monitor inputs without recording

[jonboper]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

I loved my 2 Delta-66s!

I loved my Delta-44. But I upgraded to a Scarlett 18i6 4 or 5 years ago and was amazed at the performance improvement.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

I had a look at RME's page and the one and only thing I didn't like (besides the PRICES!!!) was that it seems they don't have any 19" rack mount units with 8 or more XLR mic pre inputs on the BACK, which is what I would want for a permanent installation, so no cables would be hanging out of the front of my desk where I would mount it.

I suppose when the day actually arrives that I retire my M-Audio cards, they may have more choices for rear input mic pres, or I suppose I could buy some other brand of rack mount mic inputs with ADAT interface to a RME PCIe card or something.

Man, you drum mic setup takes me back to when I used to have 14 dedicated mics on a huge Ludwig Octa-Plus drum kit in it's own iso booth. I didn't have the luxury of an input track for each mic back then though, so it took two people and a half an hour to pre-mix the drums to two tracks of the Ampex. I've only been using four mics for the acoustic drums in my current projects, because that's my input max with the two M-Audio cards.

Hehe, yet another reason to justify an upgrade.

I had decided along the way that I wanted some external pres so that's how I got by with only 4 in the UFX - if I include my old FF800 I now have 14 external pres + the 4 in the UFX so yes, the ADAT method is fine and recommended (UFX has 2 ADAT In/Outs + AES/EBU which should allow adding up to 18 more pres than what comes with it if I'm doing my math correctly). They are a little pricey but dang good stuff.

I've almost always mic'd drums with 4 mics and in some of the tunes from that project, I ended up only using kick/snare/OH aka 4 mics but not on all of them - the extra mics were there if/when needed.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

I had decided along the way that I wanted some external pres so that's how I got by with only 4 in the UFX - if I include my old FF800 I now have 14 external pres + the 4 in the UFX so yes, the ADAT method is fine and recommended (UFX has 2 ADAT In/Outs + AES/EBU which should allow adding up to 18 more pres than what comes with it if I'm doing my math correctly). They are a little pricey but dang good stuff.

I've almost always mic'd drums with 4 mics and in some of the tunes from that project, I ended up only using kick/snare/OH aka 4 mics but not on all of them - the extra mics were there if/when needed.

I'm definitely going to end up with something along those lines in the next year or so. Might end up going for used, so I can make it happen sooner. Looking around the room for things to sell . . .

BTW, this is the Ampex/Carvin setup I used in the 80s and my drum iso booth. The studio wasn't yet finished so there were still some bare structural things visible.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

I'm definitely going to end up with something along those lines in the next year or so. Might end up going for used, so I can make it happen sooner. Looking around the room for things to sell . . .

BTW, this is the Ampex/Carvin setup I used in the 80s and my drum iso booth. The studio wasn't yet finished so there were still some bare structural things visible.

Man that brings back analog memories.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Man that brings back analog memories.

I totally lucked out getting rid of all that gear before it became totally obsolete. A guitar player from a band that had recorded their album in my studio called me up one day and said, "hey, why don't you sell me your Ampex". I said, nah I want to keep it. He came back with "I've got $6000 cash in my hand".

I had horse traded a Tascam 80-8 1/2" and Tascam mixer plus some cash for it, and while they originally sold new for $10,000 I only had about six grand in it, so I said "OK, come on over!!!".

A week later a local 24-track studio heard that I had sold the Ampex and offered to buy my Carvin board for their "B" studio. I didn't hesitate.

Not long after that I got my first computer based DAW and realized that I couldn't have timed selling that gear any better if I had been trying!

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

I totally lucked out getting rid of all that gear before it became totally obsolete. A guitar player from a band that had recorded their album in my studio called me up one day and said, "hey, why don't you sell me your Ampex". I said, nah I want to keep it. He came back with "I've got $6000 cash in my hand".

Holy crap, I wonder if I need to dig my old Teac 3300 out of the closet. Nevermind, ebay has em for 275.00

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Holy crap, I wonder if I need to dig my old Teac 3300 out of the closet. Nevermind, ebay has em for 275.00

Hehe, I had a Teac 3340-S before going big time to 8 tracks!

Looks like I could still today get close to the price I sold my Ampex for. They don't say when this one sold, but the seller has only been listing gear on Reverb since 2015.

https://reverb.com/item/1941565-ampe...-recorder-1969

[azslow3]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

I know what you want (note I mentioned part of my reply was about posts early in the thread); also never eluded I didn't think it would be useful. I thought I even said I had zero issues with it. The best option is to have an option that says "allow input monitoring without record being armed" or similar in preferences. However, none of it can interfere with what is there now (hence the option) for the use cases of others which I'm sure everyone agrees with.

I am glad that is clarified. I am also glad that someone understand my not offensive intention

Originally Posted by insub

I've never had a problem with the way it is now, even with VSTi use. There are a couple of questions I have that were never answered in all the posts of this old thread.

1. How many tracks are you all needing to "Monitor Only without recording" while recording other tracks?

If speaking for myself, that is 2-6, normally for MIDI.
But from other posts here, that is X (live mics, external audio gears, etc.). While there was an argument that audio can be routed apart from Reaper, if the audio interface / mixer has no FX section or just for "all into box" case, that can be practical.

2. What is it that you want the meter to display while "Monitor Only without recording"? Because, you need the track to be Record Armed for the meter to show the input level instead of the playback level.

I do not care (since the signal is MIDI), not sure what other think.

The only legitimate gripe I can recognize in this thread is that the MCP/TCP doesn't make clear that you are monitoring only without recording. And, a solution was offered like have the record button be a different color and/or have a different graphic in that mode.

MCP shows that. TCP shows that when not minimized. That was not my point.
"Record armed with recording disabled" is what sounds for me strange. See something armed (in any form) when it is not really armed is for me logical inconsistent.

So, one more time. "Record monitor" is not the same as "Input monitor". Using "Record arm" + "Record: disable" + "Record monitor" physically produce "Input monitor" effect, but it is and will be just a "workaround".

In the end, what's the problem with going ahead and recording the track? You can always tell REAPER to delete the recorded file as soon as the recording is stopped. Recording a single track is probably the least complex CPU or HD task that REAPER is undertaking at any given moment.

No comment on that...

[insub]

Originally Posted by azslow3

If speaking for myself, that is 2-6, normally for MIDI.
But from other posts here, that is X (live mics, external audio gears, etc.). While there was an argument that audio can be routed apart from Reaper, if the audio interface / mixer has no FX section or just for "all into box" case, that can be practical.


I do not care (since the signal is MIDI), not sure what other think.

This is kind of what I expected. Not many tracks for most users, if at all. I have direct monitoring that I use with all analog inputs. I've never needed to consider "Monitor without recording" with any VSTi because when I'm monitoring only I hit PLAY on the transport, and when I'm ready to record I hit RECORD on the transport. I'm not really concerned with the semantics of the fact that the terminology is "track ARMED."

My typical session is record 20 audio tracks from analog inputs. When I work with VSTi's it's usually me working alone on one track at a time regardless how many VSTi are loaded up. So, my workflow has never needed or desired to "Monitor Only" any track while recording.

In the case of outboard processing, I would think that most people would want to view the input levels to make sure they're not clipping their ADC on the way back into the DAW. So, I don't understand a use case in that regard where it's necessary to Monitor Only while recording. Again, press PLAY instead of RECORD on the transport. I'm obviously misunderstanding some portion of people's workflow.

Originally Posted by azslow3

MCP shows that. TCP shows that when not minimized. That was not my point.
"Record armed with recording disabled" is what sounds for me strange. See something armed (in any form) when it is not really armed is for me logical inconsistent.

OK, so this is not, or no longer, an issue at all.

Originally Posted by azslow3

So, one more time. "Record monitor" is not the same as "Input monitor". Using "Record arm" + "Record: disable" + "Record monitor" physically produce "Input monitor" effect, but it is and will be just a "workaround".

I get it that the terminology is a bit construed, but honestly, I think those terms come from the history of audio equipment which has always been setup in a way to keep lay people guessing to their meanings. Just look at all the hardware compressors and the names of their knobs... not much consistency and very confusing for anyone who's never used that model before.

I'm not begrudging the request for a change. I just don't understand to what end, and the scenarios those requesting the change have never occurred to me while the workaround is very minimal. Right-click the record button and select Record: disable (input monitoring only). This is one extra step for only a few tracks where you need this. The other two steps are the same for any other track that would be software monitored: Arm the track for recording + Enable record monitoring.

So, what was the best proposed solution?
1. Right-click the record monitoring button and select "Input Monitoring Only", or
2. Have Input Monitoring as a fourth click-option of the Record Monitoring button. Or,
3. Add another button to the TCP/MCP solely for Input Monitoring Only. Or,
4. Have a global preference (or project) setting to always make all Record Monitoring buttons function only as Input Monitoring buttons.

All of these require an extra step as well. So, how is the proposed FR an improvement over the current method? Only adding an additional button to the TCP/MCP negates an additional step, but doing so clutters the GUI for anyone who never, or rarely, needs to Monitor Only without Recording.

Since, technically, the feature is already present in REAPER is this FR more appropriately handled via custom Theme? I don't know if that's possible or not, TBH.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by insub

I'm not begrudging the request for a change. I just don't understand to what end, and the scenarios those requesting the change have never occurred to me while the workaround is very minimal.

It's really all about the difference between the way REAPER and Sonar work.

In Sonar, there is an input monitor button that is independent of the state of the record button. In my just loading Sonar up for the first time in a long while, I'm starting to suspect that there may be outboard MIDI keyboards involved in all of this, and that they have never been recorded as audio tracks, but are simply playing through the DAW's mixer.

If that is indeed the case, then you would want those outboard hardware synths to be in "Record Armed" with "Record Disable", and might have 2-6 of them playing through the DAW mixer.

That's my best guess and now I hand off to the next person in line!

[SonicAxiom]

Monitoring tracks without recording their incoming signals is required if you have to integrate external live sources into an itb mix. This constantly happens in various ways in my hybrid studio environment:

1. Fx returns of my two hardware pcm 90's are fed back into Reaper mixes (in case I'm mixing itb). I only record those returns as audio at the very end of the production when no more tweaking needs to be done.

2. While mixing otb, main mix output of my analog summing engine comes back into Reaper and needs to be monitored while new tracks might still get added (recorded) to the project. Same thing: I only record the final master mix at the very end of the production process - until then, I'm only monitoring this track.

3. Main stereo out or multiple individual outputs of one or several other computers are fed into Reaper via Dante network to form a single audio mix in real-time while new tracks might get recorded.

All these scenarios work but not being aware of which track is only monitoring a live signal and which one is actually set to record is very annoying, especially in bigger projects where not all tracks are visible. I'm sometimes noticing audio intruding the mix originating from takes that had been recorded accidentally and I discover crazy multi-take recordings on some tracks that I thought were only monitoring.

A fourth "monitoring-only" mode for the existing monitoring button (different colour) would surely help avoiding these confusions.

[azslow3]

SonicAxiom has described why that is useful for audio.

One more time for MIDI.
Someone is shopping for new Hardware Synthesizer-Workstation. There is some nice once, but:
seller - "you can not get any sound out of it, till you connect it to the recorder and put it into record-standby mode"
person - "even in case I have no intention to record it???"
seller - "yes, even in that case"
person - "why???"
seller - "that has deep historical roots in professional audio..."
person - "may be I can connect it to the mixer directly..."
seller - "no. only throw recorder"
person - "but that is an extra operation with some unrelated device!"
seller - "not really, we have foreseen a special button on the recorder, 'DO NOT RECORD', when you press it, the recorder will go into record standby but will not record even after you press 'RECORD' button."



Now my proposal (serious):

Reasons I see to do this the way I propose:
a) current options are PERFECT for what they are. NOTHING should be changed in ANYTHING currently existing (except may be removing "Record: disable" option later, as redundant and confusing, but that can break existing extentions... not good).
b) the feature does NOT exists currently (I am not (yet) an expert in API, but my conclusion comes from looking at it).
c) place on screen is "expensive"
d) that addition should not disturb people which do not use it

So:
1) "Input monitoring" should be a separate parameter (in the logic, API, etc). In the core, it should be checked only in case when Record Arm is disabled, so reversed to "Record monitoring" (which is checked only in case Record Arm is enabled)
2) "Allow input monitoring" should be in preferences, with default "no".
3) the button "Record monitoring" can be re-used. When "Allow input monitoring" is set, the button start to control input monitoring for not record enabled tracks and continue to control record monitoring for record enabled tracks. In existing themes there will be no visual indication what exactly it controls at the moment, but at least in the default theme everything looks logical. Note that the context menu should be changed for "Record monitoring" mode (it use "Input monitor" term), for clarity.
4) for MIDI use case, the parameter should have "On when selected" additional state, the same way as for Record arm. Clash with "auto-punch" mode of Record monitor, but at least third icon is there, for compatibility with current themes
5) in the future, there should be visual indication what the button control, Input or Record monitoring. For clarity.
6) (may be) a possibility for layouts to define what should be visible (a) "combined" monitor button, (b) "Record monitor" and "Input monitor" separately.
7) (may be) a possibility to switch meters between "raw input" and normal, when input monitor is active (to check the signal when there are questions to it, but to show normal "play" monitoring otherwise, since in that mode external input function just like internal send).

Sorry, but want to repeat: I do NOT think this feature should have top priority, it will not make technically possible something not existing now, but I do think such feature can be a nice logical addition to the Reaper flexible routing schema.

[insub]

Originally Posted by SonicAxiom

Monitoring tracks without recording their incoming signals is required if you have to integrate external live sources into an itb mix. This constantly happens in various ways in my hybrid studio environment:

1. Fx returns of my two hardware pcm 90's are fed back into Reaper mixes (in case I'm mixing itb). I only record those returns as audio at the very end of the production when no more tweaking needs to be done.

2. While mixing otb, main mix output of my analog summing engine comes back into Reaper and needs to be monitored while new tracks might still get added (recorded) to the project. Same thing: I only record the final master mix at the very end of the production process - until then, I'm only monitoring this track.

3. Main stereo out or multiple individual outputs of one or several other computers are fed into Reaper via Dante network to form a single audio mix in real-time while new tracks might get recorded.

All these scenarios work but not being aware of which track is only monitoring a live signal and which one is actually set to record is very annoying, especially in bigger projects where not all tracks are visible. I'm sometimes noticing audio intruding the mix originating from takes that had been recorded accidentally and I discover crazy multi-take recordings on some tracks that I thought were only monitoring.

A fourth "monitoring-only" mode for the existing monitoring button (different colour) would surely help avoiding these confusions.

Thank you very much for this explanation! I just wasn't able to envision/understand the previous examples in this thread for some reason.

So, I assume that you want the meters to follow the monitored signal regardless of the Armed status. So, possibly the best solution in this case is for the meter color to be different than playback or recording. So, a fourth click-option of the Monitor button + possibly a third color option for the meter & monitor button.

Originally Posted by azslow3

SonicAxiom has described why that is useful for audio.

One more time for MIDI.
Someone is shopping for new Hardware Synthesizer-Workstation. There is some nice once, but:
seller - "you can not get any sound out of it, till you connect it to the recorder and put it into record-standby mode"
person - "even in case I have no intention to record it???"
seller - "yes, even in that case"
person - "why???"
seller - "that has deep historical roots in professional audio..."
person - "may be I can connect it to the mixer directly..."
seller - "no. only throw recorder"
person - "but that is an extra operation with some unrelated device!"
seller - "not really, we have foreseen a special button on the recorder, 'DO NOT RECORD', when you press it, the recorder will go into record standby but will not record even after you press 'RECORD' button."

Right on. I understood this part from the get-go.

Originally Posted by azslow3

Now my proposal (serious):

Reasons I see to do this the way I propose:
a) current options are PERFECT for what they are. NOTHING should be changed in ANYTHING currently existing (except may be removing "Record: disable" option later, as redundant and confusing, but that can break existing extentions... not good).
b) the feature does NOT exists currently (I am not (yet) an expert in API, but my conclusion comes from looking at it).
c) place on screen is "expensive"
d) that addition should not disturb people which do not use it

So:
1) "Input monitoring" should be a separate parameter (in the logic, API, etc). In the core, it should be checked only in case when Record Arm is disabled, so reversed to "Record monitoring" (which is checked only in case Record Arm is enabled)
2) "Allow input monitoring" should be in preferences, with default "no".
3) the button "Record monitoring" can be re-used. When "Allow input monitoring" is set, the button start to control input monitoring for not record enabled tracks and continue to control record monitoring for record enabled tracks. In existing themes there will be no visual indication what exactly it controls at the moment, but at least in the default theme everything looks logical. Note that the context menu should be changed for "Record monitoring" mode (it use "Input monitor" term), for clarity.
4) for MIDI use case, the parameter should have "On when selected" additional state, the same way as for Record arm. Clash with "auto-punch" mode of Record monitor, but at least third icon is there, for compatibility with current themes
5) in the future, there should be visual indication what the button control, Input or Record monitoring. For clarity.
6) (may be) a possibility for layouts to define what should be visible (a) "combined" monitor button, (b) "Record monitor" and "Input monitor" separately.
7) (may be) a possibility to switch meters between "raw input" and normal, when input monitor is active (to check the signal when there are questions to it, but to show normal "play" monitoring otherwise, since in that mode external input function just like internal send).

Sorry, but want to repeat: I do NOT think this feature should have top priority, it will not make technically possible something not existing now, but I do think such feature can be a nice logical addition to the Reaper flexible routing schema.

Thank you for adding a concise SOLUTION for the FR that takes into account other users and the existing workflow of those who do not necessarily need this feature (or don't realize they need it yet ).

I'm not sure if you addressed what the meter needs to do though. Perhaps the Record Monitor button could become a INPUT/RECORD MONITOR button, the status of which would be dependent on the status of the track's ARMED condition. This may not require a fourth click-option of the Monitor Button but may require users to turn the button on/off more often. And, doesn't address which signal the meter follows per state. Perhaps a third meter color would fulfill this method as well? But, that would mean that Monitor ON always meters the input signal (preferred behavior?). The meter right-click context menu could be changed to counter that, if desired. So, instead of the meter context menu matching the record arm button context menu (current functionality), it could offer meter options like "Meter playback signal while monitoring", or something like that worded in a better way.

[_jon]

+1 for a monitoring-only option independent of the record arm button.

[Steviebone]

My setup has racks of external MIDI gear/sound boxes that are triggered through reaper via MIDI output and then tracked by audio input. In this set up I must have record : disabled (input monitor only) while creating and recording the MIDI data. I have to change all of the tracks later when ready to print which is something I generally only do toward the end of the project after I'm satisfied with the sounds and MIDI performance.

Like the OP I find this peculiarity somewhat aggravating in that there is no way to just look at the mixer and know what mode is engaged which can lead to accidental recording. The red buttons must be armed in order to hear the input but you can't tell whether or not the audio is being recorded except to monitor the TCP. It seems like it would be a very simple thing to add some sort of indicator on the mixer showing whether or not the track is monitor input only, or monitor AND record.

[ChristopherT]

Yeah.
The record red light should ONLY be for recording - not monitoring.
Just like it has for about the last 70 years...

Why not have an input monitoring green light?
They had them in the 1960's

(with all respect, this is a very badly thought out Reaper design flaw)

[poetnprophet]

hello, I know this is an old topic, but I didn't see anyone mention the fact that when in rec arm, there is a cpu hit, even when recording is disabled. On my system it's a 2% hit for 1 track. In one scenario, I have a talkback routed to a track which let's me use the mute to toggle it on/off, very handy with a control surface. But if I forget this, even when muted, that 2% increases to 10-20 once I'm deep in a mixing stage (that track gets hidden and buried), it will severely hurt performance until rec is disarmed (cpu reduction is 10-20 at this point). I know the easy fix is for me to not forget (done!) but the point is, one rec armed track kills my mix performance.

Another scenario, I want to move toward a hybrid mixing system where I have many tracks going out to say a mixing board, etc. To return each of these tracks would mean to need all tracks rec armed to get the signal back, which means a huge amount of CPU without the need to actually record, which would make doing further processing in the box impossible.

[tunevault]

Monitor button should turn on and off monitoring (hearing the input)
Record arm button should turn on and off record arming

They are different and mixing the two and having the option to separate them buried in a right-click menu is a pain.

At least now they have it so that the record arm button changes so it's not fully filled in. But they should really be two separate things. I often want to hear talkback mics, no reason I should have to arm the track to do that, I don't want to record anything so it's counterintuitive.

[PdxLuke]

It's astounding this thread began over a decade ago and this still isn't fixed! Seriously? Is there anyone here who actually *prefers* having to arm the track, turn on monitoring and then disable recording on the track just to hear what's coming through the track? Make the arm button arm the track and make the monitor button monitor the track, completely independently of one another. What is problematic at all about doing this? As numerous other posts point out, this is the typical expected behavior and its how literally every other DAW I've used does it.
Hilarious there are actually people here defending the current clumsy implementation and even getting upset with folks suggesting a better way. Is that cognitive dissonance or just rampant fanboyism?

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by PdxLuke

Is that cognitive dissonance or just rampant fanboyism?

None of that, it's no real bother to me if there were a setting to make how you guys like it but historically (and currently) in lots of gear, engaging record, arms/turns on the input and that's important to some. It's fine if that doesn't matter to someone else.

So yes, I prefer that red, obvious, the audio input is live and armed! indicator sending audio to the track, then I decide if I want that armed live input sent to the speakers. And all that has nothing to do with the reasons you suggested any who do prefer it that way. It's strictly a technical preference.

[azslow3]

Originally Posted by PdxLuke

It's astounding this thread began over a decade ago and this still isn't fixed! Seriously? Is there anyone here who actually *prefers* having to arm the track, turn on monitoring and then disable recording on the track just to hear what's coming through the track?

I still would like to get "monitor without recording", but...

There is a technical reason (REAPER processing related) why such button in fact will do "Record arm"+"No recording" internally. That is not the case in some other DAWs, so they have that option explicity.

In REAPER there are "Live" tracks and "Not live" tracks. They are processed differently. That has advantages and disadvantages, but that is "REAPER way". They could put "Live" button and separate "Record/Monitor only" button. But you need "Monitor/not monitor" switch when you enable "Record". They have decided to have just 2 controls, and it is less confusing then 3 where 2 are "Monitor"...

[maipe]

Ok again - this "you don´t understand reapers concept" seam to be still annoying ingnorance in 2022 of what many users want to do in fact: control easily which track do record or not. And switch fast without a damn right click menu option.

Or is there actually an option to quickly turn on "Record Disable"?

So one solution could be to add a column in the track manager with simply override all track configuration with "Record Disable". That would be really great. Did someone this before per script etc? Would this be possible, write an extension or something like this? Thanks for advice

[foxAsteria]

Originally Posted by semiquaver

a quick fix for b) would be to represent record being disabled by drawing an x through the record button or a third color (yellow?).

For a) the small fix is simply put the "monitor input but don't record" option in the "monitor" section of the right-click menu rather than the "record" section.

I'd take a screenshot, but I'm feeling lazy. My theme is edited, but I have a clear indicator on TCP and MCP when recording is disabled. It could be more obvious or more logical, but it is pretty easy to work around.

This has always bugged me from a logical standpoint, but I'm hard pressed to recall when it's ever hindered me. It's redneck-backwards, don't get me wrong, but not a Big Deal by any stretch.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by maipe

Ok again - this "you don´t understand reapers concept" seam to be still annoying ingnorance in 2022 of what many users want to do in fact: control easily which track do record or not. And switch fast without a damn right click menu option.

Or is there actually an option to quickly turn on "Record Disable"?

So one solution could be to add a column in the track manager with simply override all track configuration with "Record Disable". That would be really great. Did someone this before per script etc? Would this be possible, write an extension or something like this? Thanks for advice

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to do, but there is "Track: Toggle record arm" for tracks 01 to 99.

You can probably create a macro that would do what you want.

For example:

Custom: Unarm all tracks, Toggle record arm for sel tracks
  Track: Unarm all tracks for recording
  Track: Toggle record arm for selected tracks

Custom: Unarm all tracks, Toggle record arm for tracks 01
  Track: Unarm all tracks for recording
  Track: Toggle record arm for track 01