> First on space, could you not cut the number of graphical channel > pairs in half? In other words, why are there "stereo" linked fader > pairs for each individual mono PCM 1-10? I assumed this was because you could pan a mono track in the master stereo out, as you can in Audacity, or on a real mixing desk. I haven't actually tested this theory though... It might be simpler to represent this as one vertical fader for level and one horizontal fader for pan. Currently, it's a bit like the old DJ mixers before crossfaders were invented - harder to get the level consistent. > This setup saves alot of real-estate meaning only 5 pairs on the > panel for outputs and 5 for inputs even on the 1010 (though it does > mean a split vu meter for each). I actually like the visuals on envy24control - the VU meters are bold, and easy to read even when you're standing on the other side of the studio. In the Mac version, there's still a lot of horizontal scrolling to do, and input channels don't line up with outputs - no reason why we have to copy other platforms. I suspect the original M Audio mixer was designed this way because Mac/Windows didn't (doesn't?) have switchable virtual desktops. In something like Reason, you are forever shrinking and resizing windows or scrolling, and screen real estate is very scarce. > Shouldn't > these faders control the hardware-out level when routed directly > from PCM Outs in the Patchbay That would make sense - but then envy24control still has a relatively low version number, so maybe this just wasn't implemented yet. Cheers Daniel
