Split and loop: so complicated

[TmTmClb]

Maybe some people use the "A part is not a sequence" feature of Mulab, but I completely fail to see why it exists.

It's especially confusing when splitting then looping. This basic feature has always been quite easy in other DAWs: a Split makes two unique sequences, the first containing the notes before the split time, and the second the notes after the split time. They can be looped instantly, and their repeats are the same lengths as their corresponding masters. WYSIWYG. It took me a looong time to wrap my head around the Mulab behavior. A Split does not really split, and a loop, well...

The doc says
'When splitting a unique sequence part then this will result in 2 unique sequences. Unless the "Standard Copy Part Is Shared Copy" preference is ON then the split will use shared sequences, as that preference defines whether you prefer unique sequences or shared sequences.'

The language makes no sense ("unless...then"). If I understand correctly, it really should say
'If the "Standard Copy Part Is Shared Copy" preference is
ON: splitting a unique sequence will result in two SHARED PARTS
OFF: splitting a unique sequence will result in two UNIQUE SEQUENCES'

The problem is that the OFF setting doesn't create unique sequences: it creates two identical ones, with different Start Markers and unusable Loop Markers.

"Trim to Played" seems designed for this, but it only removes the outside notes in the first resulting "box". It doesn't adjust the loop markers in either resulting box, so it's not really a Trim. Here too, I just can't think of any use for that behavior.

My workaround:
1. Split
2. double-click first "box" to open Sequence Editor
3. move the End Loop Marker to the split ("box" timespan is visible by different grey background)
4. choose "Cut" in the dialog box
5. Esc to exit the Sequence Editor
6. double-click second "box" to open Sequence Editor
7. Right-click on top left of the ruler (over the Start Marker)
8. Choose "Set Loop Start"
9. Esc to exit the Sequence Editor

"Change Loop Length" -> "Cut" works only for the first resulting box, and it's even more cumbersome, even with a keyboard shortcut.

Don't most people want the standard, simple behavior when editing in the Composer (Project/Arranger/Tracks Area/whatever)?

[Bady89]

Hello,

i think i understand what you want to say, have facing such Problems using a Midi Keybord but it is possible.

Do you use Midi Keyboard ?

If yes read the Fat Printed letter, if not skip

Get Sure you use ASIO Driver to have a Realtime Transfer to the DAW, it is impossible to create a clean loop with Windows Soundriver

Mulib will Split a Sequence on the Next Beat where you clicked it with the Right Mouse Button.

Get sure you have a high enough "Beat Resolution" , default is on Bar which is not enough IMHO
I recomend to set this on Beat or Higher, in Beat it it will Split on the Next Beat now. (See Picture)

Let me ask a Question, why do you don´t creater Smaller Sequence and use Copy and Paste if you want to Loop it ?

[pljones]

The language makes no sense ("unless...then"). If I understand correctly, it really should say
'If the "Standard Copy Part Is Shared Copy" preference is
ON: splitting a unique sequence will result in two SHARED PARTS
OFF: splitting a unique sequence will result in two UNIQUE SEQUENCES'

This is wrong. The sequences are what's shared (or not), not the parts. The part defines the loop start / end points for its sequence. Splitting a part sets the the end and start points for the resultant parts.
* If the sequence is shared, then edits affect both parts - you can switch between all parts and see that's true.
* If you don't share, then a new sequence is created with a copy of the original and each part points to its own sequence; splitting still sets the end and start points for the resultant parts, though.

Don't most people want the standard, simple behavior when editing in the Composer (Project/Arranger/Tracks Area/whatever)?

It's the way MuLab and its predecessors have always been. Everyone else is wrong, perhaps?

[mutools]

Maybe some people use the "A part is not a sequence" feature of Mulab, but I completely fail to see why it exists.

The big advantage of playing the very same sequence by multiple parts is that when you change the sequence all these parts immediately play the new version. It's a handy and powerful feature. And often a FR in DAWs that don't have this feature.

It's especially confusing when splitting then looping. This basic feature has always been quite easy in other DAWs: a Split makes two unique sequences, the first containing the notes before the split time, and the second the notes after the split time. They can be looped instantly, and their repeats are the same lengths as their corresponding masters. WYSIWYG. It took me a looong time to wrap my head around the Mulab behavior. A Split does not really split, and a loop, well...

Please post a little project with a sequence part where you find that splitting it does not work as you would expect.

[mutools]

The part defines the loop start / end points for its sequence.

Correction: The sequence loop is a sequence property. So all parts playing sequence X will play that same sequence loop. Only the Start Marker is a part property and can differ from part to part even when they play the same sequence. In fact the sequence part Start Marker has been implemented so to be able to do splits on shared sequence parts. (ie without changing the shared sequence)

[TmTmClb]

The big advantage of playing the very same sequence by multiple parts is that when you change the sequence all these parts immediately play the new version. It's a handy and powerful feature. And often a FR in DAWs that don't have this feature.

You mean like Logic aliases? of course, that is extremely convenient and essential. The problem comes from the loop markers. How about completely getting rid of them? loop would be defined by the edges of the "box" in the Composer, and looping done by Alt-dragging these edges.

Add a "Slide Events" like Cubase, and you've got a simple yet powerful implementation.

Please post a little project with a sequence part where you find that splitting it does not work as you would expect.

SplitAndLoopProblem.zip

[mutools]

Thx for the project. Please elaborate on what is wrong with it. Especially: Splitting which part gives an unexpected result for you?

[TmTmClb]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. It seems pretty self-explicit:
- take the sequence on Track A, split it: you get what's on Track B.
- take the first split part from Track B, loop it (dragging right edge): you get Track C.
- Same for the second split from Track B: loop it, you get Track D.

Tracks E and F are what happens with all other DAWs I've used: E is the first split looped, F is the second split looped. When you split then loop, you only want the corresponding notes from each half.

[Bady89]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. It seems pretty self-explicit

The best would be, to make a PSR (Problem Step Record) with a Tool that is Integrated in every Windows 10, would make it much easier for us
You can insert Comments in your steps if it don´t track every function.

You find it in your accessory Folder or over Search:

[mutools]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. It seems pretty self-explicit:
- take the sequence on Track A, split it: you get what's on Track B.
- take the first split part from Track B, loop it (dragging right edge): you get Track C.
- Same for the second split from Track B: loop it, you get Track D.

Tracks E and F are what happens with all other DAWs I've used: E is the first split looped, F is the second split looped. When you split then loop, you only want the corresponding notes from each half.

Ok i now fully understand what you mean. It's about a conceptual different view on things. I will think about this and get back on this one of the days. Thx.

[pljones]

Let me check - a sequence has a start, a loop start and an end? And a part has a part's sequence start and part's sequence end? (The part must, logically, be able to play "from" and "to" positions in a shared part, so those must, logically, be attributes of the part.)

So, if by splitting (shared or not), I split before a sequence loop start, then the earlier part will not contain the loop point and the later will?

Then, if I lengthen the earlier part (not adjusting the part's sequence end), the part simply plays it over and over from the part's sequence start to the part's sequence end?

But if I lengthen the later part (not adjusting the part's sequence end), the part plays from the part's sequence start through the sequence loop start to the sequence end and then repeats from the sequence loop start?

[mutools]

Let me check - a sequence has a start, a loop start and an end? And a part has a part's sequence start and part's sequence end?

No. A sequence has a loop start and loop end. And a sequence part has a start offset.

A sequence part starts playing at the start offset.
If there is no explicit start offset then it starts playing at the sequence loop start.

Splitting a part should never make a difference on how the parts are played. It's just a split. From there on you can further change this in the left or right part of the split.

So, if by splitting (shared or not), I split before a sequence loop start, then the earlier part will not contain the loop point and the later will?

Then, if I lengthen the earlier part (not adjusting the part's sequence end), the part simply plays it over and over from the part's sequence start to the part's sequence end?

But if I lengthen the later part (not adjusting the part's sequence end), the part plays from the part's sequence start through the sequence loop start to the sequence end and then repeats from the sequence loop start?

Please just try the cases you describe and you will find the answers in MuLab.

[mutools]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. It seems pretty self-explicit:
- take the sequence on Track A, split it: you get what's on Track B.
- take the first split part from Track B, loop it (dragging right edge): you get Track C.
- Same for the second split from Track B: loop it, you get Track D.

Tracks E and F are what happens with all other DAWs I've used: E is the first split looped, F is the second split looped. When you split then loop, you only want the corresponding notes from each half.

Ok i now fully understand what you mean. It's about a conceptual different view on things. I will think about this and get back on this one of the days. Thx.

It indeed is about a conceptual difference. Your expectations (probably based on other DAWs) are different from how MuLab works. I'm open to rethink / reconsider things but that's not possible on short term, also for i will want to check any possible changes with the user community.

[mutools]

Elaborating:

I will certainly keep the separation between parts and sequences which makes it possible to share sequences by multiple parts aka "aliases" aka "ghost parts".

I will also certainly keep the separation between part length and sequence loop length.

So in fact the only thing that can be reconisdered is whether the Sequence Loop Start really is a useful property. That's a good question. I remember i chose for a sequence loop start+end so to be able to have a single sequence but playing/looping different sections of it. But if that's an almost unused case then the separate Sequence Loop Start (instead of simply starting at the start of the sequence) can be more negative (complexity) than positive (feature).

I'm open to consider dropping the Sequence Loop Start as that would simplify the concept.
Then sequences would just have a Loop Length and parts still have that Start Offset which is necessary to implement splits on shared sequence parts.

@TmTmClb: Note however that even if this simplification would be implemented then the part length will still not define the loop length, as you seem to expect from your experiences in some other DAWs. I think it's a good thing that part length and loop length are separate properties.

[mutools]

Elaborating more:

An advantage of the Sequence Loop Start is that a sequence can have an 'intro' section before it starts looping !