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 😉
acousmodI’m not sure that I have well understood (this damned english language ! 😕 ) but it seems to be a good improvement…
acousmodI’ll appreciate any feedback you have on this new method of displaying wrapped tracks.
It looks certainly nicer, but I wonder if having it selected by default is not a risk to confuse people a little more with the real signal flow ?
This would open up for an option to hide the track lanes for effect plugin tracks. As these tracks are not meant to have any events on them, they are just wasting space in the track timeline.
I agree, this will be a nice option.
Does the Edit and the other buttons for the plugins will be still visible ?
acousmodTo this day, I do not see why Podium was designed this way, which is visually and conceptually backwards. That is part of the complexity and confusion.
I think that is a good description of the problem.
At first glance, Podium doesn’t seem so revolutionnary and looks like an ordinary multitrack, with terms that seems to be conventional (inputs, outputs…), but that often work in the opposite way.
The extreme power of its hierarchical conception is not put in first plan.
Explaining what can be done and why this is done like this could be a great argument for potential customers.
Demo projects that can work fine just after an install will be fine of course, but I don’t think that this will make a better understanding of Podium’s workflow. People can play them, and after ?
Step by step tutorials and simple descriptions, accompanied with a schematic of the audio paths, is for me what is the more needed.
I’ve made one last year for multichannel use, and some people have said me that it has helped them to solve some of the first Podium’s incomprehension.
I don’t say that this tutorial is good, but that the current example projects that are installed together with Podium, with the plugins used inside (or other freewares or special Frits plugins) bundled, will be a great value is they will be accompanied with complete tutorials.
acousmodMy intention with the effects plugin is to provide a multieffect plugin that on the UI side integrates into the track inspector and the mixer strips.
If by “multieffect” you mean an equalizer or others basic processes, that will use far less CPU and memory than an external one, of course you have my vote 😉
But for this kind of effect, perhaps that it will be logical to NOT be an option and increase slightly the price of Podium ?
acousmodHi Frits,
I’ve begun development of synth and effect plugins, to be able to deliver example projects that does not require you to download and install various freeware plugins.
I’d like to you remind you of an idea I had a while ago and posted about. The idea is to get permission to use third party free plugins in podium, which could be bundled with Podium
I totally agree, this is what Mackie does with Tracktion.
I don’t say that it would not be nice to see some plugins which will share the quality of Podium, but for me the developpment of Podium itself is far more important.
Podium is not an entry level multitrack software but could compete with professional ones, and I don’t think that the lack of integrated effects will be a problem for potential users of Podium.
Sure, there is also a high need for good tutorials, so if the bundle solution is possible it will be of course a great value for beginners (eh, not only !).
acousmodAs I have seen since many years, the quantity of RAM is not so important with audio, except of course for samplers that do not perform direct-to-disc.
More RAM makes faster multistasking, video compositing or 3D graphics, but for audio it is better to use only application at one time, and most of the audio is processed in streaming.
I suppose this it is why the last improvements in Podium’s internal audio streaming gives an impressive improvement of audio performances with plugins, without having added more RAM…
Plugins by themselves need RAM to load and operate, but I think that vendors use the RAM argument as the response for every problem, but is rarely the real cause for audio.
The cache size seems to be more important for realtime processing, and it is certainly one reason why Centrino CPU with a 2 Mb cache are so fast with audio plugins compared to P4 CPU.
acousmodThank you Frits for trying to explain this engine’s point of view.
But my brain seems to be very different, and the more I try to understand, the more I am confused 😥
I think that I am too distorted by the “signal point of view”, where outputs go to inputs.
I will apply what I know is working, but it seems that my case is hopeless…
Thanks nevertheless !
acousmodThanks Frits.
I see now.
But this bus routing remains very strange for me, since in other mappings the “Target” represents the source audio track and the “Source” represents the target upper track, here the “Target” represents the input of the bus return, not the audio track as usual…
For me, this is very confusing, because for the other mappings the signal goes always “from bottom to top”.
But OK, I think that I will no more make the mistake 😉
acousmodHi,
Just a personal opinion : I don’t like the sub folders in Steinberg, I prefer to decide myself where to put my files, since I organize them by categories, make my own structure of sub folders.
An other point is that I like very much in Podium is the multiple arrangements inside a main project, as they can be different versions with the same files, or different sub parts of the main project which share some files, so I personnaly didn’t whish to have separate folders for each arrangement…
But I suppose that even if it becomes the default in Podium, users will be able to continue to use it like it is now ?
acousmod– master out mapping with 16 outputs
– volume control of master out
– track 1 = mapping 1>1 (source first channel 1) to go through out 1
– track 2 = mapping 1>1 (source first channel 2) to go through out 2
– track 3 = mapping 1>1 (source first channel 3) to go through out 3
etc.
acousmodI vote for A too, which seems to be simpler.
And why not also add a new file option with something like “bounce entire project to”, with the possibility to save the file where we want ?
It will be straightforward for the final render / export stage.
acousmodI would consider Podium part of that workflow of being my dedicated midi sequencer……but Rewire Slave functionality?
Doesn’t a simple MIDI Time Code link wont’be sufficient for this ?
I suppose that MIDI sync will be easier to implement ?
But perhaps that I didn’t understand at all what you are trying to do…
acousmodThe only reason why I don’t do the automatic resize cursor with the select tool, is because this would make it impossible to select and move events that are smaller than the width of the resize border.
For example Cubase, Tracktion, Live or EnergyXT (and others) do this, and it is not a problem.
They seem to use a fixed pixels size, and since when editing or moving very short events (notes too), we generaly have to zoom to make it good, the events are not more small…
With the horizontal zoom with the mouse wheel like in Tracktion or vertical drag in Cubase / Live, it is extremely easy and fast to do so.
But I don’t contest your reasons, just say that the other way is used in other softwares, and is very efficient to my taste 😉
Must know what Podium’s users would prefer ?
To solve this I could restrict the resize area to the bottom part of the sequence event box, highligthed by a frame.
Yes, it will be ready for the future fade in/out feature, in the upper corners !
acousmodWhy don’t you use the pencil tool for this?
Because I don’t like to have to change tools 😉
Audio montage involves to split / resize / select multiple clips and move them all the time. Actually I have to select the cutter to split, the arrow to select and move, the Alt key or the pencil to resize (I could use the pencil tool and ctrl-click to select several events, but it create an empty event when I click to de-select the previous ones…).
Having to select one special tool or adding a modifier key is not only time consuming but above all disturbs the work process by unnecessary actions.
So, I will be very pleased if, some day, I can find in Podium the same simple way to do simple tasks, like in all the softwares I know and have used before.
Is there any programmation problem that prevents the detection of the mouse cursor on the edge of a clip to make it automaticaly act like the resize tool ?
Of course, it is a matter of taste. Personnaly I prefer additionnal keys to separate tools, and no key at all to additionnal keys ! But I understand well that there could be other choices…