On 02/05/2014 12:46 PM, Raine M. Ekman wrote: > Quoting Vesa <[email protected]>: >> And since the new FX mixer also allows daisy-chaining FX channels >> together, ie. sending a channel to one or more other channels, some of >> the channels will be likely to be used as "intermediate" channels not >> meant for export. Thus I think it's best to just let the user choose >> which ones to export. > What is the typical use case for track/channel export? If it's mostly > used for getting the project to some more advanced DAW for further > processing, I think the user could get to choose between exporting: > > 1. the whole mix > 2. All (non-muted) tracks > 3. All (non-muted) FX mixer channels > > Options 2 and 3 let the user sort it out in the next piece of > software, better to import some tracks into Ardour and then just grab > one more when you notice it's missing than to have to go all the way > back to LMMS and re-export. > > Track export could stay, at least for some time, as it's already > existing code which probably could be fixed to work with sidechaining > or else just accepted as imperfect. > >
It could be yes, but there are other use cases as well surely - collaboration with non-LMMS users, creating drumloops/other loop-type samples, etc. I think this 3-option functionality would be much too simple, it wouldn't properly take advantage of all the possibilities of the new FX mixer. I still think exporting by FX channel is better than by track, because it would IMO be the best mix between ease of use and flexibility. Exporting on a track-by-track basis would still be doable by assigning each track to its own FX channel, and then choosing those for export. I think this would fit in well with the paradigm of the new FX mixer, where the user is sort of encouraged to create channels for everything. Exporting as tracks is slower, too, as it requires going through the song multiple times, instead of just getting it all out in one pass. But if the export tracks functionality is really that important to some, then I guess it could stay. I still think the main export functionality should allow choosing which FX channels to export, because selecting by muting wouldn again interfere with sidechaining functionality. It would be ambiguous: does muting the channel mean the user wants the channel ignored altogether, like it doesn't exist, or does it only mean they don't want it exported, but still want it considered wrt. peak controllers, sidechaining? Also, with the new FX mixer, there may be many intermediate channels, which are routed to another channels, and the user may not want those exported - so exporting them would just waste resources. But muting them might affect downstream channels, so then there's again the problem of ambiguity. By allowing the manual selection of channels, there's absolute flexibility for the user to do what they want, without the software getting in the way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls. Read the Whitepaper. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121051231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
