Old 05-23-2017, 05:50 AM   #1
fabi
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 5
Default Classical Music Editing in Reaper

Hello,
I know there are a few of threads about this topic. But all of these topics are very old.
So now I want to open a new topic. Maybe there are some changes in Reaper or some new plugins, whitch are very helpful for classical music editing.

These are the plugins, which I know:
- Source-Destination cut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utST...ature=youtu.be
- Multitrack Track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO1W6yC7_6s
- Classical Helper Shortcuts: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=122267

Some suggestions, which I couldn´t find. I want to prgram this in the next months. Is there somebody, who wants to help me and who has experiences in programming extensions?
- Change the Design of the Cross-Fadeeditor. it should be similar to this desgin (Sequoia): https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yFOgvAxzGUg/maxresdefault.jpg
- Multi-Synchronous cut: http://www.magix-audio.com/us/sequoi...s/#productMenu
--> this would be very difficult. I think

Maybe today there are more of these Classical-Music-Editing-Tools.
Please help me to find all if these.
Thanks a lot.
fabi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 07:46 PM   #2
TangoTrio
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 6
Default Support for more emphasis on classical music recording

Hi Fabi,

I completely agree with you about the need for more emphasis on using Reaper for editing 'classical' music and appreciate your quest to push this issue. This would also apply to various other genres such as jazz, tango, etc. etc.

Almost all the discussion in this forum is by folks who use a multi-tracking approach in Reaper for working on pop music genres.

It's very rare to have postings from those of us whose focus may be on approaches for simultaneous recording of musicians whose preferred way of working is to play together as a group (rather than building up tracks one at a time)using techniques such as mid-side where just a pair of microphones is used to capture the whole band's performance.

Unfortunately, I have no experience in programming extensions so I cannot offer any practical help in this area. However, I would be very interested in linking up with others who use Reaper for 'non-pop' approaches to recording and processing.

Would there be any hope of establishing a Classical Music Thread on this forum?
TangoTrio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 08:16 PM   #3
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,485
Default

What exactly do you mean when you say "editing"?

Are you talking about something other than slicing up a performance or multiple performances to stitch together a seamless perfect arrangement?

I ask because of the way you mentioned plugins. Editing in the slicing/dicing sense is a function of the DAW app itself. For this, Reaper is pretty much the most full featured audio editor there is and you'll be able to edit even the most tricky projects to perfection.

Or did you mean "mixing" by that? As in using eq, compression, etc plugins to process the sound. That would be a plugin/mixing discussion. Your thread title is going to attract editing comments assuming you meant slicing and dicing FYI.

I haven't had much opportunity with classical recordings yet but I've edited a lot of improvised jazz. A similar kind of thing where you can't just easily recycle bits (like with repetitive pop arrangements) and you SURE can't use grids. Reaper is hands down the best editor I've ever used. I could edit something that would hold up in a court of law as real. (The part where the FBI records noise on the power grid to use to determine if a recording has been edited by comparing the noise elements might still be a challenge. Probably shouldn't be typing that out...)
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2017, 02:28 AM   #4
TangoTrio
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 6
Default Editing or mixing?

It’s great to hear another perspective!
For myself, I use a mid side pair to record a tango trio (violin, cello, piano) who would never consider doing multi-track sessions because the essence of their music making is playing together, not laying down individual tracks in isolation.
The recording approach is for the group to play the whole piece through several times, listen to those tracks, then get to work on recording takes of small sections of the piece that were less than perfect in their original play throughs. This involves recording multiple takes of each of these fragments until something acceptable is produced. The group listens to these takes for each of the sections that needs ‘repair’, then nominates which takes are to be inserted into the whole recording to tidy it up. The ‘editing’ job for me is therefore to slip these chosen sections into to piece in such a way that the replacement insertions are essentially undetectable
So, this more or less corresponds to your interpretation of “slicing up a performance or multiple performances to stitch together a seamless perfect arrangement”
As you observe, you certainly can’t use pop-type ‘mechanical approaches’ or grids for such editing.
It’s great to hear that you can produce undetectable edits from your jazz group and I’d love to know more about how you manage it.
I wonder if there is a difference between working with your group’s improvised jazz and my group’s tango notated (non-improvised) music? The insertion needs to be utterly seamless.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your most positive comments about the capacity of Reaper to handle this sort of editing. I look forward to hearing some details about how you do it.
TangoTrio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2017, 02:53 AM   #5
martifingers
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,791
Default

Why not use "punch in" style techniques for the retakes of the sections? That way the ensemble could be cued from the original take. Multiple versions could be made if desired and the whole thing composited in the same way that vocal parts are done in multitrack recording.
Kenny's video is here:
http://www.reaper.fm/videos.php#ilX2FOyu_Ts
martifingers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2017, 06:31 AM   #6
TangoTrio
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks for this suggestion. Unfortunately in this type of music and performance, punching in doesn't really do it. A big difficulty is in getting undetectable, seamless joins. The key problem is typically getting convincing matching up at the cross fade area and not ending up with artifacts that give the game away.
TangoTrio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2017, 06:55 AM   #7
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,485
Default

"Punching in" is what was required to overdub parts with analog tape. You had to do the punch in edit point, the performer had to nail the part and especially the segues in and out, you had to do the punch out edit, and all in real time while the tape deck was rolling. Screw up one of those and you start over. Except... now you some moments around that first punch attempt recorded over so you basically have to start over and also do it a little different next time.

Far too crude a technique if working with classical or jazz. (And I would include pop music that isn't just playing MIDI tinkerbell to a click track as well.)

Shockingly, many people want to simulate that workflow with those restrictions in a DAW. To the point that nearly every DAW has the features included. The restrictions encourage creativity they say. Insane IMHO with DAW features sitting right in front of you.

Anyhoo...

You just have to roll up your sleeves and get your editing chops on. Just like with tape and a razor blade. Except you can rehearse things, redo things to perfection, audition edits you'd never be able to pull off with tape and so on. No cutting your fingers either!

Reaper has every feature you could imagine for your workflow. You can group things for ease of selection if you are working with multitrack elements and make it like working from a single track. (Multiple mics and so forth with the capture as opposed to isolated multitracks of course.)

Basic editing is often called slip editing.
The sky's the limit. There are selection tools. You can use markers. Ripple editing modes.

You can zoom right in to the sample level and make edits with surgical precision when needed. Observe and line up the waveform cycles accurately and you can slice a portion out of a vocal with no artifact. You have to be accurate with this kind of thing and it takes some practice. Just like with a razor blade. You can go far beyond crude moves like crossfades.

The main thing to know is Reaper is selection based. That means all the things selected together do the thing together. Grouping features are used to aid in making a selection. eg. Clicking on one item from a group selects the entire group (with that mode enabled). The items don't edit together because they are grouped. They edit together because they happened to be selected together. The grouping just let you select them all together easily. See that?
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2017, 04:52 PM   #8
TangoTrio
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks for making these really important observations.

Yes, tinkerbell click track approaches are anathema to the type of performers I deal with (and anyway, they just wouldn’t put up with the punch-in polava). The cross fade at its worst is indeed a crude and ineffective way of trying to ‘cover up’ an insertion.

You make a good point about the essence of good editing in this context being the skilful use of the facilities available in Reaper to do the main work. Your comments about selection, editing modes, waveform matching at joins, etc. are right on the money but the trick is in how best to apply them during a job.

I guess the thing is some of us are still in the early stages of developing the necessary skill in using those facilities and there’s not a lot of detailed information about how all the tricks that can be brought together in practical situations to maximise one’s effectiveness in this type of editing.

Surgical precision is certainly something I aspire to - but sometimes I feel that the results of my efforts are more akin to having used a chain saw than a scapel…

Would you consider doing a YouTube tutorial on how you combine these various individual techniques to deal with difficult practical examples in a ‘non-pop’ situation? It would be greatly appreciated!
TangoTrio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2017, 07:48 AM   #9
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,485
Default

I fear if I tried to edit some video together it would end up a silly uninformative mess!

Any style of music with nuance in tempo requires real editing. There are no grids.

The thing to do is roll up your sleeves and start editing.
Save versions of the project often to allow you to retrace your steps if it comes up. You can always try things and undo them if they don't work out. Razor blades never had an undo feature.


Splicing together waveforms usually needs to happen on zero crossings. (That's the easier choice anyway if not the only one in a given scenario.)

You'll notice other patterns to work with.

Crude example:
Pretend this is a waveform. (And pretend there are zero crossing between every character.)

----v--v--V----v--v--V----v--v--V----v--v--V

Don't edit like this:
----v--v--V----v--v--V--v--V----v--v--V
edit point_________^

Do this to preserve patterns:
----v--v--V----v--v--V----v--v--V
edit point_________^


See what I'm getting at? Look for patterns in the waveforms.


The basic workflow is to edit for timing first and then clean up the transition second. If you are working with multitrack, slice everything together for the timing edit. Then go through every track and clean up the transitions. Many might still fall on the same spot but often enough you will have slightly different spots for the segue in different tracks. The edit point for the timing remains consistent (you're not offsetting tracks from each other) but you start pulling edges back or forward to hit the perfect seamless segue for each track.

Where it gets really complex is when you decide to alter a tempo for a short part to make a segue work. Elastique Pro is a winner here.



Apologies to MIDI artists for the tinkerbell comment. Whatever sounds right is right and I'm sure there are mechanical compositions I've heard that I prefer to some recording. The mechanical beat can have a certain appeal or vibe if done right too. I just wanted to illustrate that grid editing with such music is actually an anomaly that comes with a very simplified workflow for editing. To the point that it really shouldn't even be called editing. I'm also aware that there are a few talented individuals that can create reality with actual nuance starting from a grid. These are even more of an anomaly.

Last edited by serr; 06-12-2017 at 07:58 AM.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2017, 08:17 AM   #10
philper
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: SF area
Posts: 65
Default

I think the OP is not wanting to change how he records players, but is looking for some of the efficiencies in editing in a style possible in Sequoia or Sadie etc. Like "source-destination" and "4 point" editing? I haven't found a way to do those in Reaper yet, but I'd put money on it's being possible, given some actions or scripting....
philper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2017, 08:35 AM   #11
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,485
Default

"3 point editing" & "4 point editing" are just terms invented to describe workflow of editing. There isn't anything different or mysterious going on. It's editing at the end of the day. Adjusting bits of recording on a timeline and making segues between parts seamless.

When you alter a timeline (working with non-mechanical grid content) and end up needing to add or remove time... you do just that.

Reaper does in fact include features to adjust the timeline automatically if you wish (and precisely as you intend). This is called ripple edit mode in Reaper. Delete a bit and everything ahead on the timeline adjusts back. Paste insert a bit and everything advances.

Get your editing chops together first and then you will find the most advanced feature set you've ever seen in Reaper to let you move at lightning speed.


If you're also working with video, that's just another component. Edit for the audio to be perfect first. Then insert a cut scene to an audience shot for a tricky spot right?
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2017, 12:26 PM   #12
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,485
Default

Your timeline reference is all on you.

You can have as many timeline references as you please in Reaper or any other DAW. Literally call a track a reference. Call a 2nd track with an alternate edit which affects the timeline another reference.

There may be workflow commands on the surface in other DAWs that aid you in the workflow. But it's still not going to make the edit for you! You have to roll up your sleeves and make the decisions needed to make a seamless edit.

The timeline part (what I said to do first) is only the starting point. Again, I don't mean to dismiss any features in other DAWs that might be set up out of the box to do this. This part is pretty trivial though, honestly. Determine your initial segue points and just make that slice and put the big pieces together. Markers and the split command. I wouldn't want features beyond that to make this seem elaborate or take more steps.

The real meat of editing is then making the segue seamless. No auto feature is going to do that part for you. This is the critical part. The first part - the timeline edit - is the easy part and an alternate command set for that seems redundant. Those "4 point" edit commands are just doing the first easy part.

Snip, snip, ripple mode, delete.
Timeline edit is done. (Removing a chunk.)
Replacing it with an alternate which is a slightly different length (because of slightly varying tempo)? Ripple mode still on. Cursor at marker where you just removed. Paste.

Now the audio might glitch at the segue even though the flow of time is correct.
Now you get into the fiddly part of working that. Sometimes it makes you go back and alter your decision about the segue points you first chose.


Or am I missing something with some really useful AI?
Will this other DAW let you choose roughly close edit points and then finesse the edit into place? Alter your chosen segue points to perfection? Do some calculations on the audio to determine wave cycles in all tracks and work all that. Really deliver something like that? Parse out the ebb and flow of the natural performance tempo fluctuation and truly come up with a timeline alteration for the edit that musically flows with that? With no human interaction for the critical part? I think not but by all means prove me wrong!


I mean, the whole reason people started recording to click tracks and composing mechanical music to grids is precisely because of the work needed to pull off seamless edits on music with tempo nuance.


Sorry, I really don't want to dismiss another DAWs features here. It just really sounds for all the world to me that those are only for simpleton timeline edits where everything is to a grid/click. One of the big things I like about Reaper is the ability to get your hands right on the audio for 'real world' edits for stuff not to a grid/click. If you're telling me there's AI built into something else to automate some of that and it really no bs works... you have my attention! (And NOT just time expansion/compression to fill a gap or tempo match.)

Last edited by serr; 06-12-2017 at 12:40 PM.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2017, 12:49 PM   #13
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,485
Default

I was trying not to be quite that blunt but yeah.

Real world editing is another league above simple grid edits. Those editing commands mentioned look to only be aimed at grid edits.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2017, 05:12 PM   #14
philper
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: SF area
Posts: 65
Default

The version of Reaper I have can have lots of projects open @ once, and allows copying from one to another?
philper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2017, 10:07 PM   #15
TangoTrio
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 6
Default

I guess many folks (like me) who use Reaper are not in the financial league of those who can afford to use these high-end DAWs that especially target classical music editing of the type mentioned by Reynaud. Nor do we have to deal with anything like the level of complexity described. However, although working on a much smaller scale in terms of the length of pieces, the variety of forces involved, etc. etc., we still need to edit in the flexible way set out by Serr rather than in the dominant pop-oriented manner.

Perhaps it is understandable that Reynaud finds the homespun ‘add-on’ approaches devised by some Reaper users to be clumsy and unsuitable for the massive undertakings involved in opera recordings. However, there are some of us who are working with much shorter pieces (minutes rather than hours) involving far smaller musical forces and considerably fewer variables to be juggled. This, together with affordability, makes Reaper potentially suitable for people like me.

A key issue in this case is how to get the best possible editing results out of Reaper when the scale of the recorded performance is relatively modest. Here the challenge for each section needing ‘repair’ is to insert the best take from multiple takes into the whole piece as seamlessly and elegantly as possible. It would be great if Reynaud could consider this particular small-scale situation (in contrast to the full opera example) and make some concrete suggestions about either (i) ways to maximise the effectiveness of Reaper as it currently exists or (ii) facilities that could be built into future versions of Reaper so it is better suited to editing non-pop genres.

It was really helpful to read Serr’s general explanation of how to remove and replace a chunk as well as the more detailed account of how to splice together waveforms so they match up (and so tackle the fiddly aspect of avoiding audio glitches at segue points).

I would greatly appreciate it if Reynaud could also share any particular personal insights gained as a result of extensive real world editing experience that could be relevant to those of us who work with small groups recorded holistically with minimal setups such as a mid-side mic pair - as for example the tango trio (violin, cello, piano) that I record.
TangoTrio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 03:04 AM   #16
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 8,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martifingers View Post
Why not use "punch in" style techniques for the retakes of the sections? That way the ensemble could be cued from the original take. Multiple versions could be made if desired and the whole thing composited in the same way that vocal parts are done in multitrack recording.
Kenny's video is here:
http://www.reaper.fm/videos.php#ilX2FOyu_Ts
AFAIU, using takes needs the musicians work to a predefined timeing source. I don't suppose this is likely possible with a classical (or Jazz) orchestra.

Hence in fact a way to convert a set of recordings (that are convert to a multichannel track (as sown in the video on drum comping mentioned in the original post) ) into an item containing several multichannel takes, with each of those takes containing it's own timing definition, so that you can stretch them individuality [b]without modifying their playback behavior, but just the view Reaper offers on them[b] would be a great help.

Using this technique you could synchronize the (view on) the points you want to set comp-switch split points and then work with the thing in the same way as with takes recorded in a time-synchronized way.

I have no idea if/how something like this ("per-take display tempo envelope") is already possible (-> serr please ???) or if a feature request would be appropriate.

-Michael

Last edited by mschnell; 06-13-2017 at 03:11 AM.
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 01:07 PM   #17
Gass n Klang
Human being with feelings
 
Gass n Klang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Detmold - Germany
Posts: 588
Default

I'm very interested in this, too. I think this kind of editing only exists in sequoia and pyramix. REAPER definitly could kick in a door here ...
so, perhaps we should create a feature request for a solid, native solution and bring REAPER more into non-grid-based music production.
Gass n Klang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 01:42 PM   #18
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Just outside of Glacier National Park
Posts: 12,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynaud View Post
Yes, and they can even be tabbed, and Independent Projects may be embedded within other Projects, but the single Project timeline is the biggest pitfall to implementing true Source/Destination editing.

Scripts will always be a hack and a second rate solution, at least until multiple EDL support within a single Project, with independent timelines is provided.
Hi Reynaud, I have no idea how an editing environment looks or works based on what you're saying, when you talk EDL, it sounds like you should be trying out some movie software. I don't think there's any DAWs that function based on the EDL concept, but I could be wrong.

I think Reaper would be one of the DAWs most adaptable to it. In all honesty, I don't know what independent timelines would look like, or how they could be implemented.

Is there any software out there that can do exactly what you're advocating and if so, what is it, I'm just very curious.
__________________
Kontakt Vid Tutorials->Create Outputs / Create Templates -|- SMDrums Free drums -|- Elk Video Productions -|- Tod's Music
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 01:46 PM   #19
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,485
Default

If I understand the request, what a couple of you are asking about is if there's a way to preview edits and A/B. The challenge being that alternate edits of the same section would be slightly different lengths from the subtle natural tempo variations between different takes.

The crux of the biscuit being the want to hear a (at least somewhat) finessed edit in order to make a decision on the take without the distraction of a timing gap and the mental note of dealing with that after.

Fair enough suggestion!

What I do is use ripple editing in combination with saving temp copies and using undo/redo. If I have multiple parts to audition for a particular edit, I'll slice them out and paste them nearby somewhere convenient.

Then identify the same section that is to be replaced and slice that out.

Ripple mode all tracks.

Marker at the first slice (start point).

Select that section to be replace.

** I'm not going to write out the various selection moves, assuming that part is known.

Delete it. (Content to the right 'ripples' left.)

Select candidate A.

Cursor at start position marker.

Paste. (It inserts itself and the content right of the split 'ripples' right to accommodate.)



OK, now you can undo, copy candidate B, and paste to preview a different part and so forth.

You can save it as a temp project to give yourself that trail of breadcrumbs back to that point of work and experiment with other auditions.


None of the above takes very much time. You can move pretty fast doing that.

The "work" is in identifying candidates for the edits. No DAW is going to choose your parts for you no matter what features are there. Pasting in parts of varying length to audition in ripple mode moves as fast as you think.


That workflow felt pretty 'finished' to me but YMMV. If there's something with multiple steps that you find yourself doing over and over, that's whan it's time to see if you can write a custom action (Reaper term for macro of 'actions').



The suggestion of instead making the grid static and varying the tempo to accommodate those auditions... jeeze, talk about moving the mountain!

In general (and regardless of genre, recording techniques used, click tracks or free form) grids are a special case that are useful once in a blue moon. The focus is the audio. It has all the timing/tempo information right there in front of you. Why go through the trouble to lay a grid down behind your audio for no good reason right?

I think that came about with the mechanical composition from MIDI-land and for some reason that got extended to thinking you needed to start with a grid for audio recording for some reason. It's completely superfluous for anything live performed and recorded. The drummer or rhythm section lays down the "grid" when you record the ensemble. (Or just the ensemble/band in general depending on instrumentation.) If someone makes a timing mistake that crosses the line, you fix it like any other edit.

And yes I have been listening to a lot of Zappa lately.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 04:26 PM   #20
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Just outside of Glacier National Park
Posts: 12,680
Default

Aah, okay Reynaud, I'm beginning to see. This would be like having separate TCPs/Arranges in the arrange area, all capable of different timing and time structures. Actually if you could stack different projects, starting with their time lines, that would sort of do it.

I think that would be a tall order for Reaper unless you got Justin interested in this stuff. Heh heh, I don't know, he keeps coming up with all kinds of things so who knows.

Well I wish you the best Reynaud, it looks like you've got your hands full and it appears you're well equipped to handle it.
__________________
Kontakt Vid Tutorials->Create Outputs / Create Templates -|- SMDrums Free drums -|- Elk Video Productions -|- Tod's Music
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 10:50 PM   #21
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 8,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gass n Klang View Post
so, perhaps we should create a feature request...
Done.
-Michael
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 08:48 AM   #22
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,485
Default

There have been other requests for multiple arrange windows. It's a popular request for audio editing workflow. Many people use an external editor just for a 2nd arrange window even though it might have less editing features than Reaper.

Seems like an idea that could be applied to many situations.

re: multiple release formats, I don't really have any mastering comments to add.
If those apps cater directly to the final release formats and speed some things up, then that's that.

My replies were centered around Reaper's ability to let you get your hands directly on the audio and even down to the sample level as needed with no restrictions. Cruder tools like grids and analog tape deck punch in/out simulation are an aside that is also supported in Reaper but definitely not the rule.

Last edited by serr; 06-14-2017 at 08:54 AM.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2018, 06:55 AM   #23
nicobi
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany, Slovenia, Croatia
Posts: 13
Default

Reynaud, many thanks for bringing this up. It has been a time since the last post. Any update status to the feature request ?

It definitely needs to go to the Reaper Version 6 thread. I am all in with Reynaud that Reaper needs to

• have mutiple Arrange-windows (aka EDL) of the same kind open with different property settings

Furthermore Reaper needs to get a much more sophisticated Fade Editor both as a seperate window and included into the item border editing mechanism (aka "handles"). How a fade editor should be set up can be viewed in soundBlade, Pyramix and Sequoia. The main point here is that the fade curves be editable like bezier-curves in vector editing applications. The following link may serve as an example. Note the fade curve handling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KriPT37n9Rs


Editors who know about the sound of fades especially in multi track environments where often for each track a different fade is neccessary at the same edit point value that kind of utmost control.


Regarding multiple Arrangewindows - well - even Logic Pro Version 9 and earlier and LPX can have multiple instances of a window of the same kind, linked or unlinked. Hence in Logic one could get to a basic Source-Destination-Editing-Paradigma.


Thanks for listening.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Bildschirmfoto 2018-07-27 um 15.22.26.jpg (57.8 KB, 91 views)
File Type: jpg Bildschirmfoto 2018-07-27 um 15.25.22.jpg (53.0 KB, 90 views)
__________________
MBP Early 2008 C2D 2,5 GHz; MacPro 2006 QC Xeon 3 GHz 32GB; MacPro 2010 12C 2,93 GHz 64GB; OS X all versions; Starting UNIX lately; Quadra 650 33 MHz 132 MB ram - Audiomedia III - Soundtools; Zähl VSF-M4 MicPreamp; Schoeps; Occasionally ADT audio V700 and ToolMod
nicobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2019, 08:01 AM   #24
cohler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 28
Default Classical Music Editing in Reaper

I have built a TOTAL and COMPLETE system for doing Classical Music editing (or really any multi-track acoustic music editing) in Reaper. This includes thousands of lines of code and hundreds of functions, NOT one or two simple scripts.

Anyone interested in being a beta tester, please contact me.
cohler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2019, 09:00 AM   #25
bachstudies
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dagobah
Posts: 81
Default

Does it work differently than Pelleke's scripts or my own "Classical Helper Scripts v3"? Unless you have developed a crossfade editor any "total" and "complete" system for classical will continue to be lacking, I'm afraid.

I think it would be highly appropriate, if you are serious, to post a link to your beta on this thread and we can then see what still needs to be added. This community is all about bug fixes etc, many hands make light work etc. If unwilling to do that, perhaps some screenshots with a workflow description.
bachstudies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:01 PM   #26
cohler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 28
Default

I have built a complete system on Reaper for true, better-than-Pyramix, source-destination editing.

My system is hundreds of functions and thousands of lines of code.

If you are interested in being a beta tester, contact me.
cohler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:37 PM   #27
bachstudies
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dagobah
Posts: 81
Default

Better than Pyramix? I assume better than Sequoia and SADiE too? I'd love to see some screenshots, a description of workflow and maybe a LICEcap. Why the reluctance to release a beta to the community in order to gain maximum feedback?
bachstudies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:52 PM   #28
bachstudies
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dagobah
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cohler View Post
I have built a complete system on Reaper for true, better-than-Pyramix, source-destination editing.

My system is hundreds of functions and thousands of lines of code.

If you are interested in being a beta tester, contact me.
Further, I've looked through your previous posts and you keep typing the same thing in variation over and over. Yes, I get it. You claim to have a source-destination system that is better than the big three classical DAWs. A little bit of humility would go a long way Pyramix and Sequoia have fully-fledged classical editing functions that when learned are very difficult to improve upon. If you are not interested in providing screenshots, videos or workflow, at least tell us what is to be improved upon in Pyramix, Sequoia et al.? Countless audio engineers for the world's best classical labels would probably take issue with your statement!
bachstudies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:21 PM   #29
cohler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 28
Default

I was replying to specific messages from specific people.

If you would like to be a beta tester contact me privately and I'll be happy to set you up and get you going.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bachstudies View Post
Further, I've looked through your previous posts and you keep typing the same thing in variation over and over. Yes, I get it. You claim to have a source-destination system that is better than the big three classical DAWs. A little bit of humility would go a long way Pyramix and Sequoia have fully-fledged classical editing functions that when learned are very difficult to improve upon. If you are not interested in providing screenshots, videos or workflow, at least tell us what is to be improved upon in Pyramix, Sequoia et al.? Countless audio engineers for the world's best classical labels would probably take issue with your statement!
cohler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:24 PM   #30
cohler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 28
Default

And as I noted, I have used Pyramix for many years and Sonic Solutions for many years before that (decades actually) and am fully aware of all their features and limitations.

Let me know if you are interested in beta testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bachstudies View Post
Further, I've looked through your previous posts and you keep typing the same thing in variation over and over. Yes, I get it. You claim to have a source-destination system that is better than the big three classical DAWs. A little bit of humility would go a long way Pyramix and Sequoia have fully-fledged classical editing functions that when learned are very difficult to improve upon. If you are not interested in providing screenshots, videos or workflow, at least tell us what is to be improved upon in Pyramix, Sequoia et al.? Countless audio engineers for the world's best classical labels would probably take issue with your statement!
cohler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 05:10 PM   #31
bachstudies
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dagobah
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cohler View Post
And as I noted, I have used Pyramix for many years and Sonic Solutions for many years before that (decades actually) and am fully aware of all their features and limitations.

Let me know if you are interested in beta testing.
This is all a bit too much cloak and dagger for my liking. I've been using either Sequoia and Pyramix for decades too. Please do enlighten us on the limitations of this applications. If you have built such a system, just share a few screenshots etc.
bachstudies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 05:14 PM   #32
cohler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 28
Default

No cloak and dagger. Sorry just no time to waste on people who are not serious and explaining a huge new system to a large audience of 99.9% uninterested folks.

Again, and for the last time, if you want to beta test, contact me directly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bachstudies View Post
This is all a bit too much cloak and dagger for my liking. I've been using either Sequoia and Pyramix for decades too. Please do enlighten us on the limitations of this applications. If you have built such a system, just share a few screenshots etc.
cohler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 05:38 PM   #33
cohler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 28
Default More info about the Cohler Reaper Extension

Here's a very brief description of the system:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

And here's the keyboard shortcut list:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a4dcuc2fsc...tcuts.pdf?dl=0
cohler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:09 PM   #34
peter5992
Human being with feelings
 
peter5992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 9,596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cohler View Post
Here's a very brief description of the system:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

And here's the keyboard shortcut list:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a4dcuc2fsc...tcuts.pdf?dl=0

Terrific, thanks for doing this. For my understanding, is this to make it easier to edit multi track recording where eg you have individual mikes for say ww, brass, percussion, and strings (per section), maybe with a decca mike, and a room mike as well?

Couldn't this be done by grouping the tracks, and then editing them all together?

Sorry for my ignorance. I have recorded and edited string quartets, but with a simple field recorder; editing was limited to cutting out the chatter, filtering out background noise with RX, and maybe a tiny bit of convolution reverb. I've worked in music prep at Skywalker Sound a few times, everything there is in PT as you might expect.
peter5992 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:25 PM   #35
bachstudies
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dagobah
Posts: 81
Default

I'll eat my proverbial hat.

However, from a brief glance this is still using the built-in Reaper crossfade editor? If no new editor (which I suspected), this does not address the deficiencies of the current offerings. Once tracks and items are grouped (as per my own script or manually) and source-destination edited (again per my script or Pelleke's original two-tab version) there's not much I couldn't already do. The only thing that is really lacking is a dedicated crossfade editor window a la Pyramix/Sequoia/SADiE. All the audition stuff would be part of that. What could be more simple that my S-D marker system (4 presses of the M key!) that used existing Reaper technology?

Last edited by bachstudies; Yesterday at 06:36 PM.
bachstudies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:49 PM   #36
bachstudies
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dagobah
Posts: 81
Default

https://youtu.be/KriPT37n9Rs?t=80

This shows the power of the crossfade editor in Pyramix. Note the greyed-out waveforms either side of the fade. This is critical for precise editing. Note also the buttons along the top of the fade window for auditioning and access to more detailed crossfade values and settings. Note also the ability to slide audio or the crossfade maintaining sync with all other edits.

This is the not the greatest video but you get the point. I can't find a single good Sequoia editing video that isn't basic or shows how NOT to use it.

Here's SADiE: https://youtu.be/w0ek7usisvE?t=27

Here's Pyramix again with some more involved classical editing (in French). It uses the quick drag and drop stuff as well as adjustments in the fade editor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQXwnvITQCQ

IMHO, there's nothing faster and brilliant than the Pyramix system.

Last edited by bachstudies; Yesterday at 07:10 PM.
bachstudies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:21 PM   #37
cohler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 28
Default

You can't even come close to doing what my system does with native Reaper.

My system adds hundreds of functions, fixing dozens of bugs and adding dozens if not hundreds of new features and capabilities. The primitive "grouping" that Reaper supposedly has doesn't work practically at all in real life.

Yes my system, it uses the built-in crossfade editor as PART of the crossfade editing features that are built around it. It's MUCH more powerful and easy and fast to use than the Pyramix or other crossfade editors which are clumsy, cumbersome and poorly designed. Remember as I've said already, I've used that system for more than a decade and Sonic before that for close to two decades.

I know EXACTLY what those systems can and cannot do. My new system allows one to do the MOST PRECISE and QUICK editing of crossfades that you could ever need for any editing. You can edit things an order of magnitude faster than any other system on the market.

If you would like to see, rather than pontificate here about something you haven't seen or tried, contact me to set up a time for a demo over Skype if you'd like to become a beta tester.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bachstudies View Post
I'll eat my proverbial hat.

However, from a brief glance this is still using the built-in Reaper crossfade editor? If no new editor (which I suspected), this does not address the deficiencies of the current offerings. Once tracks and items are grouped (as per my own script or manually) and source-destination edited (again per my script or Pelleke's original two-tab version) there's not much I couldn't already do. The only thing that is really lacking is a dedicated crossfade editor window a la Pyramix/Sequoia/SADiE. All the audition stuff would be part of that. What could be more simple that my S-D marker system (4 presses of the M key!) that used existing Reaper technology?
cohler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:24 PM   #38
cohler
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 28
Default

There is NO TRACK GROUPING in Reaper. That's one of the major features I add.

In orchestral music, for example, we typically record with 30 to 50 microphones: 4 to 8 general mics, 2 to 6 soloist mics, and 20 to 40 spot mics depending on the setup.

If you're filtering out background noise, then you are not making a good classical recording. We record in quiet spaces. Noise filtering degrades audio quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter5992 View Post
Terrific, thanks for doing this. For my understanding, is this to make it easier to edit multi track recording where eg you have individual mikes for say ww, brass, percussion, and strings (per section), maybe with a decca mike, and a room mike as well?

Couldn't this be done by grouping the tracks, and then editing them all together?

Sorry for my ignorance. I have recorded and edited string quartets, but with a simple field recorder; editing was limited to cutting out the chatter, filtering out background noise with RX, and maybe a tiny bit of convolution reverb. I've worked in music prep at Skywalker Sound a few times, everything there is in PT as you might expect.
cohler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:42 PM   #39
bachstudies
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dagobah
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cohler View Post
It's MUCH more powerful and easy and fast to use than the Pyramix or other crossfade editors which are clumsy, cumbersome and poorly designed.
There's an arrogance that comes across here that is unbecoming. When you refer to some of the finest tools in the classical audio business as "clumsy, cumbersome and poorly designed" there's something not quite right. Those crossfade editors are things of beauty. Reaper's grouping is not "primitive". It works as it should and it makes multi-track editing very easy (as do the built-in track groups). Dozens of "bugs"? Hundreds of new features? "Order of magnitude faster than any other system on the market"?...hmm... There's that humility again. You're a clarinetist, right? You blow your own trumpet well too.
bachstudies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:57 PM   #40
bachstudies
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Dagobah
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cohler View Post
If you're filtering out background noise, then you are not making a good classical recording. We record in quiet spaces. Noise filtering degrades audio quality.
Not directed at me but I can't help but jump in again. You've clearly gotten me triggered. Some of us professionals record live choral concerts that by their nature include what is known in the business as an audience. RX is our friend among other lovely tools. I've used a MixPre-6 II to wonderful effect but as of 2019 the technology isn't there to stun the audience into complete silence yet. We make good classical recordings, nonetheless, with various fixes in post-production. Yep, quiet spaces with no audience are wonderful (and much easier to handle) but a live concert does not automatically equal a bad recording. I know plenty of grammy-nominated colleagues who apply noise filters as a matter of course, especially for choral albums in big church/cathedral spaces. "We" use the tools we need to make the best final product. Shocker...most of the nice natural 'verb you hear is enhanced with a Bricasti box...the dynamics manually gain-ridden or pushed through a Junger box. Also some of the most amazing classical albums I've heard were recorded with a single ORTF or AB pair. You know very well that Pyramix handles such high track counts incredibly well. Also let's not forget Pan Noir!

Last edited by bachstudies; Yesterday at 09:23 PM.
bachstudies is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.