3 TOP FR´s...

Here are my 3 TOP wishes:

  1. BOUNCE IN PLACE (self-explanatory) -> render one or more selected regions on audio or software midi instrument tracks into a new audio file, including all active plug-ins and automation data.
  2. DRAG/DROP to Kontakt-Sampler (WAVs and Regions. Otherwise also drag/drop to any place in cubase)
  3. ENHANCED MIXER (all-in-one view, unlimited inserts/sends, free routing, EQ pre/post inserts, free grouping, hide channels, mono button in master channel etc.)


    (ok ok ok, we have enough FR´s. There are hundreds of FR threads. And Cubase 7 is on the way = yes I know! …anyway…)

:mrgreen:

Bounce in place? What do you mean? A whole track or printing edits?

I think he means bouncing a midi clip to audio directly, sort of like consolidating audio. Select a midi clip, hit a “Bounce” command, render an audio clip, mute the midi clip. If the selected midi clips across 4 tracks are 4, 8, 12 & 16 bars respectively, the four new audio clips will be 4, 8, 12, & 16 bars.

No loop setting, no stem export dialog. Bounce (selected) in place.

I think the requests need more to them. Rather like the answer to this I quote from Audiocave. My guess it could also need more as well.
What I mean is the request needs more than “I would lke to see XXXXXXXX done” or “I would lke to see XXXXXXXX done like XXXXXX DAW does it”.
A programmer would like to see how XXXXXXX user actually intends implementation of it so they can calculate whether it’s both useful and feasible from the user point of view or the practical like how much memory and CPU it might use.

It’s been said that there is little communication from staff and moderators but there is actually not much more from the users, looked at realistically. It’s all just one-liners mostly. I think there would be more two way communication if the conversation looked like it wanted to be two way in the first place a bit more.

I think we all have an idea of what the requests are but we also all have an idea of when someone says “I want to fly.” But do you want to fly the usual ways or with a kite or hang glider. Or by flapping your arms like the birds do it.
You might think they know what you mean but really. Do they?
Sometimes a bit more is needed.
Not bad suggestions though, from a non-fan of requests (me).
Might not one be done from the Kontakt end?

Yep, so self explanatory that no one knows what it means.

really?
oh, Logic has this feature for ages:
You can render one or more selected regions on audio or software instrument midi tracks into a new audio file, including all active plug-ins and automation data. You can choose replace region or create new track. -> with one shortcut (!)

Agree with Conman. Being concise helps. Even though we often assume that everyone knows what “X” means, it’s still just an assumption, so yes, a concise description leaves no doubt as to the intent. Here’s my general definition of it…

Bounce in Place

  • Typically refers to instrument bounce although it can also apply to rendering audio with FX.
  • The idea is to render whatever is selected into an audio clip, at the same time location and size.
  • The result is to get the same size clip(s), varying renders of different lengths, representing the previous clips.

Why? What Are The Potential Benefits?

Typically, bouncing instrument clips or audio clips with FX requires stemming which is constrained to a strict time range, e.g., the loop or selection range. Bounce in place isn’t constrained by any particular time range because every render uses the length of the clip(s) being bounced as it’s time reference.

So selecting a group of random clips across multiple tracks and bouncing them in place…

  • Doesn’t result in multiple contiguous files all the same size as a strict loop range.
  • Doesn’t require opening a dialog to select which tracks to stem within that constrained range.
  • Is immediate. Select the clips, hit bounce, get audio clips.

In the above regard it keeps the creative distraction to a minimum (one key function with no dialog), doesn’t waste disk space (only renders where clips actually are), and allows non-contiguous renders on the same track and/or multiple differing length renders in one operation.

Hope that helps.

thank you Audiocave, nice precise description!

Nice one.
Although bouncing from an instrument does assume that in the bounce process that the clip is the right length at that moment. ie: Does the user leave the program to guess the length or does he tell it? Might work well under quantisation but be a little more flaky using “realtime” examples.
It works in Logic? How does that work there and are there any pitfalls to it, does it work for all scenarios? Anyone used it extensively in Logic?

“only renders where clips actually are” sounds something like a Pool function somehow to me.

So, simply, you want to grab a clip and place it anywhere and if it’s a VSTi that will be rendered and placed and any multiples can be done instantly with the Alt+drag without further reference by the user to the original.

I’ll explain a computing programming analogy from a drummer’s POV:
You have a large kit that your drumtech sets up. Then you obtain a new splash cymbal and explain where you want it putting. Between two ideally placed crash cymbals that you’d be unhappy to move.
It needs a new stand.
The stand needs to be where other stands are placed.
They need moving out of the way to get the new stand in.
You put the new stand in.
But now the other two stands won’t go back exactly where they were.
To get them to go where they were before another stand must be moved…
and so on.
I think you get the picture. Whatever is suggested needs to take account of the way the kit / program works now and thought out as much as possible ahead when the proposed adjustments are made.

I suppose I’m trying to explain the programmers’ POV in relation to what is possible in Cubase that, while it may work well in Logic etc may be a pain or take some time reprogramming Cubase.
And I’m also trying to get some programmer either from Steinberg or one of the members to explain some possibilities and get a more realistic handle on the requests’ feasibility.

Or I could have my head in a hole. :mrgreen:

My +1 for 1 and 3! However I don’t believe that Steinberg will ever implement such wishes.

It assumes that what you bounce is what you want as audio. The use cases for when or why someone might bounce a section of a midi clip or a full song length clip at any given time, or what they’ll do with it afterward, kinda vary. One maybe corner case use is quickly making loop libraries out of existing music, for people who use loops.

Bounce in Place kinda reduces instrument bounce to something analogous to audio consolidation. I think most of us would agree that if we had to run stems just to consolidate audio it would eventually become kind of a pain.

You may be over-thinking it a tiny bit.

P.S. I’m really not in a position to speak about Logic, don’t own it. So my comments are more … generic.

Thanks Conman.

They won’t if you just shout “I want this and that!” at them. If the user knows what he wants and can tell them what they want then they might give it a thought.
Don’t forget the forum is at least second line when it comes to suggestions. There’s the staff and there’s the little studios who get the first runs of the software and their major industry endorsees at least so requests from here will take a little more input and patience. And a little less negativity. :neutral_face:

Ahh… I understand now. It has been years since I used logic (back when it was PC).

Yeah that would be a nice feature to bounce MIDI that easily.

I also do video editing so I understand the render-in-place workflow. But I don’t understand how this could be deployed as easily with audio.

  • How would time based functions be handled like delay and verb?

  • If you bounce a region “in-place” then wouldn’t the resulting region be subjected to another pass of the mixer effects if it is left on the parent track?

  • would mixer based volume, pan etc automation automatically be erased after the bounce?

  • obviously midi bounces could not reside on the parent track.

I routinely bounce Parts to new tracks and don’t find it to be that cumbersome:

Select the part you want to bounce
Using keystrokes:
P = locators to selection
S = solo
E = export Audio ( I think I set that key command myself )
Check the Pool and Audio Track boxes in the mix-down window.
They will stay selected until you deselect them for your final mix.

This all happens in a matter seconds. Probably less than two seconds.
Obviously if you have time based FX you’ll need to place the right locator accordingly.
Then mute the original. This also gives you a more hands on ability of undo.

In the cases I’m accustomed to the FX (anything inserted) is printed to the file. If there are time based effects that play beyond the end of the clip (tails) you can extend the clip length a little before bouncing to capture those in the bounce. But (in most cases I think) it renders the instrument with any insert FX.

Freeze gives you more options for the render, FX or not, tail length. Bounce just bounces and goes to unity on the new audio channel.

This all happens in a matter seconds. Probably less than two seconds.

It’s not a major deal but I seriously doubt it’s “less two seconds”. :slight_smile: At any rate, the explanation was “what is it?”, not a determination of if everyone feels they need it. That’s for each person to decide, if having it is potentially useful or not.

Now if you can bounce perfectly (different?) sized / length audio clips from multiple midi clips across multiple tracks, with no dead space on the tracks where no midi clips were, in one go… in less than two seconds (not counting the actual render, just clicking around to start it), I’d be very surprised. I think it would require multiple trips to the stem render dialog to do what I described doing with a single action. Setting a different loop length every time.

At any rate, everyone kinda knows - what - it is now. Whether a person feels they’d benefit from it, personal decision.

My main FR’s would be those which Studio One has incorporated -

  1. Drag and Drop functionality wherever logical/applicable - there are so many instances in which this makes sense, I won’t go into them all, but Studio One functionality in this regard is great.

  2. Bounce in place/transform and un-transform instrument tracks - the ability to turn MIDI files into audio and vice versa with one button - amazing.

  3. Dockable mixer/transport option - after using S1 for a while, having to find/maneuver the transport in Cubendo with multiple screens can be tedious.

Ehm, about the single window layout there was a poll recently, where 72% of voters were against it (among which, interestingly, some of the advocates in this topic). Here. How’s that for a mixed message to Steinberg…

Agreed. And to me, the solution is that SB will need a new app. (Sequel is an example of a good start…)

Cubase has a lot of old code ‘baggage’ from way, way back. A victim of its own success dare I say. The more fundamental innovations desired, mentioned in this thread, become a major (if indeed impossible) upheaval and are thus stifled - largely to ensure backward compatibility.

The SB guys at Presonus’ could happily start with a clean sheet, having learnt a lot about what not to do when designing/building a new DAW app.

And I’d still vote for a ‘no thanks’ - but, would be happy of course for an option for those who wish to work in a ‘single-window’ type mode. (but see my note above)

Though, I never have a problem with the window re-sizing issues, since I learnt to never maximise any window - been like this for years and years and years… I bring many other projects in too (Nuendo and Cubase); it can take 15 / 20 minutes to re-set to how I like to work, but then, no issues.

Bob

(apologies if that sounded really smug. Don’t mean to… :wink: )

It’s not a mixed message. Dockable interfaces can support both situations. People who like single monitors like laptop users are free to dock a workspace in one controlled interface. Desktop/multi-monitor users should be free to pull a docked panel out anywhere they want.

No mixed message.

No more modal pop-ups … no mixed message there either.