Workflow on mixing tracks

[waxcylinder]

Then provide an option for what U Hear export as I suggested. I am happy to support that. I might even be persuaded for what U hear export to be default.

_______ ________________________________________________________________________________

[steve]

I believe people like me who split stereo tracks and those who mix to clear space will get bear-trapped.

An important feature of any "trap", whether for bears or otherwise, is that it remains hidden until the trap is sprung.

In the aforementioned case of two tracks where track 2 is both muted and soloed, track 1 is greyed out and track 2 plays. The export behaviour that means that only track 1 will be exported is cleverly concealed. That is a "trap".

In the proposed behaviour, track 2 plays, track 2 will be the result of "mix and render" (or whatever we call it) and track 2 will be the result of exporting. There is no concealment of what will happen and no hidden rules. it is not a "trap". What you get is what you hear - it is all out in the open.

[cyrano]

What is the point of Mix tracks: None?

Say you have a multi-track project in which tracks 2 and 7 of 30 have complex envelopes and you want to "render" those envelopes so that you may more easily add new envelope points. You don't want any other changes to the project at this stage.

Currently you would:
1) Select track 2.
2) Mix and Render
3) Scroll down to the bottom of the project and either drag the track back up to its original position, or use the track menu a few times to move the track to the top the down below the first track.
4) Rename the track back to its original name.
5) Select track 7.
6) Mix and Render
7) Scroll down to the bottom of the project and either drag the track back up to its original position, or use the track menu a few times to move the track to the top the down below the 6th track.
8) Rename the track back to its original name.

If we had the suggested feature, then you could simply select tracks 2 and 7, ensure that Envelopes are not ignored and set "Mix tracks: None", then apply.
Tracks 2 and 7 will then be "rendered" in place but not "mixed". One step instead of 8.

That would be "mix in place" or "render in place", or "freeze track(s)" if you 'd want to keep in line with what others DAW's do. And it would avoid all the steps above, since it replaces the original track and deletes or hides the existing track.

But I'm getting the feeling that all of this would require quite some work from the devs and would need to be looked at at the same moment as extending the 2-channel output to >2 channels...

All of these mixing options are extremely valuable if you have ALL the options, including sends, aux output and multiple output channels. And then you need a routing matrix...

[steve]

Nothing changed since then and probably won't.

THAT is what I find so exasperating. A bad decision was made years ago so we must live with it forever. :sigh:

[steve]

That would be "mix in place" or "render in place", or "freeze track(s)" if you 'd want to keep in line with what others DAW's do. And it would avoid all the steps above,

Yes, exactly so.

[waxcylinder]

Nothing changed since then and probably won't.

THAT is what I find so exasperating. A bad decision was made years ago so we must live with it forever. :sigh:

Me too - and note carefully that this is not the only place we continue to abide by old bad decisions <sighs deeply>

Peter

[steve]

How do you do a "Custom mix" to a new track, notably current Audacity mix ignoring Mute / Solo to a new track? We must still be able to do that.

Enable the option "Retain original tracks".

[waxcylinder]

My "mystery shopper" just got in from work - I asked her if Export and Mix/Render should honour "what you here" her immediate response "Of course it should".

Peter.

P.S. I never expect Photoshop to save anything other than I see on the screen and nor do I expect Word to save anything other than I can see in the on-screen document.

[cyrano]

Maybe we need a roadmap, in stead of feature requests.

I like the voting system, in concept. In reality, I'm willing to admit it's a failure. The sample is too small to be indicative of what the users want.

Maybe it's time for the devs to make two lists?

- One list with features they deem useful and not too much work to implement.

- A second list with feature that are simply too much work, or completely beyond the scope of Audacity.

Having these lists, would make planning features a lot easier and it would allow a roadmap to be published. And that would make replying to feature requests a lot less tiresome.

I think even a dummy like me would be able to judge the usability of Audacity in MY projects more precisely.

Mixing is one example of a feature without a future, multiple outputs is another. Add complete VST support* and you are in close proximity of a bus matrix, which would require a complete rewrite of the codebase, imho.

*even without instrument/MIDI support

OK, OK! I'll stop dreaming now

[cyrano]

P.S. I never expect Photoshop to save anything other than I see on the screen and nor do I expect Word to save anything other than I can see in the on-screen document.

Ouch, Peter.

That is exactly what you'd expect Word to do.

Only, it doesn't. If you delete text in a Word doc, it doesn't get deleted. It's rendered invisible to the user. Dozens have been bitten in the corporate world by this feature. There are other tidbits too. And some of these "features" remain in export.

The newest docx format is even worse. It's just a zipped folder.

And in a way, Photshop does too, since it leaves temp files.