61 posts

RELATED
PRODUCTS

Q: Why use different track types? 2006-04-26T09:30:11+00:00 This is meant more to satisfy my curiosity, as I hardly expect for EnergyXT to change such a basic thing in its design, but: Why use different tracks for audio, MIDI, automation etc.? After all, the part or clip is what contains the information, the track is just used to arrange over the time line and to send a group of clips to a certain signal chain. This somewhat made sense in the olden days, where all plugins where either "synths" or "effects". Instruments received MIDI, effects received audio. That's it. But with playable effects like Lucifer, MIDI effects and MIDI-only instruments, synth with audio in and even host-in-a-plugin like XT - this classification is meaningless. Any type of plugin might received either MIDI, audio or both. Why make inserting a MIDI fx any different than inserting an audio fx? Why should an effect be treated differently than an instrument? It isn't soin tha main window. After all, XT is one of them clever hosts, who does not differentiate between VSTfx and VSTi. Especially with clip based fx coming in XT2, why not switch to clip-based rather than track based approach. Take a look at Tracktion (which is my main sequencer), Luna or Reaper. They are all built with one type of track to contain MIDI, audio and automation data. True, XT's sequencer is fully modular (or so jens keeps claiming :hihi: ) and allows flexible routing between tracks, so this approach probably won't allow you to do anything new. But there is still much to gain in terms of work flow, consistency and simplicity. Those are the main things XT2 will address, no? After all, the main window allow to freely route any kind of data (MIDI or audio) to either a synth or an effect. no limitations. Why should the sequencer impose such limitation on the user. Again, this is in no way an attack on the XT approach. I do not expect that to change (though I would have loved it). I fully realize that this is probably no big deal for most of the users. After all, this is the way most of the sequencers work. I truly like to understand is there any inherent advantage in using different tracks for MIDI and audio clips and a different kind of output chain and terminology for the processing plugins. This is just that EnergyXT is such a smart and forward thinking app, but inside the sequencer it sometimes can be, well... so Cubase. spacefox https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6339

DarkStar DarkStar https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8767: KVRAF; 10366 posts since 2 Sep, 2003 from Surrey, UK

Post by DarkStar » Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:56 am

0
Quote

Warmonger wrote:I don't have multiple MIDI devices, but if I'm understanding this correctly, eXT records from all MIDI input devices to a single, armed track. Is that right?

, eXT can record to multiple MIDI (or audio) tracks. have a look at:
http://www.asseca.com/darkstar/ext-brg/w-10.htm
and
http://www.asseca.com/darkstar/ext-brg/w-4.htm
HTH

DarkStar, ... Interesting, if true
Inspired by ...

Post Reply

61 posts

Return to “energyXT”

XT Software

KVR Audio

Q: Why use different track types?