2.1 feature requests

[IIRs]

I do see a certain amount of possible harm in having two functions that are basically identical, with different names. Do that a couple more times, and Tracktion's deceptive simplicity will be a thing of the past. If Jules can extend the current freeze function without spoiling the overall vibe, more power to his elbow I say (esp. when he's rubbing my back ) but I resent the suggestions that T's current freeze function is somehow broken or un-usable, and I really resent the thought that Jules might spend hours of time on it when it doesn't add any new functionality at all, but just saves some people two extra clicks when re-rendering a track.

When you render to audio - which is clearly your prefered option - you get a set of choices (i.e. replace or add the rendered clip?)

I'm not sure why adding a similar range of choices for Freezing would be a problem?

Why do you think choice is OK for rendering but not for Freezing? I don't understand how this would cause a problem or make Tracktion a more complex sequencer?

Think it through: if you have two types of frozen track, how do you distinguish between the two? If the new type of freeze track allows Vol/Pan filters, does it allow other filters aswell? Does it allow audio editing? Filters on the frozen clip? Are the freeze files going to be WAVs, or temp files? If wavs, what happens if we edit them externally before we un-freeze? What happens to all the other shit we've set up when we unfreeze for that matter?

It makes my brain hurt frankly..

I did think of a way to fake it to a certain extent though: Tracktion freezes by ASIO output, so I assume that if you group (eg) your drums to a different ASIO pair and freeze them, you could still adjust the drum group level as a whole in your soundcard monitor mixer. (If you have a posh card you may be able to set up hardware dsp processes too). If you have enough ASIO busses you could probably freeze a whole mix into stems, which could still be re-balanced..

I've never got around to trying it though: I find that sensible sub-grouping is the only requirement to make the current freeze perfect (for me anyway).
While I'm working on the drums and bass, I will freeze the guitar and synths groups, and vice versa..

[headquest]

Hi, and thanks for the response, platinumears.

Think it through: if you have two types of frozen track, how do you distinguish between the two?

"Deep Freeze" (as at present) shrinks to a slither, as at present.

"Freeze in Place" doesn't, so the volume/pan filter is still accessible.

If the new type of freeze track allows Vol/Pan filters, does it allow other filters aswell?

Possibly, plus automation, but not necessarily.

Does it allow audio editing? Filters on the frozen clip?

No, and no again.

Are the freeze files going to be WAVs, or temp files?

temp files

If wavs, what happens if we edit them externally before we un-freeze?

N/A

What happens to all the other shit we've set up when we unfreeze for that matter?

What other shit?

In other words, I would propose a simple solution that fits nicely with Tracktion's design paradigm and ease of use, but which simply allows for the basic mixing of volume/pan ... and I think aux send amount, too. Everything else gets frozen.

I think this solution would be an elegant way to meet the many requests here, and I can't see that it would be a major challenge for Jules bearing in mind that he reportedly implemented the existing freeze in under one day!

It makes my brain hurt frankly..

I did think of a way to fake it to a certain extent though: Tracktion freezes by ASIO output, so I assume that if you group (eg) your drums to a different ASIO pair and freeze them, you could still adjust the drum group level as a whole in your soundcard monitor mixer. (If you have a posh card you may be able to set up hardware dsp processes too). If you have enough ASIO busses you could probably freeze a whole mix into stems, which could still be re-balanced..

I've never got around to trying it though: I find that sensible sub-grouping is the only requirement to make the current freeze perfect (for me anyway).
While I'm working on the drums and bass, I will freeze the guitar and synths groups, and vice versa..

Now that makes MY brain hurt

[Daniel78]

Think it through: if you have two types of frozen track, how do you distinguish between the two? If the new type of freeze track allows Vol/Pan filters, does it allow other filters aswell? Does it allow audio editing? Filters on the frozen clip? Are the freeze files going to be WAVs, or temp files? If wavs, what happens if we edit them externally before we un-freeze? What happens to all the other shit we've set up when we unfreeze for that matter?

It makes my brain hurt frankly..

I don't think 2 types of frozen track is necessary. As several people have suggested, a global setting where you choose your preffered freezing method would force you to use one type or the other. It really wouldn't make much sense to mix the two. As for the freeze files, the user shouldn't care. If he wanted to edit them he'd use "render" anyway - that's what it's for. It might be sensible to not use the .wav extension though, just in case someone foolhardy enough gets tempted to tinker.

As for "all the other shit we've set up", what would that be other than volume/panning/mute/track output?
Any changes to these should remain - as they weren't included in the freeze. In fact, allowing this is one of the main arguments for this method.

[IIRs]

"Deep Freeze" (as at present) shrinks to a slither, as at present.

"Freeze in Place" doesn't, so the volume/pan filter is still accessible.

How do we tell the difference between this and a normal audio track? What if the frozen track had more than one Vol / Pan: which one is left unfrozen? Does it freeze all the filters on the track, then add another vol/pan.. in which case, if you automate this new vol / pan, then unfreeze, do you then end up with two vol / pan filters (possibly with seperate automation)?

[IIRs]

As for "all the other shit we've set up", what would that be other than volume/panning/mute/track output?

That would be all the clip editing / filters dropped directly onto clips / pitch-changing etc that people would expect to be able to do with an audio clip.. and will start to insist on if this new freeze is implemented!

[Daniel78]

"Deep Freeze" (as at present) shrinks to a slither, as at present.

"Freeze in Place" doesn't, so the volume/pan filter is still accessible.

How do we tell the difference between this and a normal audio track? What if the frozen track had more than one Vol / Pan: which one is left unfrozen? Does it freeze all the filters on the track, then add another vol/pan.. in which case, if you automate this new vol / pan, then unfreeze, do you then end up with two vol / pan filters (possibly with seperate automation)?

Hmm, actually this is a fair point - i was kind of assuming that you could gurantee the volume/pan would be the last filter before a meter and output.

Ideally, the freeze would be applied up to the selected filter on that track - Which would be even more flexible, greying everything out up to that filter, but allowing the rest to be edited/automated as usual. Especially useful if you use expensive plugins early on (like noise reduction)

[headquest]

How do we tell the difference between this and a normal audio track?

It could still be a grey block with "frozen" written across it.

What if the frozen track had more than one Vol / Pan: which one is left unfrozen?

A good point. Personally I think that there should be one "hard wired" volume/pan filter for each track... as on a mixer . This need not preclude using additional volume/pan filters as requred, but I think the large meter mode reduces the need for additional volume filters anyway.

[headquest]

Ideally, the freeze would be applied up to the selected filter on that track - Which would be even more flexible, greying everything out up to that filter, but allowing the rest to be edited/automated as usual. Especially useful if you use expensive plugins early on (like noise reduction)

Now that would be very cool indeed - perhaps the most flexible Freeze in any application

[valley]

A good point. Personally I think that there should be one "hard wired" volume/pan filter for each track...

Not going to happen.

but I think the large meter mode reduces the need for additional volume filters anyway.

Why? There are plenty of cases where you might want multiple vol/pans or level meters on a track.

As for freezing up to teh last vol pan, what if someone has set up pre-fade sends? You can't freeze the send stuff. Multi-out vsti racks? That's a tricky one...

The fact that Tracktion gives you teh flexibility to build each channle strip the way you want it makes it very hard to make guesses about what people will have on their channel strips.

The only way to do is have some kind of manual selection of where the freeze goes to, but then that is going to confuse the hell out of some users.

I don;t think there is an easy one size fits all answer.

[IIRs]

Personally I think that there should be one "hard wired" volume/pan filter for each track...

Personally I like to delete Vol / Pan filters and meters from tracks that I use as automation lanes. Also when mastering, I tend to adjust the volume with compression make-up gain, so I delete the Vol / Pan filters to get more screen real-estate.

Ideally, the freeze would be applied up to the selected filter on that track - Which would be even more flexible, greying everything out up to that filter, but allowing the rest to be edited/automated as usual. Especially useful if you use expensive plugins early on (like noise reduction)

..or you could just render and add. <sigh>

[Daniel78]

As for "all the other shit we've set up", what would that be other than volume/panning/mute/track output?

That would be all the clip editing / filters dropped directly onto clips / pitch-changing etc that people would expect to be able to do with an audio clip.. and will start to insist on if this new freeze is implemented!

I don't think there would be that expectation. If the track was greyed out i think people would accept it was "frozen" and wouldn't try to edit/drop filters on it. etc.

The whole concept of freezing is to allow the user to say to himself "right, this bit is finished (for now), locked, frozen. I'm not going to change it. I can take advantage of that to increase performance" Expecting to edit it while in this state/after making that decision, would be illogical </spock>

[headquest]

As for freezing up to teh last vol pan, what if someone has set up pre-fade sends? You can't freeze the send stuff. Multi-out vsti racks? That's a tricky one...

The fact that Tracktion gives you teh flexibility to build each channle strip the way you want it makes it very hard to make guesses about what people will have on their channel strips.

The only way to do is have some kind of manual selection of where the freeze goes to, but then that is going to confuse the hell out of some users.

I don;t think there is an easy one size fits all answer.

Some good points there Valley. I agree that there isn't an easy answer. But it might be good for dedicated users to keep on debating this constructively, because the present solution appears not to fit all either.

[headquest]

Personally I like to delete Vol / Pan filters and meters from tracks that I use as automation lanes. Also when mastering, I tend to adjust the volume with compression make-up gain, so I delete the Vol / Pan filters to get more screen real-estate.

That's interesting. Thanks for the insight platinumears.

..or you could just render and add. <sigh>

I agree that render and add is a bit clumsy and clutters projects as others have said.

With render and replace one possible problem is the reduced audio bit depth, also noted above. However, I use this solution at present when I am certain a track is done with. i.e. I use freeze during recording/composing/arranging, and then bounce each clip down before doing a final mix. I'm not sure how much the reduced bit depth affects things, but with the new 64-bit summing it seems odd to unnecessarily reduce the bit depth of each clip prior to summing, surely?

[valley]

But it might be good for dedicated users to keep on debating this constructively, because the present solution appears not to fit all either.

I'd love to see a really good model for a sectional freeze that could extend the existing deep freeze. Especially one that I think would be intuitive and visually meaningful to use.

Racks and sends really do make things tricky though.

[valley]

I'm not sure how much the reduced bit depth affects things, but with the new 64-bit summing it seems odd to unnecessarily reduce the bit depth of each clip prior to summing, surely?

I'm not bvothered about the 64bit summing, but I've always wondered why Tracktion renders tracks at lower bitdepths. To me it makes sense to leave them as 32bit.