T3 - AES New Feature Preview

[Mr. Tingle]

can I just add a +1 for crossfade for multiple clips simultaneously, *extremely* useful.

[larsfarm]

Not necessarily. Since the collection clips are just representing what is inside the folder track, and whatever you would want to crossfade would likely be related, just put all the crossfaded clips into the collection clip. Then you shouldn't have to have crossfading of the collection clips.

I'm not sure I follow. Initially they are not crossfaded. An example: Let's say I have two collection clips representing two recordings of a choir singing the same song twice. I want to use take 1 as the base, but replace verse 3 with the one from the second recording. So I split collection clip 1 at the beginning and end of verse 3. Same for take 2. I now have six collection clips. I delete verse 3 from take 1 and drag the new verse 3 to its new place within take 1. There is no click track, so it wont fit exactly, but a little dragging of the clips back and forth to close the gaps solves that problem. The levels will also differ slightly. Consequently they must overlap somewhat and be crossfaded in both ends.

L

[Lunch Money]

Clip fader handles on group clips, just like any other clip (with crossfading being a natural extension of this, needed or not) = very useful. +1 for me on this feature request.

[Warmonger]

Would you want the group fade to be applied in addition to any existing clip fades? Or does it simply override the fade length for the clips in the group?

[Lunch Money]

In addition. At the end of the "group clip" thing, everything should be faded out. But if sub-clips START fading earlier, you've probably made a conscious decision for that. So, it'd have to be simply ganged on top of existing fades.

[Warmonger]

I figured as much, but it never hurts to clarify exactly what you want. Software engineers would be thrilled if customers were always so unambiguous.

[larsfarm]

In addition. At the end of the "group clip" thing, everything should be faded out. But if sub-clips START fading earlier, you've probably made a conscious decision for that. So, it'd have to be simply ganged on top of existing fades.

I'd expect an extension of the current behaviour. I'd expect to see the fade-in/out controls on the collection clip. I'd expect that when I actively manipulated them I manipulated all the contained controls and thus got the same effect as if I had applied that operation to each contained clip individually. That is to replace any fades in the contained clips. Same for crossfades. I'd expect them to replace any fade-in/out in the contained clips. You can always manipulate the individual clips separately if you need more contrtol, but when working on a collection clip you request the same operation from all contained clips. For that to be consistent then your behaviour should be what you get from fade-in/out on individual clips and that is to completelly replace the fade-in/out.

L

[gbles]

Yet another bug I just can't get to happen. Why can't I get these things to happen? I know they are there. What plugins does it do it on? And what do you do to get it to happen?

Running on Windows. There is nothing specific that I do. There are no specific plugins where this occurs - I think I get it on every one. I can be tweaking a synth patch and a click intended for the synth will instead occur within Tracktion, usually changing the song position.The VST is losing focus, or Tracktion is doing something to activate focus back on itself.

I think there was a topic not so long ago where people discussed this. As far as I know nothing came of it. Can anybody at Mackie replicate this bug? It seems to be something that happens to quite a few people. I guess I could create a video of it happening if that would be of any use.
Anyway, I don't want to blow this all out of proportion. Its a pain in the arse bug, and irritates me, but its not the end of the world.

[Lunch Money]

I'd expect an extension of the current behaviour. I'd expect to see the fade-in/out controls on the collection clip. I'd expect that when I actively manipulated them I manipulated all the contained controls and thus got the same effect as if I had applied that operation to each contained clip individually. That is to replace any fades in the contained clips. Same for crossfades. I'd expect them to replace any fade-in/out in the contained clips. You can always manipulate the individual clips separately if you need more contrtol, but when working on a collection clip you request the same operation from all contained clips. For that to be consistent then your behaviour should be what you get from fade-in/out on individual clips and that is to completelly replace the fade-in/out.

But, if the group fade is over top, it will still be seamless... it will start fading the group at wherever, and reach zero at the end of the group clip. Regardless of the individual clip's fades, it could be done mathmatically. If I have a fade on an individual clip that starts at 2:00 for a particular reason, in a group that starts fading at 3:00, shouldn't I be able to have that individual clip start at 2:00? A complete replacement takes that option away. And if you decide to fade the group, you still ARE requesting the same operation from all the contained clips. The math will work out, and at 3:00, the fade's curve would theoretically "look" different for that individual clip if you drew it out, but it would still be a seamless fade-out, according to what you've already assigned.

I don't see how complete replacement of individual clip decisions can be a good thing. If I want the group clip fade to be the master of all, I'll just disable the fades on the clips contained.

I think that overlaying the fade on top of existing fades IS the extension of current functionality. Replacement isn't.

[valley]

Can anybody at Mackie replicate this bug?

They know it exists. They can't replicate it for the same reason that no-one here can. There just isn't a precise sequence of steps that trigger it - it just happens every once in a while.

I've wasted countless hours of my life, and I know I'm not the only one, trying to make the click-thru happen on demand, or at least tie it down to specific VST plugins. Bugs like this are a developer's nightmare.

Honestly, it's one of those bugs that'll likely get fixed without anyone ever making a concious effort to fix it. Building T against a newer version of JUCE, tweaking the efficiency of the event dispatching, or anyone of a hundred other UI related changes could quietly elliminate this bug, and the first we'll know about it is when someone posts "hey, has anyone seen the click-thru bug recently?"

[semiquaver]

Group clip fade should be after contained clips' fades - replacing contained clips' fades would be awkward and confusing.

[koolkeys]

My point above wasn't stated very well. Let me see if I can clarify.

You use folder tracks USUALLY to combine all related tracks, right? And many times, the clips you would want to crossfade with each other will be related, say two guitar parts. If you wanted to fade these two parts, it would be logical to just put them both in the same folder, right?

Are there very many situations where you will be crossfading totally different parts? Maybe some, but not usually. And if you do, you can automate the volume still of the folder track.

Now that I think of it, this doesn't sound any clearer. I'm not even saying it's NOT necessary. Just trying to figure out where I would ever fade two separate sections of instruments or whatever. Just put the two parts you need faded inside the same folder.



Ah, never mind. I can't even think straight tonight. Totally bad headache and stupid late night and overnight shifts don't mix right now. I don't even understand what I just wrote. Sorry.

Brent

[Lunch Money]

Now you've got ME thinking. And while I can easily imagine fading the "group clip", you wouldn't be moving them left-to-right in order to overlap and then cross-fade them anyhow! Don't know why that didn't occur to me before.

The only time it would be useful would be if you could overlay one folder track "group clip" over top a different folder's "group clip," and that's too much of a logistics nightmare to even consider. If I ever needed to do that, I would render the 2 folders and have done with it.

Greg

[larsfarm]

Now you've got ME thinking. And while I can easily imagine fading the "group clip", you wouldn't be moving them left-to-right in order to overlap and then cross-fade them anyhow! Don't know why that didn't occur to me before.

Perhaps you wouldn't, but I definitely could use such a feature. I gave one example earlier in the thread. Here is another: Record choir and group, multichannel, fold to stereo, remove verse 4 out of 5. Cut the collection clip before and after verse 4. Slide the collection clip that has verse 5 into place. They must overlap because the levels wont be exact. Crossfade. This is in no way limited to choir. It is a way of working that would fit editing all recorded classical music. Sort of like cutting the tape with a razor and splicing the pieces together. We did "crossfades" on tape too since the tape was cut with a slant.

L

[Lunch Money]

I know what you're saying. Which is why I originally advocated the idea, too. On initial inspection, it seems highly useful, and if implemented without screw-ups, I WOULD also use it! But here's the catch: the collection clip is always a reflection of what's contained in the folder track. It's just a visual representation of those other clips, right? What you want to do is more advanced and more difficult. Each change to the collection clip would have to be reflected in the individual clips, including cuts, fades, and moving them along the timeline. This is why I got to the point about it being a logistics nightmare. Suddenly you have many factors to consider, including: what happens if you want to move just one of the tracks out of the folder, but not have the "collection clip" edits applied to it anymore?

Although it is less "slick"-seeming, the real solution to your example is to render that folder and manipulate the rendered clip, instead. You could keep the original tracks in a muted folder in case you ever need them again.

I think what you propose is slick and intuitive, but much like clip-based automation, there are problems to work through that aren't immediately obvious. It doesn't automatically mean the idea's not valid or that it's impossible, but it's much trickier than you'd think, when you sort through the process from beginning to end and take eventualities (such as wanting to modify or move individual tracks) into account.