My turn for an Automation question

[Eric]

Hi guys,
If I highlight the begining of a region, then add an automation fade in file, is there anyway to change how far the file fades up?
For example the stock files that come with SAW all seem to go to 0dB, what if I want it to go to -5?
thanks,
Eric

[Jay Q]

Hi guys,
If I highlight the begining of a region, then add an automation fade in file, is there anyway to change how far the file fades up?
For example the stock files that come with SAW all seem to go to 0dB, what if I want it to go to -5?
thanks,
EricYou have to use (Shift+)Offset with the automation selected.

Jay

[Eric]

Ahh, okay, thanks Jay!

[antiClick]

great offline function....
but how do you make a fade from -6 to +6, for example?

thanks in advance!

[Brent Bennett]

how do you make a fade from -6 to +6, for example?


Just make two automation entrys. Do the last one first at +6db. Then make the first one at -6db and then hit F.

[Bob L]

You can fade from any entry level to another by first placing the start and end entry... then placing your cursor in between and pressing F.

You can also offset any fade to a lower or higher level after its written in... simply mark around it and use the Offset button... then lift the fader up or down... then click the Offset OFF again... the fade will be adjusted.

You can also do a full fade up, and then simply mark the back x number of entries off and delete them leaving the fade go up to any level along the way.

Bob L

[Eric]

You can fade from any entry level to another by first placing the start and end entry... then placing your cursor in between and pressing F.

You can also offset any fade to a lower or higher level after its written in... simply mark around it and use the Offset button... then lift the fader up or down... then click the Offset OFF again... the fade will be adjusted.

You can also do a full fade up, and then simply mark the back x number of entries off and delete them leaving the fade go up to any level along the way.

Bob L
Very nice!

[Dave Labrecque]

You can fade from any entry level to another by first placing the start and end entry... then placing your cursor in between and pressing F.

You can also offset any fade to a lower or higher level after its written in... simply mark around it and use the Offset button... then lift the fader up or down... then click the Offset OFF again... the fade will be adjusted.

You can also do a full fade up, and then simply mark the back x number of entries off and delete them leaving the fade go up to any level along the way.

Bob L

Eric,

If what you're looking for is to change the fade, say, so that instead of going from -10 to 0, it goes from -10 to +6, there's no simple way to do this. It's the one fade function that I wish SAW had.

The workaround is to extend the fade manually, but then you lose the continuity of the fade curve. I usually just redraw the whole fade from scratch.

[Brent Bennett]

from -10 to +6, there's no simple way to do this

What's not simple about putting a -10db start and +6db end and hitting F?

[Eric]

Thanks guys, there's a lot to learn!

[Bob L]

I agree Brent... I do not understand the confusion. :)

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

What's not simple about putting a -10db start and +6db end and hitting F?
Brent, Bob...

That's plenty simple, but it won't accomplish what we're after here. What I'm saying isn't simple is changing an existing fade so that it starts at the same value, but ends at a different value. (or vice-versa) I thought maybe that was what the thread's original question was about.

We can move fades, we can stretch fades, we can offset fades, but we can't change the start or end values (or both) and have the entries in between (in the existing fade) interpolate accordingly. This is the one missing feature, as I see it, in SAW's fade editing feature set. It's not a huge thing, just something that would would benefit the workflow, I think.

I've mentioned the idea of such a feature in the past (and I even think Bob got intrigued at one point). Oh well, maybe someday. :)

[Bob L]

I understand Dave and agreed to look into it... but the interface idea gets more complex than the actual code I think...

Right now... if I need to have the end of the fade at a higher value... I just mark the back end of the fade and press delete... done.

If the end of the fade needs to be at a lower value... I just write in the last value I want past the end of the fade and place the cursor just after the current fade ending entry and press the F key... done....

Is a separate complex 'alt-shift-ctrl key mark this or that and somehow tell what the new level is supposed to be' feature really going to get the job done any better? :)

Do you think we are possibly making too much of this here?

Bob L

[Eric]

Maybe if we had an "Update" mode? Where when we enter update mode, nothing changes until we grab a fader or knob, then when we let go the previous automation that hasn't been rewritten kicks back in. We could change the end fader values. Or even do it offline. For example: Let's say we have the fade set to end at -5, the client wants it to end at -10. Offline, we go into update mode and pull it down to -10, done. Or during playback, we could go into update mode but hold the shift key when making a move to insure no accidental movemnets. I know there are other ways, it's all about the workflow. Right now, we would have to delete then re-write it, correct?

[Bob L]

Eric... your update mode exists already... its called Offset Mode... learn about it... its very powerful.

Dave is asking for something different... something that offsets the back or front end of a fade without altering the opposite end... and then smoothing betwen the two... but the complexity of telling the interface exactly which end and where to start the smoothing and how far to alter... etc... is not so simple... and in the end... it seems just as easy to do what I suggested or delete the current fade and simply write a new one. :)

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

...the interface idea gets more complex than the actual code I think...
Good news. Let's see if we can't simplify the interface side... :)


Right now... if I need to have the end of the fade at a higher value... I just mark the back end of the fade and press delete... done.
Well, not quite. You still have to stretch the remaining fade to reach the same end point on the timeline. Not so terrible. But not so exact or concise, either.


If the end of the fade needs to be at a lower value... I just write in the last value I want past the end of the fade and place the cursor just after the current fade ending entry and press the F key... done....
Well, my point is that that creates a different overall fade shape (a double concavity, in this case, if you will). And again, we have the timeline issue; we have to shrink the fade to make room for the stuff we're adding. Again, not a killer, but not accurate or as quick as a dedicated function.


Is a separate complex 'alt-shift-ctrl key mark this or that and somehow tell what the new level is supposed to be' feature really going to get the job done any better? :)
If implemented well, yes, I think.


Do you think we are possibly making too much of this here?
Yes. Let's keep it simple. Here's my idea:

1 Mark the fade to be altered (in Automation mode)
2 Hold down alt+leftarrow or alt+rightarrow (for start or end of fade, respectively) while moving channel fader (or other automatable control) to destination value.
3 Let go of keys; done

I just remembered how the current multi-step method can be a problem: if one can't be certain how much to alter the start/end of the fade (don't know till you hear it), the trial-and-error time-and-effort of trying out different values is multiplied by the number of steps required to try each one. Trying two or three different values becomes a painstaking task. (IMO ;)) And less conducive to the creative process, I think.

Anyway, that's my best shot. :) Do I make any sense?

[Bob L]

On my keyboards... alt-and the arrow keys would require two hands... no way to then grab the fader.

Bob L

[Jay Q]

On my keyboards... alt-and the arrow keys would require two hands... no way to then grab the fader.

Bob LOkay, Bob, so maybe not the keys Dave suggested, but his idea is good, IMO, particularly since most folks, I'm guessing, don't get it right the first time, hence requiring multiple passes.


a double concavityMy dentist said I have that.

[insert groan here]

Jay

[Dave Labrecque]

On my keyboards... alt-and the arrow keys would require two hands... no way to then grab the fader.

Bob L

Bob,

Hmmm... interesting keyboard config. I'd have to see that one.

Are you discounting this essentially two-step method because of my suggested key combo? :confused: Dat ain't right.

Could it be possible that there's another combo that would do the trick? ;)

Maybe it's time to formally do in some of your old MS nemeses -- like the ctrl-z and ctrl-x combos. :) There are lots of possibilities, of course.

[Dave Labrecque]

[insert groan here]

Consider it inserted. :)

[Dave Labrecque]

Bob,

Hmmm... interesting keyboard config. I'd have to see that one.

Are you discounting this essentially two-step method because of my suggested key combo? :confused: Dat ain't right.

Could it be possible that there's another combo that would do the trick? ;)

Maybe it's time to formally do in some of your old MS nemeses -- like the ctrl-z and ctrl-x combos. :) There are lots of possibilities, of course.

Bob,

Obviously, the key combo to be used could be worked out. Is that your only concern? Now that I've offered what I see as a simple way to implement the feature interface-wise, I'm not sure how to interpret your silence. :confused: :)

[Bob L]

Dave,

Relax... I already have code implementations in the works for 4.0... I'm just not sure which methods I will settle on... and not sure whether it will actually make it into the code at all... but it is on the list. :)

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave,

Relax... I already have code implementations in the works for 4.0... I'm just not sure which methods I will settle on... and not sure whether it will actually make it into the code at all... but it is on the list. :)

Bob L

Like the little guy said in Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Sorry, Bob. You normally give an idea of your latest thought on a topic. Unless I missed it, I didn't see it. ('cept for the infeasible keyboard combo note)

I need closure, man. :) Thanks for looking into it again.

[studio-c]

maybe you guys are doing some really complicated stuff, but i've always been able to fade from anywhere TO anywhere, then stretch or slide it to taste. and if i really botch things up, just scrub in the ruler line at the bottom to select the area, Delete the mess, and start over. Takes about 2 seconds. best results by picking your end level, backing up to about where you want it to ramp from and hitting F.

am i missing something?

are you talking about a "vertical stretch" function? where you'd grab an end of the fade and alt-drag upwards or something?

again, i usually just drag the ruler starting after the first few entries into the fade, delete, select my new end, click a fade start point after those entries, and F. pretty easy smooth little move. you have the smooth curve, unless the first half db of existing fade entries bothers you. i'd dare you to try and hear a bump though.

[Bob L]

You are doing it perfect... that is the way I work and the way the design is meant to operate.

Others always like to work differently and continue to push the envelope requesting more variations and methods... some of these ideas contribute great flexibility to the overall product... some don't in my opinion... I try to accomodate as many of the ideas as I can.

Bob L

[Mark Stebbeds]

maybe you guys are doing some really complicated stuff, but i've always been able to fade from anywhere TO anywhere, then stretch or slide it to taste. and if i really botch things up, just scrub in the ruler line at the bottom to select the area, Delete the mess, and start over.

Yeah, sometimes taking two seconds and starting over is by far the fastest solution. I don't get this one either.

Mark

[studio-c]

Sounds like you're picking it up really quickly. I noticed in that thread where you were working on your deadline project. Do you find that once you know one (Protools) it translates easily?

I'm thinking of picking up a bit of PT just so I'll know what the hell I'm talking about when I walk down the hall to the music studio.

Just enough to be dangerous. Isn't that your worst nightmare?:)

scott

[Dave Labrecque]

are you talking about a "vertical stretch" function? where you'd grab an end of the fade and alt-drag upwards or something?

Yes, and the other end stays the same. All entries in between interpolate accordingly.

We currently do it as you describe, but my feeling is that when I want to bump it up a few dB at a time and compare the difference each time on playback, it becomes pretty 'bulky' to do it in those several steps for each bump.

[Dave Labrecque]

Others always like to work differently and continue to push the envelope requesting more variations and methods... some of these ideas contribute great flexibility to the overall product... some don't in my opinion... I try to accomodate as many of the ideas as I can.

Bob L

And that's all (perhaps more) than we can ask for. :)

[Dave Labrecque]

Yeah, sometimes taking two seconds and starting over is by far the fastest solution. I don't get this one either.

Mark

2 seconds, okay. 10 seconds times the number of variations I want to audition, and my view is that an improvement in work flow would be beneficial. :)

[Carl G.]

Yes, and the other end stays the same. All entries in between interpolate accordingly.

We currently do it as you describe, but my feeling is that when I want to bump it up a few dB at a time and compare the difference each time on playback, it becomes pretty 'bulky' to do it in those several steps for each bump.
That's why you dupe to several layers!
Simply make moves on several layers - then ONE KEY compare!

Which brings to mind, Bob, How about a powerful "Copy selected to ALL Layers" function?

[Dave Labrecque]

That's why you dupe to several layers!
Simply make moves on several layers - then ONE KEY compare!

Which brings to mind, Bob, How about a powerful "Copy selected to ALL Layers" function?

Carl,

Layers doesn't really help us with this one, I don't think. Well, perhaps with the comparison part.

You'd still have to do the multiple steps of fade reconstruction for each layer,though. What I'm proposing would eliminate most of those steps and allow for a simple drag operation to redefine the entire fade.

[Bob L]

Copy Selected to All Layers is on the todo list.

Bob L

[Carl G.]

Copy Selected to All Layers is on the todo list.

Bob L
Awesome!
Thanks.