Audio editing in FCPX

[Atilio Menéndez]

I hope so too! But next to some of the other comments it’s kind of hard to tell what is a joke and what isn’t…

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Mathieu Ghekiere] “And I really think it’s the way of the future.”

If this forum is any indication, the future looks exactly like the past.

Maybe with additional sarcasm.

Franz.

[Richard Herd]

[Charlie Austin] “I’d be happy to show you how it works”

And that’s exactly it! There are only two ways to acquire a new concept, ergo knowledge acquisition (aka epistemology). (1) By using one concept to map to another concept known as “definitions” and “denotation,” and that doesn’t work here because X uses new terms. (2) And the other way is ostensive.

And it’s a bit of a regression to get back to something like original ostensive concepts, but actually, it appears FCP X did an interesting job of redefining the concepts of editing, and I’m not simply discussing redefining words. I mean concepts. And it actually no foolin’ takes some ostensible learning (knowledge acquisition) to get it.

(Full disclosure, I’m on CS6 and or Legend, while waiting for capital approval for a new Tube with CS6 and X.) PP.cs6 has some serious flaws with a huge pile of workarounds.

[Richard Herd]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “the future looks exactly like the past.

Maybe with additional sarcasm.”

Trademark that. Sell t-shirts and make Facebook memes! Quick, before I do 😉

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Richard Herd] “There are only two ways to acquire a new concept, …”

Richard,

Well, there is the hundredth monkey phenomenon.
https://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html
(I’m skeptical, but it at least brings intuition of concepts into the discussion.)

And there’s genetically transmitted behaviour, which one can speculate has at least some sort of impact on concepts. There are theories of horizontal transmission as well as generational, which would have interesting implications for behaviour.

I am conflating behaviour and concepts here, but that’s because I think there’s likely some sort of relationship. That probably puts me in some philosophical camp that I don’t know the name of.

Franz.

[Tony West]

[Richard Herd] “Note: I also cringe every time I hear a change in microphones.”

You sound a lot like me Richard. No pun intended ; )

[Charlie Austin]

[Richard Herd] “And it actually no foolin’ takes some ostensible learning (knowledge acquisition) to get it.”

Absolutely true. As does anything, NLE or not. If you want to see exploding heads, try showing someone who learned to cut on FCP classic how to use Media Composer. In any case… Despite how it may come off, I’m really not in the FCP X is teh bestest thing evah! camp. That’s just as annoying to me as anything else, maybe more annoying. It’s not, it is most definitely imperfect and needs refinement etc. But it drives me nuts when people imply that because X functions differently than a tracked NLE it is:

A-not as good
B-more complicated
C-everything is a workaround
D-unsuitable for “complex” projects
E-only used by kool-aide drinking Apple fanatics

FCP X is a really nice NLE, it just works differently than an NLE with tracks. I think the only reason I keep banging the drum is precisely because I regularly use other NLE’s, sometimes even moving the same projects back and forth and I really see the difference. And I see all the criticisms, from people who I believe probably have very similar backgrounds and skills as I do, and a lot of them are complete horse poop. 🙂

I, and others, are throwing ideas out in this thread that come off as convoluted because they’re solutions for problems that aren’t problems. The nice thing about X is that there are a lot of ways to work. Use it as designed and it’s dead simple. Want to emulate tracks? You can, but you really don’t need to. And if you really must have fixed tracks, there are other choices. But if there are other things about X that you think are very nice, and there’s a lot more to it than the timeline, it’s worth trying to get your head around cutting in it.

I’m a broken record here, but I got into this business as a sound editor/post mixer back when people were still hanging mag tracks for a mix. And saying editing audio in X is “more complicated” than other NLE’s is like saying that cutting audio in a DAW is “more complicated” than scraping fades in a mag track and taping it together. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. From where I sit it’s more efficient, and requires fewer “workarounds” than using tracks. Warts and all…

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Charlie Austin]

“A-not as good
B-more complicated
C-everything is a workaround
D-unsuitable for “complex” projects
E-only used by … fanatics”

Charlie,

If you’re making a comprehensive list, add “slower”, “not as much fun” and “old”; and additional category for various flavours of “you don’t really know how to use it”.

Franz.

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Charlie,

If you’re making a comprehensive list, add “slower”, “not as much fun” and “old”; and additional category for various flavours of “you don’t really know how to use it”.”

Yes, but I was making the X list, not MC or Pr. 🙂 But yes, equally misinformed, and equally wrong. I can cut very quickly in any NLE, but X is more fun. 😉

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Richard Herd]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “I’m skeptical, but it at least brings intuition of concepts into the discussion”

I’m not sure what you’re skeptical of.

[Franz Bieberkopf] “I am conflating behaviour and concepts here”

And to be sure I’m talking about concept acquisition from John Pollock’s epistemological point of view (I mentioned in the CC-or-not forum, I have since checked out the book from the library, Knowledge and Justification — (a bit of light reading after a day of staring at video screens) — from my memory not a quote:

Knowledge of the physical world which comes from sense perception (phenomenalism)

Knowledge of other minds which comes from people’s behavior (behaviorism)

Knowledge of right and wrong which comes from non-moral states of affairs (naturalistic ethics).

You’re on good grounds in the school of defeasibility 😉 Which makes perfect sense as techno-nerds, we almost certainly always contemplate artificial intelligence, user interfaces, efficiency/shortcuts, and much of that stuff is based in Pollock’s research.

Regarding the 100 monkey, methinks it’s onstensive and not too fancy.