Just an example: You have an audio-track that contains already an audio-file and some effects. One of the effects needs also MIDI-events (e.g. to tune a comb filter). Thanks to the universal approach, you can just add a MIDI-clip to the lane where already the corresponding audio-file and the plugin exist. No clutter thru additional tracks, no routing setup necessery ...JoseC. wrote:I've always failed to understand why universal tracks are a "feature". A track is just a container for data. There are, like, TWO kinds of data, so having a container specifically tailored to each seems better than having a single generic one. Calling it "universal" (for a universe of two) sounds like bad marketing to me.
Reaper ... what i like/dislike
-
- KVRist
- 198 posts since 24 Dec, 2009 from Berlin
-
- KVRAF
- 7095 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
I wrote "I".EnGee wrote:
Sorry i didn't understand what you mean. Do you mean that for you "Nice to have" is not "showstopper"? Or do you mean people (or me) don't understand the difference?
-
In your comments is sounds like all you mention is showstoppers.
What you mention is hardly showstoppers for me.
But different strokes for different folks.
-
- KVRAF
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
Btw, I have no problem with universal tracks. It clicks just fine. I have my templates for things like omni, tril, SD and such. A simple synth is a right-click command (no need to make a track, make it a synth track, etc) and things are fairly tidy.
Still haven't mastered getting a track to insert EXACTLY where I want, not sure why.
Folder tracks takes understanding the idiom. But once you do, can be quite efficient there. Yes, foldering a group adds a -3db, but you can change that if you like.
Still haven't mastered getting a track to insert EXACTLY where I want, not sure why.
Folder tracks takes understanding the idiom. But once you do, can be quite efficient there. Yes, foldering a group adds a -3db, but you can change that if you like.
-
- KVRAF
- 9096 posts since 5 Feb, 2004
I love universal tracks, one of my favorite things about Reaper really. For instance, using an arpeggiator you usually don't want the same pattern running throughout the song, so instead of setting up program changes, I render to midi or audio whatever segment I find i like, I can render several versions and have them in place to switch between to figure out what works best, and still keep the original chords that drive it in place, and still have live midi working in other places in the track. I really appreciate the flexibility even if I am not always using it, because when it is helpful it is very helpful.
If you have requests for Korg VST features or changes, they are listening at https://support.korguser.net/hc/en-us/requests/new
-
- KVRAF
- 6159 posts since 4 Dec, 2004
I appreciate the technical nature of the folders in Reaper, the way they so easily can make bus tracks, but the way I prefer to work often doesn't always have child tracks paired with (side by side) with their bus tracks so it was problematic for me in larger projects because you kinda have to keep those tracks together to keep the folder / bus arrangements. I would often move a channel in the mixer and mistakenly move it out of a bus / folder group.hibidy wrote:Folder tracks takes understanding the idiom. But once you do, can be quite efficient there. Yes, foldering a group adds a -3db, but you can change that if you like.
It also makes it a bit difficult to have nested groups with sources from various places for the same reason, they have to be physically aligned to be inside the folder.
So I'll often just use sends and manually create bus tracks the old fashioned way to avoid that. I also don't particularly like that folders don't completely close, that child tracks are always visible.
But generally speaking, the design is a good one for most stuff.