Please consider also that I usually record my guitar with 2 different mics (into 2 different tracks)....
 
In this case the situation becomes even more complex ... thinking to adjust crossfades or moving the clips into 2 new different tracks....
 
Thanks,
 
Giorgio
 

Resort Records

Frank-US
We would like to understand completely the purpose behind this feature request.
It is not about playing back different audio files on one track simultaneously (because that would end up easily in a mess) but having a defiend transition between different audio files?
Or are you asking for something like cyle recording like with MIDI just for Audio?

 
For myself, it is about playing back different audio files on one track simultaneously without crossovers.
 
Here's my typical workflow for guitars and vocals:
 

1. Setup loop-recording of eight bars (sometimes, with an extra 1/2 bar before and after).
2. Loop-record the first verse until there's a good take (usually 2-dozen takes, thanks to my crappy guitar skills ).
3. Delete unwanted takes
4. Clean up the "keeper" take, removing silence from tip and tail, and applying fade ins/outs to eliminate clicks.  The final clip is usually longer than eight bars.
5. Duplicate the clip and move it to verse #2.  The duplicates will overlap a bit around bar 9.  This is where we want to hear both clips simultaneously, and because the clips are cleaned up, they require no crossfades. 
6. Done.  And because they're the same instrument, it makes sense to have both clips on the same track.  It's as if we punched in, but actually sounds better (usually) and with less effort.  This also has the advantage of using just one set of insert effects on the one Audio Track, whereas, if the duplicate must be copied to another track, the insert effects must also be duplicated, wasting computer resources.  On the other hand, if those insert effects are moved to a Group or FX track, the option to Freeze those tracks and recover computer resources is lost, again wasting resources.

Does this help?

It's getting clearer now. Point 1-4 is a no brainer.
In Cubase you would see all the recorded takes in the lanes of the audio track for further editing as you have described it. We call this comping.
With point 5 it's getting a bit fuzzy to me. What does "a bit" mean? 500ms, one second, two seconds?
With a relativ small value, it would be a kind of auto crossfade - with a higer value such as a second of overlap, you would hear theoretically the beginning and the end of your recording simultaneously. That could be two different chords or different words of a sung chorus at the same time. I still struggling with that scenario.
 
Best,
Frank
 
 
 

I took the plunge and went with Cubase, mainly as my music is almost all VST instruments, and the MIDI features I need are there in Cubase and difficult to find, or just not there on many others. So far, been checking through all my plugins for compatibility and (barring those we already know about) everything working well - had to buy jBridge as well for my 32-bit plugins, but that seems to work well. Now started the process of moving compositions from SONAR to Cubase, and loved the fact I can drag and drop the midi clips from SONAR straight across to Cubase, and the click and drag on the right of them to get multiple copies! Still going to be painful on some tracks where there is a lot to move, and still will have to go through settings, effects, EQ and all that as well - but the first stage has been easier than I'd expected - and the workflow, although not as polished as SONAR, feels like it should become natural fairly quickly. Not what I'd wanted to be doing over my Xmas break (or software I'd wanted to be buying at this time), but at least I'm feeling confident that I now have a platform that I can move my stuff across to over time.

Frank-US
With point 5 it's getting a bit fuzzy to me. What does "a bit" mean? 500ms, one second, two seconds?
With a relativ small value, it would be a kind of auto crossfade - with a higer value such as a second of overlap, you would hear theoretically the beginning and the end of your recording simultaneously. That could be two different chords or different words of a sung chorus at the same time. I still struggling with that scenario.

 
Here's a brief demonstration video.  I hope it's helpful.
 
Thank you for taking the time to check it out and to consider my points.

Resort Records

Frank-US
With point 5 it's getting a bit fuzzy to me. What does "a bit" mean? 500ms, one second, two seconds?
With a relativ small value, it would be a kind of auto crossfade - with a higer value such as a second of overlap, you would hear theoretically the beginning and the end of your recording simultaneously. That could be two different chords or different words of a sung chorus at the same time. I still struggling with that scenario.

 
Here's a brief demonstration video.  I hope it's helpful.

Now I understand what you are saying.  You used the term "jarring" when you hit that point where the first clip silenced the second clip.  Although my workflow was quite different, not using lanes or versions, I had that exact same "jarring " moment.  My reaction was "Ack !!!  That can't be right.  What have I done wrong."
 
Bottom line, it makes absolutely no sense for the default behavior to be this mode where one clip blocks another.  The obvious way to do things is to automatically crossfade.  I know Frank has said this behavior is intentional, but it makes absolutely zero sense to me.  How could that behavior possibly be useful to anybody?  If clips overlap on the same track, then they should crossfade. 
 
Treatment of take lanes requires more options, but that was yet another "jarring" moment.  It seems that when one is comping, the default behavior is sound on sound, playing all the previous takes as you are laying new takes.  That seems the very least likely mode of operation, and I was surprised for that to be the default behavior.
 
It is very common for people who have been living with a software product (any product, not just a DAW) to come to think that its behavior is the most natural, simply because it is the most familiar.  I do hope the Steinberg team can step outside their box and take a fresh look at some of these peculiarities.

Resort Records

Frank-US
With point 5 it's getting a bit fuzzy to me. What does "a bit" mean? 500ms, one second, two seconds?
With a relativ small value, it would be a kind of auto crossfade - with a higer value such as a second of overlap, you would hear theoretically the beginning and the end of your recording simultaneously. That could be two different chords or different words of a sung chorus at the same time. I still struggling with that scenario.

 
Here's a brief demonstration video.  I hope it's helpful.
 
Thank you for taking the time to check it out and to consider my points.

OK, got it.
While I'm with you that a blind flight like you have shown in your video at 5:02 is not a good solution, your workflow in regards to overlapping parts would be not a standard procedere to me. To me it would be rather an option but that is not an problem I guess.
I can't promise that we can come up with a solution for this request just like that, but I can promise that I will have a word with the team.
Best,
Frank

Frank-US
 
OK, got it.
While I'm with you that a blind flight like you have shown in your video at 5:02 is not a good solution, your workflow in regards to overlapping parts would be not a standard procedere to me. To me it would be rather an option but that is not an problem I guess.
I can't promise that we can come up with a solution for this request just like that, but I can promise that I will have a word with the team.
Best,
Frank

Appreciate your time and consideration. While sound on sound audio might not be a standard procedure for you, it is a very commonly used mode of recording for lots of DAW users.

Frank-US
While I'm with you that a blind flight like you have shown in your video at 5:02 is not a good solution, your workflow in regards to overlapping parts would be not a standard procedere to me. To me it would be rather an option but that is not an problem I guess.

 
Yes, an option would be ideal.  I certainly wouldn't want to break functionality for those who prefer the current implementation.  And, to be clear, it doesn't mean I don't use crossfades at all.  When punch-recording, for example, it's unavoidable.  So, ideally, it would be an option, but not a mutually exclusive option.
 

Frank-US
I can't promise that we can come up with a solution for this request just like that, but I can promise that I will have a word with the team.

That's very much appreciated.  It says a lot that Steinberg is following what Sonar users are saying (on a remote forum, no less) and considering the features that are important to them.
 
Thanks a million!

Resort Records
 
Thanks a million!

My pleasure.
If we don't listen to the customer, we are doin' something wrong.
I have a first technical discussion about this/your request tomorrow. Let's see.
 
Best,
Frank

For those with a Groove 3 all access pass, check out the brand new set of videos on Cubase 9.5.  I've only watched the first two of five (the whole thing is under one hour in length), but it's been most interesting.  The new metronome capabilities are superb.  Steinberg hit it out of the ballpark with this enhancement.