An option to have Scaler not stealing a mixer slider

I am quite sure I am doing a stupid question :crazy_face: :rofl:, and I suspect it is unfeasible, but a way to have Scaler not stealing a mixer slider could be very useful for poor amateurs (like me) that have small mixing devices

My AKAI Midimix has just 8 sliders, and each Scaler steals 1 mixer slider: it means that just 4 Scaler instances steal all slider available

Sure, I know that I can have other 8 with a toggle, but this is uncomfortable in my opinion

Sounds like you are just too lazy. Isn’t it just a toggle to switch sets? Pushing one button? :point_down: :rofl:

LOL :rofl: :grin:
It’s not just that

The problem is that the AKAI sliders have no labels or lamps that let you understand what exact lane/instrument you are controlling: this is why it is so uncomfortable having to move from left 8 sliders to right 8 sliders

And I suspect this is the reason why serious mixers have one gazillion of sliders, and sound technicians glue paper labels onto them…
:thinking:

P.S: gluing paper labels onto the Midimix is not a viable option because each template has different instruments onto it

What it seems like to me as an interested observer in the human condition is that no matter how much effort you seem to put into helping you “Jam” and have “Fun”, you always sabotage yourself once you get that going. You’ll have the best night “Jamming” with a setup you dreamed of only to say it doesn’t work for you the next day. Some tiny thing is now preventing the “Jam!” “Oh no, how can i work like this?” And then you’ll go back to square one and then no more fun until another break through.
Hmmmm. :thinking:

1 Like

he he, maybe I am just the subject of these videos
:rofl:
In Italian only, sorry but subtitles may help

In 1986 I bought a number of Amstrad 8526 desktop computers for the office. They had 256k of memory, a 12 inch monochrome green screen, and a simple word processing program called “Locoscript.” It booted up in about 10 seconds, and they still were working when they went to the tip, in which time they had no patches and no updates.
They did everything we needed to do, and the training time was 10 minutes.

Then came Microsoft and Word, and. 34 years later, I still more or less do the same things on my current machine as I did then. I type things and then print them out. However, now, Word drives me to distraction, and its insistence on doing things I don’t want is irritating. I use 5% (if that) of its functionality. My 8 core machine has 2.7 billion transistors equivalent and in the morning after I switch it on I then go and make tea whilst it boots up and fires up x hundred background jobs.
If I spent one fifth of the time on actually producing something instead of playing with the keyboard pads and fiddling with SysEx I’d have a huge catalogue.

Here’s the laws of music tech

1 No new user feature ever goes uncriticised

2 Work output declines as outboard devices proliferate

3 Creativity has no correlation with sample loop count

4 Need for musical knowledge is in inverse proportion to the number of VST’s on a machine,

I think what @jamieh is saying lets do what we can with what we have, rather than envisaging what we might do on version N+1.

2 Likes

Colloquially expressed but essentially correct.

well, apart the fact that my request is likely nonsense, what the Feature Requests section is to be used for?
:thinking: :grin:

You of course have a very good (as usual) point, and of course that section is obviously useful for communicating to the product authors the spectrum of user requirements are so they can judge what future developments make good business sense for them.

My point was essentially about what might be called ‘balance’, and whether the request for some new feature ( I am ignoring bugs here) detracts from a user extracting the maximum from what we already have.

Of course, there are things I’d like to see and have posted here, but I tend to have a mindset which is " if it comes that would be nice, but meanwhile I’ll figure out a way round it". Also, as I noted to @davide, I paid less for Scaler than a fish and chips lunch at a cafe, and so far updates have cost be £0. Would that other things deliver that value and pleasure :roll_eyes:

There will be functions which some people might categorise as ‘mandatory’, in which case it may be that Scaler is not for them.

Indeed, it’s probable that there are as many ways of using Scaler as there are users.

1 Like

I like to paint pictures … As you must have noted, brevity is not a frequent characteristic of my posts.

3 Likes

OKAY
I understand that you don’t blame slider stealers
or filchers, larceners, larcenists, nimmers, pilferers, purloiner
(@yorkeman)
:rofl:

This behavior is DAW dependent of course. In Cubase if I hide those tracks in the Mixer view they would disappear from the mixing surface as well. Of course I use an X Touch to mix when I have a project complex enough to bother. So it has scribble strips and I wouldn’t care about banking channels.

Maybe you could just put the Scaler tracks at the bottom of your project. And then you wouldn’t have to bank past them to get to the other tracks you actually want to mix? I would certainly hope any DAW could make that happen. At least allow you to put them in an order that makes sense, so you’re not scrolling past endless channels you never need to touch with the control surface.

1 Like

Hi Richard and thanks for the tip

I’ll check if it works in Ableton as well

about the fact to put Scaler at the bottom, it is quite hard because it’s on the top in my case :grin:

I stopped using it just for soloes, because I’am still unsatisfied by the keys-lock feature, and because I want learning a bit to play keyboards

This is one of the reasons I switched from Ableton to Bitwig as it allows you to put multiple devices into one track all controlled by the same slider, so I just put Scaler in the same track in front of whatever device I want to control, I often put Phrasebox in between the two as well for good measure. In Ableton the same arrangement would take up three lanes per instrument and create quite a mess.

2 Likes

Good to know… :grinning:
thanks

So the controller controls all sliders in the same lane? Is this at the same time? Or can you tell it which to control when?

Yes BITWIG is modular DAW so you can set it up anyway you please, so you could easily create a modulator to assign a slider to any visible parameters of any device in a track or even to another BITWIG modulator like an LFO, device gain or random generator etc etc. I just find it a lot easier as you can place Scaler and Phrasebox directly onto the same track as a synth without having to mess around with routing or using up tracks which is something I couldn’t do in Ableton.

1 Like

I just found I can do it with Ableton Live 11 Standard
(don’t know the other versions): Just group and it’s done :grinning:

Before grouping (all instruments to max volumes and centered): 4 sliders used

After grouping: 2 sliders used

And maybe I can also group the 2 groups in one, but unsure about that
Anywy, the possibility to remove the slider from Scaler is wonderful for my use

I think another solution exists with Ableton Instrument Racks feature
I’ll test it and let you know

1 Like

Same here, and because of the comprehensive modulation options without cable mess :smiley: