On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Stefan Gofferje <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 11:28 PM, J. Liles wrote: > > Maybe. I need more justification than that though, because it sounds > > like it would just confuse everyone else (myself included). I'd > > suggest using NM as is for the work you're doing and then maybe > > submitting another feature request with more information. I'm sure we > > can come up with something that will work. > > Well, the workflow is a pretty big justification IMHO - if you would > like your software to be considered for BC purposes. > Another justification would be that - to my understanding - Mute is > pre-gain and therefore kills the signal completely while "Select" just > controls the signal's sending to the primary bus. > You realize that I don't get paid for this, right? I mean, it does me no good if broadcasters use Non. I want it to be useful to people, sure, that's why I released it under the GPL, but I don't do broadcasting (and have no intention of ever doing it), so not only do I have zero incentive to slant the software in that direction, but I have no experience with that workflow. > > So, with a select button, it would be possible to take the signal off > the primary bus while keeping it on every other (configured and > selected) bus, which maybe doesn't have too many use cases in recording > but is definitely useful for BC and live-stuff. > I guess, also in recording it might be useful for audition talkback or > controlroom comms. > Yeah, and that's why I'd like more information, so that I could perhaps design a more general solution that would encompas that workflow. Currently, I find the easiest way to deal with these kind of auxiliary mixes is simply to use multiple instances of non-mixer, one for each purpose. Keeps things organized (but doesn't map as well to a MIDI controller, obv).
