So do I
Aweee! Okay! I see what youâre saying and talking about!
It looks like there is a bug/glitch when cuting and pasting over selections!
I believe this is a workflow flaw that @Robin_Lobel overlooked. However I see what youâre saying, itâs supposed to cut and paste over. As-a-matter-of-fact (IRONICALLY SPEAKING 
), Izotope has it wrong and Spectralayers has the implementation right, itâs actually in-reverse. Before I initially replied I was actually going to tell you that youâre supposed to cut (not âcopy" as âcopying" would be more or so addition to the original signal and more like a overdub) and paste. However the confusion actually stems from Izotope because if you âcopy"(not cut) and âpaste" over then itâs supposed to be more like an overdub(meaning it mixes the 2 signals together not completely remove existing signal and paste over). So ironically the way it is implemented within Spectralayers is actually the correct way however there seems to be a bug/glitch in Spectralayers (design flaw) when cutting and pasting whereas Izotope has the design correctly implemented but mismatched terminology or is unaware of the difference between âcopyingâ and cutting.
1 Like
Thanks for checking @Joey_Kapish
Regardless of terminology, the âPaste to Selectionâ function is a bit of dealbreaker for RX users like me who want to ditch it and go full on SL for the better toolset all round⌠If the developers of SL could address this it will really help people move over to SL 100% in the film and TV world for sure. Right now Iâm stuck between both and not able to totally recommend SL to colleagues.
1 Like
well, the program is called spectraLayers
and that is what you need to get used to with SL
Cutting sections from one layer to another and mixing that way
or on a problem area, learn to separate noise and then cover with holes with clone stamp
it is time consuming
Iâm sure you are, you just havenât figured out how it works yet.
When drafting a post in the left hand pane, the right hand pane show a preview.
You need a return between text and links in this forumâs format
Hereâs an example:
This line has no return
https://www.steinberg.net/ in the text
hmmm, it works for meâŚ
Lemme try your link https://youtu.be/E30Nn2Wnogs
inline with text, there is just a link
with a return it should work
There you go!
So, like this:
-return-
link text
-return-
thanks for that, it wasnât made clear, I was just denied by the UI. Iâll know for the future
1 Like
@Rob_Walker you were not able to post links because youâre a new user. I have manually updated your profile to Trust Level 1
Visit this page, and scroll down to see info
2 Likes
Iâm suggesting a simple addition to the toolset of SL to speed up work by learning from the main competitor RX. I understand there are powerful tools too, but Iâm not requiring them every time I open it just for the sake of it. Sometimes cut and paste sounds better than unmix depending on the source, duration, context and noise issue. Surely more techniques are better?
3 Likes
Well said. I think there are a lot of us coming from RX as a background and whilst unmix is amazing and blews RX out of the water, the simple copy and paste of RX is something I still use on the unmixed layers. Maybe its something Ill learn in the future, but if SL could come up to speed with RX on this point, I dont think I need RX for much.
A video series for people switching from RX to SL, or just SL videos directed at audio post for film qould be awesome.
3 Likes
Glad to see the conversation moving ahead with others sharing the examples from RX. One thing that I find interesting in this workflow exchange, is the obvious paradigm divergence between two programs that both work within the same niche space. (I am finding that I am having to leverage one or the other based on the work at hand, versus one being able to replace another.)
The core concept as others have mentioned, is that âLayersâ are the the major workflow differentiator when comparing RX and SL. Hence when looking at workflows that are say, more â in lineâ and âdestructive/committing a changeâ to a source, I find this is where the toolsets start to diverge. Almost as if spectral layers is utilizing algorithms to help separate on to layers the materials youâd like to work with, where as RX more leans into a tool/editor, that you are shaping and re-constructing a sound scape, rather then restoring it.
Obviously they can both do, what the other does (in their own ways), but just interesting for me to see more of the paradigm taking form as to why one workflow may be an advantage to a task and mindset than the other (at least for myself).
I agree with @Rob_Walker though, this core request for being able to paste a selected source to a new target selection, I donât think is outside the realm of achievable or what SL is trying to accomplish at its core.
3 Likes
Okay, as I am still exploring SL more and more, I am still learning and getting to speed with the tool sets, and I think the core of this request might extend to the clone tool being a little less than unintuitive in itâs deployment, but able to accomplish the overall ask (paste to selection), in a way.
This is my take on bridging these workflows: The clone tool selection âpick sourceâ is a bit hard to understand, as I thought it was going to take the selection of the tools current shape, but it uses the in and out points of the tools current width (the left most and right most points of time) as its selection duration. Unintuitively, the tool then selects the entire frequency spectrum that extends beyond (upwards and below) the tools current shape.
From there, it is hard to understand that you have selected or âcapturedâ a source, as there is no indication other then the âpick sourceâ is no longer outlined anymore (easy to miss). Operationally, I think that using the time range selection, and copying a selection to clipboard should functionally extend to the clone tool, as that is what RX users are trying to intuit here. But, Further to that, there is no key command option to pick source, which is something that I think would lend to adopting this workflow. So my suggestion would be to have the ability to make a time selection, and then be able to âpick sourceâ from a command entry (if the clipboard workflow is not feasible) which then would allow the writing of that content to the new selection when using the clone tool.
To the above as well, if there is some type of possibility to show on the UI where the capture selection/pick source has been made from, could there perhaps be an offset of the little crosshair cursor, as I am watching as I draw the clone in real time, and wishing I was just able to catch a little more, or a little less from the source as I draw over my target, and having an offset/nudge value would solve that. (perhaps such exists and a I am missing how to accomplish that though?). Seems like just a L/R offset would suffice?
Also, one other thing I am missing, if I use the move to tool, and transfer content from layer 1 to a new layer 2, select layer 2 and then pick source with the clone tool on Layer 2, that content will not transfer to layer 1 with the clone tool?
Screen shot is to showcase what I explained above as the red is what is getting âcapturedâ in the pick source process - something I think could be done with other selection types.
Youâre the 2nd individual Iâve witnessed who is used to this incorrect workflow but I believe RX is actually at fault here.
Here is an example, if you copy a file and paste it into a folder then you are ADDING to the file system(the hard drive). If you cut a file and move to another location, you are essentially DELETING it from one location and MOVING it to another (meaning there is no ADDITIONAL ADDING going on because you are moving one file from one location to another). If you copy and paste the same file to another location then you have an ADDITIONAL file, meaning you are ADDING to the file systemâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚ The same logic applies here, if you copy a section from a audio source and paste it to another location within that audio source then you are âADDINGâ to the audio source (not DELETING and PASTING over). If you are cutting one section and pasting over another then (just like the idea of moving a file with the same name and same extension name into a folder that also has a file with the exact same name and extension) you are overriding the audio signal that is already there.
So actually RX has it wrong because if you copy and paste then itâs supposed to mix the 2 audio signals, not override the signal that is already there (DELETING) and pasting over. Letâs say for example you wanted to ADD(mix) an audio section to another then how would you do that within RX? Meaning how would you select a section and ADD that sections of frequencies/amplitude on top of each other within RX?
In RX theres another command, Invert and Mix which adds on top. There are actually 5 or 6 different paste related commands depending on your goal, you can see them in my video from earlier in this thread when I go to the menu. RX follows a similar paste logic to MS Word rather than an OS. I donât think trying to define things objectively as ârightâ or âwrongâ is helpful. They are what they are, and we are comparing tools for the best outcome.
Anyway weâre here to try and move 100% to SL and yes the terms are different but it seems there is no âPaste to Selectionâ equivalent in SL right now, and for those who havenât used it, the simplicity is its power. Would love that in SL.
1 Like
Yeah, like Rob mentions. There are multiple ways to copy and paste in RX.
The terminology is not important, copy and paste selection is really something rudamental that RX users use all the time. I made a video using this tool in conjunction with SpectraLayers too, maybe I can link to it too, if I figure out how to do it. But I think the point has been proven by others here.
1 Like
Okay but thatâs where the problem lies though. Itâs because of the undefined parameters is where the confusion liesâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚ
This copy and paste feature that your describing from RX is already implemented within Spectralayers (as of the latest version goes), if you use the rectangle tool or any other tool and make any selection and select copy and paste to any part of of the spectrum it automatically works. The feature is already there. The way it is implemented within Spectralayers is the correct way. Itâs supposed to MIX(ADD) the 2 signals (not override whatâs already there and delete the previous signal that is already there and paste over).
If you ask any experience developer, I am 99.9999% sure they would agree and confirm that what I am telling you is correct.
It doesnât work like that in the coding development world. Unfortunately when coding every aspect and function must be defined. Although the copy and paste function may be more intuitive within RX, the implementation is actually incorrect. Meaning if RX had implemented the copy and paste function the correct way then this topic would have not been created. Itâs because RX incorrectly implemented their copy and paste feature why users assume that it is more of an improvement over Spectralayers. The feature of copy and paste already works as intended within Spectralayers, what happens is that it does not override the signal (which if you ask any developer would agree is the correct implementation).
You can do both in RX. A lot of times we indeed override.
What happens in SL is that it pastes not only the selection at the destination, but the full copied selection, which prevents us from doing what we want to do.
Right! And I already addressed this. When the developer looks over this topic he will see there is a minor hiccup there, however everything I mentioned addresses the issue and solves the problem.
Technically speaking you can also use the save selections feature to reduce selections or enlarge selections however because there is a lack of control diagonally over the axis points it might limit you.
Regarding expectations and terminologies; If I highlight a phrase of text, then copy it to my clipboard, and select a new piece of text and hit paste, my clipboard selection overwrites the selected text with that of my clipboard.
Not bringing this up for semantics, but that there are end users with editing expectations that come from others DAWâs who also expect paste to overwrite the selection and not âmixâ on top of, without explicit preference to do so. This is what I think we are trying to bridge.
I welcome the fact that there is a mix function, but also want to retain the ability to overwrite, and maybe hopefully also set a âpaste mix amountâ. The more I lean on the clone stamp to help with this, the more I am frustrated by the potential that tool has. Especially when needing/wanting to use exact selection sources.
So, overall, here is use case that I just cooked up, perhaps there are more then one way to approach (maybe not the best example, soâŚ.humor me):
Have a song, vocal line hits a sibilance at the same time as a light HHl hit. So we have noise from HH, noise from HF spitting jazz vocals. Can separate multiple ways with whatever algo, and once I do, I want to actually smooth out the HH hit to feel more like a the gentle keeping off time from an earlier part. So I have my vocal retained, then want to feather out some artefacts that will be in the HH from the missing information.
In my earlier post, I think I am wrong about the clone tool selection, as it seems to be more the âcenterâ of the tool. This is frustrating as the selection I have in the screenshot of said example, is what I want to use as my âartifact fillâ source, and I cannot consistently understand where or when I have selected the transient that I wish to use as a timing source to feather from.
Perhaps I can paste to a layer below and then âmove toâ with some actions, but this feels needlessly time consuming to accomplish what another tool already is close to achieving in operation? Plus the less I have to manage layers, the better, as I would like to commit to my results and move on.
1 Like
âAn error occurred: Sorry, you canât include links in your postsâ @steve Hmm, could I get the trust level updated to share some youtube links?
3 Likes
Maybe Iâm missing something or not understanding something or lacking an understanding because youâre the 3rd user to agree.
First of all, you cannot ADD(MIX) 2 texts of words/letters on top of each other(unless itâs an image of text word being pasted on top of another image). Meaning texts of words and audio are 2 different scenarios here. You cannot copy the word âSpectralayersâ and layer that text of âIzotope RX" on top of each other in the same place (so it would make sense to automatically override). For example, you cannot title a youtube video with the words âMaduro was recently captured because of him dancing mocking the U.S. Presidentâ and layer additional words on top of it (like âThe leader of Venezuela was captured because of his dancing mocking The U.S. Presidentâ) because that is text based. Meaning you can only have one set of texts of words in place at one time only (like the idea of only being allowed to have only one file with the same name within the same folder and not being able to have duplicate files with the same name within the same folder). You can however layer and ADD(MIX) 2 audio signals on top of each other. Basically what I am saying is that there are rules/laws within OS universe and actually RX more-or-so decided to incorrectly breaks those rules. Because you can ADD(MIX) 2 different audio sources on top of each other (as-opposed-to text where only 1 letter/word can be in one place at one time) then according to the rules/laws of any OS then the appropriate way of doing this would be to ADD(MIX) first, whereas overriding would be seen as an extra step of DELETING whatâs already there.
So to reiterate. If I take one section of an audio and highlight that section and copy and paste to another section, then I am taking whatâs already there an adding to whatâs already there (like a math equation). What RX fundamentally has wrong is it copies one section and then adds an additional step by deleting/overriding whatâs already there to paste over.
So to reinstate. Copy and paste is essentially 2 functions(actions), meaning you copy the contents of one thing and paste to another. RX says âno letâs add another function(action) and make it 3 functions(actions), instead of copy and paste, letâs copy then delete and then paste/override whatâs already thereâ
Youâre right, if you select a text and highlight a word and copy and paste then it overrides whatâs already there (because texts and words cannot exist in the same place at the same time, meaning you cannot have 2 words layered on top of each other, audio can). Here is where the hiccup lies, what happens if you donât highlight a text and instead select any point and paste? Then itâs supposed to move the existing text over to the right correct? With audio you can layer 2 signals on top of each other and if you select any point (without highlighting anything) then itâs not supposed to move the existing audio to the right but instead layer on top of each other starting with the starting point.
Youâre right! If you copy a text or any word or a letter and paste over another highlighted text or word or letter then there is only one option (and that would be to override whatâs already there because you cannot layer texts on top of each other within the same place at the same time). If you apply that scenario you used with texts/words then by definition if you donât highlight the audio then itâs supposed to automatically shift the audio over to the right (like how texts does) (which wouldnât make sense). So no, 2 totally different scenarios where only one text or letter or word can be in one place at a time whereas you can ADD(MIX) 2 audio signals on top of each other.