druid's Forum Page

Hm.

I don’t know about others, but I usually relatively move notes. So, if you have a multiple of 1/6 note and a multiple of 1/8 note (multiple I mean mathematically, so the quantizationo for that note..), then select both and extend them by 1 bar, they would be one bar longer, but not snap to current quantization.

Of course, there are uses for both.

I don’t mind the minimal value examples, set in snap or such. But also, I’ve seen software (I believe) shrink the large note only as much as the small note can shrink. In other words if you have a note with length 2 and a note with length 3 and reduced it as much as possible, the larger note 3 would only reduce to length 1.

If you don’t do it this way, then I ask what happens if they then stretch the longer note even smaller while the small one remains unchanged, and then stretch it out again? Then both notes could end up the same size, if you stretched the 3 length one to 0, which would also reduce the 2 length one to 0, and then stretched out by 2, would the long AND short one be length 2, or would the longer one be length 2 and the shorter one only 1, maintaining the same distance between them?

That still leaves the problem of the 0 note length. I don’t think that’s healthy, but I’m not sure I like the minimum snap value thing either. Honestly, I’m not sure which side I sit here.

As for maintaining a ratio, I suppose that could be useful in some instances, but I think in too many cases it could be unwanted. I have often, when composing, gone to reduce all notes in a clip by, say a quarter length, no matter their length. Ratio stuff means I would then need to select notes only of that same length to adjust them, or I will get unexpected results for me.

Oh snap!

The thing is, I would like parts of my setup to be updated when you update it Frits, and other parts not to be. Guess I’ll have to remember all the things I change, if I choose to adjust it. 😛

Glad I can be of some help with ideas. 😉

It would be greatly appreciated if you did this Frits. Entire song length envelopes are all well and good, but there is a lot to be said for using shorter clips too.

For instance, I could want to clone a MIDI clip and an automation clip that are meant to go together. If I have a full track length automation clip, I can’t copy it along with the smaller MIDI clip. Or, even if I did, it would overlay the large automation clip with a smaller one. Very messy. But if one can use smaller clips, these can be attached to the MIDI and treated as one. This may be beneficial for filter sweeps and the like where a MIDI 0-127 parameter is just .. a little bad for resolution.

One could always use short clips, then when the song is complete, select all and glue together (as I have done so far) but then one must suffer the potential issues while producing, until they complete the track (or at least the automation lane).

I also tend towards pattern-based approaches, so to me the more efficient method of using smaller clips makes more sense. 😉

@Zynewave wrote:

However, I would still like to hear what the other users think.

So would I 🙂

I wish I could be of some help… Unfortunately I just don’t do as much audio work as I used to, I’m busy with uni, and most importantly… The things you’re working on currently I haven’t really come across any needs for, quite possibly due to my lack of activity with audio!

Only saying this because I feel guilty, I like contributing my opinion to things, but… well yeah. 😛