Zynewave.
SerendipityFirst just a note: I think we need a Podium FAQ here or maybe a WIKI. I think that would ease up on some of the most asked questions and would make it easier for newbies like myself, and especially potential future users, to get into the program faster and easier. There’s a lot of finer detail, not in the manual, of how to do things that could be put there since there’s no “Podium Power” book out yet.:wink: Maybe it’s too early? I don’t know how many Podium users there are, certainly not that many active on this board. But if we, and Frits, want the userbase to grow I think that it’ll be nesessary sooner or later. Just a thought.
Ok, on to my question:
When using multitimbral multi I/O instruments, how do you most efficiently or correctly lay them out in the track layout? I’m not thinking inserts here but global.
I have two similar example layouts to show here. Would any of them be ok or are there easier ways?
Master Out
|
|-multiinstrument audio 1+2
| |
| |-multiinstrument midi ch1
|
|-multiinstrument audio 3+4
| |
| |-multiinstrument midi ch2
|
|-multiinstrument audio 5+6
| |
| |-multiinstrument midi ch3
|
.
.
.
|-multiinstrument audio 15+16
| |
| |-multiinstrument midi ch8
Master Out
|
|- Multitimbral-multi I/O instrument grouptrack
|
|-multiinstrument audio 1+2
| |
| |-multiinstrument midi ch1
|
|-multiinstrument audio 3+4
| |
| |-multiinstrument midi ch2
|
|-multiinstrument audio 5+6
| |
| |-multiinstrument midi ch3
|
.
.
.
|-multiinstrument audio 15+16
| |
| |-multiinstrument midi ch8
Zynewavesince there’s no “Podium Power” book out yet.;) Maybe it’s too early?
I’m looking forward to reading a Podium Power book too ;). Hopefully some day someone will find it worthwhile creating alternative documentation, and make some money selling it. It’s hard for me to find the time to expand on the documentation. There’s just so much coding to do still 🙂
As far as I can tell, the only difference in your two layouts, are that one has all the tracks inside a group track. Either is fine. The group track version is preferrable if your arrangement contains a lot of other tracks.
I also notice that you have placed the MIDI channel tracks as children of the audio output tracks. That would only make sense if your plugin is set up so that anything played on MIDI channel 1 is only output on 1+2, and MIDI channel 2 only output on 3+4 etc. Otherwise I would recommend putting all audio and MIDI mappings on the same group level.
Serendipity@Zynewave wrote:
since there’s no “Podium Power” book out yet.;) Maybe it’s too early?
It’s hard for me to find the time to expand on the documentation. There’s just so much coding to do still 🙂
Well, yes I can certainly understand that. 🙂 However, the more info and understanding the more users you’ll have I’m sure. I as a user will also benefit from this off course.
@Zynewave wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only difference in your two layouts, are that one has all the tracks inside a group track. Either is fine. The group track version is preferrable if your arrangement contains a lot of other tracks.
Sure, that was what I had in mind. I just wanted to know if there was a “better” way.
@Zynewave wrote:
I also notice that you have placed the MIDI channel tracks as children of the audio output tracks. That would only make sense if your plugin is set up so that anything played on MIDI channel 1 is only output on 1+2, and MIDI channel 2 only output on 3+4 etc. Otherwise I would recommend putting all audio and MIDI mappings on the same group level.
Well, the examples I gave would be easier to mix and apply specific effects to the specific channels wouldn’t you say? And it was just one..or two ways of doing it off course.
Thanks for the help.
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
Maybe it’s too early?
Interesting…I suppose either way maybe the guys at SWA could be interested. As you have already got the ball rolling with the existing Podium videos they may be interested in taking the time to produce a detailed video.
They recently announced a very detailed video for Tracktion. It does look quite professional.
KVR thread
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138206
SWA website
http://swavideo.com/
SWA Current collection.
http://swavideo.com/?page=videos
I imagine a similar one for Podium would be of great help to new users and potential customers surely. Effectively an extension of the already very useful existing Podium videos.
@Serendipity wrote:
Well, the examples I gave would be easier to mix and apply specific effects to the specific channels wouldn’t you say?
He he… I would. One of the examples you gave is exactly the way I have Stylus RMX set up in my default template. 😉
Oh yes and I agree, I think Podium would benefit from an FAQ.
PodianerPerhaps we all could contribute to that..
The “tutorial” that is made sticky here in the forum could be opened. Then we could all start to gather hints, or tips, FAQ or even tutorial projects for certain “operations” in podium. There could be pictures to underline the certain workflow. Frits could intervene if something is described the wrong way for example. I’ve seen a similar thread over at KVR concerning eXT.
How is that?
Zynewave@Podianer wrote:
Perhaps we all could contribute to that..
The “tutorial” that is made sticky here in the forum could be opened. Then we could all start to gather hints, or tips, FAQ or even tutorial projects for certain “operations” in podium. There could be pictures to underline the certain workflow. Frits could intervene if something is described the wrong way for example. I’ve seen a similar thread over at KVR concerning eXT.
How is that?
Today I surfed the web for some easy-to-use Wiki solutions. There are almost too many alternatives to consider 😯
There are some pretty advanced packages, many which are based on MySQL databases. A tempting example is the MediaWiki, which is used for http://www.wikipedia.com. However I am going to have a look at some simpler text-based solutions, such as: PmWiki, TWiki and DokuWiki. Anybody have any Wiki experience or recommendations they want to share?
ConquistadorPmWiki seems to have a nice combination of ease of use and key functionality.
TWiki seems to be the most feature rich of them all, I guess it’s better for future proofing.
DokuWiki seems to be the simplest.
As for an existing example of a wiki try this…
http://p5.sonarama.com/p5/index.php/Home
No idea what software was used but it’s a very good effort. 🙂
EDIT:Just seen this one…maybe the best of the bunch. You may want to consider this as well.
ZynewaveNo idea what software was used but it’s a very good effort
It’s MediaWiki. It has a ‘powered by MediaWiki’ image at the bottom of the page.
EDIT:Just seen this one…maybe the best of the bunch.
Maybe, but it’s too expensive 😯 . The other solutions I mentioned are all open-source and free to use.
ZynewaveI chose DokuWiki. The wiki site is now open. Please post comments in this topic: