Anderton
Why not just send an output back into an interface input? You'll need to nudge the track before mixing to compensate for any extra latency, but it lets you record the audio. As a bonus you can patch weird little non-MIDI effects (like stompboxes) in between the output and input and tweak those knobs, too.

Hi Craig. Yep. That's EXACTLY what I do now. Luckily, because I use SCOPE, there is no DA/AD conversion involved. It's Softsynth-to-SCOPE DSP via ADAT (where I can add effects, "mash" things up, etc.) - back to Sonar via ADAT. Not necessarily ideal. It works, but direct real time recording of VST/VSTi output would be a superb option!


 

 

Earwax
 but direct real time recording of VST/VSTi output would be a superb option!


 

as "members"... maybe we can hope.  That would be great.

Not to get off topic... But I'd like this feature for my videos, when I'm trying to show something, but manually tweaking knobs on plugins AS I'm PLAYING LIVE.  That way I'm not getting into crazy amounts of automation on playback.  If I could record my results live, that would be great.  You can't have a track in "record" and "write" at the same time, to my knowledge also.

mudgel
It's not hard to do, that is to record your VSTi in real time, you just have to be prepared to deal with the issues that it brings up. Send your monitor source out of your audio device and loop it back onto another track making sure that that track is out of your monitor path. Voila, you have a live recoding of your performance. If you are going to add further material you'll have to nudge the recorded VSTi audio tracks.

No one is saying what you describe hasn't been tried. Those who like to record "live" have been doing it (or some variant) for years. A substantially more direct method is what is being suggested. Some get the concept, and some don't. Some prefer the methodology, and some don't. I'm okay with that. People work differently. But to suggest (and I'm not saying you are), that one method is superior to the other, or that people who prefer one method over the other are somehow brain-damaged, is ludicrous. 

CakeAlexS

Earwax
Yes, I really would love to see real time recording for softsynths and effects implemented in Sonar. Probably not going to happen anytime soon, though, if ever. Oh well..............

Not if you don't vote for it ;)
http://forum.cakewalk.com...ecording-m3099239.aspx

Thanks Alex!

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.
 
@

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.

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.

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.

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?
 

It seems as though quite a few people who don't see the difference/don't understand the desire for "live" VST/VSTi direct to audio recording may be approaching the recording process as a "one person-one instrument at a time" event. If so, fair enough. Let me present another type of scenario.
 
A five piece band walks into a "normal" recording studio. The band consists of two guitarists, a keyboardist, a bassist, and a drummer. The band is well rehearsed, and wants to record "live". They've played out together enough to know that is the best method to capture their performances. The instruments and amps are set up, the microphones are set up, the effects for each person are set up. All effects, amps, and instruments are external - no VST/VSTi. The keyboardist has a 61-key controller,an 88-key controller and some pedals controlling a bunch of hardware synths and effects. The two guitarists and bass guitarist all have a bunch of effects, including pedals. The drummer is playing an acoustic set, with mics "everywhere", with each kit piece being recorded on a track of its own. Everything is plugged into a beautiful hardware mixing console. Only audio is recorded.
 
The recording device is a computer running Sonar.
 
Sonar has absolutely no problem recording this band in real time - a fact the band loves. The recording is a success.
 
A second band comes in - same instrumentation, except keys, drums, and all effects are virtual - VST/VSTi hosted in Sonar. Again, drummer wants a separate track for each piece in his BFD3 kit, with some VST effects from different manufacturers to give him the sound that he wants. The guitarists are using amp sims and other VST effects for their sounds. The keyboardist is playing the VAZ Modular synth from the 61-key controller, and layering Ivory and Vienna Strings on the 88-key controller. He is using various VST effects. The band wants to  record audio - "live".
 
The recording device is a computer running Sonar.
 
Will Sonar have absolutely no problem recording this band "live", just like the first band? Will the band have the same "in the moment" experience playing and recording at the same time?
 
Notice, I haven't even got into any effects changes/tweaks, synth tweaks/patch alterations, happening while either band is recording.
 
This scenario could also hold true for a duo wanting to record live using VST/VSTi.
 
Since too many people can't seem to understand why a single person would want this, I won't go there again.
 

When using the random generators in dimension pro's midi matrix as a source to control the destinations/parameters available for control, I'm interacting live while playing my wind/keyboard midi controller with the random generators in a way that bouncing to audio does not preserve. I have used both workarounds but it would be nice not to have to.

Anderton

mixmkr

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)

I think you're missing my point. As I said, it's about the experience (no pun intended, of course!). Comparing Jimi Hendrix playing live to using amp sims is not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to make the point that what he did was analogous to playing through a hardware keyboard, in real time, which has a control surface you can manipulate. And that's still an option, and as I said, very possibly a preferable one compared to trying to make soft synths, a mouse, and a QWERTY keyboard do the same thing as a Prophet-12. Even if you could record an instrument output live into a track, that to me is not a "live" experience in the sense of playing a dedicated hardware keyboard...or a guitar through an amp.
 
The other place the Hendrix analogy breaks down is you CAN play through an amp and interact with it, get feedback, etc. and mic it, while sending a direct feed to the computer. So the computer can incorporate the string sustain etc. for re-amping, although the sim will likely not have the same level of nuances as an amp playing in a room (unless of course it's one of my sims, LOL). Sticking a keyboard through an amp is nowhere near the same experience, because the amp and guitar literally "talk" to each other, with each affecting what the other does. A hardware keyboard will not react to an amp, although the player might.
 
Playing guitar and playing keyboard are so different that I don't think it's possible to draw analogies. As far as I can tell this discussion has little to do with instruments, but about how one feels playing live and knowing it's live and will never happen the same way again, as opposed to recording something and editing it later. It's not a question of "getting it" or not "getting it," any more than someone who watches a movie can't "get" live theater. It's a different experience. Personally, both have their place.
 
This thread reminds me what I tell people who are interested in Ableton Live - don't even bother unless you buy a hardware controller for it. Or, can you imagine running Traktor without a controller? Both are about live experience.

Craig,
 
All that being said, can Sonar handle the two recording situations I cited above with equanimity? In other words, can Sonar record all of the VST/VSTi outputs (maybe some 30 or so tracks) at the same time, just like it recorded the audio outputs (again probably some thirty or so tracks) from the mixing desk? If it can't, then it doesn't do what I (and apparently others) want. The playing and recording of guitars, keyboards and drums are indeed exactly the same in this instance. It's about musicans playing and recording amp sims, VSTi, and other VST effects just like they would their hardware counterparts. If Sonar can't take the outputs from 8 or 9 VST/VSTi and record those outputs onto multiple tracks at the same time as it produces them, then it can't record VST/VSTi live. So, the musical experience of the second band is different than the musical experience shared by the first band. Hence the "getting it" implication.
 
To me, the implementation of this capability would go far in Sonar attaining a true "studio-in-a-box" piece of software. 

I need this!!!
 
my trusty emu 0404 with patchmix software is on the fritz and I can no longer route audio back into sonar to record. 
my main issue is Sonar's freeze and bounce functions screwing with certain parameters in vsti sequencers (specifically Reaktor ones) and rendering the audio completely different, AND making setting irretrievable. 
There should be no need for a work around anyway. This should be a regular feature. 
 
keep voting: http://forum.cakewalk.com...ecording-m3099239.aspx

 

Anderton

Earwax
 
Craig,
 
All that being said, can Sonar handle the two recording situations I cited above with equanimity?

Well, there are really two separate issues. The first is technical, and probably renders the second moot: If you're recording 30 tracks of heavy-duty VSTis into SONAR, the hit on the CPU is going to be significant, so the latency will be as well. That alone will be enough to prevent a live experience for the musicians regardless of whether you're recording audio or the gestures that cause the instruments to create that audio. 
 

 
Okay – how about 8 tracks? My point was, it appears Sonar can’t handle the live simultaneous playback and recording of multiple VST/VSTi.
 

Anderton

Earwax
 

If I set up a VSTi stand-alone in a laptop (no recording software), send its output to a speaker, and play it from a keyboard controller with a bunch of useful controls as if it was a hardware instrument, then you have your "live experience of playing keyboard" except of course for the latency.

I actually just did this a couple of months ago, recording BFD2 drum tracks from my laptop “live” into a recorder for a CD project. I used an Alternate Mode Trapkat (not a keyboard – live drumming), triggering BFD2. I used my sound interface’s analog stereo out-to-recorder-in for several reasons. Not what I wanted to do, but there you go.

Anderton

Earwax
 

If you set up that VSTi in a DAW (SONAR or whatever), enable input echo, send its output to a speaker, and play it from a keyboard controller with a bunch of useful controls as if it was a hardware instrument, then you again have the same "live experience of playing keyboard." Yes?

Maybe, if (a) As you said, everything about the VSTi is MIDI controllable (b) You are only controlling that one VSTi (c) Nobody else is playing with you (d) The MIDI track actually does capture all of the performance nuances that you wanted it to (no MIDI timing screw ups for example). If any of the criteria aren’t met, so much for capturing the great live performance. As soon as one of the guitarists enters the picture, for example, the “live” recording situation breaks down, right?
 

Anderton

Earwax
 

Now if you take the above scenario with the only difference being that someone enabled "record" without your knowing it before you started playing, you would still have the "live experience of playing keyboard." However now if you chose to, you could play back your part.
 
In this scenario, again if you ignore latency and random happy accidents, on playback shouldn't you hear exactly what you played live?

So what you are saying is that, in the instance of recording BFD2 drums that I cited above, if the recorder had been Sonar, and BFD2 was sitting in Sonar’s instrument rack as a VSTi (instead of on my laptop), and I had wanted to record 8 tracks of drums, effected by a couple of Sonar VST, that I could have recorded that performance directly into Sonar from BFD2? And, if a bass player had wanted to record a track using a bass amp sim in Sonar’s effects rack at the same time, we could have done that? Or say, for example, if I want to record both sides of my Chapman Stick live into Sonar using one instance of one of your amp sims and one instance of another company’s amp sim (Sorry…) plus a couple of VST effects, I can do that?
 

Anderton

Earwax
 
 

This doesn't obviate the need for recording VSTi outs for those situations where there are variations generated within the instruments or by happy accidents, so it's not an argument against including that feature because obviously, some people want it and have valid reasons for that. What I don't understand is why, in the scenarios given above, recording the gestures used to create a sound are somehow different from recording the sound itself.

Because the guitarists in the bands cited in my examples are not recording gestures. They are recording sounds. They are recording sounds at the same time as the keyboardist and drummer are recording their sounds and some (depending on the VSTi and what performance tweaks they are using) of their gestures.  The live performance breaks down even in duo or trio recording without the ability to record VST/VSTi directly into Sonar.  
 
As I said, for the one-guy in the studio-one-keyboard-one-completely MIDI controllable VSTi-with no other VST effects kind of situation, I completely understand where some people are coming from. Fortunately or unfortunately, I very often don't work that way. It would be nice to have a DAW where, no matter which way I chose to work, my only concern (in this context) would be CPU horsepower and RAM.