Topic: Zynewave synth & effects, opinions?

@Conquistador wrote:

It is the classic subjective topic Improv. Good old Sequencers. 8)

You are probably right. However Fritz must have had something different in mind, otherwise he would not have started coding Podium. He would have just gone out and bought Cubase! 🙂

What I am trying to figure out is what that ‘something different’ is and how why users can benefit. The main Podium feature that keeps getting mentioned as being a big deal is the heirarchy. I fully realize that choice of a sequencer/host is subjective, but that is not the concern here. I’m interested in Fritz’s (or any users) arguements as to why the Podium ‘heirarchy’ is better. Not theoretically better, but how can it be more useful than other software 90% of the time that it is used. More versatile routing is not necessarily useful all the time after a certain point. If a user (anyone) only uses that feature 10% of the time s/he creates music, then it’s no big deal. So is that it-this much vaunted ‘heirarchy’ sounds good in theory but is seldom used?

I’ve read the web site and help plus watched the videos. What strikes me is that Podium is a useful alternative to the established software such as Cubase and for those that don’t like Tracktion. I may well use Podium more for that reason alone. HOWEVER, I cannot see that the ‘heirarchy’ of Podium is going to turn my musical life upside down any more than any other synth/host.

Here are some interesting threads that may answer some of your questions

Thanks, I’ll have a look when I get time later.

as to why Podium may (or not) be better for you, note, not just better, but for you. Only you know the answer to that.

It’s not so much what is better for me, I still cannot see the huge advantage of using Podium’s heirarchy for day to day use over Sequencer/host A, B, or C. And I’m talking major block busting features, not the fact that you can change gui colours! BFD! 🙄

I was a bit surprised initially that to add say a standard combo of a compressor and an EQ to a synth that you would have to wrap two tracks around the synth. Of course in Tracktion for instance only one track is needed. So for example a 20 or 30 tracks project in Tracktion or Cubase could very well end up having 60 – 90 tracks in Podium. This may actually be a bigger turn off for new users than understanding the hierarchical engine.

This was a problem for me initially, but not anymore.

This does seem awkward and counter-productive, especially for new users who find they have to jump through hoops before getting on with the recording of their music. Very un-inspirational. 🙁

It’s possible that Podium’s enigne is actually more CPU efficient than other hosts and therefore does not produce a heavier CPU load even with more tracks, don’t know though as I have not really tested this theory.

With dual core and X2 and Athlon64 coming into use more and more, this becomes fairly moot. I mean, how many tracks do you want to use? Or are you writting a symphony for 208 piece orchestra? lol!

@Max wrote:

Heirarchy idea was one of the main reasons for me to buy Podium. It really makes my work faster and easier. You don’t have a lot of different types of tracks in Podium. The type of the track depends on the device mapped to it. So, every FX track works as folder (group) track, and every folder (group) track may become an FX track, you just need to map the FX device to it. And you can see the real signal flow in Podium – in most of other hosts you need to imagine how the signal flows thru the unuseful virtual clone of hardware mixer. And the last. Imagine that you wrapped audiotrack in the FX track. You can map any FX parameter (VST or MIDI) to this track; in this case FX track will work as: 1. visual representation of signal flow; 2. Group (“folder”) track (you can hide all wrapped channels), 3. automation track for the mapped parameter. Isn’t it great? Hierarchy idea is a killer!

My english is not very good, but I hope that my post will be clear for you.

Glad you like it, but that really doesn’t tell me anything new. Thanks anyway.

@Zynewave wrote:

I’m interested in Fritz’s (or any users) arguements as to why the Podium ‘heirarchy’ is better

When I’m mixing, I like to work on different levels, sometimes mixing the sections, and sometimes mixing sub-sections or individual tracks in a section. With the hierarchy approach I can do this.

Very useful in the setting that you describe, I’m sure. But not that big a deal for working with smaller numbers of instruments. BTW-am I wrong or is what you describe above the same as Cubase SX’s group tracks? It sounds like it has the same function.

The job that remains is to make it more accessible in the UI.

Thanks for taking the time to write all that out. It’s obvious that this alternate heirarcy business is very important to you, in fact it seems like a central focus. To me it seems like worrying about the colour of your shoe laces when you are about to make an important speech.

This isn’t a case of right or wrong, just different work methods. Let’s just agree to disagree. As an owner of Podium I will continue to watch and see how accessible Podium becomes.

Cheers

@Zynewave wrote:

BTW-am I wrong or is what you describe above the same as Cubase SX’s group tracks? It sounds like it has the same function.

I think the last SX version I tried was SX1. No demo versions since. If Cubase group tracks appear in the mixer window with the usual fader and channel controls, and if you can nest group tracks within group tracks, and if solo/muting the group track affects all tracks in the group, then yes.

I have Cubase SX 2.2. And the answer appears to be YES

and if you can nest group tracks within group tracks, and if solo/muting the group track affects all tracks in the group, then yes.

I have Cubase SX 2.2. And the answer appears to be YES

Nesting group tracks ???
Are you sure ?
I’ve only seen group tracks on the same level, no group track inside a group track…

Folder tracks LOOK very similar and are very useful because they can be nested, but it is only a way to group sequences in the timeline and has no impact on the connexions and effects. They remain a track by track assignment.

But I’m not a specialist of Steinberg’s softwares…

@Zynewave wrote:

@acousmod wrote:

and if you can nest group tracks within group tracks, and if solo/muting the group track affects all tracks in the group, then yes.

I have Cubase SX 2.2. And the answer appears to be YES

Nesting group tracks ???
Are you sure ?
I’ve only seen group tracks on the same level, no group track inside a group track…

Folder tracks LOOK very similar and are very useful because they can be nested, but it is only a way to group sequences in the timeline and has no impact on the connexions and effects. They remain a track by track assignment.

But I’m not a specialist of Steinberg’s softwares…

I googled for Cubase SX folder tracks, and it appears you can nest folder tracks. Solo/mute/record on the folder track will also toggle the tracks within the folder. But I could not find information that said the folder track appears in the mixer and has the same mixing possibilites as a normal track.

There are folder tracks and group tracks. I don’t know if they can be nested in the mixer. I’ll check tomorrow when I wake up.

Cheers

So group and folder tracks are perhaps different things in Cubase.

Yes.
Group tracks allow to send in them the signal from normal tracks, and they appear in the mixer where you can insert effects on them. Since the output of a group track can be sent in another group track, it can be similar to nest tracks, but without any visual connection with the signal path. They are on the same “level” in the track view and in the mixer view.
Like I’ve said in a previous reply, we can certainly do the same kind of things with this technique, but as have said Max, it is far easier to do in Podium – simply move a “track” – and visually coherent.

The folder tracks are only made to organize the tracks on the timeline. They are not visible in the mixer because they can not support effects etc.
They are very useful for grouping events, and the folder sequencies can be split, resize etc.
I hope that something like this will be some day available in Podium…
I even wonder if the proposition that Frits have made to hide the sub tracks doesn’t give a similar result to folder tracks ?

@Zynewave wrote:

There are folder tracks and group tracks. I don’t know if they can be nested in the mixer. I’ll check tomorrow when I wake up.

So group and folder tracks are perhaps different things in Cubase. The scenario with group tracks I talked about earlier (where you have to select the group track as a destination on the individual channel mixer strips) was how I remembered group tracks from earlier Cubase versions. These group tracks were placed in a separate part of the mixer window, next to the bus channels. However they did not behave like folder tracks.

I posted here at Cubase.net:

http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=300650#300650

And asked: “Is it possible to nest group tracks (or folder tracks?) in the mixer in Cubse SX 2.x? “

And someone answered:”No – you can only set them to ‘Can Hide’ and then use that feature (or of course use the default buttons (on LH of mixer) that hide certain groupings, e.g. MIDI, VSTi. etc. I agree it’s annoying – the presumption being that if you stick a track into a folder you may well not want to see it in the mixer. “

I knew that SX had folder and group tracks, but not using them I wasn’t 100% sure about the nesting. Now we know.

The feature is useful, granted, but still not a deal closer for me. (All other things being equal.)