Ways to link/create automation envelopes across tracks so adjusting one affects all?

Edit: This does not seem to be currently possible so vote for it as a new feature here...
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com...pesLanes-m3276224.aspx
 
Despite the opener of my OP this apparently is NOT a simple one and should be corrected IMO so please upvote that thread.
 
Original Post...
 
================================================================================
 
This is likely a simple one. Basically I would like to set things up so if I have four tracks and want to create envelopes that affect all four tracks that I can do so by simply adjusting an envelope on one track.
 
More specifically I would kind of like to do this on "per envelope" basis. Like linking Automation lanes.
 
Example: Maybe I have four tracks with five envelopes in automation lanes.
 
For Automation Lane 1 I want to have all four tracks respond to any changes I make in any of the four tracks (so they are "linked" and remain identical). Let's pretend that's a volume automation.
 
For Tracks 1 and 3 I want to have Automation lane 2 in both tracks "linked" so they remain identical as I tweak one or the other (but Tracks 2 and 4 do not change). Let's say these lanes will be mapped to Pan.
 
For Tracks 2 and 4 I would again have them linked and set to Pan so they can have automation written for them simultaneously but independently of the pan on Tracks 1 and 3 (so Tracks 1 and 3 pan one way and Tracks 2 and 4 pan differently). I'm guessing that maybe for track's 2 and 4 maybe I could use automation lane 2 as well because they would NOT be linked to Track's 1 and 3's Automation Lane 2... maybe not.
 
Then Automation Lanes 3-5 remain independent for individual track effects (so maybe Lane 3 on Track 1 goes to Bifilter and Lane 3 on Track 2 goes to a Phaser Speed paramater... etc).
 
This is about editing the envelopes in the lanes. Not writing them with a controller or something (which I may do as well but mostly I want to link the lanes/envelope changes).
 
Again, ideally, I would want to just select automation lanes I want "linked" on two different tracks (or even within the same track), link them and then if I move a node (or multiple nodes) in one of the linked lanes the changes will appear in all the "linked" lanes no matter where they appear.
 
Sorry if that sounds weird. Automation envelope stuff has always kind of freaked me out and I've avoided it but it's time to start getting a handle on this.
 
Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way and I should be linking controls instead but as always I am sure there are more than one way to skin this particular cat so (as always) I just want to hear any approaches you guys use to get things like this done.
 
I would of course like to avoid copying and pasting automation if at all possible.
 
Time to stop fearing complex automation.
 
Thanks, doods and/or dudettes.
 
Cheers.

bapu
Simples. Route it all to a bus and put a envelope on that. Or am I missing something.

Hi, Baps. Unfortunately yes. I need to deal with stuff at track level before hitting the bus (so dealing with track levels and track effects parameters before they hit the group bus... like let's say a bunch of multi tracked guitars).
 
Definitely bus automation is the best way to go for most stuff (and anyone new reading this should look into that first... I'm being a spazz) but I'm going for more in depth control at track level.
 
Thing is I do so many layers of tracks that are intended to do different things that I need to control it from the tracks. Also the extra advantage of all these layers is I can add and twist effects on some layers and not others (or have different effects going nuts on the others) it can do some crazy stuff.
 
Basically... I'm being a freaking weirdo... as usual.
 
Hope you've been well, Bapso and thanks.

This touches on some long awaited topics...

Copy/paste and multi-track selection has been difficult. I've always had trouble with this even though some of it works...

I'll look some more and see what current status I find... I can't remember offhand when I last tried...

Beepster

bapu
Simples. Route it all to a bus and put a envelope on that. Or am I missing something.

Thing is I do so many layers of tracks that are intended to do different things that I need to control it from the tracks. Also the extra advantage of all these layers is I can add and twist effects on some layers and not others (or have different effects going nuts on the others) it can do some crazy stuff.
 

This conflicts with the idea of having linked envelopes. Either you want multiple tracks to be affected alike or not. You can always have individual control over one type of envelope/FX at the track level while using buses for the ones that are shared.
 
I'd have to see a specific example of what you want to achieve to understand how busing doesn't serve the purpose.
 
As far as grouping goes, I think what you're seeing is that the control grouping function groups the "levers" not the parameters they control. And envelopes are another type of "lever" that over-rides the track controls during playback (unless you're hanging on to the widget with the mouse during playback). In other words, the envelope and track control are contending for control of the parameter as opposed to the envelope driving the track control (and thus affecting grouped controls).

brundlefly

Beepster

bapu
Simples. Route it all to a bus and put a envelope on that. Or am I missing something.

Thing is I do so many layers of tracks that are intended to do different things that I need to control it from the tracks. Also the extra advantage of all these layers is I can add and twist effects on some layers and not others (or have different effects going nuts on the others) it can do some crazy stuff.
 

This conflicts with the idea of having linked envelopes. Either you want multiple tracks to be affected alike or not. You can always have individual control over one type of envelope/FX at the track level while using buses for the ones that are shared.
 
I'd have to see a specific example of what you want to achieve to understand how busing doesn't serve the purpose.
 
As far as grouping goes, I think what you're seeing is that the control grouping function groups the "levers" not the parameters they control. And envelopes are another type of "lever" that over-rides the track controls during playback (unless you're hanging on to the widget with the mouse during playback). In other words, the envelope and track control are contending for control of the parameter as opposed to the envelope driving the track control (and thus affecting grouped controls).

brundlefly

Beepster

bapu
Simples. Route it all to a bus and put a envelope on that. Or am I missing something.

Thing is I do so many layers of tracks that are intended to do different things that I need to control it from the tracks. Also the extra advantage of all these layers is I can add and twist effects on some layers and not others (or have different effects going nuts on the others) it can do some crazy stuff.
 

This conflicts with the idea of having linked envelopes. Either you want multiple tracks to be affected alike or not. You can always have individual control over one type of envelope/FX at the track level while using buses for the ones that are shared.
 
I'd have to see a specific example of what you want to achieve to understand how busing doesn't serve the purpose.
 
As far as grouping goes, I think what you're seeing is that the control grouping function groups the "levers" not the parameters they control. And envelopes are another type of "lever" that over-rides the track controls during playback (unless you're hanging on to the widget with the mouse during playback). In other words, the envelope and track control are contending for control of the parameter as opposed to the envelope driving the track control (and thus affecting grouped controls).

There isn't a conflict at all actually when you want to go beyond controlling ALL paramaters on multiple tracks. I want to separate specific parameters from such a group. It wouldn't be possible with a single bus. I would have to create multiple busses for each paramater. That also means having to reset what effects are where (so I'd have to remove the effects from the tracks and move them to the busses and figure out the chains and routing/etc... kind of a mess). The example I gave was pretty thorough but perhaps too long winded so I'll try to simplify it.
 
Track Count = 4 (2 sets of 2 double guitars). All tracks feeding a single bus.
 
Envelopes = 4 per track
 
Envelope 1 = Volume
 
Envelope 2 = Pan
 
Envelope 3 = An effect parameter (let's say BiFilter)
 
Envelope 4 = An different effect parameter (let's say the drive knob inside an amp sim)
 
Tracks 1, 2, 3, 4 = Volume Envelope (which could be done on the Bus but I'd rather do it on the track for various reasons like maybe I will want to unlink the envelopes at certain areas to accentuate on guit or another or pairs of guits).
 
Tracks 1, 3 = Pan Envelope (while tracks 2 and 4 remain where they are tracks 1 and 3 are panned by the envelope)
 
Tracks 1, 4 = BiFilter effect (while tracks 2 and 3 have no bifilter effect changes).
 
Tracks 2, 4 = Sim Drive effect (while tracks 1 and 3 retain their drive settings).
 
That is obviously a completely hypothetical example and not really based in what I am actually trying to do (but somewhat based on some stuff I want to try). By adding and linking those specific envelopes as described then I KNOW the exact paramaters I want to change together with the envelopes will do so without having to figure it all out each and every time with the automation lanes exposed. Without the link I would have to select all those groups manually with lanes open for every change I make. Doing a complex setup like that on the bus level would be even crazier and I personally prefer to use my busses to gel such subsets of tracks than get too crazy with automation and effects (eg: Volume/Gain/Pan is totally fine at bus level for the whole group... but trying to separate it all out into complex changes as described is impractical especially when effects that have a proper place in the signal chain are factored in).
 
Knowaddimean?
 
As far as Control Groups I do get the overide for envelopes but to me I kind of consider an envelope as the "unseen hand on the dial" so if I group a control and want it to be guided by my actual hand via controller it makes sense that I would want my "unseen hand" to perform the same function.
 
You do have to remember that I'm a relative newcomer to all this so the "conventions" of how things have always worked aren't engrained like it is for those who've been doing this for many years. When I encounter stuff like this that people have maybe just worked around and accepted as proper procedure it can be a little surprising.
 
Again, not trying to be a d*ck or argumentative (I hope you all know me better than that), I just think this, if not already implemented, should be because it does make sense and I don't think it would be all that hard to include as an option.
 
All that would need to happen to make this ultra awesome is...
 
1) Provide an option to Link automation lanes/envelopes
 
2) Provide an option to set control groups (or subsets of control groups) to follow automation being generated from one track to all tracks in the group
 
As I said... it's fine. I will have to work out my own system for this and it's obvious this is the status quo (so I have to learn to work within that which is why I study and try things all day everyday) but it really would be great if these features were implemented. I doubt I am the only one who could make use of such a scheme.
 
Fortunately Cake are receptive to such ideas. I will let this thread go for a bit to see if any other suggestions roll down the pipe but I am getting the impression this has now become a Feature request.
 
Base on Kenny's posts here I have also come up with maybe an extra idea.
 
3) Have an option that when you link an envelope with data to one that does not have data (or has different data) that the new envelope added acquires the properties/values of the first envelope (or group of envelopes). Kind of like a copy/paste envelope that also links the envelopes. Then when envelopes are removed from the group they retain the properties/values acquired and become independent again.
 
I have seen reams of questions and complaints about copy/pasting envelopes across tracks (which is part of the reason why automation has scared the pizz out of me for so long) so these types of options would likely be a real boon to the program. I have no idea if other programs offer these types of functionality so maybe Cake could end up being the innovators that everyone copies (no pun intended) once again.
 
Cheeeeers!

This seems to be worse than I thought.
 
I'm sitting here trying to select different envelopes in different tracks then trying to edit them in various ways. It is not working at all aside from simple level adjustments.
 
I am going to read more about this (and have been) but damn... this is bad. I think I'm going to be stuck copying and pasting every time. Ugh.
 
Going headfirst into a full on crash course/refresher course on automation but if this doesn't even work in the semi annoying way I thought it would I gotta say... this needs some work.
 
Sorry, guys. I try to be positive but this one's a little whack. Unfortunately I gotta work with it so now it's all about workarounds. I'll update once I figure out WTF is going on.
 
Cheers.

xbitz

Beepster
 
PS: Hopefully I'm not coming across as a d*ck about this. I'm sure I'm just missing something but I am indeed quite surprised this isn't a feature that was implemented years ago. I can't imagine the thousands of user hours wasted mucking about manually selecting things... especially before Lanes were introduced. Yikes!

personally I'm using MIDI note based envelope triggering with MUX Modular (so one envelope many trigger point)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnWzf4rwjZw
but I'm in EDM , creating and modifying zillions of envelopes, would be sooo ... :)

some envelope triggering would be nice in Sonar too but MUX has a brilliant one so I would use that one anyway

AFAICT so far the ONLY way I can get the behavior I am looking for is if I do it all via external MIDI controller with playback running.
 
Unfortunately that isn't what I'm looking for (I really don't like futzing with parameters in real time because frankly I'm not that good).
 
So the situation I'm looking at is essentially I either do this type of thing in realtime with a controller or I spend unreasonable amounts of time copying and pasting envelopes, double checking them, rinse, repeat (times a million).
 
It's forcing live automation writing on me. Of course that is a good skill to have but I'm a bumblebutt n00b who likes taking a moment to think about stuff (instead of doing things on the fly). I also do not like the idea of uneeded nodes being added in while I adjust the controller then having to remove them later.
 
It's just not a good setup.
 
However I appreciate your input because what you are referring to is one of the workarounds I was cobbling together in my peabrain. I wasn't sure exactly if it was viable but if you do this regularly (as I'm sure others do) then I may have to go that route.
 
Maybe I could set things up so I hit a button or constrain the automation params written (to on/off) to write it but that means, even though it's simpler and would result in less nodes, I would have to be PRECISE when I perform the function with playback running and even then I'd have to manually deal with any diagonal fade type stuff one envelope at a time.
 
Just brainstorming.
 
Thanks.

I see your point, and being able to copy any automation from track to track (or bus) makes a lot of sense. However, your comment that you can't "unlink" if you use bus automation is completely wrong. If you want a specific track to do something slightly different than what is in the bus automation, you only need to automate that specific change. In other words, if you want a specific guitar to pop at a specific moment, just automate that in the the track. There is no reason to have four automation lanes that are more or less identical to make this happen.
 
Regards,
Dan

Got it. I've been where you are as my projects started to grow in complexity as I became better and more familiar with the mixing process. I now create bus submixes whenever I can, before I start adding effects to try to prevent painting myself into a corner down the road...
 
Regards,
Dan
 

I believe you are thinking about Remote Control, an option found by right-clicking a slider. It almost works, at least when I was trying it out yesterday when you posted this thread. It is possible to send the same MIDI data to multiple faders, no need to use groups. I did not think it produced a very good result though. Give it a shot, you might have better results.

In a previous post I mentioned I would try creating Clip Selection Groups to see if I could force automation envelopes to stay linked that way (the logic being that if the clips are grouped to observe all selections and adjustments made on any of the clips in a group that this may extend to automation).
 
The short story.... that doesn't work.
 
The long story...
 
On clips the only automation paramaters available are indeed either the simple Gain and Pan envelopes and whatever is insert directly into the Clip FX Bin. So effects on the actually tracks (and other stuff) is not available. This was tested by switching the Take Lane (not the automation lane) edit filter (only way I could find to access active clip automation filters... not sure what happens with multiple clips but will test that later I guess).
 
Despite that, adjusting identical parameters enevelopes on two grouped clips does not result in the envelopes staying in sync. I only poked at it for a little bit but it does not seem to work. Didn't think it would but was worth a shot.
 
And yes... I am full on testing stuff and posting. Sorry but it might be helpful to others/save some folks some time.

scook

Beepster
 
That is only for writing live automation envelopes on multiple Sonar parameters though.
 

Not really, MIDI data can be recorded into a MIDI track, edited and set to via a virtual MIDI cable. That was something I tried yesterday.

Interesting. I do not own virtual MIDI cable software but I will look into it. I know you and others have mentioned freeware programs that I have been meaning to look into. This would be a good excuse.
 
Unless of course there is something in my pile of Cakewalk synths and tools that can behave in this manner but I will assume there isn't.
 
Thanks. I will look into it.

scook
Not in SONAR, third party, here is a link to one http://nerds.de/en/loopbe1.html
Maybe the new routing stuff will render it obsolete.

Good point. That is indeed a massive (and consistently requested) feature so maybe they are taking this type of stuff into consideration.
 
I'm kind of thinking that particular endeavor is what is occupying a bulk of the program team's time at the moment.
 
And it could indeed be the solution to my little "problem" here in general... just not how I envisioned it but that is fine. As long as it works and is relatively easy to accomplish in real world situations.
 
Cheers.

xbitz
solved with BlueCat's Remote

proof of concept :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZlk40UTLa8

and Sonar's grouping, tutorial is here http://www.bluecataudio.c..._Plugins_Groups_Sonar/

That's an excellent vid and does show exactly what I was envisioning with the MIDI workaround (not the link envelope thing from the OP).
 
If money were no object that would definitely be in my kit. Seeing it in action I hope the Baker's considered this type of functionality.
 
However seeing this in action is making me think of this in a different way so thanks for that.
 
Linking automation lanes/envelopes, to me still makes more sense but that is indeed a rather elegant solution.
 
BTW... I'm not into EDM but the stuff you guys do (and have been doing) has definitely pushed the tech forward to the point even us dinosaurs reap the benefits. A good example seems to be Bitwig which I think actually has what I am talking about (or what you have shown in your vid) built in. Don't quote me on that and I'm certainly not going to switch but yeah... IIRC I saw some fancy automation tools that may or may not do this stuff. The benefits of being a newcomer to the industry I guess. Totally unproven though so who knows what the future will bring for them.
 
Cheers.

virtual midi cables has significant delay so I'm trying to not use it