pre-record function idea?

[AudioAstronomer]

I noticed the new edirol records have a function like this and I can think of many times where itd have been a lifesaver. Basically when record-enabled, the recorder has a circular buffer of sorts filling with audio... When you hit record you get that XX seconds before you hit record still recorded. So if you are waiting for something to happen and hit record too late, or for some reason were unable to begin record/srp it would still capture the few seconds before.

I can think of a few times when Ive wanted to capture something "special" but missed it because I could smack the spacebar quick enough or missed a cue during a live session for some reason and lost the first second of a song. Seems like there could be many other uses as well besides having as a, excuse the pun, buffer :)

[Bob L]

SAWStudio actually is always streaming the reord data once the engine is started... rec/rdy...srp... when rec is punched, then the data is copied to the drive.

There could be a possibility of establishing a pre-record number of ms or seconds that would be attached to the recorded punch point... I'll have to look into the idea.

Bob L

[AudioAstronomer]

That would be great. It would be cool to have rec-rdy literally as just that.. If you hit record off it (or similiar) you can manage to get a decent lead in. thanks Bob.

[Perry]

Nice idea! Seems this this would be a very cool thing to have. :)

[Les Woollam]

That could be a really useful feature for me. When recording from DAT or CD into SAW, it would be really useful to be able to hit record as soon as you hear the audio start and know that you have not clipped the beginning. A good idea!

[Mountain Media]

When you hit record you get that XX seconds before you hit record still recorded. So if you are waiting for something to happen and hit record too late, or for some reason were unable to begin record/srp it would still capture the few seconds before.:)I agree -- Sure would eliminate some 'stress' during studio sessions!!

Ha, reminds me of an accoustic designer I work with -- he says his next project is an 'Audio Advance Module', as compared to an Audio Delay Module - the sound is available at the output BEFORE it's input!!:D :D (Might take care of some of the Latency problems with various plug-in, huh??!!;) )

[Dave Labrecque]

Actually, this function already exists to a certain extent in SAW. I use it all the time. If you set the buffers big enough, you get audio recorded before you hit record.

I use it during SRP punch-ins. If I punched late, I can always go to the region entry in the MT and extend the region forward to reveal another half-second or so prior to the punch point. I usually set buffers to 1024x6 for this.

Unless I'm confused.

[SoundSuite]

I record mainly using SRP and auto-punch.

I 'need' the precision start/stop that is already there, I do not want to start recording early or late, nor do I want it to stop recording before or after I hit stop.
The way I do it, I use it as it is, literal start/stop where marked, on the beat, bar, or note it needs to start/stop on.

If a pre-record was added, I'd have to adjust my punch-point/leadins behind the start of the audio to start recording at the correct time and/or require editing on every punch instead of just a few to polish?
*confused*

If I'm seeing this correctly, I have to place a firm NO to the tally, unless it's a toggle or set in preferences where SAW will respond like it does now OR be delayed.
If I wanted to guess at punch points and have to re-edit every punch after completion, I'd be using SONOR.

The predictable behavior of SAW's SRP is one of it's strong points.
Add some buffers if you don't want it real-time, I personally want it accurate the way it is.
(I cannot believe after all these years of questing for low-latency, we are discussing adding it back in?)

[AudioAstronomer]

Certainly an "option" Jon. Like a specific key command or what not. Im sure Bob will implement it perfectly if he does.

[MMP]

My guess as to how this would work....


Punch ins and outs would be the same as always, except there would be predefinable "handles". The extra data would exist in the soundfile view, but the region would be the exact length as the punch in and aligned at the correct place in time.

In addition to allowing for late punches or missed cues (simply Alt drag the region boundry), it would help with softedging into the punch point.

I don't think anyone is interested in taking anything away...certainly not accurate punching. I do see merit in creating a pre punchin handle, however.

Regards,

MM

[Bob L]

Actually, Dave is correct... this is how things happen already when doing a running punch-in... the data is recorded at a buffer boundary. If the buffers are large, then you will usually have extra data on both sides of the punch points... however, this is not predictable as it would be if I design such a feature as is being discussed here.

And of course the current punch behaviour would stay the same when the option is not being used.

Bob L

[Dave Labrecque]

Understand that the 'extra recording time' I'm talking about goes to the underlying sound file, but does not impact the in/out points in the MT at all. The data's there if you choose to extend the boundary of the region after it's been tracked.

[AudioAstronomer]

It would be cool if the regions stayed as punched, but the soundfile actually kept pre and/or post data as specified. Just an extension to how it works now.

[Dave Labrecque]

Yep. I think that's what Bob has in mind.

[SoundSuite]

:bowsdown:
Thanks for the clarification(s), I need a kick in the brain some days ;)
Regions stay same on MT, wavs expand past regions in actuality.

90% of my tracks are done to click/tempo, with 4 beats blank, 8 beats leadin click, and performance start at measure 4 (assuming 4/4).
I enguage rec with shift+SRP from the beginning for the base tracks and punch/overlay as needed.

Assuming I was to follow the new theory and record with a, shall we say invisable leadin,...
For whatever reason, if I wish to import the original wav files directly into a new edl on the MT later, am I guaranteed an edit of the beginning point of each wav's region even if the recording started at 01>01>000 on the timeline to get them back on click, due to the leadin being 'in' the original wav file?
I assume I could not use the open soundfile and add to MT like I do now, as with an added beginning it would not line up to the click?

If so, I think I'd still rather keep the wavs as WYMIWYR (what you mark is what you record) even though I now see the possible gains that have been mentioned. It's always better to have too much performance recorded than not enough, this is for sure.
Some of you don't have the liesurable count-in like I do ;)

[Bob L]

Jon,

In reality... all of SAW's region based concepts lend themselves to never being tied to exactness in the wav files themselves... extra data in front and behind regions is a very freeing experience... the Region boundary definitions is what denotes yoiur timing on the MT... where the region beginning is placed controls how it plays... it really does not matter where the region starts inside the actual wav file.

I doubt there is hardly ever a recording that I do that requires each wav file to start at the exact beginning of the actual recording I am interested in.

There is always extra data in front and behind the actual data used in the MT... that is one of the benefits of the Region based design.

So having a pre-determined amount of extra data should not interfere at all with timing on the MT, because the actual region boundaries is what will be used to drop things on the timeline.

I'd say this whole thread is now falling into the category of way overthinking it. :)

Have no fear... If I do introduce this pre-record idea, it will be an option anyway, so it will not affect the way you want to work if you don't turn it on.

Bob L

[Carl G.]

Does this mean that when I SRP record... I will be listening live in the headphones to absolutely no increase in delay (either in the signal itself or the reaction time of the punchin/out)?

I like it the way it is. As long as that doesn't change... that's cool - SRP as is, is a _very_ strong suit of SawStudio!

Carl

[Bob L]

Nothing would change monitor wise... simply I would backup in the record buffers to stream an extra amount of data to the drive when you punch-in.

Just an idea... we'll see.

Bob L

[SoundSuite]

I'd say this whole thread is now falling into the category of way overthinking it. :)
*quilty*


Have no fear... If I do introduce this pre-record idea, it will be an option anyway, so it will not affect the way you want to work if you don't turn it on.

w to the zero zero plus
Thanks again for the clarification(s), I can now fly away from the bug-zapper.
:D

[Perry]

Nothing would change monitor wise... simply I would backup in the record buffers to stream an extra amount of data to the drive when you punch-in.

Just an idea... we'll see.

Bob L

FWIW, I still think this is a really great idea. And knowing how you work Bob, I have no fears at all that you'll do anything to "mess up" what is already working great!

That's one of the comforting things about working with SAWStudio. It works great and I know you'll keep it that way! :D

Perry

[andy cross]

Actually, this function already exists to a certain extent in SAW. I use it all the time. If you set the buffers big enough, you get audio recorded before you hit record.

I use it during SRP punch-ins. If I punched late, I can always go to the region entry in the MT and extend the region forward to reveal another half-second or so prior to the punch point. I usually set buffers to 1024x6 for this.

Unless I'm confused.

Interesting. I've had the experience a couple of times of thinking I've clipped a bit of a take and then dragged the region boundary and found I'd got slightly more audio than I expected. This might explain why.

[Dave Labrecque]

Dazz-it!

[AudioAstronomer]

Heh. Lifesaver today I had an instance where I needed to punch over something with a little overshoot... so I opened up the buffers really wide and that did it just to have the little I needed for a softedge. Didnt ever think about doing that till now. good stuff.

[Bob L]

You do realize that you can actually punch in very early and punch out very late and capture everything you think you will ever need without loosing the underlying data...

As I'm reading thru this thread, it dawned on me that perhaps people are missing the fact that you really don't need any pre-record function because you are free to punch-in early and out late with no damage to the underlying material at all... not like a tape deck... this is non-linear... simply use the Ctrl-Grab method to slide the punched in region back to the right to the exact spot you need, the underlying data will come back and you will have plenty of room to softedge the two if needed... do the same with the punch out splice... simply Ctrl-Grab and slide it back to the left to the correct punch out point... the underlying data is still intact.

Bob L

[Lance]

Ordinarily, I assume this and it is indeed a great ability of region oriented recording...however, I think that the pre-record would be valuable for those times where punching in or recording is in itself a question... like on first couple of takes or run throughs...all of a sudden you realize that the talent is totally on top of it and rush for the punch in...but miss the first couple of seconds...

or of course there's the times where you're thinking of something else and don't hit the friggin button! :D ..or am I the only one that ever does that? :o

Lance

[Dave Labrecque]

..or am I the only one that ever does that? :o You are definitely not alone. Hell, how many of us have missed an entire take? (OK, maybe I'm alone on this one.) And of course it's always the perfect, jaw-dropping take. D'oh!:eek:

I don't think Bob's gonna help me with that one, though. He probably thinks that falls under being a good engineer or something.;)

[Lance]

No, I'm sorry to say you're not alone on that one either... I've kicked myself on more than one occasion because the "great take" was missed. :mad:

Just don't let 'em see ya sweat!!! :D

Lance

[AudioAstronomer]

Yeah. In my particular spot a jazz performer wanted to hop in whenever "he felt it". I was cool with the idea... gave me a niec buffer to make up for being a little slow on the draw :)

[Shawn]

Yeah. In my particular spot a jazz performer wanted to hop in whenever "he felt it". I was cool with the idea... gave me a niec buffer to make up for being a little slow on the draw :)

I would have just given up a new track and recorded the whole thing.

:)

[Shawn]

You are definitely not alone. Hell, how many of us have missed an entire take? (OK, maybe I'm alone on this one.) And of course it's always the perfect, jaw-dropping take. D'oh!:eek:


"Slowly raises hand while looking sheepishly around" :o

LOL!!

:)

[AudioAstronomer]

You'd think it'd be that easy... tracks were full and I didnt wanna mess with bouncing and all that stuff while the guy waited. you know the crazy jazz types. They flood florida lol.

Tis why Im looking into updating past lite :)

[Shawn]

You'd think it'd be that easy... tracks were full and I didnt wanna mess with bouncing and all that stuff while the guy waited. you know the crazy jazz types. They flood florida lol.

Tis why Im looking into updating past lite :)

Wouldn't this be nice..

SS = 128 tracks with 32 stereo I/O

SSL = 64 tracks with 16 stereo I/O

SSB = 36 tracks (just to give it 4 more than PTLE!!) with 8 stereo I/O, as now, plus 1 extra layer in the MT

;)

[AudioAstronomer]

Yep shawn lol. Id even pay for that update. Heck, Id still upgrade and pay for that update.

Maybe Bob will do a 4.0 with that ;) hehe.

wishfull thinking :) For next time Ill just have to be more frugal and use layers in more creative ways than I have been to make room. But it's great the option was there to begin with to make up.

But that wasnt even the idea behind the pre-record to begin with so :)