thebiglongy
Sharke, did you say the options you have are for Clone and Copy?

If this is so, then wouldn't it be a copy of the track you would want, rather than a clone?
I, without reading the manual, would assume that a 'clone' would be a copy but with linked parametres, where as a 'copy' would be a copy of the track and everything associated, but without linking.
Clone = Linked
Copy = Unlinked (independant)

In the context of audio tracks, "clone" means "copy," and in fact Cake seems to use the words interchangeably in their online help documents. There is no separate option for "copy track," no.

thebiglongy

sharke  But surely if you wanted to have multiple MIDI tracks feeding the same drum synth, you'd just insert extra MIDI tracks and output them to that synth. There's no need to clone anything at all. 

This is true, it would be easier to create another midi track, but then you would also have to add in the midi/audio fx you used on the other track which would lead to more cpu usage.

You wouldn't have to add extra audio fx - the output of the synth would be to the audio track of the original SIT and so pass through the fx you already have loaded, right?

Personally, I am certainly glad SITs exist since I tend to use them way more often than the traditional method.  Other than drums I never seem to need multiple outs for other synths/instruments, and more often than not (by far) I don't need the extra parameter control offered by the split design.
 
That said, I've also never cloned a SIT before.   So if I wanted to duplicate an existing part with a different sound (or even a variation of the original) I just add another SIT and copy the MIDI data over.    Life's too short.  
 

this is exactly the kind of thread where a cake rep could clear up the confusion...

I'm not sure what confusion there is. It does exactly what it says it does in the manual.

It doesn't work the way some would wish. Perhaps put in a feature request?

maybe it's misnomer, as it's not "cloning" but just "copying a part of" the source SIT? (& should also be shown as a midi track icon not an instrument track?)

jb101
I'm not sure what confusion there is. It does exactly what it says it does in the manual.

It doesn't work the way some would wish. Perhaps put in a feature request?

I actually remembered the little blurb you are referring to after reading your posts but it did seemed to be shoehorned in and for those who find SITs confusing enough as it is and/or those who haven't been as diligent in their manual deciphering... it is indeed confusing. The thing is when folks are thinking about cloning a track they are used to cloning an audio track or a MIDI track which does exactly as the function name implies. The entirety of said track is copied and becomes its own independent entity. With SITs that is apparently not the case and those reading this thread are now aware of that. A brief snippet in the nearly 2000 page manual won't trump what most of us have associated the term "cloning" to mean through endless usage of the feature in regards to more traditional tracks.
 
Not to be rude but frankly I'm confused as to how you are confused about why people are confused. ;-)
 
That said, and perhaps I am missing something here because I don't really use the things, it still doesn't make sense that if there is a separate fader and whatnot available on the clone that they be perpetually linked aside from the fact that Cake did not code SITs with this eventuality in mind. And really it doesn't seem all that illogical to me that people might expect that type of behavior.
 
So no... it's not a bug and yes I'm sure that it was just something tossed in there for those that requested it (which is great) but considering how cloning works on other types of tracks it isn't all that far fetched that folks would be confused by this behavior.
 
As someone who wandered into this program completely new to MIDI the whole idea of SITs actually made my learning curve WAY more difficult because it was a complete wild card and many of the tuts used them. It was only after coming to the forum with my ass in my hand that I learned they were kind of a frivolous addition and that to truly learn how to use MIDI in the traditional sense I should completely ignore SITs. Now that I know more I can see the benefit of them for simple sketching or easy set up but man oh man did they ever make things twisted at the start.
 
So yes... they are indeed a big hunk of confusing when already trying to deal with the already confusing subject of MIDI.
 
Sorry if that's confusing.

Beepster

jb101
I'm not sure what confusion there is. It does exactly what it says it does in the manual.

It doesn't work the way some would wish. Perhaps put in a feature request?

I actually remembered the little blurb you are referring to after reading your posts but it did seemed to be shoehorned in and for those who find SITs confusing enough as it is and/or those who haven't been as diligent in their manual deciphering... it is indeed confusing. The thing is when folks are thinking about cloning a track they are used to cloning an audio track or a MIDI track which does exactly as the function name implies. The entirety of said track is copied and becomes its own independent entity. With SITs that is apparently not the case and those reading this thread are now aware of that. A brief snippet in the nearly 2000 page manual won't trump what most of us have associated the term "cloning" to mean through endless usage of the feature in regards to more traditional tracks. Not to be rude but frankly I'm confused as to how you are confused about why people are confused. ;-) That said, and perhaps I am missing something here because I don't really use the things, it still doesn't make sense that if there is a separate fader and whatnot available on the clone that they be perpetually linked aside from the fact that Cake did not code SITs with this eventuality in mind. And really it doesn't seem all that illogical to me that people might expect that type of behavior. So no... it's not a bug and yes I'm sure that it was just something tossed in there for those that requested it (which is great) but considering how cloning works on other types of tracks it isn't all that far fetched that folks would be confused by this behavior. As someone who wandered into this program completely new to MIDI the whole idea of SITs actually made my learning curve WAY more difficult because it was a complete wild card and many of the tuts used them. It was only after coming to the forum with my ass in my hand that I learned they were kind of a frivolous addition and that to truly learn how to use MIDI in the traditional sense I should completely ignore SITs. Now that I know more I can see the benefit of them for simple sketching or easy set up but man oh man did they ever make things twisted at the start. So yes... they are indeed a big hunk of confusing when already trying to deal with the already confusing subject of MIDI. Sorry if that's confusing.

I did not know S.I.T.s behaved like this either, as I do not use them like this.

In response to this thread, I took TWENTY SECONDS to look it up in the manual, where it stated its intended behaviour. This I did not find confusing. Some people didn't seem to be reading my posts, or found it hard to understand that it is not two sets of controls that are linked, but one set of controls duplicated. Some still don't seem to have understood this. This I found confusing..

As I stated, I can understand why people might think it would behave differently, or might want it to, but S.I.T.s are what they are.

I found/find many things confusing about DAW software - I guess that's why they provide manuals.

I think the real moral of the story here is that we should think twice about cloning.
 
 
 
 
I'll get my coat on the way out....   
 

I ran into the same problem with a Strings SIT and wanted to have two tracks panned left and right.  I found the pan knobs linked.  So instead I found I could freeze the track and bounce to a new split mono track. That did the trick.