Well, I don’t really understand why there’s calculations going on if there’s no audio running through the connection (all mixer channels are muted), but anyway, I removed all the connections that created these loops, and the problem persists. The spinning ball time is down, closer to 10 second, but that was behavior I saw from removing ANY connections before, so it does not seem to be because they were the ‘loop’ connections. In any event, 10 seconds of spinning ball after every move is still unusable…
Yes, as I indicated in my original post, when you remove 30 - 60 connections (which would happen if you delete 2 fully connected 16 channel mixers), the problem goes away. And it slowly comes back as you add those connections back in.
Well, no. Each mixer (the one’s already connected, meaning FX Sends 1-4) had a ‘feedback loop’ in it. So deleting one of them would still leave the other 3. So if you deleted one and it started working, that would actually invalidate the thesis. It’s just that with less connections, it works better.
The number of connections does not play a role as demonstrated by @npudar
It’s the feedback loops that are the issue and again, even though there’s no measurable signal - those zeroes still flow through the “wires”.
1 Like
Just to be clear, FX 1 Send mixer’s output 1+2 was going BACK into Vallhala DDL 1 inputs 1+2, FX 2 Send mixer’s outputs 3+4 were going BACK into Valhalla DDL 2 inputs 1+2, FX 3 Send mixer’s outputs 5+6 were going BACK into DDL 3 inputs 1+2, and FX 4 send mixer’s outputs 7+8 were going BACK into DDL 4 input 1+2. All of these connections created potential loops, which has been suggested as the source of the slowdown. I removed ALL of these connections, and the slowdown persists.
OK, fine, sounds reasonable. I’ve removed those connections and the problem persists.
OK, hold on a minute. Thinking more about loops, isn’t the whole concept I’ve set up one massive digital loop??? If the output of DDL 1 goes into it’s own mixer, which then goes into DDL 2, whose output goes into it’s own separate mixer, but that mixer has an output going to DDL 1, etc etc etc, then the whole thing is just a big old loop salad!! And if that’s not kosher in GP, then…I can’t set up send-like behavior. I’m understanding this correctly???
1 Like
Well in my case (deleting all the cables from the 2nd Valhalla) it worked much better - almost normal… i might have been a bit optimistic, but everything was just responding again and nothing froze for a minute or so.
But even if this very complex setup might work with “real” devices, it though seems to produce quite some issues in the virtual & digital world.
Maybe this is just not the best way to go, and trying to go down that road with an aged computer won’t make anything better (but i think this is not the actual cause for your issues).
1 Like
Right, so the real question is, how do I create something that resembles sends? And by the way, this is not a ‘real’ vs. ‘digital’ questions, it’s something specific to GP. Every DAW in existence has sends built in. I know GP is not meant to replace a DAW, but it does have several things in common with a DAW (plug ins, faders, recording, etc). So I don’t think it’s crazy to ask it do something send-like. But if it’s just not possible, so be it. But if somebody has an idea for me I’d love to hear it…
Sends do not send back to the source. They are a way to leverage another effect that is then sent elsewhere.
How would you know there’s no audio running through the connection if you didn’t do any calculations?
Well just coming from my decades of use of DAWs, which I know maybe doesn’t apply here, but obviously you can set up what would be an infinite loop in a DAW, say Pro Tools for example, and if you mute the channel, or the send, or pull down the fader to zero, whatever, you stop/prevent the feedback, and the system isn’t taxxed in any way. It’s clear from this discussion that GP doesn’t work that way, which is fine. But not crazy that I would assume muting a channel would stop potential feedback, right? Anyway, that’s not really the issues. The issue is, is it possible to do what I want to do? Can I send the output of any plugin into the input of any other plug in, in real time, while I’m performing? If so, how is that done in GP?
Sure, but that ‘elsewhere’ can then be sent back to the original channel, through a send, creating what would be an infinite feedback loop, if you weren’t careful.
Of course — that’s how the system works — you simply can’t have a feedback loop.
How were you doing this in some other applications?
Which applications were you able to do this in?
Was it working properly for you without issues?
Any DAW can do this. I’ve done it in both Logic and ProTools. Was hoping to be able to do it in GP. I don’t need to be able go directly back to the source (output returning immediately to input), as that’s a pretty rare and not very useful use case. But more importantly, to have all the plugins be able to send to eachother. Unfortunately, this sets up the potential for feedback loops (1 > 2 >3 >4 >1), which GP’s architecture won’t allow. So I’m looking for an alternative solution. So far, all I’ve come up with is is having multiple versions of each plug in, so that you can send into them, and then send again somewhere else, but the chain never folds back on itself, so no potential feedback is created. The 2 problems with this are: CPU strain from having too many plugins running (especially on my old computer), and the problem with controlling this via midi. Right now I’m using touch OSC on my iPad, and I’ve run out of screen real estate (plus it’s kind of conceptually goofy looking to have layers and layers of faders but I’m the only one who needs to see it, so I can get over that hahaha 
But I’d love to hear other suggestions if anyone has one.
Why exactly do you want to be able to do this?
Well, for better or worse, it’s part of my ‘sound’. I like the way fx sound when they are ‘stacked’. one feeding into another, and maybe into another, etc. The problem is, all my music is improvised, and I never know which effects I will want to use, or in which order I will want to stack them, in advance. Sending one fx into another and then maybe another becomes part of the improvisation. So, having all possible combinations available to me is what makes this possible.
1 Like
Could you zip up the simplest possible Logic Pro project that produces sound and uses that setup. I’m curious to see what is sounds like and how you wired things.
Thanks.
1 Like
Well I don’t know if this is the simplest possible, but I’ll attach a setup I’ve previously used in Logic Pro X. While you’re checking it out, try sending from Delay 1 via Bus 2 into Delay 2 (which is already sending to DDL1 via Bus 1). This sets up an infinite feedback loop. But because they are longish delays, it takes a few seconds for the feedback to build up, so you can control it. Once it’s feeding back, turn Send 1 back down to stop the feedback. And listen how the bloom of the infinite feedback crests and then settles back down to nothing. It’s a really beautiful sound, at least to my ears. And so far, we haven’t figured out how to make that sound in GP. Currently exploring the idea of sending the signal out of GP and back in, either via hardware or software. Would still love to hear any other suggestions from the forum. Thanks!