Home› BSS User Forum › BSS Archive Threads› Discussion› London Architect with Soundweb London

Feature Request: Ability to Replace Macros Easily

mkohlmannmkohlmann Posts: 5
in London Architect with Soundweb London
Programming a large residential project with 20 BLUs and using macros for numerous zones. It'd be great if the macro could be replaced by issuing a command to replace all instances.

Comments

  • Kevin BrownKevin Brown Posts: 50
    Thanks for the suggestion.

    A Macro is an excellent tool if you find yourself constantly creating an audio \"circuit\" that always contains...

    1) the exact same Processing Objects (PO's)
    2) the exact same 'Properties' settings for those PO's
    3) the exact same wiring between those PO's

    A Macro \"locks in\" these 3 attributes so that you, the designer, can quickly add that pre-built, pre-optimized circuit to a design while remaining confident that nobody will change (\"de-optimize\") it.

    If you're unsure about any of those 3 attributes, then you shouldn't \"lock them in\" by creating a macro in the first place. That's a waste of time, because you'll have to do extra work to \"unlock\" them when you inevitably decide to change something.

    You're requesting a new command that reduces some of that work. It's a completely valid request. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. My skepticism arises from the fact that it would take substantial engineering resources to safely implement such a potentially dangerous* command which would only save a small subset of users a small amount of time.


    In the meantime, you're better off either...

    A) finalizing the design of your macro, or

    B) reducing the scope of your macro (fewer PO's = lower probability of having to update the macro), or

    C) not creating the macro altogether. Instead just add the PO's directly to LA like you normally would


    TIP: you can copy and paste PO's from LA to the Macro Editor. This means you can open a finished design and quickly capture a circuit as a \"finalized\" macro which can be used in future designs.


    *highly automated process = opportunity to screw up something in your design
  • mkohlmannmkohlmann Posts: 5
    Kevin,

    As a programmer myself I completely understand the \"substantial\" engineering resources required to implement this feature. The reason I bring this up is I'm working a project for a large home that consists of 20 BLUs. It's basically a 56 source (112 channel) system with 200 outputs. I'm using a source selector macro (2 source selectors with a hidden link for stereo) to provide routing to the zones. Each zone then gets an output stage macro with stereo and paging mic inputs. There's a substantial set of processing and then the signal is output in both mono and stereo. As I developed the program I made some minor tweaks to the macros and consequently had to replace numerous instances. Most other \"traditional\" DSP jobs I've don't usually have a need for this level/quantity of macros.

    So essentially I have a perfect definition for a macro. Inserting each one of these output stage macros takes London Architect a considerable amount of time, on the order of 38seconds on a Thinkpad W510 w/ an i7-820QM. Needless to say if I ever want to make a change it's a lot of manual work.

    Thanks
    Mark
Sign In or Register to comment.