Peak Controller Mute Effect Behavior

[tresf]

Peak controller has a toggle called "Mute Effect".

I would expect the behavior to disable the controller entirely, however instead of muting the Peak Controller effect it instead mutes the instrument it is monitoring. Is this intended?

[grejppi]

👍 Mute implies silence, but Mute Effect is confusing.

I think it would make sense to add a Bypass toggle there as well (to have all in one place) and rename this one to Mute.

[Spekular]

I'm pretty sure it's intentional. If you're using the peak controller for an effect rather than for mixing you might not want the input audible. For example if you want to duck the same amount for kicks and snares you could set up a separate track with just one sample that's used to control the duck. Or maybe you want "ghost drums" that are only present via the ducking they cause.

[tresf]

If you're using the peak controller for an effect rather than for mixing you might not want the input audible.

I realized that after reading @grejppi's answer and decided not to comment. I'm not sure how best to illustrate this concept in a few words. I do believe that Mute Effect can have many interpretations. I believe Mute Source may be more appropriate, but if it were REALLY being muted, the controller would stop responding to input... 😕

[Spekular]

I definitely agree that the wording is odd. I know "ghost X" is kinda overused, but "Ghost input" gets the point across I think?

[jasp00]

Mute Output? Discard Sound? Perhaps a What's This? should be added.

[vlad0337187]

I think, that the "Mute effect" must mute only the effect, produced by this plugin (the same as "bypass").
And if there will be button "mute", than plugin will not listen to input, on it's output will be nothing, consequently, on the output of mixer will be nothing.

[Spekular]

Why exactly do we need a LED to turn off the effect inside when you could do that in the effect rack? I feel like this would cause unnecessary confusion, especially if it keeps the old name and changes functionality.

[tresf]

Why exactly do we need a LED to turn off the effect inside when you could do that in the effect rack? I feel like this would cause unnecessary confusion, especially if it keeps the old name and changes functionality.

Agreed.

[BaraMGB]

What's about "listen"?

[Umcaruje]

I vote for Mute Output, its exactly what the button does, and it doesn't change a lot from the current label, which I think is important to not confuse the users.

[BaraMGB]

@Umcaruje actually it mutes the trigger signal so one can listen to the modulated signal. I guess there aren't "two words" which describes what happens if one click on this button. The user has to listen by him/her self to understand. Therefore "listen" is a good choice I think.

[BaraMGB]

I want to bring this back into conversation.

[Sawuare]

it mutes the trigger signal so one can listen to the modulated signal.

Then how about "Mute output audio"?

[Umcaruje]

Redundant, it's the same as "Mute output" since we're always talking about audio here

[Spekular]

+1 to Umcaruje's point that "audio" is redundant. Out of the options proposed so far I think I prefer tresf's "Mute Source". Alternatively, what about labelling the LED "passthrough" and setting it to be on by default. There's no point adding a peak controller if you don't want your audio input to drive a controller knob, so the main function of the effect must be to do just that. By that logic, audio output from the effect is really just a secondary chain that lets the input through, hence "passthrough".

…

On Feb 22, 2018 11:10, "Umcaruje" ***@***.***> wrote: Redundant, it's the same as "Mute output" since we're always talking about audio here — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3017 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIgVmuQDGqy2YxLkJJnUamKOhG14FjWDks5tXT0JgaJpZM4J0mXZ> .