[Trevor]

On 13/10/2017 10:23 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/12/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
I never denied the existence of the concept of "virtual multitrack."

Good, so what exactly were you complaining about in my original comment?
(that you have deleted)

I understood what you were talking about. What I objected to was your
use of the term "virtual multitrack" that you made up, as if it was
something really important and significant. I object, in general, to
terms that are made up and used for no good reason.

You are welcome to go against the terminology others use of course. But
pretending I'm the only one when a simple google search could prove
otherwise is pointless.


If you didn't make up the term, can you provide a reference that
legitimizes it, other than a post on the WWW?

Ah you want a dictionary entry or nothing. I'm sure I don't care!


People were recording time code on analog tape and adding virtual
tracks (as many as the available hardware would allow) by
synchronizing MIDI sequencers to time code.

Do you have a reference for anyone calling them "virtual tracks"?
(other than yourself) Never heard it myself.

This term has been around for so long I really can't remember when I
first heard it. If the rec.music.makers.synth newsgroup archive goes
back to the 1990s, you'll probably find it there.


If you didn't make up the term, can you provide a reference that
legitimizes it, other than a post on the WWW?


I can tell you that
there was, maybe still is, a magazine named "Virtual Instruments"

Virtual instruments is NOT the same thing as virtual tracks. I guess the
word "virtual" confuses you, so I'll just give up now.

Trevor.