[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Anthony Bisset
Subject: Re: [Traverso-devel] Proposal: changing Sheet concept in Traverso
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 01:46:11 +0900

Hi Remon & Plutek,

I've been doing a lot of mastering recently (past ~6 months). The commercial software I use does not have the Traverso sheet functionality and I wish it did.

Perhaps user adoptance of "sheets" is a naming issue? Often people won't adopt a feature unless it has a very clear name. A single word like "Sheet" or "layer" is a bit ambiguous.

I think a different more descriptive name that guides understanding would help user adoption.

Many features of Traverso are focused on assembling an album of songs, so perhaps using the Album and Song keywords would clarify the features. This might feel too defined, but many people might like the focus and workflow that it brings.

Some key terms that could be useful: "Album", "Session", "Song", "Song Layer", "Song Sheet",

hope this stirs the imagination,

On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:13 AM, plutek wrote:

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?



Traverso-devel mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]