Zynewave's Forum Page

What’s next?

There still remains a few issues with the hiding of track lanes, so the release is a few days away. I haven’t decided on what’s next.

Do you think that we could for example define the colours for all the track types in the Profile properties ?
Thus a simple option available in the track – or lane – menu will allow to select the type / color plus a custom colour like now ?

Maybe sometime in the future. I’ve played enough with colors for this release.

1. I already own a plug in that has it’s own built in dithering algo – Ozone. Would I be able to use this instead of your dithering algo on the master out?

You can just assign the Ozone plugin instead of the master track plugin I mentioned.

2. I may use your dithering algo instead but have no idea what that would be…Pow-r, UV22 e.t.c what do have in mind?

These all require licenses, so it will be a while before I can offer them in Podium. Initially it will just be simple dithering.

3. Also you mentioned Eq and a limiter but no compressor.

One step at the time. Eventually I will probably create a channel strip plugin, combining EQ and comp, so you don’t have to set up two tracks in serial.

4.Podium produces 32bit and 64 bit files (that can be used for dithering). Will your dithering algo dither 64bit files as well?

This will be possible with the recently announced VST 2.4 which supports 64-bit floating-point processing. But you won’t hear much improvement when applying 16-bit dither noise to 64-bit 😉

5. So efffectively they would provide a per track EQ, and Limiter?

Yes.

6. What plans are there for dealing with existing floating windows of third party plug ins? Any plans to dock these views somehow?

Native plugin editors will not be dockable, since they most often are not resizable. Only Zynewave plugins and plugins using the Podium generic editor will be embedded in the track inspector.

But I prefer “Lane” to “Path” because path is an abstract word for me which is good to describe the sound flow but not visual things. The old “tracks” are something where to put objects : sequences, plugins, mappings etc.

“Lane” has for me the benefit of both meanings of track and path, while being more concrete.
It is also used in some video compositing softwares with the same meaning (if I remember well…).

I was thinking of the word “path” as a label for the routing properties of the current track object. I am going to use the word “lane” to describe the horizontal timeline lane of a track. The new track design has a ‘hide track lane’ option in the track context menu. Since a track now is not always associated with a real timeline track, I was just considering if there were a more proper name for it. “Track” and “lane” are sort of the same thing in my mind. Anyway, I won’t change it anytime soon so we can discuss this again after the new track design has settled.

In France there is a tradition called “le trou normand” which consists to drink a little glass of liquor in the middle of a dinner, in order to give more appetite for the next meats.

I think that this graphic subject is something like this for Frits, before going on the “serious well known hard needed features” !?

Exactly 😆

Is it possible to make new track inspector a little more pseudo-3D’ish, without eating CPU power and loosing that great ideas that came with new GUI?

I first tried replicating the 3D headers in the mixer, but it just didn’t look good. The new vertical bars does not blend well with the old ‘sunken’ track headers.

The argument was that the term “track” is a fallout from the tape days and doesn’t really adapt well with the new capabilities of PC based DAWs. Channel is a more appropriate term in that it better addresses signal flow. Would this help in explaining Podium? I think it would.

I’d be prepared to relabel ‘track’ objects if we can agree on a better word. As I’ve mentioned in another topic, a track in Podium is more like a node in the hierarchy which may or may not have timeline events attached to it. As for the word ‘channel’, I normally associate this with audio channels. The term ‘multichannel’ is also commonly used for describing surround sound. So I think there is a conflict with using ‘channel’ instead of ‘track’.