for this project I'm working with over 10,000 individual files in batches of up to 2,000 as I'm pre-mixing dialogue so the ability to select which tracks I can add batches of files to is pretty essential. If it can be done then Audition CS5.5 will be added as a tool to the arsenal, if not it will unfortunately get classified as a toy application and a backward step from 3.1.
Dont know if this is a viable or even practical workaround... but if you have Premiere Pro CS5.5.
You could automatically insert any selection of audio clips from the Project Bin into a single audio track.
'Automate to Sequence'
(You maybe happy to stop there and export an audio file.)
Or ...you could go " Edit in Audition and they will be transferred into an Audition Project
Just run into this issue while using CS5.5. Has anything changed in CS6?
Like the OP I need to insert hundreds of audio files onto a single audio track. I need to be able to do this in a single operation, rather than manually for each file.
Will have a look at shooternz's suggested workaround, but really I'd like to get this working in Audition and not have to move between programs.
Edit: Hmm, the Premiere workaround isn't helpful because when the session is opened in Audition, all the audio files have the word "extracted" added to their names. My workflow requires the files to keep their original names.
My thoughts are a standalone app which you go and merrily select all the files you want to add to the session (maybe with some sort of reordering option(s) and maybe an option to have on seperate tracks or all on one track) and then select the existing sesx file and bingo - a bit of jiggery pokery and done.
Anyway that's what I'm thinking but I'm not sure what sort of need there is for this sort of thing apart from icfm's requirement.
Hi SuiteSpot, thanks for posting!
Would the standalone app that you envisage be able to work with CS5.5, or is there a difference in CS6 session format that would mean it could work only with the latter?
In any case it's a really interesting idea and the only potential downside would be that it might demotivate Adobe from adding the feature to Audition itself!
Alternatively does anyone know of a way to get the audio from Premiere into Audition without having the word "extracted" added to the end of each file?
There are differences in the sesx that are a result of the new functionality in CS6, however, CS5.5 just ignores any unknown sections of the sesx (just tested that) so it would open fine in either version of CS.
As far as demotivating the Adobe devs I can tell you that I was lucky enough to meet a few of them at NAB last month and trust me when I say you couldn't find a more motivated and enthusiastic bunch of guys.
I think you will find that the only thing stopping features making the cut is time (and I know what that is like) and I know for a fact that some of these guys added features to CS6 in their own time - that's how dedicated these guys are.
If I can help take the heat off these guys even for a short period so that something else can make the cut then I'm happy to knock something up but I do need to be clear on the requirements so if anyone else wants to also chip in with their two bobs worth thats fine because if I build it (no they won't come) I only want to do it once ;-)
Thanks for replying and explaining!
Is it an app that you'd be able to provide for Windows?
In terms of specifications, I'd be hoping for something that looks a bit like the 'combine files in Acrobat' helper program - where you can change the file sequence by sorting them with column headings, or by manually reordering the files.
Manually reordering the files would be nice but is definitely not essential. In my own current workflow I always import the files alphabetically.
I was just wondering if the ability to reorder would add flexibility in the future and perhaps be helpful for other users.
But I don't want to give you even more to do!
I'm curious about what work you're doing that having files in a single track in random (i.e. alphabetical) order is useful? Anything I do, the order and timing would be important so I never even thought of the need for a feature like this--yet there seem to be a lot of people who'd like it.
I never cease to be amazed at the huge variety of work-flows that different people have!
Bob, Alphabetical is definitely not random!
I do sound editing for software instruments. I receive each recorded note in a separate wave file that's named according to the note and articulation etc.
Working with all the files on a single track, and clicking through to the edit view where necessary, is much easier than opening them one-by-one.
For me, working on sound effects and music recording, alphabetical would be random but, with musical notes, I can see where you're coming from. FYI, I was mainly thinking of the OP who said he wanted his files in "no particular order", hence my use of the word "random".
(Though I wondered how you cope with all your "A" notes coming before all your "C" notes! )
Anyway, I was just curious about what I was missing!
I haven't forgotten this - the inteface and most of the grunt work around a life support system for the interface is pretty much happening.
Once complete I will add the code that does the actual adding of the files to the track(s) to the sesx file.
Just happen to be inundated with several projects at the moment.
Some things are not always obvious - so a couple of questions:-
Would we need to be able to do multiple filespec selections with wildcards eg “*.wav;*.mp3” or will single ones do?
Would the selected files need to be copied to the same folder as the selected sesx file or a selected folder or even copied at all?
No doubt more questions will arise.
Well, in my own workflow I would typically already have the files where I want them, so there would be no need to copy them.
However, I think the ability to copy them to the sesx directory could be useful for some workflows (it's more "Pro Tools-like"). So if it's not too much trouble, providing an option to copy the files would probably be helpful to some users.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about using wildcards for the file selection. Would that be used to filter the view in order to show only a particular type of file, prior to making a selection?
Agree with most of the thoughts here I could read through quickly. Will also give it some more thought and see if I have any other ideas. I like all the ideas about ability to copy too and to use (or not use) wildcards.
The related thing that would be impt for a lot of what we do was what I posted on the other thread. That's to allow material already on sep tracks in AA to be copied and pasted and wind up on the same tracks it was sourced from. Thus if you have effects beds on say 4 diff tracks in a session and you want to re-use that whole thing later on in the timeline, instead of AA pasting the first track correctly but then opening new tracks for all the other clips you copied when you paste them, it would allow you to simply paste the whole thing (perhaps if you defined them all as a group?) onto the same tracks but later on in the timeline.
It's something we very often need to do here.
Currently, even if grouped (using CS6) the first track will paste to the correct track, but AA opens new tracks for all the others. You then have to move each "other" one to the tracks you wanted them to be on and then delete all the new tracks AA added from the paste, which is cumbersome. I'd think if you defined the group as a group (an "object") that you could then copy and paste the entire "object" elsewhere without it adding all those new tracks.
The only workaround we use for this currently is to copy each time track by track and then paste to the new location, but that forces you to re-align all the pasted stuff which takes time if it's complex. Being able to just define the muli-clip "object" and then copy and paste it exactly as it exists elsewhere in the timeline would be a big plus.
I haven't read the thread you mention and while I can appreciate the need for the functionality regarding existing clips that would certainly be outside of the scope of the issue I'm proposing an interim solution for. Sure, something can be written as a seperate project to assist in that problem but it would be external and possibly distractive to your workflow anyway.
Only thing I could think of would go something like:
1. select sesx file
2. select an existing group (of clips) (or groups) from a list of groups in the sesx file
3. copy the group(s) to another group(s) and position that group(s) on the end of their existing tracks.
4. save the sesx
Again, this is a different project for another time.
Unfortunately the more unique the problem the less the solution helps others - I have limited available resources and I'm not really sure an interim solution like this would benefit too many others?
Back to the current issue - I have grabbed one of my offsiders and managed to get them to allocate some time to finish off the interface and that should free up a bit of my time to get to the heart of the solution which is writing the changes to the sesx file.
Up to my eyeballs in Vegas & M2T file conversions to OMF right now.
3am - sleep time soon
More to come....
This is a great discussion. It's no surprise that improving track management is important, and the feedback you've all provided will be copied to our planning documents for this feature set.
Not that it's a perfect workaround to copy/paste, but dragging a group of selected clips while holding ALT/OPTION will create a new set of clips that can be moved elsewhere on the timeline without creating new tracks. I suspect this sort of behavior as an option, or the default action, when dragging new files or pasting copied clips is close to the desired behavior. If there are any flaws in this approach (for example, behavior when pasted clips overlap existing clips) please let me know your thoughts or expectations and I'll make sure the feedback is shared.
Durin's point is a good one and something I will mess around with some more and write up any suggestions if I find them. I've done it that way before, though as he notes it's a less than ideal method for copy and paste. Ideally, the user could select when invoking either copy or (maybe better) on pasting whether to paste to same tracks as source or (as it does now) open new tracks for anything beyond the first clip or group being pasted.
And SuiteSpot is a major champ for all the work he's already done of course as well as what he's looking at with all this stuff. Truly an AA Hero for all the work he's put in on so many things.
Bravo to all -- great discussion and we need more like it.
Thanks for the compliments and sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you but I had trouble getting my head in through the studio door
Seriously - most of the 'life support' work is done and most of the writing of the sesx file is done except for positioning the clips
Need to finish a couple of other pressing things but shouldn't be too long now before I have something ready for testing.
BTW It creates a new sesx file and doesn't alter the original.
What format are these audio clips generally?
Obviously I'm going to need to interrogate the audio to determine the length off the audio clip so I know where to put the following clip
Something I'd raised with Colin a while back might work within what Suite Spot is looking into -- a split session command for SESX files- along with its counterpart - APPEND session. I think there is now some type of append in CS6 but have not yet tried it yet and not sure how it behaves. Have only been running CS6 for about a week and only for limited "real" work so far as well as some testing when there's time.
Split would simply create 2 new SESX files -- one containing everything to the left of the split point to a new sesx (perhaps asking you to name it) and everything to the right a second new session file. The split point would be wherever the play cursor is positioned when the command is invoked. The original (source) SESX would remain untouched, you'd have 2 new SESXs after doing a split. Append of course would simply append a selected SESX and all its content to the end of a currently open SESX..
A very old hardware/software DAW we still sometimes use for some tasks has those functions and we've often made good use of them with very long projects.
Don't know if Suite Spot's current work would support that easily, but from what he said above seems it might --so have brought it up here. If not, then I'm sure he has plenty on his plate already with the current stuff he's doing(!)-- but if so, it could be a helpful corollary to consider in his design and coding work, maybe.
Do you guys just make this stuff up or is there an actual purpose for splitting a session like this?
Sure all that can be done but to be honest I'd be interested in guaging what sort of demand this sort of thing would really attract.
If I'm helping out I'd would really prefer to help as many users as possible with the same application or a variant of it.
Not a prob if it is difficult! I understand your viewpoint on it.
Thought it might work along with the other stuff you're doing or as a related variant.
If it doesn't of course, that's another matter. Not trying to make what you do harder-- just thought
that feature might be easy to do within the other stuff you are doing per your notes.
With a lot of the e-learning and training projects we often work on, building a VERY long
SESX in the first assembly of a project works well for us. (often 5 or more hours long with many of 'em)
There are several reasons why it can make for an efficient workflow - too long to go into here.
What we do now to "split" such projects in later stages into multiple shorter SESXs is
copy the long one to new project, and then delete huge sections in the copy so it now contains only the
sections of interest, like a full module or a full CD or whatever.
With the old system we still sometimes use (long out of production) the developers
added the split and append session commands at the request of several users like us who found
it real useful. Most of them did a lot of long-form work like we often do here.
These already-long projects often seem to grow as clients request tweaks and changes etc and
so having the ability to split and append project files (thought of here as basically containers)
actually can have a big purpose with many typical workflows for them.
Thanks for that but my eyes started to glaze over halfway through - LOL
An update: interface is pretty much done and its doing all the right things.
Track(s) getting added in as the last track(s) before the master track (its more difficult than it sounds).
I'll add the file references to the 'files' section tomorrow and then that just leaves interrogating the wav files (I assume we are dealing with wav?) to determine the clip size and then adding in the reference to each clip.
2am time for an early night - yeah sure ;-)