John, I clearly answered your question right in my first reply which you'll find below:
Just as with version 5, you can move the insertion point down to the adjacent track with Control-semicolon or up to the track above with control-p. If, under the Options menu, you have "Insertion Follows Track Selection" checked, your track selections will follow your insertion moves. If you want to quickly just select any track, just scrub, assuming you have a control surface or use Shuttle mode. Once the insertion cursor appears within the track, the Control-semicolon and Control-p shortcuts will work so you don't have to interact with the track list table. The above reply categorically and unequivocally answers your question. Before you accuse me of not reading my posts, perhaps you should read them carefully yourself. regarding "couth," sorry, not used in Modern English except for irony and humor. If you were indeed trying to be humorous then, yes, we don't get each other's humor. Finally, I wasn't crass or sarcastic in any of my replies. Once again, you've misinterpreted my post. That's OK. I'm confident in the way I handle myself on this forum so your misperceptions are not taken personally. Again, and I say "again" because I've mentioned it before, please don't hesitate to ask questions and I'm willing to help whenever possible. Best, Slau On Mar 1, 2012, at 6:27 PM, John Boral wrote: > Slau, since apparently I don't get your humor nor do you seem to > bother going through posts please do a find on where I said, "I do > have both link scroll and edit checked in options. I honestly don't > know where this whole scrubbing thing came up on your part, you > said "Hang on, John, you don't know what I mean by scrubbing in a > track? Have you never scrubbed audio in Pro Tools?"? I had never > mentioned scrubbing before you brought it up. You assumed that I > assumed you didn't know what the difference between scrubbing and > selection is but I was pointing that out to clear it up. That's a lot > of assumption going back and forth. With all of that assumption, why > didn't you assume when one would first set up PT as a blind user, one > would go through all of the menus and linking of insertion and track > selection would be checked rather than the negativity of assuming that > the person is inexperienced. Do you know there are 26 posts on this > and you still never answered my question back in post #2 about is it > possible to select tracks for editing without interacting? You gave > every answer about interacting possibilities but never addressed my > actual question. I even stated Chuck's way and asking if that worked. > You seemed to avoid it and wanted to focus on the subject of scrubbing > which was never even mentioned in my original post and was actually > brought up by you. The closest you came to answering was the > statement "Again, you don't have to interact necessarily" first > you said "again" but that meant nothing in the context of the phrase, > there's no reference to again. Then you went on to say "you don't have > to interact necessarily" what does that grammatically even mean as an > explanation? The very simple statement of "yes, Chuck's way works or > does not" would have saved another 3 posts. > As for couth, wrong again... Since this time I will assume you won't > bother clicking on a link I'll provide it here for you. Couth: showing > or having good manners or sophistication; Word History: > From as far back as the 16th century and entered webster's dictionary > in 1913. Today's Good Word started out as an independent word, became > a negative orphan, then was revived by 'back derivation' (removing the > un-) fairly > recently. It was originally the past participle of can which in Old > and Middle English meant "know" when used as an independent verb (not > the auxiliary > can : could). Kith, as in 'kith and kin', is a variant of couth and > like today's word originally meant "(those) known". In the 16th-18th > centuries the > meaning of uncouth changed to what it is today and couth was left > behind. Then, at the end of the 19th century, writers began to > resurrect couth as a word > with the opposite meaning of uncouth, first facetiously but more > recently quite seriously. Today it remains a social part of the > English language. I'm sure you may want to debate that with the > American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. > I'd sincerely like to thank all of the members that have helped out in > this group but if there are members trying to correct grammar of which > they can't even take a second to check up on or bother reading posts > throughout and addressing the subject at hand without making it their > own, I can't be part of that. I think everyone needs to remember each > user has specific needs and just as there is a radio person on here, a > live user, studio engineers, musicians etc, I believe a crass > attitude and sarcasm can only create more personal faults for that > individual. Best of luck to all.
