Recall Filter for Inserts

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions Recall Filter for Inserts

This topic contains 7 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Neil Neil 1 year, 7 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #102542
    Profile photo of belac9615
    belac9615
    Participant

    Keith / A&H Team,

    It would be helpful if the Recall Filters for processing could be split so we could choose to recall the channel processing, or just the inserts separately. That way you could build a scene that would bypass your Waves’ or other external processing in the event of a mishap.

    #102557
    Profile photo of Mr.Si
    Mr.Si
    Participant

    +1

    This is exactly what I’ve been looking into recently!

    I’ve thought about using LiveProfessor instead of waves, as I have the plugins but no soundgrid stuff but the theory would remain – if the plugin processing machine were to crash I would need a quick way to bypass all inserts.

    (Mine is for a broadcast mix where latency is not an issue as it’s a separate desk)

    #102577
    Profile photo of hoernix
    hoernix
    Participant

    +++1

    #102589
    Profile photo of Neil
    Neil
    Participant

    100% makes me reluctant to use waves after buying the card, server and plugins. Never had any crashes with it tbf but could really do with this being added for peace of mind

    #102701
    Profile photo of Carl N
    Carl N
    Participant

    +1 I had a similar request a while ago

    #108985
    Profile photo of pfrigge
    pfrigge
    Participant

    +1

    I searched for this with the same use case in mind: Bybass all external processing in case something goes wrong.
    My current workaround is more complicated and error-prone.

    #109001
    Profile photo of Brian
    Brian
    Participant

    100% makes me reluctant to use waves after buying the card, server and plugins. Never had any crashes with it tbf but could really do with this being added for peace of mind

    They build in just enough chance of failure that a lot of people end up buying a second system for redundancy. They get more revenue from the “redundant” systems than they loose from people too scared to buy a single system, so it makes financial sense to do this.

    I realize that comment is a little “tin foil hat” like, but I suspect their is some truth in it! 🙂

    #109016
    Profile photo of Neil
    Neil
    Participant

    Did anyone ever come up with a workaround for this?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.