As you know, traditional zoom scale in the playlist eg. for manipulating the waveforms is always limited and one trick for overcoming it is changing 96 PPQ to 960 PPQ. This method is good but it does not allow like Edison to zoom in to the sample level. So most people for doing that refer to Edison eg. for cutting the unwanted regions. This method is destructive and after saving the sample and closing the Edison, there would not be any undo. So what is the solution to do that inside the Playlist window?

The simple way of doing that is dragging the sample to the playlist and temporarily stretching the sample for example to the right. You should do that until straight lines like the ones shown in the below photo appear. You can even do more than that. That's all. After doing any modification to the sample like slicing up or removing the unwanted regions, you can revert back the zoom scale to the normal by resetting the "Time stretch" knob inside the sample window in the sequencer. If any error has been occurred during manipulation, you can do that again without destructing the original sample. You even do not need to change your working PPQ setting.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2016

You cant really chop using this method without bouncing though because you will get left with two regions of the same sample, i personally think its a lot faster and easier to just use edison for micro edits like this, because you are allow to fuse both of the samples together again after making a chop and once finished with editing, you just use the "drag/copy sample/selection" feature. There is not quick fix for reverting micro edits like this except doing multiple bounces. Also by using the "drag/copy sample/selection" feature, it create another instance of the sample anyway so its not destructive.

 

You're right but zooming to the sample level usually done just for selecting or cutting the intended regions. For example deleting the samples from 8756896 to 8757000. Yo can slice the samples to 3 regions and remove the middle one. No one would zoom in to the sample level for applying the compression or EQing. My method is good for slicing and selecting the desired regions not bouncing not even applying automatons. Of course you can do that too but your track length increases that stretching back would be needed for returning back to the first length.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2016

I dont really see that your method is better to be honest, but i think i get what your saying now; to clarify your basically saying your using it as more of a "trim" feature then a slice feature (like a more detailed version of trim in sampler). The wording might be similiar but their applications and context are pretty different. TBH i would still even use edison just for the 1:1 precision in that case too but your solution is equally as valid.

 

Not just for trimming but also for comparing the samples waveform together (By selecting and dragging all of them together).
For example for comparing fast kicks and snares. Most people do not take a look at their waveforms during mixing and apply EQs blindly. By having better view in the first step of mixing, most future over-processing would be decreased.

Of course you can open one Edison for any of samples but mine is so fast. For example you can view 10 samples waveforms in the playlist instead of opening them one by one inside Edison.

You can also get rid of phase issues better. As you know it usually remains hidden. Static waves always give better view than watching them in a scope. Today's scopes are mostly out of sync so people just look at them for enjoying not really discovering the problems.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2016

From an analytical perspective, this holds some value, but what do you attempt to see of actual editing value or usage? I means as well as listening to it for audible problems, you can see from zooming at 96 ppq just a small amount if the initial wave value is zero crossing for example, as well as see the db reading. You are attempting to compare two separate samples, what is doing this going to tell you about its usage in a track? The context of a sample and its usage is best heard when applied in a whole song. Comparing waveforms like this will only tell you that information i said above. Also if you know a sample may require cleaning, most of the time youll be able to hear or see it in the waveform with 96 ppq and a small amount of zoom. I doubt you would ever need to zoom this far to fix a problem with the sample (clicking & vinyl distortion) without hearing it first. Another potential benefit would be mixing kicks, e.g. you have one kick has a nice low end, and the other has a nice low-mid end, as you can see the typical oscillatory patterns of nice clicky kicks with powerful transient information but again, you can see this information already with 96ppq zoomed in slightly. Visual frequency information in high frequencies is super hard to distinguish to the human eye which is why i didnt mention it.

 

I accept what you said. But sometimes problems are solved by subtle micro tunings using our eyes and monitors not just heavily relying on the ears.