Logic Pro 9 Mix feature on all AU plugins
- Thread starter JGlover
- Start date
Hmm why don't you just put the plugin in an aux (or bus) and send it there. Of course you're right because it would be a nice option but it so easy to achieve this and from an analogue background the way this has always been done (not that things must remain the same).
This way you can also change the wet/dry ratio without opening the plugin and you can solo either of them separately, pan them diferently, add fx to the compressed signal etc.
This way you can also change the wet/dry ratio without opening the plugin and you can solo either of them separately, pan them diferently, add fx to the compressed signal etc.
Per Boysen
Logician
I think I can answer that. One important argument for placing dynamic plugins at the track insert position, rather than allocating them to bus/aux channels for send-return loops, is that you can then save CPU cycles by freezing the track INCLUDING the plugin.
Recently I have started producing with Logic set to 96kHz, because instruments and effects sound so nice then, and in this scenario I am pretty forced to put CPU demanding reverb plugins as multiple instances on tracks rather than as send-return loops as I used to - just for the option of freezing them (can't freeze aux channel tracks, you know).
Recently I have started producing with Logic set to 96kHz, because instruments and effects sound so nice then, and in this scenario I am pretty forced to put CPU demanding reverb plugins as multiple instances on tracks rather than as send-return loops as I used to - just for the option of freezing them (can't freeze aux channel tracks, you know).
I can see that but you won't be able to add separate eq, solo, pan etc that way. What I meant was that I'm all for a mix option in the compressors but the sound it produces can easily be created in other ways.
You could also use 2 tracks. That can be frozen and you will be able to adjust the levels quite easily, also when they are frozen.
I find that when using this New York (ish) method of compression it's very hard to adjust the levels right and something that you will have to work on until you're pretty much done mixing so I wouldn't want my level parameter inside a frozen plugin or at any place where it wasn't immediately accessable for that matter but that's just my 2 cents.
By the way, and this may be highly inappropriate in this thread, when you record in 96, you indicate that you're computer is having a hard time. How hard is that, how maný tracks can you record and treat before you have to freeze. I know it depends on the plugins but just an estimate. I'm considering going there as well but not if the workflow gets too slow.
You could also use 2 tracks. That can be frozen and you will be able to adjust the levels quite easily, also when they are frozen.
I find that when using this New York (ish) method of compression it's very hard to adjust the levels right and something that you will have to work on until you're pretty much done mixing so I wouldn't want my level parameter inside a frozen plugin or at any place where it wasn't immediately accessable for that matter but that's just my 2 cents.
By the way, and this may be highly inappropriate in this thread, when you record in 96, you indicate that you're computer is having a hard time. How hard is that, how maný tracks can you record and treat before you have to freeze. I know it depends on the plugins but just an estimate. I'm considering going there as well but not if the workflow gets too slow.
Per Boysen
Logician
Well... as a quick estimation I would say your "CPU muscles" go down by half. I was amazed by that because I thought 96kHz would mean a lot more strain.
How about the HD, how many tracks can you run. That has little to do with the plugins so there probably is a way to calcultate this but that is above me. I record a lot of bands which means multitracking so if it means that I will have to run with a 1048 buffer with 24 tracks to avoid "sudden death" I suppose I will have to wait a little longer for technology to catch up.
So why am I not checking this myself.... Well because Apple are taking forever to update their Pros and I only have 8 channels of 96KHz converters (RME QS). I have another 16 channels of 48KHz as well and I do have to have 24 I/Os so it's going to cost an arm and a leg to upgrade to another 2 QS's and crackles and pops won't let me use them I will give it another couple of years for the technology to catch up to a decent cost/performance ratio.
So why am I not checking this myself.... Well because Apple are taking forever to update their Pros and I only have 8 channels of 96KHz converters (RME QS). I have another 16 channels of 48KHz as well and I do have to have 24 I/Os so it's going to cost an arm and a leg to upgrade to another 2 QS's and crackles and pops won't let me use them I will give it another couple of years for the technology to catch up to a decent cost/performance ratio.
Per Boysen
Logician
Sorry, I have no idea about possible track count at 96kHz since I never record that many tracks at once. My own recordings are carried out as first takes with a lot of plug-ins used as real-time effects as part of "the instruments played". This is why 96 kHz sounds better for me; all the pre recording plug-in summing happening at that level before hitting the hard drive as a stereo file. Typically a recording of myself as musician is just one or two stereo tracks. I mix with lots of tracks though, but then I receive twelve to twenty track files from other studios where a musician records in the traditional multi track way. For plain audio input recording I doubt 96kHz sounds much better, unless you have mics and outboard gear that provides a certain "better" sound.
Ok thanks anyway.
I did try to record in both 96 andd 192 and to tell the truth I couldn't really tell the difference. I also tried to record a layered song to see if the higher KHz would make things gel better but I think you're right, there's not much point in going there from that point of view.
Anyway I do some preproduction as well that involves a lot of soft instruments and I will try out if something can be gained there. Of course this is not so important since it's basically demos which won't be judged by their sound quality.
I did try to record in both 96 andd 192 and to tell the truth I couldn't really tell the difference. I also tried to record a layered song to see if the higher KHz would make things gel better but I think you're right, there's not much point in going there from that point of view.
Anyway I do some preproduction as well that involves a lot of soft instruments and I will try out if something can be gained there. Of course this is not so important since it's basically demos which won't be judged by their sound quality.
Per Boysen
Logician
I am talking specifically about my experienced difference between 44,1 and 96 kHz when mixing virtual instruments and a lot of filtering within Logic.
Yes I got that, I do this also from time to time too but I fear it's too soon for me to go to 96. I have often experienced that a project is started in virtual land and then suddenly the customer wants to add real drums or other stuff. What would I do then having started the project in 96 KHz and suddenly I need to multitrack 16 tracks at once. I know I could make a bounce, freeze and all that but I think I will be standing on the sidelines for another year or two and then make the jump.
Sascha Franck
Logician
Fwiw, and probably a little more on topic: I'd wish there were parallel inserts.
As a simple example: I like using speaker impulses for recorded guitar signals (both for completely virtual amps and real amps that I capture through various line outs, mainly the one of my Boogie MkIV which is generating the line out from the power amp section, so it's really just the speaker/mic missing). Now, placing a single IR via Space Designer isn't an issue at all, just the usual insert job. But what if I like to mix several speaker/mic combinations? Right, I either have to copy the track (not exactly a comfortable solution) or use (pre fader) sends, entirely lowered down audio faders and multiple busses (even less comfortable). With parallel inserts, the entire thing would be a no-brainer.
With something like that, parallel compression (quite a usual thing these days, as it seems) would be available for all plugins, too. Plus, there'd probably be quite some more scenarios when such a feature would be very handy.
I don't know whether there's any sequencer offering parallel inserts, but it should be absolutely no problem on the programming side of things.
Admittedly, it'd probably make the audio faders look a little more confusing, but then, this could perhaps be handled by some clever "view switch" or so.
In an ideal world, each of these parallel inserts would have additional pan and volume controls, for maximum flexibility.
Funny thing: This very feature is already available in Logics very own Amp Designer. You can basically split the signal path at any point you desire and process the different paths individually.
- Sascha
P.S.: For a start, it'd be tremendous if the Environment finally also offered audio routing (just the way it works with MIDI data). That way almost anything would be possible (such as in some modular hosts already). But I'd guess that this is something to absolutely not put any bets on, given that the Environment isn't even treated as a bad stepchild anymore.
As a simple example: I like using speaker impulses for recorded guitar signals (both for completely virtual amps and real amps that I capture through various line outs, mainly the one of my Boogie MkIV which is generating the line out from the power amp section, so it's really just the speaker/mic missing). Now, placing a single IR via Space Designer isn't an issue at all, just the usual insert job. But what if I like to mix several speaker/mic combinations? Right, I either have to copy the track (not exactly a comfortable solution) or use (pre fader) sends, entirely lowered down audio faders and multiple busses (even less comfortable). With parallel inserts, the entire thing would be a no-brainer.
With something like that, parallel compression (quite a usual thing these days, as it seems) would be available for all plugins, too. Plus, there'd probably be quite some more scenarios when such a feature would be very handy.
I don't know whether there's any sequencer offering parallel inserts, but it should be absolutely no problem on the programming side of things.
Admittedly, it'd probably make the audio faders look a little more confusing, but then, this could perhaps be handled by some clever "view switch" or so.
In an ideal world, each of these parallel inserts would have additional pan and volume controls, for maximum flexibility.
Funny thing: This very feature is already available in Logics very own Amp Designer. You can basically split the signal path at any point you desire and process the different paths individually.
- Sascha
P.S.: For a start, it'd be tremendous if the Environment finally also offered audio routing (just the way it works with MIDI data). That way almost anything would be possible (such as in some modular hosts already). But I'd guess that this is something to absolutely not put any bets on, given that the Environment isn't even treated as a bad stepchild anymore.
Per Boysen
Logician
Those functions would be really nice to have directly accessible! I kind of get there today by a little fiddling with multiple channels set to bus output.
Another things I miss a lot in Logic's track plug-in insert implementation is an internal send/return plug-in. You insert it anywhere in the effect chain to send out audio signal and then you can insert another instance somewhere else, inside the same channel strip/effect chain, to bring back the signal. With this you may set up feedback loops passing through filters or harmonizers.
I'd also like an assignable LFO plug-in. Just like the LFOs we already have in virtual instruments but with the option to be selected from within any Logic plugin as the control source for any parameter.
I'd also like an Envelope Follow plug-in. Do you guys know that Reaper has this as default? You can assign the ever changing audio level of an audio track and use it as control source for any plug-in parameter in Reaper!
Another things I miss a lot in Logic's track plug-in insert implementation is an internal send/return plug-in. You insert it anywhere in the effect chain to send out audio signal and then you can insert another instance somewhere else, inside the same channel strip/effect chain, to bring back the signal. With this you may set up feedback loops passing through filters or harmonizers.
I'd also like an assignable LFO plug-in. Just like the LFOs we already have in virtual instruments but with the option to be selected from within any Logic plugin as the control source for any parameter.
I'd also like an Envelope Follow plug-in. Do you guys know that Reaper has this as default? You can assign the ever changing audio level of an audio track and use it as control source for any plug-in parameter in Reaper!
Another option would be something like Peak Pro's "VBox" (TC Works had one for Spark back in the day as well) that gives you a plug-in routing matrix as an insert. This way, each channel strip could still have the more intuitive "single insert path" design, but Logic would come with an insert that would allow for parallel routing within a single insert.
Is there any AU out there right now that does that? I can't think of any, but I'm not sure...
Orren
Sascha Franck
Logician
The Spark thing also worked as a plugin, AFAIR.
Anyway, modular hosts also working as a plugin (Bidule for example) allow for just the same thing. But it's not exactly easy to deal with them (no quantum physics, either, but still...). And in addition, you can just forget about all of Logics internal plugins (which is a shame generally, but that's probably quite another story).
When you think about it, parallel FX could make a lot of sense. Even in the synth department. I still remember my Windows days pretty well. I was running Energy XT as a subhost instrument plugin, happily layering all sorts of synths in just one audio object. More or less absolutely impossible in Logic (I know you can layer synths but that means quite a loss of comfort).
Especially with something such as the EXS (which, unlike, say, Kontakt), which doesn't allow for any layering (unless you combine two patches - and "awkward" would be a blatant understatement for that procedure), something like that would be perfect.
Also, you could save your creations as one single channel strip, yet something else being impossible with a multiple aux/bus routing scenario. Also impossible with environment instruments that you need to properly layer virtual synths in Logic.
Really, almost anything could benefit in one way or the other.
A nice idea would probably be to a) offer some audio routing inside the environment (something seriously lacking anyway) and b) offer access to this routing via a plugin (think modular hosts).
The environment could offer out- and inputs for each insert, then you'd just happily cable around. Perhaps not the ideal "quick access" solution (which is what most Logic improvements seem to be all about these days).
Alternatively, a switchable channel strip would be an option (so one could chose from a variety of inserts shown in a variety of fashions, heck, there could even be a "wide" mode or something).
Anyway, there's a whole bunch of situations when one would profit from such a function.
- Sascha
Sascha Franck
Logician
As said, I think Bidule should do the job. I only remember it very vaguely, though (even if I still mean to purchase it, just for additional pleasure or so...).
- Sascha