Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Feature Requests

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-28-2007, 10:10 AM   #41
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TONDOG64 View Post
I think we're all spoiled by the proliferation of features that just appear here daily. I can't help thinking that none of this is ever child's play to Justin and company. They just make it look SO simple.

Like auto body repair. The better the job, the less anyone notices.
its the same way i feel about office cleaning. the better you are, the less they should notice that you were even there.

however, i wasnt meaning that it would be a simple task for Justin & Co. but that it would be a very simple, out of the way implementation./



but i agree, we are definetly spoiled here.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2007, 02:58 AM   #42
catscandal
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 177
Default

+1 for object based effects, like Jason says, MIDI or audio. Like the pick showed, an fx button on the object could be cool, or just a shortcut that works when your mouse is over the object.

might complicate things in the whole 'apply fx to new take' realm.
catscandal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2007, 08:01 AM   #43
jaydottcomm
Human being with feelings
 
jaydottcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 667
Default hey admins????/

Wheres the administrators. This is the destructive effects weve been preaching about. This would save a ruff 187 clicks of the mouse. I have to drop an effect into every individual track to edit destructively???????. Where are the people who look at these threads and say Yes and No. How can you turn this one down??? This should be a must. People, please dont let this thread die!
jaydottcomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2007, 09:39 AM   #44
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catscandal View Post

might complicate things in the whole 'apply fx to new take' realm.
I strongly doubt it. The fx on the item would hit before the fx on the track though, i would imagine.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2007, 04:40 PM   #45
jaydottcomm
Human being with feelings
 
jaydottcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 667
Default 50

Im mean, it seems like the program is better suited for great computers with loads of memory. The whole "Freeze" thing is cool. But effects directly to the item would eliminate that all together. If you dont like the sound afterwards. Just visit the undo list. If you want the current state of the plugin saved...just save it as a preset. Much Much Much quicker than inserting a plug into a track, applying effects as new take, taking that plugin out. That process is a total of 6-7 clicks of the mouse (not including setting up your plugin). Now, if you have ten tracks, youve just clicked 60-70 times. Good Grief! My computer is a P4, 1024mb, 160gb 7200HD. I need to have this in my program. Simply a must have. Just leave the apply effects as new take in place, for the people who have grown acustom to it. With that added my computer is just fine for audio. Come on a please us mortals Justin (Justeezy).
jaydottcomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2007, 07:23 PM   #46
HighVoltage
Human being with feelings
 
HighVoltage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 347
Default

+10 ------------------------
HighVoltage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2007, 08:18 PM   #47
sebas777
Human being with feelings
 
sebas777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,181
Default

1) freeze=per item fx + a map of takes with their respective mixer settings (or maybe even automation).

2) this map could be similar to MindMaps, so there could be multiple undo/redo paths, this is why you could easily manage/comment/delete any freeze takes, or to revert to any stage.

3) reverting many steps back would require complete per-item mixers, because it would be sometime impossible to reuse some existing effects (for instance loop returns).

4) for simpler item processing, there could be "freeze markers" inserted in-between fx slots in item channel, to mark destructive steps (and for easy undo/freeze take management).
sebas777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2007, 10:47 PM   #48
chip mcdonald
Human being with feelings
 
chip mcdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 3,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Evans View Post
I believe this is how Justin does the coding so fast - he just makes interface mockups and his code generator goes off and writes the necessary stuff.
I quit right when Visual Basic started happening. It was very compelling - *that* was a paradigm shift, and it was curious hearing the Hardened Programmer rail against it at the time.

"Code generators" these days can be had very cheap, from what I understand...
__________________
]]]>- guitar lessons - www.chipmcdonald.com-<[[[
Experiencing Guitar: Essays from Teaching by Chip McDonald https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521877823..._QZJxAbA4GVDC1
chip mcdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2007, 10:56 PM   #49
chip mcdonald
Human being with feelings
 
chip mcdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 3,510
Default

I like the FX list-on-the-waveform idea. I'm not so sure it will be as straightforward to implement as it appears; there's reasons why text tends to only appear in certain places in a GUI, and while the file name only has to be read once the FX list would require a constant updating.... which might equal (sorry) bloat.

Or maybe not.

On the other hand, I think there could be a paradigm shift with the whole "the controls are on a panel, the waves are in their own window" concept....

I can imagine a GUI where:

There isn't a delineated "panel" on one side;

The meters are partially transparent on the side;

The track fader is a button that "inflates" when you move to it; it can be anywhere you drag it on the track itself;

Pan knobs, sends, etc., likewise as buttons that "inflate" to larger controls; perhaps you *don't even see them*, except adjacent to where the mouse is per track, as you hover over each channel.

Sort of like a "spotlight" centered on the mouse. You see nothing but track lanes with waveforms; but in an "orbit" around where ever the mouse is, the controls float, gaining focus per the track the mouse is over. To get a control you'd perhaps right click and the controls would solidify, and then you'd adjust them... right click again they go away...
__________________
]]]>- guitar lessons - www.chipmcdonald.com-<[[[
Experiencing Guitar: Essays from Teaching by Chip McDonald https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521877823..._QZJxAbA4GVDC1
chip mcdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 06:06 AM   #50
sebas777
Human being with feelings
 
sebas777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,181
Default

Hello chip !

FX button = no bloat when you have a "item FX button show/hide" in the main icon panel".

For the "orbit" concept. Amazingly, just two days ago I had the same idea as you: tools and context menu done right - all appearing at once AROUND cursor, not in a linear fashion (up-down or left-right), called either by the right mouse button or a keycommand.

Let's call it S-menu or S-tools ("S" for "Star" or "Super" of course )
sebas777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 10:53 AM   #51
chip mcdonald
Human being with feelings
 
chip mcdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 3,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebas777 View Post
Let's call it S-menu or S-tools ("S" for "Star" or "Super" of course )
Nah, I like "orbit". Orbiting menu.

Actually, from a doable-conservative standpoint with this paradigm I don't see why you couldn't "orbit" every item on the toolbar, and make right-click simply "everything you want to select".

Hmm.

Actually, with the "orbit" concept you could iconize *everything* to what you wanted. Basically it would be "orbiting" shortcuts to the things you want to use the most; then, you could have a dedicated icon that gives you a menu for everything else.

Justin could make it a mode, ala F11:

F12= "orbit mode"

That would be massively different, massively quick once you sussed out what you wanted to use the most, and an attention getter for Reaper IMO.
__________________
]]]>- guitar lessons - www.chipmcdonald.com-<[[[
Experiencing Guitar: Essays from Teaching by Chip McDonald https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521877823..._QZJxAbA4GVDC1
chip mcdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 11:18 AM   #52
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

Its quite interesting how feature request threads evolve!
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 11:53 AM   #53
jomtones
Human being with feelings
 
jomtones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 303
Default

If an item had FX on it would it use CPU the whole time or only when playing?

Not a big deal for me this, folders-in-folders would get my vote cos I'm doing loads of submixes, my arrangements are getting pretty messy.
jomtones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 12:05 PM   #54
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jomtones View Post
If an item had FX on it would it use CPU the whole time or only when playing?
if done right, a la samplitude, only when playing.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 12:11 PM   #55
lunik
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 29
Default

I agree.

Just make a new track, and stick the item you want with a
different fxchain on the new track. Wrap them in a folder.

Whats so hard about this?

If you split an item with item FX into four sections, what happens if you want update the item FX to all four?

The idea falls over here, and there are aforementioned memory and cpugobbling issues with multiple instances of same chain getting sprung up everywhere.

Keep FX on tracks, allow more nested folder tracks is my opinion as well. Don't want to be a party pooper tho. :-)





Quote:
Originally Posted by todd24 View Post
Sorry guys but, I still vote for folders in folders instead.

This just gets too messy for me. I would rather have a bunch of tracks stuck in a folder, each with its own section, with its unique fx on the channel strip. Open the folder there it is, close it, there it is hiding. This would also practically eleminate the need for automation, and the mess it creates.

Yes, I have OCDs'
lunik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 12:16 PM   #56
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunik View Post

If you split an item with item FX into four sections, what happens if you want update the item FX to all four?

The idea falls over here, and there are aforementioned memory and cpugobbling issues with multiple instances of same chain getting sprung up everywhere.

it falls apart if you are an arse about it --

samplitude does it just fine, and doesnt gobble up memory like some RAMDemon in the night --

I used it quite successfully in samp, never once ran into the problems that you did, and it was a lifesaver for CD mastering.

if you want to put it on additional items, you copy/paste them. its EXTREMELY EASY.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 12:28 PM   #57
lunik
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 29
Default

Some more questions/use cases around this idea to ponder:


With say a reverb or delay, the Item FX continue to generate after the item endpoint has arrived, correct?

What happens if 2 items with Item FX on them are glued together?

After Apply FX as new take, are Item FX preserved? Are they preserved in the old take? If not how do you get back to your initial state (Apply FX as new take becomes destructive if the design isn't considered here)

Item FX on an empty event does nothing, right?

What exactly does happen if an Item with Item FX is split?
lunik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 12:33 PM   #58
lunik
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 29
Default

LOL

Ok I'll stop being an arse about it!

The workflow IS supported by making another track and pulling the item onto it with the FX as needed. With unlimited folder tracks, you can do everything that Item FX does, no? Though it might be more hassle/mouse clicks.

I'm not against the feature, it just seems multiple folder tracks offer a way to cover the usecase.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill View Post
it falls apart if you are an arse about it --

samplitude does it just fine, and doesnt gobble up memory like some RAMDemon in the night --

I used it quite successfully in samp, never once ran into the problems that you did, and it was a lifesaver for CD mastering.

if you want to put it on additional items, you copy/paste them. its EXTREMELY EASY.
lunik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 12:34 PM   #59
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

in samp if the item is split the fx are kept between both. I dont think this should be the case in reaper -- autosplit would cause a bit of an issue with that. Perhaps a pop up box that asks "do you want to share FX with the other splits"

or just using the one on the left, i dont know.

(this pop up box would only pop up if you had fx on the item youre splitting.. ppl who didnt use it would never see it)

i dont think reverb is something i would use on an item.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 12:36 PM   #60
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

I didnt say YOU were being an arse, just that only an arse could screw this feature up

the workflow is VERY much different. Otherwise samplitude 9 would have just thrown out per object editing/fx since they got folder tracks.

with tracks the fx is running all the time so no its not the same, both are nessecary. And workflow is very much an issue here. Its a completely different "feel" and "flow"

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunik View Post
LOL

Ok I'll stop being an arse about it!

The workflow IS supported by making another track and pulling the item onto it with the FX as needed. With unlimited folder tracks, you can do everything that Item FX does, no? Though it might be more hassle/mouse clicks.

I'm not against the feature, it just seems multiple folder tracks offer a way to cover the usecase.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 12:48 PM   #61
lunik
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 29
Default

Yeah, thinking it through I'm coming round to this FR, I can see that it could be a very fast way to process and tweak bits of audio without the overhead of a whole track for say a one second slice.

I would want an option to have Item FX generate audio beyond Item end.

It would make the app even easier to use as a sample editor as well.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill View Post
I didnt say YOU were being an arse, just that only an arse could screw this feature up

the workflow is VERY much different. Otherwise samplitude 9 would have just thrown out per object editing/fx since they got folder tracks.

with tracks the fx is running all the time so no its not the same, both are nessecary. And workflow is very much an issue here. Its a completely different "feel" and "flow"
lunik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 12:51 PM   #62
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunik View Post
Yeah, thinking it through I'm coming round to this FR, I can see that it could be a very fast way to process and tweak bits of audio without the overhead of a whole track for say a one second slice.

I would want an option to have Item FX generate audio beyond Item end.

It would make the app even easier to use as a sample editor as well.
there are already settings for the "apply fx" dialog to continue fx after the items ending -- perhaps this could be applied to "per item fx"
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 01:24 PM   #63
RokkD
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,000
Default

In Tracktion, if you split a clip with fx on it, the fx will now be on both clips, simply click and delete fx if you don't want it.

Clip based fx are so quick and handy, so hopefully....one day.

But of course you could still do it the long way with if you wanted, with folders/folders in folders/subfolders/tracks/subtracks and whatnot.

--
RokkD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 01:26 PM   #64
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

another thing is that using folder tracks for this in a project thats already ~40 tracks --- it would have made my last major project at least 10 tracks heavier...
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 01:35 PM   #65
RokkD
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,000
Default

Well shut your mouth!....hey! absolutely, who needs all that extra weight...













--
RokkD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 03:28 PM   #66
jm duchenne
Human being with feelings
 
jm duchenne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: France
Posts: 708
Default

Just to add to this discussion that FX per clip is the regular way of applying FX in Video softwares and it will look silly if you will have to put video events on different tracks only to allow them to have different effects !

It is really paradoxal to see how video tracks are more powerfull than audio tracks in Vegas. Since the first version you can put video FXs directly on the video clips (and on the tracks too).
And if you split a video clip which has already an FX, you can edit one of them and simply copy the parameters to other ones ("Paste Events Attributes").
It is the same thing in all "pro" video editors since the begining.
But with audio, you can only have the FX on the tracks...
It is a long time that I dream of a similar "Event FX" button on audio events... (and the same for the Event Velocity Envelopes !).

I suppose that one main reason why FX is applied on tracks instead of on clips in audio softwares is because they have started by imitating the hardware analog way with mixers and tape recorders.
Also, it is always coherent with instrumental music or for linear musics based on loops, but it is very restricting for other kinds of temporal constructions where you want to cut and put things together freely.
jm duchenne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 03:52 PM   #67
Art Evans
Mortal
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,656
Default

That's a very good point about video editing, though on the other hand as you suggest yourself, video is a much less linear medium - one shot is an interior with certain lighting conditions, the next an exterior with quite different conditions, etc etc. With normal musical audio, you'd rarely encounter such changing conditions from edit to edit.
Art Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 04:14 PM   #68
jaydottcomm
Human being with feelings
 
jaydottcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 667
Default thank you

"Originally Posted by lunik
Yeah, thinking it through I'm coming round to this FR, I can see that it could be a very fast way to process and tweak bits of audio without the overhead of a whole track for say a one second slice.I would want an option to have Item FX generate audio beyond Item end.
It would make the app even easier to use as a sample editor as well."
Thank you, your coming to your senses. After youve affected your waveform...thats it. The only time your using CPU resources is when you would press apply. Then the waveform would be solidified with whatever effect you used. If you only want to affect certian portions...only select what you want. Dont worry about inserting an effect into the track itself. This is much faster. And you always have an undo button.
Just like JM was stating in Vegas you select the portion of video and apply the effect on the spot.
Like in Protools, you can either plug an insert into the track "OR" use Audio Suite to affect the waveform directly(without inserting a plugin ever) Reaper has no "OR" right now.
jaydottcomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007, 04:55 PM   #69
sebas777
Human being with feelings
 
sebas777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,181
Default

"apply fx" (to a new take) + multiple (multi-path) "undo map" from the "item fx" rack = in fact very flexible "freeze".

In the fx OPTIONS there could be
1) "auto apply item fx on closing this window" and separate
2) "open this window with live fx and previous take"
(for quicker freeze/unfreezing operation).

The same shortcut used now to open "track fx" could also open/close "item fx", depending on what's selected.

And "freeze markers" inserted between slots in a channel (every time you apply fx to a new take) could be used to easily see fx undo history.

Last edited by sebas777; 01-31-2007 at 04:58 PM.
sebas777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2007, 01:08 PM   #70
qwanta
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 328
Default

My understanding of tracktion's clip FX is that it automatically renders the clip as a new take ('freezes' it) when you place - or modify - FX on a clip. Whenever the clip is played it is just playing a prerendered wav, but the original wav is still there in case you remove the FX chain or modify it (in which case the clip with FX is re-rendered).

This is very powerful and doesn't require any realtime CPU for the clip FX. I think this is the way it should be implemented.
qwanta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2007, 01:13 PM   #71
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

i REALLY hope that ISNT the way it works. Ill ask a T specialist i know... hold on.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2007, 01:26 PM   #72
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

[15:17] Unnamed Tracktion Specialist 007: what the f%^&
[15:18] Unnamed Tracktion Specialist 007: tracktion
[15:18] Unnamed Tracktion Specialist 007: does not render it
[15:18] Unnamed Tracktion Specialist 007: you drag it on
[15:18] Unnamed Tracktion Specialist 007: just like any other fx
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2007, 01:45 PM   #73
jaydottcomm
Human being with feelings
 
jaydottcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 667
Default hey

i just noticed that Reaper has one feature that acts like a true destructive per item effects process. When you right click an item the drop down menu appears. Go down to Item Processing. Normalize and Normalize to a common volume is in the drop down menu. When you click Normalize it will do just that. BUT, wouldnt it be nice if not only normalize were in that menu(Item Processing). Imagine if When you clicked on that Item Processing you would not only get Normalize, but you would have SUBMENUS for VST and DXi and JS.....It would be wonderfull. And that also seems where that type of editing would naturally be found in Reapers setup.
jaydottcomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 02:56 PM   #74
jaydottcomm
Human being with feelings
 
jaydottcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 667
Default just incase

just incase you missed.
i just noticed that Reaper has one feature that acts like a true destructive per item effects process. When you right click an item the drop down menu appears. Go down to Item Processing. Normalize and Normalize to a common volume is in the drop down menu. When you click Normalize it will do just that. BUT, wouldnt it be nice if not only normalize were in that menu(Item Processing). Imagine if When you clicked on that Item Processing you would not only get Normalize, but you would have SUBMENUS for VST and DXi and JS.....It would be wonderfull. And that also seems where that type of editing would naturally be found in Reapers setup.
Lets do it Justin.....Lets get it poppin baby! I wanna see the dropdown menu playa playa.
jaydottcomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 04:36 PM   #75
EnzymeX
Human being with feelings
 
EnzymeX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 453
Default

I know we can always clone a track, etc. to accomplish the same thing as clip FX, but with screen real estate at a premium, this would be a real winner. +10
__________________
http://www.enzymex.com
EnzymeX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 06:28 PM   #76
jaydottcomm
Human being with feelings
 
jaydottcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 667
Default yeah

you feel me EnzymeX!
Its tedious to plugin every track an effect. I use the real time effect too. Dont get me wrong. Ill have a Delay Aux, Compressor Aux, Reverb Aux and So on. But you know when you have several different people recording vocals. Five or Six different people, who all project in different decibal levals.Well, that mean i got to pull up Five to Six different Limiter/Comp's(Because the tresholds and settings arent gonna affect the different voices the same)....Now my CPU is sucked dry of all its memory.
jaydottcomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 08:37 PM   #77
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydottcomm View Post
my CPU is sucked dry of all its memory.
??????????
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 01:56 AM   #78
maa
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 1,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydottcomm View Post
Compressor Aux,
What do you do with that ?
maa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 12:07 PM   #79
jaydottcomm
Human being with feelings
 
jaydottcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 667
Default hey

thats what they call them in PTLE, Auxileries. Ok, lets say sends then for Reaper. Im not a computer guru Jason, but i think you know what i mean when i say sucks my memory dry when reffering to having a bunch of plugins up at once. The CPU usage thing gets to high and everything performs terrible. You feel me..Item processing..in the right click drop down menu should have more than Normalize. It should have VST, DXi, JS.
jaydottcomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 12:58 PM   #80
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,667
Default

it does suck memory a bit when you split an object in samp:

take a look:

heres without any effects on the object (item in reaper)

[img]http://img50.**************/img50/2041/nofxyl4.jpg[/img]

heres after adding a demo of scarbee's vintage keyboard effects to the object...

[IMG]http://img50.**************/img50/5828/presplitsu9.jpg[/IMG]

heres after splitting that object

[IMG]http://img50.**************/img50/4796/postsplitfw4.jpg[/IMG]

look at the highlighted memory usage.

first, without fx it was 26 megs

then after adding the fx it became 36 megs

then after splitting 38 megs..

how does one explain this?
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.

Last edited by Jason Brian Merrill; 02-05-2007 at 01:03 PM.
Jason Brian Merrill 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 10:09 PM.


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