Anmelden:     

Forum: Wishes and new features

Topic: Master EQ - Page: 3
OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

In external mode you need to assign EQ10 to each output deck rather than the master.

Apply EQ10 to both deck 1 and deck 2. Set the EQ change then disable resetEQOnLoad. When I play both decks the EQ is applied to each channel and stays when a new track is loaded.
 
kradcliffe wrote :
OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Apply EQ10 to both deck 1 and deck 2. Set the EQ change then disable resetEQOnLoad. When I play both decks the EQ is applied to each channel and stays when a new track is loaded.


So I can confirm you misunderstood this.
On a regular deck fx slot it works fine.
But then you face other problems with various interferations in mappings and stuff (and disabling resetFXonLoad wont fix those).

Therefore we need to use the Master FX Slot.
This applies the effect on the output signal and is not effected by "effect_all_stop" an such things. Also its not effected by resetFXonLoad.

But, there is this problem i described:

Internal Mixer
(Master and headphone output)
--> No Problemoooooooo

External Mixer
(Deck 1 & Deck 2 Output)
--> Only works on the current selected master deck
 
Ah right, so you want a master EQ on a setup that has no master? Understood.
 
groovindj wrote :
Ah right, so you want a master EQ on a setup that has no master? Understood.


Exactly this
 
But, outside of a master output FX send/return (which might not exist for all controllers), how could you achieve this in general for an external mixer setup?

It's most likely that you want better handling of the master FX application in those external mixer situations (which may be possible).
However, I don't necessarily think the devs chose to apply it in this way without thinking if it could be done better for all of those external mixer cases, it's just a reasonable compromise. It's almost guaranteed that any other software supporting external mixers go about it this way, it's just the higher level ecosystem of effects manipulation via scripts/settings done by VirtualDj that may be creating the oddities.
 
EXACTLY THIS IS THE THING!

And thats what i suggested a simpler form:
A 3-Band EQ, similar to the Deck EQs, running inside the software right behind the normal deck EQs in the chain as a 2nd EQ, but controlled differently...
Not via the deck, rather than a master EQ which controls every decks 2nd EQ at once.

Or there is a fix for that master FX problem.
 
Since it works fine with a master fx with internal mixer, and since external setup usually has external eq as well, you could use the internal eq in this case for uour global changes.
Mapping would simply be deck all eq_low
You would need to remove fake eq from the controllers oninit and remove the eq mapping from the eq knobs though
 
Adion wrote :
Since it works fine with a master fx with internal mixer, and since external setup usually has external eq as well, you could use the internal eq in this case for uour global changes.
Mapping would simply be deck all eq_low
You would need to remove fake eq from the controllers oninit and remove the eq mapping from the eq knobs though


Thanks Adion for this advice, but thats exactly what I've tried for years now, and sadly it does not work.

For 1:
I've got an EQ workaround for mixers which don't have isolator-EQs (the ones which got -26db EQS), to use the external EQs to a specific point and then utilize the internal EQs to kill the frequency.

But despite of that...
2nd:
This approach falls apart when it comes to resetting the EQs due to resetting the stem-EQs via some command over pad_pages or other several devices and their mappings.


What exactly is so terrible about it, to at least get the "External Master FX Slot" fixed?
No offending... I just want to understand why everybody suggests so much workarounds over such a simple and in parts "necessary" topic?

("Necessary" because it's obviously a technical drawback if the master FX slot for external mixers doesn't work on all decks as intuitively expected, also no offending)
 
It's quite simple - an external mixer setup has no (software) master. Each deck goes out directly to the external mixer, so the external mixer is where you'd have a master EQ with that setup.

As we've already said, most hardware mixers do not have a master EQ or master ISO, so you'd have to add one on.
https://www.bozak.com/product/iso-3-isolator/
 
groovindj wrote :
It's quite simple - an external mixer setup has no (software) master. Each deck goes out directly to the external mixer, so the external mixer is where you'd have a master EQ with that setup.

As we've already said, most hardware mixers do not have a master EQ or master ISO, so you'd have to add one on.
https://www.bozak.com/product/iso-3-isolator/


Thank you for your answer, but this was by far not my question.

I know everthing about what you described, and to avoid carrying devices with me I asked for a legit software solution.
So I asked why this seems to be that much of a problem to implement such MasterEQ, because I see no point why this should be so terrible after all.
 
If you understand when you should have no need to ask!

You can't have something in an area that doesn't exist.

Master output only exists for internal mixing i.e. the software does the mixing.

If you set VDJ to external mixing, the master does not exist, therefore you cannot put an EQ there.
 
groovindj wrote :
If you understand when you should have no need to ask!

You can't have something in an area that doesn't exist.

Master output only exists for internal mixing i.e. the software does the mixing.

If you set VDJ to external mixing, the master does not exist, therefore you cannot put an EQ there.



Why don't you understand that I understand this?!

Why do you think did I suggest to put the 2nd EQ on the channels behind the first EQ?

And since there are DAWs that can route one effect to several channels, maybe there is a way to do this too in a dj software, that's why this was also a suggestion, becuase I don't know in detail about the construction of VDJ in this area.

But there should be no hindrance for the first solution I suggested. Just a second EQ controlled by 3 buttons which is just called "master_eq_hi / mid / low" in the User Interface, but it's no real master EQ, rather than a second EQ on the channels.
 
andy-chiles wrote :

And since there are DAWs that can route one effect to several channels, maybe there is a way to do this too in a dj software, that's why this was also a suggestion, becuase I don't know in detail about the construction of VDJ in this area.


In a DAW case, it would be equivalent to internal mixer mode - all the routing paths are done in software, which is flexible and changeable at will. With the external mixer setup, the paths are fixed in hardware and the software has to use what is given, which is normally a path for each deck and other extras (sampler). If you are lucky, you get an FX send/return path, and you would want one for master to make what you want a reality.

I do feel though guys, that a lot of good points were raised on each side, and I think devs will probably look at what can be done to improve the situation in terms of master FX application in those cases.
However, based on the audio path problem described before, I don't think they can do much better than what is already present for external mixer setups - making it dedicated in software would just hide the fact that the same thing is being done.
 
This thread just explained why when I use LOUDMAX on the master it seems to only pick up 1 side at a time when using it with an external mixer.
 
andy-chiles wrote :

Why don't you understand that I understand this?!

Because you keep asking why it's a problem, which implies that you don't understand.

If you understand why it's a problem, then you shouldn't need to ask.
 
Just wondering if the problem is the Gain, and if so autogain (auto+remember) and zeroDB (-6db) have worked good for me with external controllers and mixers with good sound and headroom.
 
groovindj wrote :

Because you keep asking why it's a problem, which implies that you don't understand.

If you understand why it's a problem, then you shouldn't need to ask.

Ok, then I'll explain it to you one more time to prove that you are the one not understanding my question:

- Yes, I know that in the External Mixer setting there is no "one master output"
- Yes, I know that there might be a problem, even with "sending" the master effect to every deck's output, even though there are mixers for DAWs that support exactly this routing (in external mixer equivalent mode).
Because...
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
In a DAW case, it would be equivalent to internal mixer mode - all the routing paths are done in software


What you don't understand is:
- I suggested a 2nd Equalizer placed after the 1st Equalizer, on every single Deck - which shouldn't be any problem at all since there is already one EQ.
- Then there would be 3 simple knobs that control the 3 EQ-knobs of every 2nd EQ on each deck at once.
- The 2nd EQ should not be touched by any resetting command or any other EQ controls unless its from the "MasterEQ" knobs.
- So since the 2nd EQ is on every deck, the EQ changes would affect every deck, right?
- Therefore there is no need to send any effect anywhere, and there is also no need for a dedicated 2nd Master Output, its just the decks doing their thing, just with a 2nd EQ running in their chain.

- And thats why my question still remains:
Where is the problem to do either the version to send the FX to every Deck, or - probably the easiest version - to place a 2nd EQ on every deck?


Fun fact:
This same procedure (placing a 2nd EQ on every deck), could be also done with FX slots.
Place a "hidden" FX slot on every channel which is not controlled on the deck itself, rather than with the "MasterFX" Slot in External Mixer Mode, and you have a good solution to run multiple instances of the same effect on each deck, but controlled via ONE SINGLE interface which we call MasterFX Slot.
 
the SOUND INSURGENT wrote :
This thread just explained why when I use LOUDMAX on the master it seems to only pick up 1 side at a time when using it with an external mixer.


That's exactly the point of this whole conversation.
There is a need for a good solution on the External Mixer FX Slot.
This would fix a lot of drawbacks.

But since this seems to be more complicated than I thought, there could be the solution I posted in my previous answer.
 
andy-chiles wrote :
What you don't understand is:


Actually I do understand the things you're demanding, although I don't see why you expect Atomix to do exactly what you want, because you refuse to use internal mixing mode, or run plugins, or use existing EQs, or a dedicated ISO box etc. etc.

You've already got effect slots for each deck, on which you could run EQs. You've then got further EQs on whatever external mixer you're using - effectively giving you EQ followed by EQ.
 
groovindj wrote :
andy-chiles wrote :
What you don't understand is:


Actually I do understand the things you're demanding, although I don't see why you expect Atomix to do exactly what you want, because you refuse to use internal mixing mode, or run plugins, or use existing EQs, or a dedicated ISO box etc. etc.

You've already got effect slots for each deck, on which you could run EQs. You've then got further EQs on whatever external mixer you're using - effectively giving you EQ followed by EQ.

Ok bro, at this point please - KINDLY - head out of this discussion.
You are not benefitting anything serious to this subject rather than bashing against any and everything.
I explained it way more than enough why I'm asking for this feature, why this makes sense, even gave multiple suggestions for a solution for a real and existing problem, yet you disguise it as some kind of selfish thinking.

I don't expect anybody to do anything.
I ASKED, and not only that, I HEAVILY EXPLAINED why I'm asking and as I said, I gave multiple reasons and suggestions for any kind of compromising solution.

Since you get the subject very well, you either didn't pay attention to reading this whole thing carefully, or you just want to be against it, no matter what.
So that's why, for the sake of any constructive progress, I'm begging you kindly, please don't bother yourself contributing to this topic unless you are able to distinguish questions from demandments, or you can relate to real world problems which a lot of is face, and understand the need of a good solution and THEN determine whether it is worth the effort from the developers perspective.

I made an technical question, so please stick to the technical subject.
 
97%