TripleLe & automation

nitri · Post by **nitri** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:27 am

Hello, it´s posible use TripleLe with a control surface like Mackie control?, and how is the automation system?, it´s posible syncronize TripleLe with Logic audio?

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:05 am

As a read on cw page of triple, there is no midi whatsoever in tripleLE, so no automation at all. What a shame, i really feel it's a half baked app.

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:26 pm

You could probably automate the STM mixers, right? Just like in regular SFP.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:49 pm

you can still automate the stm mixers....

nitri · Post by **nitri** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:07 pm

mmm, no I refer to professional automation, with stm mixer it´s no posible only 119 cc.

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:29 pm

I agree.. You don't go far with 119CC#... In mackie control you have more the 1000 possible CC and combination of them...

119CC for a 24 channel mixer, plus aux, bus, eq, comp, effects, it's ridiculous....

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:49 pm

Well, restrictions will unleash creativity. Ask yourself this, do you really need all that automation?

I mean, you could probably do everything you wish with two or three channels of full automation.

Take the STM2448 for instance.
Let's do this simple..

Master-fader = 1 CC
24 channel-faders = 24 CC's
24 channel-pans = 24 CC's

Total of 49 CC's

Now, if you would want to do something fancy you've still got 70 CC's to assign freely. Be economic - re-use/morph channels, that's what fuill automation is for in my opinion.

This will be enough for electronic dance/trance/house music and will definitely be enough for archaic types of music.. There have been quality albums recorded on 4-tracks.

[ This Message was edited by: voidar on 2004-12-27 17:57 ]

[ This Message was edited by: voidar on 2004-12-27 17:59 ]

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:07 pm

The thing is with stm2448, i use it mainly for mix/mastering tracks already recorded, for tracking STM1632 is more than enough, i use dynamixer usuallyfor this.

All of this, is about intuitivity (this word exist?) and ergonomy.

Even with volume+pans configured, the worst job is EQing, and those knob are not automatable.

Ok, no EQ, what about mute + solo + mix + 6 auxs?

Come on, changing a single eq setting means at least a couple of click, just to GET to the knob...Simpler is possible here, just a matter of thinking the interface.

After an hour of maddly clicking aroud, your wrist is fucked.

Seriously, what would it take for the mixers in sfp to support 16 midi channels instead of 1...

Do you have a control surface? a real one i mean, not a small midi fader box... Yeah yeah, i know, those are great for electronica tweaks, synths, i have 3 of those, including one a made myself from scratch (diy midibox from ucapps).

A real control surface, once you worked with one for real life mix/mastering, you can't do without... so much faster, intuitive, etc...

Anyway, that's me, maybe you don't need it, hey, everybody use what they need, no? I need a mixer with full automation.

To make this message short

, i didn't buy a scope system to record on an old fostex 4tracks

[ This Message was edited by: marcuspocus on 2004-12-27 19:24 ]

Post by **garyb** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:25 pm

at one time, there was a plan to make sfp mackie control compatible. hopefully, this is still in the works.....

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:05 am

On 2004-12-27 19:07, marcuspocus wrote:
The thing is with stm2448, i use it mainly for mix/mastering tracks already recorded, for tracking STM1632 is more than enough, i use dynamixer usuallyfor this.

All of this, is about intuitivity (this word exist?) and ergonomy.

Even with volume+pans configured, the worst job is EQing, and those knob are not automatable.

Ok, no EQ, what about mute + solo + mix + 6 auxs?

Come on, changing a single eq setting means at least a couple of click, just to GET to the knob...Simpler is possible here, just a matter of thinking the interface.

After an hour of maddly clicking aroud, your wrist is fucked.

Seriously, what would it take for the mixers in sfp to support 16 midi channels instead of 1...

Do you have a control surface? a real one i mean, not a small midi fader box... Yeah yeah, i know, those are great for electronica tweaks, synths, i have 3 of those, including one a made myself from scratch (diy midibox from ucapps).

A real control surface, once you worked with one for real life mix/mastering, you can't do without... so much faster, intuitive, etc...

Anyway, that's me, maybe you don't need it, hey, everybody use what they need, no? I need a mixer with full automation.

To make this message short , i didn't buy a scope system to record on an old fostex 4tracks

[ This Message was edited by: marcuspocus on 2004-12-27 19:24 ]

Channel EQ is not automatable, are you sure? You would have to right-click on the knobs and not the graphic display. I have never bothered to look though, is it really usefull?. A simple pole/hi/lo-pass filter would do the job just as easily, and they should be midi-assignable.
It could be usefull if you need to totally morph the channel, re-using it for some other track.

As I said, two-three of fully automatable channels should be enough for most kinds of music. The rest would only need pan and level assignments. Mute, perhaps, but solo? I only use those when setting up the initial channel, EQ, vol, pan etc. Pulling the level way down would be just as simple as muting. That's what automation is for right?

If using VDAT then I can understand this will stress your mixer with more midi-assignment, but most other sequencers will help in the department of muting, soloing and even cross-fading. I like VDAT though, as it forces you into performing better. It is a restrictive tool to use, and so are the STM mixers. They are modeled on proper gear.

The point I was making with 4-tracks is that less is often more. You will not make any better music with 300++ automatable midi CC's. The amount of time used in assigning that amount of controllers is mind-bogling..

I think we are much happier being economic with both DSP and automation.

And to answer your question, no, I have never used any form of controller other than my mouse and I have had no problems with this setup.
A non integrated controller would be more bothersome, in fact.

[ This Message was edited by: voidar on 2004-12-28 06:07 ]

[ This Message was edited by: voidar on 2004-12-28 06:08 ]

[ This Message was edited by: voidar on 2004-12-28 06:09 ]

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:14 am

Yes, i use vdat. And for exactly that reason, i need automation.

With guitar or sax or clarinette in my hands, handling the mouse is a pain.

BTW, i liked your 'archaïc' music comment

funny...Now real instruments are archaïc... I love progress

Nah, forget this. I need (want) automation, and you don't...

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:25 am

On 2004-12-28 06:14, marcuspocus wrote:
Yes, i use vdat. And for exactly that reason, i need automation.

With guitar or sax or clarinette in my hands, handling the mouse is a pain.

BTW, i liked your 'archaïc' music comment

funny...Now real instruments are archaïc... I love progress

Nah, forget this. I need (want) automation, and you don't...

If you use VDAT then you most likely load the recorded files into some editor for editing. Now, just edit them some more so that they playback the way you want them to.

Hey, I record a lot of guitar with the mouse straight in front of me. No problem really. Perhaps you just need at real-life ADAT VRC?

And what I meant with archaic forms of music should not be understood the way you do. A 70's Klaus Schulze album impresses me a hell of a lot more than most modern day electronics music, even though it could be just as good. It is really centered around performance and not the technical side of sound production.
Excessive amounts of automation is similar to the "fix it in the mix"-slogan which is totally wrong.

I like automation, but I would never need the amounts of automation that y ou claim you do, and I don't really believe you will neither. Though, you are free to prove me or anyone else wrong.

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:58 am

On 2004-12-28 06:25, voidar wrote:
Perhaps you just need at real-life ADAT VRC?

Isn't it called VRC-S + VDAT ?

That's why i bought scope!

Hey, look, we can argue like this for all our life, but really your saying the same thing as i do.

I do like to make real audio takes, live, without too much editing like archaic music was done before (don't worry, i understood correctly what you meant the first time, just had to say something

).

I happen to also record a band, often live, we're 7 musicians at any time, mouse is a pain. I'm a programmer, i work all day long with mouse, and hate them. I bought a very cool control surface to do without. Now, if i could make me a default sfp project where all is preconfigured, that would make me happy. That's all.

Otherwise, i hate the mouse so much, that i'll use something else when i can!

Why can't i ask for something cool for SFP? If you don't think you need automation as much as i do, well, good for you! But i really think i'm not alone wanting this and waiting for it to happen. I really think this would be a selling feature for sfp to be able to support more 'standard' pro / semi-pro features, like mackie control.

I don't think it's too much to ask for. I also happen to know how it's done, and it is not a dsp consuming task. This is barely a small bunch of byte[] manipulation in it's simplest form.

If i had access to sfp code i would probably do a complete integration in no time, and give it for free to everyone! I really know midi toroughly to do this kind of stuff. But this isn't going to happen, so, i'll ask, again...

CW mixers need to support more than one midi channel for CC assignments.

Everything else could easily be done external to SFP extremely quickly once cw mixers support more than one midi channel.

Anyway, joyeuse fête à tous

Et je prie pour les familles des victimes du tremblement de terre en Asie...Terrible...

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:45 am

Actually it is called BRC, the physical controller that is. It can be used to controll the VDAT transport and other functions

. I haven't bothered aquiring one though.

I actually do agree with you, it would be cool with a fully automated/controlled system. Modifying the STM mixer would not be too much work either I believe. It is possible to have one DSP card work on channels 1-8, and another one on channels 9-16 i.e., a similar approach could be taken with midi, midi channel 1 would be shared by channel 1-8 etc.

Just a suggestion.

Well, well.

nitri · Post by **nitri** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:38 am

One problem two view points, for fast and efficient work, creativity and logical use, Marcuspocus to win the battle. In a real world 119 cc it´s not sufficient. No professional.
And it´s true, the presets for automation of STM mixers it´s bad function. It´s imposible to save to much assignments.