Automation Playlists & Session Snapshots

[Mount Royal]

What are the barriers to Pro Tools permitting true automation playlists which contain different automation schemes for a track? The automation playlists could be called up for the track just as edit playlists now are. The difference from what we have now would be that a track's edit playlists need not receive the same automation playlist. To simulate this now in PT 7.2 (and earlier), one must duplicate a track, generate a new automation playlist for that duplicate track, and then deactivate the original track, in order to create a 2nd automation playlist for the original track. While I don't really understand what's needed to make this work, I'd have imagined this would be possible in Pro Tools at this juncture.

Along the same lines, what about the concept of different "snapshots" within a single session. Snapshot "A" might call up certain edit playlists and (again) automation playlists, while "B" might call up entirely different playlists. For example snaphot "A" might refer to a mix with saxophones but no electrfic guitars, "B" has electric guitars but no saxophones, and "C" has both saxophones and guitars (but panned to the right), and "D" saxes and guiatrs are present but panned left. My first digital editing experiences were on a Roland VS880, and in that box there was the notion of different mixer "scenes" that permitted this kind of thing. As it is now, different Pro Tools sessions would be needed for each snapshot.

Again, I must be missing why this isn't yet available to the Pro Tools program. But I can't imagine I'm alone in finding this concept appealling. I apologize if this has been discussed to death in the past.

Best,

John Caldwell

[Mount Royal]

Is the lack of response because the proposed features are of no interest or because this has been reviewed too often in the past?

The features of true automation playlists and session snapshots seem really valuable to me.

No?

John-

[Drew Mazurek]

sounds good to me.

the snapshot part sounds like an extension of the memory locations feature.

[Mount Royal]

sounds good to me.

the snapshot part sounds like an extension of the memory locations feature.

Yes, Dmazurek! A memory point could call up a particular "state" of the session, just we can now call up a particular window of visible tracks and such. The session state would, though, encompass track edit playlist selections, specific automation schemes, track active/inactive states, and so on.

To me this possibility would be enormously powerful. Imagine being able to, at amoments notice, call up different versions of a mix which differ in radical or subtle ways. As it is now, these different versions need to be stored as individual sessions.

Could it be all that cumbersome to implement from a software viewpoint?

John-

[tlester]

This would be a HUGE feature for me. when I print, I always print multiple versions of a mix. I.e.

- Base Mix
- guitars +1 dB
- guitars -1 dB
- Bass +1 dB
- Bass -1 dB
etc...

TV mix
No lead vocal
etc...


What I have to do now, is edit the automation (usually as a whole), then remember to get it back to the base line when I'm done. It's not a big deal, but there's a lot of room for human error. If I could save automation playlists and name them like "guitar" guitar +1, guitar -1, etc... That would be awesome.

Then of course... there is comping. I like to write my automation with a fader. This is no different than a performance. I may have missed a hit. Or didn't boost the vocal in the chorus enough on one pass, but nailed it on aother. To be able to do two or three passes, then comp them into one automation play list would be huge.

I'm all for it.

-Tom

[Mount Royal]

This would be a HUGE feature for me.

...To be able to do two or three passes, then comp them into one automation play list would be huge.

I'm all for it.

-Tom

Indeed, Tom. The list is long of why multiple automation playlists will help, it seems. To have all your different mixes within one session, with recallability, seems an obvious one as well.

Why has this not been discussed much previously, or has it?

What would it take to make it work from a programming perspective? Session files would grow in size and take longer to open, one imagines, but is this not a small price?

Thanks for your interest.

John-

[Mount Royal]

May I bump this please.

Any other thoughts about why we do not yet have automation playlists and session snapshots?

While I know we need to get 7.2 running properly before we ask for new features, I do think these could mean a lot in future PT versions.

John-

[c-tone]

Yes, this would really help with what I am trying to do now. I am having to go back and forth between sessions that are vocal up mixes and the main mix, and it is taking forever to load each session with all of the plug-ins, auxes, and reshuffling. It also causes a lot of headaches keeping track of what session is what, and then needing to import tracks between these sessions.

Automation playlists would help my workflow greatly, in addition to the creative benefits.

[Stig Eliassen]

I haven't thought this through (or tried it) but - isn't it possible to use multiple VCA masters for say Vox, VoxUp, VoxDn? So, each VCA master has it's own automation playlist, and you can assign the group to those VCAs for different mixes.

I too see the advantage of having multiple automation playlists, but until then - VCAs are definitely changing my workflow.

My 2,- NOK...

[Mount Royal]

Yes, I do think custom VCA's may help mimic some of what can be had with automation playlists or session snapshops. Like you, I am finding the VCA feature of tremendous value.

I do continue to feel, though, that being able to have a range of automation schemes, for a single track on occasion, and to have access to several "states" of a session (without opening a new one) would be the next logical step for automation in Pro Tools. I can't imagine many users who would not benefit from this.

Best,

John Caldwell