RME Support wrote:I suspect that there will be no significant change here as far as visual channel alignment is concerned.
As I've pointed out before, this would only be relevant in a setup where you essentially do nothing but feed input channels straight out to corresponding outputs (theoretically you could also do so by passing it through a DAW, thus also involving the software playback channels), but how often is that an actual thing you do?
The only possible application I can think of would be to run signals through AD for some signal processing (EQ or whatever) and then feed them back out as individual channels to DA. And then where does the signal go?
If there is an application where this would be required, you probably won't be using the control room section, so that could be done away with and eventually, mixing would take place elsewhere.
--
Just to re-emphasize - none of this, this entire thread, has been about actual 1:1 signal flow/pass through, despite it maybe being a possible use case in certain instances.
This is primarily about UI/UX psychology and meeting a standard of someone being able to walk in to a setup and being able to understand how things work. It's not so much about channels needing to be aligned for signal flow, and more about channels not being misaligned so that everything is more visually sensical and quick to find.
As I stated prior, thinking about how people are thinking when they are trying to find something - all channel numbers/names act as a reference to each others position.
I could avoid these offsets, but there is a gap in TMFX that confuddles stereo vs mono channel control.
You do in fact have two competitors that realized this conundrum and thus developed solutions. Both Lynx Mixer/Ncontrol and Marian Beast Mixer. In its core use, I was never confused or limited when using the Lynx Mixer in comparison to what TMFX offers.
If you took away the deep feature set, customizable UI, etc, from TMFX and left just the barebones Input/Playback/Output - Lynx has you beat. At the core, Lynx has you beat.
That core matters, start there. All the extra features that have been added to TMFX over the years, are not as important as that core UI/UX. Believe it or not, but whoever handles those core simple needs best - wins. Because those core simple things add up in a studio, over a year of 14 hour+ sessions every day.
This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of literal math - time... work efficiency, multiple staff useability, etc. This is metrical, not subjective.
(I can ignore features that create offsets, although I would use those features if they didn't create offsets... The simple solution is vertical link)
--
I still don't see where you actually explained a setup in which such 1:1 alignment (and signal routing) would be vital and not achievable for the specific purpose e.g. by simply disabling the control room section.
Alignment also goes out the window as soon as you open a channel's settings panel, EQ, or the like. So if you wanted to use Totalmix to apply effects before sending signal back to the corresponding output, you'd have to keep closing the EQ panel or whatever to ensure the visual alignment remains in place - or open the panel on the output as well. Seems tedious.
If an input in such a 1:1 setup required mono channels, you'd likely do the same for the output as well.
Exactly, it is tedious, and a lot of mouse clicking to keep things symmetrical... Easily solved by vertical link or some kind of static alignment mode.
Again, this is about UI psychology, not 1:1 signal topology. If you want to write this off as unimportant... So be it. But in true professional engineering, it is the most important thing - not all the extra features. The core.
Lastly, I don't see how such a 1:1 setup resembles a hardware console in any way. You might have plenty of subgroups (and in some cases, inputs on both sides of the subgroup and master channel section), but which console has visually corresponding channel strips for inputs and outputs the way you would like to see them in Totalmix?
In the end, TotalMix is still predominantly a mixer, and mixers tend to feed a larger number of channels into a smaller one. You make it appear as if the specific alignment you'd like to see were some kind of universally accepted necessity, but I don't quite see that, otherwise this request would have come much earlier.
Almost every console channel strip:
1.)Input
1b.)(Direct Output to recording medium)
2.)DAW/Tape Return
3.)Bussing/Aux
4.)Fader Output
This is essentially what TMFX is at the core, Lynx Mixer, Marian Beast, etc. The only difference is you have bussing from the input section and DAW/Tape return. Buss channels are usually in a separate bucket at the far end of the console or in the master section.
This is my old 16 channel setup patchbay which is about to be revised for a new 32+ channel setup, utilizing passthrough normals.
When I/others in my studio are utilizing both/going between the patchbay and the AD/DA virtual mixer - it is best if they resemble one another. Both become a lot easier to understand, and navigate without question marks.
One situation of passthrough, could be to instead of recording outboard destructively, would be to passthrough the AD/DA to the outboard... Mic pres get recorded straight to DAW, passthrough goes to outboard.
Further the DAW, Cubase, has project templates that have setup External FX defaults and all sorts of streamlined routing defaults baked into the template - but - we also need the ability to adapt away from these defaults quickly, and quickly do new setups.
If things are scattered, if there is a discrepancy in control with stereo vs mono channels - things get confusing, annoying, and cumbersome quickly.
If I am doing a 16 channel drum recording, + vocals, + guitar, + bass - and I'm setting up headphone mixes, submixes, effects routing, situations of which there are crossover of input channels needing to be fed to output channels + I want to be able to quickly mix out of the DAW using the playback channels between recording, etc, etc, etc, etc...
I don't even understand how symmetry is a question here? The only thing I can think of the reason why, is that for whatever reason, RME catered to the 'tweakers delight' market, and once these people have 'tweaked' their setup to perfection, they leave it static... They are only ever recording a themselves, or a few people at most, they only have a few pieces of outboard gear and aren't regularly renting outboard for certain projects, they aren't recording 10 piece bands, etc, etc.
But I don't understand how this is even an argument... From a very well studied and experienced engineer, it's baffling to me, no offense.
