Subject:Folder tracks

Posted by: Geoff_Wood

Date:9/18/2006 5:35:31 PM

Am I alone in thinking that folder tracks should have an overall level slider on the 'folder' track itself ? Sort of like assigning the folder to a bus, but tidier.

geoff

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: pwppch

Date:9/18/2006 5:58:44 PM

Not alone at all.

Putting controls on folder tracks is something that has been discussed many times.

Currently folder tracks are for organizational purposes.

We will review this for a future version of ACID.

Peter

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: jumbuk

Date:9/18/2006 6:50:06 PM

I think I raised this once. Combine folder tracks with busses and you could get group tracks (like groups on a mixer).

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:9/19/2006 4:13:05 AM

And Vegas 7.0b too please ! With level slider.

How come no folder tracks on V7 ? Acid has had them for last 2 versions (?) , and they are standard fare on most other apps now.....

geoff

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: BradlyMusic

Date:9/19/2006 7:15:44 AM

Probably because the majority of video users only use 3 or 4 tracks of audio. So not much need for it. Probably the same reason why there's only 3 tracks of audio available in Cinescore also.

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: ghanedan

Date:9/19/2006 7:41:48 AM

Am I alone in thinking that folder tracks should have an overall level slider on the 'folder' track itself ?

I don't want folder tracks to have any other purpose than track organization. They are good as they are now..

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:9/19/2006 8:14:19 AM

I wouldn't mind having such controls for folder tracks, but there's the possibility of things getting a bit unwieldy. For example, any volume cut or boost applied at the folder track level would have to be after any cut or boost applied at the track level.

Still, if you don't mind this, it'd be kind of handy to have if you think you have those tracks mixed to your content.

Iacobus

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: BradlyMusic

Date:9/19/2006 12:51:54 PM

"I don't want folder tracks to have any other purpose than track organization. They are good as they are now."

LOL!!! Now, that's the kind of stuff I love to hear in these forum discussions. I don't want it!!! Don't change a thing!!! It's perfect the way it is!!! Seems like a perfect customer for the Sony apps, because Sony doesn't seem to change a lot of things compared to the rest of competitive apps as far as features are concerned with each new release as it is.

So don't you dare go putting track sliders on the folder tracks so we can adjust multiple tracks like a fader group!!! Don't even think about putting mute and solo buttons on the folder tracks either, so that I could have solo or mute a group of tracks with the press of one button!!! All, those buttons and sliders get me too confused and I might be clicking on them by mistake all the time......oh, my head is spinning from all the confusion I might have to endure from just thinking about it. My mouse just wanders around blindly clicking on things as it goes. Also, while we're at it...don't even think about drag and drop of media from track to track, the cut and paste method is perfect also. Don't think about adding any additional routing options either. Infact, if I see any feature enhancements or new feature additions in Acid 7....Sony will not see any of my upgrade money. I want Acid 7 to be the same as Acid 6, so I don't get confused by feature additions or have to learn how to use anything new or in a new fashion. That's the only way Sony will see any of my upgrade money is if they just keep the Acid 7 features the same as they are now, and just have the splash screen pop up and say "Acid 7". In the mean time, I see another app being developed doing a lot of the things that users are asking for in this forum. So we can all just go and recommend to them to use that app instead of Acid if they really desire those features.

Are we about on the same page ghanedan??

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:9/19/2006 4:03:45 PM

Got the drums (or BVs, sound effects, etc) mixed beauttifully, and tidily stacked away in a folder track. Want to bring the whole drum part up a bit ? Simply tweak the folder level.

Like a bus, but tidier in the timeline.

geoff

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: Ben 

Date:9/19/2006 5:03:40 PM

Totally agree Geoff. Give us what you state, plus the ability to then route that folder track as a whole to a bus, from which we should be able to send to an aux (assignable FX). This is sorely needing in the routing capabilites of ACID and Vegas.

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: SHTUNOT

Date:9/19/2006 7:30:49 PM

Ben...

Is routing a bus to a send all you want? In other words...What is your ideal routing enviroment? Is there a hardware unit that you thought the routing was "it". A drawn diagram,a step by step signal flow chart on how you would like audio to flow from track to master...and everything in between.

Obviously if anyone else has a idea throw it into the pile and lets make some sense of all this.

Ed.

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: ghanedan

Date:9/19/2006 11:02:47 PM

"Are we about on the same page ghanedan?? "

Ok, I find your post a bit insulting because I have been working with sequencers for a decade now and I am never afraid of complexity. Staying away from complexity is the acid philosophy, but I think they use this phil. whenever they want. To call me "an ideal acid user" will be an insult; look at my post called "problems with acid-wish list" and see if anyone supported anything I said in that forum, because what I wanted back that time was called as "complexity".

On the other hand adding some options to the folder tracks will make them what SONAR calls "archive tracks". For a long time I worked with SONAR and I must confess the archive tracks were used by me only for organizational purposes. I rarely used the mute functionality and never used it for group mixing.
That's why I said they are good in acid as they are now. Because it doesn't add that much as you expect.

But ACID itself is not good as it is now specially it needs a robust MIDI engine, clip based-fx, metronome, better quantizaion window, better event editing window etc etc etc.

Think twice, write once

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: ghanedan

Date:9/19/2006 11:25:40 PM

And another point:

I don't know for what purpose you use ACID for, but it's not a good idea to increase the overall gain level of let's say 4 tracks together. Mixing needs a more detailed gain editing. You won't achieve your goal if you increase 4 tracks' levels +3 db. That would be a course mixing, you would again need to edit individual tracks to success in getting the right sound.

That might be useful in some other applications, I don't know, may be in course media music etc. But group mixing has no use in my case..

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: Pol Davril

Date:9/20/2006 7:18:24 AM

As a general reflection, I would say : Keep it simple ! .

It's always exciting to add new features. However, Acid should remain "clean" without any overloaded screens layouts. That is one of its main qualities, in comparison to other well-known tools...
Performance, reliability and stability of actual features are far more important than a bunch of new sliders !
Acid Pro 6 has already become more "complicated" than versions 4 and 5. Be careful not to go too far ...!

Just an opinion.

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: BradlyMusic

Date:9/20/2006 7:45:36 AM

"But ACID itself is not good as it is now specially it needs a robust MIDI engine, clip based-fx, metronome, better quantizaion window, better event editing window etc etc etc"

Ok, I get it now. So what you're really saying is, "My needs are more important than yours, so don't change things I find unimportant to my way of working but change the things that I find important."

Thanks for the further clarification, I totally get it now.

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: ibliss

Date:9/20/2006 8:36:42 AM

" ...it's not a good idea to increase the overall gain level of let's say 4 tracks together. Mixing needs a more detailed gain editing. You won't achieve your goal if you increase 4 tracks' levels +3 db. That would be a course mixing, you would again need to edit individual tracks to success in getting the right sound."

I think you've completely missed the point of sub-groups. It's not about being heavy handed on a mix, it's about (ironically, given you objections to this feature) keeping workflow simple. Why turn up 4 tracks individually when you can turn the group up in one hit? Mix balance within that group is another issue.

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: BradlyMusic

Date:9/20/2006 8:48:36 AM

There's also a lot of uses besides the mixing process where you could use this. Some of us Record before we reach the mixing step, and sometimes someone you're recording may say, "Can you turn down the guitars in my headphones". Well, if you recorded 8 tracks of guitars and already have them organized in a folder track, then it's simple to do, without having to now change your routing so the guitars are going to a bus, which you may or may not use come mix down time.

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: ghanedan

Date:9/20/2006 11:12:13 AM

I respect your needs.

I think mute/solo buttons will be helpful on folder tracks.

What I objected was gain slider or fx grouping.

Why ?

Because developers out there, I don't know how many there are, are a limited quantity. Not all wishes can became true in acid7. I used some other sequencers before and none of them had fx or gain grouping on organizational tracks. Do you think Acid has reached to such a perfect level that it is now time to add some exotic specialities which are not present even in the most expensive DAWs ?

I think more urgent details are missing in 6b. MIDI editing is very very premature. It must be improved.

And let me dare to add a comment ( I might be insulted again ):
Do you think Acid is mostly used for multitrack recording ? It was a simple loop based tool, they added MIDI and finally they introduced multitrack. So because MIDI was added before I think it must be more mature than mutitrack recording specialities.(not MY need but chronological need) It is not.

peace man...

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:9/20/2006 3:47:26 PM

"Why ? Because developers out there, I don't know how many there are, are a limited quantity. "

Bollocks. In the context of such a complex application it is a trivial change technically - a combination of existing folder and bus functions.

And yes, given that vital new audio features are missing from even the newest version of Vegas, ACid is being adapted to be the multitrack audio recording app of choice. Why not get it right first time - the source code must be transportable between apps to a certain degree,.

geoff

Subject:RE: Folder tracks

Reply by: Geoff_Wood

Date:9/20/2006 3:51:37 PM

I don't particularly want to route a folder to a bus ( the folder should have it's own overall controls; solo, mute, automation, envelopes on it's timeline. I just want it to behave as a bus.

But certainly add this functionality if someone wants this for the likes of a bus to a hardware o/p.

geoff