Old 01-31-2018, 01:53 AM   #1
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default How to switch monitoring to input only?

Hi all!

Here in the studio we are switching from Pro Tools to Reaper and we are so glad about it. This forum has been a great help. However, there are things that we need to figure out yet. Probably because we need to think differently.


Is there a way to switch monitoring in a track from what’s in its input to what’s actually placed in the track? For instance, let’s say we have these tracks for our mix:

1 Music + FX
2 Dialogue
3 Reverb aux
4 Rec dialogue (Recording Track 2 + Track 3)
5 Rec mix (Recording Track 1 + Track 4)

And we want to punch in (we are actually recording audio from the rest of the tracks in tracks 4 & 5) because we did change a small part in dialogue track. We can play it and hit record wherever we want and the punch is done, but problem is that while we are playing we hear audio twice. Only when you hit record you hear it just once.
Only way that we could think of is mute items in tracks 4 & 5 before recording. Is that so?

Thanks in advance.
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 04:20 AM   #2
hscottaudio
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganttictemp View Post
Hi all!

Here in the studio we are switching from Pro Tools to Reaper and we are so glad about it. This forum has been a great help. However, there are things that we need to figure out yet. Probably because we need to think differently.


Is there a way to switch monitoring in a track from what’s in its input to what’s actually placed in the track? For instance, let’s say we have these tracks for our mix:

1 Music + FX
2 Dialogue
3 Reverb aux
4 Rec dialogue (Recording Track 2 + Track 3)
5 Rec mix (Recording Track 1 + Track 4)

And we want to punch in (we are actually recording audio from the rest of the tracks in tracks 4 & 5) because we did change a small part in dialogue track. We can play it and hit record wherever we want and the punch is done, but problem is that while we are playing we hear audio twice. Only when you hit record you hear it just once.
Only way that we could think of is mute items in tracks 4 & 5 before recording. Is that so?

Thanks in advance.
Go to the routing for the tracks you only want to send (not directly hear), untick master send (or parent send if its a child folder track).

Does that work for you?
hscottaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 04:35 AM   #3
G-Sun
Human being with feelings
 
G-Sun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Norway
Posts: 7,112
Default

https://www.reaper.fm/videos.php#iLC1HjLXLd0
2.40

Monitor input (tape auto style)
__________________
Reaper x64, win 8.1
G-Sun.no - Music Blog - My music
G-Sun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2018, 08:17 AM   #4
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hscottaudio View Post
Go to the routing for the tracks you only want to send (not directly hear), untick master send (or parent send if its a child folder track).

Does that work for you?
Thanks for your answer!

Well, that works for recording, yep. But if after that I want to listen what's recorded and I tick master send again, I got two signals again. Does that make sense?
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2018, 08:18 AM   #5
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Sun View Post
https://www.reaper.fm/videos.php#iLC1HjLXLd0
2.40

Monitor input (tape auto style)
Thanks for your answer!!

That works for us when recording from a microphone or an instrument. But can't make it work whnen recording from another track.
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 03:02 PM   #6
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 902
Default

You can record directly from other tracks by:

1) using sends to get all the desired source audio to the track
2) arm the track
3) r-click on the meter and select 'Record Output'.
Note that, unlike most recording modes, the track fader and pan on the armed track will directly affect the recorded audio. So, mostly, leave it at zero...

You can kill the 'double audio' by either muting the armed track while recording or by turning off monitoring on that track.

Last edited by Philbo King; 02-06-2018 at 03:09 PM.
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 03:18 PM   #7
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganttictemp View Post
Thanks for your answer!

Well, that works for recording, yep. But if after that I want to listen what's recorded and I tick master send again, I got two signals again. Does that make sense?
Are you muting the old source tracks after recording? Because recording from another track onto an new track will (assuming the gains are flat) increase the output level by 6 dB or so when you play it back, since there are 2 identical signals now feeding the master.
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 02:20 AM   #8
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

Ok, a picture is worth a thousand words. Can we keep this structure and avoid "double audio"?

Our current solution is a custom action that mutes the item before recording, but we would like to hear what's recorded instead of the input until we hit record. Is that doable?

Thanks a lot for your replies.
Attached Images
File Type: gif Screenshot 1.gif (53.9 KB, 35 views)
File Type: gif Screesnshot 2.gif (57.4 KB, 28 views)
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 11:41 AM   #9
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganttictemp View Post
Ok, a picture is worth a thousand words. Can we keep this structure and avoid "double audio"?

Our current solution is a custom action that mutes the item before recording, but we would like to hear what's recorded instead of the input until we hit record. Is that doable?

Thanks a lot for your replies.
One way to do that is to uncheck the parent send from the source tracks and turn on parent send on the destination track. So the route, while recording, for source tracks to get to the master track is:

Source tracks --(sends)-> record track --(parent send to master)--> master track.

That way you only hear what's being recorded.
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 03:53 AM   #10
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

Thanks for your reply!

While recording is just fine. Master sends are disabled in all tracks but the last one, REC MIX. thing is while playing before hitting record we hear "double audio".

Does that make sense?

Last edited by ganttictemp; 02-08-2018 at 04:46 AM.
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 02:08 PM   #11
RobinGShore
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganttictemp View Post
Thanks for your reply!

While recording is just fine. Master sends are disabled in all tracks but the last one, REC MIX. thing is while playing before hitting record we hear "double audio".

Does that make sense?
I understand what you're asking for. You want to "print" your mix and stems directly into a reaper project and then be able to monitor and punch in on the printed track afterwards without hearing the original routing until you punch in to record. Basically the same thing as using "tape auto style" input monitoring, except instead of monitoring a physical input, you're monitoring audio routed from other tracks.

This is something I've wished I could do for a while as well, but I don't think there's a straightforward way of making it happen currently in Reaper. You will always get the doubling effect of the printed track combined with routed signal unless you manually mute things. You can setup custom actions or scripts to automatically mute things when you record, but this feels kind of clunky, and can mess up the timing and monitoring of your punches. It would be nice if there was a way to make reaper treat internal routing similarly to track inputs.
__________________
www.silversound.us
RobinGShore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 09:39 PM   #12
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 902
Default

Hmmm. I didn't have any problems with it. Basic technique:
Source tracks:
-turn off parent send
- add send to record track, turning then down 6 or 8 dB if you have more than one source track
-mute any other sends to other tracks

Record track:
Arm & r-click level meter, select record track output

Record, using record track parent send if you want to monitor the audio.

Playback:
Since source tracks have no parent send, they are effectively muted as far as the master mix. However they are still being routed through the record track, so:
- change record track record option back to normal (so source tracks no longer feed through the track)
- play back recorded track normally

I hope this helps...

Another tried & true way: Bus the source tracks to a line out (or 2 for stereo) to in and loop back to line in(s), then record the input(s) to the record track. It's a good way to see if the latency compensation works as well...

Last edited by Philbo King; 02-08-2018 at 09:48 PM.
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 01:38 AM   #13
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

Thanks!

So just to make sure I explained myself, here's a video of what we want to do

We need to play a little bit before recording, and that's when we hear the double audio. When recording we hear it right. Is there a way to do that easily?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Xs...PpDLQpB_icU9O8
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 02:14 AM   #14
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 17,765
Default

I know this is obvious, but you DO have record monitoring set to "auto", dont you?
__________________
We are in a rudderless ship with a fool at the wheel who doesnt even realise it ain`t working any more
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 02:23 AM   #15
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post
I know this is obvious, but you DO have record monitoring set to "auto", dont you?
In the video maybe not, but yes. We tried OFF, ON and AUTO.
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 03:59 PM   #16
hopi
Human being with feelings
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 13,618
Default

take a look at your punch settings... assuming you are using a time selection for the punch...

then find the action to not have time and loop point be the same...
then set your punch to the loop points but set you time points before that.. and after that if you want it that way also...

you will find actions to set the various things, time start and end, loop start and end
__________________
...should be fixed for the next build... http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
https://soundcloud.com/hopikiva/angel-rain
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2018, 01:36 AM   #17
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopi View Post
take a look at your punch settings... assuming you are using a time selection for the punch...

then find the action to not have time and loop point be the same...
then set your punch to the loop points but set you time points before that.. and after that if you want it that way also...

you will find actions to set the various things, time start and end, loop start and end
Thanks for your reply! I'm sorry, I don't think I understood. Usually we record normal mode, but time selection auto punch makes no difference. We still hearing double before it starts recording.
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 06:25 PM   #18
RobinGShore
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post
I know this is obvious, but you DO have record monitoring set to "auto", dont you?
Record monitoring isn't going to work in this case. It only works if for monitoring an actual input on your interface. We're talking about routing signal internally to a buss track in Reaper and recording the output of that buss track

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philbo King View Post
Hmmm. I didn't have any problems with it. Basic technique:
Source tracks:
-turn off parent send
- add send to record track, turning then down 6 or 8 dB if you have more than one source track
-mute any other sends to other tracks

Record track:
Arm & r-click level meter, select record track output

Record, using record track parent send if you want to monitor the audio.

Playback:
Since source tracks have no parent send, they are effectively muted as far as the master mix. However they are still being routed through the record track, so:
- change record track record option back to normal (so source tracks no longer feed through the track)
- play back recorded track normally

I hope this helps...
For me this method falls under the same category as having to manually mute things. It will work, but it's really clumsy and time consuming to have to do this every-time you want to switch between recording and playback. It's also not really possible to punch into recording during playback with this method.

Quote:
Another tried & true way: Bus the source tracks to a line out (or 2 for stereo) to in and loop back to line in(s), then record the input(s) to the record track. It's a good way to see if the latency compensation works as well...
This does work and would allow you to use record monitoring for a smoother workflow, but it'd be nice if we didn't have to route things outside of the box to get that.
__________________
www.silversound.us
RobinGShore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 03:50 AM   #19
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

So I get it this is a concept thing? Really, having the render freeze tracks option and the multiple render options that Reaper has... maybe what we do makes no sense and that is why it's not "implemented" in Reaper. Maybe there is no need, but this is what we are used to, but we really thought there would be a workaround.

Thanks everybody again.
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 11:07 AM   #20
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,435
Default

Yeah, I was wondering why you're trying to do this at all if you're not capturing actual external inputs. Since everything's recorded already, just manipulate the items themselves until you get what you want. Once you get a reasonable workflow going with that, it'll be a lot faster and easier.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 12:04 PM   #21
EpicSounds
Human being with feelings
 
EpicSounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganttictemp View Post
So I get it this is a concept thing? Really, having the render freeze tracks option and the multiple render options that Reaper has... maybe what we do makes no sense and that is why it's not "implemented" in Reaper. Maybe there is no need, but this is what we are used to, but we really thought there would be a workaround.

Thanks everybody again.
kinda sounds like you got used to a PT workaround that isn't necessary in reaper.
__________________
REAPER Video Tutorials, Tips & Tricks and more at The REAPER Blog
EpicSounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 02:34 AM   #22
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

Yep, looks like it. However, I feel it strange that it duplicates audio when you have something in and actually recorded on the track and I was curious. I thought there would be a way.
ganttictemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 07:25 AM   #23
RobinGShore
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicSounds View Post
kinda sounds like you got used to a PT workaround that isn't necessary in reaper.
I wouldn't call it a workaround, just a different way of working. There are legitimate reasons someone might want to record their mix/stems to a track within the project rather than use the render window.
__________________
www.silversound.us
RobinGShore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 11:24 AM   #24
uncleswede
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 683
Default

I think I understand your requirements. Try these custom actions.

1) Group tracks 1-3 as Group 1 (Shift-G) and select all.
This only needs to be done once per project

2) record arm tracks 4 and 5

3) create custom action "Punch IN" as below and add shortcut as "Z"
Custom: Punch IN
Group: Select all tracks in group 01
Track: Unmute tracks
Transport: Record

4) create custom action "Punch OUT" as below and add shortcut as "X"
Custom: Punch OUT
Group: Select all tracks in group 01
Track: Mute tracks
Transport: Record

5) Play the project and press Z to punch in and X to punch out.

Haven't had time to test thoroughly but seems to work
uncleswede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2018, 01:15 AM   #25
ganttictemp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 37
Default

Thanks! We actually did a pretty similar workaround but with a script. We ended up just muting the item before the punch because muting and unmuting all tracks sometimes was too much for our speakers. But yes, looks like this is as close as we can get.

Thank you.
ganttictemp 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 04:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.