Keni

Not gonna happen, but thanks.

Thanks Mark... I'm surprised it wouldn’t be easy, but I understand. As to clips belonging to track. I understand that too, the lanes tool is a method of selecting which clips are active on the track. I’ve always known that. Some of the problems here are (I believe) somewhat syntax if that’s the right word. My calling them sub-tracks was not to imply they are active tracks, only information easily exposed as track if selected. My idea was simply a location to harbor fx which would attach/insert to any active clips on that lane. Of course there are other ways to accomplish... That doesn’t lessen it’s value, only it’s immediacy/necessity. I have no problem living without this as often as I ever need clipfx to begin with. This was an idea that I mentioned which got such harsh responses it provoked me into continuing... Thanks again...

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion . A rose by any other name ...

I know you see it that way. I still disagree. I don’t use lanes as tracks. I do advanced comping within them. I’m surprised you don’t see that. Lanes contain clips all to be used with the common processing of the track with the exception of tools such as clipfx which are bound to an individual clip. This idea is simply an extension of that. I don’t use folders. Using separate tracks is load creating. I’ve been working this way for 20 years... I use tracks as tracks and lanes as take information feeding the track.

Not to derail this thread, but... Absolutely! In this forum I have posted regarding those issues regularly since the change from layers to lanes. There was a little improvement initially but now years since any more "fixes"

This topic is difficult it seems. I was initially very disturbed when we went from layers to lanes. I know many people think of lanes as multiple takes of a live performer, but often it is purely a place to jigsaw selected clips for use as a single track. Cake has many cool features for doing live performance tracking and comping. I currently have jo need of those tools and rarely use "comping mode" though I constantly use lanes to comp my selections. In the process of doing this, after some chopping, some clips require some extra, special processing. Hence, clipfx. All that I was suggesting is that it would streamline some work where clipfx could be assigned to multiple clips simply by placing them in a common lane and using that lane for this exclusive purpose while still sharing the track's fx. I spend most of my editing time inside lanes making things happen. The logic gets more complex and load heavy doing this with multiple tracks so I find clipfx work great and this simply an expedient extension. No great issue here as I can easily live without it. I pray to the great god of Cake programming to solve my zoom/display issues one day soon as this does cause me constant difficulties.

Though I understand their' meaning, I don't necessarily agree. Without being privy to the actual code to know how everything is accessed, it would be futile...

I could give this argument for many things, but it tangles nothing. Simple enough for insertion in the lanefx could insert the fx into each clip's fx bin saving all the time of manually doing each,,,, ...but I digress. I was not looking for arguments, only suggessting an idea which you obviously don't like.... I get it... From you and the others who so severely attacked this idea. Too many arguments. Please get my zoom issues attended to and I'll be able to die happy soon...

I'm truly amazed at how many seem to be saying this. I am a long time user as well... I don't see it that way. To me, Lanes are sub-tracks. Each/all capable of being muted/solo'd etc. So I'm simply picturing an addition. Not at all the same as a folder. Duplicating the track requires duplication of all it's plugins etc thus increasing system load when not necessary. Though I continue to think it simple to create and handy, I do not agree with your statements regarding what is intended with the Cake implementation and this would change nothing of the heirarchy. clip fx are still clipfx only listed somewhere other than the clip itself and able to be shared with other clips on the same lane... BTW... Please don't next say "if so many think..." Because it's not that many and even if it was, that doen't make them right any more than the voters returns when Trump took office!

No different than it does now. Simply a clipfx to be processed. Which Clip? See which selected clips are on this lane.... But as I said. I have more pressing needs as well. This was not a need, simply something I see as useful and not complicated to create. Maybe as simple as a pointer fpr each clip's fx bin... but no matter. I was not looking for this as a need.... Just an idea...

I don’t see this as such a load. It’s only another way of assigning clipfx. One of my great pleasures with Cake over the decades is that it offers numerous ways to accomplish many tasks as befit a moment as opposed to forcing single methods. One method doesn’t suit all moments. We can all point at what we consider valid tool vs. bloatware... None of use use the same way of thinking or working and thankfully, Cake still addresses that! an afterthought... Importance? Little. Convenience? Some. I'm still waiting for a much more important issue (to me) of the issues plaguing zoom with lanes (especially when multiple tracks are involved) and the bloatware of the visually confusing track images while lanes are displayed. So in an order of magnitude, not urgent, but simple and helpful. I’m a bit surprised that the simplicity isn’t more obvious. Assign clips in this lane these fx as clip fx

I understand your point of view. But I don’t agree. I’m not discussing earlier design, thinking new. I see this as a simple assignment routine. A place on a lane that operates as a clipfx bin for active clips on that lane. Simple and elegant. of course I can and have many ways around this. I just think it could be handy and might be simple to implement. It need not be used by everyone. I don’t remember ever using the lane notes area for example, but I’m glad it's there as I can see when it could be handy.

Of course a workaround would be to separate to more tracks, then repeat all the other processing etc. a lot of extra load. Processing order doesn’t change. Any active clips in such a lane get the lanefx processed as clipfx. Simply a way to organize multiple clips needing such.

I get your analogy, but I think it has room for depth. Clips on any lane are active when selected, regardless of which lane they are in. They remain in their lane. If active, the lanefx apply. No different than clip fx, but shared by all active clips on that lane as a clip fx. An example of use? Fixing odd takes. Comping multiple passes where some passes are too bright? Of course there are many ways to handle this. Separate tracks, clipfx for those needed. This is simply a simplified way to handle such situation.

Exactly... I think it merely a matter of signal path. My first thought was lanes processed, then track but later thought it might be handy to have a set of pre/post switches to allow placement either between trackfx and/or PC?

Not sure I understand what you mean. It would allow for simple grouping of clips to have common fx, but not all clips on the track. Yes, can be done using clipfx, but much more tedious and difficult to see as clipfx bins are hidden...

Clip fx aren’t destructive if you don't apply/bounce it. ...but no. I was thinking an fx bin on the lane much as on a track and the ability to place it pre/post track fx (and maybe even pre/post PC?)

I just thought about this again and thought I might mention it. I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere. If I've missed it, someone please redirect me? It could be very handy to have an fx bin on each lane. Enabling extensive control to multiple fx paths used exclusively for some clips but not others...

Me too! Definitely gonna check this out. Thanks!

Honestly? The PC76 is my go to for most situations as was the 1176ln in the hardware world. Extremely versatile and clean sounding. It's mostly a matter of understanding the setting types and the use if each function. I also use the CA2a for many situations as well. These are both very realistic and musically useful tools. I have numerous others from numerous manufacturers and occasionally heave need or desire of them for particular reasons, but I could easily live with the PC76 & CA2a as I was fortunate to enjoy in the ancient hardware world. Without attempting to a/b any versions, suffice to say that no 2 hardware models ever sound quite the same either, but the nature and character of those prized pieces of hardware are present for sure! BTW If you need something more versatile than that you might checkout the IK version of the distressor which is (was?) available free recently...

BTW I forgot to mention a couple of extras... Nembrini (don’t remember the actual names, but I use them both often) Klon Clone Rat Clone Distortique Face Bender (this box offers a choice of either arbiter clone or tone bender flone) I've had lots of fun and good results with these...

Related to my discoveries about the filter and control mapping. I was thinking it would be nice if the filter could be mapped a user adjustable slope/range of velocity. I will look asap... on the off chance.

I think I saw an option somewhere that allows such setting. Either low/mid/high emphasis

Funny how we each gravitate towards different plugins. I've got a bit of a collection including those mentioned and numerous others. I almost always end up back at Amplitube. I currently have versions 3, 4, & 5 installed. I mostly use v3. Lost some free items in 4, and 5 is just far too resource hungry. others? Revalver, guitar rig, gk, and a few names slipping my collapsing memory...

Ahhh! Solved the filter problem. It turns out that a right click on the filter knob shows current bindings to MIDI control and a midi learn button. Simpley removing the CC1 control from the filter knob stopped the reset problem!