No resample before the bandsplitting: have the same wav on 3 channels and then use the same eq/bandsplitter to do the filtering and go from there.
That’s how most of the people I know do it.
which is back to square one anyay because once you’ve taken 3 of the same sample you end up layering through 3 seperate channels with their own fx chains again, so what’s the difference really??
And worse still, if your resampling multiple times, then your going to end up having to repeat this process again and again, each time splitting the sample with filters that are going to effect the phase relationship again and again. Surely it’s better to just split the sample once if possible and then take that split as far as possible instead of bouncing it then having to split it again and so on so forth…
Well you have an easier to manage signal chain and the phase is ok as long as you use the same eq to filter the bands.
But by all means, do whatever works for you π
If I’m working on complex chains, I just bounce and move on. I find it’s pointless to start tweaking in big chains, because there’s not telling what the output is. It keeps me sane.
I have a template arrangement to make big reeces: a sub mid and hi channel where I throw in some samples. When I’m happy with the processing I bounce the result and use that in a tune or as a sample to use in a different reece.
In a tune I’ll have lots of wav edits of those samples, and very limited processing on the channel (some eq and some buscompression, maybe some send to a reverb).
This split between the arrangement and sound design stage is what makes sense for me, it might be different for you.
The reason I’m saying all this is because I can see why your way of working could get awkward. So maybe it’s nice to work differently for a time. There is no “best” way to do this, anything that makes your sound is good.
Yeah it is a bit of a headfuck how I work, lol. But now I have grown used to it my mind is able to keep track of the general schematic pretty well, and I don’t get too confused by the routings. I am kinda lucky podium allows you to work the way I do! Does require a lot of patience though! I do bounce after I’m finished and work on the actual arrangement seperately…
But yeah I totally agree, when you’ve got something as nice as your going to get it, it is nice to just hit that bounce button and start sampling it in your tune.
…. Then often in arrangments I end up with parallel arrangements where I’ve fuckjed something up, saved and reloaded and have to go back and bounce stuff out to use it as part of an earlier arrangement before I’ve gone horribly wrong lol. A track I’m making at the moment, I have to go back and get the bits out of lots of parallel songs where there are bits right and bits wrong, like putting lego together lol….
xis23, thanks for the screen shots I think I understand a bit better now. In addition I found your mp3’s interesting and not that unusual at all.
However, the way you have everything layed out is definitely an aquired taste. I can only wrap my head around such things when presented in some visual fashion that hides the complexity. For instance, visually I could see this much better in Tracktion. I could make that happen with racks pretty easy. However in Podium, things get too cluttered to handle such things as this. I don’t really like Reaper for such things either. I can even visualize it better in Live. But, I digress…
Thanks again for sharing π
Yeah definitely it’s an aquired taste, I kind of matured into working this way, after getting quite confused at first. I just went a bit mad scientist on my templates, then had to play catch up with myself. But I kind of build these templates as sorta instruments in their own right, that I have to learn to play like any instrument in the real world. And nowadays it is starting to just looks natural to me, especially with the streamlined way that podium presents the screen to me…
Beta 5 is up.
The major addition since beta 4, is that the track headers now use the same style as the new group panel. Resizing the track header height will determine which elements are shown. There are still some things to do, like updating the options in the tracks region dialog. I would appreciate your opinion on this new track header layout.
Yay, this looks great! π
The only thing missing is some kind of visual clue that there are things still further up the chain. You could potentially wonder for ages where that reverb sound comes from, only to realize there was a send mapping on the track all along, just not visible. Like on the old track headers, the box around the signal chain would drop a shadow when there were hidden parent tracks. Sadly I’m fresh out of ideas for this right now.
Edit: Ooh, there’s drag-and drop rearranging of effects on the track header! If possible, pop-up help should close as soon as you start to click-drag an effect track, otherwise you can’t see where you’re dropping it.
Two wholly cosmetic observations:
1. There’s a definite 1 pixel space between the new buttons that is only really noticable with dark color schemes, it seems. I wonder if it wouldn’t look nicer if the buttons were actually joined (but still separated by a line). I don’t think there’d be much of a concern about it being just one button that way.
Extreme example:
2. I can’t help but to think those shadows look a little exaggerated on brightly colored backgrounds, like the default blue for selections on Vista. I don’t know about your UI rendering engine, of course, but is there any way you could try something similar to rendering shadows with a different blend mode? You know, Like in image editors – multiply, screen, overlay… A “simple matter of programming”, surely. π
Edit: Also, I believe the letters S & M aren’t centered on the new bigger version of the track header buttons! Unbelievable! π
And something a little off-topic. I recently wiped the dust off an old laptop computer; it has a native screen resolution of 1400×1050… on a measly 14″ screen. π
Text in Podium is awfully small that way, and changing DPI settings in Windows doesn’t help. This is no request – I’m just curious – have you ever thought about changing Podium’s font for a heavier one, or using the system’s font?
Since beta1 this has improved a lot! thanks!
Would be possible hide the Input slot in tracks header? I use inputs in my works rarely and for me is a wasted space
edit: if you modify track settings, please add a “Max height” for them, I find uncomfortable the automatic resizing of tracks when I hide the mixer/editor… because if I hide them is to be able to see more tracks π
I find that drag-and-drop feels a little inconsistent, I’m afraid.
If I want to drag zPEQ up one level, it’s enough to just grab it and move the mouse directly on the track above (BuzMaxi).
If I want to move an effect down a level, however, I have to drag it two tracks down, actually! (If I wanted to drag zPEQ down, I’d have to drag it into empty space.)
2. I can’t help but to think those shadows look a little exaggerated on brightly colored backgrounds, like the default blue for selections on Vista. I don’t know about your UI rendering engine, of course, but is there any way you could try something similar to rendering shadows with a different blend mode? You know, Like in image editors – multiply, screen, overlay… A “simple matter of programming”, surely. π
I agree that the shadows are a bit too agressive. I’ve toned down the button shadows in the new beta6.
In beta6 the effect record buttons are finally gone. The track lane record button will also record enable all plugin effect tracks.
@Zynewave wrote:
In beta6 the effect record buttons are finally gone. The track lane record button will also record enable all plugin effect tracks.
I love those minor changes that simplify Podium workflow! I was trying it and I saw this:
Since green inputs are the same that red input, the green inputs hasn’t too much sense, I see them as a waste of space and an unnecesary interface overload. Unless you have another plans for them, I would hide them from children tracks.
@LiquidProj3ct wrote:
@Zynewave wrote:
In beta6 the effect record buttons are finally gone. The track lane record button will also record enable all plugin effect tracks.
I love those minor changes that simplify Podium workflow! I was trying it and I saw this:
Since green inputs are the same that red input, the green inputs hasn’t too much sense, I see them as a waste of space and an unnecesary interface overload. Unless you have another plans for them, I would hide them from children tracks.
Thanks, that’s a bug. The fader, source and input selectors should not be shown at all on parameter tracks. Only the parameter selector should be shown. I’ll fix it for the next beta.
@Malcolm Jacobson wrote:
I agree with others comments that the “Add new effect” button should be above the existing FX, and that the new effect should be added at the top, so the behaviour in the Group Panel matches the order of the Mixer.
By popular request, the “add new effect” (or “+”) button is now placed at the end of the chain.
I don’t understand the need for the Tick button. I like the information about the effect to be shown in the Inspector as soon as I click on the effect name. I don’t like having to click the “Tick” button as well. Can we add an option to hide this button and have the information automatically displayed?
I can’t see how I can avoid the tick/select button. There need to be an indication in the group panel of which effect track is selected, and thus which track is being edited with the object lists at the bottom of the inspector. I can’t see how I can combine this into the selector buttons. The selectors already use colors to indicate plugin open/close state. Clicking selectors are used to open menus or open/close editors, and you don’t always want the track to be automatically selected when you just want to open a plugin editor.