druidI can’t believe I’d be the first?? 😛
Here’s something else interesting: I am sure that the bounces I did of the percussion bass and guitar on the same track were done within Podium as well (they certainly are in the “Master” folder and named appropriately), though it may have been 20 versions ago! It was quite some time. Anyway, 96000Hz worked back then just fine. Perhaps this issue occurred with the updating of the bounce stuff within Podium?
I would’ve tried 88200Hz but ASIO4ALL wasn’t initialising at that rate. I’ve had issues with that rate in other programs too, though. I think it’s considered a little non-standard.
Oh well, at least it’s not just me then!
druidOk, found my problem.
In short, projects that are set to 96000Hz are not offline-bouncing correctly, at least on my system.
Can anyone else test on their system creating a new 96000Hz project, adding one track and inserting a sample (preferably 96000Hz if you want it to sound “right”) into it, bouncing it and playing it back to see if it’s glitching?
Frits, how does offline bouncing work, anyway? Does it interface at all with the audio device and/or its drivers (ASIO), or is it completely Podium and the plugins just working with data?
I did various tests, and in the end I gave up and started a new project, put only one of the takes on a line, and bounced it offline… And it still had the same problem. Realtime works fine.
I tried 44100Hz samples in a 96000Hz project, and of course it plays very fast but it also had the occasional mutey glitches. I did the reverse; put a 96000Hz sample in a project set to 44100Hz, and it was very low in pitch of course, but did not glitch.
Does anyone else find that if they are working on a project in 96kHz and use a 96kHz recording, even of only 10 seconds should do it, and then if offline bounced, the resulting bounce will keep cutting out intermittently?
I can provide an audio recording of the glitches I’m talking about if that helps.
Now, I don’t know if my sound card matters or not, but as I said I’m using ASIO4ALL at the moment. It’s an onboard sound card, unfortunate but Tascam’s 64-bit drivers for my USB interface do not work (grrr) so I am left with this as my only choice for now. Not sure if that makes a difference to offline bouncing or not.
Otherwise, my computer is quite new. It’s a i7 860, 4gb RAM, good vid card etc etc, and the CPU barely moves when I’m playing that audio track.
druidAlright, I’ve done quite a few different types of renders to work out what’s going on… I should point out that these vocals were recorded at 96kHz and 24-bit.
In the most basic sense, real-time recording seems to solve the problem. The odd part is, it doesn’t matter about the fx.
Here’s the list of what I did:
So after all that it seems that Podium is glitching the offline bounces for some reason, because even after deleting the FX offline bounces still glitch. I’m not sure what else to try. Would describing my setup help? I could post samples and screenshots too, if required.
I’ve never had this problem in all hosts that I’ve tried … although, I’ve only tried two hosts in this regard, really :). Podium, and energyXT. Anyway, I’m sure there’s a reason for this, since far more people would’ve noticed this sooner if it happened across the board. Now I’ve just got to work out why this specific situation is glitching! They are just straight .wav files placed on two tracks, other than the FX I gave one of them.
thcilnnahoj – thanks for explaining the realtime bounce mode. I would never have worked that out without your help!
druidI could be wrong, but the big transport might be useful in a touch screen setup, mightn’t it?
druidFrits, I don’t know if this matches with the flow and design feel you are going for in Podium, but you could have just one menu option to add a track, or multiple tracks.
If, in the menu, you had an input box next to the track that always defaulted to 1, people could click on the menu entry to just add one as they usually would, or they could click on the input box, type the number they want, and either click on the menu entry or just press enter.
Here is a picture example (the number was -6 because I copied from the track properties’ gain setting, I blanked the – out, but anyway, usually it would read 1 here, not 6, in my rushed example):
druiddruidAlready switched to 7 64-bit, and for the most part it’s fine. In fact, the problem I was was having (that I hadn’t mentioned until now) wasn’t Podium, it was my Tascam USB audio interface, where the latest drivers do not work (especially since they’re designed for their newer version of that interface).
So I use ASIO4ALL on the onboard and from what I can tell, it works fine.
druidAh, I was diverging really. I liked in energyXT (the first version) how one could create an envelope track and alter the tempo so it could slowly speed up or down, and also means that it didn’t have to be linear; it was so easy to draw a curve and get the tempo to do nice things.
Not sure if it would be heavily used by others, and I only say this because I thought it was a useful feature, but yeah anyway… That’s what I was talking about.
[edit]
Ahh I misunderstood, somehow. I know what you mean; you wouldn’t change the tempo of just one track, it would be more related to the timeline, or similar. Yes, I agree. It made sense in energyXT because you could create just tracks, but with Podium’s heirarchy, it would be weird to adjust tempo from, say, a bass track, and have it affect the whole mix.
druidReal-time adjustments… Does that mean that having a parameter track to adjust tempo could be possible? Not quite the same I guess; but I was wondering if making the engine work better for real-time adjustment was possible, perhaps the same edits could be used for tempo modulation? That would make slowing and speeding tempo up easier as then just a curve could be used.
druid@koalaboy wrote:
I had a couple assigned, and then when I used the ‘selector’ in one, I assumed I could change the parameter that would be automated, keeping the actual data.
Instead, when I selected a parameter, it created a brand new automation track keyed to that parameter.
Ah! I think I’d noticed this before but had forgotten, due to my lack of action in the music sector recently (little earlier than recently).
I think this is a bit strange; if you change a “paramter” on the track itself, it makes more sense to swap what parameter that track is adjusting. On the other hand, you’d need an intuitive and easy to reach way to add a parameter track. Perhaps it was decided that this was a good way to add a specific parameter track? Still, I think I’d be more “familiar” with right-clicking on the parent track to add specific parameters, and then changing the parameter track itself would change that specific parameter assignment.
With that said, I’m not sure how often I’d change assignments, because usually if I have a parameter track, it’s because I want to change that one parameter. Also, I use energyXT VST so I use that to map VST parameters to energyXT’s own, meaning I could just load the VST and change the assignment in there (in fact, I’d have to).
druidThanks for the heads up! Not active in music at all atm, but this is a great deal to be had. I gave them $1 USD extra (unemployed currently). I’m known for my generosity… *cough*
I would’ve been in on some of those awesome group buys too, if I was more active and had been steadily employed. Nice deals this year.
druidMy understanding (based on pretty much no research) was that applications just make calls to Windows. Perhaps there are parameters you can pass Windows to help control the font spacing, width, etc., but I thought as long as the same Windows function was called, if ClearType was on, it would be on, and if off, it would be off. Assuming I’m right about Windows functions and so forth, perhaps there are parameters that allow the disabling of ClearType, but I don’t think Frits has programmed font anti-aliasing. (Correct me if I’m wrong, however!)
As for Reaper offering anti-aliasing options for lines (if I understood correctly); that WOULD be application-specific, and nothing to do with fonts, as far as I know.
druidNo offense, but at least for me, I’m not really understanding your English. I can make out some parts of course, but there are some comments that I just don’t understand…
druidCouldn’t one just delay that track the right number of samples, and therefore avoid unnecessary usage of extra plugin instances? Surely, that would kill the CPU and RAM too, depending on the plugins.
I used to want to have long chains of FX and the reason I gave up on that was more like, I couldn’t be bothered tweaking them all and just even having the patience to find all the right ones… then I asked myself why I needed so many.
That was still only like 16, maybe. What can I say, I lack patience. 😉
druidI’ve already discussed your, quite frankly, atrociously rude manner of expressing yourself, so I shan’t continue again. I will remind you that saying how things “should” be and then calling yourself open-minded is hypocritical.
But I do take issue with something here, mostly because I sometimes feel it too; the necessity to be loud and/or rude to get heard.
It doesn’t always work, and in some cases, it can backfire. Have a look at the energyXT forum over at KVR Audio; many people there can be downright nasty. All that’s happened is that Jorgen has crawled into a shell and barely shows up, and his software is updated slower than ever.
I mention this only as a way to point out that being rude and/or loud does not get what you want always, and it does not always get you heard, either. Sometimes it makes it easier for others to ignore you, because they find you offensive.
I certainly am, again.