i have a feature request for the render menu of the clips:
it woud be great to have the option to directly render two selected clips from two tracks into a stereofile with left right pan, which is then inserted onto one of the tracks, to replace the monoclips.
it is a basic operation, that is often needed in my projects.
right now i would have to pan the tracks and then do "render the selected clips and replace them", from the rendermenu i would have to set "pass through plugins" (for the pan to be rendered correctly), and then do the render. that is possible, but a bit too complicated
i am thinking of a direct way, without that.
or is it already there and i just overlooked it?
EDIT: or even better call it: "merge two clips into stereofile and replace"
FR: Render two mono-clips into a stereofile and replace mono-clips
-
- KVRist
- 473 posts since 1 Feb, 2006
-
lay it prodctions lay it prodctions https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=210819
- KVRian
- 544 posts since 6 Jul, 2009 from Washington D.C
You can output both Panned tracks to another track and now render the track that they ouput to
-
- KVRist
- 320 posts since 9 Sep, 2017
My solution so far is very simple.
I mount both WAV clips in the same place in one track. Clip properties get panned as needed.
Then, I can treat this track like any other stereo track, put all kinds of plugins there etc.
I'm not editing the performance at this point. Comping, cleaning, all done.
Otherwise I would throw the two audios into a most basic audio editor, and do the transform there. It should be totally lossless.
I mount both WAV clips in the same place in one track. Clip properties get panned as needed.
Then, I can treat this track like any other stereo track, put all kinds of plugins there etc.
I'm not editing the performance at this point. Comping, cleaning, all done.
Otherwise I would throw the two audios into a most basic audio editor, and do the transform there. It should be totally lossless.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 473 posts since 1 Feb, 2006
thanks for the workaround ideas, guys. i am not short of them too ...
but i was not asking for a workaround
but i was not asking for a workaround
-
- KVRist
- 320 posts since 9 Sep, 2017
rendering wouldn't be lossless, as it uses the audio engine. rounding errors, dithering etc will occur.
thus I recommended methods that don't do extra computation on the material.
(it might be neglectible though.)
perhaps a macro can be written to do the job.
it comes down to find out the minimum amount of clicks to declare to the software what has to happen.
ctrl-click on two clips and then press a macro button or key. first clicked is the one to replace.
thus I recommended methods that don't do extra computation on the material.
(it might be neglectible though.)
perhaps a macro can be written to do the job.
it comes down to find out the minimum amount of clicks to declare to the software what has to happen.
ctrl-click on two clips and then press a macro button or key. first clicked is the one to replace.
-
- KVRAF
- 5082 posts since 27 Jul, 2004
Sorry,... but you are kidding, right???HansP wrote:rendering wouldn't be lossless, as it uses the audio engine. rounding errors, dithering etc will occur.
thus I recommended methods that don't do extra computation on the material.
(it might be neglectible though.)
-
- KVRist
- 320 posts since 9 Sep, 2017
haha, in a way, but plz note you can achieve bitwise identity with merging the two mono tracks in the audio editor, but not probably with rendering in the DAW (unless it has got optimization for this task).
the error signal may be insignificant unless you do this for thousands of times to and fro.
I wanted to stress, that when it is that easy, I will prefer the method that does not do extra computations on the audio.
digital math, particularly in floating point systems, is not what most people think. multiply by one, add zero, depending on the input value, may still come out as not identical. the engineer has to think about what the FPU or number cruncher is actually doing. engineering has various ways to successfully deal with this and deliver useful results.
the everyday user need not worry.
the error signal may be insignificant unless you do this for thousands of times to and fro.
I wanted to stress, that when it is that easy, I will prefer the method that does not do extra computations on the audio.
digital math, particularly in floating point systems, is not what most people think. multiply by one, add zero, depending on the input value, may still come out as not identical. the engineer has to think about what the FPU or number cruncher is actually doing. engineering has various ways to successfully deal with this and deliver useful results.
the everyday user need not worry.
-
- KVRAF
- 5082 posts since 27 Jul, 2004
I don´t know (because never tried), but I wouldn´t worry too much about this topic...
If I would have to make a guess (given that no further processing happens, no volume change, no dither (if the same bitdepth is rendered is useless anyway) no other process, just pure merging...) I would say you can rerender an audio file up to thousand times before you could hear a difference (if ever)...
What you describe happens far below -100db and will be impossible to hear...
If I would have to make a guess (given that no further processing happens, no volume change, no dither (if the same bitdepth is rendered is useless anyway) no other process, just pure merging...) I would say you can rerender an audio file up to thousand times before you could hear a difference (if ever)...
What you describe happens far below -100db and will be impossible to hear...