View Single Post
Old 11-22-2012, 03:51 PM   #53
medicine tactic
Human being with feelings
 
medicine tactic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: central Texas
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnif
Thanks for checking out my FRs.
Unfortunately you seem to have misunderstood some parts of those FRs. And the new terminology you proposed makes this topic even more confusing.

The algorithm that extends items and creates new items automatically is not the same thing as "track-based MIDI".
I would say it is the defining characteristic. It is the one absolutely necessary addition if more than one item can be focused. Also, if the algorithm has the power to create items, it needs the power to destroy and glue items as well.

Quote:
I think "track-based MIDI" in Reaper could be seen simply as a way to easily activate-for-editing/show/hide/mute/transpose/qunatize/etc all items on same track.
I think this muddies the issue, mixing the core with the constellation of features surrounding it.

And we need to make a distinction between individual edits and batch operations. Batch operations, (quantizing, scaling velocities, etc. -- operations that can be applied to whole items at a time) aren't a problem, even in REAPER as it is now. It's the individual edits that are a problem when more than one item has focus.

Quote:
That means some kind of GUI features (and maybe also new actions) which help users to control all items on one track at once. In my proposal some of those GUI features are implemented in the controls of the MECP track/item hierarchy view. Some users may include the automatic item extending/creation to the "track-based MIDI" feature, but in my opinion this kind of terminology can be missleading when applied to Reaper.

Reaper is different compared to many other DAWs because it allows overlapping MIDI items on same track.
I know for sure that Cubase, Logic, Sonar, and Studio One all allow overlapping MIDI items. Probably most DAWs do.

Quote:
This is the reason why activation for editing in MIDI editor has to be different. Plain track based approach (like in many other DAWs), where you can activated only all items on track or none of the items on track for editing, will not work well in Reaper.
I think track-based editing is actually the odd-man out. Sonar is the only one I know of.

Quote:
In Reaper we need more fine grained activation for editing, i.e. item based activation instead of track based activation.

In Reaper it would be very convenient to be able to activate multiple items but not all items on same track for editing, especially when you have overlapping items on same track.

The automatic item extending/creating should be possible all the time. It should not depend on how many items you have activated for editing. It should work when you have no items activated, one item activated, two items activated, all items on one track activated, multiple items on multiple tracks activated, or all items in the project activated. It should work in every case.
I think the subset of items you activate becomes meaningless when the algorithm has the power to create and destroy items. It only makes sense to me to operate on a single item or a complete track (again, I'm talking about individual edits here, not batch operations, which aren't a problem.)

Quote:
But I understand that sometimes this automatic item manipulation can be bad. That is why I proposed the "Item Border Lock (IBL)" in my Multi-item MIDI editing FR. If user enabled "Item Borer Lock", it would prevent any automatic changes to the item borders. Basically if IBL is enabled, then item borders and new item creation would work just like in current Reaper v4.30. Notice that even when IBL is enabled you could still, for example, activate all items on one track for editing and edit all those items at the same time. Only automatic changes to item borders would be prevented.
Even if the borders are locked, stacked items are still a problem.

Please don't confuse my terseness for hostility: I was just responding as quickly as I could!
medicine tactic is offline   Reply With Quote