Karl Engel
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 49
- Joined: 2003/11/09 09:40:56
- Status: offline
4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
In 4.0.3 (and .2?) I had to change my panning laws to -3 for a number of reasons, one being that combined mono clips (with Bounce to Clips) would become 3dB louder otherwise. Now in 4.0.4 I've had to change them back to 0 because otherwise combined mono clips become 3dB quieter! It's as if the developers keep changing their mind about how these laws should affect clips in different circumstances.
Also in 4.0.3 if I was exporting a mono clip via a bus strapped with a limiter set to 0dBFS, I had to make sure the bus was also set to mono, otherwise the audio would still clip - whereas in 4.0.4 I see my limiter will brickwall the result at 0 whether the output bus is set to mono or stereo. Weird, but good -I think.
|
GY
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 97
- Joined: 2003/11/13 10:05:49
- Location: Santa Ynez, CA
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/10/14 10:11:54
(permalink)
Yeah, same problem here. "Bounce to clips" should not cause a gain change depending on how the panning laws are set. You have to go back and readjust them. That's just stupid. I posted about it here: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=613902&mpage=2&key=ò––
post edited by GY - 2005/10/14 10:20:13
|
donald
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 424
- Joined: 2003/11/08 06:30:52
- Location: Sweden
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/10/14 11:11:23
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Karl Engel
In 4.0.3 (and .2?) I had to change my panning laws to -3 for a number of reasons, one being that combined mono clips (with Bounce to Clips) would become 3dB louder otherwise. Now in 4.0.4 I've had to change them back to 0 because otherwise combined mono clips become 3dB quieter! It's as if the developers keep changing their mind about how these laws should affect clips in different circumstances.
Also in 4.0.3 if I was exporting a mono clip via a bus strapped with a limiter set to 0dBFS, I had to make sure the bus was also set to mono, otherwise the audio would still clip - whereas in 4.0.4 I see my limiter will brickwall the result at 0 whether the output bus is set to mono or stereo. Weird, but good -I think.
There's a setting in Global options that deal with this issue. You can chose how panning is affecting volume. There are a number of options for that. Try this and see if this helps.
|
Dave Modisette
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11050
- Joined: 2003/11/13 22:12:55
- Location: Brandon, Florida
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/10/14 13:49:21
(permalink)
In 4.0.3 (and .2?) I had to change my panning laws to -3 for a number of reasons, one being that combined mono clips (with Bounce to Clips) would become 3dB louder otherwise. Now in 4.0.4 I've had to change them back to 0 because otherwise combined mono clips become 3dB quieter! It's as if the developers keep changing their mind about how these laws should affect clips in different circumstances. Yes, this was a bug with the panning law that was posted about six months ago or better. It looks like the bug has been fixed so it's not adding the 3 dB any longer. I believe it was Tazman who brought it to their attention and complained loudly enough till they fixed it.
|
newkulturstudios
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 177
- Joined: 2003/11/08 23:42:50
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/10/14 15:23:42
(permalink)
Unfortunately, if you're using a panning law other than the 0dB ones, you still get gain changes... in Sonar 5, anyway. 
|
tazman
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2435
- Joined: 2003/11/13 13:01:40
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/10/14 16:54:53
(permalink)
Yea Mod, it was me. I have not tested them on S5 yet. I was reassured by Mr. Kuper that the issue would be fixed in 4.0.4 and 5. The problem was that with Sound on Sound, the punch-ins were 3db louder (or quieter, I can't recall).
Cheers,
|
rossipsu1
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1030
- Joined: 2004/02/02 10:16:20
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/10/14 17:31:02
(permalink)
Great, so now my mixes are gonna sound different going from 4.02 to 4.04 because of the gain changes from the pan laws ??
|
Dave Modisette
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11050
- Joined: 2003/11/13 22:12:55
- Location: Brandon, Florida
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/10/14 17:58:05
(permalink)
the punch-ins were 3db louder That is the case.
|
Dave Modisette
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11050
- Joined: 2003/11/13 22:12:55
- Location: Brandon, Florida
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/10/14 17:59:13
(permalink)
Great, so now my mixes are gonna sound different going from 4.02 to 4.04 because of the gain changes from the pan laws ?? I'm not sure that's the case. I believe the fix pertains to the bouncing of audio.
|
GY
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 97
- Joined: 2003/11/13 10:05:49
- Location: Santa Ynez, CA
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 10:28:32
(permalink)
It's too bad that there are so many posts such as this one that just fall by the wayside. Issues with the program that go unresolved. No wonder so many have jumped ship.
|
Master Chief [Cakewalk]
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1053
- Joined: 2003/11/03 19:20:44
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 11:20:33
(permalink)
Issues with the program that go unresolved. No wonder so many have jumped ship. This is a case where an issue with the program was resolved, and the resolution was not satisfactory to others. The bug we fixed was the pan law wasn't being applied to clips properly. Specifically, if there was no pan envelope then no pan law was applied, even though having no pan envelope implicity means "pan = center". If your pan law is -3dB center, then having no pan envelope should mean your clips are -3dB as per the pan law. Yes, this means some mixes might sound different now. That's a side effect of the bug fix.
|
newkulturstudios
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 177
- Joined: 2003/11/08 23:42:50
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 12:12:18
(permalink)
I'm kinda sorta totally compleeeetely confused now... The bug we fixed was: the pan law wasn't being applied to clips properly. Applied when? - During playback / on new punch-ins / or bouncing? All of the above? Specifically, if there was no pan envelope then no pan law was applied... If your pan law is -3dB center, then having no pan envelope should mean your clips are -3dB as per the pan law. Sounds like a contradiction to me. But to try to make sense of it, it seems as if you're saying that the fix only targeted the 0dB pan laws (Pan law IS applied, but gain won't increase, since it registers the pan as centered), but use of any other pan law still results in a gain drop. (Pan law being applied to center material means -3dB or -6dB.) ...The resolution was not satisfactory to others. If someone who happens to prefer a "-X dB" pan law simply wants to combine clips or permanently apply gain envelopes/effects/fades to a clip, why would a resulting gain change be satisfactory? With 6 possible pan laws, and your fix only targeting 2 of them (or maybe the "balance control" pan law as well), it seems like you are neglecting a possible 4/6 of your customers.
|
danhazer
Max Output Level: -54.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2053
- Joined: 2004/01/08 17:05:18
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 12:29:29
(permalink)
it seems like you are neglecting a possible 4/6 of your customers. I'm pretty sure Cakewalk has more than 6 customers. Probably at least 20.
|
newkulturstudios
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 177
- Joined: 2003/11/08 23:42:50
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 12:37:24
(permalink)
Yeah, that's read 4 out of 6, or 4/6ths, dan. I'm talking ratios, not totals. 
|
Infinite5ths
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3631
- Joined: 2005/05/08 16:46:11
- Location: USA
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 12:47:25
(permalink)
Isn't that the same as "2/3"? If I remember correctly from elementary school math..... I know we're musicians here, but REALLY. :-] By the way....newkulturstudios: Where in Rochester, NY? I'm in the area.
post edited by Infinite5ths - 2005/11/17 12:48:13
|
dbmusic
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1150
- Joined: 2005/07/04 12:52:46
- Location: Illinois
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 12:50:51
(permalink)
Just a thought: I would like to see an adjustable pan law on a per project basis.
|
Master Chief [Cakewalk]
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1053
- Joined: 2003/11/03 19:20:44
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 12:57:01
(permalink)
The bug we fixed was: the pan law wasn't being applied to clips properly. Applied when? - During playback / on new punch-ins / or bouncing? All of the above?
All of the above. As of 4.0.4 and 5.0, whenever the mix engine mixes a clip it applies per-clip gain and pan envelopes. So if you have per-clip pan envelope that says the clip is centered, that pan will translate into a gain adjustment depending on your pan law. If your pan law is set to 0dB center then there will be no pan adjustment. If it's set to -3dB center there will be a -3dB pan adjustment. The bug we fixed was, if a clip didn't have a pan envelope, we would always use a -3dB center pan law, instead of obeying the global settting.
|
newkulturstudios
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 177
- Joined: 2003/11/08 23:42:50
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 13:36:13
(permalink)
Thanks for the quick response, Ron. ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]
The bug we fixed was, if a clip didn't have a pan envelope, we would always use a -3dB center pan law, instead of obeying the global settting.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to always use a 0dB center pan law (or none at all), if a clip doesn't have a pan envelope? Would that not fix the problem for everybody? Why did you choose to lower the volume instead of keeping it the same? ---------- @ Infinite5ths - Hi Mike, yessss, (lol) 4/6 is the same as 2/3, I just thought putting 4/6 would be easier for people to read, since it's repeating the numbers I was talking about (6 pan laws), as opposed to having people, go "where'd he get that figure from... oh, yeah, 2/3 is the same as 4/6." ....Why is everyone so focused on me writing "4/6", instead of the thread topic at hand?! :-P I'm living in Penfield, but doing work at various studios from Webster to Bergen. Where are you at?
|
danhazer
Max Output Level: -54.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2053
- Joined: 2004/01/08 17:05:18
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 13:58:26
(permalink)
Wouldn't it have made more sense to always use a 0dB center pan law (or none at all), if a clip doesn't have a pan envelope? Would that not fix the problem for everybody? Why did you choose to lower the volume instead of keeping it the same? If I read correctly Ron already explained this. Here is his quote: Specifically, if there was no pan envelope then no pan law was applied, even though having no pan envelope implicity means "pan = center". If your pan law is -3dB center, then having no pan envelope should mean your clips are -3dB as per the pan law. If I'm getting what Ron is saying here, when the above condition existed, customers were complaining about it... So the answer to your question: Wouldn't it have made more sense to always use a 0dB center pan law (or none at all), if a clip doesn't have a pan envelope? Would that not fix the problem for everybody? In this context, would be no. It would not have made more sense, necessarily. Thanks,
|
newkulturstudios
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 177
- Joined: 2003/11/08 23:42:50
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 14:56:12
(permalink)
Well, I had some past/present/participle tenses confused, so I'm following a bit better now, but still not satisfied... if the problem before was that bouncing was causing some people gain increases, then how is the current situation of a gain decrease when no clip pan envelope is present (using -dB pan laws) really any better? Here's my gripe: when bouncing a clip(s) with no pan envelope, the user ONLY wants to permanently set the clip AS THEY HEAR IT. They don't want ANY gain change - therefor, which pan law they are using should be irrelevent in this circumstance. I'm also not following why for mono clips, one would want a CLIP PAN envelope? If people are running the interleave correctly, mono clips should be on mono tracks, stereo clips on stereo tracks. Which would result in any mono clip's "clip panning" to be summed to mono by the track interleave. Furthermore, in this case, for mono clips, having the program apply a gain change on the "bounce to clip" currently results in doubling the gain change, since during playback, everything is put through the pan law AGAIN for track panning. And, maybe I'm slow on this point, but do these two statements contradict each other?: Ron Kuper:
The bug we fixed was... Specifically, if there was no pan envelope then no pan law was applied. Ron Kuper:
The bug we fixed was, if a clip didn't have a pan envelope, we would always use a -3dB center pan law, instead of obeying the global settting.
post edited by newkulturstudios - 2005/11/17 14:58:41
|
Master Chief [Cakewalk]
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1053
- Joined: 2003/11/03 19:20:44
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 15:01:10
(permalink)
Here's my gripe: when bouncing a clip(s) with no pan envelope, the user ONLY wants to permanently set the clip AS THEY HEAR IT. But you are hearing the pan law. The problem is, if you bounce to clips, then you get a new clip with the pan law applied to it again. The clip that is bounced is faithfully the same as what you heard before bouncing to clips. I'm also not following why for mono clips, one would want a CLIP PAN envelope? Maybe I tracked a guitar in mono and I want to pan it, but not at the track level but a the clip level?
|
newkulturstudios
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 177
- Joined: 2003/11/08 23:42:50
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/17 15:37:10
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]
Here's my gripe: when bouncing a clip(s) with no pan envelope, the user ONLY wants to permanently set the clip AS THEY HEAR IT. But you are hearing the pan law. The problem is, if you bounce to clips, then you get a new clip with the pan law applied to it again. But that's exactly my point. We don't WANT the pan law applied multiple times. THAT'S what makes it sound DIFFERENT. We only want the track output to sound as the same as it played BEFORE the bounce. (ie: the pan law only being applied to the track... NOT the clip.) That's why we don't have a clip pan envelope on it. I understand your example below (thanks) and see why using a clip pan envelope here could be beneficial... I'm also not following why for mono clips, one would want a CLIP PAN envelope? Maybe I tracked a guitar in mono and I want to pan it, but not at the track level but a the clip level?
But in this case, you have the guitar on a STEREO track. Therefor, the pan law is NOT being applied again at the track level. Only once - at the clip level. When you have say, a lead vocal, recorded in mono clips, on a mono track, and you want to combine composited clips into one, you DON'T want a gain change. You only want to combine those clips into one clip, where the track output sounds EXACTLY the same after being bounced AND going through the track interleave. Try that situation on your own - use the -6dB pan law (obvious results), and see how inconvienient it is to have to deal with. (Sincerely, thanks for all the respondance/debating, it's truely appreciated.)
|
ooblecaboodle
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2102
- Joined: 2004/05/01 21:52:56
- Location: North Wales
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/18 11:22:33
(permalink)
dude, the pan law isn't being aplied twice.
The problem before is that when you were listening, you WERE NOT hearing the effects of a panning law, but when bouncing, YOU WERE hearing the effects.
Now, you hear the effect of a panning law whether listening or playing back = no difference pre/post bounce!!!
|
newkulturstudios
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 177
- Joined: 2003/11/08 23:42:50
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/18 12:26:53
(permalink)
On MONO tracks, it is, on stereo tracks, it's not. hmmm... how to explain... Try this on a -6dB pan law project: -Put a mono clip on a mono track. -Set the Loop points to a small section so you can easily compare values when changing variables of this test. -Pan the track center, start playback, and view the Numeric Peak Value on the track. (Let's call this value the reference of 0.) -Pan the track 100% L or R, view the Numeric Peak Value on the track. (This value gives you +6 from the reference, right?) So we're in agreement, the pan law is being applied here, correct? -Now, Bounce to Clip. -See how the clip shrunk visually? -What's the numeric readout? It's 6dB lower than before - compared to the reference, it's now -6 in center, and 0 on a side. (The clip shrunk by exactly 6dB (what the pan law told it to do), yet the final output is still influenced by the track's pan law.) -To verify the bounce was effected by a pan law, switch the project's pan law to one of the -3dB options. -Bounce to Clip again. What's the output of the clip now? 3dB even lower, right? Okay, so the pan law is applied each time you bounce clips in this example, plus the track itself uses the pan law. How is that NOT the pan law being applied multiple times? Ron even acknowledged it: The problem is, if you bounce to clips, then you get a new clip with the pan law applied to it again.
|
danhazer
Max Output Level: -54.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2053
- Joined: 2004/01/08 17:05:18
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/18 12:38:15
(permalink)
Ron even acknowledged it:
quote:
The problem is, if you bounce to clips, then you get a new clip with the pan law applied to it again. Now I'm almost starting to get a little irritated with you... Did you take Ron's quote out of context on purpose, or was it an oversight? I hope the later for your credibility's sake... You only quoted half of Ron's remarks for what could appear to be purposes of serving your argument. His entire statement is: The problem is, if you bounce to clips, then you get a new clip with the pan law applied to it again. The clip that is bounced is faithfully the same as what you heard before bouncing to clips. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you seem fairly earnest in your belief that there is an issue with bouncing down tracks and pan laws, but please read what people write in the context of what they're saying... Thanks,
|
newkulturstudios
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 177
- Joined: 2003/11/08 23:42:50
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/18 13:41:39
(permalink)
I'm sorry if you're getting irritated, Dan (and others)... Perhaps we're both not understanding each others points. Please bear with me though.
I don't believe I did take Ron's quote out of context, I simply only included what I thought was needed to keep things brief, the rest being understood, and not contradicting my statements.
What it sounds to me that Ron means in the full quote, is that the bounced clip is the exact result of the clip going through the mono/stereo interleave... pan laws included, as you heard it. (On testing, it seems if there is any mono context in the chain, (be it the clip and/or the track) the clip bouncing will follow the pan law.) What you get as a resultant clip is what you heard before as the clip being played through the track. (What Ron implied, right?) Which explains why when you set a stereo clip's track to mono, then bounce to clip, the resultant clip will be mono. ...Am I incorrect so far?
The problem that I see with this functionality, is that now you're playing the resulting clip through the track again. That's where the pan law is being used once more (on mono tracks), this time only at the track level. (Pan the track (again, it must be mono) to verify.)
Please, if you try my test, you'll see what I'm talking about, and how it's an inconvenience.
Also, Dan, I'd like to point out that I very rarely do a bounce to track, so can't confirm at this time that my same "problem" exists there, I'm merely saying it for bouncing to clips.
Thanks for your patience, everyone.
|
danhazer
Max Output Level: -54.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2053
- Joined: 2004/01/08 17:05:18
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/18 13:51:55
(permalink)
The problem that I see with this functionality, is that now you're playing the resulting clip through the track again. That's where the pan law is being used once more (on mono tracks), this time only at the track level. (Pan the track (again, it must be mono) to verify.) What you say would be true only if the bounce to clip operation is post-fader/post FX bin. I thought bouncing to a clip was a pre-fader operation (ie does not apply FX/volume/pan settings)...Bouncing to track, on the other hand, would be post-fader post-FX. Am I mistaken about bounce to clip being pre-fader/pre-FX? I actually can't remember and don't ever use the command (I prefer freeze in almost every case). Thanks,
|
newkulturstudios
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 177
- Joined: 2003/11/08 23:42:50
- Location: Rochester, NY
- Status: offline
RE: 4.0.4 Panning law behavior has changed again
2005/11/18 14:21:17
(permalink)
Sorry, my wording was a bit awkward... I meant that the bounce to clip function only looks at the track's mono/stereo interleave, it does not include any volume fader, trim, pan, track insert effects settings. So, yeah, it IS definately a PRE-fader process. So my sentences in the previous post should have read: "What you get as a resultant clip is what you heard before as the clip being played through the track 's mono/stereo interleave." ... "...now you're playing the resulting clip through the track 's mono/stereo interleave again." I guess that's another reason why I didn't quote Ron in entirity - because literally, what you heard before the bounce to clip, included all track volume settings, effects, bus processing, etc... and if that were bounced into the new clip (" The clip that is bounced is faithfully the same as what you heard before bouncing to clips" - Ron), that would surely make the function POST-fader, and post-bus. (And that's obviously not what it's doing.) I'm trying to be as specific as possible to help pinpoint exactly where in the signal chain the problem lies, and it's tricky to explain, I suppose, where along the lines the track settings influence the bounce, but perhaps it's a key to the coding. (?)
post edited by newkulturstudios - 2005/11/19 01:44:09
|