Considering Waveform as my first DAW

[dynamo]

I also found thic free sidechain gate for Mac. Since I'm PC only, I don't know it
https://www.bobperry-audio.com/shop/bob ... 8568b84963

Cool! Thanks

A little update (in regards to the gated reverb effect discussed earlier in this thread).
I haven't yet gotten round to creating it despite the excellent instructions posted earlier in this thread, but started to familiarize myself with aux sends/returns while doing a little multi-track recording of a MIDI drum machine's individual outputs using multiple passes and MIDI sync.
Quite a lot of details to figure out but I got there and now have multiple effects to choose and mix between for every track. Now that I've got that working I need to try and add a gated reverb.

Screen Shot 2020-06-12 at 22.04.30.png

[dynamo]

Or you can
1. create a send on drum track and return on a new track
2. put any reverb of your choice on the FX track (make sure no dry signal comes through, only the wet processed reverb)
3. next add a gate with a sidechain input (dead duck has one, free and dead simple)
4. turn on the sidechain (located on the plugins top panel right after the red close cross) and choose the original track with the drum
5. turn on "external" on the gate plugin, so the gate reacts to the drum, not to the reverb
6. adjust the treshold of the gate to your liking (the gate should let the reverb come for some time, then close)
7. adjust the rest (attack, hold and release). These three parameters shape the reverb tail (how long it sounds, how early it closes and how fast it fades out
It may seem complicated, but it's really very simple.

I've got it more or less working, with the free Bob Perry sidechain-gate plugin as suggested earlier (the website appears to have problems at the moment, not allowing for downloads).

I've tried to make a multitrack drum setup so I can individually mix and match effects for each drum sound. Testing with the snare I do hear that something gets gated, but if I turn down the snare fader I notice that there's still a little reverb coming through, and it's not gated. If I turn up the snare fader I believe there's a mix of a gated reverb along with a non-gated reverb. Strange.
Shouldn't the "aux send" of each drum track be pre-fader (so the chosen "aux return" track will get an input from the send regardless of the drum track's fader position?

Screen Shot 2020-06-16 at 10.43.48.png

I'm probably doing a silly newbie mistake here and probably partly because I don't understand how the gate works. What does "range" do?
And the side-chain: that's what triggers the gate in the first place, right?
So unlike the other effects (reverb, delay, flanger etc.) where I can use a single plugin for any number of tracks (simply by raising the track's "aux send" level) -is the gated reverb different in the sense that I need to set up an individual reverb/gate combination for every single track?

[fde101]

The range controls how much attenuation (volume reduction) of the signal there is. You have the range set to something other than 100% reduction, so when the gate closes it is making the reverb quieter, but not cutting it off completely.

The "fader" in Waveform is a plugin like any other, and the sound is processed through plugins in the order in which they appear in the channel strip to the right of each track - left to right - so if the send is to the left of the pan/volume plugin (as they are in your screenshot) they are pre-fader. Move them to the right of that plugin and they become post-fader. If you have other effects in the same channel strip you can similarly place the sends to the left of those effects to tap the sound before the effects are applied, or place them to the right of those effects to tap the sound with the effects having been applied to it.

[UnionS8]

WOW! Sends mayhem! People say... in various tutorials, that every send, every bus takes some (very little) CPU time. Maybe you could delete the sends, which don't send anything to anywhere to spare some cycles for later I don't have any proof this statement to be true though. Maybe someone else does?

[fde101]

I agree with removing those which are not needed (the ones that are not being used for that channel), not so much because of the tiny amount of CPU they consume, but more because of how much clutter they add to the interface.

On a small number of tracks a handful of sends like that isn't going to amount to anything noteworthy, but as the track count grows, I would expect they would eventually start to add up a bit more. 7 sends per track times 20 tracks is 140 plugins after all... not counting the returns... and there are plenty of projects out there with a lot more than 20 tracks

[dynamo]

WOW! Sends mayhem! People say... in various tutorials, that every send, every bus takes some (very little) CPU time. Maybe you could delete the sends, which don't send anything to anywhere to spare some cycles for later I don't have any proof this statement to be true though. Maybe someone else does?

I was just thinking in terms of how I'd do it with an analog mixer (I'm not an expert there either so there might be better ways to do it), so that I'd have my options open.
What you're suggested (if I've understood you right) means that I'll have to decide on specific effects for each track and stick to it. I would like to have the ability to "ride the faders" during playback. I suppose that with a modern DAW (like Waveform) these movements can be recorded with automation.

I have a million of questions as always, but a quick one for now: when using a DAW, is it common to think in ways of an analog studio workflow, or would it be best to ditch all that and rethink everything?

I agree with removing those which are not needed (the ones that are not being used for that channel), not so much because of the tiny amount of CPU they consume, but more because of how much clutter they add to the interface.

That I can agree with.
That project is of course just a setup for testing things out as I'm new to all of this, but it's probably smart to get a good, tidy workflow going from the very start.

On a small number of tracks a handful of sends like that isn't going to amount to anything noteworthy, but as the track count grows, I would expect they would eventually start to add up a bit more. 7 sends per track times 20 tracks is 140 plugins after all... not counting the returns... and there are plenty of projects out there with a lot more than 20 tracks

I obviously haven't understood this quite right, thinking that (the above project) only contained 8 virtual effect processor rack units (i.e effect plugins).
So basically, using an aux send from multiple tracks to say a delay is the same (CPU/memory demanding) thing as adding a delay effect in the track itself for the same amount of tracks?

[dynamo]

The range controls how much attenuation (volume reduction) of the signal there is. You have the range set to something other than 100% reduction, so when the gate closes it is making the reverb quieter, but not cutting it off completely.

Ah! Got to familiarize myself with those controls (learning by doing).
But the actual setup otherwise (aux send, return, side-chain etc.) appears correct?

The "fader" in Waveform is a plugin like any other, and the sound is processed through plugins in the order in which they appear in the channel strip to the right of each track - left to right - so if the send is to the left of the pan/volume plugin (as they are in your screenshot) they are pre-fader. Move them to the right of that plugin and they become post-fader. If you have other effects in the same channel strip you can similarly place the sends to the left of those effects to tap the sound before the effects are applied, or place them to the right of those effects to tap the sound with the effects having been applied to it.

So with multiple aux sends they all "tap into" the same signal location? Just as with a physical mixer?

[UnionS8]

I was just thinking in terms of how I'd do it with an analog mixer (I'm not an expert there either so there might be better ways to do it), so that I'd have my options open.
What you're suggested (if I've understood you right) means that I'll have to decide on specific effects for each track and stick to it. I would like to have the ability to "ride the faders" during playback. I suppose that with a modern DAW (like Waveform) these movements can be recorded with automation.

I have a million of questions as always, but a quick one for now: when using a DAW, is it common to think in ways of an analog studio workflow, or would it be best to ditch all that and rethink everything?

Of course, the basic functionality is quite simmilar to analog gears. The advantage of working on a computer is, you often don't need to follow the workflow strictly. For example: you don't have to have every send on every track (as you would have the hardware knobs on the real console). You can freely decide if, when and where you need them and put them there only. Especially Waveform is way more flexible in the terms of signal routing and VST(i) chaining than a majority of DAWs. Waveform's workflow looks more like a puzzle or a construction kit than a real console with given number and order of knobs and faders.
You can mix synths, MIDI plugins, VST effects, sends and fader as you wish. You can even have multiple volume faders in the track's plugin chain.
For example: Synth -> Volume fader 1 (gain staging) -> Eq 1 (sound shaping) -> Sidechain compressor -> Volume fader 2 (volume automation) -> Eq 2 (masking frequencies) -> FX Send -> Volume fader 3 (final volume setting). I exagerated the chain a bit, just to illustrate the possibilities. Also remember the latest Volume fader in your chain is allways "hardwired" to the volume fader in the mixer view.

[fde101]

What you're suggested (if I've understood you right) means that I'll have to decide on specific effects for each track and stick to it.

Nope - not stuck. What we are suggesting is that you remove sends that are sending nothing. You can always add them back later if you want to - you are not stuck with what you put there initially.

I would like to have the ability to "ride the faders" during playback. I suppose that with a modern DAW (like Waveform) these movements can be recorded with automation.

Yes.

I have a million of questions as always, but a quick one for now: when using a DAW, is it common to think in ways of an analog studio workflow, or would it be best to ditch all that and rethink everything?

Different people will think about this in different ways. None of them are particularly wrong.

I obviously haven't understood this quite right, thinking that (the above project) only contained 8 virtual effect processor rack units (i.e effect plugins).

No, that is correct.

So basically, using an aux send from multiple tracks to say a delay is the same (CPU/memory demanding) thing as adding a delay effect in the track itself for the same amount of tracks?

No. The aux send needs to mix the audio tapped from the track (the input into the aux send) into the bus. This takes a tiny amount of CPU to mix each source channel and create the sound fed into the plugin. This is minuscule compared to the amount of CPU taken up by the plugin itself, but if you have a large number of these sends, it can still start to add up.

But the actual setup otherwise (aux send, return, side-chain etc.) appears correct?

Yes.

So with multiple aux sends they all "tap into" the same signal location? Just as with a physical mixer?

Technically, when you have multiple consecutive aux sends, each is tapping the output from the previous one (the plugin to its left). However, since the aux send sends out the same thing it gets in, the effect is the same as if they were all tapping the same source - they will all receive the same sound. This assumes they are all consecutive.

You can place some of your sends before the volume/pan plugin (fader) to get pre-fader sends and others after to get post-fader sends, all on the same track. You can place additional volume/pan plugins on a track to have multiple faders if you are so inclined, and place some of the sends in between them... plenty of flexibility there. Even more when you start digging into fx racks.

[dynamo]

I understand. I just tried it (removing an Aux send, then adding a new one and selecting its bus -very handy that you can name them!). Very simple indeed.
But I noticed you can also disable plugins -is this in terms of CPU/memory usage the same thing as removing them?

It's nice to hear about Waveform's flexibility, and I suppose this means different people can choose their own workflow. I just need to figure out mine

[Watchful]

A disabled plugin remains loaded in memory...it's just bypassed. Deleting it from the track removes it from RAM.

Don't get too hung up on finding a workflow...I recommend you treat every project as unique (initially) so you can remain flexible and adaptive. You're already there, in my opinion!

[UnionS8]

It remains in the RAM, but at the same time it frees CPU. So yes, it's a half way as you would unload the plugin.

[dynamo]

Good point on not getting hung up on a specific workflow, Watchful!
I suppose when the DAW is understood better then a workflow comes naturally.
I've noticed that Waveform is quite intuitive in many situations, so when you know a little about how to do something it more or less shows you the way as you go along. That helps.

Good to know about my options (disabling or deleting plugins). I can see both options being useful in different situations.

[UnionS8]

Also there is an option to set the processing of muted tracks off in the Action panel. It helps too. Unless you have a decent machine and you don't bother. On my old laptop I can spare a lot of precious CPU time by clever muting of silent tracks. And unmuting them only when they're going to play.

[GuitarPlayerinNYC]

Thanks for the replies. Much appreciated
Fortunately it appears there are varying experiences in this respect, and I gather the latest version (11) is more stable than previous versions, so it's something the developers are looking into and continually improving upon?

I'm a PC user, and jumped from T7, where I used Tracktion only for audio recording via various guitar interfaces, so you should have no problem with audio device. Then I tried WF10 (demo) last Dec and it was a huge jump for me. I bought it on sale after my 30 day demo period. Then I got a free upgrade to WF11 pro.

The devs seem to be in this forum quite a bit, but may have slowed down a bit due to the virus. I've needed their email support, and they were really quick to respond (same, or next day). I think there's been 2 updates so far with WF 11, so they seem to be listening to people posting on problems, and feature requests.

The difficult thing for me as a newbie to determine at this stage is if these are serious (dealbreaker) type problems, or "it generally works well but crashes now and then, as a lot of other software does". Naturally I'm not going to invest time and money into something which is more of a frustration than a useful tool...

I became a 3rd party plugin whore, and amassed hundreds of plugins, and WF10 very rarely crashed. When it did, it would recover easily, and no work was lost. Again, I'm on a pc; i7 cpu with 16gigs ram.

Oh, another thing.... I'm considering replacing one of my MIDI keyboard synths (an original Yamaha DX-7) with a more modern MIDI/USB keyboard controller which I understand can have its knobs assigned for more "hands on" control of a DAW (instead of using the mouse all the time, which I personally find frustrating and tiring). I have no personal experience with any of this current technology (I'm still stuck in in the 80's/90s way of doing things) but that's how I understand it works...
Do I need to get a keyboard controller which is supported specifically for the DAW in question, or is this only a question of it being pre-configured for those DAWs while for other DAWs the buttons/knobs have to be manually assigned by the user?

I'm pretty much a midi noob, and I deliberately bought a midi keyboard/controller that wasn't geared towards specific DAWs like Ableton, FL, etc, and settled on Arturia: https://www.arturia.com/products/hybrid ... 9/overview I got Analog Lab 4 for free with it, that includes 18 synths, 6 pianos, 3 organs, and there's 6500 presets. It took some work, but with the help of a forum member, I got my sliders and encoder knobs to integrate with WF's mixer well. The pads, and transport controls work fine, which makes for a mostly mouse free mixing situation. I can't speak for any other midi KB/controllers other than the Arturia I have. But I'm glad I did my research. The cost of the Analog software is more than the price of the keyboard, which you can get in the US on average for $200.

I doubt you can find a midi keyboard/controller specifically for Waveform, as I looked when I was researching them.

Like you, I've tried Ableton, FL, Studio One- well, I think you know the cost of them. Aside from that, from what I could gather, Ableton and FL is for the EDM/live performer crowd, and Tracktion was more for "composers" like Logic users. My take is, Waveform is a bit of a hybrid. I find the detachable modules a nice feature, especially if you have another monitor. There's plenty under the hood, that I'm slowly discovering. Considering the price, I personally can't see spending what other DAWs charge.

As a guitarist, when I newbie asks what kind of guitar to get, I always ask first, "what's your budget?" Work within your budget, and as long as you get what you want out of it, you're good. Of course, you can't know what you don't know, but I don't think cost is a great indicator of quality.

As a midi noob, I'm not that biased for, or against other daws- but the price points held me back, not because I couldn't afford them, but because in my research, I really couldn't see Waveform being unable to do just about what any other daw can do, just as every other daw out there can't do everything either. All's I can say is, I've become a Tracktion fanboi. The history described is accurate, from what I can gather. Now that it's out of Mackie's hands, I think the devs are making a real attempt at making innovative improvements.

I have a friend that's a professional producer, and he uses Logic. It's a little hard translating what he knows, but given time, I say, "oh, I can do that." But some of things he has to do seems to be more steps. That's my semi-informed take on WF. Guess I'm a fanboi.

FWIW, this is a review for WF9. This guy demos a lot of stuff, and he's used every DAW under the sun.