Own fader at first position in the mixer

[ngocdh]

Hi,

Own fader should be very easy to find, so I'm suggesting at least an option to always move own fader to first position in the mixer.

Further more, I'd like to request a feature: volume up or down the whole mix (by x percent for example). A very useful use case is when everyone is at 100% and I want my volume to be a bit higher than others in my mix, especially when I'm not the first to join the room.

Let me know what you think.
Cheers

[gilgongo]

Hi - the second of those is in the next release (to apply a gain in the settings): #1222 The general feeling though is that device volume in general needs to be done outside of Jamulus, for various reasons.

The "own fader position" is interesting. Wonder what others think? See also: #1639

[ngocdh]

I use both Mute buttons when I'm in Listener mode: "Mute myself" to avoid bothering people, and "Mute" my fader so that the mix does not include my background noise.

[henkdegroot]

I always have my own channel on mute. With my large instrument (tuba) it is not possible to ignore the sound from my own instrument and hearing it with echo/delay in my headset is very annoying. So I would at least like to have the option to mute my own channel.

[gilgongo]

Yes, I've no doubt these features are useful, but what I'm saying is that if the concept of "you" is already on the left in the main window (if not the mixer window), then why should it be necessary to see your fader in the mix as well?

This has been a source of confusion to new people, but it's been very hard for them to articulate why, because Jamulus presents itself as a being a mixing desk. So to want to not have your fader in the mix would be in basic violation of that idea. But a mixing desk isn't a very good analogy for what's actually happening to your signal. So when it comes to the concept of "Mute Myself", since you can mute yourself in more than one place, people are naturally confused. Witness also the calls for an input level control too, which I think may be caught up in this confusion. I doubt anyone would have asked for it if your slider was simply on the left next to your input levels.

[jp8]

Jamulus presents itself as a being a mixing desk. So to want to not have your fader in the mix would be in basic violation of that idea. But a mixing desk isn't a very good analogy for what's actually happening to your signa

Really, the Jamulus client is two separate things:

1. A software that collects audio from your microphone, and sends it to the mixer (server)
2. A software that allows you to create a 'mix' on the mixer (server) and hear that mix through your headphones.

Muting is possible in both part 1 and part 2. Perhaps the user interface would benefit from a very solid line that separates these two functions.

[pljones]

It's meant to. Everything on the left is meant to be local. Everything on the right is meant to be server.

Except for the bottom left corner where a bunch of random bits appear.

[ngocdh]

Hi - the second of those is in the next release (to apply a gain in the settings): #1222 The general feeling though is that device volume in general needs to be done outside of Jamulus, for various reasons.

Hi @gilgongo it's not really the same thing. When I'm already loud and just want to lower others volume, input gain won't help. The requested feature is similar to the Volume Mixer in Windows where you can lower everything down proportionally, and then up the fader you want.

The "own fader position" is interesting. Wonder what others think? See also: #1639

Yes initially I wanted to comment there, but thought maybe this should be requested separately.

[gilgongo]

you can lower everything down proportionally, and then up the fader you want.

Could you use Jamulus's grouping for that?

[ngocdh]

Could you use Jamulus's grouping for that?

Good point, but do we have a way to quickly put everyone in a group?

[gilgongo]

I suppose the current system could be improved?

[jp8]

I suppose the current system could be improved?

I think I would like to propose merging the multi-row and the grouping functionality.... so that by definition each group is also a row of faders.

Then I would allow group (row) names rather than the current group numbering scheme. And I would allow selection of (multiple) individual faders, but also of (multiple) entire rows. And actions to mute/solo/adjust the selected faders.

[ghost]

If there are several sort criteria, they should be prioritised by the user
in the user settings.
eg. sort A third, sort B first, sort C none, sort D Nth sort E none

No sort check box should be on the main menu.
eg. the DIR command in MSDOS can be configured perfectly in
autoexec.bat or config.sys to perfect the directory listing.
(it appears modern operating systems have lost this ability)

[pgScorpio]

Hi,

Own fader should be very easy to find, so I'm suggesting at least an option to always move own fader to first position in the mixer.

Further more, I'd like to request a feature: volume up or down the whole mix (by x percent for example). A very useful use case is when everyone is at 100% and I want my volume to be a bit higher than others in my mix, especially when I'm not the first to join the room.

Let me know what you think. Cheers

Own fader always at first position would conflict with all sorting options!
Nevertheless I think it's a good idea to make your own fader easier to find i.e. by a colored border or a different knob color.

Volume up/down the whole mix can already be done by assigning everybody to a single group. or using "set all faders to new client level"