PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists RealBand Wishlist Better metering on multitrack setups

RB currently draws VU levels on the track during recording, and will have improved handling of the VU levels when recording multi-inputs for 2024.
In, RB, if you want multiple inputs on tracks 1 through 8, you just click on track 1 so it's the current track and inputs 2 through 8 would go on tracks 2 through 8. You don't need to press "arm" 8 times. EDIT: And also without having to set the input for each track individually as well With RB, you can record on multiple tracks without having to do all that.

Since you appear to be taking credit for the individual Solo buttons, or at least saying it's better with the individual Solo buttons, I'll mention that the soloing method in RB now (with individual solo buttons having been added a while ago) does makes it a lot more difficult if you just want to A/B compare 2 tracks, even if they are are next to each other. You used to just be able to click on the track and it would solo because it was the current track (and the Solo button on the toolbar was pressed), and then you could click on the down arrow or click on the next track to have that one be soloed. (and you could also solo multiple tracks by selecting multiple tracks) Now you have to un-solo one track and and then solo the next track, or you could click on the next track and then press the Solo Tracks button twice which is still more difficult. I guess adding a special key combination would now be necessary to get it to solo JUST the current track without having to press multiple buttons in the case of another track already having been soloed. This is because the other method was eliminated in favor of individual solo buttons.

EDIT: Maybe I’ll try to make it so that, for RB 2024, pressing a key like Ctrl while pressing an individual track’s solo button would cause it to solo just that track which would make it easier to go from, say Track 1 being the only track soloed to Track 2 (or any other track) being the only track being soloed.

You can keep RB how you like it won't bother me in the least. I remember selecting tracks I wanted soloed with the old one button method then when I highlighted a section of bars in the chord sheet i wanted to play it lost all the selected tracks.
Every other DAW has a solo button and you can arm the tracks you like, please don't make any mods because of what I say I hate having to force things to happen if it's kicking against the pricks, you want to do things joyfully not begrudgingly.
That's why I said to old muso, as it was 2014 when it was suggested, old muso is keen for RB to become "better" and I try to help him but I have been at it a long time and know the saga and it's very draining so that's why I gave up with it. So you are best just to do some easy things to change it a little for 2024 and users can make do with it how it is, I'm sure you have many loyal users that will be happy no matter what you do, it is what it is. I think you can put that single Solo button back as it could be a new feature selling point.
Sorry old muso I tried n tried n tried and tried, I hope you see what the story is now that I have been trying to tell you and that there are other better ways of doing things now
I think your quote was correct than what I thought, it is too hard...for PG !

Jeff.
re arming tracks for a multi input scheme.
Very good point you made about arming tracks.
so if one is recording from 16 interface audio inputs it means a user has to arm 16 individual tracks in rb which takes longer than just one and
do the consecutive idea.

so haveing thought about the above and your points i cant think of a perfect solution no matter the solution implemented.
a classic catch 22. ...cos i'm thinking about in the future as computers get even more powerfull eg quantum.
in the future if one were recording from a 128 input interface eg an orchestral date ...it would be a pain individually going thru 128 tracks in rb and arming each.
which makes me wonder how are other daws gonna handle a large number of inputs interface or lets consider a usb mixer with a slew of channels.

kudos Jeff ..good thinking mate.
lol...i'm now gonna take a bath and think about this conundrum.
maybe one idea might be , the user sets up a template whereby the rb tracks are pre armed and routing from interface to rb track is pre determined ?
yep thd time to arm 8 tracks is nothing compared to 64 or 128 tracks
in the future.

happiness.

om

mcity ..yep im very keen on rb becoming wonderfull cos it has sooo much potential imho. my apologies...i wasnt aware about the history of all these aspects.
maybe im too ardent in wanting rb to really make inroads in the daw user community.

i see what jeff is getting at re time to arm lots of tracks and deal with routing of each..which becomes more and more time consuming the more io the interface has.
tis a conundrum...lol.

best regards mcity and i wish i had your graphic skills.

om

I should look into a way to get directly to the Audio Drivers dialog from the right click menu which would make it easier to change the currently selected audio ports(s) in the drivers dialog without having to go into Audio Prefs first. I should also look into duplicating the "Input channel for Mono Tracks:" into the Audio Drivers dialog, or maybe instead add it somewhere onto the right-click menu.

Also, RB 2024 will have lots more tracks, so if someone just wants to re-record only bass/drums instead of bass/drums/guitar/piano/etc. they could always just record to a different group of multi-tracks and then they delete any unwanted tracks from the now group. Maybe not as convenient as with the arm method but still doable.

"maybe im too ardent in wanting rb to really make inroads in the daw user community."
are you trying to give Jeff a heart attack ?

24 users died last week while arming tracks:
Fit Screen

Or from having to delete extra WAVs in the case of having forgotten to disarm previous tracks?

You should promote that idea in other forums for other DAW's, I think that will go down well, show them PowerTracks while your at it and maybe they will see the light and convert over.

But maybe still a little better than you go over. 😆

all.

throw eggs at me if you think this is a daft idea ...lol.

1..imagine a new dialog called the track arming guide..tag.
2..displayed in tag are 8 boxes ..four labelled source (ie the audio interface) and four labelled destination (rb tracks).

so an example ..an outrageous example...lets say the user wants to record interface inputs 9 to 14 to rb tracks 23 to 28 and interface inputs 17 to 19 to rb tracks 68 to 70 and interface inputs 23 to 28 to rb tracks 1 to 6 then the appropo source (interface) and destination (rb tracks) box ranges would be filled in. yes i know the concept is kinda addling but i'm trying to think of the most flexible concept.

in addition lets say a user wants just to record usb mixer mic inputs 20 to 24 to rb tracks 34 to 38 THEN the user would just enter one source and one destination range.

ok i stand ready for the egg throwing...lol.

happiness.

om

RealBand Wishlist WT# ! I see old muso wishing year after year and disappointment year after year, look at all the mock ups I made for him they served ZERO PURPOSE there is not one iota of interest in making RB better, it's 90's thinking and 90's stuck, it's been that way all along, only half asss things are implemented and very begrudgingly with arm twisting.
If you have no enthusiasm, interest or pride in it just retire from it, don't lead users on with RealBand Wishlist it's like Oliver asking for more, false hope, you even had me going for a while but you have shown your hand, the truth comes out.

Would the track arming dialog be instead of having individual arm buttons, and when would it be launched?

I inadvertently missed one of the posts from Musocity earlier.

In general, don’t think the priority has been to make everything work identically to others, and the time involved in rewriting something to work more like others needs to be factored in.

If we were to have RB use a track arming method, I think it’s gotten too close to 2024 for that to occur for 2024 release, but interested in hearing more about the dialog. Thanks.

It may sound crazy to some, but whenever I want to record a song, I use RB and can’t imagine having to be using certain other non-PG recording programs, but maybe that’s just me. I can see for , say, looping EDM type stuff that RB might not be the ideal choice, but I actually find using RB easier to use than others,and not difficult to use. And 2024 will be an improvement over 2023.

Guys, I posted all this 10 years ago ! and now they are doing something or gonna do something..maybe ? I hope it's not from big fights that something gets done, there's got to be a better way surely
It's like I said way back in another lifetime, clutch, brake and accelerator (solo mute record) I can get in any car and it's the same, it's not a Russian car that I need to learn. All the time and energy is spent on Biab and fixing Mac Biab regularly as well as the extra 6 months that it takes that's why you have a crappy RealBand and don't bother with it. (not to mention the crossplatform JUCE Plugin had to wait all the time for bbw4 to be worked on, hope to God this is not still the case in December)
Look at Audacity they are learning, it's more like a real DAW now.

Jeff/All.

Re you asked for More ?
here goes...

here's some things ive been mulling over in my mind.
jeff ..yes the idea is the tag would be used as an option
on recording lots of sources at once instead of laboring over each track arming it...etc.

the conundrum and how to find a practical user solution is sorta like
'the letter carrier making sure the right letters go to the right houses' or 'the air traffic controller making sure the planes go to the right taxiways'.
ie sources and destinations....routing sound interface multi inputs to tracks.

nowv let's throw into the mix a major event eg as pg and jeff are canadian
a future re-creation of the fab 'conquistador' by procol harum and the edmonton symphony orchestra….or for americans a re-creation of stairway to heaven live (like the brilliant heart did)…or for us brits a re-creation of ac/dc classic rock at castle donnington.

all the above are major events that might encompass large massed choirs
(I miss singing in one.) rock groups and symphony orchestras ie lots of musos and singers coming together to create a memorable music event.
maybe such a large event might hold clues as to how a smaller event might be handled ? given how many mics
etc etc are going to be used.
now throw into the mix higher transfer speed/ computer cpu tech eg usb 4
(and I'm sure usb 5 and usb 6 are on the horizon as are faster processors.)
and thus the question becomes what tech to use for such a event ?

Obviously audio mixers with loads of inputs will be used (plus back ups.)

and irrespective of daw being used and computer platform how are the audio engineers going to set things up on that chosen daw/computer platform ?
The only way I can see is via some sorta TAG methodology.
i.e. allocate sources to destinations once again. as in…'ok chaps the choir mics will be recorded on tracks xx thru yy.' and rinse and repeat for the orchestra and the rock group or groups
etc etc. ie logically connecting and arranging sources to destinations.

now obviously most gigs are lots smaller, e.g. a small jazz combo or rock group or a bunch of mates getting together, but the problem remains…
sending sources to destinations.
Hence I can't see any way other than using something like a tag dialogue to organise which sources are recorded on which destination tracks. i get jeffs point re user time needed to go through a track at a time and matching it with its sound device input.
hence using a tag dialogue simple example …5 drum mics going to rb tracks 25 thru 29 or choir tenors going to tracks 31 thru 34 etc etc.
i'm sure the event producers will use loads of computer daw tracks so they have flexibility in re-mixing a major music event back at their commercial facilities.

given the above it would seem some sorta flexible tag dialogue that allows
production people to allocate ranges of like musicians eg source violins mic group to destination ranges of tracks will be 'de rigeur'.
maybe also thought be given within a tag dialogue for any range having mute and solo buttons…maybe also multiple take buttons ?
then of course the old chestnut needs to be addressed of ensuring new takes dont erase previous takes the user wants to keep.

In summary…not trivial stuff….with lots of potential problems doing a major or even minor event where a small combo gets together including things like a computer or audio console going on the fritz etc etc.

hope i make some sense…I await once again any rotten eggs.
(my wife makes a superb egg sandwich…lol.)

i think at this point if everyone is in agreement that a new dialogue dedicated to connecting sources to track destinations is warranted…that the discussion now address what user features should such a tag have other than source and destination ranges. eg how should multiple takes be addressed and mutes and solos etc. for example maybe a user wants to solo the rock band rhythm section coming from source range 32 to 39 and destined for tracks 64 to 71….cos tracks 32 to 39 have already been recorded on.

see what i mean ?
anyone else…who wants to put their oar in the water feel free.
cos the above aint trivial.
also at the core of my thinking is how to ensure if rb is called upon at some future event no matter how trivial with various musos/mics/instruments etc etc it wont fall flat on its face.
how do other daws handle big events of the sort ive alluded to ?
how do they solve the conundrum ?..cos i'm not seeing lots of info re neat solutions.

happiness to all

om

addendum.
to show that this issue of sources to track destinations is not just a pg rb issue...
ive been trying to see how the big boy daws do it by googling 'daw name plus arming tracks multiple input usb audio interface'.

someone else have a bash cos maybe i missed something.
but im finding no info on big boy daws how they handle track arming for recording loads of tracks at once. so maybe rb can be the leader with the tag idea ?

If we were to go with track arming for a future version of RB, a routing dialog likely does make sense. The question is would multiple tracks (like tracks.1 and 2) both be allowed to receive the same input during recording. There’s a way that could still be allowed in a routing dialog, but, if that is allowed, then after a take is kept, you would get a duplicate recording onto tracks 1 and 2 if they were both set to the same input and both armed. (Especially if you didn’t visit the routing dialog and they were both armed but set to a default of Input 1).

Jeff.

i'm not sure what your saying mate …are you afraid of inadvertent duplicate tracks resulting from an incoming input from say a 32x32 interface or usb mixer ? eg if usb mixer mic input 9 is for harp, i would not expect the harp to end up on two rb tracks by using the TAG feature. further i wouldnt expect the harp necessarily to end up on rb track 9.
cos 9 might already have been recorded on. for example in the past in a big studio just because harp was on big console input 9 it wouldnt necessarily end up on track 9 of a 2 inch studer mtr if the studers track 9 already were filled.

Well actually prior to recording normally track layouts are agreed in advance ...so these kind of probs dont occur.
i would suggest that a daw like rb would mirror things.
ie its not rb's fault if the harp is directed to more than 1 input on a 32x32 usb mixer unless the user wishes to do so.
i would suggest in the track range routing boxes in tag that maybe rb might warn the user if a track in the user entered range had already been recorded on.

If I wanted a dupe of a track I would do that using rb duplicate feature post recording. Did I answer the question ? Do I make sense ?

I'm also mulling around having worked once for a telecommunications company…that in the future as telecoms tech gets cheaper for smaller studios ..very cheap ultra fast telecomms features/pipes might obsolete current ways of getting audio data into a daw.
though of course usb 4 is very fast in data transfer. even usb 2 is sufficient for lots of sound interfaces. it really depends on data transfer volumes.

well jeff ive been looking more and more how other daws deal with recording large track ranges/track counts cos of the prob of say arming 64 or 128 daw tracks. It seems many are just doing things the old ways of arming tracks. but maybe i'm missing something.

happiness.

om.

This conversation has drifted from my initial request.
I would simply like to SEE what I am recording as it records, regardless of Ports used.

If other suggestions here affect HOW this gets implemented, that's likely a good thing moving forward. So I appreciate the dialogue and thinking effort of contributors, but I would like to see my initial request happen, and not be held up because of additional requests. (since Jeff already said some suggestions won't happen before 2024)

Just a thought .. one step at a time is how I approach things
Can't frame an addition to the house until you have a foundation, and painting it is further down the line ..

2013 Draw Waveform While Recording
It draws those color bars that I can't go by, it should draw proper waveform and It should have a track vu for each level.
In the pic the vu meters on the left, if they go hot the red peak will stay there showing it's been over.
The far right is the result different from what is shown while recording.

erm...lol.

i got a question re inputs recorded from a multi input interface.
each rb track has a level meter....cant these be used for input monitoring
like some other daws ?

or am i misunderstanding ?

om

LOL
Maybe we were a bit too hopeful with this pic and using flac files, if Reaper can't come to RealBand we can take RealBand to Reaper: