Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zmix]

What a drag. I habitually do a 'save as' when making a major edit, renaming the file by adding the word EDIT.

[blairl]

wwittman wrote on Fri, 22 July 2005 11:04

bobkatz wrote on Fri, 22 July 2005 12:03 ... so there would be just as many people who don't want the edit to "trickle down" as the opposite. I'd bet the farm that that isn't true. I'm sure SOMEONE has convinced himself it's a "feature", but I'm certain that the vast majority of users have either, luckily, not yet encountered the issue or would prefer it the other way.

There are occasions where I could use both methods, so a preference or separate key command for each method would be useful.

As an example, I recorded a song with the pianist and vocalist playing and singing together "live" with the vocalist in an iso booth.  The song was not recorded "punch in" style but was recorded on the fly, repeating a verse here and there a few times to get it right, all the while the pianist and vocalist were live playing off of each other.  When they were finished, I created duplicate playlists and did a quick edit concentrating on good piano takes to get the song in proper form for overdubs from the vocalist, strings and other things.  Just today I went back and comped the vocal track and had to go back to the original unedited playlist to copy/paste some lines from discarded takes.  Remember that the original playlist was not in complete song form, but consisted of raw tracks of repeated sections.  If the editing of underlying playlists would have been implemented by default, I would have had missing sections from the raw tracks.

Of course I could have saved the original session as a separate file, or I could have created new tracks for editing and disabled and hidden the original tracks, or I could have created new tracks and inserted the raw tracks from the region bin to hunt for vocal takes, or I could have finalized the comped vocal before starting overdubs (I didn't have time), but I like to keep everything on the same track in playlist form.  This is my method of working and in the end I think it's quicker than the alternatives I listed.

So yes, I think there are valid reasons to have it both ways, editing all underlying playlists and leaving them untouched, depending on the situation.  How's that for convincing myself I like this feature?

[zmix]

Brian Kehew wrote on Sun, 17 July 2005 23:55

250 vs 456 smell:

I actually preferred the smell of 226 best, followed by 250, and I found 456 to be a bit too pungent... nothing so nice as a splice...

[punkest]

wwittman wrote on Fri, 22 July 2005 20:04

bobkatz wrote on Fri, 22 July 2005 12:03 ... so there would be just as many people who don't want the edit to "trickle down" as the opposite. I'd bet the farm that that isn't true. I'm sure SOMEONE has convinced himself it's a "feature", but I'm certain that the vast majority of users have either, luckily, not yet encountered the issue or would prefer it the other way.

It IS true, believe me...  Remember not everybody works the same way. The preference would be nice, though for me, it would stay as it is now most of the time.

Hans Mues

[thedoc]

zmix wrote on Sat, 23 July 2005 00:41

Brian Kehew wrote on Sun, 17 July 2005 23:55 250 vs 456 smell: .... and I found 456 to be a bit too pungent...

Especially when being baked...

[J.J. Blair]

Doc, what are you doing smelling taped when you're baked?  

[thedoc]

Busted!  

[jwhynot]

Yup.  If you don't adapt your workstyle to your tools you might get pooched.

I agree being able to adjust inactive playlists globally is a needed feature.

I also support calls for automation playlists...

Yes, chopping a section out of 2" is quicker than adjusting dozens of playlists one-by-one.

Think, however, of the time consumed recording 12 takes of a vocal on 2".  The winding/locating time itself repays the delay in editing again and again.

And, with respect to William, he was boggled by both an omission in the program and a problem with his own approach.  I hope they add that feature, but knowing the capabilities (and limitations) of the system he could easily have avoided the problem in the first place.  Of course I have complete sympathy for him - it happens to everyone from time to time.  "You can't do that????? [in the words of the immortal Scooby-Doo:] ruh- roh!"

My approach to multiple takes is to record using playlists, then drop the recordings from the bin onto individual tracks from which I comp - once that's done I can group the tracks, make them inactive, hide them and hold onto them for future work if necessary.  Very, very easy and quick.  (And, I might add, fully susceptible to global edits of the timeline, with about 2 clicks)

With repsect to the pile-on Nuendo folks and the like, sure there are lots of alternatives.  But if you can't make your work flow with ProTools you ought to be asking yourself some serious questions.

JW

[Blumpy]

I for one cannot stand playlists and takes.

I much prefer the Logic method of multiple instances of tracks and folders.

When I track, I put all my tracks in a folder.  Record my first 'take' to the folder.  Record each subsequent take into it's own folder.  I then edit the folders together.  Glue and there's my comp.

Instead of 12 tracks for a lead vocal, I have one track with 12 instances.  It comp the vocals together and pack the remaining out-takes to an a folder for archival.

Since there are no hidden playlist editing the entire track is not a issue.

To preview a structural change in the song, just click the end point at the top of the screen, drag right to the start of the section you want to omit.  Hit play, it will skip the section until you click off.

It takes time to get your head around Logic, but in the end the complexities become second nature, and Pro-Tools feels like a toy.

[wwittman]

Blumpy wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 19:34

... and Pro-Tools feels like a toy.

that's nice...
but the 98% of my clients who request or are already working in ProTools makes this a moot point.

if i had my choice, I'd just do everything analogue.
Doens't always work that way.

[Blumpy]

wwittman wrote on Sat, 30 July 2005 17:14

Blumpy wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 19:34 ... and Pro-Tools feels like a toy. that's nice... but the 98% of my clients who request or are already working in ProTools makes this a moot point. if i had my choice, I'd just do everything analogue. Doens't always work that way.

True enough.  Ah...Analog.... I do remember at some point, long long ago, actually having to work by sound rather than sight.  Remember that?  

Now it's sort of like telling a photographer what a good shot it will be by a the beeping at a crosswalk.

[rnicklaus]

Blumpy wrote on Sat, 30 July 2005 20:28

wwittman wrote on Sat, 30 July 2005 17:14 Blumpy wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 19:34 ... and Pro-Tools feels like a toy. that's nice... but the 98% of my clients who request or are already working in ProTools makes this a moot point. if i had my choice, I'd just do everything analogue. Doens't always work that way. True enough.  Ah...Analog.... I do remember at some point, long long ago, actually having to work by sound rather than sight.  Remember that?   Now it's sort of like telling a photographer what a good shot it will be by a the beeping at a crosswalk.

Please explain working by sight...

[rnicklaus]

Blumpy wrote on Sat, 30 July 2005 20:28

wwittman wrote on Sat, 30 July 2005 17:14 Blumpy wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 19:34 ... and Pro-Tools feels like a toy. that's nice... but the 98% of my clients who request or are already working in ProTools makes this a moot point. if i had my choice, I'd just do everything analogue. Doens't always work that way. True enough.  Ah...Analog.... I do remember at some point, long long ago, actually having to work by sound rather than sight.  Remember that?   Now it's sort of like telling a photographer what a good shot it will be by a the beeping at a crosswalk.

Please explain working by sight...

[Blumpy]

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 31 July 2005 09:11

Blumpy wrote on Sat, 30 July 2005 20:28 wwittman wrote on Sat, 30 July 2005 17:14 Blumpy wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 19:34 ... and Pro-Tools feels like a toy. that's nice... but the 98% of my clients who request or are already working in ProTools makes this a moot point. if i had my choice, I'd just do everything analogue. Doens't always work that way. True enough.  Ah...Analog.... I do remember at some point, long long ago, actually having to work by sound rather than sight.  Remember that?   Now it's sort of like telling a photographer what a good shot it will be by a the beeping at a crosswalk. Please explain working by sight...

It was a joke.  But, remember sitting in front of the console listening making sure nothing is flamming.  Making sure the vocals in the comp was in tune.  The bass and drums were tight.

[rnicklaus]

I still rely on my ears as always -

There were many, many times of rocking the multi track to see who was off in my analog days.  You had to use your eyes and ears for that.

With a large console and lots of outboard gear (or internal comps and gates, there is a lot of visuals invloved in analog.