Split pattern wishModerators: Christophe, Mark
54 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Split pattern wishWell too, not to put Reaper down - but hasn't it been coming out with a ton of updates almost weekly? Soon as you mentioned Reaper Crimson, I looked into it. But got to say the amount of updates kinda scared me off. Even why I dropped off OP's beat team - 7.62 works well enough for me, and want to make a LOT of music now. Which OP has been doing very nicely. All the hoopla about OP8, not that excited over really. If Rich can improve a few things here and there I'm after, I'm game. But as to all the other templates/AT/Live Set/split pattern/hidden picture of Mohammed features... Doubt I'd hardly glance at them, if ever use them.
Mind you, that's what I said when I first got OP 10 years ago - just something to add a VST to my MIDI hardware set up. 2 tons of dust covered plastic, snakes den of cables, and rusting metal later... A lappy, cheap USB keyboard and OP is all I need now.
Split pattern wish
The native synths in Orion are without a doubt among the best in the industry. Reaper has no native instruments bundled (besides a 'proof of concept' thingy) but it's bundled FX are very good. However, native instruments are not really a 'quality thing' as you can plug many very good VSTi instruments into both Orion and Reaper. Besides, instruments (and FX) are largely subject to personal taste. So for me the quality of a music production suite like Orion and/or Reaper comes down to the 'working environment' it gives me to compose, record, arrange and produce my music. I think Orion does have it strong points (reason for me to stick with it) but it is still falling behind in several areas when compared to (for example) Reaper. But I think we are in for a treat with OP8; with all the template/project stuff (that I suggested together with a few others) and whatever Rich is throwing in there it is bound to be impressive I'm sure. Now if I could use my Tascam US2400 with Orion that would be completely of the scale for me
Split pattern wishYou snuck in on me there Crimson. I like Reaper's aspect a lot too.
And maybe if they slow down this update business, I'd give it a serious whirl. But again, to look at OP and say 'I want to make Pet Sounds II' with it. I knew it was nutty - like looking at a toy piano and wanting to play Chopin on it. At best, I thought I'd get my guitar in it, maybe a Hammond Organ riff, and then have to mess it all up with SmartElectronix stuff because OP just can't be 'linear'. Without giving too much away, if you listen to Sarafina All just OP samplers and patterns, and a few other VSTs. And amazing how quick it was to do this type of music in OP... Even though it was a little 'unorthadox' to current recording mediums. I've told people I did this in a 'proffesional studio' that almost bankrupted me. They nod in agreement and understand.... Naw, I did this at home on my lappy with OP one evening. Piece of cake.
Split pattern wish
Reaper updates come at a very high pace because the dev-team is working at lightning speed. You don't have to update but installing an update is painless and every update brings in new (requested) features. I think there is no other DAW-software that is being developed at the speed of Reaper's development. It's already a music production powerhouse and at it's current development speed it will run rings around everything else (including Orion) within a year or so. Which doesn't mean that Orion doesn't have it's uses and it's own scope on music production (even for me) Let's make something clear: I don't want Orion to inherit every bone and knuckle that's available in other systems. That would be stupid and defeat the purpose of Orion. But there are certain standards being set by development in other systems and Orion should not fall behind in that regard. Simply because I think Orion has been at the forefront of DAW development and should stay there
Split pattern wishIt's good that Reapers 'on top of things'. As well as Rich with OP. But even then, updates sometimes cause problems in other areas, Happened with OP, and I'm sure Cubase et al had it's fair share of 'oops' as well. And hopefully Reaper will at some point back off and say 'there, done.' As too, I hope OP8 finally get's a lot of the irks and quirks out too.
I feel guilty even throwing up the idea here awhile back about 'reversing/inverting' Pattern notes, which I think Rich kinda liked the sound of. IE; a simple riff of C,D,E,G would reverse to G,E,D,C and/or inverting would cause a riff of C,G,C,F to be G,C,F,C. I've done it a few time's, play the notes/chords backwards to the song - stream it to WAV, reverse it, and insert into OP so it's 'forward'. A 'reverse' feature would just save me the time from having to play and record it 'backwards' is all. And the big question is - how often would anyone use this feature? And like I said, I already do. It's possible with OP. and none's the wiser in the end - whether it's actual MIDI notes doing it, or an extract of a audio clip butted up just underneath a pattern. So maybe some of these upgrades and wishes inspire others, and gives Rich something to work on. But to me OP can do it all right now.
Split pattern wish
It's not the end of the world, it's just a waste of time that Rich could spend on doing useful things. As I pointed out, it is completely and utterly impossible to select a portion of a pattern if there are patterns in the channels directly above and below, so it would be a deeply flawed feature, unless Rich spent considerable effort making fundamental changes to the Playlist to accommodate it. i.e. It is not just a simple addition, it would be a massive amount of work that could break all kinds of things and take ages to get right.
It is not so much a progression as an unneeded and largely unhelpful feature. It is trivial to split patterns in the Piano Roll and this feature could not be implemented effectively without making other, deeper changes to the Playlist.
You said it yourself, you can't use Reaper the way you used to work in your hardware studio. I'm sure there is nothing you can do in Reaper that cannot also be done in Orion, so it must come down to workflow in the end. Although with Orion you get a completely unmatched set of top quality native tools that makes the experience far more complete. i.e. To do everything you can do in Orion in Reaper, you need plugins, and vice-versa. e.g. If I want to do linear sequencing in Orion, I can load up EnergyXT as a plugin and I'd probably need my audio editor to do some things too, but as I can call that up from within Orion, it's really just like another plugin. Dell G7 (Hexa-Core i7)|Cubase Pro 10||Analog Keys|Ultranova|MicroMonsta|Uno|Skulpt|Craft Synth 2.0|
novakill.com
Split pattern wishI thought EnergyXT was like a step sequencer thing Bones? And why not just go for the old 99999 method in OP then, and trim back when complete? So you load a VST to OP, load this EnergyXT, and it records the VST like a straight ahead track? Either way, you're doing a extra step until OP8's out I guess.
Split pattern wishI would never use eXT inside Orion, even though that is what I originally got it for, but it is just a normal, linear sequencer that offers a more "normal" experience to users who are used to DAWs.
Dell G7 (Hexa-Core i7)|Cubase Pro 10||Analog Keys|Ultranova|MicroMonsta|Uno|Skulpt|Craft Synth 2.0|
novakill.com
Split pattern wisheXT is more modular isnt it, plug anything into anything kinda thing?
horrible mess last time i looked. Windows 11 Home - 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-12400 2.50 GHz -32GB RAM
250GB SSD - 1TB HDD | M-Audio Oxygen 25 V
Split pattern wishSort of, but the "Sequencer" module is just a linear sequencer and in V2 it is sort of the default mode, I think [haven't really had much of a look at v2].
Dell G7 (Hexa-Core i7)|Cubase Pro 10||Analog Keys|Ultranova|MicroMonsta|Uno|Skulpt|Craft Synth 2.0|
novakill.com
Split pattern wish
This is where you are completely wrong ! There is an incredible amount of stuff that can be done in Reaper that is impossible in Orion. Some examples: - The mixer in Reaper is completely modular under the hood, routing can be set up in any way you need it. There is no limit on busses, subgroups and FX-slots. And every channel has 64 sub-channels inside for complex FX-routing right there on a channel. This goes for both audio and midi. - Take management: I can record unlimited takes onto one channel and then simply decide what part of what take is being used where, merge takes, split takes, all being done within one track/channel. - Sidechaining: Reaper has made traditional sidechaining obsolete as it let any signal from anywhere in your signal-chain control any parameter on any instrument, effect or the mixer itself. This goes much further then sidechaining; for example 'ducking' you don't need a compressor any more to do it as it can be done natively on the mixer in Reaper. - Reaper doesn't force a certain workflow onto the user. It can be completely customized with macros and scripting (a lot of macros and scripts are being swapped in the community). The whole menu-structure can be customized thhe way you want it, including adding your own commands that can point to your own custom made actions. Macros can be build drag-drop style by chaining existing commands together to automate repetitive tasks. .... and those are just a tip of the iceberg
I don't experience any difference in using a native generator or using a plugin instrument. So that is not something I perceive as being 'superior' in Orion. The only difference is that Orion comes bundled with some top of the bill instruments so it gets you started without additional cost money-wise. But with all the great freebee plugins out there this also has become a bit of a moot point (although, as I mentioned before, I do acknowledge the sheer quality of the native generators in Orion ).
But it won't integrate into Orion the way a pattern-sequencer integrates in Reaper (i.e. drag-drop between native midi-clips in Reaper). Bottom line is that I can easily point out in what regards Reaper is (far) superior to Orion but it is hard for me to do the reverse. Orion does have a unique workflow/work-environment and that is what is keeping me (so far) using it for certain things. But it is becoming seriously lacking in certain areas. I used to work with the build-in sequencer in my ESQ-1 and back in the days that was a very powerful thing to work with. With the advent of the Atari with and the Pro24 sequencer it became completely obsolete for me simply because the Pro24 gave me better/more options to work with. What I try so say here is that any product needs to evolve within it's market or it will become obsolete. OP7.x has become a bit long in the teeth from my perspective. Having said that, I expect OP8 will put Orion back on the map (at least for me) Last edited by crimsonwarlock on Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Split pattern wishmost of the points you detial there CM, are reasons i dont use other hosts...
Orion is what it is, and i think trying to become too close to another host in features like that will detract from its original idea and workflow too much...no need to invent another Reaper or Cubarse or Live, and i dont think ,odular aspects will ever become a part of Orion (at least i hope not, its a horrible way to work) things like unlimited fx slots etc seem ridiculous to me...ive seen songs in Orion that have been fully loaded with FX, they are crap, made by users who clearly have no idea how to use FX...and i can see no reason in the world why you would want, say, 16 FX on 1 channel... V8 is certainly going to be a big step up..templates is prob the biggest thing users will rave about, and maybe song merge as a complete soft studio its unbeatable right now (at least for me) Windows 11 Home - 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-12400 2.50 GHz -32GB RAM
250GB SSD - 1TB HDD | M-Audio Oxygen 25 V
Split pattern wish
I agree. This is what I am hoping for. I don't want for Orion to become like the competition, but to implement some well thought out changes in track view which would enhance the user experience. Such as I hope in other areas: like automation. If splitting is one of this features or not, in the end is entirely up to Synapse Audio. In other words, I want for it to retain its uniqueness but at the same time make the distance traveled between pattern workflow and linear sequencer workflow somewhat lesser. Maybe Richard will opt for another solution which will make splitting less needed by me, I guess we'll all find out sooner or later.
Split pattern wish
I understand completely where you are coming from When your music is predominantly build on synthesizers then you only need FX to add something to it and I'm with you that in this regard 'less is more'. If a certain sound needs tweaking then you tweak it right at the beginning which is on the synthesizer itself. However, if you work with 'other' source material like vocals or other recorded stuff then you need FX-slots to tweak the sound to get it to sit nicely in your mix, apart from using any FX to 'add something'. My basic vocalchain in Reaper has a limiter, noise-gate, a parametric-EQ, de-esser, and a compressor. In that case you already exceed 4 slots. And don't talk about using FX-containers because that is just a workaround and not a good one at that. It means I have to open multiple windows to get to my FX-chain. But with Orion being clearly focussed on electronic music production I don't need more then the now available FX-slots and I don't need Orion to get complete flexible routing. In many areas I like Orion a lot as it is. I was just making a point about Bones's statement that you can do everything in Orion that Reaper can do which is as I demonstrated a very 'uninformed' statement.
Split pattern wishLike what? Sincerely, what are some things that you think would be useful? Regardless of if they were implemented or not. New and redesigned fx and synths are fine, but they may not be something everyone will use all the time, as opposed to working with the program itself. Hey, I'm guilty of coming across a larger stumbling block (like the automation issue) and avoided it to work on something less important but is easier to solve along with more instant fun results, but the stumbling block is still there and more important and fundamental than small side-projects that not everyone may benefit from.
It isn't completely and utterly impossible. You drag the track to the bottom. When you're done, you move it back. That's a workaround of course, since one would logically think you can just select in line with whatever track, which you can't do either. It doesn't sound flawed, it sounds more like exaggerated worry. Obviously some work would have to be put into it, which any worthy amount of progress and money would come out of it. How much massive amount of work has gone into things that may not be used as much as opposed to core improvements?
In your opinion, just as some people think the opposite. It would also be trivial to split a pattern in the playlist; more trivial to do it that way when you have a long pattern with different parts inside it instead of having to make them piece by piece. It's less efficient to select, cut or copy and then paste into a new pattern as opposed to just selecting the section and dragging it. That's 2 clicks without having to open up the piano roll.
It's both, not
Point being that it's been around for years and easy enough to download and find out for yourselves, but I understand how much work that is and how scary new things are. It barely takes up space and starts in like a second. Not necessarily, if all you want to do is copy a section of large pattern and have it play somewhere else.
A pattern doesn't have to be split, just a piece could be extracted from it. If it is split, that's where you have the option to copy the original pattern and paste it to a new one to modify. So, a chance of something going wrong even if that could be fixed too is reason enough to not progress? Eventually someone or something is going to ask something of me that I may have to compromise to benefit from, from getting a haircut to wearing a suit to buying a ring. Eventually I'll have to buy groceries, which means I'll have to cross the street, and then I could get hit by a car, and I may get struck by lightning. And then after buying groceries I'll have to do the same thing! Screw that, I'm going to stay in my cave, order food and jerk off for the rest of my life. Dungeon, my friendly Canadian neighbor, you make yourself sound 30 years older than what you actually are. So did I, but it's usually an inevitable thing if you want to finish a song. I think being able to lay down a track in the playlist and extracting patterns from it would be a nice option, if it didn't hinder the way it works now, which it wouldn't.
More exaggerated worry. This isn't a request for too many tools. There's not even any new tools to implement. Just coding, which is easy for me to say, but it doesn't mean he has buy a bunch of equipment and get to the top of the Alps either.
I wonder what you mean by less and useful. Do you mean the least used? Or the least necessary? Do you render all your patterns out and arrange them in another application (which sounds like worse workflow) or do you make the arrangement in the playlist finally but it barely takes the time and effort to do it, which still makes it useful and necesary. Sorry if I'm taking that out of context. This feature wouldn't do anything to change that.
Not necessarily, either way if you want to edit any pattern you have to use the piano roll. Again, copying a section of pattern just to paste to another place in the PL doesn't mean you have to split the pattern or edit it, which means no absolute necessity in resorting to PR just to do that. That's actually better workflow.
Aw, a concern for new users :rolleyes:. How can we assume every new user comes from the same place? With absolutely no experience, there's nothing for them to argue about because they have no other DAW to compare to. With DAW experience then they could easily be used to being able to select a section in the playlist to modify. Switching between the PL and PR is trivial, you double click on a pattern. This feature allows you to not have to switch at all if you don't want to edit the pattern. What about all the new users who ask how to do something trivial like this and you have to constantly tell them they can't do it when instead it could have already been implemented ages ago?
Ditto. And forget about new standards even. This is an old one. I'm not asking for Orion to be what it isn't. But just because something is different and unique doesn't mean it shouldn't grow. Growing doesn't mean giving in and becoming a clone. Is being proud and stubborn for the sake of being different and unique really worth it? Having a similar feature to others doesn't mean you're a sheep, and maybe the majority of others have the same features because they're useful, time-saving, logical and intuitive. This isn't a request for reaper, and worrying about one little thing like this because there could be some complications, extra work on Rich's part and future requests for having features similar to another daw is a weak argument. Asking for a little feature here is like installing basic cable in an old folks home. They freak out that they'll lose their channels or they'll be a different number when there's just more channels added that they don't even have to watch. Plus the reception is better. There isn't even some giant complicated new remote, you can still use the old one. Don't you want better reception? Or do you want all those potential customers to run to a different company just because you don't have basic cable? Last edited by Shadx on Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
54 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 422 guests |
© 2017 Synapse Audio Software. All Rights Reserved. |