DP 9 and 10 Cannot read heavy automation well, Proven!

[Phil O]

...I've never had a problem with automation in DP. Not in DP version 1 or DP version 10...

Dave, the "problem" with automation seems to be that automation pasted in a section does not remember (for lack of a better word) the level that it was pasted into. Let me illustrate with an example:

Lets say we have a track with volume automation where the first chorus (C1) is at -6 dB and the second chorus (C2) at 0dB. Just before the beginning of C2 the volume is raised 6dB to zero and just after the end of the chorus it's reduced again to -6dB. We copy a measure from C1 and paste it into C2. It pastes in with an automation point at the beginning and end of the selection set to -6dB. This creates a ramp (as you would expect) from the beginning of C2 to the beginning of the pasted selection, and a ramp from the end of the pasted selection to the end of C2. So you now have C2 starts at 0dB, ramps down to -6dB at the front edge of the paste in point, stays at -6dB through the pasted selection, ramps back up to 0dB at the end of C2. I'll repeat myself - this is what you'd expect.

That's easy enough to manage on it's own, but I could imagine a situation where there's complex automation in the copied selection (so you want to copy both audio AND automation) and you have a lot of these to do. This is where a different behavior would be preferable.

The problem I see is that this is being called a bug and it's not. It's just the way automation behaves in DP - always has. I agree that it would be a nice feature to be able to paste in automation and have the program insert the appropriate points at the boundaries of the pasted selection. That would be a time saver. Does any other DAW do this?

BTW, there was a discussion a while back on different quick methods for inserting those extra points after pasting a section, but I can't seem to find it.

Philippe

[FMiguelez]

...I've never had a problem with automation in DP. Not in DP version 1 or DP version 10...

We must be talking about different things, Dave, otherwise you would have necessarily seen and suffered through this already.
This ramp annoyance is something anyone can try out and see how bad it really is!

Please try it out for yourself and you will see that any time you paste, cut or snip a region where there is automation, DP will invariably create ramps that MESS UP any previous (and following) automation.

Try it and report back, please. This simply DESTROYS your mix until you delete and correct all ramps, for all automation parameters, for all tracks, one by one.
This has nothing to do with OS or different systems or different DP versions. It's just the way DP is very poorly programmed to handle this basic task of moving automated tracks around freely without creating unwanted ramps that destroy your mix.


I'm actually very annoyed this is still up for dispute... There is no denying this. It happens all-the-time. It worries me that MOTU probably doesn't even know about this "little problem".

Here is, in spoken language, the algorithm MOTU could program, probably in one evening, to fix the ramp automation mess once and for all>

--- For every automated parameter that exists for the selected tracks for the selected region, take note of their initial/ending values, so that when the region is cut, snipped or pasted ANYWHERE, the resulting cut, snipped or pasted parameters ALWAYS match the source WHILE taking into account whatever automation came before and after in the target track(s).

Watch for this>>>
---- The source and target tracks may be the same or different tracks, with or without automation...
---- Source and target MIDI and audio tracks may also contain the same, similar or completely different automation parameters before/after the snip or paste.
Either way, source values must always match for all parameters at the head and tail, and this is how to avoid such extraneous and unwanted ramps.

Also, creating an elegant way to how DP deals with colliding automation would be so 2020 and cool... Say you select an automated region and move it three 16th notes to the left, where there is already some automation (not necessarily of the same kind). The way it is now, is random and not logical. You still need to go an check every parameter for every track to see what happened and fix it. This could definitely be improved!

I expose this particular ramp problem (and many others) in this thread, if anyone wants to read about it in detail>
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=64563

[FMiguelez]

I fully understand the frustration expressed.

Responding to FM's query... if CPU HP is available, I often just duplicate tracks that call for changes in timbre in a section of a piece, then make the changes willy nilly on the copy and erase the undesired corresponding parts in the original track.

Hi, HC. I had missed that before.

I TOTALLY agree. That's a great method, and I actually prefer it to automating, but only if it's duplicating one, two or a handful of tracks.
I do that all the time if I want changes in different sections for say, a synth, a vocal or a drum track, etc. Dealing with changes in the duplicate is actually much easier and faster than editing automation
But if you already have 100s of MIDI/Audio tracks, and you need heavy automation everywhere, duplicating all tracks is not always desirable (or possible, like you said, if you are already pushing CPU limits).
Also, even if you duplicate them all for the B section, then what about the C section? Soon, the session would become unmanageably large and become inefficient, IMHO.

The way I see things with these 2 different automation issues (the unwanted ramps and the unreliability past a certain threshold), is that the former can quickly and easily be fixed. The latter, since most people apparently can't reproduce it, it would take more detective work and effort for MOTU to fix. It would have to be tested under conditions similar to the OP's.

I really think that the day this ramp thing gets fixed, DP will be a much better program. Oh, and providing a preference on how to deal with Takes when snipping/cutting/pasting regions and general time-line manipulation (takes follow time-line edits), would certainly be the cherry on the top.

[toodamnhip]

I guess complaining in a public forum about a commercial product may put pressure on a company to change the product. So go for it.

If you want help from forum members that's always an option.

My definition of engineering is "creative problem solving". If I record a vocalist without a pop screen and get a ton of plosives, I don't tell the singer he/she sux. I get a pop filter.

No software is perfect. I use a computer to make my living and I could probably find a bug or annoying feature in every single application I use. But that's not the point. I don't expect the computer or apps to be perfect. It's my job to make it all work well enough that I can ultimately get the job done. And no question if I thought switching to a different computer or app would make things easier for me, I'd do it.

Instead of "proving" that something doesn't work the way you want it to, wouldn't it be more efficient to figure out how best to get where you want to go?

I'm on DP10 now. I know there are bugs because I've seen them reported and I've tested to verify. The good news for me is that I don't scale the windows. And as far as automation goes...

I've used DP for 25 years. I've been a small part of it's development. I have an unfair advantage in that I know the software very well. I've never had a problem with automation in DP. Not in DP version 1 or DP version 10.

YMMV
(flame suit on)

Perfect? What? Being able to paste sections around a song reliably is a request for "perfection"? Automation reading correctly from DP 8 on to 9 or 10 is a request for "perfection? Blaming a vocalist for POPS instead of putting on a pop filter is the same as wanting to paste sections of a song around reliably or expecting automation to continue to read right in the very next versions of DP? Of course I would put a pop screen on for a vocalist. Is there a "pop screen" for DP automation I can use? Tell me where it is and I will buy it.
Perhaps I would send you the DP 8 files that used to work and stopped working in Dp 9 and 10
and they would magically work on your computer? I don’t get why people say “I’ve never had automation issues on my computer“? Never has it appeared to me that apples are being compared to Apples. It’s always an allusion that I am doing something wrong. DP eight worked, then it stopped when I updated to nine and 10, period! But “I did something wrong”> I expected too much?
It can’t be DP, it TDH. Listen my brotha, My automation worked in DP8 and on the same exact files, doesn’t read BACK automation correctly in versions after, what am I supposed to do, be happy? How does one “work around“ files that used to work and suddenly become useless in "Next Gen Pre Gen"? (By the way, I did a complete reinstall on a new computer TWICE with a very established computer tech). Both times DP had the same automation read failures.
I too do work arounds all the time. I do work arounds for DP’s ridiculous automation ramping. and I tab through all 3rd party plug parameters before making a snap shot. ad Infiniti’s. But when a file CHANGES on its own by suddenly ceasing to work, not sure what “Work around” is available except be stuck in Sierra with DP 8 .07 forever while the world moves forward.
I too know this program Dave, we’ve argued about it forever, I too am a veteran. Though of course, im not Magic. If I were magic, I’d get DP to read automation right in 9 and 10. Obviously I’m not magic. But if it takes Magic to make DP 9 and 10 read formerly working DP 8 files, I’d say something wasn’t right.

And,...lets keep in mind WHY I posted-NEW data. A completely rebuilt system, on a brand new computer eliminating any doubt that this issue was based off of my particular system. Stuff Worked in DP 8, stopped working right in 9 and 10, on NEW computers with everything completely fresh installed, and, working with a technician from a VERY well known audio establishment here in LA. That is WHY I posted. You can add to that years of tech support not solving the ramping issues as well as other issues. I take no solace in coming her to bitch. I am busy. It takes time to write these posts and argue with people who think its all MY fault, or that I am doing something "wrong". Why would I do this? For kicks? lol. Just trying to be a conscientious member and let this forum know the new data----I made NEW system verifying everything that happened on the prior systems. It's exactly as my original post stated....and, Its DP...must face! lol

[Phil O]

--- For every automated parameter that exists for the selected tracks for the selected region, take note of their initial/ending values, so that when the region is cut, snipped or pasted ANYWHERE, the resulting cut, snipped or pasted parameters ALWAYS match the source WHILE taking into account whatever automation came before and after in the target track(s).

I'll ask again. Does anyone know if other DAWs can do this? And if so, which ones?

Phil

[toodamnhip]

--- For every automated parameter that exists for the selected tracks for the selected region, take note of their initial/ending values, so that when the region is cut, snipped or pasted ANYWHERE, the resulting cut, snipped or pasted parameters ALWAYS match the source WHILE taking into account whatever automation came before and after in the target track(s).

I'll ask again. Does anyone know if other DAWs can do this? And if so, which ones?

Phil

The DAw who’s name shall not be mentioned does this just fine

[FMiguelez]

--- For every automated parameter that exists for the selected tracks for the selected region, take note of their initial/ending values, so that when the region is cut, snipped or pasted ANYWHERE, the resulting cut, snipped or pasted parameters ALWAYS match the source WHILE taking into account whatever automation came before and after in the target track(s).

I'll ask again. Does anyone know if other DAWs can do this? And if so, which ones?

The unnameable DAW does it, as well as FL Studio. While I haven't personally seen it, I think Logic does it as well. I've never seen this automation ramp mess with Ableton's Live either. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if Protools didn't do it as well...
As for Cubase and Nuendo, I don't know for sure, but German engineering tradition of depth, excellence and attention to detail suggests they should handle this properly.
I'd love to know for sure, so if anyone wants to test this with those DAWs, it would be quite telling.

IOW, things should work EXACTLY like DP's own SoundBite Volume automation does> You can move it around without any worries> No matter where you move it, and no matter what other Bite Volume automation there is in soundbites before or after, it will always keep its correct value for the entire SB without creating ramps.

[FMiguelez]

Instead of "proving" that something doesn't work the way you want it to, wouldn't it be more efficient to figure out how best to get where you want to go?

If you have a solution of an efficient workaround for the ramp automation problem, in the context described above and in multiple threads, I'd really like to hear about it.
Is there a particular suggestion that works or avoids the ramping without spending hours fixing them after every timeline/region edit?

The last thing I want to do when mixing is solving unnecessary problems, especially when you need to keep doing it and solving them time and time again. It's such a buzz/creativity killer!
I'd rather use that time to mix and create music!

This is not asking for anything special, it's just asking for the logical and expected way DP should handle sniping/pasting automation around.

I've used DP for 25 years. I've been a small part of it's development. I have an unfair advantage in that I know the software very well. I've never had a problem with automation in DP. Not in DP version 1 or DP version 10.

So, just to be sure, are you actually saying you can move automated tracks around in the timeline without messing up your mix with the unwanted ramps that always are created?

Can you snip and paste regions/automated tracks, and all automation in all tracks is preserved at the heads/tails of such operation in the target tracks? (i.e., they don't have to be the same tracks)

If so, that would be magic indeed, and I beg you to share the trick with us. This would instantly solve my most urgent DP annoyance.

[toodamnhip]

I doubt Magic D man has a solution beyond my own, which is to take snap shots of all automation data just before each potential section one might paste around, both at the section one is pasting FROM, and at the area one is pasting TO. So you put a snap shot just before and at the end of.... each major section of the tune.
However, this does NOT solve film and tv work where an editor might require cuts in random sections. If you've ever had a director sit WITH you and ask for cuts and then had your automation go haywire, you'd know WHY I am so frustrated.
"Workarounds" are only possible when one can PREDICT where the edit points will be , such as in standardized song formats. But in film and tv quick edits following a directors needs, all bets are off and one is often left repairing edits on the fly that couldn't have been predicted.
As a word of advise, I put the snap shot on easily recallable values. For example, if a chorus starts at bar 50, I will make what I call "anchor" automation point at 49/4/360, and another one at the last 16th of the chorus. Unfortunately, this adds to data log jam on bigger automation projects, but it's the only solution I have found. Is it WHY automations fails in DP 9 and 10? I doubt it. Because it worked in 8.07. and "Next Gen Pre Gen 2 is SUPPOSED to be better and more efficient. Again, I am not here to solve the problem, only report it. I have sent the session. file to mOTU. Lets see what they come up with,

[James Steele]

--- For every automated parameter that exists for the selected tracks for the selected region, take note of their initial/ending values, so that when the region is cut, snipped or pasted ANYWHERE, the resulting cut, snipped or pasted parameters ALWAYS match the source WHILE taking into account whatever automation came before and after in the target track(s).

I'll ask again. Does anyone know if other DAWs can do this? And if so, which ones?

Phil

The DAw who’s name shall not be mentioned does this just fine

Well then you should probably switch. Have you ever tried mixing on that DAW with one of your projects under similar sort of load. Like I have said before, from how you described it, your workflow and brute force automating of all parameters on plug-ins is atypical to say the least.

[magicd]

Argh! Had a reply typed out and then dumped it. Try again.

First, I am not here to tell people what to like or how to work. I am here to point out that what is a showstopper for one user may not be any kind of a problem for another.
I also think it's totally legit to ask MOTU for changes or new features. Continual complaining in the forum may not be the most efficient way to make that happen...

No doubt I work differently than some of the posters here. Yes I am aware of ramps and snapshots.
First, I don't do any automation in the mixer. I've never used snapshots. I don't copy and paste automation. I get my basic mix in the mixer then switch to the Sequence Editor for automation. I am very specific about creating automation points. I absolutely do not have automation data for a parameter that I am not immediately animating. One thing I really like about the sequence editor is you can see exactly what is happening. No surprise behavior.

A simple example: I want to add a volume automation change. I check the current value of the fader and manually enter an automation event at that value immediately before where I want the change. I then create a second event after the first and adjust the second event to where I want it. Now lets say later in the track I want another change. I click on the volume line at the point I want the next change so as to "pin" it. I then create the next event. This works perfectly for me. It's the same behavior in Adobe Premiere and I like the consistency between the two apps.

If you don't to work this way I respect that. Again, the point of my post is to mention that what is a problem for some may not be a problem for all.

Dave

[labman]

<snip> I've never used snapshots. <snip>
Dave

Hey there Dave. I super appreciate your input. As always!

For our contracts, and for the tons of cues we have to put out fast with huge track counts, we absolutely live and die by snapshots. Love them!!! Power city.

So from our point of view, they have to work logically and consistently. But as you wisely say, everyone is different.

[magicd]

For our contracts, and for the tons of cues we have to put out fast with huge track counts, we absolutely live and die by snapshots. Love them!!! Power city.

Well there you go. I'll say it again, engineering is about creative problem solving.

Dave

[toodamnhip]

Argh! Had a reply typed out and then dumped it. Try again.

First, I am not here to tell people what to like or how to work. I am here to point out that what is a showstopper for one user may not be any kind of a problem for another.
I also think it's totally legit to ask MOTU for changes or new features. Continual complaining in the forum may not be the most efficient way to make that happen...

No doubt I work differently than some of the posters here. Yes I am aware of ramps and snapshots.
First, I don't do any automation in the mixer. I've never used snapshots. I don't copy and paste automation. I get my basic mix in the mixer then switch to the Sequence Editor for automation. I am very specific about creating automation points. I absolutely do not have automation data for a parameter that I am not immediately animating. One thing I really like about the sequence editor is you can see exactly what is happening. No surprise behavior.

A simple example: I want to add a volume automation change. I check the current value of the fader and manually enter an automation event at that value immediately before where I want the change. I then create a second event after the first and adjust the second event to where I want it. Now lets say later in the track I want another change. I click on the volume line at the point I want the next change so as to "pin" it. I then create the next event. This works perfectly for me. It's the same behavior in Adobe Premiere and I like the consistency between the two apps.

If you don't to work this way I respect that. Again, the point of my post is to mention that what is a problem for some may not be a problem for all.

Dave

This is as I Suspected. People who say “they do not have automation problems”, probably don’t automate deeply using faders or what have you, . or automate very much at all. I use slate *****Raven as a controller, before that I used an artist mix. So actually, with all the alluding to how I mix differently, I actually mix more standard lead then you do Dave . I use faders, pretty standard stuff. The Idea that however you get your automation into DP, you cannot Paste sections around without ruining a songs automation is silly, As is the idea that a file working in DP 8 should stop working in 9. I could automate as you do with a pencil or what have you, but again that’s not apples and apples comparisons. I guess automation density is more of a issue then how the data gets entered in . And that is my point, people saying “I don’t have problems with automation“ don’t automate using faders , or they don’t automate a large amount of tracks, or they just do a couple edits. If we all want to make me an outlier , what we do really is take DP and allow it to be mediocre in the area of automation. “” Oh that DP, maxes out at 60 tracks automation even though you have computer headroom, it has built-in stoppages””- if you want to automate a lot, go to ProTools . That’s not cool .That helps no one I don’t agree with James characterization of “brute force”, it’s a negative set of words that seems like a bit of a copout, always siding with DP. I don’t know why James or others can’t just say, “yes, DP is broken or has gone backwards in this area”. Yeah tdh, you’ve been around a long time, your tests seem to make sense, looks like DP has gone backwards in that area“. Instead, i get flack for wanting to be able to simply paste audio around and have Dp 8 not get automation broken by DP 9. Yes, pro tools automates fine. How does that help 20+ of DP masters? Or masters from The last few years made in 8.07? I’ll say it again , automation reads correctly in big files in 8.07. So if it worked in 8, then I must’ve not been quite that stupid. I had a working file . and it stopped working in 9 and 10 while MOTU boasted that it’s next GEN pre-Jen is “More efficient“ . how about everyone just say” wow, looks like DP 9 and 10 doesn’t read automation in big files as well as in 8? Would that be hard, or do we Blame me? I came here to report facts, tested facts. Thats all. Dp reads automation less efficiently after 8, it loops less efficiently after 8, if you change loop points in 9 and 10, it stutters, ddI t do that in 8. And it’s antiquated ramping makes pasting automation, however you put it in, a difficult almost impossible proposition. These are facts. Just admit them jeez. It doesn’t mean DP is terrible or anything, I like DP that’s why am here. It just means what it is and I don’t get why people can’t just say OK, that’s where it’s gone backwards, And admit that ramping is something that needs to be fixed if a user wants to paste sections of a song around. Is that so hard to say? This horse is dead.

[Michael Canavan]

I’ll say it again , automation reads correctly in big files in 8.07. So if it worked in 8, then I must’ve not been quite that stupid. I had a working file . and it stopped working in 9 and 10 while MOTU boasted that it’s next GEN pre-Jen is “More efficient“ . how about everyone just say” wow, looks like DP 9 and 10 doesn’t read automation in big files as well as in 8? Would that be hard, or do we Blame me? I came here to report facts, tested facts. Thats all. Dp reads automation less efficiently after 8, it loops less efficiently after 8, if you change loop points in 9 and 10, it stutters, ddI t do that in 8. And it’s antiquated ramping makes pasting automation, however you put it in, a difficult almost impossible proposition. These are facts. Just admit them jeez. It doesn’t mean DP is terrible or anything, I like DP that’s why am here. It just means what it is and I don’t get why people can’t just say OK, that’s where it’s gone backwards, And wrapping is something that needs to be fixed if a user wants to paste sections of a song around. Is that so hard to say? This horse is dead.

I'm super curious, if you still have 10 on your computer could you try forcing plug ins to run in Real Time? You can do this bu opening the GUI etc. It seems like the issue of automation is somehow tied to the introduction of PreGen, like it stumbles at higher automation/ track counts.

Part of the solution for MOTU is to have some of the testing done by you, it allows the developers to quickly work on the issue rather than replicating it.