KVR Audio

Image-Line · Post by **Image-Line** » Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:49 am

ELECTRONIC FREAK wrote:1.It takes a lot more time to configure mic settings than to record.

Please show me something faster in your DAW of choice...

ELECTRONIC FREAK wrote: 3.loop recording and multiple takes then choose the best audio recording.

ELECTRONIC FREAK wrote:
4.display audio/midi events while recording.

I agree it would be nice, but other than eye-candy, it does it achieve anything functional?

ELECTRONIC FREAK wrote:5.in terms of latency i reviewed ASIO GUARD 2 drivers.so i wanted to know is it gonna be also implemented in fl studio or is it just only for Cubase trademark only.

Originally you were complaining about latency. Do you have an example where FL Studio is worse than another platform?

ASIO GUARD is not going to reduce latency, it's look-ahead processing (similar to Reapers 'Anticipative FX processing' it seems). All this necessarily introduces additional latency it does not reduce it. Usually it's some multiple of the set latency.

Regards Scott

camsr · Post by **camsr** » Thu Dec 25, 2014 9:01 am

FL has the same thing, with the buffer offset thing?

ELECTRONIC FREAK · Post by **ELECTRONIC FREAK** » Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:38 pm

1.i was talking about using different setups,Analogue Mixer,Live Digital Mixer and Interface.
4.its for a quick audio test.and you are able to see right from the start than to record a solo and you later findout that it wasnt recorded after you hit the stop button when u were recording just fine earlier! And that your able to see and edit events like Pitch Bending and Modulation as you record.
5.i was never complaining about Latency.one thing about Firewire based Drivers is that they are prone to latency.some have a ultra low latency and some dont and when you are recording multiple instruments and at the same time.thats where your processor & sound drivers e.g ASIO will be really tested in latency.
Oh and i forgot to mention that a Control Room Mixer Addition will be most welcomed

Image-Line · Post by **Image-Line** » Fri Dec 26, 2014 9:49 pm

ELECTRONIC FREAK wrote:Oh and i forgot to mention that a Control Room Mixer Addition will be most welcomed

What do you mean exactly?

Regards Scott

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Fri Dec 26, 2014 11:11 pm

Hey Scott,

Not to jump into the middle of the argument, but he may mean proper monitoring. Can't say I know FL's capability in that regard owning the Fruity version, no idea, but "Control Room" to me means "proper monitoring", like maybe not not using mutes to fake solos and having the things you might find on the control room section of a real mixer.

No idea how FL stacks up there but the majority fail pretty badly.

camsr · Post by **camsr** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 7:59 am

He means a master out track AFTER the master out track for things like ARC room correction.

valerian_777 · Post by **valerian_777** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:58 am

Image-Line wrote:
ELECTRONIC FREAK wrote:Oh and i forgot to mention that a Control Room Mixer Addition will be most welcomed
What do you mean exactly?

Regards Scott

Orbit-50 · Post by **Orbit-50** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:07 pm

valerian_777 wrote:
Image-Line wrote:
ELECTRONIC FREAK wrote:Oh and i forgot to mention that a Control Room Mixer Addition will be most welcomed
What do you mean exactly?

Regards Scott

Wow! That would be great. I mean, that would be way better than the control room in Cubase, that's for sure! And I thought that guy was just some troll. He's actually a very foward thinking guy. Thanks valarian_777 for clearing that up for us. I want this feature too!!!

.-.

ELECTRONIC FREAK · Post by **ELECTRONIC FREAK** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:52 pm

[url]http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/a ... 12.htm[url]

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 2:23 pm

The Cubase Control Room Mixer is nice. (functionally)

It's a little bizarre to me that the audio workstations not even really designed for that role, the conventional studio, got some of that right (Bitwig, Live), and so many others who seem to be positioned to be more of that conventional studio thing (Reaper, S1, etc, etc) didn't.

The Bitwig cue bus for example is a really nice design.

It's uber bizarre in Reaper which has more discreet audio channels (64 per track) than any daw ever created but has no dedicated monitor busses.

lfm · Post by **lfm** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 2:38 pm

LawrenceF wrote:It's uber bizarre in Reaper which has more discreet audio channels (64 per track) than any daw ever created but has no dedicated monitor busses.

Not sure what you mean - you can route as many hardware outs as you like from any track - and use as cue/monitor bus.

And to ability with track templates also open up to rig a basic setup for multipurpose use - and reuse at any time.

The idea to have dedicated tracks for this and that - is really for those coming from hardware consoles/mixers - and want to feel at home.

Reaper shown that you don't need dedicated instrument tracks either - you route audio(64 channels as you said) and midi(256 ports as I remember) - as you like - on each track. Through hardware outs or through sends any way you like.

Mixcraft also has these output tracks to use as you like for monitor cue - or for internal purposes of routing. But you reach external midi ports through instrument tracks only.

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:22 pm

And that's why they missed it because they also didn't understand it.

Do this: Create 4-6 headphone cues to performers in Reaper. Now in the control room monitors, solo a cue or solo anything. You can't do it without cutting off all the auxes and cues because solo uses mutes instead of a solo bus. Try to solo an effect return without the dry bit also being in the monitors. Can you even easily switch any aux output to the monitors? Probably not because it has no monitor busses.

Monitor and solo busses are (supposed to be) fully independent - isolated - busses allowing you to hear or monitor anything at any position and level in the mixer PFL or AFL without disturbing anything else going on, like the Bitwig cue bus. Which is what the Cubase Control Room allows with it's Listen Bus and what almost all of the other popular daws completely missed.

Image-Line · Post by **Image-Line** » Sun Dec 28, 2014 12:55 am

RE: Control Room Mixer Addition

I am still confused, is there a problem?

You can set up as many sub mixes as you like In FL Studio and route them out to as many hardware outputs as your gear has.

What exactly can't be done that you need to do?

Regards Scott

Image-Line · Post by **Image-Line** » Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:21 am

valerian_777 wrote:image replaced by video...

Ah, I see, you want LENS FLARES on the GUI, why didn't you just ask

Regards Scott

lfm · Post by **lfm** » Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:43 am

LawrenceF wrote:And that's why they missed it because they also didn't understand it.

Do this: Create 4-6 headphone cues to performers in Reaper. Now in the control room monitors, solo a cue or solo anything. You can't do it without cutting off all the auxes and cues because solo uses mutes instead of a solo bus. Try to solo an effect return without the dry bit also being in the monitors. Can you even easily switch any aux output to the monitors? Probably not because it has no monitor busses.

Monitor and solo busses are (supposed to be) fully independent - isolated - busses allowing you to hear or monitor anything at any position and level in the mixer PFL or AFL without disturbing anything else going on, like the Bitwig cue bus. Which is what the Cubase Control Room allows with it's Listen Bus and what almost all of the other popular daws completely missed.

But isn't that easily fixed with a track marked as solo exempt - then you can use that as aux return that is undisturbed - if I read your request right.

But for Reaper a FR is needed, I guess. I saw in Digital Performer as I recall.
Would be a Reaper style solution - not so much high level wizard style feature but low level and flexible to use many ways.

FL Studio 12 BETA available