Topic: Extend Podium’s track hierarchy concept
- This topic has 53 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
UncleAge.
-
December 14, 2009 at 14:16 #17024
ZynewaveKeymasterThanks. 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.
December 14, 2009 at 14:31 #17025
UncleAgeParticipantFritz, I’m heading out the door to work but I will answer that one tonight when I get home š
December 14, 2009 at 14:57 #17026
kyranParticipantI’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)December 15, 2009 at 06:30 #17032
UncleAgeParticipant@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…
December 17, 2009 at 00:28 #17096
ZynewaveKeymaster@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…
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.
December 27, 2009 at 15:44 #17167
UncleAgeParticipant@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.
December 27, 2009 at 15:51 #17168
UncleAgeParticipantFrom 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?
January 1, 2010 at 14:33 #17181
ZynewaveKeymaster@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.
January 1, 2010 at 15:46 #17183
UncleAgeParticipant@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?

- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
