Post by: wwittman on July 11, 2005, 10:18:56 PM
I THINK it's not a choice, but rather a "feature" (read that as: stupid part of the program)... but enlighten me if I am wrong...PLEASE
anyway,
I have a multi-track session evolved over months that includes multiople underlying playlists.
That is, there is a vocal track with the comp vocal as the top level playlist, but 'under' it are all the original vocal takes.
Same thing with other overdubs, sometimes with edited cut or pasted versions on top of original takes in unerlying playlists.
Now, at this stage, we decide to suck out the second chorus and go stragiht form verse 2 to the middle-8.
So i select Chorus 2 and in SHUFFLE mode hit delete.
This deletes chorus 2 and brings the middle-8 and everything after it forward to the right new spot.
I adjust the margins of the edit on each track and everything is fine...
EXCEPT that the underlying playsists are NOT edited.
NOW if I want to go to another vocal take it's out of sync becasue it still has the offending chorus remaining in place.
And if the track was NOT cut to a click and isn't on a perfect grid, it's not so easy to suck out the EXACT same 8 bars on multiple takes across multiple tracks and playlists.
this SUCKS.
this is STUPID.
this is in no way a defensible CHOICE they made... it's clearly, to ME anyway, BAD programming by people who never made a f^&*king record in their lives.
(is my annoyance coming through?)
so talk me down... if there is NOT an "Edit includes underlying playlists" command there NEEDS TO BE!!!
this makes every bit as much sense as cutting the 2" tape but having tracks 22 and 23 not being edited.
If I am missing something stupid and obvious here PLEASE educate me.
Post by: Revolution on July 11, 2005, 10:33:22 PM
Im runnung 6.7 TDM and ran into that as well. What a way to find out .Left me rather embarresed after gloating about some rather nifty editing then to bring in some alternative takes to see them out of sync. I certanly hope there isn't an option as it should be a default as you say.
Im still wondering why I have a Control 24 console where half the buttons have no function.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 11, 2005, 11:57:45 PM
Post by: Sarusan on July 12, 2005, 12:04:35 AM
What you might do though is to create a memory location of that section on your vocal track and manually go through all of the playlists, cutting out those eight bars in shuffle mode. It's one of those endless, tedious things that you have to do manually but it really shouldn't take too long.
Steven
Post by: Les Ismore on July 12, 2005, 12:26:42 AM
This is where the markers become your dear friends. Just mark the spots, naming them if neccessary for your ease of memory, and then do the same edits throughout the different layers of different tracks.
It may seem like a mistake in design, but I have run into many situations where having PT do this automatically would be a real problem. Say you were just wanting to shuffle some stuff for instance.
Perhaps like you say, a toggleable function.
Have fun!
Post by: Curve Dominant on July 12, 2005, 12:58:41 AM
So I devised a work-around by bouncing the entire instrumental mix to a stereo file, and importing it into a dedicated vocal tracking session. So basically I've got a session with 22 tracks for tracking and summing vocals, which I can refer back to and revise/update at any time, the results of which I then import into the original "master" session. Which works. I like it actually because I can go into the "vocal session" and "see" all the vocals arranged how I've tracked them, and summed them.
I do the same for tracking guitars, drums, whatever: Dedicated tracking sessions, recorded, edited and summed along with a bounced stereo file with everything but that instrument, then import the finished results into the master mix session. Jumping through hoops? Yeah, but we do what we gotta do, and it beats the sh&t outta that "playlists" bullsh&t (for me anyways).
YMMV.
Post by: maxim on July 12, 2005, 06:23:45 AM
unfortunately, it can't be done (as far as i know), so you have to be prepared for it
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on July 12, 2005, 10:01:24 AM
it can be done very easely. Go to the midi menu, and there is a function for "cut time" and one for "insert time". It will also edit the underlaying playlists. No idea why it is in the midi menue though.... This feature is new in 6.9 (or 6.7). Before I agree it was pain in the ass...
daniel
www.ideeundklang.com
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on July 12, 2005, 12:12:13 PM
Rail
Post by: Daniel_Dettwiler on July 12, 2005, 02:36:09 PM
| Quote: |
Nope -- the new 6.9 features only manipulate the current timeline (I just checked). Hopefully this'll be fixed in a future revision. |
Maybe I understand something wrong...
Lets say I want to cut 4 bars out of my song. I have underlaying playlists, that I want that they also will be cuted those 4 bars out. It was not possible before PT 6.7, but now I do this all day with that "cut time" command in the Midi menu. It afects all tracks (Midi and Audio), all underlaying playlists, and all rulers. Works perfect here. Same goes for "insert time".
Daniel
www.ideeundklang.com
Post by: Etch-A-Sketch on July 12, 2005, 03:50:09 PM
One thing I do if it's just a couple of tracks that have playlists (like say the vocal and the lead guitar), you can create mono track for each hidden playlist... then move the playlist onto that new track (using "other playlists from the menu)...do your editing, and then switch each track to its original playlist, move it back to it's original track (using other playlists) then delete the new tracks.
it's kind of a pain in the butt to have to do that, but I can see why it doesn't alter other playlists. For post, it is really good to do your conforming on a duplicate playlist that way you have each cut list on a separate playlist in the session.
But...usually I try to tell clients to make critical changes like removing a verse either in preproduction or right before we go to mix. That way you're not dealing with playlists out of sync. But if you have to, moving the playlists onto other tracks can work fairly quickly for you.
William also mentioned that editing playlists should work like editing analog 2" tape...I would have argue that it does work just like 2" as it is now!!!! Think about it....
Each playlist is like a second 2" machine that's sync'd to the first 2" machine or sync'd to some sequencer using SMPTE. Each time you switch to a new playlist it's like taking one reel of tape off and putting another reel on. If you edit the first 24-track reel, you can't expect the second reel to automatically be adjusted just cuz they were in sync when you started. Nope, you have to also cut the second reel as well! Playlists are the same way.
Think of it this way...you've tracked the band on 20 tracks of a 24-track 2" reel...you know the vocalist is going to take at least 8 tracks for the lead, so you stripe a second 2" reel with SMPTE and sync it to the reel with the band on it. You do 20 tracks of vocals!!! You come up with a roadmap for your comp and you automate it. Then you record that automated version back onto track 21 on the reel with the band. Two days later the band decides to have you cut the second verse out...so you edit the 2" reel (hopefully a copy of it) and you cut out the second verse. Then a few days later the singer decides he doesn't like what he's singing on the outro and wants to use a different take...you put the vocal reel of 20 tracks back on the second 2" deck and wadda ya know!!! It's out of sync!!! Why, cuz you never cut the second verse out of the vocal reel, just the band reel. It's just like the way Protools works when editing using playlists!!! How 'bout that....Protools really does work similar to 2" tape after all.
Post by: Loco on July 12, 2005, 04:30:20 PM
| wwittman wrote on Mon, 11 July 2005 22:18 |
this SUCKS. this is STUPID. this is in no way a defensible CHOICE they made... it's clearly, to ME anyway, BAD programming by people who never made a f^&*king record in their lives. (is my annoyance coming through?) |
Nope. It's just the truth. the program was never designed with musicians in mind but with audio editors in mind. It's a direct son of Sound Designer evolved into something the Avid people designed.
To work-around it....
a. create new tracks and call up the alternate playlists to them, and then make the edition. This cannot be undone.
b. put markers on your edit points and make sure you number them as well so you know in what order you made the editions. When you need to call up another take, select the regions to shuffle with the markers and then shuffle in the order you made the edition.
c. go one by one at the ime of the edition. Keep in mind this cannot be undone.
d. make up your mind on what is final and then make the edition. Never look back.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 12, 2005, 07:01:40 PM
Post by: danickstr on July 12, 2005, 08:15:17 PM
Post by: fnirvana on July 13, 2005, 07:55:40 AM
That's a little simpler than playing with playlists...
Post by: Bob Olhsson on July 13, 2005, 02:05:22 PM
“Separate Region” Operates On All Related
Takes When selected, editing a region with the
Separate Region command also affects all other
related takes with the same User Time Stamp.
This option helps you compare different sections
from a group of related takes.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 13, 2005, 02:34:45 PM
Post by: David Schober on July 13, 2005, 02:36:04 PM
easy way out....
Once you know you need an edit and have underlying playlists, as Loco said, make new tracks and put the alternate playlists on them. So if you have five total vocal takes, you open four more tracks, put the playlists in them and edit away. It's really no big deal and the example I gave should take all of about 30 seconds. You can also of course put the vocals back into playlists if you want. This is contrary to Locos' comment that it can't be undone...if I understood him correctly)
Personally I don't see this as a flaw. There are very good reasons not to have the playlists edit. By not editing the underlying playlsts you have, within the same session, the raw unedited files so if anyone changes their mind about any aspect of the edit (that never happens!) the unedited files are right there. Without meaning to come off arrogant, there's a proper way to do this. If you don't you can have problems.
For ex. I make a duplicate playlist to edit into as the final master. (the duplicate playlist feature can be a lifesaver for all sorts of things) What's good about this is no matter how much I cut up the song, I'm only one click away from my original. If the playlists were edited as well I'd be stuck having to open up a previous session (providing I used "Save as...") to get back to the original.
A preference option for this would be nice I guess, but I'd never use it.
If you open a session with all the info but previous to the edit (hopefully you use "Save as.." and do this, all you'll need to do is redo the edit you made and your vocal takes will line up.
Post by: Loco on July 13, 2005, 04:55:35 PM
| David Schober wrote on Wed, 13 July 2005 14:36 |
You can also of course put the vocals back into playlists if you want. This is contrary to Locos' comment that it can't be undone...if I understood him correctly) |
If the section you edit out has several punch-ins you cannot bring it back with this method one you close the session or go over the max levels of undo. You can make a "save as" before it but that will make audio files management a nightmare since the session that will be controlling the audio files folder will be the one shortened one, and you may lose files you want later on if you cleanup. But if you choose not to cleanup then you'll have a never-ending-growing session. I nkow, PT sucks at this matter but that's its design. that' why I love DP's chunk management where you have everything you need and only what you need.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 13, 2005, 05:15:35 PM
Post by: Paul Mills on July 13, 2005, 06:34:29 PM
| David Schober wrote on Wed, 13 July 2005 13:36 |
William, It's really no big deal and the example I gave should take all of about 30 seconds. Personally I don't see this as a flaw. There are very good reasons not to have the playlists edit. By not editing the underlying playlsts you have, within the same session, the raw unedited files so if anyone changes their mind about any aspect of the edit (that never happens!) the unedited files are right there. For ex. I make a duplicate playlist to edit into as the final master. (the duplicate playlist feature can be a lifesaver for all sorts of things) What's good about this is no matter how much I cut up the song, I'm only one click away from my original. If the playlists were edited as well I'd be stuck having to open up a previous session (providing I used "Save as...") to get back to the original. A preference option for this would be nice I guess, but I'd never use it. |
Hey Dave, hope you're well.
Sounds like you're making the whole song (all tracks) an alternate playlist. Sounds like a great way to edit the song and be able to get back to square one quickly. But I still wish we had the choice.
Everybody works differently, and for me this IS a major pain in the butt (maybe not a flaw, but it needs fixin') in Pro Tools. Not only do alternate playlists not get edited, BUT ANY hidden tracks do not get edited either. That just doesn't make sense to me. Especially since if you edit automation on a track that is part of a group, and some tracks in that group are hidden, Pro Tools will give you a window that says the operation will affect those hidden tracks. So it IS possible for Pro Tools to keep up with hidden tracks and alternate playlists, they just haven't written it in yet as part of audio editing yet.
Imagine having an hour and a half session (live project) with 13 songs, each with about 20 vocal takes, maybe some alternate guitar takes, some alternate keys takes etc. Now imagine you need to edit choruses, verses, shorten intros, extend lead sections on 10 of those songs. It's gonna get pretty complicated copying all those alternate playlists to new tracks, especially since all the songs are different.
Plus, keeping up with edits on multiple songs can really get stuff out of sync down the line.
When I edit a song, I ALWAYS put the edit at the end of the session. So if I cut out a chorus, I paste that chorus at the end of the session and label it with a marker. That way if I need to get back I just grab the section and paste it back in with shuffle on. That's the way I handle your example of people changing their minds (does that really happen in your sessions?).
IF PRO TOOLS WOULD let me edit all the alternate playlists/hidden tracks (with a toggle preference) then all those alternate playlists would follow my edited chorus down to the end of the session, BUT MY SONG would still be intact as a unit, all tracks in sync, and I could still grab an alternate vocal phrase if I wanted it. AND I would not have to mess with creating 19 other vocal tracks just so I can edit out a chorus.
A preference would be a lifesaver for me. I've already put this in about three times as a feature request on the phone to Digi. Digi says they did it this way for the Video Post guys, but agreed that a preference would be nice for the audio guys. I'd pay good money for this preference (hey, I've already paid good money!!).
Post by: RKrizman on July 14, 2005, 12:25:20 AM
| Paul Mills wrote on Wed, 13 July 2005 18:34 |
Imagine having an hour and a half session (live project) with 13 songs, each with about 20 vocal takes, maybe some alternate guitar takes, some alternate keys takes etc. |
What kind of live project has 20 vocal takes?
But I see your point anyway. You're a brave man editing 13 songs in a single session.
-R
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on July 14, 2005, 12:48:11 AM
It's still a valid feature request though and will no doubt be added in a future revision... I just don't see it as an impediment to getting my work done now though.
Rail
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 14, 2005, 08:25:47 AM
| RKrizman wrote on Wed, 13 July 2005 21:25 |
What kind of live project has 20 vocal takes? -R |
I know you are referring to live projects, but ... I recall hearing stories back in the analog days about Peter Gabriel doing 23 vocal takes for comping. I heard about Natalie Cole doing over 40. I one time had a singer that was so bad, on certain sections of one song, because I just looped it over and over, and then had to go back and have him do it again, and again, I had over 60 takes of one verse ... and I still had to tune him! Naturally, the vocal portion of that project was done to PT.
Post by: David Schober on July 14, 2005, 09:06:20 AM
| Loco wrote on Wed, 13 July 2005 15:55 | ||
If the section you edit out has several punch-ins you cannot bring it back with this method one you close the session or go over the max levels of undo. You can make a "save as" before it but that will make audio files management a nightmare since the session that will be controlling the audio files folder will be the one shortened one, and you may lose files you want later on if you cleanup. But if you choose not to cleanup then you'll have a never-ending-growing session. I nkow, PT sucks at this matter but that's its design. that' why I love DP's chunk management where you have everything you need and only what you need. |
Are you sure about that? That's not the case for me. I even went back to double check this and opened a session with four takes, multiple punches and edits and all of the punches and edites are right there as before. I made a new playlist and chopped away. No problem. The playlist is the playlist....no matter punches or edits. I've never seen what you're describing. (I'd suspect PT sees a punch to be the same as an edit) You may have made an operational error
Secondly, using the "Save as" doesn't delete files. Unless you delete tracks and/or clear the files from the bin they're still there, like all the rest of their kin, in the audio files folder. It appears you're aruging both sides of the issue...losing files and keeping all the outtakes. It's really dependent on how you want to work. I don't delete the extra files until I'm either finished with a mix or convinced there will be no more changes. But if I wanted it's quite easy to delete them, or better yet, "Save session Copy in" to a new hard drive, after I've removed the unneeded files, which allows me to run a smaller session, but still have the originals in case they're needed.
Maybe I'm missing something, but file management isn't that hard. Perhaps you're more familiar with DP than PT so it is more natural to you. But there is a pretty easy method to as you said, "have everything you need and only what you need."
Post by: PookyNMR on July 14, 2005, 11:29:36 AM
Post by: rankus on July 14, 2005, 12:00:00 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 14 July 2005 08:29 |
Nuendo anyone?? |
Thats what I was thinking through this whole thread, but did not have the guts to mention it...
Post by: wwittman on July 14, 2005, 03:26:56 PM
| Loco wrote on Tue, 12 July 2005 16:30 |
the program was never designed with musicians in mind but with audio editors in mind. It's a direct son of Sound Designer evolved into something the Avid people designed. |
I've been an "audio editor" for 35 years and i think it's computer programmer wrongheadedness
It happens ALL the time in making record that multiple vocal take or solo takes are kept as options.
and in this case we were in the middle of singing when it was decided that the song should be shortened.
and that happens... one cannot always PLAN when the edit will need to occur and one certainly can't say let's stop and rearrange everything so that the program will "let" me edit.
When the singer says "let's try it going straight from the verse to the middle-8" it's supposed to be FASTER.
I could have cut the 2" in about 60 seconds.
Juts as JJ said, just as ANYONE who makes records on multitrack recorders would want, when we cut the SONG, all takes and options should be cut with it.
we had just recorded 8 vocal passes... the idea that i need to spread them out before editing is certainly a workaround... but not a preferable one.
It's a waste of time that should not be necessary.
it's crystal clear to me that no one THOUGHT about it when they wrote this code.
If they had spent some years professionally making records on tape, they WOULD have.
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on July 14, 2005, 03:57:04 PM
Rail
Post by: Etch-A-Sketch on July 14, 2005, 03:57:29 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 13 July 2005 14:15 |
I like when I take a razor blade and slice out a chunk of the 2" and all the takes move together. |
See my earlier post. With a live band and 20 takes of vocals on 2" it wouldn't be quite as easy as you make it sound. Sync becomes an issue too...if you don't cut one reel exactly the same as the other the SMPTE timecode will drop frames which could potential mess things up upon playback as well.
Using playlists in protools isn't like using ONE 2" machine. It's like using MULTIPLE 2" machines.
Post by: Loco on July 14, 2005, 06:07:59 PM
| David Schober wrote on Thu, 14 July 2005 09:06 |
Are you sure about that? That's not the case for me. I even went back to double check this and opened a session with four takes, multiple punches and edits and all of the punches and edites are right there as before. I made a new playlist and chopped away. No problem. The playlist is the playlist....no matter punches or edits. I've never seen what you're describing. (I'd suspect PT sees a punch to be the same as an edit) You may have made an operational error |
Maybe I didn't made myself clear. If you want to keep all the playlists if you want to undo you need to make a "save as" just to keep things organized. However...
| Quote: |
Secondly, using the "Save as" doesn't delete files. Unless you delete tracks and/or clear the files from the bin they're still there, like all the rest of their kin, in the audio files folder. |
Exactly. PT projects can grow incredibly fast. You need to delete unused files regularly, usually before closing the session. But if you delete files on an edited session just after you made the "save as" thing, you may delete a bunch of files used on the unedited version and you can't go back to it.
There's where the beauty of DP comes in. All the versions can be on a single project file that controls all the media and not several session files pointing at the same media. With PT you have to be extra-careful or just let the session grow beyond the capabilities of a DVD backup. And when you do hundreds of songs per year that's not a good thing.
| Quote: |
I don't delete the extra files until I'm either finished with a mix or convinced there will be no more changes. But if I wanted it's quite easy to delete them, or better yet, "Save session Copy in" to a new hard drive, after I've removed the unneeded files, which allows me to run a smaller session, but still have the originals in case they're needed. |
That's a lot of HD real state you're using there. You may be generating more data than you can backup, restore and keep track of. Also, there will be always changes until you see the CD at the record store. You know that you never finish a song/mix; you abandon it.
Post by: pipelineaudio on July 14, 2005, 06:21:35 PM
http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/Products/ShowProduct.asp?PI D=965
Vegas is hands down the best and fastest editor out there. It has its weaknesses ( BIG ONES!!! ) but in editing it shines. Us geeks around here will race on edits every once in a while, and any of my interns can smoke the uber users of other apps when it comes to speed and accuracy of edits, ESPECIALLY in the difficult case for most apps of when there is no click track.
Our Samplitude rep though is getting close, and that app is looking better and better in the editing department.
Samplitude and Cubendo though, with RME gear make unreal zero latency recording machines. PT only seems somewhat adequate for editing when there is a click, and each event starts at the accent ( not real world except maybe midi ).
Sam and Vegas allow you to just use ONE mouse tool if you want for everything, selecting, splitting, resizing, per event fade and volume, delete, move, copy, every editing function you can think of. Awesome editors, for recorders though PT and Nuendo have them both beat IMHO.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 14, 2005, 08:34:01 PM
| Etch-A-Sketch wrote on Thu, 14 July 2005 12:57 | ||
See my earlier post. With a live band and 20 takes of vocals on 2" it wouldn't be quite as easy as you make it sound. Sync becomes an issue too...if you don't cut one reel exactly the same as the other the SMPTE timecode will drop frames which could potential mess things up upon playback as well. Using playlists in protools isn't like using ONE 2" machine. It's like using MULTIPLE 2" machines. |
Well, I would edit the takes and or take out chunks of the song before striping with timecode. I would definitely splice my edit together before making a slave and overdubbing to it.
Post by: finster on July 14, 2005, 10:57:02 PM
Fortunately its a lesson you only have to learn once.
Post by: J.J. Blair on July 15, 2005, 01:25:01 AM
Post by: wwittman on July 15, 2005, 01:27:46 AM
| Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Thu, 14 July 2005 15:57 |
If you cut the 2" you also would have not have had 200 takes of vocals in playlists to worry about. And having the singer wait for an edited track is perfectly acceptable. Rail |
I don't have 200 tracks... i wouldn't be caught DEAD having 200 tracks,
and with all due respect, I don't think it's up to you to decide what's "acceptable" for other people.
If it's not acceptable to the singer and the flow of the session, it's not.
The singer was willing to wait... but it severely stopped the flow of the session and we got nothing else done that night.
THAT's not acceptable.
Post by: danickstr on July 15, 2005, 10:17:56 AM
Post by: henchman on July 15, 2005, 02:11:28 PM
| danickstr wrote on Fri, 15 July 2005 07:17 |
flow is important and unpredictable, fer shure. pro tools and flow. kinda like monkeys and handguns. |
Hahahahahahaha.. Bingo.
Post by: henchman on July 15, 2005, 02:13:08 PM
| rankus wrote on Thu, 14 July 2005 09:00 | ||
Thats what I was thinking through this whole thread, but did not have the guts to mention it... |
That makes 3 of us.
Post by: David Schober on July 15, 2005, 03:58:09 PM
| Loco wrote on Thu, 14 July 2005 17:07 |
Exactly. PT projects can grow incredibly fast. You need to delete unused files regularly, usually before closing the session. But if you delete files on an edited session just after you made the "save as" thing, you may delete a bunch of files used on the unedited version and you can't go back to it. |
Well of course you can't recall deleted files!
So which is it you want? Do you want to delete the data so the file is smaller, or keep it so you can recall it later? As I said before, it's a simple matter to "Remove" instead of delete so the session doesn't have to manage it. Need the old files? "Import session data." I'm no DP expert so I can't comment on it, but this is not a PT problem. I'm not saying one is better or worse, but the software easily handles these issues...providing it's used properly of course.
| Quote: |
That's a lot of HD real state you're using there. You may be generating more data than you can backup, restore and keep track of. Also, there will be always changes until you see the CD at the record store. You know that you never finish a song/mix; you abandon it. |
The only time I've had large files problems is during live recordings. As I said, I'll have a recording drive from which the individual takes are bounced to a work/mix drive, which is then due to lower track count, smaller than most studio recordings.
The thing you seem to forget its that DP, PT, whatever uses the same amount of disk space for audio. The format doesn't change that. The sessions get large depending only on how many outtakes you choose to keep. How the program housekeeps all of this is a personal preference. But anyone who has problems in PT with this sort of thing hasn't fully understood how to best use it. IMHO anyway....
Post by: David Schober on July 15, 2005, 04:16:50 PM
I grew up on the format and never found an edit I couldn't make.
But I'd never go back. Talk about making the artist or producer wait....
Using a DAW on more than one occasion I've been able to make edits while the players are still sitting in their chairs cracking jokes. Being able to do this while the players are still in the moment is infinitely better than sending them out for a break while I have to pull up a previous reel and wind back to the desired take. If the edit wasn't right you'd have to hope the guys could quickly get back into the head space they were in before.
Same thing has happened in the middle of a lead vocal. It took only seconds and the singer was able to stay in the flow of her lead.
I'm sorry William you experience wasn't so good. You prefer analog and I understand. I can also understand why you thought PT would do what you wanted. But if ever again on PT, as I stated, there is a pretty easy to do this. Hopefully this thread helped this problem.
I will say tho, I miss the smell of tape. It's a sense memory I'm glad I have. The new generation missed that one.
Post by: Eric Rudd on July 15, 2005, 04:45:33 PM
| David Schober wrote on Fri, 15 July 2005 21:16 |
I will say tho, I miss the smell of tape. It's a sense memory I'm glad I have. The new generation missed that one. |
I've heard that Digidesign and Glade are working together to replicate the smells of both 456 and 250. HD compatible. Maybe you've heard of it???
They're called....
Glade
Post by: David Schober on July 15, 2005, 07:35:01 PM
| Eric Rudd wrote on Fri, 15 July 2005 15:45 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I've heard that Digidesign and Glade are working together to replicate the smells of both 456 and 250. HD compatible. Maybe you've heard of it??? They're called.... Glade Post by: Greg Dixon on July 15, 2005, 09:07:25 PM
I know you're being facetious, but if you treat PT like it's tape, then you can do the edits just as well as tape. I do agree though. It seems like quite an oversight by the designers. Post by: Etch-A-Sketch on July 16, 2005, 02:57:49 PM
But that's William's problem...he already has past that point. Once you start using a second playlist, it's like making a slave and overdubbing to it. I agree that there should be a toggle in prefs to allow all playlists to be editing at once...but William was saying it was a major oversight on the part of the designers and that if it were 2" it would have been easy. My point was that if it were tape it would have been MUCH more difficult. Post by: Paul Mills on July 16, 2005, 05:33:15 PM
You'd be surprised how many "live" albums are not entirely live (or maybe not!). On most of mine that don't involve video, there are always separate vocal sessions for the artist to do a better job here and there, or fix places where his/her vocal was trashed from too much rehearsal and too little sleep. Even on the video projects I'll redo some of the vocals that just didn't make it, having the video synced up for checking lip sync, or tell the video editor to go for a long shot on that spot. Having all the songs in one big session is the best way for me to work on the flow from one song to the other, especially live where you have all the applause that goes into and out of the songs. And then the artist decides to change the order of songs...Much easier to do before you're mixed down to stereo. Now that I know that Pro Tools has this little, uh, challenge for the users I can allow and prepare for it. The first time I discovered it, it WAS A MESS, 'cause I'd already changed the order of songs, and made several inner song edits. A NIGHTMARE FINDING MY ALTERNATE VOCAL TAKES!! We should definitely have a preference. Post by: rnicklaus on July 17, 2005, 03:02:47 PM On the other hand, with 2" and a slave reel (if the session was big enough) editing would be a huge undertaking of the master and slave(s) at this point. I recently was brought in to finish a project done on RADAR where the producer had made internal slaves and had edited the songs only on the slave portions. When it came time to mix, the master drums, bass, and other tracks on the master reel had no bearing on the final versions and it was a huge pain in the butt to match all of the edits (sometimes arrangements were really changed) So, in the end, it all sucks. Post by: pipelineaudio on July 17, 2005, 05:37:42 PM convert to/from pt and a true audio editing app. Easy Breezy Post by: J.J. Blair on July 17, 2005, 07:53:14 PM
Post by: Brian Kehew on July 17, 2005, 11:55:52 PM I can pass that test, and would actually enjoy it. 250 is one of my favorite smells in the world, just behind bacon. You guys are starting to remind me of the old "dual SONY 3324" editing from the 80's. YIKES!!!!! Post by: mmazurek on July 18, 2005, 06:43:04 AM When would you NOT want all the tracks/playlists together on an edit? If it were a toggle, why would you switch back ever? Post by: Eric Rudd on July 18, 2005, 08:59:27 AM
When the various takes (playlists) weren't cut to a click. William mentions this in his original posting, but it's one of the times when his feature request would be of no help. Not only would the tempos probably not match, neither would the downbeats of the takes. Cutting out the repeat of the chorus, for example, would be for naught. Ahh, for the days when we would tape up the various verses and choruses to the wall of the control room in order to sort out a drum track that would be usable!!! Yikes!!!! Eric Post by: pipelineaudio on July 18, 2005, 11:56:09 AM Post by: archtop on July 18, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
I'm not following you on this scenario; I would hope all the playlists are to the actual version of the song /session, and be following the other instruments, even without a click, and thus line up. you COULD have different versions of the song there (playlists), but I don't know how smart that is. Post by: Eric Rudd on July 18, 2005, 01:14:55 PM
Whoops...my bad. I was thinking along the lines of complete band takes of a particular song. Not the fact that the original rhythm track had been decided and then overdubbed upon. Lack of sleep. Eric Post by: Tomas Danko on July 18, 2005, 01:48:41 PM
But the real test is... can you tell bacon from 250? Can you?! Cheers, Tomas Danko Post by: maxim on July 19, 2005, 08:59:11 PM "Mix everything, then edit the 1/2". that's pretty much what i do, except i edit in peak, a 2-track editor for macintosh Post by: Arf! Mastering on July 19, 2005, 11:29:28 PM Post by: bobkatz on July 22, 2005, 12:03:05 PM
I certaily agree that such a command (or preference setting) would be great. But I disagree this is not due to the stupidity of the programmers, but rather to their shortsightedness. This is because you are asking the program to do something which it was never meant to do. It's probably also very tricky for them to do this on a multiple playlist basis, the architecture or structure of the program may make that very difficult. The "underlying" playlists are supposed to support alternate edits, so there would be just as many people who don't want the edit to "trickle down" as the opposite. The big problem with programmers is they often are not practicing musicians or engineers. So they don't know or have the imagination to think "what else can this program do to make the user's life easier?" That's why I like SADiE, as they keep on refining the interface and dealing with all the things that we users need on a daily basis. I'm currently developing a new product that I hope is going to be exactly what the doctor ordered for a particular application (watch this space!). And since I'm both the programmer and an "expert user" I'm including all the features that I dreamed of in the product! BK Post by: wwittman on July 22, 2005, 01:04:57 PM
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. Post by: zmix on July 22, 2005, 01:19:05 PM Post by: blairl on July 22, 2005, 10:34:52 PM
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?  Post by: zmix on July 23, 2005, 03:41:50 AM
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... Post by: punkest on July 23, 2005, 09:28:09 AM
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 Post by: thedoc on July 23, 2005, 10:12:48 AM
Especially when being baked... Post by: J.J. Blair on July 23, 2005, 01:42:49 PM Post by: thedoc on July 23, 2005, 03:49:40 PM 
Post by: jwhynot on July 26, 2005, 03:32:30 PM 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 Post by: Blumpy on July 29, 2005, 07:34:25 PM 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. Post by: wwittman on July 30, 2005, 08:14:52 PM
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. Post by: Blumpy on July 30, 2005, 11:28:39 PM
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. Post by: rnicklaus on July 31, 2005, 12:06:39 PM
Please explain working by sight... Post by: rnicklaus on July 31, 2005, 12:11:20 PM
Please explain working by sight... Post by: Blumpy on July 31, 2005, 01:50:01 PM
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. Post by: rnicklaus on July 31, 2005, 02:41:54 PM 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. Post by: djui5 on August 02, 2005, 03:37:49 PM I don't see how the lack of the feature is such a huge problem. It would take you about the same amount of time, if not longer, to make this edit on tape. Once you get your edit points figured out, all you have to do is switch the playlists and hit delete. Whats the big problem? Imagine if it automatically deleted all the other playlists also, and you wanted to make a small edit to one playlist but it edited all of them, how pissed would you be then? It's always something isn't it? I can agree that having this feature would be good and could be used by people, but this is a little overboard. What seems really funny to me is that someone even of ww's experience getting all flustered and throwing a big fit because he had to make a few extra key strokes. Did you even say you didn't get any more vocal work done that night? That's insane. I mean, if something small like that stops a session, then you need to re-think your working habits. Throwing a big fit about it on a public forum is even worse. Have a nice day Post by: rush909 on August 02, 2005, 06:09:25 PM
dude... ever heard of "to each his own"? r. Post by: wwittman on August 02, 2005, 06:48:16 PM to each his own. Post by: thedoc on August 02, 2005, 09:09:29 PM Post by: Dan Zimmerman on August 04, 2005, 12:00:26 PM I also highly suggest automation playlists as well as region playlists. That would be beautiful. ...dan... Post by: Tim Gilles on August 04, 2005, 08:14:46 PM
No. It was a BIG FIT. And you are in real trouble here mister. You are on the Dean of Disipline's watchlist now. Don't let me catch you wandering the halls without a pass, either.... Tim "Rumblefish" Gilles Post by: Reitzas on August 05, 2005, 04:38:54 PM 1. Save session before doing edit. 2. Select section to be edited (note the duration of the edit in bars, time or samples) 3. Cut section (not in shuffle-you'll see why later) and paste somewhere much later in the timeline (in case you need to put it back in at some point). 4. Take the left side tracks of the edit and shuffle those over to the right side portion of the edit. This will leave you with the right side of the edit having the underlying playlists in tact and only the underlying playlists on the left side of the edit will be out of sync. 5. Import Session Data from the saved pre-edit session. Import the track that has the playlists you want into a New Track and in the 'Session Data to Import' pull down menu make sure you select 'All'. (basically, make sure you have the 'Alternate Playlists' as part of what you are importing. 6. Here's where the trick is. In the 'Import Session Data' window in the 'Track Offset Options section', add the duration of the deleted section of the song to the start time of the session number (bars, time or samples- For example; if you took out 8 bars of the song and the song started at bar 1, import the track to bar 9). Now you're ready to hit OK. 7. Now you will have a duplicate of your playlisted track that sync's up to the left side of the edit (including underlying playlists) and for the playlists on the right side of the edit you can use the previously edited track . The reason why you need to move the tracks on the left side of the edit to the right and not the traditional way of moving the right side forward is because you can't put a negative offset into the Import Session Data window. I know this sounds confusing but it's actually very simple and very effective in solving the original dilemma that William posed. I will be happy to answer any questions or elaborate if needed. Dave Reitzas Post by: Extreme Mixing on August 06, 2005, 11:00:22 AM Steve Post by: zboy2854 on August 06, 2005, 12:16:33 PM Just place markers at the edit in and out points, go through each playlist, and select the range between the markers and in shuffle mode hit delete. Even with 20 vocal playlists it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes. |