gkurtenbach
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 64
- Joined: 2005/01/28 12:03:31
- Status: offline
RE: sample accuracy
2005/01/28 12:25:15
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: danhazer
I should be able to take a playback stereo pair out of my soundcard and loop back to the input of the same card and record it. The resulting new recording should be in phase with the the old playback track. Were the loop digital and no gain/EQ/other proccessing applied, there should be a 1:1 relationship between all sample values of both tracks at all given sample times.
How is the audio application at fault for this? Protools admits a 2 ms latency between reality and what is actually recorded and that's becuase of converter latency. The same is true in SONAR, Cubase, Nuendo, etc...
My MOTU 2408 MK 3 has a 102 sample input latency when using ASIO on the loop back test (that just over 2 ms). The only way SONAR could correct this is to get the number of samples in latency (or ms) and then automatically nudge all newly recorded audio back by that amount. Where will SONAR get that information? How will it know? It seems to me that the hardware driver would have to report that information to the host application in order for it to be corrected properly.
What are your thoughts on that?
Thanks,
I have the same concerns: that sonar output, looped back to the same card and then recorded doesn't line up in time with the original signal. I ran a test last night in sonar and found that the recorded copy was about 500 samples behind the original. I reduce the dma buffer size on the m-audio delta 66 card down to the smallest size, 64, and the delay was reduced to about 120 samples. Is there some way to get this to be zero? 120 samples is about 3ms and thats an audible difference. Seems to me if there was an "automatic nudging of of every recording by X samples" option that would be a fix. Does anyone know a fix or have comments? thanks, Gord
|
danhazer
Max Output Level: -54.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2053
- Joined: 2004/01/08 17:05:18
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
RE: sample accuracy
2005/01/28 12:44:58
(permalink)
I have the same concerns: that sonar output, looped back to the same card and then recorded doesn't line up in time with the original signal. I ran a test last night in sonar and found that the recorded copy was about 500 samples behind the original. I reduce the dma buffer size on the m-audio delta 66 card down to the smallest size, 64, and the delay was reduced to about 120 samples. This is not a unique "problem." It's the audio interface that is hooked into your DAW causing the dealy, not SONAR. The only way to fix it is to nudge all of your audio back manually - if you so care to do that.
|
gomi
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/12/15 11:44:50
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/28 12:54:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: kp
What do people actually mean by "sample accuracy" here? Again, not trying to be awkward, but I do think that one of the problems we all run into is that phrase X means different things to different people.
"If you think that “sample accurate†has something to do with random drug tests, you’re probably reading the wrong magazine. But if you’ve heard the term applied to digital transfers, loop timings, edits, and more, you’re in the right place. Our mission here is to get to the bottom of sample accuracy, and explain how it affects our world of recording and editing. First, the basics: When dealing with digital audio, the most fundamental element of a signal is an individual sample, which has a certain duration and value. For the purposes of this article, we don’t care about the value, just the duration. For example, with a 44.1 kHz sample rate, there are 44,100 samples per second. Thus, each sample is exactly 0.02267573696 milliseconds long (you can trust me on this), and there are 44.1 samples per millisecond." rest of the article.. http://www.eqmag.com/archive/0803/0803_features3.htm
|
newfuturevintage
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1848
- Joined: 2004/11/04 20:35:09
- Location: o'land, ca
- Status: offline
RE: sample accuracy
2005/01/28 15:58:05
(permalink)
How is the audio application at fault for this? Protools admits a 2 ms latency between reality and what is actually recorded and that's becuase of converter latency. The same is true in SONAR, Cubase, Nuendo, etc... Hi Dan-- To me, it's unimportant where the fault lies, I hope I didn't place blame on the software or the hardware for the root cause of the issue, though I may have... I think it's more laws of physics at the root of the issue: AD / DA takes time to accomplish, as does the routing of data over a PCI bus. The solution is what's important, and it is something that could be corrected for automatically. Granted, all sound cards are different, so I'd have no issue with requiring some manual setup for that. Maybe by plugging outputs back to inputs and having Sonar profile the round-trip delay? My beef with this is the variable nature of offset dependant on latency, which I will sometimes juggle around as CPU load changes. I've been experiencing greater latencies causing greater offsets, to the point of audibility. I'll freely admit I could have a setup problem causing this, I don't know for sure. It does seem weird to me as there is communication between Sonar and the ASIO driver of latency time that the problem of increasing offsets should hit me. Unless there's some cranial<->colonic blockage on my part. Which has happened before 
|
danhazer
Max Output Level: -54.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2053
- Joined: 2004/01/08 17:05:18
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
RE: sample accuracy
2005/01/28 16:28:07
(permalink)
The solution is what's important, and it is something that could be corrected for automatically. Granted, all sound cards are different, so I'd have no issue with requiring some manual setup for that. Maybe by plugging outputs back to inputs and having Sonar profile the round-trip delay? That would be one way to do it and I think it would work. I personally would like a more eloquent solution that does not require manual intervention by the user. For instance, with PDC plug-ins report their latency to the host application, the host application uses that information to do its PDC. Wouldn't it be nice if there was IDC? Interface Delay Compensation? Of course, it wouldn't be as cut-n-dry as PDC because interface delay can be affected by a variety of variables such as PCI delay and bus speed, but I'm sure there is a way to calculate it within a few samples without manual intervention. Thanks,
|
gkurtenbach
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 64
- Joined: 2005/01/28 12:03:31
- Status: offline
RE: sample accuracy
2005/01/28 16:47:24
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: danhazer
This is not a unique "problem." It's the audio interface that is hooked into your DAW causing the dealy, not SONAR. The only way to fix it is to nudge all of your audio back manually - if you so care to do that.
Yes I understand, but it seems sort of crazy to have to do that every time you record a clip--hmmm, sounds like something Sonar could do automatically. I realize its not Sonar causing the delay but it sure would be nice if it could support "auto compensation". Do any other apps support this type of latency compensation? Gord
|
newfuturevintage
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1848
- Joined: 2004/11/04 20:35:09
- Location: o'land, ca
- Status: offline
RE: sample accuracy
2005/01/28 16:53:49
(permalink)
Wouldn't it be nice if there was IDC? Man, I'd love that. I'd not considered the latency reporting being by the cards themselves. That'd be grand, especially if it were done in pairs, such that analog inputs would be compensated for differently than their faster digital counterparts. perchance to dream...
|
MotorMind
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 226
- Joined: 2004/10/17 08:43:24
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/28 17:25:42
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: planist
Today, i did a test:
Ableton Live 2 versus Sonar 4, regarding the Smoothness of Playback/Gapless Playback.
in both Sequencers ->
16 Bit, 44.1 kHz
10 Audio tracks + 20 second audio clips (or 20, 30, 40), no busses
no plugs
meters turned off in Sonar
PDC (Plugin Delay Compensation) turned off in Sonar
both WDM, ASIO drivers used
Result: There are still GAPS in Sonar4! Its obvioulsy CPU-dependent how Sonar performs. The more CPU Usage i have the more and longer gaps occur when editing while playback (eg. moving clips, restart playing a section, not to mention commands like normalize, trim, pitch, etc.)
In Ableton Live this does not matter. Even if there is 80% Usage the playback is smooth and gapless.
A few months there were some who said its because of the PDC, but now you can turn it off in Sonar4 and it is still far from gapless.
Hows your experience, testing?
Well, at first I thought it had been solved... but on higher track counts (and thus higher CPU consumption) the gaps become more and more noticable. It is especially bad when using ReWire, but also affects heavy-load DXi's as well. The gaps are especially annoying when editing MIDI. I like to program drums by looping a few bars and then moving the notes around. Due to the gaps this is near impossible.. every time I let go of a note audio stops for a while, so I totally lose the flow of the beat. This all makes me want to give up on Sonar and move on to another sequencer. I also use Ableton Live which is smooth as possible... so I might give that a go for copmlete productions.
|
planist
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 883
- Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/29 12:48:12
(permalink)
kp
Since we can't even agree on what "sample accuracy" means, I'd argue with this.
From your perspective. Not from mine by a long way - I can think of maybe 5 or 6 things off the top of my head that I'd rather see before reducing gapping even begins to get a look-in.
WTF does this mean? I mean, I understand the words, but it's so vague as to be useless. calm down kp, this is not a political thread - all i am telling IS my opinion. of course it is. if it is not yours then tell us the 5-6 things that come to your mind before a gapless engine. sample accurate recording has been discussed for some time now and you should read some thread concerning this topic before making such a statement. it useless? as i wrote earlier, look at some competitors products and you will see what i mean by saying "better engine performance" vague - it quite obvious what i am saying: gaplessness, arm while playback, sample accurate recording, a working pdc on/off-button. It is obvious that PDC in Sonar is not only responsible for gapping. Even without Plugins there is gapping.
< Message edited by planist -- 1/29/2005 1:06:38 PM >
|
planist
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 883
- Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/29 13:04:54
(permalink)
|
Andrew Milne
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 574
- Joined: 2003/11/05 20:16:11
- Location: Islington, London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/29 16:52:51
(permalink)
SONAR is very gappy and I find it very annoying.
Is gapping important? - depends on how you work - but I like to edit during playback, and I like to loop sections while editing - currently SONAR makes this almost impossible to achieve (if you are using plugins which require adc) because the gapping and loss of sync completely invalidates this method of working. I would consider this to be my highest proiority for an update - I also think that if a gap-free engine is eventually delivered most users will wonder how they ever managed without it.
|
planist
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 883
- Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/30 11:01:54
(permalink)
thanks andrew, thats exactly what i think.
reason users always complain about gapping in other sequenzers. luckily i always wanted real audio editing and so i have experienced gapless workflow only a few times with live and reason.
i still dont understand how cakewalk could have said that sonar 3 was gapless if they have used the competitors sequencers once. ,-(
planist
|
Loki
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 488
- Joined: 2003/11/06 13:23:05
- Location: England
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/30 11:07:24
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Andrew Milne
SONAR is very gappy and I find it very annoying.
Is gapping important? - depends on how you work - but I like to edit during playback, and I like to loop sections while editing - currently SONAR makes this almost impossible to achieve (if you are using plugins which require adc) because the gapping and loss of sync completely invalidates this method of working. I would consider this to be my highest proiority for an update - I also think that if a gap-free engine is eventually delivered most users will wonder how they ever managed without it.
I agree. Ive been using Trackton alot lately and one of the best things about it is that I can do all Andrew has said without stopping. Project 5 II has this a feature. I was seriously thinking of getting it too untill I realised EnergyXT can do the same and more for €39. Ive been checking out Sonar 4 lately too and even though it is a very good program with alot of well implemented features I dont think I'll be upgrading. Im sick of hunting for menu's, opening and closing windows and stopping the music. My copy of Sonar 3 is perfect for mastering but when my brother and I are composing we need as little distraction as possible. Sonar is a brilliant program if you work the way its designed and fustrating if its not. Sonar is good for my "engineer" side of my brain. For the record I have learned all the keyboard short cuts I need for Sonar and bought Sonar Power.
< Message edited by Loki -- 1/30/2005 4:16:05 PM >
|
MotorMind
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 226
- Joined: 2004/10/17 08:43:24
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/30 12:05:53
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: planist
thanks andrew, thats exactly what i think.
reason users always complain about gapping in other sequenzers. luckily i always wanted real audio editing and so i have experienced gapless workflow only a few times with live and reason.
i still dont understand how cakewalk could have said that sonar 3 was gapless if they have used the competitors sequencers once. ,-(
planist
Cubase and Nuendo are gapless too. Sure, they are riddled with other bugs, but at least they nailed *that* down. Like with Andrew editing while playing is a very important part of my workflow... it's too bad Sonar can't handle it at all.
|
nprime
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2423
- Joined: 2004/08/16 19:19:49
- Location: Vancouver
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/30 12:23:46
(permalink)
It's interesting that the more we have the more we want. I think the point that gapless audio is acheivable, therefore it should be implemented, is a valid one. If it can be done than it should be done. Does Ableton Live achieve this by using a big RAM buffer for playback? Or is it that much more efficient an audio engine? Anyone know the technical issues on this one? I suspect that the statement about a complete re-write of Sonar being needed is probably accurate. And quite frankly I'd rather wait for a Sonar 5.0 that was a completely new work right from the ground up. I too would love gapless editing. Funny thing is, ten years ago if you wanted to insert a a compressor you had to stop the tape playback, get out of your chair, grab the necessary cables, actually patch the compressor physically to the insert on your mixing board, sit down, and adjust the send and return levels, then push play again.  . Gapless editing indeed! We all take for granted how good we've got it! R
Listen Sonar 5PE Intel DP35DP, E6750, 3 GB, 80GB/320 GB Scope (6 DSP) w/A16 interface PadKontrol, Legacy Series MS20, EZDrummer.
|
daverich
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3418
- Joined: 2003/11/06 05:59:00
- Location: south west uk
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/30 12:34:04
(permalink)
just a thought.
1) gapless audio with delay compensation is possible.
2) to integrate it into sonar is going to take a huge amount of rebuilding and effort.
so with that in mind, are we all happy for it to take longer to accomodate patch releases for sonar4?
Kind regards
Dave Rich.
|
jlgrimes
Max Output Level: -59 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1639
- Joined: 2003/12/15 12:37:09
- Location: Atlanta, Ga, USA
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/30 12:39:11
(permalink)
Sample accurate recording (to me):
User should be able to record audio and midi tracks hand in hand with very minimal latency (<2ms).
What's really important is when bouncing softsynths or recording softsynths or recording hardware, nothing should sound like it is playing too early or too late. The audio performance should sound the same as it sounded when composing. Sonar will continue to receive criticism until this is implemented better. I understand some of this problem deals with the ASIO spec but WDM isn't 100% as well.
My opinion is a user shouldn't have to slide audio clips to compensate for software recording.
I still agree gapless midi should be more of a priority than gapless audio. When editing audio in realtime, it is understandable (to me) that there will be small gaps in playback. But Sonar's midi needs rethinking.
Some problems:
1. Moving notes in the piano roll in realtime causes hiccups or double notes. This is a huge concern for me.
2. When playing a loop in realtime and I decide to change loop markers in realtime the whole project slows down. I do this to audition different sections of a song before committing to copying and pasting it out in song mode. Changing loop markers in realtime was going to be my workaround for lack of play order tracks (like Cubase) and Live's loop sections. Sonar either needs to get this side of gapless editing fixed or implement something like a chain function (like the Mpc or live).
3. This gripe is not neccesarily Sonar's problem but Sonar could help users out on this one. Some midi modules exhibit a slight hiccup at the start of a sequence. This is due to Cakewalk always sending patch change information once the user press play. I understand the reasoning for this but Cakewalk should come with an option to only send these messages at 1:01:01 or when a user manually change the patch. Therefore I could start my compositions at 2:01:01 and keep from hearing those annoying hiccups.
|
MotorMind
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 226
- Joined: 2004/10/17 08:43:24
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 04:21:31
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jlgrimes
Some problems:
1. Moving notes in the piano roll in realtime causes hiccups or double notes. This is a huge concern for me.
2. When playing a loop in realtime and I decide to change loop markers in realtime the whole project slows down. I do this to audition different sections of a song before committing to copying and pasting it out in song mode. Changing loop markers in realtime was going to be my workaround for lack of play order tracks (like Cubase) and Live's loop sections. Sonar either needs to get this side of gapless editing fixed or implement something like a chain function (like the Mpc or live).
3. This gripe is not neccesarily Sonar's problem but Sonar could help users out on this one. Some midi modules exhibit a slight hiccup at the start of a sequence. This is due to Cakewalk always sending patch change information once the user press play. I understand the reasoning for this but Cakewalk should come with an option to only send these messages at 1:01:01 or when a user manually change the patch. Therefore I could start my compositions at 2:01:01 and keep from hearing those annoying hiccups.
These are indeed major issues and I'm totally baffled that Cakewalk actually dares to ask a whole lot of cash for a program that can't even do gapless midi-editing. Worse still, they don't even care that so many people complain about this, releasing fixes for minor bugs while ignoring this big problem. Right now I have placed Sonar on the shelf ... again. I really do hope that the gap-problem will be solved in another upgrade, or I will have to drop it completely and go with the competition that *does* know how to make a gapless engine.
|
NYSR
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1550
- Joined: 2004/06/23 11:13:30
- Location: Binghamton, NY USA
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 04:35:55
(permalink)
Since this is a poll of sorts...
I have no need for gaplessness. I rarely add effects on the fly and I could care less what anyone may think if the gapping behavior.
Furthermore, I have no idea what "compromises" to quality MIGHT be involved in other applications that do these edits gaplessly.
What I do care about is if the tool I am using gets the job done. I have never tried to program an audio engine and so cannot assess how good or bad this "problem" is.
Cakewalk customer since Apprentice version 1, PreSonus 16.4.2 ai, 3.5 gHz i7
|
sbavin
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 601
- Joined: 2003/11/11 09:43:21
- Location: England
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 04:49:56
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Andrew Milne
SONAR is very gappy and I find it very annoying.
Is gapping important? - depends on how you work - but I like to edit during playback, and I like to loop sections while editing - currently SONAR makes this almost impossible to achieve (if you are using plugins which require adc) because the gapping and loss of sync completely invalidates this method of working. I would consider this to be my highest proiority for an update - I also think that if a gap-free engine is eventually delivered most users will wonder how they ever managed without it.
I agree 100% with this. I would like SONAR to be genuinely gapless (i.e. not a single sample out of place) I would be ok with gaps in the following cases: - inserting a plug-in - inserting a send I'm not talking about enabling/disabling plug-ins and sends here, as for these gaplessness should be achievable with a FIFO/delay. Deletions could also be handled as "disables", deferring the actual deletion and recalculation until playback is stopped. Currently it seems that SONAR is not really designed to be gapless in the way that Project5, Live, Tracktion etc. are. I'd be happy for a delay before SONAR 5 if this means a rewrite, although I wouldn't really want to bankrupt Cakewalk in the process 
|
kp
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1496
- Joined: 2004/01/21 15:22:09
- Location: London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 06:38:52
(permalink)
OK, maybe I over-reacted a little, but there have been enough people on both sides here that to say it must be the number one priority is a little one-sided.
With regards to efficiency though, please give some examples and figures to back this up (20-40% is not acceptable :-)) - I don't think it helps anyone (users or Cakewalk) to just say "it's less efficient" and leave it at that. So, what do you mean by that statement? Care to give us some statistics to back this up?
|
sbavin
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 601
- Joined: 2003/11/11 09:43:21
- Location: England
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 07:50:05
(permalink)
Hmm, I don't think I mentioned efficiency! To understand the problem with gapping, think of a situation where you might be composing/arranging with others - may just be a guitarist, may be an entire band. Now SONAR is *almost* perfect for this, but if a particular part (say a drum track) gaps (for half a a second) it can seriously disturb the groove. I can imagine that paying clients might get "distracted" by gapping too. Having said all that, SONAR 4.0.2 with the EnableLiveADCRecalc=0 setting in AUD.INI has less gapping than ever before... but there is definitely room for improvement.
< Message edited by sbavin -- 1/31/2005 12:58:06 PM >
|
kp
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1496
- Joined: 2004/01/21 15:22:09
- Location: London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 08:07:03
(permalink)
planist mentioned it, not you Steve.
|
NYSR
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1550
- Joined: 2004/06/23 11:13:30
- Location: Binghamton, NY USA
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 09:37:40
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: sbavin
Hmm, I don't think I mentioned efficiency!
To understand the problem with gapping, think of a situation where you might be composing/arranging with others - may just be a guitarist, may be an entire band. Now SONAR is *almost* perfect for this, but if a particular part (say a drum track) gaps (for half a a second) it can seriously disturb the groove.
I can imagine that paying clients might get "distracted" by gapping too.
Having said all that, SONAR 4.0.2 with the EnableLiveADCRecalc=0 setting in AUD.INI has less gapping than ever before... but there is definitely room for improvement.
Cakewalk customer since Apprentice version 1, PreSonus 16.4.2 ai, 3.5 gHz i7
|
Stich
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 873
- Joined: 2003/11/11 15:28:25
- Location: New England
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 09:45:33
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: NYSR
I can imagine that paying clients might get "distracted" by gapping too.
But I though you said you didn't care what your clients thought? LOL! Stich
|
NYSR
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1550
- Joined: 2004/06/23 11:13:30
- Location: Binghamton, NY USA
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 09:50:41
(permalink)
When I hit submit, my reply just stood there on the screen so I hit submit again and it still just sat there. The third time was not a charm, my post finally went but all it included was the quote not my additional comments. I guess I was experiencing an internet gap.
Anyhow, what I was trying to say was that I cannot imagine any situation I could ever be in wherein I would experience a gap that I did not have an alternate way of accomplishing what I needed to do without a gap.
What are you doing exactly? Why is it you do not do it some other way? I too can cause gaps that I do not like hearing so I find other ways to get the work done without hearing them and so far I have not found anything I need to do that cannot be easily done without a gap except for things that I would not want to do for reasons other than not wanting to hear a gap.
All my synths are hardware synths - I do not use soft synths ever, so that could be part of my [non] problem. Furthermore, I never insert effects on the fly. I do not have a need or urge to do so. I rarely work with more than 16 active tracks at any given moment and I never have any gaping when I loop.
Am I lucky? Why is it this is not a problem for me.
Cakewalk customer since Apprentice version 1, PreSonus 16.4.2 ai, 3.5 gHz i7
|
NYSR
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1550
- Joined: 2004/06/23 11:13:30
- Location: Binghamton, NY USA
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 10:01:51
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Stich
ORIGINAL: NYSR
I can imagine that paying clients might get "distracted" by gapping too.
But I though you said you didn't care what your clients thought? LOL!
Stich
Perhaps you did not realize that sbavin said that - not me.
Cakewalk customer since Apprentice version 1, PreSonus 16.4.2 ai, 3.5 gHz i7
|
pilfa
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 410
- Joined: 2004/05/14 13:49:05
- Location: London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 10:10:32
(permalink)
i dont listen to a song and think i need this effect here this effect here. As i play the song i add stuff all the way along...because i can do it this way i have got used to doing it this way and i now want to do it this way. To stop everytime to add an effect would be a pain in the a$$. Having a horrbile scratch or silence noise really messes up the creative flow....
|
Andrew Milne
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 574
- Joined: 2003/11/05 20:16:11
- Location: Islington, London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 10:35:05
(permalink)
Anyhow, what I was trying to say was that I cannot imagine any situation I could ever be in wherein I would experience a gap that I did not have an alternate way of accomplishing what I needed to do without a gap. Gapping can make some things impossible e.g. live performance. But it also makes some things just plain difficult - let me give you an example - imagine a multi-track audio project with fx in tracks and busses (some of them requiring pdc). I had three takes of the whole song and I wanted to join together the best takes of each section (this was recorded without click and so is not matched to tempo grid), so I cut each section at the appropriate points and join together in an approximate position, set up a loop which cycles around the transition, and use nudge to get the correct placement. But every time I hit nudge or change the position of the loop markers I get an almighty gap, but after just a few loop returns the different tracks usually go out-of sync anyway! Now I'm not saying that this gapping made the task impossible - it didn't (I made some really seamless edits), but it made the whole process a lot more difficult than it needed to be and the gapping sounds just so damn ugly. Having said that the new nudge and track folder composite clips make doing this sort of thing a whole lot easier than it was in 3.0.
|
SoundzPlastikSurgeon
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 53
- Joined: 2005/01/27 14:47:13
- Status: offline
RE: POLL: TESTING GAPLESS PLAYBACK
2005/01/31 10:40:34
(permalink)
Right now, I really feel like I kind of wasted $300 on Sonar. I can't understand how gaps wouldn't drive someone crazy ??? It really makes Sonar look cheap and poorly built.
I use Reason and Tracktion and I never hear a glitch no matter how much processing is going on (unless I am at 90% cpu usage). The best part is that Tracktion was for free up to a month ago on the mackie site. Tracktion2 will cost about $200.
Cakewalk needs to get working on those issue, cause they certainly will not get anymore of my money with such an underperforming product that really makes workflow painfull.
I understand how some people become loyal to one application, but seriously some of you (no offense) need to check out what other manufacturer offer, because you will notice a difference.
I wish I wasn't such a cheap ass and spent an extra $100 to get Live.
Oh well, we learn from our mistakes.
|