Topic: Extend Podium’s track hierarchy concept

Viewing 9 posts - 46 through 54 (of 54 total)
  • #17024
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    Thanks. A follow-up question:

    What happens if you try to create a feedback routing? I.e. you route the output of track1 to track2, and then either track2 to track1, or track2 to track3 and track3 to track1, etc.

    If that is possible in either of the hosts, what do they do about latency compensation? I would guess they at least introduce one full buffer latency (varying with the selected ASIO buffer size) to a track that feeds back into a track that already has been processed.

    #17025
    UncleAge
    Participant

    Fritz, I’m heading out the door to work but I will answer that one tonight when I get home 🙂

    #17026
    kyran
    Participant

    I’m not sure about regular tracks, but I do know that live allows you to feedback the return tracks into each other.
    (Look for the dub delay tutorial of the covert operators, to see this in action)

    #17032
    UncleAge
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    Thanks. A follow-up question:

    What happens if you try to create a feedback routing? I.e. you route the output of track1 to track2, and then either track2 to track1, or track2 to track3 and track3 to track1, etc.

    If that is possible in either of the hosts, what do they do about latency compensation? I would guess they at least introduce one full buffer latency (varying with the selected ASIO buffer size) to a track that feeds back into a track that already has been processed.

    Just got home and gave it a shot and here’s what happened in live…

    http://www.uncleage.com/ftp_music/trackfeed.wmv

    #17096
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @UncleAge wrote:

    @Zynewave wrote:

    Thanks. A follow-up question:

    What happens if you try to create a feedback routing? I.e. you route the output of track1 to track2, and then either track2 to track1, or track2 to track3 and track3 to track1, etc.

    If that is possible in either of the hosts, what do they do about latency compensation? I would guess they at least introduce one full buffer latency (varying with the selected ASIO buffer size) to a track that feeds back into a track that already has been processed.

    Just got home and gave it a shot and here’s what happened in live…

    http://www.uncleage.com/ftp_music/trackfeed.wmv

    Thanks.

    I’m not sure I fully understand what’s going on.

    At the moment where you route track 3 back into track 1, I can hear a small change in the sound, but I can’t tell if it’s caused by different effect processing on the tracks, or if it’s a phase problem due to the same audio being played slightly delayed.

    The problem should be apparent with 2 tracks, each with different effect processing, and each track feeding into each other post effects.

    This is simply impossible without adding a slight delay to the feedback signal. To get the output signal from Track 1 into Track2, the audio playing on Track1 need to be effect processed before it can be routed to Track 2. Track 2 is then effect processed, but since the effect processing has already been performed on Track 1, the output of Track2 has to wait until the next buffer is being processed. Theoretically this delay can be as low as 1 sample, but that requires that all processing is done 1 sample at a time, which is very inefficient. It’s more likely that it’s done in the buffer size specified by the ASIO driver. You could try to increase your buffer size and check if this makes an audible difference.

    #17167
    UncleAge
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    The problem should be apparent with 2 tracks, each with different effect processing, and each track feeding into each other post effects.

    Checked it out this morning and you are correct. However, this only occurred when feeding a track back onto itself. As long as the audio from each was feeding the master only it seems to be ok.

    #17168
    UncleAge
    Participant

    From the OP:
    @Mike G wrote:

    …Uses for splitting MIDI…

    1 – You could use it to have one midi input drive many “stacked” synths.

    Is it possible in Podium to have the app be aware of which vsti’s/vst’s, (in use on the tracks) output midi and just add that group of instruments to the possible inputs at the track level?

    #17181
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @UncleAge wrote:

    From the OP:
    @Mike G wrote:

    …Uses for splitting MIDI…

    1 – You could use it to have one midi input drive many “stacked” synths.

    Is it possible in Podium to have the app be aware of which vsti’s/vst’s, (in use on the tracks) output midi and just add that group of instruments to the possible inputs at the track level?

    I don’t understand your question. Perhaps you could rephrase it with a bit more detail.

    As for the possibility to use one MIDI input to control stacked synths: That can be achieved by assigning the same MIDI input object to each of the synth tracks. You’ll need to use the “assign/copy to track” command by right-clicking the MIDI input in the the inspector input panel. You can also hold the control key while dragging inputs to assign/copy it.

    #17183
    UncleAge
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    @UncleAge wrote:

    From the OP:
    @Mike G wrote:

    …Uses for splitting MIDI…

    1 – You could use it to have one midi input drive many “stacked” synths.

    Is it possible in Podium to have the app be aware of which vsti’s/vst’s, (in use on the tracks) output midi and just add that group of instruments to the possible inputs at the track level?

    I don’t understand your question. Perhaps you could rephrase it with a bit more detail.

    As for the possibility to use one MIDI input to control stacked synths: That can be achieved by assigning the same MIDI input object to each of the synth tracks. You’ll need to use the “assign/copy to track” command by right-clicking the MIDI input in the the inspector input panel. You can also hold the control key while dragging inputs to assign/copy it.

    Sorry I should have grabbed a bigger chunk of the quote, my bad.

    What I am wondering is whether the midi routing issue could/would/should be handled differently than the audio routing issue. When clicking the “Input” on the track, maybe the currently loaded vsti’s (used in the song) that output midi, could be added as a possible selection. It seems like this wouldn’t necessarily bring the same issues as routing audio.

    In the pic below I have Thesys on track 1 and Zebra on track 2. And since Thesys outputs midi it would appear as an option in the midi input box. What do you think?

Viewing 9 posts - 46 through 54 (of 54 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© 2021 Zynewave