Conquistador.
Jaegerteam@Klemperer wrote:
…and, and Jaegerteam, I thought I had found an italian website that still contained this algorhythm, but well, it just linked of course to the site which is offline.
…well this is just a picture on this italian website.
yes, this is the one I meant. 😉
Reject@Conquistador wrote:
@Reject wrote:
To me, creating FX-chains works as smoothly as anything else. Or maybe Ive missed something? I am rather new.
Hi Reject…have you read through this thread?
http://www.zynewave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=880
The reasons why the zGrid is in such high demand is detailed there. Even after reading it you may still not want or see a need for it personally but if you want to know why it is of great interest to so many Podium users the reasons are in that thread. 😉
Ok, after some thought and much pondering, I’ve come to the conclusion to give +1 to zGrid as well 🙂 Even though I’m personally very much coping as it is…
Conquistador@Reject wrote:
Ok, after some thought and much pondering, I’ve come to the conclusion to give +1 to zGrid as well 🙂 Even though I’m personally very much coping as it is…
🙂
I think I will change the “pattern developing here” comment to “z Grid landslide” 😆
I think it will be very popular outside of the Podium community as well. 😉
Thanks for sharing your thoughts guys! Of course if any one else has 1 or 2 features they would like to see in P2.0 feel free to share them. 😉
jpleongAre there any plans to implement a mute/bypass automation function within Podium?
Also, an AFL/SIP capability would be well received (by me!). And copying of whole groups would be awesome.
JP
ZynewaveAre there any plans to implement a mute/bypass automation function within Podium?
It has been requested quite a few times, but it is not on my current schedule.
an AFL/SIP capability would be well received
I had to google this (After Fader Listen/Solo In Place). Can’t you do this already with the hierarchic system? Otherwise please explain what you want it to do.
And copying of whole groups would be awesome
If you mean track groups, then this can already be done. Collapse the group, and any mouse drag and cut/copy edit actions will affect the entire group.
jpleongThanks Frits!
Regarding the Group Copy… Genius. If I can’t find it in the Wiki and can’t figure it out by myself, I often assume it’s just not possible.
Regarding the AFL/SIP issue, the (fabulous) engine only works with “regular tracks” which is fine if that’s all you need. I, however, need to hear AFL for my effects returns and the only way I know how to do this in Podium is to reassign the output so that only the track in question is setup. Simply hitting the solo button doesn’t work, since that mutes all the other channels. Re-routing outputs takes a lot more time than simply clicking a button (or modifier+button). And as much as I’d like to charge my client an extra $50 while I spend that time re-routing, it’d be just a lot nicer if I didn’t have to do that. Is that a persuasive argument?
Regarding mute/bypass automation, I hope it hops onto your current schedule. I first learned multi-track automation with only Mute and Mute Groups and still use them on digital console based mixes -especially to switch between takes of tracks. It’s a lot cleaner and easier to accomplish than splitting/aligning, drawing fader curves, etc… Is that a persuasive argument?
I think (hope) my above suggestions will make using Podium much more friendly to newcomers and those used to different kinds of workflow. I regard such functionality as near-essential for quick, spontaneous, and creative multi-track recording and mixing. I can still put together a mix more quickly on a console than I can in Podium (or any other DAW for that matter) and I hope that Podium can narrow that gap for me.
JP
PS- it might be helpful to have a chart in the WIKI that lists “normal” functions/features people are used to and their Podium equivalents.
ZynewaveRegarding the AFL/SIP issue, the (fabulous) engine only works with “regular tracks” which is fine if that’s all you need. I, however, need to hear AFL for my effects returns and the only way I know how to do this in Podium is to reassign the output so that only the track in question is setup. Simply hitting the solo button doesn’t work, since that mutes all the other channels. Re-routing outputs takes a lot more time than simply clicking a button (or modifier+button). And as much as I’d like to charge my client an extra $50 while I spend that time re-routing, it’d be just a lot nicer if I didn’t have to do that. Is that a persuasive argument?
Ah yes, the implicit muting of the bus return section when you solo a track is something I’ve thought about. Wouldn’t you only need to solo the bus return section in addition to the audio track to achieve what you want? I don’t see a need to change the track setup. I’ve thought about implementing automatic soloing of bus return tracks when any track is soloed. I can’t see situations where this would be an undesired behaviour. Any thoughts?
Regarding mute/bypass automation, I hope it hops onto your current schedule. I first learned multi-track automation with only Mute and Mute Groups and still use them on digital console based mixes -especially to switch between takes of tracks. It’s a lot cleaner and easier to accomplish than splitting/aligning, drawing fader curves, etc… Is that a persuasive argument?
Couldn’t you just automate the level to “off” achieve the same thing as automating a mute parameter?
jpleongI actually need to hear just the return. Soloing both would, obviously, mask the sound. This is important when doing a lot of effects processing (especially perfecting reverb timbre and parallel compression) not to mention trying to troubleshoot a bad mix (“Where’s that tinny sound coming from?”).
Having Mute automation is just easier to do. Simply clicking On/Off is much simpler and quicker, to me, than having to draw a line or grab a fader and push/pull. It’s even more important when you’ve already done some level automation on the track and/or you need to bring the track back up (ie, track dedicated to verses + track dedicated to chorus) as switching states (on/off) is a two click affair while level automation is more a four click affair (point A 100% -> 0% followed by point B 0%->100%).
I’m also kind of a neat freak, so if the curve/line doesn’t “look” right, I am compelled to go back and re-draw. Mute automation would just make me “seem” all the more sane.
Hey, Frits, thanks for all your input/output/thoughts/insight. I think your approach to customer service is the best of any company I’ve ever worked with. Now, if you wouldn’t mind going over to TC and get them to fix the issues with the Konnekt 24D I’d be using Podium with the biggest grin ever.
JP
ZynewaveI actually need to hear just the return.
So, given that a single track and the bus return section is soloed, what you want to achieve can be done by turning the gain dial to “off” on the bus send track?
Would there be a need to solo just a bus return, i.e. to hear the bus return for ALL tracks with their dry signal muted?
jpleong@Zynewave wrote:
So, given that a single track and the bus return section is soloed, what you want to achieve can be done by turning the gain dial to “off” on the bus send track?
I just tried this and it works. My only two issues are 1) what you describe in the question below and 2) the act of turning those gain dials to off -especially if they’ve already been adjusted to some level (got to remember where I set them or make yet another group track).
@Zynewave wrote:
Would there be a need to solo just a bus return, i.e. to hear the bus return for ALL tracks with their dry signal muted?
Yes. If I have a lot of things going to the same reverb, delay, chorus, etc… you get the picture. Then there’s always the fun listening-to-multiple-returns at the same time to see how they mix together.
JP
ps –
I’ve thought about implementing automatic soloing of bus return tracks
Oh, and don’t do this -it would drive me crazy. If you setup a song via template, for example, and there’s already a verb on a voice -soloing it to work on EQ would be difficult if the reverb return automatically soloed with it. Does that make sense? If I want to hear the return with the dry, I’ll just solo the return as well.
ZynewaveMy only two issues are 1) what you describe in the question below and 2) the act of turning those gain dials to off -especially if they’ve already been adjusted to some level (got to remember where I set them or make yet another group track).
A tip: If you don’t do any editing after setting the level to “off”, you can press undo to return the level to the previous value.
Oh, and don’t do this -it would drive me crazy. If you setup a song via template, for example, and there’s already a verb on a voice -soloing it to work on EQ would be difficult if the reverb return automatically soloed with it. Does that make sense? If I want to hear the return with the dry, I’ll just solo the return as well.
Good point. I’ll leave it as it is then.
jpleongA tip: If you don’t do any editing after setting the level to “off”, you can press undo to return the level to the previous value.
Thanks, I’ll try this. Any further thoughts on mute automation? As I get deeper and deeper into my latest project, I’m finding that I’m going to need it more and more (these young folks just don’t seem to have perfect pitch anymore :-)).
JP
PS- another suggestion for Podium 2.0 -> Would it be possible to have a Zynewave plug-in called zStrip? A combination of the zEQ and some (decent) compressor/dynamics processor? If I can cut down on total numbers of group tracks I have to make, that’d be great. Of course, I suppose the zGrid would help alleviate this problem.
ZynewaveAny further thoughts on mute automation?
It’s still not on my schedule.
another suggestion for Podium 2.0 -> Would it be possible to have a Zynewave plug-in called zStrip? A combination of the zEQ and some (decent) compressor/dynamics processor?
Not for 2.0. But a compressor is on my todo list for future zPlugs. I’m currently making improvements to the track handling, which will help reduce the clutter from large track chains. With the help of track templates, it will be possible to construct a selection of channel strips with your favorite plugins, and easily recall the strips.
Conquistador@jpleong wrote:
If I can cut down on total numbers of group tracks I have to make, that’d be great. Of course, I suppose the zGrid would help alleviate this problem
This is one of the key reasons why I would like to see the ZGrid in Podium. It would IMO eliminate the problem you described easily. If chaining plugs is what you seek then that would be one of the ZGrid features at least at it’s most basic level. So if Frits keeps that idea then track counts would reduce dramatically in Podium once the ZGrid arrives.
A track with an instrument mapping on it, feeding 3 more tracks each with an FX on them (4 tracks now) would be reduced to 1 track with ZG in Podium. IIRC you would also be able to save that set up and use it in any other Podium project.
So…if you had 4 VSTi’s running in Podium each with 3 FX tracks that would be 16 tracks in total. So now we have 16 tracks in the mixer excluding the master out track.
The zGrid would reduce the 16 track count to just 4 tracks! An immeadiate massive difference.
Of course if you have an even bigger project to manage then of course it is even more of a difference.
Using the example above (one instrument track feeding into 3 FX tracks)
20 tracks will be reduced to 5.
40 tracks will be reduced to 10
e.t.c…
If you use say one instrument and 5 FX …say…one Compressor,EQ, chorus, phaser and a filter for instance (now we have 6 tracks) with the ZG that would be reduced to a single track. Just one track.
Even the mixer would be easier to use not because of a problem with design (of course not, I love it) but we will simply have less tracks to group, hide, scroll, compact and generally manage e.t.c
No need to bounce first, mute, hide or anything similar (as useful as they are now). Many steps we need now would disappear once the ZG arrives.
Not for 2.0. But a compressor is on my todo list for future zPlugs.
Is that the ZMaster multi FX plug?
I’m currently making improvements to the track handling, which will help reduce the clutter from large track chains. With the help of track templates, it will be possible to construct a selection of channel strips with your favorite plugins, and easily recall the strips.
You said “reduce the clutter” but would those changes in some way reduce the track count as well?
ZynewaveIs that the ZMaster multi FX plug?
zComp, probably.
You said “reduce the clutter” but would those changes in some way reduce the track count as well?
I’m working on expanding the group panel. This includes an option to compact the headers in the tracks region so that only groups with track lanes are shown. This will get rid of the thin bars for the chained tracks, which can be visually overwhelming with large chains. In effect, the only place where you see fx tracks are in the group panel and in the stacked strips in the mixer. My aim is to make this just as convenient as having them chained inside a zGrid plugin.
My original ideas for zGrid was discussed a long time ago. Since then I’ve implemented e.g. the group panel and track templates, which deals with some of the issues that the zGrid was intended to solve. So although zGrid is still on the plan, I’m trying to take as much of the functionality and integrating it in Podium. This is a better approach imo.