Propellerhead Forum

Propellerhead Forum (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/index.php)
-   Feature Suggestion Forum (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Save incremental (https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/showthread.php?t=194286)

c4djack 2013-10-24 18:57

Save incremental
 
I often work on my mix for a long time, and forget to save copies of my song file, so I can't go back to earlier states. Which is bad, because I tend to change a lot.

It would be nice to have an additional item in the File menu that is called e.g. "Save incremental". It would save a copy of the song and add a number to the file name.

Ever time I use that function, it would save another copy of the current song and increase the number.

Should be easy to implement and would provide a great benefit, IMO.


Greetings,
Frank

selig 2013-10-24 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by c4djack (Post 1406849)
I often work on my mix for a long time, and forget to save copies of my song file, so I can't go back to earlier states. Which is bad, because I tend to change a lot.

It would be nice to have an additional item in the File menu that is called e.g. "Save incremental". It would save a copy of the song and add a number to the file name.

Ever time I use that function, it would save another copy of the current song and increase the number.

Should be easy to implement and would provide a great benefit, IMO.


Greetings,
Frank


+1 for the concept…
For this to work, Reason would have to change the way it saves files. Otherwise your disk will fill up quite quickly because Reason saves ALL audio (including audio not currently 'heard') in the song file.

I and others have suggested ways of making this "breadcrumb trail" feature easy to implement, and gain many additional features along the way. Check out this suggestion if you have a moment and are interested (this was written for Record originally, and it all applies to Reason today):
https://www.propellerheads.se/forum/...d.php?t=140604

c4djack 2013-10-24 20:29

Very good idea. Have several versions of the song data - excluding audio - in one file.

A thought about that: What happens if the audio data changes? E.g. by hitting the "Save and Optimize" function, or cutting & deleting parts of tracks? Would that create versioned copies of the audio material? Or would it get rid of all older versions and reduce the file to just the current one?

Probably the last, I guess.

Maybe it would make sense to have both approaches :)

selig 2013-10-24 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by c4djack (Post 1406905)
Very good idea. Have several versions of the song data - excluding audio - in one file.

A thought about that: What happens if the audio data changes? E.g. by hitting the "Save and Optimize" function, or cutting & deleting parts of tracks? Would that create versioned copies of the audio material? Or would it get rid of all older versions and reduce the file to just the current one?

Probably the last, I guess.

Maybe it would make sense to have both approaches :)

There should NEVER be a way to delete audio that is a part of a different version of a song. When it's time to trim your audio, save a new separate file and strip out the versions/audio at that point. No need for two approaches… :-)

LastAlternative 2013-10-24 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by c4djack (Post 1406849)
I often work on my mix for a long time, and forget to save copies of my song file, so I can't go back to earlier states. Which is bad, because I tend to change a lot.

It would be nice to have an additional item in the File menu that is called e.g. "Save incremental". It would save a copy of the song and add a number to the file name.

Ever time I use that function, it would save another copy of the current song and increase the number.

Should be easy to implement and would provide a great benefit, IMO.


Greetings,
Frank

Whoa that would take up a lot of computer space real quick! I wouldn't use it but not a bad idea for folks like you who would.

c4djack 2013-10-24 23:29

Storage is very cheap nowadays. I don't see a problem with that. You get terabytes of storage for relatively little money. Audio recording needs lots of space anyway, just like video production, 3D rendering, et cetera.

Currently, people make copies of their song files (well, if they remember to do so, unlike me). Takes up space, too.

selig 2013-10-25 02:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by c4djack (Post 1406993)
Storage is very cheap nowadays. I don't see a problem with that. You get terabytes of storage for relatively little money. Audio recording needs lots of space anyway, just like video production, 3D rendering, et cetera.

Currently, people make copies of their song files (well, if they remember to do so, unlike me). Takes up space, too.

I typically backup 20 or more versions (one every 5 minutes) with a similar feature when using Pro Tools. I see no reason to increase my disk usage by 20 times!

Also consider the time it takes to write all audio every time the system backs up, and the ways this could negatively affect the playback of the song.

I'm not a believer of "throw more hardware" at the problem, unless other options have been exhausted. :-)

c4djack 2013-10-25 08:39

So if you use ProTools session backup feature, why don't you want something similar in Reason?

selig 2013-10-25 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by c4djack (Post 1407108)
So if you use ProTools session backup feature, why don't you want something similar in Reason?

That's exactly my point - Pro Tools ONLY saves the small song files and the HD hit is minimal. That's EXACTLY what I want in Reason. Hope that makes things a bit more clear if they weren't already. :-)

mcatalao 2013-10-25 16:52

Yep, and it only creates audio versions when there is destructive processing.
I would expect reason to do the same.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 14:38.