Topic: Preview: Track templates

One of us isn’t getting something…

Here’s my interpretation….

A template is just that “a template”. A template should be seen as a shortcut for a setup that is somewhat repetitive. For example, I would set up a Jamstix template that would be my drum track grouping with my favorite drum mappings, compression and eq. Saved as a template, whenever I want to reuse, I would use the template. However, that doesn’t stop me from further editing the track once it has been brought into the arrangement.

If while I’m tweaking I find another setup that works better there is nothing stopping me from resaving it with new settings.

However, if I wanted to tweak a template based on something I was working on, for example, maybe I found a better compressor for drums, I would WANT to open the template in another arrangement so as not to effect my current arrangement/settings.

Another way of looking at it is to thin of Miccrosoft Word documents. Everytime you start Word it loads a default template. You can make changes to your hearts content without effecting the template. If you want any changes you made to be stored as the default template you have to specify that. If you want to make changes to another template you have to open that template up and save it as a template. It sounds like Fritz’s implementaion is much along these lines and to me makes sense.

I’m not sure how your approach simplifies anything.

@darcyb62 wrote:

However, if I wanted to tweak a template based on something I was working on, for example, maybe I found a better compressor for drums, I would WANT to open the template in another arrangement so as not to effect my current arrangement/settings.

What you suggested above is the complete opposite of what I would do. We simply have different approaches to doing the same thing.:wink:

I think what is very clear here is what will simplify things for you will complicate things for me and vice versa. Neither approach is ‘the wrong way’ simply different.

Another way of looking at it is to thin of Miccrosoft Word documents. Everytime you start Word it loads a default template. You can make changes to your hearts content without effecting the template. If you want any changes you made to be stored as the default template you have to specify that. If you want to make changes to another template you have to open that template up and save it as a template.

To prove my point about how both of our approaches are ‘correct’ and are simply different user preferences..

Microsoft Excel…

Same company…Excel allows for many types of adjustments to be made at the Cell level. Comparable to Track level in a host. No need to open another tab in Excel. You can if you want to 😉 but there is no need when adjustments can be made at cell level.

We are both looking at the same application (Podium) but simply see it differently and as a result use it differently, this IMO is hardly surprising and is to be expected even now with the current user base level.:)

Frits current implementation gives me tab level options not cell / track level options. You prefer to work that way, I don’t.

Only optional features can work for everyone. But no approach / preference is wrong IMO, please bear this in mind.

😉

@Zynewave wrote:

@Conquistador wrote:

Ok I can simplify the point further…

I think you’re talking about something like the Rack feature of Ableton Live, where you can group together effects and save them as a rack file (or so I gather from the info on the Ableton website).

Ableton have different ways to do this, none of which I am suggesting here. 😉

My interpretation of racks of any sort in Podium is already documented here..

http://www.zynewave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=958

That suggestion is purely for instruments.

I have a simpler goal with track templates. Consider the “track templates” arrangement as a clipboard. To edit it, you just go back to the start page, into the template arrangement, drag stuff around, and then back to your song arrangement.

Frits…by all means keep the current implementation. I have no problem understanding what you mean. It’s very simple. I simply do not agree with it, at all.

The first reason I gave is quite clear as is the second about how to manage large numbers of track templates. Even your idea for simplicty fails here when trying to sort through very large numbers of Track templates. Remember we still have no track numbers.

Furthermore, track templates will also copy any sounds and sequences on the tracks, so you really need to use the arrangement editor to organize the track templates. A file browser list is not enough.

Yes you need an arranger totally agree! But two arrangers? Totally disagree.

This suggestion might merge our ideas together though… 😉

A track template needs an arrangement for editing. We agree on this.
It’s the added complication of shuffling between two arrangers that is my issue. Not there as of now, will be post 1.69.

So…

How about…direct access to the Track Template arranger from within the current ‘working’ arranger. So if you are producing a song in any arranger the track template would be accessible from within it.

I am thinking of the way you click on a midi file or audio file and Podium automatically makes the relevant editor available by simply dragging up the horizontal splitter bar to show an embedded editor. One of my favourite features in Podium

Why not add the track template arranger as a docked view that can be accessed in this way? If a user does not want such access, a global option can change this. Make the default not visible if you want. Of course I could then simply set it to show and save it as a project template 😉

Surely you agree with this suggestion. This way you keep the dual arranger idea but allow access to it from a docked view. It merges our ideas into one feature. The current access of track templates from the start page can be the default. At least this way I can choose it as a docked view within an arranger. Everyone gets what they want.

How could this be triggered or accessed?

a. A track level button on the track Inspector or Track itself could enable or disable the docked view of the track template arranger.

b. Global option within the Preferences > Graphics tab. (It is graphic related)

c. Clicking on the track header of a Track template.

d. Adding a View button (as is already available in the mixer header) with options to Show / Hide Track Template Arranger

e. We can currently drag the track inspector to the right, but how about another button or splitter than enables us to drag to the right to reveal the track Template arranger? Effectively moving the current arranger (used for current production) to the right as we drag the splitter to the right to reveal the track template arranger ‘underneath’ it?

Of course the Track Inspector will be on the left. It could be hidden first of course then a small Track template label or button could be used to activate the dragging of the splitter bar to reveal the track template as you drag to the right.

2.
Keep the current two dual arranger approach but add an option that allows editing of a track template within the same arranger being used for actual music production. No need to open a second arranger (the dedicated track template arranger).This is what I have been asking for all along. Is this not possible to implement?

Are any of these 2 ideas possible? 😉

If you have a large number of track templates you should organize them in folder tracks. Navigating the track templates will then be as simple as navigating a file folder tree list. These folders will then be shown as submenus in the track context menu. I can’t see how track numbers would be a benefit here. Every time you insert a template track in the middle, all subsequent tracks would change number.

We don’t appear to share any ideas on track numbers Frits which is fine but somewhat surprising as even outside of Track templates, Track numbers are a very basic feature of any host that Podium after 2 years does not have. Clip fades are clearly most people’s no.1 feature as well. But you just have not implemented such a basic feature yet either.

Possibly because of it’s complexity as there are many other seemingly more complex features that have found their way into Podium over the last two years. Clip fades are a simple feature but perhaps it needs a great deal of work. If not that then why ignore such a major feature such as clip fades for so many of us here.

Even if it does need a great deal of work but 2 years? Well you develop Podium not me so I guess it must be a huge undertaking. 😉

I read a recent review of Ableton Live 6 that said it is not suitable for basic editing because it does not have crossfade or clip fade features. You are the developer, you make the choices 😉

I don’t think editing the track templates is something you would do frequently.

Sorry, that is a rather bold assumption. My workflow is clearly nothing like yours or I would never had made any suggestions since buying Podium. You cannot possibly make such an assumption about how I or indeed anyone else works. 😉 Seriously. I would make frequent changes that is why of course I have said so much on this new feature 🙂

Your suggestions about embedded template editors and options and buttons to invoke this in the arrangement editor is something I will not do.

Up to you Frits. You are the developer. Podium is your product. 😉 I have made very clear reasons as to why this is beneficial to any user especially new users not just me. Your choice.

If you really want to view your song arrangement and the template arrangement simultaneously, you open another browser window and edit the template arrangement in this.

That is simply not the way I work (with too many windows) which is why I have tried to have an optional approach added to Podium which clearly you have decided not to add. Fair enough but using the current implementation will simply slow me down. So I will not make any use of it. 😐

Maybe this needs to be clarified…I am not a casual user of Podium and use it get things done quicker not slower.

Sadly I will work quicker without your interpretation of Track Templates. If you read through any of my posts on this thread the reason for this is very clear. 😉

It’s probably best if you wait and see how the track templates will work in 1.70.

Of course I will do that anyway for sure (track templates or not) but you have made your mind up already. I still disagree with it. So unless you change the implementation of Track Templates by at least adding the option I suggested (which keeps the current implementation untouched) it will of course make no difference to me 1.70 or not.

I have gone into extreme detail to make the benefit of my suggestions clear not just for my sake but new users as well.

You turned down a suggestion I made that will keep the current implementation as it is without a consideration for a possible future implementation, again fair enough, whatever works for you or indeed others as you are the one developing the product and have to make a final choice. 😉

I will be very interested to see what else is in 1.70 but not the current implementation of Track Templates. Sorry Frits. We have to agree to disagree. 😉

@Podianer wrote:

Tough words in this thread.. 😕 😯

Not really 😆

Podium is a powerhouse as it is. I will hardly have any problems producing with Podium now (without track templates) so in 1.70, not using track templates will not change that.

It’s all about choice. At some point in every hosts development users will disagree on certain issues. It is to be expected. There are a truck load of features I find very useful in Podium. Track templates is just not one of them.

Frits has to make a choice that he feels benefits him from a development standpoint and his user base. He has done that. No big deal. 🙂