gmane.linux.audio.devel

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Tim E. Real — 2010-03-20T01:28:59

My problem exactly. Two takes are often not played the same way at the
 same volume, especially considering the volume of each note played, 
 compared to another track. Also, guitarists like to double-track.

Ralf is saying, if you flub a note, you haven't mastered your part!
A recording is: The artist plays, you record. End of story. 
It's a much more 'live' affair, like recording an orchestra for example.
Tweaking notes! That's for pop, eh?

It's only Rock and Roll... But I like it... Like it... Yes I do... 
Solos are hard. Sometimes many takes, just to get that bad note or phrase.
So I do need cross-fading (and other automation goodies). 
So in MusE it is supplied via audio automation. I agree it is a pain having to 
 input the events. There may be some advances on this front coming soon from 
 Robert... I hope...

In MusE you can leave the fragment alone and just do some automation 
 tweaking for it, or move the fragment as you say to its own track with 
 a different volume, but you must supply any desir

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

2010-03-19T22:33:32


That's certainly true for most of the music I love,
but OTOH in practice as an audio engineer you are 
supposed to solve problems created by circumstances
out of your control. If a singer wants to redo one
phrase of song and it ends up being a few dB louder
than the rest you'll have to accept that - you can't
ask to do it again just because of that. But it's no
big deal. Either you just remember to push the fader
at the right time, or today, using Ardour, you can
just cut out that fragment and move it to a separate
track with its own EQ and level. I find this a lot
easier than using automation.

Ciao,

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Ralf Mardorf — 2010-03-19T21:55:40

:)

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Ralf Mardorf — 2010-03-19T21:54:24

Full ACK and IMO it's not up to the audio engineer to fade, but it's the 
task of the musician to play the instrument dynamically. In most cases 
an audio engineer makes a mix that is kept for a whole song, loud and 
silent passages are done by the artist, not by the technician.

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Ralf Mardorf — 2010-03-19T21:47:23

This is my opinion. It's already possible to do what's needed, not only 
for Ardour.

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Ralf Mardorf — 2010-03-19T21:44:02

Yesno :) reminds me to the loudness war, were silent passages are as 
loud as loud passages ;). I guaranty in 15 years or earlier we will get 
back dynamic music, even for looped mainstream music. At the moment 
we've got a lot of musical effect overkill, if you can't hear Auto-Tune 
while people are singing, you'll hear that they use it in auto-tuned 
breathing space. Any timing issue is much more important, not only for 
"classical" musicians, but also for people with a "modern" approach, 
than automation is. And! we do have automation.

But ok, some wish to have more possibilities for automation and I've to 
admit it's nothing bad. It's just that on my wish list sync is more 
important.

Ralf

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Ralf Mardorf — 2010-03-19T21:31:46

You are right here. It's not the way I would make music, but you're 
arguments are all right. I'm not against automation, I like to have it 
myself, but we do have it already for Linux ;). I can life with what is 
possible for automation using Linux now, but I'm whining because of 
other issues ;). I had to laugh when I read that Rui plans to add 
automation to Qtractor with sample-accuracy, instead of sequencer ticks, 
it's good, but IMO overstated. For my needs there are other issues more 
important. Don't get me wrong, it's good that people wish to have 
meticulous automation, it's just less important for me, compared to some 
sync issues.

Ralf

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

rosea grammostola — 2010-03-19T21:14:51

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev-cunTk1MwBs/CEJeg2xFRV2D2FQJk+8+b< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Paul Davis — 2010-03-19T21:06:14


region fade in & fade out curves can be disabled, and have 4 or 5
different shape options. their length is also editable in the GUI.


we don't rely on butt joints. crossfades are done by overlapping. if
you butt joint 2 regions, you get one region (with its (optional) fade
out) then the next region (with its (optional) fade in).

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

2010-03-19T20:51:50


Others have already pointed out that you can do all
of this in Ardour without automation. There is more:
it's non-destructive, and *much faster* than any 
form of automation could ever be. 

And don't forget that 90% of all music that is still
popular today has been produced without any form of
automation, and even without the editing facilities
that e.g. Ardour provides - just using 16 or 24-track
tapes (and in many cases even less). If you can't do
a decent fade-out manually you just have to learn and
do it. Agreed, it's easier with a real P&G fader than
with one you have to move by mouse. 

Ciao,

Re: [LAD] Freqtweak & gcc 4.4

Erik de Castro Lopo — 2010-03-19T20:52:56


Well eventually libsigc++-1.x will disappear and it will need to be
ported to the current version.

This is why someone needs to maintain this. I'll email Jesse Chappell.

Erik

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Tim E. Real — 2010-03-19T20:50:16

Automatic fades at borders.
Ok, that's advanced, nice that it will do this for you. 

Sounds like the same thing, just with MusE you have to do it manually.
Sounds funny, 'manual automation', 'automatic automation'....

Er, question... What if I didn't want those automatic fades at borders?
Can they be turned off or adjusted for fine tweaking?

Does Ardour have some sort of averaging or filtering feature to be
 used for smoothing the joints?

Tim.

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Arnold Krille — 2010-03-19T19:40:17

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev-cunTk1MwBs/CEJeg2xFRV2D2FQJk+8+b< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Paul Davis — 2010-03-19T20:00:42


You can do all of this in Ardour *without* automation.

--p

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

James Morris — 2010-03-19T19:21:36

it obviously depends on what type of music you're making. loop based music
especially makes extensive use of automation.

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Tim E. Real — 2010-03-19T19:16:14

I disagree.
Automation, especially audio automation, is extremely important.
Some examples:
When recording real musicians playing real instruments, you don't just
 record one take, you record several takes, then pick the best one and 
 use the others to patch up the odd mistakes within the best take.
Without automation, it is impossible to do this.
It is easy to say "just cut and paste the corrected takes into the best take",
 but this is not good because you cannot just place the tail end of one
 wave up against the beginning of another wave - you will get a 'pop'.
(Advanced apps might do the joining for you, with averaging or filtering).
With audio automation, you do a quick, but not sudden, fade out of the
 best take at the correction point, and simultaneously do a quick, 
 but not sudden, fade in of the corrected take. Then you do the reverse
 when the end of the corrected take arrives.
This makes the transitions sound smoother.

If the editing is done on the waves themselves, that's destructive
 and whe

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux

Tim E. Real — 2010-03-19T18:38:09

MusE has full graphical editing of midi automation, as well as the event list.
I would venture to say that it has the most comprehensive support for midi
 controllers. It supports Ctrl7, Ctrl14, RPN, NRPN, RPN14, and NRPN14.
It records any midi controller events arriving and lets you edit them.
The instrument editor accommodates just about any kind of external
 instrument you may be faced with.
Tim.

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Ralf Mardorf — 2010-03-19T17:15:43

Zaunpfahl-problem, pardon 128 * 128 - 1 = 16383 steps + zero

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux

David Adler — 2010-03-19T16:59:50

A late answer, but one app has not been mentioned yet.
The current cvs version of qmidiarp provides midi LFOs,
up to eight bars long and optionally with hand-drawn
waveforms. Great for repeating automation.

best,
d

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

alex stone — 2010-03-19T12:24:33

Phillip,

git clone git://fuzzle.org/jm2cv.git


Alex.

Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

Philipp — 2010-03-19T12:22:16

Excerpts from alex stone's message of 2010-03-19 10:09:04 +0100:

Alex, could you please provide a direct link to jm2cv?
I couldn't find it on non-mixer.tuxfamily.org

/Philipp