Jump to content

Multiple Arranger Tracks


rfssongs

Recommended Posts

I've mention this before but this time I have kind of a usable solution.

I don't like the way when you commit an arrangement you lose all but 1 arranger track. So what I have ended up doing is saving a copy as "Temp" before committing the arrangement. After the committing I copy back the second arranger piece by piece until I have restored the second  arranger track. Note that: I have to duplicate the remaining Arranger track then paste over the copy because it doesn't seem to go into the empty track.

It's kind of a pain but it does work. It would be nice to change this function to keep all arranger tracks on commit.

image.png.2a3e027b4fd3c1d82946f5b5b70a3702.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are various reasons why this is the case, but it's mainly because the arrangement could take sections from any of the arranger tracks in any order ( and they could be overlapping), so the end result would in those cases not make sense.

In saying that, there might be something we could do in a future release.

In the meantime though, for your particular scenario, where you've got chords underneath the main sections you could try the following:

  1. Select all the sections within your "chord" arranger track, and convert them to markers by right clicking on the time ruler and selecting "Create Markers from Sections"
  2. Commit your arrangement
  3. Add a new arranger track
  4. CTRL + A to select all, then right click on the time ruler and select "Create Sections from Markers"

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Great Idea 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In the meantime though, for your particular scenario....."

Thank you - yes I like that and have just tried it. I like the larger font than what I used to get with the clip names, you know these old eyes and all.....

Edited by rfssongs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, msmcleod said:

In the meantime though, for your particular scenario, where you've got chords underneath the main sections you could try the following:

That's really clever.

Not trying to be funny, but seriously, could this construct be used as the visual basis of a Cakewalk chord track? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pbognar said:

That's really clever.

Not trying to be funny, but seriously, could this construct be used as the visual basis of a Cakewalk chord track? 

Chord Track is still on our to-do list, but I'd be surprised if it didn't follow a similar theme to the Arranger.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pbognar said:

That's really clever.

Not trying to be funny, but seriously, could this construct be used as the visual basis of a Cakewalk chord track? 

With more than a thousand files from 30 years there is no way I can remember these changes so this type of arrangement works for me as I still make changes to even the oldest files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only done this few times but did not have a problem when I did. And I was using an eight year old machine when I did it. However the file would have been all external midi and no audio. This is a much lighter load on the machine. I only use the Arranger to work out the sequencing of the parts with just a few tracks and fill in everything else after.

So my example may not be the best if you have a heavy load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CosmicDolphin said:

Is it just me or does everyone else have glitches when auditioning a new arrangement ?

When it jumps to a new section it's far from smooth..I usually end up committing it and then undoing it if I don't like, just so I can listen to it properly

(  I have a beast of a PC btw.. 32gb ram, 12 core processor , NVME etc )

 

This is just down to how the preview is currently implemented.  It's to be expected, especially with larger ASIO buffer sizes. The larger the buffer size, the more apparent the jump between sections.  The effect is hardly noticeable at a buffer size of 64.

We've had various internal discussions as to how to improve this, including essentially doing what you're doing (i.e. creating a temporary commit in the background), but this might take a significant amount of time depending on the project size, machine speed etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, msmcleod said:

This is just down to how the preview is currently implemented.  It's to be expected, especially with larger ASIO buffer sizes. The larger the buffer size, the more apparent the jump between sections.  The effect is hardly noticeable at a buffer size of 64.

Thanks, as long as it's not just me then.  I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to run a full mix at 64 sample buffer... hopefully you boffins can come up with a solution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...