I find the audio routing in tracktion to be somewhat irritating, not to be "natural".
Like when you set up battery2 in a rack with say 4 outputs. Instead of having to copy the rack to the track and choosing the input comes from option, I would suggest that you route the ouptuts of an Vsti to an track input, making it more natural and intuitive to use. If there were added a signal splitter for racks it would make it even better to route signals. Allthough it works fine with the exsisting it's not intuitive.
This also goes for the key input on compressors/gates etc. It would be much better to have all track outputs listed as inputs to a rack, so that you can choose exactly what signal you want to go where. Then it would be much more of a rack than it is today.
Suggestion for routing.
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Hrm, you seem to be saying 2 things:
1. You have a suggestion for improving the routing. That's cool and I have no strong opinion either way since I don't use multi-in/multi-out plug-ins yet. The part that continually baffles me is that everything gets mixed to stereo anyhow, so why not take advantage of the multi within the rack anyhow? Why is it so important to have the rack be multi-out and with a different way of assigning ins and outs? I don't ask that in a snarky way but in an earnest way-- I don't get it.
2. You're ALSO saying that it's not "natural", which couldn't be further from the truth. OK, racks (which were added due to massive pressure, not necessarily due to coming up with a way of fitting into Jules' vision in the first place) might not necessarily be 'natural', but the rest of the signal flow is the most natural thing there is.
To me, a modular environment is going outside the context of "natural" routing anyhow, so it doesn't irritate me that it's not as easy as simply tracking in mono or stereo. Tracking in mono or stereo to me is "natural" and everything else is outside that sphere.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. Quite the opposite: I'm saying that I'm not informed enough about multis to really have an opinion. What I AM saying is that Tracktion's overall signal flow is highly natural.
Greg
1. You have a suggestion for improving the routing. That's cool and I have no strong opinion either way since I don't use multi-in/multi-out plug-ins yet. The part that continually baffles me is that everything gets mixed to stereo anyhow, so why not take advantage of the multi within the rack anyhow? Why is it so important to have the rack be multi-out and with a different way of assigning ins and outs? I don't ask that in a snarky way but in an earnest way-- I don't get it.
2. You're ALSO saying that it's not "natural", which couldn't be further from the truth. OK, racks (which were added due to massive pressure, not necessarily due to coming up with a way of fitting into Jules' vision in the first place) might not necessarily be 'natural', but the rest of the signal flow is the most natural thing there is.
To me, a modular environment is going outside the context of "natural" routing anyhow, so it doesn't irritate me that it's not as easy as simply tracking in mono or stereo. Tracking in mono or stereo to me is "natural" and everything else is outside that sphere.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. Quite the opposite: I'm saying that I'm not informed enough about multis to really have an opinion. What I AM saying is that Tracktion's overall signal flow is highly natural.
Greg
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Having a quick peek to understand a little better, I DO see what you mean, though, or at least I have a problem with it that may or may not be related to what you're saying:
You add a new input to a rack, and call it "input from track 1" for example. But how do you assign a new signal to it? Where is this signal COMING grom in the first place?
Then on the output side, you add a new output and call it "output to track 3" but that's just a name of course. Then you try to actually give it the job of outputting to track 3, but HOW? How do you tell it that it should be outputting to track 3?
I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but that's the annoying part of it that I'M seeing anyhow.
I STILL don't understand this whole fascination with multi-in/multi-out VSTs, though. That's just ignorance, and I don't mean to claim that it's foolish to use multi, just that I personally don't understand the situations in which you'd bother taking multi-outs outside of the rack.
You add a new input to a rack, and call it "input from track 1" for example. But how do you assign a new signal to it? Where is this signal COMING grom in the first place?
Then on the output side, you add a new output and call it "output to track 3" but that's just a name of course. Then you try to actually give it the job of outputting to track 3, but HOW? How do you tell it that it should be outputting to track 3?
I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but that's the annoying part of it that I'M seeing anyhow.
I STILL don't understand this whole fascination with multi-in/multi-out VSTs, though. That's just ignorance, and I don't mean to claim that it's foolish to use multi, just that I personally don't understand the situations in which you'd bother taking multi-outs outside of the rack.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 646 posts since 3 Mar, 2005 from Oslo, No(r)way
To clear it up bit(I'm not native english so you'd have to excuse me:))
To use REason as an example, and I really hate REason, it tend to mess things up. But they do have a nice side, they have realized that with creative routing you can create new and wonderful sounds. But I dont want it to be like reason, those cables are not intuitive and clear.
But in Tracktion i feel like I'm abit locked inside, cause I can't route the way I like, coming from analogue world I do just that, connect anything, if I have enough cables and patches.
OK, to explain better.
If tracks are both available as inputs and outputs things can be more interesting. If you can create a rack and patch sounds whereever you like within the rack and outside it's even better. But it has to be simple, simple enough to not mess things up. But making tracks available as input/ouput is not to mess it up. To add the option of small patches/splits/adders(?) to a rack isn't either. This would open for external inserts and sends, which I like.
To top things it could be nice to have a master patch map, where you get to see where all the signals go. Not with cables, but more like the racks is today.
This, in my opinion would make Tracktion the best sequencer ever for creative music making.
Just to be clear, I feel that Tracktion IS the most intuitive tool, where you can actually follow the signal path from a to be(or c), which is a big relief after working with Logic, Nuenco/Cubase/Protools/FL/Renoise/Reason/Sonar/DP (yeah I've worked with them all:))lol
I'll also like to say that I like most of the suggstions in the "new feature suggestion" topic. This would make T2 even better:)
To use REason as an example, and I really hate REason, it tend to mess things up. But they do have a nice side, they have realized that with creative routing you can create new and wonderful sounds. But I dont want it to be like reason, those cables are not intuitive and clear.
But in Tracktion i feel like I'm abit locked inside, cause I can't route the way I like, coming from analogue world I do just that, connect anything, if I have enough cables and patches.
OK, to explain better.
If tracks are both available as inputs and outputs things can be more interesting. If you can create a rack and patch sounds whereever you like within the rack and outside it's even better. But it has to be simple, simple enough to not mess things up. But making tracks available as input/ouput is not to mess it up. To add the option of small patches/splits/adders(?) to a rack isn't either. This would open for external inserts and sends, which I like.
To top things it could be nice to have a master patch map, where you get to see where all the signals go. Not with cables, but more like the racks is today.
This, in my opinion would make Tracktion the best sequencer ever for creative music making.
Just to be clear, I feel that Tracktion IS the most intuitive tool, where you can actually follow the signal path from a to be(or c), which is a big relief after working with Logic, Nuenco/Cubase/Protools/FL/Renoise/Reason/Sonar/DP (yeah I've worked with them all:))lol
I'll also like to say that I like most of the suggstions in the "new feature suggestion" topic. This would make T2 even better:)
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 646 posts since 3 Mar, 2005 from Oslo, No(r)way
Well, like with Battery2, or any other drumsampler, it is very nice, if not cruisial, to get the output to a channel or track so you can add fx. This is not ignorance, it is ordinary soundengineering.Lunch Money wrote: I STILL don't understand this whole fascination with multi-in/multi-out VSTs, though. That's just ignorance, and I don't mean to claim that it's foolish to use multi, just that I personally don't understand the situations in which you'd bother taking multi-outs outside of the rack.
And this is how it should be. T2 claims to be intuitive, and to let you create tracks within minutes, and it is. But it can be better, and more creative with the sounds, not only the midi files, like it is today.
Btw, love the freeze, which is 10 times better than Nuendo.
-
- KVRAF
- 4644 posts since 28 Nov, 2002 from Chicago
I love using multiout vstis in Tracktion.
I can get an RMIV set up with different compression, eq, and reverb across all drum parts in just a few moments, and once done, it is immediately clear to me which track is which.
I really don't see how you could improve on it without breaking the left->right approach that makes Tracktion so intuitive.
I can get an RMIV set up with different compression, eq, and reverb across all drum parts in just a few moments, and once done, it is immediately clear to me which track is which.
I really don't see how you could improve on it without breaking the left->right approach that makes Tracktion so intuitive.
Someone shot the food. Remember: don't shoot food!
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 646 posts since 3 Mar, 2005 from Oslo, No(r)way
I don't see how you can break the left/right approach by adding the tracks as in and outs... It would only improve on it.valley wrote:I love using multiout vstis in Tracktion.
I can get an RMIV set up with different compression, eq, and reverb across all drum parts in just a few moments, and once done, it is immediately clear to me which track is which.
I really don't see how you could improve on it without breaking the left->right approach that makes Tracktion so intuitive.
-
- KVRAF
- 4644 posts since 28 Nov, 2002 from Chicago
well the thing with a rack is th.at it is physically, and visibly, located on every track that uses it. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to be advocating having racks work in a manner similar to the track destination box (which I hate BTW).
You'd also lose the ability to place racks before or after any plugs you like, which is another definite plus for Tracktion's way of handling multi-outs, IME.
You'd also lose the ability to place racks before or after any plugs you like, which is another definite plus for Tracktion's way of handling multi-outs, IME.
Someone shot the food. Remember: don't shoot food!
-
- KVRAF
- 10815 posts since 26 Nov, 2004 from UK
Lunch Money wrote: I STILL don't understand this whole fascination with multi-in/multi-out VSTs, though. That's just ignorance, and I don't mean to claim that it's foolish to use multi, just that I personally don't understand the situations in which you'd bother taking multi-outs outside of the rack.
i only got this far through this thread & thought, put him in the lake, if he floats, burn him!!!!
lunch!
how would you cut some bass from a high hat if it was coming through the same output as your kick drum?
& that's just the start of it! if i could spell i would post a 5000 word SA on why we ALL need multi out support
I'm very disappointed in you!
-
- The Teach
- 8273 posts since 23 Jul, 2002 from flatness
nothing needs to be done to racks ... but on a related issue it WOULD be nice (as ive mentioned no end of times before) to have something in T2 that works a bit like a built-in senderella for routing a tracks output (post filters) to another tracks input (ie - an output filter that shows up as an inout connection too) ...
... mainly for recording improvised stuff on the fly from my point of view ... but would also solve this 'problem' too ...
slainte
rob
... mainly for recording improvised stuff on the fly from my point of view ... but would also solve this 'problem' too ...
slainte
rob-
- KVRAF
- 4644 posts since 28 Nov, 2002 from Chicago
'virtual' inputs would be nice, for sure.
Also the ability to split a MIDI input into 16 child inputs.
Both of these are very much known requests though, and I'm sure will eventually see the light of day.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that what racks *really* need is a wizard[1] for setting up common tasks.
[1] yeah, that kind of sticks in my throat, but despite the gastliness of clippy and other MS horrors, they do have utility in some cases, and this may be one of them.
Also the ability to split a MIDI input into 16 child inputs.
Both of these are very much known requests though, and I'm sure will eventually see the light of day.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that what racks *really* need is a wizard[1] for setting up common tasks.
[1] yeah, that kind of sticks in my throat, but despite the gastliness of clippy and other MS horrors, they do have utility in some cases, and this may be one of them.
Someone shot the food. Remember: don't shoot food!
-
- The Teach
- 8273 posts since 23 Jul, 2002 from flatness
cant we just get subz to record some more - um - er - like - video tutorials to - er - um - youknow - cover stuff like this ...valley wrote:Personally, I'm of the opinion that what racks *really* need is a wizard[1] for setting up common tasks.
slainte
rob-
- KVRAF
- 10815 posts since 26 Nov, 2004 from UK
only if you umm.. eeerrrrr pay mepHz wrote:cant we just get subz to record some more - um - er - like - video tutorials to - er - um - youknow - cover stuff like this ...valley wrote:Personally, I'm of the opinion that what racks *really* need is a wizard[1] for setting up common tasks.
slainte
only joking
i'm on the case allready
watch this space
Subz
umm
-
- The Teach
- 8273 posts since 23 Jul, 2002 from flatness
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Inside the rack... ya know?djsubject wrote:how would you cut some bass from a high hat if it was coming through the same output as your kick drum?
Like, INSIDE of it...
Which is why they exist in the first place.
You take your individual kick drum output, and you EQ it before sending it out of the rack.
I mean...
INSIDE the rack.
You see?
I didn't say that multi-out VSTi weren't useful, what I said was that I don't understand the need to link it up to a bunch of stuff OUTSIDE the rack. Actual physical FX sends are a good example, so now I can see one reason for it. But a lot of the time, you can accomplish what needs to be accomplished from...
INSIDE the rack.
Greg