Exporting stems is super duper slow

@Hellfire, yeah, I understand what you're explaining - it was a good explanation btw!

I still think the current implementation is meh... but I don't use plugins in the software, never even launched one. I use plugins in my DAW. So that's why I never ran into the plugin issues. But understand your explanation and why it's like that.

Most importantly it sounds like this isn't going to be changed. I'm in the minority here, I get it.

DJ Hellfire wrote:
3. You can't export audio from the tracks because audio does not flow through the tracks anymore. Audio flows through the program. It's mathematically impossible for the software to render multiple stems out of the same audio path at the same time.

Given that it's been explained that tracks sending data to the same program will have to have new programs (duplicates) created in order for the tracks to be represented as separate audio stems when exported, is there any chance of a feature in the software in the near future that provides an option to automatically duplicate the program (or create a smaller new program for each sound) when exploding a track?

For instance, you have a drum sequence you have created on Track 1 that includes all the sounds of he kit on one track. You then explode the track to have all the pieces of the kit on separate tracks, but since they all route to the same program they would have to be rendered as stems in multiple passes (as you explained earlier). Instead of having to manually go and duplicate the programs, the software would have an option on the explode screen that lets you choose wether to create separate programs for the track elements. It would then create a new program for each sound of the kit-- which would then allow the user to export the stems in the single pass as is desired. Creating a separate program for each sound I know sounds crazy, but since we are going to have to duplicate entire programs to get separate stems anyway, I think at least minimizing the amount of sample duplication and making it an automatic option would be helpful and help folks forget about the awkwardness of the new mixer implementation when it comes to exporting stems (and maybe even song mode). Just a thought...

Eyalc wrote:@Hellfire, yeah, I understand what you're explaining - it was a good explanation btw!

I still think the current implementation is meh... but I don't use plugins in the software, never even launched one. I use plugins in my DAW. So that's why I never ran into the plugin issues. But understand your explanation and why it's like that.

Most importantly it sounds like this isn't going to be changed. I'm in the minority here, I get it.

Yeah, unfortunately, that's the natural price of being able to have tracks and programs. With Maschine, the tracks and pads are basically one. You get the advantage of having a simple export, but you loose the advantage of having multiple sounds on one track and also the fact that your pad banks essentially become your programs. But it's still the same principle. It's always a give and take. At the end of the day, the MPC is about making music. So you have to think about whether you want your actual music making experience to be better and easier or do you want your exporting to be easier.

DaizM wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:
3. You can't export audio from the tracks because audio does not flow through the tracks anymore. Audio flows through the program. It's mathematically impossible for the software to render multiple stems out of the same audio path at the same time.

Given that it's been explained that tracks sending data to the same program will have to have new programs (duplicates) created in order for the tracks to be represented as separate audio stems when exported, is there any chance of a feature in the software in the near future that provides an option to automatically duplicate the program (or create a smaller new program for each sound) when exploding a track?

For instance, you have a drum sequence you have created on Track 1 that includes all the sounds of he kit on one track. You then explode the track to have all the pieces of the kit on separate tracks, but since they all route to the same program they would have to be rendered as stems in multiple passes (as you explained earlier). Instead of having to manually go and duplicate the programs, the software would have an option on the explode screen that lets you choose wether to create separate programs for the track elements. It would then create a new program for each sound of the kit-- which would then allow the user to export the stems in the single pass as is desired. Creating a separate program for each sound I know sounds crazy, but since we are going to have to duplicate entire programs to get separate stems anyway, I think at least minimizing the amount of sample duplication and making it an automatic option would be helpful and help folks forget about the awkwardness of the new mixer implementation when it comes to exporting stems (and maybe even song mode). Just a thought...

Remember, when you duplicate a program you aren't duplicating the samples. A program is just data that references the samples assigned to it. So when you duplicate a program, you are only duplicating the pad's parameters, not the actual samples. Seems like good idea though to have the option to duplicate on explode.

Thanks for breaking it down. Well explained....I still don't like it.

Explode tracks only works in Main Mode and not Song mode. I'm running into the problem if I have different tempo changes it only takes the first tempo. So now I'm stuck with doing it the other way.

DJ Hellfire wrote:

Eyalc wrote:Aaaah - I also wondered how people were doing this "explode" thing - I was concerned that this manual approach is the way...

1. If I have a 20 track project with one program, it's silly that I have to create 20 programs if I want to export the stems (converting to one sequence from song mode, albeit not desireable, is an option with many less steps).

2. I'm surprised there aren't more people complaining about this mixer implementation and the effect it's having on exporting stems, song mode, etc. But I assume that not many people are exporting stems, or don't use many tracks to begin with.

3. But either way, there needs to be an export that is based on the track, not the program. It's why I'm still on 1.6.

1. You don't have to create 20 new programs if you don't want to. You can simply choose Explode Track export option and let it export one track at a time.

2. The fact that you are staying on 1.6 and ignoring all the new, more efficient features just to save a few minutes on exporting is more surprising to me. Just saying!

3. You can't export audio from the tracks because audio does not flow through the tracks anymore. Audio flows through the program. It's mathematically impossible for the software to render multiple stems out of the same audio path at the same time.

The first problem with the audio flowing through the tracks came down to plugins. No one wanted to have to use the submix just to use plugins on the pads. There is literally no way around this with audio flowing through the track. The reason is because lets say you put a plugin on a pad and lets say you use that same pad on two or more different tracks. If the different tracks trigger that pad at the same time or in a way that the audio overlaps, then how will the plugin know which track to output it's audio to? This is why the pads are forced out the submix when they use plugins in 1.0-1.6; so the plugin has one central path to output audio to.

Secondly, no one wanted to have to use separate instances of the same plugin for the same track in different sequences like we had to since 1.0. There is literally no way around this with audio flowing through the track unless you unify the track mixer. Unifying the track mixer sounds cool in theory, but then you lose the ability to have multiple beats in the same project, which a lot of live performers do and is also something many vintage MPC users rely on. Having an optional unified mixer would also be a great idea, except for the fact that things like automation and such would become a mess.

Therefore, the best alternative was the current mixer, which is the same exact way every other MPC functions, minus the plugins. It just works. So you have two options, either take 3 minutes and create 20 new programs that will export at once or just use the Explode Track export option that will automate the track export one track at a time and go make a sandwich while you wait.

The time you think you're saving by staying in 1.6 just for exporting is much less than the time you'll gain by having a more efficient mixer where you don't have to maintain multiple instances of the same plugin on a track in different sequences everytime you make a change to a plugin parameter. Among other things!

DJ Hellfire wrote:At the end of the day, the MPC is about making music. So you have to think about whether you want your actual music making experience to be better and easier or do you want your exporting to be easier.

What about those who want to send their stems to someone else, mix and master their own music in their other DAW, etc. It's great at making music, but is that where it stops? Why can't we have best of both worlds?

DaizM wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:
3. You can't export audio from the tracks because audio does not flow through the tracks anymore. Audio flows through the program. It's mathematically impossible for the software to render multiple stems out of the same audio path at the same time.

Given that it's been explained that tracks sending data to the same program will have to have new programs (duplicates) created in order for the tracks to be represented as separate audio stems when exported, is there any chance of a feature in the software in the near future that provides an option to automatically duplicate the program (or create a smaller new program for each sound) when exploding a track?

For instance, you have a drum sequence you have created on Track 1 that includes all the sounds of he kit on one track. You then explode the track to have all the pieces of the kit on separate tracks, but since they all route to the same program they would have to be rendered as stems in multiple passes (as you explained earlier). Instead of having to manually go and duplicate the programs, the software would have an option on the explode screen that lets you choose wether to create separate programs for the track elements. It would then create a new program for each sound of the kit-- which would then allow the user to export the stems in the single pass as is desired. Creating a separate program for each sound I know sounds crazy, but since we are going to have to duplicate entire programs to get separate stems anyway, I think at least minimizing the amount of sample duplication and making it an automatic option would be helpful and help folks forget about the awkwardness of the new mixer implementation when it comes to exporting stems (and maybe even song mode). Just a thought...

Nice suggestions!

jigdagod wrote:Thanks for breaking it down. Well explained....I still don't like it.

Explode tracks only works in Main Mode and not Song mode. I'm running into the problem if I have different tempo changes it only takes the first tempo. So now I'm stuck with doing it the other way.

In this case I would track to a DAW in plugin mode.

jigdagod wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:At the end of the day, the MPC is about making music. So you have to think about whether you want your actual music making experience to be better and easier or do you want your exporting to be easier.

What about those who want to send their stems to someone else, mix and master their own music in their other DAW, etc. It's great at making music, but is that where it stops? Why can't we have best of both worlds?

Everything good has a price! But I don't know, for some technical reason having to do with coding that I don't understand, it doesn't work with this architecturer.

DJ Hellfire wrote:In this case I would track to a DAW in plugin mode.

This is definitely an option. We'd need more stereo virtual outs though. Projects with more than 16 stereo tracks and this won't work. 32 stereo virtual outs is still the minimum needed IMO. heck even 24 would work though.

Can you make that happen for us Hellfire??!!!!! 1.8.2 man... but seriously... can you (or someone with their ear) make that request?

erm....32 outs is now supported, no?

Nubian Mindz wrote:erm....32 outs is now supported, no?

32 mono

Eyalc wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:In this case I would track to a DAW in plugin mode.

This is definitely an option. We'd need more stereo virtual outs though. Projects with more than 16 stereo tracks and this won't work. 32 stereo virtual outs is still the minimum needed IMO. heck even 24 would work though.

Can you make that happen for us Hellfire??!!!!! 1.8.2 man... but seriously... can you (or someone with their ear) make that request?

Already did very long ago. I suggested to just max it out at 128. Don't know if it will happen.

However, one option you have is not tracking everything in stereo. If a sound is mono, you're better off panning it hard and tracking it to a mono track in your daw instead of burning a pair of outs. This could potentially give you up to 32 channels depending on how many actual stereo samples/instruments you're using.

DJ Hellfire wrote:

Eyalc wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:In this case I would track to a DAW in plugin mode.

This is definitely an option. We'd need more stereo virtual outs though. Projects with more than 16 stereo tracks and this won't work. 32 stereo virtual outs is still the minimum needed IMO. heck even 24 would work though.

Can you make that happen for us Hellfire??!!!!! 1.8.2 man... but seriously... can you (or someone with their ear) make that request?

Already did very long ago. I suggested to just max it out at 128. Don't know if it will happen.

However, one option you have is not tracking everything in stereo. If a sound is mono, you're better off panning it hard and tracking it to a mono track in your daw instead of burning a pair of outs. This could potentially give you up to 32 channels depending on how many actual stereo samples/instruments you're using.

or enable multiple instances in plug in mode like maschine or the mpc element/essentials

DJ Hellfire wrote:Already did very long ago. I suggested to just max it out at 128. Don't know if it will happen.

However, one option you have is not tracking everything in stereo. If a sound is mono, you're better off panning it hard and tracking it to a mono track in your daw instead of burning a pair of outs. This could potentially give you up to 32 channels depending on how many actual stereo samples/instruments you're using.

I remember you talking about 128. Too bad they won't do it. Doesn't make sense to me why they wouldn't. Hopefully they will see this conversation and consider it again.

As far as not tracking everything in stereo, agree. Typically my drum sounds I track in mono, everything else in stereo, so I still often run out with 16 stereo. But could find other ways to reduce the stereo track count.

But dang, if they would just double it once more, no issues then. It's a simple request - but must be a difficult change. Or allow multiple instances in a DAW. But I'd prefer more virtual outs.