Visual 16bit - 24 bit indication REQUIRED!!!!

KarlSutton · Post by **KarlSutton** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:56 am

happened to me too - I miss the display in the hardware setup thing next to the counter thingy (I'm real technical)

Dwetmaster · Post by **Dwetmaster** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:00 am

And I thought I was the only guy in the world that would make that stupid mistake!!!

waterstrum · Post by **waterstrum** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:32 am

I would like a visual indicator of the bit rate too.

I've forgotten to check the prefs and been bitten a couple of times.

That being said, I'm loving the ability to use 16 and 24 bit files in the same sequence.
This has really helped me in several projects.

I'm worried that if we yell at MOTU, they won't know that we appreciate the great stuff they are doing.

This new feature is really cool.
It just needs a little tweaking.

Remember, we are the beta testers.
This is not "pro tools" with the huge corporation behind it.
We are the unpaid testers and that is O.K. by me.
I think of DP as shareware that we have to pay for.

The total of all of our brains will make it great.

YouTube · Post by **James Steele** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:42 am

Yeah... hopefully my friends at MOTU know I was just frustrated. There are not many more pro-MOTU people you meet than me... I mean I started this board, right? But it bummed me out to get bitten by this. I was thinking only half-joking about putting a litle nail in a wall of my studio and making a little card that I would hang on that nail. One side would say "16" the other "24" and any time I changed bit depth (to do scratch tracks for example), I walk over and turn the card around. Any time, I wasn't sure, I'd look over at that wall. Honestly, I may actually do this. But doesn't that seem absurd in 2007. Of course, I can understand how things like this can be missed. I just hope they "fix" this, as I and other have gotten bitten.

On other possible suggestion would be to have the background of a 16 bit soundbite to be a slightly different shade of grey than the background of a 24 bit soundbite in the Sequence Editor and possibly TO. Dunno... something.

bongo_x · Post by **bongo_x** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:21 pm

I wouldn't worry about it at all. It's the performance that's important, everything else is small potatoes.

You can hear the difference, but so what? That doesn't mean it's bad. I'll take 100% performance and 80% sound over the opposite, any time.

Metallica's "Black Album" was mastered from a 16 bit DAT because they had problems with the masters and they had a deadline for mastering. Whether you like it or not, I've never heard anyone say they would like the album better if it had been mastered at a higher bit rate.

I worked on tons of albums for years that were all 16 bit. One track is not going to make a difference.

bb

kassonica · Post by **kassonica** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:17 am

Mr_Clifford wrote:Yep another vote of agreement.

Even if you can't change it from the main panel, there should be a little window with the bit depth, sample rate & buffer setting. Just for our own information.

Especially since the MOTU-created template projects are all set to 16bit.

Yes I've always found this very very strange IT must a hangover from the old days a bad bad hangover which needs a cure MOTU.

I feel for you James and having been caught out once myself I record everything no matter how throw away at 24 bit now, space can be found but inspiration can't be.

Hope it works out maybe you'll track em even better

YouTube · Post by **James Steele** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:44 am

Hey thanks for the continued feedback. In all actuality, I need to have more confidence in my ability to sing it again, as I tracked again and got perfectly good takes, so I guess it's not like I *couldn't* sing it just as well again, but just the hassle of doing it over. For me I just feel better knowing I have them in 24-bit now. I'm not touching the bit depth setting again, until there's more of a safeguard as I'm liable to forget again.

toodamnhip · Post by **toodamnhip** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:07 am

Spikey Horse wrote:James I'm confused, I mean there is an indicator on the 'audio drawer' that pulls out from control panel. That is what I use. (although for me it needs to be flashing as I still get caught out sometimes)

What bugs me is not having the current buffer size on the control panel. I'm mixing at 1024 ... I close project and open another one with K2/BFD etc and as soon as I click I remember I didn't switch down to 128 .... so I have to wait for all those VI's to load then change buffers then wait all over again...

I do think whole control panel could do with a makeover. We mostly have bigger monitors now so I think it can afford to include some more info. I've never liked how punch in replaces the project and seq displays. Maybe a (more) user configurable control panel is the way forward so we can choose what we have on there.

Here's a fun one...due to the fact that the buffer size does NOT read out in an EASILY viewable location...

Whose done this...

You're in the middle of a HUGE mix, mixing at 1024. You stop mixing, go to another song ..change buffers in another song file to track a VI and you forget or dont move the buffers back to 1024. Come back later to the Huge mix, which loads on top of the audio engine being 128. You hit Play..your computer sits there for 8 minutes like a retard trying to cue that huge mix before playng a crazy digital hash...one you hit play, you realize your buffers are set wrong and you have that helpless feeling, know you're either gonna crash at 128 or lose minutes waiting for the comp as you cannot un hit that play button..yes..we need a buffer indicator

blue · Post by **blue** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:24 am

toodamnhip wrote:yes..we need a buffer indicator

Totally agree. Until we get massive CPU overhead, there won't be any set-it-and-forget-it mentality when it comes to buffers.

As an extension to that idea, I like Timeline's concept (from a thread long ago) about having multiple buffer rates within a project. You could have a setting where record enabled tracks have a different buffer than non record-enabled tracks. Then you wouldn't need to change the setting when your needs changed. That would be so cool.

toodamnhip · Post by **toodamnhip** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:33 am

blue wrote:
toodamnhip wrote:yes..we need a buffer indicator
Totally agree. Until we get massive CPU overhead, there won't be any set-it-and-forget-it mentality when it comes to buffers.

As an extension to that idea, I like Timeline's concept (from a thread long ago) about having multiple buffer rates within a project. You could have a setting where record enabled tracks have a different buffer than non record-enabled tracks. Then you wouldn't need to change the setting when your needs changed. That would be so cool.

THAT would be an EFFIN......MIRACLE!

I don;t think it is possible...but I would love that...can anyone say" realtime tracking effects?..lol

blue · Post by **blue** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:36 am

From what I've heard it's already being used in Logic automatically. The record-enabled tracks use the buffer set up in the preferences and the rest of the tracks go to 1024. If true, that would certainly account for the lighter CPU load in Logic projects.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:39 am

James Steele wrote:Hey thanks for the continued feedback. In all actuality, I need to have more confidence in my ability to sing it again, as I tracked again and got perfectly good takes, so I guess it's not like I *couldn't* sing it just as well again, but just the hassle of doing it over. For me I just feel better knowing I have them in 24-bit now. I'm not touching the bit depth setting again, until there's more of a safeguard as I'm liable to forget again.

Nothing beats an honest performance, but when you're forced to replicate a performance because you were misled by the software.. well.....

Look-- I've been a MOTU-maniac for longer than I care to admit, but when intuition leads to screwing something up, then I get twisted.

I've complained for a while about so many features being dumped into the global preferences as if they are incidental. Some newcomer is taking the way we use DP for granted. Anyone who has used DP for a while would have seen the downside of hiding the bit setting and would have never let it happen, even if the bit reconciliation were incorporated.

I'm convinced that it is the same person who chose to dispense with the sample rate display who also determined that certain settings regarding beat clicks should also be global-- or that QS and GE windows as well as track lists should always bounce to the top of the lists for the sake of "convenience".

Wanna know the reponse I got when I suggested otherwise?

"It doesn't work like that."

Go fig.

remainanon · Post by **remainanon** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:55 am

Can anyone enlighten me as to the possible upside to this odd and baffling feature?

And, since it's so easy to record the wrong bit depth, why in the world you can't just turn it off and make your system 24-bit only?

What's the point of it?

Confused over here...
JW

YouTube · Post by **James Steele** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:03 am

remainanon wrote:And, since it's so easy to record the wrong bit depth, why in the world you can't just turn it off and make your system 24-bit only?

You CAN do just that. Just set it to 24 and forget it which is what I am doing from now on. You get yourself in trouble by changing it and then forgetting to change it back. The only way to doublecheck what bit-depth you're currently recording in is to go to the DP menu, choose "Preferences" and go to the Audio Settings and check it... that is if you REMEMBER to check.

toodamnhip · Post by **toodamnhip** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:29 pm

Frodo wrote:
James Steele wrote:Hey thanks for the continued feedback. In all actuality, I need to have more confidence in my ability to sing it again, as I tracked again and got perfectly good takes, so I guess it's not like I *couldn't* sing it just as well again, but just the hassle of doing it over. For me I just feel better knowing I have them in 24-bit now. I'm not touching the bit depth setting again, until there's more of a safeguard as I'm liable to forget again.
Nothing beats an honest performance, but when you're forced to replicate a performance because you were misled by the software.. well.....

Look-- I've been a MOTU-maniac for longer than I care to admit, but when intuition leads to screwing something up, then I get twisted.

I've complained for a while about so many features being dumped into the global preferences as if they are incidental. Some newcomer is taking the way we use DP for granted. Anyone who has used DP for a while would have seen the downside of hiding the bit setting and would have never let it happen, even if the bit reconciliation were incorporated.

I'm convinced that it is the same person who chose to dispense with the sample rate display who also determined that certain settings regarding beat clicks should also be global-- or that QS and GE windows as well as track lists should always bounce to the top of the lists for the sake of "convenience".

Wanna know the reponse I got when I suggested otherwise?

"It doesn't work like that."

Go fig.

I think I have some info for you.
Awhile back, I heard something from a tech which led me to believe that one of the ways DP streamlined it's performance was to get rid of redundant data display in different windows.

You might notice that when DP went to OSx, windows got changed A LOT.

So I think they have a strategy of minimizing dislay real estate to make things more efficient CPU-wise...for better or worse...

Food for thought