out 3/4 and do not want it to be minimized....
Simply, there is not 1:1 relation between inputs, playbacks and outputs.
EDIT.
But still, it would probably do no harm to implement your idea to add empty spaces for output channels that are moved to Control Room. And present even stereo channels as two mono ones. The both as configurable user option.
Good point, Kubrak; it could indeed be the case that there is this basic misunderstanding.
In addition to what you told:
Every HW output in the bottom row of TotalMix FX has its own submix.
The easiest way to see this is in the Mixer View in "Submix Mode".
To check whether submix mode is enabled, check the blue area in the upper right corner of the TM FX window.
Now press the small “Sub” button at the right side under Layout Presets.
If this menu is collapsed, then open it.
With the mouse you can click the button “sub” (a toggle).
When activated, then you see only the input (top row) and software playback (middle row) channels
that feed into the currently selected submix.
Now, step through the HW outputs in the bottom row one by one.
For each selection, you might have a different number of channels that feed into the selected HW output.
According to fader positions in the top and middle rows, you see not only the routing
but also the signal level that is sent to the selected HW Output (aka “submix”; BTW hence the name “submix mode”).
At the bottom of each fader, you’ll also see the name of the HW output currently selected—a clear indicator of which submix you’re looking at in “submix mode".
resonantmindrecording wrote:4.) Option to correct channel FX/Option expanded offsets by shifting all rows (blank space or vertical link) to be in line with each other (ie, if you open one channels options, the entire column across all three rows open for that channel# as well)
On #4, think of it as vertical link. Hitting the channel options icon opens up that entire column of channels (which could have uses). It actually sort of makes sense, because if someone for example is minimizing a channels width to save space, they probably want that for all the rows of that channel.
IMHO, you miss the basic concept of TM. There is no vertical relation of hardware inputs and hardware outputs. Each HW output is submix of possibly all inputs (and SW playbacks). The relations of input are one to many. And relations of outputs are also one to many.
I wonder what should happen if I make In 3/4 minimized (I do not use it)? If I understand well you correctly, also Playback Out 3/4 should be minimized and Out 3/4 shoutl be minimized....
But I use Out 3/4 and do not want it to be minimized....
Simply, there is not 1:1 relation between inputs, playbacks and outputs.
EDIT.
But still, it would probably do no harm to implement your idea to add empty spaces for output channels that are moved to Control Room. And present even stereo channels as two mono ones. The both as configurable user option.
Actually the Lynx Mixer I've been using for the past 15 years or so operates on the exact same concept and submix functionality, the only difference is, the Lynx mixer is static so everything stays aligned.
The relation of the inputs and outputs, are of coarse dependent on how the users use them and everyone has a different way of doing things.
But my point has to less with the actual signal topology, and more to do with visual logical/sensical topology.
When I am running a session, at some point, I have the instrument per channel setup in my head. If I need to route input 8 to output 16, I still need to find both those channels, and they will be easier to find in a static aligned structure like an actual console. And in that regard, Lynx or TMFX are no different than a console... You have your input, you have your DAW send/return, you have your output.
I wonder what should happen if I make In 3/4 minimized (I do not use it)? If I understand well you correctly, also Playback Out 3/4 should be minimized and Out 3/4 shoutl be minimized....
But I use Out 3/4 and do not want it to be minimized....
Simply, there is not 1:1 relation between inputs, playbacks and outputs.
There isn't really a reason to go into these specific conundrums because I am suggesting this as an option. But also, there can be mouse click modifiers for ignoring/breaking the vertical link for individual channel modules.
There can be a 1:1 relation - it depends on the users setup and how they are using RME hardware/TMFX.
And certainly, there could be instances where channel 8 in, needs to go to channel 8 out... So I'm not sure how you can say with absolute certainty that there are zero use cases in the world where people are using straight through setups.
Often people are adverse to change, but I can guarantee 90% of people would prefer the way I'm suggesting after a few days of use and never realized what they were missing. I'm very surprised it is designed this way as the base structure - it makes sense for screen real estate maximization maybe - but absolutely not for studio signal flow topology and fast UI workflow. The colour coding in 2.0 will help a bit... but imo, not enough. It will just look silly having blocks of colour offset all over the place.
Vertical Link, Empty panels, Ctrl/Alt/Shift+Click-Hold modifiers for quick linking faders/panners... and I need to add...
Linked scrollbar across all rows.
I promise you, you will wonder why you've been living the way you've been living if they implemented these ideas.
Also, from a business perspective for RME - it's valuable feedback I'm giving as a user coming from other ad/da mixers to TMFX. It's beneficial to have amenities that make new users feel at home. I can guarantee you, if there are people who hate TMFX (there are) - this is why.
I would even go so far to say that my suggestions should be the new baseline default, as it is most similar to how consoles and DAW mixers work.
I am having to look around at way too many numbers and names and stuff to figure out where I am and what is what and where and what is going to where and what, and there is way too much mouse clicking and I am big on mouse click reduction. It's way too much eye work and time wasting, it's headache and anxiety inducing.
As a Cubase user, a program full of mixed UI changes (some of the UI is 30 years old, other parts of the program are new), and someone who has spoken directly to their development to make improvements.... I am very experienced in UI/UX improvements and I've had a direct hand in improving that program and increasing efficiency for the entire userbase... So I'm very confident (1000%) in my assertions here, apologies if it comes across insenstive.
aligned look - neat and tidy.
I feel this kind of misses the point and clutters the screen with unnecessary things.
Example:
Why would I want to see my settings on Input 9 which is my Voice Over Mic when I open the settings of Playback 9 which is the signal which goes to my Top Left Speaker (on MADI 1... Hardware Output 27 or something)? Which again has nothing to do with my Output 9 which is the left side of my connected Headphones?
Sorry, but I see no demand for it.
Reason: there is no relationship between
- HW Input AN 1/2
- SW Playback AN 1/2
- HW Output AN 1/2
and the other channels in top, middle, bottom to the right..
Each output can have an individual submix of different channels from top and middle row.
There is no relationship between those channels.
The only relationship you have with loopback recording is between HW Output AN 1/2 and the corresponding input HW Input AN 1/2.
Otherwise press the button "sub" on a perhaps little more complex setup and click to every HW output.
Then you see the channels that feed into this selected HW output / submix.
And this gives you the picture .. there is no relationship between those channels.
It makes simply no sense.
There is no functional or operational dependency (except loopback).
Loopback alone doesn't justify this IMHO.
This is only my personal view on this.
If RME sees a benefit, well, maybe they will implement it for you.
what would be cool and could maybe help solving this issue is a fully customizable channel order and maybe have the option to insert "blank panels" into the UI (because why not).
Ideally not just for the UI, but (optionally) also on the hardware input side.
As it can really be unnecessarily annoying to go through loopback etc. just for having a connected microphone on input channel 1 (which is often needed for some software).
I feel this kind of misses the point and clutters the screen with unnecessary things.
Example:
Why would I want to see my settings on Input 9 which is my Voice Over Mic when I open the settings of Playback 9 which is the signal which goes to my Top Left Speaker (on MADI 1... Hardware Output 27 or something)? Which again has nothing to do with my Output 9 which is the left side of my connected Headphones?
My idea is cluttered?
You guys must live in some strange inverted parallel universe. I hope I don't fall into by getting into RME products.
Again. Maybe for you it has nothing to do with output, but others it might have something to do with channel 9. Either way, it doesn't really cause harm for you does it? if they all open.
But in a 1:1 context where 9 is going to 9, it could be useful to check settings like checking if phase is double enabled or something.
We don't really need to get into personal anecdotes to negate my suggestion, because I'm suggesting it as an option - and my suggestion is inline with how equipment has worked since the invention of it.
Sorry, but I see no demand for it.
Reason: there is no relationship between
- HW Input AN 1/2
- SW Playback AN 1/2
- HW Output AN 1/2
and the other channels in top, middle, bottom to the right..
Maybe not in a single instance together, but variably - depending on peoples setups/use needs there could be at certain points... You are correct with all 3 there couldn't be a relationship... but there can be a relationship between SWpb and HWop or HWin and HWop and that could change at any given point for various reasons - and making those changes on the fly is easier if everything is inline.
in fact yea, different use case, parallel universe 
but having no problem with having more options. I actually get your point that the main out on the right can cause some OCD if set to 1/2 and being the only thing misaligned.
By the way: did you look into the DAW mode of Total mix FX? This is more designed for straight mappings...
ramses wrote:Sorry, but I see no demand for it.
Reason: there is no relationship between
- HW Input AN 1/2
- SW Playback AN 1/2
- HW Output AN 1/2
and the other channels in top, middle, bottom to the right..Maybe not in a single instance together, but variably - depending on peoples setups/use needs there could be at certain points... You are correct with all 3 there couldn't be a relationship... but there can be a relationship between SWpb and HWop or HWin and HWop and that could change at any given point for various reasons - and making those changes on the fly is easier if everything is inline.
The only relationship in mixer view - submix mode is the submix.
And for that it is unnecessary to have those channels aligned.
As I mentioned, press the sub button, this is the only thing which interests you in submix mode.
Any alignment would make the window broader than needed.
Sorry, but I regard it as a really bad idea, it brings you - sorry again - nothing for the submix oriented routing of TM FX.
blank panels could double as note strips
yes, like the good old pro tools comment section
resonantmindrecording wrote:ramses wrote:Sorry, but I see no demand for it.
Reason: there is no relationship between
- HW Input AN 1/2
- SW Playback AN 1/2
- HW Output AN 1/2
and the other channels in top, middle, bottom to the right..Maybe not in a single instance together, but variably - depending on peoples setups/use needs there could be at certain points... You are correct with all 3 there couldn't be a relationship... but there can be a relationship between SWpb and HWop or HWin and HWop and that could change at any given point for various reasons - and making those changes on the fly is easier if everything is inline.
The only relationship in mixer view - submix mode is the submix.
And for that it is unnecessary to have those channels aligned.
As I mentioned, press the sub button, this is the only thing which interests you in submix mode.
Any alignment would make the window broader than needed.
Sorry, but I regard it as a really bad idea, it brings you - sorry again - nothing for the submix oriented routing of TM FX.
I'm not really sure what you mean. I want the best of both worlds, submixing isn't the only need/use case, but I want submixing available to me without changing modes.. Real analog consoles do submixes as well... the channels obviously on an analog console don't move around.
This is how the Lynx mixer works, exact same submix system, but static channel UI. There is no other difference other than Lynx's very nice mouse click quick linking modifiers which should also get implemented.
I think somebodyyyyy might be having an adverse reaction to a sensical change in the form of an.... option
It's definitely not a bad idea.
I even hide channels as much as possible in all three rows, to avoid scrolling to left/right as much as possible.
See 1st and 2nd screenshot.
By this also everything fits nicely to my FHD screen. The screen organization:
I like to be able to access top and leftmost icons on screen. The right side is reserved for gadgets.
When working with Cubase I have two different screen settings
- a smaller Window which takes only the left side, so that I can still see the gadgets on the right side
- a full screen Window.
Using macros I can open/close TM FX and Driver Settings Window using ALT-F1 and ALT-F2.
For a couple of months I have also been using colors in TM FX to group certain channels.
This all gives me a perfect organization and overview.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o1z8f8dz … g&dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aaqzmgpa … 3&dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g5x84v8s … w&dl=1
Also in regards to the stereo channel configuration essentially being linked dual mono/2 faders...
There could be engineering use cases here, where maybe overall, people want a stereo/linked channel, but need to do a slight left/right volume adjustment. Again, there could be a click modifier to offset one fader to better balance a stereo signal.
I even hide channels as much as possible not having to scroll left/right in top, middle, bottom.
This is mixer and matrix view and I nearly managed it, to get everything well on a FHD screen.
yeah this is the strange RME inverted parallel universe I don't want to join, no offense. lol.
Maybe this is fine for set and forget small 16 channel setups.
For me and what I do, my setup... organized symmetry is better. I don't want offsets on 128 channels. No thanks.
Guess what the pan knob does...
Mhmm, I thought about that, but it's not really the same thing is it? You might have hard panned material L/R for example. Think about it again, let me know if I'm off on that.
ramses wrote:I even hide channels as much as possible not having to scroll left/right in top, middle, bottom.
This is mixer and matrix view and I nearly managed it, to get everything well on a FHD screen.
yeah this is the strange RME inverted parallel universe I don't want to join, no offense. lol.
Maybe this is fine for set and forget small 16 channel setups.
For me and what I do, my setup... organized symmetry is better. I don't want offsets on 128 channels. No thanks.
The days of consoles are over with fixed faders and mixer layout.
With the flexibility of digital mixers you have an output oriented routing, each output has an individual submix.
So you can see on one mixer screen anyway only the submix for one output, but you can have plenty of those.
Therefore it makes no sense to see all outputs vertically aligned.
It makes more sense to see the routing for a particular submix.
You can also create different Layout-Presets if you want to see only certain parts of the channels.
If this is not enough work with workspaces.
If you work with Workspace Quick Select Slots you can even switch between the first nine using key combination
ALT-1 .. ALT-9.
There are several ways to work very efficiently with TotalMix FX.
And if you do not like it, well as somebody mentioned already, then use DAW mode.
Then you have in TM FX only HW inputs and HW Outputs everything vertically aligned.
And then route in the DAW.
resonantmindrecording wrote:ramses wrote:I even hide channels as much as possible not having to scroll left/right in top, middle, bottom.
This is mixer and matrix view and I nearly managed it, to get everything well on a FHD screen.
yeah this is the strange RME inverted parallel universe I don't want to join, no offense. lol.
Maybe this is fine for set and forget small 16 channel setups.
For me and what I do, my setup... organized symmetry is better. I don't want offsets on 128 channels. No thanks.
The days of consoles are over with fixed faders and mixer layout.
With the flexibility of digital mixers you have an output oriented routing, each output has an individual submix.
So you can see on one mixer screen anyway only the submix for one output, but you can have plenty of those.
Therefore it makes no sense to see all outputs vertically aligned.
It makes more sense to see the routing for a particular submix.You can also create different Layout-Presets if you want to see only certain parts of the channels.
If this is not enough work with workspaces.
If you work with Workspace Quick Select Slots you can even switch between the first nine using key combination
ALT-1 .. ALT-9.There are several ways to work very efficiently with TotalMix FX.
And if you do not like it, well as somebody mentioned already, then use DAW mode.
Then you have in TM FX only HW inputs and HW Outputs everything vertically aligned.
And then route in the DAW.
We are getting into some opinion stuff here I'm not really interested in getting into. Certainly SSL disagrees with you having just released a bunch of new consoles, including the Oracle this year.
For various reasons, I don't want to use DAW mode.
> We are getting into some opinion stuff here I'm not really interested in getting into.
Ok. BTW .. I know there are consoles, but we just talk about recording interfaces with a digital (SW) mixer on a computer.
> For various reasons, I don't want to use DAW mode.
Ok.
Sorry, as the thread became bigger I do not recall.
Is it an option for you not to assign channels into the control room?
Otherwise you would need an option to not move control room channels "visually" into the control room.
I don't want to create co-dependency for my workflow and studio operations between the DAW and AD/DA mixer beyond what is baseline necessary.
The more I think about it the more it is obvious that your concept is not compatible with current TM concept. There would have to be two TM modes or two TotalMixes. It is not possible to combine the both worlds in sensible way... There must be either one, or the other, the mix of the both would not work....
But maybe you could use OSC frontend that would do what you desire...
The more I think about it the more it is obvious that your concept is not compatible with current TM concept. There would have to be two TM modes or two TotalMixes. It is not possible to combine the both worlds in sensible way... There must be either one, or the other, the mix of the both would not work....
But maybe you could use OSC frontend that would do what you desire...
Can you expand on this logic a bit?
Why would there have to be two modes, and not just a simple vertical link option?
And really the same for stereo channels - the engine/topology is already there, it would simply be different visual representation of what is already occurring behind the scenes.
It is definitely codeable without requiring two different modes - where there is a will, there is way.
I might actually return the AOX-D over this, and get a Marian Clara E-min instead which has their Beast Mixer - a static mixer not unsimilar to the Lynx, except the Clara mixer offers EQ on every channel.
For me, it is just unnaceptable UI design. It bares no correlation to how anyone has been doing anything in the industry from analog consoles to DAW mixers, to sidecar mixers, to other AD/DA mixers.
Totalmix exist for 25 years in this type of architecture, it is its own category not comparable with other companies mixing software or hardware mixer.
Totalmix is easy to learn and it is unique.
And it is the best audio interface monitoring tool.
Totalmix exist for 25 years in this type of architecture, it is its own category not comparable with other companies mixing software or hardware mixer.
Totalmix is easy to learn and it is unique.
And it is the best audio interface monitoring tool.
You've become accustomed to it, that doesn't mean it is the correct/best way to represent audio topology - because professionally speaking - it is not. Hence why they are adding colour coding - why are they doing that? To reduce the amount of eye scouring people have to do to understand where things are.
No offense guys, but I've broken down scientifically and audio engineering wise, why this is silly, I've broken it down enough so at this point to say that it is inarguable. I'm straight shooting here - and if you guys were employees at my studio - that would be the end of story.
You can't tell me I am wrong, when they are adding colour coding for the very same reason.
As soon as you e.g. assign some channels as mono and some as stereo, you get offsets, there's no way to compensate for everything. Also, if channels are named, the numbers are no longer so relevant.
I see here that some people even remove the numbers and just have the name - for me that is a no go in a real studio environment. The numbers are important if you are working with other engineers, have an assistant, rent out your studio, etc.
Personally, I will retain the number in my naming scheme.
In fact this is another potential UI improvement, to allow double line names - ie number on top, description below (or vice versa, whatever people prefer).
See picture:
In regards to this discussion, the way TMFX is designed - it's a very home/private studio set-and-forget sort of way of doing things.
I'm needing this product to be a little more symmetrical and standardized/professional and the funny thing there is - baseline simplicity can be the more professional concept. TMFX is much more feature packed and complex, customizable... But for example Pro-Tools is the opposite of that and thus a professional standard because it is universal.
RME has forgone that and invested in creating a more complex product that is lacking that baseline professional discretion of simplicity, symmetry, standard topology, useability, ease of use, fast adaptable workflow, easy eye work, mouse-click reduction etc, etc.
That is a big problem for me. It's just not acceptable design, colour coding or no colour coding. You can only be so different before no one understands you... And I think that's probably why I've heard some people express dislike for TMFX... Now I understand why.
I must second resonantmindrecording.
I always found it weird that the monitoring channels are swapped to the right.
Personally i would not mind to double the channels if they are used for monitoring.
Even more weird it gets if you have a 7.1.4 monitoring setup with grouped channels.
Then you have 1and 2 on the right, the rest of the channels 3 to 12 on the left.
I find it a valid and reasonable request.
Georg
RME Support wrote:As soon as you e.g. assign some channels as mono and some as stereo, you get offsets, there's no way to compensate for everything. Also, if channels are named, the numbers are no longer so relevant.
I see here that some people even remove the numbers and just have the name - for me that is a no go in a real studio environment. The numbers are important if you are working with other engineers, have an assistant, rent out your studio, etc.
Regarding this point, I hope this helps you.
Please refer to the button “names” under View Options in the upper right (light blue) area.
Whatever you choose as a custom name for the channel, it will give you the original name of the channel,
like AN 1/2, Ph9/10, AES, ADAT 1/2, MA 1/2.
In my custom names, I am using a combination of “name” and the “channel number”
and as the order of channels in TotalMix follows a certain order (AN, PH, AES, ADAT, MA) - like in the driver -
it is clear what type of channel this is and I do not have to use the button “Names” often.
I hope this helps you.
Kubrak wrote:The more I think about it the more it is obvious that your concept is not compatible with current TM concept. There would have to be two TM modes or two TotalMixes. It is not possible to combine the both worlds in sensible way... There must be either one, or the other, the mix of the both would not work....
But maybe you could use OSC frontend that would do what you desire...
Can you expand on this logic a bit?
Why would there have to be two modes, and not just a simple vertical link option?
And really the same for stereo channels - the engine/topology is already there, it would simply be different visual representation of what is already occurring behind the scenes.
Because it is difficult to impossible to keep things alligned and keep other features like hiding unused faders and collapsing faders to narrower and having parameters of channel/settings open. IMHO, the third UI - Console - would have to be added to current Ordinary and DAW.
And stereo channels... It could be like you suggest... Maybe. Things are in reality done in interface´s DSP, not in computer. But stereo channels have different feature set to mono channels. So, .... How would you adressed that? Again, there may be one or another, but not the both. And we do not know, how are the things done internally in DSP. And there is not just mouse and keyboard, there is also ARC controller, ARC USB controller, control by MIDI, controll by Mackie protocol, controll by OSC.
Hence why they are adding colour coding - why are they doing that? To reduce the amount of eye scouring people have to do to understand where things are.
What if color coding is there for different reason than to "fight" with non-alligment? One may also mark faders or group of faders on console and people do that. And everything is alligned there. So, why is that needed on console? The alligment should do (according to you...).
So, color coding is added to TM for simmilar reason stickers and labels are applied to console by its users.
I must second resonantmindrecording.
[...]
1- Personally i would not mind to double the channels if they are used for monitoring.
[...]
2-Even more weird it gets if you have a 7.1.4 monitoring setup with grouped channels.
Then you have 1and 2 on the right, the rest of the channels 3 to 12 on the left.
[...]
To 1: This should be configurable (on/off).
Otherwise, it only wastes horizontal space, see also your next point surround formats with 12 speakers.
For many users it adds no value, just redundant information and extra scrolling.
To 1+2: As far as I know, this is already on RME’s TODO list for better support of surround formats.
With setups like 7.1.4 you end up with 12 speakers.
Duplicating so many channels makes no sense and would take far too much horizontal space.
To 1+2: You’re now pointing out that surround speakers appear partly left and partly right in the control room.
This becomes even worse when the active monitors are split across multiple MADI DA or AD/DA converters
and woudl stay on the left side of the TM FX window outside the contol room.
Wouldn’t it be much cleaner to have all monitoring/surround-related channels grouped together on the right side of the control room?
Regarding moving monitoring channels to the right, I do not see this as strange.
On analog mixers, everything monitoring-related, including the stereo sum, was placed on the lower right side.
With modern mixers you need a more flexible concept, since every output can become a monitoring channel.
With that background, I see no issue in exposing monitoring channels more and moving them to the right into the control room area. This also visualizes that control room functions are related to those channels.
Whats IMHO only missing is, that the TM FX control room becomes more flexible to support e.g. also surround formats.
But this doesn't seem to be easy otherwise RME would have done so already.
I always found it weird that the monitoring channels are swapped to the right.
Personally i would not mind to double the channels if they are used for monitoring.
Even more weird it gets if you have a 7.1.4 monitoring setup with grouped channels.
Then you have 1and 2 on the right, the rest of the channels 3 to 12 on the left.I find it a valid and reasonable request.
I agree with this. That could be implemented and possibly it should not be that hard....
RME User Forum → TotalMix FX → TMFX UI/UX Problems: Channel Alignment + Dual Mono Stereo Control
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
