Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-21-2019, 10:10 AM   #321
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Maybe, I can revamp what those tweaks would be but since I don't use FIPM, I'd have to pull it up and use it to remind myself of what they were.
I would appreciate that, and I'm sure many others would too. During the course of this thread, I have been spending a lot of time in the Reaper Sandbox, testing suggested techniques, trying to piece together vague recommendations made by some posters and making sure I have my terminology on point.

Perhaps we can collectively create a tutorial that would give Reaper users some options with the take system.
citizenkeith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 10:35 AM   #322
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkeith View Post
I would appreciate that, and I'm sure many others would too. During the course of this thread, I have been spending a lot of time in the Reaper Sandbox, testing suggested techniques, trying to piece together vague recommendations made by some posters and making sure I have my terminology on point.

Perhaps we can collectively create a tutorial that would give Reaper users some options with the take system.
I can give you a gist of it for the moment... It's similar to cubendo at least when I used it years back Their takes were very similar to FIPM but there were a couple differences:

1. A take always stays in it's lane.
2. With multiple takes, the only one that is audible is the one that is visible from the bottom looking up.

For #2 see below. Hopefully it makes sense, when "looking up" from the bottom, whichever take is exposed (with nothing under it) is the one that plays. We can also fade, resize, snip, clip, move to our heart's desire and things like splitting and resizing etc. are how we expose, hide which parts of which takes are audible. And obviously, splits are take independent.

So below, blue is audible first during playback, then purple, then green, then pink, then purple, then green, then blue, then pink, then green.



I'm far more used to and like the current reaper splits at this juncture but... the above is a pretty slick workflow that removes split containers from the picture entirely. What I don't have time to share right now (I'm at work) is the few caveats that prevent FIPM from working this way, one of them is that by default FIPM plays all takes regardless so that's the first feature addition needed.

There are a couple others though that I'm forgetting (and not sure how it would handle comps) - that said, it at least seems this could possibly solve a lot of complaints AND be less work for the devs because it's already close aka building on what we have vs tearing down and rebuilding things. YMMV.

Now something we lose with the above, is item FX covering all takes - another reason I YMMV like the existing container/split/take system.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-21-2019 at 10:45 AM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 10:54 AM   #323
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferropop View Post
I'm just surprised that this elegant solution is getting weird push-back, when it gives everyone what they want .
No pushback from me. I just find it difficult to understand what you are saying. That's why I was insisting on using proper terminology about splits being non-destructive. If we can move past that we can discuss what's actually different about your proposed idea.

If you mean that splits "are a pain in the ass" sometimes, sure.

Moving on. I thought about what (I assume) you're proposing. I attached an image.

Imagine those blue vertical lines are your "zone" boundaries/handles. Each "lane" (horizontal) is divided into "zones" (vertical) that are defined by those blue vertical lines. Items are within these "zones". Note that this system is unlike the takes system in that it works with multiple separate items.

How this system would work:

1) Instead of calling the things in each area "takes" (because this clearly isn't a take system) I'll call it "alternates". An "alternate" would be anything on a particular lane within a zone's boundaries/handles (this means multiple items can compose an "alternate", unlike the takes system).

2) You can work with items within an alternate, doing whatever you want to them as you normally would with an item. Whatever you do to an item won't affect any other alternate. That includes cropping/re-sizing/deleting/adding items to any alternate.

3) The zone boundaries/handles are automatic crossfades from one zone to the next and can be added/deleted/moved (similar to the splits in items of the takes system in this regard, if automatic crossfades are enabled).

3) Whichever alternate you choose in the vertical "stack" will be heard, and the others will be muted (similar to takes in this regard).

4) Items in an alternate can be moved to another alternate, vertically or horizontally (into a different zone).

All of this can be currently done by using tracks in a folder, then muting/unmuting items and manually adding overlaps so they'd have crossfades. The "problem" though is that it currently takes multiple steps to accomplish these things. To mute several items then unmute another (in a "zone") currently requires selection and then using the "toggle mute" action (or using the buttons on the items). Crossfades would require dragging out the ends of the item and overlapping them, which can be done (moving the item offset so the item still snaps at the start of a measure can help keep things aligned) but it has to be done every time. It's not a fast system for something which is "like takes" but also allows for quick management/arrangement/auditioning of multiple "alternates".

The takes system can so some of this already, but doesn't allow a person to work in one take specifically without altering other takes in the same item. Moving one take to another item...I'm not even sure I can do that without several steps being involved.

This system would have to work with multiple lanes of audio on a track, then converted into this "zones" system by adding the boundaries/handles (instead of splits). If the takes system is used to record, then it'd have to be exploded into multiple lanes first.

This idea however brings up a conundrum: if items within alternates are allowed to be treated individually, then there'd necessarily be splits in items which are divided by zone boundaries/handles. I don't know how this would be reconciled.

Maybe this helps the progress of the idea, or maybe you can clarify further.

Before hitting "submit" I saw your most recent post. Perhaps there could be "zone effects" bins, if this system ends up being feasible.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg zone.jpg (57.1 KB, 30 views)
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 11:01 AM   #324
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
What I don't have time to share right now (I'm at work) is the few caveats that prevent FIPM from working this way, one of them is that by default FIPM plays all takes regardless so that's the first feature addition needed.
Yes, I suppose this is one way to get closer to what ferropop suggested with "Zones." FIPM (Free Item Positioning Mode, for those who are confused by this acronym) would get us in the ball park, IMO. But yeah, all takes play at once, so that's an issue.
citizenkeith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 11:15 AM   #325
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkeith View Post
Yes, I suppose this is one way to get closer to what ferropop suggested with "Zones." FIPM (Free Item Positioning Mode, for those who are confused by this acronym) would get us in the ball park, IMO. But yeah, all takes play at once, so that's an issue.
Honestly, I never really understood the value of them being takes and all playing at once. I suppose there is a use case but seems like there is a much larger use case for them not to all play at once. Having to manually mute instead of some automatic method like I mentioned above does is not efficient at all.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 11:20 AM   #326
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

If you view vertical stacks of items in FIPM as "takes" then it makes sense for them to only play one at a time. But if you consider that you might want to align various items in ways where some overlap (and you want them to be heard), I guess FIPM has some advantage in that regard.

I'd much prefer if it had a lane-priority system similar to the example from Cubendo mentioned a few posts ago. Or yeah, use FIPM with "zones".
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 11:32 AM   #327
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Honestly, I never really understood the value of them being takes and all playing at once. I suppose there is a use case but seems like there is a much larger use case for them not to all play at once. Having to manually mute instead of some automatic method like I mentioned above does is not efficient at all.
Yeah, I don't know how it's useful for them to play at once. I thought it was a bug.

There would need to be some additional tweaks to get this to work for punch-ins.

It's funny... there are all these options with takes and tracks, but none of them quite nail it.
citizenkeith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 11:36 AM   #328
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Yea, I thought it was a little odd too. But the containers/splits pretty much nail it for me (like you guys didn't already know that). I could find one or two small gripes but I won't remember until I hit one - it's fairly minor though. I also have non-default settings that make it work for me but those aren't related to most people's complaints.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2019, 09:45 AM   #329
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Ok I did a bunch of work...here's how I see it:


===

===

===

===

===

===

===

===

===

Last edited by ferropop; 08-22-2019 at 03:32 PM.
ferropop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 01:52 PM   #330
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferropop View Post
Ok I did a bunch of work...
No reply in over 24 hours. I think you silenced the critics.

Nice work. As I said earlier, this would be a great addition to Free Item Positioning Mode. I hope Cockos takes look at this proposal!
citizenkeith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 01:59 PM   #331
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

I 'usually' don't chime in except for things that are inaccurate, misrepresented or misunderstood which obviously isn't always the case. I would add though, that for anything we think up as improving FIPM, there should be some mindfulness and priority on how difficult various ideas would be to implement - just a warning, it's almost always more involved than it looks on the surface (coming from a veteran programmer).
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 02:16 PM   #332
Eddy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 260
Default

Changing FIPM so that overlapping items dont play would be a problem for me - having overlapping items all play is the whole point of FIPM as I use it.
Fixing takes within their own system would be great - but I would not want to see another system (FIPM) sacrificed to do that
Eddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 02:29 PM   #333
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy View Post
Changing FIPM so that overlapping items dont play would be a problem for me - having overlapping items all play is the whole point of FIPM as I use it.
Fixing takes within their own system would be great - but I would not want to see another system (FIPM) sacrificed to do that
Contanierized takes have a setting to play all or play active, FIPM needs a setting to play all or play active in some form, that's the simpler more reasonable path, such as a different "FIPM mode".

Containerized takes aren't broken btw, they just aren't for everyone.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 02:44 PM   #334
Eddy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Contanierized takes have a setting to play all or play active, FIPM needs a setting to play all or play active in some form, that's the simpler more reasonable path, such as a different "FIPM mode".

Containerized takes aren't broken btw, they just aren't for everyone.
that option for FIPM would be good for me too
Eddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 02:53 PM   #335
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

I don't think it should be connected to FIPM at all, should just be a lanes implementation ala Cubase etc.
ferropop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 03:02 PM   #336
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I 'usually' don't chime in except for things that are inaccurate, misrepresented or misunderstood which obviously isn't always the case. I would add though, that for anything we think up as improving FIPM, there should be some mindfulness and priority on how difficult various ideas would be to implement - just a warning, it's almost always more involved than it looks on the surface (coming from a veteran programmer).
Agreed, it's so easy for us to say "they just need to xyz". Also a CompSci grad here haha, so when I proposed all of this I'm being 100% mindful of that, and I went to great lengths to ensure that almost everything here is leveraging existing functionality rather than having to build anything from scratch. The idea of Zone Markers is essentially exactly that of Splits (almost like Virtual Splits), but one that supersedes item-level splits and operates on a layer above them. In every other way they are the same as item splits, and the way active take selection would work in the exact way it currently does. The only "new" thing here would be lanes...but even lanes are just akin to tracks in a folder.
ferropop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 03:07 PM   #337
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkeith View Post
No reply in over 24 hours. I think you silenced the critics.

Nice work. As I said earlier, this would be a great addition to Free Item Positioning Mode.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferropop View Post
I don't think it should be connected to FIPM at all, should just be a lanes implementation ala Cubase etc.

So Keith, I guess you're a critic.

If someone is strongly opposed to any change, that's one thing. But if someone is asking for clarification or is saying "I don't understand what benefits it brings", why say that "there's pushback" or that "there are critics".

And just because someone hasn't posted anything contrary in 24 hours, that doesn't mean the idea is perfect and should be implemented. I can still foresee potential problems implementing it into Reaper especially if the "things" within the "zones" aren't actually items as Reaper sees them. Reaper's overall system kind of works based on items.

Since the devs aren't chiming in, and I don't see anything like this in the prereleases, there's no indication it or anything like it will happen. The best that can be done is to further elaborate, and also to consider a way to make it work within the boundaries of which Reaper operates (such as the fact items will have to be used within the system somehow).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferropop View Post
The idea of Zone Markers is essentially exactly that of Splits (almost like Virtual Splits), but one that supersedes item-level splits and operates on a layer above them.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, what this sort of thing might mean for the devs to implement. Another layer "above items" might work, or not. But at least it's a place to start. Then the devs can look at the info without having to say anything, and decide if it's worth engaging when they have enough info.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 03:15 PM   #338
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
So Keith, I guess you're a critic.

If someone is strongly opposed to any change, that's one thing. But if someone is asking for clarification or is saying "I don't understand what benefits it brings", why say that "there's pushback" or that "there are critics".

And just because someone hasn't posted anything contrary in 24 hours, that doesn't mean the idea is perfect and should be implemented. I can still foresee potential problems implementing it into Reaper especially if the "things" within the "zones" aren't actually items as Reaper sees them. Reaper's overall system kind of works based on items.

Since the devs aren't chiming in, and I don't see anything like this in the prereleases, there's no indication it or anything like it will happen. The best that can be done is to further elaborate, and also to consider a way to make it work within the boundaries of which Reaper operates (such as the fact items will have to be used within the system somehow).



That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, what this sort of thing might mean for the devs to implement. Another layer "above items" might work, or not. But at least it's a place to start. Then the devs can look at the info without having to say anything, and decide if it's worth engaging when they have enough info.
James, in what I proposed an item is an item in every single currently-implemented way with 2 differences:

1. the takes are in lanes ala every other DAW
2. instead of Splits determining the bounds of takes, it's a new thing I'm calling Zone Markers.

I think that's as clear and simple as it can get. Everything works the same with those 2 exceptions.


I think in the end, all I'm saying is that using Splits as the boundaries for takes is, yes, functional kind-of, but this is better. Splits carries with it so many issues that this resolves.
ferropop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 03:22 PM   #339
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

Well if you think you've articulated your idea to the best of your ability, including how the devs might implement it, maybe it's time to make a feature request (on the feature requests forum).
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 11:25 PM   #340
maxdis
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 344
Default

In my opinion, an overhaul of FIPM would be solve many of Reaper's take system complaint. An essential feature would be an autogroup mode for multimic recordings, especially useful when recording various takes of drums: yes, we can use an SWS action for that, but I think it should be native, because I've found a couple of issues that are very annoying, and both of these could be solved with a dedicated, multitake editing mode in FIPM (basically, Protools style playlists)

Issue #1



I grouped various drums takes across tracks, and if I accidentally mute/unmute one item (using the M button on the label)without selecting it before, only that very item will be muted/unmuted, while the other ones (that are part of the same take) will be not affected. This can cause big problems if I don't notice that right away, especially if I have many takes and tracks.


Issue #2



If I move a grouped item up or down in FIPM , only that very item will be moved. This is annoying, because I'll have to manually move each grouped item if, for example,I want to crossfade them with items from other takes.
__________________
Massimo Discepoli "The Right Place on the Wrong Map"
https://massimodiscepoli.bandcamp.co...-the-wrong-map
http://www.massimodiscepoli.com
maxdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 03:29 PM   #341
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
If someone is strongly opposed to any change, that's one thing. But if someone is asking for clarification or is saying "I don't understand what benefits it brings", why say that "there's pushback" or that "there are critics".

And just because someone hasn't posted anything contrary in 24 hours, that doesn't mean the idea is perfect and should be implemented.
James, that was a joke. Did you see my "wink" emoji?

Of course, I don't equate those people with "critics". That statement was also meant to be a friendly poke at Karbomusic because we've had some constructive arguments.

And OF COURSE I don't think that there's some weird 24 hour rule for implementation!

Carry on...
citizenkeith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 02:13 PM   #342
Thonex
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Interesting, on more than one occasion (in take based threads) I've mentioned that I think that Justin was ahead of the curve with that idea. I can't say it is perfect, nothing is but I do think there is some chance that many are so mentally accustomed to stacked takes and no splits that it can be incredibly difficult to get that light bulb to go off.

If one searches my posting history back far enough, they'll find very similar complaints from me (because I came from similar DAWs myself), then one day it hit me and I haven't looked back since. If I didn't sincerely and truly feel there is value being missed by some worthwhile percentage of users, I wouldn't be investing time in these threads.

The best advice I can offer is that when asking for improvements in the take system, learn what the moving parts are, their proper terminology etc. then work the suggestions off of that foundation. Far too often I see complaints about takes in containers when the improvement being asked is better served in the takes in lanes feature, or about takes when it is better served speaking about comps, or by adding playlists/track versions which to me is a great addition to, not in place of.
^^ THIS!

Coming from Nuendo, I had an allergic reaction to the Takes system in Reaper. It's confusing if you come from another platform. However, after I decided to digest the Takes (and combine with Lanes View and also toggle with Options: New recording creates new media items in separate lanes (layers) (just because you recorded with Takes doesn't mean you can't use the separate lanes feature to glean info about x-fades etc).

I think I have it down now where I may be editing faster after a couple days of digesting Reaper's Takes system than I had with years of Cubase experience.

But yeah... it can be a hard pill to swallow and let go of years of doing things a certain way.
__________________
Cheers,
Andrew K
v5.982/64 Mac 10.12.+, i7 Quad 2.9GHz, 24GB
Thonex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 02:29 PM   #343
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 7,659
Default

Many thanks for pointing out that the thread title is just a pile of .... prejudice.

-Michael
mschnell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 03:54 PM   #344
Kenny Gioia
Human being with feelings
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,390
Default

OK. I'm not going to lie. I haven't read everything and I have no plans to but I have a few questions based on skimming thru.

From what I can see (and I've mentioned this before) the issue is NOT with the takes system. But it's that many people don't want takes. They want playlists.

IOW - Takes are based on Items. Items are containers of a specific size. So it's a bit clunky to work with multiple performances that are forced to be in these limited containers.

So my solution (not that I have a vote) is to create Playlists in addition to Takes. Not instead of. So that takes work exactly as they do now. Leaving no one unhappy who likes the current system and have found their own workarounds.

Playlists can be based on Tracks. NOT Items. So the size of a container is removed from the situation. Every playlist can have it's own lane and they can all have multiple items that all vary in size.

Basically, it's like having multiple tracks all assigned to one track where only one of them plays at a time. They all can have varying Item FX but they all share the same Track FX and track automation etc.

So the question I have for the group is - Would this satisfy everyone?
Kenny Gioia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 04:04 PM   #345
Mr. Green
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
OK. I'm not going to lie. I haven't read everything and I have no plans to but I have a few questions based on skimming thru.

From what I can see (and I've mentioned this before) the issue is NOT with the takes system. But it's that many people don't want takes. They want playlists.

IOW - Takes are based on Items. Items are containers of a specific size. So it's a bit clunky to work with multiple performances that are forced to be in these limited containers.

So my solution (not that I have a vote) is to create Playlists in addition to Takes. Not instead of. So that takes work exactly as they do now. Leaving no one unhappy who likes the current system and have found their own workarounds.

Playlists can be based on Tracks. NOT Items. So the size of a container is removed from the situation. Every playlist can have it's own lane and they can all have multiple items that all vary in size.

Basically, it's like having multiple tracks all assigned to one track where only one of them plays at a time. They all can have varying Item FX but they all share the same Track FX and track automation etc.

So the question I have for the group is - Would this satisfy everyone?
Yes.


And I read that whole thing with your voice in my head.

:-)
Mr. Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 04:07 PM   #346
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
OK. I'm not going to lie. I haven't read everything and I have no plans to but I have a few questions based on skimming thru.

From what I can see (and I've mentioned this before) the issue is NOT with the takes system. But it's that many people don't want takes. They want playlists.

IOW - Takes are based on Items. Items are containers of a specific size. So it's a bit clunky to work with multiple performances that are forced to be in these limited containers.

So my solution (not that I have a vote) is to create Playlists in addition to Takes. Not instead of. So that takes work exactly as they do now. Leaving no one unhappy who likes the current system and have found their own workarounds.

Playlists can be based on Tracks. NOT Items. So the size of a container is removed from the situation. Every playlist can have it's own lane and they can all have multiple items that all vary in size.

Basically, it's like having multiple tracks all assigned to one track where only one of them plays at a time. They all can have varying Item FX but they all share the same Track FX and track automation etc.

So the question I have for the group is - Would this satisfy everyone?
Kenny take a look at my post though -- it gives us the strengths of Both! Immediate and easy take selection for quick comps (Reaper's take system), and the independence-and-not-destroying-the-cohesiveness-of-your-takes of Playlists.
ferropop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 04:49 PM   #347
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thonex View Post
it can be a hard pill to swallow and let go of years of doing things a certain way.
But you are assuming (like Karbomusic and others) that people don't like the take system because they are used to a different system.

I'm used to REAPER's take system. I've been using it for at least 8 years. And I still think it can be better.

Contrary to the thread title (and some of the discussion here), I don't think Reaper's take system sucks. I do think that it can be made more efficient and easier to use during a tracking session.

So can we dispense with "muscle memory" and "it's confusing if you come from another platform" arguments? While some people say "give us PT playlists" or "Logic does it this way", the majority of discussion in this thread has been on how to make the system better, not how to make it like other DAWs.

Last edited by citizenkeith; 08-25-2019 at 06:12 PM.
citizenkeith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 05:06 PM   #348
klong
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 115
Default

I find Reaper's take system is totally fine as long as I follow a few guidelines for myself:

1. Don't even bother with 'show takes in lanes'. Just know your takes are stacked on top of each other in the track, and don't expand them. You just get into a mess by looking at them all.

2. Use keystrokes to split and comp takes. All you really need are 'S' for split, 'T' for next take, and 'Shift+T' for previous take.

3. For multi track instruments like drums, before you start comping highlight all the media items and press G to group them all together.
Then your splits, fades, and take selections will be the same across all channels/tracks.

4. Get handy with mouse with changing crossfade points and crossfade types, though this isn't even usually necessary for vocals .

Last edited by klong; 08-25-2019 at 05:09 PM. Reason: Edit: I'm not saying it couldnt be better though. You can really get yourself in a mess, more than you should be able to
klong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 05:17 PM   #349
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klong View Post
I find Reaper's take system is totally fine as long as I follow a few guidelines for myself:

1. Don't even bother with 'show takes in lanes'. Just know your takes are stacked on top of each other in the track, and don't expand them. You just get into a mess by looking at them all.

2. Use keystrokes to split and comp takes. All you really need are 'S' for split, 'T' for next take, and 'Shift+T' for previous take.

3. For multi track instruments like drums, before you start comping highlight all the media items and press G to group them all together.
Then your splits, fades, and take selections will be the same across all channels/tracks.

4. Get handy with mouse with changing crossfade points and crossfade types, though this isn't even usually necessary for vocals .
That's pretty much my workflow too.
citizenkeith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 09:55 PM   #350
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 7,659
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klong View Post
I find Reaper's take system is totally fine as long as I follow a few guidelines for myself ...
Saving this to re-read before I next time might be in a situation to use takes.
-Michael
mschnell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 10:26 PM   #351
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
Saving this to re-read before I next time might be in a situation to use takes.
-Michael
It's great, it just has a few quirks that I highlight above and could be improved to a point of making it the best comping system out of any DAW>
ferropop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 07:33 AM   #352
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
Saving this to re-read before I next time might be in a situation to use takes.
-Michael
Hi Michael,

How often you use takes? I'm interested in hearing about everybody's work habits and work flow. For instance, just about every session I have with clients requires me to use the take system, so it's nearly a daily occurrence.
citizenkeith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 08:00 AM   #353
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

^Pretty much all the time. The last major project I did was about 90 tracks - drums were 12 tracks (12 mics), 12 songs and probably 10 takes per song with punchins etc for just drums/bass. First up was slip edits/comps et al for drums on all 12 songs.

Then we did overdubs with anywhere from 3-50 takes per track. Usually lower take counts than 50 LOL but always takes and punchins everywhere. I probably have a screenshot of that project somewhere.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-26-2019 at 08:11 AM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 08:05 AM   #354
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Here's a one-track GIF from the project, I made it (for this thread) to demonstrate how terrible expanded takes are and the value of collapsed, since they were collapsed when I did them, I had no problems whatsoever working with this track and these hundreds of items/splits, it was literally easy- what is this track? One of my guitar solos, it's a long outro and I had not come up with anything to play, so I just noodled for an hour randomly dropping punches here and there with zero regard to splits or where recording started.


Usually, I'd never need that many but here I specifically wanted to go crazy comping. Note this is a single track...

__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-26-2019 at 08:13 AM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 08:13 AM   #355
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

If you are interested in the details that ^project aka more than bedroom stuff see here: https://forum.cockos.com/showthread....ight=God+Candy
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 08:16 AM   #356
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
If you are interested in the details that ^project aka more than bedroom stuff see here: https://forum.cockos.com/showthread....ight=God+Candy
Thanks for the GIF and link to your forum post. Yup, not bedroom stuff! I may have to share some pictures of my next full band session at the studio, though I mainly have smaller sessions booked this week.
citizenkeith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 08:16 AM   #357
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkeith View Post
Thanks for the GIF and link to your forum post. Yup, not bedroom stuff! I may have to share some pictures of my next full band session at the studio, though I mainly have smaller sessions booked this week.
By all means, love sharing with people here!
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 11:54 AM   #358
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 7,659
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkeith View Post
Hi Michael,
How often you use takes?
I used them exactly once (as described in a massage above).
This kind of work is not what I like to do. I use Reaper for Live playing (as an instrument) and for live recording full bands. (And I of course don't use any other DAW, ever.)

-Michael
mschnell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 12:24 PM   #359
mlprod
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 687
Default

Yes indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
OK. I'm not going to lie. I haven't read everything and I have no plans to but I have a few questions based on skimming thru.

From what I can see (and I've mentioned this before) the issue is NOT with the takes system. But it's that many people don't want takes. They want playlists.

IOW - Takes are based on Items. Items are containers of a specific size. So it's a bit clunky to work with multiple performances that are forced to be in these limited containers.

So my solution (not that I have a vote) is to create Playlists in addition to Takes. Not instead of. So that takes work exactly as they do now. Leaving no one unhappy who likes the current system and have found their own workarounds.

Playlists can be based on Tracks. NOT Items. So the size of a container is removed from the situation. Every playlist can have it's own lane and they can all have multiple items that all vary in size.

Basically, it's like having multiple tracks all assigned to one track where only one of them plays at a time. They all can have varying Item FX but they all share the same Track FX and track automation etc.

So the question I have for the group is - Would this satisfy everyone?
__________________
Magnus Lindberg Productions - VRTKL Audio - Redmount Studios
magnuslindberg.com
mlprod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 05:48 PM   #360
Tone Ranger
Human being with feelings
 
Tone Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
OK. I'm not going to lie. I haven't read everything and I have no plans to but I have a few questions based on skimming thru.

From what I can see (and I've mentioned this before) the issue is NOT with the takes system. But it's that many people don't want takes. They want playlists.

IOW - Takes are based on Items. Items are containers of a specific size. So it's a bit clunky to work with multiple performances that are forced to be in these limited containers.

So my solution (not that I have a vote) is to create Playlists in addition to Takes. Not instead of. So that takes work exactly as they do now. Leaving no one unhappy who likes the current system and have found their own workarounds.

Playlists can be based on Tracks. NOT Items. So the size of a container is removed from the situation. Every playlist can have it's own lane and they can all have multiple items that all vary in size.

Basically, it's like having multiple tracks all assigned to one track where only one of them plays at a time. They all can have varying Item FX but they all share the same Track FX and track automation etc.

So the question I have for the group is - Would this satisfy everyone?
YES PLEASE!!

This would open up the possibilities for people to work the way they prefer (which is what I believe we all love about Reaper and it's customizability) instead of being forced into one work flow that doesn't fit all. I think there has been enough debate about this to warrant introducing playlists, while keeping the takes system for those who prefer it (or work with a hybrid of both, which could be very interesting).

If this is possible from a technical standpoint, it would literally appease everyone. If playlists do become an option, please add the ability to include a track's items when grouping tracks!! ��

Last edited by Tone Ranger; 08-26-2019 at 08:57 PM.
Tone Ranger is online now   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 09:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.