Conquistador's Forum Page

That was a surprise. Oh well I guess it was worth a try. At least Podium still has it’s own WIKI. 😉

@Zynewave wrote:

@Conquistador:

It seems you misunderstood me. To try to make it clearer, here’s a screenshot of a track configured both for level automation and audio mixing (which is a setup that I’m not recommending because it is of little practical use):

Sorry, maybe I did misunderstand you 😉 but your screenshot is exactly what I suggested but…the fader would show the db values but the track would not be configured for level automation. However the fader would still control the track gain.

It is not a radically new feature to have a fader, control volume levels on a track without level automation being activated for that track. Many hosts operate this way.

Yes you can automate volume levels in other hosts as well but you can easily just use thier track faders to adjust volume levels with no automation active.

The track is not configured for automation yet the fader controls the track volume.

The fader requires more pixels than the width of the dB labels, even when the fader overlaps the labels.

Yes you are right but it is a very small amount really IMO 😉 . The track in your screenshot is hardly what I would describe as abnormally wide.

But if you think it is just too much width (especially considering compacting of strips is possible) then it’s OK if it is just too problematic to implement. Really. It just seemed like a nice suggestion.:) There are far more important things I would like to see in Podium, I just really thought this would be very simple feature to implement.

I do appreciate your asking for ideas for it’s implementation and do not want to sidetrack you into something that from your perspective as Podiums developer, just will not work as a feature.

On top of that, one of my design criteria is that the level meters are centered on the strip, which results in some wasted space to the right of the meters.

If that is your design criteria then I do not want you to change that.:wink: You have done a great job already on Podium’s design. So maybe it just will not work. I thought this FR would be a small thing to add. No worries.

The only other suggestion I can offer at this point is Samplitude’s approach…placing the db values on the meters.

http://www.samplitude.com/eng/sam/economy.html

In Podium however the fader could reside on the right side of the meters filling up the space you described as “wasted”. The db values would be on the meters as in the Samplitude screenshot.

Beyond that idea…I have no idea. 😆

I will say this though…perhaps Podium does need at least an optional wider setting to accomodate faders. Possibly off by default. But if the additional width is not something you think will work, like or want to consider just yet, that’s OK, as you have done a great job with Podium’s design already.

The faders are a ‘nice to have’ IMO not a ‘need to have’ like the zGrid for instance to keep track counts in Podium projects lower and comparable to other hosts.

It’s a minor thing in comparison to zGrid IMO. 🙂

Try setting up a normal automation track with the mixer level parameter. Now “enable audio mixing” in the automation track properties. This will show you what I mean with wider.

Thats fine as I said earlier to Podianer my width assumptions were wrong.:wink: I was looking at Podium on a different PC. something is different on it. So I agree with the wider estimation you made.

Btw. this possibility of assigning a track both for audio mixing and automation is not something I recommend. I may remove this feature at some point.

???? Not sure what you mean here. I don’t and did not recommend it either 😉

What are your thoughts on these ideas I posted earlier…?

What about an option to show the faders on the same side as the db values? The fader will not take up any additional space in this instance and show the db values on the fader (as the parameter faders currently show parameter values).

Perhaps this is what caused some confusion. I did not mean autotmation parameters on audio tracks…(that would be odd) I meant the same type of graphical faders that appear on parameter tracks, appearing on audio tracks but this time with db values. Not parameter values.

The audio tracks faders would provide db values that control what is going on with the track gain / volume not automation parameters. That would make no sense.

These faders would be on the same side as the current db values on audio tracks. That way the track strip should not be any wider. The db values would show on the audio track fader in the same way the parameter faders show their values on parameter tracks, on the fader itself. 😉

Welcome! 🙂

Installing a newer version should automatically uninstall the old version.

I must say this has worked 100% every time for me. I really doubt you will have any problems with this. 😉

@Zynewave wrote:

You can show/hide the group panel using the menu button at the top of the inspector.

Yes that is very smart. Makes Podiums track management much easier and at the same time more advanced and more flexible. Clever stuff.8)

The group panel will update and resize to show all parent tracks of the currently selected track. You can adjust gain/send for each group track without having to move the current track focus.

Brilliant.

I also plan to add the “E” button on the groups for fast access to plugin editors.

Yes please. This should be there really.

Another thing I’m considering: Clicking on the arrow column at the left edge of the panel will open a menu listing all tracks at that group level. This can be used as a quick navigation in the track groups, and the selected track will scroll into focus in the tracks region.

Another great idea. Please go ahead and add this as well. 🙂

Something I noticed…

In your screen shot the Map: and Track: panels do not appear to reflect the contents of the currently selected track / that has focus. Although it is difficult to tell for sure just by looking at the screenshot, it does appear that way. Please confirm or deny 🙂

Of course currently, if one selects a track in the arrange view all the panels in the track inspector will change to reflect that, which is great and has always worked very well. But…if I was to click on say the Ozone 3 track in the new group panel would all the panels below it also update to reflect the contents of that track as well?

Map, Track, Preset, Param, Info?

Put another way…will all the Panels in the Track inspector update to reflect the currently selected track in the new group panel in the same way selecting any track in Podiums arrange view currently updates all panels in the track inspector?

I guess it will but I just want to double check as this new feature will be extremely effective if the track view, group panel and all the remaining panels in the track inspector are all in sync at all times. 8)

Also have you changed the name of the Info Panel to Track Panel?

I think Podium may very well have a distinctive edge over other less flexible hosts once this is implemented. There is some really clever stuff here. Please carry on! 😉

@Zynewave wrote:

I have thought about adding an “export” command to the file menu in the sound editor. This would then bring up a dialog where you can select the format of the file such as wav or mp3. For wav files there would be further options for setting bit depth and dither.

Yes please! 🙂

The options to select the format, bit depth and dither are essential features for exporting files and will further reduce the need to use other software packages for tasks of that nature.

I think adding the export command to the file menu and the sound editor is also a very good idea. I totally agree. 8)