Re: [Traverso-devel] Proposal: changing Sheet concept in Traverso

[plutek]

Excerpts from Remon Sijrier's message of Tue Jun 08 09:22:44 -0400 2010:
> So after a good deal of thought, I'd like to propose the following:
> 
> 1) A Project no longer will have sheets, it's just a project.
> 2) It'll contain a 'main view' where all the audio tracks live, just like in 
> all the other applications out there. 
> 3) A second view, called Mixer contains all the Buses + Aux Buses for that 
> Project, including the Master Bus
> 4) You'll be able to create 'track views' which can be populated by any/all 
> audio tracks from your project. The purpose of 'track views' is to be able to 
> quickly compare a small number of tracks to each other, without having to 
> deal 
> with all the tracks in one main view.
> 5) you can have as many of those track views as you want.

hi remon - great to see all the recent activity in git!

i always thought the Sheet concept was a useful and interesting departure from 
the norm. here's why:

we often need quite different mix setups for various songs on a CD. i don't 
think there's ANY really logical way of keeping all that on one timeline -- we 
might have different plugins, different tracks, etc., etc., so separate 
"sessions" of some sort makes sense. in traverso with Sheets, at least we could 
keep various radically different mix setups together within one project, and 
switch effortlessly between them. then we can write out the mixed tracks, and 
set those up in another sheet to play with the sequencing, fine-tune the heads 
and tails, and do the mastering, which makes sense, conceptually, because we 
are looking at unifying the project at that point.

also, there's the case of a bunch of songs which are a conceptual group -- a 
"project", as it were -- but which are not destined for release as a sequenced 
CD. in such a case, the timeline model is dysfunctional.

of course, we also had the option of laying it all out in one sheet from the 
beginning, if the destination is a sequence of songs and if the mixes are close 
enough to make that feasible.

it sounds to me like your new proposal would not allow this sort of 
functionality within one traverso "project" -- is that right?

cheers!

-- 
.pltk.