Auto-arm track

[dellboy]

I own Waveform 9, but I rarely use it.

I have used it in the past, right back to version one, and some of its quirky features back then were, - errr -- sort of quirky and different.

But times have moved on, and what was once ok,is now seen as clunky. One of those quirks has already been addressed, the addition of a once unspoken thing, gasp- a mixer.

But, hey, isn't it time we had such an ultra modern feature as "auto-arm" the track ?

I honestly can't think of a single DAW that does not have this very handy feature other than Waveform.

Arm, un-arm, arm, find your input, (I have three controllers) gets to be a drag.

Or is it just me ?

[AGreen]

Why not set up permanent tracks dedicated to recording on each input. Then when you want to record on that input click on the arm button. It's just the same as clicking on a track to arm. Press alt + R to arm all tracks or do it twice to disarm all tracks. Theres no need to set it up each time.

[dellboy]

Why not set up permanent tracks dedicated to recording on each input. Then when you want to record on that input click on the arm button. It's just the same as clicking on a track to arm. Press alt + R to arm all tracks or do it twice to disarm all tracks. Theres no need to set it up each time.

#

Why would I want to arm all my tracks when I only want to record on one ?

Like I said, its clunky and outdated and needs to be addressed before some super duper new features are added. Its a basic simple requirement for a modern DAW.

[AGreen]

I don't understand your point. Auto arming a track in another daw merely arms the track, it doesn't set the input source, that's a seperatate operation. So what's the difference between clicking the input to arm it or clicking the track to arm it. It's one click whichever way you do it.

[Watchful]

Wouldn't auto-arming cause issues for people who use multiple inputs? I think I understand the OP's premise if you have one and only one input you use... but lots of us have multiple mics, hardware synths, live instruments, etc. In Waveform, I can select which inputs I want armed with a single click, like AGreen says. And I use multiple inputs armed at once to record on multiple tracks.

[dellboy]

I don't understand your point. Auto arming a track in another daw merely arms the track, it doesn't set the input source, that's a seperatate operation. So what's the difference between clicking the input to arm it or clicking the track to arm it. It's one click whichever way you do it.

The whole point of "auto-arm" is that there is no need to do any clicking to arm tracks.

I have a template in Live that loads at startup which enables basic vsts on different tracks. It just requires using the arrow keys on my computer keyboard to select Piano, Bass, Drums or whatever. Hit enter and it starts recording. Hit spacebar and it stops. Use an arrow to go up and down to select instruments that are pre-loaded.

No selecting, arming, or clicking required.

Its like hardware but using software.

[AGreen]

The whole point of "auto-arm" is that there is no need to do any clicking to arm tracks.

I have a template in Live that loads at startup which enables basic vsts on different tracks. It just requires using the arrow keys on my computer keyboard to select Piano, Bass, Drums or whatever. Hit enter and it starts recording. Hit spacebar and it stops. Use an arrow to go up and down to select instruments that are pre-loaded.

No selecting, arming, or clicking required.

Its like hardware but using software.

Well it would have helped if you'd been a bit clearer about your setup and workflow. People are only trying to help and for certain workflows auto-arm isn't really necessary. Can you not acheive what you want using track templates in waveform with multiple inputs setup up in advance and controllers/instruments sent to the appropriate inputs. Then auto-arm wouldn't be necessary. If you've only got one input that wouldn't be possible but your initial post made it sound like you had multiple inputs.

People choose daws for many different reasons and what suits one workflow may not suit another. I personally find waveform to be one of the most productive and non-clunky daws there is. You can do things with routing and racks that are impossible in other daws. Need to individually EQ your sends on every track before they go to a reverb on an aux track? No problem. Do it with the same rack on every track in your project. You can't do that in Live. The live arrange window is clunky as hell. One of the worst I've ever used. Is Live old fashioned and not a "modern daw" because it doesn't have a pattern generator. To me it is but that's just my viewpoint.

The original decision not to have a mixer was a design choice made because the developers thought it was a more flexible and efficient solution. And you know what, it is! It's far faster to mix in waveform in the arrange window than it is in a mixer, especially if you combine it with track tagging. Why? Because you don't get the problem of plugin windows covering controls on the mixer forcing you to close windows or move them out of the way just to move a fader or solo a track etc. Plugin windows cycle automatically so the whole process is super efficient. Please, no more irrational waveform bashing. I've seen enough of it. It's like the twilight zone sometimes.

[dellboy]

Please, no more irrational waveform bashing. I've seen enough of it. It's like the twilight zone sometimes.

Who's bashing Waveform ?

Its a simple request for a feature that would enhance the flow for some peoples way of working.

In all DAWs its an option that can be turned on or off.

Your method of working sounds very Linux oriented.

I want to make music quickly and non geeky.

You seem to like geekiness.

By the way, I purchased Waveform 9 just today, so why on earth would I be "bashing it" ?

[dellboy]

The live arrange window is clunky as hell. One of the worst I've ever used. Is Live old fashioned and not a "modern daw" because it doesn't have a pattern generator. To me it is but that's just my viewpoint.

I can agree with your point about the clunky Live arrange window,its not very good.

But I fail to understand what you mean about Live not having a "pattern generator", because that's pretty much the whole point of the session view, to generate loops or patterns.

There is no other DAW which can do it as well as Live does it. Bitwig is biting at its heels,but Live is still ahead.

Does Waveform have a pattern generator ?

[AGreen]

I think you're being disingenuous my friend. I remember now you came to the forum a while back and said pretty much the same things. A number of us tried to help you and went through the process of trying to figure out what you wanted to do and how you might do it in waveform. Now you've come back with exactly the same points couched in negativity and we've wasted our time going through exactly the same process again. If you really are interested in waveform then why not just put in a feature request or ask politely if such a thing might be added. You say in your initial post you own waveform 9 but rarely use it then you say you bought it today! Seems a little odd if you hardly ever use it and it doesn't suit your workflow.

As for geeky, why is it that users of Live and Bitwig have this tendency to always think that anyone who doesn't work like they do is old fashioned and geeky. Live and Bitwig suit a particular workflow but they're not necessarilly great for everything. Just because you think you're at the cutting edge, don't go around disparaging those who do things differently. If I'm geeky because I record instruments, do lots of midi editing, make lots of use of melodyne for part creation, use the pattern generator to develop parts and new ideas, then so be it. But actually that seems a pretty normal workflow and the majority of daw users tend to work in a similar fashion. The Live/Bitwig croud tend to be EDM and do lots of looping and improvisation. It' a completely different use case.

And honestly if you say you've used waveform but don't know what the difference is between the waveform pattern generator and lives matrix looping functionality then I seriously doubt that you've actually used it. The waveform pattern generator is a midi chord and part creation tool, it's got no similarity to lives matrix view. They're completely different things.

[dellboy]

I think you're being disingenuous my friend. I remember now you came to the forum a while back and said pretty much the same things. A number of us tried to help you and went through the process of trying to figure out what you wanted to do and how you might do it in waveform. Now you've come back with exactly the same points couched in negativity and we've wasted our time going through exactly the same process again. If you really are interested in waveform then why not just put in a feature request or ask politely if such a thing might be added. You say in your initial post you own waveform 9 but rarely use it then you say you bought it today! Seems a little odd if you hardly ever use it and it doesn't suit your workflow.

As for geeky, why is it that users of Live and Bitwig have this tendency to always think that anyone who doesn't work like they do is old fashioned and geeky. Live and Bitwig suit a particular workflow but they're not necessarilly great for everything. Just because you think you're at the cutting edge, don't go around disparaging those who do things differently. If I'm geeky because I record instruments, do lots of midi editing, make lots of use of melodyne for part creation, use the pattern generator to develop parts and new ideas, then so be it. But actually that seems a pretty normal workflow and the majority of daw users tend to work in a similar fashion. The Live/Bitwig croud tend to be EDM and do lots of looping and improvisation. It' a completely different use case.

And honestly if you say you've used waveform but don't know what the difference is between the waveform pattern generator and lives matrix looping functionality then I seriously doubt that you've actually used it. The waveform pattern generator is a midi chord and part creation tool, it's got no similarity to lives matrix view. They're completely different things.

I made a mistake with saying "I rarely use Waveform 9". I meant to say "Waveform 8". I only purchased Waveform 9 yesterday, which by the way is proving to be a real crashfest on my machine.

I do not own Live, I used it as an illustration of how autoarm works.

I had no idea what a "pattern generator" was, but after fiddling with it on Waveform 9 last night, I have zero use for it. My opinion stands that the Waveform team would be better occupied updating the basic code to modern standards rather than implementing new toys which are not needed.

By the way, I paid for my Waveform license and have every right to voice my opinion on this forum. If the Waveform developers have a problem with it then PM me and refund my purchase.

[whyterabbyt]

My opinion stands that the Waveform team would be better occupied updating the basic code to modern standards

what modern standards of code would these be?

FWIW, what you're asking for could probably be done, more or less, with a script. The limitation would be that it'd be bound to a key (one key to 'move up one track and arm it' another to 'move down one track and arm it') rather than mouse-based selection.

To do the latter, you'd need an automatic callback of a script on selection of a specific element type; that might be a worthwhile FR.

[chico.co.uk]

You have a template in Live, that loads at startup, but you don't own Live? That must be frustrating.

[whyterabbyt]

feck, doesnt seem to be an obvious way to arm a track from a script. FR.

[dellboy]

what modern standards of code would these be?

FWIW, what you're asking for could probably be done, more or less, with a script. The limitation would be that it'd be bound to a key (one key to 'move up one track and arm it' another to 'move down one track and arm it') rather than mouse-based selection.

To do the latter, you'd need an automatic callback of a script on selection of a specific element type; that might be a worthwhile FR.

By "modern code", I mean modern to Tracktion,which Julian coded in version one.

At that time, most DAWs did something similar with regard to setting up inputs,then one by one they all added an "autoarm" feature. I buy each upgrade hoping that its added,but am always let down to find its the same. Meanwhile, they have done a huge overhaul in the settings section, so a lot of coding went into that. Is it so much to ask for an auto arm option ?

I have faffed around trying to set up virtual inputs and assigning them to channels, but this means changing channels each time from a controller,and for each different controller, (two Novations and an 88 key Yamaha piano). The Yamaha is easy to change channels,but the Novations are a pain to change.

As for making scripts, I avoid DAWs which ask me to do geeky stuff.