FR: SNAPSHOTS!

[braj]

***EDIT*** Back on page 8 or so I changed my mind in favor of a 'snapshots' feature where you could essentially load different views of track arrangements with the click of a button or a keystroke. I'm too busy to make a new post and to keep the conversation here going, I just renamed the thread.
--

I know this is a repost, but since it really is a FR I thought it should get it's own thread. Time to put on my flame-retardant suit. Ahem:

Make a Mixer in T that mirrors the filter section, but appears horizontally in the contextual area at the bottom of the screen. You could access this by clicking in the master section or some other hotkey. You could have a filter that allows you to only show the desired plug-ins (vol, level, mute/solo, send/return being the norm. You could arrange the channels in whatever order you want independent of how they appear in the tracks area. Clicking a channel would highlight that track in the main view as well. You could hide channels so you could show only your submixes or whatever you need. Maybe a per edit memory so you could switch between your drum submix, main mix, strings, etc.

[djsubject]

Club

[flanneljammies]

Give it a rest.

[braj]

Give it a rest.

That's gotta hurt.

[braj]

I'm talking about something that wouldn't float, wouldn't be intrusive, and would be very helpful when you need it. I don't see how it would go against T's design philosophy and it doesn't have to look like a Mackie mixer

[chico.co.uk]

What a revolutionary idea that we've never had round here before. Can you post about it again next week please?

Also, it must be about time for a thread asking when the release date is, it's been oooh, about two hours since the last one

[SaviorNeeded]

You do get points for bravery, braj

Tom

[braj]

Hey, I knew what I was getting myself into

[larsfarm]

Make a Mixer in T that mirrors the filter section, but appears horizontally in the contextual area at the bottom of the screen.

OK, so educate me. I'm sort of new to using computers for audio. I have no experience with Logic or Cubase. What other features then turning the display on end do you want? I'm not sure what you ask for because I use Tracktion exclusively as a Mixer... I record multiple tracks simultaneously for an hour or so using a Mackie SDR24/96 and then move the files over to Tracktion and, well mix them... Then I'm almost done... What else should I expect from a mixer.

Lars

[braj]

Make a Mixer in T that mirrors the filter section, but appears horizontally in the contextual area at the bottom of the screen.

OK, so educate me. I'm sort of new to using computers for audio. I have no experience with Logic or Cubase. What other features then turning the display on end do you want? I'm not sure what you ask for because I use Tracktion exclusively as a Mixer... I record multiple tracks simultaneously for an hour or so using a Mackie SDR24/96 and then move the files over to Tracktion and, well mix them... Then I'm almost done... What else should I expect from a mixer.

Lars

Essentially I'd like to get a subset of all the tracks I'm using, like all the drum tracks, and just have those in front o f me. Or all the submixes in one place. And I'd like to get the volume filters away from being compressed when you have a lot of tracks to view.

I'm not advocating making it necessary to use a 'mixer' in T, just have some added flexibility. Since there are no group tracks, and no way to hide midi source tracks of things you've rendered, it would go a long way towards helping organize a project without having to mess with the essential simplicity of T's one-screen interface. It's just one way of addressing those issues IMO. It could be there when you wanted it, but you wouldn't be forced to use it.

[JoMal]

I think it's an excellent FR. How are you guys mixing projects with 20-30 tracks? Do you have all tracks minimized (shrunk) and then click on the track you want to adjust levels for then go to the volume fader at the bottom of the screen each time? Or do you stretch the track so you can adjust the volume filter in place? Or do you stretch all tracks and just scroll up and down and up and down etc.? I'm not being facetious here, I really would like to know. It just seems that since there is more room horizontally on the screen, a "strip" of faders accross the bottom would make things easier.

J

[Lunch Money]

I'll try not to flame you because I know you mean well, but everything you say you want is already possible. Could your way save a bit of space? Sure... the current method to do what you want would be to make your submix tracks, and then expand your submix tracks to be the size you want while mixing. There is 'wasted space' because the tracks would be devoid of content. But by the time I get to mixing, I actually don't need to see the waveforms on display anymore anyhow.

Your way would allow us to see the waveforms still, but ALSO access the submixes more discretely and compactly. At least it's a new-ish way to approach it, so I have to give you credit. I just don't see it being useful enough to a large enough group of people to get it added in. It's a specialty request, that's for sure.

Greg

[braj]

I'll try not to flame you because I know you mean well, but everything you say you want is already possible. Could your way save a bit of space? Sure... the current method to do what you want would be to make your submix tracks, and then expand your submix tracks to be the size you want while mixing. There is 'wasted space' because the tracks would be devoid of content. But by the time I get to mixing, I actually don't need to see the waveforms on display anymore anyhow.

Your way would allow us to see the waveforms still, but ALSO access the submixes more discretely and compactly. At least it's a new-ish way to approach it, so I have to give you credit. I just don't see it being useful enough to a large enough group of people to get it added in. It's a specialty request, that's for sure.

Greg

Everything I requested isn't already possible. And it isn't just about saving space, but giving you more control of your project. I don't think it is a specialty request, I image it would be a much-used feature. And probably bragged about as well to other DAW users It wouldn't replace anything or change anything about the way T works now, but would enhance it and make the one-window view more powerful.

[Lunch Money]

I think it's an excellent FR. How are you guys mixing projects with 20-30 tracks?

24 tracks is the maximum-sized project I've done before, but here's the thing, and it's only MY way of working, so I can only answer the question based on what I personally do, and it only applies to "typical 5-piece with a few extras" bands, not orchestras:

Frankly, I only need to see one track at a time. Obviously, it's handy and useful to be able to see more than one, but I don't understand the obsession people have with wanting to see their entire project at once.

- I get to the mixing phase, and I render any tracks that would quickly and easily free up enough CPU for smooth operation.

- I set the drum level to peak at about -9db. That only requires seeing the drum level.

- I bring the bass to a comfortable level so that it sounds right alongside the drums.

- I bring in the rhythm guitar(s). That only requires mucking about with say, 4 tracks at once, plus a submix track if I've decided to use one. Let's say I'm using one--> I set it up and then I don't need it on-screen, because I know that my other 4 tracks are feeding a submix. I don't need to know anything beyond that. So I pan and set levels for each of the 4 tracks, and listen (not look!) for if they're meshing together properly. Guitar 3 is sounding a bit brash, so I turn down some treble. One of the guitars is generating a tonne of bass, and I usually know which one. If not, I just solo them in turn. If it turns out that it's just the 4 of them "together" that's causing so much bass mud, it's time to get creative, which still requires only addressing one of the guitars at a time, and possibly the submix now.

- Add in some keyboard pads and start thinking more about the soundstage. I don't pan bass and drums, but I might need to start thinking about how the guitars and keyboards relate. If I'm working on the keyboards and I realize, "Those 2 guitars that are panned hard right need to be brought in a bit" I just go back to the guitar track and adjust. I don't see why people are paranoid about scrolling. We do it all the time. It should be second-nature for the computer literate. If I'm writing a 30-page essay, I don't expect to see the whole essay at once in Word, do I?

- Bring in the main vocals, which is usually pretty easy. I only tend to double (not triple) them, and the doubled track gets less level. Most of the time I'm not even scientific with the doubled track's level. I just quickly bring it down a bit and go, "meh, sounds good!" or "yikes, too loud still" and that's about that.

- Put in some backing vocals. Process very much like the rhythm guitars.

... and so forth... I guess it's fruitless to describe each and every instrument...

Now, remember-- before any of this has started, it's not like I have raw, unpanned, unlevelled tracks. As I've recorded, I've already put them into sketched out positions, and I will already have a good idea where I want them. I DO usually start from scratch just for that "new mix" feeling, by resetting pan and levels; however, the memory of where I generally want them hasn't been erased from my dome. Before you get to a mix, you should already have a pretty good idea of how you want it to sound....

So, you've done your first mix. You sit back and listen. You burn a copy and listen in different equipment. As you listen, your face sours and you go, "Yuk, those guitars are WAY too dry sounding, and I think the first verse would be more effective raw, without backing vocals."

When you go back to Tracktion, do you REALLY need to see all 24 tracks to make those changes?? No, you go to the guitar submix and add a bit of verb, if that's what's needed. You go to the first verse and either mute (using volume filter) or simply shit-can the backing vocals.

I've gone way overboard, but my point is really-- you should be using your ears anyhow, and when your ears tell you something, you go to where it needs to be fixed and fix it. Why on earth would I need to be able to see the bass track (which is working out perfectly!) in order to fix my backing vocal track? It just doesn't follow.

Greg

[Lunch Money]

Everything I requested isn't already possible. And it isn't just about saving space, but giving you more control of your project. I don't think it is a specialty request, I image it would be a much-used feature. And probably bragged about as well to other DAW users It wouldn't replace anything or change anything about the way T works now, but would enhance it and make the one-window view more powerful.

I can't read your mind, I can only go by what you've said:

Essentially I'd like to get a subset of all the tracks I'm using, like all the drum tracks, and just have those in front o f me. Or all the submixes in one place. And I'd like to get the volume filters away from being compressed when you have a lot of tracks to view.

subset of the tracks you're using: just drag them into place. If your vocals were track 24, but you want them next to your drums which were track 1, just drag them up so that they're now track 2.

submixes in one place: drag them all into one place. See above.

Volume filters away from being compressed: make your tracks an appropriate size, and resize the filter area if needed. Also, clicking on the volume filter brings up the floating level meter. I know you don't see this as a solution, but I really believe it's just a shift of mindset that's needed, rather than a whole new feature added. Or, if that seems unfair (hey, nobody wants to be told how to think-- neither do I), at least it requires acceptance of the fact that it's the way mixing was intended. I don't like the way Adobe Acrobat handles text editing (ie. you can't simply just add text to a document! Unbelievable!) but I accept that it's not really designed to work that way.



[edit:]

It's not that I dont' relate at all. I imagine to myself: a nice, compact mixer, aligned the other way, with simple subsets--> drums, guitar 1, guitar 2, vocal, backing vocal, keyboard, etc. And I imagine mixing with it, and it is fine! I can see how it would have a different 'feel', but at the same time, I still think to myself, "Waitasec... that's not adding any new functionality, it's just a different way of presenting the same thing I'm already doing. Nah, I'd rather have Jules work on implementing loop support."

Greg