If you want to record the performance pad in Alchemy you have to record out - I go out to a combo and mic it.  If anyone has a simpler method for messing w/ the pad, let me know.
 
@

tlw

Earwax
Your example is exactly the point. Jimi is playing his gutar, effected the way he wants, and recording same, all in real time.

Hm.
"Once it was in the can, then you'd start mucking with it.... For the various effects and things..." (Chas Chandler on recording Jimi Hendrix).

Recording Jimi Hendrix was not a simple process either in the studio or live. Even live recordings would be post-processed in the studio prior to release if for no other reason than to sort out the mix, get things to the right length to fit on a side on a LP and to master for the requirements of vinyl.

Jimi used Electric Ladyland (the studio) as a sonic science laboratory, doing many things post-recording that hadn’t been done on that scale before. So, of course, Hendrix’s performances were at times edited – quite heavily. That wasn’t the point. The point was that his performance of the Star-Spangled Banner (live) was directly related to what he was playing, hearing and recording at the time. The musician’s mindset when recording live can be VERY different than when recording audio or MIDI data just to get ideas in, knowing full well the performance will most assuredly have to be edited later.
 
 

tlw

Earwax

As for recording soft synth's audio output rather than recording the MIDI then bouncing/freezing the synth I really don't see the issue unless you are dealing with a synth that has functions that can't be MIDI controlled.

See above regarding live performance/recording. Playing a synth whose parameters you are using during your performance

tlw

Earwax

If a synth (or e.g. Sonar's step sequencer) has a randomising factor, then whether that first take is going to be the best is a matter of luck in any case. My approach is to do multiple bounces of the part to audio then pick between them and even comp the best bits together.

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not talking about utilizing step sequencers. I’m also not talking about a synth’s canned “randomizing” capability. I’m talking about recording live playing, tweaking, and effects as you play. Again, a very different approach. Particularly if you are playing with someone as you are recording.
 

tlw

Earwax

Other than that, when you play a software (or hardware) synth using a MIDI controller the synth is responding to the MIDI. The synth has no way to tell if the MIDI data is being generated as part of a "live" performance or sent after the fact from a sequencer or Sonar MIDI track..

 
Well I’d like to think that most synthesists adept enough as players to want to record live know how MIDI works. A number have expressed a desire to be able to record VST and VSTi output “live” as they play. I guess none of us know how this stuff works.
 

Randomness would be an issue for midi based recording because you could be inspired to do (for example) a filter tweak based on notes or fx generated by the synth. Then afterwards the automation recording will play back your tweak, but change the thing that made you do it.

I'm all for this now. My soundcard actually does enough routing to set it up there but it seems relatively simple to implement within Sonar.

Reading thru all this it seems to me "random" was a poor word choice and led several off the track. It's not "randomness" that needs to be captured but rather the spur of the moment interaction between what is heard and what/how I play. Much of this can certainly be done after the fact (post-processing, if MIDI control allows it) but I think most players would find it easier to do it live and "in the moment". As was said previous, my mindset is different playing that it is editing. But perhaps that's my limitation. If so, this feature would be great to allow me to function best within my limitations. I'm voting for it.

I agree about interaction. Apparently there are some synths or effects that produce sound in a way that is not fully reproducible by midi input. It's easy to call that random. The point is the performer interacts with that element, and the midi representation of that performance is not necessarily as musical as the original performance.

to_be_deleted
Reading thru all this it seems to me "random" was a poor word choice and led several off the track. It's not "randomness" that needs to be captured but rather the spur of the moment interaction between what is heard and what/how I play.

Yes, I almost went back and posted something similar (since I made the mistake of using the "R" word, myself), but the folks who "get it" already understand that, and the ones who don't are likely to continue resisting the concept.
 
I've lost track of how many threads like this there have been over the years, and they always go around and around with the same old debates. Personally I'm content to use digital loopback recording when I need this, which is rarely, but I understand that others need it often enough to want it built in.
 
The bottom line is that everyone who wants this should either enter a feature request or add a thumbs up to an existing one in the forum, and let it go at that. Debating the necessity on the main forum doesn't really help, and there are no fully functional workarounds other than loopback recording. I suspect the Bakers are already pretty well aware of the more or less frequently expressed desire for this and the general desire for more audio/MIDI routing flexibility, and will implement it when they determine the time is right.
 
 
 
 
 

I think the Hendrix playing live example isn't that germane...to record that, you'd just stick a mic in front of the amp. You could achieve the same thing with SONAR by playing a hardware synthesizer's audio output into a track. In some ways I think that would be superior anyway, because odds are there will be a control surface that encourages real-time playing...particularly if it's a "one knob/one function" analog synth.
 
Personally, I don't see the difference between playing a synthesizer and having SONAR record my gestures compared to SONAR recording the audio that results from those gestures. For example, I consider mixing (with hardware or touch faders) as a performance, not as a set-and-forget ritual of setting faders. I slam 'em around, solo things, pan, etc. With analog consoles, what you mixed was what you heard. Now we have automation, which again to me, makes no audible difference compared to capturing the mixer output to a two-track in real time. (And as far as Mix Recall is concerned, YEAH BABY!!!).
 
I think in large part it comes down to psychology as to someone's preferred mode of working. Aside from some randomized parameter causing a spur-of-the-moment interaction, which I doubt is all that common, I really don't think the end result is technically any different whether you capture gestures or record audio. However, there's also no difference in playing guitar with a beautiful sunburst finish compared to one painted in Gas Station Green, but you're going to want to play the one with the beautiful finish because it puts you in a better frame of mind. 
 
There's something exciting about playing without a safety net. If you turn off MIDI and just record audio in real time, that's what you're doing. I think that's what it's all about, as opposed to the technicalities of the differences in capturing sound or gestures.

Anderton
I think the Hendrix playing live example isn't that germane...to record that, you'd just stick a mic in front of the amp. You could achieve the same thing with SONAR by playing a hardware synthesizer's audio output into a track.

The Hendrix example [to me] is relevant, because you couldn't play a "clean" guitar into Sonar, pull up TH2 and re-amp it and get the same results as the captured/recorded [live] audio performance.  Most notable would be the feedback loop Hendrix created thru his amp and guitar pickups and how it was controlled AT the time of recording.  You LOSE that interaction when re-amping.  (or playing back a MIDI sequence into a VSTi)

And yes, you could run the VSTi out thru an amp and mic it...(and I believe that was previously suggested), but now you've added quite a lot into the signal chain to do that, with the amp/mic combo "coloring" the sound the most.
 
The preference is to keep it all in the computer and *pure*.  As you've suggested, and I also agree (and have done) is to physically re-patch and mute where needed.  I think pretty much everyone agrees this is a method but in some situations apparently isn't practical for some.  (no patch bay, audio interface rack mounted...etc, etc)

What this boils down to is that there are two sides to this..  1) those that believe MIDI can NOT capture all the gestures of a live performance and thus will NOT duplicate what was done during the initial performance...(because of various reasons ...i.e.  the non repetitive nature of some VSTi and the interaction of the PLAYING that might cause.....  and 2)...those that think MIDI can do all that.

This was a huge shock to me coming from DP where you could treat soft synthy like tape: arm and record the output.
 
Now I just bounce. I can't really stand freezing tracks.
 

timg11
Since the software Synth outputs appear in the list of available inputs for an audio track, it would seem to be simple to just record the synth onto a new audio track.  But as soon as the synth audio is selected as the input, the record enable for the track disappears! 
 
After searching help, I find "Converting your soft synth tracks to audio".  This is a 9 step procedure involving "bounce to track" and lots of fiddling around with settings. Compared to "select input source, enable record" that seems like going around the block.  To add insult, it doesn't work! Following the procedure results in nothing recorded to the destination track.
 
Can anyone explain why the obvious, straightforward method for recording audio from a soft synth is prevented from being used? That is exactly what I do to record an external synth. Why is a soft synth any different?
 
Does anyone know of an alternate (working) procedure to record the synth audio?  I don't see any way to route a bus back to a track input. I suppose I could play the SW synth through a pair of channels on my audio interface, and loop it back into Sonar on different channels, but that seems silly. What am I missing?
 

AndertonI think in large part it comes down to psychology as to someone's preferred mode of working.
 
There's something exciting about playing without a safety net. If you turn off MIDI and just record audio in real time, that's what you're doing. I think that's what it's all about, as opposed to the technicalities of the differences in capturing sound or gestures.

 
I'm not much of a synth guy, but the discussion is fascinating. 
 
I don't know enough about synths and midi to contribute to the technical side of the discussion, but I agree that the psychology of "live" vs "midi" is totally different. I grew up on a diet of weekend-long jam sessions, very short on formal structure and very long on spontaneity and improvisation. One of my big challenges in Sonar has been to find ways of getting that moment-by-moment expressiveness within the byte-by-byte precision of this monster machine. It's pretty hard to find that impulsive looseness that you get from a bunch of musicians on a weekend-long musical bender. I get Craig's point, that the gestures can be recorded perfectly well in midi, but I also know how phony it feels to try to tweak in what "sounds like" looseness after the fact.