Jump to content

Object names vs Track names - Track header probs


camillo jr

Recommended Posts

I want my track headers to show either track names or object names, which ever I choose per track, while having only ONE SET of names showing. So I could look at my arrange and see the instrument names on some tracks and the object names on others without having two sets of names in a row. I used to be able to do this easily in L7. For all the options that are available in the track Header Config dialogue it seems that some of the L7 functionality has been removed.

 

For instance, it looks like I can't name the track anymore, just the channel strip. Is this true?

 

Other oddities....

"Allow Two Lines" only works if Auto is selected in the top field. I could live with this but as soon as I leave the track the name defaults to the track name and not the object name. Not very useful.

 

And if I keep trying many combinations in the dialogue, the Auto setting in top field stops working. All the headers now display "AudioInst x" instead of my software instrument setting names that worked fine before. I can get those back if I select Software Instrument Setting Name but then "Allow Two Lines" doesn't work any more.

 

Are there some bugs in there or is this just the new deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Alright, some progress here. I was stuck on old methods which lead me to miss something obvious.

 

To name tracks, all I had to do was enable the second row and choose Track Name. Having figured that out, I found another way of being able to name tracks.

 

This was not entirely obvious but after a lot of experimentation I discovered that the following Track Header Configuration gives me both Channel Strips and Track Names in one column.

 

Names:

Auto Name

Channel Strip Setting Names (unchecked so I can have my single column display)

 

Track names become available when I create subtracks (Tracks>New with next channel strip/instrument) and I can just type them in and have the regions recorded on those tracks take on those names.

 

The weird thing about the Track Header dialogue is that even with the second row unchecked whatever you choose in that row will affect what is seen in the first one. While this might create some advantages, this is a far from intuitive strategy IMO. But that's the way it works. Now for the rhetorical question: does it make ANY sense that my second column choice (Channel Strip Setting Name) choice results in Track Names being displayed in my single column? It doesn't to me but that's the combo that worked. Somehow, the Auto setting in the column one field figures this out.

 

For those of you who might be wondering "what difference does it make what the track names are?", well, if you are writing alternative parts on one instrument, like for instance "Bass flow", "Bass busy", "Bass sparse" or you have separate controller tracks on their own lanes and you want to be able to know at a glance which is which, the ability to name tracks and have the regions name themselves after those tracks is pretty damn handy.

 

One other thing: In this scenario, it helps to name the Channel Strip first before going on to the track names. If you name the track first you'll have to go into the mixer to be able to re-name the Channel Strip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some it's probably very simple; they just keep the two columns open displaying which ever choices they like. The thing about those two columns is that you can't always see all the info displayed unless your names are cryptically short, which is part of the reason I only want one set of names. As for the differences between L8 and L9, I wouldn't know since I went straight from L7 to L9.

 

It's my L7 experience that I'm trying to replicate and which (fingers crossed) that I think I've managed to maintain. But I can imagine that there would be times when having both columns up would provide more useful info at a glance. I just happen to like less visual clutter. I usually have the transport bar off, and often work without the inspector or the button bar open.

Edited by camillo jr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a very confusing way to handle a fairly simple and required step in the recording process. It is not easy to understand what's going on with the various options available. I have made a few posts in regards to this subject and never found a good answer.

 

This seems to be an attempt to make some sort of automatic function work and in the end the process just becomes more complicated and less reliable than if it was a simple manual function, like type in the name and go on with your work.

 

ml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

i just found this thread while searching for something along the same lines. I'm curious if anybody has found a way to auto-name regions that I'm working on to share the same name as my track.

 

I'm new to actually naming my tacks as I've never had a problem while I'm writing, but I'm going back and redoing the mixes for them and realizing that's a dumb way to work. Only problem is I option-drag most all of my instrument regions and I end up with 60 some tracks all filled with regions of the same ridiculous name. 0.o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you control when you get two names on your track, the bottom smaller. And how can you name them when you do set it up that way.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v144/Bobsbarricades/Picture1-5.png

 

This is an old project I just opened up and the first time I can see two names. I'd love to be able to set that up in all my projects but a)don't know how it got there and b)can't edit the bottom text without having it replace the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically I'm at my wit's end with this "feature set".

 

It should be dirt simple... GAH!

 

I just spent the past 15 minutes trying to write a tutorial on how this works, but got hopelessly confused once I enabled both header checkboxes as well as "allow two lines" and then went to give the track itself a name.

 

This whole scheme is fubarred, and not worth the time to figure out. I'll just leave both header items enabled at "auto name" (and allow two lines enabled) and hope that my zoom level never needs to be so small that I lose that second line.

 

Really now, there are:

 

• track names

• channel strip names

• channel strip setting names

• the audio or midi object name ("object" being the official name for any MIDI or audio "thing" that you create or is created for you automatically like Auxes and Outputs)

• the software instrument setting name

 

And on my system at least (running 9.0.0), things get even more confusing because selecting "channel strip setting name" on an instrument will display the name of the software instrument setting even though that instrument hasn't been saved or loaded as a channel strip setting.

 

I give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole scheme is fubarred, and not worth the time to figure out.

 

You are so, so right. I never paid much attention to this whole business about track names, but your comment inspired me to dive in, and now I see there's some wonderful craziness in there. Here's something you could try, for a laugh.

 

Create a new, empty project. When prompted to create the first track, select Software Instrument, and leave Open Library checked. He will load EVP88 Electric Piano (let's assume you're using 9.1.1, even though I guess you're not). Open a Mixer window so you can watch what happens in that window.

 

Back in Arrange, press option-T to open Track Header Configuration. Grab the menu that says Auto Name and change it to Channel Strip Name, and press Done. The track header still says EVP88 Electric Piano. Does that make sense? Who knows. But let's keep going.

 

Double-click on the track header. Now you have a chance to edit the text appearing there. Type 'myCSN' (which means 'my Channel Strip Name'). OK, you've just modified the Channel Strip Name. You can press option-T again to open Track Header Configuration again and verify that Channel Strip Name is still selected. Which means that your Channel Strip Name is 'myCSN.' And 'myCSN' appears in the track header, and it appears at the bottom of the channel strip, and it appears at the top of the Track parameter box in the Inspector. OK, that's fine, I guess.

 

Now press option-T and select Track Name instead of Channel Strip Name. Double-click in the track header to edit the text there. Make it say 'myTN' (which obviously means 'my Track Name'). Now press option-T again and select Channel Strip Name instead of Track Name.

 

Look around. The track header says 'myCSN,' and that's also the heading for the Track parameter box in the Inspector. But 'myCSN' doesn't appear anywhere in the channel strip. Instead, what we see at the bottom of the channel strip is 'myTN.'

 

Take a moment to reflect on this. In order to see the Channel Strip Name, we have to look at the track, and in order to see the Track Name, we have to look at the channel strip. This is backwards. What a mess. It shouldn't be this easy for the user to create a situation that is this nonsensical.

 

And there are other oddities. If the track header is showing the software instrument setting name, double-clicking on the track header will open the library. And what is shown in the library? Choices for software instrument settings? Nope. Choices for channel strip settings.

 

And did you know that you can show four confusing, unpredictable names in one track header? Here's what it looks like:

 

http://content.screencast.com/users/logic.45rpm/folders/Jing/media/f62356d4-8ead-4f7c-a925-52334040ae07/00000034.png

 

Pretty wacky stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, John the marketing guy, Biff the project manager, and Rolf, übermeister-meisterüber software engineer-general met in the conference room at 9 AM sharp. "Let's start the meeting" said John, somewhat impatiently, "we have a delivery deadline in one week and we have to wrap things up, you know". His haughty, if not smarmy air was not unfamiliar to Biff and Rolf, though it never failed to cause Rolf to stiffen in his chair. Quite predictably, Rolf dug his nails into the edge of the conference table and began to cleanse his soul of John's affront with an obnoxious and prolonged period of throat-clearing. It was a defensive gesture which he could never find the inspiration to improve upon. And with that, he began...

 

"Vy do we hev to include ze software instrument settink name in der track header? Vy? Vy? Vy? Do you not know zat ze number of charrrracters vill almozt alvays exceeding ze number of charrrrracters ve ken dizplay? It is almost yooooozlezz to inklude it."

 

Biff cowered in his chair as silence fell upon the room. John, red-eyed and infuriated nevertheless replied softly, though he restrained a fury which, if unleashed, could melt steel like an argon laser. "There are people out there who want this feature, and like it or not, we are going to give it to them" said John matter-of-factly. Jumping to his feet, Rolf blurted, "Who? Who are zeez pipple? Are zey prrrrrofessionals? Tell me, are zey? Becauz no prrrrrrofessional pipple would egspekt such a feature. Ent bezides, it only addz complikations to za choices in the trrrrrack header menu. So, tell me, who are zey? Who?"

 

to be continued...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and it's not just that a particular group of people had trouble agreeing on a good plan, at one particular moment. I think what we have here is a lot of different people involved, over many years. And while there is always pressure to add features, it's very hard to take features out. Old projects break when you do that, and there are always going to be a few users who whine when you take anything out. So over the years, different generations of programmers jammed in more and more features, and each little addition sort of made sense at the time, and it was hard to anticipate that over a period of years it would add up to an incoherent monster (not the overall program, but rather just certain areas, like the one we're discussing).

 

In the parts of the program that matter more, this kind of chaos is generally avoided. But then there are the corners that don't get used much, and that's where messes accumulate. And it's a self-perpetuating phenomenon, because users avoid those messy places (because those features are typically non-critical), and then the programmers don't hear complaints and aren't under pressure to clean up the mess. And it's a hard mess to clean up, because the right approach is to start with a clean sheet of paper, where they rethink the overall concept of naming tracks, channel strips and related objects. I don't see that happening soon.

 

Some features are wisely ignored. They never should have been put there in the first place. So it's wise for users to pretend they don't exist, and it's wise for the programmers to focus on areas that are more important.

 

A giant, powerful program like Logic is bound to have plenty of rough edges, especially if you dig around looking for them. Which can be a fun game. And after exploring those areas, it's smart to circumvent them later on when you actually need to get work done. So it's helpful to know which features are more trouble than they're worth. We tend to think that everything in there was put there for a good reason, and is worth understanding and using, and that's typically true. Just not always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, John the marketing guy, Biff the project manager, and Rolf, übermeister-meisterüber software engineer-general met in the conference room at 9 AM sharp. "Let's start the meeting" said John, somewhat impatiently, "we have a delivery deadline in one week and we have to wrap things up, you know". His haughty, if not smarmy air was not unfamiliar to Biff and Rolf, though it never failed to cause Rolf to stiffen in his chair. Quite predictably, Rolf dug his nails into the edge of the conference table and began to cleanse his soul of John's affront with an obnoxious and prolonged period of throat-clearing. It was a defensive gesture which he could never find the inspiration to improve upon. And with that, he began...

 

"Vy do we hev to include ze software instrument settink name in der track header? Vy? Vy? Vy? Do you not know zat ze number of charrrracters vill almozt alvays exceeding ze number of charrrrracters ve ken dizplay? It is almost yooooozlezz to inklude it."

 

Biff cowered in his chair as silence fell upon the room. John, red-eyed and infuriated nevertheless replied softly, though he restrained a fury which, if unleashed, could melt steel like an argon laser. "There are people out there who want this feature, and like it or not, we are going to give it to them" said John matter-of-factly. Jumping to his feet, Rolf blurted, "Who? Who are zeez pipple? Are zey prrrrrofessionals? Tell me, are zey? Becauz no prrrrrrofessional pipple would egspekt such a feature. Ent bezides, it only addz complikations to za choices in the trrrrrack header menu. So, tell me, who are zey? Who?"

 

to be continued...

 

Priceless!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...