[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “Let me ask the same question I asked Charlie (Charlie, I’m still interested in your thoughts as well) — would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode – that all other channels must connect to – be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?”

I’m not sure I’d want one main track to be the parent in this case, but I could see the benefit of a less rigid “track” structure. It seems to me that the X timeline magnetism has a couple different purposes, both of which are helpful when cutting video. Firstly, clips can be connected to a parent clip vertically. That seems to me to be specific to video editing. I don’t think this behavior is necessary for audio only editing/mixing. FWIW, I’d consider sound design a video editing function, as what you’re doing is (mostly) driven by visual cues.

The other function is to prevent clips from colliding in the timeline by moving them out of the path of clips that are being cut in or moved horizontally. I think this aspect of magnetism would be quite nice in a DAW… assuming a more robust implementation of Roles. In addition to the ability to group roles, you’d need to be able to have clips within a role stay where you put them relative to others above and below, the z-ordering idea.

If that were the case, you essentially would have what you described… “a… system with intelligent clip grouping and collision avoidance behaviors”. But without “tracks” as we know them. If you wanted to move “pods” of audio, maybe you could have a “parent track” which you could optionally connect groups of clips to, or just a “group” command. But even in the group clips would stay in their Role “collection” .

As far as mixing, assuming a traditional fader setup, each Role group could have as many faders pop up as needed, one for each lane/track in that group. This assumes that clips maintain whatever vertical order you’ve put them in. Dynamic fader creation. lol Who knows?

At the end of the day though… I really do think that the X timeline works great for video. Audio handling needs some work for sure, I just like how the X timeline functions when I’m cutting in it, it just feels right to me. And to be fair, I’m not satisfied with the current implementation of Roles. They need to be group-able. They need to maintain the z-order I give them. If I stack 5 clips in a certain vertical order, I’d like them to stay in that order even if they need to move out of the way of something. And I’d really like to be able to hide or collapse a role to, visually, simplify what I’m focussing on in my edit. I dunno… I’m looking forward to the next X update. 🙂

And speaking of edit… back to work. In FCP 7 today. Yuck. lol 😉

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “[Charlie Austin] “It seems silly, but honestly, why do trim tools exist? I’m not talking about cuts, but trim tools.”

Is that a serious question or are we talking about different things, lol?

Trim tools exist to enable an editor to find the perfect frame.

They’re the tools that turn craft into art.

They have absolutely nothing to do with clip collisions.”

You are absolutely correct, that is what they are for. So I guess what I mean is that trim tools, which were designed to allow fine tuning of edits, have been pressed into service as clip collision avoidance tools as well. If I ripple an edit in MC, I need to set trim points on a bunch of other clips below (and above) my edit point to make sure everything associated with that clip also ripples without hitting another clip.

In X I just ripple the one clip and move on.

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “[Charlie Austin] “But, if roles could handle grouping and… Z-ordering, for lack of better term, and as long as you can assign roles in the same way you assign tracks, then why not go trackless?”

I suppose something like you describe would be great if it existed. But to flip that around, what if you had a track-based system with intelligent clip grouping and collision avoidance behaviors? You’d have the ability to create and rearrange “pods” like in your example, but with the benefits of tracks for those who need them. Wouldn’t that be the best of both worlds?”

Yes. Some kind of user selectable “virtual” track-like behavior. I do understand the utility of fixed tracks, and I’m just trying envision how that behavior could be implemented in a trackless timeline. X does keep track of where clips exist in vertical space, the “lane” position is in the fcpx xml for projects, so it’s certainly possible. Or not. 😉 fun to talk about though… They’ll probably just put a “Send to Logic” button in the share menu. lol

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Jim Giberti] “Let me clarify my POV at least. When I talk about tracks in FCPX, I’m talking specifically about audio mixing within the current incarnation. As much as I like parents and kids relationships vs bussing, working with the details of a complex audio mix using compound clips has as many downsides as upsides, at least in my experience.

A reasonable evolution, like the simple addition of the, “~” added enormous flexibility to a previously hobbled (for many, not all, Bill) interface; a mixing interface for audio would give it the same kind of flexibility for more complex and detailed audio production.

…That’s audio mixing at it’s best, and why opening and closing CCs will never match it.”

Agreed on all points, And maybe I’m not being clear when I talk about collecting roles in a sort of compound clip. I’m not envisioning the current implementation, I’m thinking about a system that would allow one to organize audio in the a track-like fashion, but keep the flexibility if the trackless timeline. Kind of a “virtual” CC. For example, first you check the “group role” button next to your, say, FOLEY role. All those clips are held together in the timeline. They can still get out of each others way, but no other roles would be permitted in whatever space they occupy. It would also put them in (or maybe you hit “collect roles” or something else) a kind of master envelope,which you could adjust via fader(s) and record via automation. Maybe the bg color of the timeline for each group, or clip in that role could change for visual ID. You’d click a “Hide Group” button and all the clips in that role would collapse to a single CC-like clips, showing the “master’ keyframes.

Yes, you’d still need to adjust individual clips, and maybe, as I think you suggest, there could be a hybrid “mix mode” where grouped clips stayed put in their lanes, and could be acted on via faders. Or you’d adjust them via mouse or KB shortcuts.

I’m just riffing here, obviously, lol. It’s interesting to envision what could be. 🙂

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “[Carsten Orlt] “Plus again as Charlie said extensive trim tools are only there because of the problems tracks bring in regard to collisions and sync.”

lol, yep, that’s the only reason trim tools exist.”

It seems silly, but honestly, why do trim tools exist? I’m not talking about cuts, but trim tools. I mean, before NLE’s, trim tools were razor blades. You can make fine adjustments, slip, slide and every other kind of edit using just straight cuts. Linear editing came along and we could overwrite, Or make A/B tracks for everything. But that’s all just to work around the fact that adjacent clips on fixed tracks collide when they overlap. You couldn’t really edit “NLE Style” in an NLE without trim tools because clips collide. This may be reductio ad absurdum, but it’s true. 🙂

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “[Charlie Austin] “Maybe I shouldn’t have said “a lot”… but there are those who decry the clip based parent/child paradigm of FCP as somehow wrong. ”

I wouldn’t say the paradigm itself is wrong, but I do think they chose the wrong parent.

What do you think the parent should be?

[[David Lawrence] Charlie Austin] ” think that’s what “dedicated DAW’s” are, really. In a perfect world, you’d just hit “send to Logic” and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition.”

I’m curious — are clip collisions and track Tetris a problem when you’re working with a DAW? Do you think a trackless, parent/child magnetic timeline would make DAWs work better?”

Collisions aren’t a problem I don’t think, at least not to the extent they are in a video editing scenario. Once you’re mixing, in theory anyway, your “tracks” – the generic term, channels, whatever – should be fairly well locked. And in the case of a DAW, what would the parent be? Time? It’s a different thing to me.

But, if roles could handle grouping and… Z-ordering, for lack of better term, and as long as you can assign roles in the same way you assign tracks, then why not go trackless?

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “[Charlie Austin] “A lot of the criticism of the magnetic timeline is based on the principle that editing is a linear thing only.”

Charlie,

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

Maybe I shouldn’t have said “a lot”… but there are those who decry the clip based parent/child paradigm of FCP as somehow wrong.

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] “I really think that cutting picture and cutting/mixing audio are two very different beasts.”

Agreed. Most typically the focus of picture cuts is serial, while audio editing is as least as much parallel (mixing) as serial (if not more). Further, there are different types of parallel for both picture and sound.
… Doesn’t your statement speak to poor implementation of audio capabilities in NLEs?
…Imagine a “mix” mode that hides most function except tracks and a mixer.

I think that’s what “dedicated DAW’s” are, really. In a perfect world, you’d just hit “send to Logic” and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition. I too like decent audio monitoring and the ability to get a good mix while cutting, and I think most NLE’s, even X, provide that capability. I don’t want an Uber App that does everything, but that’s a personal preference..

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] “Dialog, Multiple FX, even Music gets cut based on what’s happening vertically above it.”

And also the other way round.

Yes, but are they not still vertically grouped?

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] “And any linear rearrangement of picture clips means that all the vertically associated bits, audio and video, have to move with them. preferably not screwing up any other bits.”

If by “linear” you mean “serial”, this is sometimes true. But not always and not for “any” rearrangement. The change might easily involve a rearrangement of parallel association. So while sync and faux-sync elements are likely not to change, a music cue may well change. Likewise an off-screen door. Likewise an onscreen I.D. Grouping tends to be fluid.
…David Lawrence has written elsewhere on how grouping does not depend on magnetic behavior.

Yes I do mean serially…:-)And I agree that it doesn’t depend on magnetic behavior. But for me, it works very well to support it. There are certainly times, particularly with music, when you don’t want ti to move as part of the group, and you can “lock” it by compounding the music and changing it’s attachment point. The magnetic timeline isn’t perfect and there certainly are situations where workarounds are needed. It’s more the exception then the rule in my experience though.

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] “That’s why we have trim tools right?”

Having never used the trim tool for this purpose (and almost never at all) I would have to disagree.

Also, to your earlier complaints of having to patch constantly – I will say again that I never patch. I can’t imagine that tedium.

That said, I find roles interesting – and groups. I’m constantly shifting things around in ever-changing groups, and some tools that allowed me to do that more efficiently would be welcome.”

I rarely (mostly never as well) use the trim tool for this purpose either. It was a slightly tongue in cheek question, so I agree with your disagreement. And as to not patching, do you just drag clips to the timeline? I’m a KB shortcut kind of guy when chopping things in…

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “[Charlie Austin] “Speaking of potential, I found this interesting… ”

Funny how it still seems to use fixed tracks, even though they suck. :p
“

LOL Touché. 🙂 And to be fair, as i said above in a reply to Jim… On reflection, my glib “tracks suck” opinion is specific to editing picture and sound in an NLE. Right now anyway. 🙂

I really think that cutting picture and cutting/mixing audio are two very different beasts. When i’m cutting something in X, I really like not having to figure out where to put the audio. When I’m rearranging a rough cut i really like not having to think much about whether moving a shot or scene is going to overwrite something that exists. It just takes care of itself and I can happily cut away. I can sort it out later as I get closer to something that’s finished. And I do think that roles need to be improved. Better sorting, grouping etc. etc.

A lot of the criticism of the magnetic timeline is based on the principle that editing is a linear thing only. That the vertical parent/child relationships of clips in the X timeline are somehow “wrong” But I don’t think that’s strictly true. I mean, maybe if you’re cutting a music video, or a music montage or something, then yeah, it’s just linear. But cutting trailers or promos or features, every linear shot/scene etc, has a vertical association with a lot of different sound (and often picture) elements.

Dialog, Multiple FX, even Music gets cut based on what’s happening vertically above it. And any linear rearrangement of picture clips means that all the vertically associated bits, audio and video, have to move with them. preferably not screwing up any other bits. That’s why we have trim tools right? I think the premise that editing is strictly a linear craft, is false, and FCP X deals with the problem, and it is a problem, of moving vertically associated elements in a horizontal plane really well. Not perfectly, but it keeps getting better quickly.

That diatribe aside, I do think roles need to be beefed up. As currently implemented, I wouldn’t want to do a final mix in X. (Although to be fair, I never wanted to do a final audio mix in any NLE… why would you? but that’s just me.) I’ll agree that they’re currently not great for visually organizing a timeline in a vertical plane. And more importantly to this thread, they’re not assignable to faders etc so you can’t mix things “properly”. You can put all your audio into secondary storylines if you want to make “tracks” but they still can’t be mixed with a fader, and you can’t minimize storylines yet, so they take up way too much space. Maybe some UI tweaks, better role organization, and a little checkbox – “view as tracks” – to do that for you would make everyone happy. 🙂 I really think that the underpinnings to make roles pretty powerful are there though.

So yeah… it looks like Logic is still track based. But it’s still a beta! LOL Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see how it i interacts with FCP X. 🙂

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Jim Giberti] “In addition to being creative director and president of my firm I’ve been a performing musician, writer, and producer since I was 18. I built and operated some of the first digital recording and video editing facilities in our region and my personal working studio is a combination 48 track digital audio room and FCP editing suite combined. I’m currently producing a series of 45 short films that I’m shooting and scoring over the next two years.

I’d prefer simple audio tracks as an option.”

lol… Fair enough. And I wasn’t doubting your cred either Jim. 🙂 Though I think grouping and assigning roles to a “group master” or something like that would work just as well.

But David’s post brings up an interesting point. On reflection, my glib “tracks suck” opinion is specific to editing picture and sound in an NLE. For me, patching tracks and playing track tetris completely stops the creative process in it’s “tracks” (see what I did there?), and forces you to be a technician. Maybe just for a few seconds at a time, but it adds up. This wasn’t apparent to me until i started really being able to cut quickly in FCP X. But when I work in 7 or re-familiarize myself with MC or learn Pr now, I notice it. A lot. And, also IMO, the greatest trim tools on earth are really just a workaround to clip collisions. For a dedicated DAW, at least in roles’ current implementation, maybe not. We’ll have to see where roles end up.

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Jim Giberti] “Or actual tracks themselves because they’re a pretty neat way to mix audio now, yesterday and tomorrow.

Grouping roles, and assigning that group to a recordable/automated mix buss/master fader would accomplish the exact same thing IMHO, And with much less patching, or none at all.

[Jim Giberti] A lot of us don’t need to utilize Roles for much of what we do, but a common sense, industry standard, audio mixing environment would be a great professional enhancement.

Cause it’s simple, logical, and it would work much better than the current implementation.”

I totally agree that tracks are better than “the current implementation” of roles. 🙂 But the possibilities that dynamic, clip-based roles open up are way more powerful than fixed tracks. Again, IMHO.

I think I have a little cred for this opinion, having worked in recording studios since the 80’s, and having been a post mixer (spots, trailers, and the odd indie feature) for about 5-6 years before I magically became an editor. So… I’m not unfamiliar with industry standard, audio mixing environments. 😉

Speaking of potential, I found this interesting…

https://www.thedawstudio.com/News/Logic_10_Leak.html

The plot thickens…

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~