The main issue as I see it is when you have the audio in DB, and for arguments sake, you want to listen to bars 78 to 82 to see what is needed. The audio would need to sync here. One for Ben's magic I guess : - )
I wonder if Ben might not have more important things to do for us. Isn't combining various tracks from various sources--e.g. audio with MIDI, or with DB--what the bigtime sequencing programs like GB, Reason, Live, etc. are all about?
Rather than clutter up a great percussion-composing program with extras that don't really do the whole job anyhow, wouldn't it make more sense to let one of the big boys do the synchronizing, and just switch back and forth between the sequencer and DB when needed to tweak the drum parts?
-Sterling
On 05/01/2006 20:06, Sterling Beckwith wrote:
I wonder if Ben might not have more important things to do for us. Isn't combining various tracks from various sources--e.g. audio with MIDI, or with DB--what the bigtime sequencing programs like GB, Reason, Live, etc. are all about?
Well, those apps definitely involve editing and mixing your all your audio. This idea seemed more about letting DB play back a reference file for convenience, just to cut a couple of steps in seeing whether the tweaks to your drum track seem to have been the right ones to gel with the rest of your instruments. It wouldn't be displaying the waveform or anything, or letting you mix or apply effects or whatnot. To properly make a song with your drums you'd still have to export your audio and stick it into your multitrack recording software.
When I first saw it I thought it _was_ about making DB closer to a multitrack recorder, which indeed seems like a bad idea. When I realised it was actually much simpler, just about saving steps, I thought it was more interesting -- though I agree it would hardly be a _vital_ feature. I'd still much rather see the "multi-velocity sample range" handling features, higher sample rates, and MIDI import-that-strips-the-percussion-stuff features come in :)
wouldn't it make more sense to let one of the big boys do the synchronizing, and just switch back and forth between the sequencer and DB when needed to tweak the drum parts?
Well, that's what we do now :)
Cheers, Carl
On 06/01/2006, at 4:06 AM, Sterling Beckwith wrote:
I wonder if Ben might not have more important things to do for us. Isn't combining various tracks from various sources--e.g. audio with MIDI, or with DB--what the bigtime sequencing programs like GB, Reason, Live, etc. are all about?
No doubt about it - that's what they do best. I'm not suggesting DB tries to imitate them. It would just be handy to have a guide audio track play along with the drum track, no MIDI, no effects, no mixer etc...
Rather than clutter up a great percussion-composing program with extras that don't really do the whole job anyhow, wouldn't it make more sense to let one of the big boys do the synchronizing, and just switch back and forth between the sequencer and DB when needed to tweak the drum parts?
That's the painful part I find. Needing to listen to the the song in Pro Tools, note where a drum change is needed, go to DB, add the changes, bring them back to PT, audition them, and if not right, go through the process again.
These discussions are all academic, if Ben can do it easily, I assume he'll go for it, if not, bad luck...
Cheers
Charlie
I think the audio function would be nice, since exporting and importing all the time is quite timeconsuming.
To deal with this I usually put my sequencer on play some bars before the drum part should begin (or loop it), then hit play on doggiebox when the drum part should begin. I even loop both apps so that I can tweak the drumpart while hearing the eg. guitar. It works perfectly:)
haakon
Den 7. jan. 2006 kl. 02.39 skrev Charlie:
No doubt about it - that's what they do best. I'm not suggesting DB tries to imitate them. It would just be handy to have a guide audio track play along with the drum track, no MIDI, no effects, no mixer etc...
I vote no on the audio idea, for what it's worth.
I compose drum parts in my head anyway. By the time I'm doing drums, I'm so familiar with the songs progression of changes, that I don't really miss hearing the actual audio.
It's not like I can "play along" with the song regardless, so ... what does it really matter?
To audtion, I export audio then import it into Cubase. Since I play to a click track, my song always starts at a known point. This makes repeated export->import->audition steps sort of trouble free. It only takes a few minutes to import and place a modified DB file.
Let's not turn the app into something it's not. It seems to me that this feature set might be call for a secondary applet. Another program.
"DogWalker" anyone?
Tie it to Doggiebox, but make it a second application altogether. This way, those who want to use DB without the muddled interface and potential performance penalty can do so. Think of how Photoshop and ImageReady relate to each other, for example.
On Jan 7, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Håkon Pettersen wrote:
I think the audio function would be nice, since exporting and importing all the time is quite timeconsuming.
To deal with this I usually put my sequencer on play some bars before the drum part should begin (or loop it), then hit play on doggiebox when the drum part should begin. I even loop both apps so that I can tweak the drumpart while hearing the eg. guitar. It works perfectly:)
haakon
Den 7. jan. 2006 kl. 02.39 skrev Charlie:
No doubt about it - that's what they do best. I'm not suggesting DB tries to imitate them. It would just be handy to have a guide audio track play along with the drum track, no MIDI, no effects, no mixer etc...
-- Zygoat Doggiebox discussion list - http://www.doggiebox.com To unsubscribe, view archives or change your options: http://lists.zygoat.ca/mailman/listinfo/doggiebox
-
Carl Edlund Anderson -
Charlie -
Håkon Pettersen -
Michael Carlyle -
Sterling Beckwith