Avelina wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 10:24 pmYou arent understanding what im saying. I'm not saying use patcher as a mixer, im saying you can use patcher in such a way that you need fewer mixer channels.Dynaudio82 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 8:24 pmand what about the other 100 disadvantages of using patcher as an alternative mixer .... LOL
I think I understood it pretty well, let's go back to your first argument, in which you used a bit of sarcasm, believing your comment was the solution:
In few words, patcher is not the solution in any of the cases, it is clearly evident, I believe you know that FL Studio's mixer is not making any progress since years ago, FL is stuck, so that some users like you, with time and creativity building things in patcher, have been forced to create an alternative mixer, which can be fun and pretty but is not useful in several aspects, besides being a rather complex and so impractical method. Creating mixers for the "future" does not help much either, since the "future" is only an expectation, and just as 10 years have passed, another 10 years could pass, in which Image Line, unfortunately, will continue to abandon this aspect due to the conformity of many users.Avelina wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 12:26 amAnd in my opinion yall should learn patcher and how to use the channel rack for gain staging audio clips. How many of your 125 mixer tracks actually have unique FX chains that could be neither transferred to patcher nor factorized into busses? How many of those mixer tracks have no FX at all and are just setting levels (something which can be done from the channel rack)? More than 125 tracks will be a welcome change when it comes, but unless you have an allergy to node graphs you should be able to make do until then.
If anything, patcher encourages better workflow since the generator(s) and effects are all packaged together in a single plugin instance which can be saved as a preset.
Maybe you're the one who's stuck in the 90s.
Just my opinion.