More obvious difference between real and ghost copies

[pljones]

As I write this, part of me feels I'm missing something. So please feel free to kick me if I am!

It needs to be something at the front of the title, so it's visible on all but the shortest visible part titles.

I'm not keen on recolouring or shading etc, as they can be hard on the eye.

What I'm finding hard to get a good feel for is that all the "ghost copies" are actually equal. There's no "master/slave" relation, so all the parts end up marked. Next, when a make a "real copy", the sequence gets a new (autogenerated) name. Maybe it would be better if that worked different, so that real copies were named "(RC)" then the original sequence name (or "(RCn)" if they needed numbering)? This would also encourage renaming the real copies to something more meaningful. (You can tell I'm an IT Architect sometimes...)

A "Select all parts with this sequence" would help, too, as that would highlight them quickly.

[liquidsound]

What I'm finding hard to get a good feel for is that all the "ghost copies" are actually equal. There's no "master/slave" relation, so all the parts end up marked.

That's a keen observation. You are absolutely right. No need to mark.
For the Real copy: yes, there we need a solution.

[Branis]

There are actually no real "parts", just copies and unique parts.

[MuTools]

First of all, FYI, nothing changed regarding the real/ghost sequence parts system, except from the fact that the default drag-copy now is making a real copy.

Indeed, when 4 parts are using the same sequence, there is no 'master' part. All these 4 parts then are 'ghost' parts (maybe the word 'ghost' is confusing?) meaning that if you make edits to that part (in fact to the sequence) then the other 3 parts wil reflect the same changes of course.

Anyway, i think it's good the default now is making real copies as that's an easy concept

[pljones]

First of all, FYI, nothing changed regarding the real/ghost sequence parts system, except from the fact that the default drag-copy now is making a real copy.

I'm pretty sure that's understood -- people are just using the M3 cycle to identify tuning opportunities .

Indeed, when 4 parts are using the same sequence, there is no 'master' part. All these 4 parts then are 'ghost' parts (maybe the word 'ghost' is confusing?) meaning that if you make edits to that part (in fact to the sequence) then the other 3 parts wil reflect the same changes of course.

Indeed -- and the sequence could be played from different start points to different end points (if these locators are on the Part - I've not checked), so end up sounding completely different. The important point is not around the "part" but around the "sequence shared by parts".

The current method essentially indicates "This part points to a sequence, where the sequence has a reference count of only 1" or not (i.e. greater than 1). It's useful to know whether a sequence is used in more than one part (and which those parts are, hence my mention of locating all the parts referencing a selected sequence -- or rather the sequence referenced by the selected part).

Maybe "*" in front of the sequence name when its reference count is greater than 1?

Anyway, i think it's good the default now is making real copies as that's an easy concept

I'm in two minds about "hiding" powerful features like this... It must remain natural to access the "power user" tool .

[MuTools]

Indeed -- and the sequence could be played from different start points to different end points (if these locators are on the Part - I've not checked), so end up sounding completely different. The important point is not around the "part" but around the "sequence shared by parts".

The current method essentially indicates "This part points to a sequence, where the sequence has a reference count of only 1" or not (i.e. greater than 1). It's useful to know whether a sequence is used in more than one part (and which those parts are, hence my mention of locating all the parts referencing a selected sequence -- or rather the sequence referenced by the selected part).

Maybe "*" in front of the sequence name when its reference count is greater than 1?

Yes, having a function like "Select All Parts Using This Sequence" would be useful. It's on the whishlist.

And indeed we could use a more sexy method to graphically indicate the difference between a real or ghost part. Or maybe in better words: Unique sequence parts and Shared sequence parts. Yes i think that tells more what it is about.

[TheGuysanIdiot]

Hi All

Thought of this last night and seems the topic has moved on a bit.

Here it is anyway and using unique and shared.

If a sequence looks like a cell.

Current text = Center/Top = Unique

How about this for Shared

Text = Center/Center

or

Text = Center/Bottom (cell rotated by 180)

or

Text = Center/Top but dropped down one title width a bit like a step.

OZ

[liquidsound]

I think we have a challenge here.

What happens if we make:
Part-1 and we Ghost it > Part-1G.
Now we have P1 and P1G

Then I take P1 and make a copy > P2.
Now we have P1+P1G+P2

Then I take P2 and I Ghost it > P2G.
Now We have P1+P1G+P2+P2G

At this point just a visual feature between Original and Ghost and Copy and again Ghost is no longer usable. We need something serial or a name reference.
Because if P1G has "A Ghost Feature" as P2G then from which part are they originated?
And if P2 is a Copy of P1 but also an original for P2G then copies must have the same visual feature in order for a Ghost to look the same as the originator.

I am assuming that originator of the ghost and the ghost its self are visually identical.
If the opposite it's true, then the original and the copy will look the same.
Either way, when we get into a situation as the one above, and with more levels deep, anything short of a individual attribute (as a name or serial number as in MuLab default numbering) is a problem.

Colors, if used for this distinctions, would restrict the free allocation of color for individual needs, and it is easy to run out of sharp distinctive palettes of tonality.

Maybe the way Jo has it already, with the "Sequential Serial Number", is the best way but it should be preserved (no editable) and positioned somewhere maybe in the part's corner.
In this way we can name the parts at leisure and the "Link" is left intact.

I think the Serial Numbering in MuLab is superb and it could be the Visual Answer to the Copy/Ghost issue.
But it should not be destroyed. Like in Databases. The ID# of a record is what gives power to relationships, and Originals/Copies/Ghosts/ etc. have a relationship.

Sorry for the long post, but MuLab "Serial Numbering System" is a brilliant overlooked feature.

[liquidsound]

I did forget another point that actually explain what I am trying to say about the Non-Editable Serial#.

You may have One Ghost Targeting a certain Plug-In while the other Ghost targets a different one (I am talking about Ghosts coming from each other, same Parts).

In this case an appropriate name for each Ghost would be more comfortable while the Serial# keeps track of the Links and it gives you feed back on their relationship.

In this case you don't want to delete the Serial# but you want to describe the Ghost accordingly by their target, but you can't because when you change one Ghost name ALL the other follows.

The beauty of MuLab is its flexibility which grow with each new release.
Copies, Ghosts, Targets, and who knows what Jo is already planning.
It could get tricky very soon.

[MuTools]

I'm not sure if i understood all that but:

1) I think it's better for our understanding that we drop the terms Real/Original/Ghost as they're not really covering reality.

It's better to speak about Unique and Shared sequences.

2) In this case, name indexing is done on Sequence level.

So you can have 2 parts sharing the same sequence, but that sequence has a similar name as another sequence and so it will have an index appended.

But at the same time you can have 2 parts sharing the same sequence with a unique name and then no index is appended to the sequence name.

So the sequence name index is independent from whether it's used in only 1 part (unique) or in multiple parts (shared).

We just need a nice visual indidication so to quickly see if a part is exclusively using a sequence or whether it shares the sequence with other parts. We need such indication so to quickly know that if we edit that part, then if it will have consequences at other places too.

There is already such visual indication, but maybe it's not yet the most sexy way of showing it.

[pljones]

I still like my simplistic "*" on the front when it's shared...

[TheGuysanIdiot]

Hi All,

I am sure Jo will find a neat solution and we will all say "That's it, why did I not think of that" etc.

I believe some DAWs already use the "*".

If indeed the "*" was used within MU.LAB. I think it needs to be added and removed by the system. What I mean is, when you rename a sequence you cannot delete the "*" by mistake.

This way you can name your sequences whatever you like and the "*" comes and goes as the sequence/part is made "Unique" or "Shared" etc.

The "*" could be a prefix or a suffix, with or without spaces etc.



I am just writing this in support of [pljones] and the fact the "*" is used in other DAWs.

Just brainstorming.

OZ

[TheGuysanIdiot]

Hi All,

There is a down side to this "*".

Most of my tracks/parts use "Shared" sequences and if the "*" = "Shared" then that is a lot of parts called "*BEAT-X" etc.

For my personal songs it would look like 80% of the names had "*" and only 20% would be "Unique".

You could also swap "*" to mean "Unique". I would be OK but others would not.

Too many "*" in a composition does look odd.

Try it yourself on an actual composition and just rename the sequences and manually add the "*".

Hopefully you will see what I mean.

Tricky one.

OZ

[liquidsound]

energyXT has it neat:

The Shared Parts (Ghost in XT) have a little corner chopped on the top while the Unique Parts are just as in Mulab. Visually is terrific, it really stands out without disturbing the name region or system.

One thing in MuLab though is that a Shared part can also differ from another Shared (brother) because it's free to target another Plug-In and technically is no longer a real Shared.
Does this means we should be able to alter a Shared name (Which now we can't) in order to point out the difference?

By having the the shape dictating the Shared/Unique status we can play with names more freely.

Any comment on this one?

[pljones]

The downside to anything that takes up space is... that it takes up space. The current system of "raising" or "lowering" the border probably takes the least space possible. I'm less keen on the chip knocked off the corner -- to me "*" means "many" automatically, whereas I'd have to learn that a chipped corner meant something (either shared or not... not sure...). But it would take up less space than a "*", maybe -- especially if it were the bottom corner, rather than the top next to the name (). I guess it wouldn't take long to learn the chip meant shared...