DP Mixer automation obnoxious MOTU issues

[Timeline]

I seem to still be having these few problems in the mixer automation and it really slows me down.

1. When you group levels they do not track together.

2. Mutes which are programmed do not stay on in solo

3. When taking a fader off line or do a trim down in trim or fade the level down the level, it disappears until a save and rewind occurs. If you do this in Latch it comes back as it should.
This is really obnoxious.

[Artspoke]

Not sure what you mean exactly in 1), but maybe you refer to the levels changing by different amounts across a grouped set of faders whose initial state is different from one another. I have noiticed a similar handicap when changing volume data by percentage with the Change Continuous Data command vs. using the pencil tool/ change by % (the scale is virtually unreadable during this exercise, incidentally). I think that for some commands, perhaps to include grouped faders/automation writing, DP chooses to do the math in different ways - sometimes linear, others logarithmic. ? Musically, we might prefer to have the latter, but couldn't we just have the choice?

2) There really isn't a "mute" feature for DP, it's better looked at as "play enable". Then, in Solo mode, it switches to "solo enable", which is sort of more like anti-mute, and is not automateable. This is rather unfortunate for mixing - that you can't enter Solo mode during mixdown. Hoewever, since there is no way to automate the toggling of Solo mode, it's already not accountable to a mix (you can't make it do exactly the same thing every time, having to toggle Solo mode manually). I think, compared to how any automateable analog console handles its mute automation, DP is really too track oriented. I would love to see the mutes (first added vs. "play enable") handled by their own mechanism. Once you have three or more types of automation written on a track, it becomes a real pain to haev to regroup everyone just to write mute automation. Why not just have a little window akin to the Drum Editor, which allows easy viewing/manipulation of the track "play enable" automation? ?

3) Due to noticing the same problem with the trim logic, I resort to the Change Continuous Data command to accomplish all my volume automation trimming. It's a real pain, but at least you can see exactly what you have, and you don't have to rewind! I have tried to get the Trim faders to work, and can report the same issues. Also, the automation data seems to be really MIDI like in some ways, so the rewind probably has to do with that same phenomenon in MIDI - where it doesn't remember settings, it only recalls them by playing over their initiation points.

It seems to me that some of these issues could be easily sorted out by simply giving us some options, mathematically, as to how we want our data manipulated. We do get an excellent assortment of crossfade/fade options - almost all that I could ever hope for anyway (some numbers would help, at least so the same type of independant fade could be duplicated later in the game...) - why not give us some more flexibility with the equations that shape our data?

Probably doesn't help, but I feel your pain!
-James

<small>[ May 02, 2005, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Artspoke ]</small>

[Timeline]

Thanks for the reply.

I just finished a 14 hour DP mix marathon so forgive my shortness but...

I notice the fader movement also favors the one you grab from the group, level wise... Wht's up wit'at.

In Nuendo, mutes written stay online in solo. The more I hear about their mixer the more I'm thinkin about ..... Just waiting on Tiger compatibility. I would rather not spent the 2G but unless I hear something is being done in the automation department with DP, I will likely use DP for MIDI only.

I really like DP/Tiger implementation of recent and see how many of you guys enjoy the benefits within DP4.52.
It's just that my priorities are more geared to the mixer than the bells and whistles.

In the last 4 years i have asked softly and screamed loudly for changes in mixer automation to no avail. I have never once gotten any reply on automation suggestions and issues from MOTU nor were any implemented. If fact in 4.12 mutes did work in solo so that feature was taken away.

I don't think any really relative new mixing features beyond compatibility were added since OS9. It's basically the same old same old.

Additionally, they have been quite curt towards all of my emails and personal contact back to NAMM 2003. Either they don't answer suggestions by never replying at all or they are just on their own unending merry go round ride with no way to get on or off.

I have really tried to be a good MOTU citizen but when there is no feedback on major issues like the mixer automation, there has to be a line in the sand somewhere.

This post for me is intended to evoke discussion (on the mixer automation).

Please no flames as I have the right to vent my personal dissatisfaction as all of you do as well.

[Artspoke]

Do you find the automation that's recorded to favor the fader you grab, or are you mixing in realtime - like a live show?

I definitely notice the grabbed fader moving more quickly than the others, but it seems to be a realtime graphics issue. I'll have a really close look at my automation dots to see if indeed, the other members of the group are getting late data written to their automation, with respect to the grabbed fader in the group.

Very interesting - it's been awhile since I've read a good thread on DP automation,
-James

[Timeline]

Yes, it does favor the selected fader but it also demonstrates lag and positioning as the other faders don't follow immediately. Quick up and down movements with multiple faders will show this.

I have had to option click and write faders back into position when it does this.

It looks like NOT enough scans of the selected faders are occurring. If this is the problem than it should be easy fix by establishing more scan precedent to the items being updated and the groups of faders in the chain.

[paulhurt]

Hi Gary and all

Right with you on some of these automation issues. Trim Touch behaviour in particular doesn't make much sense. Hang on while I get my system up again (DP automation currently not functioning properly at all) - then I'll be able to contribute better.

Here's hoping we can petition MOTU to put a few things right (otherwise I'll also be looking for an alternative DAW - which would be sad after all this time)

Paul

[Timeline]

I'm going to go ahead and buy Nuendo and try it.

I'm not leaving DP I just want to get my feet wet and see if I can make better records on N3.

I'm selling one of my U87s to pay for it on ebay.

Ebay name Rareamps.

Cheers,

[Tim Casey]

I tend to just learn to work with however the software handles whatever I'm trying to do.....

[paulhurt]

I tend to just learn to work with however the software handles whatever I'm trying to do.....

Sure, I think we all do that. But there are limits! For me, one fairly basic feature in DP's automation turns out to be unusable when you really examine what's going on. You can never be sure that the mix you're hearing is the mix you're going to get.

Given the choice of struggling on with something that doesn't work, or changing to something that does work... which makes more sense? Saying to clients "Oh, yeah, I would but that doesn't work properly" reflects worse on me (for my choice in software) than it does the software itself.

And I know changing DAW tends to swap one set of problems for another. But I'd rather have a few small problems I can work around than one BIG one that I can't.

It's like mobile phones. Say you buy one that's small and looks cool, has a camera and a colour display, a built-in radio.... however, when you use it as a phone you can't hear the person on the other end of the line talking. You're going to get a different phone.

I just hope we can convince MOTU to take a look at one or two issues. Otherwise I'll have to buy a new phone

[Timeline]

On PSW websight there were a couple of mix shoot offs and the best sounding mixes apparently had Nuendo at the heart.

Additionally, I spoke with a friend at Warner Films Hollywood the other day and surprisingly many have gone over the N3 from PT because of the mix capabilities. They did not choose DP.

I contend that all of the bells and whistles you can throw on a DAW are not as important as the mixer automation itself and as users flock to Nuendo maybe someone at MOTU will wake up, but i digress I'm not counting on it.

SSL learned this early on and maintained a foothold on the analog market for years with SL G series automation. It kept people spending hundreds of thousands of bucks for an analog console many complained about the sound of. The automation was key to success though.

Most artists and producers still know and love mixing on an SSL desk. Why Digital DAW makers don't model exactly the features in SSL G is beyond me.

I think its pretty insensitive to not consider the format used by every major artist and producer for over 25 years. Systems we grew up on, me included.

It's not like there isn't some similarity with the past.

Groups, writes and updates came from SSL but are handled differently. Some mixing features are better actually in DP but many are not. Do any of MOTUs designers really know which features should be maintained? I doubt it. If so, talk to us.

Like I mentioned before, I have been harping on this for years but no one listens at MOTU.

Instead of making the mixer better, they design DCPUM. OK fine... They have shown the priorities they think are most important.

I will likely record using DP and for smaller mixes that are not as intense I have no problem mixing in DP but as my productions are getting upwards of 60+ tracks with multiple vocal takes I need a better automation system with logical design, longer, more accurate faders, Mix bins to allow comps between tracks, more selectivity of what is duplicated in "duplicate mix", better handling of fader level meta data and a industry standard mute system with a solo that is inline and includes the automation like it used to.

<small>[ May 04, 2005, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Timeline ]</small>

[Resonant Alien]

I have been having a strange problem with mix automation that I have not seen discussed here. Is anyone else seeing this?

I take a track which has NO automation data currently written to it, or I take a track that I am re-writing some data into. I start recording the automation (I am using a Mackie Control Universal). It does not matter if it is in Latch, Overwrite, or Touch mode. DP seems to always tack a value on to the end of the data that is not in line with the rest of the automation. I verified this by looking at the event list.

One example: I have a track which has some automation data in it, lets say a guitar track which has a volume point at -1.5dB. I go in and record some new automation data in Latch mode, so I start out at -1.5dB, and then in a later part of the song, I bump the fader to +1 dB. The ramp from -1.5dB to +1 dB gets correctly written, HOWEVER, DP is tacking on a -1.5dB value AFTER the +1dB bump. And it does not matter how long I let the automation continue recording - this -1.5dB data point keeps being tacked onto the end of the automation curve - even when I leave Latch mode on and run the song all the way to the end.

Even worse, this also happens when I record NEW automation into a track which HAS NO DATA at all. Whatever the first data value is written to the beginning, gets tacked onto the end and no matter what moves are made in between, this piece of data keeps getting stuck on the end.....even in Latch mode, which should not be doing this! Touch I could understand, but not Latch.

The only way I have been able to fix this is to go into the Event List and manually change this last data value to be the same as the previous

Am I doing something wrong? What gives? I don't remember having this problem in 4.12.

[Timeline]

Try it with a tone recorded and see if the level op is changing as you describe.

Make a new session and send the session to me with the audiofile of the 1k tone and the move you describe with notes on how it was done. I want to see that and try it on my system.