TMFX UI/UX Problems: Channel Alignment + Dual Mono Stereo Control (Page 3 of 3)

The output is in no way part of the channel strip? I'm not really following...

With an INLINE console, you have multiple inputs but you are only ever listening to one input. When you're recording, you are listening to the micpreamp input, when you are mixing - you are listening to the playback.

Now, is a virtual submix mixer/matrix the exact same as a console? No, because digital allows all sorts of different features and topologies that wouldn't be feasible/practical/economically viable in an analog console.

That doesn't mean their core function should be seen as so different that someone who is using them has to feel as if there is no correlation in function and session organization.

If I had to choose between a UI thing making sense, and keeping everything symmetrical... I would choose keeping everything symmetrical... That could be accomplished many ways...

Why open sideways for 2-5 controls

If you don't want to do vertical link where controls are shown for entire symmetrical column (even though it could have uses in certain situations)... blank space

I don't have EQ/FX with the AoX-D... So it's not really important to me, but, you could flip from a large fader to a small fader and pack an EQ within the the format of the module without opening sideways.

When it comes to minimized view... yes I would probably just do this for entire columns... Because If I'm needing to minimize, it's  to gain screen real-estate... and... keeping things symmetrical supersedes invariably minimizing things I might not need/want to... It doesn't matter, because the VUs are still visible, and, if you added a horizontal fader line to the VU minimized view that users could still grab onto.. It would be even less of a problem.

Yes. Don't understand what you're saying in your second sentence.

Looking at pictures of users setups, and no offense to them, they've tweaked their setup and memorized it... It's a total mess even with colours.

Yes, and I'm in talks with developer talking about their exclusion of a Input/Playback/Output submixer view and the importance of it. The Beast Mixer, the way it is set up, it is sort of a completely separate virtual space you have to route to.

What I meant to point out in similarity between Beast and Lynx Mixer/Ncontrol, is a.) They are static mixers, but more importantly... b.) how they both handle dual mono/stereo channels in stereo blocks.

And Kubrak above also pointed out that, at this point, perhaps this is the most important part of my contention.

I'd prefer that all channels be "stereo" channels with dual faders, that can be unlinked to be dual mono... Instead of condensing/disappearing multiple channels into a single fader....

Guys, it's so confusing and messy.

Ncontrol is a better comparison than Beast

But, let's get to the core of this whole discussion. I'm not really sure what anyone here is talking about, or if anyone here actually does modern hybrid recording/production in a commercial setting with TMFX, or if everyone here is a home user?

Here is a first draft, I am in the process of reconfiguring my studio into 32 channels...

https://imgur.com/iEQPhqS <- click for bigger image

I don't really understand how people can say there is no correlation between Playback and Outputs, or Inputs and Outputs, or a mix of both even when it comes to headphone mixes from the DAW and Inputs of what is being recorded...

It's late here, long day... apologies for the scattered reply.... But.... What in the world are you guys talking about? I sincerely feel like I've fallen into a parallel inverted universe...

There is no inherent correlation between inputs, outputs and playbacks in your picture. You just have choosed to place it that way. You could do it thousand different ways, if you have decided so.

And not all are linked vertically anyway.

But still, I agree, there could possibly be modifiers for temporary linking mono faders implemented so that they behave as stereo. (Except M/S processing, but that may be problem in inner workings...). IMHO, it would not be widely used, but it would not harm anybody.

No offense, but I am a very principled and specific, very dialed engineer. I know what I'm doing, and how to design hyper efficient workflow strategies.

How should I do it then? Just randomly place things everywhere?

I never said all had to be linked vertically.

3/4 of excel mockup is vertically relative. It is the best way of doing things if you are creating a default organized easy to understand baseline setup to start from. Everything is easy to see and find, and route... And the outboard section acts just like a real insert on a inline console...

External FX plugin in Cubase, is an insert point... that sends signal to the playback digital channel, and then the output, and returns it to the same channel input.

If I need to route something else to the outboard, I can do that in TMFX, or, I can do it from my patchbay... but everything is easy to find because the patchbay relates to TMFX and vice versa.

What is the better more sensical way to do it? It's so easy to understand and ready to go.

Why not have a modifier for clicking icons that opens all settings up vertically? or collapses all vertically? Perhaps I would like to use these features as well.

2 more mouse clicks adds up... Plus, it links them all as one group, so you'd have to unlink before you link others. It's very cumbersome.

I do appreciate for you taking the time to understand certain aspects of my contention and helping me convey them, so thank you for that. You are correct in that how stereo channels are handled/absence of quick linking mono channels is perhaps the main issue.

It could be also be solved with a new channel type. Currently there are:
-Mono Channels

-Stereo Channels

Could add
-Dual Mono Stereo Channels

in which case I would use the relative feature "Change all channels to Dual Mono/Stereo"

I can indeed ignore features that create channel alignment offsets, although, I would use those features if they didn't create offsets... if that counts for anything in regards to RME accommodating different customer needs...

Perhaps this would require a new, third, TMFX mode that keeps everything symmetrical. Given the various methods I've come up with, Im sure it would be possible and perhaps not even that hard to do.

Yes and no, it's not as static as it may seem. There is a baseline default setup for production/writing/experimentation in the studios control room... But things need to adapt/be re-engineered for full band recording, sound design sessions, etc. So the default setup has a lot of correlated inputs/playback/outputs...

But for example looking at the outboard, those channels can be used as buss groups as well which is why I have them positioned to the right of the mixer.  They are inserts for DAW, busses for TMFX, and I can utilize the analog patchbay to turn them into recording chains.

There are situations where things that seem static there, will be repurposed via the analog patchbay... So having symmetrical relation between the patchbay and TMFX makes things much easier to find, troubleshoot, etc.

The way I have things set up is to be as efficient and easily understandable as possible, and organized - which also results in adapting away from the static nature and doing creative routing easier. Organization is a good parameter for creativity at least in a recording studio.

Also, some channels appear to be static stereo... but, for example with my Elysia Xpressor I might just be sending a mono channel to the left channel of the compressor... and there are experiments where despite it being a link stereo compressor, you could send two mono sources to each channel isolated. So this also becomes a bit confusing with how stereo/mono channels are handled in TMFX, with the 2 mono channels disappearing into one fader.

---
An additional thought, with TMFX being as complex/feature packed as it is - I think there needs to be a method to select multiple channels across all three rows to for example, minimize all of them at once... instead of having to mouse click the minimize icon each time.

Mouse click elimination is very important in UX design, It's a big part of the reason why I could never leave Cubase... Everything has a key command, they have a macro system, and further  the PLE action scripter. It is a very deep, complex, feature packed piece of software (more than any other) but if you know what you're doing, it is also more efficient than other DAWs... I don't get the same feeling with TMFX because of these very small simple things - it's the everyday thoughtless tasks, that add up in 24/7 studio use.

@RME, Is this not making sense?

Phew. reading this thread, and the amount of knowledge RME heads have put forward in trying to help this guy out...  ..show some appreciation Mr. Resonant! To expect RME to alter the GUI just to suit you is plain daft. Like most audio software, you learn it by using it- and RME users love it because they've figured it out. They don't want to be learning every audio software in existence, and if the end goal is to monitor/arrange audio, Totalmix allows one to do just that. You can keep things simple, or you can get really complex. What it looks like isn't as important as the workflow.
I understand what you mean about stereo/dual mono; at first, I found bringing mono sources into totalmix, when all the other inputs are stereo, was annoying cos I'd be making mistakes because I was moving the wrong fader or whatever. But I soon got over it. Remember the days whenyou'd batch process a thousand .wav files to .mp3, and one or two were mono? You'd come back expecting it all to be done and the screen would be asking you a question 'do you want to make this file stereo blah blah blah...', etc
When you blow a load of cash on a high-end interface, you want to get what works for you and your audio sector. Don't feel obliged to use RME just cos the reputation and dependability of  it. But most of the folks who have bought into RME and used their devices for years, are very loyal and appreciate what they are using. Generally these folks defend RME to the hilt, so don't be so sensitive if you get some curt answers

Hopefully that includes improved dual-mono-stereo control and signal management and options for symmetrical UI navigation?

Interesting that this is one of the most viewed threads as of late!

While it is an interesting proposition, I don't really have the time, and already have a backlog of other automation/control scripting projects.

Really just hope RME sees this as competing factor against of the companies products, unfortunately, it seems RME is of the mindsight that they've created the ultimate unrivaled mixer and thus there is no need to look at other mere mortals.. There is no competition.

I remain hopeful though, because after a few dynamic sessions... my thoughts and worries have only been confirmed.

I don't think patent would be an issue, if that were the case - there wouldn't be as many DAWs as there are.

I highly doubt it is only one person... DSP, graphical/animation, hardware programming, drivers, etc, etc. Three would have to be the very least. RME isn't a small company.

I'm hoping for even some quick temporary solutions like key modifiers to link and link-invert stereo even pairs or something.

Modifier linking horizontal scroll would also be useful.