glyptic wrote on 10/23/2002, 1:57 PM
It should let you select your available Audio drivers from a list in preferences.
Ted_H wrote on 10/23/2002, 2:19 PM
MME (Wave). Most WDM devices have a "Wave Emulation" option.

edna6284 wrote on 10/24/2002, 8:12 AM
Thanks! DE
jues wrote on 10/24/2002, 5:33 PM
Truly state of the art technology then...
edna6284 wrote on 10/25/2002, 8:19 AM
I dunno. I really have no problems with it.

What would ASIO give me? An extra tracks' worth of CPU for every fifty?

I'm happy with what I've got. Cheers, DE
PipelineAudio wrote on 10/25/2002, 11:07 AM
"What would ASIO give me? "

Input monitoring like a working professional needs
edna6284 wrote on 10/25/2002, 11:53 AM
I monitor my input off the board, before going in. How more professional can you get than that?

PipelineAudio wrote on 10/25/2002, 12:10 PM
professional tape recorders have autoinput. You can use a Y cord if you want, but its not the sort of thing my customers want.

How exactly are you monitoring off of the input?
When you do punchins what happens?
If you are hearing input all the time doesn't that screw them up as they are " running up " to the punch ?

We've been thru this a million times, it looks like finally SF is gonna do the right thing, please dont give them an excuse to screw it up, PLEASE! I've been waiting a long time.
edna6284 wrote on 10/25/2002, 12:47 PM

There's nothing I could do to sway SF.

But please explain how input monitoring through the system under ASIO would make punching in any different. I'd like to know...cheers DE
PipelineAudio wrote on 10/25/2002, 2:50 PM
with asio we could have it tape recorder style.

With the track armed:
During Stop-monitors input
During playback-monitors tape
During Record-monitors input
During a punch-monitors tape until the point of punch in then switches to input, at the point of punch out switches to monitor tape

having had to use the functional equivalent of a y cord while using vegas all this time, I can see the validity of both systems. For guitar solos, sometimes its easier for them to hear what theyre playing while still hearing the old track, but for vocals, it seems to freak my more traditional customers out.

With asio, your tracks can EASILY come back to the same channels they were coming from, even when punching in which is something you cant do at this point. I think thats the biggest plus for me, I wont need to set up two separate mixes, one for the stereo out of vegas and one on the console. Also, because vegas doesnt allow you to change volume while a track is armed, having this more direct I/O will allow for less angry crossed arms and concerned looks in the studio
edna6284 wrote on 10/25/2002, 3:25 PM
Thanks for the info. I can see how that would be nice, although I tend to simply split events where punches are needed, removing the audio to be replaced. If ASIO indeed allows what you say, I'd be all for it. Cheers, DE
Rednroll wrote on 10/25/2002, 3:29 PM
Don't know why you can't understand this and how to accomplish it without ASIO or a "Y-chord". I accomplish it on a daily basis and never used a Y chord.

Here's the step by step for ya.

1. Edit out the section where you need to do the punch at (technical term.."making a donut").
2. Arm a seperate empty Track for recording.
3. Hit RECORD from wherever you want to start a pre-roll from

Now you will be playing back and where you want to do the punch at there will be NO audio present, because you've effectively made a punch IN and Punch out point by editing it prior. You will be monitoring what is being played back and also Monitoring the input that is going to the track you are recording too.
Keep recording on the same empty track until the artist gets it the way you want, then drop that take from the record track into the edited track and move on. It's pretty easy and works great. I will never go back to actually having to do a punch IN or Punch OUT again. It's a safer way to work and achieves the same result with NO latency issues therefore making it even better than ASIO. And you can just sit back and record without having to worry about the punch IN and OUT points. You're working too hard with your method of work. Try it!!!
PipelineAudio wrote on 10/25/2002, 3:45 PM
thats a great workaround rednroll! And it allows you to keep the same track/channel relationship as a tape recorder would. But still I would also like to be able to do it the traditional way, theres less steps involved.

The way I've been doing it is, the converters and card I use will send input to output if a track is armed or recording, but NOT if it has to play before the recording. So I send the stuff to vegas, and the output of the converters comes back to a channel on the console. When playing back, I have to make a separate mix to the stereo out of vegas, because if I just bussed tracks back to their channels I wouldnt be able to record. But your way I would. But its still extra unneccessary steps, you HAVE to concede that.
Rednroll wrote on 10/25/2002, 4:05 PM
I disagree that it's extra unnecessary steps. Just two "S" strokes and a "Delete" and then when you got your take, it's just a drop IN by hitting the down arrow. I use to think this also, before I had tried it, because like you I had worked on 2", DA-88, and ADAT style of recording and monitoring. I broke the old habits and learned this method on an AMS Neve audiophile and had worked with many other engineers nationally via 3D-2 or ISDN recording and they where always amazed how quick our engineers could edit on the spot and record. It actually becomes quicker if you have to do more than one take, because you just hit "STOP" and it automatically goes back to your Pre-roll point and hit record and your PUNCH IN is always the same. Even you agree that Vegas is the most easiest and quickest why not use that to your benefit? I actually hate having to record on my DA-88 now that I use this method. Have you ever missed a punch IN, or punched out too late? YES!!! we all have especially if it's the first time recording a song and we're not familiar with it. I actually have spent more time remembering PUNCH-IN times by looking at where on the DA-88 time display was located for the punch. You need to break the old habits and get on with it, and eventually you'll be thanking me, when the artist has to do a retake 30 times on the same line and you don't even have to pay attention. Just hit record and lay back and pay more attention to the performance than you're punch-IN and Punch-Out places. That's the real benefit, you can pay more of the producer spot, because you don't have to pay attention to the Punch IN and OUT points and you can focus in on the way they're singing. Do yourself and your clients a favor. How many times have the clients said, "how was did that sound?" and you have to say...."Well I have to go back and listen to it, because I was paying more attention to doing the punching IN?" So who's saving time now?
PipelineAudio wrote on 10/25/2002, 4:35 PM
I dont mean to actually PHYSICLLY punch in and hit play and record and all that. I think the doughnut thing would work with either monitoring scheme. I mean to fully keep using the system that vegas has for punches, even when given asio direct monitoring. Because of the way vegas works, it records once record is hit, even if the event isnt stretched that far to the left or the right so we dont run any risk of recording over anything anyway. If they keep it this way AND add autoinput I think well have the best of all worlds!

Still one BIG problem I have with doing it my way and your way, is that in order to send that track back out to the same mixer channel, we gotta add busses, and when we do that, it means that we gotta pan a track hard right or hard left and drop it -6. This wreaks havok on any native FX you got going. I hope they take care of this.
Nat wrote on 10/25/2002, 4:36 PM
I'm a recording newbie.

Could someone explain me why do you need to mark punch in and punch out points ?
When I want to record a little part of vocal I just arm the track, make a loop region and hit record ??
RikTheRik wrote on 10/25/2002, 5:04 PM
Sonar does all this without Asio.
Most sound cards provide all these possibilities through good WDM drivers but it seems Sonic Foundry doesn't use them.
Just a good implementation of WDM would do the trick.
pwppch wrote on 10/25/2002, 9:24 PM

SONAR uses WDM Kernel Streaming, which is not a driver model, but a mostly undocumented back door that MS gave to Sonic Foundry and Cakewalk to use while MS "worked on a real solution". The whole purpose of WDM KS is to bypass the Kmixer.

Both ASIO and WDM KS solve the low latency problem.

WDM KS does not solve many other problems that ASIO can.

There are no "features" of the underlying hardware that are exposed through WDM KS. (i.e. sample accurate transfer from a ADAT is not supported with WDM KS.)

There is nothing wrong with WDM KS, but it does have limitations.


kilroy wrote on 10/25/2002, 10:14 PM
"Still one BIG problem I have with doing it my way and your way, is that in order to send that track back out to the same mixer channel, we gotta add busses, and when we do that, it means that we gotta pan a track hard right or hard left and drop it -6. This wreaks havok on any native FX you got going. I hope they take care of this."

Why not do a track dupe and use the dupe for your DX stuff while you buss the original off to your desk, as per usual? Basically your doing a mult. Cludgy, but it works.

PipelineAudio wrote on 10/25/2002, 11:29 PM
you can, at the cost of wasted resources, but youre right it works. a very sad workaround though. Why not fix it?

With all the funny workarounds weve had to create/use/loath/enjoy we're gonne be really bored when vegas actually works right :) What are we gonna talk about on the forum then ?
Rednroll wrote on 10/26/2002, 11:40 AM
"Still one BIG problem I have with doing it my way and your way, is that in order to send that track back out to the same mixer channel, we gotta add busses, and when we do that, it means that we gotta pan a track hard right or hard left and drop it -6. This wreaks havok on any native FX you got going. I hope they take care of this."

Now you're talking about something totally different than recording and monitoring. How did you stray into this subject going from monitoring and ASIO?

I also, wanted to mention something to you about your request for "auto input". My way of monitoring I find better than "auto input". Whenever I had to work with an "auto input" there was always one problem. You could not hear the talent until you hit record. Most of the time, everyone likes the lights turned down low in the recording booth. Let's say you're punching in at a line near the end of a verse, but the talent wants to hear the verse from the beginning to get the prior feel. This has happened a few 100 times to me, when I hit play during this lead in time, and I can't see them because the lights are low and they're screaming at me to hold up because they bumped into the mic stand. I then hit record at the punch point and I can finally hear them, but it's usually them yelling..."I was trying to tell you to hold up and take it back to the top, but you couldn't hear me". So again wasted time. With my way of recording I no longer have that problem of the auto input, because you can always hear the person on the microphone and they can even sing along with they're previously recorded lines to get warmed up going into punch in point. With all those benefits, why anyone would want an "auto input" feature is amazing to me, other than that's what they're use to.
PipelineAudio wrote on 10/26/2002, 2:06 PM
I just brought up the busses, since the audio has to go SOMEWHERE, and it is a logical progression for me to worry how something will get in and how something will go out.

I think we were just talking about the " run up " thing a few posts before. I see benefits to both ways, so I hope they can include both. Its a curse and a blessing. It REALLY REALLY freaks some of the more traditional singers out to hear both at once. I dont quite no why but I know that it does. Also during guitar overdubs, the volume doubles while they are playing on top of themselves, and all of a sudden they cant hear the drums, or if you turn it down to make up for it, then all of a sudden during the ounch the volume is a lot lower. Then again during punches for lead guitar, they seem to LOVE that they can hear themselves ahead of the punch, and have a WAY easier time of coming up with things as well, since they dont THINK theyre being recorded, so they just go off and pull off new things

Look, I DO understand that you like it the other way, and sometimes I do to, but I really really think that there should be an option for auto-input as well. I dont think that just because it works great in some instances, we should throw out a technique that has worked for eons. There is room for both.
pwppch wrote on 10/26/2002, 10:23 PM
One of the aspects you are over looking in Vegas:

Set up a sub bus as your "head phone mix". If you have a multiport card, this is the best way to do this. Then rout those tracks to this "aux" bus and use this as your headphone mix. You can route what ever you want to this. If your sound card permits routing, then you can have your record monitoring go to the same port you are using for the headphone mix.

PipelineAudio wrote on 10/26/2002, 11:10 PM
"Set up a sub bus as your "head phone mix". "

thats pretty much how Im doing recording now. A mix of the already recorded tracks goes to the spdif out, then to the control room and the headphones. But then pushing a fader on the mixing console affects the monitoring volume of the input but not the mix, so now the levels are all whacked and you gotta keep messing, and you cant change volume on the vegas console while tracks are armed, so you gota stop playback to change it as well. It would be much easier if they could just come back on the console with the same track/channel relationship as before, in many cases. Also you have to set up two separate fx mixes in this case, one analog, and one on vegas. Theyre all minor things, but taken together add up