Why not when you want to make a automation part for a sequenze part ..give this as option as a menuoption ?
-Audio Part
-Sequenze part
-Automation Part
why not "automations" part ?
-
- KVRAF
- 13862 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
-
- KVRAF
- 5543 posts since 26 Apr, 2007 from Noosphere
I think that automation curves, lines and so on is much better to draw upon the midi and audio parts and not on a separates parts. It will save space and do workflow faster.
Or other way - make midi or audio track expandable(by pushing just one button). If this case, every parameter should have his own place. IMO.
Or other way - make midi or audio track expandable(by pushing just one button). If this case, every parameter should have his own place. IMO.
-
- Hun #3
- 4265 posts since 25 Mar, 2002 from A quaint little village just south of Hamburg, Germany
So long as automation continues to be loopable and/or part based I don't care what Jo does or doesn't do with it .... 
-
- KVRAF
- 5543 posts since 26 Apr, 2007 from Noosphere
So automation is planned to be as part based? Oh no...Bonteburg wrote:So long as automation continues to be loopable and/or part based I don't care what Jo does or doesn't do with it ....
-
- Hun #3
- 4265 posts since 25 Mar, 2002 from A quaint little village just south of Hamburg, Germany
Well, it's entirely part-based now!
I like that - hated Logic's track approach.
I tend to use automation for all the weird things like drawing fake LFOs and gating effects, so a loopable approach is of the essence for me. You could alt-drag track automation to simulate pattern-based in Logic but eventually it would eat all my RAM. Too many nodes all over the place.
That's why I like my automation sequences. Draw a crazy landscape, loop the bar.
To Logic's credit - there was 'hyperdraw' but it was terribly limited in the version I was using (LE6). I was just illustrating how I tend to do it.
I can see why people would like to see track-based automation for mixing etc, but if and when it comes, don't let's abandon part-based altogether
I like that - hated Logic's track approach.
I tend to use automation for all the weird things like drawing fake LFOs and gating effects, so a loopable approach is of the essence for me. You could alt-drag track automation to simulate pattern-based in Logic but eventually it would eat all my RAM. Too many nodes all over the place.
That's why I like my automation sequences. Draw a crazy landscape, loop the bar.
To Logic's credit - there was 'hyperdraw' but it was terribly limited in the version I was using (LE6). I was just illustrating how I tend to do it.
I can see why people would like to see track-based automation for mixing etc, but if and when it comes, don't let's abandon part-based altogether
-
- KVRAF
- 7412 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
"Track-based" is only part-based but with a single part... I really don't understand anyone having qualms about things being part-based. Whilst MULAB lets you include automation events inside a part with note events, that doesn't mean you have to have note events in an automation part. Look at the example track that comes with MULAB.
-
- Hun #3
- 4265 posts since 25 Mar, 2002 from A quaint little village just south of Hamburg, Germany
it's true - MU.LAB picks up on the value "left behind" by whatever automation part is left of (read: earlier than) the position marker as you're dipping in and out - even if there isn't a part at that location.
My powers of description, once more exhausted ...
My powers of description, once more exhausted ...
-
- KVRist
- 86 posts since 8 Aug, 2008 from Midlands UK
...but separate automation parts is good,
you can use them for multiple targets and it encourages you to make specific parts for each bit of a track (for me at laast)
;-0
you can use them for multiple targets and it encourages you to make specific parts for each bit of a track (for me at laast)
;-0
wee have also sound-houses