what is the typical use of sub-tracks ?

[Eggu]

.. are there some examples ?

[robenestobenz]

Handy for automation, IMO.

Wish we also had a straight-up folder track though, so you could have groups of related tracks that could be muted / solo'd in one go

[mutools]

Wish we also had a straight-up folder track though, so you could have groups of related tracks that could be muted / solo'd in one go

You could simply use an empty parent track for that, no?

Ok, then the solo is not working as you described though.

[robenestobenz]

Plus space is wasted. Of course, there's mulab's fast and elegant track resize method but with 2 or 3 subtracks acting as folders in this way it becomes a significant amount of empty space.

[Taron]

I think it's a curious "simplification" to have separate sequencer tracks for controller curves, but it's a little odd at times. I personally would find it more elegant to have controller curves embedded in the note track they belong to as well as the ability to add controller lanes to such a track. It feels a bit scary to have pitch and mod.wheel detatched from the notes. Leaving it as an option to make dedicated extra tracks for them might be nice, I guess, but as a must it does clutter up the main song window.

Good request for the wishlist there: controller lanes within sequences(add/remove & hide/show)

[pljones]

I personally would find it more elegant to have controller curves embedded in the note track they belong to

What if I'm using the same curve, independently, to control a parameter on two synths and four effects, plus the send level on a rack at different parts of my composition?

It feels a bit scary to have pitch and mod.wheel detatched from the notes. Leaving it as an option to make dedicated extra tracks for them might be nice, I guess, but as a must it does clutter up the main song window.

This is what we have now. You can have the note sequence have any MIDI CC and Parameter controls that are specific to it embedded in the one sequence. Or you can create a sequence just for MIDI CC or Parameter controls.

[mutools]

I think it's a curious "simplification" to have separate sequencer tracks for controller curves, but it's a little odd at times. I personally would find it more elegant to have controller curves embedded in the note track they belong to

You mean something like this:



?

Well, i don't like it that way for these reasons:

1) It may be that, one day, MU.LAB will feature integrated editors inside the composer, so you can edit the notes from within the composer. This will conflict with such above system, as well technically as well from user side, imho.

2) How would you select the target module + target parameter in such case

3) When more than 1 automation exists for that module, then we would get something like this:



Which is not very handy i think.

I'm quite convinced that it's best to put each automation in its own part, so it's also easy and clear to edit/move/copy/popup context menu for each part.

as well as the ability to add controller lanes to such a track. It feels a bit scary to have pitch and mod.wheel detatched from the notes. Leaving it as an option to make dedicated extra tracks for them might be nice, I guess, but as a must it does clutter up the main song window.

Having all kind of automations pushed inside a single part is not ideal either, cfr the above picture and also because it will create more need to admin things (show/hide which curves) and also less easy to handle automations individually.

I think it's best to keep the current way of doing 1 automation per part.

But there are some things on the wishlist in order to further improve the automation system, e.g. the use of breakpoint envelopes from within the composer. And indeed also a further more fintuned handling of folder tracks. All on the wishlist.

[Taron]

... no!
Although that's entertaining!
I mean like lanes you would only have suggested in the song view, while you could expand them, if you wanted to. Normally you'd edit them if you've opened the piano roll. Tucked to where the velocities are now. Imagine more lanes underneath velocity that can be expanded and collapsed. Indicators that they exist (have been recorded) would be nice.

The nature of live-recording makes it a bit unlikely to have "neat" curves to begin with. Otherwise I wouldn't have minded a nice overlay solution, but it's pretty unlikely that it'll end up enjoyable that way, hahaha... might be worth an experiment. But the simple solution, even if it's kinda common, tucking the controller curves underneath the notes should end up being the most comfortable one, I'm afraid.

Rather like this in collapsed form...


It's always a good idea to remember how things tie together. Midi controller that affect the musical aspects of a sound, like pitch bend, modulation, aftertouch and the likes- which actually includes the velocity itself- are part of the played keys, the notes and it's more natural to have them with the notes for the editing process. The complex parameter options make it likely to include other modulation methods that belong to a specific instrument.

Also, it's sometimes almost important to look at pitchbend and modulation at the same time. That's why viewing more than just one controller lane underneath the notes can be something of a necessity, particularely for lead instruments.

[robenestobenz]

1) It may be that, one day, MU.LAB will feature integrated editors inside the composer, so you can edit the notes from within the composer.

This in-line editing would be the best solution for automation IMO. Glad to hear you've given some thought to note editing in the same way. It's something I've always wanted but seemed like a major FR to make technically, so I'd never brought it up.

[mutools]

... no!
Although that's entertaining!
I mean like lanes you would only have suggested in the song view, while you could expand them, if you wanted to ... Rather like this in collapsed form...

I don't see much difference with the current system of subtracks which you can also expand/collapse whenever you want. What's the essential difference?

[robenestobenz]

I think he means because they will always move with related note/automation data parts.

[Taron]

Oh great then!
...sorry, Jo, I should first get familiar with everything you've got. I'm getting ahead of myself here. Well, what's all the fuzz about then?

I'll have a look at the sub tracks. I must tell you though, if you look at one of the songs I've got up, like "taron-cheese.MuSession", for example. See the "padmod(2)" lane. I didn't put it there, I didn't make that lane, it made itself as I was recording. Normally I would assume this should then automatically become a subtrack that can be hidden. Instead it's its own sequence even. I would want to merge it with the note sequence, but I wouldn't even know how... tried it, actually. So, at the very least there is a tiny logistic issue in the way things happen.

Select Rack A. Now Record a new sequence (part) and use the mod.wheel and pitchbend and play something. It will create two separate new lanes that are not tucked under each other, but spread apart over the entire lanes. If the modulation would automatically become a sublane to the lane in which the recording of the notes goes... fine, fine. But this is...ah... a tiny bit wild right now.

[mutools]

I think he means because they will always move with related note/automation data parts.

Well, that's an advantage but also disadvantage imho.

I don't see big disadvantage in having separate parts, as it works now. Also considering the advantage that the part system stays consistent, whether it's about audio-, sequence- or automation-parts. Simpel and effective, i think.

[janamdo]

To have a oversight of the composition when it gets complicated..as example from tracktion
This DAW looks like MUlab with the racks
Give a folder( grouping..how do you call..) for a instrument and use subtracks for automating..problem solved

[Taron]

Well, that's an advantage but also disadvantage imho.

I don't see big disadvantage in having separate parts, as it works now. Also considering the advantage that the part system stays consistent, whether it's about audio-, sequence- or automation-parts. Simpel and effective, i think.

More than anything I, too, think it's damn close to the very bottom of things to worry about, hehe! It's workable, even if not ideal. You have my vote to skip to more exciting improvements!