This doesn’t seem initiative to me. Why when setting it to Mono does it still show as accepts two inputs not one like a traditional DAW.
It really doesn’t. If you set a channel to MONO in our internal mixer - you’ll only get ONE input pin.
Here’s a 4 channel mixer with the first input pair set to mono. Note that there’s only ONE pin for the first channel
1 Like
Thank you for your response. I think my question was poorly phrased (I used input instead of channel). Yes, it accepts one input but why does it use two channels of the mixer? This is different from any DAW or mixer I have seen provided with a Audio Interface. Wouldn’t the logical behavior be that when I make a channel mono (say the first one) I uses input one, and the channel has a 1 at the top. Then the next channel if stereo would use inputs 2 & 3. This is how other digital mixers work. Other than this oddity I think GP is a fantastic product.
Thanks. The input can be mono or stereo but the output is always stereo. You could pan the output to left or right and use one output pin as well.
To expand a little on this … there are several considerations one must take when talking about this.
The channels within our mixer are named 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 etc… It is important that those do not change or point to some other channel even when you change their inputs to mono.
If it did and you changed the channel 1-2 to be mono and therefore just (1) and the channel 3-4 to be mono and therefore just (2) then channels 5-6 would now become channel 3-4 right?
That would be VERY confusing and constantly changing if you now do enable the first channel to be stereo again.
Take a look at the parameters that our audio mixer provides, connect a few widgets to some of it and then think about how would changing the input names or parameters impact this.
Maybe the names could have been different. for example just 1, 2 ,3 ,4 etc. with channels 1 (left) 1 ( right) or 1 (mono) but other than this label - everything else really must stay as it is because otherwise stuff would be very confusing and break.
2 Likes
Just for the record, we ain’t trying to be like a traditional DAW 
3 Likes
While we are not a DAW nor trying to be one - could you give us an example?
Thanks.
Absolutely understood, but even the mixers found within audio interfaces behave the way I indicated. I’ll capture screenshots tonight and post.
Yes, I’ll capture a screenshot of the mixer within my MOTU interface tonight.
I’m not concerned about the output. The output works as expected. My issue is a 16 channel mixer when all channels are set to mono becomes an 8-channel/8-input mixer. I’ll send screenshots of my MOTU embedded mixer later.
What about using the single plugin “Gain control (mono)”?
If you think about the parallel between the GP mixer and the mixer inside your MOTU, they operate around different constraints.
On your MOTU your physical inputs are numbered on the hardware and limited in quantity. So if you want to switch a stereo pair (say 1-2) to mono then it creates a new fader and a new pan knob in software and just splits 1-2 into separate 1 & 2.
In GP your mixer is often going to be attached to widgets, so what would be expected to happen with the widget controlling 1&2 volume when you split the stereo pair into individual mono signals? And same when you combine them. A widget would then left unassigned.
In GP if you want to route 16 mono signals, then yes, you’d need a 32 channel mixer. I see where you’re coming from and how that’s not very intuitive if you’re looking to do a lot of mono signal routing.
I’m not sure there’s a way to change it that won’t confuse other situations.
1 Like
Sure, but that’s not a DAW really and it is also not a plugin so it really don’t have to have “stable” or “non changing” parameters.
I’m not sure if that particular interface has direct OSC support, but if it did - you can see how confusing would it be if you create an OSC control surface for certain channels, but the commands would do different things based on the current channel configuration…
We understand what you are referring to. And, as I pointed out, maybe we should have named these “channels” a, 2, 3 or A, B C rather than 1-2, 3-4 etc… The reason they are named 1-2 3-4 5-6 right now is because the outputs are ALWAYS 1-2 3-4 … and you ca route any of the inputs to any of the output pairs.
If you have a suggestion on how to address or name this better - by all means. We’ re always ready to listen to good ideas and suggestions!
Thanks.
My sense is that @JeremyUnoMusic thinks that if you switch a stereo channel in our mixer to mono, then it should show two separate faders, one for each mono input.
1 Like
No, one input, one channel, to a stereo output.
I’m trying to mix to a stereo field (pan), not control gain only. My point is when using a 16-channel mixer with all channel as mono it effectively becomes an 8-channel mixer. Not how any other mixer (HW or SW) I have used works.
That would be the direct parallel to how it’s done in most hardware audio interfaces (e.g., RME Total Mix, MOTU CueMix, Focusrite Control, etc.).
With the stipulation that none will let you make a stereo pair out of an “even-odd” pair, such as 2-3. It’s always 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, etc. and you have the ability to split the pairs into two mono. (Or, really, that they’re mono by default and you have the option to group them into pairs.)
Same thing — if, for example you changed all the channels to mono in an 8 channel mixer, you want to see 8 faders, each with panning.
This is hardly a showstopper problem however, - if you need more mono channels, just use a larger mixer plugin.
1 Like
Yeah, to accommodate my setup I’ll have to use 1 x 32 channel mixer and one 16 channel mixer, but I can make it work. I just think the UI is what confused me, when I turned a channel to mono I expected to see 1 at the top, not 1-2 based on how my MOTU mixer works. But I get how it works now.
My MOTU allows me to have input 1 mono, 2-3 to a stereo pair, any two adjacent inputs can be for a stereo pair. I get how reconfiguring the mixer after wiring inputs would mess things up though.