eXT: What You're Waiting for Before You'll Switch

[spritex]

I agree and I think a 'replace'-feature is needed as well - and has already been requested several times -

Yes, this and the ability to bypass single effects in the VSTi would be very very welcome. Currently Chainer is much faster to use as a shell because EnergyXT lacks these. But I don't know if these are a priority any more after going the self-contained sequencer route?

[drlazy]

I own eXT but I can't work with it as my only host for two reasons, sequencer and stability.
eXTs' sequencer is surprisingly smart but desperately annoying. I hate the interface (well its more of a general problem in eXT), I think the audio track vs. MIDI track approach is dates (didn't jules show us the light?). On the other hand every time I work with it I find a new feature that blows my mind. The problem is that a sequencer HAS to be intuitive and comfortable and eXT's isn't.
There is also the stability issue, every now and then eXT will crash spectacularly or refuse to open a project. Admittedly jorgan will usually solve the problem within days, but still...

Good thing I also own Tracktion that is strong in every point eXT is weak in.

[jens]

sigh.. there isn't a visual relation between editing audio and arranging - that's what I'm trying to say.

I don't think he's looking for that. It sounds to me that he is looking at arranging at a more granular level and therefore wants to see one track in relation to another.

I think I understand what he's talking about. I don't do as much arranging of audio these days as I focus pretty heavily on the midi side, but back in my n-Track days, it was really handy to zoom in on two audio tracks and see their waveforms in relation to each other to move one audio track ever so slightly to match up better with the other.

Occasionally different audio tracks are not lined up as well as you would like initially.

I think that's what he's talking about anyway - in which case I agree that it would be handy to have vertically zooming tracks as an option.

Caleb

very good point, Caleb

I'm doing it ocassionally as well - but there is still the in-track-editing and if the track-headers would be drag-and-droppable you could easily bring the two or more tracks you're editing together and I think that should be sufficient.


- I'll post a screenshot...

[jens]

Now I've found two problems:

1. If you're e.g. recording several takes in a loop and
then use the best two ones they aren't neccessarily the top two ones (in the audio-editor) - but the in-track editor always shows only the three chnnels which are on top.

Therefor the channels in the audio-audio editor need a quick 'move on top'-command.


2. You can't cut the audio-material within the in-track-editor. You can only move hwat has already been cut.

[Lunch Money]

Heh, Jens! Thanks for clearing up the 'tone' issue... you didn't come off as a prick so much as an obstinate bugger. <grin>

In that very last point, you've come up against what Sicklecell, Caleb, and ModuLR have all seen. They're all bang-on in what I'm looking for. Opening the audio file in a separate editor will NOT give me what I'm looking for. It can be done that way, but I don't believe it to be the best way.

a) If you can't cut audio material in the in-track editor, a very important tool to my way of working is gone.

b) If you can't easily zoom the in-track editor, it's too fiddly for many things.

To be honest, I haven't even figured out how to cut my audio part into smaller components at ALL, either in the editor or on the timeline. If I resize in the audio editor, the overall size of the audio clip in the timeline doesn't change. What's more, I can't even see my changes in the timeline until I click the audio part in the sequencer window.

Which brings me back to my original point-- though I've been distracted by the sub-debate of track sizing, the main thing I need is smoother audio work overall. Currently I just can't figure out how to make use of it. I'll admit that I've barely spent any time working at it, but that's because I quickly encounter a counter-intuitive implementation and switch back to Tracktion. Track folders are a hugely important feature for me, but I'll put up with the lack of track folders as long as I can actually manipulate my audio.

And just so you know-- debate is debate... even if I'm arguing like hell with someone in one thread doesn't mean I'm not joking around with them in another thread. As long as the debate doesn't get personal (ie. it's only about the topic!) then I don't TAKE it personally, either.

[waveriderarts]

I will switch when live features equals those of a groovebox.... actually it should be a lot better than a groovebox anyway....

But minimally:
-realtime muting of midi tracks or groups
-switching patterns "on the next bar, or next beat or after the pattern played"
-realtime muting of audio fx sends
-song/pattern construction plus linear tracks
-nice solid loop recording

Some of these features may already exist; I will buy it soon and test it extensively... (do not like loosing my work even when I am testing...) but I still do no know if it will replace Cubase yet.... (but I wish!)

[jens]

do not like loosing my work even when I am testing...

you won't - you can save everything - you just can't reload saved tracks unless it's registered

[jens]

Heh, Jens! Thanks for clearing up the 'tone' issue... you didn't come off as a prick so much as an obstinate bugger. <grin>

then my ability to express myself in english is better than I though because that's what I've always been.

And just so you know-- debate is debate... even if I'm arguing like hell with someone in one thread doesn't mean I'm not joking around with them in another thread. As long as the debate doesn't get personal (ie. it's only about the topic!) then I don't TAKE it personally, either.

that's good to hear, Greg, but anyway I'm often afraid someone I like ( and you're one of them ) might take personal what I write or might even get hurt by it although I'm just trying to argue about a topic which is important to me.



Now back on topic:

I think we do agree actually.

Better audio-editing is a very important topic for me.

At the beginning of our discussion I already suggested that it would be a good idea if the in-track editors would support zooming/resizing.

Also there is an entry in the BR -list that the in-track editor currently only supports a maximum of three channels and that BR has been made by me (months ago).

Being able to cut in the in-track-editor is aslo very-important, but even more important is imo
a.) the ability to cut audio-clips and
b.) the ability to slip-edit the beginning of a clip.

Also the current in-ability to do proper fading easily is really an issue.

But most of these request I've been bringing up for months already.

Let's continue to harrass Jorgen with requests for better audio-editing but resizable tracks (in normal
'arrange-'state ) : PLease no!

[elfan]

<redundant>

I must agree with Lunch Money (although it seems like I might agree with all of you since you seem to get along just fine now ):

Three important things that I agree with:

- Cutting audioparts in-track (as well as in audio part editor)
- Simple fade in/fade out/crossfade on audioparts in-track (as well as in audio part editor)
- Some kind of zooming/resizing. I'm not sure how well-developed this is today, but it is necessary nevertheless. (this too both in-track and in audio part editor).

This is elementary stuff, all hosts have these features, so I regard them as obviously needed.
When arranging they _are_ important, I don't see how the opposite could be true. When arranging you obviously need to cut and crossfade segments of long audiotracks. And to do that, you'd probably need some kind of zooming tool to get good precision.

The audio part editor is very nice to have, but I must say that I agree on the in-track way of working in this case. To do more precise editing, or whatever, an audio editor is indispensable, but to do quick arrangements while keeping an overview, I mostly do in-track editing. I'm used to this way of working from both Logic and Cubase.

</redundant>

//Tomas

[chagzuki]

Haven't read the thread, but I need a tempo track.

[cbit]

i am used to arranging/editing/cutting/zooming of audio parts on different tracks without having to change 'views'. i like to work from as much of an 'overview' perspective as possible (part of why i dont like using midi in tracktion is that you have to 'enter' a midi part to edit it).

vertical track zoom: I use variable vertical track zooming all the time in tracktion's arrange window.. i change the v-zoom of a group of tracks to see how they relate to one another.. or to minimise them and enlarge another group.

I'd be sad to miss out on this working funtionality if i switched to eXT (if ive understood the discussion about arrangeview track zooming in eXT properly that is..)

[thockin]

I have to agree also. A seperate windows is good for some things, but really wrong for things like alignment and fades, etc.

[waveriderarts]

do not like loosing my work even when I am testing...

you won't - you can save everything - you just can't reload saved tracks unless it's registered

Yeah, but not being able to load them back for further work kind of equals loosing it....

[Lunch Money]

39 Euro! You know you want to...

[Caleb]

Haven't read the thread, but I need a tempo track.

Oh yes! Definitely need a tempo track or some means to automate tempo changes sensibly.

Caleb