Subject:Why 1 file per track?

Posted by: danika

Date:5/17/2005 1:27:27 PM

Although I've used Acid for awhile now, I've never figured out why you're limited to only 1 file per track. Practically all other music software (Cubase, Sonar, Audition, etc.) has no problem with having multiple files on the same track. Is there a reasonable explanation for why Acid has this limitation?

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Zacchino

Date:5/17/2005 4:04:50 PM

This is because Acid is not a multitracker (yet?).

I'm crying everyday because of this...

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: JohnnyRoy

Date:5/17/2005 6:19:45 PM

> Is there a reasonable explanation for why Acid has this limitation?

Yes, the reason is so that you can PAINT the loop anywhere you want on the track. In all the applications you mentioned (Cubase, SONAR, Audition, etc.) you must cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste, loops all over the place. Then when you modify the original loop, you must delete them all and cut and paste them all over again! This is why I don’t use Cubase or SONAR, etc. for composing. Making copies is an incredible INEFFECIENT way to work.

The beauty if ACID is that one track equals one loop. Paint the loop anywhere you want, modify the original loop, heck, even drop a new loop in its place, and all of the places you painted that loop change as well. IMHO, this is what makes ACID a better loop composition tool than Cubase, SONAR, etc.

~jr

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:5/17/2005 6:28:03 PM

I'll also toss out there the idea that if you want more than 1 file per track, working in ACID is probably not the best thing for you. You are probably doing the sort of work that would be accomplished much easier in a multitrack audio editing application like Vegas.

I'm constantly amazed at the number of folks posting in this forum who are trying to use ACID for so many tasks that it wasn't design for. True, ACID is very powerful and it can usually be made to do almost anything. But trying to perform so many different DAW functions on it is kind of like trying to make your food processor cook the pasta too. Why do that when you can run a different program that does handle DAW functions nearly effortlessly? *shrug* I guess lots of people forget that ACID is designed to be a loop based music creation tool.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: coolout

Date:5/17/2005 9:30:17 PM

AMEN, not to mention you can always throw them in a folder track and route them to a bus.

it's pretty much the same thing as having different files on the same track but with more flexibility.

i will admit the whole record dialog box and lack of multitrack recording is getting a bit long in the tooth.

even apple's garageband has multitrack recording and that app is freakin' free and of course that new soundtrack pro looks exactly like acid pro 3 on steroids.

no rewire, beatkeeper or chopper (things i can't live without), but dang you get all of the logic effects (including the convolution reverb and limiter) and the interface and functionality is basically acid pro 3.

i'm tempted to grab one of those $500 macs, i've already invested way too much in the windows platform.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Zacchino

Date:5/18/2005 9:34:41 AM

Jr : "In all the applications you mentioned (Cubase, SONAR, Audition, etc.) you must cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste, loops all over the place."

Actualy, Cubase SX does replace you modified object of the track to all its further copies. You just have to ask him to. So this is not an issue anymore. Take notice Sony ^^.


Chienworks : "I guess lots of people forget that ACID is designed to be a loop based music creation tool"

Yes, originally.
I think we've already discussed this one, and I agree with the ones that think Acid is evolving more toward multitracking, than loops (that was late 90's "hype", not nowdays). Loop, repetition, isn't a quality or an advantage for your music. It's just a tool, a way to handle a sound. Making music with loops makes your music boring and kiddy. Music must tell a story, without stutters.


Coolout : "not to mention you can always throw them in a folder track and route them to a bus"

My everyday meal. Sure that this makies your song look dramaticaly cleaner, but it ain't replacing multitracking's tools (e.g. Sonar's Mute Tool, or Cubase's shot selection workflow) . BTW, routing folder to bus would be great too ^^.


"i will admit the whole record dialog box and lack of multitrack recording is getting a bit long in the tooth."

Yes, that's a nightmare.

Sorry to be so insisting on this subject, but hey... That's mD's fault. He said that was the way to go so that Sony take notice ^^.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: danika

Date:5/18/2005 10:07:25 AM

>Yes, the reason is so that you can PAINT the loop anywhere you
>want on the track. In all the applications you mentioned (Cubase,
>SONAR, Audition, etc.) you must cut and paste, cut and paste, cut
>and paste, loops all over the place. Then when you modify the
>original loop, you must delete them all and cut and paste them all
>over again! This is why I don’t use Cubase or SONAR, etc. for >composing. Making copies is an incredible INEFFECIENT way to
>work.

Sorry, but that's not accurate. Cubase, Audition, and Sonar do not have a paint tool like Acid that works on multiple tracks. However, in all 3 products you can replicate loop enabled clips simply by clicking and dragging. You do not have to copy and paste. Also, if you change a loop enabled clip, the change is carried through to all replications.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: JohnnyRoy

Date:5/18/2005 11:34:29 AM

> However, in all 3 products you can replicate loop enabled clips simply by clicking and dragging

This was not what I was referring to. I know you can extend the end of a loop in these programs. I was referring to painting loops with spaces in between the parts like verse, chorus, bridge, etc. For that you must have a loop assigned to a track so the program knows what to paint.

~jr

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: randygo

Date:5/18/2005 11:37:35 AM

This has been discussed much on this forum and on the Vegas forums. There is no conceptual reason why Sony can not add support for a new multitrack-style "Audio Track" to Acid and still retain all the painting benefits of the existing "Acid Track" for loops.

Unfortunately, Sony appears to have abandoned their audio users in Vegas, and seems to have no intention of bringing them over to Acid. It is a real shame, because there is nowhere else for serious audio users to go except to another company's product.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:5/18/2005 11:56:50 AM

I thought Apple's Soundtrack was more ACID's equal than Garageband?

In any case, as JohnnyRoy mentioned, how is ACID supposed to know what you want to paint on a particular track if you have several different sources on the same track?

I think that it would be a good idea that if (and that's a big "if") ACID ever had the capacity to do multitracking, it should be kept separate or else more confusion will reign. (I could imagine a "mulitrack view" much like how the bus tracks view can be toggled.)

ACID is, first and foremost, a media looping app, just as Sound Forge is a digital audio editing app. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Iacobus
-------
RodelWorks - Original Music for the Unafraid
Buy Instant ACID by JohnnyRoy and mD!
mD at ACIDplanet

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: JamesHE

Date:5/18/2005 3:43:25 PM

"This has been discussed much on this forum and on the Vegas forums. There is no conceptual reason why Sony can not add support for a new multitrack-style "Audio Track" to Acid and still retain all the painting benefits of the existing "Acid Track" for loops.

Unfortunately, Sony appears to have abandoned their audio users in Vegas, and seems to have no intention of bringing them over to Acid. It is a real shame, because there is nowhere else for serious audio users to go except to another company's product."

Well said randygo. Acid and Vegas are great tools - but not DAW's.
The needs of my workflow have changed, my tools have not, so i'm forced to go to something else. Acid and Vegas will still get used to some extent, but until Sony makes a DAW, I'm going to have to do the majority of my work elsewhere.

Just adding Vegas style tracks to Acid probably won't be quite enough to make it a DAW. They would have to add in a lot of the editing features from Vegas into Acid too - which might complicate some of the things Acid does well. I think Acid needs to keep it's focus, but with a little more flexability on the MIDI end. Vegas just needs to be Vegas IMO. Instead of hoping that Sony adds this or that to either program, maybe we could start bugging them to take bits of all their great apps and make a new platform/ DAW. Call it Sony Audio Workstation or something - something completly new but in the Vegas/Acid/Soundforge tradition. We'd all buy it and they make even more money :)

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Zacchino

Date:5/18/2005 4:37:59 PM

Take notice Sony... All this is not good for your customer base.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Ben 

Date:5/18/2005 5:06:56 PM

Or just PLEASE let us ReWire Vegas and Acid together! Without tempo changes/maps is fine with me.

Listen to your audio user-base Sony - it's what we all want.

Ben

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: B.C.

Date:5/19/2005 9:40:15 AM

"In any case, as JohnnyRoy mentioned, how is ACID supposed to know what you want to paint on a particular track if you have several different sources on the same track?"

Please. Give us some credit. I don't think we're so dense as to get confused about the difference between a loop-Track and a generic audio-track.

This argument against this feature is really, really weak in a keep-your-head-stuck-in-the-ground way.

That said - I'm tired of tilting at this windmill. ACID will do as ACID does which is to say: it will stay tied to it's 1997 roots while we move into 2006. Look at the (lack of) activity on this forum. I, for one, get the impression that many ACID users are moving on.

I have to wonder at the apparent deny-the-world-around-them stubborness of the ACID powers-that-be.

I stil use ACID quite a bit. But much less than I used to and I hold little hope for it's relevance in the not-distant future.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:5/19/2005 10:44:16 AM

I'm feeling a little like a parrot here (due to repeating this a little earlier), but ACID uses a "pick, paint and play" paradigm, unlike Vegas.

I didn't ask how you were supposed to know the difference; I asked how was ACID supposed to know the difference.

Again, I ask: If I choose to draw or paint in on a blank area on the timeline on a particular track with different events, how is ACID supposed to know which event I want to draw or paint in? By telepathy?

As it stands, the only way I can see the multitrack thing happening is if a totally different view was created (as I mentioned earlier) OR a totally new track type was introduced.

Anything new must fit within ACID's existing paradigm, not change it. You risk alienating your existing user base otherwise.

Iacobus
-------
RodelWorks - Original Music for the Unafraid
Buy Instant ACID by JohnnyRoy and mD!
mD at ACIDplanet

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:5/19/2005 11:45:51 AM

I also wonder how tempo changes would be handled in the "audio" track. In Vegas, the timeline playback is a constant speed. In ACID it can change according to tempo. Would ACID have to beatmap the tracks so that it can keep up with the current tempo?

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:5/21/2005 10:36:58 AM

I also wonder how tempo changes would be handled in the "audio" track. In Vegas, the timeline playback is a constant speed. In ACID it can change according to tempo. Would ACID have to beatmap the tracks so that it can keep up with the current tempo?

Probably not, especially if SPD goes with the "multitrack view" idea I mentioned. Users would have to understand that these types of tracks will not timestretch with the rest of the project just like One-shots do not.

Iacobus
-------
RodelWorks - Original Music for the Unafraid
Buy Instant ACID by JohnnyRoy and mD!
mD at ACIDplanet

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: mokomo

Date:5/21/2005 9:29:24 PM

Randygo "Unfortunately, Sony appears to have abandoned their audio users in Vegas, and seems to have no intention of bringing them over to Acid. It is a real shame, because there is nowhere else for serious audio users to go except to another company's product."

I don't get your logic here. Who is abandoned? How? Also describe how Sony should bring Vegas users "over to Acid"?

Do you mean people should be offered a retrograde back to Acid from Vegas? Or that Sony should follow the Nuendo/Cubase model for Vegas/Acid?

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: JohnnyRoy

Date:5/22/2005 5:01:33 AM

> This argument against this feature is really, really weak in a keep-your-head-stuck-in-the-ground way.

No one is making an argument against this feature. In fact, I have suggested it in the past in this thread: The ACID Paradigm

Quote:
I would simply introduce a new track type that allows multiple wave files like Vegas does. I don’t think anyone would have a problem grasping a new track type with new behavior. If anything it would enhance the paradigm.

So no one has their head in the ground. We have explained in detail to Sony how we’d like to see this feature implemented. Whether or not Sony ever implements it is anyone’s guess but it could certainly fit within the ACID paradigm quite easily just like one-shots do.

~jr

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: B.C.

Date:5/22/2005 10:09:07 AM

Ahhh. I think that proposed track-type is perfect.

I would be euphoric if such a feature were introduced.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Zacchino

Date:5/22/2005 1:45:34 PM

That will suit my needs too !
Some great quotes that just speaks for me :

Coolout : "I can visualize an additional track type that supports multiple WAVs and direct recording." (and punch in/out...)

B.C. : And frankly - Re-wiring ACID to another host for this very basic feature is a total over-kill solution"

Illogical : "but here's a related thing that kills me: If you duplicate a track, you can't interchange events between two identical tracks."

And as an aswer for those who like to claim that Acid is a loop sequencer first of all and not a multitracker, one last quote from the Vegas Audio Forum :

Ziggly : "CUBASE started out as a MIDI recording and editing tool for the Atari ST. it initially could not record raw audio.
PRO TOOLS started out as Sound Designer a program that allowed editing and manipulating of E-mu Emulator II samples. It had no midi support and couldnt record or edit stereo audio files. Years later Digidesign would improve and bundle Sound Designer software with its hardware for the Mac II family of computers and call this 2-track digital recording/editing system Sound Tools.
What's the point?
Point is, other applications have grown to meet the needs of the music community. other applications have grown to meet the needs of thier users.
Theres nothing strange about it..... in fact, its a formula for success."

PS : I'd like to add that this post is only showing a shared opinion. This is not a request or a complain, this is just pointing out opinions. I do not want to take commecial facts, numbers of requests, or software philosophy in hostage. I'm showing how people care. If people didn't care, they wouldn't be writting over and over again such speculations. So this must be taken with some kindness ^^.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: gjn

Date:5/23/2005 3:09:37 AM

This problem is simple to adjust and cheap.
Install the "rewire" on végas.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: JohnnyRoy

Date:5/23/2005 5:03:07 AM

> Point is, other applications have grown to meet the needs of the music community. other applications have grown to meet the needs of thier users. Theres nothing strange about it..... in fact, its a formula for success."

And so has ACID. Remember when ACID had no MIDI? Then ACID could only playback MIDI and not record it? Then in addition to recording, MIDI VST Instrument support was added. So ACID has grown to meet the needs of its music community BUT in a way that didn’t break the ACID paradigm.

This is why it’s a bit harder for Sony. They can’t just throw in the exact same thing as its competitors. They have to figure a way to not break the paradigm that their users have come to know and love. It takes them a bit longer, but we usually get it eventually.

> I'm showing how people care. If people didn't care, they wouldn't be writing over and over again such speculations. So this must be taken with some kindness ^^.

Amen! We all love ACID and want to see it improve. This community is very dedicated because the Sony development team is very dedicated and we can see that. I’m sure Sony welcomes this kind of constructive conversation among users. It gives them a gauge as to what we want.

~jr

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: JohnnyRoy

Date:5/23/2005 5:05:52 AM

> This problem is simple to adjust and cheap. Install the "rewire" on végas.

Actually, that’s not simple because ReWrire requires a tempo map and Vegas does not have a tempo map. So first they would have to add a tempo map to Vegas which is not trivial.

Still, I agree with you. I would love to see ReWire host support added to Vegas so that ACID could be rewired in. I think it would be simpler to add a Mixed Audio Track to ACID since ACID already has everything else.

~jr

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: JamesHE

Date:5/23/2005 5:48:02 AM

question. Does their have to be a tempo map to be a rewire slave? or could it follow the master tempo map? Could Vegas just be a slave?

Forget "Rewire". Sony should come up with their own way of having these two programs wired together. They shouldn't need to liscense a program from propellerhead just to form a DAW betwen 2 of their own programs.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: drbam

Date:5/23/2005 6:07:13 AM

" I think it would be simpler to add a Mixed Audio Track to ACID since ACID already has everything else."

Simpler perhaps, but this approach is backwards in terms of workflow from how I understand many people are using Acid & Vegas. It certainly is for me. I use Acid to create initial grooves and and other foundational beds – building the composition. I then render these files and transfer to Vegas for further OD and mixing. IMO, compared to Vegas, recording live into Acid is a painfully tedious ordeal.

drbam

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Rednroll_Reload

Date:5/26/2005 7:24:41 PM

Hey guys you do know this is the exact same type of disussions I was having when I got the warm greeting from Sony in my email?

Anyhow, I just wanted to make a few comments, although it may be quickly deleted, but here it is none the less..

The big picture overall needs:
I believe what Sony needs is a complete DAW solution. I think it can be broken up into 3 major categories, I don't care if it's 3 seperate apps broken up that can be Rewired together, or rolled into one uber app. There just needs to be a complete solution either way. Here's my 3 categories for a complete DAW solution needs. And yes, all the other features that go along with each fall under them, these are just the MAIN head topics.
1. Complete midi sequencing solution
2. Complete Loop sequencing solution
3. Complete multitrack mixing/editing/recording solution.

Now as far as the discussions go for Acid getting Vegas type tracks, thus combining Items 2 and 3 into one app. I totally disagree with the viewpoints that doing this in Acid will break Acid's "Paradigm" and I further disagree about doing this will "confuse" the user. The name of the app is Acid "Pro". Thus it's intended for "professional" use. If a professional is getting confused when working with audio in an advanced application then they need to consider not doing audio professionally and should stick to it as a hobby with a tool that is dumbed down. Look at Vegas for example, it's original "Paradigm" was a multitrack recorder/editor/mixer right? SoFo added Video features, and opened the doors to a whole new audience. So why can't Acid do the same and open it's doors to people looking to do more multitrack recording/editing/mixing work in Acid?

Here's some of my ideas on how this could happen without breaking the current Acid "paradigm"

Idea#1: (As previously mentioned, but I think it was one of my first past ideas). Add a 3rd type of track.
Thus in the menu items you would see "Add audio track". This type of track would function exactly how it does in Vegas. Maybe there would have to be some kind of visual cue so that a user could easily look at a Loop track and an audio track and be able to tell the difference. But I don't think it's all that complicated because no one seems to be complaining about the differences of a "One Shot" in an Acid track and a "Loop" in an Acid track. Thus current Acid tracks with one shots are exactly the same as Vegas tracks without all the functionality as Vegas of being able to assemble multiple one shots onto a single track.

Idea#2 Increase the functionality of the paint tool.
So let's say Acid would allow you to put multiple loops onto a single track, instead of one how it is. Let's say you start assembling your project from left to right onto a singel track and you use 3 loops on that single track, we'll call them Loop1, Loop2, Loop3.. So you place Loop1 and do some painting, and then you drop in Loop2, followed by loop3. So say then you scroll to the right further down the timeline. Then you place your paint brush tool down. I think the paint brush should start to paint Loop3, because that's the last loop you placed along the timeline on that single track. Thus the paint tool defaults to the loop you last painted on THAT track. You could therefore drop a loop onto the track scribble strip area and the track would function exactly like it does now in Acid. But let's back up for a minute in my example. Let's say when you scrolled down the timeline, you didn't want the paint brush to be set to Loop3. How about you right click and a menu item pops up, that lists all the active loops in that particular track. Thus you have a "Select active take" option for the paintbrush tool similar to Vegas. Except now it would show under that "select active loop" menu, Loop1, Loop2, and Loop3, with Loop3 currently selected. No one seems to be getting too confused with the cursor tool when you right click and use "select Active take". So you could "select active loop", then choose the loop that you want to be active to the paint brush tool and start painting from that point on the timeline on the same track. Infact you should be able to drop multiple loops onto a tracks scribble strip, and whatever loops you dropped on that particular tracks scribble strip now shows up as being right click selectable for the paint tool, whenever the paint tool is houvering over that particular track.

Idea#3 Make the media icons in the media manager the "paint cans." Now think how cool this would be. I envision this one to be in conjunction with Idea#2. But try to imagine this, the paint brush functions more like a true paint brush. So there you have all your loops or other media events in the media manager. You take your paint brush tool and click on a media file. Thus, you just dipped your paint brush into a can of paint....or just designated the active take for the paint brush. Now go up to your track view and start painting where ever you want.

So if you're imagining the same thing I just described above, you'll notice I in no way broke the Acid "Paradigm" of how it currently functions. I basically added more functionality to the paint tool, but it still works the same as it does now, yet I can put multiple loops onto a single track without confusing the user, because it only takes a right click of the mouse to see what loop is currently active on the paint brush and they can change it if that's not what they want.

Anyways, I also wanted to point out to a few of you that Cubase SX3 now also has a paint brush tool for drawing out loops like Acid. So if you need more ideas on how this can be accomplished I would suggest looking at Cubase SX3 as a reference, because somehow they figured out how to put the 3 items that I listed above together in one app along with Acid's paradigm. Personally, I'll be looking pretty close at Cubase SX3 in the near future. It has a lot of the power user midi features and audio features that I've been asking for a long time to see wander their way into Acid and Vegas. I have just come to the conclusion that it will take me less time to learn and become effecient using Cubase, than it will be wasting breath here and waiting for a full featured set of tools of items 1,2,and 3 which seems very unlikely to happen.

Cheers,
Red

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: jumbuk

Date:5/26/2005 8:16:56 PM

My suggestion: carry the folder track idea a bit further:

- Add an option for all tracks within a folder to be played back on the same bus (a "Sub-group" bus). This can be done manually at the moment, but it is tedious.

- Give the folder track a group slider for volume, pan etc.

- Allow limited editing in the "collapsed" view of the folder track. In other words, the user could drag audio events to different times, change their length etc, but not "paint" new ones in.

So, the contents of the folder track would be maintained as individual tracks and could be displayed by opening the folder, but for all intents and purposes the closed folder would operate like a single track. Perhaps Sony could call it a "group" track. This would work great for groups of vocal samples, where you tend to want to treat them all to the same reverb, pan etc. It would not be difficult for Sony to implement because the separate tracks are still there.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: randygo

Date:5/27/2005 9:59:14 AM

Great suggestions, Red.

I would hate to see such a great post deleted. I think you explained nicely what many of us have been suggesting in the past.

Randy

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Zacchino

Date:5/28/2005 2:33:55 AM

I second what Red said. But it'll take time before this happens I guess. Learning Cubase SX3 isn't an easy process neither ^^.

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:5/30/2005 11:39:08 AM

But I don't think it's all that complicated because no one seems to be complaining about the differences of a "One Shot" in an Acid track and a "Loop" in an Acid track. Thus current Acid tracks with one shots are exactly the same as Vegas tracks without all the functionality as Vegas of being able to assemble multiple one shots onto a single track.

One thing I must mention: One-shots are not just used for a "multitrack" type of track. They have other uses as well.

One-shots are designed to play once in any given event vs. a Loop's continuous repetition, which makes One-shots a perfect solution to use for percussion tracks. (One-shots also do not timestretch and do not adhere to a specific pitch.) I do this all the time.

As a result, there has to be a "one file per track" paradigm. (I mean, how else are a snare and a kick supposed to hit at the same time? If they're overlapping, how would that best be represented on the timeline?)

In addition, percussion-based One-shots are typically short and thus are easily painted in their entirety when using the Paint Tool. I also copy and paste parts of a Loop but that involves more work than just dropping One-shots onto the timeline.

So, in short, do not screw with how One-shots work (with its "one file per track" paradigm like the other ACIDized track types follow). Create a new "multitrack" track type instead.

Iacobus
-------
RodelWorks - Original Music for the Unafraid
Buy Instant ACID by JohnnyRoy and mD!
mD at ACIDplanet

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: DKeenum

Date:5/30/2005 6:50:56 PM

After reading this thread, I have to say that I like one file per track. It's the way I learned acid, and it works in my mind. I guess that's a little simplistic, but then I'm kinda simple minded!

Subject:RE: Why 1 file per track?

Reply by: randygo

Date:5/31/2005 2:14:31 PM

Red's been banned again. Best to stop this discussion.