Feature Idea? Lane FX?

[Keni]

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...

 

[Will.]

37 minutes ago, Keni said:

Enabling extensive control to multiple fx paths used exclusively for some clips but not others...

 

This will be destrutive not so? Much like the clip fx bin. 

[Keni]

52 minutes ago, Will. said:

This will be destrutive not so? Much like the clip fx bin. 

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?)

 

[Will.]

1 hour ago, Keni said:

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?)

 

It will just be an extra duplicate option to the channel. Wont bring any changes. 

[Keni]

2 hours ago, Will. said:

It will just be an extra duplicate option to the channel. Wont bring any changes. 

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...

[sjoens]

... and per clip making you add them to each clip in the Lane instead of one FX for the whole Lane.

My thought would be how to separate Lane FX from the main Track FX as they would both affect output.

Edited September 14, 2022 by sjoens

[Keni]

26 minutes ago, sjoens said:

... and per clip making you add them to each clip in the Lane instead of one FX for the whole Lane.

My thought would be how to separate Lane FX from the main Track FX as they would both affect output.

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?

[Will.]

17 hours ago, Keni said:

Not sure I understand what you mean.

Take lanes: 

Picture a room with a storage closet quick.  

The "room" is the main track in this scenario whereby the take lanes are just the storage closet within this "hyperthetical" room of ours, where it stores the extra Takes of the original track. Lets imagine now this storage closet stores flamable liquids - will you be able to light a match (the effect) in there and keep the fire under control to prevent the room from burning too? 

That's the complications here. Take lanes are basically just the storage closet in the room which is the main track and clip. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Will.

[azslow3]

I think at the moment there is a wish to insert "take lane FX", it is time to create a separate track from that take

I think the idea behind takes is to make a choice between different versions of the content. It can happened some particular clip needs processing to "match" the rest. But if all clips on the lane need the same processing and it is different from all other lanes, this lane is not just "random" collection of versions.

I have written "random" because some parts can be recorded 2 times, some 5 times and other just 1 time. So "Lane 3" as a whole has almost no meaning when take lanes are used as "take lanes". Lanes have some controls which exist for track, f.e. solo, but that does not mean the goal was establish full track functionality for takes.

The "main stream" mixing structure in Cakewalk is still "Track->Bus->Bus->....->Bus->Output". Even so folders, take lanes and Aux tracks till some degree allow different internal and/or visual hierarchy.

[Keni]

2 hours ago, Will. said:

Track lanes: 

Picture a room with a storage closet quick.  

The "room" is the main track in this scenario whereby the take lanes are just the storage closet within this "hyperthetical" room of ours, where it stores the extra Takes of the original track. Lets imagine now this storage closet stores flamable liquids - will you be able to light a match (the effect) in there and keep the fire under control to prevent the room from burning too? 

That's the complications here. Take lanes are basically just the storage closet in the room which is the main track and clip. 

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. 

[Keni]

44 minutes ago, azslow3 said:

I think at the moment there is a wish to insert "take lane FX", it is time to create a separate track from that take

I think the idea behind takes is to make a choice between different versions of the content. It can happened some particular clip needs processing to "match" the rest. But if all clips on the lane need the same processing and it is different from all other lanes, this lane is not just "random" collection of versions.

I have written "random" because some parts can be recorded 2 times, some 5 times and other just 1 time. So "Lane 3" as a whole has almost no meaning when take lanes are used as "take lanes". Lanes have some controls which exist for track, f.e. solo, but that does not mean the goal was establish full track functionality for takes.

The "main stream" mixing structure in Cakewalk is still "Track->Bus->Bus->....->Bus->Output". Even so folders, take lanes and Aux tracks till some degree allow different internal and/or visual hierarchy.

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.

[azslow3]

1 hour ago, Keni said:

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.

Putting FX on a take lane is using it as a track. Making a separate track from that take is not a workaround in such case, it is the way Cakewalk is designed. Sure "repeating" processing is not the way to go, original track and this new track should be routed  to a bus where common processing happens.
Technically that will not complicate signal routing nor produce extra load.

Clips are on "another level".  Achieving the same effect as clip FX without corresponding feature require creating a separate track for every clip.  So that had to be called a workaround.

PS. in one other DAW takes are strictly property of a clip, they always have the size of the clip and only one take can be active. That effectively prevents "misusing" them for other purpose ? But in that DAW tracks are hierarchical (any track is also a bus and there is just one  track type, which process arbitrary number of MIDI and Audio channels). Every DAW has own view how things should be organized.

[jackson white]

strikes me as a bit of an overly complicated mess. my understanding is take lanes are designed for capturing/speed comping performances. not ,mixing.

what would one expect Mix Recall to do? might also consider the potential for increasing CPU load per project.

fwiw, the way CW implements take lanes is a feature that separates it from other DAWs for me. I'd be a bit concerned about adding options that can easily and more appropriately be  managed elsewhere.

simpler = a more robust DAW = a more productive tool than a few extra ways to do something = better ime.

[Keni]

1 hour ago, azslow3 said:

Putting FX on a take lane is using it as a track. Making a separate track from that take is not a workaround in such case, it is the way Cakewalk is designed. Sure "repeating" processing is not the way to go, original track and this new track should be routed  to a bus where common processing happens.
Technically that will not complicate signal routing nor produce extra load.

Clips are on "another level".  Achieving the same effect as clip FX without corresponding feature require creating a separate track for every clip.  So that had to be called a workaround.

PS. in one other DAW takes are strictly property of a clip, they always have the size of the clip and only one take can be active. That effectively prevents "misusing" them for other purpose ? But in that DAW tracks are hierarchical (any track is also a bus and there is just one  track type, which process arbitrary number of MIDI and Audio channels). Every DAW has own view how things should be organized.

 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.

[Keni]

1 hour ago, jackson white said:

strikes me as a bit of an overly complicated mess. my understanding is take lanes are designed for capturing/speed comping performances. not ,mixing.

what would one expect Mix Recall to do? might also consider the potential for increasing CPU load per project.

fwiw, the way CW implements take lanes is a feature that separates it from other DAWs for me. I'd be a bit concerned about adding options that can easily and more appropriately be  managed elsewhere.

simpler = a more robust DAW = a more productive tool than a few extra ways to do something = better ime.

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

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Keni

[Will.]

7 hours ago, Keni said:

I get your analogy, but I think it has room for depth.

Its a good suggestion that you're bringing forward, but at the moment there some high walls in the middle of this. We first need to break these walls down and be sure that it wont hinder/break the signal flow.

That was the example i was trying to bring forward. How will it fit in the signal flow. I'm really trying to picture, but i dont see a way around it. I can actually picture where it might benefit, but the signal flow it the issue. My idea on this would be with the sidechain processing as an "Input" Yet, that signal flow stands in the way everytime. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Will.

[Keni]

52 minutes ago, Will. said:

Its a good suggestion tbat you're bringing forward, but at the moment there some high wall in the middle of this. We first need to break these walls down and be sure that it wont hinder/break the signal flow.

That was the example i was trying to bring forward. How will it fit in the signal flow. I'm really trying to picture, but i dont see a way around it. I can actually picture where it might benefit, but the signal flow it the issue. My idea on this would be with the sidechain processing as an "Input" Yet, that signal flow stands in the way everytime. 

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...

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

4 hours ago, azslow3 said:

Putting FX on a take lane is using it as a track.

In my view you would effectively be using a "Track " as a  "Track Folder "

Take lanes have a different modus operandi...they exist to help us record multiple takes of a part so we can comp together something better than we could perhaps perform in a single take.  

I don't see any benefit in then treating it as though it was a track / track folder. We already have those.

[Xoo]

I'm with those who say we have tracks/track folders already.  Moreover, suppose CbB did support this - how would automation work?  You could have the same plug-in in 2 different lanes, and would presumably be able to automate them both - sure, CbB could support it, but it could get messy really quickly - add in the same FX on the track too and you're in envelope confusion hell!

[Keni]

42 minutes ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

In my view you would effectively be using a "Track " as a  "Track Folder "

Take lanes have a different modus operandi...they exist to help us record multiple takes of a part so we can comp together something better than we could perhaps perform in a single take.  

I don't see any benefit in then treating it as though it was a track / track folder. We already have those.

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!

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Keni