druidOh I see what you mean.
I’m not sure, but it sounds like a challenge..!! … I’ll get around to trying. 😛 I know you can change track types and do weird things so I’m not 100%, but certainly it isn’t intuitively obvious to do it, anyhow.
I’d probably more likely put the audio file within XT and the modular environment and use Podium as the interface between that and the MIDI, but then I have tended to do that even when I only used XT! I used to embed XT in XT a lot too. Did you ever see my template project that I made available to download? 😛 It sort of relied on the idea of XT being the host, which then used XT as the main VST for each track which inside it had just things to do with that instrument.
Not ideal if you want to cross information between instruments but at least for now I don’t tend to. So it wasn’t too hard to switch to Podium and then still use XT as the VST on all tracks!
Er, but in short, I’ll see what I can do! I think many others here might have more idea than me anyway though, but I’m curious now. 😉
druidI think you might be too used to modularity. It’s not that it can’t be done; but if you’re looking for a solution even half as easy as XT, then to my knowledge Podium doesn’t do it.
But it’s true that XT1.4.1 inside Podium allows a lot of modularity, but it’s easy to say for a person like me who owns licences for both. I think you sold your XT one before? Usually I use XT on the track and put synth and fx all in there, like a container for that track entirely. Or I put the synth in Podium and just one insert FX, which is XT. It still allows a lot of flexibility .. but then, I haven’t done a whole lot of audio work recently and so I am only thinking logically, not for practice.
druidEh? Why not?
druidWell since we’re making a poll on it now, I say audio-stretching more important! I use energyXT to do routing inside each track so I have all the MIDI ability I need. 😀
druidI’ve added something atop my post here (not the original one though) since the other stuff is longer and possibly not useful.
From a usability perspective, I think it would be better to move the split in the middle, meaning that no new functions have to be memorised by the user. It seems to me to be more intuitive. Markers inside the sound event is something new to learn how to do, after all.
I’m not sure if there would be advantages between one way or another for sound quality or anything else though, and on that note, my original post:
Obviously it would be easier to split the sound files (I mean within the engine, not how the user handles it) but would there be an audio advantage in not internally splitting them and treating them separately, but trying to calculate it as one smooth process? Is that even possible? What I mean is, if they’re treated as separate, couldn’t there be cases where the last sample of the previous one does not match up to the next one, and therefore not seamlessly continue?
If that is the case, and you programmed it to make sure it was seamless, it would make more sense I think for markers inside the sound. Otherwise, if internally it was being split anyway, nothiing wrong with your idea about stretching the middle split at all.
I’m not sure if this makes sense as I think, practically speaking, my concern is about comparison of internal function to visual application, but that may have no bearing on general usability.
druidI’m .. so out of my depth here. 😳
Both XT2 and XT1 do the same thing; it plays the synth inside it, with only MIDI connected internally, but doesn’t seem to record. I setup two tracks, one which plays MIDI into XT (as it is required to get the arp to do anything of course) and one to record on, using the same “instance”. No recording… But I really wasn’t sure what I was doing.
However, I attached Nuffink’s ChordSpace just straight on a track, armed it, started recording and clicked on some chords, and voila; it recorded the MIDI.
Because I have no idea why one works and another doesn’t, I might leave this topic alone. As I said, I’m out of my depth, I’m used to working with audio chains, not MIDI. 😳
druidCan you give me explicit instructions? I own both and could test it for you.
I’ve never tried recording MIDI from a plugin, but at least initially, I can’t get it to work?
I inserted an arpeggiator in XT2, and a sequencer (just in case XT2 was being fussy or something), and connected the MIDI out of the arp to the MIDI IN of the MIDI OUT module (sounds funny haha). Podium, when receiving a MIDI signal, usually flashes on the sidebar, but I got no flashes. I had no audio connected but I’m going to guess the MIDI wasn’t recorded. Is there another plugin I can try, or something I forgot to do to try this out for you?
druidI know a lot of my post above was suggestions, but can I get a response on the creation of .mini files for previewing in Podium? And if it does, could you explain why you chose to do that? I just wonder if it’s necessary. There are some out there like me that are finicky with what goes in folders without them knowing. 🙂
druid– When i browsing my own samples.. Why the hell u have to double click to hear it? Pls change it to just one click. Its much faster browsing style.
Hm… I have both opinions on this. On the one hand, sometimes when browsing for a sample only, a short one-shot type, I like to just use the down arrow key on the keyboard and have it play when I select it, which would be similar if not the same to single-click playing (in Adobe Audition the “auto-play” function on the browse window does this). On the other hand, sometimes I don’t want autoplay samples, and having a double-click means that I won’t accidentally play something I don’t want to play.
druidI guess we’ll have to stop partying then. 🙁
… just kidding! 🙂
druid@Zynewave wrote:
The dialog should not appear at all, if the setup file already contains valid folder assignments, or if Podium detects existing default folders created on a previous run.
Well, that could well be so! As I said, I deleted all previous forms to test the tool in its “primal” state; I look forward to the next release so I can test it again, this time with the previous install still there! 😉
druidHey Frits, I’m just wondering why this release was even announced on KVRAudio but it’s still not on the front page of the Zynewave page? It’s no problem, just making sure you didn’t forget!
druidMy thoughts (on the install process). I removed the previous installation entirely to see what would happen.
Positive:
Negative (intended more to be constructive feedback – I am greatful for your work so far!):
I hope this helps! Thank you for a great release as always! And I apologise that I did not test in beta stage; as someone who was complaining about some of the previous actions, and making suggestions, I should have been helping to test it.
druidI’m known to state the obvious all the ti… I mean, some of the time. 😀