Mixer - Input Selection (similar to output)

Is it feasible/possible/desirable to change the mixer plugins so that there for each channel you can select the which inputs it is taking the feed from?

Obviously one can just connect the plugin before the mixer to each pair of channels but it gets pretty messy pretty quickly. Being able to choose the input/pair in the same way as the output pair can be chosen makes for a simple way of doing one-to-many - e.g. for running multiple parallel FX using the mixer as a send level; the same input signal wants to go to all outputs and at the moment you have to connect the two inputs to every channel you want to output from.

What about this?
screenshot_4020

2 Likes

Apologies if I am missing something obvious, but I can’t see how that helps? Potentially I didn’t explain myself well…

This is an example of what I would need to do currently to send a signal from an amp modeller down three parallel paths each with a send and return level control.

For this, I am not really using the top mixer as a ‘mixer’ but more as a convenient set of level controls. Each input pair goes straight to it’s output pair (In1-2 goes to out 1-2, In 3-4 to Out 3-4, etc) and aall three are ‘live’ at the same time.

THis method works 100% effectively and as such there is no need to change it. However it is a little messy and one could extrapolate this setup to many more parallel lines and it gets really messy!

The mixers have great functionality where all channels can send to a single pair of outputs - as is being done in the Return Mixer. My suggestion is that this functionality is ‘inverted’ to allow each channel to choose where it’ input is coming from. In this way you just have the stereo in from the Amp going to In 1-2 on the send mixer but that signal coming out of 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 concurrently. Nice and neat and easy to follow in complex setups.

@dhj’s screenshot would replace your Send mixer. So the stereo output from your amp would just need to be connected to the first two inputs of the Upper Mixer. The Upper Mixer is then passing outputs 1 & 2 to every input on the Lower Mixer. This avoids the spaghetti coming from the output of your amp plugin.

EDIT: I don’t have this right.

Because I like to visualise things, are you suggesting that either of these options is what you are looking for?

Option 1: ‘Bus Layout’ options for the mixer to specify that there is only a single stereo input to the mixer.

image

Option 2: Replicating the current mixer output drop-down menus for the inputs (at the top of the image below).

1 Like

Yeah, option 2 is what I was thinking. You then have the option of sending the same input to all outputs.

At the end of the day, it’s really not a big issue. And in some ways this kind of goes against the thinking of GP of getting away from buses and stuff. But on the other hand it does neaten things up and provides some useful additional functionality.

That option 2 (which I assumed was what you wanted) can be implemented using the two mixers connected together as in my diagram. Changing the outputs of the upper mixer is the same as changing “inputs” in your proposed single mixer.

I’m not sure about that. Option 2 means that you only need to connect the Amp plugin to the first 2 inputs of the mixer.

With your suggestion, the Upper Mixer still can’t route Inputs 1&2 to all the outputs. (I think? Brain is taking the day off today :confused:)

Oh I see. Didn’t realize you want to merge. The thing I did implements a switcher only

Hi David - the ‘2-mixer’ approach definitely works and works great for a many-to-many approach or, indeed, for what I was looking for. But the ‘Ootion 2’ suggestion above allows the incoming signal to be connected just to inputs 1 and 2 but can come out of all outputs. It is competitive an aesthetic thing. Functionally there is no difference to how it can be achieved today.

But it does look neater and is a bit more obvious than the 2 mixer approach for a many-to-many