Real Auto Input

Comments

PipelineAudio wrote on 6/4/2003, 12:10 PM
speaking of which, it was easy to make bands buy tape in the past, but getting them to buy hard disks seems a pain...we make them buy seagate barracuda 40's or WDJB's and inclose docks, but its like pulling teeth
SonyEPM wrote on 6/4/2003, 12:45 PM
"if I could just monitor correctly with the program"

ok forgive me all, I have lost my way. TMR, you are not using a tape machine, correct? From what you said in your first post (line 3) I thought you were...anyway

outside of thee punch-in issue, you cannot monitor correctly because...

why? Is it a routing issue between Vegas/your mixer/your outboard dsp?
PipelineAudio wrote on 6/4/2003, 1:47 PM
because vegas doesnt do a 1 to 1 in one to out one auto input scheme, which is the crux of all professional monitoring

signal goes to your mic pre, from your mic pre to your patch bays " tape machine input 1" then from your tape machine output 1 to channel 1 monitor on your console ( for example)

when you play back from vegas, it comes out of your stereo buss, while when you are recording it comes out of the correct out, necessitating dual monitor paths which arent controlled by each other. You can try and do it with busses, but vegas cant send 1 track to ONE output without panning or double bussing shenanigans, which STILL arent controlled by auto input
Arnar wrote on 6/4/2003, 2:01 PM
I totally agree with that pipeline....No question.

I have had countless surprised faces looking at me through the glass when the level drops.
Then after explaining what happened (which i should have done in the first place, and i do now) they still seem to be annoyed by this particular function.
drbam wrote on 6/4/2003, 2:05 PM
>>when you play back from vegas, it comes out of your stereo buss, while when you are recording it comes out of the correct out, necessitating dual monitor paths which arent controlled by each other. You can try and do it with busses, but vegas cant send 1 track to ONE output without panning or double bussing shenanigans, <<

Yes, this has been discussed (criticized) before and as I've said before, its probably my #1 complaint with Vegas. There should be a way to do 1 to 1 bussing out of mono tracks without having to pan to do so (or go through doubling up the tracks or busses or other ridiculous workarounds). Like many folks, I work with a console so I can use outboard processors (especially good verbs) but I'd also like to be able to use assignable efx on mono tracks as well, which can't be done currently (unless you do the weird and basically unmanagable double-up workaround). I'd love to see this situation remedied. ;-)

drbam
tmrpro wrote on 6/4/2003, 2:47 PM
Dave Wrote:

******outside of thee punch-in issue, you cannot monitor correctly because...

why? Is it a routing issue between Vegas/your mixer/your outboard dsp?******

Dave,

I'm completely dissapointed that you have missed the information that I have specifically defined here and I'm not quite sure I understand what it is that you don't understand.

I do not have a routing issue between anything. The fundamental design of monitoring as a multitrack (the ability to Auto Input) is not in Vegas. It can not be done. Auto Input needs to be implemented in order to monitor correctly when overdubbing.

I will try to clarify here and perhaps will be able to get you on the phone before day's end.

I use many different formats for multitracking audio, all are multitrack recorders. Sometimes I use Tape Machines, Sometimes I use Hard Disk Recorders. I use a Hard Disk Multitrack Recorder (MX2424) at my studio; TMR Productions.

Whether using tape or hard disk, ALL multitrack recorders use the same fundamental principals concerning monitoring for overdubbing; it is called "Auto Input".

I have clearly defined and described what Auto Input is, why it is necessary for overdubbing and how it needs to work in Vegas for audio multitracking. Let me reiterate:

With Multitrack Recorders, we do what we call "monitor tape" or "monitor track". You are not actually monitoring the recorded track when the machine is in record, you are monitoring the INPUT OF THE MULTITRACK when the machine is in record. When the track is punched out, it is then monitored.

This is crucially important from a monitoring standpoint when using a multitrack recorder because the performer who is being recorded must hear themselves in their headphones (without any latency at all) in an acoustically isolated environment. They must also hear the track they are recording to, in playback, without any monitoring diferential whatsoever from the channel input, so when the track is punched in, there is absolutely no change in the way they are hearing their performance (recorded or live). Remember, the concept of multitrack is to record many different tracks at once or at different times. Recording different tracks on the same song at different times is also referred to as overdubbing.

The concept of AUTO INPUT monitoring can be achieved with V4's digital application-based technology:

Put together a new and "required" protocol for sound card driver developers to meet that includes input monitor switching on the sound card that corresponds with the auto input function in your application.

Let's not spend time worrying about realtime effects and forget about the fundamentals of multitrack recording. It's physically impossible to have real time application monitoring. So, do it the way it has always been done by the pros...

The application NEEDS to have the ability to monitor its armed track while the tracks are rolling, then when punchin occurs, monitor the sound card's channel input. Yeah, you may have to use outboard effects and so forth, but it will remove the headache of input monitoring.

...Actually the bussing capabilities of V4 as it currently exsists would allow for using realtime effects if the monitored channel is bussed and the buss had the desired plugins in line, then the result could be consistant in monitoring from record to playback as an effects return works on a console.

Unfortunately, everyone that is trying to cut while monitoring EQ and Dynamic effects in real time would suffer ... But let me also add:

Engineers who need the type of functionality that a multitrack recorder has concerning monitoring and punchins are (in most cases) using very good outboard mic-preamps, compressors and EQs already and have developed their tracking sounds around that. Everyone I know that makes records would ONLY want to be using EQ & Dynamic plugin processing when they were mixing anyway.... NOT when they were doing a tracking session.

Professionals who are paying big dollars on union scale master tracking sessions, will never want to deal with multilateral monitoring setups that cause major confusion when working in a fast paced, high pressure scenario and for those reasons will never use V4 to record or overdub.
PipelineAudio wrote on 6/4/2003, 6:18 PM
"The concept of AUTO INPUT monitoring can be achieved with V4's digital application-based technology:

Put together a new and "required" protocol for sound card driver developers to meet that includes input monitor switching on the sound card that corresponds with the auto input function in your application."

Its not even THAT complicated. Companies like soundscape and RME already support ASIO DM and other systems that can switch input straight to output. RME also has a scheme called " Zero Latency Monitoring" claiming to do the same thing.


"Let's not spend time worrying about realtime effects and forget about the fundamentals of multitrack recording. It's physically impossible to have real time application monitoring. "

Parallel fx shouldnt really be a probem, reverbs and such, they should be able to tap the normal software monitoring stream, and yeah maybe their sends would be a little latent, but who cares if their reverb has a 20ms predelay? flangers and all that stuff, no problem...insert fx like compressors will be a problem, but at least we could pull the parallel ones

If they also gave their regular new for vegas 4 software input monitoring an auto input function Im sure a lot of people would find it useful and still be able to go thru fx if they must ( like amplitube and such )
tmrpro wrote on 6/4/2003, 6:33 PM
Dave,

If you ever want to come to Nashville and sit in on a Major Label tracking session, I'd be glad to oblige you in any way if it would help you & the development staff understand why Auto Input is so important. I'll put you up if I have to (SF should take care of your expenses) but I will do whatever's necessary to help make perfectly clear why Auto Input is needed.

In fact, it may help you to see how sessions are normally monitored with the use of Auto Input and how it makes a major difference concerning ease of use and quality of final result.

It would help promote SF's interest in the professional recording community, as well.

Or I could fly up there (on my nickel) and demonstrate to you and the development staff (say with my MX2424) how Auto Input works and why it is crucially important.

I left you a message on your voice mail, you've got my number .... I'll wait to hear back from you.
JohanAlthoff wrote on 6/5/2003, 8:10 AM
Now THIS is where it starts getting interesting! I keep my fingers crossed that SoFo will pick up the ball on this issue. As I stated earlier I'm not in dire need of this particular feature, but I can surely understand those who are and it'll be very interesting to see if the "we listen to our customers" motto is really that or just a sales cliché.
tmrpro wrote on 6/5/2003, 9:59 AM
Since your interested Johan, I'll let you know what happens.

;)
SonyEPM wrote on 6/5/2003, 10:20 AM
Tmr, if you want to call me go for it, I'm here. My call isn't going through your caller id checker.

tmrpro wrote on 6/5/2003, 11:50 AM
No clichés Johan.

I am totally satisfied that Sonic Foundry's Development Staff is looking into the possibility of implementing Auto Input and what it would take to do it.

I'm very happy they are looking into it!

:))))
tmrpro wrote on 6/6/2003, 8:14 AM
Put the monitor source access for the Auto Input function prior to the DSP of the armed track. You probably could implement a switch as a sub-variable of “Input Monitor” called “Pre-DSP”. When selected, it will give users a latent free monitoring scheme which accesses the sound card’s input for monitoring on punchin. For users who must use the program’s DSP in monitoring mode, deselecting “Pre-DSP” will provide the current monitoring method.
pwppch wrote on 6/6/2003, 8:41 AM
This is exactly the monitoring mode that many ASIO drivers support using Direct Monitoring. This provides zero (or nearly zero) latency monitoing of input, but with control in the DAW UI.

We are discussing this approach and have always been aware of the things you have presented. We know what is going on. Just because we don't implement something doesn't mean we don't know about it. We focus on specific issues with each release. In ideal world we would just provide everything everybody wanted on version 1.0 and then just sell the product.

We are exploring the multitracking and studio integration features of Vegas for the next release. I assure you that we are very aware of what is needed to make Vegas more accesible to different groups of users and how they want to work.

Peter






Rednroll wrote on 6/6/2003, 9:21 AM
"In ideal world we would just provide everything everybody wanted on version 1.0 and then just sell the product."

LOL!! So what's the problem? :-)

tmrpro wrote on 6/6/2003, 10:57 AM
Thank you Peter!

And as I have already discussed with Dave, if there is anything I can do to help in any way, feel free to contact me directly at:

tmrPRO Contact
tmrpro wrote on 12/27/2003, 3:47 PM
Here's how little this disscussion was SHTUNOT...

I'm not trying to be a moaning person here.... But, this is a subject that I have zero understanding of why it is not yet implemented and not a lot of tolerance when trying to explain why it is 100% necessary to monitor tape (or track) during a tracking session and have auto input functionality.
SHTUNOT wrote on 12/27/2003, 11:32 PM
---zero understanding of why it is not yet implemented---

Maybe because the cycle of upgrades hasn't come around yet ya think? Do you think I like mixing and when I try to mute a track I still hear those that are set to "pre volume"??? The squeaky wheel gets the grease and I hope I made enough noise to have this taken care of. [among some of my other issues with vegas]

Remember that prior to the sony buyout the budget was bad so getting what we wanted was hit or miss dependent upon the amount of video features being added to V4.[the "dim output switch" anyone] Now that there is a real budget sony has put a thread out to see what its users want and you call it a waste???[personally I think those who keep asking sony for a vst-dx wrapper are a bun@$^@%$#$#$!!!! ;)]

You just have to wait...whats the problem? I read on your site that you use Nuendo[I feel for you]. I've been using Sonar 3 to get around where I need it to. Would we both rather be doing ALL our work in vegas???? Need I have to answer that? I'm sure peter and the rest don't want to lose our business.
But beating your chest won't get you there.

It just takes time.

Ed.
tmrpro wrote on 12/28/2003, 1:07 PM
I'm beating my chest because this discussion's been going on since May & the year's almost come to an end.

Nuendo's in my arsenal, but as far as I'm concerned, it is nothing but a glorified Cuebase for a hell of a lot more money. Everytime they fix something, they break something else.

Ne way.... I look forward to continuing discussions with you here and I wish you the best in 04!

Todd :)