ConquistadorI have noticed that when building drums in Podium over say 4 bars that Podium can sometimes drop out audio wise.
If I enter the midi data while it’s looping it seems ok but…it appears if I enter data too close to the time the play cursor starts looping (back to the beggining of a loop or loop start point) then Podium will play back the entire 4 bar loop in complete silence until it starts the loop again.
It is as if Podium’s engine is knocked out of sync or dis engaged by midi data entry if it takes place too to close to the time the play cursor reaches the end of a loop.
This problem really does complicate drum production somewhat.
This realtime response can be improved, but it will require a few days of work. Currently I feel my time is better spent on some of the more essential features that have been discussed on this forum recently.
Of course improvements have been made since this discussion began (thanks) but the midi entry issue still appears to be there.
If possible please do consider looking at this problem at some point (I appreciate you do have to carefully prioritise user requests and fixes e.t.c) and you have consistently done this very well, but when you can please do re visit this problem as drum production can be unpredictable in Podium.
Cheers.
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
Yes. Pressing the H key (or using the menu) will still toggle display of the mixer strip for the track.
Great thanks.
It shows/hides the send dials on the bus send headers. Hiding these can save some space when you are not adjusting send levels.
Ok yes that’s true.
The “compact headers” option is still available in the mixer view menu.
Good point yes.
Tooltip popup of the full name of the track and any objects assigned to it, is already on the plan.
I think it had indeed been discussed before, it was really brought up as a reminder. At least it is on the plan 😉
That’s why I’m moving the bypass/edit buttons from the right edge to the left edge of the strip. The tooltip popup will thus not obscure the buttons.
I understand that better now. Cheers.
Since the last screenshot, I’ve attached arrows to the top of the headers, similar to the arrows in the tracks region. I’ve also moved the input and latency rows down at the bottom of the mixer, which further emphasizes the bottom to top signal flow
Very nice. 🙂 The mixer is really a key showpiece in Podium now.
ConquistadorFWIW I think Podium exposing mappings the way it does is actually a better way of handling plugins.
What might help is if Podium detects a plugin with different mappings like the GEQ overtone, that it can offer a simple standard mapping as well as any other mappings a plugin has.
Also being able to right click on a mapping within the Map: Panel and choose New standard or simple insert Mapping would be nice as well. I think Podium exposing all types by default would be better to avoid the problem I encountered.
Interestingly Podium combines the simple drag and drop of Tracktion and more advanced mapping options (for multichannel use) as well. I think my frustration got the better of me before. 😆 Podium scores very highly when handling mappings IMO once you understand it. 😉
ConquistadorConquistador
This shows the new extended track headers in the mixer. They now contain controls for mappings, presets and send dials. This is more space efficient for the bus send and effect insert tracks.
This does look very good and makes sense. 🙂
There is no longer any need to show the mixer strip for these tracks, unless you want to check the meter of the track output.
Regarding the statement above…if we want to will we still be able to?
I’m considering moving the map, preset and param rows on the mixer strips up to the mixer header as well.
I think that is a good idea. Please yes.
Some questions….
What purpose will the Send button (under the Pan button) on the left of the screen serve now, possibly to hide / show the new send locations?
Will it be possible to hide / show all track headers?
Suggestion…
Looking at the image you posted I can’t help but feel that some sort of solution to the ” name cutoff” problem should possibly be considered.
In the image above… your have “Voxengo SP” (instead os Voxengo Span) and “Classic Master Li” which sounds like some sort of kung fu grand master or something fighting off 10 men all by himself 😆 (instead of displaying the full name Classic Master Limiter).
Of course being able to extend the width of these strips would be an option but…if that is a problem at least a tool tip could appear when the mouse cursor hovers over a name in the track header. This could show the full track name.
Move your mouse away and the tool tip disappears. I suppose it could be made optional but it seems quite a minor addition. Buit if other users would prefer not to have it then I suppose a global option might work.
It just looks odd right now to have names cut off in Podium like that when Podium really is a very polished product.
Podium really does have a formidable mixer now. It can be easy to forget how important this is but…it’s great fun to use as well 🙂
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
You describe some of the problems in your post. I’m guessing that what you really want numbers for, is track lanes and not tracks in general.
Well to be honest I would prefer if each track (any type) is numbered as tracks can add up in Podium and having them all numbered would really help manage what track belongs where, feeds into what, but at a glance. Of course one can see this already but having them numbered would definitely help.
There would be no need to come out of the arrangement to check one’s track count.
CPU usage could be better monitored by easily seeing how many tracks are cooking at the same time e.t.c.
Since you can show/hide the track lane with a shortcut, how should this affect the numbering of the tracks? Should the track numbers be assigned to a track when created,
Yes IMO but…the numbering process would work differently (slightly) for New tracks (with no parents) and another way for Group or parent tracks when they are created.
We have four track types in Podium at the moment (that can be created with the right click menu)
New Tracks
New Child Tracks
Group Tracks
Group Bounce Tracks
New Tracks:
The text “New track” already appears on every New track created by default. Creating a new track could now have a number added to the track header, vertical track strip or the track name (before the New Track name text) the track header might be a better option though.
New Child tracks:
Again the text “New track” already appears on every New child track created by default.
If inserting a child track anywhere above the first track:… in a family or above the first track created in a family i.e a track with an instrument mapping on it… then numbering could be kept very simple by assigning the same number of the first track in the family or first child track no. (say 7 for instance) to the new child track created anywhere above it.
But for clarity a letter could also be added based on how far up the tree in this group the child track is created.
So if a Stylus mapping is placed on track 7 and a group track wrapped around it then if a child track is created just above the Stylus mapped track it would have the following number and letter 7a. 7 to identify it as a track belonging to that group and “a” to signify it is the first track above the main or key track being processed.
Group tracks:
Once inserted they would be assigned the same number as the first child track, or the tracks being processed i.e. an instrument track with number 7 on it’s track header that then has group tracks assigned or wrapped around it, those that tracks would now have 7a, 7b and 7c on their vertical track strips or Track headers.
To further clarify…
Every other group track created above the first group track would be given the next letter in the alphabet. The first group track would have 7a as it’s number (and letter) if another is created above that group track it would be assigned the letter and number 7b.
Group Bounce tracks:
The numbering process for group bounce tracks would be similar to group tracks.
Numbering process when Inserting tracks:
Child tracks being inserted below another track.
If a Child track is created below the very last track in a group (so it now feeds into another above it) for instance then the new child track would have the number 7.
And the former child track (now a group track) would have the number 7a, all other tracks above would adjust their letters automatically to fit or keep the numbering process accurate.
So if 3 group tracks in the example above had 7a,7b, and 7c in their track headers or vertical strip (before inserting the new child track) they would now be changed to 7b, 7c and 7d after the new child track is inserted at the bottom of the group. So that is now the first track in the group with 4 tracks above it.
What about Parameter tracks?
These might not necessarily have any numbers. If they do (for consistency) then P1, P2 or P3 accordingly I think would be sufficient.
What happens when tracks are deleted?
Any tracks deleted should as you put it “automatically adjust according to changes in the track hierarchy” to maintain a correct numbering process.
or should it automatically adjust according to changes in the track hierarchy?
See above. 😉
Track numbers could also appear in the Track Panel and Group panel. I think track numbering IMO will actually help manage the track hierarchy especially when things get busy.
However I do think track numbering should be a global option so as not to change things for those who prefer to work without it.
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
It’s tricky to make a sensible numbering due to the hierarchic organisation of the tracks.
“Sensible” in what way?
Personally I dislike using numbers to identify tracks, but I know some prefer to have numbered tracks.
I would be one of the “some” then. 🙂
I’d rather organize tracks under group tracks to get a better overview in arrangements with a large number of tracks
That statement shows how one way of doing something does not necessarily mean “better”. To illustrate further… I like to work exactly the way you described but with track numbers. Software packages that are very flexible are usually used in ways very different to how the developer originally intended.
This is a good thing, not bad as it showcases the power and flexibiltiy of a package like Podium.
While Podium of course is your product (we are licensed to use it but do not actually own it in the way you do) surely what users want is more important than your personal preference, unless…our requests complicate your development of it.
You described numbering in Podium as “tricky”
Could not a simple option be provided (probably global) that allows a user to work with numbered tracks if they want to?
If you personally find it that difficult to work with numbered tracks from a personal standpoint, that is entirely reasonable as we are all different but why deny users and customers who would prefer that option?
If you dislike it so much Frits, you can have the option switched of by default LOL!
Podium clearly knows how many tracks have been created in any arrangement. One glance at the information available at the bottom of the Arrangement and Sounds column makes that clear…Tracks:
So if Podium knows the number of tracks that are created as they are created, then could that information not be made more transparent by a simple process of numbering on each track in Podium?
I think Podium is the only host that does not have track numbering. Podiums delivery of track structures and audio signal paths is unique (in a very good way) but I don’t see how it is “tricky” to implement track numbering. Seriously.
If you start a project and an arrangement with say 3 or 4 “Efffect per Audio tracks” and 4 “Audio Tracks” you do get some form of track numbering but if you try and add any more tracks that process disappears. 🙁
I dont necessarily want to start projects with 30 tracks to begin with either! I like to create as many tracks as I need as I work. There are more than enough tracks to deal with in Podium as it is at times.
How might track numbering work then…?
Creating a new arrangement and choosing your Audio tracks and Effects per Audio track numbers will be followed by some form of numbered tracks but only the audio tracks will be numbered not the effect tracks currently in Podium.
This makes sense but why not extend that already existing functionality to any new created track?
New tracks: are automatically given the name “New Track” why not give them a number automatically as well? Podium already knows how many tracks are created but that includes FX tracks, so perhaps this time Podium can use an additional track numbering method (when creating new tracks in an arrangement) based on tracks that are not “wrapped”.
The way you cleverly set up track management for new arrangements is almost there already. FX tracks are not numbered. Could not the same process be used for new tracks in the arrangement as they are created?
So how about…numbering Group tracks and Group bounce tracks?
These are effectively different types of parent tracks and I think should automatically be given the number of the very first track in the family they are “parenting” or the number of the first child track.
For instance a track with an Instrument mapping or FX mapping (with audio data on the track) would be the first track and as a result once a group track is created, will become the the “first child track”.
So if the number of that first child track is 7 , any number of group tracks that are created around that track would be 7 also for consistency, or for even better clarity 7a, 7b, 7c or 7d depending on what group level they are created on.
Thoughts?
Conquistador@Pigini wrote:
Funny how many users around here seem to have an energyXT-license.
You can include me in that list. 🙂 It is strange. I guess the low price is the key factor. Jorgen’s work is impressive but I think with v.2 he has somewhat changed his more regular update approach with a more long term development process.
He has remained very much accesible regardless but right now EXTv.2 is a long way from completion. I will pick up a free upgrade to v.2 but Podium covers many of my needs right now. I am more likely to use EXT 2 as a plugin chainer within Podium, a very powerful chainer that would be.
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
It’s because the plugin supports multichannel use, so Podium imports it as a global plugin with separate mappings for each stereo input/output. If you want to use it in stereo-only mode, right-click the mapping in the device list, and use the “new insert mapping” command.
Excellent thanks I will try that. 🙂
ConquistadorConquistador@xis23 wrote:
I would like it if I were able to see the exact figure for velocity. Perhaps this figure written above the velocity bar or inside it. I require this because I use velocity for sample switching rather than volume (which I instead control with volume envelopes). I use all 127 velocities to trigger different versions of the same sample and a code which determines what is triggered where so sequencing the right numbers is pretty important to me.
There is a read out or meter to the left of course but I agree your suggestion would be very useful indeed. I guess the information is clearly there under the hood of Podium but it would be nice for us to be able to ‘see’ it. 😉
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
I think you also mentioned some sort of peak indicator…have you now put aside that idea?
It will come later. Right now I’m working on streamlining the layout of the mixer.
I think the clever options we already have with the realtime changing colour of the meters serves as very nice way to easily see when a track level has overloaded or clipped.
When the mixer is half or all the way up I can see when levels are low, mid or high just be glancing at the colour changes in the track meters . I don’t think any other host has a similar offering.
So yes I think more work on the layout of the mixer is very welcome indeed. 🙂
I think the changes in 1.85 have really helped to keep the power and flexibility Podium offers with the track hierachy, but also now it is far more accessible without losing that power and flexibility. If anything it is even more flexible now. 8)
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
About the new default track options:
They are intended as a quick way to set up a conventional mixer layout, where you have a set of bus sends and effect slots for each audio track. On the audio tracks you then assign VST instruments or place sound events.
After spending some time with 1.85 I must say it is even easier to set up things in Podium now, although it was not even close to being complicated before especially with the current, easy to use project start page.
I like the way the creation of a new arrangement is now always met with these new options I really like them. Great idea! 🙂
The bus send tracks are by default minimized, so you’ll have to show the bus send track strip in the mixer (press H) to show the send dial.
Probably a good idea to keep the look of the mixer, minimal.
The next thing I’m going to work on is extending the headers of the mixer strip so that they show bus send dials and selection of the assigned plugin mapping.
Nice. I think you also mentioned some sort of peak indicator…have you now put aside that idea?
Thinking further ahead, I plan to extend the zPEQ editor so that it will show a miniature EQ graph on the mixer header. A feature also seen in other hosts that have a built-in EQ on each track
Good idea as it will provide a bit more focus on the capability of the ZPEQ while of course also providing a pre mapped per track EQ for us to use as well.
Maybe thinking even further ahead, the ZMaster (I think it is some sort of channel strip???)…it would be great as a an option to pre map into the master chain. I would probably have it off by default but it would be nice to have the option to start a project with it there already. Maybe on one of the master chain tracks. Perhaps something to ponder for the future.
Cheers. 😉
ConquistadorOn the bug front…
So far no problems, of course something may pop up over a longer period of time. But just using Podium in my usual way so far seems fine. 😉
Of course other users with different workflows may find a bug a or two.
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
I think I’ll eventually remove this “relative path” option for plugins. It’s causing too much confusion.
🙂 That is up to you of course, but please do not only base that decision on my comments as there are plenty of other Podium users who may have no problem with it at all. I don’t have a ‘problem’ with it but just wanted a bit more clarification on it, I was in no way trying to have it removed 🙂
Plugin filenames can be configured as relative to a root VST folder (the VST folder you specify at project creation). The idea was that if you moved your entire plugin collection to a different drive or a different folder, you would only need to change the VST root folder in Podium, and the plugins in your projects would then load correctly from the new path. If the plugins are configured with absolute paths, you would need to use the “search” command if you move the plugins.
If the “Relative path” option is grayed out, it means that the plugin file is located outside the VST folder you’ve specified, and thus the filename cannot be relative to this folder
Thanks for the clarification 8)