Can Aux sends be faders?

[waterstrum]

I hate the tiny aux send knobs.

I'm looking for a way to assign those to faders.

When I'm in the mixer view, I need precise controllers for the aux sends on a given channel.
The tiny knobs work, but I'm sure there must be a better way.

How do the pros do it?

[martian]

assign aux to a bus... feed bus to fader...

[Arceo]

Well, you just have to route sends to an AUX track which has its output set to the input of the plug you want the signal to go through.

Let's say you want to send the GTR track to a REV plug:
1. Add an AUX track, set its input to "bus 1-2" and insert a Reverb Plug In
2. Assign your GTR track's send to "bus 3-4" and move the knob to unity gain
3. Add an AUX track (this is gonna be your send fader!)
4. set its input to "bus 3-4"
5. set its output to "bus 1-2"

et voilà, your AUX track's fader is now your send fader for the REV plug!

Cheers
Arceo

[kassonica]

Well, you just have to route sends to an AUX track which has its output set to the input of the plug you want the signal to go through.

Let's say you want to send the GTR track to a REV plug:
1. Add an AUX track, set its input to "bus 1-2" and insert a Reverb Plug In
2. Assign your GTR track's send to "bus 3-4" and move the knob to unity gain
3. Add an AUX track (this is gonna be your send fader!)
4. set its input to "bus 3-4"
5. set its output to "bus 1-2"

et voilà, your AUX track's fader is now your send fader for the REV plug!

Cheers
Arceo

Hey thats pretty cool, thanks

[Arceo]

Hey thats pretty cool, thanks

Hey, you're welcome!!!

[Dwetmaster]

If all you need is more precise control of parameter without adding any tracks, You could try the custom consoles. You can add a HUGE fader and assign to whatever control you want.

[cbergm7210]

I know this is simple-minded, but for small fine tuned adjustments I use the scroll wheel on the mouse to adjust the tiny send knobs by .1 db per wheel click.

[Dwetmaster]

I know this is simple-minded, but for small fine tuned adjustments I use the scroll wheel on the mouse to adjust the tiny send knobs by .1 db per wheel click.

+1000
I so wish that the scroll wheel was supported on every single control in DP. ( in all the plug ins for example )

[cbergm7210]

I know this is simple-minded, but for small fine tuned adjustments I use the scroll wheel on the mouse to adjust the tiny send knobs by .1 db per wheel click.

+1000
I so wish that the scroll wheel was supported on every single control in DP. ( in all the plug ins for example )

Yes, agreed. On the ones that do have this it makes for quick adjustments. URS plugs is one example. It works on DP's faders as well which I use often.

Chris

[Shooshie]

I thought they got it all together, and that the controls now all support the scroll wheel. Is that not true? I can't open DP at the moment to test the plugins, but I sure thought they did.

[rattle-rattle... busybusybusy... push-shove, plug-in, yadda, yadda]

Ok, I just opened DP despite not being ready to do so, and checked. You're right! The MAS plugin interfaces don't recognize the scroll wheel. Here's why I thought they did: if you change an EQ parameter or a compressor parameter in the channel strip, you CAN do it via the scroll wheel. But only in the channel strip. So, all of DP "proper" is now scroll-wheel compatible, but not the MAS plugins. Geez, what would it take? I guess a complete rewrite of the MAS interfaces, since they were written back in the mid-late 1990s. When did these "new" ones come out? 1998? 1999? They replaced the old ones with that "sandpaper" texture. I guess that was before scroll wheels had become so popular.

On the other hand, I think that all my other plugins are responsive to the scroll wheel. In Waves plugins you can even click on an element in one of those graphic displays (such as the C4 or the Linear Phase Multiband, and the scroll wheel will move it in any direction!

Oh well, my guess is that soon we'll see all those MAS plugins replaced with new versions. the EQ already has subtle but useful changes. That means they're working on it.

Shooshie

[Shooshie]

By the way, to whomever suggested the Custom Consoles for greater control, I agree completely. Custom Consoles, like the Search command, Clippings or Polar, remain among DP's most powerful but under-used features. If you haven't tried Custom Consoles, keep in mind that you can make your faders vertical or horizontal, in narrow or wide views, and you can make them as wide or tall as your monitor. You can also map them to any external MIDI controller, thus having access to them (and whatever they control) through a mod wheel, fader, or other MIDI controller. They may look old-fashioned, and they may be maddeningly limited at times in their scope, but with ingenuity they can be made to do SOO many things. The problem with the Custom Consoles is that once you figure out how powerful they are, you begin to envision giant projects for them, going way beyond their scope. You have to accept them for what they are, and that yes, they do inspire big dreams. But within their scope (which is still very large), these things are almost magical.

Shooshie

[burn em]

assign aux to a bus... feed bus to fader...

I'll Add to this...

Put all the plugs on the aux in post fader slots so the fader controls the input not the output of the insert/s. Heaps of fun if you have a comp, tape sim or drive type plug first in the chain! Essentially you end up with a threshold fader! \m/

Or better still, get an Mc Mix and flip the faders to aux sends. Nothing beats real faders be they digital or analogue.

[musicman691]

Okay - I know I'm resurrecting a 6 year old thread but it came up in searching for an answer to being able to do what the thread title (fader flip inside DP without a control surface) says. What I'd like to know is is either of the two methods mentioned here still the way it has to be done in 9.02 or have things changed over the years? The aux track method adds a lot of tracks and I've never had much luck with custom consoles. Would track folders be of help in keeping the aux tracks out of the way when I don't need them without having to resort to show/hide with the track selector? Never used track folders before. Or could this be something where the new track selection business in 9.02 helps?

[bayswater]

either of the two methods mentioned

There were actually three, if you include using the scroll wheel over the send knob. That gives you more vertical travel than you get with a fader, and control to .1db. But for very fine control, use the Aux and hold the command key down when adjusting the fader, and you get resolution to .01 db.

I haven't done a lot with track views yet, but I don't see a simple way of hiding Aux channels. Of course you can put them in a Folder and hide that, but then the placement of the Aux channels in the mixer is restricted.

Fader flip would be nice, but I'm pretty sure it's not there. That would have produced a lot of comments.

[musicman691]

either of the two methods mentioned

There were actually three, if you include using the scroll wheel over the send knob. That gives you more vertical travel than you get with a fader, and control to .1db. But for very fine control, use the Aux and hold the command key down when adjusting the fader, and you get resolution to .01 db.

I haven't done a lot with track views yet, but I don't see a simple way of hiding Aux channels. Of course you can put them in a Folder and hide that, but then the placement of the Aux channels in the mixer is restricted.

Fader flip would be nice, but I'm pretty sure it's not there. That would have produced a lot of comments.

My bad; I should have said three as I did see the scroll wheel method. Thanks for the tip on using the cmd key for fine control (I wish programs were consistent in which key they use for fine control).

So if I put the aux tracks in a folder they'd all have to be contiguous right?

addendum:
Something hit me after I wrote the above. What if one did a send as usual (not using the above mentioned method), put the effect as post-fader and then used a trim plugin after the effect? Would this accomplish the same thing? Seems too simple of a remedy.