Feature Idea? Lane FX?

[Glenn Stanton]

the underpinning of the take lanes are segments of the track clip - i.e. their position in the UI is a function the track clip metadata. so while it might be desirable (not for me) for some to have these "sub-clips" enabled for effects, the underlying mechanism would likely need to be wholly restructured (as Will and azslow3 have alluded to several times now)... resulting in effectively more clips -> more processing ? 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Glenn Stanton

[Keni]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Perry said:

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!

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...

 

[Keni]

2 minutes ago, Glenn Stanton said:

the underpinning of the take lanes are segments of the track clip - i.e. their position in the UI is a function the track clip metadata. so while it might be desirable (not for me) for some to have these "sub-clips" enabled for effects, the underlying mechanism would likely need to be wholly restructured (as Will and azslow3 have alluded to several times now)... resulting in effectively more clips -> more processing ? 

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...

 

[Will.]

On 9/14/2022 at 11:44 PM, Keni said:

To me, Lanes are sub-tracks. Each/all capable of being muted/solo'd etc. 

That's because The purpose of these is to identify the best Take to be used. 

To give you a better understanding. Chose a single track and expand its lane. You will see that the same track are being displayed in the lane. This mirror clip (not a copy) is basically the properties information of the original track. Now, this is what others DAWs might call "Dubs" with the original track the Guide. These dubs within the matrix view of this track are then being used for "comping" purposes. 

Like in the old days where artists such as Michael Jackson and Celine Dion would record 64 "Takes" of the original vocal track and later be used as over dubs for "comping" on pitch correction, duration and so on. . . Its an old feature from the analog era which has been implented in the digital world of today.  It was used on taping edits and nothing else. 

This is why we're saying the samething. It only ever had the purpose for "comping." We're not trying to kill this idea - we're just trying to look for benefits in this. Yes, with digital we can drag it to another track and it becomes a seperate track, but within the same matrix view of the guide track (original track) it really doesnt serve as anything else. 

To me the signal flow is the road block. The signal will have to go . . . Track>lanes back to the track and then out? Feedback issues already, and +dB increases? 

Like i said: I can only see this work with sidechain "MAYBE." Exactly the same as it works when sending it to an effects input. Here it will just be on a take lane? No . . . Also unnecessary extra input features and crazy to begin with. Wont be an improvement. 

Anyway . . . Keep it alive. It might just spark an idea somewhere useful. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Will.

[Xoo]

1 hour ago, Keni said:

Please get my zoom issues attended to and I'll be able to die happy soon...

I'm with you on this one absolutely ?

[Keni]

23 minutes ago, Will. said:

That's because The purpose of these is to identify the best Take to be used. 

To give you a better understanding. Chose a single track and expand its lane. You will see that the same track are being displayed in the lane. This mirror clip (not a copy) is basically the properties information of the original track. Now if you do takes this is what others DAWs might call "Dubs" with the original track the Guide. These dubs within the matrix view of this track are then being used for "comping" purposes. 

Like in the old days where artists such as Michael Jackson and Celine Dion would record 64 "Takes" of the original vocal track and later be used as over dubs for "comping" on pitch correction, duration and so on. . . Its an old feature from the analog era which has been implented in the digital world of today.  It was used on taping edits and nothing else. 

This is why we're saying the samething. It only ever had tge purpose for "comping." We're not yrying to kill this idea - were just trying to look for benefits in this. Yes, with digital we can drag it to another track and it becomes a seperate track, but within the same matrix view of the guided track (original track) it really doesnt serve as anything else. 

To me the signal flow is the road block. The signal will have to go . . . Track>lanes back to the track and then out? Feedback issues already, and +dB increases? 

Like i said: I can only see this works with sidechain "MAYBE." Exactly the same as it works when sending it to an effects input. Here it will just be on a take lane? No . . . Also unnecessary extra input features and crazy to begin with. Wont be an improvement. 

Anyway . . . Keep it alive. It might just spark an idea somewhere useful. 

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.

[Will.]

6 minutes ago, Keni said:

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.

Is there a thread open already on this? ? 

For me Ctrl + ⬅⬆➡⬇ the directional arrow keys has been working great so far. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Will.

[Keni]

6 minutes ago, Will. said:

Is there a thread open already on this? ? 

For me Ctrl + ⬅⬆➡⬇ the directional arrow keys has been working great so far. 

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"

[azslow3]

9 hours ago, Keni said:

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.

So, you definitively use take lanes as tracks. And tracks without some features (in this case FX chains) are not as user friendly as "normal" tracks. So I think logical question is what exactly should be added to normal tracks so you can switch to them from take lanes? I mean what is the feature of take lanes representation in Cakewalk which force you use them instead of tracks? It can happened other will agree that feature(s) is(are) nice...

That was mentioned (also by me) in this tread several times. But I want express that point (really the fact) in other words. Take Lane is not a Track and it is not a Clip. It is different "thing" for different purpose. It is container for Clips, and only that. And that is the only logical container for Clips, Tracks are containers for Take Lanes, Clips are not inside Tracks directly (BTW advantages and consequences of allowing that can be observed in NI Maschine 2, I mean the introduction of "clips" in Arranger view which are not present in Ideas view).
Note how different (from Track) Take Lane react on all operations. I mean Solo, Mute, Record-arm, etc. Everything is "optimized" for single goal, to record/select multiple takes. Solo and Record-arm are exclusive, take lanes are auto-created as needed, recorded clip lands into "empty" space of existing lane, clips auto-muted, comping tool, etc.

I understand that you try to use them for different purpose and so you ask to optimize them for different purpose. I just fail to understand what is wrong with normal Tracks for you. Long time ago there was a wish to group Tracks visually, so folders was introduced. Later there was complain  Buses are in a separate pane and so visually difficult to match with corresponding tracks, but  Aux Tracks can be used to solve that. May be you have yet another good idea for tracks, which I just have not understood yet 

[Keni]

3 hours ago, azslow3 said:

So, you definitively use take lanes as tracks. And tracks without some features (in this case FX chains) are not as user friendly as "normal" tracks. So I think logical question is what exactly should be added to normal tracks so you can switch to them from take lanes? I mean what is the feature of take lanes representation in Cakewalk which force you use them instead of tracks? It can happened other will agree that feature(s) is(are) nice...

That was mentioned (also by me) in this tread several times. But I want express that point (really the fact) in other words. Take Lane is not a Track and it is not a Clip. It is different "thing" for different purpose. It is container for Clips, and only that. And that is the only logical container for Clips, Tracks are containers for Take Lanes, Clips are not inside Tracks directly (BTW advantages and consequences of allowing that can be observed in NI Maschine 2, I mean the introduction of "clips" in Arranger view which are not present in Ideas view).
Note how different (from Track) Take Lane react on all operations. I mean Solo, Mute, Record-arm, etc. Everything is "optimized" for single goal, to record/select multiple takes. Solo and Record-arm are exclusive, take lanes are auto-created as needed, recorded clip lands into "empty" space of existing lane, clips auto-muted, comping tool, etc.

I understand that you try to use them for different purpose and so you ask to optimize them for different purpose. I just fail to understand what is wrong with normal Tracks for you. Long time ago there was a wish to group Tracks visually, so folders was introduced. Later there was complain  Buses are in a separate pane and so visually difficult to match with corresponding tracks, but  Aux Tracks can be used to solve that. May be you have yet another good idea for tracks, which I just have not understood yet 

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.

Edited September 15, 2022 by Keni

[msmcleod]

Although it may seem that the hierarchy is Tracks->Lanes->Clips, this isn't actually the case under the hood: Clips are directly owned by the tracks.

The lane that a clip appears in is purely a UI concept, with the only exception being lane solo/mute, where some special processing is done to exclude those clips from the audio graph.

Adding an effects bin to a lane would not be an easy task, and as others have said, it's something that can be easily accomplished by separate tracks.
 

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

19 hours ago, Keni said:

To me, Lanes are sub-tracks. 

Yeah, they're not though. That's the issue.

[Keni]

1 hour ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

Yeah, they're not though. That's the issue.

 Everyone’s entitled to their opinion .

 A rose by any other name ...

[Keni]

3 hours ago, msmcleod said:

Although it may seem that the hierarchy is Tracks->Lanes->Clips, this isn't actually the case under the hood: Clips are directly owned by the tracks.

The lane that a clip appears in is purely a UI concept, with the only exception being lane solo/mute, where some special processing is done to exclude those clips from the audio graph.

Adding an effects bin to a lane would not be an easy task, and as others have said, it's something that can be easily accomplished by separate tracks.
 

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...

 

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

26 minutes ago, Keni said:

 Everyone’s entitled to their opinion .

Yes but you have to weight them appropriately

[azslow3]

3 hours ago, msmcleod said:

Although it may seem that the hierarchy is Tracks->Lanes->Clips, this isn't actually the case under the hood: Clips are directly owned by the tracks.

I know... But "tracks->lanes->clips" is "objective reality we can sense", and so we better think it is "real" (according to Lenin) ?
Just keeping in mind that a lane is not a track nor a clip.

I mean many things under the hood are not what we intuitively think they are or should be. So lifting the hood can be quite confusing (from my adventure into CWP structure).?

[jackson white]

On 9/14/2022 at 12:43 PM, Keni said:

offers numerous ways to accomplish many tasks as befit a moment as opposed to forcing single methods.

perhaps you should give Reaper a go.

[Keni]

1 hour ago, jackson white said:

perhaps you should give Reaper a go.

Not gonna happen, but thanks.