T3 - AES New Feature Preview

[larsfarm]

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?

Yes, just like the clips we have today. They are just a visual representation of a continuos sequence of samples. I expect (well - would like) to see collection clips as a kind of clip. They would refer to all clips that intersected the collection clip in the folder at that point in the timeline and at that time. All operations performed on the collection clip would be referred to all contained clips. The actual operations would be performed there. If you move one track out of the folder it no longer is part of the collection clip. Any operations that you had previously performed on the collection clip would have been referred to and performed by the contained clips (including those on the track you later move). So the moved track would end up the same as when it was within the folder.

L

[Lunch Money]

Fair enough. I just think it takes a simple concept and makes it unecessarily complex and a potential bug nightmare, when rendering and then manipulating the rendered clip does not leave a swath (? Is that even a word? ) of destruction in its wake. That's really my point-- your way is entirely possible, and I just KNOW that there'd be a way to work the logistics out. But as soon as you start going in-depth, you realize how non-trivial it is. So a seemingly innocuous request like, "Hey, let's be able to cross-fade collection clips" because a serious undertaking.

The main example is the difference in expectations-- you would probably be joined by those who are also fine with the track changes remaining, when a track is taken out of the folder. By having the collection clip changes permanent to the contained tracks, you take away some of the complexity and make it a valid and workable FR. But I will probably be joined by those who do not want brute force cutting, moving, and fading done on the entire individual tracks' contents of a folder. Part of the elegance of the collection method is that the original parts remain untouched while the collection is the 'master.' As soon as "hard" edits are done right to the contained tracks, that elegance and power is compromised.

I can't see it being the 'standard' and default expected behaviour.. but it WOULD be a useful tool. Meaning it'd have to be optional.. and that being the case, a nightmare to program, which makes an innocent enough request a full-blown feature revision.

A dialogue maybe? "You are moving a track that has had changes made via collection clip... would you like to revert back to its original stage?"

Greg

[semiquaver]

I don't understand why Larsfarm needs to alter the clips which are within the collection clip. What he needs to do (in his choir example anyhow) is simply leave the original clips unfaded. Then the collection clip should offer a fadeout just as regular clips do. And this should be applied to the collected clips all together. There is already a VCA filter, so the code to act on a whole collection is already there. If a clip is taken out of the collection there is no fade on it.

Having an action on a collection which alters the clips within rather than just effecting the signal flowing from them (if you get the distinction) is a *very bad* idea.

[larsfarm]

Having an action on a collection which alters the clips within rather than just effecting the signal flowing from them (if you get the distinction) is a *very bad* idea.

Why?

[larsfarm]

Append recording: I exclusively record on location. I have so far used my Mackie SDR for recording. Eventually I'll try the computer. One thing that T could do better then the SDR is if there were an append mode of recording. Wherever the playback head were when you pressed the red button the recording was added after the latest clips. A safety feature to prevent recording over something. With this and assuming T is stable and reliable in continuous recording for hours (plural) then T could gradually replace or at least complement my SDR. Is there something like this in T3?

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[loopdloop]

Will there be any way to do group fade-in and fade-out of a group of audio clips? (not as automation tho)

Sorry I missed this the first time Mr. Tingle asked it. The answer is not at this point, but should be something we add eventually. It would make sense that if you had multiple clips selected, the fades would be linked.

Ben

This is all I'd like for multiple clip fading (it IS excruciating not having it when you need it!). I would personally not want or expect edits to the collection clip to effect the originals.

[semiquaver]

Larsfarm: recording on the computer is non-destructive - you cant "record over" something! - you can always move the new recording later and then pull the end of the "recorded over" clips to the right. So no need for an "append mode".

Having changes to a collection clip alter the clip properties of the clips within is a nightmare for many reasons. First there was the point brought up above that you might add a clip to a collection: is it to be altered then? And if you remove a clip from a collection? And if you change the fade on a contained clip? Then will the fade visible on the collection clip have meaning? Finally there is the possibility of inadvertantly losing a very carefully engineered bunch of individual fades on some clips in a collection when you tweak the fade box without noticing it. Let the fade on the collection clip function like a fade on a group fader! there is nothing you cant do with this way of working.

[larsfarm]

[quote="semiquaver"]Larsfarm: recording on the computer is non-destructive - you cant "record over" something! - you can always move the new recording later and then pull the end of the "recorded over" clips to the right. So no need for an "append mode".

That's a bit awkward when you have a long recording session. Like today. They'll do their thing over and over and over.... I think it is better if T does the tedious work of making sure they end up after each other in the right place than I have to move many layers of clips into their right sequence and then align them in time. Thanks, but no thanks.

L

[GodzillaFrog]

Hey larsfarm

Just hit the end key before recording the next session.. appends to the current clip. mark it with I if you need to.. kinda simulates a manual recorder.

[Lunch Money]

larsfarm, you can highlight all clips in a track, and shift+ or alt+ move them without any problems. The solutions are there, you just need to look for them. Or, do what I do when I've done a million "surgical" edits in a track-- render it.

[larsfarm]

Just hit the end key before recording the next session.. appends to the current clip. mark it with I if you need to.. kinda simulates a manual recorder.

Yeah, well... getting closer. Ideally I'd like to have a one button record command. Just press a key and off you go appending data to all armed tracks. Does T do macros/scripts? Even better with a prerecord buffer so that you wont miss a start. You hear the start, realise you should have caught it, press record and the recording started 10-15s ago. Boomrecorder, Metacorder does. Many hardware recorders do.

L

[Lunch Money]

Right, but hardware has limitations that software doesn't. I can see the usefulness of your request, but I don't know to what "extent" it's useful. I think that what you want is so easily accomplished with existing methods (especially when you know your shortcut keys) that I don't see it as a very "value-added" request. Software is software, and expecting it to do things the hardware way is sometimes a step backwards. At the very least, it's not always a step forward. In this case, I think the latter is the case-- yeah, it's a different function... some people might use it sometimes... but just how much value does it add? If negligible or 'none,' then surely it has to be bumped waaaaayyyy down in priority.

Greg

[SuitcaseOfLizards]

Someone should just implement a macro programming language for T3 and let people code up their own functions! Something that lets you bind a single keystroke to a sequence of commands would sure be nice...