NAMM NEWS - DP 10 - It's Here!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Do the Google, baby!

Not me, man. Italian family from Trenton. I had a Teamsters answering machine. You kiddin me?


(P.S. Is this off-topic?)

You're right. I grownup in an Italian speaking household and never quite got out of the slang phrases. I was trying to be polite and see what it gets me? LOL Yes, your Italian is correct. Mine was off. I'll drink Irish beer tonight to make up for my sins - and create a whole new set of them.

[Michael Canavan]

One of the new features:

Overdub recording replaces CC data - When overdub recording continuous controller data, any existing data is replaced to prevent data streams that conflict with each other.

I don't know if this is going to help, but it could be an indicator, if it also replaces CC data when you select and option drag CC data, that would be a step towards a more logical approach to these scenarios.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

..0.copy pasting data is going to seem like a waste of time compared to just playing the part again.

DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner.

From a musicians standpoint, I couldn't agree more. OTOH, if you are creating complex mixes and want to move your sh$t around they way these guys seem to want to, I'd suggest an additional instantiation of the VI or at least a clean track. Insert the cc data to compensate for where it "left off" and/or wants to go, and move on. I don't even put overlapping audio in the same track (not ever) so I don't see this, nor do I see the "create fades bug" people are bitching about in other threads (surprised it hasn't found it's way here yet... lol).

It really is all about how you think about you product and you process. If you want everything neat and in a single track that's fine, but be prepared to encounter issues such as these. If, OTOH, you want to finish the damn project and move the next one, you'd be well advised to do what's most expedient. You'll also spend less time online trying to find a solution to what may well be how you thing as opposed to how the programmers (and in this case most users) tend to think.

Or you can simply continue to and/or Capish? (BTW, see what I did there? )

[FMiguelez]

..0.copy pasting data is going to seem like a waste of time compared to just playing the part again.

DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner.

From a musicians standpoint, I couldn't agree more.

Play the part again? Really?? But who's talking about repeating parts or even playing parts again?

Snips have nothing to do with repeating parts or playing them again?

I hope you don't mean we should redraw all automation parameters in case there is pasted automation at different places. Should we redraw all these parameters every time we make an edit?

Come, on, guys! I thought we had finally reached some kind of understanding regarding this, and now that straw man that has nothing to do with the problem or a viable solution to it?

Mike, upthread I gave you a few easy steps to test this for yourself in less than 3 minutes:
-- Over the length of any audio file, just take a bunch of snapshots with different values for a plugin with quite a few parameters. Then make snips over different points.
--Also try pasting this towards the end of another track with other (or the same) parameters with different values.

Remember that one track in that example is only one of dozens with many CC or automation parameters for long and complex mixes.
See the ramps that are created depending on where you snip? Don't you see how this affects a mix over time? See how unreliable your settings get in the target tracks?

Do you think that's a reasonable behaviour? I'm not asking you if you use this or not. I want to know if you think this is acceptable behaviour for a pro audio app with multi-track automation capabilities.

Anyway. I though that upthread you had accepted this was a real issue for others (not for you). But then here you say stuff that makes you sound as if you didn't agree again or even understand what the problem is! Me no comprende anything anymore...

[jloeb]

..0.copy pasting data is going to seem like a waste of time compared to just playing the part again.

DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner.

From a musicians standpoint, I couldn't agree more. OTOH, if you are creating complex mixes and want to move your sh$t around they way these guys seem to want to, I'd suggest an additional instantiation of the VI or at least a clean track. Insert the cc data to compensate for where it "left off" and/or wants to go, and move on. I don't even put overlapping audio in the same track (not ever) so I don't see this, nor do I see the "create fades bug" people are bitching about in other threads (surprised it hasn't found it's way here yet... lol).

It really is all about how you think about you product and you process. If you want everything neat and in a single track that's fine, but be prepared to encounter issues such as these. If, OTOH, you want to finish the damn project and move the next one, you'd be well advised to do what's most expedient. You'll also spend less time online trying to find a solution to what may well be how you thing as opposed to how the programmers (and in this case most users) tend to think.

Or you can simply continue to and/or Capish? (BTW, see what I did there? )

Capish?? Stop giving me sadz.

I feel like I'm finding myself on a side of an argument I usually find myself on the other side of: the "workarounds" argument. There's an annoying tendency to call some of the engagement with features that DP requires in order to retain power and flexibility "workarounds."
But I think what you're describing really is a workaround, (and sure: if it works, you stay around). If you have lotsandlotsandlots of tracks, you kind of want your edits to behave or, specifically, you want to be able to say to DP: treat these edits that I'm defining by selection as though I were splicing tape, for as long as I specify that behavior.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

If you have lotsandlotsandlots of tracks, you kind of want your edits to behave or, specifically, you want to be able to say to DP: treat these edits that I'm defining by selection as though I were splicing tape, for as long as I specify that behavior.

Precisely. We're NOT editing tape (no more razor cuts! lol) There's really no need to have all in one cohesive, all encompassing track unless you're going to print in which case DP may be your worst choice ever! In fact, at the moment NO APP is the best choice for THAT.

[jloeb]

Precisely. We're NOT editing tape (no more razor cuts! lol) There's really no need to have all in one cohesive, all encompassing track unless you're going to print in which case DP may be your worst choice ever! In fact, at the moment NO APP is the best choice for THAT.

But come on, what drives the necessity for that kind of predictable tapelike behavior is precisely an artifact of the new way of doing things: the huge parallelism of it - huge numbers of tracks with lots of automation each. You want to be able to move things laterally on the time axis in a way that saves work vertically across those many tracks. You want to have a mode of editing - just one, optional mode - that makes current per-track automation values the first priority.

[dix]

Apologies for my rogue moderating attempts. I don’t mean to minimize or marginalize anyone trying to make DP better. At the very least it will help attract users of other DAWs. But, since I only use DP for work 8 days a week I don’t need to know what’s wrong with it. At least not until it’s fixed or going to be...At which point we’ll be hearing from the people who liked it better the old way

...anyway, at this point this thread has become so long and unwieldy that even if all the posts were on-topic I wouldn’t re-subscribe. It’s so dense it’s no longer too helpful to anyone actually curious about or wanting to discuss DP10. It won’t be too long before DP10 drops and a new thread can be created that discusses it (for awhile anyway).

God’s speed automation-warriors.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

If this were in the composing thread it would have been locked long ago. Maybe I'll go over to gearsluts and see what they're talking about... NOT! Too bust in DP this week. lol Contrary to popular belief, it does effing work. Don't tell my competition.

[Michael Canavan]

It really is all about how you think about you product and you process. If you want everything neat and in a single track that's fine, but be prepared to encounter issues such as these. If, OTOH, you want to finish the damn project and move the next one, you'd be well advised to do what's most expedient. You'll also spend less time online trying to find a solution to what may well be how you thing as opposed to how the programmers (and in this case most users) tend to think.

Or you can simply continue to and/or Capish? (BTW, see what I did there? )

Yeah but this is where the problem comes from not most user thinking this is how it should work, but from the fact that a lot of DP users are like you in that they don't use that feature in the first place..

There is a definite reason all other DAWs I've tested so far ramp at 90º from the last played automation part that to the new setting, because most people do work that way. The ramping is for the most part, an artifact, it's not something anyone would want to happen.

I agree that it's important to come up with solutions, but if you're tasked with adding another chorus line to Wendys Next Hit™ after the band has left etc. and have to then go through and fix dozens of automation points that became ramps, then it's a PITA, I get it.

Like I said, one of the reasons this particular bug, (and I think you can rightly call it a bug), gets so many replies is the seeming lack of understanding of why it's an issue in the first place, the venerable "I don't use that feature, so I don't care" response.

There are just IMO a few very tiny things left in DP that other DAWs can do a lot better, it's important to be open minded about what others want.. XML improvements and score editor improvements are important to some. Bouncing export options and automation improvements to others. Notice the score improvements requests never raise eyebrows? Nobody questions something as straightforward as that, but for some reason automation is different??

[Michael Canavan]

If this were in the composing thread it would have been locked long ago. Maybe I'll go over to gearsluts and see what they're talking about... NOT! Too bust in DP this week. lol Contrary to popular belief, it does effing work. Don't tell my competition.

yeah? well someone is answering questions a potential new user is asking without harassing them from last time I checked the gearslutz page!

[jloeb]

But, since I only use DP for work 8 days a week I don’t need to know what’s wrong with it. At least not until it’s fixed or going to be...

So how do you deal with the issue? Does it just not happen to you/ isn't relevant to your workflow?

At which point we’ll be hearing from the people who liked it better the old way

That's the strength of having an optional mode (or, in Stubbs' formulation, a command) which simply spawns breakpoints at selection edges. The old way is the same as the new way. Don't like what the new option does? Then you never need to use it, ever.

God’s speed automation-warriors.

MOTU's wooing the automation-warriors. Check out that Clips Window video. Let the bed be made for them whence they arrive.

[Michael Canavan]

God’s speed automation-warriors.

MOTU's wooing the automation-warriors. Check out that Clips Window video. Let the bed be made for them whence they arrive.

This.

I actually have high hopes for this fix, and I would call it that, it should be that ramping at 90º is on by default, and the old behavior has to be selected, since the only real reason for it would be sound design.

[bayswater]

Now this thread isn't talking about the new features of DP10, or the details of the things we wanted fixed from DP 9 that haven't been fixed. Most of it is looking up its own orifice, with the occasional mutual admiration exchange. Maybe there is nothing more to say about DP 10 until a few of us get it, but meanwhile, those still interested in DP 10 might be better off discussing it here and leaving this thread to those who already don't like it.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=28594&p=558071&hili ... ic#p558071

[Michael Canavan]

One of the new features:

Overdub recording replaces CC data - When overdub recording continuous controller data, any existing data is replaced to prevent data streams that conflict with each other.

I don't know if this is going to help, but it could be an indicator, if it also replaces CC data when you select and option drag CC data, that would be a step towards a more logical approach to these scenarios.