Listen to both the input and playback when having a track and ardour armed to record?

12 replies [Last post]
Sanopaid
User offline. Last seen 3 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2011-01-11
Posts:

Hey guys, Im sorry, this may be a stupid question, but to overdub and punch, i find it really easyer to hear both my input , AND the playback i have in the track (this is the way Sonar works, which is what i was using before i discovered the magnificency of ardour jejeje). Is there a way to do this in ardour??, i havent found any but I would really apritiate any help.

Thanks! :D

paul
paul's picture
User offline. Last seen 25 min 10 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-03-16
Posts:

@Sanopaid: not clear what you're asking for. You want to be recording and have ardour both monitor the incoming signal AND playback the existing material in the area that you're overdubbing too, of the same track? This seems like a really odd way to work ....

Sanopaid
User offline. Last seen 3 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2011-01-11
Posts:

Dear Paul, don't know how odd it may seem , but yes, I would like to hear both what I already have recorded on the track, AND, what I am playing on the instrument when recording on top of that same track, don't know if it is possible, but would really appreciate if someone would give me a way to do it.

Thanks again :D

paul
paul's picture
User offline. Last seen 25 min 10 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-03-16
Posts:

Sanopaid: you cannot do this with Ardour, and you can't do it with most of the DAWs or HDR systems that I'm familiar with. As a workaround, create another track, and use the "p" button in the track header to make it share the same playlist as the original. Then you'll be able to listen to the playback from that track, while recording in the first one.

DonF
DonF's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-09-12
Posts:

It may be that what Sanopaid really wants, is to hear a mixture of the recorded track and the input signal, up to the punch-in point. After punching in, naturally he would only want to hear the input signal.

If that's the case, the best solution may be to use the audio hardware's zero-latency monitoring capability, if available. Failing that, the input can be patched to the output(s) using jack.

Don

paul
paul's picture
User offline. Last seen 25 min 10 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-03-16
Posts:

@DonF: using h/w monitoring will not cause any change in the signal that is audible at the punch point.

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 14 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

It seems to me (and I think this is what DonF is refering to as well) as if what is required is something that mimics the old analogue technique of punch-in recording, where you play back the tape, and the artist hears the original track playing together with their 'live' instrument or vocal, so they can play along with the track as it leads up to the point (usually a mistake) that they want to replace. At the point where the punch-in is required, the track is dropped into record (normally by pressing a record enable on that track for example), overwriting the original with the new audio from the artist, and obviously leaving only the new audio audible during recording. At the end of the punch-in the track is dropped back out of record into playback, and the audio continues to play. Probably a redundant technique with DAWs, with multiple tracks / takes, and complex editing options, but its a workflow that perhaps some people are used to.

paul
paul's picture
User offline. Last seen 25 min 10 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-03-16
Posts:

@linuxdsp: well, Ardour can do precisely what you describe, and I suspected that was what the OP wanted, but he specifically stated he wants to hear the existing track *as* he is overdubbing it. not before & after the punch, but during the punch.

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 14 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

@Paul: Ah yes - I just re-read that - that is slightly unusual.

Sanopaid
User offline. Last seen 3 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2011-01-11
Posts:

Hello , well yes , I've been using the punch markers, just as Linuxdsp describes them , they work fine , when you are recording over a multi tracked proyect, so when you arm you only go "deaf " on the mistake you are re-recording and you can still be guided by the background of other instruments, but when you import lets say, a whole already existing song into a track, and you wanna punch in something co correct ( or add) somthing else, it could be usefull to hear both things, I mean, you could always just add a new track and record there and then export the whole proyect and it would be fine, but, well, the more tracks you can spare the better. Thanks a lot anyways, you ansuered the question, now i know I cannot work as I used to, but thanks to you i also know the correct way to work , thanks a lot!, and have a happy and very fruitfull music digitalizing from now on ;).

the C.L.A.
the C.L.A.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-12-03
Posts:

I think something like a "transparent" recording mode where you can hear the allready existing audio and new regions are created non-opaque could be useful at time. One example would be if one wants to add a missing crash to an existing drum track without major fiddling or rerecording/punching the whole thing.

For the usual punch in/out I think the existing modes are sufficient.

seablade
User offline. Last seen 3 hours 16 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-01-22
Posts:

I can't see how that would be useful in that case.

In one instance, if you already have a mixed down drum track, and are adding a crash, you certainly don't want to record over the entire drum track for that one crash, you would want to record to a different track and mix them together(Not to mention EQ, process, etc. so they sound similar). In another instance if you have just a cymbal crash track, then the punch capability is what you would want as if it is a misplaced crash you don't want the one that is out of time certainly, and if it didn't exist you would just be replacing silence anyways. Of course that ignores other sounds of the kit picked up by that mic that mean you would really want another track in this case anyways.

Seablade

the C.L.A.
the C.L.A.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-12-03
Posts:

@seablade: I was talking about a multitrack recorded, not an allready mixed drum track. So it would be a quick fix for a missing crash to add it that way. Just adding a new track (overheads) for the crash wouldn't be sufficient IMO, because it would sound different without the crosstalk from the other mics. So one would have to add a whole set of new tracks just for that one crash.

For example once I had done a recording for a friend and we decided to add a little mallet roll at one place. We punched it and set the created regions to non-opaque after that. Also the lack of the drums during the punch wasn't that comfortable while playing the roll, and I'm not sure if we had to move the roll a bit because of that. So a "transparent" recording mode where you just push a button, can hear the existing material and new regions get created non-opaque would have simplified it a lot.