Track output split?

[Keni]

This could be a handy tool and way of working that calls back to analog once again.

 

How about adding the ability to assign multiple outputs from each track?

 

...just thinking.

[Promidi]

Isn't this what a send is?

[Keni]

24 minutes ago, Promidi said:

Isn't this what a send is?

Similar, but not quite. Send uses a return, not a bus.

That being said, I have used sends for jobs that I might have wanted a second output.

In analog days I would create a mult on the track's output...

 

No matter. This isn't something badly needed, just a thought.

 

I would actually prefer they spent the time addressing the zoom issues I regularly complain about! ?

[Xoo]

Sends do indeed do exactly what you want.

[Will.]

18 minutes ago, Kevin Perry said:

Sends do indeed do exactly what you want.

Though this is 100% true, it's not a dedicated fixed routing method. There were times when I also wished multiple channel outputs was a thing in CbB to split a channel. Like the @Keni said in his reply -- it's not a big deal for it. Still would have been nice to have that option too. 

[Xoo]

The nomenclature isn't explicit but the UI wouldn't be that dissimilar since the controls required would be essentially the same.

[Keni]

58 minutes ago, Kevin Perry said:

The nomenclature isn't explicit but the UI wouldn't be that dissimilar since the controls required would be essentially the same.

I would imagine significantly small adjustments. Extra widgets or new widget to display choices/settings and a selection list that accommodates multiple choices?

 

Obviously the necessary code is more tedious...

[Will.]

1 hour ago, Kevin Perry said:

The nomenclature isn't explicit but the UI wouldn't be that dissimilar since the controls required would be essentially the same.

Just a question:

Wouldn't it lessen the work on the send engines rendering it more stable? I've seen some threads here on dropout on that region of the UI. Personally I had never had problems in that department.

Hence to why is said: Not dedicated. 

I could be wrong. 

[kc23]

On 3/9/2021 at 2:59 PM, Keni said:

This could be a handy tool and way of working that calls back to analog once again.

 

How about adding the ability to assign multiple outputs from each track?

 

...just thinking.

 

18 hours ago, Keni said:

Similar, but not quite. Send uses a return, not a bus.

That being said, I have used sends for jobs that I might have wanted a second output.

In analog days I would create a mult on the track's output...

 

No matter. This isn't something badly needed, just a thought.

 

I would actually prefer they spent the time addressing the zoom issues I regularly complain about! ?

It is necessary to understand correctly signal routing as a universal concept, and then understand how the tool at hand (in this case cakewalk) functions, to make these kind of things work as one wants.

-A send is a send. It SENDs audio to where ever you want it to be received. It can be a bus, or a track (used as an aux track in cakewalk). In analog, a send does not need a dedicated "return", you can return it to a bus (if it has an input port) or a track,  as you can do in cakewalk.

-In a patchbay, a mult is the result of an input being duplicated in a given number of outputs.  You would have to patch the output of a track to the mult input, and then the outputs of the mult to the inputs of the tracks you want it to be duplicated at. In cakewalk, if you want a track´s signal to be received by multiple other tracks (thus creating a "mult") then: set the output of the track to a patch point (the "mult input"), then in as many tracks as you want, set their inputs to said patch point (the "mult outputs"). If you want to receive that signal also on a bus, send it through a... send, having decided for it to be pre or post fader.

Understanding the signal flow and the software´s functions, this should take a couple of minutes to figure out, and another couple to experiment if it will work.

Hope it helps.

[Keni]

3 hours ago, kc23 said:

 

It is necessary to understand correctly signal routing as a universal concept, and then understand how the tool at hand (in this case cakewalk) functions, to make these kind of things work as one wants.

-A send is a send. It SENDs audio to where ever you want it to be received. It can be a bus, or a track (used as an aux track in cakewalk). In analog, a send does not need a dedicated "return", you can return it to a bus (if it has an input port) or a track,  as you can do in cakewalk.

-In a patchbay, a mult is the result of an input being duplicated in a given number of outputs.  You would have to patch the output of a track to the mult input, and then the outputs of the mult to the inputs of the tracks you want it to be duplicated at. In cakewalk, if you want a track´s signal to be received by multiple other tracks (thus creating a "mult") then: set the output of the track to a patch point (the "mult input"), then in as many tracks as you want, set their inputs to said patch point (the "mult outputs"). If you want to receive that signal also on a bus, send it through a... send, having decided for it to be pre or post fader.

Understanding the signal flow and the software´s functions, this should take a couple of minutes to figure out, and another couple to experiment if it will work.

Hope it helps.

Thanks... I am quite well versed in signal path and understand send vs track output...

That said, Though I’ve been using son-cake for decades, I have not played around with patch points and forgot about them. They may function exactly as the mults of analog days. I will investigate.

 

 Thanks.

[Xoo]

11 hours ago, Will_Kaydo said:

Just a question:

Wouldn't it lessen the work on the send engines rendering it more stable? I've seen some threads here on dropout on that region of the UI. Personally I had never had problems in that department.

Hence to why is said: Not dedicated. 

I could be wrong. 

Not that I am a Cakewalk developer, but I don't see how that would lessen any work - it's just moving it.