can i have real time fx during recording?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brando0
  • Start date Start date
B

brando0

New member
I was wondering if I can hear any fx on a track while I am recording it.

I.E. recording vocals and being able to hear them with reverb as I record them.
 
Yes. Enable Input Monitoring.

But beware the beast known as latency!
 
do i go into options-audio-input monitoring? i did but there's no "enable" there
 
In that place, just select (highlight) your audio device (it should appear in a list).
 
"But beware of the beast known as latency"

I agree, I tried imput monitoring when i first got cakewalk. It was nothing but a giant headache for me.
 
Input Monitoring requires latency to be lower than 10 ms acording to Cakewalk. I say lower than 5 ms...

ATTENTION: INPUT MONITORING IS NOT FOR SOUNDBLASTER USERS... ;)
 
thanx guys i did set it...... now i just have to give it a shot. yes latency at 5 Moskus....thanx again i'll let you know how it turns out.
peace
B
 
I am not clear here.

In the past you could not expect to get realtime effects operating on the digital information coming in. You could hear them but they were not actually affecting the data. Thus you could hear compression but the process was always post audio recording and the basic track was not actually compressed realtime.

Are you saying this has changed?
 
moskus said:
Input Monitoring requires latency to be lower than 10 ms acording to Cakewalk. I say lower than 5 ms...

ATTENTION: INPUT MONITORING IS NOT FOR SOUNDBLASTER USERS... ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah... when I was trying to get my latency under control... more than once I was describing my dissatisfaction with 10ms latency to a Cakewalk rep who said to me... "You can hear that?".

Yeah I can hear that! It's especially a problem for vocalists (which I am not) because the source is in your head! Just try slappin' on a pair of headphones and singing into a DAW with 10ms latency.

Yeah... I can hear that.

Now I am enjoying 2.7ms of latency... and I can hear that... but it's not bad at all. The benefits of working with input monitoring far outweigh that little bit of latency.

_______
SteveD
www.5adayclub.net/music/
 
Middleman said:
I am not clear here.

In the past you could not expect to get realtime effects operating on the digital information coming in. You could hear them but they were not actually affecting the data. Thus you could hear compression but the process was always post audio recording and the basic track was not actually compressed realtime.

Are you saying this has changed?
Click to expand...

i don't think so...but if it did...big thumbs up to cakewalk
 
Middleman said:
Are you saying this has changed?
Click to expand...
No, it's still raw data you record. Is that a problem?




And SteveD, did really Cakewalk suggest that you shouldn't be able to hear a latency of 10 ms? I can even hear 2.9 ms latency. 1.5 ms is though, but noticeable (surely because that's not really the efficient latency).
 
Not a problem, but someday I want to be able to use a plug in for limiting and compression going into the box. Reverb and EQ I can live with after the fact.
 
There is one package that attempts to do this - Logic or maybe Digital Perfromer. Not sure which one but someone in another forum here was talking about this over a year ago. The results were not stellar as I remember.

The software was basically taking the digital info on the fly, processing the limited result and writing that to disk. It was a delayed process as I remember.

Maybe someone else knows of this. That's about all I remember.

I was actually wondering if the UAD card was able to pre process the data. Think I will check their site and see if there are any input jacks on the card.
 
I'm a little confused here - what would be the advantage of printing the FX with the recording?

If the limiter or whatever is enabled, you aren't going to be peaking anything dangerously on the way in, so isn't recording the FX effectively limiting you if you want to change an attack or release setting later?

Not a dig - just interested in the advantages.........

Thanks,

Q.
 
Qwerty said:
I'm a little confused here - what would be the advantage of printing the FX with the recording?

If the limiter or whatever is enabled, you aren't going to be peaking anything dangerously on the way in, so isn't recording the FX effectively limiting you if you want to change an attack or release setting later?

Not a dig - just interested in the advantages.........

Thanks,

Q.
Click to expand...

The advantage is to have the software doing the limiting and thus give you a hotter average level utlizing all of your 16 or 24 bits. Right now most of us do this with an external limiter or compressor. All I'm saying is I wish we could have a limiter that acted prior to writing the track instead of post writing. Then I wouldn't need an external limiter.

When you record with the Cakewalk limiter the file can still peak at the the write stage and distort because the limiter is in the signal path after the data is written not prior.

Hope that answered your question.
 
moskus said:
SteveD, did really Cakewalk suggest that you shouldn't be able to hear a latency of 10 ms? I can even hear 2.9 ms latency. 1.5 ms is though, but noticeable (surely because that's not really the efficient latency).
Click to expand...
Yeah... two different guys on two different occassions said it just like that...

"You can hear that?", referring to 10ms latency.

"Most people don't notice it".

I hear it... 2.7ms is acceptable.

_______
SteveD
www.5adayclub.net/music/
 
Middleman said:
The advantage is to have the software doing the limiting and thus give you a hotter average level utlizing all of your 16 or 24 bits. Right now most of us do this with an external limiter or compressor. All I'm saying is I wish we could have a limiter that acted prior to writing the track instead of post writing. Then I wouldn't need an external limiter.

When you record with the Cakewalk limiter the file can still peak at the the write stage and distort because the limiter is in the signal path after the data is written not prior.

Hope that answered your question.
Click to expand...
It would have to take place at the point the signal is digitized in order to prevent clipping. Once the signal has clipped, it doesn't matter when you write it, it's still gonna be clipped. You can't recreate the missing bits. The only way would be through some sort of intelligent interpolation, which is still gonna have problems.

Which is why you have to do this using outboard equipment.
 
Maybe.

The digitized process could look for peaks outside the norm -3 to 0+ after the A/D and prior to the track write. Then the digital data could lower the transient mathmatically. Or possibly normalize the data and chop off the peaks. However, not sure that would come through audibly desirable. It would be the plug ins responsiblity to analyze and then pass the data back to the program to write. Huge latency however, I would guess.

Why do I care. I have a limiter. It's late, I'm dreaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top