1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Does Radar 24 have virtual tracks?

Discussion in 'Recording' started by YodaGetsFunky, May 21, 2001.

  1. All the HD systems approach this stuff differently. While I tend to go for a track being a track (as opposed to a region being a region or section or whatever), I do like the idea of such things as multiple UNDOs and virtual tracks.

    Does Radar have virtual tracks so that you can compose a track together from multiple takes? Is track/channel 21 (just to pick a number) always track/channel 21 or can it be re-routed coming in or out? In other words, does physical input 21, after recorded, have to play back through physical output 21?

    I know that Radar 24 isn't a DAW per se, and that's fine. I don't like the idea of tracking that way, and I don't really think I like the idea of mixing that way either. I like the DAW for tweaks and fixes and adding embellishments that might not happen another way. At heart, though, I still think in terms of analog multi-tracks.
     
  2. Hello,

    RADAR 24 doesnt do virtual tracks per se. But you can always use another project to do your big comp, then mix down (outside of RADAR)back to a stero track in the original project. It isnt virtual tracks, but its quite flexible.

    There is currently no software rerouting in RADAR, but it has been requested as a feature. If you'd like to throw your support in for this feature, go to www.recordingtheworld.com, then the Support page and you can put in a feature request.

    PS RADAR24 does have 99 levels of undo.

    Cheers,

    Paul
    iZ
     
  3. The virtual track solution sounds fine to me. My main goal is to be able to sub-mix several tracks of b.u. vocals or brass or strings or anything else that works well sub-mixed to stereo. When I do such orchestral parts (almost always with synths), I very often record one line at a time and sometimes double that on different devices. If there is to be five part harmony, I prefer having each part performed and even recorded separately to keep it from sounding like chords played on a keyboard. It sounds more natural. Once done, though, being able to bring it back to stereo in the digital realm becomes important, because of all the tracks used.

    I do think, though, that re-routing — being able to route audio that came in through physical input 1 to play back through physical output 9 — can be very helpful, and I will go to the site to suggest. If you like the idea, I hope you will push it, but I gather that Radar wants to hear from users and potential users in order to let real world use determine features. If it can be done without a great deal of code, it would be a big help, but I commend you for avoiding the features one-upmanship that has, in my opinion, plagued much audio software. The same thing happened with MIDI sequencers. Master Tracks Pro was a very straight forward sequencer that allowed people who are used to linear multi-tracking to be up and running. All it really needed was to keep up with such things as higher MIDI resolution and multi-port ability. The incredible feature list that has made many MIDI sequencers VERY difficult for some to learn is, for the most part, not needed by many pros. Many options were added in the MIDI world that are more about experimentation than being the right tool. Take the "humanization" feature. This would be totally unnecessary if the resolution was high enough to capture something that sounds like actual real-time. The humanization would be supplied by the human. :) However, sequencers began to be geared towards people that enter their music in step time. Step time allowed people that can't play the music in real-time to enter the data (as opposed to play the song) and then play it back. However, since the steps coincided with 16th, 8th, quarter notes or triplet values, etc., they played back "perfectly", SoOoOo they had to add humanization to add human imperfection. Sort of, but not quite. Please understand that I have nothing against any musical software being produced or used in any way, but for some people, having a simple but powerful sequencer has become VERY hard to find. This is mirrored with audio software.

    Personally, I think iZ was very wise to design the Radar to be simple but powerful, and hope that any new feature that is considered for addition must retain the system's solidity to the uttermost, or else be avoided. I first saw the Radar II (or was it the first Radar?) back around 1995 or 1996. It was in a room of high end studio equipment at a high end vendor. Everything there was geared towards commercial studios. There were 2" analogs and a 24 or 48 track DASH machine ($$$), too. The stuff was meant for studios that couldn't afford to stop everything and look things up in the manual or try to explain to the client why the clock rate or partition size or whatever was messing things up. A few sessions like that could ruin such a studio's reputation quickly. I've started a project studio some time back, and while my desire has always been for great sound quality, I've never really rented straight recording time. It's always been more that the studio was a facilitator of other services like production and arranging. But I've needed to be enough of an engineer to make the rest work, and have stayed in touch with the high dollar folks. Seeing the Radar with its Session Controller (which looks and feels much like any 2" multi-track's auto locator), I instantly thought of Radar as hardware. Being digital, it does have software, but there are rock solid systems, and then there are systems with whose reset buttons you find yourself developing an intimate relationship. :)
     

Share This Page