Multiquence Wish List...

General discussions and questions about MULTIQUENCE
Mo
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:03 am

Multiquence Wish List...

Post by Mo »

Hi,

I just joined this forum today, so I hope this is the right place to post about a feature Wish List.

I think Multiquence is an extremely useful & powerful multi-track editing program. I've been using it since version 1, and I have seen it evolve into its present form. In fact, years ago I emailed the author (Chris) and made a few suggestions to improve the program further. I was happily rewarded with some of my suggestions making it through the next version (not sure if that was version 2, as it was a long time ago now).

Anyway, here are some more suggestions that I think would keep Multiquence at the forefront. Please note: I only use Multiquence with Audio files, so these suggestions are Primarily for Audio:

1. When cutting files and moving them around the tracks, etc, we should be able to grab the ends of the cuts and increase/decrease the cuts (within the limitations of the original file obviously). For example, lets say I cut a 20 sec WAV file in half and delete the second half. Later on in the project, I might want to use a few more seconds than what I actually cut off. It would be cool to just be able to use the mouse and just grab the end of the existing half and increase the lenght further (in this case all the way up to the whole 20 seconds if I stretch it all the way to the end). All this can easily still remain non-destructive as well. I hope I explained myself clearly...I'm kinda just typing as I'm thinking.

2. When moving sections to another Track, it would be very handy if we can snap-align the sections into place with neighbouring sections (on the tracks just above or below). This will simplify exact placements of the sections without having to manually type in where we want the section to move to (although that feature is really cool in itself, with it's 3 decimal place accuracy). For example, lets say I move a section from Track 1 and want to place it on Track 2 to begin right after the end of the section on Track 1 (that is - from whatever section is sitting right above it). This can work either from/to the start of the section or from/to the end of the section. Again, I hope I made myself clear as I am just typing as I'm thinking what to say here.

3. This next request might sound like asking a lot, but it would really bring Multiquence up-to-date, and I believe it is time for Multiquence to make this next Jump in its evolution...
It would be cool to be able to assign a surround sound channel to the tracks, and be able to save the project as an AC3 file (Dolby Digital Surround audio file). For example, Track 1 can be assigned as FRONT LEFT & RIGHT, and Track 2 can be assigned FRONT CENTER, and Track 3 can be assigned as REAR LEFT & RIGHT, and Track 4 can be assigned as the SUBWOOFER channel (the .1 in the 5.1 surround sound terminology). We can still use more than one track for the same Channel as well (like Track 1/2/3/4/ all can be for the FRONT LEFT & RIGHT). Maybe Chris is already thinking of going down this path, but I thought I would mention it anyway in the hopes of seeing this great feature implemented in Version 3. I know there are licencing issues involved with the Dolby people, but I hope this will be a future feature in Multiquence. Perhaps there could be a Multiquence Pro version just for this feature (the extra cost could go to covering the Dolby licencing fee). It would be very useful for me as I am getting into DVD authoring at the moment and can use AC3 files in my authoring projects. With CD's seeing the end of their life cycle, Stereo is getting real old real fast.

Well, that's it for me for now. Its good to be fiddling with Audio again after so long.

-Mo

OKCBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

More Wishes

Post by OKCBoy »

I really like this product, so let me jump on the bandwagon:

Sparge made a comment in the support forum:
For example, when adding a new track in v2.50, does it slot in adjacent to the currently-selected track, rather than always at the end as happens in v2.02?
This is very good, very simple idea. When adding a track it should add it just below the currently selected track.

GoldWave Inc.
Site Admin
Posts: 3981
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: St. John's, NL
Contact:

Re: Multiquence Wish List...

Post by GoldWave Inc. »

Number 1 has been on the wish list for quite a while, but has not been implemented for technical reasons (might have to wait until v3).

As for number 2, it should be possible to add a "snap to marker" feature along with a "move marker to end/beginning". You'd move the marker to the end of a section, then snap a section on the other track to the marker. You can already do the last part just by cutting a section and pasting it in a new track. It pastes at the marker's position.

And for number 3, multiple outputs are planned for v3, but patents and high licensing fees may limit DVD/AC3 support unless external plug-ins can be used.

Adding a new track below the current one seem like a reasonable idea.

Chris

Mo
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:03 am

Post by Mo »

HI Chris,

It's good to see you get involved in these forums. It's also good to see that after so many years, you haven't sold off Multiquence to some greedy big company. Well done.

You mentioned "high licencing fees" for the AC3 feature, but how high are we talking about? I think Multiquence, as it is, is very cheap considering how powerful it is.

With all the goodies that will no doubt be included in version 3, and with AC3 surround support, I will be willing to pay up to $600 for such a Multiquence.

At what price would you need to charge for Multiquence to cover these expensive licencing? As I mentioned in my first post, you can always have a "Pro" version of Multiquence with the AC3 licence (and perhaps a few other high-end goodies), and a standard version without AC3 support.

I know many home users will not pay hundreds of dollars for a program, but there are numerous professionals out there that need programs like Multiquence to have these sort of features. As for me, I am a Videographer, and I always author my DVD projects with surround sound audio.

I'm currently using Multiquence in conjunction with a program called Sonic Soft Encode. I use Multiquence for my main track arrangements and such, and I output the tracks separately to place in Sonic Soft Encode to make the AC3. Soft Encode by itself is a patethic multitrack program..it's really only useful for outputting to AC3 format. For example, it doesn't let you assign more than one track for the same surround sound channel, and the interface looks like sometihng you would expect from a freeware program. But it sells for $995 (I got it for less than this on a special sale). See for yourself...check out the screenshot and prices at the bottom:
http://www.sonicspot.com/softencode/softencode.html

I am a member of several forums dedicated for Videographers. There are always talk on these forums of what programs people are using to do their work. Once mention of a good program gets out, others start looking into it and want to have it as well. There are always beginners on these forums as well, and many posts start off with something like "what would you guys recommend for...".

My point is that there are numerous professionals out there that don't mind paying good bucks for a program that will be very useful for them. Multiquence is rock-solid, well established, and has a great interface. It deserves a spot on the professional scene. But it just needs a few extra features (like I mentioned in my first post), to make it attractive to the professionals.

-Mo

OKCBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

And Yet More Wishes

Post by OKCBoy »

As long as we're wishing here...

A. It'd be great to have both start AND stop markers like Goldwave has. If you're recording, these markers tell where recording will begin and end, even if you're playing back the entire window.

B. A checkbox or button in the upper right or left corner of recording sections to quickly toggle in/out of record mode would be nice.

C. User-selectable colors for the wave-forms would be cool. The bright green/red makes it too hard to see the wave-form clearly with precision. I toggle the faders on to get the dark green/red wave-forms, but it'd be nice not to have to do that.

And, finally:

D. It'd be great to have a feature to let me "scale" fader settings I've already meticulously set, but need to boost or reduce as a group.

It may take the form of a "scale fader settings" feature, which would allow you to put in a percentage (say 0-300%) and it would multiply all fader cues in the section by the percentage. If a cue multiplied by the percentage were greater than 100% (full fader), it would simply be 100%.

Also, you could add a track option to "lock fader volumes" which would keep the final output of the fader settings constant as you changed the track's master volume. For instance, as you slide the track's master volume up, the fader cues would be proportionally diminished, and vice-versa.

This would be accomplished by scaling fader settings as described above by the percentage of the track's original volume to the track's new volume. That is,

new_fader_setting = old_fader_setting * (old_track_volume / new_track_volume)

For example, if I have a track volume of 60% and a fader setting of 50%,
that generates an overall output of 30%. With fader volumes locked, if I
changed the track volume to 90%, the fader setting should automatically
change to 0.5 * (0.6/.09) = 0.3.

The benefit of this is that it gives me volume headroom in the section.

Chris, thanks again for a great product, and for creating a community for this type of feedback and support.

OKCBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Re: And Yet More Wishes

Post by OKCBoy »

OKCBoy wrote:For example, if I have a track volume of 60% and a fader setting of 50%, that generates an overall output of 30%. With fader volumes locked, if I changed the track volume to 90%, the fader setting should automatically change to 0.5 * (0.6/0.9) = 0.3.
Oops! That should have read...

...the fader setting should automatically change to 0.5 * (0.6/0.9) = 0.33.

(transposed the 0 and decimal point in the first case, and left off the extra digit in the next; sorry if that confused anyone.)

GoldWave Inc.
Site Admin
Posts: 3981
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: St. John's, NL
Contact:

Post by GoldWave Inc. »

Last time I checked, licensing fees were $15,000 to $25,000 per year, minimum. The only way AC3 support could be included is if a free encoder (like LAME) becomes widely available, which seems likely by the time the next major version of Multiquence is done.

Chris

Mo
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:03 am

Post by Mo »

Thanks Chris for clearing that up.

I now understand why it's better to use a 3rd party AC3 encoder rather than have it built-in with Multiquence...and I agree with you 100%.

On a slightly different subject all together...any idea when Version 3 might be released? Rough number is okay (i.e. 1 year, 2 years, etc).

Thanks

-Mo

P.S. if you need a Multiquence Beta tester, I would be happy to put my hand up. I use just about every feature in Multiquence.
Last edited by Mo on Tue May 09, 2006 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

johnpwiles
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:43 pm

Default Startup

Post by johnpwiles »

I basically do the same function all the time with Multiquence, so I would love to be able to have Mulitquence start up the same way all the time. I currently use two tracks and like the view size large, I also only use the fade volume function so to start with that effect would be an added bonus. Thanks for the good products guys.

John

Mo
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:03 am

Post by Mo »

Hi John,

That's a great suggestion you made about being able to customize the look of Multiquence's layout.

While you're waiting for this feature, I would recommend you simply create a new project and set up the tracks & faders, etc, to exactly how you prefer it, and then just open that project like a template. Just don't forget to rename the new projects that you make when using your template project.

-Mo

OKCBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Post by OKCBoy »

Mo wrote:I would recommend you simply create a new project and set up the tracks & faders, etc, to exactly how you prefer it, and then just open that project like a template.
Using templates would be the best approach to implement this as a feature, as it is a relatively simple code change compared to other feature requests. To accomodate templates, all Goldwave would have to do is designate a template file suffix type, and allow Multiquence to open that type, renaming it to "Project1" or something similar as it is being opened (to prevent the template from being overwritten). Basically, it should work the same way that MS Word works with templates.

Great idea, guys.

OKCBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Another feature request

Post by OKCBoy »

One other thing that I've run into quite a bit:

When using DirectX plug-ins (e.g., reverb), I often run into a problem where the plug-in requires stereo input, but I'm wanting to send it a mono section, like a vocal track, for instance.

Currently, I get around this by editing the .wav to make it a stereo file. This is inconvenient, though, because it (1) takes extra time for a relatively simple thing like wanting to turn on reverb, and (2) takes twice as much space on the hard drive for each track I'm wanting to affect.

Would it be possible to have Multiquence keep a profile for each DirectX plug-in where I could tell Multiquence the following?

1. "Such-and-such plug-in requires stereo" (causing Multiquence to send mono sections as stereo by sending the same data to left and right); or...

2. "This one will accept mono only" (with a user-defined choice of sending stereo sections as right-only, left-only, or an average); or...

3. "That one accepts both mono and stereo" (so just send the section as is)

This would make the software much easier to use when recording and mixing. Thoughts?

Thanks for a great product.

OKCBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Re: Another feature request

Post by OKCBoy »

In my opinion, the other feature that would be better to have than all of the above would be the ability to record/edit/playback MIDI. That would make Multiquence a fantastic production tool.

When I'm working a production project where we're not sure what key the vocalist is going to need to work in, I usually record some keyboard tracks in a starter key. When the vocalist comes back with the key to record in, I have to go back and re-take those tracks. This also happens when we decide to use a different vocalist than originally planned.

Bottom line: I often need to change the key of a track. Basic MIDI capability (while staying in synce with the audio tracks) would definitely help.

There are many good MIDI APIs out there for free. Any chance that this could be added?

BTW, is there an update planned for Multiquence?

Thanks again, Chris, for a great tool.

GoldWave Inc.
Site Admin
Posts: 3981
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: St. John's, NL
Contact:

Re: Another feature request

Post by GoldWave Inc. »

Ideally all DirectX audio plug-ins should accept mono input. Just as it is inefficient to have to create and store a stereo file, it is also inefficent for a host program (like Multiquence) to have to duplicate channels for the plug-in, then remix them again later. It is much more efficient to handle that at the plug-in level.

As for MIDI support, the bad new is that it (most likely) will be removed completely from the next major version, along with CD sections. Neither of those sections could be mixed in the final file anyway.

Chris

OKCBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Re: Another feature request

Post by OKCBoy »

GoldWave Inc. wrote:As for MIDI support, the bad new is that it (most likely) will be removed completely from the next major version, along with CD sections.
You mean it's currently in the active version? Whoops! :oops: I'll have to check that.

Why would it be removed?
GoldWave Inc. wrote:Neither of those sections could be mixed in the final file anyway.
Agreed. I would use it solely for capturing and editing performance, then capture the audio output to a track for mixing.

Post Reply