Monitoring in Reaper

[Pollo]

I have the following problem with monitoring in Reaper and I wonder if anyone can give me an easy solution. This happens to me al the time:

I want to record a new take. The track already has one or more takes on it. Before recording I want to do a practice run. The track is armed for recording, monitoring is on so I can hear what I'm doing. I start playback and I hear what is already on the track, the last take. I don't want to hear that. How do I mute it?

I can select what is on the track and then mute the item. Problem is that many times the take is split into several items. It's a pain to select them all and mute them. There must be an easier way. How do you guys deal with this?

I found a whole discussion on monitoring in Reaper. I agree with those who think that the current way the monitor button works is not very practical or logical. My problem would not exist if the monitor button worked like in other DAW's: Monitor on -> you hear the input, monitor off -> you hear the track. But I'll go with any solution that is workable.

[ashcat_lt]

I can't see how selecting and muting all the items on the track could be that much of a pain, but you could make a custom action to make it a little quicker.

You could also switch the track to Record disabled and then hit record instead of play. Assign a shortcut for "Track: set record mode to input" and "...to none (monitoring only)" to quickly switch back and forth.

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

I can't see how selecting and muting all the items on the track could be that much of a pain, but you could make a custom action to make it a little quicker.

Really? That's interesting. It seems so obvious to me.
I like my workflow not to be cluttered with unnecessarily complicated actions.

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

You could also switch the track to Record disabled and then hit record instead of play. Assign a shortcut for "Track: set record mode to input" and "...to none (monitoring only)" to quickly switch back and forth.

I was hoping for something simpler. This is really a kludge. I can come up with all sorts of scenario's where this would not be a good solution.

I probably should dive into the manual to see if I'm missing something with this monitoring.

[Pollo]

I read the manual. I read some stuff on this forum. No, I'm not missing something. Reaper monitoring is weird and illogical. But trying to discuss that is like having a discussion with a flat-earther.

I only would like to see Reaper become better. Ok, I can understand that sometimes doing things differently can be a good thing. But in this case it is a mistake. The way other DAW's do monitoring is just better.

I'll stop there. Now I'm going to wreck my brain to come up with a work-around that I can live with.

[James HE]

Originally Posted by Pollo

My problem would not exist if the monitor button worked like in other DAW's: Monitor on -> you hear the input, monitor off -> you hear the track. But I'll go with any solution that is workable.

Is that how it works in other DAW's? You can't monitor media on the track and your input at the same time? How do you get cues for punch-ins when you want a cue from your track?

The usual complaint about REAPER's monitoring is that you have to have the track record armed to actually monitor, which is sort of a pain.


In your situation, I just mute the items. Sometimes I'll be using a separate track just for monitoring (record disabled) which I send to my actual recording track(s) which are set to record output. In that case, I just mute the recording track.

[bobobo]

the monitor button isn't a pure monitor button, it has options.
you can select with the right mouse click some detailed stuff , f.i. if the recorded itmes should be played while recording or not.

this and the free item positioning (contains that all items will be played) may be versatile enough even for your approach

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by James HE

Is that how it works in other DAW's? You can't monitor media on the track and your input at the same time? How do you get cues for punch-ins when you want a cue from your track?

There usually is a tape-style monitoring option that will allow you to do that.

Originally Posted by James HE

In your situation, I just mute the items.

Consider this scenario. The project is in an advanced state. A couple of tracks, a few takes each. You already did quite some editing, which to me at least means cutting up items, muting parts. So you have this patchwork of items on a track, some of which are muted. Now you want to overdub part of that track. But before you hit that record button you want to practice a few times. Now you have to solve this jigsaw puzzle first. Sounds like fun?
You also need to remember which items were originally muted. To me it is unworkable.
And very frustrating because it should be as simple as hitting a button; the monitor button.

Don't say it is an exception. I run into this all the time.
It has a lot to do with how I work. I play real instruments in real time. Some people probably work differently. They will never have this problem.

Originally Posted by James HE

Sometimes I'll be using a separate track just for monitoring (record disabled) which I send to my actual recording track(s) which are set to record output. In that case, I just mute the recording track.

That's an idea. I'm going to think that over. I can see some problems with that approach already. There might be some processing on the track, like a VSTi or some FX. I would have to copy that to my monitoring track. Plus adding extra processing. Also I don't like the idea of adding more tracks than necessary.

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by bobobo

the monitor button isn't a pure monitor button, it has options.
you can select with the right mouse click some detailed stuff , f.i. if the recorded itmes should be played while recording or not.

this and the free item positioning (contains that all items will be played) may be versatile enough even for your approach

It is true. There are quite a few monitor options. Almost everything is covered, except what I need.
Which is: on playback; monitor input, don't play track.

[bobobo]

Which is: on playback; monitor input, don't play track.

don't kick in the play button, kick in the record button
and set record disable (right click on record button)
and monitorng items of (right click Monitor button)

or make a handy custom action

Xenakios/SWS: Set selected tracks record armed
Track: Set track record mode to none
Track: Set track record monitor to on
SWS: Unset selected track(s) monitor media while recording
Transport: Record

this on a knob or shortcut will do what you want , if i get you right

[ashcat_lt]

bobobo - you may note that I suggested similar. I don't think it needs as much as that, though. Just a pair of shortcuts to set the record mode on selected tracks would do it. If you've been recording, the monitor mode is probably already set, or needs to be anyway. You do need a PAIR of shortcuts either way, though, so that you can go back and forth from "audition" to "record" mode.

One could assign those actions to a MIDI controller, a note on a keyboard, a foot pedal, or pretty much anything.

But apparently that's a kludge or too cumbersome...

Honestly, I'd probably just record the practice takes too.

[Pollo]

I'll think about your suggestion.

What I don't like about it is that it's not visual. I will not be able to see whether I'm recording for real or not. So even if I assign this to a shortcut I get no visual confirmation that the track(s) is/are set up correctly.
You know how shortcuts sometimes don't get to the main application? If it doesn't have focus or some plugin window has focus?
On top of that it will look like I'm recording. Really visually all wrong.

The suggestion of just recording everything: I can tell immediately that your way of working is very different from mine. I might do 10 practive runs, or 20 or 50. Can you imagine sorting out 50 takes? And that with the 'feature' that Reaper cuts your take anywhere a previous take has stopped. That's a nightmare.

I'm thinking I might have to do some programming myself. Enumerate tracks that have monitoring on, for each track enumerate all items on it, make a list of all that are muted, store this list, mute all items on all tracks that have monitoring on. And make that toggle-able.
I think it can be done with the Reaper API so that is at least something.

But I keep fantasizing about a monitor button that actually does what it's supposed to do.

[bobobo]

the setting 'record none' prevent from real recording. if you run the o.a. custom action you will see that it don't record anything although all record flashes are red.

At least me do not need more to see what's going on.

sorry ashcat_it , i missed your posting (feeling a little uncomfortable now )

[kstn]

Originally Posted by Pollo

I want to record a new take. The track already has one or more takes on it. Before recording I want to do a practice run. The track is armed for recording, monitoring is on so I can hear what I'm doing. I start playback and I hear what is already on the track, the last take. I don't want to hear that. How do I mute it?

Record practice run, then undo (Ctrl-z). One hotkey, no extensions or tuning needed.

[Pollo]

I'm not sure about this but undo recording doesn't delete the actual file, does it? I'll have to check that.

And it still feels visually wrong to me.

My programming solution remains the most appealing to me.
That's actually Reaper's biggest selling point for me: its tweakability.
I wish it were open source. I'd change that monitoring in a second.

[kstn]

Originally Posted by Pollo

I'm not sure about this but undo recording doesn't delete the actual file, does it? I'll have to check that.

And it still feels visually wrong to me.

My programming solution remains the most appealing to me.
That's actually Reaper's biggest selling point for me: its tweakability.
I wish it were open source. I'd change that monitoring in a second.

Ctrl-Z == undo last action.
Last action in this case is 'record new take', so it will be 'undo record new take', so this should not change actual file.

At any case this method works good some years for me and i've no problems.

PS And hit hotkey is really faster then pointing and clicking mouse.

PPS If you're not sure - keep in mind, there is a magic option 'save new version of project', so if you'll get any trouble, you can return to previous version/

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by kstn

Ctrl-Z == undo last action.
Last action in this case is 'record new take', so it will be 'undo record new take', so this should not change actual file.

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. When you're recording, the audio data is written to a file on your hard disk. What I meant was that it is my understanding (still haven't checked it) that if you undo the recording, the audio data file is not deleted. This means that your audio folder quickly fills up with crap.

Originally Posted by kstn

At any case this method works good some years for me and i've no problems.

I am happy for you. However, I will continue to look for a solution that suits me.

Originally Posted by kstn

PS And hit hotkey is really faster then pointing and clicking mouse.

I wasn't arguing against that, was I? I avoid using the mouse as much as I can.

Originally Posted by kstn

PPS If you're not sure - keep in mind, there is a magic option 'save new version of project', so if you'll get any trouble, you can return to previous version/

It may seem magical to you but it is actually based on electronics and logic. You did know that, didn't you?
You must be referring to the 'Save as' option. I'm familiar with it. Use it all the time. But thanks for the suggestion anyway.

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by bobobo

sorry ashcat_it , i missed your posting (feeling a little uncomfortable now )

Not on my account I hope! You're just trying to help.

[EricTbone]

Originally Posted by Pollo

The track is armed for recording, monitoring is on so I can hear what I'm doing. I start playback and I hear what is already on the track, the last take. I don't want to hear that.

Right-click the record arm button and select "input monitoring only".



You could make a hotkey that does this, if right-clicking is too much work. You could even arrange it so that you have one hotkey for recording for real, and another hotkey that is for "practice runs".

Of course, this was the first response to your question. You said:

Originally Posted by Pollo

I was hoping for something simpler. This is really a kludge. I can come up with all sorts of scenario's where this would not be a good solution.

This is pretty simple. The only issue I could see is if you accidentally had other tracks armed for record. What other scenarios are you imagining?

Originally Posted by Pollo

I can select what is on the track and then mute the item. Problem is that many times the take is split into several items. It's a pain to select them all and mute them.

Assuming you don't have items on the track that you want to remain muted for other reasons, you could easily create a macro that mutes and unmutes all items on the select track. Just open the action menu, click new custom action, and drag the following actions into it:

Item: Select all items in track
Item properties: Toggle mute

You run it once to mute everything, run it again to unmute everything.

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by EricTbone

Right-click the record arm button and select "input monitoring only".



You could make a hotkey that does this, if right-clicking is too much work. You could even arrange it so that you have one hotkey for recording for real, and another hotkey that is for "practice runs".

Of course, this was the first response to your question. You said:

The two issues I have with this approach remain as stated before. It is not visual; I can't see if a track is really recording or if recording is disabled. Visual confirmation is in my opinion an important aspect of the user interface.
Second objection is in the same category; I don't like that the user interface tells me I'm recording while I am not and I have no intention to record anything at that point.

Originally Posted by EricTbone

This is pretty simple. The only issue I could see is if you accidentally had other tracks armed for record. What other scenarios are you imagining?

Well that was the scenario I was thinking of.
BTW, I don't know if it was your intention but 'imagining' soumds a bit denigrating in this context to my ears.

Originally Posted by EricTbone

Assuming you don't have items on the track that you want to remain muted for other reasons, you could easily create a macro that mutes and unmutes all items on the select track. Just open the action menu, click new custom action, and drag the following actions into it:

Item: Select all items in track
Item properties: Toggle mute

You run it once to mute everything, run it again to unmute everything.

Well, again your assumption is exactly my objection and what makes this approach problematic in many cases.
I explained this in more detail in my earlier posts.

[Pollo]

I did a quick test and can confirm my suspicion mentioned before:
Undoing a recording does NOT delete the audio file that was created.

Maybe it is something you can set in the preferences. I don't know.
However, it would be very unwise, in my opinion, to disable that if possible.

[EricTbone]

Originally Posted by Pollo

It is not visual; I can't see if a track is really recording or if recording is disabled.

There are dozens of options that affect recording which have no visible representation in the UI. The point is it achieves what you want: put the track in input monitoring mode, do your practice runs, then put it back in regular recording mode.

Originally Posted by Pollo

I don't like that the user interface tells me I'm recording while I am not and I have no intention to record anything at that point.

There are plenty of other ways to be in record mode without actually recording anything (no armed tracks, you haven't punched in yet, etc.) This is just another of those which happens to covers your use case.

Originally Posted by Pollo

Well that was the scenario I was thinking of.

Well at least we've gone from "all sorts of scenarios" to "the scenario". That's progress.

Originally Posted by Pollo

BTW, I don't know if it was your intention but 'imagining' soumds a bit denigrating in this context to my ears.

It wasn't meant that way, but given your generally hostile tone to anyone who tries to help you, you're welcome to take it that way.

Originally Posted by Pollo

I did a quick test and can confirm my suspicion mentioned before: Undoing a recording does NOT delete the audio file that was created.

Unless you're running out of disk space, this is another non-issue. In the course recording, editing, gluing, deleting, etc. your project directory will accumulate all manner of scratch files. They don't hurt anything. When you want to tidy up, just hit File -> Clean current project directory.

For the record, that happens to be my preferred workflow. In fact, I have a hotkey to undo the last record action and restart recording. I can actually hit this while recording and have it undo everything I've done so far and restart.

In any case, you have the ability to put a track in exactly the mode you asked for originally. If you'd like Reaper to work some other way (for instance, an option to have the monitor button disable playback of track items), you can always post that as a feature request.

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by EricTbone

There are dozens of options that affect recording which have no visible representation in the UI. The point is it achieves what you want: put the track in input monitoring mode, do your practice runs, then put it back in regular recording mode.

There are plenty of other ways to be in record mode without actually recording anything (no armed tracks, you haven't punched in yet, etc.) This is just another of those which happens to covers your use case.

Our points of view are miles apart. Further arguing is not going to bring them closer together I guess.

Originally Posted by EricTbone

Well at least we've gone from "all sorts of scenarios" to "the scenario". That's progress.

And you're avoiding adressing the issue.

Originally Posted by EricTbone

It wasn't meant that way, but given your generally hostile tone to anyone who tries to help you, you're welcome to take it that way.

I think it WAS meant that way and your response more or less confirms that.
It also reveals something else: the tendency to perceive criticism as hostility.
It is my opinion that monitoring in Reaper is flawed. People take that personally. I only would like to see it improved. We could all benefit from that.

I put my issue on the table. People came back to me with work-around solutions. I appreciate that they take the time to do that. But I like none of the suggestions and I have given my reasons why. I did that in a civilized way. Arguing is not the same as hostility. But it can be preceived that way.

I DO adjust my replies to the way I am adressed. So if someone replies to me in a condescending way, he or she can expect something back.

Originally Posted by EricTbone

Unless you're running out of disk space, this is another non-issue. In the course recording, editing, gluing, deleting, etc. your project directory will accumulate all manner of scratch files. They don't hurt anything. When you want to tidy up, just hit File -> Clean current project directory.

For the record, that happens to be my preferred workflow. In fact, I have a hotkey to undo the last record action and restart recording. I can actually hit this while recording and have it undo everything I've done so far and restart.

Disk space is not a non-issue for me. Audio files get large and they compress badly. So if you make backups you don't want extra gigabytes of nonsense files in there.
So far I have not used the cleanup feature. I'm a bit wary of it. I'd rather make sure I don't accumulate garbage than accidently erase something. To each his own.

Originally Posted by EricTbone

In any case, you have the ability to put a track in exactly the mode you asked for originally. If you'd like Reaper to work some other way (for instance, an option to have the monitor button disable playback of track items), you can always post that as a feature request.

I was just today considering making this into a feature request. I tried to search the list of existing requests if it was not already there but there are so many requests. Does anybody keep track of double requests? And is anything ever done with them?

[James HE]

One more possible workaround here, which we haven't discussed.

There is the action "Stop: Delete all recorded Media"

For a practice run, you could just record as usual then stop recording with that action via keystoke, or whatever.

I think by default REAPER prompts to keep files anyway, but this behavior could customized. Maybe that's something that works well enough for now?

[EricTbone]

Originally Posted by Pollo

I think it WAS meant that way and your response more or less confirms that.

It absolutely wasn't, as I said, but this certain confirms your desire to turn every possible interaction hostile. See ya.

Here's a hint: be a condescending asshole in your feature request. See how far that gets you.

[Pollo]

I don't need a feature request anymore. I just finshed my own workaround. It works nicely.

I call it rehearsal playback, for want of a better name. I assigned it to play + shift on my MIDI controller. What it does is search all tracks for ones that have monitoring engaged (not if it is tape-style though). From those tracks it finds all items that are not muted and mutes them, making a list of all those tracks and items. When you hit stop it undoes all the mutes and restores everything as it was.

It will need to prove itself in practice but I think I can work with it.

I'll be happy to share the source code if anyone is interested. Maybe someone can turn it into a script. I don't do much scripting.

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by James HE

One more possible workaround here, which we haven't discussed.

There is the action "Stop: Delete all recorded Media"

For a practice run, you could just record as usual then stop recording with that action via keystoke, or whatever.

I think by default REAPER prompts to keep files anyway, but this behavior could customized. Maybe that's something that works well enough for now?

Thanks. Appreciate it but I don't need it anymore. See post above.

[serr]

Originally Posted by Pollo

I have the following problem with monitoring in Reaper and I wonder if anyone can give me an easy solution. This happens to me al the time:

I want to record a new take. The track already has one or more takes on it. Before recording I want to do a practice run. The track is armed for recording, monitoring is on so I can hear what I'm doing. I start playback and I hear what is already on the track, the last take. I don't want to hear that. How do I mute it?

I can select what is on the track and then mute the item. Problem is that many times the take is split into several items. It's a pain to select them all and mute them. There must be an easier way. How do you guys deal with this?

I found a whole discussion on monitoring in Reaper. I agree with those who think that the current way the monitor button works is not very practical or logical. My problem would not exist if the monitor button worked like in other DAW's: Monitor on -> you hear the input, monitor off -> you hear the track. But I'll go with any solution that is workable.

Are you intentionally using the 'take' system? The business of simulating "punching" in/out like it worked on analog decks is optional. It's a huge PITA and doesn't particularly encourage creativity via the restriction imposed IMHO. Others will strongly disagree (as evidenced by the features written into the software). You can just skip all that and record DAW style.

[EricTbone]

Originally Posted by Pollo

I assigned it to play + shift on my MIDI controller. What it does is search all tracks for ones that have monitoring engaged From those tracks it finds all items that are not muted and mutes them, making a list of all those tracks and items. When you hit stop it undoes all the mutes and restores everything as it was.

It will need to prove itself in practice but I think I can work with it.

I'll be happy to share the source code if anyone is interested. Maybe someone can turn it into a script. I don't do much scripting.

If "it" is not a script, what is it? What is it that's doing all these things?

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by serr

Are you intentionally using the 'take' system? The business of simulating "punching" in/out like it worked on analog decks is optional. It's a huge PITA and doesn't particularly encourage creativity via the restriction imposed IMHO. Others will strongly disagree (as evidenced by the features written into the software). You can just skip all that and record DAW style.

I'm not quite following you. I find the take system not so bad. It allows me to comp from different takes in a reasonably convenient way.

I don't like the fact that items are automatically split when you're overdubbing. Is that what you are referring to? Especially with MIDI takes it seems to irrepairably damage them. It forces you to punch in and punch out when you do overdubs. I don't like it much but it is not hampering my creativity so far.

I did try some of the other options, like recording in lanes, but I liked them even less. Maybe I missed something. I don't understand what you mean by recording DAW style. Could you explain that a bit more?

[serr]

Originally Posted by Pollo

I'm not quite following you. I find the take system not so bad. It allows me to comp from different takes in a reasonably convenient way.

I don't like the fact that items are automatically split when you're overdubbing. Is that what you are referring to? Especially with MIDI takes it seems to irrepairably damage them. It forces you to punch in and punch out when you do overdubs. I don't like it much but it is not hampering my creativity so far.

I did try some of the other options, like recording in lanes, but I liked them even less. Maybe I missed something. I don't understand what you mean by recording DAW style. Could you explain that a bit more?

For overdubs in a studio setting, I use the mixer built into my interface to monitor live inputs. Pretty SOP there. (I'll give an example after of using Reaper with live sound low latency settings instead.)

Make a recording track.
Assign your hardware input.
Mute it. (Because you're monitoring it with your interface.)
This is your "recording bin".

As you record any part that's a keeper, slide it down into a new 'permanent' track. Build your arrangement tracks with purpose like this.

You only have to assign your hardware input once to the recording track.
You don't have to piss around setting punch in/out points to replace a bit in the middle of something and then mess around in the same track. Simply slice out the bad part in whatever arrangement track it's in. Then simply record until you have the new good part. Now do the in/out edits between those takes at your leisure vs. having to nail all that on the fly.

Any new recordings in the 'recording bin' stack up in lanes. You can easily go back at any time and grab something if you change your mind down the road. They're right there in the order they were recorded.

You were wanting to end up with arrangement tracks at the end of the day (eg. lead vox, harmony vox, harmony vox 2, etc). Might as well cut right to the chase.

Do you really want to have to assign hardware inputs to multiple tracks over and over and then treat it like a tape deck with no more tracks to spare and do live punches? I don't think so! And then what happens when you decide you want to listen to a previous take again?

Note that the 'takes' mode puts multiple audio streams into a single item 'container'. It splits all takes together because it's a single item. Use this when the goal is multiple audio streams in a single item. Don't use it when that's the last thing you want. This honestly looks more useful for some kind of live looping performance scenario to let you flip through multiple audio streams in a single loop.

Some of these comp features with the takes system may sound interesting at first. But at the end of the day, it's more work and pissing around than simply recording what I called "DAW style". There are unlimited tracks and the ability to assign hardware inputs as you please and route as you please. I say go with that.


Remember that the big analog consoles with 40 - 100 tracks or more were all about using the tracks for multiple copies of the same source to dial them up differently for different parts of the song. The first automation was just mutes to flip between those as the song played. Don't get sucked into this weirdness where people seem to be trying to cram their whole mix into a single track in a DAW! Use your tracks.


Running live through Reaper with those overdubs?
Make an additional monitor bus track for your live input. Keep the 'recording bin' track muted as above.

[Pollo]

You've got an interseting 'take' on it. It's a shift of perspective and food for thought.

I agree totally with the drawbacks of the take system you mention. I do feel that it's more the way that Reaper has implemented it that's at fault though. I think it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. If there was no automatic item splitting, things would look different. But starting that discussion is opening a can of worms.

I am sort of used to the take system by now. The constant stimulation of my pain sensors has desensitized them. I just have to avoid to do certain things, like not punching in an overdub.

I never use hardware monitoring. I always monitor through the DAW. I record at 64 bit samples buffer size and the latency is low enough for me. Many times I'll record VSTi's. First as MIDI and then when it comes time to mix I usually freeze or render them.
Your approach wouldn't work that well for VSTi tracks, would it? If you mute the input track you won't hear the monitor signal either.

Anyway, I understand now what you mean by recording DAW style. I can see the merits. I'll have to see whether it will be useful for me.

[serr]

In a pinch, my 'recording bin' track might get a single pass and turn right into the permanent arrangement track. Same if I was doing live performance through a MIDI instrument plugin. If I wanted to record multiple takes in that scenario, I'd make a live monitor track as I described and use a muted recording bin track.

The point is I'm not interested in the extra work of the takes system. It feels like a vestigial workaround for a system with limited tracks. A DAW is not limited in tracks.

[James HE]

Originally Posted by serr

The point is I'm not interested in the extra work of the takes system. It feels like a vestigial workaround for a system with limited tracks. A DAW is not limited in tracks.

I know you feel like those of us who use the take system are sort of stuck in some sort of ancient analog paradigm, but I think your thinking is just as stuck if not more so.

If I do some punch in using takes, I'm not emulating splicing tape. I'm simply making an edit in the most efficient way for me to do so. I'm bascally editing and recording at the same time. after I record the new take, my editing is already done, aside from maybe choosing from multiple takes.

I and many others use the take system (and/or free item positioning and/or the ability to record in lanes instead of takes) and use 1 track as basically multiple tracks. IN just adding new tracks for everything, you are limiting yourself in what you can do with a track - this actually seems more along the lines of the old way way of working with tape and an analog deck - you just have unlimited tracks and the editing is non-linear.

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by serr

If I wanted to record multiple takes in that scenario, I'd make a live monitor track as I described and use a muted recording bin track.

How does that work? You create a send to another track? But if you mute the source track, doesn't that also mute the send?

[serr]

Originally Posted by Pollo

How does that work? You create a send to another track? But if you mute the source track, doesn't that also mute the send?

Make the send pre-fader then.

[serr]

Originally Posted by James HE

I know you feel like those of us who use the take system are sort of stuck in some sort of ancient analog paradigm, but I think your thinking is just as stuck if not more so.

If I do some punch in using takes, I'm not emulating splicing tape. I'm simply making an edit in the most efficient way for me to do so. I'm bascally editing and recording at the same time. after I record the new take, my editing is already done, aside from maybe choosing from multiple takes.

I and many others use the take system (and/or free item positioning and/or the ability to record in lanes instead of takes) and use 1 track as basically multiple tracks. IN just adding new tracks for everything, you are limiting yourself in what you can do with a track - this actually seems more along the lines of the old way way of working with tape and an analog deck - you just have unlimited tracks and the editing is non-linear.

I think some people are doing that.
I don't mean to dismiss creative use of features or workflow that fits your style. Just throwing this out there for anyone who might not have considered it and finds the takes feature frustrating.

So... I guess the real real point is there's no reason to be frustrated in DAW land. There's (nearly) always an elegant solution.

Cramming a lot of stuff into a single track can be nice for some things too. So can combining steps (like your editing example). But unlimited tracks and nonlinear editing are pretty powerful features and not to be dismissed.

Depends on the client too. Some people like to record a gazillion takes. For the worst case special ones, the DAW style (as I called it) method lets me move as fast as they think and record and I never get painted into a corner. Someone else might be recording nearly all single takes and they go straight to permanent tracks with no screwing around.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by serr

Are you intentionally using the 'take' system? The business of simulating "punching" in/out like it worked on analog decks is optional. It's a huge PITA and doesn't particularly encourage creativity via the restriction imposed IMHO. Others will strongly disagree (as evidenced by the features written into the software). You can just skip all that and record DAW style.

Well we do because it isn't a PITA as you don't understand Reaper's take system and think it's a tape recorder simulator - as soon as you break out of that ancient thinking we'll be back on track.

I know you feel like those of us who use the take system are sort of stuck in some sort of ancient analog paradigm, but I think your thinking is just as stuck if not more so.

Absolutely, not once has analog recording methods and reaper's takes crossed my mind as similar 'paradigms', ever.

[karbomusic]

I think many are still stuck in guessing about it vs knowing it, just a hunch though.

In my 9 years here (let's subtract a couple because the take system suffered badly until early V4), only a couple of people (literally) have given me real-world and practical use cases where the take system truly failed. It's almost always one of the following instead:

1. They are really talking about PT playlists.
2. They are used to something from another DAW and are fighting to keep what they are used to.
3. They didn't RTM or otherwise truly learn how it works, get frustrated and never understand it's strengths.
4. Get stuck in this self-feedback loop where they can't stop equating it to tape and analog and hundreds of takes.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by serr

Depends on the client too.

It depends on a LOT of things. If someone is paying you thousands of dollars and they want to run their lead vocal track 10 times as they sing different phrases, words, inflections and so on, you do it - and chances are they knew exactly what they were talking about (I won't go into why doing it as takes is more efficient right now). I could find scenario after scenario after scenario where this has nothing to do with bad players where using takes is more efficient towards a completed project with less work and others where it's the other way around - meaning... you need to know how to use ALL features equally and when to use them - far more pro and important than these silly debates.

[Pollo]

Originally Posted by serr

Make the send pre-fader then.

That doesn't work. Muting the track still mutes both monitor and track.