Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-10-2012, 05:21 AM   #1
pandel
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 35
Default VCA and/or group automation - what I don't understand

Hello everyone!

Even though I follow Reaper development for years now, I recently bought a license and begun using it on a regular basis. And as a beginner, when I step into problems, I have to find a solution and therefor, the docs, Google, Kenny Gioia's fantastic videos and especially the forum became my friends. As a forum newbie I read a lot...

But there are two things that came up very fast I couldn't solve, at least not without some clumsy workaround: VCA and/or working track group automation. No disussion about usefulness here...

What I don't understand (and I really read MANY threads!) is, that Reaper users asked for both at least for the last two years, but nothing happened (no JS script fiddling or quirky routing, please!). Not even a single comment from the devs! From what I have read the last few days, there are many many other small features which have been implemented over the years shortly after the question for them came up. So, it doesn't seem to be a problem of the devs not listening...

I fully understand that there is no Reaper development roadmap and such or that the devs won't discuss their development steps in general, so no comment on that. But I don't believe, as some say, that the devs don't understand the importance of those features, the necessity for any sort of sophisticated solution here is simply too obvious.

There must be a technical reason for not implementing this and I think it would calm down the userbase a little if any of the devs would chime in on this and at least give some explanation. I think, everyone would understand why nothing happens, i.e. if someone would explain, that it is simply too difficult to implement without re-designing a bunch of things internally or so...

Please, it won't hurt you, but could clear things up!

Regards,
Holger

PS: And @all please, no SSL conspiracy theory, that's humbug!
pandel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 07:28 AM   #2
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandel View Post
[…] But I don't believe, as some say, that the devs don't understand the importance of those features, the necessity for any sort of sophisticated solution here is simply too obvious.

There must be a technical reason for not implementing this and I think it would calm down the userbase a little if any of the devs would chime in on this and at least give some explanation. I think, everyone would understand why nothing happens, i.e. if someone would explain, that it is simply too difficult to implement without re-designing a bunch of things internally or so...
I don't think it has much to do with technical reasons at all. Imho it does not need any sophisticated technology (seriously, we're talking about simple multiplication of parameter values, and perhaps decoupling some GUI controls from their corresponding parameters), but it does need a quite sophisticated UX design to be practically useful for different workflows (i.e. flexible, powerful, yet easy and intuitive to set up), so that is exactly what our discussions should focus on to be helpful to the devs. Where and how exactly do you imagine or suggest it could be implemented?
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 07:28 AM   #3
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

We're slowly getting to know why some things are not made, either at all or at a particular time.

The devs have to find it useful, ok. That's fair enough by a long shot.

They have to find it useful for their own workflows, at least most of the time. Not so hot, but you're likely to produce better results if you can get in to the workflows people talk about. Neverthelss, plenty of things that they probably don't use so much has made it in to the program.

That said, I'm speculating about that point, since all I know is that Christophe plays the guitar, Justin records himself and maybe a band he plays in and John, I know nothing about. So potentially it's encouraging that they may not just do stuff THEY find useful, because when is a professional every going to get stuff they don't have little to no idea about.


What speaks against that "my needs only" method may be stuff like the project bay and currently the midi editor, which I'm pretty sure none of them can and will make heavy use of. That's encouraging to me.

The good stuff is more likely now, especially VCAs which have been discussed a lot in the recent months. The two most voted on requests are a little more likely, though they need to be technically feasable. Those are actually much older than three years, so there's plenty for them to do .


One thing you always have to keep in mind is that they are very keen on backwards-compatiblity. That's the reason you see some stuff marked as deprecated, but it's still there so sessions from those versions still work.

That might bite them in the ass when it comes to the very, very poorly chosen display scale and subsequent graph drawing of the volume automation envelope, nevermind the extreme dependance on track height when editing them. They have implemented a static value-change per mouse-movement-distance for the item volume(the knob!!! not the pos-handle at the top of the item-search prefs for 'knob' to get that).

But if they change the volume display to something sane, the curve will have to be drawn bent, so there's some girly-fretting on whether this is ever going to change, which I just can't bring myself to give a fuck about. It's a bad design, it's sabotaging everyones editing workflow of the envelope and it has to change.


But back to the nicer things.

The developments as of late have been more focused, so keep an eye on the pre-release thread. They're putting the midi editor through its paces right now, and judging by the user participation it was time for it too. Mixing and automation will have its day. They did just massively improve the ease of use for video in Reaper, by enabling you to install video support just by installing the VLC player(32-bit for 32-bit Reaper, 64-bit for 64-bit Reaper, keep that in mind).


Btw, the JS VCA plugins don't work right now, at least not for me(Windows Reaper x64). They at least provided something, though very cumbersome and slow to setup, and rather featureless compared to Protools.
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 07:31 AM   #4
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

We don't understand why VCA functionality has not been implemented either. It seems hard to understand what technical reasons there might be, so we presume the devs have other reasons.

It has been asked for by quite a few people; I guess they will implement it as and when they can fit it in with the other improvements they are making to REAPER.


>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK. | Item Marker Tool. (happily retired) | Source Time Position Tool. | CD Track Marker Tool. | Timer Recording Tool. | dB marks on MCP faders FR.
planetnine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 08:18 AM   #5
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Let's face the reality of this ...

The vast majority of DAW users don't even know what VCA's are or what they're useful for, they only ask for them because they heard someone else ask for them and they know PT has them as they all want to "beat" PT.

That obviously doesn't apply where it doesn't apply, but it does apply where it does apply.

The reality is that - literally - tons of professional engineers are mixing without VCA's and doing just fine... so most developers probably don't see a pressing need to delve into what may be a complex modification of code.

The most pressing need (managing grouped FX levels) can be managed with some kind of cross-grouping, not even necessarily full VCA functionality. I mean, if you could group a bus fader to multiple send faders manually, that one problem is solved.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 08:22 AM   #6
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Let's face the reality of this ...

The vast majority of DAW users don't even know what VCA's are or what they're useful for, they only ask for them because they heard someone else ask for them and they know PT has them as they all want to "beat" PT.

That obviously doesn't apply where it doesn't apply, but it does apply where it does apply.

The reality is that - literally - millions of professional engineers and mixing without VCA's and doing just fine... so most developers probably don't see a pressing need to delve into what may be a complex modification of code.

The most pressing need (managing grouped FX levels) can be managed with some kind of cross-grouping, not even necessarily full VCA functionality. I mean, if you could group a bus fader to multiple send faders manually, that one problem is solved.

...and if you cut through all the noise, the crux of the matter is:

(1) slave post-fade sends that follow a master fader (folder-groups don't do this) and...

(2) slave track automation that follows a master track automation (track groups don't do this).

There are other things, but the above are the most important. If track groups allowed (2), then I'd shut up. It really does seem an arbitrary change for some of this functionality, but we trust the devs have a plan.

Edit: A checkbox in the track groups matrix that allowed automation summing (live and non-destructive, not overwriting) would, I think, solve this. It would also allow backwards compatibility if it defaulted to "unchecked". Just an idea...


>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK. | Item Marker Tool. (happily retired) | Source Time Position Tool. | CD Track Marker Tool. | Timer Recording Tool. | dB marks on MCP faders FR.

Last edited by planetnine; 12-10-2012 at 08:45 AM.
planetnine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 08:23 AM   #7
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
That obviously doesn't apply where it doesn't apply, but it does apply where it does apply.
Oh yeah, THIS is brilliance on the Reaper forum......
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 08:24 AM   #8
pandel
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 35
Default

@planetnine
I don't guess anything, I'd like to have a small statement. This endless murmur about basic features is nothing to polish Reaper's reputation with, as long as there is only silence from the devs and nobody understands why.

@Banned
I know, you're the connect-and-modulate-everything-with-everything guy ;-))! Despite the fact that that might be a cool idea (but we'd need some kind of modulation matrix or so to handle more complex connections), for a first
approach I'd vote for the classic way of using a track as VCA. Everybody understands how it works. Every pro is used to this kind of technique for ages.
One thing about Reaper is really great: a track can be anything and the actual track grouping feature is great. It could perhaps be extended to the VCA master/slave behaviour, use one track as remote control for another bunch of tracks. Besides, although it seems to be an easily added feature it might be a real problem to do so from a dev point of view. We do know nothing about the internal design here! That's why I think, a short statement from the devs could be useful....

@airon
I agree with you on the "my needs only" thing. But I don't get the point regarding backwards compatibility. If you introduce a new function and (ok, that's a must!) you don't have to change the internal structure massively for it (as I said, we don't know nothing about), then compatibility shouldn't be an issue. Same here, a dev statement would stop speculation.

Surely, it's nice to know that, as you said, the developments have been more focused as of late, but sorry, it's a DAW! An absolutely great one even in its current state. So why focus on video editing and not on basic mixing/live recording features like VCA. I can understand the MIDI thing, as, for me, it is a native DAW job, even though I don't use any kind of MIDI stuff. But video?

It is always a problem, when a software product is able to do many things *somehow*, and not some fewer things *really good*! So why not focus on audio/mixing/live recording and the needed features?!

@Lawrence
It's really sad they don't know. But do you think there are more pro engineers, which use video inside their DAW than VCA, or even just a better handling of send levels regarding FX and grouping? Don't think so...


I stick to it. A short clarification from the devs on this would be helpful.
pandel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 08:27 AM   #9
nofish
Human being with feelings
 
nofish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home is where the heart is
Posts: 12,096
Default

This isn't intended to sound lame or offending (I apologize when it does):

But if you go away for a moment from the particular request of VCA groups you could transfer most of your opening post to many other often already long time ago requested FR's which aren't implemented yet.
(no I won't name any examples to not derail the discussion).

Sure for some of the often asked FR's there are statements from the devs but it's very rare I'd say.
And I can totally understand this and find it wise because imo it would be just a matter of time then when the forum gets crowded by 'hey you stated something to FR x why don't you say something to my FR y' type of posts.
nofish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 08:37 AM   #10
pandel
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofish View Post
This isn't intended to sound lame or offending (I apologize when it does):

But if you go away for a moment from the particular request of VCA groups you could transfer most of your opening post to many other often already long time ago requested FR's which aren't implemented yet.
(no I won't name any examples to not derail the discussion).

Sure for some of the often asked FR's there are statements from the devs but it's very rare I'd say.
And I can totally understand this and find it wise because imo it would be just a matter of time then when the forum gets crowded by 'hey you stated something to FR x why don't you say something to my FR y' type of posts.
No offense taken! And good point! I'll think about it...

Edit:
Ok, your point! BUT: think of track grouping and automation. Why do they introduce such a great feature without thinking it through to the end? I mean, that shouldn't be a FR at all. It must have been totally clear that people will ask for automating this. I don't have enough time to go through all FRs, but I think I will find some more examples of things that began very well and ended in a never answered FR up to know...

Last edited by pandel; 12-10-2012 at 08:52 AM.
pandel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 09:05 AM   #11
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandel View Post
Ok, your point! BUT: think of track grouping and automation. Why do they introduce such a great feature without thinking it through to the end? I mean, that shouldn't be a FR at all. It must have been totally clear that people will ask for automating this. I don't have enough time to go through all FRs, but I think I will find some more examples of things that began very well and ended in a never answered FR up to know...
Well, much like nofish pointed out, you can say the same of many things in REAPER (the MIDI Editor, automation recording, and Parameter Modulation immediately spring to mind here…). Perhaps try searching the forum for keywords like "half-assed".
Quote:
Originally Posted by airon View Post
The developments as of late have been more focused, so keep an eye on the pre-release thread. They're putting the midi editor through its paces right now, and judging by the user participation it was time for it too. Mixing and automation will have its day.
Exactly. So we should try and have our FRs neatly polished for when the moment comes that the development focuses on those aspects. (Btw, Airon is always doing a great job on that front - thumbs up!)
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 09:10 AM   #12
pandel
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
Btw, Airon is always doing a great job on that front - thumbs up!
Yes, I saw ;-) - thumbs up from me, too!
pandel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 09:21 AM   #13
nofish
Human being with feelings
 
nofish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home is where the heart is
Posts: 12,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
Perhaps try searching the forum for keywords like "half-assed".
Lol.
Seriously though, I must admit some of the devs development strategies are also beyond my understanding...
nofish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 09:23 AM   #14
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

I'm waiting for the midi editor phase to be over. Then they might check how well VCA functionality could be introduced, as well as a trim-envelope, both with full coalescing capabilities.

They'll probably have to assess how to do this VCA stuff, or whether they'll combine this with their own clever ideas. Then we're likely to get "Looks interesting. We can probably do it. We're likely to do. We don't know how to do it."

Before that, I've only ever seen the devs say "I can see the use of that". No decleration of intending to develop something.


Btw, the video playback improvement simply switched from having to download a binary compile package and placing the DLLs(Windows) or dylib(OSX) in a specific directory, to simply installing VLC. The libraries are pretty much the same, but VLC is up to date and being actively improved all the time. That was not a leap, but an incremental usability improvement, and it'll pay off for any sound-to-picture folks.
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 09:35 AM   #15
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandel View Post
@Banned
I know, you're the connect-and-modulate-everything-with-everything guy ;-))! Despite the fact that that might be a cool idea (but we'd need some kind of modulation matrix or so to handle more complex connections), for a first approach I'd vote for the classic way of using a track as VCA. Everybody understands how it works. Every pro is used to this kind of technique for ages.
I see that point, and can certainly agree up to a point (not the "every pro" bit though; I don't see why having experience with VCA groups on consoles is a prerequisite to being a "professional", but let's not get into that discussion here... ). But we should also realise that once implemented, it may be more difficult to change later on. So imho we have to think further ahead than the first step only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandel View Post
Besides, although it seems to be an easily added feature it might be a real problem to do so from a dev point of view. We do know nothing about the internal design here! That's why I think, a short statement from the devs could be useful....
You should read more Sherlock Holmes! Of course only the devs can answer certain important questions regarding implementation, but we can also deduce some basic facts from REAPER's features and API. In this case, I think I know a small bit about how easy it is to get certain parameter values, multiply them, and set values of other parameters, and thus provide an external workaround for VCA-style grouping using external tools. And I don't think it is unreasoable to presume that getting, setting, and multiplying parameter values is no more difficult (or even, much easier) to implement natively than it is from the outside. REAPER also bears some knowledge on its face: since we can see the GUI, we can also see the design issues involved with the GUI aspects of an implementation of such a feature. And being the users, we are actually the experts ourselves when it comes to questions like how easy any given implementation would be to use in our various particular workflows. So imho we are not completely in the blind about how easy or difficult some parts of such a feature would be.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 09:59 AM   #16
pandel
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
not the "every pro" bit though; I don't see why having experience with VCA groups on consoles is a prerequisite to being a "professional", but let's not get into that discussion here...
Oha, no discussion, ok, just an explanation: some of my friends make their living being live or studio mixing engineers. I talked with them about the VCA stuff and their experiences/workflows. None of them is NOT using it. So that's my pro side here. It definitely wasn't meant as a prerequisite for being a "pro"!! Sorry for that misunderstanding! I believe there are many pros outside ignoring the VCA stuff completely and doing a great job!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
But we should also realise that once implemented, it may be more difficult to change later on. So imho we have to think further ahead than the first step only.
For me it is more like thinking a somewhat grown up feature (track grouping and automation in this case) to the end, then going the first step of a complete new feature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned View Post
You should read more Sherlock Holmes! ... So imho we are not completely in the blind about how easy or difficult some parts of such a feature would be.
Maybe... And let's hope for your assumptions to be right!
pandel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 10:41 AM   #17
danfuerth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,824
Default

I will chime in here

This issue is not just about Reaper it is about all Daw's in general ALL OF THEM including Protools as well

There is no conspiracy only the cold hard truth of business losses.


Anytime you take something from hardware and put it into software YOU AVOID buying THAT HARDWARE what the hell do you guys think all this massive number of guitar sims are for? or VSTi instruments are for? So we can use less hardware.


The point here is VCA groups should of been in Daw's since the early beginings period end of story no discussion here.

The problem that people don't know is not what VCA groups do themselves, it is what they do for you in terms of hardware. With VCA groups inside the DAW you can buy smaller fader interfaces and assign the external faders as VCA master faders thus you can use Reaper or any Daw with VCA groups as a Live Mixer without being forced to buy a bigger fader interface


So in a sense ( I went through this shit myself) I now control a 50 track project with only 8 fader interface because I am using Banned's OSC workaround, I assign the group masters to my external faders and I can control all the 50 tracks with only 8 faders ( project is predone at home before going live) and the Salves now follow the Masters automation

Before using the OSC workaround I was looking to buy a 20 fader interface well A Mixer ( expensive )

So why should I be forced to buy a fkin mixer just to get the faders? I went and bought an 8 fader interface + the OSC workaround and called it a day

Saved thousands so that money was not spent due to VCA groups ( OSC workaround) being inside the daw.
So VCA Groups = spend less money that is the business loss that hardware companies will face with VCA groups inside the DAW

I am using reaper as a Multitrack Live Mixer

You have to wait be patient

Only Protools and Sequoia Have VCA groups for now

But Magix Sequoia VCA groups are way ahead of Protools with the now Ghost fader caps on the slaves pure genious

Reaper needs VCA groups and following the Sequoia 12 ghost cap faders is the way to go.

Last edited by danfuerth; 12-10-2012 at 10:49 AM.
danfuerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 11:23 AM   #18
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danfuerth View Post
There is no conspiracy only the cold hard truth of business losses. […] So VCA Groups = spend less money that is the business loss that hardware companies will face with VCA groups inside the DAW. […]
Assuming those hardware companies are able to control what features can be put into a DAW is pure conspiracy theory nonetheless.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 11:59 AM   #19
robo
Human being with feelings
 
robo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On A Mountain Top
Posts: 342
Default

Most importanly, the devs didn't say no.

I hope VCA faders come sooner than later.

-robo
robo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 12:25 PM   #20
danfuerth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,824
Default

Hope so a native solution would be welcomed.
danfuerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 12:54 PM   #21
jnif
Human being with feelings
 
jnif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,111
Default

@danfuerth
Could you describe your live mixing workflow in more detail?
In what kind of situation VCA groups are absolutely necessary in practice? I mean in a way that the live audience would notice some problem in sound if you did not have VCA groups.
And how often those situation happen in practice?

Most of your comments sound like exaggeration. Maybe Reaper devs are thinking the same, i.e. they may think all this discussion about the importance of VCA groups is just exaggeration.
If you could just describe the real world situations in an objective way, then the reality might become more clear.

It is difficult to believe that those who have bought a large mixer were forced to do that because of missing VCA groups feature in their DAW. There has to be multiple other reasons to buy a large mixer.

Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that there is no workarounds to your problems without VCA groups. (I know all those JS, OSC/PD and multichannel routing tricks that you can do in Reaper to simulate VCA groups, but I don't mean those. I mean more basic workarounds that would work in any DAW.) Why is it impossible to just adjust levels manually? Or have multiple pre-programmed level setups? Or use automation?
I believe VCA groups are useful. But what is the audible difference in the final mix when you compare a system with VCA groups to the best possible workaround setup without VCA groups?

How did you manage to do any kind of live mixing before you got the OSC VCA group workaround working in Reaper? You had a small mixer + Reaper without VCA groups? Were you unemployed back then because of missing VCA groups?

jnif

Last edited by jnif; 12-10-2012 at 01:10 PM.
jnif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 01:07 PM   #22
timlloyd
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnif View Post
I mean more basic workarounds that would work in any DAW.) Why is it impossible to just adjust levels manually? Or have multiple pre-programmed level setups? Or use automation?
I believe VCA groups are useful. But what is the audible difference in the final mix when you compare a system with VCA groups to the best possible workaround setup without VCA groups?
Not sure I understand the point of this question? I presume that you realise that 'VCA' functionality is a workflow thing. Of course it's possible to do all that 'VCA features' facilitate manually and with various workarounds of varying complexity, but it would become prohibitively impractical very quickly.
timlloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 01:13 PM   #23
matey
Human being with feelings
 
matey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Civitavecchia (Italy)
Posts: 574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robo View Post
Most importanly, the devs didn't say no.

I hope VCA faders come sooner than later.

-robo
+1
stop killing the joy until the v.5 will pop up then... ;-)
__________________
"You know what a miracle is. Not what Bakunin said. But another world's intrusion into this one".
Thomas Pynchon, The Crying of Lot 49
matey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 01:21 PM   #24
jnif
Human being with feelings
 
jnif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
Not sure I understand the point of this question? I presume that you realise that 'VCA' functionality is a workflow thing. Of course it's possible to do all that 'VCA features' facilitate manually and with various workarounds of varying complexity, but it would become prohibitively impractical very quickly.
How quickly and how complex exactly?
Please give some real world example.
I understand that in some use cases the workflow will get impractical without VCA groups.
But how common are those use cases?
Just think about all DAW users in the world. How large percentage of those DAW users would find themselves in that impractical situation. And how often?
There has been very little discussion about the real world practical use cases.

The point is to remove the potential exaggeration from this discussion and focus on facts.

jnif
jnif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 01:29 PM   #25
JHughes
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Too close to Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,554
Default

Here's a video describing one of the things I use VCAs for. I bet if the devs watch this video it will help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMMmR1u0CFk
JHughes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 01:54 PM   #26
jnif
Human being with feelings
 
jnif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHughes View Post
Here's a video describing one of the things I use VCAs for. I bet if the devs watch this video it will help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMMmR1u0CFk
I watched the video. Still I don't understand what part of that video is impossible with Reaper.
To me it looks like you can do those "VCA things" mentioned in the video just by using track grouping in Reaper. One group for input tracks and another group for "the group tracks".

jnif
jnif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 02:12 PM   #27
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnif View Post
How quickly and how complex exactly?
Please give some real world example.
I understand that in some use cases the workflow will get impractical without VCA groups.
But how common are those use cases?
Just think about all DAW users in the world. How large percentage of those DAW users would find themselves in that impractical situation. And how often?
There has been very little discussion about the real world practical use cases.

The point is to remove the potential exaggeration from this discussion and focus on facts.

jnif
JNIF...

There are live jobs that I could not have done without VCAs. Jobs where I had high-gain mics in the centre of the audience area and 40-plus channels on stage (house band plus guest bands), where I had to react immensely quickly to pulling one group up and another down and then balancing one group against another and riding that balance. These are jobs where you get maybe two runs during the afternoon and then a three-hour show, absolutely no changeover time, whole swathes of channels needing very quick level changes, everything being videoed and juggling more channels than I have fingers.

86 channel performance art event outdoors to regional VIPs and being recorded. Stuff you would not deliver without VCA control, and the desks were spec'd for that.

I'm not saying I need that kind of thing for a REAPEER mix (although it would be useful); I just would like free-form master assignment (inc non-hierachial assignment), post-fader send follow, and non-destructive automation summing. It would be nice not to have to include the FX returns in the folder groups not to have to lose the wet/dry balance, It would be nice to be able to add whatever channel (track) to whatever masters we like and automate them, not being constrained by hierachial nested folders. We've almost got it with track groups, it's just that the slaves have no way of following a master's automation.


Dan, on the other hand would benefit more directly as he uses REAPER as a live sound console. I know he gets a little intense, but I think his head's on straight.

We just get frustrated; to some of us, we don't need to discuss if they are needed, we know they are, we use them daily, they are a standard on high-end consoles, we suspect they need such little deviation of code and we can't understand why they haven't been implemented and why some are still asking us to justify them.


>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK. | Item Marker Tool. (happily retired) | Source Time Position Tool. | CD Track Marker Tool. | Timer Recording Tool. | dB marks on MCP faders FR.
planetnine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 02:37 PM   #28
danfuerth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,824
Default

Indeed that is my intention with VCA groups it is to turn Reaper into a Live mixer and control 50+ tracks ( all grouped up and a Master for each group) with only a small amount of faders and of course have automation on the master and have the slaves follow the master or have one of the slaves ( use of the mouse as well) run it's on automation ( coelescing)

IMPOSSIBLE WITH REAPER RIGHT NOW

So again my idea for VCA groups is simple, use Reaper as a Live mixing Console and with large numbers of tracks in a project this works with the Grouping but not with Automation, as the slaves will not follow the masters automation ( NO WORKAROUNDS, as that is what VCA's do, they control the slaves and make the slaves follow the masters automation.


Example : In protools

add 1 track make it a VCA master
add 2 track make it a slave of that master

The master controls everything on the slave just like Reaper no issues here

Now add automation to the master ( record automation) , just simple faders going up and down

Now play back that project and set the master to READ ( to read the automation of course)

Slave will not follow the masters fader automation, but they do in protools and in Sequoia ( v12)

That is my issue the automation is not linked and it has to BE!! so this way I can assign that master vca to my external interface

Simple math-

Project with 40 tracks divide by 5( 5 tracks in each group) = 8 VCA Masters possible with an 8 fader interface

This is why VCA groups are needed for me since I do not have to lug around a massive fader interface.

I have this working with Banned's OSC workaround but it requires double tracks for the control, so you can see with bigger projects LOL becomes harder to use


Native VCA groups or allow the slaves to follow the master's automation and allow the master to bypass it's automation into any of the slaves we choose ( coelesce)

Last edited by danfuerth; 12-10-2012 at 02:52 PM.
danfuerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 02:54 PM   #29
Argle
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,272
Default

Please, in a single sentence, someone please tell me the benefit of "VCA groups" over whatever we currently have. Not trying to sound ignorant, but.... well.... can't really finish that thought.
Argle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 02:56 PM   #30
danfuerth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,824
Default

Without the long story, the slaves do not follow the masters automation int he cureent Reaper grouping try my example with the 2 tracks and the slaves sit there doing nothing while the masters automation is read.

In the case of Protools the slaves DO and Follow whatever the Master is doing.
So Reaper's grouping is good but the slaves are not linked to the Automation of the masters.
danfuerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 03:27 PM   #31
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argle View Post
Please, in a single sentence, someone please tell me the benefit of "VCA groups" over whatever we currently have. Not trying to sound ignorant, but.... well.... can't really finish that thought.
With VCA groups, the value of the slaved parameters gets scaled by the value of the master parameter / control; as such, they can have different values (including automation) than the master but are still being controlled by that master as a group.

An example may make it clearer (also, perhaps watching the faders in the 2nd half of this screen cap of one of the existing workarounds may be illustrative). You could have an automated track volume fade-in from silence on track 1 and a fade-out to silence on track 2. Both track volumes could be controlled by the same 'master' control on yet another track, which could raise or lower the levels of both 'slaves' without affecting their relative volumes, and while leaving their automation envelopes intact (track 1 would still have a fade-in from silence, and track 2 would still have a fade-out to silence, but possibly at a different level as a result of changes of the master's level, and possible with different curve shapes as a result of changes of the master's level over time).
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 03:38 PM   #32
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danfuerth View Post
Without the long story, the slaves do not follow the masters automation int he cureent Reaper grouping try my example with the 2 tracks and the slaves sit there doing nothing while the masters automation is read.

In the case of Protools the slaves DO and Follow whatever the Master is doing.
So Reaper's grouping is good but the slaves are not linked to the Automation of the masters.

Track grouping in REAPER is very close to it. Slaves don't have the master track's automation added to theirs though. Needs an extra check-box in the track grouping matrix.


>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK. | Item Marker Tool. (happily retired) | Source Time Position Tool. | CD Track Marker Tool. | Timer Recording Tool. | dB marks on MCP faders FR.
planetnine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 04:14 PM   #33
danfuerth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,824
Default

+1 Nine.
danfuerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 04:41 PM   #34
nofish
Human being with feelings
 
nofish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home is where the heart is
Posts: 12,096
Default

Question (sorry I don't have much experience as a Live mixer):

I understand the issue brought up here that Reaper's grouped faders don't follow the master fader automation but what do you with automation in a live mixing situation ?
nofish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 05:13 PM   #35
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandel View Post
@Lawrence
It's really sad they don't know.
Not really. At some point it becomes just another feature request piled on top of the rest.. Anyone who has ever used a high level pro console will tell you, VCA's aside, how much functionality is still missing in DAW consoles, compared to a great digital console,

I mean honestly, the average DAW can't even solo while cueing without breaking the cues, you have to either just not do that or find a workaround, same with VCA's. It's just one more FR among many like pre-fader metering.

If the idea is to be like great consoles then the list will get rather long, like flipping faders and other things digital consoles do with ease.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 06:03 PM   #36
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofish View Post
Question (sorry I don't have much experience as a Live mixer):

I understand the issue brought up here that Reaper's grouped faders don't follow the master fader automation but what do you with automation in a live mixing situation ?
Very little, live is just too unpredictable to use time-based automation really. Scene recalls, yes, bit like lighting control...

Over to you, Dan


>
__________________
Nathan, Lincoln, UK. | Item Marker Tool. (happily retired) | Source Time Position Tool. | CD Track Marker Tool. | Timer Recording Tool. | dB marks on MCP faders FR.
planetnine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 06:08 PM   #37
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Here's how far DAWs are behind actual mixers. This is from my d8b, a really old digital console, stuff I was doing on it many, many years ago.

Channel linking...



Coalecsing automation when ungrouping channels...



Metering...



Solo...



Snapshots with filtering...



Automation Editor...



A/B memory storage on all the plugs... and VU metering...



Multiple channel surround pan overview...



Stacked mixer, nothing new there...



Event automation...



Modify levels...



A real (printable) track sheet...



Last edited by Lawrence; 12-10-2012 at 06:19 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 07:03 PM   #38
mim
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argle View Post
Please, in a single sentence, someone please tell me the benefit of "VCA groups" over whatever we currently have. Not trying to sound ignorant, but.... well.... can't really finish that thought.
A single sentence might be too short but ....

Take 6 mono track, send them to the master with a proper 5.1 routing.
Put one instance of a mono vst eq on each. Create a "vca master" track, add the same eq on it, set the 6 other tracks so they are slaves to it.

The VCA Master EQ will control every slaves EQ. So you can easily automate your 5.1 mix with mono eq and still having the possibilities to "trim" each channel independantly of the master VCA automation.

This is an exemple of something you can not do without VCA.

VCA's are also very useful in film mixing to change parameters of different sounds in a way that would be impossible otherwise :

ex : You have 64 ambiances track, all of them going through differents folders (center, LR, SlSR, SUB), it means it is not possible to control the volume of all them through a folder.

Imagine now, you have two VCAs master track, A and B, each of one would control an array of tracks in a revelant way to the picture ( shots are A, and reverse angles are B). You can start from there, and then tweak all the details you need in individual tracks.
mim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 10:46 PM   #39
danfuerth
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,824
Default

Everyone is posting great questions and ideas

To answer the question of automation :

The basic idea for me though ( may not be the same for you) is to have a project play out all by itself and see the slaves following the master as the tracks are played certain points needs lower volumes, all you need to do is record volume fader movements on the master and then watch as the slaves follow the master, this way one automation tracks runs the group. I am a one man show ( sometimes hire a female singer) and bring the girlfriend along as a helper, she is on the fader interface checking levels out. I showed her some stuff just in case if things get crazy that way she can take the masters off read and change the levels.



This was my intention with Reaper as I use it as Live mixer, and live mixers have automation recorded to be played back ( Yamaha 01v for example)

I prepare my projects at home, then save the automation to the masters of the groups then assign the masters to the external faders ( 8 of them) then I hit play during a live show and if I want all I do is take one of the masters off read mode and move the master and the slaves follow, if things don't sound right, then on an on

For live mixing you have to be silly not to have VCA group automation.

All the tracks moving and all you need to do is control one fader for every 5 or 10 tracks as many as you want.

Or put the master back to read and the project keeps going all LIVE.


I have this working every weekend, my project runs almost by itself ( gf is there just for backup) by using the VCA OSC workaround. My Jamvox patches change on queue and my external guitar gear patches change on queue, smoke machine and even lighting is controlled through Reaper

Reaper is fantastic as a live Mixer, but wee need the slaves to follow the master automation so we don't need automation lanes all over the place in every track only needed on the master VCA.

But that does not work in Reaper.

However have hope and I know Lawrence Daw's are really slow on Studio features that have been around for decades your screenshots prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Last edited by danfuerth; 12-10-2012 at 10:53 PM.
danfuerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 03:02 AM   #40
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 11,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetnine View Post
Track grouping in REAPER is very close to it. Slaves don't have the master track's automation added to theirs though. Needs an extra check-box in the track grouping matrix.


>
Oddly enough this is the idea presented in the request. You designate one track in the group a VCA master in the group matrix. This does limit VCA masters to controlling a single group however, so I don't think that's the best way. It would necessitate almost no change in the Reaper infrastructure of the group window or matrix, but it's not very practical considering what people want to do.


Once Cockos is willing to go a little further, we could simply declare certain tracks to BE VCA control sources as a track attribute, and then assign them in their own "What will thou control oh master" matrix. That can make it much easier to assign a VCA master track to control multiple groups.

This control matrix would include groups and individual tracks. Perhaps it could simply placed below the normal group matrix, so everything is in once place.


As to what VCA masters can control or override(big difference), for now all I was suggesting is that Volume and Mute be automatable vca-able parameters. In the case of volume that means the VCA master automation is simple added in reference to 0dB. In the case of mute, it's an ovveride, but automtable. Solo is not automatable but would also override the slave tracks until it is released again.


Some people have suggested VCA-controlling EQs.

That would be completely new to DAWs. This isn't linking, which is what Lawrence showed us from the d8B console, and which a lot of consoles can do. It is, like the volume parameter, a addition of parameters offset by a reference.

In other words, 0dB is the reference of the EQ gain, and the difference to that referece in the VCA master EQ(if it has that same plugin in the same config) is added to all its slaves.

What is the reference for the EQ frequency and the Q(or bandwidth as ReaEQ so non-standard-cleverly exposes it) ? What about other plugins ?

For VCA-like behaviour of plugin parameters, you'd have to define a reference point for each and every one of those parameters, and that requires some kind of editor. We'd need a way to share such a profile too, because defining that stuff is hard work.


OT, Lawrence, I find those overview pages of the d8B console most impressive. Incidentally the Harrison MPC4-D consoles use a simple procedure to create and dissolve such links. Master-link button, pick the control groups with their ATTention button, master-link button. Some double-press procedure to dissolve them, that I don't remember atm.

Those kind of links would be pretty cool for sends for me. Link groups. I guess Reapers grouping matrix could use some improvements in setting those up, eh. Those groups are classic groups btw, and have nothing to do with VCA-like behaviour.
__________________
Using Latch Preview (Video) - Faderport 16 setup for CSI 1.1 , CSI 3.10
Website
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.