Propellerhead Forum

Propellerhead Forum (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/index.php)
-   Feature Suggestion Forum (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Name tracks the same as devices automatically (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/showthread.php?t=173831)

CHAZM 2013-01-03 02:39

Name tracks the same as devices automatically
 
The option to automatically name tracks the same as devices.
It says Hook Piano on the Mixer, Hook Piano on the rack, then why the friggedy frack does it say Antidote3 on the seq?
This could be a choice to set it up this way or the original way.

Same with the solo and mutes. PLLLLLEASE!!!!! Ok maybe someone likes two different sets of mutes and solos, well fine but please give us the CHOICE of having just one set that works over all.

selig 2013-01-03 03:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAZM (Post 1211298)
The option to automatically name tracks the same as devices.
It says Hook Piano on the Mixer, Hook Piano on the rack, then why the friggedy frack does it say Antidote3 on the seq?
This could be a choice to set it up this way or the original way.

Same with the solo and mutes. PLLLLLEASE!!!!! Ok maybe someone likes two different sets of mutes and solos, well fine but please give us the CHOICE of having just one set that works over all.

Naming tracks from the rack and the sequencer works for me - the only time it doesn't work is when you name tracks from the mixer (and I'm not sure why).

As for the perennial solo question, since there are two independent solo functions, therefore there's actually no way they could be controlled from a single source. Best they could do is to eliminate the solo in the sequencer so this question wouldn't keep coming up (I kid, I NEED both functions myself). :-)

LeopoldStotch 2013-01-03 04:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAZM (Post 1211298)

Same with the solo and mutes. PLLLLLEASE!!!!! Ok maybe someone likes two different sets of mutes and solos, well fine but please give us the CHOICE of having just one set that works over all.

They could put it in preferences to link the mute buttons. Pressing one would activate / deactivate both.

rogerlevy 2013-01-03 05:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeopoldStotch (Post 1211334)
They could put it in preferences to link the mute buttons. Pressing one would activate / deactivate both.

Yeah having two separate ones is too complicated and messes me up a lot, I would opt to use that option.

OMOMs 2013-01-03 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAZM (Post 1211298)
The option to automatically name tracks the same as devices.
It says Hook Piano on the Mixer, Hook Piano on the rack, then why the friggedy frack does it say Antidote3 on the seq?
This could be a choice to set it up this way or the original way.

Same with the solo and mutes. PLLLLLEASE!!!!! Ok maybe someone likes two different sets of mutes and solos, well fine but please give us the CHOICE of having just one set that works over all.

I'm all for new options, but consider this:
when you split a signal to do parallel processing, or connect Redrum outputs to individual mixer channels, wouldn't you like to have a seperate label for each channel, or would you like all to be called "drums"?

CHAZM 2013-01-03 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by selig (Post 1211325)
Naming tracks from the rack and the sequencer works for me - the only time it doesn't work is when you name tracks from the mixer (and I'm not sure why).

As for the perennial solo question, since there are two independent solo functions, therefore there's actually no way they could be controlled from a single source. Best they could do is to eliminate the solo in the sequencer so this question wouldn't keep coming up (I kid, I NEED both functions myself). :-)

Ok I didn't know that this question keeps coming up. Perhaps I should ask WHY there's 2 sets of mute,solo buttons. Also selig, I fully understand that everyone has their own workflow but why do you need both functions?

OMOMs 2013-01-03 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAZM (Post 1211520)
Ok I didn't know that this question keeps coming up. Perhaps I should ask WHY there's 2 sets of mute,solo buttons. Also selig, I fully understand that everyone has their own workflow but why do you need both functions?

I know I', not Selig, but sometimes I need both functions myself.
So the Solo in the Sequencer, will solo sequencer Data. Meaning none of the other Devices are receiving any note/Automation Data. Why would I want that? For example I would like to check a send effect for just one instrument. With the Sequencer Solo none of the other instruments (even if set to Pre) will play, making it easy for me to check the send signal for just one single instrument.
why would I want it any other way?
I would like for example to have the Bassdrum to sidechain my Pad, but I don't want to hear the Bassdrum. The way it's set up now, I can mute the Bassdrums Mixer channel and still the Pad gets pumped, because I mute the signal after the insert section, which is where I'll get my Bassdrum from.

CHAZM 2013-01-03 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by OMOMs (Post 1211450)
I'm all for new options, but consider this:
when you split a signal to do parallel processing, or connect Redrum outputs to individual mixer channels, wouldn't you like to have a seperate label for each channel, or would you like all to be called "drums"?

If I make a 2 Subtractor tracks and name one track Bass and the other chords. I'd like the rack and mixer names to say the same.But once you start splitting things it's a completely different subject. But i'd be happy even if they all took the name of the SOUND. At least then, when you split the redrum to mixer channels, they would be named something logical like hardkick, meatsnare,or hiperc. and as far as splitting, as it is now the line that I split to a compressor for parallel is then called the name of the last device in the chain, no?
What I'm asking for happens at the Beginning of the process. Having an orderly start makes spagetti much more manageable down the road.

OMOMs 2013-01-03 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAZM (Post 1211533)
If I make a 2 Subtractor tracks and name one track Bass and the other chords. I'd like the rack and mixer names to say the same.But once you start splitting things it's a completely different subject. But i'd be happy even if they all took the name of the SOUND. At least then, when you split the redrum to mixer channels, they would be named something logical like hardkick, meatsnare,or hiperc. and as far as splitting, as it is now the line that I split to a compressor for parallel is then called the name of the last device in the chain, no?
What I'm asking for happens at the Beginning of the process. Having an orderly start makes spagetti much more manageable down the road.

If you name the tracks in the sequencer, it will reflect the naming in the Mixer and Rack. that's the easy way IMHO because the sequencer yould be, where I record stuff anyway. So while I'm at it I can name the sequencer track. If I discover I'd like to split the signal for some parallel compression I can rename both channels, still leaving the name of the sequencer track intact. If you don't rename the split channel, it will have the same name as the sequencer track. I think the way it is right now is the most flexible.
Again having the option to chose the naming convention would be great, but if they replaced the way it works now, I'd be sad, because it takes away some of the flexibility which I love about Reason.

selig 2013-01-03 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeopoldStotch (Post 1211334)
They could put it in preferences to link the mute buttons. Pressing one would activate / deactivate both.

Muting/Soloing both does nothing different than muting/soloing one - why would this be an advantage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogerlevy (Post 1211354)
Yeah having two separate ones is too complicated and messes me up a lot, I would opt to use that option.

How does it mess you up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAZM (Post 1211520)
Ok I didn't know that this question keeps coming up. Perhaps I should ask WHY there's 2 sets of mute,solo buttons. Also selig, I fully understand that everyone has their own workflow but why do you need both functions?

Because they do different things! Other have given their examples, but I'll give mine below (again!). But I DO find it strange that no one has ever suggested the 14:2 mutes/solos should be linked with the sequencer, and Reason has been that way since day one! It's the same thing with the SSL mixer - they are two separate sub-systems of the Reason "Studio".

One reason where linking just plain wouldn't work would be if you were using a ReDrum track in the sequencer feeding multiple mixer tracks - which mixer channel would you link to the sequencer? Another example of why they are separate would be if you have recorded a track in the sequencer and need to mute it to play that instrument "live". And yet another would be if you had stacked a sequencer track to play multiple instruments, like strings and piano (patched to separate mixer channels). If you want to mute the entire performance, mute in the sequencer. If you want to mute just the strings, mute in the mixer.

But the real question I haven't heard answered would be WHY? If one is muted, why on earth would you need the other to ALSO be muted? There would be no advantages that I'm aware of to muting or soloing a track twice - think about it… ;-)

So the only time linking would actually work would be if one sequencer track is feeding one and only one mixer track. Yet linking them it that situation makes no sense, as it wouldn't make a track mute or solo any different to how it works now, as far as I can tell. In other words, once you mute the track in one location, muting it in another (via linking or manually) won't change what you're hearing in any way, right?

Maybe someone has an example of how linking would be useful, and how you would implement it to work correctly in all situations? :-)


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:29.