Normalize a soundfile

[celebritymusic]

Hi

Is it possible to apply a normalise function to different parts of a soundfile within SAW (or a region)? I like to normalise or apply gain changes to my vocal phrases so that each one is fairly even before hitting a compressor. Sometimes I might get a good take of a phrase, but it will be lower in volume than my other phrases, so sounds different through the insert plugs - applying gain to make it the same volume as my other phrases is a quick way of making things even.

Thanks!

[Pedro Itriago]

You can automate native plug-ins. So yes.

[studio-c]

I usually massage it with a fader. It all gets memorized nicely, and you know exactly what you're getting.

For extreme stuff, I've been using WaveHammer plugin on SF, but it just brings up ALL the low stuff. Good for really crummy source material though (the kind other people give you to fix.)

[Dave Labrecque]

I usually massage it with a fader. It all gets memorized nicely, and you know exactly what you're getting.

For extreme stuff, I've been using WaveHammer plugin on SF, but it just brings up ALL the low stuff. Good for really crummy source material though (the kind other people give you to fix.)

FYI, I use WaveHammer directly in SAW all the time. It's my go-to voice-over compressor.

[Mark Stebbeds]

Hi

Is it possible to apply a normalise function to different parts of a soundfile within SAW (or a region)? I like to normalise or apply gain changes to my vocal phrases so that each one is fairly even before hitting a compressor. Sometimes I might get a good take of a phrase, but it will be lower in volume than my other phrases, so sounds different through the insert plugs - applying gain to make it the same volume as my other phrases is a quick way of making things even.



I do this extensively in other DAWs I use. Simply select an area, or a region, and raise the level prior to adding a compressor on the insert of the channel. The results are superior to simply adding a compressor, IMO. It is also helpful to "turn down" some of the harsh parts of the vocal performance that "sound louder" even though the level may not truly be higher.

There have been recent threads discussing the advantages (or not) of region based editing, and hopefully they will appear in a future update. Do a search on the group.

Bob, are you lurking? :)

mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

I do this extensively in other DAWs I use. Simply select an area, or a region, and raise the level prior to adding a compressor on the insert of the channel. T



Should have read......"I raise the level of the selected area or region without having to automate the fader"

Mark

[AudioAstronomer]

Mark, what you describe is very easy in saw. Mark an area, enter automation mode (A), and simpyl adjust the fader of the track. at the beginning of the marked area the change will occur, at the end of the marked area the change will be set to normal.

This can be sloped from one to the other by simply hitting F or shift-F. The initial changes are sloped per the sawstudio automation design, comes out nice and smooth.

Ok... I didnt see the "without automating the fader" part... Perhaps that could be useful, I guess *shrug*. That's when I just start comping across tracks, no matter which software Im (being forced to) using. Much easier imo to deal with the tracks seperated and clean, then automate a group than fiddle with all sorts of invisble or hard-to-spot region edits :cool: But that's just me :) If it's added, Ill just keep doin what I was

[Mark Stebbeds]

Mark, what you describe is very easy in saw. Mark an area, enter automation mode (A), and simpyl adjust the fader of the track. at the beginning of the marked area the change will occur, at the end of the marked area the change will be set to normal.

This can be sloped from one to the other by simply hitting F or shift-F. The initial changes are sloped per the sawstudio automation design, comes out nice and smooth.

Ok... I didnt see the "without automating the fader" part...

Yeah, we've been through the whole "number of keystrokes and clicks" conversation regarding SS automation vs. region based tweaking.

Having lived in both worlds for years, there are some definite advantages and conveniences with region based editing, and I hope to see some of those features in future SS updates.

mark

[AudioAstronomer]

I agree... Long as one remembers that if Bob does do so, it will probably be in a completely different (but similiarly usable) method than everyone else... and not be as annoying, at least in my mind.

Then again, it we just abandonded the whole "region" based multitracking system and went to a tracker style interface like it SHOULD be, then "region" (i.e. part) based editing would make so much more sense! :o

[celebritymusic]

Hi

Thanks for the reply guys.

The reason I want to be able to apply an edit directly to the soundsource is that if I have a compressor on the insert, it will behave differently if it receives a lower level sound. Therefore, programming a volume change using automation will yeild an overall different sound than if I actually apply gain changes directly to the problem phrases, since the fader changes are post insert.

Also, if you're low on computer processing power, it's advantageous to apply a region edit instead of programming automation to turn on at a certain time. For example, if there is a word or syllable that is noticaly out of tune, but my computer has run out of processing power, preventing me from automating an autotune plugin, I can get around it by applying an autotune edit to the problem bit of sound, without increasing my PC's processing load.

I suppose it can be done in SAW utilising buildmix, but it would be much easier to apply it to a region, or probably better to do it in the Soundfile view. That's would be nice - some audio editing functions for the Soundfile view (normalise, gain, DX plugs etc).

What do you think?

[Naturally Digital]

The reason I want to be able to apply an edit directly to the soundsource is that if I have a compressor on the insert, it will behave differently if it receives a lower level sound. Therefore, programming a volume change using automation will yeild an overall different sound than if I actually apply gain changes directly to the problem phrases, since the fader changes are post insert.You could try using the Attenuator at the top of the channel strip and automating that. Might be just the ticket.

[Mark Stebbeds]

Then again, it we just abandonded the whole "region" based multitracking system and went to a tracker style interface like it SHOULD be, then "region" (i.e. part) based editing would make so much more sense! :o

I'm not sure what you mean by "tracker style", but in another app that begins with an "N" (afraid of mentioning another app in anticipation of flames :o ), there are no regions involved, unless you feel the need to create one. In "N", they are suggested for keeping track of multiple "punch ins" in the middle of a soundfile, but rarely used. I think I've used one in three years. In the default and normal operating mode, there is no "regions list".

A soundfile is an event. You can trim the edges. You can split it, and trim the edges of the new "events". You can delete entire sections of the event, and simply drag out the edges of the remaining parts to reassemble, and glue them back together. You can copy and paste, with all of the obvious shortcuts to make many back to back for "looping", etc, etc. You can move something, and return to original position, blah, blah.

It's a different mindset, quite intuitive and efficient, without lists to think about and windows to take up real estate. It took far less time to get comfortable with it than I thought after using regions for years.

When I refer to "region based editing" in that app, I was just trying to keep the terminology simple and not confuse anyone. There are no regions, they're just audio events.

mark

[studio-c]

FYI, I use WaveHammer directly in SAW all the time. It's my go-to voice-over compressor.

Dave, you rock! I hadn't even thought of using it directly. That is going to save me huge amounts of time. I had been doing vocal submixes, opening them in SF, then putting them back in the SS timeline.

Thanks!

Does this forum rock or what!?

[TotalSonic]

The Levelizer is 100% automateable so if you wanted you could shift the thresholds and normalize percentages per section. You can also automate the fader so that the limiter isn't hit as hard on sections (which to me is more intuitive way of approaching it - but either way will get you there).

Mark - SAW also doesn't depend on "region based" editing at all either -and hasn't for years. Trimming, splitting, moving, adding back after trimming, duplicating or inserting a section, etc. is all very easy to do without referring back to a region list at all. For those who like their region lists though, with SAW a region list is made automatically completely in the background so if people want to refer back to it at any point they can.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Mark Stebbeds]

T
Mark - SAW also doesn't depend on "region based" editing at all either -and hasn't for years.

Yeah, I know. You're missing the point again. I wish there was some. I like it and use it all the time in my work, in tandem with automation. "Region" is just a name. There was a huge thread about a month ago that you can check out, instead of rehashing it all.

Mark

[TotalSonic]

Yeah, I know. You're missing the point again. I wish there was some. I like it and use it all the time in my work, in tandem with automation.
Mark

Personally I hate "handles" and "objects" - they usually get me cursing at some point when I have to use them in other apps - but then again - that's just me.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Mark Stebbeds]

Personally I hate "handles" and "objects" - they usually get me cursing at some point when I have to use them in other apps - but then again - that's just me.


I hate them too, although I'm not really sure what you mean. I like tweaking regions with fades, volume, and other "region" or "selected area" processing without having to use automation. It brings more power to the app.

Mark

[Bob L]

My guess would be... if your computer has no power left to handle one automation control... it certainly would not have enough to process Autotune on a region... all in all you would be forced to actually write the autotune processing into a new soundfile and cut that processed peice into the track... this is easily done using the buildmix function.

And I believe the current automation methods in SAWStudio can perform the same or many more powerful tasks than most region based settings... there really is no difference, except in the actual naming of the process... they both make an adjustment on a small area of wave data.

Bob L

[celebritymusic]

When using the buildmix function, for example, to apply a permanent autotune edit to a phrase (because, say, I have run out of processing power to use the autotune in realtime), what is the typical way of doing this? I ask because I am used to being able to directly apply the effect to the 'region' I am working on in the main project window, and bango, there it is - the altered region. However, in SAW, do I have to buildmix, and then import the soundfile back into the multitrack view? Is the buildmix to hot track the way to get around this?


Thanks!

[celebritymusic]

Are there any soundfile editing options in the soundfile view, apart from being able to move individual samples e.g. normalize, volume change?


Cheers :-)

[Ian Alexander]

When using the buildmix function, for example, to apply a permanent autotune edit to a phrase (because, say, I have run out of processing power to use the autotune in realtime), what is the typical way of doing this? I ask because I am used to being able to directly apply the effect to the 'region' I am working on in the main project window, and bango, there it is - the altered region. However, in SAW, do I have to buildmix, and then import the soundfile back into the multitrack view? Is the buildmix to hot track the way to get around this?


Thanks!
I would cut (k) at the beginning and end of the section you want to autotune, mark the section (b) and (e). Then with the track soloed or selected, BuildMix to New SoundFile. In the dialog that appears, you may want to change the name of the new file and make it mono. The resulting file will appear in the SoundFile View.

Now mark the whole file in SF (Home, b, End, e is one way.) Press Ctrl-N to name this new region.

Go back to the MultiTrack, make sure the same track is still the hot track and the cursor is in the region you created, then Shift-R to replace the region with the new one.

No importing sound files. Takes 30-60 seconds, depending on familiarity.

If the section is uniformly flat or sharp, you may want to search the help file for Vari-Speed, too.

[Mark Stebbeds]

...to apply a permanent autotune edit to a phrase
<snip>
I ask because I am used to being able to directly apply the effect to the 'region' I am working on in the main project window, and bango, there it is - the altered region. However, in SAW, do I have to buildmix,

Autotune is a perfect example of how "region" based editing is used ubiquitiously in other popular apps. You can get the same results in SS using automation, but would require three or four more steps per each incident. Using buildmix is overkill IMO.

Applying autotune across an entire track adds a lot of artifacts and has less desirable results than applying it to the specific area.

mark

[TotalSonic]

Autotune is a perfect example of how "region" based editing is used ubiquitiously in other popular apps. You can get the same results in SS using automation, but would require three or four more steps per each incident. Using buildmix is overkill IMO.

Applying autotune across an entire track adds a lot of artifacts and has less desirable results than applying it to the specific area.

mark

SAW actually has built in vari-speed that can be easily applied per region - this nearly always leaves a lot less artifacts than autotune.

You can also easily place the autotune plugin on a second track and then split what was a continuous region in the multitrack with the K key and then move only the sections that you want to process onto the 2nd track with the autotune plugin. I often use this method in mastering for de-clicking so that artifacts are left to a bare minmum.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bob L]

I don't find where applying AutoTune to certain sections, live, in SS is so difficult and requires so many steps... simply turn ON automation mode... place your cursor where you want, and press the bypass icon at the top of the AutoTune window... move the cursor further down the timeline, and press the Bypass icon again... move down the timeline, press Bypass again... etc... then turn OFF automation mode... what is so difficult about that... in this example, I can turn Autotune ON and OFF all the way down the timeline... whether there are regions made or not... I truly find this more powerful and just as fast or faster than applying the plugin to regions, that in this instance would first have had to be created anyway.

This is the way I chose to design it... it is simply different... but certainly not LESS powerful.

I am not so sure why you seem so stand-offish about using automation to accomplish things, unless perhaps automation in PT is a more cumbersome process than it need be... in SS, it is as simple as turning on Automation mode and grabbing any combination of controls to write in the automation...

Bob L


Bob L

[Bob L]

You can use th Buildmix to Current HotTrack to force a buildmix operation directly onto any MT track directly...

There are many new options for instantly creating stem mixes or processing data back and replacing the current process area coming in SS version 4.0... it should be very interesting.

Bob L

[Mark Stebbeds]

. Takes 30-60 seconds, depending on familiarity.



Instead of 5 or 10.

[Mark Stebbeds]

.. what is so difficult about that...

It's not difficult at all. It just takes longer.


I am not so sure why you seem so stand-offish about using automation to accomplish things,

I use automation constantly. Some things are simply faster and more intutitive at the region level, depending on the situation. Other things make way more sense to use automation, like MIXING.

I like having the options, and use them. Two or three clicks is faster. Always will be.

Mark

[TotalSonic]

Two or three clicks is faster. Always will be.


I'm with Bob - I don't get the problem.
Effect on is one click. Effect off is another click.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[AudioAstronomer]

I just have to say, number means next to nothing, because this is art of execution.

I can type qwerty faster than <]-\ even though it's fewer keys... shift-x is faster than 2 mouseclicks despite both being "2 clicks".

Realization must be made that there is a human brain involved, despite being numerically less, sometimes (and im not saying this in respect to saw especially, because there's lots of key combos that are weird as heck to me sometimes) more clicks can be much faster simply because it's easier to do, remember, logistically faster or simply because you're used to it.

Must remember that often, it's not the fastest car that wins the race. Can even be a hinderance, us humans aren't exactly top of the ladder in reaction time, combonations and certain memorization/spatialization skills. Some of use even further down the ladder

[Bob L]

There's also many other options here... another elegant solution to having Autotune process only certain regions is to simply split the regions with the K key and drag them down to another track... patch Autotune in and you're done... only those regions get processed and you did not have to do clicks and keystrokes programming the Autotune to each region separately.

As far as needing to process fx into regions... I say... why would you ever want to do that when you can process everything live non-destructively... leaving you the option to instantly make changes as the mix tweaking process progresses.

I have done some incredibly intense mixes with all kinds of routing and fx processing... eq on almost every track, compression, gating... automation... etc... and my machines currently never run above 30-50% MT load... so why would I really want or need to process things back into regions anyway.

If your session loads push your machine past its limits... update the machine... its extremely inexpensive now-a-days to get enough processing power to handle any mix situation you would most likely ever need to throw at SS... this situation is simply not a reality.

In the few instances where you are exporting regions, that require built-in processing, the current methods get the job done easily and efficiently... and with more processing options than any object based system I am aware of... so stop counting keystrokes and mouse clicks and get on with making music. :)

Bob L

[Mark Stebbeds]

I don't get the problem.
Effect on is one click. Effect off is another click.


I agree that many tasks can easily be accomplished with automation. However, there is nothing unique or special about automating a bypass on an effect with a click or two.

I don't have a problem with what SS does, it's what it DOESN'T do (region based editing) that I hope will be included in a future update. The joys of this are not recognized by those who haven't had the option.

In regard to automating every simple tweak, I find it a bit disconcerting that things are being automated when the automation is OFF. There is no indication that a channel(s) is reading automation if the big button at the top is OFF, or am I missing something?

Mark

[TotalSonic]

I agree that many tasks can easily be accomplished with automation. However, there is nothing unique or special about automating a bypass on an effect with a click or two.

I don't have a problem with what SS does, it's what it DOESN'T do (region based editing) that I hope will be included in a future update. The joys of this are not recognized by those who haven't had the option.

In regard to automating every simple tweak, I find it a bit disconcerting that things are being automated when the automation is OFF. There is no indication that a channel(s) is reading automation if the big button at the top is OFF, or am I missing something?

Mark

Automation writing is turned on and off by left clicking on the "Aut" button (in the top of the multitrack view) or by hitting the A key. The button "lights" up when writing is enabled.

Automation reading is turned on and off by shift-left clicking the "Aut" button. A red "X" goes thru the button when reading is disabled.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Mark Stebbeds]

Automation reading is turned on and off by shift-left clicking the "Aut" button. A red "X" goes thru the button when reading is disabled.



Not on mine. Automation applied as described in this thread is active without any indication.

Mark

[TotalSonic]

Not on mine. Automation applied as described in this thread is active without any indication.

Mark

Your demo must be an old version then

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Mark Stebbeds]

Your demo must be an old version then



Maybe. Can you turn the automation on and off on individual channels?

mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

Maybe. Can you turn the automation on and off on individual channels?

mark

I mean "read automation" on individual channels, or is it global?

mark

[TotalSonic]

I mean "read automation" on individual channels, or is it global?

mark

It's a global control. I think an update to make it settable per track would be a good thing - but it certainly isn't high on my wish list in comparison to a couple of other things.

Current work around is to copy the region(s) to a second layer and clear the automations on that layer. You can then use the number keys to jump from one layer to another during real time playback so that you can do a/b comparisons with automation on and off.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[celebritymusic]

Hi

Sure - my reason for applying region based editing is because of large projects on a machine that can't handle it. However, my financial goal at the moment is to have my car converted to LPG ($1.40 AUS per litre for unleaded petrol now!), and then I will upgrade my 2.4Ghz dinosaur.

There are situations that I would find region based edits useful. For example, increasing the gain of a lower level vocal phrase, but that's just because I'm not used to working with automation. I guess increasing the input attenuation of a track would do the same. But what if I want to turn off the automation for some reason - then I would lose the programmed gain changes?

Some simple destructive audio editing tools to be used in the soundfile editor would be nice. Hell, it could even be set up so that the SAW Soundfile Editor could replace external editors like Soundforge or Wavelab for basic mastering jobs.

[TotalSonic]

But what if I want to turn off the automation for some reason - then I would lose the programmed gain changes?

Um, no. If you want to hear things without the automation changes you've previously made just shift-left click the "Aut" button - and then when you shift-left click the button again you can hear the changes you made again. You're just toggling the reading of them off and on - not deleting them in this case.



Some simple destructive audio editing tools to be used in the soundfile editor would be nice. Hell, it could even be set up so that the SAW Soundfile Editor could replace external editors like Soundforge or Wavelab for basic mastering jobs.

I've never needed destructive editing in my mastering work at all.

After well over 400 mastering jobs with SAWStudio as the only DAW app used on releases featuring artists like Foo Fighters, Henry Threadgill, Jay-Z, Nas, Notorious B.I.G., Ciarra, Erin McKewon, Josh Ritter, Cachao, Om, Wayne Wonder, The Wizeguys, Naughty By Nature, LL Cool J, The Nillaz, Martha Wash, etc. etc. I think it's abilties as a mastering app go far beyond "basic".

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Mark Stebbeds]

Some simple destructive audio editing tools to be used in the soundfile editor would be nice.

I don't like the word "destructive". It's not that way anymore. In other popular apps (yeah, those two) where "region" based editing is used ubiquitously, it is not permanently destructive. There is always an easy and quick way back.

Mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

I've never needed destructive editing in my mastering work at all.

See my other post regarding the word "destructive". Those days are long gone. Nothing is permanent.


After well over 400 mastering jobs with SAWStudio as the only DAW app used on releases featuring artists like Foo Fighters, Henry Threadgill, Jay-Z, Nas, Notorious B.I.G., Ciarra, Erin McKewon, Josh Ritter, Cachao, Om, Wayne Wonder, The Wizeguys, Naughty By Nature, LL Cool J, The Nillaz, Martha Wash, etc. etc. I think it's abilties as a mastering app go far beyond "basic".


I appreciate your fine work and enthusiasm for the product, but every post seems to be a sales pitch, instead of participating in the conversation. This seems to be a trend among VIP Affiliates except for that wild man from Florida.

Snap out of it Steve-O. We know you sell it. We're chatting about feature requests. Apparently Celeb is one of the many that have enjoyed the convenience and ease of region based editing.

mark

[olzzon]

See my other post regarding the word "destructive". Those days are long gone. Nothing is permanent.



I appreciate your fine work and enthusiasm for the product, but every post seems to be a sales pitch, instead of participating in the conversation. This seems to be a trend among VIP Affiliates except for that wild man from Florida.

Snap out of it Steve-O. We know you sell it. We're chatting about feature requests. Apparently Celeb is one of the many that have enjoyed the convenience and ease of region based editing.

mark

I don´t sell SAW. But i love the way it works.
And i really love the concept of doing as many things the same way (like using automation for several purposes) it makes the program so simple and fast.
And i have a feeling of what´s going on under the hood, all the time.
It´s just a way of working that is so much simpler, and believe me i´ve worked many many many hours in other apps.
I´ve worked alot in smpl..tude too. And it´s a nightmare to take an old mix and find out whats going on. There´s no way to have an overview of whats going on in the regions.

So please, keep saw simple and advanced.

[TotalSonic]

I appreciate your fine work and enthusiasm for the product, but every post seems to be a sales pitch, instead of participating in the conversation. This seems to be a trend among VIP Affiliates except for that wild man from Florida.

Snap out of it Steve-O. We know you sell it.

Mark -
You're insulting me here. While I do want to see Bob be able to make a nice enough income from SAW so that he continues developing it, at this point in my life I really don't care whether people buy SAW from me or not (although got to admit extra pocket change ain't a bad thing once in a while - still it's definitely not something I depend on for anything other than a nice lunch once in a while).

News flash: I think that SAWStudio is NOT always the best DAW choice for absolutely EVERYONE out there. But for those who appreciate its design after a while the thought of using anything else ends up being repugnant - and I'd count myself as one of those people. It simply works the way I want my DAW app to work. For those that don't appreciate its design - we've been blessed as DAW users with a plethora of software choices - so really everyone can find something that works for them and end up being happy. You seem happy with PT, Nuendo and Sound Forge and I think that's great. Stick with them.

I'll definitely admit I was guilty of tooting my own horn in my prior post - but if I was giving a "sales pitch" it was for my mastering services if anything. My apologies to anyone on this forum that also felt this inappropriate - but I think people reading this forum might be interested in knowing what some of the "name" credits where SAW was used. I think there is also a general lack of awareness of the possibilities of using SAW as a professional level mastering app, and as an alternative to pricy apps by Sonic Studio, SADIE and others.

But my main point I was trying to make is that if mastering is the goal and you already own SAW & CSG there really isn't a need to get Wavelab or Soundforge if what you're wanting to do is to make a Red Book spec CD-R audio master.



We're chatting about feature requests.

Me too. And anyone who has payed attention to my previous posts on this forum will know that I've made no bones about stating what I think should be priorities for development of feature requests. There have been numerous feature requests which I've quickly and vociferously gotten behind if I felt they were of good use and worthy of taking up Bob's time. I just don't happen to harp on these things continuously once they've been discussed here though.

Honestly I could use something like the ability to automate vsp and dxp loading - which would truly add more functionality - a million times more than increased region based editing functions (that would just redundantly allow another way of doing something that SAW already can do). I also think things like the upcoming Video Workshop will put a heckuva lot more power towards the SAW user than more region based editing options also.

So - I happen to appreciate that Bob as a single developer has to prioritize development of feature requests. That's why I really would prefer Bob to put his time towards other stuff for the next couple of releases and then maybe address the region based editing requests further in the future. But what happens is really his own decision. Still - I've been enormously impressed at the speed, usefulness and generosity of the updates that he's made available to SAW users in the past two years especially. I think he's been making very good decisions in these regards recently and trust that he'll be able to continue a pretty remarkable track record.



Apparently Celeb is one of the many that have enjoyed the convenience and ease of region based editing.


I think you'll find that in Bob's design SAW tends to use one focused way to handle many tasks, whereas there are other apps like Samplitude that often have 3 different ways to do the same thing. I don't find this focused way a barrier to getting work done - in fact in a lot of cases I prefer it. Obviously ommv.

So - let's keep the feature requests coming - let Bob evaluate them and post as to what works for him in terms of his own vision. People can then nag or not nag here regarding their own pet feature desires as they see fit. Mark - you can tell us how cool all your other DAW apps are. And hopefully all of us can do great work. okey dokey?

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Cary B. Cornett]

I'll definitely admit I was guilty of tooting my own horn in my prior post - but if I was giving a "sales pitch" it was for my mastering services if anything. My apologies to anyone on this forum that also felt this inappropriate -

No such complaint here. I like knowing about the professional background and experience of my fellow Sawyers. I could see how someone COULD go overboard with "self promotion" on this forum, but I do not remember ever feeling that you had crossed that line.


but I think people reading this forum might be interested in knowing what some of the "name" credits where SAW was used. I think there is also a general lack of awareness of the possibilities of using SAW as a professional level mastering app, and as an alternative to pricy apps by Sonic Studio, SADIE and others.



I am one of those people who IS interested, as you say. I like finding out about the full range of uses to which my personal DAW-of-choice is put.

AFAIK and IMHO, the attitude you show here has never been less than professional and reasonable.

[Pedro Itriago]

I thought destructive meant that you changed the audio file and worked with the new changed file afterwards. As far as I can remember, destructive processing programs always had an undo "cache" so you could use the old (pre-edited) audio file. I even used to save the new file with a new name just to preserve the file even though I knew an undo file was created. I never trusted this undo files BTW. Audio performances are way too valuable for me to be tinkering with, even worse if they're someone else's performances.

Heck, I remember not long ago how I laughed when I was first invited to make a video edition on a network channel using an AVID WS, and when they guy wanted to apply an effect to a soundfile/region, we had to wait until the machine processed & created the new file and placed it back, they never knew why I was LMAO.

Anyway, the point is wether you have an undo file or not you're processing a sound file, wereas non-destructive does not, you just change the "steps" database (edl file).

Perhaps the fact that computers are faster today may give you the perception that now it's aceptable because you loose almost no time. Still so many things can go wrong in a computer that will make you lose the entire file. It's easier to recover a text-like metadata file like an edl than it is a wave file.

2 cents spent.


I don't like the word "destructive". It's not that way anymore. In other popular apps (yeah, those two) where "region" based editing is used ubiquitously, it is not permanently destructive. There is always an easy and quick way back.

Mark

[celebritymusic]

Hi Guys

I appreciate how SAW doesn't use destructive editing. However, when you're pushing your machine to it's limits, and therefore can't set up automated plugs etc, you may need to apply the effects, autotuning, etc.

I can understand how a mastering job could be pulled off easily not using region based editing in SAW, even on my slow machine. But when it comes to a full mixing situation, my machine struggles.

One thing I do use an editor for (Soundforge in my case) is to level the volumes of my vocal takes. My mic technique on a condenser ain't so good, to the point where I struggle to get decent compressor settings to take care of the wide dynamic range. So yesterday for example, I spent an hour in SF going through each phrase and making them all relatively the same level (RMS). Also, it's an opportunity to clean up any obvious clicks, plosives, or to apply a graphic fade to an annoyingly loud and fast attack transient. Once I'm done, I end up with an even track (whilst maintaining good dynamic range on the transients), tha typically only requires a small amount of compression in my DAW to smooth things out.

[Ian Alexander]

Celeb,
All of the things you mentioned doing in SF can be done easily with automated volume and eq changes in SS. Not that there's anything wrong with SF, but I find it easier to keep projects in one program if possible. If you must, you can process the track back to the hot track and start mixing. I think you mentioned somewhere that your machine has a 2.4 GHz processor. Not bleeding edge, but you shouldn't have THAT much trouble mixing unless you're using a lot of plugs that are processor hogs. What all is going on in your session? And have you checked out Bob's system tweaks?

[Dave Labrecque]

I agree with Ian. You shouldn't be seeing such a performance hit on a 2.4 GHz machine. I was doing full band mixdowns on my old PII 450 system. Yeah, it was on the vile edge then, but with a 2.4? I woudn't think so.

[Perry]

My apologies to anyone on this forum that also felt this inappropriate - but I think people reading this forum might be interested in knowing what some of the "name" credits where SAW was used. I think there is also a general lack of awareness of the possibilities of using SAW as a professional level mastering app, and as an alternative to pricy apps by Sonic Studio, SADIE and others.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Steve,

Just to chime in here quickly. No apologies necessary for me at least. I enjoyed reading your credits and appreciate that you posted them.. Thanks! :)

And wow... VIP's selling SAWStudio! What a crazy notion that is! :eek: :D

I'd have to wonder if maybe Mark-O's implicaton was that you, as a VIP, sell SAWStudio and therefore you would brag on it and/or defend it merely because you stand to gain a profit from it? Of course, I could be wrong here about that, but it sorta appeared that way to me at least. :)

Perry

[Mark Stebbeds]

Mark -
You're insulting me here.

No insult intended. Just an observation.

Mark

[TotalSonic]

No insult intended. Just an observation.

Mark

No biggie. I just wanted to make it clear that any implication that I misrepresent my true thoughts or attempt to mislead people in an attempt to profit from additional SAW sales would be completely false - and I do get insulted when people question my honesty.

Anyway - just to make it clear - I greatly appreciate your presence here as I think you have a lot to contribute with your vast engineering experience and your perspective on the design of other DAW apps, and potential advantages that incorporating some of their methods might offer to the SAW user.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[AudioAstronomer]

Cmon fella's. This is childish. Do you think a ford salesman is going to talk about how great chevy's are? And would you fault him if he didnt? And... does it even matter? lol. Poor celeb barely has gotten his question fully answered or resolved (I say barely).

we all know the benefits of one method over the other, and the benefits of the latter method over the previous. You have to remember that if said feature is added, and the previous methods stay intact, you're not forced to use the new feature. There's no need to discuss it further than that if not for the simple reason that Bob is in control, not any single one of us.

And if perhaps the feature was added, and we had to change our way of working, would this be new? How many threads have their been about someone wanting to do something in saw pro, that sawstudio doesnt do the same way. Nearly everyone tries to help the person over to the new method. And sometimes the new method doesnt work "as well", so to say it may not be as easy to pick up on or whatever. Point being when change occurs, seems everyone is happy enough to hop on the bandwagon. But before it occurs there is much discussion and deliberation over which direction a bumblebee should fly in the spring time.

[TotalSonic]

Cmon fella's. This is childish.

To quote Tony Perkins in the movie Mahogany "you're young only once - but you can be immature forever"
:D
(PS - this is self-referential and not aimed at anyone else on this board!)

Anyway - again, if Bob chooses to add more region based editing abilities or destructive editing via Soundfile view commands ala SAWPro I certainly won't be bummed at all - in fact I think they'd make nice additions. Just if I had my druthers I'd hope to see a lot of other things that I think would add more power to the app added first.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[AudioAstronomer]

I agree steve. Lots of things i rather see, but then again I feel somewhat selfish saying it outloud personally. Tape/source and some sort of "region editing" which is really more along the lines of "region mixing" seems to be what most of the users I deal with really want/need.

Whichever happens, in my viewpoint, im perfectly happy with saw as it is. Else id not have bought it (nor sell it!). Whichever way bob leans it will just be a big bonus for me :D

[Naturally Digital]

Cmon fella's. This is childish. Do you think a ford salesman is going to talk about how great chevy's are? And would you fault him if he didnt? And... does it even matter? lol. Poor celeb barely has gotten his question fully answered or resolved (I say barely).

we all know the benefits of one method over the other, and the benefits of the latter method over the previous. You have to remember that if said feature is added, and the previous methods stay intact, you're not forced to use the new feature. There's no need to discuss it further than that if not for the simple reason that Bob is in control, not any single one of us.

And if perhaps the feature was added, and we had to change our way of working, would this be new? How many threads have their been about someone wanting to do something in saw pro, that sawstudio doesnt do the same way. Nearly everyone tries to help the person over to the new method. And sometimes the new method doesnt work "as well", so to say it may not be as easy to pick up on or whatever. Point being when change occurs, seems everyone is happy enough to hop on the bandwagon. But before it occurs there is much discussion and deliberation over which direction a bumblebee should fly in the spring time.Rob should win "Post of the month" for this one. Well said...

Ya lost me toward the end when you started talking about the birds and the bees... Or maybe I had a flashback :eek:

Anyway... I have to admit... as I skim through the banter, it does sound childish to me. C'mon fellas! :rolleyes:

I'm just about ready to take up a collection to buy SAWStudio for Mark... on the condition he stops beating up on Steve!:rolleyes: Seriously, Mark... do you at least have Basic? I mean, isn't there *something* you could use it for? Are you holding out??? What is it man!:rolleyes: You remember what happened to the last guy that held out...

[Mark Stebbeds]

Do you think a ford salesman is going to talk about how great chevy's are? And would you fault him if he didnt?

Of course not, but if the Ford didn't have the sunroof and big wheels I needed, the salesman would add them on instead of telling me to buy a Chevy. :D

Mark

[TotalSonic]

Of course not, but if the Ford didn't have the sunroof and big wheels I needed, the salesman would add them on instead of telling me to buy a Chevy. :D

Mark

Interestingly enough - both Ford and GM are heading south together. Their stocks have been bumped down to near junk bond status. Sometimes trying to please everyone ends up with a mediocre diluted product - i.e. fast food.

Best regards,
Steve Berson