VCA education

[airon]

We're all waiting for the DSP to get locked down, but until then these threads are a pretty neat way to throw ideas around.

I found a demonstration GIF in this forum post by Eric Cardenas that shows off Relative and Trim mode automation in Logic X 10.1.

Relative appears to be a trim envelope and the trim appears to be an auto-coalesced trim that is written when the fader is let go of in Touch mode. I'm not sure Logic has a Match Out function for the Latch mode (manual letting go of parameters for Latch mode). I'm still trying to find an up-to-date manual for this.

Here's what Nuendo 4 did. I posted this over six years ago. Nobody needs the moving graphs, but how useful a trim option can be is very obvious because of it.

Over six years. Goes to show that nobody can understand the importance of ideas like this if they lack the knowledge on the subject at hand, but I actually got a comment from Schwa about this. Six years. You simply didn't realize how useful this would be.

Nuendo 4 did a straight auto-coalescing. I'd have to check if Nuendo 6 has more functionality.

Looking forward.

[mykrobinson]

It just makes me all warm inside to see what I thought may have been a simple question that I was just to daft to understand blossom into a full blown multipage conversation.

Ever see a brown man blush?

[planetnine]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

I think it comes down to what is actually being adjusted.

Is the VCA an amplifier that happens right before or after the fader?

If so, it wouldn't make sense to move the fader. It would be like putting a "Gain" plugin on the track and automating it's level and expecting to see that level on the main fader.

If it's actually adjusting the fader itself, then that's a different story.

Just for information, the VCA in an analogue console is a voltage-controlled-gain amplifier that the channel's fader supplies a voltage to. In these consoles, the channel's signal does not actually pass through the fader at all, the faders are actually just an analogue control for the channel, not in the channel.


This allows, of course, other gain voltage controls to be summed to the channel's own gain voltage control to influence the resultant channel "fader" gain.

It also allows an anti-crackle (low-pass) filter to be applied, but that's not really relevant in DAWs


As this design makes the faders a control surface, perhaps it makes sense to follow the control surface ethos through to the DAW, and allow fader movement back from the channel's (track's) resultant gain.


Optionally, of course



>

[Faderjockey]

^^^
Correct! And that is why back in the day lot of engineers didn't like VCA's because they didn't like the sound as apposed to the actual fader was cleaner..

But on the other side some guys liked it.. I remember reading many years ago.
Bob Clearmountain used the VCA for all his automation on is SSL because he did like the sound of it.. Don't know if that's changed. But they did have a sound.

Not sure if anyone remembers back when the Mackie 8buss was the analog board that a lot of people bought for Adat/Tascam digital home setups.. But Mackie came out with that patchbay.. you could had to the board that would give you VCA automation using a Sequencer software to control it..
That thing had a sound to it I remember..
But with digital consoles becoming the big thing for live use.. VCA/DCA came back as a strong feature..but now on the digital side you don't have to worry about that VCA sound if you didn't want it.. It's just a controller in the digital world.

[Mercado_Negro]

And it looks like "region-based automation" in Logic Pro X 10.1 is just what we know as per-take envelopes but it includes FX envelopes (which would be a great addition to REAPER).

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

And it looks like "region-based automation" in Logic Pro X 10.1 is just what we know as per-take envelopes but it includes FX envelopes (which would be a great addition to REAPER).

I suppose. If I were Cockos I'd be looking at Logic's new plugin manager as an example of what every good workstation should probably do.

They made it all so.... easy. But Apple knows "easy" so... not unexpected.

[timboid]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Once the Master envelopes can control the slaves, we can talk about combining the Master envelopes with the Slave envelopes. For coalescing purposes.

I think the reason is that the volume envelope and actual fader is separate entities in REAPER. It has its pros (more points of control, I really like that you can use trim faders on a time selection and have actual fader in place) and it has its cons -- being that fader is not the same envelope we have this automation glitch. IMO the solution is to add another envelope that will control the fader position (not volume like it is now). That envelope should make fader move under ANY automation mode. The moves then would be translated over to the Slaves. Same with pan.
So in effect we would have Mix Groups which would be automatable via fader position envelopes (these would behave as PT's VCAs), and we would have VCAs which would like in console.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by timboid

I think the reason is that the volume envelope and actual fader is separate entities in REAPER.

Is that true? If we put it in Read mode then the fader moves based on the envelope.

Only in Trim/Read mode it seems separate. Which is to be expected.

But I thought the envelope was the fader.

Keeping in mind that we might just be talking semantics.

[airon]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

And it looks like "region-based automation" in Logic Pro X 10.1 is just what we know as per-take envelopes but it includes FX envelopes (which would be a great addition to REAPER).

The discussions I've read in a Logic user group forum, and a Youtube video by one of the users, points towards this just being "automation sticks to region". In the video he talks about "every other DAW has it, now Logic does too".

Nice plugin organization. You can even drag categories up and down I hear.

[airon]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Is that true? If we put it in Read mode then the fader moves based on the envelope.

Only in Trim/Read mode it seems separate. Which is to be expected.

But I thought the envelope was the fader.

Keeping in mind that we might just be talking semantics.

Technically we can't know but exposed to us, the users, are the two faders as you already know. The fader representing the static Trim/Read level(might be a more clever name somewhere for that one), and the fader controlling and/or representing the volume envelope.

Unfortunately we cannot do the same to the pre-fx volume envelope, except through pre-fx VCA masters. For low-latency control this, and a direct access to the pre-fx envelope via faders/control surfaces, that would probably require disengaging the anticipative rendering for that track. Perhaps the pre-fx control via VCA and fader would require preperation, i.e. the user cannot switch this while playback is running without disabling anticipative processing on those tracks up front.

[ashcat_lt]

So, this is all well and good, but why don't we just have full on "CV" support across the board? It would cover this, as well as extend Parameter Modulation and Linking functionality by miles.

We have ways to kind of half-ass it, but things get kind of confusing quick, and the Audio>Parameter thing that exists now has a number of issues that make it less than ideal. We almost need a whole other Mixer/routing matrix for CV so that it's harder to confuse CV signals with actual audio signals running on parallel channels on the same track. Some way of bridging between audio and CV would be necessary, of course, but...

Am I way behind on the conversation? Have I missed something?

[Banned]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

So, this is all well and good, but why don't we just have full on "CV" support across the board? It would cover this, as well as extend Parameter Modulation and Linking functionality by miles.

Agreed 100%. Track volume faders? Meh. CV? F**K YEAH!!!

[midiot]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

So, this is all well and good, but why don't we just have full on "CV" support across the board? It would cover this, as well as extend Parameter Modulation and Linking functionality by miles.

We have ways to kind of half-ass it, but things get kind of confusing quick, and the Audio>Parameter thing that exists now has a number of issues that make it less than ideal. We almost need a whole other Mixer/routing matrix for CV so that it's harder to confuse CV signals with actual audio signals running on parallel channels on the same track. Some way of bridging between audio and CV would be necessary, of course, but...

Am I way behind on the conversation? Have I missed something?

very nice

[foxAsteria]

Question: If I make all my parent folders VCA masters and their children VCA slaves, does this simply solve the problem of their faders not adjusting child send volume, or are there other unseen ramifications?

Also, what is the purpose of the "VCA pre-FX slave" option?

[airon]

Originally Posted by foxAsteria

Question: If I make all my parent folders VCA masters and their children VCA slaves, does this simply solve the problem of their faders not adjusting child send volume, or are there other unseen ramifications?

You'd be adjusting the volume of the slave tracks twice. Once via the VCA influence, and once as a summing bus that the folder track makes it.

Also, what is the purpose of the "VCA pre-FX slave" option?

To adjust the volume before the slave tracks' effects. Every track has a pre-fx volume envelope if you activate it, and a post-fx volume envelope if you activate it. The VCA master can be told to exert its influence at one of those two points during playback.

[planetnine]

Your folder parent will adjust the received gain at the same time as its VCA control will adjust the outputs of the child tracks -you'll get double gain adjustment.

Stick a track above the parent (not a folder track) and use it as VCA master to the folder child tracks (not the parent). Leave the parent at 0dB. Try it until you're happy with how it works, and then unless you are using the folder parent for group processing (eg subgroup compression), just delete it.

You can adjust the VCA master and also automate its "volume" and the VCA slaves will adjust post-fade sends accordingly.

Is this clear? Ask away if it's not, hope it helps...


Edit: heh, Airon beat me to it.





>

[foxAsteria]

thanks guys. if the only consequence is that volume is adjusted more rapidly (and when i just tested it, it was marginally so), i might go ahead and do it that way.

the reason is that i switch between a full floating mixer with all tracks, and a small docked mixer with just the parent folders (submixes). i often use those for group processing, but not always. i just don't want to have to double the tracks in the small view.

maybe it would be a good FR to optionally disable the normal volume control for a folder track being used as a vca. seems silly to me that i should need to use both.

[planetnine]

Your gain will exactly double, but your post-fade sends won't.

Ie, fader 6dB, folder gain 12dB, post-fade sends 6dB. You'll still lose your FX wet/dry balance.


>

[foxAsteria]

Originally Posted by planetnine

Your gain will exactly double, but your post-fade sends won't.

huh, that's odd because i when i a/b -33db on the vca folder track and the independent vca track, with child tracks running through sends, i only hear a very slight difference in volume. used a synth tone, so gonna retest with a drum track.

what if i double the vca tracks as group sends and disable the master on the children and get rid of the folder tracks? then i just have a group bus which keeps the fx balance, right?

there aren't any actions to select only vca tracks yet are there?

[planetnine]

Do you need the folder for anything apart from the child tracks' levels? Group compression or EQ? compacting the view for your smaller mixer?

• If you don't, then just run the children as normal tracks with a VCA to control level. You can place the "VCA master" track immediately to the left of your "slaves", or anywhere else in the mixer if you want.
  
  
• If you do, then you'll either have to run a VCA master separate to the folder and do your folder gain control from the VCA and not the folder parent track, or place your post-fade send destination track inside the folder (what I used to do before VCAs).

I only use folders now if I need group compression.


Folders and VCAs are two separate features. If you want to combine them, then that is what REAPER will do with present functionality -you set up both folder and VCA, both will work on those folder child tracks.

But yes, decoupling the folder track's fader gain aspect and letting VCA grouping control the gains in a group from that folder fader instead (a variation on Seventh's post-fade folders) would be a good option -the collapsable nature of folders is useful for track management in larger projects.



>

[heda]

maybe there could be an option for the children tracks to send to parent of parent, instead of parent. Making the first folder track just a folder for collapsing children tracks.

[Coachz]

instead of the checkbox for sending to parent make a drop down so you could pick which one.

[foxAsteria]

Originally Posted by planetnine

Do you need the folder for anything apart from the child tracks' levels?

i actually never use folders to adjust level. just organization, solo/mute and processing. it would be nice if i could also use them for group levels as well.

Originally Posted by Coachz

instead of the checkbox for sending to parent make a drop down so you could pick which one.

that would be nice.

decoupling the folder gain would also be effective.

[timboid]

Bit surprised with this talk about VCA/folder hybrids, why you can't do it now?
Create a "premaster" track (you can than hide it). Create a folder, make a parent VCA master for the children. Now defeat the master send from the folder and create a post-FX pre-fader send from the folder to "premaster".
Any reason why this won't work?

[steveh2h2]

That set up definitely works as the hybrid. It lets you use the folder as a bus, but essentially disable the gain-stage of the folder fader/pan and use them only as the VCA control of the children. BTW: The meter on the folder will still display the doubled up gain staging of the Folder + VCA.

Even so, it would be simpler if we could simply tag a folder as a VCA folder or a gain-stage folder. That way it would work as simply as folders do now, but be able to choose which flow is better for a given situation.

[planetnine]

Originally Posted by steveh2h2

That set up definitely works as the hybrid. It lets you use the folder as a bus, but essentially disable the gain-stage of the folder fader/pan and use them only as the VCA control of the children. BTW: The meter on the folder will still display the doubled up gain staging of the Folder + VCA.

Even so, it would be simpler if we could simply tag a folder as a VCA folder or a gain-stage folder. That way it would work as simply as folders do now, but be able to choose which flow is better for a given situation.

Be nice to have something that wasn't a workaround.

Still like the idea of it being VCA based for the flexibility of manually including/excluding tracks though, even if it just appears as a post-fade controlling folder to surface-grazing users...



>

[G-Sun]

Just checked vca out quickly the other day.
There is no visual indication of vca-volume being applied to a channel-fader, is it?

[airon]

Originally Posted by G-Sun

Just checked vca out quickly the other day.
There is no visual indication of vca-volume being applied to a channel-fader, is it?

It's shown as a group only, with whatever visual indicator you've picked in the preference. So you need to know what you're doing.

[G-Sun]

Originally Posted by airon

It's shown as a group only, with whatever visual indicator you've picked in the preference. So you need to know what you're doing.

Ok, thanks!
Wouldn't some kind off extra ghost-image with the total fader-value be helpful?

[tk_nacho]

bringing this topic to a VCA thread:

Originally Posted by tk_nacho

Maybe I'm doing something wrong but,
Is it OK that VCA grouped tracks just control volume and not mute or solo?

In my understanding Soloing/Muting the VCA Master should Mute/Solo the group without pressing the slaves Mute/Solo buttons, just like it controls volume without moving their faders.
Different than enabling Mute/Solo grouping were all slaves get Mute/Solo clicked.

The advantage is that you get access to a superior solo/mute for the VCA group without interfering with the slaves states and without having de-soloing un-muting slaves like in a normal Solo/Mute group.

[airon]

The Mute/Solo feature is a slight downer for mixers on the one hand, but practical when you want to bypass its influence on the VCA slaves.

Maybe in the next version of Reaper (5.1,5.2,...) we'll get a choice for the behaviour.

[tk_nacho]

I hope so, I really see more uses in the VCA Mute/Solo for parent soloing and muting the group rather than disabling the VCA influence on the group, you can always go back to unity gain for that.

Easier than magling your VCAs from -inf to 0 for soloing and muting the groups =P.

[thebigcheese]

When I first looked at an explanation of VCAs, it was a video for Cubase 8. They made it sound (and look) like they are essentially remote control faders. But reading through this thread makes it sound like they are not. The more I read, the more confused I get, probably partially because it seems everyone uses VCA to mean something different in their DAW.

I thought they were literally just one fader that controls a bunch of other faders at once (not by multiplication, just straight up remote control). So you could move the VCA down and a slave track up if, for some reason, you wanted to do that.

Now I understand the VCA to be a multiplier, meaning you can still do that but moving the slave track would have a more limited usefulness since it is still multiplied by the VCA.

I can see how VCAs are useful if, say, only some of your drums are sent to a master reverb track, but on the other hand, this is the digital realm. You could just load a reverb effect on each track. Or you could load it on the folder track for a certain group of tracks. Both of those options would allow the levels to be adjusted as the folder volume is adjusted. So I guess I'm still not seeing how VCAs are particularly useful. Mostly they seem to just add an additional control to have to think about.

[heda]

Originally Posted by thebigcheese

You could just load a reverb effect on each track. Or you could load it on the folder track for a certain group of tracks. Both of those options would allow the levels to be adjusted as the folder volume is adjusted. So I guess I'm still not seeing how VCAs are particularly useful.

VCAs are great. When you have complex projects with 500 tracks or more, you don't want to have reverb inserts on all of them. You use sends instead. For simple projects you can live without VCA.

[EpicSounds]

I still haven't even tried to use them in V5 lol.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by thebigcheese

I thought they were literally just one fader that controls a bunch of other faders at once (not by multiplication, just straight up remote control). So you could move the VCA down and a slave track up if, for some reason, you wanted to do that.

No. If it was a "straight up remote control", you could *not* move the master down and the slave up.

Originally Posted by thebigcheese

Now I understand the VCA to be a multiplier, meaning you can still do that but moving the slave track would have a more limited usefulness since it is still multiplied by the VCA.

It does not "have a more limited usefulness" at all. The fader on a slave track *can* have a more limited effective *range* (when the VCA master is below 0dB - but when it is above 0dB, the effective range of faders on VCA slave tracks is *expanded*), but that can also be *more* useful because doing so increases the effective resolution of the fader on the slave track (i.e. adjusting them by one pixel results in a smaller adjustment measured in dB).

Originally Posted by thebigcheese

I can see how VCAs are useful if, say, only some of your drums are sent to a master reverb track, but on the other hand, this is the digital realm. You could just load a reverb effect on each track. Or you could load it on the folder track for a certain group of tracks. Both of those options would allow the levels to be adjusted as the folder volume is adjusted. So I guess I'm still not seeing how VCAs are particularly useful. Mostly they seem to just add an additional control to have to think about.

What you are ignoring here is that using folders works *only* in a hierarchical manner. VCAs (as currently implemented in REAPER) do *not* work in a hierarchical manner, which makes them much more flexible than what can be achieved using (nested) folders.

Now, if you simply don't use VCAs, then you don't have an additional control to think about either.

Originally Posted by heda

VCAs are great. When you have complex projects with 500 tracks or more, you don't want to have reverb inserts on all of them. You use sends instead. For simple projects you can live without VCA.

I reject the notion that you can live without VCAs for simple projects.

I don't want to use duplicative plug-ins on small projects either, it's just a stupid waste of CPU, and it complicates tweaking parameters - you would need to link all parameters across tracks, or manually adjust the parameters of several instances. Both methods are not very straightforward to say the very least.

And even on small projects, VCAs are very useful (arguably essential) to preserve track / send volume ratios and for multi-level control / automation.

[thebigcheese]

So again pardon my ignorance, but I have a couple more questions. So I'm still using version 4.78 and I haven't much played around with groups, but I was just playing around and I noticed that you can still set a track to be the master volume control of another selection of tracks. It would then move all the faders with it, just like in Cubase's description of VCA. Which would still have all your post-fader sends working correctly. Isn't that effectively the purpose of VCA?

And the second question is, if that's possible, would it be possible to also make that track be a folder track? Because a folder track is a submix bus, but in this case you would not want the audio routed through the folder necessarily. Well... Okay, so let me describe a scenario and maybe that will help my understanding. Let's say I have 8 drum tracks (which will be fairly standard for me). I want the snare and the overheads to go to the reverb, but not the rest. Normally I would put them all in a folder as well, so that I can collapse it out of the way when I don't need it and so I have control over all the levels with one fader. But now that I want different reverb on the tracks instead of an overall drum reverb, I want to instead make one track be the master volume control and set all the drum tracks as slaves. That's easy enough, but can that master control also be the folder track? And now let's say that I also want to stick a compressor on the entire drum submix. Normally I would also stick that on the folder track. But if I am controlling the volume via a master fader, the amount of compression will change if I lower or increase the volume. So how would I go about balancing all of these things, and how does VCA help with that (or make it any different at all, really)?

[Banned]

Originally Posted by thebigcheese

So again pardon my ignorance, but I have a couple more questions. So I'm still using version 4.78 and I haven't much played around with groups, but I was just playing around and I noticed that you can still set a track to be the master volume control of another selection of tracks. It would then move all the faders with it, just like in Cubase's description of VCA. Which would still have all your post-fader sends working correctly. Isn't that effectively the purpose of VCA?

But then you can't have independent automation on both slave and master tracks.

Originally Posted by thebigcheese

And the second question is, if that's possible, would it be possible to also make that track be a folder track? Because a folder track is a submix bus, but in this case you would not want the audio routed through the folder necessarily. Well... Okay, so let me describe a scenario and maybe that will help my understanding. Let's say I have 8 drum tracks (which will be fairly standard for me). I want the snare and the overheads to go to the reverb, but not the rest. Normally I would put them all in a folder as well, so that I can collapse it out of the way when I don't need it and so I have control over all the levels with one fader.

But when you move the folder volume fader, the volumes of the sends to the reverb in those child tracks will *not* change, which implies that the dry/wet balance will change (which is something you typically wouldn't want to happen).

Originally Posted by thebigcheese

But now that I want different reverb on the tracks instead of an overall drum reverb, I want to instead make one track be the master volume control and set all the drum tracks as slaves. That's easy enough, but can that master control also be the folder track?

Sure, but when you'd adjust the folder volume fader, you'd be applying the volume adjustment *twice* - once for the master/slave relationship, and again for the folder/child relationship - which is not what you'd typically want.

Originally Posted by thebigcheese

And now let's say that I also want to stick a compressor on the entire drum submix. Normally I would also stick that on the folder track. But if I am controlling the volume via a master fader, the amount of compression will change if I lower or increase the volume.

Exactly - which is why I typically wouldn't use a folder for 'groupwise' effects at all, but route all drum tracks to another track with a compressor inserted.

Originally Posted by thebigcheese

So how would I go about balancing all of these things, and how does VCA help with that (or make it any different at all, really)?

VCAs avoids the dry/wet balance issues with using folders, supports multi-level automation, and a non-hierarchical configuration. I'd suggest setting up a project without using folder tracks, only using VCAs, and you'll probably notice these differences.

[thebigcheese]

Originally Posted by Banned

But then you can't have independent automation on both slave and master tracks.

So the master track automation overrides the slave track automation? I think that's what you are suggesting. In which case, does that also imply that VCAs don't do that? The only limiting factor I see with VCAs, then, is that if I lower the volume of the VCA, the maximum volume of the slave tracks is decreased. But I suppose if I needed to not have that, I could create a second VCA track that only controls the ones that need to be decreased.

Originally Posted by Banned

Sure, but when you'd adjust the folder volume fader, you'd be applying the volume adjustment *twice* - once for the master/slave relationship, and again for the folder/child relationship - which is not what you'd typically want.

I am actually wondering if there is a way around that, sort of trade the normal folder volume fader for a VCA (or, in the case of the current version, a master fader).

Originally Posted by Banned

Exactly - which is why I typically wouldn't use a folder for 'groupwise' effects at all, but route all drum tracks to another track with a compressor inserted.

VCAs avoids the dry/wet balance issues with using folders, supports multi-level automation, and a non-hierarchical configuration. I'd suggest setting up a project without using folder tracks, only using VCAs, and you'll probably notice these differences.

So here's the part where I am still confused. I'm not sure I see what the difference between using a folder or routing all the drum tracks to another track would be. As I understand it, that's exactly what a folder track is. But even if you do that, I'm not sure how a VCA or a master track would prevent level issues going into the compressor. VCA or master track fixes reverb sends (or similar effects), but I would need the same level going to the compressor with a fader after the compressor if I wanted to lower the volume of everything. But I would need to also be able to lower the individual faders to make the reverb send work correctly.

[BenK-msx]

Think with an RC of v5 approaching, the cockos chaps should chip in with what they have decided the vca situation is and intends to be after all this 'dicussion'!