brundlefly
Beepster
bapu
Simples. Route it all to a bus and put a envelope on that. Or am I missing something.
Thing is I do so many layers of tracks that are intended to do different things that I need to control it from the tracks. Also the extra advantage of all these layers is I can add and twist effects on some layers and not others (or have different effects going nuts on the others) it can do some crazy stuff.
This conflicts with the idea of having linked envelopes. Either you want multiple tracks to be affected alike or not. You can always have individual control over one type of envelope/FX at the track level while using buses for the ones that are shared.
I'd have to see a specific example of what you want to achieve to understand how busing doesn't serve the purpose.
As far as grouping goes, I think what you're seeing is that the control grouping function groups the "levers" not the parameters they control. And envelopes are another type of "lever" that over-rides the track controls during playback (unless you're hanging on to the widget with the mouse during playback). In other words, the envelope and track control are contending for control of the parameter as opposed to the envelope driving the track control (and thus affecting grouped controls).
brundlefly
Beepster
bapu
Simples. Route it all to a bus and put a envelope on that. Or am I missing something.
Thing is I do so many layers of tracks that are intended to do different things that I need to control it from the tracks. Also the extra advantage of all these layers is I can add and twist effects on some layers and not others (or have different effects going nuts on the others) it can do some crazy stuff.
This conflicts with the idea of having linked envelopes. Either you want multiple tracks to be affected alike or not. You can always have individual control over one type of envelope/FX at the track level while using buses for the ones that are shared.
I'd have to see a specific example of what you want to achieve to understand how busing doesn't serve the purpose.
As far as grouping goes, I think what you're seeing is that the control grouping function groups the "levers" not the parameters they control. And envelopes are another type of "lever" that over-rides the track controls during playback (unless you're hanging on to the widget with the mouse during playback). In other words, the envelope and track control are contending for control of the parameter as opposed to the envelope driving the track control (and thus affecting grouped controls).
There isn't a conflict at all actually when you want to go beyond controlling ALL paramaters on multiple tracks. I want to separate specific parameters from such a group. It wouldn't be possible with a single bus. I would have to create multiple busses for each paramater. That also means having to reset what effects are where (so I'd have to remove the effects from the tracks and move them to the busses and figure out the chains and routing/etc... kind of a mess). The example I gave was pretty thorough but perhaps too long winded so I'll try to simplify it.
Track Count = 4 (2 sets of 2 double guitars). All tracks feeding a single bus.
Envelopes = 4 per track
Envelope 1 = Volume
Envelope 2 = Pan
Envelope 3 = An effect parameter (let's say BiFilter)
Envelope 4 = An different effect parameter (let's say the drive knob inside an amp sim)
Tracks 1, 2, 3, 4 = Volume Envelope (which could be done on the Bus but I'd rather do it on the track for various reasons like maybe I will want to unlink the envelopes at certain areas to accentuate on guit or another or pairs of guits).
Tracks 1, 3 = Pan Envelope (while tracks 2 and 4 remain where they are tracks 1 and 3 are panned by the envelope)
Tracks 1, 4 = BiFilter effect (while tracks 2 and 3 have no bifilter effect changes).
Tracks 2, 4 = Sim Drive effect (while tracks 1 and 3 retain their drive settings).
That is obviously a completely hypothetical example and not really based in what I am actually trying to do (but somewhat based on some stuff I want to try). By adding and linking those specific envelopes as described then I KNOW the exact paramaters I want to change together with the envelopes will do so without having to figure it all out each and every time with the automation lanes exposed. Without the link I would have to select all those groups manually with lanes open for every change I make. Doing a complex setup like that on the bus level would be even crazier and I personally prefer to use my busses to gel such subsets of tracks than get too crazy with automation and effects (eg: Volume/Gain/Pan is totally fine at bus level for the whole group... but trying to separate it all out into complex changes as described is impractical especially when effects that have a proper place in the signal chain are factored in).
Knowaddimean?
As far as Control Groups I do get the overide for envelopes but to me I kind of consider an envelope as the "unseen hand on the dial" so if I group a control and want it to be guided by my actual hand via controller it makes sense that I would want my "unseen hand" to perform the same function.
You do have to remember that I'm a relative newcomer to all this so the "conventions" of how things have always worked aren't engrained like it is for those who've been doing this for many years. When I encounter stuff like this that people have maybe just worked around and accepted as proper procedure it can be a little surprising.
Again, not trying to be a d*ck or argumentative (I hope you all know me better than that), I just think this, if not already implemented, should be because it does make sense and I don't think it would be all that hard to include as an option.
All that would need to happen to make this ultra awesome is...
1) Provide an option to Link automation lanes/envelopes
2) Provide an option to set control groups (or subsets of control groups) to follow automation being generated from one track to all tracks in the group
As I said... it's fine. I will have to work out my own system for this and it's obvious this is the status quo (so I have to learn to work within that which is why I study and try things all day everyday) but it really would be great if these features were implemented. I doubt I am the only one who could make use of such a scheme.
Fortunately Cake are receptive to such ideas. I will let this thread go for a bit to see if any other suggestions roll down the pipe but I am getting the impression this has now become a Feature request.
Base on Kenny's posts here I have also come up with maybe an extra idea.
3) Have an option that when you link an envelope with data to one that does not have data (or has different data) that the new envelope added acquires the properties/values of the first envelope (or group of envelopes). Kind of like a copy/paste envelope that also links the envelopes. Then when envelopes are removed from the group they retain the properties/values acquired and become independent again.
I have seen reams of questions and complaints about copy/pasting envelopes across tracks (which is part of the reason why automation has scared the pizz out of me for so long) so these types of options would likely be a real boon to the program. I have no idea if other programs offer these types of functionality so maybe Cake could end up being the innovators that everyone copies (no pun intended) once again.
Cheeeeers!