the audio-discussion thread

[jens]

- are you sure - I never use a buffer with a sample size < 512 - but I never noticed this problem

I'm gonna make a quick test....

[jens]

eek - you're right - also I just found out that you can't record without monitoring (even if you mute the track)

[Jed]

eek - you're right - also I just found out that you can't record without monitoring (even if you mute the track)

Yes at present if you have the option of sound card zero latency monitoring available (and therefore don't want to monitor through eXT whilst recording), you have to set up the appropriate audio input level and then turn the track volume to zero so you can't hear it.

The only problem with this is that you then can't see the value of the audio as you are recording it (ie no visual level monitoring)

I hope Jens and Jorgen understand my ramblings!

Cheers
Jed

[NicFit]

eek - you're right - also I just found out that you can't record without monitoring (even if you mute the track)

You can "mute" the Audio channel in the mixer if you don't want to monitor....it will still record to the track...but still recording is not latency compensated. I didn't see it on the FR list either (unless you consider it included with PDC)

...I had a hell of a time lining up some live drums and guitar tracks at a friends house...I was running ASIO4ALL on my laptop and can't get decent performace under 1024samples latency(I run 64 samples at home on the desktops)...the problem became more noticable as we kept adding tracks till I figured out what was going on. After that simply hitting "x" to disable snap and nudging the audio in time got us going...I call this feature "MDC" (Manual Delay Compensation)


nF

[silicon/silicium]

seems all other host I tried don't have this problem isn't it?? seem freaky to have latency on recording

[NicFit]

seems all other host I tried don't have this problem isn't it?? seem freaky to have latency on recording

It's not so freaky if you consider that when recording and you are playing along with previously recorded tracks...which you are hearing (insert your latency hear)ms later than they are on the screen. It begins to add up if you aren't recording to the same "click" track on each pass.


nF

[silicon/silicium]

I m not sure other hosts deals with latency when recording straight from audio inputs. do you mean that other hosts starts playback a little beat early before recording, or just replace the recording accordig to latency? It's not so clear for me, but I'm not sure a latency exist between the time when audio go in, and time where the host record. can you explain how other host deals with that probs?? I remember my early time in audio recording with cakewalk pro audio 7, and I can't see me having such a problem (at this time, monitoring doesn't exist so it was hardware, but recorded materials were in sync, as far as I know)). do such a latency compensation already exist at this time??

[jens]

in e.g. Tracktion, Cubase and Sonar it is simply like this:

you can have a latency of (say) ten seconds but the audio-material is placed exactly in the timeframe in which you played it - regardless of your soundcard's latency...

[Jed]

The sound card must report the current latency to the host which then 'slips' the newly recorded audio by that amount into the correct position.

Please Jorgen........?

Cheers
Jed

[DarkStar]

Maybe I've missed the point, but what we are saying is that the recorded audio lags some way behind the start of the Audio Part.If so, then could there be:
a) an option (switchable?) to trim the start of the clip to remove the quiet time when the audio is recorded (this sounds like what Jens described for Tracktion, Cubase and Sonar)
b) a command to do this to any clip at any time
c) a choice to set the threshhold level at which the audio is considered to have started

And these FRs look to be related:

• move the beginning or end of the clip without moving the audio itself (Posting) (Posting)
• ability to resize/trim the start and end of a part (Posting) (Posting)
• to be able to resize the beginning of a sample (Posting) (Posting)
  - - double-clicking on it and using the start and end markers isn't very precise.
• a Snap Offset, setting the snap point after the start of the sample, for example when a drum hit has some pre-noise before the hit which is to be kept, but the hit needs to be on the beat (Posting)
• move the content of an audio part (Vegas-style.), not its position in the track, perhaps use Alt+drag. For example to align two kicks, so the second reinforces the first. (Posting)

btw, this illustrates a problem with the FRS very well. Everyone uses different terminology or different contexts and it would not be wise for me to do too much editing or assuming of meanings.

[silicon/silicium]

it's not really about trimming, or audio level, it's just some way of adjustiing recording material according to the latency. all hother host do that, and I don't think they take consideration like silent removal or trimming, or whatever. they just know where begin the recording, and audio recordred is placed here.

---edit---
in fact, I think they (all those bad hosts ) just start the visual and recording when input from soundcard really begins, but we should ask Jorgen to have more info about it.

[cbit]

You should be able to scroll the channels within the in-track-edit just like you are able to scroll the midi-in-track-edit (right click and drag) then when you double-click on any channel the editor enters a single-channel edit-mode another double-click enters again the multi-channel edit-mode (so that you can easily toggle between the waveforms of the different channels).

Sorry if ive misunderstood, but this sounds like a lot of clicking in order to be able to simultaneously edit more than one track in the same view.

I don't understand what the problem is with tracktions way of handling this (if it's the 'mess' of tracks that are zoomed to different extents vertically, then maybe there could be a button/keycommand to reset all vertical track zooms to make it all neat again).[/b]

[jens]

You should be able to scroll the channels within the in-track-edit just like you are able to scroll the midi-in-track-edit (right click and drag) then when you double-click on any channel the editor enters a single-channel edit-mode another double-click enters again the multi-channel edit-mode (so that you can easily toggle between the waveforms of the different channels).

Sorry if ive misunderstood, but this sounds like a lot of clicking in order to be able to simultaneously edit more than one track in the same view.

I don't understand what the problem is with tracktions way of handling this (if it's the 'mess' of tracks that are zoomed to different extents vertically, then maybe there could be a button/keycommand to reset all vertical track zooms to make it all neat again).[/b]

I think you confused multi-channel with multi-track

Multi-channel is a feature Tracktion simply doesn't offer at all b.t.w. .

It's not a lot of clicks - if you don't use multi-channels it would basicalle be the same functuionality as TRacktion has but cleaner and maybe one click more. (if not single-channel tracks are automatically in single-channel edit)

Tracktion is a bloody mess.


Sad that the only one who replied to my (brilliant as I think ) idea apparently misunderstood it.

[cbit]

that possible 'one click more' would still amount to a lot of time, the way i work

sorry for mixing up channels and tracks .

[jens]

that possible 'one click more' would still amount to a lot of time, the way i work

even if so - if Jorgen implemented this idea he had only to make the default edit-mode single-channel and the functionality would be the same as in Tracktion

no probs about the mixing up of things - the multi-channel thing is a fairly new idea