any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

worldboy · Post by **worldboy** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:09 pm

i'm editing clip envelopes (not track envelopes) and i noticed that the minimum volume on simpler is -36 db. is there any way to completely mute the envelope on some parts of the clip without having to use an envelope outside of the actual device (i'm trying to avoid automation latency)?

Jekblad · Post by **Jekblad** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:53 am

3dot... · Post by **3dot...** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:08 pm

simple.
put it in a rack. use the 'rack mixer' volume instead...

worldboy · Post by **worldboy** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:31 pm

the rack mixer envelopes aren't affected by latency?

3dot... · Post by **3dot...** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:51 pm

what latency ?

worldboy · Post by **worldboy** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:07 am

automation latency from plugins that isn't delay compensated? as far as i know, envelopes within actual devices/clips are not affected by this which is why i'm trying to avoid using other volume knobs.

3dot... · Post by **3dot...** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:05 pm

that's silly...
use the automation and check if it lags... it shouldn't

worldboy · Post by **worldboy** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:52 am

i don't think trying to avoid out-of-sync tracks is that silly. the rack mixer envelopes do have a delay if there is a plugin on the chain (for example, a 3rd party compressor on a drum pad in drum racks). if the compressor is on the entire drum rack and not on the individual pad, then the delay appears to be compensated during playback. in other words, any plugin that comes before the envelope in the signal chain will cause the envelope to be out of sync. this is why i'm trying to use the earliest envelopes possible (from the simpler device) to edit volume changes.

3dot... · Post by **3dot...** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:19 am

again... try it.. shouldn't create extra latency..
if it creates latency.. stop using it..

pencilrocket · Post by **pencilrocket** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:55 am

I can confirm this.
ex1. [Rack A(selecting one of pads) [Rack B] PLUGIN]
Modulating A's chain volume produces out of sync. Modulating B's doesn't.

ex2. [Rack A [Rack B(selecting one of pads) PLUGIN]]
Modluating A's chain volume doesn't produce out of sync. Modulating B's does.

I can say that you shouldn't use complex routing within a track because tracking/taming the cause of latency become more troublesome.

Sibanger · Post by **Sibanger** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:44 am

3dot... wrote:simple.
put it in a rack. use the 'rack mixer' volume instead...

I use this method all the time with no timing issues.

3dot... · Post by **3dot...** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:24 am

pencilrocket wrote:I can confirm this.
ex1. [Rack A(selecting one of pads) [Rack B] PLUGIN]
Modulating A's chain volume produces out of sync. Modulating B's doesn't.

ex2. [Rack A [Rack B(selecting one of pads) PLUGIN]]
Modluating A's chain volume doesn't produce out of sync. Modulating B's does.

I can say that you shouldn't use complex routing within a track because tracking/taming the cause of latency become more troublesome.

can't reproduce this on my machine... timing is ok over here...
using the volume doesn't alter the timing.. or lag..
also I don't consider making a rack with a single device as "complex routing"

pencilrocket · Post by **pencilrocket** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:38 pm

It seems that output latecy is also affecting as well as routing is. http://youtu.be/iMhsHLtuthI

3dot... · Post by **3dot...** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:30 pm

output latency is obviously dependent on processing time..

Live is supposed to compensate for it..
(provided the plugin reports it's latency correctly)

maybe try it with various plugins.. not just camelCrusher...
I know that Live has timing issues but never experienced it with racks.. only with return tracks ...and when under a cpu load..
will have to test this more..

(also btw.. my suggestion was purely with Live devices... no 3rd party stuff..
and doesn't involve extra fx.. simply racking a simpler up. to control volume without using the track mixer...
any extra fx can still be after the rack...or inside it if timing errors occur)

worldboy · Post by **worldboy** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:53 pm

i don't have any timing issues or anything going out of sync with any of the tracks. i tested this a few times with some latency heavy plugins and their delays were all compensated for. like i said, it's just the automation that is clearly out of sync when there is any latency-inducing plugin before the envelope. this is why simpler volume envelopes are not affected by latency while rack mixer volume envelopes will be delayed by plugins put on that specific chain.

there is a workaround though...it just means you have to create an instrument rack within an instrument rack and use the inner-most rack mixer's envelope while putting any plugins on the outer-most chain. something like this:

track
|
instrument rack
|
rack mixer
|
instrument rack + plugins
|
rack mixer (use this envelope)
|
device

as long as the plugins don't go between the device (simpler) and the envelope (rack mixer volume), the delays will be compensated for

any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?

Re: any way to turn simpler volume down to -inf?