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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-31-2007, 09:04 AM   #1
intoxicat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 45
Default monitor inputs without recording

Is there a way to monitor inputs through reaper without first arming them for record?
intoxicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2007, 09:11 AM   #2
susbemol
Human being with feelings
 
susbemol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,217
Default

Yep, arm the track for recording and then click on the vu meter and choose "Record: disable (input monitoring only)"
susbemol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2007, 09:34 AM   #3
intoxicat
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 45
Default

Cheers - happy new year!
intoxicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 06:25 AM   #4
Cableaddict
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,910
Default

I just found this via a long search. OK, it works, but how absurd.

Yet another important routing that can't be seen from the mixer window.

It also mean you can't make quick changes to multiple tracks. Cumbersome. Let's see: Put the track in record-mode, then disable it's ability to record.
-And put those two controls in separate windows.
-And hde the fact that record is disabled in the mixer window while you're at it.

Brilliant.

Are we never going to have regular old INPUT MODE, like in every other DAW?
Is there some badge of honor to this arcane routing system that eludes me?

How about: Select input, playback, or auto mode, and then have a separate record-ready button? You know, like the entire rest of the world?

Then you could have the option of latched-record buttons, (as now) vs any new record-arming disabling all other record buttons (unless you hold shift)
this is an INCREDIBLY useful thing to have. I helps prevent nasty mistakes in large sessions.
-----------------------

While I'm ranting, can someone explain to me what the little icons at the bottom of each track mean- the ones that include a little "Rolling stones" tongue? I've search the manual repeatedly, and can't find the answer.

I aaume it has SOMETHING to do with monitoring function. (though no pure input mode)

Last edited by Cableaddict; 06-13-2008 at 06:45 AM.
Cableaddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 07:00 AM   #5
livedead13
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 503
Default

are you sure you even like Reaper man?
livedead13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 07:35 AM   #6
Milt
Human being with feelings
 
Milt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 356
Default

I like Reaper, and I totally agree with Cableaddict!! Nothing wrong with trying to make it better.
Milt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 07:40 AM   #7
livedead13
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 503
Default

that question was directed at cabbleaddict, which i only asked because it seems like every time i read his posts, it's about something that he doesn't like in Reaper, or something that he would change.
livedead13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 08:00 AM   #8
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

I found this on page 4 of feature request. Seems I started that thread just last week?

FR:remove Recordisabled option

http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthre...396#post195396
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:30 AM   #9
jamester
Human being with feelings
 
jamester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,185
Default

Personally I always just right-click on the Record Arm button, which gives every option available all together in one menu. I find it redundant that we have so many ways to access the same info/settings on the Track Panel.

Right-clicking on the meters is just stupid IMO, no need for it at all...
jamester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 06:05 PM   #10
Guitar Edman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 106
Default

-1
Am I reading this wrong? Sounds like we have a method to monitor inputs without recording them and the forum is recommending losing the feature? Please no! Maybe it could be a bit more intuitive but lets not lose this ability especially now that it has just been brought to light for me at least!
Guitar Edman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 06:37 PM   #11
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guitar Edman View Post
-1
Am I reading this wrong? Sounds like we have a method to monitor inputs without recording them and the forum is recommending losing the feature? Please no! Maybe it could be a bit more intuitive but lets not lose this ability especially now that it has just been brought to light for me at least!
I think you did maybe read it wrong. What you're describing is a pretty standard feature which is made more difficult and a little illogical the way it's implemented here. I think the point is (was?) to enable input monitoring directly with a single click on a monitor button, not to lose the feature.

It does seem to me (to agree with the CableAddict on this one) a bit strange to click the "Monitor" button, have it tell you it's on, and still not hear anything when logically it should connect the input signal directly to the channel path (for monitoring?) whether it's in record or not. Most daws do exactly that.

There's some other workflow problems there as well with the right-click monitor and record menus that I won't go into (imho) but yeah... most people who switch on an "Input Monitor" button on a daw would expect to hear the input signal?

But there's the rub... the monitor button tool-tip ballon tells the story. It doesn't have "Input Monitoring" it has "Record Monitoring". You can't monitor unless the record button is engaged.

Not beating up on Reaper... I love it. But it has some very peculiar and illogical parts to it.

Last edited by Lawrence; 06-13-2008 at 07:27 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 08:28 PM   #12
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

Ditto
The Record Arm Button should only be activated when it is time to Record. It makes no sense that it should be turned on, just to listen, that is the job of the Input Monitor button.

I use Input Monitor for Audio rarely, I use the zero latency monitoring on my Audio Interface.
But Input Monitor is an absolute requirement for recording (or just playing) VSTi.

Besides the clumsiness of having to Rec Arm a VSTi track just to hear it, there is also a loss of funtionality. The keybinding to "Unarm all track for recording" becomes useless, because it will also turn off the Rec Arm on the tracks with "Record Arm: Disable (input monitoring only" selected.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 09:09 PM   #13
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

yeah, what a stupid idea to have two different buttons for two different functions



pipelineaudio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 09:18 PM   #14
keyman_sam
Human being with feelings
 
keyman_sam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,562
Default

I've already pointed out how cumbersome it is in reaper, LAST YEAR. Progress can be made in consolidating the options or presenting them in a simpler format. Work can be done in "cleaning" up reaper and making it feel/function more professionally, imho.

Unforunately I've gotten used to it. I can see the OP's frustration though.

The way sonar and cubase do it is have an arm button and a rec button. Press arm to listen to audio. Press rec to enable recording. They are independent of each other.

It would also be easier if the rec enable button was on the same row as the track name so that you can see the status of all the tracks easily without having to zoom in to see each one.
__________________
The must-have sample library for shortcircuit :
Essentials Volume 1
http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?...3313#note14891
keyman_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 09:35 PM   #15
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
yeah, what a stupid idea to have two different buttons for two different functions
Mr. Pipeline sir ... I think either you're missing the legitimate point of the gripes or I'm missing the point of your quote above . Not sure which, but I think probably the latter as you certainly wouldn't call anything about Reaper stupid.

Either way, the current monitor button behavior while operational is illogical.

If there is a "Monitor" button, and you press it, and there's audio coming into the channel input, the meters should start moving, and you should hear it, unless it's muted, without doing anything else. It's a method that can't really be improved on... it can only go downhill from there.

Close a circuit and open a circuit.

Like pressing a mute button to open a circuit without having to click something else to actually make it stop making sound. That would be really silly huh?

Last edited by Lawrence; 06-13-2008 at 10:06 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 09:41 PM   #16
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

lay out a way which you would like better, with graphics

If its really better, I don't doubt we will see it implemented

You know the drill
pipelineaudio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:08 PM   #17
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

The same way everybody else does it. I'll post a very short video or graphic.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:11 PM   #18
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

"everybody else" makes midi sequencers with audio thrown in later..lets not use the argument ad popularum
pipelineaudio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:11 PM   #19
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
lay out a way which you would like better, with graphics
Huh, the graphics are there, see the button that usually has an R that usually means record. See the button that usually looks like a speaker, and usually means hear.

The graphics are there every time someone fires up REAPER. Why do you think it should work the way it does now. What is the benefit. In what way is it logical. Please educate me.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:17 PM   #20
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

right now it says " when these tracks are armed, they will be in this mode, but since you dont want them armed right now, you wont have to worry about feedback or any other effect of 'input always' mode"
pipelineaudio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:20 PM   #21
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

Then Mute the track, or turn off Input Monitoring.

Input monitoring quite often has nothing to do with the Record Functions.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:20 PM   #22
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
"everybody else" makes midi sequencers with audio thrown in later..lets not use the argument ad popularum
I wasn't making an argument , everybody does a few things the same general way. Press a button to hear sound (or have light with a light switch, close the circuit) press it again and hear no sound (or have no light) it's just a switch that opens and closes the audio path to the channel like a light switch opens or closes the circuit to a light bulb. It doesn't depend on *anything else* but a signal coming in and the channel not being muted of course.

Kinda like everybody else does mute switches. Press a button and stop sound, if any is there. What daw doesn't do monitor switches that way? It's standard.

One button "turns on and off the lights". The little speaker means "I want to hear what's coming into the hardware input that this daw channel is assigned to."

I may not have any intention to actually record anything right now. I may have a keyboard workstation or CD player or etc, etc, plugged directly into hardware inputs with no dsp mixer and sequencing on it's internal sequencer. I just need to hear it through the daw.

I intentionally hid the record button on this track to (hopefully finally) make the point.



Wax on, wax off... It would actually surprise me if all daws except Reaper didn't work exactly that way.

Last edited by Lawrence; 06-13-2008 at 10:51 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:25 PM   #23
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

I don't mean to be an ass here.

For the way I work, which is large numbers of armed tracks, lots of microphones, and a bunch of impatient musicians who will CONSTANTLY glance at their watches if the slightest milisecond is wasted, with many separate headphone mixes, the existing way works extremely well

But if you can think of a way which works better for you, and yet doesnt break it for the rest of us, then go for it. For all I know it could be better for everyone!

I'm not trying to impede progress, I just don't want to go backwards
pipelineaudio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:28 PM   #24
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

How does having to press the Rec Arm button save you time. I am in no way understanding why anyone would think this is right.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:31 PM   #25
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xackley View Post
Then Mute the track, or turn off Input Monitoring.
What if Im trying to monitor the existing take?

Quote:
Input monitoring quite often has nothing to do with the Record Functions.
It sure did for fifty years of recording and it seemed to work fine
pipelineaudio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:33 PM   #26
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

So your mixing board doesn't have monitoring channels, I beleive that is the way it was done for the last hundred years.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:47 PM   #27
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
What if Im trying to monitor the existing take?
Then you do not want Input Monitoring turned on. Turn it off.

But once again, why is it good to have to press the Rec Arm button to monitor the input? And then to make it worse by having an option to Record: Disabled (input monitoring only).
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:52 PM   #28
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Hey,

If some people are ok with having daw tracks in record ready (or having to go and disable recording on those channels) just so they can actually hear and mix external effects returns when mixing (for yet another quite silly example of why everybody does it that way)...

... I suppose that's their personal choice. To me it's very illogical. Sorry, but it is.

But not worth arguing about beyond a certain point which was passed about 10 posts ago.

Last edited by Lawrence; 06-13-2008 at 11:02 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:53 PM   #29
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
If people are ok with having a bunch of daw tracks in record ready *just so they can hear external effects returns*...

... I suppose that's their choice. I give up.

It's fine the way it is. Leave it be.
I dont mean for you to give up, its highly possible that youll come up with something that will work for everyone. That's something to strive for not discourage
pipelineaudio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 11:03 PM   #30
jamester
Human being with feelings
 
jamester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xackley View Post
But once again, why is it good to have to press the Rec Arm button to monitor the input? And then to make it worse by having an option to Record: Disabled (input monitoring only).
Right, it's illogical to me also. Either get rid of the option for "Record: disable (input monitoring)" and have the actual Monitoring button work the way it should for it, or else ditch the Monitoring button altogether and do everything from the Record button right-click menu (not as good an option I suppose).

And on top of that, again - why do we need redundant Input assignments from the Meters again? Just to make them look worse (with a drop-down arrow)? I'd rather they just be Meters, and look nicer for it...
jamester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 11:16 PM   #31
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
I dont mean for you to give up, its highly possible that youll come up with something that will work for everyone. That's something to strive for not discourage
Thanks.

Just to be clear ... engaging record also optionally automatically engages monitoring (unless you don't need it with DM or the like, then you turn that option off globally) so there's still only one button to push just like Reaper does now when you're actually recording stuff. Monitoring alone is for when you're not yet recording or will not be recording, it's just for listening when you just want to listen. You don't have to hit two buttons to record and monitor if that's what you were thinking when talking about saving time.

For you and your sessions as you describe above, absolutely nothing would change... you'd hit record, hear the input immediately, and record just like you do now.


Bowing out gracefully...

Last edited by Lawrence; 06-13-2008 at 11:57 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 05:44 AM   #32
drew
Mobile
 
drew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London & São Paulo. Hardcore commercial REAPERite
Posts: 1,669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Hey,

If some people are ok with having daw tracks in record ready (or having to go and disable recording on those channels) just so they can actually hear and mix external effects returns when mixing (for yet another quite silly example of why everybody does it that way)...

... I suppose that's their personal choice. To me it's very illogical. Sorry, but it is.
+1 million.. this is exactly the point.

It's not only illogical, but very unhelpful to see.

Record light on some tracks - yes they're going to record.
Record light on some other tracks - but they're not going to record
.. yet no visible difference.

If you're "input monitoring only" it has *nothing* to do with recording!!! Why would anyone think of pressing that button??

Maybe we're going about the wrong way asking to remove that option.. maybe the point is - since REAPER often provides alternate ways of doing things - to have a way to monitor without needing to touch the record at all.

For both fx returns and MIDI monitoring the current way is clumsy and I want REAPER to be clumsy-free.. it's getting there!
__________________
Proudly using REAPER exclusively for...
* Media and event music composition & production, sound design + auto-processing at Qsonics.com
* Broadcast branding, promos, education & training and narration voice-overs at DrewWhite.com
drew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 06:41 AM   #33
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

Think about what pipeline and Lawrence said, and looking at the "In" button and the meter(button), here is a possible solution.

As it is now:
When Lclick on the "IN" button you get a menu to select record option, like "record: Input", or "record: output"
When Lclick on the meter you get a menu of recording sources.

My suggestion would be when you Lclick the Input Monitoring button a menu displays

Monitor Input
Monitor Input (tape auto style)
----------------------
Monitor track media when recording
Monitor when Not Armed for recording


The "Monitor when Not Armed for recording" would need to be a Global or Per Project setting for new tracks.

This would give that row of buttons a consistent mode of operation, and give the user more control of when to hear what is being sent to the track from external hardware.

EDIT: Also as part of Jamester's request, the Left Click menu for the "in" button should only include the "Record:" options, the entire list should be reserved for Right click context. menu.

EDIT: It would also resolve another of Lawrence's request in that changing the InPut Monitoring mode via a Left Click menu would change any monitoring mode setting on all the selected tracks.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271

Last edited by xackley; 06-14-2008 at 07:18 AM.
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 06:51 AM   #34
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Not to beat a dead horse but it actually hadn't occured to me until you said it above that "Record: Disable" didn't actually shut off the record light. It looks exactly the same as a button that's fully armed.

At the very least if it's "input monitoring only" maybe it should be a different color. Dead horse beaten...

P.S. As much it apparently irritates some forum users here, I think people who regularly complain about what some view as silly things (in great detail) in the big picture of what Reaper actually does right (which is a hell of a lot, really, a HELL of a lot... just to be clear... A HELL OF A LOT! ) ultimately might help make Reaper a better daw in some small ways. That's their only real intent.
If we assholes (yeah, I'm taking the flag...) had ill intentions or didn't like it we wouldn't ask for those changes or point that silly stuff out. We want it to be the best it can be because we love it.

Don't take it personal.

Last edited by Lawrence; 06-14-2008 at 07:10 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 07:08 AM   #35
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

Well, Lawrence, we could strive to be more like the sonar forum, and let all threads with any substance be immediately ignored and rolled over to page 2.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 07:35 AM   #36
technogremlin
Human being with feelings
 
technogremlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
P.S. As much it apparently irritates some forum users here, I think people who regularly complain about what some view as silly things (in great detail) in the big picture of what Reaper actually does right (which is a hell of a lot, really, a HELL of a lot... just to be clear... A HELL OF A LOT! ) ultimately might help make Reaper a better daw in some small ways. That's their only real intent.
If we assholes (yeah, I'm taking the flag...) had ill intentions or didn't like it we wouldn't ask for those changes or point that silly stuff out. We want it to be the best it can be because we love it.
Amen to that

... and +1 for a better solution on the monitoring as well.
technogremlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 08:44 AM   #37
planetnine
Human being with feelings
 
planetnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
Default when worlds collide

i think this difference of opinion is due to to REAPER trying to do two things (from a traditional point of view). Those pics that Pipe put up are multitrack remote panels, controls for multitrack tape recorders. Recorders just record and expect to be hooked up to a mixing console for routing and all that fancy preamp and EQ/dynamics malarky.

when in record and overdub sessions, the console tends to be setup to listen to the multitrack -anything playing back is picked up from the record (or cue heads) and ultimately goes to control monitors, live room playback speakers or those painfully derived headphone monitor mixes.

if you want to listen to a microphone from the live room you can either PFL it or bring it into any of the previously mentioned playback destinations from the INPUT side of the console, or you can flick the track arm button on the multitrack and the console channel listening to that track will return what is being sent to the multitracker. This also serves the purpose of making sure the signal is getting to the multitrackers input amps intact (you can't always tell this from a moving meter and the signal might have been thru half a dozen patch panels on its way thru and from the console.) -and that channel might also be derived from more than one mic/input channel.

once the desk and multitracker are set up for a recording session this is the easiest way to flick between input monitor and playback, unless you want to check something specifically on the input side of the console.

i suspect the confusion is down to the REAPER MCP being part multitracker remote panel and part recording console. it's trying to include controls from both units and showing the traditional controls from a multitracker (note the heavy leaning on REAPER being an audio system primarily). this is the way recording engineers work, and eight, sixteen, twenty-four and fourty-eight track systems have been in studios for two or three generations now, enough for certain methods to become de-rigueur.

Pipe is very open minded to improvements and different ways of working (hell, he runs a professional studio yet spurned PT for REAPER!), but this is the way multichannel audio is recorded. it works and is used for working. you sets your presets and then arm the tracks you want to record or hear, playback what you want to use as cues. suggest improvements, by all means, but you'll not make headway dissing existing and standard ways of working.
__________________
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 06-14-2008, 09:40 AM   #38
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

Why should reaper suffer because of the limitations of old hardware. Input Monitoring is just another button now, and can be programmed to hear the input without pressing record arm. In a hardware mixer this would have been extra wiring and complexity to have channels that went from a physical input to the monitoring outputs. This problem was fixed by most software developers so the hardware workaround of pressing the hardware record arm button was no longer necessary to hear the input in the new and improve software version.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271

Last edited by xackley; 06-14-2008 at 09:44 AM.
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 11:01 AM   #39
kneelherring
Human being with feelings
 
kneelherring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 221
Default

I guess a cool remedy would be something like, shift and click on the record button puts the track straight into input monitoring mode, maybe.

Myself, i will add that it seems a non issue to me.. but if you use the input monitoring function regularly then a quicker way of getting there must be good.
kneelherring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 11:12 AM   #40
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Its not just because its the way were used to, theres another, maybe its more subtle thing about that record arm button:

When you hit that, not only are you arming a track, you are also saying " Hey, ASIO stream, Im calling you up. With all the attendant issues, problems and considerations that entails"

Maybe we can find the best solution by working backwards from a problem point of view

Im trying to make sure I understand the objections:

1: It takes more than one click to get input on with record disabled

2: Some people think it looks weird

3: Record light is the same color whether its really recording or not

4: because cubase does it different
pipelineaudio is online now   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 10:00 AM.


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