DW_Mike
Max Output Level: -6 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6907
- Joined: 2006/11/29 18:06:40
- Location: The arm-pit of the good 'ol US...New Jersey
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/16 09:15:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: SongCraft
ORIGINAL: randwool
Global Options>Auto-save
Auto-save mistakes too I guess LOL!!
IMHO I prefer to always use Ctrl+S after an edit that I actually want to save.
Yeah, that's what I do too Greg. I never use Auto-Save. For some reason I just don't feel comfortable with a save going off every so often or when I'm in the middle of doing something. I like to choose what changes I want saved. Ctrl+S works for me. This is the first time I have ever lost changes due to a crash. Mike
Sonar X3 ~ Scarlett 18i6 ~ Home Build DAW
GA-Z77X-UD5H
Intel i7 3770k 4.2GHz
32GB RAM Crucial Ballistix Elite (4x8)
2x Samsung 250GB SSD
1TB WD Black HDD @ 7200RPM 6Gb/s 64MB
Corsair H80i Liquid cooler
Noctua Silent Fans ~ 3x120mm ~ 1x140mm
Seasonic Platinum 760w PSU
Windows 7 Pro 64Bit.
|
Honest_Al
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3642
- Joined: 2005/12/09 00:07:27
- Location: just below the cloud on the left
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/16 10:22:51
(permalink)
As you said, you want developments?, then I strongly suggest submitting your ideas to FR because CW has said many times that is the preferred method CW also said that THIS time the automation has been really fixed!  They tried their best but should try again and again (I wonder why beta testing never revealed the whole envelope story each time they tested the new versions) ..as i said once in 2005 - maybe one day in 2012 it will all (or mostly) work right..but hey, that's too close to the end of the world..damn..not enough time 
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/16 11:09:25
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Honest_Al
As you said, you want developments?, then I strongly suggest submitting your ideas to FR because CW has said many times that is the preferred method
CW also said that THIS time the automation has been really fixed! They tried their best but should try again and again (I wonder why beta testing never revealed the whole envelope story each time they tested the new versions) ..as i said once in 2005 - maybe one day in 2012 it will all (or mostly) work right..but hey, that's too close to the end of the world..damn..not enough time
So when the world doesn't end in 2012, when will the next date be? :-P
|
amdrecording
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 255
- Joined: 2008/06/12 23:39:40
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/16 16:18:50
(permalink)
I have these same envelope woes as well. Here's a specific one and I wonder if anyone else has it: changing an envelope DURING PLAYBACK causes all sorts of awful glitching and noise. I noticed that it happens more often when Stylus RMX is open and my computer is being taxed a little bit.
SO frustrating, especially when I have a director looking over my shoulder. (or my girlfriend screaming at me to quit making that noise happen) javascript:void(AddText('[:\'(]'))
|
DW_Mike
Max Output Level: -6 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6907
- Joined: 2006/11/29 18:06:40
- Location: The arm-pit of the good 'ol US...New Jersey
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/17 09:38:11
(permalink)
Sonar X3 ~ Scarlett 18i6 ~ Home Build DAW
GA-Z77X-UD5H
Intel i7 3770k 4.2GHz
32GB RAM Crucial Ballistix Elite (4x8)
2x Samsung 250GB SSD
1TB WD Black HDD @ 7200RPM 6Gb/s 64MB
Corsair H80i Liquid cooler
Noctua Silent Fans ~ 3x120mm ~ 1x140mm
Seasonic Platinum 760w PSU
Windows 7 Pro 64Bit.
|
tazman
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2435
- Joined: 2003/11/13 13:01:40
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/17 11:16:54
(permalink)
Automation is one of SONAR's biggest weekness. It's really poorly implemented and cumbersome with a bad workflow. I gave up using it in SONAR unless I really need to. ORIGINAL: chefmike8888
PLEASE, Please, Pretty Please Cakewalk. Can you try and find out what makes your envelope's so damn iffy, touchy and un-predictable.
I just got done spending 2 hours on a mix. I was just about finished except I wanted to adjust a node on a volume envelope. When I clicked on the node I got the good'ol crash dump. I didn't even get a chance to adjust it yet. WTF? Lost all my work in the last 2 hours. 
Enough already. This is a feature the should be rock solid by now. I know it's been said before but would it be asking too much to get things like this stable before offering some more useless toys in the next version?
In the mean time, does anyone know of any 3rd party plug-ins that might be able to offer stable envelopes? I doubt it, but if it means I don't have to deal with the buggy Sonar ones I'm willing to pay.
Rant Over!
Mike
|
MatsonMusicBox
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 879
- Joined: 2008/07/09 10:56:31
- Location: Hanover, PA
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/17 13:48:33
(permalink)
Man ... gotta say one more time ... I just don't have that much problem or issue with automation in SONAR , and I do a LOT of it. I just kinda scratch my head at those who find it "unusable" or avoid it. Could it be improved? Sure ... but it's a LONG way from unusable or even a major PITA in my view. I guess I'd love to watch what some of you are doing or trying to do to see what the heck the big problem is. ???????
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/17 14:23:10
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox
Man ... gotta say one more time ... I just don't have that much problem or issue with automation in SONAR , and I do a LOT of it. I just kinda scratch my head at those who find it "unusable" or avoid it. Could it be improved? Sure ... but it's a LONG way from unusable or even a major PITA in my view. I guess I'd love to watch what some of you are doing or trying to do to see what the heck the big problem is. ???????
For me it's not that it is unusable, and there's no way I'll try to avoid it (would be too limiting). But it is a PITA when I have three or more automations with the same exact curve and I want to move one of them (which ususally ends up being behind all the others). Same thing happens if I want to move a node that's behind another node. This means I have to hide a few automations in order to get to the one I want to alter. But that's not the problem. The problem is when I have to go through the same menu several times to hide/unhide envelopes. It gets old pretty quick and envelope lanes would solve this problem. Another example is when I want to draw an automation with a mouse. Either I insert the envelope and start adding nodes, OR I try drawing it using the envelope drawing feature which is not very accurate. So you spend time shaping the envelope the way you want it or fixing it after the fact. There just needs to be a better way. Everyone uses each of Sonar's feature differently, so not all of us will encounter the same problems.
|
DW_Mike
Max Output Level: -6 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6907
- Joined: 2006/11/29 18:06:40
- Location: The arm-pit of the good 'ol US...New Jersey
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/17 16:27:42
(permalink)
Sonar X3 ~ Scarlett 18i6 ~ Home Build DAW
GA-Z77X-UD5H
Intel i7 3770k 4.2GHz
32GB RAM Crucial Ballistix Elite (4x8)
2x Samsung 250GB SSD
1TB WD Black HDD @ 7200RPM 6Gb/s 64MB
Corsair H80i Liquid cooler
Noctua Silent Fans ~ 3x120mm ~ 1x140mm
Seasonic Platinum 760w PSU
Windows 7 Pro 64Bit.
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/17 17:59:19
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jose7822
Another example is when I want to draw an automation with a mouse. Either I insert the envelope and start adding nodes, OR I try drawing it using the envelope drawing feature which is not very accurate. So you spend time shaping the envelope the way you want it or fixing it after the fact. There just needs to be a better way.
Hi Jose. For all our complaining about Sonar's automation, it actually has a very cool feature that can make it easier to manually (or semi-manually) create envelopes. Not sure if you're aware of it. For most controls, e.g., volume, if you right click them, there will be an option for an 'Automation Snapshot'. This will add a node to the appropriate envelope, at the control's current value, at the location of the Now Time. If there is no envelope for that control, one will be created. You can do this when transport is not engaged. And you don't need to have Write enabled, which is nice. Snapshot automation lets you set precise target values and precise points in time, after which you can edit these nodes as usual, or add intermediate nodes. So for ex, if you want to drop your vol 4db over two measures, you can set those values at their exact points. In many cases this is much nicer than trying to perform the AM in real time. Something else to think about.... To a large extent, the track-based automation in DAWs is based on a model where each track had its own automation for volume and maybe (I don't know) a limited number of other channel controls. This data-track model was also based on there being a fixed limited number of tracks. In fact, it wasn't really the *tracks* that were being automated, but the console channel through which the tracks were playing. There is no reason to follow this data-track model in a DAW. With an unlimited number of tracks, and the ability to perfectly duplicate and distribute audio across those tracks, instead of automation being thought of as track-based, it can be thought of as being part-based, with parts and tracks no longer being roughly synonymous. The ability to approach it this way depends of course on the particulars of the project and mix. Say for example you have vocal part that needs to sound totally dry for at the end of every chorus. You can do this by automating the delay or reverb values of the track or bus fx. You might need to adjust the eq for this bit as well. But fx automation can get messy. Alternately, you can do this by fully moving those parts of the v from main track, dropping them into their own track, and giving that track-as-part-as-track the del and rev and eq settings that it wants. This approach is not "automation" per se. But it accomplishes the goal of automation in a way that can be cleaner and more precise and easier to manage than AM. Again, it depends on the particulars and how well the tracks/parts/arrangement/mix lend themselves to it. Multi-envelope tracks can be a pain to work with. That's why well-implemented lanes are so nice. It's all about hierarchy and granularity of control, and ease of access to that control. (Q: When does hard-to-access functionality become no functionality at all? A: Shortly before you start looking at other platforms.) Clip envelopes (which I love) are really sub-part or sub-track automation, which gives you more local control WITHIN a track than track AM can, while still being subject to track AM. The method I described above takes the "clip" OUTSIDE of the track altogether, for a different kind of control and management. I once read an interview with Ken Scott where he described mixing Ziggy Stardust back in the stone age. No automation. He'd set up a mix for a section of a song. Then he'd render...oops... then he'd send that section to 2-track. Then he'd repeat the process for another section of the song. Afterwards, he'd edit all the pieces together. Simulated automation. Modern DAWs have automation. But because they also have infinite tracks, loss-less and cost-free audio duping and "bouncing," plus other fun digital and non-linear stuff, you can in a sense go "beyond automation" as a linear performance of faders and knobs, and instead figure out, based on your end goal, what the best way of getting there is. When you think about it, the entire DAW offers "automation" beyond what the feature that we call "automation" actually provides. The DAW *is* automation. All that said, the feature that we call "automation" -- the subject of this thread -- can't be too powerful and flexible. The problem with Sonar's automation is that it's too tied to an old-school "data track" model, is too process oriented, and doesn't go where modern software allows. Freak out in a moonage daydream.....oh yeah...............
|
dbmusic
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1150
- Joined: 2005/07/04 12:52:46
- Location: Illinois
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/17 19:19:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jose7822
ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox
Man ... gotta say one more time ... I just don't have that much problem or issue with automation in SONAR , and I do a LOT of it. I just kinda scratch my head at those who find it "unusable" or avoid it. Could it be improved? Sure ... but it's a LONG way from unusable or even a major PITA in my view. I guess I'd love to watch what some of you are doing or trying to do to see what the heck the big problem is. ???????
For me it's not that it is unusable, and there's no way I'll try to avoid it (would be too limiting). But it is a PITA when I have three or more automations with the same exact curve and I want to move one of them (which ususally ends up being behind all the others). Same thing happens if I want to move a node that's behind another node. This means I have to hide a few automations in order to get to the one I want to alter. But that's not the problem. The problem is when I have to go through the same menu several times to hide/unhide envelopes. It gets old pretty quick and envelope lanes would solve this problem.
Another example is when I want to draw an automation with a mouse. Either I insert the envelope and start adding nodes, OR I try drawing it using the envelope drawing feature which is not very accurate. So you spend time shaping the envelope the way you want it or fixing it after the fact. There just needs to be a better way.
Everyone uses each of Sonar's feature differently, so not all of us will encounter the same problems.
I too am one that hasn't had a great deal of frustration implementing automation. Then again I use it in a very basic form for mostly boosting or attenuating clip gain during the mixing stage. I'm occasionally inspired to automate some effects, but not often. That being said, this whole issue of going through the same layered menu repeatedly (like in simply creating clip envelopes) gives me the impression that while Sonar gives us automation, it's not designed and implemented by people who actually know what it's like to use it to a significant degree. I keep hoping the light pops on at some point though.  Best regards, DB
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/17 21:44:44
(permalink)
Hey Marah,
I didn't know you could do that in Sonar (Automation Snapshots that is). That would actually come in handy, thanks :-) But I was (in my mind) more focused on the way you can draw an envelope with a specific shape (Square, Sine, Triangle, Free hand, etc) accross a track. The way Cakewalk implemented this is cumbersome because of the precision it takes to draw these envelopes (even when holding the SHIFT key). You always end up fixing it after the fact which is what I complain about. It takes about the same time to draw it and fix it later then to just insert nodes automatically, or probably even using snapshots.
Yes, automation the way it is right now is way ahead of how it used to be back in the day. But so is everything else currently possible in a DAW. However humbling that may be, we can't dwell in the past. All we can do is look at the present and make things better for the future. But I'm know you agree with me there :-) I have faith that the light will pop on soon enough. Cake always delivers ;-).
Take care!
|
SongCraft
Max Output Level: -36 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3902
- Joined: 2007/09/19 17:54:46
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/18 02:19:33
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox
Man ... gotta say one more time ... I just don't have that much problem or issue with automation in SONAR , and I do a LOT of it. I just kinda scratch my head at those who find it "unusable" or avoid it. Could it be improved? Sure ... but it's a LONG way from unusable or even a major PITA in my view. I guess I'd love to watch what some of you are doing or trying to do to see what the heck the big problem is. ???????
I would definitely not agree that envelopes are 'unusable', the point of threads like this is to bring attention to Cakewalk and to come up with ideas to improve how envelopes are implemented and handled, ideas that can be submitted to feature request :-) I have not had any crashes or errors that some have experienced using envelopes. I like to keep my workflow as simple as possible and although I do use envelopes in all my projects but in general try to keep it simple. Mostly for controlling vol peaks and FX parameters.
post edited by SongCraft - 2009/07/18 02:20:48
|
tazman
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2435
- Joined: 2003/11/13 13:01:40
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/18 08:26:47
(permalink)
Go try PT, Nuendo and Cubase's automation and you'll see what some of us are talking about. Before cars were invented, those with horses thought they had it made over those without them. Would you want to go back to horses, knowing there are cars out there that will get you there quicker? (I hope that makes sense) ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox
Man ... gotta say one more time ... I just don't have that much problem or issue with automation in SONAR , and I do a LOT of it. I just kinda scratch my head at those who find it "unusable" or avoid it. Could it be improved? Sure ... but it's a LONG way from unusable or even a major PITA in my view. I guess I'd love to watch what some of you are doing or trying to do to see what the heck the big problem is. ???????
post edited by tazman - 2009/07/28 07:18:37
|
DeveryH
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 780
- Joined: 2004/12/01 21:27:43
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/07/18 09:47:43
(permalink)
|
KeithLuedke
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 133
- Joined: 2004/10/27 19:14:42
- Location: AUSTIN, TX
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/24 18:40:30
(permalink)
8.5 release. Is this addressed?
____________________________ Keith Luedke
|
shakey.oberon
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 210
- Joined: 2009/07/06 16:06:10
- Location: Cheshire, uk
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 08:12:49
(permalink)
I have the same issues as you, pain in the arse. I put some suggestions in another thread as how to solve this problem Selection bar in bus pane
I would like a seperate selection bar in the bus pane. This would make copying bus automation much more straight forward. Currently it has a seperate selection area which is defined by which nodes you have lasso'd, but it can get really fiddly to get right if you have lots of envelopes in the same place. If there was a selection bar at the top of the bus pane like the one at the top of the track view, you could just drag the time you want to select, and then ctrl click which envelopes to copy. Rapture style envelopes
Protools and logic have this as well, but rapture does it best. In rapture if you want to create a curve, you simply drag the centre of the line and it will curve in the direction you drag it. This means you never have to right click on an envelope to change the type of curve. It is a very elegant solution and speeds up modulation immensely. Automation Layers
What if automation envelopes could have a layer system similar to audio? That way you could either edit them in the traditional overlaid view, or expand them with a button so that each one had its own layer. This would be extremely useful on tracks where you have lots of envelopes which occupy the same space, like having automation lanes except you dont have to use them like that if you don't want to here is the thread if you want to see them in their natural habitat http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=1772098&mpage=2
Jose7822
ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox
Man ... gotta say one more time ... I just don't have that much problem or issue with automation in SONAR , and I do a LOT of it. I just kinda scratch my head at those who find it "unusable" or avoid it. Could it be improved? Sure ... but it's a LONG way from unusable or even a major PITA in my view. I guess I'd love to watch what some of you are doing or trying to do to see what the heck the big problem is. ???????
For me it's not that it is unusable, and there's no way I'll try to avoid it (would be too limiting). But it is a PITA when I have three or more automations with the same exact curve and I want to move one of them (which ususally ends up being behind all the others). Same thing happens if I want to move a node that's behind another node. This means I have to hide a few automations in order to get to the one I want to alter. But that's not the problem. The problem is when I have to go through the same menu several times to hide/unhide envelopes. It gets old pretty quick and envelope lanes would solve this problem.
Another example is when I want to draw an automation with a mouse. Either I insert the envelope and start adding nodes, OR I try drawing it using the envelope drawing feature which is not very accurate. So you spend time shaping the envelope the way you want it or fixing it after the fact. There just needs to be a better way.
Everyone uses each of Sonar's feature differently, so not all of us will encounter the same problems.
|
shakey.oberon
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 210
- Joined: 2009/07/06 16:06:10
- Location: Cheshire, uk
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 08:17:14
(permalink)
also, why cant you copy clip envelopes from one clip to another? why can you copy an envelope from a track to a track, but not to a bus? really annoying and restrictive.
|
shakey.oberon
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 210
- Joined: 2009/07/06 16:06:10
- Location: Cheshire, uk
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 08:20:05
(permalink)
why cant you insert midi controller envelopes on an instrument track? you have to split it into audio and midi first
|
shakey.oberon
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 210
- Joined: 2009/07/06 16:06:10
- Location: Cheshire, uk
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 08:20:23
(permalink)
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 08:24:58
(permalink)
shakey.oberon
Selection bar in bus pane
I would like a seperate selection bar in the bus pane. This would make copying bus automation much more straight forward. Currently it has a seperate selection area which is defined by which nodes you have lasso'd, but it can get really fiddly to get right if you have lots of envelopes in the same place. If there was a selection bar at the top of the bus pane like the one at the top of the track view, you could just drag the time you want to select, and then ctrl click which envelopes to copy.
The solution for this is to first, get rid of the division between the "track view" and the "bus pane" inside the track view. Them let each type of envelope (pan vol etc) be completely independently manageable (including hide/show) and optionally exist in a lane of its own. The way it works now is a click-intensive limitation. Note that none of this has anything to do with bugs, and everything to do with implementation. Bugs don't bother me. Click-intensive limitations are something else altogether.
post edited by Marah - 2009/09/25 08:27:07
|
Blades
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3246
- Joined: 2003/11/06 08:22:52
- Location: Georgia
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 08:45:10
(permalink)
I'm probably the type of user that causes it to be the way it is as far "context" vs "non-context" mousing. Sometimes I prefer that there is NO context mousing, especially in small spaces. When I'm trying to slip edit a track that is vertically pretty small, it drives me nuts to get exactly on the edge in the middle. Same for fades on clips. If they are small, the cursor changes as you move one pixel out of line - or I have to zoom or whatever. I don't want to have a seperate tool for everything, but with envelopes being on top of clips, it just seems like context mousing in this case would be annoying at least as often as it would be useful. Envelopes definitely do need some work, though. A lot of the reasons have been mentioned here. A few that would help in my opinion would be - stability
- "lanes" of some kind (like the PRV did with controllers - surprised this didn't come in at the same time)
- Better curve handling - take a look at the Xara line of products for a very elegant and easy to use drawing system. It doesn't have to be as complicated as Illustrator or the many other difficult drawing tools. On top of that, the Xara vector engine is very fast, so it would have little impact on performance.
I have had a few times where the program just bailed unexpectedly from doing something with a node or nodes. Nice tip Marah. I haven't looked at or thught about snapshot automation in a long time. It used to be wierd and always goofed stuff up for me in other appplications because it would want to send and entire mix snapshot. I didn't realize that this hooked into the envelopes...just tried it. Yep - that's pretty cool.
|
shakey.oberon
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 210
- Joined: 2009/07/06 16:06:10
- Location: Cheshire, uk
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 08:52:43
(permalink)
automation snapshots are crap for plugins though, I tried one with camel space, it left me with an envelope for every parameter in the plugin, which was about 40. In acid, if you have a plugin envelope for a parameter and then you move the dial, it will automatically create a snapshot for it, I would like this functionality. cakewalk seem oblivious to the fact that people use plugins a lot of the time, why is there no undo for example
|
shakey.oberon
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 210
- Joined: 2009/07/06 16:06:10
- Location: Cheshire, uk
- Status: offline
RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 08:56:45
(permalink)
+1 for lanes, and clip based automation, where the automation is held inside a clip which you can move at will. Having an expandable lane system below each track would be great, then the automation could be completely seperate from the audio clips. contracting the lanes would overlay them over the audio, in the traditional way for people who prefer it that way
|
krizrox
Max Output Level: -35 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4046
- Joined: 2003/11/23 09:49:33
- Location: Elgin, IL
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 09:41:43
(permalink)
Of all the things I could complain about, envelopes were never one of them. Luckily, I don't recall any problem with envelopes in any version. I learned to work around whatever limitations there were. But I will say this - my needs are very bare bones when it comes to envelopes.
I know some of you really push the envelope :-) with this automation and stuff and I understand the problems. Samplitude's envelopes are way more advanced than Sonar's (and probably more in line with what you are all hoping to get in Sonar). But there is a level of complexity that goes hand-in-hand with stuff like that. Be careful what you ask for :-)
Larry Kriz www.LnLRecording.com www.myspace.com/lnlrecording Sonar PE 8.5, Samplitude Pro 11, Sonic Core Scope Professional/XTC, A16 Ultra AD/DA, Intel DG965RY MOBO, Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz processor, XFX GeForce 7300 GT PCIe video card, Barracuda 750 & 320GB SATA drives, 4GB DDR Ram, Plextor DVD/CD-R burner.
|
shakey.oberon
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 210
- Joined: 2009/07/06 16:06:10
- Location: Cheshire, uk
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 10:07:01
(permalink)
you are correct, for simple volume fades it is fine, but start creating your own lfos and try to copy them around the project and you will soon see what we mean ;-)
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 10:45:14
(permalink)
Add me to the list of users who
a) use envelopes extensively, and
b) can think of many ways to improve them, but
c) rarely have any problems with them
I am definitely not in favor of expanding context-sensitive mouse actions, except in situations where there can be no ambiguity. I like that there is an envelope-editing mode, as it limits said ambiguity, and pressing "E" is not a burdensome workflow-stopper. Be careful what you wish for.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
Dave Modisette
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11050
- Joined: 2003/11/13 22:12:55
- Location: Brandon, Florida
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 10:58:47
(permalink)
I didn't run into the disappearing clip sections bug because I usually eliminate layers as I am comping. It seems that a lot of folks are using layers in such a way that a normal track is virtually a "sub-bus".
This demonstrates the need to look at busses in the new DAW paradigm. It's no longer like a mixer where the busses reside at the right hand side of the console. A bus should be able to live anywhere on the DAW console or track view. I've often thought that track folders should be given bussing characteristics. And further than that, nested folders are needed with the same attributes.
|
Fret Wizz
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 581
- Joined: 2007/07/01 13:46:57
- Location: Adelaide South Australia
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 11:28:27
(permalink)
I still think that line in the help file has something to do with all this envelope anger. In the "Arranging & Editing" section of the SONAR help files click on "Take Management and Comping Takes". Check out the Note 2: A multi-layer layer track has only one set of track automation envelopes. Using 1 envelope to control multiple tracks/layers must have some trade offs associated with it don't you think?
post edited by Fret Wizz - 2009/09/25 11:35:51
|
gerrard00
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 73
- Joined: 2006/12/20 19:12:09
- Location: BKNY
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Yet Another Envelope Rant
2009/09/25 11:36:57
(permalink)
Not much to add, but I wanted to +1 on the idea of regularly saving. I tend to get into a rhythm and forget about saving changes. While working that way I had occasional Sonar crashes and oddly enough, envelope flakiness. Since getting into the habit of using my Ctrl-S claw, as I do when writing software, I've had a lot less trouble.
|