Oh wow, that could make a huge difference with my main pedalboard. I never knew this before but it makes sense and I will certainly test it out.
Given how non-obvious this is until it’s mentioned, it suggests to me a compelling argument for adding a “sanity check” feature where the software analyzes your pedalboard and makes practical suggestions about how to improve it. In this case it would simply notice metering plugins in the chain and suggest that they should be moved to be in parallel. Is that a reasonable feature request? If so maybe I should start a new post suggesting that.
It raises several more questions however:
-
In the case of plugins like TinyGain, is it the metering which is expensive, or the gain control?
-
If it’s the metering, is this always expensive, or only when the device is connected to a web UI?
-
Obviously it makes no sense to move gain controls to be the last plugin in a “dead-end path”. So would there be anything to gain by decoupling the metering from the gain, and having the metering at a dead end but the gain still in the overall path? E.g. like this if it’s desired to get post-gain metering:
plugin1 --> plugin2 --> gain --> plugin3 --> ... \-> meter
On a related note, it might be worth revisiting Inconsistent Gain Handling - Feedback Welcome which IIUC was the original discussion which motivated the creation of the awesome TinyGain plugin. One of @x42’s suggestions there was to create a wiki page like “best practices for DSP on the MOD”. AFAICS this was never done, and it feels to me like it is still sorely needed. Is that a fair assessment?