KVR Audio

republik · Post by **republik** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:51 pm

Hey everyone,

I wanted to find out if Sonar 6 has input channels (representing my hardware audio inputs), that I can drop insert effects into, not just track channels.

The best example of this is Cubase SX 3. I like how you can set up input channels in the mixer, that I can apply effects to the incoming signal and then send it to whichever track(s).

I like how I can load Reaktor into the input channel in Cubase and just record the signal into tracks and then do some destructive arranging. Also I can do real time paramater adjusting while I am recording the stream. I like working this way, rather than just putting effects in clip track and then drawing automation. Sometimes I don't know what I want until I discover my wild side with spontanious input channel antics.

Thanks

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:56 pm

republik wrote:Hey everyone,

I wanted to find out if Sonar 6 has input channels (representing my hardware audio inputs), that I can drop insert effects into, not just track channels.

I dont quite know what you mean by 'track channels' that would help me understand what you mean by 'input channels'.

In Sonar, you set up a track, and then if you want to record from the outside world to that track, you set the input source for that track to ports on your hardware.
The track you record to can have plugin effects on it, as inserts.

Is that what you mean?

kp · Post by kp » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:07 pm

I think he means destructively applying FX on record. No point as far as I can see (what with freeze etc).

republik · Post by **republik** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:08 pm

Sorry I know I am doing a bad job of explaining. I try again.

If we soley think of the Cubase. It lets you set up channels that represent your hardware inputs, and you can insert effects into those. Those input tracks are not the same as Audio or Midi tracks (track channels, I guess thats what i've called them) that you do all your arranging with.

I've noticed that Sonar works the way you describe, but all the inserts are just applied on top of the recording (which is great in a non destructive sense). I want channels that come a step BEFORE. So that I can apply effects to an incoming signal that is then routing its output to a track (which I can then also add more effects non-destructively if i wanted).

Almost as if I had my guitar plugged into a hardware compressor, and the compressor plugged into my audio interface. The signal that would be processed as it was recorded into the Sonar.

Cubase lets me do this, but damn, I'd love for Sonar too as well.

I guess I can always bounce.....but it's not the saaaaaaaaaame

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:14 pm

If thats what you mean, then no I dont think Sonar has these 'insert tracks'. Sonar tries to do as much as possible in a non-destructive manner.

And why isnt bouncing the same, out of interest? You'll hear the processing 'live' as you play.

republik · Post by **republik** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:19 pm

hehe, I guess bounce feels different because I have to set up my spontainious take in a planned out way, and then bounce.

I just don't want to record automation first and then make sure that the audio part sounds exactly how it should, to then bounce it to a flattened copy

What I want is the reason why Audiomulch is an amazing program. Your output is recording to a wav file, as your audio is running through and effects chain you have designed, and you tweak it all as it is getting recorded in real time. Then I take it into a sequencer and arrange/rearrange all the spontaintious material.

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:21 pm

I dont see how it would be any different to not apply in a non destructive manner, other than its just different from yer normal workflow. Do you have a scenario that you feel this is critical?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:26 pm

republik wrote:hehe, I guess bounce feels different because I have to set up my spontainious take in a planned out way, and then bounce.

The only difference, surely, is the bounce at the end.

I just don't want to record automation first and then make sure that the audio part sounds exactly how it should, to then bounce it to a flattened copy

Why would you have to record automation first? If you want to record automation as you play, record it as you play....

What I want is the reason why Audiomulch is an amazing program. Your output is recording to a wav file, as your audio is running through and effects chain you have designed, and you tweak it all as it is getting recorded in real time.

Then I take it into a sequencer and arrange/rearrange all the spontaintious material.

You could still be doing this in Sonar. Except it isnt recording to a wave file, its just recording your audio, and the effects settings tweaks.

If you want to do something more like this, though, stick TapeIt or PreRoll Recorder on the end of the effects chain.

republik · Post by **republik** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:42 pm

You guys are right. I think it might just be quark in my personality

republik · Post by **republik** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:45 pm

It's definitely just a form of workflow that I got used to. Where I set up everything in the input channel, have it routed to a fresh audio track, and just hit record. Then I watch the audio stream out into the audio track as a Reaktor FX VST spits out some sequenced beats and i turn knobs, make adjustments. It's all recorded as this happens.

Then I press stop and dice up the clip that was recorded into an audio track.

kp · Post by kp » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:57 pm

I know it's unfair, but I love the idea of a quark in one's personality (strange or charm?).

fandango · Post by **fandango** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:02 pm

I read somewhere else (perhaps the eXT forum) that there's a version of JACK being developed for windows now.

I dunno, but it might be possible to record into something like energyXT, chain up your effects there and have it routed as the audio channel input for Sonar. eXT would kinda sit there as your input channel, affecting your input source in practically any way you like.

[EDIT - http://www.grame.fr/~letz/jackdmp.html - very W.I.P. though...]

republik · Post by **republik** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:03 pm

fandango wrote:I read somewhere else (perhaps the eXT forum) that there's a version of JACK being developed for windows now.

I dunno, but it might be possible to record into something like energyXT, chain up your effects there and have it routed as the audio channel input for Sonar. eXT would kinda sit there as your input channel, affecting your input source in practically any way you like.

[EDIT - http://www.grame.fr/~letz/jackdmp.html - very W.I.P. though...]

That is a really good idea. I already had EXT set up in Sonar 6 for some midi use, and to record audio into it. But I will try and see if I can select the output of a VSTi as an input for an audio track.

Shit.....you can't. I tried doing it and it turns the audio track into some kind of "waveform preview" track. More or less and audio track but with the record button stripped from it.

What the hell is wrong with people????? why not just give us the option to record audio this way if we like????

Even cubase will not let you resample or route VSTi audio out to track inputs. Unless you do it physically with your hardware.

Only ableton live seems to do have this many routing oppurtunities. It's brilliant. Too bad I can't stand the arranger.

Input Channels in Sonar 6