Old 04-26-2012, 10:57 AM   #41
Viente
Mortal
 
Viente's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
Some clever item border indication will be needed in the piano roll, able to present the individual borders of multiple items. That's for fipm, but same for ordinary multiple lanes and also for MIDI on separate tracks one would like to edit simultaneously. It would need to be done anyway.
In the piano roll you could choose to edit either one of the items (like now) or any combination of them simultaneously. They are distinguishable by their source color or by item color (if you assign some).

Things will get confusing when some of the items in your picture were looped with individual length. Some niftier item loop indication will be necessary for the MIDI editor, so that multiple items looped at different times can make visibly sense.

Maybe we should come up with mockup pics of how the piano roll could possibly present multiple items with unequal borders and loop length which are all "active for editing"?
I like how MIDI works in Logic, its item based by default but you can extend the borders of working zone if needed, seems nobody had complain ever (i was an old user on Logic forums)
Viente is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 12:09 PM   #42
gofer
Mörtel
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,912
Default

I come from Logic as well, probably why I'm not really on the barricades about it as much as others , but would still find it a huge step forward to get selection/editing across items - if it's done right.

In Logic 5 it was very straightforward to affect data of many "items" simultaneously via the sequence parameters, that did a lot to compensate.

All the properties in the two fields saying "3 selected" at the top are affecting any selected item on any track, but still each item can have it's own individual settings. They just get edited as relative offsets. The smaller version is visible all the time if you want that. And you can consolidate the settings into the MIDI data any time with a simple command for each individual item.

You can do much of it in Reaper with MIDI plugins and lots of track control knobs, but not all. It would take much space and wouldn't work for individual items or across multiple tracks.
Attached Images
File Type: png removeme-Logic-item-inspector.png (29.4 KB, 412 views)
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2012, 05:24 PM   #43
Guido
Mortal
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
I come from Logic as well, probably why I'm not really on the barricades about it as much as others , but would still find it a huge step forward to get selection/editing across items - if it's done right.

In Logic 5 it was very straightforward to affect data of many "items" simultaneously via the sequence parameters, that did a lot to compensate.

All the properties in the two fields saying "3 selected" at the top are affecting any selected item on any track, but still each item can have it's own individual settings. They just get edited as relative offsets. The smaller version is visible all the time if you want that. And you can consolidate the settings into the MIDI data any time with a simple command for each individual item.

You can do much of it in Reaper with MIDI plugins and lots of track control knobs, but not all. It would take much space and wouldn't work for individual items or across multiple tracks.
Hi,

Thx gofer..I really cant add more than what u said except .PLZzzzzz Cockos implement this "kind of" design thinking .....functionality,effecient use of screen real estate, and massive amount of readable info. Just my two cents.

Guido

And gofer ..what about the obscene level of all those things i mentioned above...as displayed by logic 5s Event float? Sorry i cant do screenis..of logic

EDIT hehe..the small version in gofers pic is called the sequence parameter box. and the one on the right is the extended sequencer paramater box.^^ All of a sudden it just came flying back to me.^^You can easily call the big one up by dbl clicking in the frame of the left one..i think..beem awhile.

Last edited by Guido; 04-29-2012 at 08:00 PM.
Guido is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 01:28 AM   #44
Dafinga
Mortal
 
Dafinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viente View Post
No, it won't. Such things will never increase any sales.
Umm, maybe explain a little? I'm not saying I'm right but I'd like to understand why you say no.
Dafinga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 01:39 AM   #45
Dafinga
Mortal
 
Dafinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofish View Post
I'm also only guessing of course, but I'd say one of the major difficulties to implement track-based MIDI editing in REAPER might be 'free item positioning mode'. This 'mess' I created in a few seconds (and I don't know of any other DAW you can do this), if Midi editing is track based and all clips would be activated at once, how would that suppose to work without being highly confusing and not likely to create user errors ?
(don't get me wrong, I like FIPM and often use it, I'm not speaking to abandon it)

That makes a lot of sense. And then we might think ok well how about just having FIPM for audio tracks. But there are no audio or midi tracks. I've only been thinking about for a few minutes, but the only way I could think of, would be to have an option turn on track editing at the beginning of a project, then have Reaper warn you you can't use FIPM. But then that would be strange. Then we start chipping away at what makes Reaper Reaper, perhaps. This does seem to be one major obstacle.
Dafinga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 08:16 AM   #46
nofish
Mortal
 
nofish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home is where the heart is
Posts: 4,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dafinga View Post
the only way I could think of, would be to have an option turn on track editing at the beginning of a project, then have Reaper warn you you can't use FIPM.
I also thought about that.
Funnily I came up with the same 'solution'
Only difference was that I thought about choosing on a per-track basis and not per whole project if you want to enable either FIPM or have track-based Midi editing.
I could live with that perfectly fine (assuming FIPM is really one major difficulty for implementing track-based MIDI editing).
nofish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 10:36 AM   #47
EvilDragon
Mortal
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 13,968
Default

FIPM is just a visual thing. What it really is is a bunch of takes laid out on top of each other, every take with different length and startpoint, with "Play all takes" enabled...

For MIDI "clips" the MIDI editor should show all those FIPM'd takes as if they are laid out one on top each other (item height is irrelevant here - it's just a visual thing as I said), and the MIDI filter should display all these takes in a folder, with options to mute, solo, etc.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 11:35 PM   #48
PooFox
Mortal
 
PooFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 1,741
Default

This is a good question. I'd aways thought the answer was "to blur the lines between editing audio and midi." Well I think that's a great idea but it can't be the answer since the similarity between the two pretty much ends with the shape...

It's frustrating and kind of misleading since I still can't freely edit the tempo of a project that contains midi items and audio items and get anything but a mess. I guess that's a timebase issue, but my point is, the existence of the midi item containers makes me expect i can treat them the same as audio items in the context of an arrangement, and ultimately I can't.
__________________
| Twilight Mystery School |
Surrealist Electronic Music
PooFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2012, 12:02 PM   #49
ivansc
Mortal
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between one and two
Posts: 6,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viscofisy View Post
You asked "how do I make changes......?"

Do you really consider a 10-second process to be an unsuitable work-around?
Doesn't seem like a big price to pay to achieve the apparently impossible.



Jason,...every track? ....what complexity of midi tracks are you editing that would make you unhappy with such a simple and quick process?
Are you editing multiple tracks at once?
You also still have your original items-based track to revert to.
You can create a folder for midi export/import.It takes seconds.

I'd say you're all spoiled for choice!

If you did have a native choice between "item based" and "track-based" midi editing,you'd still have to enter a menu to choose between them.That too could be an "unhappy" experience,as it would take almost as long,and require you to use your mouse hand
By the way you react it is obvious you are not a real big MIDI person, so why can you not accept that for us who do a lot of MIDI composition this IS a big deal?
We dont go around dissing other people's FR's for no positive reason and all along this has been suggested as a switchable option, not a replacement for item based editing. Lighten up on the criticism.
And YES 10 seconds is long time when you wind up doing it thirty or forty times in ONE drum track. And then repeating for all the other drums one at a time.
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2012, 12:06 PM   #50
ivansc
Mortal
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between one and two
Posts: 6,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
FIPM is just a visual thing. What it really is is a bunch of takes laid out on top of each other, every take with different length and startpoint, with "Play all takes" enabled...

For MIDI "clips" the MIDI editor should show all those FIPM'd takes as if they are laid out one on top each other (item height is irrelevant here - it's just a visual thing as I said), and the MIDI filter should display all these takes in a folder, with options to mute, solo, etc.
Ed: I am used to lasso'ing either a series of note events in one trak or even across multiple tracks, picking them up and moving, copying, transposing, etc., where I like within a MIDI track.
THAT does not require a special FIPM mode if it is implemented right.

And just think what that and a proper MIDI arrange page would do to your productivity!
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2012, 12:20 PM   #51
ivansc
Mortal
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between one and two
Posts: 6,980
Default

Having re-read this thread it is pretty evident that quite a few of you, who presumably do not do much other than very broad, basic MIDI editing dont know enough to know what you are missing.
Here is my typical MIDI composition session.

Open Track view and arranger page.
Bash in some basic MIDI drums and then prolly a bass line.
Select drums and bass tracks and quantise them or introduce swing if required.

And now comes the fun part. In the arrange page title the bit you already did as Intro. You now carry on plinking in the verse and a chorus & mark them s such in the arranger. Select all tracks so far recorded and cut and paste the various verse chorus bits till you have the whole song.

Add in the other instruments necessary and then export to Reaper once happy with arrangement.
Now I dare say some of you are saying to yourselves 'well that isnt much different to item based'.

Now go back and re-order everything or transpose or any other editing task you want to do and it becomes a nightmare unless you have a track editing system preferably driven by a block based MIDI arrange page.
Now this is just one way of mine not the only way in which track based editing excels.

Until you have worked this way you will never really understand what Ed I and others are getting at.

Using this methodology I can have a workable sketch of a whole song done in about 2 minutes longer than it takes to play th various sections in.
Try that with Item based midi, especially if you also want to introduce little variations in various verses or choruses to make it all sound more natural

Maaybe that is why the electro musicians dont care for track based. They couldnt just crank out a repeating item ad infinitum. I dont really know...
Bt I really really want per track editing as an option as ell as a proper arrange page.
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2012, 11:54 PM   #52
PooFox
Mortal
 
PooFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 1,741
Default

MIDI items are awesome. If only there was a way to manage them. Project bay...pff. It makes total sense to me coming from composing in trackers like Jeskola Buzz. If you're trying to build up patterns to use in an arrangement they are indispensable.

If you don't like them, then why not make some empty ones beforehand the approximate length of your song and pretend that's not what they are. Can't see how that would be any different, except if you rearrange entire sections, which would split up the item of course.

But I suspect the people who don't like them are used to performing each track all the way through. Old school.

Not to mention reaper can be set up to open all the track's MIDI items at once in the MIDI editor. Isn't that all people are missing? Maybe I didn't read enough of these posts...
__________________
| Twilight Mystery School |
Surrealist Electronic Music

Last edited by PooFox; 07-17-2012 at 12:06 AM.
PooFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 12:02 AM   #53
PooFox
Mortal
 
PooFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 1,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post

Until you have worked this way you will never really understand what Ed I and others are getting at.
That sounds like the way I do things except I use regions to contain all my little MIDI items for cutting and pasting sections. And I have all my MIDI items ghosted so if I want a slight modification, I just unpool (and recolor for more distinction) the one item. I don't see the difference/advantage. But your terminology throws me completely, what do you mean by "arranger page" and how is that different from "track view."
__________________
| Twilight Mystery School |
Surrealist Electronic Music
PooFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 07:33 AM   #54
Sinner
Mortal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 330
Default

what am I missing here? when I want to be able to adjust things across the whole midi track, I just make them one big midi item.
Sinner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 07:50 AM   #55
EvilDragon
Mortal
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 13,968
Default

And what if you want to keep the current item layout in case you want to modify it later? Split it after glueing into hundreds of items again? No way.

You're missing the point behind track based MIDI editing with clips.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 09:48 AM   #56
msore
Mortal
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 8,330
Default don't want it to be homogenized

Global changes (track-based MIDI editing) are very strong, and the effect is to push one artistic decision over the whole piece.

When doing ANY kind of art or design, there are some (fewer) global constraints, but MOST of what sensitive and artful people do is not global, but applies to the moment, to the part, to the item.

The effect of many global changes (whether in velocity or whatever) would be that the whole piece would be made MORE uniform, with less variations.

That is why I prefer editing by items. For expressiveness, distinctness, variety. To avoid homogeneity. That is also the reason for doing things like creating variations (on a theme), putting in solos (over the same changes), and manipulating envelopes.

Having a choice would be great, but my default would be item-based.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 09:58 AM   #57
EvilDragon
Mortal
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 13,968
Default

You wouldn't lose your item editing with track-based MIDI editing... See how it's done in Sonar. That's how it should be, period.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 10:07 AM   #58
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

Give it up ED.

Either some will never get it or don't actually want to. It's been explained multiple times and people are still forwarding these false scenarios. No clue what the heck MSore is talking about. Neither does he, implying that the things he described aren't possible in a track based design, which is nonsense.

You have to know when it's fruitless, explaining the same thing over and over to people who have no interest in hearing it.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato

Last edited by Lawrence; 07-17-2012 at 10:18 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 10:18 AM   #59
msore
Mortal
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 8,330
Default huh lawrence

Hold on. I did not OBJECT to the proposal. And I didn't say anything was nonsensically impossible. I agreed with others who said they prefer to work on an item level. And I gave reasons. If you don't get it, then you don't know what you are commenting on, so why slap at it? It's really too bad not everything thinks just like you, eh?
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 10:26 AM   #60
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

It has nothing to do with 'thinking like me". It has to do with not listening, not paying attention, not understanding what exactly is being discussed.

Why do you think ED responded to your post the way he did?
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 10:31 AM   #61
msore
Mortal
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 8,330
Default

Because he is not as rude and illiterate as you?
His response was pertinent, not insulting, and did not read nonsense into what other people said.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 10:38 AM   #62
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

I just hate it when people imply things that are false and sidetrack a discussion. Especially when it's already been explained and clearly dimissed as not factual 17 times already in the very same thread.

Now show me any example of any track based system given here as an example that's "homogenized", the false implication of a result titling your post.

Jeez.

At any rate, if you explain something in detail multiple times and people persist implying that the thing that clearly isn't true, and is of no concern, actually is a potential concern, yes, it becomes nonsensical at some point.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato

Last edited by Lawrence; 07-17-2012 at 11:06 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 10:24 AM   #63
msore
Mortal
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 8,330
Default both

"I just hate it when" people have another view than mine!

The difference between a painting and wallpaper is that instead of brushstrokes, wallpaper is made of global, repeated figures stretched out over a whole wall.

Sometimes music software needs global settings and sometimes (most of the time) editing takes place on small scales, where expressiveness can be created and varied.

Having access to both is good. If you don't want your music to be like wallpaper.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 10:42 AM   #64
semiquaver
Mortal
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,471
Default

editing should be seamless (and ideally in place!)

If you see many items on the TCP you should be *able* to edit.....

**any of the notes in any of the items you see there**

Same as we do with item boundaries on a track - we get to edit them ALL.

what could possible be gained by *not being able* to edit something without opening a new window or clicking on a new item?

track-based editing doesn't mean "changes apply to whole track" It means "whole track available to edit" + cc - chasing and notes on item edges work correctly (currently these are wrong)
semiquaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 11:08 AM   #65
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

I'm bowing out of this like I suggested to ED.

The clearly factual and non-subjective advantages of a track based system as being presented over Reaper's current design are so easily clear - without any kind of "option" at all - that any reasonable discussion would easily result in a total consesus of agreement.

This obviously isn't often a reasonable discussion.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato

Last edited by Lawrence; 07-19-2012 at 11:14 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 03:22 PM   #66
PooFox
Mortal
 
PooFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 1,741
Default Eureka

Ok I struggled a bit and now I get it (I think!). Never saw the need since I use ghosted (pooled) patterns.

But I do think there would need to be a distinction between editing a single item vs the entire track. If you've accidentally opened all the data for a track and are zoomed into one item, you could mess everything up.

Since we can open all the midi items for a track in the editor at once already, are we not merely missing the ability to edit all the visible items as well? Wouldn't a toggle (with distinct visual cues) to switch between edits affecting the selected item vs the whole track solve any problems?
__________________
| Twilight Mystery School |
Surrealist Electronic Music
PooFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 03:26 PM   #67
msore
Mortal
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 8,330
Default either or

Quote:
Originally Posted by PooFox View Post
Ok I struggled a bit and now I get it (I think!). Never saw the need since I use ghosted (pooled) patterns.

But I do think there would need to be a distinction between editing a single item vs the entire track. If you've accidentally opened all the data for a track and are zoomed into one item, you could mess everything up.

Since we can open all the midi items for a track in the editor at once already, are we not merely missing the ability to edit all the visible items as well? Wouldn't a toggle (with distinct visual cues) to switch between edits affecting the selected item vs the whole track solve any problems?
makes sense
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 03:52 PM   #68
ivansc
Mortal
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between one and two
Posts: 6,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
"I just hate it when" people have another view than mine!

The difference between a painting and wallpaper is that instead of brushstrokes, wallpaper is made of global, repeated figures stretched out over a whole wall.

Sometimes music software needs global settings and sometimes (most of the time) editing takes place on small scales, where expressiveness can be created and varied.

Having access to both is good. If you don't want your music to be like wallpaper.
A thought. The way I see people discussing using item based editing is along the lines of "I enter the notes into my midi item and then grab the right handle and stretch it out for as many bars as I need it to be"
THAT is what I hate about item based. You either do that and get homogeneous slabs of MIDI(as you imply track baased editing would force you to do) or you have to stop in mid flow and add another item or move to another item you already created in order to vary a piece.

But Lawrence is right, If you dont get it, you are not about to be convinced by anything said that opposes your view, any more than those of us that want the best of both worlds will change OUR minds.
But at least 'our' way is non-exclusive.

Oops! I hope this does not read like I am getting at msore here!
He is actually agreeing with me that a combination of both methods is the ideal as far as I can see.
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 04:47 PM   #69
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

This all boils down to 4 very simple questions. It's not all that complex really.

1. Is there anything you can do in Reaper's item based design, something based on, related to, associated with that particular design having some advantage that can't be done in the others?

No. Nothing.

2. Is there anything you can do in the other designs that is clearly not possible at all and/or extremely klunky in the current item based design?

Yes. Plenty.

3. Do any of the track based designs have a "switch" or an option to revert to something like Reaper's design?

No. See question #1.

The fourth question, the one that's a really huge mystery to me...

4. Given the above 3 questions and their factual answers, that all anyone involved would get is "more good stuff", "better stuff", "easier stuff", and not lose anything they currently have at all ... why in the world would anyone not want it, and/or actually - ? prefer ? - having less functionality?

Beats the living heck out of me. It's twilight zone material.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato

Last edited by Lawrence; 07-19-2012 at 04:56 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 05:19 PM   #70
msore
Mortal
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 8,330
Default keep it open - that's good design

Software developers and programmers must be very careful about WHICH subsets of the potential audience they are designing for. Watch out for assumptions.

If the programmer listens to the bankers, it is often disastrously the case that the software is liked by bankers (they made all the feature and design requests) but when the software is used by people working in credit unions, they cry foul. They see that the software is banker-favored and they say "goodbye".

Music software has sometimes been designed with loops and dance music in mind. After listening to the DJs too much, the software takes on a character that is not friendly or usable to non-DJs.

Perhaps (it seems likely) that one of the assumptions of the subset of users wanting to emphasize global MIDI editing (one possible design emphasis) is that there are only a few instruments in the band, in the piece, and that the role of each one does not change that much, and so setting things all the way THROUGH works for them.

On the other hand, there are people doing non-groove, non-dance and non-rock music, who may appreciate a different emphasis.

For example. One thing often done by arrangers is to decide that for ONE verse, or only THIS chorus, a certain pattern should be played by the flute, not by the trombone. But wait, simply moving the item down from the flute track to the trombone track might not WORK, if too much has been done by global editing previously.

Other users, using Reaper for other purposes, might point out other issues arising from assuming that instrumentation does not change over the whole piece. Or from other assumptions made by those working in the most popular genres.

I am not arguing any of the points made by Lawrence, but it is probably a wise thing for all users and developers to consider that THEIR way of working may not be the same way of working that others want.

Remember, people interpret "anyone" differently. If you assume "anyone" means the people who work like you, then you have reduced "anyone" to exclude people whose needs and ways of working you have not considered.

A good programmer and a good software designer considers a broad range of users.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 05:55 PM   #71
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
A good programmer and a good software designer considers a broad range of users.
I'll say the following with all due respect for your obviously pretty high level of intelligence...

Either you're really having difficulty grasping what is a very basic thing - removing editing limits without actually changing anyone's way of working if they should choose to still work as if those limits still existed afterward, which wouldn't make much sense - or ...

... (maybe more likely) you're just kinda teaching random philosophy about the broader subject of software development in general.

Not sure which... but it's pretty confusing for me when talking about something quite specific. I actually agree with your general philosophy about development. I'm just not sure what it has to do with this one specific thing. So maybe our back and forth is my fault for assuming you were talking about the thing in question ... "Should those editing limits be removed?", the only real question... rather than you kinda painting with a broader brush.

It's not all that deep man. It's a simple "ask" to remove some limits. Limits that won't affect anyone who doesn't mind them being there now. If simply asking to remove limits is making people "try to work like you do"... well... there's a lot of that going on everywhere.

Best regards.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 04:20 AM   #72
Veto
Mortal
 
Veto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 410
Default

i think this thread still suffers from misunderstanding which is sure understandable (i myself misunderstood) so as always a picture says more than words:



picture 1 makes it hard to edit notes of all items (expect more than just 2 items).
Glueing is no option, because
  • you need to split items afterwards
  • muted notes will be lost
  • item coloring will be lost

i dont want to claim pic 2 the holy grail, i can imagine some soft item borders could be helpful, and i dont thought about special cases like FIPM, ...

pic 3 makes no sense at all, but i feel this is what many people think when they hear "track-based-editing".

V
Veto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 04:50 AM   #73
stumpbroke1
Mortal
 
stumpbroke1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 240
Default

very nice example Veto, and pic#2 is exactly how most other DAWs work, like Sonar for example.....
stumpbroke1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 04:50 AM   #74
PooFox
Mortal
 
PooFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 1,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veto View Post

pic 3 makes no sense at all, but i feel this is what many people think when they hear "track-based-editing".

V
Yep, stop saying "track-based editing" and we'll stop defending our items. "Simultaneous Editing of Multiple MIDI Items." Isn't that all you guys want?
__________________
| Twilight Mystery School |
Surrealist Electronic Music
PooFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 04:52 AM   #75
stumpbroke1
Mortal
 
stumpbroke1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 240
Default

In 1 editor window only....
stumpbroke1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 05:32 AM   #76
Veto
Mortal
 
Veto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PooFox View Post
Yep, stop saying "track-based editing" and we'll stop defending our items. "Simultaneous Editing of Multiple MIDI Items." Isn't that all you guys want?
yes "track-based" doesnt fit ideal i guess.

So with a wink lets make it "item-based" in arrange view and "track-based" in ME-view
Veto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 04:30 PM   #77
gofer
Mörtel
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,912
Default

Yep. I am also unhappy with the "track based" buzzword. It completely misses an important interest of mine which would be combined editing data coming from different tracks. For example I'd like to keep horn or string sections on separate tracks but still edit the MIDI data as one entity, so I'd not need to constantly switch between the voices to edit section chord lines.

Also I wouldn't like to see Sonar as a blueprint. I remember days of horror and rage trying to tell Sonar which clip (item) a note or controller message I inserted should belong into. Most of the time it insisted on the wrong one, just because it thought it's clever. Most annoying.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 05:04 PM   #78
PooFox
Mortal
 
PooFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 1,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
Yep. I am also unhappy with the "track based" buzzword. It completely misses an important interest of mine which would be combined editing data coming from different tracks.
So how about "MIDI Item Group Editing?" Simply put, any selected item will appear in the editor and be immediately editable.

I would also like to edit items across tracks simultaneously. For instance I use Maschine as a folder start and separate subfolder tracks for kick, snare, individual parts etc. This is convenient for some things, but not editing. Then I prefer them all in one view.

Although one problem I could see is how to deal with notes from different items occurring in the same position in the editor. Perhaps the item with focus (not dimmed) would have preference and a list of open midi items would appear to deal with the order of precedence (bit like Layers in photoshop).

Unless there is some technical code based obstacle to allowing the simultaneous editing of all selected MIDI items in one editor and the MIDI system needs an overhaul... That is a mouthful. But at least it won't be misunderstood!

Track based chasing seems a separate request imo... (Also important)
__________________
| Twilight Mystery School |
Surrealist Electronic Music

Last edited by PooFox; 07-20-2012 at 05:20 PM.
PooFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 07:41 PM   #79
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

Re: The track based nickname.... I actually think Schwa may have unintentionally led to that nick being given by explaining (way back when) why you couldn't edit that way here... because the midi editing here is "Item Based".

Of course after that most people said... "Well, maybe it should be 'track based'?" because in this context that's the very next hierarchical level up above clips that erases that border that currently can't be crossed over.

So the nickname kinda stuck, for this particular context. It kinda fits imo... as shorthand. I can't say I've heard that term anywhere else.

Anyway, Reaper isn't the only sequencer with artificial borders for midi editing. The best case is total access to any and all of the data from any editor.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 08:03 PM   #80
Lawrence
Mortal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,504
Default

Let me try to put this in better context not using midi editing at all. The issue is "compartmentalizing", too narrow an editing focus in some places, unnecessary invisible borders.

MSore's general philosophy was right (imo) in that often times when we edit data we actually do want a very narrow focus, and it's very helpful in those cases, but it shouldn't be the default, it should always be something that you can narrow down to taste from a wider scope.

Another example of that is automation envelopes across tracks. Like multiple midi clips you can see more than one but you can only "grab" one at time. It's really an artificial design limit... an invisible editing border that doesn't exist in most other major daws.



As great an editor as Reaper is in so many other ways those varying invisible editing borders just really seem out of place and make those things a bit more difficult than they really should be.
__________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato

Last edited by Lawrence; 07-20-2012 at 08:09 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.