Samplitude Pro X newb: Looking for resources

[Hink]

the object editor can be a powerful channel strip

do tell?
I'll look for stuff on the forum. Haven't got over there yet. Busy day!

what's to tell, just look at the OE as a channel strip and use it as such.


That's just looking at it as channel strip, I'm not even talking about it's time handling, pitch manipulation or crossfades. That's why I kept it simple "the object editor can be a powerful channel strip" "can" being the keyword, maybe nobody else will ever look outside the box like that but what the OE "can" do is far beyond a marketing scheme

I am a beginner with samplitude and very much liking it so far but I cannot see how I can put an object on a track or mixer channel and feed multiple other objects through it. Some hints on how to do this would be great, because the OE is indeed very powerful

every object has it's own editor, if you create a new object it gets it's own editor.

[Hink]

Anyone who says objects and the object editor is just marketing is really missing out a very powerful tool.

When people say that I think that they are largely referring to the use of the word "object" which reflects something of a craze a decade or more ago. It's like "turbo" from the 80s.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying though, I use this feature extensively in Reaper, but the use of the word object conveys a strength, that IMHO, just isn't there.

It would be great if you could, for example, create a hierarchy of object editors and then instantiate a clip as being of some particular type, then, as you you edit the hierarchy, the project adapts to reflect those changes. You could build on the hierarchy, naming effects as serving a particular role and then overriding those named effects further down the tree.

I would simply call what Samplitude has as "clip level effects", but that doesn't sound as zingy as "object editor" which is why people will criticize it as being "marketing."

I really dont argue DAWs but I stand 100% by what I said, anyone who thinks that's all it is is missing out a powerful tool. I have never tried reaper so I dont know how they compare and I have zero cause to convert anyone so I leave it at this. Even if it were just "clip level effects" it does it so well and with so many options it's still a very powerful tool that is indeed a strength for me

[woggle]

the object editor can be a powerful channel strip

do tell?
I'll look for stuff on the forum. Haven't got over there yet. Busy day!

what's to tell, just look at the OE as a channel strip and use it as such.


That's just looking at it as channel strip, I'm not even talking about it's time handling, pitch manipulation or crossfades. That's why I kept it simple "the object editor can be a powerful channel strip" "can" being the keyword, maybe nobody else will ever look outside the box like that but what the OE "can" do is far beyond a marketing scheme

I am a beginner with samplitude and very much liking it so far but I cannot see how I can put an object on a track or mixer channel and feed multiple other objects through it. Some hints on how to do this would be great, because the OE is indeed very powerful

every object has it's own editor, if you create a new object it gets it's own editor.

I still don’t see that as a channel strip where I expect to be able to feed into it multiple objects/clips that are placed on the same track. Naming conventions I guess and no big deal. Nonetheless the samplitude implementation of objects and their editor seems more fully developed than reapers items and much better designed for workflow.

[Hink]

the object editor can be a powerful channel strip

do tell?
I'll look for stuff on the forum. Haven't got over there yet. Busy day!

what's to tell, just look at the OE as a channel strip and use it as such.


That's just looking at it as channel strip, I'm not even talking about it's time handling, pitch manipulation or crossfades. That's why I kept it simple "the object editor can be a powerful channel strip" "can" being the keyword, maybe nobody else will ever look outside the box like that but what the OE "can" do is far beyond a marketing scheme

I am a beginner with samplitude and very much liking it so far but I cannot see how I can put an object on a track or mixer channel and feed multiple other objects through it. Some hints on how to do this would be great, because the OE is indeed very powerful

every object has it's own editor, if you create a new object it gets it's own editor.

I still don’t see that as a channel strip where I expect to be able to feed into it multiple objects/clips that are placed on the same track. Naming conventions I guess and no big deal. Nonetheless the samplitude implementation of objects and their editor seems more fully developed than reapers items and much better designed for workflow.

well that's just it and why "can" was the keyword, in order to use it as a channel strip it has to be a continuous track, in other words the track is one object. I actually work more this way than with many objects like a lot of people because I record my guitar tracks, bass tracks, vox and much of my synth parts (midi) live. So I dont often have many different objects on one track and when I do inevitably they get "glued" together, I record entire tracks or a piece of a track and then nothing else is on that track...kinda old school

[woggle]

@hink. Thanks and understand. Would be a good way to work for that situation

[ghettosynth]

Anyone who says objects and the object editor is just marketing is really missing out a very powerful tool.

When people say that I think that they are largely referring to the use of the word "object" which reflects something of a craze a decade or more ago. It's like "turbo" from the 80s.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying though, I use this feature extensively in Reaper, but the use of the word object conveys a strength, that IMHO, just isn't there.

It would be great if you could, for example, create a hierarchy of object editors and then instantiate a clip as being of some particular type, then, as you you edit the hierarchy, the project adapts to reflect those changes. You could build on the hierarchy, naming effects as serving a particular role and then overriding those named effects further down the tree.

I would simply call what Samplitude has as "clip level effects", but that doesn't sound as zingy as "object editor" which is why people will criticize it as being "marketing."

I really dont argue DAWs but I stand 100% by what I said, anyone who thinks that's all it is is missing out a powerful tool.

My point was that your language is based on a misinterpretation of what people are saying. They aren't necessarily missing out on anything if they understand it for what it is and identify the use of the word "object" as marketing.

I have never tried reaper so I dont know how they compare and I have zero cause to convert anyone so I leave it at this. Even if it were just "clip level effects" it does it so well and with so many options it's still a very powerful tool that is indeed a strength for me

Sure it's powerful, it is in Reaper as well, although there are more features in Samplitude, e.g., with respect to AUX sends that are natural and directly accessible. You can do item based FX sends in Reaper as well, but it's not as natural.

What I meant by "strength" though is that it does not have the strength of the word "object" as people who are familiar with the word as used in technical contexts understand. It was very popular some years ago to tout the "object" based features of applications to demonstrate how trendy that your application was. So, sure, it's a great feature, but you might be misunderstanding why people are calling it out as marketing.

[ghettosynth]

the object editor can be a powerful channel strip

do tell?
I'll look for stuff on the forum. Haven't got over there yet. Busy day!

what's to tell, just look at the OE as a channel strip and use it as such.


That's just looking at it as channel strip, I'm not even talking about it's time handling, pitch manipulation or crossfades. That's why I kept it simple "the object editor can be a powerful channel strip" "can" being the keyword, maybe nobody else will ever look outside the box like that but what the OE "can" do is far beyond a marketing scheme

I am a beginner with samplitude and very much liking it so far but I cannot see how I can put an object on a track or mixer channel and feed multiple other objects through it. Some hints on how to do this would be great, because the OE is indeed very powerful

every object has it's own editor, if you create a new object it gets it's own editor.

I still don’t see that as a channel strip where I expect to be able to feed into it multiple objects/clips that are placed on the same track. Naming conventions I guess and no big deal. Nonetheless the samplitude implementation of objects and their editor seems more fully developed than reapers items and much better designed for workflow.

A channel strip is just a "strip" of combined controls used to affect a "channel." There is no implicit one to one correspondence between track and channel here. That is just the default expectation base on a hardware history but it is, by no means, embedded in any definition of the phrase "channel strip." Each individual clip can be viewed as an independent "channel" of audio data for which the "channel strip" applies. Of course a stereo channel strip is just two mono channel strips bound with a common set of controls.

[Hink]

so semantics? This is why I dont argue DAWs Again I stand by what I said. I dont misunderstand why they call it out as marketing, I fail to see how someone can simply dismiss based on that. If one tries it and it's not for them that I get, but you yourself oversimplified what it is pretty much based on a preconceived notion based on a word, or so it seems. I dont get that and really have no desire to debate such things. But then being a Samp user for 11 years I am quite use to it being underrepresented and misrepresented and tbh I am the "pull for the underdog" kinda guy

You know what's really funny? I dont use a lot of objects or the object editors very much at all (not even in every project), but when I do it more often than not is the better way for me to go. I think my most common use is actually to clean up punches with the fade editor in the OE, so I could easily be agreeing with you if I based things on my typical usage. The thing is I've used Samp for so long I have realized why people touted "object based" and what I was/am missing. I am in awe and quite humbled by the infinite possibilities they present. I imagine I could speed up my production rate ten fold if and have prettier sounding tracks if I used the tools available to set things right (like using spectral editing on objects) as opposed to rerecording my guitar parts over and over...but that's what I do. I write to play

[woggle]

Anyone who says objects and the object editor is just marketing is really missing out a very powerful tool.

When people say that I think that they are largely referring to the use of the word "object" which reflects something of a craze a decade or more ago. It's like "turbo" from the 80s.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying though, I use this feature extensively in Reaper, but the use of the word object conveys a strength, that IMHO, just isn't there.

It would be great if you could, for example, create a hierarchy of object editors and then instantiate a clip as being of some particular type, then, as you you edit the hierarchy, the project adapts to reflect those changes. You could build on the hierarchy, naming effects as serving a particular role and then overriding those named effects further down the tree.

I would simply call what Samplitude has as "clip level effects", but that doesn't sound as zingy as "object editor" which is why people will criticize it as being "marketing."

I really dont argue DAWs but I stand 100% by what I said, anyone who thinks that's all it is is missing out a powerful tool.

My point was that your language is based on a misinterpretation of what people are saying. They aren't necessarily missing out on anything if they understand it for what it is and identify the use of the word "object" as marketing.

I have never tried reaper so I dont know how they compare and I have zero cause to convert anyone so I leave it at this. Even if it were just "clip level effects" it does it so well and with so many options it's still a very powerful tool that is indeed a strength for me

Sure it's powerful, it is in Reaper as well, although there are more features in Samplitude, e.g., with respect to AUX sends that are natural and directly accessible. You can do item based FX sends in Reaper as well, but it's not as natural.

What I meant by "strength" though is that it does not have the strength of the word "object" as people who are familiar with the word as used in technical contexts understand. It was very popular some years ago to tout the "object" based features of applications to demonstrate how trendy that your application was. So, sure, it's a great feature, but you might be misunderstanding why people are calling it out as marketing.

Strange as it may seem, the word “object” predates the IT industry and their specialised technical use.
Re “channel strip” the context of the forum biases the interpretation to mixing, both in DAWs and in hardware. As with “object” you seem to have missed the context of the discussion and privileged a narrower interpretation that misses the conversational context

[bermudagold]

I think its more than semantics. I think there are two separate points being convoluted here.

The first is the ability to "objectify" an element of the arrangement, so that it can be manipulated independent of connected elements within the bounds of its own container. I think virtually all modern DAWs have this in some form of "clip" creation.

The second, which is the far more impactful idea to me, more related to the term "object oriented", is the idea of "objectifying" something to create reuse and notions of inheritance. If I create a clip as an object and assign certain information and behavior to that object. Then anywhere else in my arrangement I can create a new clip based on that clip and have it "inherit" some or all of that clips information and behavior. Also, if I insert instances of that clip ("object") all throughout different areas of my arrangement,....when I make a change to that clip ("object"), those changes occur in every other instance of that clip in the arrangement. So all the other clips that are copies of that clip (instances of that object), or built off that clip, are automatically changed as well. This can have clear advantages in speed of workflow when it comes to editing.

I think being able to make a certain amount of bars an "object", therefore giving them their own self contained properties and FX manager, whether with a single plugin, or creating a "channel strip" with many plugins, doesn't constitute object orientation. So I can see how someone would see it as buzzwordy and marketing speak, because its much less impactful than what people may be expecting.

[woggle]

@bernudagold. I don’t think SAmplitude ever said their system was object oriented in the programming sense. I really cannot see why anyone would assume they did, although maybe I am wrong on this and they have made that claim somewhere. It just seems to me some people may be assuming the technical vocabulary of a branch of programming is far more universal than it is.

[ghettosynth]

so semantics? This is why I dont argue DAWs Again I stand by what I said. I dont misunderstand why they call it out as marketing, I fail to see how someone can simply dismiss based on that. If one tries it and it's not for them that I get, but you yourself oversimplified what it is pretty much based on a preconceived notion based on a word, or so it seems.

No, you're again missing it. First, I didn't "oversimplify it", I understand what it is. Second, the use of the word "Object" does seem like marketing to me. I don't dismiss the feature by saying that, it's useful, but not that useful. Here, sound on sound covered it.

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... processing

In particular...

CD mastering is where the object-based approach, which allows you quickly to construct an independent mini-mixer for each song, really comes into its own. The simplicity of constructing a sequence of songs, each with its own mastering processing, without having to set up complicated processing chains that are mix-automated differently for each stereo track, is a real boon.

So it's pretty clear what this is intended for and how it is used.

I am quite use to it being underrepresented and misrepresented and tbh I am the "pull for the underdog" kinda guy
...
You know what's really funny? I dont use a lot of objects or the object editors very much at all (not even in every project)

Who's misrepresenting it? Explain how it is anything more than clip level FX/adjustment? I think that given that you don't use it extensively, and it is a feature that I do use extensively in Reaper, I think that you might have bought into the hype and think of it as more than it actually is.

In short, if it were called "clip based editing", or "item based editing", then people would be less likely to label it as "marketing." You don't see people calling Reaper's "item based FX" marketing, right? That's because it's appropriately named. What you're experiencing is not the dismissal of the features, rather the choice to use a phrase that has a greater meaning than is present in the feature. From that point of view "Object based editing" is marketing fluff.

[Hink]

I get your point you just dont see mine, really it's so simple...who cares what it's called, if it works for you it works if it doesn't it doesn't. If you give any merit into what it's called when deciding that's on you, I dont do that as I judge things on their own merit. Seriously I'm out of this nonsense, what a silly tangent "if it were called"...give me a break, I got better things to do

[ghettosynth]

@bernudagold. I don’t think SAmplitude ever said their system was object oriented in the programming sense. I really cannot see why anyone would assume they did, although maybe I am wrong on this and they have made that claim somewhere. It just seems to me some people may be assuming the technical vocabulary of a branch of programming is far more universal than it is.

No, nobody is assuming that, but you're not recognizing the choice to associate the word "object" with a feature, something that any software firm would be well aware has connotations.

That's a risk that you take when you choose to use a well known term that has a meaning that is greater than what your product embodies. The reality is that Samplitude goes way back to 1992 so it is almost certain that somewhere along the way the choice to use that phrase as a differentiator was exactly marketing fluff as it was all the rage in the 90s. Everyone want to have "object oriented" features. This sound on sound article from 2003 supports this.

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/ma ... plitude-71


Here's a discussion of this craze from the 90s. If you were involved in software development at that time, you probably experienced this firsthand.

https://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffee ... -the-1990s

[ghettosynth]

Strange as it may seem, the word “object” predates the IT industry and their specialised technical use.

That's irrelevant. Anyone who chose to adopt the term in the 90s knew what it meant with respect to software and, for better or worse, runs the risk of their choice being labeled as marketing fluff.

Re “channel strip” the context of the forum biases the interpretation to mixing, both in DAWs and in hardware.

Huh? That still doesn't change the definition of a "channel strip" which is nothing more than what the name implies. You are trying to argue that your limited use of channel strips should somehow change the meaning.

As with “object” you seem to have missed the context of the discussion and privileged a narrower interpretation that misses the conversational context

You owe everyone a new irony meter.