Side chaining FX in SAW ?

[mikebuzz]

How do you guys side chain to FX in SAW ?? , like a gate or compressor ETC.

NOT native plugs !!!!

LAter
Buzz

[AudioAstronomer]

You don't... unless the specific plugin allows it.

at least I've no clue how :confused:

[TotalSonic]

Mike -
Sorry - afaik but if you want to do side chaining of FX in SAW - you need to use native FX!

Right now the side chain capable plugins I am aware of in SAW are the Levelizer and the JMS Audioware Program Compressor - http://www.jms-audioware.com/progcomp.htm

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bob L]

Don't forget all the channels comps and gates can key off of any other channel... before or after.

Bob L

[TotalSonic]

Don't forget all the channels comps and gates can key off of any other channel... before or after.

Bob L

Yup - an awesome feature to have - it's already there without having to add any plugin at all.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[alchemist]

Is this theorethically possible?

Can one program a SAW plugin that hosts a sidechaining VST plugin (with multiple inputs), and from the SAW plugin Key the audio from another track and feed it to the sidechaining input of the hosted plugin? If so, probably I could program it.

[AudioAstronomer]

Is this theorethically possible?

Can one program a SAW plugin that hosts a sidechaining VST plugin (with multiple inputs), and from the SAW plugin Key the audio from another track and feed it to the sidechaining input of the hosted plugin? If so, probably I could program it.

Yes.

[alchemist]

Yes.

Lovely.

[mikebuzz]

It would seem ( of course this would be a Feature request !! ) that the wrapper that the FX are in there could be the ability to select the inputs on the upper area where the Triangle is ??

I have no idea what this would take programming wise but it would be a nice addition to SAW IMO !! just another improvement ? :D

Later
Buzz

[TotalSonic]

It would seem ( of course this would be a Feature request !! ) that the wrapper that the FX are in there could be the ability to select the inputs on the upper area where the Triangle is ??

I have no idea what this would take programming wise but it would be a nice addition to SAW IMO !! just another improvement ? :D

Later
Buzz

Mike -
Got to say that if you don't want to wait around for code changes both the Levelizer and JMS Program Comp work very well for side chain chores. I'm not quite sure why you don't like these already existing options.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[alchemist]

Got to say that if you don't want to wait around for code changes both the Levelizer and JMS Program Comp work very well for side chain chores. I'm not quite sure why you don't like these already existing options.

I can't speak for mike, but my reason is that there's no expander with sidechaining!

[TotalSonic]

I can't speak for mike, but my reason is that there's no expander with sidechaining!

Understood - just not something I've ever needed in a mixdown.
Anyway - if you're looking for frequency dependent expansion got to say the Sonoris Multiband Compressor does a good job with this.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[mikebuzz]

Just an increase in capabilities Steve thats all , it can make certain chores easier , any plugin that has multiple inputs can use this capability ! like Waves plugins etc. !

Later
Buzz

[TotalSonic]

Mike -
Understood.

However - I have to say that I can't think of a single classic album out there whose sound depended on having side chained expansion! Honestly sometimes with all the options the DAW world offers it seems people get obsessed with complex processes (i.e. M/S, multiband, parallel, side chained, morphed, beat aligned, pitch shifted, etc. etc.) instead of looking for the simpler path to getting things sounding the way they want them to.

I'm not saying your desire for this couldn't possibly lead to some cool manipulation abilities - just that I'm willing to bet that the Keep It Simple rule was probably in effect for nearly all your favorite albums.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[mikebuzz]

I would'nt argue with that STeve !!!!! :)

LAter
Buzz

PS: doing a minimalist mix right now , stripped it and started over , loss of punch tho ??? HUMM :eek:

[alchemist]

I have to say that I can't think of a single classic album out there whose sound depended on having side chained expansion!

Can you think of a single classic album whose sound depended on having gates?



Honestly sometimes with all the options the DAW world offers it seems people get obsessed with complex processes (i.e. M/S, multiband, parallel, side chained, morphed, beat aligned, pitch shifted, etc. etc.) instead of looking for the simpler path to getting things sounding the way they want them to.

An expander is as utilitarian as a gate. A gate can be used to create weird effects, but it was not created with that purpose in mind. I don't understand your equating of expanders to processes that produce effecty sound. As I said on another thread, in certain situations using an expander is the process that does the least harm to the audio when compared to the alternatives for solving a particular problem. I use them to get away with the least compression possible.

Expanders were used extensively in the analog days! this is not a complex process invented in the DAW era!

[TotalSonic]

Can you think of a single classic album whose sound depended on having gates?

Whether it's "classic" is definitely a subjective opinion - but hard to imagine Phil Collins "In The Air Tonight" drums having the same exact impact without that ubiquitous 80's gated reverb sound they somewhat pioneered. ;)

(I'm blaming Mark Stebbeds for taking that to a whole new "level" on the John Mellencamp stuff though! :D )



An expander is as utilitarian as a gate. A gate can be used to create weird effects, but it was not created with that purpose in mind. I don't understand your equating of expanders to processes that produce effecty sound.

I wasn't really equating it with that. But I was noting that a side chained expander is a more complex process than what you might necessarilly actually need in order to achieve a goal in mixing.


As said on another thread, in certain situations using an expander is the process that does the least harm to the audio when compared to the alternatives for solving a particular problem. I use them to get away with the least compression possible.

Understood - and if it works for you then you should do it.



Expanders were used extensively in the analog days!

I'm not sure whether I agree with this assessment. Tons of classic recordings were done with a single console with just a few comps and a few eq's, and a plate or an echo chamber - and not a single expander.



this is not a complex process invented in the DAW era!

I agree - nearly every digital studio processor is based on something originally created for the analog realm.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Cary B. Cornett]

Is this theorethically possible?

Can one program a SAW plugin that hosts a sidechaining VST plugin (with multiple inputs), and from the SAW plugin Key the audio from another track and feed it to the sidechaining input of the hosted plugin? If so, probably I could program it. If you can do that, I have been waiting for another thing that would be really cool in terms of saving me trouble. I am a BIG fan of parallel compression. So far I have to use busses in SAW for this trick. What I would REALLY like is a SAW-native plugin that can "contain" one or more Saw-native, DX or VST plugs, and has two paths, each ending with its own "mix level" control for blending the two together: Each path would allow the chaining of one or more plugins. Path "A", if no plugin was inserted, would default to a "through" state going through its level control. Path "B", if no plugin was inserted, would pass no signal at all. Most of the time I would use the B path for a compressor, possibly chained with an EQ (a VERY handy trick for vocals!), with the A path providing a delay-compensated "through" for summing with the processed B path.

If you are "up" for that, it would be really :cool:

[AudioAstronomer]

If you can do that, I have been waiting for another thing that would be really cool in terms of saving me trouble. I am a BIG fan of parallel compression. So far I have to use busses in SAW for this trick. What I would REALLY like is a SAW-native plugin that can "contain" one or more Saw-native, DX or VST plugs, and has two paths, each ending with its own "mix level" control for blending the two together: Each path would allow the chaining of one or more plugins. Path "A", if no plugin was inserted, would default to a "through" state going through its level control. Path "B", if no plugin was inserted, would pass no signal at all. Most of the time I would use the B path for a compressor, possibly chained with an EQ (a VERY handy trick for vocals!), with the A path providing a delay-compensated "through" for summing with the processed B path.

If you are "up" for that, it would be really :cool:

I just use aux and out busses for this. Is there something wrong with that method? I would find a wrapper plugin for that to be rather clunky and extra work... at least for me.


The sidechaining of things would be nice though.

[Cary B. Cornett]

I just use aux and out busses for this. Is there something wrong with that method? That is the method I have used so far. Problem is, the parallel processing gets ADDICTIVE :eek: once you see the benefits, and there are only so many busses and sends available. :( That method also forces me to navigate around tracks more to make adjustments, and having to remember which send I used for a given effect. :confused: Oh, and if I use an ouput buss (my usual method), I can't put this thing pre-fade the way I would prefer.:rolleyes:
I would find a wrapper plugin for that to be rather clunky and extra work... at least for me. Depends on what you're doing, I would think. besides, having the "paralleling plugin" available would not force you to change methods, only provide an additional option in case you want it.... which it happens I DO. :)

[AudioAstronomer]

Cary this could actually be remedied by sawstudio directly very easily...

Simply ask bob to add a wet/dry parameter to each plugin instance.

Then you could pull up any compressor and mix the compressed signal with a dry signal, or the result of a compressor earlier in the chain.


It would open up a lot of possibilities, and almost seems like it's something saw can already do... I'll be embarrassed if it can :o

[Cary B. Cornett]

Cary this could actually be remedied by sawstudio directly very easily...

Simply ask bob to add a wet/dry parameter to each plugin instance.
You mean as part of the internal architecture of the mixer itself? I never thought of it that way, although I'm not sure what Bob would think of having to alter the core code of the mixer.


Then you could pull up any compressor and mix the compressed signal with a dry signal, or the result of a compressor earlier in the chain. Yes, that's the goal... although I DO sometimes put an EQ before the compressor (IOW only in the "wet" part of the loop), and a plugin as I described would allow this. It would also mean that the extra code involved would only be "inserted" where it would actually be USED.


It would open up a lot of possibilities, and almost seems like it's something saw can already do... I'll be embarrassed if it can :o I do it now in SAW, but I have to use up sends or subs to do it, which is not, I think, what you had in mind.

[AudioAstronomer]

You mean as part of the internal architecture of the mixer itself? I never thought of it that way, although I'm not sure what Bob would think of having to alter the core code of the mixer.


No, simply as part of each plugin instance. You know the 'parent' window for VST plugins? It could be integrated into that.

Since native plugins draw their own UI, I'm not sure how that would work other than requesting it from each developer?

It could also perhaps be part of the FX windows?





Yes, that's the goal... although I DO sometimes put an EQ before the compressor (IOW only in the "wet" part of the loop), and a plugin as I described would allow this. It would also mean that the extra code involved would only be "inserted" where it would actually be USED.


If it's part of the plugin parent, then it could be bypassed by default at 100 wet/0 dry, and turned on at any change.

FWIW, other daws have this such as samplitude. tracktion has a new 'rack' system which you can use very similarly. I think saw could go beyond both techniques with that change.

[Carl G.]

Can you think of a single classic album whose sound depended on having gates?



An expander is as utilitarian as a gate. A gate can be used to create weird effects, but it was not created with that purpose in mind. I don't understand your equating of expanders to processes that produce effecty sound. As I said on another thread, in certain situations using an expander is the process that does the least harm to the audio when compared to the alternatives for solving a particular problem. I use them to get away with the least compression possible.

Expanders were used extensively in the analog days! this is not a complex process invented in the DAW era!

Yep... I agree.
In fact... in most vocal cases.. I can't see why people gates!
(I would/do only use expanders on vocals.... waaaay more natural).

[Carl G.]

Cary this could actually be remedied by sawstudio directly very easily...

Simply ask bob to add a wet/dry parameter to each plugin instance.

Then you could pull up any compressor and mix the compressed signal with a dry signal, or the result of a compressor earlier in the chain.


It would open up a lot of possibilities, and almost seems like it's something saw can already do... I'll be embarrassed if it can :o

I agree!! Wet/dry parameter to each plugin instance would be great!

[mikebuzz]

All you need is a LINE OUT on each ch. !!!! just like a mixer :eek:

This all kinda brings up the ROUTING feature request I had made some time ago for 4.1 ! :D

LAter
Buzz

PS: SAC has priority right now I'm sure so !! but we can hope and pray LOL :)

[AudioAstronomer]

All you need is a LINE OUT on each ch. !!!! just like a mixer :eek:

This all kinda brings up the ROUTING feature request I had made some time ago for 4.1 ! :D

LAter
Buzz

PS: SAC has priority right now I'm sure so !! but we can hope and pray LOL :)

Line out isn't the problem.

It's the plugin needing a sidechain input, and a way to get it there.

No matter what analog console you use, if your compressor does not allow sidechaining then you're out of luck unless you mod it ;)

[mikebuzz]

If you read earlier in the thread I talked about having the capability of selecting the inputs from the FX window wrapper , A drop down of tracks etc.
I realize that the comp. has to have sidechain built in !

I'm just looking at various ways to make Saw's routing a little more user friendly thats all !

Later
Buzz

PS: as an example Reaper ( ya that little program ) Has some excellent routing available in it and should be looked at IMO heres a screen shot of the Routing MAtrix and of the FX channels routing control

[Cary B. Cornett]

All you need is a LINE OUT on each ch. !!!! just like a mixer Nope. That won't do what I need. I almost NEVER do any processing outside of SAW, and when I do it is still in the computer. The wet/dry mix thing, though, provided I can CHAIN processed INSIDE it, is exactly what I am looking for. That said, I still like the idea of having two full insert paths as I described.... I could even see some reasonable uses for 4 or more such parallel paths, but even getting just two within the "container" plugin would still be a BIG advancement.

[AudioAstronomer]

If you read earlier in the thread I talked about having the capability of selecting the inputs from the FX window wrapper , A drop down of tracks etc.
I realize that the comp. has to have sidechain built in !

I'm just looking at various ways to make Saw's routing a little more user friendly thats all !

Later
Buzz


I'm sorry, but I'm completely lost at what you're trying to say? :confused:

[mikebuzz]

The routing i'm talking about would give you that capability Cary , Robert sorry if I was'nt clear !
What you are talking about would provide the same result !! for parallel comp. but not for sidechaining.

I mean a drop down list of tracks that could be applied to the side chain INSIDE the FX window ( see the pix I posted ) this would allow the sidechain to select any track for it's input !

Like the KEY in the DYN section allows you to select any track

Later
Buzz

[AudioAstronomer]

The routing i'm talking about would give you that capability Cary , Robert sorry if I was'nt clear !
What you are talking about would provide the same result !! for parallel comp. but not for sidechaining.

I mean a drop down list of tracks that could be applied to the side chain INSIDE the FX window ( see the pix I posted ) this would allow the sidechain to select any track for it's input !

Like the KEY in the DYN section allows you to select any track

Later
Buzz

Ohhh ok.

So you're just asking for a menu to select I/O for VST's with multiple inputs and outputs. Is that correct?

That would be handy, but I've yet to come to need that personally.

[mikebuzz]

Ya basically that !

Later
Buzz

[Bob L]

If there was a sidechain... the fact remains that the selection feature would be meaningless unless a plugin was designed to accept that data... like the built-in gates and comps... but it has to apply that key data selection within the algorithm itself.... how many actual plugins are out there that can currently make use of that data?

Bob L

[AudioAstronomer]

how many actual plugins are out there that can currently make use of that data?

Very few :rolleyes:

What about the wet/dry idea though?

[Bob L]

That is an interesting idea... I will mark it down... the issue will be just how to graphically hook it into the interface.

Bob L

[Cary B. Cornett]

That is an interesting idea... I will mark it down... the issue will be just how to graphically hook it into the interface.

Bob L Can plugs be "nested", that is, can a plugin have an insert within it into which other plugs can be inserted or chained? If so, it would seem to me that creating such a plugin would avoid having to alter the existing code of SS itself.

Building the wet/dry feature into SS means putting the needed special "hooks" or whatever into every place where someone might want to do parallel processing. This could lead to the decision that "no one will want to do that trick THERE" in some places, thus limiting the scope of its application.

As a "shell" plugin, it could be used at any existing insert point in the mixer, and placed at any point in a chain of plugins if need be (and this is something I might do).

The way I picture it, the plugin would have two parallel insert paths followed by a simple two-input mixer (level control for each input) to blend them. So, the input signal would be fed to both paths "A" and "B", and the output of each path would go to its own level control, after which the two signals would be combined. Paths A and B would each be insert points. Path B would be "normalled" through if no plugins are inserted (just as SS now does at any FX insert), but path A would NOT pass any signal if no plugins were inserted (summing a signal with itself would seem silly). The one tricky bit I see here is that the FX in the two paths could be ANYTHING, meaning some might have more latency than others, so there would have to be some form of latency compensation to "balance" the latencies of the two paths.

Something like this would be very powerful and versatile, I think.

[Bob L]

Why not just double up on a track and run the same signal thru two channels at the same time... then you are free to do what you want... hard to believe you don't have a few extra channels out of 72 for most projects.

Bob L

[AudioAstronomer]

Why not just double up on a track and run the same signal thru two channels at the same time... then you are free to do what you want... hard to believe you don't have a few extra channels out of 72 for most projects.

Bob L

Cary has sawstudio lite :D

[AudioAstronomer]

That is an interesting idea... I will mark it down... the issue will be just how to graphically hook it into the interface.

Bob L

Graphically is no problem for VST's imo. :D (everything is always easy to me hahah)

Simple drop down menu like the style used for combo boxes. could be triggered from the RML triangle. Maybe you could overlay the pop-up slider used elsewhere in the interface as well?

For native plugins... I have no clue. seems like you would have to stick them in a parent window like VST's. I wouldn't mind that personally.

[Bob L]

Yes... I may have to use a holding window for native plugs in SAC anyway, so I can display Mixer and channel information for each plugin.

Bob L

[AudioAstronomer]

Yes... I may have to use a holding window for native plugs in SAC anyway, so I can display Mixer and channel information for each plugin.

Bob L

Awesome.

Thanks bob!


p.s. we need a thumbs up smiley here. I'd be using that right now

http://individual.utoronto.ca/daniel_isaac/smiley-thumbsup.jpg

[Craig Allen]

I like the wet/dry mix idea for VST/DX plugs. What would really be nice if it were automatable as well. Then you'd have more control over these plugins than just the bypass button which can lead to clicks and pops.

[Naturally Digital]

That is an interesting idea... I will mark it down... the issue will be just how to graphically hook it into the interface.If you decide to add this feature, I'll happily send you $100 for the update because of the time you'll save me in my day to day work! :D

[TotalSonic]

I like the wet/dry mix idea for VST/DX plugs. What would really be nice if it were automatable as well. Then you'd have more control over these plugins than just the bypass button which can lead to clicks and pops.

I agree as well that this would be a really nice feature to have.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[alchemist]

So ... bringing back the actuall necessity that brought me to talk about sidechaining at all ... here comes an idea ...

Bob,

What about allowing ratios < 1 in the compressor for it to act as an expander, too? That would eliminate my need for sidechaining.

The change would be super easy :p, just change the - to a + in the gain reduction routine! the rest stays the same, the detector , the attack, the release, everything. I kid, I kid ... I know it's written in assembler ... but still, it must be several degrees easier than allowing multi-inputs to VSTs.

Wait ... maybe we're not ready for an EQ, gate, side-chaining compressor and side-chaining expander PER CHANNEL in a virtual console. The universe could collapse.

[Bob L]

The idea of updating the comp to include expansion is an item on the todo list now. :)

Bob L

[Carl G.]

So ... bringing back the actuall necessity that brought me to talk about sidechaining at all ... here comes an idea ...

Wait ... maybe we're not ready for an EQ, gate, side-chaining compressor and side-chaining expander PER CHANNEL in a virtual console. The universe could collapse.

Wait?
That ALSO sounds like a great idea for channel processing... since all the parameters for EQ, gate, compressor processing are right there already!!
gee... with that kind of proximity, he'd save on wiring too :)
Wow! what a powerful channel strip!!

[Carl G.]

The idea of updating the comp to include expansion is an item on the todo list now. :)

Bob L

Very nice!

[Cary B. Cornett]

Why not just double up on a track and run the same signal thru two channels at the same time... then you are free to do what you want... hard to believe you don't have a few extra channels out of 72 for most projects.

Bob L If I only want to parallel process one or two things, for the most part what SSL already does is just fine. Thing is, I would like to be able to greatly expand the use of parallel processing. We already have "regular" compression on every track, a thing I thought was something of an extravagance back when I was learning on the "big iron", but now I'm GLAD it's there. I could see the availability of Upward (parallel) compression on all tracks, busses, etc. as a BIG plus, most especially if I could add EQ, and perhaps other FX, to the wet path.

THAT is why I want the plugin I described so much... it would be a piece of code that only had to be written ONCE that could easily be "dropped in" at any existing insert point, allowing it to be used
A) only where desired, and
B) as many times in as many places as I want.

I would be willing to BET that even those who have not tried parallel processing before would be finding all sorts of cool uses for it once it became available.

[mikebuzz]

I like where this thread has gone !:D

LAter
Buzz

Now if my damn computer only turned ON :eek: :(