Automation writing bug

[Dave Labrecque]

This happens to me occasionally. Before I try to create a step-by-step, I thought I'd inquire to see if anyone else has this happen, or if I'm simply losing my mind (again).

Sometimes when I have a stack of automation entries at the same position, one of them can become inaccessible, in terms of trying to change its value. Example: I have a fader entry and an aux entry in the same spot, and I can't change the fader entry value unless I turn on the view filter for fader, delete the entry, then re-write it.

To be honest, I'm not sure if I've tried simply changing it's value after separating it via the view filter. That might work, too.

Even so...

Anyone?

[Bob L]

Use the view filter, then you can ctrl-tab to it and just change the entry value.

Bob L

[bcorkery]

I use the view filter all the time. I also try not to put one automation atop another ... doesn't always work out that way though. If you ctl+tab to a similar automation and hit the "v" filter you can change these w/o having to move it.

Least that's the way it works for me.

[Dave Labrecque]

Thanks, Gents...

Yes, work-arounds are good to have. Always preferred if we don't need to resort to them, though, methinks. ;)

After all, a smoother ride is always what we're after in our Lamborghini. Or was it a Ferrari? One of those nice ones. :)

[Bob L]

What do you mean work-around... if you have more than one automation entry at the same location... that is what the view filter is for... you turn it on... pick what you want to display and work with by filtering out the other entries... then edit the entries... then turn OFF the filter... what work-around. :)

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

What do you mean work-around... if you have more than one automation entry at the same location... that is what the view filter is for... you turn it on... pick what you want to display and work with by filtering out the other entries... then edit the entries... then turn OFF the filter... what work-around. :)

Bob L

Bob -- I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Sorry if I didn't explain it well.

Say you have a fader move written and an aux automation entry at the same point. You should be able to ctrl-tab to that point and adjust either, right? No need for the view filter. This is how I normally work in SAW.

However, occasionally, one of the "stacked" automation entries becomes inaccessible to changes that I wish to make. Haven't figured out what causes this yet.

I don't normally need to reveal the entry to do this. I know it's there, so I ctrl-tab to it and adjust it. I use the view filter when I need to move a specific entry from within a stack or do a fade to/from it.

Am I making sense yet? :o

[Bob L]

Not yet...

I am not getting what you are trying to say...

If you can see an individual entry... you can ctrl-tab to it and change it... if you can't see the particular entry because there are more than one entry stacked at the exact position... then you use the View Filter... once you have filtered out the other entries... you can now ctrl-tab to the entry and change it.

What am I missing?

Bob L

[UpTilDawn]

...However, occasionally, one of the "stacked" automation entries becomes inaccessible to changes that I wish to make. Haven't figured out what causes this yet.

I don't normally need to reveal the entry to do this. I know it's there, so I ctrl-tab to it and adjust it. I use the view filter when I need to move a specific entry from within a stack or do a fade to/from it.

Am I making sense yet? :o

The only time I've ever felt that one of a stacked automation entries has become "inaccessible" to adjustment when I Ctrl/Tab to the stack turns out to be an entry that is a tiny bit offset from the main stack... usually because I somehow nudged the cursor slightly without realizing it before placing the entry, which I assumed was in the "stack" because it wasn't easily visible at normal (sometimes even extreme) zoom settings..... and this has happened before, causing me a few moments of frustration in the process. In those cases the automation filter has revealed the mark as being offset from the others and I could then fix it.

In fact, a common problem for me seems to be having a tiny bit of offset occur to a marked area pair of fader adjustments (for instance), where I've Alt/dragged the area to shrink or expand it to fit after copying the automation to another location and then adjusted the fader setting, leaving a second fader mark right next to the original starting position. The offset is so slight as to completely mask the tiny variance from the original at everything but the most extreme zoom setting. I could imagine something of this nature happening to you with automation that is part of a stack, with the new offset being so close as to be almost invisible and thereby causing it to seem as though the adjustment you make at the stack is not being properly written... Could this be part of what you're experiencing and not really a broken entry in the stack?


Other than that, I still can't see what you're getting at either... I'm really interested to see however because I depend a great deal on my "stacked" automation entries and would love to find out if you've somehow discovered a tiny bug...... which I realize YOU are never known to do..... but you never can tell when that could change.... :D

[Dave Labrecque]

Not yet...

I am not getting what you are trying to say...

If you can see an individual entry... you can ctrl-tab to it and change it... if you can't see the particular entry because there are more than one entry stacked at the exact position... then you use the View Filter... once you have filtered out the other entries... you can now ctrl-tab to the entry and change it.

What am I missing?

Bob L

:p

Bob, if you create a fader move, then create a mute ON entry exactly on top of that entry, you would expect to be able to ctrl-tab to this little "stack" of entries and adjust the fader value without using the view filter, right? For any number of such "stacked" entries, in fact, right?

I'm saying that this is how I usually work. I always understood that that was by design. But, occasionally, the fader entry is not re-writable in this fashion. It becomes "inaccessible" in that sense.

Can you hear me, now? ;)

[Dave Labrecque]

The only time I've ever felt that one of a stacked automation entries has become "inaccessible" to adjustment when I Ctrl/Tab to the stack turns out to be an entry that is a tiny bit offset from the main stack... usually because I somehow nudged the cursor slightly without realizing it before placing the entry, which I assumed was in the "stack" because it wasn't easily visible at normal (sometimes even extreme) zoom settings..... and this has happened before, causing me a few moments of frustration in the process. In those cases the automation filter has revealed the mark as being offset from the others and I could then fix it.

In fact, a common problem for me seems to be having a tiny bit of offset occur to a marked area pair of fader adjustments (for instance), where I've Alt/dragged the area to shrink or expand it to fit after copying the automation to another location and then adjusted the fader setting, leaving a second fader mark right next to the original starting position. The offset is so slight as to completely mask the tiny variance from the original at everything but the most extreme zoom setting. I could imagine something of this nature happening to you with automation that is part of a stack, with the new offset being so close as to be almost invisible and thereby causing it to seem as though the adjustment you make at the stack is not being properly written... Could this be part of what you're experiencing and not really a broken entry in the stack?


Other than that, I still can't see what you're getting at either... I'm really interested to see however because I depend a great deal on my "stacked" automation entries and would love to find out if you've somehow discovered a tiny bug...... which I realize YOU are never known to do..... but you never can tell when that could change.... :D

:p Well, so far today, Bob's thinkin' I'm 0 for 2, so... :p

I have had what you're describing happen. In those cases I can tell what's going on because I can ctrl-tab between the two locations, even though they're not "resolvable" (sorry -- optical astronomy term) visually.

There are other happenstances, though (happened to me today) when the very next ctrl-tab stop is way down the time line. It sure seems like a single sample position for the entire stack in these cases. Got me to wondering if there's a separation threshold beneath which ctrl-tab won't discriminate. But, in fact, I just tried placing two automation moves one sample apart, and they work fine. I can alt-tab between them and adjust either independently.

I was working in tempo mode today. I wonder if messing with the grid toggle on/off and grid resolution setting could be messing with this, somehow. :confused:

Or... sometimes it happens when I'm in MIDI/SMPTE mode, I think. When working in these other modes, I do toggle to/from regular time mode here and there. Maybe it's the changing of time modes that wreaks havoc? Hmmm...

[Carl G.]

:p

Bob, if you create a fader move, then create a mute ON entry exactly on top of that entry, you would expect to be able to ctrl-tab to this little "stack" of entries and adjust the fader value without using the view filter, right? For any number of such "stacked" entries, in fact, right?

I'm saying that this is how I usually work. I always understood that that was by design. But, occasionally, the fader entry is not re-writable in this fashion. It becomes "inaccessible" in that sense.

Can you hear me, now? ;)

Dave,
I believe the answer is that:

1. The V filter shows the most recent entry on 'stacked' automation (multiple automation moves at the exact same point in the time line). This can be a wonderful advantage - since, often, the most often adjusted control is the one you're currently adjusting. :)

2. A trick to 'show' which ever automation you wish to see in a stacked entry is simple move the cursor a sample or two off the desired automation, and simply click that control, then press "V" and all that automation in the timeline is instantly visible. Quick - simple.... and avoids all the need to separate automation on the time line.

3. Or, of course, you can choose whatever "V" filter you want by right clicking the Automation button and selecting whatever single automation you wish to see.

All three of the above work like a charm for me -
...every time at any point in time! :)

[Bob L]

Dave...

Yes you can have stacked automation entries and make an adjustment to one of them without having to use the filter... if you make an automation adjustment at the exact sample position where one of the same already exists, it should update the one that is there and not add a new entry.

I did try your example of a fader change and mute at the same place... and they are both accessable without the need to filter... but even changing timeline modes or toggling the grid on and off did not cause that to break.

So... what you will need to do is give me a step by step to cause the break.

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave...

Yes you can have stacked automation entries and make an adjustment to one of them without having to use the filter... if you make an automation adjustment at the exact sample position where one of the same already exists, it should update the one that is there and not add a new entry.

I did try your example of a fader change and mute at the same place... and they are both accessable without the need to filter... but even changing timeline modes or toggling the grid on and off did not cause that to break.

So... what you will need to do is give me a step by step to cause the break.

Bob L

Right. That is my mission. Thanks for hearing me out. :)

I, too, tried to break it last night and failed.

[Dave Labrecque]

Hi Carl,


Dave,
I believe the answer is that:

1. The V filter shows the most recent entry on 'stacked' automation (multiple automation moves at the exact same point in the time line). This can be a wonderful advantage - since, often, the most often adjusted control is the one you're currently adjusting. :)

I don't follow you, here. The V filter doesn't show the most recent entry -- not using the V filter shows that. Right? Unless you mean the most recent entry of the same type of automation in a stack. In that case, I don't think of them as stacked entries of the same type. I've always assumed that the most recent change to an entry changes its value, rather than stacks a new entry of the same type on top of the old one.



2. A trick to 'show' which ever automation you wish to see in a stacked entry is simple move the cursor a sample or two off the desired automation, and simply click that control, then press "V" and all that automation in the timeline is instantly visible. Quick - simple.... and avoids all the need to separate automation on the time line.

3. Or, of course, you can choose whatever "V" filter you want by right clicking the Automation button and selecting whatever single automation you wish to see.

All three of the above work like a charm for me -
...every time at any point in time! :)

Yes, I know the two approaches to using the View filter. But this issue isn't related to use of the view filter. If you have automation entries of different types stacked in the exact same spot, you should be able to change each of their values without having to use the View filter, simply by snapping (ctrl-tab) the stack and tweaking a control.

Example: fader, mute, aux on, aux level, EQ hi pass on, EQ hi pass value entries -- all at sample position 12546821547. You should be able to ctrl-tab to that position and adjust any of those values without using the View filter. Once in a while, though, I try and one of those values is not adjustable (writeable).

And, if I'm not mistaken (and I could be), I believe in those cases that using the View filter does not solve the problem, either. :eek:

Now... to make this infrequent issue re-creatable for Bob's inspection! :o

[Bob L]

My guess would be that something moved one of the entries a few samples off... some kind of samplerate change... vari-speed change... etc... some operation you do once in a while that moves the entries a slight bit.

Bob L

[Carl G.]

Hi Carl,
I don't follow you, here. The V filter doesn't show the most recent entry -- not using the V filter shows that. Right?

Right... the latest entry is the one that shows. But using the V filter will then filter out for the item of the latest entry (that's what I was trying to say).


If you have automation entries of different types stacked in the exact same spot, you should be able to change each of their values without having to use the View filter, simply by snapping (ctrl-tab) the stack and tweaking a control.
Correct. I was just using the V filter example... but it is unnecessary to use at that exact point of stacked automation. The reason I would use the V filter is if I created, say, a fade of eq, etc, starting at that point. I would have to 'touch' the control I wanted before hitting the V key to filter just the automation I wanted to stretch, etc.



Example: fader, mute, aux on, aux level, EQ hi pass on, EQ hi pass value entries -- all at sample position 12546821547. You should be able to ctrl-tab to that position and adjust any of those values without using the View filter. Once in a while, though, I try and one of those values is not adjustable (writeable).
Ah... I see what you mean - the whole point of the post. I've never had that happen. Good luck in your quest.


[/QUOTE]

[Dave Labrecque]

My guess would be that something moved one of the entries a few samples off... some kind of samplerate change... vari-speed change... etc... some operation you do once in a while that moves the entries a slight bit.

Bob L

I have had that happen, yes. But in those cases I can alt-tab between the two. In these cases, alt-tab seems to indicate that there's nothing else there.

I know, I know... the onus is on me to show that this ever happens. :o

[Dave Labrecque]

I would have to 'touch' the control I wanted before hitting the V key to filter just the automation I wanted to stretch, etc.

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that, isn't it? It would be nice if it worked that way, but what I find is that you have to ctrl-tab to an entry associated with the filter you want engaged. And if you have just created an entry ("touched" the control as you say) for whose type you'd like to filter, you have to first manually move the cursor off of it, then ctrl-tab back to it to tell the view filter which type you want revealed.

This is reminding me of similar "extra steps" when it comes to drawing fades. Lest I hijack this thread any further, I guess I'll put that stuff in a new one. :)

[Bob L]

Dave... all you need to do is move the cursor somewhere just past the entry you want to use as the filter type... not on it... not ctrl-tab anything... just place the cursor anywhere after the entry type you want to filter for.

It seems that you are going extra out of your way to make this stuff much more complex than it really is.

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave... all you need to do is move the cursor somewhere just past the entry you want to use as the filter type... not on it... not ctrl-tab anything... just place the cursor anywhere after the entry type you want to filter for.

It seems that you are going extra out of your way to make this stuff much more complex than it really is.

Bob L

It may seem that way. :)

Thanks for the info. That may be a little simpler that what I've been doing. I was actually doing what the help file says to do. I now see that the way you're now saying to do it is alluded to also, though the way you said it now registers more clearly than in the help file.

From Using View Filters

The current type will be defined by the last automation entry at or before the current cursor position. You can select a type by simply dragging the cursor within a group of entries or [Ctrl-Tabbing] to an exact entry.
But my main beef is that after drawing an automation entry you can't hit the V key to filter for that type. You have to first move the cursor off of the entry. That might be worth a nip or tuck in the code, no? :)

[Carl G.]

But my main beef is that after drawing an automation entry you can't hit the V key to filter for that type. You have to first move the cursor off of the entry. That might be worth a nip or tuck in the code, no? :)

Dave, forget the tab or moving the cursor.

Simply go to the location you want to change, then TOUCH the control you want to adjust and press V (filter).

It works because by touching the control you want to adjust, it becomes the topmost (making it the "last" entry at that position) so it will be what the V filter will work on.

Pretty simple.

[Bob L]

If I write a pan entry in the middle of a long fade with hundreds of fader entries... yes... all I have to do is press V without moving the cursor and the filter removes all entries but the pans... not sure why you are seeing something different.

Make sure you switch the active window back to the MT by clicking in the MT view after writing your new entry... then press V... the code is already written that way.

Bob L

[Bob L]

You should clear the current then overwrite.

In fact... really complex automation moves can only be done offline effectively, in my opinion, so there is never any need to worry about this if you follow that principle.

Others will argue... but I have proven otherwise in my experience... writing live automation creates a mess of possible thousands of automation entrues... when more accurate results can be obtained with a few well placed entries that may take advantage of the slope options for more precision.

Bob L

[Sean McCoy]

You should clear the current then overwrite.

In fact... really complex automation moves can only be done offline effectively, in my opinion, so there is never any need to worry about this if you follow that principle.

Others will argue... but I have proven otherwise in my experience... writing live automation creates a mess of possible thousands of automation entrues... when more accurate results can be obtained with a few well placed entries that may take advantage of the slope options for more precision.

Bob L
I would agree with that. The two occasional exceptions that I can think of are end fadeouts, where I sometimes get a more natural feeling fade by actually mousing down the fader, and "between the speakers" panning moves in surround, where the crazy interaction between front, sides and rear sometimes requires manually following the action.

[bcorkery]

I found that it works, thanks Bob. I wasn't changing the focus back to the MT.

Now I'm gonna drift a little OT.

I like to do rough mixes to get the high and low levels where I want them then go back and fade them to taste. I love being able to grab parts of the fade and open them up or tighten a few of the slash marks to get an elaborate fade that's just right in the mix.

Also, I've found that at the end of vocal phrases, if I make 1 fade change, adjust the slope and slide that mark a little left of right, It's often not necessary to fix lip smacks, tongue clicks or the noise when the back of the throat makes when opening for a breath. I hate those, and if I can't fade 'em out, I'll go to pixel depth and edit them. I'm still not brave enough to re-write the sound file. :o

[Bob L]

Bill... if you edit them in the SF view sample mode... you are re-writing the soundfile... so make a copy first.

You can also control p pops and sssssses easily by cutting at the disturbance and opening a small gap... now use softedges on each side... this effectively hides the pop but keeps the p... etc.

Bob L

[bcorkery]

Thanks Bob. I'm also interested in how people are using levelizer to hide percussives and sibilance. There's a lot of chatter about this on the SAC forum. I need to look into this too.

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave, forget the tab or moving the cursor.

Simply go to the location you want to change,

You mean move the cursor? :)


...then TOUCH the control you want to adjust and press V (filter).

It works because by touching the control you want to adjust, it becomes the topmost (making it the "last" entry at that position) so it will be what the V filter will work on.

Pretty simple.

Pretty simple, except that it doesn't appear to work. ;)

OK, two things:

1) That doesn't work here. I create a stack of entries, including a fader entry. I ctrl-tab to it. I click on the fader. I click on the MT title bar to return focus to that window. I hit the V key. I move the cursor off the stack (man, that's a lot of steps), and an aux entry is what's shown. What am I missing?

If by "touch" you mean "write some automation" (move the control), then I'd ask you why you need the view filter at all, since you appear able to write the automation without the view filter. This was about a stack in which I could not write automation for a certain control.

2) This still does not address my main beef: you can't draw an entry and then just hit the V key to filter for it. To me, that would make the most sense and eliminate so many steps. Why the extra steps? :confused:

Sorry if I'm mixing "sub-threads" here. I might be doing that. :o

[Arco]

"Touch" = just drag the mouse cursor over it.

If you have different automations on a region, just by dragging the mouse over the one you want to see will "program" the V key to view only that type of automation. So it's quick: drag-Vkey

[Bob L]

But... if Dave has a cluster of entries on top of each at the same sample position... this will not work... that's why you have the view filter popup menu to select exactly which type you want to see.

But... that's also why a few of us have mentioned to not place multiple stacked entries at the same point whenever possible... keep them slightly apart so each is instantly reachable if you zoom in.

As complex as some of the projects I do are... I just have never run into this type of issue.

Bob L

[Rabbit]

But then you aren't Dave are you....

:D









sorry Dave, couldn't help myself.....

[Dave Labrecque]

If I write a pan entry in the middle of a long fade with hundreds of fader entries... yes... all I have to do is press V without moving the cursor and the filter removes all entries but the pans... not sure why you are seeing something different.

Make sure you switch the active window back to the MT by clicking in the MT view after writing your new entry... then press V... the code is already written that way.

Bob L

You are correct, sir. I have no idea what I was talking about. :o

[Dave Labrecque]

Thanks Bob. I'm also interested in how people are using levelizer to hide percussives and sibilance. There's a lot of chatter about this on the SAC forum. I need to look into this too.

Bill, the Levelizer (or channel comp) is great for de-essing. It's my fave. Try it, you'll like it.

[Dave Labrecque]

"Touch" = just drag the mouse cursor over it.

If you have different automations on a region, just by dragging the mouse over the one you want to see will "program" the V key to view only that type of automation. So it's quick: drag-Vkey

Oh, you mean like Bob was saying? Yeah, I'm gonna start doing that. Notice, though, that you need to drag left to right, or, more accurately, place the cursor to the right of the entry of interest.

Note, though, that this doesn't help with stacked entries. Though, maybe this sub-thread isn't about that. Sorry. :o

[Dave Labrecque]

But... if Dave has a cluster of entries on top of each at the same sample position... this will not work... that's why you have the view filter popup menu to select exactly which type you want to see.

But... that's also why a few of us have mentioned to not place multiple stacked entries at the same point whenever possible... keep them slightly apart so each is instantly reachable if you zoom in.

As complex as some of the projects I do are... I just have never run into this type of issue.

Bob L

Bob, you don't see this as another work-around? In my experience it creates more work navigating to the entry of choice for tweaking if we venture to spread them out to unique sample positions. I mean, isn't that the beauty of the channel settings snapshot? Everything's all right there together, ready to be ctrl-tabbed to and tweaked as needed. :confused:

[Dave Labrecque]

But then you aren't Dave are you....

:D

sorry Dave, couldn't help myself.....

None taken. :p

[bcorkery]

Dave,

In the heat of battle with the MT zoomed in, fader marks slashing all around me, pans running rampant left and right, EQ automated wepons popping in and out, I find myself making another automation mark, the same type I want to adjust, right there the thick of it all and use it to remove all that clutter.

It's like being granted some R&R on an exotic, tropical beach, far away from all the sounds and excitement. Just me and my automation of choice ... ahhh. I can take my time to make my move. Then erase the reference mark I made earlier and by softly touching the V key ...

I'm back in battle mode KEEEEYYAAAA! ... "Tighten up your time line soldier, we're going back in!"

A little off topic maybe ... and you think YOU digress! :)

[UpTilDawn]

... I mean, isn't that the beauty of the channel settings snapshot? Everything's all right there together, ready to be ctrl-tabbed to and tweaked as needed. :confused:


THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE!!!!!!

Sorry for yelling. :o

But, it's a great example and one I've begun using more and more often.

Being able to stack entries that way is HUGELY important..

The problem though, goes back to the issue you started with........ that is, that you (and only you, evidently... sorry Dave. :rolleyes: ) are experiencing a particular problem where an change to one element in a stack of entries appears to NOT change (or be affected) by the new alteration you are attempting.....

Until the "problem" is exposed to fix, the only solution I see available is to use the filter menu to pick the control you want to check.

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave,

In the heat of battle with the MT zoomed in, fader marks slashing all around me, pans running rampant left and right, EQ automated wepons popping in and out, I find myself making another automation mark, the same type I want to adjust, right there the thick of it all and use it to remove all that clutter.

It's like being granted some R&R on an exotic, tropical beach, far away from all the sounds and excitement. Just me and my automation of choice ... ahhh. I can take my time to make my move. Then erase the reference mark I made earlier and by softly touching the V key ...

I'm back in battle mode KEEEEYYAAAA! ... "Tighten up your time line soldier, we're going back in!"

A little off topic maybe ... and you think YOU digress! :)

Bill, you are quite mad. So mad, in fact, that I'm having a hard time following the crux of your tale. In simpleton's language, if you don't mind? :o

[Dave Labrecque]

THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE!!!!!!

Sorry for yelling. :o

But, it's a great example and one I've begun using more and more often.

Being able to stack entries that way is HUGELY important..

The problem though, goes back to the issue you started with........ that is, that you (and only you, evidently... sorry Dave. :rolleyes: ) are experiencing a particular problem where an change to one element in a stack of entries appears to NOT change (or be affected) by the new alteration you are attempting.....

Until the "problem" is exposed to fix, the only solution I see available is to use the filter menu to pick the control you want to check.

Alas, my sympathetic compadre, I have found... the holy grail! (hope you don't mind if I mix various cultural, literary and historical references)

Thing is... and I have confirmed this... even using the view filter doesn't help when this bugger rears his antenna'd little head!

I have in my hot little hands (and now available to you out there in forum-land via the link, below) an EDL which has been boiled down to reveal my (current) nemesis... a stack of automation entries piled only three high (fader, aux 4 on, aux 4 level), which bears the following remarkable properties:

1) ctrl-tab to it, and the fader value cannot be re-written.

2) use the view filter to reveal the fader entry by itself, and it still cannot be re-written.

3) THIS JUST IN... in fact none of the automation entries in the stack can be changed.

Tell me I'm crazy. Tell me it only happens on my system. Tell-me-something-good (I love that song):

AutomationStackIssue (http://www.labrecquecreativesound.com/SAW_Stuff/automation%20stack%20issue.edl)

As I'd hoped, I was working in a current project and came across this little problem stack completely without malice of forethought. ;) It's not that rare for me, actually.

[bcorkery]

Bill, you are quite mad. So mad, in fact, that I'm having a hard time following the crux of your tale. In simpleton's language, if you don't mind? :oSometimes I make a necessary mark as a reference and use it to activate the "V" filter. (I know, another work-around) :o I am mad you know.

[Dave Labrecque]

Sometimes I make a necessary mark as a reference and use it to activate the "V" filter. (I know, another work-around) :o I am mad you know.

Mad and ingenious! How do you do it? A true renaissance man.

Do you find that easier than using the AUT button V filter parameter select menu sometimes?

[bcorkery]

Mad and ingenious! How do you do it? A true renaissance man.

Do you find that easier than using the AUT button V filter parameter select menu sometimes?I never go up there. The cursor is usually on the MT where I need it and the AUT button in all its glory is waaaaay up there.

[Carl G.]

This was about a stack in which I could not write automation for a certain control.

AHHHH.... NOW I see what you're seeing. Hmmmm. Good point... in that it could be confusing - when you thought you wrote an automation entry (say, to a fader) that is not being recorded in automation. I can't explain why.... but it is odd. But I've never run across that before - simply because I usually don't engineer that way.

When I stack entries then change the fader entry... it all looks good when putting focus back to MT and hitting the V key. BUT.... when I move the cursor back in time then tab back to the stacked entry... I discover that the last fader automation adjustment made at that point was not recorded. Wierd. I wonder what we're doing wrong.

[Dave Labrecque]

AHHHH.... NOW I see what you're seeing. Hmmmm. Good point... in that it could be confusing - when you thought you wrote an automation entry (say, to a fader) that is not being recorded in automation. I can't explain why.... but it is odd. But I've never run across that before - simply because I usually don't engineer that way.

When I stack entries then change the fader entry... it all looks good when putting focus back to MT and hitting the V key. BUT.... when I move the cursor back in time then tab back to the stacked entry... I discover that the last fader automation adjustment made at that point was not recorded. Wierd. I wonder what we're doing wrong.

Wow. It sounds like you got it to happen with minimal toil. I had no such luck yesterday, but then I ran across it by accident today.

[Bob L]

Dave... good one... the big question... how did you create this cluster of messed up entries?

I did find that if I filter to see only the fader entry and move it away from the others... then I could change it... but when they are all together... they are all locked.

I will run this thru the debugger and see if I can find what is causing the lock.

A neat feature you didn't even know was in there... automation entry lock. :)

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave... good one... the big question... how did you create this cluster of messed up entries?

I did find that if I filter to see only the fader entry and move it away from the others... then I could change it... but when they are all together... they are all locked.

I will run this thru the debugger and see if I can find what is causing the lock.

A neat feature you didn't even know was in there... automation entry lock. :)

Bob L

:p Sadly, this lock came without a key! :p

As far as how I created it (in a way that may differ from how these things usually get created)... let me think... Hmmm... nothing's jumping out at me. It was for the start of a section of a vocal where the fader drops to -inf and all signal is sent through aux 4 to an effect... I can't recall the order in which I drew them... ooh -- how 'bout this -- I'm pretty sure these entries were copied from another layer. In fact that might have happened a few times in succession... layer to layer to layer as the editing moved on over time. This stack may actually be a few 'generations' down the line. I'm pretty sure it was copied via the marked area automation layer copy routine, rather than it being copied along with a region. Though that route may have been employed somewhere along the ways, too.

Does that shed any light? Could there be something in the way automation is copied from layer to layer? Some kind of degeneration? I thought for sure this stuff was digital and not analog. ;)

[Carey Langille]

Good one dave!! Thanks for Persisting! Things ONLY get better......

[UpTilDawn]

BOY!!!! Being away from the SAW forum for a half-a-day is like being lost at sea for a month!!! You come back exhausted and totally lost in time! :eek:

I need to catch up!

[UpTilDawn]

I just tried a real quick test change to the fader at that auto-stack.

Everything was just as you all have found to be true.
I also found this odd thing.......

I noticed a pair of fader automations within the little stack that showed both the original, tiny yellow mark (Dave's change) and the large yellow mark of my own fader adjustment upward.


Nothing seemed to indicate that there were actually two fader adjustments there when sliding the cursor over the position, but I could clearly see the two bunched in with the aux stuff. So I tried using the filter to move the aux stuff (one by one) out of the way so I could cleary see only the fader marks...... BUT, there was only the little short one there!

I put the aux marks back by Ctrl/undo first and I could again cleary see the large yellow fader mark...... I tried moving the aux stuff out of the way again and this time, moved them back directly on top of the tiny yellow fader mark using the B/E keys and Ctrl/Tab to the aux setting to mark the B position precisely....... Once all three markers were in place, I was not really surprised to see that the large yellow mark was nowhere to be seen.

It seems that a phantom fader adjustment is initially being written, but not sticking even though it can be seen, beside the fact that the original fader mark is not being overwritten and is also plainly visible.



I know that's a lot for not having helped solve the problem.......... just catching up. :p

[Dave Labrecque]

OK... I can recreate this, now. The funky stack is created when automation is copied or moved on top of existing same-type automation.

1 open SAW
2 insert a blank region onto track 1
3 enter automation mode
4 near the front of the region entry, create a fader move to -inf
5 at that same position, create a mute entry
6 near the rear of the region entry, create a fader move to 0
7 at that same position, create an un-mute entry
8 now, mark an area starting on stack 1 and ending before stack 2
8 ctrl-tab to stack 2 and hit ctrl-backspace to copy stack 1 on top of stack 2
9 note odd appearance of stack 2 and it's unwillingness to accept an changes to it's current fader and mute states

FWIW, the problem also appears to manifest when copying/moving automation from a different track (vertically).

Perhaps overwriting existing automation with copied or moved entries was not planned for in the coding. I sure would find it handy to be able to do that without the need to first create a memory position for the existing spot, then mark and delete the existing automation, then clicking on the mem button, before copying or moving automation to that spot. (which is currently, it appears, what we need to do to be able to retain writability of the entries)

How could this have not come up before with you guys? Don't we all overwrite automation this way from time to time? (And then tweak it afterward? Okay, maybe I'm the only one. :p)

[studio-c]

I got it to work as you said. The yellow lines, etc., do get shorter and longer with fader changes, but the fader on the mixer stays fixed.

It was easy enough to just erase the entry and create a new one. But yeah, that's weird. Never seen it before.

And actually I got in the habit of not stacking automation because frankly I didn't know about the "right click the AUT button" thing for a long time, and wanted to be able to select and drag entries individually :)

[Bob L]

The edl Dave gave us to look at actually has 29 automation entry duplicates on top of each other... even though it only looks like 3 entry types... this is the cause of the problem... in normal moves and copies the code attempts to clear duplicate entries... somewhere in there is a loophole that allowed this stack to be created...

I believe it may have something to do with automation gallery usage... I am looking into it.

Bob L

[UpTilDawn]

The edl Dave gave us to look at actually has 29 automation entry duplicates on top of each other... even though it only looks like 3 entry types... this is the cause of the problem... in normal moves and copies the code attempts to clear duplicate entries... somewhere in there is a loophole that allowed this stack to be created...

I believe it may have something to do with automation gallery usage... I am looking into it.

Bob L

Thanks Bob! this is great to watch how these things (bug fixes) play out! :)

Of course, I must also tip my hat once again to Dave! We could never do this without his expertise! :p At least I can't think of a time I would have tried overwriting a whole slew of automation by copying another slew over the top of it. :rolleyes: Although it would have been fun to try! Maybe Dave has to much spare time on his hands. ;)

[DominicPerry]

You have Alpha testers, you have Beta testers, and then you have

!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dave Labreque - Omega Tester !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dominic

[Dave Labrecque]

The edl Dave gave us to look at actually has 29 automation entry duplicates on top of each other... even though it only looks like 3 entry types... this is the cause of the problem... in normal moves and copies the code attempts to clear duplicate entries... somewhere in there is a loophole that allowed this stack to be created...

I believe it may have something to do with automation gallery usage... I am looking into it.

Bob L

FWIW, Bob, I'm pretty sure the automation gallery wasn't involved.

[Dave Labrecque]

Thanks Bob! this is great to watch how these things (bug fixes) play out! :)

Of course, I must also tip my hat once again to Dave! We could never do this without his expertise! :p At least I can't think of a time I would have tried overwriting a whole slew of automation by copying another slew over the top of it. :rolleyes: Although it would have been fun to try! Maybe Dave has to much spare time on his hands. ;)

The times this seems to happen for me is when I'm editing/mixing music. Vocals with mults and copy/pasted chorus sections in particular.

With mults I'm doing the same mix automation across several tracks. I usually try to select all related channels before tweaking a control, so they all get written at once. Sometimes I forget to select the channels. So, after I do the tweak, I copy the automation I just wrote to the other tracks.

With duplicated choruses, I'll already have duplicated the audio two or three times down the time line, then as I tweak automation on the first chorus, I'll update the latter choruses by copying the new automation to them.

Multiple tweakings means multiple copies added to the stacks as the project progresses.

[Dave Labrecque]

You have Alpha testers, you have Beta testers, and then you have

!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dave Labreque - Omega Tester !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dominic

Let's go with "Omega Man", shall we? Anyone know a good seamstress? I need a cape.