PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

ah, punch-in, yeah, that's long time ago, now I see your problem

Hope you get DM sorted

i punchin all the time without direct monitoring! NO LATENCY in punchins even at 13ms or higher, monitoring in the scope mixer!

hi thomas

i also record drums, guitars and vocals with sfp. and i work exactly the way you described earlier in this thread (except that i use an a16 ultra and zlink).

zlink source -> asio2 dest -> cubase sx as hd recorder -> cubase busses -> asio2 source -> stm mixer

with cubase sx it works like a charm, punch-in or punch-out, what you like, always with direct monitoring.

greets
roman

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: katano on 2005-12-23 11:26 ]</font>

@garyb: in sfp, how do you switch automatically from what-you-hear-playback to what-you-record-signal when punchin (on the same track/channel of course, for overdub) if you don't use cubase and direct monitoring via asio2? *confused-i-am*


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: katano on 2005-12-23 11:41 ]</font>

yes, that is the problem (unless you mute the recorded part where you wanne punch in).

it is possible using an external mixer and separate hardware outputs.
p.s. why punchin in on the same audio track?

we are not working on 8 tracks tape machines.....

>p.s. why punchin in on the same audio track?

>we are not working on 8 tracks tape >machines.....

Yes. We are working on DAWs that allow several "virtual" tracks on each track. Every programm I know (Cubase, Logic, Samplitude, Protools) can handle diverent versions on the same track.

djmicron,

imagine you have for example a vocal track, mostly fine. but you want to record some sequences again (overdub), because the singer wasn't in tune or what ever.

ok, now you want to hear the recorded voice till the point you're not happy with, this is the mark where punchin takes the role and record starts. after punchin, you will agree, it makes no sense at all to hear the bad recorded sequence while the singer is singing the new take.

ergo, it doesn't make sense to use another track to record this sequence again, even if we're able to use hundreds of tracks in our DAWs...

hmmpff, difficult for me to explain it in english, hope it makes sense to you

greez and happy xmas!!
roman

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: katano on 2005-12-23 16:40 ]</font>

cubase playback is in the mixer, monitored. the source is in the mixer, monitored. they are in the same time zone(the scope mixer) and so latency is not an issue. there's no reason to switch between playback and liver monitoring as i cut out the section to be replaced anyway(an edit that only takes a moment), but even still, cubase mutes the track when it's in record, so it doesn't matter anyway. likewise with sonar, logic and any other sequencer. direct monitoring actually is more annoying, because then latency IS an issue......i do this ALL the time and for money, no problem, no direct monitoring, no complaints from clients.

Ran across this old SoundOnSound article which covers a lot of the dimensions of this:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr04/a ... sician.htm

They do say that you might see different behavior in Cubase VST depending on if you are using the inserts as opposed to auxes or buses. Not sure if that is related to the initial problem post.

In any case, we've beaten this subject over the head. Just thought I would add the SOS link, and concur with Gary.

Seems like the best approach here is to get your latency as low as is workable, and then just let your software do the work. The latency during I/O of the Creamware cards have been tested and shown to be outstanding. If your software is not automatically doing track delay, then rolling your own is not going to be fun at all.

See also: the Voxengo Latency Delay plugin http://www.voxengo.com/product/latencydelay/
Ah... he has this one also: http://www.voxengo.com/product/audiodelay/

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ScofieldKid on 2005-12-24 00:42 ]</font>

On 2005-12-23 16:36, katano wrote:
djmicron,

imagine you have for example a vocal track, mostly fine. but you want to record some sequences again (overdub), because the singer wasn't in tune or what ever.

ok, now you want to hear the recorded voice till the point you're not happy with, this is the mark where punchin takes the role and record starts. after punchin, you will agree, it makes no sense at all to hear the bad recorded sequence while the singer is singing the new take.

ergo, it doesn't make sense to use another track to record this sequence again, even if we're able to use hundreds of tracks in our DAWs...

hmmpff, difficult for me to explain it in english, hope it makes sense to you

greez and happy xmas!!
roman

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: katano on 2005-12-23 16:40 ]</font>

i understand what you mean, but i always pefer to do the job to a new audio track muting the bad recording, but i never trash the recorded material.

On 2005-12-23 20:04, garyb wrote:
cubase playback is in the mixer, monitored. the source is in the mixer, monitored. they are in the same time zone(the scope mixer) and so latency is not an issue. there's no reason to switch between playback and liver monitoring as i cut out the section to be replaced anyway(an edit that only takes a moment), but even still, cubase mutes the track when it's in record, so it doesn't matter anyway. likewise with sonar, logic and any other sequencer. direct monitoring actually is more annoying, because then latency IS an issue......i do this ALL the time and for money, no problem, no direct monitoring, no complaints from clients.

i agree,
using direct monitoring from the sequencer track has no sense if we use the scope processing efx.
It has sense if we apply for example some native plug in realtime during the recording.

cubase playback is in the mixer, monitored. the source is in the mixer, monitored. they are in the same time zone(the scope mixer) and so latency is not an issue.

Not latency, but mixer channels...

On 2005-12-24 03:40, djmicron wrote:
It has sense if we apply for example some native plug in realtime during the recording.

now, i agree with that, but i wonder, what native plug could possibly be so important as to need recording at the tracking stage? effects are best applied to recorded tracks. i'm not trying to tell anyone how they must work, however. do what is most fit to the end result in your own opinion......

On 2005-12-23 20:04, garyb wrote:
cubase playback is in the mixer, monitored. the source is in the mixer, monitored. they are in the same time zone(the scope mixer) and so latency is not an issue. there's no reason to switch between playback and liver monitoring as i cut out the section to be replaced anyway(an edit that only takes a moment), but even still, cubase mutes the track when it's in record, so it doesn't matter anyway. likewise with sonar, logic and any other sequencer. direct monitoring actually is more annoying, because then latency IS an issue......i do this ALL the time and for money, no problem, no direct monitoring, no complaints from clients.

garyb, how much latency are we talking about, when using asio2 direct monitoring? I always thought asio2 direct monitoring is latency free? *confused-again*

when you have playback and liver in the sfp mixer, lets say for 16 tracks, then you have 16 for playback and 16 for record, right? if yes, then you have to apply the sfp effects you might want to hear while recording always twice, don't you?

however, I recorded the last 4 productions the way i described and i never had problems with latency... also no complaints from the customers, but good money

happy xmas

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: katano on 2005-12-24 21:19 ]</font>

no, 2 for playback.
tracking and mixing are two different actions.
please, use this stuff how you see fit. if you are getting good results, that's the main thing.