No offense intended Conman but you have this really, really nasty habit of making insinuations about people being “kids” and “bedroom studios” and all that. You think tossing a “mrgreen” behind it makes it all ok but it’s rather annoying imo. Seems like 4 out of 5 times someone asks for a feature you don’t need or understand you go into this “kiddie + toy” commentary. It’s as predictable as clockwork.
I say you should maybe just put up or shut up with the “kiddie” stuff. Let’s please see your great “adult non-bedroom” studio rig and lets hear some music you personally created and mixed there. Do you even run a studio business? What exactly do you do besides regularly insinuate that other people are kids asking for toys?
No offense but it’s pretty easy to ignore feature requests you don’t understand or need. Maybe try that. And no, I’m not “picking a fight” with you (another predictable response after someone replies to one of your regular baseless insinuations) … it’s just so f’ing annoying, your regular “kiddie” implications about people you clearly don’t even personally know… which is really unnecessary when you can just ignore it.
The guy asked for a feature that’s in very wide use by some professionals and you call it a “toy”. Gosh. Chances are that Steinberg is already working on it for a future version because they know people will use it.
I both understand and agree Fizbin. My reply to your comments was just to say that phase relationships is not an issue with that feature because everything moves together, so the phase relationships always remain intact. The only real opportunity for artifacts in the sound is the same one that already exists, from the time stretching / warping algo itself. By both using a good algo like Elastique Pro and wrapping the transients (manually if need be), it can produce a pretty good sonic result with very little effort… and no region splitting… and no hit to the CPU or GPU because it can render in the background and play from cache files.
And yes, I do understand and fully agree that these products have multiple features that various people of varying use cases don’t actually need or use so that goes without saying in all cases. I’ve never personally used Cubase’s scoring so I pretty much avoid any discussion about it. I simply don’t care what they do or not do with it because I have no personal need for it in any case.
Anyway… If I didn’t have tons of archived Cubase projects and some clients that still use Cubase I likely wouldn’t care very much about any of this stuff that may or may not show up in the product later.
Thanks Fizbin. Best regards.
P.S. Seriously guys, can you even - manually select and move - more than one single warp marker at a time yet with Cubase’s warp? Never mind multitrack warping, just on a single track edit. I’m really not sure why these potentially useful discussions about future improvements need be so contentious.
+1 here for multi-track free warp editing in the arrangment window.
In 2012 this feature seems so obvious I didn’t even know it wasn’t implamented yet, after going back to cubase from Pro Tools. I was positive that’s what the muti drum edit feature was all about, but apparently it’s not… Now I’m stuck with vocal tracks that I need to warp to another tempo and I have to go through them one by one, although on their own they are all in sync. It feels so silly to no destroy their timing with each other just cause the warp editing has to be done seperatly…
I’d like to have that implemented as a context-editor.
It’s already available for Midi. Imagine that you get the audio-editor
in-place on the track where you activate it. Then there should be some
little buttons for switching the edit mode from definition to warp to variaudio
to hitpoints. The switch buttons should be of course always in the middle of the
context-editor, no matter where you scroll.
Now imagine that you have that button on the folder-track
and if you activate it, it opens the context editor on the same
edit page for every track in it. And if you work in multi-edit mode
with context editor on you move all the audio in it with moving one
warp-anker.
Plus you’d be able to edit vocallines with variaudio in context.
This is my FR for editing audio in the arrange window.
I am NOT arguing. I am trying to enlighten you and I don’t have to snidily insult anyone to do so.
You will not get “intelligent comment from Steinberg” here. That would come from SUPPORT which is the first port of call for professionals.
I am with Centralmusic here. But I only type RTM without the F.
And the other thing professionals do is that they use the PROPER tools. ie: If Protools does the job then use that.
As you have alluded to yourself as a professional and me a mere amateur then you will, of course have that in your arsenal of tools for your vast clientele.
Find a way to DO things instead of not doing things. You will find it in all probability in Cubase but it will be very different in application to Pro Tools. You may find it better or worse but comparisons are weak in that no two DAWs will have EXACTLY the same way to do any one thing.
Con… The Context Editor for audio is not implemented in that way in any other DAW yet.
I’m not alone with that request. If it was there you’d love it. I’m sure about that.
I don’t want something implemented that’s already found in PT or an other DAW.
It’s new. And way better than it gets done in the others.
So give me a +1. I won’t stop bothering you until I get it!
I’m not alone with that request. If it was there you’d love it. I’m sure about that
I’m sure I’d find a use for it. +1 to be kind.
Even though I try to point out alternatives every answer I give is a +1 as it keeps the thread alive.
I must say that what goes through my mind when I see someone asking for these things if “OK I’ll go with that.” but when it then turns into a demand I then think "WTF (= what’s the fuss you evil minded men)? As in if that much needs fixing on so-called pro recordings these days (I’d have understood it 20 years ago) then something needs fixing at the studio end. Certain circumstances OK but in long studio experience I’ve never seen much use of timestretching other than the occasional tweak of a track or two as if you start warping all over the place then you will then quickly get threads asking for the artifacts to be reduced (the lack of which is what tells me it’s not over-used generally).
Bands that play 64th triplets at 360bpm that want their timing tweaked? (where I believe qotations might go next) You have to ask “Who’s noticing except one of the band?” I certainly wouldn’t kick Slipknot’s butt if they lost a beat or two.
I’m not trying to win anything here as I can’t. I’m putting an alternative train of thought.
Nothing to prove, no axes to grind. Just another thought. From another mind. (Dylan)
You’re old school. And absolutely right about it.
There was so much good music when audio editing wasn’t more
than cutting tapes and using varispeed.
But you know how it goes down today.
You’d say bad take - new take. That’s the way it should be done.
But time is money and big studios are expensive plus
you never know how good the stuff is selling.
I guess this is not really a feature for the rec engineer,
it’s rather for the producer.
For me it’s important for sound design and beat making.
Just because there are old school rules doesn’t mean new school rules are better.
Free warp for sound design and beat making? Hm? If I was making beats I’d make them and if I wanted all of the drum tracks a different speed I’d just put them in musical mode and move them, probably inside a group.
But that is what the other thread talked about, no? Multitrack warp. I don’t really know where the “free” bit goes in.
I do believe that Sound on Sound has articles that adress this feature and how to implement it, several articles of a series I think, so you may be better off looking there.
I believe also that Cubase trumpeted this at version 6 launch.
You could warp tracks.
And you could also warp multiples of them via the groups and you could apparently, do this freely.
As no-one has given a description here of how “Multi-track free warp” works differently the viewer has to take it on trust that that was what was meant in this thread.
And that poem doesn’t rhyme. Spose that’s new school too.
Doesn’t work that way. They implemented quantising drum tracks inside a folder track
when the multi edit button is pressed. When you move a warp-anker by yourself
you still move all of 'em independently.
The time warp in the arrange is a tool for creating dynamic
tempo maps right now. It’s a great tool. But not freewarp.
Still! Think about the context editor. It solves the problem
of the ones who need freewarp in the arrange window and gives us even more features.
Warping is currently tied to an editor window that only allows warping there with one clip at a time.
Cubase bringing manual and grouped warping directly to arrange is inevitable. Really, it is.
It’s as inevitable as was the grouped drum editing of Cubase 6 that some dismissed just because it wasn’t here yet. It’s only a matter of “when”, not “if”. It’s as inevitable as some mixer workflow improvements that have been requested, as inevitable as some kind of track list to more easily hide and show tracks and mixer channels.
It’s all gonna happen eventually. It’s only a matter of how soon.
The correct way to view this stuff (imo) is not that something’s all that much “wrong” with Cubase, but what could be (what will be) “better” about Cubase. If Cubase 7 or 8 won’t be “better” than Cubase 6, then there’s really no point in making another version. Just stop now.
My $0.02… there’s nothing wrong (imo) with talking about or asking for nice features from other places in context to the future of the thing you prefer using, since future development is near perpetual.
Logic subjectively comps audio takes better or easier than everyone else. Get over it.
Samplitude’s object based effects and object based - sends - are, frankly, awesome. Get over it.
Pro Tools VCA’s are really quite handy and very practical. Get over it.
Cubase’s VST Note Expression & VST Expression is wonderful. I’d suggest the same to anyone using another product if they’re so insecure that they simply can’t tolerate reading a polite discussion about VST Expression on their daw forum because they don’t have anything like it yet.
Get over it.
Albert Einstein isn’t the CEO of any of these companies and great software engineering ideas literally come from all over the place, from every company, which is why they constantly rip each other.
Well, I saw nothing wrong with that. I just saw a misunderstanding and also couldn’t see what exactly “multi-track free warp” meant in the context of Cubase.
So, after the guys that call me stupid for pointing them towards a positive direction, I did get a couple of very vague descriptions of what this might be. So thanks.
However, I don’t think it’s exactly awesome. Pretty ordinary in fact and probably quite limited in practise for most users. Saying that I see it like those round sculpting hammers. Very handy for sculptors but you don’t trip over them every day in the woodshop. So my take is that you might have to wait around for this one.
Other than that I’m pretty much with Audiocave’s last one. Get over it. Find the way to get the job done.
Why are you reading this? You got “workflow” to get on with.
Good conversation Conman, thanks. When you say it’s “quite limited”, in what ways exactly?
As to people using it every day, some actually do. I don’t, but some do. Electronic music producers do use it, a lot. Maybe even some conventional composers might use it regularly.
Example: People quantize multiple midi tracks all the time, that’s pretty typical right? How exactly would one do that for mutiple audio clips on different tracks without having elastic audio / warp on the timeline, select 4 audio tracks on 4 track and modify the timing a little with a groove or a swing quantize or something? You can’t that I know of.
You have audio tracks on the timeline. You extract a groove from the bass and apply it with 50% strength to 4 other audio clips, all at once, without splitting up any of those clips. Not sure how that’s not a useful function for some producers.
So - since this is a good discussion - if you can outline what’s limiting about it that would probably be helpful. Where have you used it before and what about it did you find limiting?
Here’s a video of a really, really - basic - use for anyone who doesn’t fully understand what’s being discussed. If tracks were grouped in arrange the manual edits being done would work across all grouped tracks at the same time.
Again, Steinberg isn’t clueless about this stuff happening in many of their competitors products so even if you don’t want it or need it or have a use for it, you’ll eventually still get it, or something very much like it, in arrange, on the timeline.
