Bitwig audio routing know-how limitations are ... severe.

[kurt008]

The only thing I really miss in Bitwig is being able to send the output of a return track to another return track. I'd often cascade delays into reverbs this way, allowing you to treat delay throws with the same spatialisation as the source track.

Having written that, I've never actually tried with an audio receiver....

I am aware of all the devices/possibilities you described - but I agree, that the workflow using Bitwig Studio concerning Audio in general is way too complicating in comparison to other DAW's. I made use of Cockos' Reaper for some time. In Reaper you simply choose to receive Audio from what-ever track, choose it's level/pan and can make a very easy partial mix (or even many, if necessary - without needing groups or something).
Bitwig: I just tried it to use a simple FX Layer device placed on an Audio Track, inserted 3 Audio Receiver and connected them with 3 tracks above. As input source though you need to choose an existing track, or the record button keeps disabled (!!!), because Bitwig is simply not "clever" enough to realize the Audio Receiver in it's tool chain (!!!!!).
As output ... I need to choose either one (only one is possible - in opposite to most other DAW's!) track, which most likely will be Master.
But: It is impossible to get an audio signal from this track, because - as just said - I need to mention an Audio Input source to get a record button. In each case though I need to choose one single input source (once more: In opposite to most other, not Audio-neglecting DAW's), so that my FX Layer together with all inserted Audio Receivers are simply ignored.
The only workaround for such a really simple task is to make an additional, void ("Auxilliary") track, so that I can send Audio Out of the track containing the FX Layer with the Audio Receivers to this "Auxilliary" track and choose on this void track the track mentioned before as Input track. This way I get an activated Record button on the receiving "Auxilliary" track, which receives the collected Audio signal from all the receivers...
This work is made in most other DAW's is half the time at maximum than in Bitwig and... the additional tracks needed for this construction doesn't make the over-all look really clearer. Not to forget, that every single sub-mix, which is needed independent of groups need such "Auxilliary tracks"... that is simply very poor, especially considering the "mature age" of Bitwig Studio, the huge amount of user requests and the obvious fact, that even the program, several of Bitwig developers originally came from (which is Ableton Live, as we all know).

As a conclusion: Routing of tracks, Audio especially, Audio editing/manipulating in general is way too weak for such a matured program, which BTW is not the cheapest out there. And the well-known "features", which seems to be inserted to "dazzle" users from well-known teething problems (because the team seems to has nobody capable of programming the missing audio capabilities and seem to prefer to neglect these tasks instead...) don't eally make the situation better - sorry.

I like Bitwig Studio - don't misunderstand me, BUT: As somebody who meanwhile invested at least 800 € over time I'm everything but satisfied of the method, Bitwig deals with user requests, Bug tracking and such "teething problems".
Especially I see it as critical, that instead of having a healthy contact to the users out there (either by running an own forum or at least by managing one thread on KVRaudio's Bitwig forum) they seem to avoid the contact to especially those people who they expect to pay money for a continuous development of their software product. And... developers, who expect me to pay, but who avoid a contact to me as a paying customer... leaves mixed emotions in my mind... sorry to say that.

[antic604]

Bitwig: I just tried it to use a simple FX Layer device placed on an Audio Track, inserted 3 Audio Receiver and connected them with 3 tracks above. (...) The only workaround for such a really simple task is to make an additional, void ("Auxilliary") track, so that I can send Audio Out of the track containing the FX Layer with the Audio Receivers to this "Auxilliary" track and choose on this void track the track mentioned before as Input track.

Select time on that audio track with FX Layer on it, right click and bounce-in-place that selection.

Alternatively, to avoid using FX Layer and Audio Receivers altogether; just solo those 3 tracks you want to combine audio from, select time on Master track, right click that selection, bounce-in-place and move the resulting clip to a new audio track:

[pdxindy]

Bitwig: I just tried it to use a simple FX Layer device placed on an Audio Track, inserted 3 Audio Receiver and connected them with 3 tracks above. As input source though you need to choose an existing track, or the record button keeps disabled (!!!), because Bitwig is simply not "clever" enough to realize the Audio Receiver in it's tool chain (!!!!!).
As output ... I need to choose either one (only one is possible - in opposite to most other DAW's!) track, which most likely will be Master.
But: It is impossible to get an audio signal from this track, because - as just said - I need to mention an Audio Input source to get a record button. In each case though I need to choose one single input source (once more: In opposite to most other, not Audio-neglecting DAW's), so that my FX Layer together with all inserted Audio Receivers are simply ignored.

It is not clear to me what task you are trying to accomplish... could you explain please...

[antic604]

It is not clear to me what task you are trying to accomplish... could you explain please...

They're trying to "resample" / "mixdown" multiple tracks into singe track in Live / Studio One speak respectively.

[pdxindy]

It is not clear to me what task you are trying to accomplish... could you explain please...

They're trying to "resample" / "mixdown" multiple tracks into singe track in Live / Studio One speak respectively.

Ahhh... way too much fuss with audio receivers from each track...

Create an audio track, set input from the master track, record arm it and solo the tracks you want to mixdown. That is a lot easier!

[zengel]

There's no (native, at least) Audio Receiver equivalent.

In fact, there is. And i use it everytime in my Ableton Project .
Natively some Ableton plugs have sidechain and sidechain listening . I tested it . The gate is the best for that. It tested it and i can use 64 routing for 12% of CPU. That good for me.
Bitwig is better . around 5% for 64 routing.

Ableton_Live_11_Beta_foxauO1Tqi.png

[antic604]

In fact, there is. And i use it everytime in my Ableton Project. Natively some Ableton plugs have sidechain and sidechain listening.

Good to know!

[antic604]

In fact, there is.

Oh, and also:

https://cycling74.com/articles/audio-ro ... leton-live

[zengel]

In fact, there is.

Oh, and also:

https://cycling74.com/articles/audio-ro ... leton-live

Yeah, i know but that's Max4Live...i try to avoid as possible to use it. Even if it seems more stable, it uses to mutch cpu.

[backtomusic]

1. FX track configs where fx track 1 can send to fx track 2 are not allowed.

This would be audio-receiver. In FX-track to put an audio receiver from fx-1. Remember to set mix to 50% on audio reciever soo you don't loose fx-2 direcly sent audio. The gain parameter under source fx slot will be the send level. Otherwise you can put a tool in source fx slot if you prefer for the same task.

[pdxindy]

1. FX track configs where fx track 1 can send to fx track 2 are not allowed.

This would be audio-receiver. In FX-track to put an audio receiver from fx-1. Remember to set mix to 50% on audio reciever soo you don't loose fx-2 direcly sent audio. The gain parameter under source fx slot will be the send level. Otherwise you can put a tool in source fx slot if you prefer for the same task.

Also, FX Tracks in a group can send to ungrouped FX Tracks, or FX tracks in a higher level of the group (nested groups). No need to use Audio Receivers in those cases.

[ihearanewworld]

These arguments / debates / requests / demands all seem to go the same way. The sanest and most productive response is to learn how to do what you want to do within the limitations of the tools at your disposal. If you’ve learned all the ways Bitwig allows you to route audio and it still doesn’t do what you need it to do, use a different DAW that DOES do that. I am not arguing that there is no room for improvement, or that some gripes are not understandable, but so often the complaints / demands seem the product of lazy and uncreative thinking. Trust me, it was NOT an easy or exactly intuitive process for Eno to set up all that audio feedback, but he was creative and patient. All of the tools that the old dub producers used are still available, maybe it’s time to take your audio out of the digital realm and into the analog, where you can route as you please.

Audio routing in Reaper is great...that’s one of the reasons people use it. But setting up complex modulation in Reaper is not great, which is one of the reasons why people use Bitwig.

[perpetual3]

Excellent post - both the Augustus loop and VCV rack techniques. I’ve been looking for a way to emulate a dub style console feedback network while still using Bitwig.

I get it, but if you remove the rhetoric and lose grasp on the product from my original post it still points out the following, which is important for (at least my) workflow:

Bitwig has an anti feedback policy that cannot be turned off that disallows:
* sending a send to itself
* sending audio from an output of a track to another track and then routing that audio back into a side chain on the original track (for something like round trip routing of an fx send/return from and back to an effect or instrument)

The community indicated that there are workarounds to these issues, but that they involve at best using plugs instead of the mixer and the worst routing audio out and back into the DAW.

The anti-feedback issues are not documented to a degree that they are obvious and in the interface can manifest in unintuitive ways. Fwiw the ability to generate feedback in DAW mixers is also more or less never discussed and there is not a general awareness that this is a good thing for some tasks.

I'm glad for the clarity that the dialog here has provided, but the core issue/feature is still a real thing. As with all things it is a matter of preference and practice for everyone and I respect that but, being old and having spent a decade of my life experimenting with real mixers and cables I am frustrated by a DAW that limits its mixer in this way.

I've actually implemented my workaround in VCV Rack bridged into Bitwig, which just released their Host module, which allows the hosting of VSTs. This has been working perfectly for me and I'm thrilled with a level of flexibility that is even greater than the Ableton mixer.

As for Augustus Loop, I encourage it's use this way:

put it in a feedback loop, 100% feeding back. Feedback in the plugin must be 0%, plugin should be 100% wet. Put this on a send. Now you can put a tape emulator in the feedback loop, which if you're me it really lovely. Careful with the gain, you will have to get it just right. Keep in mind that the "clear loop" button in Augustus takes a second (or longer if you have a 10min loop) as it deallocates the ram. Use the "tape" button to allow yourself to see the waveform. Try assigning a very slow and shallow (very very shallow) LFO to pitch (you will have to manually adjust the offset to get it to center around C) for lovely warbles. I use Augustus to record long loops (song-length) generally and I usually use three of them with the tap record control assigned to a midi pedal (a little tricky to set up) and I ride the send level (audio -> looper level), the loop level and the regen/feedback (loop->itself) all by hand. This is very close to having three frippertronics rigs at once, with variable (and long) tape loops. With even a gentle tape saturator (I use Ghz Wowcontrol or Softube Tape) in the feedback loop and everything set up so the feedback very slowly decays you can get something quite deep. I also run the loops totally async from clock, but that's my preference. I used to do this with a Mackie 1604 and real reel to reels and cassette loops (with defeated erase heads) long ago, this ITB setup is really much nicer. Whereas it would take an hour to get things running and balanced before now I can save state and begin playing right away.

Happy holidays.
I think calling my original post an "attack" is a bit of a stretch, just as I would consider labelling some of the results as insulting a stretch. Thanks again.

VCV Rack setup attached:

[pdxindy]

These arguments / debates / requests / demands all seem to go the same way.

Such posts usually indicate that the poster doesn't know how to do what they want. It is often lack of user knowledge, not an actual Bitwig limitation. Bitwig has very capable routing.

[antic604]

These arguments / debates / requests / demands all seem to go the same way. The sanest and most productive response is to learn how to do what you want to do within the limitations of the tools at your disposal...

All true, but the problem is - and I've learned it the hard way on forums, FB and Reddit - that many people learn by asking basic stuff or complaining from ignorance, without ever bothering to Google, search YT or ...read the manual. Or they assume all software should follow exactly the same principle, so if DAW A is doing something one way, then DAWs B-Z should too. I've witnessed the last bit on myself recently, criticising the way Studio One transfroms MIDI tracks to audio (Live's track freeze, basically), because I wasn't understanding the intention behind it correctly

So while I agree with you, I guess we need to accept that stupid questions and unreasonable opinions will be posted (by ourselves, too ) and just try to help people. Because of that internal conflict, my "help" replies sometimes sound snarky or "needlessly aggressive" (as someone put it). I'm trying to work on that.