2.99 (3) alpha preview 1

[labyrinth]

Originally Posted by billybk1

What we need is the ability to route child tracks to the master bus or another bus. Right now all child tracks get permantantly routed to the parent folder track which I don't like at all. Here is a simple example:

I open EZDrummer with multi-track routing (8 separate drum tracks) and create a parent folder track. Now all child tracks get irreversibly routed to the parent folder track which limits what I can do. I prefer to route my child tracks (kick, snare, toms, hihat, etc..) directly to the master bus or to another FX bus for further processing. You can't do that in REAPER, as you can in most any other DAW hosts. Everything gets first routed to the parent folder track by default and can't be changed. That is quite limiting and unnecessary, IMO. I don't need an extra track of audio that is just the culmination of all the child tracks. I definately prefer the way SONAR/ACID Pro & Vegas handle folder tracks in this regard.

All I am asking is the option to route individual child tracks to the master or an FX bus instead of just the parent track and in turn keep the audio from even going through the parent. This feature alone would be worthwhile for me to upgrade to V3.0.

Cheers,

Billy Buck

Totally right on this, which is why having very customizable folders would rock. Still, there is a CURRENT workaround to this...turn off the Master/Parent out on the Folder track and then route all tracks elsewhere, whether 1 or many tracks, which will then get routed to the Master (unless altered at those receives).

[mio*star]

My intention is not to kill features we have now but rather add the possibility to "free-route" tracks, as beingmf said.

For me, it is a big limitation not to have the possibility to take any track and route it to any other track, defining its input and output, using busses (pretty much like every other DAW does, btw).

This is a very simple and basic concept in audio and I see no reason why we should be limited in that field in Reaper.

No problem, leave that "send to parent" tick-box, but also give us the ability to select an input and output for each track in a fully flexible way.
+ add VCAs and this would be absolutely radical.

[DuX]

I think using folder tracks as sub-group tracks is what folder tracks are all about, so the present concept is what I like, however, there are issues with this as it is now. What bothers me still is that the first audio channel is always routed to the output of the folder track no matter what you do or where you send it. I mean if you send your younger brother to fetch a bottle of Coke while you`re "watching TV" with your girlfriend, you don`t want him to still hang around now, don`t you? So when I set up a multi channel VSTi on the folder track and route all the channels to subtracks within this folder track, I end up with everything as it`s supposed to be [in my mind], except that the first channel is heard also from the folder track channel, so it is duplicated and therefore twice as loud and you can`t turn it off.

* new finding: now it`s also duplicated on the first subfolder track?! how? When I route the first audio channel to a first subfolder track I get all the channels playing in this subfolder track, too. Strange.

yea, what comes to my mind first is "hey, let`s *not* route the first channel to a subtrack, and leave it to be heard from the folder track, that should do it, but then you can`t mute just the first channel if you don`t want it - it mutes everything, and it looks messy when you have a dozen of such folder tracks, because the 1st channel is always processed differently from others. It`s especially important for a drum machine to have proper multi-routing, as you [always?] want to process drums separately with EQ, reverb, delay, compression. I mean, I do it like that all the time. Therefore I`m using EnergyXT for MIDI composing, still... the routing is fantastic, logical and easy to do even when you`re "under the influence" . It`s just more "physical" and understandable than Reaper`s routing to a "hardware mind" [hardwired? ] like me, being used to working in studio with consoles and all.

So what my logic tells me, and it would require minimal changes is to at least exclude the first pair [1/2] of audio from the VSTi`s if it [the first stereo pair] is being routed somewhere - to a subfolder track preferably. So if you muted the folder track, you wouldn`t hear anything like before, but now you can also mute only the first channel if you don`t want to hear it and everything seems more logical with a minimal change in behaviour. Also, when you mute the folder track, you shouldn`t hear anything, logically. Now that`s what I think should be changed concerning the audio routing, but what`s really bad is MIDI routing...

The concept of folder tracks with only WAV`s on your tracks works extremely well as it is now, I should mention that, but when you come to working with VSTi`s... not so well IMO. It`s really confusing. Especially for MIDI routing. Why can`t we have a VSTi in the folder track and route separate MIDI channels from the subfolder tracks to it without doing the feedback routing?

I was using v2.99 btw.

I think it`s about time we get this routing thing straight!

Cheers!

p.s. Sequencers are like women: looks is just what attracts you to it/she, `cos if you don`t get along well...

[DarkStar]

Originally Posted by DuX

I think it`s about time we get this routing thing straight!

Woop! Woop!
Pun alert

[Billoon]

Well with folder in folder, i think the vst handling situation is nearly perfect. See attached project(uses ReaSynDr)...you can either display midi or audio tracks(or both) and have them all in a 'master' folder.


The only improvements id like are...

1)option to not display child tracks in the TCP(i know theres tracks in there cause the folder icon tells me that)

2)the same ability to collapse folders in the MCP that we have in the TCP with an option to link the two states.(ie. folder is collapsed in TCP, mixer folder follows).

If im editing midi, i dont need the audio tracks displayed in the TCP and if im mixing audio, i dont need the midi tracks displayed in the MCP. I know we can hide tracks in either CP now but collapsing a folder is a lot quicker and easier.

[beingmf]

to those who are supporting the current routing concept: please show a tiny bit of empathy with those that are mixing OTB a lot (which would probably include 90% of the "pro"s). can you imagine how unnecessary this folder routing is? man, i want my snare compressed with outboard XY and my kick eq shall be outboard YZ - i have to route them all to separate channels on the console. so you say: use ReaInsert, but hell, no, 1. i want to route those channels to a subgroup that gets treated with outboard, too, 2. i want to use my console's aux channels for reverb etc.
tell me how i can do that with the current concept (and at the same time have some visual track arrangement)?

[Billoon]

beingmf,

My last post was about VSTi handling specifically, not mixing in general. I posted a FR for sepearte M/P sends a few months ago (http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=22075), so im not objecting, just trying to understand.

You can disable the master/parent send on all tracks in the folder and send postfx to any other track so i cant see the problem here.

Can you post a project file that demonstrates the problem youre having?

[billybk1]

Originally Posted by Billoon

beingmf,
You can disable the master/parent send on all tracks in the folder and send postfx to any other track so i cant see the problem here.

You can't can't send to the master from a child track like you can in any other DAW host app. So there is a problem there.

Cheers,

Billy Buck

[Billoon]

Originally Posted by billybk1

You can't can't send to the master from a child track like you can in any other DAW host app. So there is a problem there.

True, hence the FR i mentioned, but its not his problem specifically as he wants to route to sub-groups for further processing.

The simple workaround is to use a single track as a dummy master and route all needed tracks there, you could then use the fx on the true-master as post-fader fx. Its only one track and it can be hidden in the tcp.

[Ben Zero]

Originally Posted by Billoon

The simple workaround is to use a single track as a dummy master and route all needed tracks there, you could then use the fx on the true-master as post-fader fx. Its only one track and it can be hidden in the tcp.

This is an obvious workaround and something I've done but, come on, it's incredibly clunky! What's the point of having quick and easy folder tracks for organisational purposes if you have to then go create "dummy" busses to make them work the way you want them to? Completely defeats the point of the purposes of using folders to tidying your session up! And creates extra steps and potential mixing confusion, eg "what's that track do!?"

[Billoon]

Originally Posted by Ben Zero

This is an obvious workaround and something I've done but, come on, it's incredibly clunky!

Well personally, i dont see it as 'incredibly clunky', its a simple(1 track needed only) workaround.

Originally Posted by Ben Zero

What's the point of having quick and easy folder tracks for organisational purposes if you have to then go create "dummy" busses to make them work the way you want them to? Completely defeats the point of the purposes of using folders to tidying your session up!

Not 'busses', a single buss that isnt untidy because its a single track and can be hidden in the TCP.

Originally Posted by Ben Zero

And creates extra steps and potential mixing confusion, eg "what's that track do!?"

Well i dont see the big difference between sending the child tracks to a track named 'Master' and one labeled 'Dummy Master'. I cant see how there could be any confusion if you yourself created and labeled the single 'Dummy Master' track.

As i already pointed out, im for the FR(i made it 3 months ago). What i suggested is a workaround not a solution. Only Cockos can provide that.

This is getting a bit OT, might be better if this discussion was continued in the FR thread. - http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=22075

[xackley]

Once again, why not have real organizational folders and real busses. Nothing would change for those who do not want to use them. Why not have the tools that would simplify using reaper, for those who would want to use them.

[Susan G]

Hi-

I'm going to chime in and agree with Ben and xackley here, and I know Billoon just offered it as a workaround, but better to not have to create a "Dummy Master" folder, IMO. REAPER is so flexible with tracks -- it should also be flexible about folders.

But as has been said, this should probably be in the FR thread!

-Susan

[beingmf]

[had to work yesterday, couldn't comment, but really, i don't have to add anything to my previous speakers]

even the word "dummy": i'm getting a case of nerves. imo, the decision about all these "workaround" things is simple: do you want Reaper to be a truly professional app or do you want "Cockos's Olde Craft Corner"?

[semiquaver]

One of Justin's principles seems to be not to have different track types and there are big advantages to that. Tracktion has a special folder track which can't host items or fx. Which is all well and good except that it broke the ability to move clips around via commands - cut and past of items on multiple tracks became a nightmare etc etc.

I think that the separate master/parent sends idea probably does what's needed...

[Alex Stone]

Originally Posted by beingmf

[had to work yesterday, couldn't comment, but really, i don't have to add anything to my previous speakers]

even the word "dummy": i'm getting a case of nerves. imo, the decision about all these "workaround" things is simple: do you want Reaper to be a truly professional app or do you want "Cockos's Olde Craft Corner"?

Ok, i'll have to chime in on this one.

There seems to be an overwhelming urge to forge Reaper, and possibly other DAWs, in a 'console based' direction. Time and again we see threads and posts pleading for 'industry standard' auxs,busses,traditional layouts, etc..

Well, surprising as it may seem, there's a lot of users here and elsewhere who've never been near a console, or spent years hunched over one, desperate to turn a bad voice into a good one, or a poor drummer into a great one. (I spent nearly all my working life on the other side of the glass playing notes, or writing parchment for others.)

As a matter of course since i started with Reaper, i've been using two tracks as pre-masters. They're part of a template, that does a good job in pre-empting that final sound, and more than once i've added or taken away something from the pre-masters as a final polish to a piece, or in my case, driving so much from midi, adding some humanity, etc.. They also serve a great job as 'routing masters' when i want to send from a child track, but not get to the master just yet.

It's not compulsory, nor is it 'uncool' to rearrange the workflow to incorporate new elements, in a new and possibly refreshing way of making music with a computer.

An aux buss is a redirector, that you may or may not add to, or remove from. Do you need it, if you don't use it? Just because it's the 'console' way of doing things?

I continue to think that many users are a bit intimidated by the ideas constantly presented as 'the right way', if they don't know how it works, and have never seen it working.
Surprise, surprise, musicians are turning out music without a console in sight. So what?

Reaper's big advantage is the ability to turn any track into anything, and if you've been using Daws for years, as many here have, you'll have experienced more than once the timewasting frustration of having to search for a task specific track, just to fill a role, simply because the devs are either too old fashioned, or simply not smart enough to code for universal appeal.

One of Samplitude's big plusses was the uni track paradigm, and i've been hearing for years how good it is to work in, and importantly, fast.

I for one appreciate the fact that i can simply load a track, route whatever i like in and out of it, give it a colour, and call it a Buss. Job done, easy.

I urge new users reading this, who may not have ever come in contact with a desk or a console, to not let that lack of knowledge hold you back. Reaper is more than capable of fulfilling your routing needs, and, as a bonus, gives you the 'authority' to do it YOUR way, without feeling somehow less than capable if it looks different to everyone else.

On the contrary, you just may find that workflow you've been searching for, free of 'console expectations'.

This is just, imho, another industry standard urban myth, and not always applicable, and sometimes restrictive, when using a computer to compose with.

Sorry if this seems a little blunt, but the console mode arguments and discussions, are just ONE way of working, and not the be all , or end all.
If a user finds a new way to route, compose, set up templates, track, etc. without trying to follow the console way by default, then they get my vote and encouragement for creativity.

It's the END result that counts, regardless of the path, or journey.


Billoon has grabbed the nub of this, and offered a simple solution that some of us use by default, and don't suffer for it at all.
Add a pre-master, and route to it. Folderds in their current state don't give me a problem at all, particularly, when as suggested, the user can route into a pre-buss or pre-master. Where's the problem here? Is it compulsory to route straight to master from folder tracks? Why? What do you lose by putting in an additional track, including as part of a template.
It doesn't seem like rocket science, does it?

I must be missing something here......

On the bright side, there's a lot of experienced audio engineering professionals here who choose not to make a noise about the console paradigm, quite the contrary, they're often the most creative at finding new ways to work, and seem to enjoy the freedom that reaper and possibly other open system daws seem to bring to their workflow.

Curious indeed......

Alex.

[d. gauss]

Originally Posted by Alex Stone

Billoon has grabbed the nub of this, and offered a simple solution that some of us use by default, and don't suffer for it at all.
Add a pre-master, and route to it. Folders in their current state don't give me a problem at all, particularly, when as suggested, the user can route into a pre-buss or pre-master. Where's the problem here? Is it compulsory to route straight to master from folder tracks? Why? What do you lose by putting in an additional track, including as part of a template.
It doesn't seem like rocket science, does it?

sensible suggestion. "dummy" sounds like a sub-master to me. which is basic old-school console mixing practice, i.e. michael brauer style.

speaking of which, this should enlighten a few folks:
http://www.mbrauer.com/articles/tapeop.asp?pp=1

[xackley]

quote
"It's not compulsory, nor is it 'uncool' to rearrange the workflow to incorporate new elements, in a new and possibly refreshing way of making music with a computer."

Then why are you arguing against new elements that would add power to the existing structure.

About a year ago, I worked with Justin for a couple of days getting the routing to work so the Tracks could work as busses. There is a long thread in the bug forum. There is still a couple of little bugs, but it can work. This is not a case of not knowing how to route in reaper. It's about making reaper even more useful. The swiss army knife is pretty useful, but sometimes it helps to have a few more tools.

It's up to JCS anyway, I just hope that they come up something good for better project organization.

[Alex Stone]

Originally Posted by xackley

quote
Then why are you arguing against new elements that would add power to the existing structure.

It's up to JCS anyway, I just hope that they come up something good for better project organization.

but it's not an addition. It's changing the original structure into something else, that will restrict, and inhibit, what we already have, in terms of flexibility. That's what is being presented, and that's the challenge facing those users who may like the setup the way it is, because it's so flexible.
The overwhelming intent of the console paradigm is to 'force' users into accepting a narrower method of laying out their project, based on what is considered to be a more 'traditional' approach.

I'll partially agree with your second point, although i will add;

Better according to who?

Alex.

[beingmf]

alex, maybe it's 2 different approaches or expectations of Reaper as such. maybe it should be up to the developers and the company which path Reaper shall turn: a commercial, thus mature, product for people producing music and related audible products, e.g. audio engineers OR a remarkable fun "project", in eternal development, for people (commonly reffered to as "nerds", no offence meant) who have more fun experimenting (commonly referred to as "tweaking") rather than looking for a finished product within a certain timeframe.
both approaches are fine - i even could identify with each of it. i only need to decide, if i will be able to use Reaper in slick, pressed-for-time jobs then. for my own music, which can turn pretty experimental in some passages - beautiful!

in other words: you Linux, me Mac [which is not true, cause I'm working mostly on Windows now...]

[Tedwood]

I don't see how it would add power to have dedicated busses if what you you want to do with them can already be done with what we have.

Some have called using a track as a buss a "work around", but unless I am missing something it would just be using the functionality of Reaper to achieve something to a desired effect. Calling it a work-around seems to be trying to devalue what is in fact a feature - complete flexibility

You can set receives from all tracks in one click of the mouse, If folders are at least as easy to do in V.3 as they were in V.2 there isn't any problem, unless you call not resembling how a console works a problem.

Isn't it just the case that consoles have to be like that because they are hardware?
Why bind yourselves to the constraints that exist in hardware?

It seems to me if you can achieve the same things with a simpler system it doesn't matter they don't resemble hardware so long as it is easy enough to set up what you want to do.

No offense to anyone but it seems just a tad stubborn for people to want traditional just because it's familiar.

If there is no advantage except it's traditional appeal I think having no busses is progressive and will make the software easier to learn, that's got to be good hasn't it?

[xackley]

A main benefit of having busses would be to use the MCU control surface's ability to switch views, so with a simple toggle you control either tracks or you control buses.

As for emulating buses with tracks, a big limitation is that it can only be done with sends. Possibly the very top, specialized send on each track that is assign with a checkmark for Master/Parent should be a pick list that includes all the other tracks in the project, Including Master, and defaults to Parent. Defaulting to Parent would be 100% compatible with the way reaper works now.

But I am much more interested in having Organizational Folder that do no routing. Just have controls to turn the content off and on, lock the content, and can hide the Organizational Folder's content when the screen clutter of it's included tracks are not relevant to the task at hand.
OR
A button could be added to the existing track TCP that would totally lock the track controls and items and it's subfolders/sub tracks. When Locked, even the vertical zoom would have no effect, unless a track in the Locked area was selected.

What I am looking for is a way to protect parts of the project from accidental change when they sound right, hide and ignore parts of the project I want to keep but not hear, and a mechanism that allows me to view/edit only the parts I am working on, without the possibility of harming the other parts and without the screen clutter of the other parts.

[stormyandcold]

Found this from looking at the midi:glitch thread (I've looked at that thread for a year now). Will test tomorrow.

All I want from Reaper is crash and glitch-free, 24/7 stable operation and complete vst and midi support. I've read every post in this thread and appreciate the nerdiness here; although I don't know what some of you are talking about especially this "folder" thing, maybe I'm missing something? I don't actually need many features, it just HAS to work ALL and EVERYTIME.

In-line midi editing is a much missed feature that I'd used back in Cool Edit 2 days for editing drums and strings (WYSIWYG). Was so easy to change the notes in midi back then (although my cpu back then (1.4ghz t-bird, the best when I got it) couldn't really run much in real-time.

Really really really (yes, really!) appreciate the midi loop glitch being fixed. I've been running drums from an alesis sr-16 drum machine (ion iDM02 brand, no midi in) into Reaper via midi into Session Drummer 2 and sending the sound to a seperate track for recording to wav whilst recording guitar. This deal-breaking bug had meant I'd had to change the way I work. I've had to avoid midi tracks/loops and render everything to wav. Hopefully, I can go back to midi drum loops and add variety back into my drums

I've gone from cool edit 2 > n-track 4 > samplitude 7 > Sonar 6 pe in the last 7 years.

Wish I'd gone with Reaper instead of Sonar. I don't trust Sonar at all especially when Session Drummer 2 actually works better in Reaper!

Thanks Cockos for all the hard work! I'm now reaching full confidence in Reaper. You've got 2 license purchases coming soon

[w00t]

nice. havent been here in a while, cool suprise

[drillbit]

So this is what a normal DAW forum is like when there are no regular updates. Soon we will start bitching, trolling and generally becoming bastards just out of pure anticipation ;-p

Hey, 'stormyandcold', I think a lot of crashes are caused by plugins, not as much by the DAW. I bet if you ran just Reaper plugins your system would be on 24/7. Reaper's core is sublimely programmed. Compared to the hulking mass that is Cubase/Nuendo... it is truly svelte.

I understand why Justin and the gang have decided to go away and program in secret for a while (like normal companies). The impact of a big Reaper update with new graphics and smooth features will do wonders for Reaper's pro rep and maybe quieten some of the critics who rightly criticize Reapers lack of midi power.

I might even finish an album of my own with these forums being quiet.

Cheers, all

d

[Alex Stone]

I have but 1 question for the next build, or so.

Are we going to see midi keyboard input into the ME, for step inputting?

That's it.

Alex.

[NAS]

Yeah kinda still shocked that step input isn't already available by now
The ME seriously needs a major overhaul at this point because it is lacking so many features that a v3 of any serious DAW would have

NAS