Sub-group for plugins or racks

Got it now :slight_smile: Excellent indeed, I’ll try to study your conversion rack concept, and check how it could be useful in my case as well… I’ll try to catch “the power of abstraction” :sunglasses:

Thanks again!

1 Like

Update: I needed to “link” two or more racks to be controlled by a single volume, but it looks it’s not possible to embedd racks into a rack. I know I can use same controller for multiple racks, etc. But, is there a way to collect more racks into a single “master rack”? This will also allow a cleaner interface and management of sound groups. Any workaround? Thank you.

Hi Mistheria,

You can only have embedded racks inside of linked racks. If you just wanted to group some new bindings to link the volumes of other linked racks you are referencing you could add that feature to your master rack. I think that those are the things you could do. If your linked racks are fairly settled you could try loading them as embedded files but you would need to check all your routes since you would have changed the rack’s location in the scheme of things. Also this puts all the eggs in the one basket so if the master rack went down the other embedded racks would be captive so I wouldn’t recommend it. If you need an example of the bindings I spoke of let me know.


1 Like

@dave_dore thanks a lot! Sure, please if you can give me an example of the bindings :slight_smile:

What version are you running please? Also, the bindings would be linked but not in a ratio so when you turn master rack slider to 2 db for example all the linked rack sliders would go to 2 db. This might not be what you meant or wanted so if you could clarify it would help.

I run the latest version 4. No, indeed, I need to keep ratio between racks.

As I see, the easiest and quickest way to achieve this is to just assign a controller (song’s binding) to the racks’ gain, and I can set min/max value in the binding for each rack, as I do now… Thanks anyway.

Well, if you are setting ranges on your sub racks then I assume the ranges change from song to song so yes your current method is the way to go. If the volume ranges of the sub racks were global throughout your set list then you could set the bindings I spoke of up to do what you describe I think. In this example the binding from the CC11 expression pedal is mapped to a linked instrument rack’s outer gain slider and the range is set in the binding so all songs with that rack would react to the CC11 pedal the same way song to song.

If your ranges are the same through the set list for your various racks you would only need to place these type of bindings in the Master linked rack and save doing it for each song.

1 Like

Yes @dave_dore that’s clear. According to the way I use racks, the method to assign same pedal to several racks and adjust the min/max range is fine.

My only issue, now, is that when I change song in the setlist, the expression pedal and racks’ sliders are not linked immediately therefore, before to start the song, I need to move the pedal full down (0) and back to max so that the sliders react to the pedal. Is there a way that on loading the song this process is done automatically so when I move the pedal the sliders react immediately?

Thank you.

That sounds like the pedal binding setting “Prevent Jumps” is set to Yes so the binding won’t grab until the pedal passes the point that the slider was at before you applied the pedal. When set to ‘No’ as soon as the pedal is moved , no matter where it was all the bindings would jump to that current value.

How are those CC11 bindings you have configured with regards to that Prevent jumps setting?

If you wanted to initialize all your rack slider volumes on song load to the lowest level they would have and then have the pedal grab when you took it to zero it would be a different set of settings and require a few bindings tricks. Let me know which approach is best for you.

1 Like

Indeed, “Prevent Jumps” is set to “Yes”. I’ll change it to No so I’ll easily solve it :slight_smile:

Thank you!

1 Like

That is an outstanding discussion. Thanks guys!

1 Like