Why do we need Track Versions when we have lanes?

[ZeroZero]

Why do we need Track Versions when we have Lanes?

I don’t understand this, the two features do the same or very similar jobs? Lanes give the ability to cut ‘best’ segments from a number of track takes and then merge playback of them as if they were one track. Though this can be done with track versions, it seems more involved.

Why two things?

Z

[d_archived]

Track Versions are multiple versions that don’t need to have any relation to each other. It might be two different melodies, that both are individually comped together with lanes.

[ZeroZero]

You can do this with lanes. You don’t need track versions for this

[greggybud]

I asked this question too when track versions was first released. To me it seemed like a big overlap of features, but everyone seems to like it.

C7.5 - Combining Lanes and Track Versions when comping!

Track version vs lanes

As you can see there are advantages/disadvantages with both so it depends on your objectives.

[characterstudios]

I use both pieces of functionality, and I’m glad both are there:

• I use lanes when doing multiple takes of a recording, then comp the lanes.
• However, when I want to do a completely different version of the track (like different timing, sequence, melody, sound, etc.), I’ll create a new track version. I can then do multiple takes in that version and comp the lanes in that version.

This stops me from getting confused for comping due to lanes that aren’t the same ‘version’. Yes, you get a visual clue about that with the waveforms, but if you have more than {say} 3 versions, it’s still going to be hard to keep track of each version if they aren’t clearly indicated. The track versions keeps everything of one version neatly in one single track.

Kind regards,

characterstudios

[wavetuner]

I used track version always to store all my takes then i do the editing in duplicated version.

Also as its functionality i use it for different idea of composing and so on .

With track version i can do to song in same project. It looks like a joke but actually you can’t do it with lane

[ZeroZero]

@characterstudios

I use both pieces of functionality, and I’m glad both are there:

• I use lanes when doing multiple takes of a recording, then comp the lanes.
• However, when I want to do a completely different version of the track (like different timing, sequence, melody, sound, etc.), I’ll create a new track version. I can then do multiple takes in that version and comp the lanes in that version.

This stops me from getting confused for comping due to lanes that aren’t the same ‘version’. Yes, you get a visual clue about that with the waveforms, but if you have more than {say} 3 versions, it’s still going to be hard to keep track of each version if they aren’t clearly indicated. The track versions keeps everything of one version neatly in one single track.

Kind regards,

characterstudios

That seems sensible, but I would have thought the design brief would be to merge these features (never mind).
I have since found out that it is possible to convert from one to the other under Projects/Track Versions -create lanes from versions or versions from lanes

Helpful video here:

[vespesian]

You can link track versions (and their visibility) spanning different tracks (via the “same ID” function), which means you can literally switch, almost instantly, between different mixes ‘within’ a mix: I find them incredibly useful. What would make them even better would be if track automation were included.

[J-S-Q]

@vespesian

You can link track versions (and their visibility) spanning different tracks (via the “same ID” function), which means you can literally switch, almost instantly, between different mixes ‘within’ a mix: I find them incredibly useful. What would make them even better would be if track automation were included.

Yes, exactly. You can use a key command to change many tracks at once to different versions. It’s a nice feature. Agree 100% on including automation.

[skank]

@J-S-Q

@vespesian

You can link track versions (and their visibility) spanning different tracks (via the “same ID” function), which means you can literally switch, almost instantly, between different mixes ‘within’ a mix: I find them incredibly useful. What would make them even better would be if track automation were included.

Yes, exactly. You can use a key command to change many tracks at once to different versions. It’s a nice feature. Agree 100% on including automation.

Does this mean that I cannot have various track versions at different points in the arrangement?
I mean supposing I have 4 (track) versions of a verse, and I want them to play one after the other, or some other order in the sequence—how do I do this?

[skank]

@skank

@J-S-Q

@vespesian

You can link track versions (and their visibility) spanning different tracks (via the “same ID” function), which means you can literally switch, almost instantly, between different mixes ‘within’ a mix: I find them incredibly useful. What would make them even better would be if track automation were included.

Yes, exactly. You can use a key command to change many tracks at once to different versions. It’s a nice feature. Agree 100% on including automation.

Does this mean that I cannot have various track versions at different points in the arrangement?
I mean supposing I have 4 (track) versions of a verse, and I want them to play one after the other, or some other order in the sequence—how do I do this?

Anyone?

[raino]

No you can’t. Each Version of a Track goes from the very start to the very end of the Project.

You can however convert the Versions into Lanes and then comp those however you like. That would, for example, let you use the first verse from version 3, and the chorus from version 1.

[skank]

@raino

No you can’t. Each Version of a Track goes from the very start to the very end of the Project.

You can however convert the Versions into Lanes and then comp those however you like. That would, for example, let you use the first verse from version 3, and the chorus from version 1.

Thanks. TBH I think I may be so suited to the clip based non linear approach that I am seriously considering getting bitwig (or live) just for the programming and then go mix/finish in Cubase. Having invested sooo much in Steinberg though makes this a challenge TBH.

[Yo_Stro]

I use it to edit the clean versions of songs. Some of these artists have foul mouths. Track versions let you change song versions without having to load different projects.

[skank]

@Yo Stro

I use it to edit the clean versions of songs. Some of these artists have foul mouths. Track versions let you change song versions without having to load different projects.

Yup.

It certainly has its uses, (it’s just not the Steiny Bigwig clips alternative that I hoped for).

[rodrigoruiz1988]

Actually, you can. You simply go to the version and copy-paste onto the other version (after it, if you want them to follow each other).

I fee like track versions is the same as having drafts or backups of the track, without having to create version or tracks of the entire project. That’s just my take, though.

[skank]

@rodrigoruiz1988

Actually, you can. You simply go to the version and copy-paste onto the other version (after it, if you want them to follow each other).

This sounds interesting, but what was it responding to explcitly?

[rodrigoruiz1988]

I thought I had quoted what I meant to reply to, but I guess I didn’t. I was responding to this

@skank

Does this mean that I cannot have various track versions at different points in the arrangement?
I mean supposing I have 4 (track) versions of a verse, and I want them to play one after the other, or some other order in the sequence—how do I do this?

Answer:
Actually, you can. You simply go to the version and copy-paste onto the other version (after it, if you want them to follow each other).

I fee like track versions is the same as having drafts or backups of the track, without having to create version or tracks of the entire project. That’s just my take, though.