What is KVR Audio? | Submit News | Advertise | Developer Account

Options (Affects News & Product results only):

OS:
Format:
Include:
Quick Search KVR

"Quick Search" KVR Audio's Product Database, News Items, Developer Listings, Forum Topics and videos here. For advanced Product Database searching please use the full product search. For the forum you can use the phpBB forum search.

To utilize the power of Google you can use the integrated Google Site Search.

Products 0

Developers 0

News 0

Forum 0

Videos 0

Search  

Sequence chopping...

Official support for: mutools.com

Moderators: mutools, muzycian

mutools
KVRAF
 
5603 posts since 24 Jun, 2008, from Europe

Postby mutools; Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:18 pm

DHR53 wrote:While I realize that Parts and Sequences seem to have similar characteristics, and can be targeted in many ways by tracks and racks. I find that just confusing and I suspect most people coming from a traditional DAW would also.


One thing is sure for me: The fact that different parts can share the same sequences is a very good feature imho, and i will certainly keep that. So that leads to the fact that parts and sequences are separate objects. Is that a difficult concept for you?
User avatar
DHR53
KVRAF
 
2795 posts since 21 Oct, 2002, from "somewhere between digital and analog"

Postby DHR53; Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:51 pm

"Make unique sequence" as it stands doesn't really do anything. If I split a sequence in 3 parts the parts look exactly the same whether I select "make unique sequence" or not... Something wrong there.

There is no way to cut a sequence in half and end up with the 2 parts "only" without manually removing all the notes to the left and right of the "now defined" looped area. Defeating the purpose of "split" and "make unique sequence."

Split - To become separated into parts, especially to undergo lengthwise division.
Image
User avatar
DHR53
KVRAF
 
2795 posts since 21 Oct, 2002, from "somewhere between digital and analog"

Postby DHR53; Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:59 pm

Honestly... Like compositions and Sessions, I don't "get" a bunch of this stuff with MuLab... I can't see anything different about parts and sequences other than the menu items. I use sequences to build songs and it appears to be a composition AFAIK. And that may be one of my problems with MuLab. I simply want to do a few basic things not build a rubik's cube with endless possibilities. I just don't have the time. Everything I do is the expedite the process... get from A to Z. I'm more interested in the end result not endless possibilities.

Thanks.
Image
leggie
KVRian
 
818 posts since 27 Sep, 2009, from Bristol UK

Postby leggie; Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:11 pm

DHR53 wrote: I'm more interested in the end result not endless possibilities.

Thanks.


Maybe modular Mulab is not for you? I have trouble with the rack being left behind when deleting a track but that's the nature of the beast and imagined in a hardware scenario why would the rack of compressors and noise gates go up in a puff of smoke when I erased a track , I mean how would they know :hihi:

*regrets post already
User avatar
DHR53
KVRAF
 
2795 posts since 21 Oct, 2002, from "somewhere between digital and analog"

Postby DHR53; Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:48 pm

"Modular" MuLab is not for me... correct. But obviously I don't need to use that aspect of it to use the DAW. What remains is a fairly conventional linear sequencer with a few "quirks." One of them being no "split" function of midi clips.
Image
User avatar
DHR53
KVRAF
 
2795 posts since 21 Oct, 2002, from "somewhere between digital and analog"

Postby DHR53; Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:05 pm

I own Logic studio V9. Of course I can just use it... what interests me in MuLab is the smaller footprint DAW without a lot of bloat and 1,000 menus full of functions I won't use. What I need out of said DAW is extensive midi editing, less emphasis on audio capabilities and OSX compatibility. What I consider basic stuff. MuLab covers about 90% of that the way it is. Frankly, I just noticed this situation with editing midi clips as I was trying to figure out some other issues... and it's been a work-in-progress for me.

I think it's great you can use the modular aspect of the program to build and create complex fx, instruments and arrangements. I'm just not going to be using that for my purposes most of the time. But that doesn't mean I can't request the same functionality from the program that is fairly commonplace in other DAWs available. Nothing I've requested reduces the uniqueness of the program one bit. End of story...

:shrug:
Image
mutools
KVRAF
 
5603 posts since 24 Jun, 2008, from Europe

Postby mutools; Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:06 pm

DHR53 wrote:One of them being no "split" function of midi clips.
No split function?? :o

You know there is one!! But maybe it does not behave exactly as you want and so you're emotionally saying there is no one.

Tell me: Do think that shared sequence parts is a good feature? (in other DAWs it's sometimes called 'ghost copies')
User avatar
pljones
KVRAF
 
4624 posts since 8 Feb, 2003, from London, UK

Postby pljones; Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:16 pm

Parts and sequences are not really similar.

Parts are essentially containers. You can have a part containing audio or a part containing a sequence. A sequence isn't audio and audio isn't a sequence. So parts, audio and sequences all are significantly different.

In MuZys, individual events within a sequence could have an event target, which could be overridden by the part target, which in turn could be overridden by the track target. If I remember correctly, the event targeting has been dropped for MuLab (and I don't miss it). But what you'll notice in that hierarchy of overrides is that "sequence" doesn't feature. The sequence is no more than the collection of events within the sequence.

Let's see how parts and sequences differ and why it's important to understand.

Let's take a five bar sequence. The first bar is an intro, followed by a four bar phrase. I want the sequence to loop the four bar phrase, so I set the part start to the start of the sequence, the loop start to bar 2. OK, after four repeats, I have a break, then back to the phrase. But from after the intro. I don't want an as-new copy of the sequence, as any changes I make, I want everywhere. So I copy-shared the original part after the break and just shorten the part so it starts at the loop marker.

That's why having shared sequences is so important. It really speeds up sketching an idea out like that.

What's confusing (I nearly said "slightly" but I still get confused by it!) is that the part start and loop markers are set when editing the sequence, even though they belong to the part...
plutonia
KVRist
 
106 posts since 24 Sep, 2004

Postby plutonia; Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:39 pm

jo, ghost copies are a feature i wouldn't use. it encourages repetition rather than developing parts. for instance, if copies are ghosts you cannot make changes to individual parts without it affecting the others, you have to copy it as a unique part first. i've never like this feature and don't use it. i always make parts unique so that if i make changes they are just that, 'unique' to the part.

i also think that the split feature as it stands is troublesome and over complicated. a simple split that then showed only the notes within the split part in the note editor would be far preferable for me. i really do not see any point in the notes from other bars in the part being seen in the note editor.
Last edited by plutonia on Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DHR53
KVRAF
 
2795 posts since 21 Oct, 2002, from "somewhere between digital and analog"

Postby DHR53; Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:39 pm

If you can show me the benefit of having a sequence that has a loop identifying 3 notes... while showing me 6 notes to the left (in grey) and 4 notes to the right (in grey) when I only want the 3 notes? Let's see...

1. I change my mind and want the 6 notes to the left... although I deleted them?

2. I change my mind and want the 4 notes to the right... although I didn't want them either?

3. Or I want the edit loop AND the 4 notes... or the edit loop AND the 6 notes and 2 of the 4 notes and... and... and...

Come on. Give ne the damn 3 notes I wanted please. I'm not going to change my mind about the edit honest... and even if I do I won't blame you!

Oh what the hell I'll just delete the damn clip and re-record it, which is precisely how I ended up in this thread in the first place! Geez. :roll:
Image
User avatar
DHR53
KVRAF
 
2795 posts since 21 Oct, 2002, from "somewhere between digital and analog"

Postby DHR53; Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:05 pm

O.K. here's another scenario for the stalwarts... I create a 4 bar "sequence." I dbl. click this sequence and view in the editor. I place a "left loop" marker at bar 2. Then I place a "right loop" marker at bar 3 1/2. If I drag the right marker to the left it will ask me if I want to "cut" this sequence... Hmmm the destructive "cut" word! that's interesting.

BUT... if I drag the left marker to the right... no such luck. No "cut" option NO WAY! So if this behavior seems a little er, random and downright perplexing than you would be 90% of the rational thinking human beings on the planet.

Left marker drag: Cut, resize, stretch etc.

Right marker drag: Cut, resize, stretch etc.

I know this concept might seem strange for those of you that want to be "reminded" of decisions you made earlier in your composing, and or you'd like to see the endless trail of bad notes and poor melodic ideas you created on your path to the right one. But work with me here.

:roll:


edit: even moving the right marker doesn't actually cut the notes... It's another "faux edit" Arghhh!

:help:
Image
User avatar
pljones
KVRAF
 
4624 posts since 8 Feb, 2003, from London, UK

Postby pljones; Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:26 pm

DHR53, I guess it can be hard to adapt to a new way of thinking about a task when you start using a new tool. But trying to judge the tool and make statements about it having shortcomings based on how you think it should work is just not a good way to adapt to the tool. It just helps encourage a fixed mindset. Focus more on the musical result you're after and don't worry so much about the details.
mutools
KVRAF
 
5603 posts since 24 Jun, 2008, from Europe

Postby mutools; Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:31 am

pljones wrote:What's confusing is that the part start and loop markers are set when editing the sequence, even though they belong to the part...


The Start locator belongs to the part, the loop start and end to the sequence.
Note that when you're in the sequence editor you're editing a sequence part, not a sequence. So theoretically it should be called sequence part editor.
mutools
KVRAF
 
5603 posts since 24 Jun, 2008, from Europe

Postby mutools; Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:48 am

plutonia wrote:jo, ghost copies are a feature i wouldn't use. it encourages repetition rather than developing parts.


You don't have to use it.

And copying parts via drag-drop indeed makes unique parts as discussed some years ago.

One thing is sure: I will not abandon the 'shared sequence' feature. To me that's an essential feature. Cfr pljones example.

Another example: Imagine a composition with lots of music going one. One of the tracks is a hihat track with many parts. Some parts are shared sequence parts others are unique sequence parts. I use the shared sequence parts for the 'main' hihat patterns, the unique sequence parts for the special fills and breaks. Now imagine i want to change something to a main hihat pattern. Then if i would not have the shared sequences parts i would have to copy that change to each and every instance of that same pattern! That's not ok. To me shared sequence parts are essential. And yes maybe they support repetition, but that's only a choice. If you don't want that, don't use/do it.

I don't want to be stubborn or close-minded, i'm simply 100% convinced that being able to use shared sequence parts is an essential feature.

If you don't agree with that, MuLab is not the best tool for you.

That said i'm open to optimize the split function where necessary, but only within the context of including the shared sequence part concept.

i also think that the split feature as it stands is troublesome and over complicated. a simple split that then showed only the notes within the split part in the note editor would be far preferable for me. i really do not see any point in the notes from other bars in the part being seen in the note editor.


If you have a shared sequence part and you split it, then i think it would be unexpected and inconsistent behavior that the new split part (the new right one) would be automatically converted to a unique part and that it is also trimmed to to the played section only.
mutools
KVRAF
 
5603 posts since 24 Jun, 2008, from Europe

Postby mutools; Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:49 am

pljones wrote:DHR53, I guess it can be hard to adapt to a new way of thinking about a task when you start using a new tool. But trying to judge the tool and make statements about it having shortcomings based on how you think it should work is just not a good way to adapt to the tool. It just helps encourage a fixed mindset. Focus more on the musical result you're after and don't worry so much about the details.


+1
Last edited by mutools on Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Moderators: mutools, muzycian

Return to MUTOOLS