Zynewave.
Doug B@acousmod wrote:
The extreme power of its hierarchical conception is not put in first plan.
This is one thing that I have never understood about Podium. I keep seeing that Podium has an ‘extreme power of its hierarchical conception’ (or words to that effect.)
But what exactly does that mean and why should the average user of Podium care? Is the use of the term heirarcy just another marketing buzz word? After all, every host and sequencer has a heirarcy-it’s called a signal chain! 🙂
Only difference that I can make out is that in Podium, vstis’s flow up to effects instead of effects being a subset of a particular vsti on a certain track. So what-why is that better/more useful/more efficient? 😕
I’m probably missing a key concept here, so could someone please enlighten me?
Thanks
acousmodhem… I am not able to answer to this question, since Podium’s workflow is not yet very intuitive to me (the send bus for example).
But what I can say is that nearly all multitrack softwares are based on an imitation of analog hardwares, with a signal routing made with parallel inputs (tracks) that go to be mixed together in a final output. The signal of each input can go to effects with inserts en bus sends.
In some softwares, this imitation is so “good” that one can not move an effect from an insert slot to another on the same track (Cubase, Nuendo…) !!
The “hierarchical” thing in Podium is somewhat different.
It is for me like “matriochka” puppets, where one can be put in another, which can be put in another etc. with a big difference in that we can put several ones together in one, change their sizes and their places etc…
For me, it allows to do some kind of routings that I can only do in modular softwares (Audiomulch, EnergyXT etc.), and that could be possible in some other hosts by sparing bus sends in a complicate way.
It is also very simple to change the order of the tracks.
The drawback is that for simple things we must define or use the “mappings”, and that we must use some tracks which are not really tracks but supports to mappings.
For me, the ideal multitrack software… will have no track but only objects that the user can organise in the “hierarchical” way directly on a time space.
There is already one that does this, called HyperEgine AV (http://www.arboretum.com/products/hyperengine-av/hav_main.html) which is sadly for Mac only…
It is visually more obvious to organize the sounds and the effetcs than the track way, because we can really see the objects that are inside other ones etc…
I suppose that other people will have some very different points of view 😉
ZynewaveAfter all, every host and sequencer has a heirarcy-it’s called a signal chain!
Most other hosts also has various mechanisms for organizing tracks. Often in the form of special group-folder tracks. Of these hosts, many does not allow nesting multiple group folders. In Podium, the track hierarchy is used both for the visual arrangement as well as for the signal/control routing.
Doug B@acousmod wrote:
The “hierarchical” thing in Podium is somewhat different.
It is for me like “matriochka” puppets, where one can be put in another, which can be put in another etc. with a big difference in that we can put several ones together in one, change their sizes and their places etc…
But how does that benefit users? Flexibility? Many users don’t find Logic/Cubase/Traktion/exT etc all that inflexible for their needs. Sure, some users do, but how much flexibility do we really need? Is there a point where too much flexibility gets in the way of workflow? 😕
For me, it allows to do some kind of routings that I can only do in modular softwares (Audiomulch, EnergyXT etc.), and that could be possible in some other hosts by sparing bus sends in a complicate way.
Ok, I can see cases where it would be useful to have one chorus work with five different tracks or have five different choruses work on each track. Keeps your options open.
It is also very simple to change the order of the tracks.
Please explain and elaborate. In Cubase SX, you just drag and drop track six so that it is now between tracks 1 and 2.
Do you mean something like that?
The drawback is that for simple things we must define or use the “mappings”, and that we must use some tracks which are not really tracks but supports to mappings.
Right-like pointers in programming. A sign post that points to the memory location, not the memory location itself. It would be nice if there was a ‘default ‘ mapping so that Podium knew the default vstplugin folder to look for effects in instead of having to do a plugin search for each project. Users often work on more than one project at once, often several.
For me, the ideal multitrack software… will have no track but only objects that the user can organise in the “hierarchical” way directly on a time space.
That’s an old concept, much like Object Oriented Programming-everything’s an object.
It is visually more obvious to organize the sounds and the effetcs than the track way, because we can really see the objects that are inside other ones etc…
But right now, I don’t find Podium to be that visually more obvious. As I mentioned before, it seems upside down and backwards sometimes. And that is tremendously frustrating to users. I fully understand that it may be due to habits previously learned in other hosts and sequencers. I also realize that it takes time to learn new habits. But right now, all I know is that it feels awkward and not quite right-like there’s something wrong, but I don’t quite know what. And that makes me feel distinctly uneasy and uncomfortable.
I suppose that other people will have some very different points of view 😉
Yup, YMMV. 8)
Doug B@Zynewave wrote:
After all, every host and sequencer has a heirarcy-it’s called a signal chain!
Most other hosts also has various mechanisms for organizing tracks.
Maybe it is the visual representation of these mechanisms that I have a problem with and not the mechanisms themselves. In theory I see what you mean. Using Podium, I don’t quite see the great benefit. Maybe there’s something that I just don’t ‘get’. Who nows?
acousmodbut how much flexibility do we really need?
It certainly depends on musical styles and personal ways to work.
For me it is essential because composing is not something linear but most like making a puzzle…
In Cubase SX, you just drag and drop track six so that it is now between tracks 1 and 2.
Sorry. Like Frits says, changing the order of tracks in Podium can change the signal path and how sounds are processed with effects, it is not only a visual arrangement.
It would be nice if there was a ‘default ‘ mapping so that Podium knew the default vstplugin folder to look for effects in instead of having to do a plugin search for each project.
It does in the Project Wizard.
That’s an old concept,
Yes, but which has not yet been really materialized outside of research centers…
But right now, I don’t find Podium to be that visually more obvious.
I was speaking about HyperEngine.
As I mentioned before, it seems upside down and backwards sometimes. And that makes me feel distinctly uneasy and uncomfortable.
Me too 😉
Doug Bduplicate
Doug B@Improv wrote:
@acousmod wrote:
Like Frits says, changing the order of tracks in Podium can change the signal path and how sounds are processed with effects, it is not only a visual arrangement.
So why use Podium for that and not just use eXT to setup, save and use complex routings? (To play devil’s advocate)
It would be nice if there was a ‘default ‘ mapping so that Podium knew the default vstplugin folder to look for effects in instead of having to do a plugin search for each project.
It does in the Project Wizard.
Don’t know why I said that! 😳
That’s an old concept,
Yes, but which has not yet been really materialized outside of research centers…
It’s been around for decades but not really used-I wonder why? 😕
As I mentioned before, it seems upside down and backwards sometimes. And that makes me feel distinctly uneasy and uncomfortable.
Me too 😉
Maybe if we stood on our heads and turned around? 😆
ZynewaveBut right now, I don’t find Podium to be that visually more obvious. As I mentioned before, it seems upside down and backwards sometimes. And that is tremendously frustrating to users.
I realize that the hierarchic approach will not appeal to everyone, even if they fully understand the concept. It is possible to take the Podium track structure and apply a simple/traditional arrangement editor to it, while imposing some restrictions on the flexibility. Then you could always swap over to the current hierarchical editor if you want to create more complex routings. If I were to do this, I probably would go for a layout similar to Tracktion, where going from left to right you have: input mappings, the timeline, chains of plugins, and master out. Would this be worth doing?
super_crunchybefore you go down that path, maybe it’s time to try reversing the order of the heirarchy… instruments at the top, followed by FX, and eventually all tracks trickle down to the master out. I haven’t thought through the implications of such a move, but I think it would be worth trying to see if all users would benefit from such a change. I suppose, the comfort would come from the fact that in most places in the western world (probably the majority of users, correct me if I’m wrong!) we read from top left to bottom right, so if the signal flowed in the same way it would be easier to understand.
I wouldn’t go down the way Tracktion does it (yet) but try reversing the direction
super_crunchythinking about it further, now I understand why you’d try putting the instruments > FX > master out on the right hand side… would allow you to kind of rotate the current flow 180 degrees
Zynewavemaybe it’s time to try reversing the order of the heirarchy… instruments at the top, followed by FX, and eventually all tracks trickle down to the master out
I don’t think this is practical. Collapsing group tracks would fold upwards, meaning the track you clicked to collapse moves upwards (away from your mouse pointer). Parameter tracks would be positioned above instrument tracks. etc.
super_crunchyyes, i hadn’t thought it through 😉
on a side note, as a podium user of 1.5 years, the heirarchical system feels great for me. maybe instead of changing how podium works, you should be focussing on getting new users across that first hurdle. because once they get over it, it’s all cruisin’ from there
super_crunchymaybe some blatant videos, with arrows travelling from bottom right to top left… “this is how the signal flows!” 🙂
ConquistadorI realize that the hierarchic approach will not appeal to everyone, even if they fully understand the concept.
Having said that, although difficult to understand initially, it is still a great idea. I guess it’s a case of how to turn this great idea into something everyone can get into and understand quickly.
Some of the most flexible and powerful things in life require a good deal of time and effort to learn them. The benefits at the end of the learning curve with Podium far outweigh any initial difficulties faced trying to understand it in the first place.
However, clearly not everyone can or will give that time to learn before giving up so…
It is possible to take the Podium track structure and apply a simple/traditional arrangement editor to it, while imposing some restrictions on the flexibility. Then you could always swap over to the current hierarchical editor if you want to create more complex routings. If I were to do this, I probably would go for a layout similar to Tracktion, where going from left to right you have: input mappings, the timeline, chains of plugins, and master out. Would this be worth doing?
Yes! This is a great idea!
The reason why many gave up was because they were unfamiliar with the workflow in Podium. But a Tracktion Structure will give them the familarity they want and with the Zynewave plugs,…demo projects to get immeadiately up and running with!
a. The current problem with people giving up because they simply do not understand the *way things work* in Podium will vanish because a structure similar to Tracktion is far simpler to get into and is already very familiar with most users.
b. Should you go down this route and as you said “…you could always swap over to the current hierarchical editor if you want to create more complex routings” it will provide the best of both worlds for all. A lot of time and effort and has been put into creating the hierarchical editor so keeping it rather than replacing it is definitely an idea I agree with. I personally do not want to lose the flexibility the current set up offers but appreciate the need to let others in at a lower and less complex level to enable the Podium userbase to really grow.
I think this would work very well because many users tend to work their way into the more advanced features of a host but do so at their own pace. With a structure similar to Tracktion, 99.9% of those who fell at the demo hurdle last time around will easily get up and running quickly this time. Of course *when* they are ready, they can explore the more complex and flexible elements that Podium has to offer.
I really think your suggestion Frits is a great idea and quite unique. A very nice effective way to bridge the gap between making Podium simpler to get into but keeping the powerful and flexible options intact for advanced users. Great. 🙂