I Might Have Found a Fix for the "Track Layers Clip Envelopes" Issue

The problem: If you have several clips as layers within a single track, the clip envelopes act unreliably. This has been discussed before in these forums.

Well, tonight I was working on several layers of vocals in one track and really needed to add some clip envelopes. When I did, it sorta worked but I experienced the "unreliable" issue.

On a hunch, I clicked on "Rebuild Layers" and surprise, the clip envelopes worked exactly as expected. I had to finish the project for the evening and go to sleep, but the clip envelopes worked fine for about 10 minutes of fiddling before I shut down.

So maybe some others could try this and either confirm that this is a fix...or maybe I just got lucky. Or, maybe it's something where you need to rebuild the layers periodically for the clip envelopes to work. Anyway, I'm throwing this out to the "Cakewalk Forum Brain Trust" to see if there's a definitive answer.

I'll give it a try later today... but I don't normally use rebuild layers as I usually don't like the way it moves the clips.... I have always preferred to re-organize them manually...

Keni

Rebuilding comes with a lot of downsides... especially if you just did some wild com-positing and have everything laid out nicely.

I usually bounce everything to fresh clips that represent the results of my comping before doing the Rebuild shuffle.

If you have to reshuffle all the clips to restore the placement of the envelopes... than it undermines the whole intent of using track layers to manage data in an easy to organize and view GUI format.

It will be ideal when SONAR does this sort of internal maintenance of it's database behind the scenes and allows us put the clips where we want to without negative repercussions.

That way a clip envelope that was initiated in layer one can be used effectively and without fear in layer 3.

If I drag a clip from Layer 1 to Layer 3... I don't want to have to put it back in Layer 1 just to insure reliable use of the clip envelope.

The clip envelope is supposed to be "transportable".

Rebuilding layers... is just an automated way of negating that transportability... it essentially just puts everything back where you evidently didn't want it.


This is an ancient SONAR problem... one that Cakewalk indicates will require a big fix.



I am especially grateful that someone with the stature of Mr Anderton dares to mention that there is room for improvement.

Maybe the fix will move up the priority list.

Track layers is one of SONAR's greatest assets when it comes to comparisons to the other big name DAWs. It will be nice when Track layers work with out a bunch of gotchas.



very best regards,
mike

The work around I've used for the past few years is to simply not move the stuff around so that the it gets destroyed later. Leave clips on the layers you started them on and you are good to go.

That's the simplest of all the work arounds... just don't use the feature as it was advertised to work.

:-)

If you do use the features then rebuild layers will put everything back where you might have left them.


Sometimes, when I rebuild layers I end up with stacks of hidden clips on a single layer and sometimes that results in brand new auto cross fades... that's because sometimes I over dub actively while compositing... and so the clips "home base layer", if you will, is shared by multiple clips and they co exist in the same time range. That's always a fun time when that happens. You get to pull it all apart and rebuild your envelopes... and then I start bouncing to clips to preserve the results of my work so it doesn't get messed up next time.

best regards,
mike

mike_mccue



This is an ancient SONAR problem... one that Cakewalk indicates will require a big fix.

I am especially grateful that someone with the stature of Mr Anderton dares to mention that there is room for improvement.

Maybe the fix will move up the priority list.

Track layers is one of SONAR's greatest assets when it comes to comparisons to the other big name DAWs. It will be nice when Track layers work with out a bunch of gotchas.



very best regards,
mike

I figured something on that basic a level would require a significant re-arrangement of code, because I don't think layers were intended to be "sub-tracks" with all the properties of regular tracks (e.g., panning, level, etc.). Admittedly, I probably use track layers in a way they weren't intended to be used, so doing a rebuild doesn't bother me. In fact like several of the people here, I rebuild often which is why I never could understand why people claimed the clip envelopes didn't work.



As to room for improvement, I've never met a program (or person, for that matter) that didn't have room for improvement  Ableton has a whole file on "Craig's complaint since version 1.0 of the solo button not being recorded." It's almost become a standing joke around there. But it's the same kind of deal, apparently it's something that's buried so deep in the code base that making that one (apparently) little change is like taking out the bottom card in a house of cards. They never intended the Solo button to be a live performance feature, but a diagnostic feature in the studio. So because I'm using it in a way that it was never intended to be used...you get the picture.


I see all software as a work in progress. One of the things I like about Sonar is I do feel that there is consistent progress. But, I also realize Cakewalk is a small company in a small industry, so they have to prioritize fixes to accommodate the greatest number of users, consistent with their resources. If track layers work for the intended purpose, then my speculation is that they'd be more likely to work on things that don't work as intended, rather than adding features to something that works according to whatever spec they laid out.

He didn't say that the limitations were intentional. He said that he thinks the intentions were different from the eventual usage patterns. This is a substantial distinction, I reckon.

The elements in track layers are clips, and there's no indication to the user that they're some special kind of clip that's different to other clips. So I think it's a reasonable expectation on the part of the user, yeah.

I dunno if anyone remembers this, but around the time of the release of X1, Noel let slip that this stuff is being worked on. "Next generation take management" was his phrase for it, as I recall.

The mention of "rebuild layers" begs the question, has any body fathomed the order they are placed in when they are rebuilt? It certainly isn't the order in which they are recorded, or not consistently anyway. It almost appears random to me.

I also agree with Graig and you too John. I was just wondering.

Layers are like Audio Snap to me.  I tried them...found them tedious and sketchy...and found a better, easier workaround.  For comping I just use multiple tracks then edit as I please, make a master track and mute and hide the rest in case I want to go back and tweak something later.  There's really so much like that I don't even know about Sonar.  Me push button.  Me play.  Me push other button.  Wha...Hey??? Music come out!

John T


He didn't say that the limitations were intentional. He said that he thinks the intentions were different from the eventual usage patterns. This is a substantial distinction, I reckon.

Exactly. I'm not a Cakewalk historian but IIRC layers came in with comping. Comping is intended to take clips recorded at the same time, using the same source material, and make it easy to assemble them into a take. You would then apply any processing to the take.


I often do things with software that weren't intended. For example, I don't think when Cakewalk implemented the ProChannel, someone said "Finally, Craig Anderton will now be able to do that Electro-Harmonix Polyphase emulation in stereo he's always wanted to do." But I did it anyway  

John T


I agree with Craig's "software is always work in progress view", I think that's a good summation. Some may see that as excuse making; I see it as one of the key pros of software based systems.

Well, remember that my outlook on just about everything is colored by being a musician. AFAIC software is equal parts art and science. I think there's a reason why traditionally, a lot of good programmer play music. Like music, you have a limited set of instructions (notes) that you can put together in different ways (arrangements) to implement certain functions (compositions). It's that fluidity that keeps software from being in the same category as, say, an internal combustion engine.