Old 01-08-2011, 11:47 PM   #1
psionic
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default Folder, damn it!

Ok, ppl I know I am a bit annoying, but making plain simple folder tracks just for storage of tracks, without any routing, sending etc, would be nice. I haven't seen a single daw without them. Reaper SCREAMS for such. Partly bcs it's weird handling of multiout vsti, but there would be plenty of use for that.

I dont like current use of tracks as folders! Folder track should have a folder specific functions like - hide all tracks that have "hide" tag marked, or hide all tracks with midi information, or hide all tracks containing audio... I don't like the idea that folder track can have sends, can be routed to somewhere, etc... It makes things a bit confusing.
psionic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 02:46 AM   #2
delphi
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 420
Default

Personally, I disagree with you cause i am completely confortable with actual folders, the only wrong behviour that i don't like is this one: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=72095

By the way, this is not the right sub-forum for a feature request or for a general discussion about folders.

This forum should be used only for pre-release discussions.
__________________
My english suxx, I know. FEATURE REQUESTS:
ReaSamplOmatic5000 Next/Prev File buttons - Allow setting of send value by right-clicking the fader

Last edited by delphi; 01-09-2011 at 03:09 AM.
delphi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 09:34 AM   #3
Burillo
Human being with feelings
 
Burillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionic View Post
Folder track should have a folder specific functions like - hide all tracks that have "hide" tag marked, or hide all tracks with midi information, or hide all tracks containing audio...
i would like to see that added without losing current functionality
__________________
From Russia with love
БЕЗНОГNМ
Burillo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 09:43 AM   #4
DBMusic
Human being with feelings
 
DBMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionic View Post
Ok, ppl I know I am a bit annoying, but making plain simple folder tracks just for storage of tracks, without any routing, sending etc, would be nice. I haven't seen a single daw without them. Reaper SCREAMS for such. Partly bcs it's weird handling of multiout vsti, but there would be plenty of use for that.

I dont like current use of tracks as folders! Folder track should have a folder specific functions like - hide all tracks that have "hide" tag marked, or hide all tracks with midi information, or hide all tracks containing audio... I don't like the idea that folder track can have sends, can be routed to somewhere, etc... It makes things a bit confusing.
I used to feel the same way. But it didn't take long for it to become another of those preconceived needs I brought with me from other DAW's. Now I find the routing of all child tracks to parent folders indispensable.

Regards,

DB
__________________
My Stuff
DBMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 09:52 AM   #5
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,421
Default

Can you give an example of a situation where you'd want tracks in a folder without routing them through it? In addition, does this happen often enough to be a major inconvenience?
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 09:57 AM   #6
DAG
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMusic View Post
I used to feel the same way. But it didn't take long for it to become another of those preconceived needs I brought with me from other DAW's. Now I find the routing of all child tracks to parent folders indispensable.

Regards,

DB
Not trying to be deprecating just curious, why and how is imposed routing in a folder track indispensable. I see only one advantage but many disadvantages. Calling a buss track a folder is just wrong, no?
DAG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 10:02 AM   #7
AdamWathan
Human being with feelings
 
AdamWathan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge, Ontario
Posts: 2,644
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAG View Post
Not trying to be deprecating just curious, why and how is imposed routing in a folder track indispensable. I see only one advantage but many disadvantages. Calling a buss track a folder is just wrong, no?
It is the absolute most simple braindead easy way to create submixes and busses I have ever seen in any DAW ever, with the best visual representation of how the routing is laid out. This is one of the absolute best features in Reaper.
AdamWathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 10:07 AM   #8
DAG
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamWathan View Post
It is the absolute most simple braindead easy way to create submixes and busses I have ever seen in any DAW ever, with the best visual representation of how the routing is laid out. This is one of the absolute best features in Reaper.
Yes it is all that and only that really. I use it all the time but folders purely for organizational reasons is something that would be nice. Call me a control freak if you wish.
DAG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 10:07 AM   #9
Burillo
Human being with feelings
 
Burillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamWathan View Post
...the absolute most simple braindead easy...
a lot of adjectives, but it is true! i've never fully understood the concept of insert, send, bussing and such until i finally started using REAPER.
__________________
From Russia with love
БЕЗНОГNМ
Burillo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 10:21 AM   #10
karl
Human being with feelings
 
karl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 486
Default

But does the fact that all child tracks are routed through the 'folder' track make any difference to the concept of just using it as a folder (storage space for tracks)? Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but if you leave all the setting (volume, pan, effects etc) on the 'folder' track alone you basically have what you're asking for... don't you?
karl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 10:45 AM   #11
Broman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 403
Default

I think he wants a more purpose-built folder track, with less visual noise that doesn't apply to pure organization (stuff like sends and volume), and more useful organization features (like a button to hide tracks based on certain filters).

I have to agree with him BUT if we get the ability to assign actions to WALTER buttons, this could (mostly) all be done with a special WALTER TCP layout that has extra buttons and no ordinary control elements.
Broman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 11:30 AM   #12
tls11823
Human being with feelings
 
tls11823's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Harrisburg, PA USA
Posts: 1,408
Default

I love the way folders currently act as an organizational tool and a routing mechanism all rolled into one. I think back to creating buses in Sonar and keeping track of what bus was a child of what other bus. In Reaper you just have to look at it and you get it immediately, even months after working on a project. Plus it becomes so simple to solo or mute things at various levels with a minimum of setup effort. The way it works can be easily taught to somebody with a passing knowledge of Reaper and it just works.

I guess if there were a way to bypass all this functionality with a button click to make folders nothing but containers, I wouldn't complain, but can't think of an example where I'd ever use it.
__________________
We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.
--Charles Kingsley... or maybe Albert Einstein... definitely somebody wiser than myself--
tls11823 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 12:42 PM   #13
DAG
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karl View Post
But does the fact that all child tracks are routed through the 'folder' track make any difference to the concept of just using it as a folder (storage space for tracks)? Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but if you leave all the setting (volume, pan, effects etc) on the 'folder' track alone you basically have what you're asking for... don't you?
I guess? Is it possible to create multiple sub mixes of parts contained in a track folder? How about if your using the track folder as a reverb bus how do you send one of the children to a different fx buss without having to go through the reverb.
DAG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 12:53 PM   #14
karl
Human being with feelings
 
karl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAG View Post
I guess? Is it possible to create multiple sub mixes of parts contained in a track folder? How about if your using the track folder as a reverb bus how do you send one of the children to a different fx buss without having to go through the reverb.
I don't really know (I'm no expert really!) - But if I'm understanding correctly, I'd simply say don't use your folder track as a reverb bus! - use another another non-folder track (and route any track you like to it if you want). You can still route from a child track to a track (or any number of tracks) outside of the folder - or to the folder track of another folder!.

How would you do it on a DAW that DOESN'T route audio through the folder "track"?
karl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 01:30 PM   #15
jnif
Human being with feelings
 
jnif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAG View Post
I guess? Is it possible to create multiple sub mixes of parts contained in a track folder? How about if your using the track folder as a reverb bus how do you send one of the children to a different fx buss without having to go through the reverb.
You can disable the Master/Parent send of the child track and then route that child track to any other track inside or outside of the folder.

jnif
jnif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 03:18 PM   #16
DAG
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnif View Post
You can disable the Master/Parent send of the child track and then route that child track to any other track inside or outside of the folder.

jnif
Doesn't behave as it should. Expected behavior would be to for one signal to the master and a aux, signal to the receive track.
DAG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 03:58 PM   #17
Burillo
Human being with feelings
 
Burillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAG View Post
Doesn't behave as it should.
Says who? IMO perfectly logical behaviour. There's not concept of "inserts", "sends", "folder tracks" and "auxes" in REAPER, there's just one - a "track". It can be whatever you want it to be - have up to 64 input channels (which doesn't restrict you from sending multiple inputs on one input channel), up to 64 outputs (which again doesn't restrict you from sending one channel to any number of other tracks) and that's it. The "send to master" tick is nothing more than a convenience, in reality it's just a send to "parent" track, be it a folder track (a buss, if you wish) or a master track (an extra big-ass master buss) so you don't have to do it manually.
__________________
From Russia with love
БЕЗНОГNМ
Burillo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 04:04 PM   #18
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,525
Default

If I may... I also wanted true storage folders and came to the realization that it's not gonna happen so the (subjectively) easiest thing to do to create a storage folder (imo) is to do the bus routing / child track thing and just mute the parent... then it won't do anything but storage.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 05:44 AM   #19
psionic
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Well I see, you people just don't want classical approach to the subject In my case, folder track would be used as container for multiple outputs from one plugin, for example. Cross-routing through folder in this case, is unnecessary and it gets on the way of doing it easy. But as someone already posted before - I am just used to another type of DAW workflow. Reaper tends to make most use of one type of tracks that it has and that's it. It's a whole different philosophy of work.

If I switch send to master/parent off for the folder track, then all becomes quiet suddenly !? It would be also nice, if there were separate controls for route through master and route through parent. In this way, I wouldn't have to create sends only to route signal out from the folder! If you people disagree with me on this, then I don't know what to think of me anymore
psionic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 06:18 AM   #20
johnrule
Human being with feelings
 
johnrule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionic View Post
I dont like current use of tracks as folders!
You might want to take a look at subprojects or PiP (project in project) implementation.

JR
johnrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 06:42 AM   #21
psionic
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrule View Post
You might want to take a look at subprojects or PiP (project in project) implementation.

JR
What's that ?

Anyway, it just came to me that renaming FOLDERS as SUBGROUPS is more adequate. In Reaper,a folder, in fact, represents a subgroup, with neat function to have it's children channels under the same graphical representation space. That's awesome in comparison to other DAWs and their routings to subgroups. A step ahead from classical mixer setups. But still - a function to be able to route a channel outside folder, without using sends (again - send in other DAW programs / real mixer, is a bit different than here) would come in handy.
psionic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 08:58 AM   #22
tls11823
Human being with feelings
 
tls11823's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Harrisburg, PA USA
Posts: 1,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionic View Post
Well I see, you people just don't want classical approach to the subject
Damn straight! Embrace the new
Quote:
Originally Posted by psionic View Post
Anyway, it just came to me that renaming FOLDERS as SUBGROUPS is more adequate.
A rose by any other name...

Coming from Sonar, I'd used folders in the past, in a manner similar to what you're describing. But I also had to create clunky series of buses to create submixes. When I came across folders in Reaper, I realized that this is the way it's supposed to work. I've never had a case where creating levels of folders within folders in Reaper gave me anything other than I wanted, and no funky routing. It's all on the screen and it just works by itself. It's a beautiful thing!
__________________
We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.
--Charles Kingsley... or maybe Albert Einstein... definitely somebody wiser than myself--
tls11823 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 09:17 AM   #23
Solar
Human being with feelings
 
Solar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,302
Default

If I may also add my little 2 cents, I would love to see Reaper keep the functionality of how Folder works now and all is routing capabilities but as well see a Real Folder Storage because sometimes it just get messier. So I vote +1 zillion to see this added in V4.

Happy New Year 2011 to ALL, wish you first and above ALL HEALTH and All the best in every step.

Cheers!
__________________
MY: Music Producer, Mix Engineer & Entrepreneur
http://soundcloud.com/officialmy
Solar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 09:41 AM   #24
johnrule
Human being with feelings
 
johnrule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionic View Post
What's that ?
Well, you could think of it as organizing your tracks in tabs rather than folders...each tab is a subproject:



In this example I have two subprojects that are represented as objects in my main project tab. The objects can be ghosted freely and editing the subprojects is reflected in the linked object.

JR
johnrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 09:55 AM   #25
tls11823
Human being with feelings
 
tls11823's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Harrisburg, PA USA
Posts: 1,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrule View Post
Well, you could think of it as organizing your tracks in tabs rather than folders...each tab is a subproject:
That's one thing that I haven't explored as I've been getting my arms around Reaper. Sounds like something worth experimenting with.
__________________
We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.
--Charles Kingsley... or maybe Albert Einstein... definitely somebody wiser than myself--
tls11823 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 10:40 AM   #26
Evan
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 3,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionic View Post
If I switch send to master/parent off for the folder track, then all becomes quiet suddenly !? It would be also nice, if there were separate controls for route through master and route through parent. In this way, I wouldn't have to create sends only to route signal out from the folder! If you people disagree with me on this, then I don't know what to think of me anymore
I'm with you. The current implementation makes sense but I would prefer something like this:

When a track is at the root level:

Send: [x] Master

When the track is in a folder:

Send: [x] Parent, [] Master (only selectable when Parent is UNchecked)

Furthermore, I would add two buttons, one for MIDI and one for audio, to select what to send (both being enabled by default). Or, even better, maybe include the Audio/MIDI routing option that appears in the normal send strips.
Evan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 10:47 AM   #27
musicbynumbers
Human being with feelings
 
musicbynumbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: brighton, uk
Posts: 12,765
Default

I would love this for folder overviews I'm hoping "PIPs" are the way and the light for this to happen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrule View Post
Well, you could think of it as organizing your tracks in tabs rather than folders...each tab is a subproject:



In this example I have two subprojects that are represented as objects in my main project tab. The objects can be ghosted freely and editing the subprojects is reflected in the linked object.

JR
musicbynumbers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 04:39 PM   #28
zappa
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 427
Default

Although I must admit to really liking the way folders work in Reaper, I can see use-cases for organisational folders that don't affect signal routing at all. Coming from Cubendo this took a bit of getting used to, and even now in some projects it would be useful for on-screen organisation without affecting mixing/routing behaviour as described above.

The question is can it be simply added without confusing the current behaviour and without any significant development work? I think so. Two ways it could be done:

1. A global config option that just turns folders into Cubendo style folders, turning off all the implicit routing/bussing. This would (should?) be cake to implement but misses the flexibility of being able to use both types of folders in a project.

2. An additional option (probably in the IO panel) to bypass all routing inherent to folder tracks, allowing folders to be selectively used in either way - while keeping the default to the current behaviour (which imo most are in favour of). This would only leave the issue of needing some indication on the TCP to show that the folder is "dumb" or "clever".

I prefer option 2 but it would certainly involve a little more development work.

While PiP is a great feature I've always been a little scared to use it extensively, fearing bugs, things "breaking" and other anomalies. I'd love to hear that it's reliable (at the expense of hijacking the thread). Also, it's a little "heavy" for what the OP is asking for, although I love the potential that PiP offers for working on big projects.

z.
__________________
http://www.droppingknowledge.org
"There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers" - anon.

Please check my (recently reopened) Normalisation bugrep and confirm, thanks!
zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 05:47 PM   #29
Burillo
Human being with feelings
 
Burillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 166
Default

what's the conceptual difference of routing tracks directly to master versus routing to parent which in turn routes to master? is the knowledge of tracks being routed to master through a parent track bugging you so much? :-)
__________________
From Russia with love
БЕЗНОГNМ
Burillo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 06:43 PM   #30
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burillo View Post
what's the conceptual difference of routing tracks directly to master versus routing to parent which in turn routes to master?
There are some potential functional differences there. What comes to mind immediately is sends from child tracks which would not be affected by reducing the parent track level.

Obviously with a true folder (that only collects and doesn't sum) you don't have that. Of course, you can turn off the master send for the parent folder in Reaper and still send all of the individual tracks to the master I suppose.

Personally, my main reason for wanting folders was for editing mostly. Dropping 24 tracks inside a folder and editing the folder track, which subsequently edits the contents, is something that Reaper's parent tracks doesn't currently allow... but that's something different I guess.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 07:14 PM   #31
karl
Human being with feelings
 
karl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Personally, my main reason for wanting folders was for editing mostly. Dropping 24 tracks inside a folder and editing the folder track, which subsequently edits the contents, is something that Reaper's parent tracks doesn't currently allow...
Now THAT is an idea I would fully support! A feature along these lines and/or Reason's block editing is the one thing I would want above all others! (I do a lot of remixing, and would be great for re-structuring)

I started a feature request a bit back where my idea was to be able to have an item on the Master Track which could be edited like a normal item: main outcome of that was the suggestion to group all items with an empty 'control' item (can be on a folder track if you like) then edit/duplicate as necessary. Seemed to do the trick when I tried it out, but once I started putting it to real-project use it proved to be unreliable. Maybe I'll revive the feature request...

It's one of the few features I 'imagined' up for myself that I thought would be useful, before I was ever aware of it existing anywhere else (and well before Reason introduced block editing!)
karl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2011, 02:26 AM   #32
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
There are some potential functional differences there. What comes to mind immediately is sends from child tracks which would not be affected by reducing the parent track level.

Obviously with a true folder (that only collects and doesn't sum) you don't have that. Of course, you can turn off the master send for the parent folder in Reaper and still send all of the individual tracks to the master I suppose.
Obviously, as with (what you call) a true folder, you can't reduce the level in the first place. If you create a regular subgroup, changing it's level wouldn't affect direct sends from tracks included in that subgroup (at least in the few DAWs and - very humble - mixer boards I worked with). Still it would be a cool thing if it (optionally) did. It's requested in the FR tracker.

I haven't thought this all through, but if you just removed the folder track's controls (volume, pan, yaddayadda) so you can't edit it's level you should have pretty much a conventional folder with the exception that it will show up as target for sends/receives and in several other places you wouldn't need to see it - and without the nifty folder content editing (which is another story but presumably not impossible to implement in the long run - though it will need much more thought than in other apps).

Last edited by gofer; 01-11-2011 at 02:37 AM.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2011, 08:55 AM   #33
Mike Stop Continues
Human being with feelings
 
Mike Stop Continues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broman View Post
I think he wants a more purpose-built folder track, with less visual noise that doesn't apply to pure organization (stuff like sends and volume), and more useful organization features (like a button to hide tracks based on certain filters).

I have to agree with him BUT if we get the ability to assign actions to WALTER buttons, this could (mostly) all be done with a special WALTER TCP layout that has extra buttons and no ordinary control elements.
We can do this already with WALTER.

What if you were to imagine a track that had nothing but a name and a folder-compression button? This is how easy it is:

Code:
Layout "Simple Folder" "simple folder"
   clear tcp.*
   set tcp.foldercomp [0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0]
   set tcp.label [20 0 200 20 0 0 0 0]
EndLayout
Add that code (or a variation of it) to any theme you want it in.
__________________
-Mike Stop Continues
ReaMenus ...the better menu set.
Mike Stop Continues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2011, 09:02 AM   #34
musicbynumbers
Human being with feelings
 
musicbynumbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: brighton, uk
Posts: 12,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Personally, my main reason for wanting folders was for editing mostly. Dropping 24 tracks inside a folder and editing the folder track, which subsequently edits the contents, is something that Reaper's parent tracks doesn't currently allow... but that's something different I guess.
I too would love this (how many times Have I said this now?)

The PIPs style overview adapted for folder overview would be even more powerful than cubendo as it shows actual waveforms/midi data
musicbynumbers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2011, 10:08 AM   #35
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
Obviously, as with (what you call) a true folder, you can't reduce the level in the first place. If you create a regular subgroup, changing it's level wouldn't affect direct sends from tracks included in that subgroup (at least in the few DAWs and - very humble - mixer boards I worked with).
Well yeah, there's no "summing level" because there's no summing. My only point there was that for "collection", a true folder doesn't change any routing nor require you to change any routing.

With a true "collection" folder you can have multiple different tracks collected in the same folder that are feeding multiple different summing groups or direct outputs ... without doing anything else, the destinations are irrelevant and they don't change. With Reaper's parent track paradigm you'd have to manually make those re-connections because every track you put under the parent will default to the parent folder destination output.

They're not really folders, they're summing groups that fold up and allow you to manually re-route away from the parent destination.

I fully agree that (for instance) creating bus summing groups in Reaper is much easier than creating bus groups in Cubase... but that's a different thing from building random collections with, or editing from, Cubase's folders. Additionally, you can actually record/punch to all of the child tracks at the same time by putting the folder track into record... same with monitor, put the folder track into monitor to monitor all of the inputs of the child tracks.

Last edited by Lawrence; 01-11-2011 at 10:15 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2011, 01:01 PM   #36
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
With a true "collection" folder you can have multiple different tracks collected in the same folder that are feeding multiple different summing groups or direct outputs ... without doing anything else, the destinations are irrelevant and they don't change. With Reaper's parent track paradigm you'd have to manually make those re-connections because every track you put under the parent will default to the parent folder destination output.

Creating summing groups in Reaper the non-folder way is done by sending to the group track and disabling master/parent send on the sending tracks. For hardware outputs (direct out) you would normally disable master/parent send as well, I believe. If you now decide to put the tracks into a folder, nothing changes. Your tracks still are routed via their sends to their groups or their hardware outputs and they won't go to the folder track and master out directly. All tracks which were outputting to master before you threw them into a folder will afterwards be going through the folder to the master. Again no change if the folder is at unity. I don't think you have to re-route anything.
Or do you? I'm practically never doing folder-less subgrouping, so it might very well be I am missing something. And actually I have the feeling, I do, but just don't get, what.

Really scratching my head. I still can't decide whether a folder track (doing it's summing) at unity settings is technically the same as children tracks that send directly to the master. I never heard a difference when throwing a bunch of tracks into a folder that is at unity, but there might be pitfalls with pan-laws? All that I can say is that the folder summing never got in my way.
In other words, would a folder track with no controls replace a non-summing folder?

Personally, I love the folder summing, because it saves me work. Instead of creating folders to clean up the track view and subgroups to arrange a comfortable mixer setup, one job takes care of the others. Easy living. That's not saying people who want non-routing folders shouldn't have them, if they make a difference.


I totally envy the easy editing of all tracks inside the folder as one via that nifty "folder item" in Cubase. Logic did that as well in a slightly different but also very nice way - not the record and monitor part though, I believe. Sounds like very useful.

Btw, record arming or monitor enabling all children tracks is no problem with SWS extension. Hopefully we'll be able to create custom action buttons on track headers at some point with our friend Walter .
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 03:15 AM   #37
psionic
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default Now I get it :)

Well, in Reaper, main routing is done via SENDS which is not so usual - one would expect that sends behave like in real mixer. Here, sends are used to really "send" to FX bus, but also to route track somewhere. Grouping tracks with sends under the folder structure in Reaper will not mess up their routings, but for someone who came fresh from other DAW/mixer environment, "SEND" as it is used in Reaper, can lead to misunderstanding basic functionality of the program. Now I understood that you can route everything - real sending and routing, with SEND controls, and all the stuff like that Folders issue, suddenly becomes pretty clear and logical. That "one track philosophy" of Reaper is something that takes time to get used to, and still, I can't really say I love it's concept, mainly bcs I worked on real equipment and other DAWs like Cubendo, where SEND is used to send signal to FX busses - not to route it around (this is bcs there is a limited send channels, i think)

I can't think of any limitations that "send signal" as it is now implemented in Reaper, could lead to, but if I find some example, I would post it here...
psionic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 03:44 AM   #38
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,172
Default

Yep, Reaper tracks don't have a separated track output assignment. Technically a track output is a post FX send (to hardware outputs or a summing bus) at unity with master/parent send disabled on the track. Advantage is that a track can easily have multiple outputs (you would realize them in other DAWs I know by adding sends to output or summing busses, so there's some similarity as soon as a track shall output to multiple targets).

My quarrel with it is that output routing has no up-front visual difference from ordinary send jobs. I'd love a track output display (and dropdown) right on the track headers and mixer strips like we are used to have elsewhere. But for my simple routing needs, where everything arrives at the master eventually anyway, I can live with what we have (much more I long for an input dropdown and display which shows the assigned track input in any track monitoring and arm state).
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 02:44 PM   #39
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,260
Default

Folder tracks
Routing freedom
Parameter modulation
Universal track concept

That's why I'm here I always hated and still do, the 'you can only route tracks to aux or groups/buses'. Before REAPER I always wondered why companies didn't drop that, in MY opinion, stupid concept inside a virtual software with endless possibilities. I know most engineers are used to that concept and well, it's always worked for them (due to consoles and patch bays) but let's face it, total routing freedom IS the bomb Send a track anywhere and route fx's internally is just priceless.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 03:26 PM   #40
benf
Human being with feelings
 
benf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: France
Posts: 2,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionic View Post
I dont like current use of tracks as folders! Folder track should have a folder specific functions like - hide all tracks that have "hide" tag marked, or hide all tracks with midi information, or hide all tracks containing audio... I don't like the idea that folder track can have sends, can be routed to somewhere, etc... It makes things a bit confusing.
You have the right not to like the way other people use tracks. And you have the right to say it. Nonetheless, nobody obliges you to do that way. If it's confusing for you, create true buses and subs. But please, don't tell other people how to act and how to think. Your best way is not supposed to be everyone's best way.
__________________
Listen and download my music on https://benest.bandcamp.com/
benf 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 06:59 PM.


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