JoMal - remember that you can move from filter to filter with opt-arrow keys - so I find its pretty easy to get to the filter I want to tweak. On my screen the filters are still accesible with everything on the screen up to about 30 tracks then I have to scroll...
What I would like is to add nudge bottons and keystrokes to the volume fader - I don't want to grab it and move it half a db right or left - just hit + or something until its right.
FR: SNAPSHOTS!
-
- KVRAF
- 1615 posts since 28 Mar, 2005
-
- The Teach
- 8273 posts since 23 Jul, 2002 from flatness
to put it simply ...
OI !!! ... mixer ??? ... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!
slainte
rob
OI !!! ... mixer ??? ... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!
slainte
rob-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 9096 posts since 5 Feb, 2004
You have to have tendentious after typing all that LM.
The thing is LM, not everybody works like you. T should be scalable upwards for larger projects. Now, if you start using render and mute a lot, then you add even more tracks to your arrangement. Send and return channels can be up to 8 tracks for me alone. So for me, a five piece band can be 6 drum tracks, two or three vocal tracks, bass, rhythm guitar, lead guitar and multiple keyboards. Maybe multiple lead guitar tracks as well. So say I have 24 tracks, I want to render and mute my midi (4 more tracks to deal with). We're at 28. I want to add return tracks, say just 4. We're at 32. This isn't uncommon, and sure you can work around it, but do the work arounds work better than having a modular mixer under the whole arrangement that can be set up however you choose?I doubt it.
Now doubly the amount of tracks beyond a five piece band. I really hope you can see why this would be useful.
IMO the only points worth debating are
a) How much would developing this take from developing other areas of T?
b) Could you do it without using much system resources?
c) Can you implement it so that it is really straightforward and easy to deal with?
The thing is LM, not everybody works like you. T should be scalable upwards for larger projects. Now, if you start using render and mute a lot, then you add even more tracks to your arrangement. Send and return channels can be up to 8 tracks for me alone. So for me, a five piece band can be 6 drum tracks, two or three vocal tracks, bass, rhythm guitar, lead guitar and multiple keyboards. Maybe multiple lead guitar tracks as well. So say I have 24 tracks, I want to render and mute my midi (4 more tracks to deal with). We're at 28. I want to add return tracks, say just 4. We're at 32. This isn't uncommon, and sure you can work around it, but do the work arounds work better than having a modular mixer under the whole arrangement that can be set up however you choose?I doubt it.
Now doubly the amount of tracks beyond a five piece band. I really hope you can see why this would be useful.
IMO the only points worth debating are
a) How much would developing this take from developing other areas of T?
b) Could you do it without using much system resources?
c) Can you implement it so that it is really straightforward and easy to deal with?
Why, yes you have Greg!I've gone way overboard
If you have requests for Korg VST features or changes, they are listening at https://support.korguser.net/hc/en-us/requests/new
-
- The Teach
- 8273 posts since 23 Jul, 2002 from flatness
d) does this suggestion work AGAINST the central principles upon which jules built tracktion ???braj wrote:IMO the only points worth debating are
a) How much would developing this take from developing other areas of T?
b) Could you do it without using much system resources?
c) Can you implement it so that it is really straightforward and easy to deal with?
slainte
rob-
- KVRAF
- 1615 posts since 28 Mar, 2005
braj - buy a controller 
-
- KVRAF
- 3745 posts since 29 Sep, 2002 from Killafornia
No group tracks??braj wrote:Since there are no group tracks, and no way to hide midi source tracks of things you've rendered
Anyways, is a old school mixer the only way you can think of to solve those issues? I would much rather have lockable track sizes, or some type of folder track instead of a bulky screen hoggin useless mixer. A mixer would be a sidestep in tracktion not a step forward.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 9096 posts since 5 Feb, 2004
Why does it exactly? Do you have a list of the Central Principals? I'm not suggesting emulating hardware, just an alternate way to control data. I don't want to take away any part of what exists now, just add some functionality.AD80 wrote:Yes, yes it does.pHz wrote: d) does this suggestion work AGAINST the central principles upon which jules built tracktion ???
If you have requests for Korg VST features or changes, they are listening at https://support.korguser.net/hc/en-us/requests/new
-
- KVRAF
- 3745 posts since 29 Sep, 2002 from Killafornia
But it WOULDNT add any functionality. It would be a waste of development time that could be spent on really adding more functionality. If you cant see how a mixer differs from the Tracktion way then thats your problem.braj wrote:Why does it exactly? Do you have a list of the Central Principals? I'm not suggesting emulating hardware, just an alternate way to control data. I don't want to take away any part of what exists now, just add some functionality.AD80 wrote:Yes, yes it does.pHz wrote: d) does this suggestion work AGAINST the central principles upon which jules built tracktion ???
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
I've been worried from time to time. I type 110 wpm now, I type a LOT of text per day, and I don't sit ergonomically or use an ergonomic keyboard or even wrist supports. Some day it'll catch up with me.braj wrote:You have to have tendentious after typing all that LM.
Right, which is the first thing I acknowledged.The thing is LM, not everybody works like you.
It is. You just need to scroll. Even in Logic or Cubase, the mixer can't handle a 60-track project without submixing and scrolling along its 'mixer'. Your proposed idea would be the same. How many channels do you think you could FIT into that space? If anything, it's more scalable the way it is because you can easily move up and down in your project. By adding another mixer element, once you get sizeable projects you'll also have to scroll left-right.T should be scalable upwards for larger
Scrolling through your project isn't a workaround. My questions remain unanswered:{truncated explanation of getting to a sizeable project} We're at 32. This isn't uncommon, and sure you can work around it, but do the work arounds work better than having a modular mixer under the whole arrangement that can be set up however you choose?I doubt it.
Why is it important to be able to see the French Horn section (for example) if you're busy working on the Timpani? The two only relate insofar as what your ears tell you. And if you need to compare them side-by-side because there's something that's frustrating you and you just 'need' to see them together, why, all you have to do is drag them beside each other!
Same question, worded differently: what functionality or benefit are you gaining by being able to see all 60 of your tracks at once? I've said it before: show me a man with 60 tracks of material, and I'll show you a man who needs submixes. And once you HAVE your submixes, why would you need to see the tracks that feed them?
New question: how would YOUR idea accomodate 60 tracks of material in a more efficient way? You would HAVE to have a scalable window, larger than the one you propose, which would occupy screen real-estate, meaning that you're still not seeing the tracks that it is now obscuring anyhow.
A medium amount, I'm guessing. Some elements would be re-used, but others would need to be added. It wouldn't be as involved as SOME functions, but nor would it be a one-day fix.IMO the only points worth debating are
a) How much would developing this take from developing other areas of T?
Sure. It's just a different visual representation of work that's already being done. I don't imagine it would tax the system much. To me, though, the fact that it wouldn't burden the system doesn't mean that it should be implemented.b) Could you do it without using much system resources?
The million dollar question, no? The way I'm envisioning it, it wouldn't add anything beneficial. If anything, it adds one more layer of obscurity to the whole thing. Since you propose it to be optional, I guess you can live with or without it; however, I would never voluntarily add an extra layer to the process.c) Can you implement it so that it is really straightforward and easy to deal with?
Not atypical of me, though.Why, yes you have Greg!I've gone way overboard
Last edited by Lunch Money on Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- The Teach
- 8273 posts since 23 Jul, 2002 from flatness
but THATS the point surely ... youre NOT adding any functionality ... tracktion already does mixing ...braj wrote:I don't want to take away any part of what exists now, just add some functionality.
slainte
rob-
- KVRAF
- 2750 posts since 2 Feb, 2005 from Raincoast of Grayland
I don't dislike the idea completely, but let's not call it a 'mixer'. What about 'alternate summing filter display' ? Or something more obscure like, 'Channel Amplitude Level Fixation Assurance Rack' ? Calfar with that.
On big track counts, 50+, I like to track so the piece is almost self-mixing. You can't hear it? The subliminal banjo part totally rocks!
On big track counts, 50+, I like to track so the piece is almost self-mixing. You can't hear it? The subliminal banjo part totally rocks!
perception: the stuff reality is made of.
-
- KVRAF
- 4644 posts since 28 Nov, 2002 from Chicago
call it folder tracks, and be done with it...
Someone shot the food. Remember: don't shoot food!
-
- The Teach
- 8273 posts since 23 Jul, 2002 from flatness
no ... lets just get folder tracks ... not a mixer called folder tracks ... and be done with it ...valley wrote:call it folder tracks, and be done with it...
slainte
rob