FX Automation: Multiple Instances Of Same Cane Be Confusing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Labrecque

If you haven't considered it... you can always use one layer for doing bypass automation,

---

OK, good advice :-)
no, I hadn't considered using different layers on the RETURN or OUTPUT tracks for different automation events...
I suppose you mean INPUT tracks here...
yet made me see if there are layers on RETURN or OUTPUT tracks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Labrecque

then build that section to another layer--the layer that contains all your finished stuff. Maybe make layer 1 your final, mix-ready layer for each track.

Its not building mixes, just printing automation results. And if it's on the same track/different layer, it should be a lot less chaotic in terms of track layout/configuring. One cool thing is that you then don't have to permanently bypass or remove the plugin(s) afterward. So long as their native state is bypassed and there is no automation referencing it on the final layer, you can just leave it alone so that if you ever need to go back and rebuild to layer 1, the automation is still doing what you want it to do.

It may not be a perfect solution in all situations, but maybe it could be helpful. I hear you, though, that work-arounds are never something one wants to use all the time.

To be honest, I don't even know that my suggestion, here, or your pre-mix idea, would solve the sync issue that I alluded to earlier (and that I'm 85% sure is a real thing in this context). In that case I guess the next step would be splitting audio and effects you want to automate the bypass onto an adjacent track, leaving the effect on full time.

---

Hmmm, well Pro-Q3 and Pro-DS have no problems with bypass/on automation...
it's only the Acon plugs...
I'd have to take another with stab Sonnox to witness whether or not they fall over when automating bypasses.
This is pretty much bouncing and burning in effects...which I'd call pre-mixing :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Labrecque

Another idea: use send/return buses to bring FX in and out.

---

I typically route 4 input tracks checkerboarded per mic thru a RETURN and then routed to OUTPUT tracks for sub-mixes...so I see you are talking about another way to layout the job. I'd run out of FX pretty quick with just 6 return channels...because there is different NR per scene

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Labrecque

Another idea: do quick builds of the problem sections and put them back on the track, time-shifted if necessary, then bypass the plugin and leave it off.

I know; not ideal.

---

yep, this is what I mean by pre-mixing...which is what I understood Michael to be explaining. It's worth a shot...combined with automation layering could be the answer
Thanks for all the suggestions! it's greatly appreciated

Wow! I had to check (just as I imagine you did), and it's true. Return and Output "tracks" have layers support. I wonder how this might be useful, since all you can put on each of these layers is automation. Anyway, still happy to know it. Still learning this program!

Yes, six returns doesn't give you a whole lot of room for doing what I was suggesting, especially if you don't break the film up into one scene per EDL, like I was saying earlier.

One thought on some plugins having issues with automated bypassing and others not: could it be only the latency-inducing plugs that are trouble?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd R

It's funny, my missus and I do this all the time
she asks what I'm struggling with...
during the explanation, I usually find a solution
she knows that, and eggs me on
it does work out well usually

---

This is wonderful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Labrecque

Wow! I had to check (just as I imagine you did), and it's true. Return and Output "tracks" have layers support. I wonder how this might be useful, since all you can put on each of these layers is automation.

---

Didn't know this either. I can see this being handy for is building tracks back to layers where you might want your output fader at unity, and anything on the master-bus bypassed.

I was always of the thinking of keeping the audio non-destructed - but lately (particularly with things like noise reduction), I've just been writing to a file and moving on (and it's still not destructed). If there is enough noise for it to be prominent, there is no need to go back to it. I would never get anything to a completed state because of the endless tweaking - but I find this is helping. Being able to do it quicker will help some more.

AFAIK, it is only latency inducing ones in the prefader slot which can cause automation errors. But, I am so well trained not to use latency inducing plugins there, it has been a long time since I have had that issue.

As to layers on the output tracks, I often use those as a temporary way to bypass automation and plugins on a project. Handy for printing tracks with processing to new tracks if the project requires a lot of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Labrecque

One thought on some plugins having issues with automated bypassing and others not: could it be only the latency-inducing plugs that are trouble?

---

Yes, this is how I most often use the output track layers. Also they can be used to A/B some setting, but I rarely use it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmh

Didn't know this either. I can see this being handy for is building tracks back to layers where you might want your output fader at unity, and anything on the master-bus bypassed.

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMP

AFAIK, it is only latency inducing ones in the prefader slot which can cause automation errors. But, I am so well trained not to use latency inducing plugins there, it has been a long time since I have had that issue.

---

ok, I did not know this, thanks to you and Dave :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMP

As to layers on the output tracks, I often use those as a temporary way to bypass automation and plugins on a project. Handy for printing tracks with processing to new tracks if the project requires a lot of that.

---

I can certainly see different automation bypass strategies for the RETURNs
and printing fx as you describe
and different mix possibilities for the OUTPUT tracks as subs

particularly in a situation when needing to change some edits after picture lock
if for nothing else other than editing could be in a safety layer and used to retrace to apply to the repositioned cuts
which we recently had to do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Labrecque

Wow! I had to check (just as I imagine you did), and it's true. Return and Output "tracks" have layers support. I wonder how this might be useful, since all you can put on each of these layers is automation. Anyway, still happy to know it. Still learning this program!

---

I typically mix the subs because that way there is one channel to mix FX, music, speaking

a couple different mixes could done on layers for quick review for clients

I like my input tracks to be unity (I incorrectly call it a zero mix); so any fader automation always goes to unity or -inf

then I usually dip with fader automation with automation gallery and the automation is obvious that way

and I use SS dynamics section make up gain to set overall levels- I seldom, if ever, use any compression ITB

a say this because it keeps the input tracks separated from the sub-mix tracks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMP

AFAIK, it is only latency inducing ones in the prefader slot which can cause automation errors. But, I am so well trained not to use latency inducing plugins there, it has been a long time since I have had that issue.

As to layers on the output tracks, I often use those as a temporary way to bypass automation and plugins on a project. Handy for printing tracks with processing to new tracks if the project requires a lot of that.

---

So, if the latency inducing VSTs go post fader on a RETURN track, will that garner better results?

I haven't tried them post fader, and I'm not automating any RETURN parameters

I guess I can set it up and report back...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd R

So, if the latency inducing VSTs go post fader on a RETURN track, will that garner better results?

I haven't tried them post fader, and I'm not automating any RETURN parameters

I guess I can set it up and report back...

---

OK, I have set this up in a simpler job...seems to be working better with all the VSTs patched in post on RETURN tracks...