for future eXT: "Combi Tracks"

[AllenPOPO]

perhaps a feature request...more or less looking to see what ext users thoughts are on this:

combination tracks.

combination tracks being, being able to hold both midi and audio data on the same track (those who are familiar with samplitude are familiar with this)


i think this would be cool because there are times when interesting effects can be acheived...layering a synth line that is midi, with a guitar lick on an audio input....or perhaps singing a melody line ionto your mic before it leaves you, and then looping it back while you play out the melody with a vsti.....


maybe that is overkill and i should just open two separate tracks...but...maybe there are some gains..like for example say you are playing b4 organ for a mellow rock-ish tune and you wanna run it through guitar rig to give it some grunt...you also are playing your cheap ass fender squier strat to compliiment the organ and also wanna run that thru GR. it would be easy to manuever these two parts as there accesible on one track and no need to setup a send of guitar rig just for those two parts...it can be inserted to this 'likeminded' combo track so to speak...hope this doesnt sound dumb...


**sits out penny jar***

opinion time

peace
Allen

[M'Snah]

You can group the two tracks in a folder...

[AllenPOPO]

good point...can you also have a universal insert effect on a folder that corresponds to the tracks inside? if tharts the case, then i guess what i say is overkill....

[M'Snah]

yes and no. AFAIK you cannot add an insert to a folder yet, but you can route both tracks to the same effect.
btw how does samplitude handle pdc when you have audio and plugins in a single track?

[Lunch Money]

combination tracks being, being able to hold both midi and audio data on the same track (those who are familiar with samplitude are familiar with this)

And also Tracktion, since its inception.

[AllenPOPO]

good question M'Snah...im not really too familiarwith samp, but when i go to these big studios visiting my audio production buddies there always talking about that....if i find out ill spill it...hopefully someone who is familiar will chime in

[plastique]

This has been discussed before in this forum, the exactly same thing IIRC. I still can't find anything really worth adapting from it (like said why not use two tracks of the specific kind instead and put them in a folder), straight forward.
Additional value you talk about (like the example with guitar rig), you will find in group busses (AFAIK coming with XT2, but technically already possible in XT1), I'm sure about that

Sounds more like a "visual" kind of thing, rather something that would add more technical possibilties.

[Lunch Money]

Sure. Aren't eXT'ers all about workflow? I agree, it's been discussed many times so no need to rehash it all, but there are some real workflow benefits from it. I mean, improvements don't always have to be 'technical' benefits. Indeed, eXT could benefit more from a unified and easier-to-use "visual organization" than from more features. It's feature-rich already.

Greg

[plastique]

I can't see any though. I would find it confusing (but maybe that's just me).

[djsubject]

i like dedicated tracks

[plastique]

i like dedicated tracks

I whole-heartedly agree. What I want to be able to is to instantly see what kind of track I'm working on. So I would maybe even vote for that the current tracks should be better distinguishable by either being able to give them different colours or patterns per track type.
That'd be a workflow improvement IMO.

[Lunch Money]

I can't see any though. I would find it confusing (but maybe that's just me).

I guess we're going there again, then.

Let's say that you like things compartmentalized. You can still do that. You just put MIDI clips in MIDI-only tracks, and audio clips in your Audio-only tracks. Never the twain need to meet. You can still use the same mixers and mixer groups and all the forthcoming features. All exactly the same. In Tracktion, most people don't layer audio and MIDI most of the time because there's usually no need to. You arm a MIDI device on a track, press "record" and it's a MIDI track. Why select "add new MIDI track" first? Just arm and record and it's done. Same for audio. Arm an audio device, press "record" and you have your audio track. Why specify?

In other words, OK, you really really will never use the layering you still get the -exact- same features that you already had. No harm done.

---

BUT, for those of us who DO use it from time to time:

Example 1: I have my Audio vocal track. I'm using GSNAP (pitch corrector) in MIDI mode. GNAP will intercept any audio fed to it and any MIDI. There's no routing to do, you just put it on your track. Nothing clever to connect or think about. Just... a plug-in. On my vocal track, I layer a MIDI clip, which is visually transparent, over top of the audio clip. I can still see the audio, but now there's a ghosty MIDI grid, too. I zoom into my problem area, scrubbing as needed to zone in on the trouble note. When I get there, I put in the necessary MIDI information, in this case, the note "C". (I was singing way out and was almost at C#).

In this case, I'd just leave the MIDI on the track itself and have done with it. Now I have my "vocal track", which can be mixed as I see fit. I didn't have to do any routing, ganging, submixing, or anything like that, I just put the MIDI exactly where it needed to be.

Example 2: I'm having a hell of a time with my MIDI drum track. I've tried fixing my snares with my controller keyboard, and I've also tried just shifting the note manually. But... it's just not cutting it for some reason. But heck, I'm a good finger-drummer. I tap on desktops and play with pencils all day long. So I bust out a microphone, play my existing track back, and tap along. Press "stop", layer the audio track over top of the MIDI one (again, it's visually transparent...), and then shift my MIDI note to the visual cue provided by the waveform (ie. the attack). Now my drum track sounds like I imagined in my head, and sounds human. If I'm done with the "finger tapping" clip, I delete it. You're not forced to leave it there with your pristine (now) MIDI!

Example 3: (really, just a different version of #1) -- you have a MIDI-sequenced gate plug-in.. like... oh... GetaBlitch Jr. by Betabugsaudio ( ). It uses your MIDI clips to open and close the left channels and programmed or played intervals. No routing involved. I just arm a MIDI device on the track, press "record", and start "playing" my audio track in realtime. I didn't need to set up any special mixer channels or anything, and when I'm done, the entire performance is captured on one clip.

Now, in all of the above examples, if you're the kind of person who likes everything sub-divided, you can STILL move the MIDI to a separate track and do your mixer routing if necessary.

---

Point being: there's everything to gain and not a thing to be lost. Subz, I think we ALL like our MIDI and audio to be kept separately in most cases. It's not like I'd throw it all together in one track just to save screen space or something silly and pointless like that. I could probably count the number of times I've needed to do it on my fingers and toes, but those times... man has it been convenient. My examples are all "real life" and I've actually done them all. #2 in particular, would be possible even with eXT the way it is (just do it in a subsequent track), but it's really a lot more convenient and speedy to have them visually overlapped. You can get that note exactly where it needs to go, quickly, without spending even an iota of time eyeballing up and down to see if they line up right.

Greg

[plastique]

Ok, thanks for going through this another time in all detail

The point about the visual layering I have to give to you, this makes a lot of sense.
The one about the easier recording I can't see though, it's like the usual comparison between apples and oranges. Each way takes about the same effort, in both workflow scenarios, in the one you show you have to fetch the recording device (Tracktion ...) , in eXT you pick the right track - same effort, same usability from the according perspective. For the sake of not having to change the current workflow I wouldn't find it better to change.

So maybe a compromise is able to be found ?

What I'm thinking of right now is some kind of ("non-effective" or "non-destructive") layer mode that could arise when a track of a "wrong" type is dragged onto another.
Kinda like a visual helper.
No effect on routing, sound, etc. ... ,
just as a visual tool to have two (or more tracks) alligned to each other.

This would actually make sense to me.

If this was also the original idea I was wrong in interpreting too much stuff into it, but you know how ideas can turn out ("never change a winning team" comes to mind ...)

[plastique]

I actually have a second idea which I will post tomorrow about (slightly different compromise).

[Lunch Money]

I really believe that just recording to a clip is quicker, but I'm also logical enough to say that "half a second" versus "one and a half" seconds is really nothing to change a whole feature for, so I'll rule that one out as a deciding factor.

Which leaves still the very very simple way of using Audio + MIDI to a plug-in that accepts and uses Audio + MIDI for one process. There's not a more elegant solution to my examples 1 and 3 than the one Samp and Tracktion provides.

But even assuming that the ONLY thing you ever find it useful for is that transparent layering for visual cues, that's still one feature worth having. And even one bonus feature at the loss of NO other functionality still puts you ahead! And in this case, it's a feature I've used in practical situations and found to be very useful.

I'd be curious to hear your alternative ideas, though.

Greg