What exactly is a VCA group in ProTools?

[toodamnhip]

I agree. The way it is designed now, it is like a race to the finish line with the "politically correct" goal of everyone arriving at the same exact time..lol, everyone getting the same "participation medal".

Oh, man. That's priceless.

Shooshie didn;t write that, it's me, the hipster that wrote that!!..lol. Shooshie likes what the faders are doing,,,
He's giving out the participation medal with MOTU..lol..(just kidding shoosh ol' boy..love ya)

[Dan Worley]

Shooshie didn;t write that, it's me, the hipster that wrote that!!..lol. Shooshie likes what the faders are doing,,,
He's giving out the participation medal with MOTU..lol..(just kidding shoosh ol' boy..love ya)

I edited my post. I busted a gut when I read that. You need to get credit for it.

[Shooshie]

Look at these frames from the video. The 0-1-2-3-4 relationship stays with them all the way to Infinity. At infinity there can be no difference, because we're talking about infinity.

Shoosh

[Shooshie]

After examining the numbers above, 2dam, what do you say about "participation medals?"

Kinda silly, eh?

Do you really think I'd keep on with this if you guys weren't missing something?

Upgrade to DP 8.05, you nerdballs , because you're missing a working version. Apparently that's why we're seeing different things.

This is the way it worked long ago. Somewhere along the line I think it got broken. It's fixed now. By the way, the video didn't capture all the frames down to infinity, but at -70 dB, the relationship was still preserved.

OK?

Shooshie

[Dan Worley]

Look at these frames from the video. The 0-1-2-3-4 relationship stays with them all the way to Infinity. At infinity there can be no difference, because we're talking about infinity.

Shoosh

Yes, but as I said earlier in this thread. It works fine going down. It's going up that's the problem.

[Shooshie]

Geez guys. Look me in the eyes. Now listen carefully.

IT WORKS.

IT's BEEN FIXED!

THE NUMBERS ALL STAY THE SAME.

C'mon are you all just doing this to see how far I'll go? Is this some kind of joke?

Ok, I'll make another video and show you.

Wait... you mean going up above Unity. Right? Not up from Infinity. So you DO understand that from Unity to Infinity and back to Unity it's working exactly as you want it to. Is that correct?

Shooshie

[Dan Worley]

Geez guys. Look me in the eyes. Now listen carefully.

IT WORKS.

IT's BEEN FIXED!

THE NUMBERS ALL STAY THE SAME.

C'mon are you all just doing this to see how far I'll go? Is this some kind of joke?

Ok, I'll make another video and show you.

Wait... you mean going up above Unity. Right? Not up from Infinity. So you DO understand that from Unity to Infinity and back to Unity it's working exactly as you want it to. Is that correct?

Shooshie

I'm using 8.05. I can only tell you what I'm seeing here. I'm not trying to be difficult.

Here are screen shots. I set initial levels (track names) and then grouped the faders. I move the -7 fader UP 1 dB at a time. I never get near unity.

The numbers speak for themselves. I don't know what else to tell you. This is useless when trying to adjust mix levels accurately, regardless of what was intended in the design.

[Shooshie]

Well, we have a discrepancy. Watch this movie very carefully. It's not long:

http://youtu.be/ePH9kixvqos

Be sure to watch it at 1080p, full screen, so you can read the numbers. They contradict yours. What do we do now?

Shooshie

[Dan Worley]

Well, we have a discrepancy. Watch this movie very carefully. It's not long:

http://youtu.be/ePH9kixvqos

Be sure to watch it at 1080p, full screen, so you can read the numbers. They contradict yours. What do we do now?

Shooshie

Wonderful! I'm very pleased that it is working correctly, up to unity anyway. That gives me hope. Mine is not working correctly. I'll post a video showing it.

Maybe it got fixed because of Mavericks. I'm using SL 10.6.8.

[Shooshie]

Maybe it got fixed because of Mavericks. I'm using SL 10.6.8.

That's the only explanation left! Or maybe a combination of 8.05 plus Mavericks. In any case, the grouped faders are working properly, and the compression above Unity is by design, so I think DP is back on track again.

Now where is that 2damhemp? He's got some 'poligizin' to do.

Shooshie

[Dan Worley]

2damhemp

I can't say I like the squeeze above unity. It brings back the same problem. My magic zone for faders is -4 to +2. So if I have to adjust a group that has that spread it's not going to be correct. Once I get up past +2, I will raise the trim and lower the fader, but I want to be able to push past there when moving a group without having to worry about things getting off.

I'm just stating my preference.

[Shooshie]

2damhemp

I can't say I like the squeeze above unity. It brings back the same problem. My magic zone for faders is -4 to +2. So if I have to adjust a group that has that spread it's not going to be correct. Once I get up past +2, I will raise the trim and lower the fader, but I want to be able to push past there when moving a group without having to worry about things getting off.

I'm just stating my preference.

Understood.

A workaround would be to put Trim on every track with a +2 gain. Option-dragging the Trim plugin across all tracks would do it. Then the grouped faders would work in your preferred sync to Unity, but Trim would boost it the rest of the way.

But I'm not sure it's necessary. This is where we need Magic Dave to fill in some blanks. For example: the entire fader scale from 0 to -Infinity is logarithmic. A spread of 2 or 3 dB at its mid range is going to become an inaudible difference at -70 dB. Likewise, a spread of 30 dB at -70 dB will become intolerable back at Unity Gain.

So, continuing north of unity, what kind of scale is being used? If it's continuing in a logarithmic fashion, the compression is entirely justified, not merely so we can use the whole fader throw, but because it's attempting to maintain *sonically* the same relationship between the tracks.

But the loudness of the transients in the soundbite may negate that whole issue. If the soundbite is very quiet, is it still getting any justification from the compression of the logarithmic scale extending above unity? This is where it gets beyond my ability to think it through without extensive testing. Dave might already know the answers.

But I think I'm about done with worrying about it. I only wanted to show that it is working, and I think we all now understand that in Mavericks OS, DP 8.05 has fader groups that actually maintain their moving relationship up and down throughout the unity-infinity range.

People's preferences are another thing entirely, and not my department!

Shooshie

[Dan Worley]

2damhemp

I can't say I like the squeeze above unity. It brings back the same problem. My magic zone for faders is -4 to +2. So if I have to adjust a group that has that spread it's not going to be correct. Once I get up past +2, I will raise the trim and lower the fader, but I want to be able to push past there when moving a group without having to worry about things getting off.

I'm just stating my preference.

Understood.

A workaround would be to put Trim on every track with a +2 gain. Option-dragging the Trim plugin across all tracks would do it. Then the grouped faders would work in your preferred sync to Unity, but Trim would boost it the rest of the way.

But I'm not sure it's necessary. This is where we need Magic Dave to fill in some blanks. For example: the entire fader scale from 0 to -Infinity is logarithmic. A spread of 2 or 3 dB at its mid range is going to become an inaudible difference at -70 dB. Likewise, a spread of 30 dB at -70 dB will become intolerable back at Unity Gain.

So, continuing north of unity, what kind of scale is being used? If it's continuing in a logarithmic fashion, the compression is entirely justified, not merely so we can use the whole fader throw, but because it's attempting to maintain *sonically* the same relationship between the tracks.

But the loudness of the transients in the soundbite may negate that whole issue. If the soundbite is very quiet, is it still getting any justification from the compression of the logarithmic scale extending above unity? This is where it gets beyond my ability to think it through without extensive testing. Dave might already know the answers.

But I think I'm about done with worrying about it. I only wanted to show that it is working, and I think we all now understand that in Mavericks OS, DP 8.05 has fader groups that actually maintain their moving relationship up and down throughout the unity-infinity range.

People's preferences are another thing entirely, and not my department!

Shooshie

Yeah, well, it got past my understanding a long time ago.

I just wanted to show that it wasn't working because it's a feature I would love to have used all these years, but I look forward to using it in the future, if it's implemented correctly.

Not complaining, just stating.

[toodamnhip]

Maybe it got fixed because of Mavericks. I'm using SL 10.6.8.

That's the only explanation left! Or maybe a combination of 8.05 plus Mavericks. In any case, the grouped faders are working properly, and the compression above Unity is by design, so I think DP is back on track again.

Now where is that 2damhemp? He's got some 'poligizin' to do.

Shooshie

What did I miss?
I did a test on my system running 8.05, 10.6.8.
Going downwards (quieter), works 1:1. Going upwards is not 1:1, the faders move in some sort of ratio and therefore, the grouped maneuver becomes useless to me for precise work. I also see little realistic reason for the faders to act differently when being adjusted downward (quieter) compared to upward... louder.
I’m really not all that interested in theoretical explanation. I’d have become an electrician if I wanted that. I want all the faders to move by the same db amounts..up or down. +1 for all, not +1 for one of them , +.56 for another etc...crazy.
But I do ‘pologize” to Shoosh because he’s the boss.

[Shooshie]

What did I miss?
I did a test on my system running 8.05, 10.6.8.

What you missed is that it works now. I'll let you go back and read it.

It's not theoretical. It works in Mavericks with DP8.05. Apparently not in other operating systems. There may be more to the story, but at least for now it looks like Mavericks fixed it.

Or maybe the DAW gods just love tormenting you, but happen to like me. That could explain a LOT of things!

Shooshie