Automating the master section..

[AD80]

'Conventional wisdom' or whatever would have them connected to the master section somehow.

Nah thats just how old school sequencers do things. Not wisdom.

[braj]

'Conventional wisdom' or whatever would have them connected to the master section somehow.

Nah thats just how old school sequencers do things. Not wisdom.

That's why I said 'or whatever' because wisdom seemed like the wrong word

[headquest]

Was it like this in T1, I can't recall, I don't believe I tried to automate the master track in T before.

Yes, it's unchanged braj.

As you say it's unexpected, but one of those things you can work out by playing around.

I think that's why I set up a specific track lane for it though, as I described.

It works very well.

[pHz]

surely since it follows the tracktion automation paradigm (there - i said it) in that automation is tied to filters and not to tracks this way of automating the master section is ENTIRELY expected ???

slainte rob

[IIRs]

Yeah. I think most people simply don't understand Tracktion's automation system.

Any track can show any automation for any filter.

Its totally up to you whether you view automation on the same track as the filter it refers to.. personally I like to create new tracks for important automation data, and I usually delete the Vol / Pan and Level Meter filters so I can tell at a glance which blank tracks are automation lanes, and which are group tracks / FX returns.

[headquest]

surely since it follows the tracktion automation paradigm (there - i said it) in that automation is tied to filters and not to tracks this way of automating the master section is ENTIRELY expected ???

slainte rob

I meant (and I suspect braj did too) that it's unexpected when you are coming from a sequencer that works in (the established) way.

As I said, I think that the Tracktion approach is more flexible and I like it - it's great

[AD80]

Any track can show any automation for any filter.

[Sidhu]

The fact that any track can show any paradigm pissed me off when i totally screwed another tracks volume automation. Going bezerk meanwhile trying to figure why the selected track was not responding to automation.... Still have to find use for this flexibility...

[braj]

The fact that any track can show any paradigm pissed me off when i totally screwed another tracks volume automation. Going bezerk meanwhile trying to figure why the selected track was not responding to automation.... Still have to find use for this flexibility...

I have no real functional problem with it as-is, but I agree with sidhu, what is the benefit? I can only see it inducing confusion

[pHz]

hmmmnnn ... to me it makes TOTAL sense ... with tracktions way you can arrange your automation however you like ... on the automated track ... adjacent to it ... or even ahave a block of automation tracks away from the audio / MIDI stuff completely ...

... it just FITS with tracktions object-oriented approach and (IMHO) makes PERFECT sense

slainte rob

[IIRs]

... it just FITS with tracktions object-oriented approach and (IMHO) makes PERFECT sense

slainte rob

Agreed, (except my opinion isn't actually that humble..)

[ModuLR]

what is the benefit? I can only see it inducing confusion

Sometimes I make automation for one instrument follow the rhythm of a drum track for example. So I can place the automation track right on top of the drums although it has nothing to do with it. Very useful in that it's flexibl.

[Sidhu]

*deleted*

[glurgle]

the big (obvious to me) advantage is being able to automate multiple parameters for one track (or filter) simultaneously. The only improvement I can think of would be having folder tracks for organization

[koolkeys]

For some reason, I didn't know T could do this. It just makes T seem even MORE powerful in my eyes. And while it doesn't make sense when you think of it in certain ways, it does give you more power than other apps. So once you get the concept, it really takes off from there.

Koolkeys