|
|
|
01-20-2011, 12:15 PM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: canada
Posts: 3,396
|
v4: Automation
hi all!
I'm taking it upon myself to start up this discussion. I haven't seen a thread specifically on this topic, though if there is, feel free to merge or delete this thread.
Personlly, I have a few specific ideas\issues I'd like to bring up, though obviously this thread would hopefully encompass more than my own needs\user experience.
So, that being said, here goes
Personally I really like editing envelopes in reaper. Having toolbar icons for default shapes, show\hide env etc has helped my flow.
The one flow killer for me is the Read\Trim\Env Armed relationship to displaying automated track parameters on the panel.
As I see it now, Trim only relates to the Volume fader (pan too? - not sure). Having a track set to that will not display other track elements that are automated. In addition, being on Read, is still not enough to display track elements that are automated, as the enveleope also has to be Armed for the panel to display the current state.
This has resulted in a few times where "I can't find my audio!" - to realize oh ya, mute is automated, and I have to
set the track to read,
display the mute envelope
select the mute envelope
arm the mute envelope
then I can see, yes mute is automated, whereas before those steps the mute button was not engaged, even though the track IS muted.
All this just so the volume fader can have a dual function. It seems to me that it would be preferable that the Track should have a single function\display, and the volume fader itself should be dual in function - with a visual cue for its current state - read\trim
I may be off base, because maybe there are more parameters governed by the Trim state, which may invalidate some of my ealier points. Though generally the tracks display of automated parameters on the panel imo, is not very intuitive.
Anway, that's my 2 cents, if that's unclear or I'm missing something, please let me know.
Please add your opinions about those points, or your own views on autmation in general as well
thanks
g
EDIT: please feel free mods to edit the >> out of the title, as I didn't realize that maybe that syntax is reserved for "official" threads
Last edited by gwok; 01-20-2011 at 01:32 PM.
|
|
|
01-20-2011, 03:36 PM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
|
That request is unfortunately getting quite a few things wrong.
Groups, in a classic sense only group USER INTERACTION with the controls. These mix groups have absolutely nothing to do with automation playback, which is what you're expecting.
VCA master faders are what you're actually expecting these groups to function like, and it's precisely how they work in Protools. In Protools, VCAs when created are added to a dropdown list in the group editing box as an option for a mix group.
Then, that all the VCAs automation, including that which you're currently recording with the VCA fader, is combined with the slave tracks automation. The automation data on the actual slave track envelope lanes is not altered by the VCA master, though you can coalesce the VCA volume or mute automation in to its slave tracks and reset the VCA masters autoamtion to start fresh.
Thus, if you'd like an automation move to apply to a bunch of tracks, just add a VCA master to a mix group and its automation will be combined with the slave tracks automation during playback. I use this a LOT when mixing in Protools.
A request for this functionality has already been made here:
http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=2817
Check it out for details. If you have some ideas for this, let's hear about them, and also check out the automation panel idea.
And concerning this kind of stuff making it in to the first 4.0 version, that's not going to happen. Justin and Schwa told me that it's not on the agenda for that first version. They do have a lot on their plate after all, but rest assured, it's on their radar. Despite rumors to the contrary, they're only human .
Last edited by airon; 01-20-2011 at 03:52 PM.
|
|
|
01-20-2011, 06:12 PM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: canada
Posts: 3,396
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by airon
That request is unfortunately getting quite a few things wrong.
|
maybe so, though it's pointing in the same direction, your FR's are obviously more thought out, and the technical terms are more accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by airon
And concerning this kind of stuff making it in to the first 4.0 version, that's not going to happen. Justin and Schwa told me that it's not on the agenda for that first version. They do have a lot on their plate after all, but rest assured, it's on their radar. Despite rumors to the contrary, they're only human .
|
I'm not making any assumptions, or placing expectations, just bringing up the subject. I haven;t seen a list of what's not on the table, so how was I to know. Obviously your FR's would be a realiztion of those concepts, hence your inside knowledge on the subject possibly. I'll have to read the Panel FR more, to see if it addresses the first issue i posted, though I'm sure it does.
Just trying to help bro
|
|
|
01-20-2011, 06:26 PM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
|
And please continue. I'll dump any idea of mine in favour of something better.
|
|
|
01-21-2011, 02:16 AM
|
#6
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,462
|
Gwok,
You raise two good points, which are small, incremental requests. v4 doesnt seem to be getting any automation love anyway, so adding just the two things you mention, would be very, very good. It always struck me as odd that with grouping, you can only automate the trim of that track, and the slave of that track doesnt get affected volume-wize.
On the topic of visual feedback on the mixer when in trim mode. A trim fader is a good thing. And i understand it shouldnt move when in trim mode. But i never understood why we cant have visual feedback on the faders of the actual envelope lanes in trim/read mode (if you show them that is). The volume envelope fader is showing exactly the same information than the track fader, seems rather odd.
I also agree that there are no two mute stages i.e. there is no trim mute stage and there is no seperate envelope mute stage. So why not showing the actual status of mute automation even in trim/read mode.
In short: i would vote for the mixer to show all automation status of all parameters in trim/read mode, with the exception of the track fader and the pan knob. When the actual pan/volume faders are shown, they should reflect visually the envelope.
Not entirely related to automation is the issue of control surface support, and more specifically a 'generic' control surface. I dont care if it would have to be configured through a flat .ini file, but it would solve a lot of problems for those people having digital mixers whose mototized faders can send/receive midi messages.
Yves
|
|
|
01-21-2011, 09:52 AM
|
#7
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: canada
Posts: 3,396
|
ya, right after I made this thread a guy posted saying he was having problems and couldn't see what was goin on with his mute automation. Point being, though it works, and is flexible, the track display aspect of it is not very inuitive. Maybe we'll have to wait though for a more "unified" track panel (autmation display-wise that is), I guess we'll see
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:33 AM.
|