First, we are on to another fundamental paradigm design difference.
SPLAT comps were discrete stand-alone layers AFAIK.
S1 Comps are actually all in the same raw file. Take a look at the pool file to see what I mean.
They operate similarly but there are edits you can do in SPLAT that are not offered in S1 because S1 is streamlined to creating the perfect comp as quickly as possible, then discrete event type editing is done on the main comp.

So 1) Record layers 2) comp takes 3) Edit comp with M4, slips, deletes, etc.

1. Takes are takes with no manipulation between takes. It is all aimed at extreme ease of created the comp, not fixing takes.

2. Again the different paradigm here. You don't edit takes. You are building a comp track

3 It all about the comp. M4 is applied there. Again 1 record 2 comp 3 edit

4. New takes are the default. Again the paradigm here is the takes is a pool of raw data to choose from. Take orders or numbers of takes is not focused on. The consolidating of take-data was a feature added in the last year AFAIK.

Comping in S1 is meant to be a quick and efficient building of the Comp. Then serious editing happens to the Comp.

Hi and thanks very much. I'm going to answer this in more detail tomorrow on my computer keyboard, because I really hate typing long messages on my phone!

All I want to say for now is that while I agree that we sonar users need to understand and embrace some of the different ways of doing things and the differences in the way Studio one works, and in fact I already have on many levels and like studio one better on many things, not every Gap in functionality should be attributed automatically to a philosophical difference that we just need to learn to get over. My questions are pretty well thought-out and have to do with real life workflow situations, and usually ones that I've experienced a short time before I write a post! So anyway, I'll give better examples and more detail tomorrow. Thanks so much for your help to me and everyone else trying to transition here!

Ken, you are just quick to find the design approach differences and are the reigning champion.

In a nutshell in SPALT, you could do most if not all things you would do on a regular track.
In S1 the take is treated as a segment within a long recording and thus they don't blur the steps between comping and editing/improving.

The instead break it up into phases of the final comp track.

I understand, and tomorrow when I get a chance, I'm going to re ask the question in terms of "how do I accomplish this workflow task that is a real world situation" as opposed to specifically asking something to work maybe the way sonar does.

I used to comp with tracks so takes getting used to the way this is done.

If you click the arrow on the property box of the layer you're promoting the layer to the active track.

I like to start with an empty active track.

Highlighting a part on a layer promotes that part to the active track.

Once you select a section on a layer to be promoted you can double click another layer to promote that part. So select a phrase then double click the other layers to audition that same phase on different layers.

I keep doing that until I have my comp track, next make sure the breaks between the parts don't need additional tweaking(sibilants and plosives) then bounce the active track. So now it's an entirely new file. Now take that file into Melodyne.

I do that because Melodyne has an overhead and I don't want pieces of it left here and there. Once Melodyne corrects something you can bounce it again to get rid of Melodyne completely.(delete the file Melo corrected) That's the way to save processing.

Right after I bounce the comp track I delete all the layers then permanently delete all the takes in the pool.

You're not gonna like this answer I'm afraid. I've come from Cubase, where the comping is similar to what you describe for Sonar. S1's comping is similar to what's offered in ProTools and Logic.

You can only edit the main track. The layers can't be edited - they can only have portions selected and promoted to the main track. Now, those portions can be resized, slipped, etc. once they are on the main track.

If you want to edit the layers, you'll have to move the layer to a new track (promote the layer, drag the main layer to the new track), clean/Melodyne them, put them back on the layers and comp. It's not that bad, and though it's not as nice as editing the layers directly, I'll forgive it since virtually every other workflow is so much faster in S1.

I'm not a singer, and I prefer to comp my tuned vocals for my demos.

I should say "used to do this". Took me a while to adjust, but now I comp, edit, then tune. Turns out that can pick out the right parts even if they are out of tune.

DETAILED USE CASE
Ok - so I posted yesterday about some of my frustrations in comping with S1 and promised today to use some real-life workflow examples to better illustrate my point. So here goes.

Firstly - let's look at compositing (comp'ing) from a high workflow level. Central to this is the concept of a "Take" - not the technical definition based on how S1, SPLAT, PT or any other DAW uses it, but rather the real life, performer, artist, producer definition of it (I'll call that the PAP for short) which is recording system independent.

In that context a "take" is a discreet, recording pass of a performance. It may be a pass through the entire song as in the case of a lead vocal, or maybe just part of a song as for a guitar solo over an instrumental section. The production idea behind "takes" is that you can do several of them and then pick which is the best one, or even better, pick and choose pieces from each one that are best and "comp" together a composited whole that represents the best performance. This being the case, the need to IDENTIFY and COMPARE takes for any section of music is critical.

One other point is that, from the PAP perspective, it doesn't matter how the take was recorded - in one pass, in pieces, with punches, etc. It is still a single, discreet "take". This is IMPORTANT.

Now from a recording stand point - the best thing a DAW can do is to mimic that real world paradigm - that is - to keep each "take" isolated, clearly identifiable, readily comparable to other takes, and easily merged with pieces from other takes to make the final.

Let me jump into my real life session that happened just yesterday to illustrate where I feel S1 came up short for me ... with the hope that either I'm just missing some functionality, or that EQUALLY EFFICIENT work-arounds are available. If not - these are fair game for a serious FR.

So my "karaoke style crooner" comes in again (I've mentioned him before). We find a backing track for the song he wants - load it into a track - play with transpose to get the right key for him (I LOVE S1's transpose functionality - SOOOOOO easy and it sounds great! MAJOR KUDOS on this one).

Now - as always he wants to go out and sing multiple "takes" of the song, which we will then compare - section by section usually - try various combinations - and eventually come to a composite he's happy with. So here's how it went.

I turn on "takes to layers" in S1, arm the track, play back the music, and he sings away the first take. He goes all the way through - no problem - S1 lays it down as "Layer 2" (a naming idiocy that is another discussion ). I'm going to simply call it "Take 1" and it is happily in it's own lane (Lane 1) - wonderful.

Now that first take was more or less practice, so he says he's ready to record "Take 2". I go back - start recording again. He sings ... Take 1 is auto-muted - very good - and he gets through most of the song and train wrecks near the end. He stops and says "let's pick it up from such and such a spot" - No prob - I rewind back there, start playback, and punch in at the right time (manually punching the rec button) - he records the rest of the song from there. Now the bulk of this take is in a clip on Lane 2 - but this punch in clip ends up on Lane 3. I expected that (SONAR worked the same way). I , however, do want it all on the "Take 2" lane - but I just figure - "well - I'll delete the train wreck section from the first clip and then drag the punch in clip up so it's all together on Lane 2 - which is the domain of "take" 2. BUT - then ... EEEK! S1 won't let me do either of those things! To make matters worse - he wants to correct the first phrase of the new part he just sang, which I do - but of course it is now on Lane 4!

NOW IMPORTANT! to Him, and frankly me - ALL of what we just did is "Take 2" and will be referred to as such later.

Next - he wants to do another take for good measure - try a couple different vocal things. No - prob - run it again and he sings. Halfway through, at an instrumental break, he stops and decides he needs a glass of water. He goes to get that and then gets hung up on a phone call for 15 minutes. When he comes back he says "OK Let's do the second half of TAKE 3". We do so. and this time, it's all happily on its own lane - both clips - on Lane 5. However - he isn't happy with the very last 3 second phrase of the song, so he wants to punch that in. I do so, expecting it to go to and be stuck on Lane 6, BUT - because there was some free space after the train wreck on Lane 2, it gets put up there on Lane 2 - and of course, can't be moved!

Now - in his mind - and mine too BTW - we have THREE TAKES of his vocal performance, and he is going to want to compare them using that terminology. He has a feel for what was good and bad about each in his mind, so he's going to say things like "lets here the last chorus from take 2, but the verse before it from take 3" or "Can I hear the ending of take 3 .... now take 1 ... take 2 ... now back 1 one ... now 3again?" My problem however is that Take 2 is spread across 3 lanes (Lanes 2,3,4), and take 3 is mostly on Lane 5, but the ending of it is on Lane 2, which SHOULD be the exclusive domain of take 2!

Now - I've actually simplified the scenario - in reality there were 4 full takes and more punches. It was really difficult to keep up with which clips were part of which "take" since they were scattered out on different lanes. This led to confusion, angst, and mistakes being made.

So ..... these are the REAL WORLD ISSUES I'm trying to deal with, and where I felt like S1 couldn't quite handle it. The only way I could figure out how to get clips on the take lanes I wanted was to promote all of a takes clips up - drag that off to another track - do the same for the other takes - and then drag them all back into their own lanes on one track for comping - a huge amount of time when working on the clock. (BTW S1's actual comp tools are excellent and easy to use - no complaints there)

Two things would have negated all my issues satisfactorily. 1) The ability to split and slip/edit clips on a layer, and 2) the ability to drag clips vertically between layers.

Now - one can argue all they want that this is a "philosophy" difference - but I would answer that by saying that "philosophies" and thus the resulting design decisions. can and SHOULD be revisited and CHANGED when they are not meeting basic, real-world needs. Examples like mine - along with other people's - should be used as the use-cases for that philosophy and design. If I'm missing something or there are easy ways around what I'm doing there - please do let me know. Sorry for the way long thread, and thanks for all the help here on this forum!

Hi - as promised - I illustrated the issues with real world examples - but in another thread:

viewtopic.php?f=151&t=27870

As far as Melodyne and "processing overhead " .... well - I haven't had CPU usage, processing overhead, etc. on my RADAR for many years now .... never a thought to it ... I add tons of inserts, sends, plugs, multiple convo reverbs, automation all over the place, multiple overlapping Melodyne tracks, audio bend tracks, etc. etc. etc. and CPU usage is never even an afterthought. If Studio One (or ANY DAW) suddenly made me have to think about that - I'd dump it like a hot potato.

Ken,
You gave good examples and sounds like a FR to me. S1 does handle real life recording issues using takes and layers. Sounds like you know how to use them too.
Your last work flow suggestion of promoting layers to a master track, moving that track back into a new layer will work. I have done that many times.

However, in my workflow, I usually do not have to do that at all because I work with all the layers to get to a final track. After that, I can work with the track to edit, splice, etc. S1 makes that work easy.

If you instead had recorded each pass on its own track, you would then be able to slice and drag segments of 1 track to another. This is also easy in S1.

So I can see your need for a FR but IMO S1 works really well as designed. Maybe someday they would give us options to do what you want.

Bbd wroteKen,
You gave good examples and sounds like a FR to me. S1 does handle real life recording issues using takes and layers. Sounds like you know how to use them too.
Your last work flow suggestion of promoting layers to a master track, moving that track back into a new layer will work. I have done that many times.

However, in my workflow, I usually do not have to do that at all because I work with all the layers to get to a final track. After that, I can work with the track to edit, splice, etc. S1 makes that work easy.

If you instead had recorded each pass on its own track, you would then be able to slice and drag segments of 1 track to another. This is also easy in S1.

So I can see your need for a FR but IMO S1 works really well as designed. Maybe someday they would give us options to do what you want.

Question: are your recording other people or your own projects primarily?

Also as for doing each "take" on its own track - that might have to be my workaround for now. It's a little more work as clients will often want to do some comparisons of sections in a couple takes prior to even deciding to do another take. I would miss the comp tolls and have to use mute tool or something.

For now - the workaround workflow I think I'm going to use is this.

1. Create a MASTER track (say for lead vocal" that will be the eventual track used for mixing and comping
2. Record takes to separate other tracks - punch in - do editing - whatever as needed - and when the conceptual "Take" is finished - drag it to a lane in the Master track.
3. Do the same for other "takes"
4. When done with takes - delete the "take tracks" I used - and go to the master track and comp from there - with each "take" happily on its own lane (layer).

That will work, not be too bad for efficiency I don't think - but let's be clear - it's still a workaround!

The steps you outlined seem good for what you need. You may also find in time that comping with layers will also work well for certain situations.
I never lock myself into one method since we have choices.
You are certainly welcome to create a FR if you want.

Ken, as a volunteer who can only work on this in my spare time I have read your explanation but cannot reply until later.

Your example is classical and how I would work as well. To be honest I don't use comping for that workflow but in general use Layers or Tracks and I will try to explain later today.

I use comping for a lead guitar riff of a difficult vocal line that I might be even adlibbing on. It works great for adlibbing.

Until I can get back please read up on the Layer vs Take in S1
Takes as I said or a small subdivision of the recording process and Layers are more full fledge like a track.

As an old analog reel-to-reel guy, I find the layers try to move me into a different workflow than I'm comfortable with. So I just use a new track every time I logically move from one "take" to the next.

There are some cool things with how layers work, like selecting a word can promote it to the main track... but it's constricting in how it's implemented. So it forces you into a certain workflow. When I grab a new track it keeps my options open and I don't have to think about how the Daw is going to let me do what I want to do in my brain.

I suspect it's just a matter of getting used to it but I never seem to find the time to invest.

mikemanthei wroteAs an old analog reel-to-reel guy, I find the layers try to move me into a different workflow than I'm comfortable with. So I just use a new track every time I logically move from one "take" to the next.

There are some cool things with how layers work, like selecting a word can promote it to the main track... but it's constricting in how it's implemented. So it forces you into a certain workflow. When I grab a new track it keeps my options open and I don't have to think about how the Daw is going to let me do what I want to do in my brain.

I suspect it's just a matter of getting used to it but I never seem to find the time to invest.

Similar workflow here. I use individual tracks myself for multiple takes. I'd rather see everything in front of me, than promoting layers, etc. I run all takes into a mono bus, which is now my "Vox Track". So I will go into the individual takes and cut that up by passage (group the tracks to make editing faster), and then mute the sections from each track that I am not using.

It looks like people are giving a similar answer to what I quickly hinted to.
This is more a workflow case of classic multi-track recording with the Lingo "takes" which were actually historically done with tracks. ie Takes to Layer = off

I would have never thought of using Comping techniques for this scenario as I only use it for jamming but let's don't rule it out for the moment.

Here is what you can do with the layer created in a take to layer option on.
Right mouse click on the master comp layer: delete layers or expand layers to a new track.
With the later, you are then free to highlight and drag the good part all into a track as you wished as well as have full control of Event FX. (So this put it into a mode more similar to Sonar.)

Of course, at the discrete layer level, you can rename delete change color etc.


FYI and 5-year-old video I did on comping ( jamming style). Somethings have been improved since then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEQNVBrGITo

yes - there are decent work arounds or alternative approaches ... but the comping tools are REALLY cool, and I hate to give them up to work around it another way.

Let's look at this statement I made from the original post in this thread: I'm going to # the main points.

BTW the term/word "Take" is used here in the "real world" conceptual meaning of a "take" and NOT the S1 technical definition of it in the system currently.

Now from a recording stand point - the best thing a DAW can do (for managing real world takes) is to mimic that real world paradigm - that is - to

1. keep each "take" isolated
2 keep each take clearly identifiable,
3. make sure each take is readily comparable to other takes
4. make sure pieces of a take can be easily merged with pieces from other takes to make the final.

Now S1 already does an excellent job of #3 and #4. So all that's really missing is #1 and #2 - being able to keep your clips that logically "belong" to a take together on one lane (layer) and making sure clips that are logically parts of other takes aren't on the "wrong" layer.

Again - two features would give us this functionality. One would be to slip edit, split, and delete pieces of clips while they are in a layer - I don't know how difficult of a programming effort this is.

The other is the ability to vertically drag, and thus move, a clip from one lane to another. They obviously have the "wiring" to do this already there, as that is basically what promotion is. It just needs to be opened up to all layers.

Obviously I'll be using my workaround - described a few posts back, for now. But most likely, I will be putting in an FR for these two feature additions. I hope people won't take the approach of "we have workarounds and therefore don't need something that makes it simpler, more efficient, and more straightforward you meddling Cakewalking Dead person!" LOL!

Yes - I want it all - the efficiency and coolness of the comping tools along with the editing and organizational power of tracks - all in one place.

Quick reply , Understand and add the FR but my post was not intended to be a workaround.

With a single click you are into the Sonar mode of discrete layer manipulation.

Deja Vu. But from a really, really nice guy, Ken.

That is to say, you new Sonar guys will obviously have lots of FR's and observations about workflow improvements, but trust me when I say that 80+ % or higher of the things you'll bring up will already be in Answers.

Here's one variation on this subject from almost two years ago about directly moving inactive layers. http://answers.presonus.com/5000/drag-o ... -to-tracks

There's probably 7-8 more on the same subject there as some people create FR's without searching to see if it's already there, splitting the vote, hurting their own cause.

Still a good read.
: