Hey Kyle,
Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.
>>>> That said, we don't need to change the way voicing works to bring this feature back <<<<
Excellent news to hear. I always imagined that since the new architecture is now long since baked in, it might still be possible to make use of a clever "secret" voice (or voices for wider than mono track types) allocated to each track, such that displaying and utilising playlists and employing "stairstep" editing would auto-takeover (or drop through as Paul V calls it). Although one of the possible major headaches with a playlist based implementation, is when one needs to cut and paste across a whole song arrangement, and various tracks have their playlists hidden, then the playlists are left untouched. This already causes problems as the software stands if one doesn't keep their wits about them.
Another trick I often employ, is to have a certain piece of audio that needs special EQ or other plugin processing treatment, placed on a track of it's own above the other voiced tracks so that it seemlessly blends into the overall playback stream, but with it's "remedy" applied in realtime (seperate spot pitch fixing etc. DSP only of course). This would play into my comment below about the use of clip FX.
All this is to say that my instinct would be that not having to use playlists for this feature, might be less complicated overall. A special preference selection "treat selected/grouped tracks as one mega/macro track" or similar? As long as any audio "north" on the screen took over from lower down pieces as demonstrated in my video, that would be the holy grail. Having 16 takes of a vocal all playing at the same time, or only one playlist lane hearable in the special playlist solo mode at a time, just isn't the same.
As this workflow method has historically been a TDM/DSP card only feature, it could now also be employed on Native only systems too, as on the occasions when I've been forced to work on someone else's Native only system is when I've really felt the pain of losing my cherished voice stealing workflow.
>>>> We'd just have to formalize it as a comping feature and develop it in the way that makes the most sense with how the system operates today <<<<
One thing for certain is, I don't only use it as a post recording/editing and comping mode method. For instance, a major part of the charm is that at any point in a session, I can put a higher up track into input or record and drop in a new piece of playing/singing etc without losing what I've already got, or confusing things hugely with multiple copies of almost identical playlists. It also aids in testing and refining song arranging overall. Often once I have a mostly completed comp of a part, I can still add another track copy or blank track voiced the same above the current master comp version, and say, copy from a later Chorus to an earlier Chorus to test that new melody or an alternative lyric, or a change of phrasing etc elsewhere in the arrangement. It's just such a flexible and beautiful way to work.
I'll be honest, although I don't know much at all about post production workflows, I've always wondered why more Post operators haven't hit upon the realisation that voice sharing amongst tracks could help tremendously with voice counts in the massive sessions they run. They'd benefit from allocating tracks that (as far as I can tell from my limited experience) could easily share a common voice(s) ie: that one lone gunshot, and the Hyena laugh 5 minutes later, then the pool splash sound 15 minutes further down the timeline etc. All on separate tracks, but sharing a single voice allocation. What with DSP plugs and even clip based effects, their sessions could run many more tracks for less voice resources overall. And alternative takes above one another that merely need muting/unmuting to audition, and even just mute regions to have alternatives "drop through" benefits everyone IMHO.
For anyone else reading this thread, here's the video link and short older thread link from my earlier post that I've been referring to:
https://youtu.be/O9na6N7WQD8
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=316448
I keenly watched the situation with trying to add more voices to HDX systems that the hybrid engine is clearly a top notch solution to, but allocatable voices would add even more functionality to this new paradigm. A win for everyone in my opinion. We humble music guys would revive a much cherished workflow, and the Post guys could squeeze more performance from the exact same system, including benefits when switching backwards and forwards with Native only systems potentially. What's not to love?
My clumsy imagined solution aside, since you've been kind enough to take a look at this method I'm personally so passionate about, my guess is yourself and the other inventive peeps over there, would probably be able to engineer a much cleverer and typically elegant implementation. It's been said many times around the forums here and elsewhere that, although Avid are not always first to an idea, once it's been carefully thought through and implemented, it's always best in class. I certainly agree with that.
Again, thanks for all your hard work. Even though I'm not currently a daily HDX user, I'm very much looking forward to popping my HDX card in the machine and having a fresh play about with the new Hybrid Engine when it's ready, and hopefully be convinced I can move into the new world, as I dearly miss having access to all the new tools PT provides (Freezing, consolidating, faster than realtime bouncing etc), which would speed up my work rate considerably. Unfortunately for me, you'd have to prise TDM style voice stealing from my cold ........
I'd be very keen to contribute with further feedback or testing if that became possible, so drop me a PM if I can help in any way.
Cheers.
Steve Bush