![]() Multirack is OK, but with incredible operation limitations. So external plugin based effects could be inserted from an iPad where the actual effects are running on the computer at FOH. Other UC Surface instances could then also invoke this software product. ![]() In fact it is similar to what Waves Multirack does but then working with all current plugin formats (AU/VST), where FX easily can be inserted or assigned to FX busses within UC. Using AVB or Dante and AVB/Dante-compliant computer, it would be great to have this software product (integrated) that could be operated within UC Surface. Then longer names might not fit or might then again appear too small, or in case of automatic font sizing, would again result in a smaller font.Īlso, adding channel numbers manually is pretty redundant, the fixed numbers attached to the channels are already present within the UC/RM.Īctually, not being able to see the names in UC properly have driven me nuts on many gigs already, even to a point to return the RM to the dealer - which I still technically could although for just a few days, because I have a 90 days return policy.īecause I would love this feature a lot that I mentioned elsewhere and that I would like to invite PreSonus to seriously consider this:ģrd party plugin effects (AU/VST) intergration I certainly hope at some point in the near future, it will be possible to have a bigger and brighter font for the channel names in UC Surface. It is more like wacking all the names in and going straight in the direction of a line-check and sound-check. I do not know about you and the others but I am usually not swimming in a lot of time to enter the names of a large setup. And it slow's me down when I have to enter the names at the gig. It does not contribute to the visibility to have such long names. Perhaps with an option in Capture, so people can decide for themselves whether they want the logical numbers or not.Īs a alternative of course we can enter track numbers in front of every channel name, but this is not really where we want to go and creates unclearness. Putting all the original numbers in front of the track names is. Having them in a total mixed order compares to the lists they receive looks pretty sloppy. ![]() I also think about the customers that receive my tracks. I would like to see this sense back in the list of tracks. In my setups the order always makes sense. This way we never loose the logical order that was on the mixer and on the project input lists. Could the orginal track numbers please be added to the names. I use Logic and most of the people I know use Pro Tools or Logic. This way the original order gets totally mixed up when the tracks are about to get imported in a DAW application. Track names do now get their names 1:1 from the names entered in UC. Could these not better be automatically called Capture Master 1 + 2 and Capture Master 3 + 4 when being created? Or how about Capture Mix 1 + 2 and Capture Mix 3 + 4, avoiding any confusion around a "master", which is something else.Ģ. Then AUX1 + 2 and AUX3 + 3 mean even less then they already did. Sometimes the multitrack recordings leave to a next destination to be processed and mixed. Now that there are 2 more capture masters ("auxes") being introduced there are even more opportunities that questions around these arise. ![]() I just did a quick test and some things that noticed me immediately:ġ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |