Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-18-2019, 08:23 PM   #281
Mr. Green
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferropop View Post
I don't understand, the "top layer" is just the same as hitting Ctrl-L to expand/collapse and show/hide all the takes in an item. I'm just proposing that it show you the top layer too, but that's not necessary at alll...the main point of my thread was the 'zones' thing, where what you hear is determined by the zones and not by the splits.
Zones? How do those work? And please - how do you restrict audio playback to just one lane at a time?
Mr. Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2019, 08:52 PM   #282
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferropop View Post
...the main point of my thread was the 'zones' thing, where what you hear is determined by the zones and not by the splits.
"Zones" as you describe them are the existing splits (which can be moved as you describe) with crossfades added (which can be done automatically with a change in the preferences, and/or put on a toolbar as an option if you want by "toggle auto crossfade on split" action). Unless I'm missing something.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2019, 09:18 PM   #283
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
"Zones" as you describe them are the existing splits (which can be moved as you describe) with crossfades added (which can be done automatically with a change in the preferences, and/or put on a toolbar as an option if you want by "toggle auto crossfade on split" action). Unless I'm missing something.
Totally...BUT the difference being that splits are destructive, and ruin the contiguity of the takes. If you are punching in a bunch of times, you're creating an absolute mess of your items because it splits at every punch in/out point. Look at the first post by OP in this thread where he talks about this -- it's a nightmare. In other DAWs the takes themselves are never compromised...in Reaper they are chopped up into oblivion.

My proposal of Zones alleviates this. Zones would basically specify the splits in the Final Comp...the boundaries at which you can choose active takes. The underlying takes themselves stay totally intact, and freely movable.

Last edited by ferropop; 08-18-2019 at 09:30 PM.
ferropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2019, 09:32 PM   #284
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

Splits are non-destructive though. They can easily be moved with no ill effect. You can delete one of the split items and then drag out the remaining one to replace the deleted audio (and the split will be gone). Also you can "heal item splits" to simply remove a split, and the audio is restored to the pre-split state (the fades aren't processed; it just reverts the audio file).

If someone is punching in on previous takes, it's going to necessitate a split (and crossfade) no matter what (if you want only one take to play at a time anyway). I don't think the current way is bad in that regard.

If anything I think it can look messy and a bit difficult to manage if you want to delete one particular take from an item and replace it with a take from a different lane. Or if you don't define your punch points prior to recording, you can end up with splits where you don't want them (but you can always delete them and drag out the item, because the split is non-destructive).
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2019, 09:40 PM   #285
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
Splits are non-destructive though. They can easily be moved with no ill effect. You can delete one of the split items and then drag out the remaining one to replace the deleted audio (and the split will be gone). Also you can "heal item splits" to simply remove a split, and the audio is restored to the pre-split state (the fades aren't processed; it just reverts the audio file).

If someone is punching in on previous takes, it's going to necessitate a split (and crossfade) no matter what (if you want only one take to play at a time anyway). I don't think the current way is bad in that regard.

If anything I think it can look messy and a bit difficult to manage if you want to delete one particular take from an item and replace it with a take from a different lane. Or if you don't define your punch points prior to recording, you can end up with splits where you don't want them (but you can always delete them and drag out the item, because the split is non-destructive).
James...not trying to rag on this, but you sort of seem to be haha so I'm responding cause I'm confident in what I'm saying.

Here's a totally reasonable looking track after doing many takes, punching in words or phrases. Totally standard practice.



In the current implementation, how would you go about nudging JUST the brown take forwards a bit? All I can think is to Move the split points (hoping you're not messing anything up in that process) and then Slip Editing? Does that really sound reasonable vs literally just shifting it over in my model? Just one of many things.

If it were zones, there would simply be lines defining them -- as many or as little as you want, You can add and delete them. All those takes would just be whole uninterrupted things that can be moved, stretched, whatever, and within each zone you just click the active take like you do currently.

ps, just look at that nightmarish thing.

Last edited by ferropop; 08-18-2019 at 09:46 PM.
ferropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2019, 09:51 PM   #286
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

I agree that the take arrangement looks messy. It would be nice if it were simpler to remove gaps etc. (that's something I think could be focused on for improvement).

You can slip the audio of several takes at once. Select the takes you want to slip edit so that they're the active takes. It can be across different lanes, or in the same lane (as long as they're selected/active). Select the items (or portions of them) that you want to edit (for instance if you're only intending to move 2 items in a horizontal "chain" of 5 items, make sure only those are selected by marquee select). Then slip the audio.

As for slipping the splits, hold shift while hovering the mouse over the split and drag where you want. If there's a crossfade it'll move too.

(edit) A bell went off in my head. I think I know what you mean about moving the one item forward. That's not something I'd have to deal with, the way I use takes. If anything I might have to slip edit to make the timing better. If something were that far out of time (a whole beat or measure), I wouldn't have used takes to record it in the first place. Anyway if I can think of a way to simply move that item (with or without splits) I'll let you know.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux

Last edited by JamesPeters; 08-18-2019 at 10:00 PM.
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2019, 09:58 PM   #287
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
I agree that the take arrangement looks messy. It would be nice if it were simpler to remove gaps etc. (that's something I think could be focused on for improvement).

You can slip the audio of several takes at once. Select the takes you want to slip edit so that they're the active takes. It can be across different lanes, or in the same lane (as long as they're selected/active). Select the items (or portions of them) that you want to edit (for instance if you're only intending to move 2 items in a horizontal "chain" of 5 items, make sure only those are selected by marquee select). Then slip the audio.

As for slipping the splits, hold shift while hovering the mouse over the split and drag where you want. If there's a crossfade it'll move too.
I know and use all these little hacks, but they are just that - hacks haha. I still don't see how you can heal splits -- if you select two back-to-back takes, do you use Glue? No because it gets rid of the layers. Do you use Heal Splits in Items? No that doesn't work. Do you just drag the split all the way left or right to make it 'disappear'? No because you are potentially totally destroying one of the takes whose edge is shared by that split you are moving.

The whole issue is that splits are a "destructive" action. Yes not destructive in the 90s analog sense because the original WAV IS there in the background somewhere.. but destructive in that you are ruining the integrity of the takes. Simply wanting to nudge a take should not require disrupting the integrity of EVERY OTHER take. Like that's lunacy.

I'm just proposing a system that, until someone proves otherwise, seems to improve everything that sucks about the current Reaper method while Retaining all the Awesome stuff about the current Reaper method..and there are definite advantages to the current take system over other DAWs so why not keep those and solve the problems?
ferropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2019, 10:09 PM   #288
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

There's something in what you're saying, I'm sure, that the devs could focus on improving. However it's not always clear to me. When I use takes it's always to do "another pass" of something which will be used in the same timing, usually "let's try that again without screwing it up this time". So taking one lane and making it "not split" and then moving it etc, that's never been a concern for me. If the devs feel similarly (if they don't work with takes the same way as you) then it could be why there hasn't been a change in the way it works.

I do see splits as non-destructive, not "partially destructive" nor "non-destructive in the 90s sense". I think it's important to stick to using proper terms so we can clearly communicate what needs to be addressed about this (among ourselves and to the devs). I am beginning to understand what you mean, anyway. I'll have to think more about it, imagine working with takes in ways that I haven't needed to.

Ok I looked at your image again (this one) and I don't see how the "zone" approach would make it easier to move one whole "take lane" of audio around (as per your example from a few posts ago) without affecting other potential takes within that same lane especially if those "take lanes" aren't split. The more I think about it, the more it seems it might be more helpful for some circumstances but less helpful for others. For me anyway it would probably work the same, for my intended workflow.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux

Last edited by JamesPeters; 08-18-2019 at 10:37 PM.
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 06:58 AM   #289
Mr. Green
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 334
Default

Is what I've been asking not doable?

Re-wording again for clarity's sake:
-How do I play back one - and only one - lane in an enclosing item without altering any other items in other lanes?
Mr. Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 08:45 AM   #290
deeb
Human being with feelings
 
deeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Default

i think i get what ferropop says and if so i agree. There would be no reason for the second track tho IMO, and the logic of what is heard in the end is the same as now with the splited takes system. The difference is that the split would work as a virtual split so Files are not really splited, but flexible offsets of a main content.

After that could be possible to make virtual splits into actual splits if user would want to.
deeb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 08:49 AM   #291
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deeb View Post
i think i get what ferropop says and if so i agree. There would be no reason for the second track tho IMO, and the logic of what is heard in the end is the same as now with the splited takes system. The difference is that the split would work as a virtual split so Files are not really splited, but flexible offsets of a main content.

After that could be possible to make virtual splits into actual splits if user would want to.
Exactly deeb. The zone things basically take the place of splits without actually affecting the items. And yeah exactly, they could work like Stretch Markers, where there is an action to convert stretch markers (or in this case zone markers) to splits, or whatever.

Last edited by ferropop; 08-19-2019 at 09:46 AM.
ferropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 08:51 AM   #292
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deeb View Post
i think i get what ferropop says and if so i agree. There would be no reason for the second track tho IMO, and the logic of what is heard in the end is the same as now with the splited takes system. The difference is that the split would work as a virtual split so Files are not really splited, but flexible offsets of a main content.

After that could be possible to make virtual splits into actual splits if user would want to.
The second track is just because I'm terrible at Photoshop haha -- just trying to demonstrate that the "top track" is the comp and the second track is the takes, and the comp is generated from the active takes...but that instead of Splits determining take boundaries it would be Zones, or virtual splits as you called them.
ferropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 10:11 AM   #293
Mr. Green
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 334
Default

ok - I'm just now seeing this in that image posted earlier on the previous page...

"NOTE: this is a mockup proposal, this does not exist in Reaper..."

Somehow I missed that disclaimer. So from that I gather it's not currently possible. thx
Mr. Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 01:54 PM   #294
JeffreyET
Human being with feelings
 
JeffreyET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 355
Default

FWIW - I thought I'd give the take system a try. It's convenient to record takes without fuss, (i.e. without creating & arming tracks) and then I explode them later because I'm used to having them in their own tracks to sort & edit. It works OK for me but I definitely get thrown off by the splitting issue. If I don't pay close attention to the take names I end up forgetting how may there were, and dragging and expanding duplicates.
__________________
JET Guitars Website http://www.jetguitars.com
Jeffrey's REAPER tracks http://soundcloud.com/jeffreyet
JeffreyET is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 02:17 PM   #295
JohnnyMusic
Human being with feelings
 
JohnnyMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Twin Cities, Mn
Posts: 142
Default Takes Question

-I have a takes question related to this discussion:
-I don't think what I want is possible but its been a few years so I wanted to check if the functionality has changed at all. I have been using "splits existing items and creates new takes"

-I am usually doing basic recording like a bass part, guitar parts that may come in and out, vocals,etc.

-Is it possible to have takes of different lengths om the same track that may or may not overlap, and may be different lengths, but stay in their own lane anyway and don't get split? Maybe have the take item expand to that it is as big as the current largest take or some other definable length to keep things neat?

-I feel this would be much less messy and confusing to comp a final take from. It seems like it would be so simple.
Thanks for any input on how or if I can get the functionality I am looking for.
JohnnyMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 03:23 PM   #296
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy12cfTWBPE

Free Item Positioning, then mute the items you don't to hear.

Also here's a way of comping that some of you might prefer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6YyuIK8cH8


Keep in mind that you can record takes and then explode them to separate tracks afterward. You can also implode items to a single track (from across several tracks).
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 11:00 AM   #297
analogexplosions
Human being with feelings
 
analogexplosions's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 336
Default

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world that loves Reaper's Take system.
__________________
www.dungeonbeach.com
analogexplosions is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 11:19 AM   #298
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by analogexplosions View Post
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world that loves Reaper's Take system.
There are plenty of us.

There are surely some things that could be better as mentioned, but after reading/participating in almost all these threads over the years the vast majority boil down to "I want what I expect or am used to, or x bothers me". That's not a knock on anyone since what they used before, they can't help but be used to, but when we narrow it down to pure efficiency and the end goal/result, the playing field is far more level...

Threads like this are engineered to cause disproportionate noise - even if it was accidental - some accurate complaints in the original post but some were also not correct, embellished or not actual problems and missing those simple things make me question how well someone actually knows the system and it's not rocket science.

Something that would cure an awful lot of ills, is to shore up FIPM with a handful of small features. That would cut complaints 10:1 as it would get 'split haters' into something to allow them to work without seeing them. I'm a split lover btw as they are vewy powerful mkay, there was sliced bread, then splits in takes.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 11:51 AM   #299
Mr. Green
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
There are plenty of us.

There are surely some things that could be better as mentioned, but after reading/participating in almost all these threads over the years the vast majority boil down to "I want what I expect or am used to, or x bothers me". That's not a knock on anyone since what they used before, they can't help but be used to, but when we narrow it down to pure efficiency and the end goal/result, the playing field is far more level...

Threads like this are engineered to cause disproportionate noise - even if it was accidental - some accurate complaints in the original post but some were also not correct, embellished or not actual problems and missing those simple things make me question how well someone actually knows the system and it's not rocket science.

Something that would cure an awful lot of ills, is to shore up FIPM with a handful of small features. That would cut complaints 10:1 as it would get 'split haters' into something to allow them to work without seeing them. I'm a split lover btw as they are vewy powerful mkay, there was sliced bread, then splits in takes.
Sorry, but I have to offer a response to this.
Now that I've really dug in and gotten to know the takes system on an intimate level (which you absolutely have to do before you even attempt to use it), I can see that it's quite capable for it's intended use, which is for recording a single performance on a single track on an identical time scale with multiple passes intended for comping. But once you go beyond that, it's capabilities fall short.

I actually have little need for comping multiple passes; that task is generally completed before it gets to me. What I do need, however, is multiple VERSIONS of a take for various reasons, whether it's for different mix versions, parts of an original take flown to different locations and looped, spot processing with fx, etc. Item lengths, gaps, and mutes vary widely, and a system that muddles with all that in the background is high-maintenance and unreliable in my workflow.

After putting in a massive amount of time trying to make it work over and over again, I've finally given up and resorted to keeping alternate versions on different tracks instead. While this does work for the most part, the byproduct I end up with is a mess of unwanted tracks in the Track Manager that clutters up things and slows down productivity.

If Reaper's takes system had the simple addition of handling "playlists", "track versions", or whatever you want to call it - as so many other DAWs do - this issue would be easily resolved. At least for me anyway.

Until you get into group track editing - lol.
Mr. Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 12:13 PM   #300
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Green View Post
Sorry, but I have to offer a response to this.
Now that I've really dug in and gotten to know the takes system on an intimate level (which you absolutely have to do before you even attempt to use it), I can see that it's quite capable for it's intended use, which is for recording a single performance on a single track on an identical time scale with multiple passes intended for comping. But once you go beyond that, it's capabilities fall short.

I actually have little need for comping multiple passes; that task is generally completed before it gets to me. What I do need, however, is multiple VERSIONS of a take for various reasons, whether it's for different mix versions, parts of an original take flown to different locations and looped, spot processing with fx, etc. Item lengths, gaps, and mutes vary widely, and a system that muddles with all that in the background is high-maintenance and unreliable in my workflow.

After putting in a massive amount of time trying to make it work over and over again, I've finally given up and resorted to keeping alternate versions on different tracks instead. While this does work for the most part, the byproduct I end up with is a mess of unwanted tracks in the Track Manager that clutters up things and slows down productivity.

If Reaper's takes system had the simple addition of handling "playlists", "track versions", or whatever you want to call it - as so many other DAWs do - this issue would be easily resolved. At least for me anyway.

Until you get into group track editing - lol.
I've done all of that six ways from Sunday so you're gonna have to be more specific. I've regularly heavily edited 12 mic/track drum tracks with 10 takes each, without issue and efficiently (that includes slicing and dicing the various takes together) - multi-mic'd guitar, keyboard etc. tracks with 50 takes and heavy editing, the list goes on and on and I can finish as accurately and efficiently as anyone I've seen complain thus far for most duties. Now if you are specific, you might find something I agree with as there are a few.

Are you sure you know it intimately? That's an honest and sincere question. Also PT Playlists are *track* versions, that's a feature that deals with takes but nothing to do with the current take system other than the nicety of having such a feature. That I agree with but it always gets conflated into the totality of the take system and that's not going to help. I'm pretty sure I've begged in this thread that we make that distinction (if we ever want any possibility of it being added).
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-20-2019 at 12:21 PM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 12:17 PM   #301
deeb
Human being with feelings
 
deeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Default

Karbon do you know how to solve what ferropop asked?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferropop View Post


In the current implementation, how would you go about nudging JUST the brown take forwards a bit?
deeb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 12:34 PM   #302
Mr. Green
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
...Also PT Playlists are *track* versions, that's a feature that deals with takes but nothing to do with the current take system other than the nicety of having such a feature. That I agree with but it always gets conflated into the totality of the take system and that's not going to help. I'm pretty sure I've begged in this thread that we make that distinction (if we ever want any possibility of it being added).
This was exactly my point, karbomusic; the distinction between intended use vs actual use. I was attempting to be non-inflammatory. Apologies if I offended.

I really don't want to get into the rest.
Mr. Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 12:46 PM   #303
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deeb View Post
Karbon do you know how to solve what ferropop asked?
Select it then Alt+Drag
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-20-2019 at 01:01 PM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 12:47 PM   #304
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Green View Post
This was exactly my point, karbomusic; the distinction between intended use vs actual use. I was attempting to be non-inflammatory. Apologies if I offended.

I really don't want to get into the rest.
I'm never really offended, but I will ask that whomever want's PT style playlists/track versions to make it it's own feature - it is a very important distinction that will go a long way. Also disagreeing or challenging ideas and working through them isn't inflammatory - it's the only way to get to understanding.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-20-2019 at 01:04 PM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 01:03 PM   #305
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Alt+Drag
Not really, because he wants the items to be in different positions (and possibly different lengths, not using them as "takes" which can replace others by clicking on them). Which means he doesn't want to use the takes system at all, IMO. In that case, those 2 videos I linked would be better workflows. (Or that he wants PT style playlists implemented.)

I agree a lot of the complaints about the takes system seem to be that people want to use it for different reasons than (what I have to assume is) the original intended reason. To use it for takes alone, it's really handy and fast. To use it like PT style playlists, definitely not.

@Mr. Green: As for keeping different versions on different tracks, and having the track manager cluttered as a result, I think that might be overcome by working a bit differently. See this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xdj_Qnq61U

Providing you name your tracks appropriately, you can set up a toolbar (or keyboard shortcuts) to recall only certain tracks and hide others. An option for that which might help as well: if you keep your "track versions" in folders, then the top-level (folder) tracks as the organizers for each group of "versions" (child tracks), you can have an action that will make the child tracks appear or disappear, leaving only the top-level tracks (folders) to mix with. I can imagine a system using that script and the actions it generates, making a toolbar which will allow for some kind of "track version" management.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 01:06 PM   #306
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
Not really, because he wants the items to be in different positions (and possibly different lengths, not using them as "takes" which can replace others by clicking on them). Which means he doesn't want to use the takes system at all, IMO. In that case, those 2 videos I linked would be better workflows. (Or that he wants PT style playlists implemented.)
I have not read his/her posts but if they want the brown moved/nudged using takes (it's a takes thread), I can certainly move it and make that work. Which brings me to the point that we need to look at it from "can we get the intended result, with the same accuracy and efficiency" if that is yes, how one gets there is irrelevant outside of personal preference and I don't argue preference, I argue getting the job done. I adopted to the system just like everyone else did.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 01:22 PM   #307
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

The takes system works in chunks, and for its intended use it makes sense. To move "chunks" around arbitrarily doesn't really make sense for that intended use, so it's never bothered me that I can't do that. This is one of the things brought up in this thread.

Also the ideas that splits are "destructive", and that you can't have crossfades added to splits automatically, were incorrect. If someone just doesn't want splits because they generally don't want to work in the takes system fashion, I understand. But to complain that the splits are destructive doesn't make sense and as such takes away from constructive criticism by adding confusion/conflation. Replacing "splits" with "zones" doesn't even help with that one example that's being brought up. A different system is required to work that way, and it wouldn't work effectively as a "takes system".

Specifically targeting the aspects of the takes system which can be improved upon: that's a good idea.

Asking about a new system that's like PT playlists: that's also a good idea (for those who want it).

Conflating the two and using incorrect terminology won't get us anywhere though.

Maybe using a combination of the takes system, plus free item positioning, would work for some of this. A track can have both. A person can toggle FIP mode per track any time. And you can record FIP, then implode those as takes if/when you want (leaving the rest of the track unaltered), or vice versa. Plus groups of takes, and/or groups of items in FIP, can be saved as "comps" (for their mute/play status). It just takes a bit of understanding about the current system.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux

Last edited by JamesPeters; 08-20-2019 at 01:44 PM.
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 01:35 PM   #308
Mr. Green
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
As for keeping different versions on different tracks, and having the track manager cluttered as a result, I think that might be overcome by working a bit differently. See this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xdj_Qnq61U

Providing you name your tracks appropriately, you can set up a toolbar (or keyboard shortcuts) to recall only certain tracks and hide others. An option for that which might help as well: if you keep your "track versions" in folders, then the top-level (folder) tracks as the organizers for each group of "versions" (child tracks), you can have an action that will make the child tracks appear or disappear, leaving only the top-level tracks (folders) to mix with. I can imagine a system using that script and the actions it generates, making a toolbar which will allow for some kind of "track version" management.
Thanks JamesPeters. I'm using a folder system myself (name filtering doesn't really work for me, as I don't like to rename other people's stuff). What I was referring to though was the Track Manager. I use it often, and it doesn't hide anything. Unless it does, and I just don't know about it (sometimes you never know with this app).
Mr. Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 01:43 PM   #309
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

Ah! Ok well I played around a bit with track manager (with 200 tracks in it) and realized it could be tricky to quickly hide "all but the tracks named XXX" (so that I could view/work on only those named XXX). It has a filter at the top but it makes the other tracks disappear immediately, so I can't use it to make a selection of "everything else" so that I can hide them from TCP/MCP. But I then realized...

There are options (in the bottom right dialog): hide filtered-out tracks in TCP (and/or MCP).

So if you want to work on "vocals" you can type that in the filter, and the rest will vanish from TCP and/or MCP until you clear the filter.

This might help or maybe not, but I figured I'd mention it just in case.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 01:45 PM   #310
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
The takes system works in chunks...
Not disagreeing with your post but the bigger (and IMHO most important) picture is getting to the end result of the mix/project. Many of these discussions get terribly into the weeds about how it's done but "if" it is possible to get to the same result, as fast and as accurately, it's not a problem with the system.

I'm not claiming that is always the case, it isn't, but it very often is the case when someone is sure it isn't.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 01:49 PM   #311
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,621
Default

Yeah I understand. Anyway it's difficult for me to imagine a workflow someone else might want to use, sometimes. I don't want to take away from their arguments at all. I'm sure most of them aren't saying they "can't" use Reaper the way it is, so much as they'd prefer if it had some more options. The idea of Reaper becoming more flexible in a way I don't even understand at the moment: that's fine by me since I might even want to work that way. I just figured I'd try to help clear some of this up at the moment, if I could.
__________________
http://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 01:53 PM   #312
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Regarding track manager, swipe/drag is helpful. For selecting and hiding tracks you don't want to see, inverse filtering etc. try ReaConsole. Not saying it's ideal but knowing is better than not.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-20-2019 at 02:00 PM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 02:00 PM   #313
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
Yeah I understand. Anyway it's difficult for me to imagine a workflow someone else might want to use, sometimes. I don't want to take away from their arguments at all. I'm sure most of them aren't saying they "can't" use Reaper the way it is, so much as they'd prefer if it had some more options. The idea of Reaper becoming more flexible in a way I don't even understand at the moment: that's fine by me since I might even want to work that way. I just figured I'd try to help clear some of this up at the moment, if I could.
Glad you chimed into help. I don't always understand either but now try to narrow it down to figuring out if there is a current method that is as efficient with the same accuracy/lack of room for error. Only because it helps us all separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not that I'm not empathetic to someone who would prefer to keep what they already learned, it just needs more than that if there is a current method that is as efficient.

We sort of live in a world where things constantly change and we have to constantly learn new things every day - switching DAWs is high on that list because of the blackmagic industry audio has always kind of been, everyone comes up with their own standards.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 03:12 PM   #314
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
There are surely some things that could be better as mentioned, but after reading/participating in almost all these threads over the years the vast majority boil down to "I want what I expect or am used to, or x bothers me".
Why do you keep saying that? While many people will chime in and say "Do it like Pro Tools" or "Do it like Logic", the most thoughtful and thorough posts are not calling out other DAWs. It's not "I want what I expect or am used to, or x bothers me," but "I think this could be implemented better."

As I've stated before, I use Reaper every day. I use the current take system. I'm constantly deleting leftover items and healing splits that I didn't create. My workflow is the normal workflow in any professional recording studio, where time is money. The take system is not efficient in that scenario. Ferropop's proposed "Zone" method is about the best suggestion that I've found thus far.

I'm not asking Reaper devs to change the current system. I'm asking for them to give us a few more options.

There are already three modes (default, tape and layers). Why not a fourth? You won't have to change your workflow at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I don't always understand either but now try to narrow it down to figuring out if there is a current method that is as efficient with the same accuracy/lack of room for error. Only because it helps us all separate the wheat from the chaff.
I don't think you are doing a very good job of separating the wheat from the chaff if you don't understand the basics of what people are suggesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
It's not that I'm not empathetic to someone who would prefer to keep what they already learned, it just needs more than that if there is a current method that is as efficient.
How about a current method with a few more options added?

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
We sort of live in a world where things constantly change and we have to constantly learn new things every day - switching DAWs is high on that list because of the blackmagic industry audio has always kind of been, everyone comes up with their own standards.
That's one way of looking at it. But most of this isn't Industry Black Magic. Most of this is responding to the real-world needs of recording engineers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
I don't want to take away from their arguments at all. I'm sure most of them aren't saying they "can't" use Reaper the way it is, so much as they'd prefer if it had some more options.

BINGO. Thank you.

Last edited by citizenkeith; 08-20-2019 at 03:27 PM.
citizenkeith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 04:29 PM   #315
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Edit: Actually, never mind.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-20-2019 at 05:58 PM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 10:48 PM   #316
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
The takes system works in chunks, and for its intended use it makes sense. To move "chunks" around arbitrarily doesn't really make sense for that intended use, so it's never bothered me that I can't do that. This is one of the things brought up in this thread.

Also the ideas that splits are "destructive", and that you can't have crossfades added to splits automatically, were incorrect. If someone just doesn't want splits because they generally don't want to work in the takes system fashion, I understand. But to complain that the splits are destructive doesn't make sense and as such takes away from constructive criticism by adding confusion/conflation. Replacing "splits" with "zones" doesn't even help with that one example that's being brought up. A different system is required to work that way, and it wouldn't work effectively as a "takes system".

Specifically targeting the aspects of the takes system which can be improved upon: that's a good idea.

Asking about a new system that's like PT playlists: that's also a good idea (for those who want it).

Conflating the two and using incorrect terminology won't get us anywhere though.

Maybe using a combination of the takes system, plus free item positioning, would work for some of this. A track can have both. A person can toggle FIP mode per track any time. And you can record FIP, then implode those as takes if/when you want (leaving the rest of the track unaltered), or vice versa. Plus groups of takes, and/or groups of items in FIP, can be saved as "comps" (for their mute/play status). It just takes a bit of understanding about the current system.
James I dunno why you take such issue with what I proposed hahah, like it's so well thought out and absolutely does solve so many of the issues brought up by OP.

...like, I've been using Reaper exclusively for 10 years man, I know that crossfades exist. I know how to work the takes system to the bone, I use it daily professionally. And therefore, i know intimately how some aspects of it suck terribly.

All I'm proposing is that takes get stacked (in a similar way to free item positioning so they are independently manipulatable within their own lanes) but still operate like the current takes system (where you select active takes) BUT the boundaries of selecting the active take are a NEW thing that i'm calling zones, rather than at splits. Splits absolutely ARE destructive, you keep saying they aren't. If they aren't destructive, then how would you "put back together" an item that has been split and make it look like it did pre-split? THIS is my point -- every time a split happens, you're messing with the recordings in an irreversable way. Every time you punch in, All the other takes get spliced up a trillion times, and especially with overlaps it creates a complete nightmare to sort through.

If we had "virtual splits" or "zones markers" or whatever, all the takes would stay whole and uncompromised, and the boundaries for selecting the active takes becomes the zone markers rather than a destructive split. You could add or delete these zone markers at will, it would be so elegant. All the takes remain whole, not cut up, they can be pulled out of the item in their original form and not all split up, they can be moved around because they are in a lane...This just seems so obviously better to me, and is something no DAW has done, and honestly doesn't seem like that crazy of an overhaul -- I just don't get the opposition lol.

Last edited by ferropop; 08-21-2019 at 06:18 AM.
ferropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 06:22 AM   #317
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferropop View Post
If we had "virtual splits" or "zones markers" or whatever, all the takes would stay whole and uncompromised, and the boundaries for selecting the active takes becomes the zone markers rather than a destructive split. You could add or delete these zone markers at will, it would be so elegant. This just seems so obviously better to me, and is something no DAW has done, and honestly doesn't seem like that crazy of an overhaul -- I just don't get the opposition lol.
What your asking needs to be part of FIPM or similar and not the existing split/takes/containers part of the system. Also, cockos did exactly the above... "something no other daw has done", it's elegant to many but not to others. The same would very likely apply to your suggestion IMHO.

Ideally if you don't like splits, FIPM needs a few changes - I explained this way back in 2009 or 2010 but I can't find that old thread. Maybe I'll reexplain in the future, though it probably already exists in this thread. Splits as-is (except for one small needed tweak) make life way better for me FYI and I still think Justin was ahead of the curve on this part but just my opinion.

As far as splits being destructive, I guess you guys will argue that a lot but it doesn't touch the underlying audio file. In DAWs, destructive means affecting the underlying audio file- splits do not do that - even if you don't agree we need to be consistent from a terminology standpoint.

Notice I easily remove all splits below and the original audio is retained - I hope what I'm demonstrating below makes sense - in that little section all takes are still there, all splits are removed. It doesn't fit every use case but it does fit a lot of them. Be aware, I would typically only do this if I had a bunch of small splits near the end of the recording - because... the splits are extremely useful to me and removing them would create more work when editing.



Even with the splits it is rare (if at all) to cause a glitch etc. at the split boundary for the same take, making it 'somewhat' of a wait for it...


...a what bothers one or not issue (sorry!).
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 08-21-2019 at 06:45 AM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 07:37 AM   #318
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 7,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
The takes system works in chunks, and for its intended use it makes sense.
I in fact used the take system only just once for a small project (-> https://soundcloud.com/user-213300358/sunrise ) to record multiple takes from multiple players (done to a click track) and try to do an appropriate mix from the collected material. Too little time invested to establish a proper "workflow".

As recording in Reaper by default creates new takes I just got the project in that form: some 8 tracks, with between 2 and 10 takes each.

I'd like to understand the take system without any prejudice regarding a "traditional" workflow.

What in fact is it intended to do and what is it it can't do ?

-Michael

Last edited by mschnell; 08-21-2019 at 08:09 AM.
mschnell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 07:57 AM   #319
ferropop
Human being with feelings
 
ferropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
What your asking needs to be part of FIPM or similar and not the existing split/takes/containers part of the system. Also, cockos did exactly the above... "something no other daw has done", it's elegant to many but not to others. The same would very likely apply to your suggestion IMHO.

Ideally if you don't like splits, FIPM needs a few changes - I explained this way back in 2009 or 2010 but I can't find that old thread. Maybe I'll reexplain in the future, though it probably already exists in this thread. Splits as-is (except for one small needed tweak) make life way better for me FYI and I still think Justin was ahead of the curve on this part but just my opinion.

As far as splits being destructive, I guess you guys will argue that a lot but it doesn't touch the underlying audio file. In DAWs, destructive means affecting the underlying audio file- splits do not do that - even if you don't agree we need to be consistent from a terminology standpoint.

Notice I easily remove all splits below and the original audio is retained - I hope what I'm demonstrating below makes sense - in that little section all takes are still there, all splits are removed. It doesn't fit every use case but it does fit a lot of them. Be aware, I would typically only do this if I had a bunch of small splits near the end of the recording - because... the splits are extremely useful to me and removing them would create more work when editing.



Even with the splits it is rare (if at all) to cause a glitch etc. at the split boundary for the same take, making it 'somewhat' of a wait for it...


...a what bothers one or not issue (sorry!).
Totally hear you - I actually think the Reaper takes system is brilliant, and there is no faster workflow because of how quickly you can audition, bam bam bam pick takes, adjust the split, quickly do a crossfade, it's an unbelievably fast system...but it's messy as hell once you start overlapping takes that don't share edges. I've resorted to always doing punch-ins from grid lines, which is definitely not ideal when punching in a word or phrase that is mid-line because it cuts off the monitoring to the existing take at the punch point...you see where I'm going with this. This can all be improved...using a zones kind of thing would give you the best of ProTools and Reaper workflow at the same time. A unique improvement to a unique thing.

And as for splits being destructive -- yeah agreed let's settle on terminology. What should it be referred to when an item is diced up beyond recognition and unable to be put back together without deleting surrounding split items and dragging to the (hopefully) original position? Other than "destructive" I struggle haha. We all have our tricks to deal with the side-effects of the awesome Reaper takes system, but to suggest that there isn't a problem that could be (in my proposition seemingly easily) resolved is a bit odd to me. I know that's not what you're saying, I'm just surprised that this elegant solution is getting weird push-back, when it gives everyone what they want -- the takes system in a much cleaner and better way with no drawbacks.

Last edited by ferropop; 08-21-2019 at 08:03 AM.
ferropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 08:07 AM   #320
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferropop View Post
I'm just surprised that this elegant solution is getting weird push-back, when it gives everyone what they want -- the takes system in a much cleaner and better way with no drawbacks.
I think ^it's probably more horses for courses.

All those tiny splits at ends, are gone before I realize I even did it and as you can see I always use collapsed takes because it is objectively less messy and more efficient by leaps and bounds - I can't remember the last time I expanded takes, they eat up real estate even when not messy in any DAW that stacks top to bottom vs front to back.

Normal splits as I might call them, I like just the way they are. And, as I mentioned there are a handful of tweaks to FIPM or other non-split types of takes that would solve an awful lot of complaints. Maybe, I can revamp what those tweaks would be but since I don't use FIPM, I'd have to pull it up and use it to remind myself of what they were.

Thanks for the well-thought out reply.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   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 04:01 PM.


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