Does Ardour support different effects applied within a section of the same track?

6 replies [Last post]
rpatros
rpatros's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-05-30
Posts:

Does Ardour support different effects applied within a section of the same track?

In Adobe Audition 3.0, you can apply different effects in a section of a track. Does ardour have the same capablitity?

Rony P.

paul
paul's picture
User offline. Last seen 19 hours 24 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-03-16
Posts:

No, in Ardour FX belong to the track, not to regions. This may change in a future (post-3.0) version.

seablade
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 53 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-01-22
Posts:

rpatros-

Based off what you posted, you should really look at the use of automation. I haven't used the new auditions/cool edits, but the old ones were destructive editors that didn't work the same way that Ardour does. Even their multi-track modes were limited in comparison.

Ardour works by non-destructively having plugins on the tracks, that you can automate so that at different points in the tracks the plugin may still be processing, but wouldn't make any difference on the audio(Dry100% Wet0% Reverb for example) and then automate them so that over time they come in and effect various parts of the audio.

So the short answer is yes, the longer answer is yes, but it is very different from applying effects to a portion of the track. They are always there, it is whether they effect the audio at all is another matter.

Seablade

rpatros
rpatros's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-05-30
Posts:

Paul and Seablade thank you for your replies. Very much appreciated.

M.F.
User offline. Last seen 19 weeks 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-01-30
Posts:

Samplitude has panning, eq, pitch/stretch, multiple plugin selection, aux sends - per region and it is definitely the way to go. Honestly, I think that the aux/fader automation is very old fashioned method of working. I can see a musician way of work here. My work at theatre usually requires a lot of very short "pieces" produced at pretty tight schedule. With the "pieces" I mean sound effects mostly. The most convenient working method is just spilt a region and apply desired effects, say a weird fade-out reverb with a drastic change of eq. All this with overlapping fades.
Hope you get the idea.

seablade
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 53 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-01-22
Posts:

Samplitude has panning, eq, pitch/stretch, multiple plugin selection, aux sends - per region and it is definitely the way to go.

I would disagree.

Honestly, I think that the aux/fader automation is very old fashioned method of working

You do realise we are talking about much more than just aux/fader automation? Plugin automation is much more capable than that. Not only that, but per region applied effects I believe are actually the older way of doing things, left over from destructive editors that preceded DAWs as they currently stand.

I can see a musician way of work here. My work at theatre usually requires a lot of very short "pieces" produced at pretty tight schedule. With the "pieces" I mean sound effects mostly. The most convenient working method is just spilt a region and apply desired effects, say a weird fade-out reverb with a drastic change of eq. All this with overlapping fades.

I can say that I am more than intimately familiar with the theater workflow as I work in it myself. I can also say that to be honest, theater playback in general is shifting. But since moving away from the destructive editor workflow above, I have been much happier. I used to use CoolEdit and even the early versions of Audition for most of my work, but it is MUCH easier for me to try something out, and decide I don't like it and go back now with a non-destructive process. I don't have 30 different versions of a sound file laying around.

Not only that but it can be handy sometimes on late nights to route ardour straight into the installed system and work right there, Between Ardour and QLab most of my work is now very much non destructive, I don't layer sounds together in ardour, I create a particular sound I need and move on. I layer them together in QLab now as it makes things much faster for me than to mix, render, listen, descide it is slightly off, and repeat step one. Along with this I actually do a lot less of my plugins in a DAW for theater these days, preferring instead to control an external host from QLab via MIDI and applying plugins to live audio streams, whether from playback or actual live inputs from the stage. Again it makes it MUCH easier to change and much quicker to work on in the middle of tech when a director looks at me and goes, "Can that sound more like it is in a cave?"

Got off on a bit of a tangent there, but my point is that track level plugin automation is perfectly fine, and more than usable in even the theater sound effect environment compared to other solutions. But even that aside, theater playback is changing fast enouh I would not be surprised as all to see DAWs removed from the mix entirely there, it is just a completely different workflow in itself that is coming into its own.

Seablade

M.F.
User offline. Last seen 19 weeks 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2008-01-30
Posts:

Ok, let me clarify a bit. I neither use DAW at theater playback. SFX is used here. I don't layer much, only with the elements that are absolutely tied together are bounced for sake of simplicity.
I agree most with you, but I don't see your point of destructive editing. The tool I was referring is a multitrack editing tool. At every track, every region and so on...no destructively editing here. Of course at some point the .wav is created and sent to the output machine. If some tidying is needed it is done locally at SFX machine.
This is more a working practice issue.
Nice to see some theater people here and sorry my clumsy writing.