v5.0pre5c - January 11 2015

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Coming from an SSL or Flying Faders, Pro Tools' automation didn't change that much.

Well, yeah, which is why I was kinda talking about software. You'd be hard pressed to find a software mixer with "better" automation than PT. Equal maybe. Better? Probably not.

PT, Nuendo, Pyramix, that general class, is about as good as standard automation currently gets in software, afaik anyway and of course, a really good digital console can put them all to shame in some other ways doing some other things like flipping faders so you can automate sends without mousing on tiny little sliders or whatever or like in the case of my relic, showing any envelope behind any other envelope in the same lane.

Anywho, that's why it annoys me so much because they could probably do a lot more of that if they actually wanted to.

[Win Conway]

I have no problem at all with automation updates, as long as room is left for automation items (yes i know, it isnt how it works in pro this or tool that, but sometimes doing new things is good too)
Turn Reaper in to PT if you like, but leave us mortals some wiggle room.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Not sure if you're being funny but I really would like to see that.

Only a bit. I seriously agree with your arguments there, and would also like to see that happening. I added a wink because I don't *really* expect to see that happening on a massive scale as a direct result; I think many users aren't so rational, and may stick to PTHD for various other reasons (reluctance to change, lock-in, perceived impressiveness to clients, etc.).

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by gpunk_w

I have no problem at all with automation updates, as long as room is left for automation items (yes i know, it isnt how it works in pro this or tool that, but sometimes doing new things is good too)
Turn Reaper in to PT if you like, but leave us mortals some wiggle room.

My goal was never to turn Reaper into Pro Tools. So much of the way Items are handled is already 5 - 10 years ahead of Pro Tools even trying to catch up.

My goal has been to nudge both sides to catch up to each other at what the other one does better.

And I fully understand that adding things can sometimes break the way it works for the hardcore Reaper user and we should obviously avoid that at all costs.

My only goal is to be able to tell people to try Reaper without them legitimately giving me a reason why they can't use it. So much of Reaper is better in so many respects. I'd like to see that happen across the board. We got one step closer with Stretch Markers (vs. Elastic Audio) and VCAs and Trim Automation might finish it off.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Banned

Only a bit. I seriously agree with your arguments there, and would also like to see that happening. I added a wink because I don't *really* expect to see that happening on a massive scale as a direct result; I think many users aren't so rational, and may stick to PTHD for various other reasons (reluctance to change, lock-in, perceived impressiveness to clients, etc.).

It's not going to happen with all of them. But at least we can feel that they are just being stubborn rather than them having a point.

I tried to do a mix with vanilla Pro Tools and I couldn't do it.

[Win Conway]

The problem with "Reasons people dont try Reaper" is that at some point you have to break tradition to forge forward, like i say i am all for automation updates, my sheer dislike of Reapers current automation setup is well known, but i havd mae the point before, if the devs do lots of updates on the current automation system to make it stop gap better "like other apps" it pulls even further away from automation items, which is an entire rewrite of the whole setup (i suspect you have zero interest in auto items)

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by gpunk_w

The problem with "Reasons people dont try Reaper" is that at some point you have to break tradition to forge forward, like i say i am all for automation updates, my sheer dislike of Reapers current automation setup is well known, but i havd mae the point before, if the devs do lots of updates on the current automation system to make it stop gap better "like other apps" it pulls even further away from automation items, which is an entire rewrite of the whole setup (i suspect you have zero interest in auto items)

I love the idea of automation items. I think it's overkill but so is about 90% of what Reaper can do. As long as these things don't get in the way or scare off novices, I'm for everything.

But wouldn't you agree that being able to Trim automation should come first?

Why not cover what other DAWs already have BEFORE blowing by them and adding features that only 1% of users might use?

And to clarify your thought, I'm not putting this under the heading of why people don't "TRY" Reaper. That's a separate issue. This is why people will try Reaper and go back to their DAW because it doesn't do what they NEED.

[Win Conway]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

I love the idea of automation items. I think it's overkill but so is about 90% of what Reaper can do. As long as these things don't get in the way or scare off novices, I'm for everything.

But wouldn't you agree that being able to Trim automation should come first?

Why not cover what other DAWs already have BEFORE blowing by them and adding features that only 1% of users might use?

And to clarify your thought, I'm not putting this under the heading of why people don't "TRY" Reaper. That's a separate issue. This is why people will try Reaper and go back to their DAW because it doesn't do what they NEED.

So you think only 1% of Reaper users want or would use automation items, interesting, i think you have a vastly different opinion of Reaper to at least most of its online users
Maybe you know about a whole slew of users that are not online that are using Reaper (i have no knowledge of that)
And no, i dont think that automation fixes should come before a rewrite, for the simple reason, if they update the current system we never get automation items, no distespect but i have been using Reaper a lot longer than you have at least been posting here, history shows with Cockos that big changes will not come after small tweaks "screw it, it works" is very much the cockos ethos, not "lets make this work better"

[Tod]

Originally Posted by Tod

Aah, okay, so each control has a "Trim". Heh heh, that indeed would be nice.

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Not a control, it's a "mode" for automation like "Touch" or "Latch" or the others, it's just a different automation mode, a different behavior.

Okay, so in Trim mode you work with a particular control, Right?

Then you go through and add your Trim changes which are totally different and separate from the control your working with other than the Trim is the combination between the two, right?

I guess then you have to somehow save those changes or lock them in, right?

Just trying to totally understand all this Lawrence.

EDIT: If that's what Kenny's talking about then I'm still all for it.

[whiteaxxxe]

please dont read that post ... I am thinking out loud ...

wtf are they talking about??

dont answer, this post was made by automation and cant be answered to regardless of touch/write/latch/trim/vca/whatever ...

really, I am trying to catch up, I promise. and really, please dont answer that, I dont want to derail things here because they are obviously very interesting to understanding people and I am not amongst them and I dont want to distract anybody.



like someone once said: I like it when nerds talking dirty.

[airon]

Automation items sound really cool for music, and I'd find a lot of uses in post and games as well.

It's a form of data abstraction. Package it up and give it all the benefits of item editing, like cut/copy/paste/split/looping/offset/time-compression_expansion and probably lots more.

The automation request stuff(the one in the link below) is more for finding values and recording them to an area with proven methods. When I'm on the clock that's just about the baseline, not some highly advanced magic. Nobody's found better ways of recording this stuff so far, apart from Harrison perhaps but we don't have all that control hardware.

For automation items to be useful to me, I'd have to have a way to record things efficiently first. Manual data entry is too slow.


GPunk, it could be that automation items only require a special lane the user can open up or switch the track to, where an easily chosen bunch of parameters and their data can be encapsulated in containers that behave like items.

It's new territory. How are we going to explain that to the devs, because they're not really all that likely to scrounge up the info from hundreds of different forum posts. Is there a definitive source ? Put it in one place to rally people behind, and give them all the good reasons this feature would rock.

Only so much fish I can fry, so I'm not there to do it. Only thing I can say is:

Let us manipulate automation data through abstracting it in to an item form. How's that ? Good FR ?

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Tod

Okay, so in Trim mode you work with a particular control, Right?

Not a particular control, a entire track, or a plugin where you can enable plugins for writing without it's parent track been automation enabled. It puts the current track into that automation mode for writing, because those automation modes are often track specific... but not always. I mean, In Cubase the modes are global but in other places you can have track 1 in latch, track 2 in trim, etc.etc.

I didn't like the global mode switch in Cubase and much prefer that each track can be in any automation mode at any time.

Just trying to totally understand all this Lawrence.

I hear you. Nobody was born knowing what all that crap is. For conventional mixes Trim is often used for fine tuning. When things are almost there but not quite and you need to make small adjustments. We mostly do that with the mouse now because we don't have Trim. You can do it with touch obviously but that mode helps because it zeros the fader scale for precise adjustments.

If I can find you a good YT video on it i'll post it.

[Win Conway]

Originally Posted by airon

Automation items sound really cool for music, and I'd find a lot of uses in post and games as well.

It's a form of data abstraction. Package it up and give it all the benefits of item editing, like cut/copy/paste/split/looping/offset/time-compression_expansion and probably lots more.

The automation request stuff(the one in the link below) is more for finding values and recording them to an area with proven methods. When I'm on the clock that's just about the baseline, not some highly advanced magic. Nobody's found better ways of recording this stuff so far, apart from Harrison perhaps but we don't have all that control hardware.

For automation items to be useful to me, I'd have to have a way to record things efficiently first. Manual data entry is too slow.


GPunk, it could be that automation items only require a special lane the user can open up or switch the track to, where an easily chosen bunch of parameters and their data can be encapsulated in containers that behave like items.

It's new territory. How are we going to explain that to the devs, because they're not really all that likely to scrounge up the info from hundreds of different forum posts. Is there a definitive source ? Put it in one place to rally people behind, and give them all the good reasons this feature would rock.

Only so much fish I can fry, so I'm not there to do it. Only thing I can say is:

Let us manipulate automation data through abstracting it in to an item form. How's that ? Good FR ?

it is probably 5 years ago now since i did a thread documenting it completely, i will do one again with the dc offset hack i came up with too as an example, will take a look when i get home

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by gpunk_w

So you think only 1% of Reaper users want or would use automation items, interesting, i think you have a vastly different opinion of Reaper to at least most of its online users

Most online users doesn't even add up to 1%.

I know this because I'm still selling a boat load of "Reaper Explained" (compared to my other Reaper titles) and I'm 100% positive that the people asking for Item Automation aren't buying that title.

But to keep it in perspective, 99% of the changes from 4.0 to 5.0 won't apply to more than 1% either.

And no, i dont think that automation fixes should come before a rewrite, for the simple reason, if they update the current system we never get automation items, no distespect but i have been using Reaper a lot longer than you have at least been posting here, history shows with Cockos that big changes will not come after small tweaks "screw it, it works" is very much the cockos ethos, not "lets make this work better"

I can't really comment on what should happen when based on the way Cockos has to write or rewrite the program. Completely out of my wheelhouse.

All I know is that professional mixers (for the most part) can't or won't mix without a proper Trim mode and VCAs. Simply because they've been in automated consoles for decades. These people can definitely live without Item Automation just as they've lived without Item FX.

Personally, I love all that extra power and want it too. But I don't know anyone that will try Reaper and tell me they can't mix with it without Item Automation.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Tod

Okay, so in Trim mode you work with a particular control, Right?

Then you go through and add your Trim changes which are totally different and separate from the control your working with other than the Trim is the combination between the two, right?

I guess then you have to somehow save those changes or lock them in, right?

Just trying to totally understand all this Lawrence.

Think of it like this. You're automating your vocal track. You make a pass and get every syllable to be exactly the way you want. So your envelope is moving constantly.

Later on, you notice a few phrases that are too low. You can't just pop in using Touch mode for those spots because you're not quite sure where they are now. Your envelope is moving. So you might punch in and bring it up but it might have already gone up in that spot. So you might have done nothing by punching in and raising it for that spot. You might have even not brought it as high as it was.

But if you use Touch/Trim mode instead, you could grab your fader during those phrases (the fader will be sitting at 0VU) and bring it up a few dB for those lines and simply let go. Any automation during that spot will remain in tact. It will just be a bit louder.

The only way to do this now is by highlighting those sections and drag them up. You can't ride the fader or use a physical controller to do it.

[Win Conway]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Most online users doesn't even add up to 1%.

I know this because I'm still selling a boat load of "Reaper Explained" (compared to my other Reaper titles) and I'm 100% positive that the people asking for Item Automation aren't buying that title.

But to keep it in perspective, 99% of the changes from 4.0 to 5.0 won't apply to more than 1% either.



I can't really comment on what should happen when based on the way Cockos has to write or rewrite the program. Completely out of my wheelhouse.

All I know is that professional mixers (for the most part) can't or won't mix without a proper Trim mode and VCAs. Simply because they've been in automated consoles for decades. These people can definitely live without Item Automation just as they've lived without Item FX.

Personally, I love all that extra power and want it too. But I don't know anyone that will try Reaper and tell me they can't mix with it without Item Automation.

OK lets get one thing straight 20% of this reply is text and only 1% was tested by rhinos, see i can throw out silly numbers that i have zero way of backing up just like you, it doesn't achieve anything at all, however i do get from your post that the people you deal with are 'Professional' mixers, unfortuantely for you and them, Reaper is not just a mixing desk, it is designed for making music, i can show you at 93.9876% of music makers using DAWs who want automation items in their MUSIC MAKING software.

You have made it very clear that Reaper is confusing, it has too many options and things should work like PT already, now you suggest that Reaper is mainly for mixing, because you surely arent suggesting that automation is just for mixing, you know, that stuff that was first used for sequencing parts of modular synths (MAKING MUSIC) and then made its way in to desks ?

I would suggest stating ideas without the constant comparisons to PT and the high and mighty "pros wont use it" nonsense, it will go a lot further.

[Fergler]

Originally Posted by gpunk_w

a big rant

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by gpunk_w

OK lets get one thing straight 20% of this reply is text and only 1% was tested by rhinos, see i can throw out silly numbers that i have zero way of backing up just like you, it doesn't achieve anything at all, however i do get from your post that the people you deal with are 'Professional' mixers, unfortuantely for you and them, Reaper is not just a mixing desk, it is designed for making music, i can show you at 93.9876% of music makers using DAWs who want automation items in their MUSIC MAKING software.

You have made it very clear that Reaper is confusing, it has too many options and things should work like PT already, now you suggest that Reaper is mainly for mixing, because you surely arent suggesting that automation is just for mixing, you know, that stuff that was first used for sequencing parts of modular synths (MAKING MUSIC) and then made its way in to desks ?

I would suggest stating ideas without the constant comparisons to PT and the high and mighty "pros wont use it" nonsense, it will go a lot further.

I never once said that Reaper should be just for mixers. I'm talking about one segment of the userbase that would have issues with Reaper. Most music makers are not professional mixers. We both know that. As I've said ad nauseum, my goal is to have everyone want to use Reaper as their DAW. And when people come to me with their reasons why they can't, in some instances, I can't disagree with them. I'd like to eliminate that.

Just as when I went to the guys at Avid (I am a moderator at that forum) and told them that I can't teach my students (I teach 9-12 year olds how to make computer based music) Pro Tools because Logic is much easier to create with for beginners.

I hate Logic. For everything other than working with these children. If Reaper could change that I would want that as well. But Reaper has no desire to build 1200 presets of drag and drop sounds built into the DAW. So that's off the table. And maybe going after pro mixers is off the table as well. I don't make these decisions.

But if the purpose of adding VCAs to this DAW was to make it a more attractive option to people who mix for a living, than how it's implemented does matter. On the other hand if it's being added just to give tweakers one more thing to tweak than none of what I'm saying even matters. Just embed the darn thing in hexidecimal code that side-chains from the third prong on the 15th instanciation of a JS plugin and I'll go STFU.

[Argitoth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

I never once said that Reaper should be just for mixers. I'm talking about one segment of the userbase that would have issues with Reaper. Most music makers are not professional mixers. We both know that. As I've said ad nauseum, my goal is to have everyone want to use Reaper as their DAW. And when people come to me with their reasons why they can't, in some instances, I can't disagree with them. I'd like to eliminate that.

Just as when I went to the guys at Avid (I am a moderator at that forum) and told them that I can't teach my students (I teach 9-12 year olds how to make computer based music) Pro Tools because Logic is much easier to create with for beginners.

I hate Logic. For everything other than working with these children. If Reaper could change that I would want that as well. But Reaper has no desire to build 1200 presets of drag and drop sounds built into the DAW. So that's off the table. And maybe going after pro mixers is off the table as well. I don't make these decisions.

But if the purpose of adding VCAs to this DAW was to make it a more attractive option to people who mix for a living, than how it's implemented does matter. On the other hand if it's being added just to give tweakers one more thing to tweak than none of what I'm saying even matters. Just embed the darn thing in hexidecimal code that side-chains from the third prong on the 15th instanciation of a JS plugin and I'll go STFU.

I agree 100% and it deserves a full quoting/repost. This is the very reason for needing complete, well thought-out features, not "thrown in because someone asked".

[Shan]

Originally Posted by Justin

Here's a little VCA demo gif I made:

⇧⇧That woke me up⇧⇧

Shane

[Win Conway]

Originally Posted by Fergler

crappy picture

Oh the irony

[Dannii]

What VCAs are and are not.

[innuendo]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Most online users doesn't even add up to 1%.

I know this because I'm still selling a boat load of "Reaper Explained" (compared to my other Reaper titles) and I'm 100% positive that the people asking for Item Automation aren't buying that title.

There are "core features" and there are "auxiliary features" (sorry, a better term didn't pop up).
Let's say for simplicity that core features are those that have visible elements assigned to them on any of the main views of Reaper - TCP, MCP, Transport, FX browser, FX plugins windows, Preferences window, and maybe Midi editor (even though I personally have never had the need to use it).
Or we can define "core features" as features that are utilized most frequently.
Perhaps everyone will agree that core features are more important and should be made as top-notch and user-friendly as possible, simply because users spend the highest amount of time with them.
By any of these definitions, Automation is a core feature. It will be used by Pro's, it will be used by beginners, it will be used by mixers, post-people, music-makers. Anyone who needs a DAW basically needs automation.

For this reason, Automation items are a good idea, since:
A) creating automation is difficult, even if the UI for that is top-notch
B) users need to copy or move automation horizontally (on the same track) and vertically (across tracks)

As to what 99% of users who are not pro's _want_, I say with due respect they have no idea. They simply learn to work with what they _have_. That's why they buy your tutorials. Give them a better designed feature - they will learn it faster and use it with more success and ease. Give them worse designed feature - they will spend more time on it, have more frustration and will be less likely to recommend Reaper even if they don't know exactly why.

[innuendo]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Think of it like this. You're automating your vocal track. You make a pass and get every syllable to be exactly the way you want. So your envelope is moving constantly.

Later on, you notice a few phrases that are too low. You can't just pop in using Touch mode for those spots because you're not quite sure where they are now. Your envelope is moving. So you might punch in and bring it up but it might have already gone up in that spot. So you might have done nothing by punching in and raising it for that spot. You might have even not brought it as high as it was.

But if you use Touch/Trim mode instead, you could grab your fader during those phrases (the fader will be sitting at 0VU) and bring it up a few dB for those lines and simply let go. Any automation during that spot will remain in tact. It will just be a bit louder.

The only way to do this now is by highlighting those sections and drag them up. You can't ride the fader or use a physical controller to do it.

That's a very good explanation, thank you!

[G-Sun]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

All I know is that professional mixers (for the most part) can't or won't mix without a proper Trim mode and VCAs.

Yes!
I'm a professional mixer and I can't live without it!

btw: What is it again?

LOL. Just kidding. I'm thankful all you experienced guys are helping improving things

[White Tie]

Save the modes for jazz, daddy-o.

I wouldn't dispute for a moment that modes can make a lot of sense in hardware, where you might have a limited number of physical controls needing to act on a much larger number of internal functions. You can't just throw another bank of faders on your desk! As software has developed and big screens enable big data, its been possible for the hardware to operate in modes as it controls software that is without modes (dodging the term 'modeless' here, because the code monkeys nicked it.)

Old-style console based automation, with its finite horsepower and passes, and almost zero visual interaction, cannot be done without modes. If you were blooded in this world, as were (we assume) the people guiding the development of PT's automation and VCA, it all makes a lot of sense.

But we must be wary of dinosaurs. The 'software recreation of studio technique' is a very handy way to do things, and often makes sense, but is also sometimes a leftover from the days of trying to persuade old-timers to let them thar new-fangled computers in the studio; almost like dressing the computer in a satin Supertramp tour jacket.

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Think of it like this. You're automating your vocal track. You make a pass and get every syllable to be exactly the way you want. So your envelope is moving constantly.

Later on, you notice a few phrases that are too low. You can't just pop in using Touch mode for those spots because you're not quite sure where they are now. Your envelope is moving. So you might punch in and bring it up but it might have already gone up in that spot. So you might have done nothing by punching in and raising it for that spot. You might have even not brought it as high as it was.

But if you use Touch/Trim mode instead, you could grab your fader during those phrases (the fader will be sitting at 0VU) and bring it up a few dB for those lines and simply let go. Any automation during that spot will remain in tact. It will just be a bit louder.

Lets look at your example, but in the fictional future of 'envelope as items'. Your first pass is a performance, a work of creation and art. You record it the same way you would record audio, it is your lead vocal. Your second pass is the backing vocals, you do it on a second envelope with a second fader (that you may be controlling, modally, with the same control surface fader). You then edit, manually input, trim your passes. Maybe you do more takes of automation passes and then comp them. Or merge to takes, render to a single track, as you like it. Just like you do with audio now. There would be a learning curve for those of us coming from the old world, but I believe the excitement about the creative and cockup-avoidance possibilities would drive us through it.

What relevance does all this have to pre5c and VCA? If I were remaking R from scratch (such as will never happen, but is an interesting thought experiment), automation / grouping / parameter modulation / VCA would all be the same thing. Its just control that might be created, layered, played back and routed. And since we have the means to route audio, with sends and so forth, throw that in as well for WT's unified theory of everything.

None of these things exist, but here we are at the birth of one of them; VCA (oh such a terrible name!).

People have discussed VCA both as automation and as grouping. VCA routing as if audio has been suggested. VCA and its link to fader movement has been tossed back and forth in search of a 'right way'. I believe all these worthwhile but ultimately confusing discussions have yielded little fruit because they are (according to my already-pompous theory of everything) the same thing, and their limited implementation defines a circle around the target: What do you want to achieve? And as you consider that question, remember that its 2015 and no one has addressed these issues with the tools and knowledge we have on hand today, so try this premise on for size: Perhaps no one has ever done this right.

[G-Sun]

Well, the idea to have a trim-envelope and merge it with any other envelope is something I've in fact wished for earlier.

Originally Posted by White Tie

But we must be wary of dinosaurs.

Agree

What relevance does all this have to pre5c and VCA?

Point

[airon]

The next pre-release should be interesting. This one is working quite well in my limited tests.

I showed Cockos the benefits of trimming with instant coalescing of trim and envelope data, years ago actually. Schwa even commented on it. It simply wasn't on do-it-now table so far.

I want to do these small trim changes all the time, and with VCAs I'll now have a clunky way of doing that . The elegant way of course is to use a Trim option that the user can engage for this kind of automation recording. Btw, I just updated the automation request with some explanatory text around the basic panel. Yep, the Trim modifier is visually presented there as well.


On point, we're in the midst of pre-release throws, so now's the time to make sure this stuff works really well for as many users as possible, i.e. make it intuitive to use.

White Tie, does stacking these VCA make sense to you ?

I want to stay practical, though I wish Cockos would design something new in automation, it's unlikely to be practical. Take a look at this video, ignoring the Avid guy calling it great and cool all the time. That's practical stuff, and it's the DAW benchmark(with Nuendo) you need to get past in that particular area of operations. I realize something new will be feeble and unfinished at first, but the Cockos guys do not seem to want to go there, or collaborate on that kind of level with a team of people who might be good at this.

Engineers are laden with legacy workflows, but if they work, they should at least inspire something about as good. Can you picture yourself fleshing out your theory-of-everything in to something reasonably practical ?

[mim]

Originally Posted by airon

The next pre-release should be interesting. This one is working quite well in my limited tests.

Haven't you noticed extra latency when using VCA master, that is a show stopper for riding dialog tracks from the vca master ?

[Mercado_Negro]

I think that before thinking about "Trim mode" we should get basic and core features/behaviors like "copy envelope points across lanes" and "move/copy/rearrange lanes capability". One thing comes after the other, basic first.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by White Tie

Save the modes for jazz, daddy-o.


Old-style console based automation, with its finite horsepower and passes, and almost zero visual interaction, cannot be done without modes. If you were blooded in this world, as were (we assume) the people guiding the development of PT's automation and VCA, it all makes a lot of sense.

I admit to being baffled by some of these comments.

How do people propose to emulate those automation behaviors without modes? Modes in this sense are only "switches for different behaviors". How exactly would you make Automation Latch do Latching without switching it to Latch mode?

Reaper already has automation modes (switches? Touch, Read, Write?). It's only being pointed out that they missed a couple.

I would submit that part of Reaper's issue is that some are so reluctant to follow best case and proven methods, and would rather make something new just to be different, but the new wheel is very often not as good as the old wheel they tried so hard to avoid.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by White Tie

Lets look at your example, but in the fictional future of 'envelope as items'. Your first pass is a performance, a work of creation and art. You record it the same way you would record audio, it is your lead vocal. Your second pass is the backing vocals, you do it on a second envelope with a second fader (that you may be controlling, modally, with the same control surface fader). You then edit, manually input, trim your passes. Maybe you do more takes of automation passes and then comp them. Or merge to takes, render to a single track, as you like it. Just like you do with audio now. There would be a learning curve for those of us coming from the old world, but I believe the excitement about the creative and cockup-avoidance possibilities would drive us through it.

With all due respect, this seems like excitement for tweakers and not always the best way to get things done.

Let's compare it to recording midi. Let's say I'm recording a piano part. I know the part I want. I play it thru but I messed up a few chords. The dinosaur way would be to go to each section and punch each section in. Boom. You're done. This new way would involve recording a new take in each section with a mistake and then comping a final part later. Sure. It's more flexible. But when mixing, you really want to do things as quickly as possible. Listening back to 3 - 5 envelopes and picking the best is not really ideal. You want to punch in, trim and move on.

And as you consider that question, remember that its 2015 and no one has addressed these issues with the tools and knowledge we have on hand today, so try this premise on for size: Perhaps no one has ever done this right.

I agree with this 1000%. It absolutely can be better than any other DAW. But in trying to do that, I think it's important that you start with what others have done right and surpass it. Which is exactly what you guys did with almost every other part of Reaper. Miles ahead of any other DAW in almost every aspect.

So yes. I have faith that you guys will do what we need and so much more.

[White Tie]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

You want to punch in, trim and move on.

Yeah, exactly. Like you do with audio or MIDI. But with automation. But then when you want to detailed stuff, you can do that too. Like you do with audio or MIDI. Right? But also that's not the actual point I as trying to make ...er... oh dear.

I used a hypothetical scenario to explain a present scenario, but failed to even explain my hypothetical scenario in an understandable way. Oh lordy, its all quite discouraging. Got to laugh though, eh?

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by White Tie

Yeah, exactly. Like you do with audio or MIDI. But with automation. But then when you want to detailed stuff, you can do that too. Like you do with audio or MIDI. Right? But also that's not the actual point I as trying to make ...er... oh dear.

I used a hypothetical scenario to explain a present scenario, but failed to even explain my hypothetical scenario in an understandable way. Oh lordy, its all quite discouraging. Got to laugh though, eh?

It's all good. As long as the option is considered to make it more powerful without losing basic simplicity than no one will or should complain.

To leave aside the analogies. Making a new trim envelope that needs to be combined later with the volume envelope (in most cases) is not the fastest way to do it. Simply trimming the first one should suffice.

My concern is that doing it the harder way may be easier and more rewarding to create while the user would probably prefer to deal with one envelope.

In my head, I always think as if I'm explaining it to a child and the simplest way is always the best.

[MaximKorobov]

Anyone tried notation editor? How it does? Fork of TuxGuitar/MuseScore or something native?

[swiiscompos]

Originally Posted by MaximKorobov

Anyone tried notation editor? How it does? Fork of TuxGuitar/MuseScore or something native?

It will be native but the devs are preparing a new version so it will likely be very different from the 5c version who already has some very nice things.

EDIT: I might be wrong but I think it will be more like a tool to enter notes using a notation view than a score editor with layout options, printing capabilities etc.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Making a new trim envelope that needs to be combined later with the volume envelope (in most cases) is not the fastest way to do it. Simply trimming the first one should suffice.

But that's the thing ... it doesn't have to be, which is of course why you said 'in most cases', even though I'm not sure that's actually mostly the case. More often than not (from what I've seen anyway) it's an option whether to actually show the Trim offset or not.

In Nuendo all of that is optional. If you don't want to ever see the offset of the Trim envelope over the main envelope, turn it off and you'll never see it. Some of this stuff is debating 'legacy' vs. 'new' with suggestions to include options to do both things while many of the legacy systems already do both things.

Freeze Trim
You can freeze your trim curve automatically or manually and render all trim data into a single automation curve. To freeze your trim curve automatically, open the Freeze Trim pop-up menu in the Automation Settings and select “On Pass End” to perform a freeze whenever a write operation is finished, or “On Leaving Trim Mode” to freeze the trim data when Trim mode is switched off (globally or individually for a track).

[airon]

Originally Posted by mim

Haven't you noticed extra latency when using VCA master, that is a show stopper for riding dialog tracks from the vca master ?

I have not given it that kind of performance test. It seemed like Justin was continuing to work on it.

VCAs are great for trimming a larger group of tracks, so they do need to be as close to the metal as possible, which they are in PT.

I'll wait for any improvements on it before I judge it. DSP ain't ready yet from what I've read.

[airon]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

I think that before thinking about "Trim mode" we should get basic and core features/behaviors like "copy envelope points across lanes" and "move/copy/rearrange lanes capability". One thing comes after the other, basic first.

Those actions sound like they'd be so easy to do.

Copying automation lanes sounds interesting. CTRL+drag an envelope panel to another track, and if the parameter exists, copy it.

This little snippet of video shows a nice, fast way of copying envelope sections, though again you'd need a more clever way to display envelopes if you do not want to have new lanes popping up. That very, very old method of selecting, copy and pasting things, essentially moving around as if you're in a text editor(copy,down,paste here) is something I quite miss. It took a little experimentation to find out how to do what Scott did in the video, but I did it. And it shouldn't be THAT hard IMHO.

Would you agree that something that looks like area selection works best for selection of data across multiple envelope lanes ?

Rearrangement of lanes, sure. Who wouldn't like that. The envelope name is also not optimal to me. The plugin name could very well be in another row above the actual parameter name. I need to see the parameter name, because I probably already know which plugin it belongs to, so that information has priority to me for detail edits.


Or how about interpolating automation states(straight line will do) between START and END of a time selection, and perhaps use the track selection as well.

Probably a lot more stuff in that department. Track trim is just another one of those little things to me actually. Tiny but very useful when you need it.

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

It's all good. As long as the option is considered to make it more powerful without losing basic simplicity than no one will or should complain.

To leave aside the analogies. Making a new trim envelope that needs to be combined later with the volume envelope (in most cases) is not the fastest way to do it. Simply trimming the first one should suffice.

My concern is that doing it the harder way may be easier and more rewarding to create while the user would probably prefer to deal with one envelope.

In my head, I always think as if I'm explaining it to a child and the simplest way is always the best.

That's really hard, going back to that concept of not know how this works. Do you test your video lessons on folks ?

[Shan]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

...mixers (for the most part) can't or won't mix without a proper Trim mode and VCAs.

A proper Trim mode is something I really wish we had. I find it very essential and useful.

Shane