Add new comment

Yes, I knew Car's videos, are incredible.

Curiously, I am not having any problems with the inserts. Everything works great. (Fingers crossed).
(Well, everything, not everything. Since a system update, I think the gtk libraries, Qtractor's "color picket" blocks my compiled versions of the program. Dot deb and App work fine. Fortunately its can change the colors by code.)
...

A workflow like the one you propose has advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages, you can create complex and surprising modular flows.
Disadvantage for me, you must manage the sessions of several programs, and although there are session managers, the truth is that I am not very comfortable with them.

The specific flow you have sent seems especially interesting to me for live music, where you can handle different loops (I'm thinking on the fly it's conducive to this, without having to configure inserts. It is easy and fast to organize visually.)

Live, the precision of the mix is the least important thing. It has no problem for live projects, with different sources, but it does have a problem for mixing/mastering. The bus inputs are not rendered, and although you can still dump the master output to a secondary recorder, I don't find it reliable. Keep in mind that the monitor adds signal to the signal (the channel's audio signal + the monitored audio signal.)

If I remember correctly, Car used inserts for the returns, not the bus input. So if it is possible to do a mix/master.

I think the modular concept of music software on Linux is the correct way. However, for the music I make, it is enough for me and it is easy for me to do everything without leaving Qtractor.

And the correct way allows you to do the complex, but if you want as is my case, stay simple in practice.

In the future, perhaps I will dare to experiment more with the modular concept, which as a concept, really fascinates me.