File-per-take not optional?

[dysjoint]

So you can chop out the bits you want and merge, but you can't crossfade, as you can't extend the start or end of a discrete file. You can only use edge fade to remove the clicks, which is not a satisfactory solution. I've run into this tweaking and recording vst synth + fx chains in loop mode.

[jens]

So you can chop out the bits you want and merge, but you can't crossfade, as you can't extend the start or end of a discrete file. You can only use edge fade to remove the clicks, which is not a satisfactory solution.

Exactly!

And as I mentioned - or at least hinted at - (organically played) music usually naturally kind of flows around the beat, rather than always being dead on, as something more rigid (say techno) typically is. Of course this is all a matter of taste and/or artistic choice and I absolutely wouldn't want to tell anybody how they should go on about making their music, but proper slip-editing (i.e. one continous file for all takes) doesn't prevent you from religiously locking your music to the beat i.e. quantizing the hell out of it, on the other hand however the way Tracktion handles takes makes it a whole lot harder to...

ehm... how to word that as objectively subjectively *hehe* and non-judgemental as I mean it?

approaching the creation of... let's call it more traditional music in a way that tends to in my humble opinion suit it a lot more naturally?

Plus of course, as I also mentioned already, if you have an instrument with a relatively slow attack, even to be dead on you have to start before the beat the note(s) shall sit on - as a simple example think of smoothly bowed legato violin - and with vocals it's rather likely your breathing in will be cut away.

The workaround with Tracktion would be to add a bit (say a bar) before and after the actually loop you want to record over - and I sometimes do this (especially when recording vocals) even with DAWs that properly support slip-editing, however

a) this might disturb your attempts at properly getting in the pocket (imagine e.g. there's a time-signature change or a switch from boogie to straight or from straight to syncopated)*

b) it might mean you have to make room first by temporarily removing parts you already recorded, which can be a bit of a nuisance



*These kind of changes often have to be rehearsed to be pulled off properly and in a band situation there's of course ample time and space for this - but if you're sitting all by yourself in your studio and constantly switch between instruments and roles and are in the middle of assembling the damned song you need any help you can get to lay it down - time is an important factor here.

[pough]

First of all, I 100% agree that this process could and should be improved along the lines you've mentioned. I think they're most of the way there (which you've noted) in that they already utilize a "window" into the file and have a control on the clip header to easily move the contents.

My opinion is that 1) loop-take clips should automatically be set as looped clips and 2) looped clips should be able to have the contents slide right and not just left.*

... proper slip-editing (i.e. one continous file for all takes) ...

I have a question about this, if you don't mind. I'll use a similar example to the one you've previously used to set it up. Imagine you have recorded 5 takes of 4 bars of bass in a loop. You choose take #3. If you slide the contents to the left, from where should it take the extra bit required on the right? Would it be from the start of its own take (#3) or from take #4?

I would have assumed the former, which I think means it doesn't need to be a continuous file. And really what it's playing is a composite rendering. Whenever I make comp takes I don't choose a single take, I piece together the sections I like best from all the takes.

WF Composite Takes.png

* This can be accomplished by extending the loop clip to the right, moving the clip to the left and then trimming the clip on the left, but it shouldn't be necessary to do all that.

[jens]

I have a question about this, if you don't mind. I'll use a similar example to the one you've previously used to set it up. Imagine you have recorded 5 takes of 4 bars of bass in a loop. You choose take #3. If you slide the contents to the left, from where should it take the extra bit required on the right? Would it be from the start of its own take (#3) or from take #4?

It is and imo absolutely should be the beginning of take 4 - unless you comp in take 2*.

*provided the DAW offers a mode where you can switch any slice of a take to any other take.

[jens]

Your idea of one continous-loop is quite interesting though - but tbh I can't really wrap my head around it right now - you'd basically create a splice - how would you go about making sure it actually fits?

[dysjoint]

You could argue this is just the wrong workflow, but if you are jamming in loop mode to come up with a little riff or melody leading into the chorus and inspiration strikes on loop 7, you stop and unpack the takes only to find your two lead in notes are in take 6 and the last note you held with the beautiful vibrato is now in take 8. It would be nice to be able to grab the ends of take 7 and just extend back to capture the end of take 6 and forwards to include the start of take 8.
Not to mention if you jam for 5 minutes over a looped section of your track you might end up with 20 or 30 clips to sort through. I can see the benefit of having an option that records while playing back in loop mode but creates one continuous clip just in that regard. It's not a biggy for me personally as I don't use the method much but it has been a major PITA a few times when I did.

[jens]

You could argue this is just the wrong workflow,

You could, but that would prove that you didn't understand my explanations in their entirety.
It also would be a helluva presumptuous.

but if you are jamming in loop mode to come up with a little riff or melody

I'm not.

[talby]

It would be nice to be able to grab the ends of take 7 and just extend back to capture the end of take 6 and forwards to include the start of take 8.

This sounds most intuitive and thus reasonable to me.

[jens]

It would be nice to be able to grab the ends of take 7 and just extend back to capture the end of take 6 and forwards to include the start of take 8.

If you mean the start of take 7 for the end of take 6 and the end of take 7 for the beginning of take 8 then this is exactly what I have been on about since my first post in this thread.

I also think I really did my best to explain it from all angles (but then again English isn't my native language and maybe my respective skills are far more lacking than I assume(d)).

[talby]

Now it is very clear, even to me who initially did not understand the issue at all

[jens]

Great!