Old 12-22-2009, 09:39 AM   #1
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,417
Default Send bug (or?)

Please try the attached zipped project. It emits gaussian noise at around -16dB, but the interesting things to note are the following:

1. Three child tracks receive from their common parent, but all three have send to master/parent disabled, so no feedback loop exists.
2. Child 2 shows the received noise, children 1 and 3 show no received noise, but for different reasons.
3. Drag Child 2 above Child 1 and note the result. Now Child 2 show no activity, whereas Child 1 does, it no longer being the first child in sequence(?)
4. Enable FX for Child 4, this is ReaEQ bypassed, but as soon as FX are enabled for Child 3, it also shows received noise.

Moving the children around within the folder, it seems that the first child directly under the parent receives no send from parent, whereas the others do. Also, if no FX is on the track, or FX are disabled, then no send is received from parent.

Surely this is not as it should be?
Attached Files
File Type: zip Send Problem.zip (1.6 KB, 168 views)
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 09:58 AM   #2
Diogenes
Human being with feelings
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A place that allows me to protect myself...
Posts: 8,245
Default

It appears to be a folder issue. If you take them out of the folder, the sends work as expected... I think... Regardless, it does appear that there is a problem there somewhere.

D
Diogenes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 10:00 AM   #3
DarkStar
Human being with feelings
 
DarkStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 19,677
Default

Hmm, Sending from a folder track to its children is not something I've ever tried.

Child 2 did not show any noise level here, but Child 3 blipped occasionally.
__________________
DarkStar ... interesting, if true. . . . Inspired by ...
DarkStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 10:05 AM   #4
Ollie
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Ollie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On or near a dike
Posts: 9,834
Default

Not sure what you're up to but I think you have to enable feedback routing for that and if I do that, everything seems to be ok:

Ollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 10:37 AM   #5
Diogenes
Human being with feelings
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A place that allows me to protect myself...
Posts: 8,245
Default

I think Steinie has it... but if Master/Parent send: is un-checked... why would feedback be a concern? What am I missing here?

D
Diogenes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 10:46 AM   #6
Ollie
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Ollie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On or near a dike
Posts: 9,834
Default

No idea, the pulsing of the working tracks is looking strange as well but since this mode of operation (trying to cause *potential* feedback routing w/o confirming you know what you do by enabling it) is not intended to be used at all, it doesn't matter much.
Ollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 10:50 AM   #7
Diogenes
Human being with feelings
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A place that allows me to protect myself...
Posts: 8,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steindork View Post
No idea, the pulsing of the working tracks is looking strange as well but since this mode of operation (trying to cause *potential* feedback routing w/o confirming you know what you do by enabling it) is not intended to be used at all, it doesn't matter much.
Yep. I use folders as organizational tools. Sometimes with FX, sometimes not. Also as a instrument "container" but I can't think of any time I have ever wanted to use a SEND from the parent to a child track? Obviously the OP has a use in mind.

D
Diogenes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 11:52 AM   #8
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,417
Default

Yes, I had a use in mind, and I did not think that I introduced any feedback since the master/parent send was disabled. Either way, it should work or it should not work! I can understand either, though I would assume the former, but...

As it is now, the send works for Child 2 and Child 3 when they have FX, but not when there are no FX.

As it is now, the send works for a child track with FX when it is not directly under the parent, but not when it is directly under the parent.

Originally I had a snare drum on the parent track, instead of the noise generator but I removed that to conserve space. With a snare drum there, there is no "pulsing" that Steindork mentions, maybe simply because the snare is too short to pulse, but still...

My intended use? I was playing around with different compression techniques (reading Bob Katz' book) and since I like to see what happens (in addition to hear) I wanted to record the results of the compressed sends onto the child tracks, using folders purely as an organizational structure. I wanted one folder with snare on the parent track, another with bass, etc. So I had different compressor settings on Child 1 and 2 and tried to record...

I think my usage is fair, and I think that the exhibited behavior is strange. Maybe there is a wider conceptual issue here: What are folders, really?

If Reaper considers this a feedback loop, then at least a warning/error message should pop up. Not?
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 11:56 AM   #9
Diogenes
Human being with feelings
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A place that allows me to protect myself...
Posts: 8,245
Default

Yep. Maybe one of the devs will pop in and explain what is going on here.

Hang in there!

D
Diogenes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 12:39 PM   #10
Ollie
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Ollie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On or near a dike
Posts: 9,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
I did not think that I introduced any feedback since the master/parent send was disabled.
Ok, not you but Reaper did think that "uh-oh he's creating a send to a track that's being sent from, I don't know if he was smart enough to turn of m/p send so I better keep him from wrecking something".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
Originally I had a snare drum on the parent track, instead of the noise generator but I removed that to conserve space. With a snare drum there, there is no "pulsing" that Steindork mentions, maybe simply because the snare is too short to pulse, but still...
Here's the output of a pulsing child track:

https://stash.reaper.fm/oldsb/744977/Send-Problem.mp3

That's actually pretty random, sometimes only child #2 pulsates, sometimes 2+3 but the signal seems to be affected even when no pulsing happens, that may be harder to detect on snare sounds though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
Maybe there is a wider conceptual issue here: What are folders, really?
Folders parents are automagically busses for child tracks. That's all and there's no way to change that, that's why any attempt to create a send to a child is considered (potentially) leading to feedback routing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
If Reaper considers this a feedback loop, then at least a warning/error message should pop up. Not?
Agreed.
Ollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 01:31 PM   #11
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,359
Default

In an ideal world Reaper could be smart enough to check itself whether the user was smart enough. So as long as there is no feedback routing involved, as in this case or in case you send MIDI in one and audio in the other direction exclusively, it shouldn't be considered feedback routing. As soon as the user clicks a button that would cause feedback, a window could pop up and say: "You're about to create a feedback in your routing, you better not click OK."

But I can imagine this is a complicated thing to do and a bug or incompleteness in that code would possibly not be fun.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 01:38 PM   #12
EricM
Human being with feelings
 
EricM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posts: 3,801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
In an ideal world Reaper could be smart enough to check itself whether the user was smart enough. So as long as there is no feedback routing involved, as in this case or in case you send MIDI in one and audio in the other direction exclusively, it shouldn't be considered feedback routing. As soon as the user clicks a button that would cause feedback, a window could pop up and say: "You're about to create a feedback in your routing, you better not click OK."

But I can imagine this is a complicated thing to do and a bug or incompleteness in that code would possibly not be fun.
I agree, not an easy task, but as always smart software = user friendliness.

So +1 (again on distinguishing MIDI & Audio feedback routing)
EricM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 01:43 PM   #13
Ollie
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Ollie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On or near a dike
Posts: 9,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
In an ideal world Reaper could be smart enough to check itself whether the user was smart enough.
No that would be uncool, Reaper wouldn't let me do anything then.
Ollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 02:02 PM   #14
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steindork View Post
Here's the output of a pulsing child track:

https://stash.reaper.fm/oldsb/744977/Send-Problem.mp3

That's actually pretty random, sometimes only child #2 pulsates, sometimes 2+3 but the signal seems to be affected even when no pulsing happens, that may be harder to detect on snare sounds though.
That's strange. It doesn't do that here. I hear and see continuous noise, nothing random (well, the noise, but you know what I mean). And this is now tested on both DuX XP on my daw laptop and on my new Win7x64 work laptop (both Dell). And if I remove the noise generator and put in the snare clip and loop it, it works just as I mentioned on both laptops; Child 1 shows no activity, Child 2 shows activity. Child 3 shows activity when it has FX enabled and there's an FX loaded (bypassed or not). Even if I drag the snare out to several bars it beats just as I'd expect.
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 02:03 PM   #15
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steindork View Post
No that would be uncool, Reaper wouldn't let me do anything then.
And what do you think about me then? I wouldn't even be allowed to go near the computer...
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 02:16 PM   #16
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,359
Default

No, you misunderstood I meant Reaper to ask you if you really want to wreck the potential havoc you're about to wreck in a dialog. It would still allow you to do any nonsense you decide, but say "Errm, that's no good idea."
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 06:52 AM   #17
whatsup
Human being with feelings
 
whatsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
If Reaper considers this a feedback loop, then at least a warning/error message should pop up. Not?
as usual, I already made a FR<- to solve this,
but for some mystery reason (as usual), it has only 4 votes so far,

and i began to think that the devs should really consider
top priority to low popularity FRs (at least with my FRs )
__________________
you can contack me on
whatsup@inn.co.il
whatsup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 07:24 AM   #18
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsup View Post
as usual...
Yeah
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 09:07 AM   #19
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,359
Default

As I see it the problem is that there are routings which would not cause feedback and still need that option enabled. Your FR wouldn't change that.

I'd rather see the "allow feedback routing" changed. I should be able to do all routings that don't feed back even with that option disabled. In other words: "Don't allow feedback routing" should only disable routings which really cause feedback.

A consequence of that would be that I could very well send stuff to tracks 1 or 2 in your example, just not either audio or MIDI in both directions. So they needn't be hidden, marked or grayed out in the send destination lists.

That's why I didn't vote.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 09:50 AM   #20
whatsup
Human being with feelings
 
whatsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
So they needn't be hidden, marked or grayed out in the send destination lists.
there surely must be an indicator, when you can't do routing,
the only question is how,
that's why i suggested some options,
maybe if they separate Audio/MIDI feedback routing,
the indicators should be somewhere else (on the MIDI/Audio +/-) but in the IO dialog.
so your objection should be re-considered
__________________
you can contack me on
whatsup@inn.co.il
whatsup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 10:11 AM   #21
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
"Don't allow feedback routing" should only disable routings which really cause feedback.
Agreed, but... efficiently finding this could be problematic. Think about if channel splitting is involved...

As it is now Reaper plays it safe and silently discards any routing that could be a feedback. My problem is really the silence. The easiest thing would to pop up a dialog on play that says that this/that is a possible feedback route and Reaper will not allow it (unless feedback routing is enabled, of course).

In any case, it should be consistent. My particular example depends on whether there are FX on the receiving track and its position within the folder. This suggests to me a bigger problem hidden somewhere inside Reaper...
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 10:46 AM   #22
whatsup
Human being with feelings
 
whatsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
Yeah
here is one for example

problem<-

solution<-
__________________
you can contack me on
whatsup@inn.co.il
whatsup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 11:54 AM   #23
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsup View Post
here is one for example

problem<-

solution<-


Quote from billybk1 in that "problem" thread (post #2) "this has been a long standing FR for many years now". So it appears that in that particular example you were not the first to make the FR, "as usual"...
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 11:56 AM   #24
whatsup
Human being with feelings
 
whatsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post


Quote from billybk1 in that "problem" thread (post #2) "this has been a long standing FR for many years now". So it appears that in that particular example you were not the first to make the FR, "as usual"...
you almost right.
the dates are correct,
but the solution is quite different
(guess what, i already thought of that before i posted this ,
and i probably have some more, if i'll try to dig )

EDIT: also i'm not sure if there is even a previous similar tracker FR
__________________
you can contack me on
whatsup@inn.co.il
whatsup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2016, 09:53 AM   #25
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
1. Three child tracks receive from their common parent, but all three have send to master/parent disabled, so no feedback loop exists.

Child 3 has Master/parent send enabled.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
Moving the children around within the folder, it seems that the first child directly under the parent receives no send from parent, whereas the others do.
Confirmed (5.20 x64).

REAPER obviously still has some feedback thinking here


-> Delete Child 3 track
-> disable Master/parent on the folder track
-> set noise generator offline on folder track
-> insert single sample in folder track

-> Sending audio from the first child in the folder directly to hardware outs should work but doesn't (no output at all).

-> Sending audio from second child in the folder directly to hardware outs gives garbled/crackled sound (at least on playback start right at the start of the sample - removing noise generator on folder track fixes this).

Last edited by Dstruct; 05-19-2016 at 10:04 AM.
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2016, 10:18 AM   #26
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer View Post
wreck the potential havoc you're about to wreck in a dialog.
Profuse apologies in advance, but as head of the splenig pleece I cant let that one go.
The word is WREAK...


I'll get me coat....




__________________
Ici on parles Franglais
ivansc 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 06:52 PM.


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