v4.16pre14 - February 10 2012

[gofer]

When I set a track up for recording I just right click the record button and it's (almost) all there. I like that. Please if it's going to be split at least keep the full thing available from somewhere.

I don't like so much that it closes with each choice I make because most probably I need to set something else in the same menu as well. It would be cool if it could optionally stay open until I have it all done and click elsewhere.

As of the menu in this pre, I'd prefer to do it with modifiers and have the menu shorter. It could come up with the header:

Setting will affect [n] selected tracks
Hold shift to affect one track only
Hold alt to set to a common input

and then be just the old menu, where you'd just get a different submenu for the input entries when shift or alt are held - or is that not possible?

[Amazed]

I think that the menu has become complicated because it's showing the same options regardless of the track selection.

i.e. You can't have sequential assign with just one selected track so it shouldn't be in the menu if you only have one track selected.

If you have multiple track selection, assigning to just one track doesn't need to be in there when you have multiple tracks selected.

So .. depending on what you have selected, maybe the menu should only have contents that are applicable to the situation. That might help to clean it up.

I'm thinking that this could possibly be done better by opening into a dialog.

Please Cockos give me an easy way to set the default track template for when I dbl click in the empty TCP area and you can do what you want with this stuff.

[Subz]

Originally Posted by Amazed

Please Cockos give me an easy way to set the default track template for when I dbl click in the empty TCP area and you can do what you want with this stuff.

thought you could do this?

[nicholas]

With this post I really am not aiming to be contentious or disrespectful of anyone else's opinions. Just expressing my own.

To declare my "bias": I never need to assign a selection of tracks to a common input - but do accept that for people who need to do this, this is important. However, I very often do need to assign a number of tracks sequentially to a sequence of inputs.

I use two methods to achieve this: track templates and (more commonly) the routing matrix. I like the feel of confidence, control and clear immediate visual feedback this method gives me.

I've no doubt that the new feature for being able to do this directly from the TCP menu will be a benefit to those who asked for it (or they wouldn't have asked!) but personally I'll be sticking with the routing matrix method. I just like it.

In a similar vein, I would have thought this method is equally suitable for setting a number of tracks to a common input.

[Win Conway]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

That's a good point. I think this is a good time to split that menu. ED has a great mockup there but I'd split it like this:

Rec-arm button:



Input button:



Monitor button:

Obviously optional, my theme has only the record button (Always found so many buttons silly myself)
So if they are to be split then the option for both ways would be needed

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by gpunk_w

Obviously optional, my theme has only the record button (Always found so many buttons silly myself)
So if they are to be split then the option for both ways would be needed

I was afraid someone was going to say they're not using all 3 buttons in their themes. Gofer also mentioned he uses the rec-arm button most of time so, let's just leave it be, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people with your workflows and an option for stuff like this is kinda pointless

[Amazed]

Originally Posted by Justin

Best bet is to do it from the routing matrix. To be fair, this functionality hasn't been in REAPER (setting multiple tracks to the same audio interface via the menus), and I don't think it is something that will be used commonly -- far more often you'd either want to just change one track, or assign inputs sequentially.


On this, if you set it to all channels, then they all get all channels. If you're assigning particular channels to a group of tracks, again, it is assumed you want them ascending.

In both of these cases, again, we're purely adding functionality since 4.15 and earlier -- we can't add all possible combinations of everything, but the behavior as it is does seem like the most reasonable set.

I disagree on the midi input. I would say that the most likely scenario for midi input is that if assigning a midi input to a set of selected tracks it would most likely be for the same channel and port and not for sequential channels or do I misunderstand?

[airon]

Originally Posted by nicholas

With this post I really am not aiming to be contentious or disrespectful of anyone else's opinions. Just expressing my own.

To declare my "bias": I never need to assign a selection of tracks to a common input - but do accept that for people who need to do this, this is important. However, I very often do need to assign a number of tracks sequentially to a sequence of inputs.

I use two methods to achieve this: track templates and (more commonly) the routing matrix. I like the feel of confidence, control and clear immediate visual feedback this method gives me.

I've no doubt that the new feature for being able to do this directly from the TCP menu will be a benefit to those who asked for it (or they wouldn't have asked!) but personally I'll be sticking with the routing matrix method. I just like it.

In a similar vein, I would have thought this method is equally suitable for setting a number of tracks to a common input.

The routing matrix would be a little better for this, especially if users get some helping hands. Creating routing points via swipe for example via the classic method of modifier+drag in one direction to set the direction of any possible set/clear.

The routing matrix also doesn't let the user select tracks, which again could be done via swipe though that would be special for track selection, and thus is better done via modifier+drag.

Perhaps the track selection should be mirrored in the routing matrix anyway, and then set/clear operations there would work on the selected tracks.

[Amazed]

Originally Posted by airon

Perhaps the track selection should be mirrored in the routing matrix anyway, and then set/clear operations there would work on the selected tracks.

I like that.

[hopi]

edited... sorry was still on the last release, so np

ummmm now I am with the people who want the option to set all selected tracks to a given input as well as the nice new additions that have been added... it does make sense

[EvilDragon]

Yeah. Justin, if you're suggesting us to use Routing Matrix, why not make it easier on us and add swipe motions to it? It's been suggested time and time again. It would improve the workflow with the matrix a thousand times over. Also, we need those swipe motions on checkboxes in the Envelope screen... It's weird that a few pres back you added this to some TCP and MCP buttons, but not the Routing/Grouping Matrix nor Envelope screen...


Also, I do like Gofer's suggestion:

Originally Posted by gofer

As of the menu in this pre, I'd prefer to do it with modifiers and have the menu shorter. It could come up with the header:

Setting will affect [n] selected tracks
Hold shift to affect one track only
Hold alt to set to a common input

[gofer]

How do I assign MIDI inputs in the routing matrix in the first place? I always assumed that's not possible because neither MIDI sources (nor destinations) come up.

I don't use the routing matrix much. I'd like it more if it could show me which sends are MIDI, maybe with a color code. And it would need MIDI input ports as sources and output ports as destinations to win my heart.

[EvilDragon]

You are EXTREMELY correct on those points, gofer

[mim]

I tested OSC communication from Usine to Reaper, and it worked.

I am able to use my multitouch screen, to ride multiple faders of the Reaper mixer from the same screen, very cool ...

I wasn't able to use it properly in touch automation mode, but as far as I can see it comes from the fact Reaper sends OSC of track volume, and then usine send it back to Reaper ...

Maybe if I figure a way to send OSC only if usine's faders are being touched, this will fix the thing.

Exciting ...

[Sexan]

I still don't get why would you need to change one track when you selected more tracks...can someone give some example?
To me if you select MORE tracks you either want to set them to sequential assign or to same input

[pattste]

Originally Posted by Sexan

I still don't get why would you need to change one track when you selected more tracks...can someone give some example?
To me if you select MORE tracks you either want to set them to sequential assign or to same input

+ 1.

I don't understand where the devs are going with the current options.

[jnif]

Originally Posted by gofer

As of the menu in this pre, I'd prefer to do it with modifiers and have the menu shorter.

I agree.

Originally Posted by gofer

It could come up with the header:

Setting will affect [n] selected tracks
Hold shift to affect one track only
Hold alt to set to a common input

and then be just the old menu, where you'd just get a different submenu for the input entries when shift or alt are held - or is that not possible?

I would prefer "affect one track only" to work without modifiers when multiple tracks are selected.
Some reasons why:

• Existing behaviour of old Reaper versions would not be changed. This means less confusion when upgrading to new version.
• It is the risk-free alternative. There would be no need to add "warning" texts like "Setting will affect [n] selected tracks" in the menu. User would not be able to change inputs of multiple tracks unintentionally.
• Some users might argue that "change all selected to common" would be the most consistent behaviour when modifiers are not used. For example mute, vol, pan and FX-enable controls work like that. But, in my opinion, changing inputs is a kind of bigger operation. It is not used as often as mute, vol and pan. Input selection is typically used only once before recording. You don't typically change those settings during editing and mixing. And there is a risk of creating feedback loops if signal flow from external devices is changed unintentionally. So, it is important to make the default (non modifier) input selection behaviour simple and risk-free.
• It works like that in other DAWs like ProTools, Cubase and StudioOne. So, for many users it is probably the most familiar behaviour. (And you can deduce that the developers of other DAWs have already made the right decision based on real use cases.)

So, my proposal is
- No modifiers: affect one track only
- Shift: set selected tracks to common input
- Alt: set selected tracks to sequential inputs

I dont't like the idea of having a long (3 rows) menu header. Reaper's menus are already too complex. Please do not add any unnecessary rows in menus.
Also it might be confusing (and probably against common Windows/OSX standards) to change the actions/behavior of a context menu after it has been opened.

I think it would be better to display the modifier help text in the 'info bar'. The info bar help text is better because you can see it before clicking mouse button and it does not increase menu clutter.

jnif

EDIT: Just thought a bit more about the risk-free operation. It is probably safe to assume that in Reaper you can't select multiple tracks unintentionally. So, my previous proposal might not be justifiable.

Maybe this would be better:
- No modifiers: set selected tracks to common input
- Shift: affect one track only (this might not be needed at all because it is used so rarely)
- Alt: set selected tracks to sequential inputs

At least the behaviour would be consistent with mute, vol, pan, etc.

[jnif]

Originally Posted by Sexan

I still don't get why would you need to change one track when you selected more tracks...can someone give some example?
To me if you select MORE tracks you either want to set them to sequential assign or to same input

You can think some situations where user has selected multiple tracks for example to make some mixing adjustments (vol, pan, mute, etc). And then in the middle of that multitrack adjustment the user wants to change input on one track without changing the track selection from multiple to single.
I think this kind of use case is quite rare. Maybe if you have an external MIDI synth/sequencer sending MIDI data on multiple channels, then you might want to change MIDI input channel during editing/mixing. Or something like that.... Seems to be quite rare.

jnif

[Sexan]

that crossed my mind...anyway I agree with your second proposal