![]() ![]() Maybe if there were ‘options’ where the user could choose the precision on each automation lane individually, as a lot of things we do in most types of music don’t require a lot of precision…that’d be pretty cool, and it wouldn’t be something ‘just for EDM’ either. Yes, it might be nice if automation lanes were glued to tighter timing resolution, but that comes with a trade off in terms of things like thread management and potential total track count. Where possible keep control of the effect in the same thread as the output of the effect. Based on experience though, when trying to do something that needs that much precision, it’s probably a good ‘best practice’ to avoid putting the task off on the host where at all possible. There’s probably other ways too, I just don’t have a solid concept of what you’re trying to get done, where the effect rides in your mix, etc. ![]() One gate opens channels 3&4 with high-hat while the other closes 1&2…thus a cross-fading (or abrupt change if you so prefer). Perhaps even a compressor on one side to smooth it out a bit. One that comes to mind right away is: Quad group with a pair of side chained gates in parallel (one gets channels 1&2, the other 3&4) > the variations that you wish to fade between. If you don’t have an EQ in your tool box that supports side-chaining directly (Best option if possible, and I understand your desired effect chain properly), you still have a few options to get the same effect. So, if you’re trying to get something really tight slaved straight from trigger events in a MIDI/Instrument track good luck. How is it slaved to that hi-hat? Sidechained based on frequency levels in the audio stream, or via VSTi triggering events? MIDI precision hasn’t been good for any PC DAW, since EVER, nor in Macs since they moved to Intel, plus…the stuff I said above about threads and ASIO Guard/buffers. Best to keep as much as possible for something that quick/demanding in the same thread (groups can help force streams into the same thread, plus afford some extra routing options with quad/surround configurations)… Disabling ASIO guard and using the smallest ASIO buffer possible (or simply making sure the tracks that require extreme precision are ‘armed’) ‘sometimes’ helps, but not always. Is it really something that has to be a host controlled effect? Asking for two different threads to do something that precision demanding to the same sound with ASIO Guard in play = asking for trouble. ![]() Not sure what effect you’re after or what control(s) you’re trying to pump, when, where, why, but sometimes its more a matter of picking the right plugins as opposed to trying to brute force it. Sounds like a pretty old problem…with solutions. Hi-hat transients are pretty fast, and you can easily hear when the tool gets it wrong. I want to automate an EQ to envelope slave it to the hi-hat. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |