Thanks for the workflow insight Todd!
Making safeties is something I am getting used to in SL, but I don’t intuitively gravitate, or remember to do so all the time.
I guess what I am looking for is how others are making comparisons for evaluation. Easy use case is running some processing and then wanting to audition it against either the unaltered original, or at some point in the restoration/alteration process.
I think my main issue with how I currently work, is that that selections being entered into the generalized undo history is locking me out of my processing. So, say I blow a selection out into some layers, do some spot processing, and then want to evaluate “is that too far, or is that feeling better?” I would have had to have made a copy of the selection before processing to properly A/B, because If I jump back through the undo history to hit play on where I just came from, the next selection I make will become the current “undo” process and wipe everything I just did…
Maybe it is a bit niche, but this is definitely a big part of helping me evaluate what direction is working with varied source materials. In RX, selections are not entered as process/undo history items, so I can always select the initial source (or other juncture) in the history hierarchy to audition, and spot select between the two to audition without loosing work (in SL you can do this, but making a selection removes the history). There is also a comparison window (which I have been trying to get the izotope team to expand on…), but basically it allows to you run whatever modules you like on a selection source, then gradually audition them in their own isolated compare log (like an independent history window) before choosing which to actually render to your audio, rather then hitting process, undo, change parameter, process again etc etc. This is immensely helpful for understanding module settings, where you can see and compare something like say pixel settings beside each other, on your current material, and how they will process before needing to commit them.
I am kind of adverse to gaining extra layers where not needed, so the safety workflow, which is valuable, is not intuitive to me (I’m working on it), and the layer management cognitive load is also distractive from other workflows of trying to isolate, or achieve some results with the content. I guess I am just used to being able to go down a bit of a rabbit hole, then coming out and being able to evaluate “did that work the way I want?” without loosing work, and without screwing my self over cause I didn’t save copies of layers at critical junctures.