hmm. I would expect some glitch / offset there. because the clip has been allowed to play for a while with warp off at a different tempo. so when warp is switched on won't the clip position jump?jukeboxgrad wrote: So all I have to do is set Warp off before launching the clip. Then during the first few bars, I make the change to project tempo. Then I turn Warp back on. Done.
Help! Need to crossfade clips with contrary tempos
-
jukeboxgrad
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:41 am
long: "is that something that you really want to loop? I thought it was just a short fade-out section."
You're right. It would be acceptable if I could have a short section that's not warped and not loopable. As long as the rest of the track was warped and loopable. Trouble is, I can't divide a track that way and make the playback glitch-free.
"re: glitches - it was playing pretty good for me in beats mode, I only had trouble with repitch mode. what are you using"
I tend to use complex mode, even though maybe that's not a good idea. Anyway, your idea makes sense, so I tried beats mode. But that didn't help.
Just to be clear, here's the sequence of steps:
A) Load any old clip (if helps if it's sort of long). Notice how Live interprets the BPM (90, let's say).
B) On this clip, turn Warp off.
C) Make sure project tempo is 120 (let's say; it could be anything other than the clip's natural tempo).
D) Launch the clip. It will play at its natural (unwarped) tempo. 90, let's say. While the clip is playing, change project tempo to 90.
E) While the clip is still playing, turn Warp on.
When I do this, I almost always hear a glitch, not smooth playback. I think there are some occasions where it worked, so that confused me, but in the end I found it unreliable so I gave up.
The same glitch happens if I try to cheat by using two clips (one unwarped, followed by another one that's warped). I can't get them to play seamlessly (in a reliable manner), if I change the project tempo in the manner described above, during playback of the unwarped clip. That step is critical. Otherwise, the problem doesn't happen.
In the end I think I'm forced to settle for the following workaround. If I want to have Track A (warped) play at tempo X, and then have Track B (warped) play at tempo Y, then I have to play another unwarped track in-between them. While this track is playing, I adjust the project tempo. That tempo takes effect at the end of the unwarped track, when Track B fades in. No glitches.
Obviously there's no problem if I don't need cross-fades, but I do.
Anyway, I'd love hear other ideas, because the odds are very high that there's a solution I haven't thought of.
"hmm. I would expect some glitch / offset there."
You're right. There is a glitch. I spoke too soon, because it seemed to work sometimes. But I found it to be unreliable.
"because the clip has been allowed to play for a while with warp off at a different tempo. so when warp is switched on won't the clip position jump?"
I don't see why it has to jump, because there's no "different tempo." While Warp is off, the clip is playing at its natural tempo (90, let's say). When I turn Warp on, project tempo was just set to 90, so it should continue to play (glitch-free) at that tempo. But instead, there's a glitch.
I think it's an issue of position, not tempo. I think Live has the tempo right, but is making up its own idea of where the downbeat is.
It's easier to understand the problem if I listen to the metronome. While the unwarped clip is playing at its natural tempo (90), Live's clock is ticking at 120 (let's say). When I set the project tempo to 90, now Live's clock is at the right tempo, but its downbeat is in a different spot (most likely) than where it is in the clip. So it's easy to understand why it sort of works sometimes.
Live's model is to make clips follow the clock. In this instance, I'm sort of asking the clock to follow the clip. It kind of makes sense that Live doesn't want to do that.
As I've said, I think a possible solution would be to have a feature that says "change the project tempo, but only for clips that haven't been launched yet; maintain current tempo for existing clips."
This essentially would mean one Live clock per clip, instead of one clock for the whole system. I suppose this could get cumbersome and confusing.
You're right. It would be acceptable if I could have a short section that's not warped and not loopable. As long as the rest of the track was warped and loopable. Trouble is, I can't divide a track that way and make the playback glitch-free.
"re: glitches - it was playing pretty good for me in beats mode, I only had trouble with repitch mode. what are you using"
I tend to use complex mode, even though maybe that's not a good idea. Anyway, your idea makes sense, so I tried beats mode. But that didn't help.
Just to be clear, here's the sequence of steps:
A) Load any old clip (if helps if it's sort of long). Notice how Live interprets the BPM (90, let's say).
B) On this clip, turn Warp off.
C) Make sure project tempo is 120 (let's say; it could be anything other than the clip's natural tempo).
D) Launch the clip. It will play at its natural (unwarped) tempo. 90, let's say. While the clip is playing, change project tempo to 90.
E) While the clip is still playing, turn Warp on.
When I do this, I almost always hear a glitch, not smooth playback. I think there are some occasions where it worked, so that confused me, but in the end I found it unreliable so I gave up.
The same glitch happens if I try to cheat by using two clips (one unwarped, followed by another one that's warped). I can't get them to play seamlessly (in a reliable manner), if I change the project tempo in the manner described above, during playback of the unwarped clip. That step is critical. Otherwise, the problem doesn't happen.
In the end I think I'm forced to settle for the following workaround. If I want to have Track A (warped) play at tempo X, and then have Track B (warped) play at tempo Y, then I have to play another unwarped track in-between them. While this track is playing, I adjust the project tempo. That tempo takes effect at the end of the unwarped track, when Track B fades in. No glitches.
Obviously there's no problem if I don't need cross-fades, but I do.
Anyway, I'd love hear other ideas, because the odds are very high that there's a solution I haven't thought of.
"hmm. I would expect some glitch / offset there."
You're right. There is a glitch. I spoke too soon, because it seemed to work sometimes. But I found it to be unreliable.
"because the clip has been allowed to play for a while with warp off at a different tempo. so when warp is switched on won't the clip position jump?"
I don't see why it has to jump, because there's no "different tempo." While Warp is off, the clip is playing at its natural tempo (90, let's say). When I turn Warp on, project tempo was just set to 90, so it should continue to play (glitch-free) at that tempo. But instead, there's a glitch.
I think it's an issue of position, not tempo. I think Live has the tempo right, but is making up its own idea of where the downbeat is.
It's easier to understand the problem if I listen to the metronome. While the unwarped clip is playing at its natural tempo (90), Live's clock is ticking at 120 (let's say). When I set the project tempo to 90, now Live's clock is at the right tempo, but its downbeat is in a different spot (most likely) than where it is in the clip. So it's easy to understand why it sort of works sometimes.
Live's model is to make clips follow the clock. In this instance, I'm sort of asking the clock to follow the clip. It kind of makes sense that Live doesn't want to do that.
As I've said, I think a possible solution would be to have a feature that says "change the project tempo, but only for clips that haven't been launched yet; maintain current tempo for existing clips."
This essentially would mean one Live clock per clip, instead of one clock for the whole system. I suppose this could get cumbersome and confusing.
also I think that even if you continue to experiment with your other method, the problems you are having help illustrate why it would be better to make the adjustment to the _end of the first clip_ rather than to _the beginning of the second clip_
because, it is relatively easy to introduce a change at the beginning of the x-fade.
it is more difficult to introduce a change during or after the crossfade
because, it is relatively easy to introduce a change at the beginning of the x-fade.
it is more difficult to introduce a change during or after the crossfade
-
jukeboxgrad
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:41 am
long: "I think you should give the method I described a try. I do not get any glitches in beats mode as long as the tempos are exact"
I did try it a bunch of times, and I get glitches even though the tempos are exact.
Are you doing the exact steps I described?
I also tried a bunch of variations, like playing with the clip quantization settings. Nothing helped.
I'm using 5.2 on a Mac. I wonder what you're using. There's probably some reason why we seem to be getting different results.
"it would be better to make the adjustment to the _end of the first clip_ rather than to _the beginning of the second clip_ "
Frankly, I don't see why. It sort of seems like six of one, half a dozen of another. But it's moot because either way I get glitches.
I really appreciate your effort in trying to figure this out. I'm probably missing something simple.
I did try it a bunch of times, and I get glitches even though the tempos are exact.
Are you doing the exact steps I described?
I also tried a bunch of variations, like playing with the clip quantization settings. Nothing helped.
I'm using 5.2 on a Mac. I wonder what you're using. There's probably some reason why we seem to be getting different results.
"it would be better to make the adjustment to the _end of the first clip_ rather than to _the beginning of the second clip_ "
Frankly, I don't see why. It sort of seems like six of one, half a dozen of another. But it's moot because either way I get glitches.
I really appreciate your effort in trying to figure this out. I'm probably missing something simple.
-
chrysalis33rpm
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:56 pm
- Location: San Francisco
If you've tried it, fine. But the method you are describing is not the method I suggested, so I just wanted to make sure.
again: 1st clip vs second clip:
think of it this way. the section during which you're changing tempos, having clips warp on/off, etc. is where things can go wrong.
so it's better to have that clip section just fade out (first song) instead of having to then coordinate retriggering/ turning warp on etc. and continuing playback (second song)
I'll try to test a bit more this weekend
again: 1st clip vs second clip:
think of it this way. the section during which you're changing tempos, having clips warp on/off, etc. is where things can go wrong.
so it's better to have that clip section just fade out (first song) instead of having to then coordinate retriggering/ turning warp on etc. and continuing playback (second song)
I'll try to test a bit more this weekend
-
jukeboxgrad
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:41 am
chrys, I like your attitude, I agree with what you said, and I appreciate your efforts.
What surprises me is that I find no sign of a previous conversation about this. I'm surprised because what I want to do is not exotic (seemingly). I realize a dominant DJ style is to play long sets with tempo that doesn't vary much. But surely every DJ sometimes wants to quickly go from tempo A to tempo B (where the difference between A and B is a somewhat large number), and to do it in a variety of ways. Sometimes you want to do a big tempo jump, and you want to do it in the form of a crossfade. By definition, this is beat-clashing, not beat-matching, but don't we all want to do this sometimes?
Live says you can't do this, and also have Warp on for both tracks that are involved in the crossfade. From a user perspective, that's just weird. But from a product-design perspective, I can see how the idea goes against the core design of Live. (It's obviously not designed primarily as a DJ program, but in my opinion it's still by far the best DJ program.)
But I'm mystified that other folks haven't been scratching their heads about this (or they've been doing it silently, because I've looked pretty hard for prior discussions, and found nothing).
[I wrote this before I read long's later post which pointed me towards a solution. See below.]
What surprises me is that I find no sign of a previous conversation about this. I'm surprised because what I want to do is not exotic (seemingly). I realize a dominant DJ style is to play long sets with tempo that doesn't vary much. But surely every DJ sometimes wants to quickly go from tempo A to tempo B (where the difference between A and B is a somewhat large number), and to do it in a variety of ways. Sometimes you want to do a big tempo jump, and you want to do it in the form of a crossfade. By definition, this is beat-clashing, not beat-matching, but don't we all want to do this sometimes?
Live says you can't do this, and also have Warp on for both tracks that are involved in the crossfade. From a user perspective, that's just weird. But from a product-design perspective, I can see how the idea goes against the core design of Live. (It's obviously not designed primarily as a DJ program, but in my opinion it's still by far the best DJ program.)
But I'm mystified that other folks haven't been scratching their heads about this (or they've been doing it silently, because I've looked pretty hard for prior discussions, and found nothing).
[I wrote this before I read long's later post which pointed me towards a solution. See below.]
-
jukeboxgrad
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:41 am
long: "the method you are describing is not the method I suggested"
Wow. OK, I know I did this before (declaring victory prematurely), but this time I think the problem is solved. Really. Thanks for being persistent.
The problem is that I was trying to make a glitch-free transition, while a track was playing, from unwarped playback to warped playback. (I tried doing this two different ways. One method was turning Warp off before launching a clip, and then turning Warp on while the clip was playing. The other method was splitting the track into two clips, the first unwarped and the second warped, and then playing the clips in order, either via a Follow Action or via launching in realtime by hand.)
What I didn't try (or didn't try very thoroughly) was doing it the other way: making a transition from warped to unwarped (during the playback of a particular track). This is essentially what you were calling for by suggesting I put the transition (the split) a few bars before the end of Track A, instead of a few bars after the beginning of Track B.
When you suggested this, I said it was six of one, half a dozen of another. I thought it wouldn't matter. But now I see it makes all the difference in the world. And it turns out that it's not necessary to split the track into two clips. The problem can be solved very easily just with the Warp button.
Just to recap the problem with the solution: I have Track A and B. They have true tempos of X and Y (120 and 90, let's say). I want to play them both with Warp turned on (to be able to do looping in various places), but I don't want to play them at the same tempo as each other (I might want to play them at their natural tempos, or at some other tempos; the main point is I don't want to play them at the same tempo as each other). And I want to crossfade from A to B, and I want no glitches.
To do this, prepare by having Warp on for both tracks. Launch Track A. Close to the end of Track A, turn Warp off (on this clip). I find this produces no glitches, which makes sense (I think you were trying to say this, but I wasn't listening carefully enough!). In project tempo, quickly enter the new value that will be in effect for Track B.
That's it. Now just launch Track B and crossfade into it.
So I can have all sorts of looping thoughout A and B, with the exception of the last few bars of A. And really it could be just the last few beats of A, because I just need enough time to click Warp off (in A), click on project tempo, and enter the new value. And then launch B and crossfade into it.
(By the way, it's not necessarily the last few beats of Track A's actual recording. It's just the last few beats of Track A that I want my audience to hear.)
A very minor irritation is that I can't do those steps completely via the keyboard. Live won't let me assign a keystroke to the Warp button, and it won't let me select the project tempo field via a keystroke, either. A MIDI controller would make the tempo part easier, but I think there's no way to avoid clicking on Warp (because I think that button is not available to a MIDI controller).
This is only an issue because it has to be done during the performance, and it has to be done quickly. So it's more than just a question of convenience. No big deal, though.
Anyway, thanks a lot for helping me see the solution!
Wow. OK, I know I did this before (declaring victory prematurely), but this time I think the problem is solved. Really. Thanks for being persistent.
The problem is that I was trying to make a glitch-free transition, while a track was playing, from unwarped playback to warped playback. (I tried doing this two different ways. One method was turning Warp off before launching a clip, and then turning Warp on while the clip was playing. The other method was splitting the track into two clips, the first unwarped and the second warped, and then playing the clips in order, either via a Follow Action or via launching in realtime by hand.)
What I didn't try (or didn't try very thoroughly) was doing it the other way: making a transition from warped to unwarped (during the playback of a particular track). This is essentially what you were calling for by suggesting I put the transition (the split) a few bars before the end of Track A, instead of a few bars after the beginning of Track B.
When you suggested this, I said it was six of one, half a dozen of another. I thought it wouldn't matter. But now I see it makes all the difference in the world. And it turns out that it's not necessary to split the track into two clips. The problem can be solved very easily just with the Warp button.
Just to recap the problem with the solution: I have Track A and B. They have true tempos of X and Y (120 and 90, let's say). I want to play them both with Warp turned on (to be able to do looping in various places), but I don't want to play them at the same tempo as each other (I might want to play them at their natural tempos, or at some other tempos; the main point is I don't want to play them at the same tempo as each other). And I want to crossfade from A to B, and I want no glitches.
To do this, prepare by having Warp on for both tracks. Launch Track A. Close to the end of Track A, turn Warp off (on this clip). I find this produces no glitches, which makes sense (I think you were trying to say this, but I wasn't listening carefully enough!). In project tempo, quickly enter the new value that will be in effect for Track B.
That's it. Now just launch Track B and crossfade into it.
So I can have all sorts of looping thoughout A and B, with the exception of the last few bars of A. And really it could be just the last few beats of A, because I just need enough time to click Warp off (in A), click on project tempo, and enter the new value. And then launch B and crossfade into it.
(By the way, it's not necessarily the last few beats of Track A's actual recording. It's just the last few beats of Track A that I want my audience to hear.)
A very minor irritation is that I can't do those steps completely via the keyboard. Live won't let me assign a keystroke to the Warp button, and it won't let me select the project tempo field via a keystroke, either. A MIDI controller would make the tempo part easier, but I think there's no way to avoid clicking on Warp (because I think that button is not available to a MIDI controller).
This is only an issue because it has to be done during the performance, and it has to be done quickly. So it's more than just a question of convenience. No big deal, though.
Anyway, thanks a lot for helping me see the solution!
I just tested some more. I should have done more testing before posting all that..
sorry
so I was indeed just now having some problems with the legato mode method I suggested. before I was just using renderings of short loops with no vocals, etc. so it was hard to identify the offsets. also I think the 90 / 120 bpm contributed to that
here's a modified approach, which I just used to fade / mix two actual songs:
1st song - warp as normal, make that scene tempo match exactly the clip tempo
copy that clip to the slot below
pick the point at which you will start the fade in, set the "1" and start markers for the clip copy to that point in the clip
then type the tempo of the incoming song as the tempo for the copy clip
the incoming song also goes on scene 2
name scene 2 for the incoming clip bpm
---
what sux about this is that you have to establish the mix point in advance.
I imagine it would be possible to dummy clip some follow actions to the scene launches, which would automate that part
sorry
so I was indeed just now having some problems with the legato mode method I suggested. before I was just using renderings of short loops with no vocals, etc. so it was hard to identify the offsets. also I think the 90 / 120 bpm contributed to that
here's a modified approach, which I just used to fade / mix two actual songs:
1st song - warp as normal, make that scene tempo match exactly the clip tempo
copy that clip to the slot below
pick the point at which you will start the fade in, set the "1" and start markers for the clip copy to that point in the clip
then type the tempo of the incoming song as the tempo for the copy clip
the incoming song also goes on scene 2
name scene 2 for the incoming clip bpm
---
what sux about this is that you have to establish the mix point in advance.
I imagine it would be possible to dummy clip some follow actions to the scene launches, which would automate that part
