Acoustica - Software should be easy to use

Mixer/Mixing Console

Support and feedback for Acoustica's Mixcraft audio mixing software.

Moderators: Acoustica Dan, Acoustica Greg, Acoustica Chris, Acoustica Eric

sjoens
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:24 am

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby sjoens » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:46 am

I'm surprised you don't have a themes forum.

Hi, I'm new to Mixcraft but it looks like this should be very easy to do. When I demoed v8 I noticed all the GUI files are available in the mixrez folder, so anyone can repaint the graphic files if you know how to use Photoshop. You can also tweak the mixskin.ini file for more changes. Always keep the originals safe in case you make any mistakes.
Mixcraft 8.1 Pro Studio (418), Windows 10 Alienware laptop, Windows 10 64 bit, Behringer UFX1204USB mixer/interface.

mick
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:33 am

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby mick » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:55 am

For anyone attempting to tweak the GUI.
1. Copy the mixskin file to a safe place such as "new folder" or memory stick, here it will remain as original default backup safe from any changes you make.

2.Editing the mixskin. Now you can edit the mixskin in the mixcraft folder but you cannot edit the mixskin while it is still in the Mixcraft folder so copy the mixskin to documents and edit it from there.
3. save any changes to mixskin.
4. This is the documents copy you have edited so copy/paste back to the Mixcraft folder in C: programs. The new mixskin will overwrite the original you copied to documents.
5. Mixcraft should open with the tweaks applied.

Topcheese
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:55 pm

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby Topcheese » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:07 am

Sounds like a possible config app done by the community, you know that way they can stay focused on the real problems ... not that eye candy is not important, but you'll probably get better results from the community in building it.
Windows 10 build 16299
AMD A8-6410 @ 2GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Sonar V-Studio 100
Alesis VX49
YMMV :roll: :arrow: https://www.reverbnation.com/dirtbom

rrichard63
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:14 pm

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby rrichard63 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:17 am

Mark Bliss wrote: ... Modernize the EQ. Some dont use it, I do and would appreciate improved functionality. I've similarly previously suggested either a fourth knob, or selectable mid freq at minimum would be nice.
I also would love either a little selectable button for a HP filter freq, or a rt. click function on an EQ knob for the same, or something. ...

See my feature request: http://forums.acoustica.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18343&p=110914#p110911

JonInc
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:30 pm
Location: East of Santa Monica

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby JonInc » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:12 am

comedians wrote:... but why does it have to conform just because it doesn't have "a modern look".
...


It is less about having a modern look and more about competing with other DAWs. I'm following a Mixcraft thread over at the Cakewalk forums (You may have heard - CW has stopped all development on its products), so there is a lot of interest in Mixcraft among Sonar refugees.

The "less refined" look of MC has been brought up many times as a negative. So it's a valid point.

And no one is saying that looks are the only reason anyone should buy anything. But again, competing in a crowded market, a company can't afford to be the one noticeably lagging in the looks department.

Topcheese
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:55 pm

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby Topcheese » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:54 am

The market is now less crowded, and having a shiny new interface don't mean diddly if the underlying engine can't cut it. No software is without issues, and MC is used to create music, not relationships(although it can in a way). Skype, Twitch, and SnapChat, those are the things you skin, so you and your people can feel good while comparing memes and skins.

What makes me feel good is a piece of music software that I can use without wondering why my VST's can't pass midi, or why I can only score one track at a time. In fact I'm too busy actually using the software, instead of fixating off to one side on probably one of the least significant parts of it.

If they don't like the sound that's one thing, but you know people don't have to look at the screen, just give them the sheet music to look at.

I've also been looking over their forums, and what I see are question related mostly to the features missing from MC like multi-track scoring. If MC can do what you need, and the price is right, people will make do with it.

I will admit it wasn't the prettiest looking, but by golly I was on my way making music with it faster than any of the other daws that I had. Perhaps when/if they add collaboration features, they can add the skins.
Windows 10 build 16299
AMD A8-6410 @ 2GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Sonar V-Studio 100
Alesis VX49
YMMV :roll: :arrow: https://www.reverbnation.com/dirtbom

mick
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:33 am

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby mick » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:09 pm

The mixskin is an enormous script with hundreds and hundreds of variables but If Acoustica wrote a mini mixskin the customisation would be highly sufficient and simple. I think I used about a dozen wotsits and I think its plenty to tweak and mess around with.
I tried Reaper a couple of years ago and Believe me, it becomes an obsession changing stuff every two minutes, you tend to think a little tweak here and there will be more perfect but you ain't gonna get there. Just a few things such as:
Track header
Track body
Automation track body
Automation track line
Major and minor tick
Playback line
Piano roll dark and light
Mixer background
Mixer (major)
Button colour
And a couple of piano roll tweaks and that's it.
You don't want to be very far away from the default colours, its all very subtle adjustments.

User avatar
BillW
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:17 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby BillW » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:45 pm

I always learn something on these boards.

Today I learned I'm supposed to not like the interface. Who knew?

Just pulling your chains - I get the point. I vote for making the "tweak" file easier to manage and then letting the community be the ones to design custom "skins".
Mixcraft 8 Pro (32bit) runs fine on a Toshiba Satellite C55-B laptop with a wimpy Celeron N2830 (dual core). Now using 64bit on a "less wimpy" Dell 660S/Dual Core Pentium/8GB RAM.

Image

User avatar
Starship Krupa
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:05 am
Location: California

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby Starship Krupa » Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:35 pm

BillW wrote:Today I learned I'm supposed to not like the interface.


Well, I learned that the appearance of what I am using to make music is entirely unimportant (and so I guess it follows that my impulse to learn how to put nice finishes on guitars, lovingly restore my vintage drums, heck, even wipe them down, was wrongheaded at worst and misguided at best).

Also, every last joule of development energy at Acoustica should be spent on "under the hood" improvements and feature additions. The appearance of Mixcraft should be of no consideration whatsoever, because attracting new users is of no importance and the company can survive on upgrade fees from the existing user base.

:lol:

Seriously, I like the interface, as such, I just think that there could be some minor improvements made to its look that would go a long way toward making it more attractive (following current graphic design trends, whether you like them or not) and fit better with the main window.

Those who disagree with me, give me the benefit of the doubt for a second, and do a little math: how many licenses do you think Acoustica would need to sell to pay their graphic artist to change the resource files?

Keeping in mind that people download an eval copy, poke at it, and make their decision whether to buy their license for it rather quickly. Some are put off, some are attracted, who knows their reasons? 5 licenses? 10? Their cost of fulfillment is pretty low, it's downloaded software.

10 more people buy it than otherwise would have due to slicker graphics? $900 buys you a lot of graphic artist these days, and if they stay with the program, 2 years later, you get $500 from them in upgrade fees, which $500 was an incentive for our intrepid devs to put whatever cool features and under-the-hood improvements in.

It is to the benefit of us, the established user base, for Acoustica to attract new users, by any means. Frankly, users of other programs popular with the "kids" who come to my studio think that Mixcraft looks a little outdated (to use a polite term). It's not until I show them what it can do and play them a few mixes and tell them that you can get it for $90 that they are suitably impressed.

I would rather not have to start on the back foot when demoing my favorite DAW. Simple as that. Art changes are easy. They don't (usually) induce bugs, they are a big "wow" when you send out review copies to the press, and they signify change when you put out a new version of a program, no matter what has actually changed under the hood.

I know that the looks mean little for most of the people who are already familiar with the DAW, but they can have real benefits for us grizzled veterans. They can bring more users, which means more money for the devs and more participants in the forums, which means more knowledge and more fun for all. We're already getting some SONAR refugees, how great is that?

Just pulling your chains - I get the point. I vote for making the "tweak" file easier to manage and then letting the community be the ones to design custom "skins".


I'd love to see a dedicated thread where we share mixskin.ini files like mick's (if he wants to)

I've tried going in to the mixrez folder and working on the resources with Photoshop, but I couldn't find the mixer knobs (the colors of which are too bright for me), and the texture change that I tried to make to the notorious end panels didn't work out.
-Erik
___________
3.4 GHz i7-3770, 8G RAM, Win 7 64-bit nVidia Quadro NVS300
2X PreSonus Firepods, Alesis Monitor Ones, Alesis Point Sevens

mick
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:33 am

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby mick » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:10 am

Starship Krupa wrote: I'd love to see a dedicated thread where we share mixskin.ini files like mick's (if he wants to)

I can submit the mixskin but its for Mixcraft 7.

User avatar
BillW
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:17 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby BillW » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:36 am

Hey Erik -

I do support what you say (though I can't follow your math; $900 probably doesn't buy even a week's worth of a graphic artist's time. And I'd say it would take at least a week but probably much more to get it to a level that the community would agree on.

But - it probably wouldn't take much to simplify the ini files to encourage the community to try things out.

I vote for this - and I'm going to the suggestion thread to ask for it.
Mixcraft 8 Pro (32bit) runs fine on a Toshiba Satellite C55-B laptop with a wimpy Celeron N2830 (dual core). Now using 64bit on a "less wimpy" Dell 660S/Dual Core Pentium/8GB RAM.

Image

sjoens
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:24 am

Re: Mixer/Mixing Console

Postby sjoens » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:26 am

mick wrote:2.Editing the mixskin. Now you can edit the mixskin in the mixcraft folder but you cannot edit the mixskin while it is still in the Mixcraft folder so copy the mixskin to documents and edit it from there.


?? I edit the mixskin in the MC folder all the time, even while MC is open. Once edited I can open a new instance of MC and see the changes while comparing them to the original in the previously opened MC. A great way to verify tweaks.
Mixcraft 8.1 Pro Studio (418), Windows 10 Alienware laptop, Windows 10 64 bit, Behringer UFX1204USB mixer/interface.


Return to “Mixcraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 20 guests

cron