andy-chiles
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
I'm curious - can you share a scenario where it is functionally inadequate?
The reason I ask - I'm pretty sure what the request is really asking for is essentially a dedicated effect that is not associated to any deck channel (just the result of the mix of the channels) and is applied somewhat intelligently if two or more decks are mixed to give the output, and in the best case, you want to apply it on the mixed result.
This is already achievable with master output based effects, especially if it is an internal mixer (master + headphones) setup, or if it is an external mixer setup (e.g. the DJM V10) if it has a FX send/return path for the mixed output result (which I think the DJM V10 has). In the latter case, if you don't have such an FX path you can't really do that much better than smart application per deck due to the software only being able send out specific deck output to specific channels for the mixer to mix itself, and then hope you didn't introduce clipping (which is why it's normally better to let the engineer make the adjustments for the room - they always have the view of final mixed result to adjust before it goes out to the room).
The only thing the request adds is not having to source and add a custom EQ effect yourself on the master output (I believe @Adion stated the master effect application is done with some intelligence in external mixer setups).
The reason I ask - I'm pretty sure what the request is really asking for is essentially a dedicated effect that is not associated to any deck channel (just the result of the mix of the channels) and is applied somewhat intelligently if two or more decks are mixed to give the output, and in the best case, you want to apply it on the mixed result.
This is already achievable with master output based effects, especially if it is an internal mixer (master + headphones) setup, or if it is an external mixer setup (e.g. the DJM V10) if it has a FX send/return path for the mixed output result (which I think the DJM V10 has). In the latter case, if you don't have such an FX path you can't really do that much better than smart application per deck due to the software only being able send out specific deck output to specific channels for the mixer to mix itself, and then hope you didn't introduce clipping (which is why it's normally better to let the engineer make the adjustments for the room - they always have the view of final mixed result to adjust before it goes out to the room).
The only thing the request adds is not having to source and add a custom EQ effect yourself on the master output (I believe @Adion stated the master effect application is done with some intelligence in external mixer setups).
Ok bro listen, pleeeeease...
I really don't know in what world you live in or on what kind of venues or stages you normally DJ.
So to get this straight without meaning to be rude, let me explain it to you properly:
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
In this normal everyday-come-as-you-are-clubs, we don't have ANY person that can neaaaarly call himself an engineer, nor is there ANY SINGLE PERSON that can adjust the sound during your set, come by if there is any trouble, or even cares or listens to you when you tell them the bass is waaaaay tooooooo loud and the mids go through the roof!
There is - simply said - barely any properly balanced and managed sound in this kind of venues.
Only the techinitions roughly tweaked the sound during istallation, 12 years ago, and during that the speakers changed 3 times a year while the amps also had to be replaced, usually by cheaper ones.
That is the sad reality we live and work in.
Next is that not every track is the same...
Thats why it would requier an engineer to get his hands on correcting your sound while you are happily DJing with neutral EQs. But as stated, THIS is and never will be the case in clubs that barely can pay you 300-400 € for a gig.
As well, you maybe see through your OWN EXPLAINATION how COMPLICATED AND UNPRACTICLE the FX solution is!!!
To make a living out of this low fees we have to DJ at least 3 times a week.
I don't want to send my sound through every continent on earth, probably deal with clipping, sacrifice resources and the ability to route other effects different than the MasterFX needs to be routed, and all this everytime I set up my gear, plus I eventuelly need dedicated hardware, just to regulate the sound, when it otherwise could be sooooo easy solved!
And you completely ditch the creative aspect!
Maybe someone wants to use 4 decks at the same time and doesn't just want to regulate the sound rather than to have creative control over the sound of all 4 channels at once.
So to consolidate this whole issue:
- It is for creative reasons
- It is for corrective reasons
- In the best case the MasterEQ has 3 knobs because it's a familiar setting
- This 3 knobs should be mapable (but I guess this is self-explaining)
- It should NOT use any effect
- And any way it is, it should be natively apply on every Deck inside the master output signal, whether it is in an internal or external mixer setting.
- Just 3 knobs to be able to work quickly, wether it is for creativity, or just for correction.
And without bragging: I'm sure you are also a good and experienced DJ, so am I considering myself...
I'm in this scene for 24 years know and teached a loooooot of newcomers in my area and even run a agency with over 70 working DJs, so please trust me when I'm telling you that THERE IS A WELL THOUGHT REASON asking for ESPECIALLY THIS solution.
Hopefully I answered all the question marks.
I don't want to annoy you with this topic but it REAAAAAALLY would be a profound feature!
Posted Sun 09 Nov 25 @ 5:28 pm
DJ VinylTouch
So unfortunately, you didn't answer the question
The comment I made was directed to the commenter just before it, and not you/your suggestion in particular.
I'm actually not here to fight against your suggestion or trying to be condescending or belittle your knowledge. I'm just trying to help with clarification of facts, what is actually a deficiency vs a nice to have/convenience.
I don't think there is really a clear deficiency between using a VST effect on the master/per deck vs being built-in to the application because the built-in option would just be a specific application of the EQ effect on master behind the scenes with less input from users/more presets/a bit more accessible through the UI (yes EQing is an effect even if you may not consider it to be one - it's a function that changes (affects) the input to generate new output, it's just that we normally see it with a dedicated layout in the UI for most applications, instead of as a general purpose effect, applied through a standard API protocol (e.g. VST)).
Wrt what can be expected of a club:
A club/festival/other audio-based event always has an audio setup done, and that normally at least requires at least some power source, an organization of speakers (with amplification where necessary) and a central mixer which people plug into, and all of this is normally gain staged with hopefully some equilization. That setup is what I'm referring to - it may not be done by an official audio engineer/someone with that title and it may not have all the pieces mentioned or more, but it is always done in some form.
It is normally the job of that person to adjust the setup to be best for that room/venue, so that you have as little adjustments to do as possible, and given they did, there is most likely no need for more. Having to do more is normally a last resort and normally indicates that person didn't do their job correctly/didn't communicate audio expectations for the best experience.
Wrt to track differences - that would be handled by deck specific equilization/effects (is adjacent to the request).
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
I'm curious - can you share a scenario where it is functionally inadequate?
The comment I made was directed to the commenter just before it, and not you/your suggestion in particular.
I'm actually not here to fight against your suggestion or trying to be condescending or belittle your knowledge. I'm just trying to help with clarification of facts, what is actually a deficiency vs a nice to have/convenience.
I don't think there is really a clear deficiency between using a VST effect on the master/per deck vs being built-in to the application because the built-in option would just be a specific application of the EQ effect on master behind the scenes with less input from users/more presets/a bit more accessible through the UI (yes EQing is an effect even if you may not consider it to be one - it's a function that changes (affects) the input to generate new output, it's just that we normally see it with a dedicated layout in the UI for most applications, instead of as a general purpose effect, applied through a standard API protocol (e.g. VST)).
Wrt what can be expected of a club:
A club/festival/other audio-based event always has an audio setup done, and that normally at least requires at least some power source, an organization of speakers (with amplification where necessary) and a central mixer which people plug into, and all of this is normally gain staged with hopefully some equilization. That setup is what I'm referring to - it may not be done by an official audio engineer/someone with that title and it may not have all the pieces mentioned or more, but it is always done in some form.
It is normally the job of that person to adjust the setup to be best for that room/venue, so that you have as little adjustments to do as possible, and given they did, there is most likely no need for more. Having to do more is normally a last resort and normally indicates that person didn't do their job correctly/didn't communicate audio expectations for the best experience.
Wrt to track differences - that would be handled by deck specific equilization/effects (is adjacent to the request).
Posted Sun 09 Nov 25 @ 9:22 pm
Oli K
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
So unfortunately, you didn't answer the question
The comment I made was directed to the commenter just before it, and not you/your suggestion in particular.
DJ VinylTouch wrote :
I'm curious - can you share a scenario where it is functionally inadequate?
The comment I made was directed to the commenter just before it, and not you/your suggestion in particular.
I guess I don’t have much to add to the answer given to you from @andy-chiles, even though I don’t understand the heated conversation between both of you, I fully agree with every argument he stated:
As you yourself noticed the very uncomfortable way to get the setup running, this would be my first point why it is in a way „inadequate“, not because of the lack of possibilities, but because of the amount of unnecessary complexity added into the workflow… From a DJ software which is being used worldwide and who calling itself „No.1 DJ Software“ (btw, I fully agree that VDJ is the best DJ Software) I expect it to offer me features right at my fingertips no other provider has to offer - simple to set up.
Speaking of complexity: Good for you and anybody who is able to set these things up, but not everybody is capable of doing so and we should make features accessible for as many users as possible - especially knowing the lack of care most club sound systems are taken of
On the other hand it would unlock new creative performance options which simply don’t exist in other softwares, resulting in another profound selling point to keep our beloved VDJ the No. 1 DJ software on the market. And let's be honest: why not introduce a new idea that keeps VDJ the best software on the market?
Posted Wed 12 Nov 25 @ 12:37 am
DJ VinylTouch
The discussion wasn't heated at all - it was two people sharing thoughts with some minor disagreements on some points - that is quite normal in a conversation that involves thinking/different points of view.
The point I was making to you is that what you have pointed out is not a deficiency of the software because you can achieve the goal with VST effects. What you are getting at is that the current solution is not as streamlined as you think it could be terms of achieving the goal (you have to use VST effects with a bit more effort to do it).
What you expect, what you perceive the software to be in terms of claims, etc, doesn't change that fact.
This is pretty similar to the maximizer inclusion discussion - I'm neutral on both, but I do know that it's possible to achieve a solution for both right now with the tools that are available.
It's up to the devs to decide if they want to take that extra step to make those functionalities be provided in-house.
The point I was making to you is that what you have pointed out is not a deficiency of the software because you can achieve the goal with VST effects. What you are getting at is that the current solution is not as streamlined as you think it could be terms of achieving the goal (you have to use VST effects with a bit more effort to do it).
What you expect, what you perceive the software to be in terms of claims, etc, doesn't change that fact.
This is pretty similar to the maximizer inclusion discussion - I'm neutral on both, but I do know that it's possible to achieve a solution for both right now with the tools that are available.
It's up to the devs to decide if they want to take that extra step to make those functionalities be provided in-house.
Posted Wed 12 Nov 25 @ 1:09 am
groovindj
Adding a VST to the signal chain is not "very uncomfortable" or "adding complexity". It DOES offer features that no other provider has to offer. Performance options which don't exist in other softwares.
I get the impression that the existing solution is just being described as "uncomfortable", "unpractical" or "complex" because it's not EXACTLY what's being demanded.
In the DJ software market, VirtualDJ is the only one that allows use of VST plugins.
These plugins are standard across professional applications used for recording and production globally, and have been for decades. They're ubiquitous because they're NOT complex, impractical or uncomfortable.
I get the impression that the existing solution is just being described as "uncomfortable", "unpractical" or "complex" because it's not EXACTLY what's being demanded.
In the DJ software market, VirtualDJ is the only one that allows use of VST plugins.
These plugins are standard across professional applications used for recording and production globally, and have been for decades. They're ubiquitous because they're NOT complex, impractical or uncomfortable.
Posted Wed 12 Nov 25 @ 10:17 am
freppa
Why dont just add eq 10 or a thirdparty eq, for example fabfilter pro q3 and place it in "AUTO START " in Master effects.
And it will automaticly start when you start VDJ, done :)
And it will automaticly start when you start VDJ, done :)
Posted Thu 13 Nov 25 @ 6:19 pm
andy-chiles
Alright everyone,
let me break this down clearly so we’re not going in circles.
I keep reading comments like “just use a VST”, “it’s not that important”, or “if it was important, every mixer would have it already.”
All of these sound reasonable at first — but they miss the real-world point completely.
1. A VST/FX workaround is NOT a proper Master EQ
Anyone who actually tested this in real club setups knows the issues very well:
* The Master-FX Slots behave differently in internal vs. external mixer routing
* It definitely uses extra CPU, which may cause...
* ...unexpected behavior or even instability during long sets.
This is not about “comfort”.
This is a workflow limitation — and DJs performing live should not rely on temporary hacks.
2. Real clubs are not perfect labs — they’re messy
I know we all want the perfect venue, but the everyday reality looks different:
* No sound engineer on site
* No sound engineer even on installation
* Bad live monitoring or adjustments
* Sound systems installed years ago and never re-tuned again
* Speakers changed without recalibration
* Rooms with difficult acoustics and uneven response
* Worn-down DJ-Hardware optional on top, (especially speaking of broken EQ-potis).
In these situations, a reliable Master EQ is not a luxury.
It’s a necessary tool so we can leave the channel EQs at center, focus on the mix, and quickly fix the room or system issues on the fly.
3. “If it was important, everyone would have it” — that’s not how innovation works
This argument doesn’t hold up.
Plenty of features start in high-end gear and move down over time.
The V10 isolator isn’t just a marketing gimmick — Pioneer put it there because pro DJs use and value it.
Just because something isn’t everywhere yet doesn’t mean it’s not important.
Sometimes it means the industry is behind — and that’s exactly where VDJ usually leads.
4. A native Master EQ would be simple, reliable, and consistent
Not a 10-band tool... I’m asking for:
* Three familiar knobs
* Built directly into the software
* No FX slots
* No mapping conflicts
* Same behavior in every routing mode
* Stable and predictable in any live situation
Exactly what a DJ needs when performing — fast, clean, controllable.
5. And yes, it’s also about creativity
If you play with multiple decks at once, sometimes you want to shape all of them together.
Not 12 knobs.
Just 3.
This opens creative possibilities that are simply not practical with the current workaround.
6. VirtualDJ wins by innovating — not by pointing to workarounds
VDJ became the “No. 1 DJ Software” because it added features other platforms didn’t.
Not because it relied on copying others.
A native Master EQ would be:
* a legitimate professional tool
* a real improvement for everyday club DJs
* a creative upgrade for power users
* a simple access to new possibilities for non-power users
* simple to implement
* and a clear advantage over other DJ software
I wouldn’t push this feature for years if the existing solutions were good enough.
They’re not. They’re workarounds with real limitations.
That’s why I’m asking — again — for something simple but powerful:
A proper, native, three-knob Master EQ.
Nothing fancy.
Just something that works perfectly in every situation.
And it would make a massive difference.
— Thank You.
let me break this down clearly so we’re not going in circles.
I keep reading comments like “just use a VST”, “it’s not that important”, or “if it was important, every mixer would have it already.”
All of these sound reasonable at first — but they miss the real-world point completely.
1. A VST/FX workaround is NOT a proper Master EQ
Anyone who actually tested this in real club setups knows the issues very well:
* The Master-FX Slots behave differently in internal vs. external mixer routing
* It definitely uses extra CPU, which may cause...
* ...unexpected behavior or even instability during long sets.
This is not about “comfort”.
This is a workflow limitation — and DJs performing live should not rely on temporary hacks.
2. Real clubs are not perfect labs — they’re messy
I know we all want the perfect venue, but the everyday reality looks different:
* No sound engineer on site
* No sound engineer even on installation
* Bad live monitoring or adjustments
* Sound systems installed years ago and never re-tuned again
* Speakers changed without recalibration
* Rooms with difficult acoustics and uneven response
* Worn-down DJ-Hardware optional on top, (especially speaking of broken EQ-potis).
In these situations, a reliable Master EQ is not a luxury.
It’s a necessary tool so we can leave the channel EQs at center, focus on the mix, and quickly fix the room or system issues on the fly.
3. “If it was important, everyone would have it” — that’s not how innovation works
This argument doesn’t hold up.
Plenty of features start in high-end gear and move down over time.
The V10 isolator isn’t just a marketing gimmick — Pioneer put it there because pro DJs use and value it.
Just because something isn’t everywhere yet doesn’t mean it’s not important.
Sometimes it means the industry is behind — and that’s exactly where VDJ usually leads.
4. A native Master EQ would be simple, reliable, and consistent
Not a 10-band tool... I’m asking for:
* Three familiar knobs
* Built directly into the software
* No FX slots
* No mapping conflicts
* Same behavior in every routing mode
* Stable and predictable in any live situation
Exactly what a DJ needs when performing — fast, clean, controllable.
5. And yes, it’s also about creativity
If you play with multiple decks at once, sometimes you want to shape all of them together.
Not 12 knobs.
Just 3.
This opens creative possibilities that are simply not practical with the current workaround.
6. VirtualDJ wins by innovating — not by pointing to workarounds
VDJ became the “No. 1 DJ Software” because it added features other platforms didn’t.
Not because it relied on copying others.
A native Master EQ would be:
* a legitimate professional tool
* a real improvement for everyday club DJs
* a creative upgrade for power users
* a simple access to new possibilities for non-power users
* simple to implement
* and a clear advantage over other DJ software
I wouldn’t push this feature for years if the existing solutions were good enough.
They’re not. They’re workarounds with real limitations.
That’s why I’m asking — again — for something simple but powerful:
A proper, native, three-knob Master EQ.
Nothing fancy.
Just something that works perfectly in every situation.
And it would make a massive difference.
— Thank You.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 2:04 pm
groovindj
LOL @ VSTs being "temporary hacks" - that must be why they've been used across the globe for decades by everyone from bedroom DJs to major artists and studios.
There are posts online, should you care to check, from people doing professional FOH in concert venues, using VST plugins. If they can do it, it really should be insignificant for a DJ in a club.
Next year VST tech will be 30 years old. It doesn't get to be in that position by being unreliable, or causing excessive CPU use. Think about that. If computers 30 years ago could run VSTs, it's going to be a walk in the park for a modern system.
Once again though, the three band ISO on the V10 that you keep mentioning is NOT a master EQ, it's an effect (like a more advanced filter). They've been around for decades, but have not "moved down over time". They're still niche. Most mixers don't have them.
There are posts online, should you care to check, from people doing professional FOH in concert venues, using VST plugins. If they can do it, it really should be insignificant for a DJ in a club.
Next year VST tech will be 30 years old. It doesn't get to be in that position by being unreliable, or causing excessive CPU use. Think about that. If computers 30 years ago could run VSTs, it's going to be a walk in the park for a modern system.
Once again though, the three band ISO on the V10 that you keep mentioning is NOT a master EQ, it's an effect (like a more advanced filter). They've been around for decades, but have not "moved down over time". They're still niche. Most mixers don't have them.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 2:30 pm
kradcliffe
I can understand the need in a shitty pub with an old or budget sound system, (where the current EQ10 assigned to master would already suffice) but in bigger venues this sort of thing should be a hardware fix, not the DJs own software.
Previously I've refused to work in venues with poor sound systems and with the greatest of respect no EQ on DJ software through a laptop would make any difference.
In summary ... get the venue to implement a hardware fix or just don't work there.
Previously I've refused to work in venues with poor sound systems and with the greatest of respect no EQ on DJ software through a laptop would make any difference.
In summary ... get the venue to implement a hardware fix or just don't work there.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 2:51 pm
andy-chiles
groovindj wrote :
LOL @ VSTs being "temporary hacks" - that must be why they've been used across the globe for decades by everyone from bedroom DJs to major artists and studios.
There are posts online, should you care to check, from people doing professional FOH in concert venues, using VST plugins. If they can do it, it really should be insignificant for a DJ in a club.
Next year VST tech will be 30 years old. It doesn't get to be in that position by being unreliable, or causing excessive CPU use. Think about that. If computers 30 years ago could run VSTs, it's going to be a walk in the park for a modern system.
Once again though, the three band ISO on the V10 that you keep mentioning is NOT a master EQ, it's an effect (like a more advanced filter). They've been around for decades, but have not "moved down over time". They're still niche. Most mixers don't have them.
There are posts online, should you care to check, from people doing professional FOH in concert venues, using VST plugins. If they can do it, it really should be insignificant for a DJ in a club.
Next year VST tech will be 30 years old. It doesn't get to be in that position by being unreliable, or causing excessive CPU use. Think about that. If computers 30 years ago could run VSTs, it's going to be a walk in the park for a modern system.
Once again though, the three band ISO on the V10 that you keep mentioning is NOT a master EQ, it's an effect (like a more advanced filter). They've been around for decades, but have not "moved down over time". They're still niche. Most mixers don't have them.
Please consider reading my WHOLE answer attentively, with all it's best-possible-careful-as-I-could-thought formulations which I chose to not offend anybody, and don't pick just one topic to go down on, which supports your narrative.
- Yes we know that a lot of VSTs can do live performances.
--> But you didn't consider weak machines they may run on and/or badly programmed VSTs which consume a whole lot of resources. If it would be a walk on the park there wouldn't be memes about DAWs shutting down with barley any plugins running.
- Yes we know that these aren't workarounds.
--> Yet what is offered here is a workaround because: Read your own explanation.
- Yes we know that the ISO is an effect, which - yes we know that all very well - can purposely be misused to correct the sound.
--> What happens to be way better than recalibrating your channel EQs after every transition to fix they SAME ISSUE every time.
We all know that, and anything else you mentioned, including that 30 years ago plugins weren't so extensive as today.
If you answer, please do it constructively.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:12 pm
kradcliffe
andy-chiles wrote :
--> But you didn't consider weak machines they may run on and/or badly programmed VSTs which consume a whole lot of resources.
That's why there's a thing called testing. I do that on my laptop with any VDJ major updates or if anything changes on my PC or hardware. Then you can find out if the VST you selected is stable and works correctly and can be used live.
Sounds like you're just making excuses to justify not using them.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:17 pm
andy-chiles
kradcliffe wrote :
I can understand the need in a shitty pub with an old or budget sound system, (where the current EQ10 assigned to master would already suffice) but in bigger venues this sort of thing should be a hardware fix, not the DJs own software.
Previously I've refused to work in venues with poor sound systems and with the greatest of respect no EQ on DJ software through a laptop would make any difference.
In summary ... get the venue to implement a hardware fix or just don't work there.
Previously I've refused to work in venues with poor sound systems and with the greatest of respect no EQ on DJ software through a laptop would make any difference.
In summary ... get the venue to implement a hardware fix or just don't work there.
And Yes I'm also aware of this things.
But a rough correction - which I also said already in my posts - is better than to correct the channel EQs for the same frequency problem over and over again after every transition.
And yes of course, a 10-Band would probably address those issues way better, but in a more complicated way.
I would also be fine with the fixing of the behavior of the external mixer master FX slot.
But we haven't made any progress, and that's what's demotivating.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:21 pm
PhantomDeejay
Can we please stop beating a dead horse ?
OP made a wish. That's why this forum exists in the first place.
Then points were raised by both sides of the argument, which is also fine.
Now there's no point to keep this going. Anything that could be said has been said.
Nor keeping arguing over the subject will somehow make the dev team to decide in favor or against the initial wish.
Thank you!
OP made a wish. That's why this forum exists in the first place.
Then points were raised by both sides of the argument, which is also fine.
Now there's no point to keep this going. Anything that could be said has been said.
Nor keeping arguing over the subject will somehow make the dev team to decide in favor or against the initial wish.
Thank you!
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:23 pm
kradcliffe
Fair enough George, but from his most recent post (the one above yours) he seems to want a 3 band master EQ with knobs rather than the current 10 band EQ with sliders. OK then.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:25 pm
andy-chiles
kradcliffe wrote :
That's why there's a thing called testing. I do that on my laptop with any VDJ major updates or if anything changes on my PC or hardware. Then you can find out if the VST you selected is stable and works correctly and can be used live.
Sounds like you're just making excuses to justify not using them.
andy-chiles wrote :
--> But you didn't consider weak machines they may run on and/or badly programmed VSTs which consume a whole lot of resources.
That's why there's a thing called testing. I do that on my laptop with any VDJ major updates or if anything changes on my PC or hardware. Then you can find out if the VST you selected is stable and works correctly and can be used live.
Sounds like you're just making excuses to justify not using them.
OF COURSE you have to test.
But tell this to some users which want to use a feature but are no aware of this processes because they are just no heavy computer affiliates, rather than good musicians.
And no, I'm not making excuses.
I run everything on a M2 Max Mac with every performance upgrade there was available.
It cost me a lot, so I guess this machine is capable. But I'm speaking if kinda semi pro users who may are no be able to afford this kind of tech.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:26 pm
kradcliffe
andy-chiles wrote :
But I'm speaking if kinda semi pro users who may are no be able to afford this kind of tech.
So why can't they just use EQ10 on the master that already exists?
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:29 pm
andy-chiles
PhantomDeejay wrote :
Can we please stop beating a dead horse ?
OP made a wish. That's why this forum exists in the first place.
Then points were raised by both sides of the argument, which is also fine.
Now there's no point to keep this going. Anything that could be said has been said.
Nor keeping arguing over the subject will somehow make the dev team to decide in favor or against the initial wish.
Thank you!
OP made a wish. That's why this forum exists in the first place.
Then points were raised by both sides of the argument, which is also fine.
Now there's no point to keep this going. Anything that could be said has been said.
Nor keeping arguing over the subject will somehow make the dev team to decide in favor or against the initial wish.
Thank you!
The 3-Band EQ/ISO thing would be a nice solution...
But I also got your point here before you even mentioned it.
But no progress AT ALL - EVEN while the behavior of the external mixer master FX slot is clearly not correct, is indeed no thing to dismiss.
Please, fix at least this to get a somehow compromise.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:30 pm
andy-chiles
kradcliffe wrote :
So why can't they just use EQ10 on the master that already exists?
andy-chiles wrote :
But I'm speaking if kinda semi pro users who may are no be able to afford this kind of tech.
So why can't they just use EQ10 on the master that already exists?
Because the Master FX Slot just won't correctly in an external mixer setting.
That's the whole point.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:31 pm
kradcliffe
So assign it to each individual output channel then. You're making this way more complex than it needs to be.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:37 pm
andy-chiles
kradcliffe wrote :
So assign it to each individual output channel then. You're making this way more complex than it needs to be.
Sorry if I may offend you, but I tried everything and it doesn't work.
If you know how, then please tell me.
But as soon as I place an effect in the master FX Slot (in an external mixer setting) it always chooses the current automatically selected master deck, but not the one you want to mix in.
As soon as the master deck selection switches, the effect also switches.
Internal there is no issue, external mixer setting and you face this problem.
Posted Fri 28 Nov 25 @ 3:43 pm
