I'll sleep when I'm dead. Until then its an inefficient use of time.freightgod wrote:It's called sleep, Mark!
Yep, I am knowingly doing it "wrong" in the experiment, though I always very much appreciate any tutelage on doing it "right" of course. Still have TONS to learn! Especially in all things MIDI.chibear wrote:Tried to answer best I can......
you have this set up as a multi timbral.....all outputting to the same channel
this is some strangeness I have found from the beginning. If you want to use clip automation it is best to put it all in one lane. As set up you cannot balance the instruments. To do that you need to set up a multi channel instance so that each instruments outputs to a different stereo pair and then better to do your volume envelopes in the child tracks
One question is, if the lanes are MIDI data, what exactly is the envelope doing? Technically speaking.
The secondary question/issue is this:
Several of the discussions and communications with the dev team during this beta test experience reinforced that part of the ideology behind Mixcraft's design is flexibility. In other words, specific to this example- the ability for the user to configure the routing in whatever way suits them. Even if its "illogical" as I put it in one exchange.
Therefore, when I do something odd, and get a result as I did here, I question:
"Should it do that?" IE: should Mixcraft allow that setup, or that result? If the result is undesirable, could a change make it more desirable or useful? Or could a change be made that reduced the chance of a user getting frustrated or annoyed that the function isn't what they desired or expected?
To the point, this is all IMO, part of the creative path to creating a product that contains improvements, while remaining intuitive and as the motto states, "easy to use".
