jorgen : sugg. on ext being a pro stand alone sequencer

[tjvigil66]

Exactly!

I'm terribly sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[brok landers]

Brok, you can also load eXT within eXT - I guess that's what Piranha means

ok, maybe i miss something here then ...
but i still don`t understand what this statement has to with the initial topic ?
what i mean is, that of course many things i want are possible in ext, but only by big detours, therefore it gets complicated to do the necessary/basic things fast. and if a project is growing, ext lacks of the simple fact : you loose overview very fast. i often have to do projects that are kinda big, say, 24 instruments, 50 audiotracks, etc.
so sounddesigning, arranging, mixing and mastering
become one, as i do everything in the computer /sequencer.
i don`t want to use another sequencer than ext, as ext (as far as it is developed) simply is most close to the way i (and i think a lot of others that come from logic) are used to work.
don`t get me wrong :
a lot of features are even more intuitive and better implemented in ext than in logic or other hosts, if they are available in other sequencers at all ...
at least, here is why i base my hope on ext :
ext is also meant as a standalone sequencer.
thats why jorgen made it available, too.
otherwise he would`t have made it available standalone.
so things become necessary that wouldn`t, if ext would be a plugin only.
this is what my issues/this thread are/is based on ...
correct me if i`m wrong.

i must be overseeing something here ...


reg,

[silicon/silicium]

ext is also meant as a standalone sequencer.
thats why jorgen made it available, too.

hell, for me sequencer is just a part of energyxt, as important as the sampler, or the midi/audio parts, but no more. I m not sure I need "another pro sequencer", I m most into modularity. as an exemple, I currently can't see the need of a vertical mixer (maybe adding the mixer comp as a "vst" in the seq could be cool for bussing??), and if it's optionnal, I hope it wont interfer with the current setup. I really hope xt wont become simply a seq, and an environment around it. I wanna see multiple seq, driving midi and audio parts, routed to a mixer for main out, a mixer for my monitor out, and a lot of little connected comp.

a good point for modularity of the seq will be to create midi i/o as easily as audio i/o, I mean having to create both audio and midi port both from the main window (right clic on the seq comp) or from the seq menu.

[brok landers]

hell, for me sequencer is just a part of energyxt,
as important as the sampler, or the midi/audio parts, but no more.

of course, that i see your way, too ...
but while other features in ext are exellent and unique, the sequencer is not even equivalent in its state, compared to ext`s other features.

I m not sure I need "another pro sequencer"

well, no offense at all, but i am, and a lot of pc-logicusers are, if they didd`t switch to another host yet. and theese are a lot, at least i know a lot of them

I m most into modularity.

wich is what i am, too ... and it should stay like this, of course.
but the modular concept of ext simply still is unaffected by what my enhancement tips are all about, as they are all optional, so there have to be no worries bout that ...

as an exemple, I currently can't see the need of a vertical mixer

well, then please tell me how you are able to do complex routings with a lot of tracks, synths, busses, sidechaining, fx returns(wich contain sends and inserts themselfs)
being able to control/automate theese in the sequencer and not loosing overview, in ext standalone ? not to mention complex mastering structures ? this is the requirement of a pro sequencer imo ...

I really hope xt wont become simply a seq, and an environment around it.

well, i do.
in fact, i don`t see your point, as ext is near that allready.

I wanna see multiple seq, driving midi and audio parts, routed to a mixer for main out, a mixer for my monitor out, and a lot of little connected comp.

again, i don`t really see your point, as
1. what you request will be/stay there, use it or leave it
2.again, my enhancement tips simply don`t affect your issues. they stay available in full. it`s only an addition for those who use ext also as a traditional sequencer, with the great ability to use ext with it`s unique features on top.
that all together would make ext not only a specialist (wich it is now) but the only musicsoftware one would need for professional use.
this is what i`d like to achieve with this thread.

a good point for modularity of the seq will be to create midi i/o as easily as audio i/o, I mean having to create both audio and midi port both from the main window (right clic on the seq comp) or from the seq menu.

thats close to what i was suggesting in the "ext issues"-
post at the beginning in this thread.

reg,

[jens]

I often have to do projects that are kinda big, say, 24 instruments, 50 audiotracks, etc.

and I always thought I have some of the biggest projects...


I'm wondering what cpu you use - I tend bring mine (XP2600+ Barton) to it's knees really fast

Anyway: imo eXT is cleaner than anything else with big projects (yes, I know Logic rather well)

[brok landers]

and I always thought I have some of the biggest projects...

well, there is allways a bigger, better or whatever one ...

I'm wondering what cpu you use - I tend bring mine (XP2600+ Barton) to it's knees really fast

xp 3200 barton
but anyways, there are several possibilities to strip down cpu usage :
1. be careful what vsti u use, as there are too much that can do the quite the same but the cpu usage differ a lot.
2. allways allocate minimum voices to a synth.
if a synth cannot do this, then i dont use it
3. if the sound contains more parts, check if you really need to use all parts. mostly the sound doesn`t need all ingrediances it has, and still sounds acceptable.
don`t use too much vsti-internal fx.
f.e. there is mostly no need for a delay or a reverb _especially_ for that sound.
you can still use the delays /or reverb in your host wich function as send to achieve the same thing.
4. check your fx plugins u use in terms of cpu usage.
there is mostly another one wich is as good for a particular need that doesn`t suck as much as the one you might have been choosed before.

Anyway: imo eXT is cleaner than anything else with big projects (yes, I know Logic rather well)

well, on thatone i definately cannot agree.
if you set up logic correct it is by far the cleanest, most intuitive workspace one can have.
the reason i say this is simple :
logic gives you the ability to freely set up your workspace the way _you_ need it.
once you do it, noone will be faster than you, as it was _you_, who created that workspace, so you know why and whatfor you did it.
i know you can do it also in ext somehow, but in contrary to logic you loose the overview very fast, because you simply cannot handle things like you do in logic .
f.e. screensettings, wich go hand in hand with the fact that logic consequently has linkable editors. you can f.e. set up a screen with the arrangewindow, and all editors open that you need,
and store that to , say F1. whatever you click on in the arrange then, the ingrediances are shown in the editors, no need to first open them, search for the right position, etc. it`s simply there when needed with one click.
then you save different screensettings for different needs, and just recall them via one keystroke ... can`t be faster, sorry ...

reg,

[silicon/silicium]

well, about organizing huge projext, the keywords are folders and per track left column view. about bussing, it's easy to insert eneryXT vst inside the sequencer and create a multi i/o module. then create a "bus track", and you can select the "bus energyXT" by ctrl+space on the track...

[Caleb]

well, about organizing huge projext, the keywords are folders and per track left column view. about bussing, it's easy to insert eneryXT vst inside the sequencer and create a multi i/o module. then create a "bus track", and you can select the "bus energyXT" by ctrl+space on the track...

Well actually - you can't do this.

The problem is that you'll have an instrument plug-in - say Crystal for example and you'll set the output of Crystal to your EnergyXT plug-in channel. But there is no "connectedness" between the track you're working on and the EnergyXT plug-in unless you click on the Crystal instrument and checkout what output you've given it.

Therefore, you've lost your overview.

I don't usually have massive massive massive projects and I've never bothered using group busses etc. but I can imagine that not knowing that various instruments in your mixer are being diverted to a group channel at a glance for a really big project could be a little frustrating.

If you happen to know at a glance what your track is connected to end-to-end then it would probably save more and more time the bigger your project gets.

Needless to say, EnergyXT does pretty well in this area already. The "By Track" option is great. But I think it could go a little further to produce a more complete overview per track whether an EnergyXT plug-in is used to simulate group busses and master channels or not.

Caleb

[silicon/silicium]

Hmmm that s right, maybe adding a visual feedback of the output of the track could be handy. I usually rename the energyxt Vst, so it's easy to find what bus you are calling, just call the matching ext plugin, eg, "drums" or "distorsion", and have a reduced midi tracks at the top of you seq (new multi mode can be annoying, as we can't keep things always on the screen (that s why a, arragement track could be... errrmmm ), making it easily to call the mlti i/o module.

[SparkySpark]

Hi there,

I have really no much of value to add to this interesting thread so I guess I should not pollute the "coffee cars" and so.

However, I must say I agree with Brok quite a bit. Not neccessarily with all of his proposals, as I'm not experienced enough in using eXT, but that it should be easy to use it as an ordinary sequencer (think Cubasis or so) BUT to have extreme options under the hood. That way eXT can appeal to the masses and at the same time a user will not outgrow it.

Rock on,
/SparkySpark

[ramalama]

Hi,

Does anyone know if it's possible to generate MTC or SMPTE directly from energyXT? I need to sync other devices (video, lighing, etc.) to the audio files being played by ext. Any ideas?

Thanks,

ram

[soma]

Hi,

Does anyone know if it's possible to generate MTC or SMPTE directly from energyXT? I need to sync other devices (video, lighing, etc.) to the audio files being played by ext. Any ideas?

Thanks,

ram

No butI have a plugin for sending Midi clock out... Don't know if that helps. I might update it to send MTC but it will be a while...
Check out the link in my sig and look for the Soma_Transport_EX

[MartynM]

EnergyXT has a long way to go before it could possibly have the maturity of a program like Logic, it's just one guy coding it himself and charging about the price of a (good) round of drinks for it.

Don't get me wrong, I really miss Logic too, I was only discussing earlier today how frustrating it is that nobody's come up with a viable PC equivalent, I mainly use Ableton live for my work now but it does sometimes feel a bit like using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.

I'd love eXT to become the new Logic overnight too, unfortunately that's a really tall order and very unlikely to happen. What's great about it is that it's moving along at it's own pace and along it's own EVOLUTIONARY path, for all it's innocence, we can already do things that would be unthinkable in Logic.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you really need Logic badly enough, and you are a working pro, just get a Mac and Logic, it's just hardware after all. Run a fat PC alongside it if you want, clock it all together and double the track count.

just my 2£

[Meloday]

This explains without a doubt why I'm a pure fanatic of the video player comp's request (or track, or whatever Jorgen will give us provided it is synced).

+1

[original flipper]

HI

I didn't notice anything about track automation in 'Broks' document - perhaps I missed it as I did not read every word - what I find strange for someone or people asking for some kind of market beating mainstream host (which XT will never be) is that the most basic thing like 'in-line' automation is not mentioned: blimey you use 50 audio tracks and want to go through the insane work that creating 50 envelope tracks will take, connect them all up, bring in fx to automate - conect them up ....

I say an optional automation locked into midi/audio tracks needs to come soon - the modular way is fine but intensive, confusing and certainly something a pro would not want to use given huge projects that need to be moved along at a fair pace ... for obvious financial reasons.

Flipper.