[JackA]

"The first version of Pro Tools was launched in 1991, offering 4 tracks and selling for $6,000 USD".

That's from Wikipedia. But, some studio was offered to try Pro Tools, and the studio person didn't like the 16 bit version or environment audio!!

Jack

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 4:30:21 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:
"The first version of Pro Tools was launched in 1991, offering 4 tracks and selling for $6,000 USD".

That's from Wikipedia. But, some studio was offered to try Pro Tools, and the studio person didn't like the 16 bit version or environment audio!!

Some of us remember when ProTools was upstairs in the same building as Dyaxis. The stairs were blocked to prevent "Interaction".

Yours truly,

Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:51:25 AM UTC-4, Klay Anderson wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 4:30:21 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:
"The first version of Pro Tools was launched in 1991, offering 4 tracks and selling for $6,000 USD".

That's from Wikipedia. But, some studio was offered to try Pro Tools, and the studio person didn't like the 16 bit version or environment audio!!

Some of us remember when ProTools was upstairs in the same building as Dyaxis. The stairs were blocked to prevent "Interaction".

Yours truly,

Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

This?....
http://www.mikecollins.plus.com/PUBL...DFS/Dyaxis.pdf

Jack

[[email protected]]

Page 7 "Meters" view: Better get those envelopes to fill the entire
space or the customer won't be happy!

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:56:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Page 7 "Meters" view: Better get those envelopes to fill the entire
space or the customer won't be happy!

Page 7 "Meters" view: Broadcasters, failure to get those envelopes to fully fill the entire space may make your listeners believe you are off the air!

Jack

[None]

thechhhhkmahh @gmail.com wrote in message
...
Page 7 "Meters" view: Better get those envelopes to fill the entire
space or the customer won't be happy!

Better put your hockey helmet on, or the retard-wrangler might not let
you on the short bus.

FCKWAFAAAFRTB.

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:48:48 AM UTC-6, JackA wrote:


This?....
http://www.mikecollins.plus.com/PUBL...DFS/Dyaxis.pdf

Jack

Yes and thank you for that article link. But back then, IMS Dyaxis was a standalone company as was DigiDesign. ProTools was actually three or four programs running-one for editing, one for importing, one for exporting and one for burning and you had to switch between them. Neither program worked very well (some things don't change?) and all processing was done inside the Mac. Dyaxis used outboard rack mount processors and SCSI drives that used the Mac only as the GUI (it even worked with the Mac Classic) and was, for many years, the standard for A/D and D/A worldwide--it sounded good. Then Studer bought them and.... I sold many Dyaxis systems and edited many a CD.

Klay

[JackA]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:42:10 AM UTC-4, Klay Anderson wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:48:48 AM UTC-6, JackA wrote:


This?....
http://www.mikecollins.plus.com/PUBL...DFS/Dyaxis.pdf

Jack

Yes and thank you for that article link. But back then, IMS Dyaxis was a standalone company as was DigiDesign. ProTools was actually three or four programs running-one for editing, one for importing, one for exporting and one for burning and you had to switch between them. Neither program worked very well (some things don't change?) and all processing was done inside the Mac. Dyaxis used outboard rack mount processors and SCSI drives that used the Mac only as the GUI (it even worked with the Mac Classic) and was, for many years, the standard for A/D and D/A worldwide--it sounded good. Then Studer bought them and.... I sold many Dyaxis systems and edited many a CD.

Klay

Klay, I do thank you for this information, as I'm always curious of digital audio and what man had to aid him via computers.

We're talking late 80's, I assume commercial computers were too slow to process (HQ) audio. I'd guess these (DAW) systems didn't include all the rudimentary features today's DAW's, like an Equalizer, Fade-In/Out, maybe even varying Volume, but editing alone gained applause.

So, Dyaxis was a complete system, maybe even supplied computer. Where was the D/A-A/D done, in the computer? I mean, could you supply a stereo analog signal input and it would be processed to (16 bit) digital?

My ears tell me, from early CDs, even though computers were an aid in processing digital audio, something as simple as an equalizer was hard to find or didn't exist.

Thanks!

Jack

[Richard Kuschel]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:42:10 AM UTC-6, Klay Anderson wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:48:48 AM UTC-6, JackA wrote:


This?....
http://www.mikecollins.plus.com/PUBL...DFS/Dyaxis.pdf

Jack

Yes and thank you for that article link. But back then, IMS Dyaxis was a standalone company as was DigiDesign. ProTools was actually three or four programs running-one for editing, one for importing, one for exporting and one for burning and you had to switch between them. Neither program worked very well (some things don't change?) and all processing was done inside the Mac. Dyaxis used outboard rack mount processors and SCSI drives that used the Mac only as the GUI (it even worked with the Mac Classic) and was, for many years, the standard for A/D and D/A worldwide--it sounded good. Then Studer bought them and.... I sold many Dyaxis systems and edited many a CD.

Klay

It wasn't on the bleeding edge, but I got Sound Tools in 1993 and added the earlier version of ProTools "Pro Deck" in order to get 4 channel recording.. Deck was made by BIAS and used Sound Designer files. Deck was glitchy as hell and caused many crashes.
Later, I bought ProTools for the same interfaces and had 8 Channel recording. That system was solid and did not cause the many headaches I got from DECK.

I have been using ProTools ever since.

After Digidesign killed off Master List CD (MLCD), I was put in the position of having to buy another 2 channel mastering program. Peak seemed like a good idea at the time and it did work, but was glitchy and prone to crashes..(mainly when saving) It was then I realized it was built by BIAS!!! Of course, tech support had never heard of the problems. (Polarity reversal, rollover distortion etc.)
I learned how to work around most of the problems and still use it on a Mac under OS 10.6.8. BIAS is now out of business so further upgrades are not available but I will use it as long as I can.

I have upgraded ProTools a few times, but am unlikely to upgrade into the rent forever paradigm.

Great sound can be obtained from ProTools It just takes learning how to do it.

[Frank Stearns]

Richard Kuschel writes:

snips

Great sound can be obtained from ProTools It just takes learning how to do =
it.

Indeed. There are (were) a number of tricks I did with PT 7.4 (where I started) and
PT 8 to get good sonics.

8 sounded slightly better than 7.4. I skipped 9 and went to 10. Woah! This was
a quantum jump in sonic improvements. I no longer needed to do quite the same number
of handstands to get good sound, and old mixes opened in 10 sounded far better.

But 11 is better still, and has the great benefit of being far more efficient.

Because you can freely open PT11 sessions in PT10 and vice versa, it's easy to
compare system usage. Using the exact same plugins on the same mix, PT11 uses half
or less of the resources required for the same mix in 11 -- and it sounds better.

Apparently, there's something spiffy about the way AAX works compared to RTAS (the
main difference between the versions that I'm aware of, though no doubt there are
other difference I'm not aware of. Interesting stuff; wish I understood the guts a
little better.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:39:25 AM UTC-6, JackA wrote:


We're talking late 80's, I assume commercial computers were too slow to process (HQ) audio. I'd guess these (DAW) systems didn't include all the rudimentary features today's DAW's, like an Equalizer, Fade-In/Out, maybe even varying Volume, but editing alone gained applause.

So, Dyaxis was a complete system, maybe even supplied computer. Where was the D/A-A/D done, in the computer? I mean, could you supply a stereo analog signal input and it would be processed to (16 bit) digital?

My ears tell me, from early CDs, even though computers were an aid in processing digital audio, something as simple as an equalizer was hard to find or didn't exist.

Thanks!

Jack

That is one thing that set the Dyaxis apart. As I said all processing was done in a 1RU external chassis. There was an additional chassis for time code and video sync. Also note that because the processing was internal, you could use a Mac Classic as the GUI. MacMix software had editing, cross fades, fades, ADR, EQ, processing and more. Very intuitive and MacMix formed the foundation of imitators for years to come. The A/D and D/A was soooooooo good it was the benchmark for many shootouts and playback tests.

Klay

[Scott Dorsey]

Klay Anderson wrote:
That is one thing that set the Dyaxis apart. As I said all processing was d=
one in a 1RU external chassis. There was an additional chassis for time cod=
e and video sync. Also note that because the processing was internal, you c=
ould use a Mac Classic as the GUI. MacMix software had editing, cross fades=
, fades, ADR, EQ, processing and more. Very intuitive and MacMix formed the=
foundation of imitators for years to come.

That wasn't unusual, though. Sonic was that way for years... I used the
Sonic system with a NuBus card that had all the DSP horsepower on the card
itself for many years. In fact, it just got donated to the LoC.

ProTools did something similar for a long time as well, with a lot of the
processing in the outboard box along with the conversion.

The A/D and D/A was soooooooo good it was the benchmark for many shootouts
and playback tests.

Well, by the standards of the day, anyway. It certainly didn't have a full
clean 16 bits, but considering how much worse the competition was it was
very good.

Orban Audicy was in the same general range of technology too, and it had
a scrub knob! I miss the scrub knob.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Kuschel wrote:
I have upgraded ProTools a few times, but am unlikely to upgrade into the r=
ent forever paradigm.

Great sound can be obtained from ProTools It just takes learning how to do =
it.

It's a lot easier than it used to be. Early versions of PT were not bit for
bit true... you could load something in, then save it back again without
doing any processing, and the file wasn't the same. But that got better.

The move to 32 bit floats for internal representation was a huge improvement
too. Originally the intermediate stuff was all fixed point and it was very
very easy to run into underflows on processing. Just summing channels
together without any EQ could wind up getting you a very grainy sound due to
the obvious low-level nonlinearity. All that stuff disappeared around
PT 7, I think. The sound improvement was significant.

The UI is still wacky and it's still got a severe case of feeping
creaturism, and the person who suggested that Digidesign makes up
neologisms for existing concepts is right on the mark. I'd never use
it to mix in the box, but it's entirely usable for tracking, editing,
and playback. You can predict what you're going to get.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jason]

On 12 Jul 2016 09:17:14 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in
article
I miss the scrub knob.


fwiw (not much) Audition has that, but it keys on the keyboard. I use it a
lot.

[geoff]

On 13/07/2016 12:19 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Richard Kuschel wrote:
I have upgraded ProTools a few times, but am unlikely to upgrade into the r=
ent forever paradigm.

Great sound can be obtained from ProTools It just takes learning how to do =
it.
It's a lot easier than it used to be. Early versions of PT were not bit for
bit true... you could load something in, then save it back again without
doing any processing, and the file wasn't the same. But that got better.



So it wasn't just their business-model that was nasty ...


geoff

[geoff]

On 13/07/2016 2:09 p.m., Jason wrote:
On 12 Jul 2016 09:17:14 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in
article
I miss the scrub knob.

fwiw (not much) Audition has that, but it keys on the keyboard. I use it a
lot.

Sound Forge (formaybe the last 10 years) has keyboard keys for scrub,
but more usefully a scrubbing slider with mouse 'handle' that can go up
to 20x forward or reverse (temporary or latching), and can be linked to
an external control surface wheels such as on Mackie or Contour.

I guess the current versions of other editors have similar.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Jason wrote:
On 12 Jul 2016 09:17:14 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in
article
I miss the scrub knob.

fwiw (not much) Audition has that, but it keys on the keyboard. I use it a
lot.

Pro Tools lets you scrub with keys too, but I want a physical knob like
my ATR-100 has.

It is very, very nice to be able to scrub in both directions. Going forward,
you can't find the break in the dipthong in "poem" but when you go backwards
it's very easy to tell where the O ends and the E begins so you can cut there.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

In article ,
Jason wrote:
On 12 Jul 2016 09:17:14 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in
article
I miss the scrub knob.

fwiw (not much) Audition has that, but it keys on the keyboard. I use it a
lot.

Pro Tools lets you scrub with keys too, but I want a physical knob like
my ATR-100 has.

It is very, very nice to be able to scrub in both directions. Going forward,
you can't find the break in the dipthong in "poem" but when you go backwards
it's very easy to tell where the O ends and the E begins so you can cut there.

I'd also miss the ATR100 scrub if PT didn't have a few different lovely
compensations:

1. You can change the type and width of the crossfade at the cut to optimize that
particular cut.

2. You can nudge (in increments of your choosing) the splice itself (including the
crossfade) to find the perfect place for the cut.

And with a little practice, you can generally see a transition from "O" to "E" right
in the waveform so that your initial cut is pretty darned close, if not spot on. And
if you do need to scrub in PT, it's an easy motion with your mouse hand.

In the old days I did a hell of a lot of cutting on an ATR100 (and even a 440, but
the ATR was a lot more elegant). But these days, I still shake my head in happy
wonder at the things I can do in PT that I could never even imagine with tape.

Going to do a multitrack cut, perhaps across a 100 tracks? It's even money you might
get into trouble there -- one of those tracks or group of tracks might give you
grief at the cut point. But the slick thing is that I can individually adjust each
cut (or a subgroup of cuts) such that each track or group of tracks has an optimal
cut point. Often all you need to do is nudge the one or two troublemakers and you're
done.

Need to perhaps insert a musical phrase or a few notes from another performance,
possibly done in a different hall recorded by someone else? Maybe you have that
insert on two-track but you need to do it in a multitrack mix session?

Very difficult (more like impossible) with tape; relatively easy to do in PT or one
of its cousins. The first time I pulled off that stunt I was shocked. Would never
have believed -- or perhaps even tried it -- had it not been to save the ass of a
well-intentioned producer who'd overlooked something small but critical in the score
during tracking. The guy was nearly in tears with gratitude.

Yes, on some visceral level I still love the feel of mechanical editing, but could
never now go back.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Pro Tools lets you scrub with keys too, but I want a physical knob like
my ATR-100 has.

I'd also miss the ATR100 scrub if PT didn't have a few different lovely
compensations:

All of these are true but why not just a little box with a knob on it that
is recognized as a USB device by PT?

if you do need to scrub in PT, it's an easy motion with your mouse hand.

I find that a pain. I prefer the keyboard sequences to using the mouse,
but having a knob (especially if it were right above the numeric keypad
on the keyboard) would be a lot more convenient.

The Audacy had a knob! I want a knob!

Yes, on some visceral level I still love the feel of mechanical editing, but could
never now go back.

The arguments you make are all good ones, but I still want a knob.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[david gourley[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) :

Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Pro Tools lets you scrub with keys too, but I want a physical knob like
my ATR-100 has.

I'd also miss the ATR100 scrub if PT didn't have a few different lovely
compensations:

All of these are true but why not just a little box with a knob on it
that
is recognized as a USB device by PT?

if you do need to scrub in PT, it's an easy motion with your mouse hand.

I find that a pain. I prefer the keyboard sequences to using the mouse,
but having a knob (especially if it were right above the numeric keypad
on the keyboard) would be a lot more convenient.

The Audacy had a knob! I want a knob!

Yes, on some visceral level I still love the feel of mechanical editing,
but could
never now go back.

The arguments you make are all good ones, but I still want a knob.
--scott



Look like this one would work?

https://griffintechnology.com/us/powermate


david

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
david gourley wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) :

Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Pro Tools lets you scrub with keys too, but I want a physical knob like
my ATR-100 has.

I'd also miss the ATR100 scrub if PT didn't have a few different lovely
compensations:

All of these are true but why not just a little box with a knob on it
that
is recognized as a USB device by PT?

if you do need to scrub in PT, it's an easy motion with your mouse hand.

I find that a pain. I prefer the keyboard sequences to using the mouse,
but having a knob (especially if it were right above the numeric keypad
on the keyboard) would be a lot more convenient.

The Audacy had a knob! I want a knob!

Yes, on some visceral level I still love the feel of mechanical editing,
but could
never now go back.

The arguments you make are all good ones, but I still want a knob.

Look like this one would work?

https://griffintechnology.com/us/powermate

It doesn't, its flaky and the latency is long but variable. But this is
EXACTLY the sort of thing I want, just one that works.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/13/2016 1:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Frank Stearns wrote:
I'd also miss the ATR100 scrub if PT didn't have a few different lovely
compensations:

All of these are true but why not just a little box with a knob on it that
is recognized as a USB device by PT?

Remember the discussion, oh, maybe 20 years ago, when computer-based
editors first became PC/Mac-compliant? Bob Lentini took a lot of flack
for his SAW program because it didn't have scrub? It was probably the
most advanced of those programs at the time, and everyone was expecting
it to scrub.

I don't know how he concluded it, but after a lot of flaming discussion,
he decided that you don't need scrubbing since you could see the
waveform. And the world hasn't been the same since.

The Mackie HDR24/96 had a really good scrub that was implemented with a
great-feeling wheel in their digital console, the d8b, and also in the
large, 48-track remote controller for the recorder. They never made a
more compact version of it, though.

I'm pretty sure that Pro Tools still responds to Mackie Control
protocol, and though Mackie no longer makes a DAW controller, there are
some around that have a scroll wheel. And I think that one of the
EtherCon controllers that are dedicated to Pro Tools has a scrub wheel,
maybe one or more of their other control surfaces, too.

Thing is that most DAW users don't do the sort of editing where a scrub
wheel is useful, and they don't want to spend the money or commit the
desk space to a scrub wheel. And once the word gets around that nearly
nobody buys it, everybody stops making it.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/13/2016 2:02 PM, david gourley wrote:

Look like this one would work?

https://griffintechnology.com/us/powermate

It appears that all it does is sends keyboard commands. That doesn't
sound like it would be very useful as a scrub tool.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers writes:

snips

Thing is that most DAW users don't do the sort of editing where a scrub
wheel is useful, and they don't want to spend the money or commit the
desk space to a scrub wheel. And once the word gets around that nearly
nobody buys it, everybody stops making it.

This is likely the practical long and short of it.

Back with mechanical editing, you *had* to have scrub. With a 440, it was an
awkward, two-handed, reel-rocking affair. Then, once the edit point was located,
you'd splay the fingers of one hand over both reels in the center of the deck to
lock the reels in place, while your other hand grabbed the china marker and made the
cut mark. (I made marker lanyards out of 1/4" tape and put it around my neck -- the
damn thing then wouldn't roll away and was *always* close at hand.)

[Side discussion: how the hell did you edit on a 3M isoloop machine? That must have
been even more awkward.]

The ATR100 greatly improved that series of motions by beautifully handling the tape
(still under tension) while you twisted the scrub knob with one hand, your china
marker already in your other hand hovering over the headstack, poised and ready to
go. No two-handed rocking or reel immobilization required.

But in a DAW, with higher resolution wave forms and extremely fine cursor control
(depending on zoom, of course), the entire scrub function was eliminated for 95-99%
of the edits you might need to do. It's only a minority of edits where you're
cutting in the middle of waveforms, where a scrub would be most useful.

Most edits will occur between "modulation events", such as drum hits, vocal
elements, attack transients of many varied instruments, and so on. Those are very
easy to see, click just in front of, then cut. Even if the edit isn't all that
clean, the "big volume" event occurring just a few milliseconds later will obscure
most editing faults.

The last album I mixed, where the tracks had been recorded elsewhere and there had
been some sort of monitoring issue during tracking, probably required 1000+
individual track edits to correct musical timing issues (mostly cut'n'nudge). I
might have used PT's scrub function 5-6 times in that entire project.

I like the idea of some sort of external "scrub controller", but probably would
never buy one, given how little it would be used on the mundane daily sorts
of edits I wind up doing.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/13/2016 4:42 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
But in a DAW, with higher resolution wave forms and extremely fine cursor control
(depending on zoom, of course), the entire scrub function was eliminated for 95-99%
of the edits you might need to do. It's only a minority of edits where you're
cutting in the middle of waveforms, where a scrub would be most useful.

Most edits will occur between "modulation events", such as drum hits, vocal
elements, attack transients of many varied instruments, and so on. Those are very
easy to see, click just in front of, then cut.

"Assembly" edits are easy to do visually, but I find that when doing
music edits, I can locate a spot more accurately by hearing it than just
seeing it. All those squiggles, and the space between them, look the
same to me.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[david gourley[_2_]]

Mike Rivers :

On 7/13/2016 2:02 PM, david gourley wrote:

Look like this one would work?

https://griffintechnology.com/us/powermate

It appears that all it does is sends keyboard commands. That doesn't
sound like it would be very useful as a scrub tool.



Maybe so, but I wonder how they turn it into a Jog/Shuttle wheel as they
claim? That being said, I only saw they listed presets for iMovie and
Garage Band, so I didn't find it too helpful.

david

[Luxey]

http://www.contour-design.co.uk

[geoff]

On 14/07/2016 5:49 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
d to scrub in PT, it's an easy motion with your mouse hand.
I find that a pain. I prefer the keyboard sequences to using the mouse,
but having a knob (especially if it were right above the numeric keypad
on the keyboard) would be a lot more convenient.

The Audacy had a knob! I want a knob!


Most peoples' (computer) monitors don't have knobs ! And many (most)
don't have control surfaces with knobs/wheels.

I have a knob on my Mackie Control and Contour . If doing stuff
extensively on the surface, the knob/wheel is best. But if you are using
computer-centric functions that require mostly mousing, I find the scrub
slider on SF/Vegas/Acid is more convenient (and more versatile).
Keyboard arrows comes a distant 3rd except for fixed time/distance jumps.

Presumably the same on other DAWs

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/13/2016 6:23 PM, Luxey wrote:


http://www.contour-design.co.uk

Have you actually used one as an editing scrub controller? Or are you
just Googling?

The Avid Artist Transport is the real deal, unless it's been
discontinued (I know some of this series has)
http://www.avid.com/products/artist-transport

The Pro Tools|Dock is definitely a current product, at least I think
it's been released by now.
http://www.avid.com/products/pro-tools-dock



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 7/13/2016 7:34 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/13/2016 6:52 PM, geoff wrote:
Most peoples' (computer) monitors don't have knobs ! And many (most)
don't have control surfaces with knobs/wheels.

That's why people like me haven't been fully convinced that the computer
is the right tool for working with audio . . . unless augmented by some
hardware that the proverbial "most" people don't have.

I have a knob on my Mackie Control and Contour . If doing stuff
extensively on the surface, the knob/wheel is best. But if you are using
computer-centric functions that require mostly mousing, I find the scrub
slider on SF/Vegas/Acid is more convenient (and more versatile).

You're looking at two different functions here. I wouldn't use a jog
wheel, that even if possible (menu selections, for instance), are better
done with a mouse. Those things were designed with a mouse in mind. But
editing with your ears was never really designed in most DAWs because
they didn't have good controls for it.

When I've tried using keyboard keys or the slider in Acid, I find that
I'm always overshooting, because my ear isn't tied (through my brain and
hand) directly to the "tape" motion. A properly implemented jog wheel
follows the dynamics of your finger pretty well. A poorly implemented
one (and I've seen a few) are no better than toggling between two keys
on the keyboard or dragging a slider with a mouse.

At least that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.



Hmm, don't most mice have that wheel thing between
the right click and left click buttons?
Why can't that be assigned to this scrub function?

==
Later....
Ron Capik
--

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers writes:

On 7/13/2016 4:42 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
But in a DAW, with higher resolution wave forms and extremely fine cursor control
(depending on zoom, of course), the entire scrub function was eliminated for 95-99%
of the edits you might need to do. It's only a minority of edits where you're
cutting in the middle of waveforms, where a scrub would be most useful.

Most edits will occur between "modulation events", such as drum hits, vocal
elements, attack transients of many varied instruments, and so on. Those are very
easy to see, click just in front of, then cut.

"Assembly" edits are easy to do visually, but I find that when doing
music edits, I can locate a spot more accurately by hearing it than just
seeing it. All those squiggles, and the space between them, look the
same to me.

I should probably clarify -- these days most of my edits are done on the multitrack
side, so it's easy to pick track or group of tracks that will give the clearest
visual guide for an overall cut (drums or percussion, for example). If you're
cutting two-track then yes, the audio component can be useful.

But by far the most edits I do are to single or groups of tracks within a multitrack
project which are generally well-exposed visually compared to a stereo master.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[geoff]

On 14/07/2016 11:55 a.m., Ron C wrote:
Hmm, don't most mice have that wheel thing between
the right click and left click buttons?
Why can't that be assigned to this scrub function?

==
Later....
Ron Capik

Does in Sound Forge Pro Vegas, etc. But it is clumsy compared to
dragging the 'handle', and the rate increases the more you spin the
mouse-wheel, very slow at first (0.25x).

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

david gourley wrote:
Mike Rivers :
On 7/13/2016 2:02 PM, david gourley wrote:

Look like this one would work?

https://griffintechnology.com/us/powermate

It appears that all it does is sends keyboard commands. That doesn't
sound like it would be very useful as a scrub tool.

Maybe so, but I wonder how they turn it into a Jog/Shuttle wheel as they
claim? That being said, I only saw they listed presets for iMovie and
Garage Band, so I didn't find it too helpful.

In theory the driver can be set up so that when you adjust the knob, it
sends sequences to the keyboard stream, and so it can send the back and
forth scrub sequences that PT uses. In practice it doesn't really work
very well... you don't need the presets and can program it very easily,
but the driver itself is kind of flaky it seems.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/13/2016 7:55 PM, Ron C wrote:
Hmm, don't most mice have that wheel thing between
the right click and left click buttons?
Why can't that be assigned to this scrub function?

That would probably be up to the designer of the DAW software, but
typically the mouse scroll wheel is used for zooming or moving from
track to track (vertically). It's also possible that it doesn't have
good enough resolution for really zeroing in on your edit point.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/13/2016 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
On 14/07/2016 11:55 a.m., Ron C wrote:
Hmm, don't most mice have that wheel thing between
the right click and left click buttons?
Why can't that be assigned to this scrub function?

Does in Sound Forge Pro Vegas, etc.

It does? I've been using Sound Forge for 20 years and I've never noticed
that.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Luxey]

Of course I did not use it. I just googled for "something not as useless as
oversized USB volume knob with blue light is".

[Trevor]

On 14/07/2016 5:38 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:

Remember the discussion, oh, maybe 20 years ago, when computer-based
editors first became PC/Mac-compliant? Bob Lentini took a lot of flack
for his SAW program because it didn't have scrub? It was probably the
most advanced of those programs at the time, and everyone was expecting
it to scrub.

I don't know how he concluded it, but after a lot of flaming discussion,
he decided that you don't need scrubbing since you could see the
waveform. And the world hasn't been the same since.

Exactly what I decided over 20 years ago, no need for scrub any more
when I can hit a key to zoom into the waveform, drop the cursor exactly
where I want, hit play to see if it's spot on, and nudge it into place
if it isn't. Using rougher analog tools in digital simply because you
have never made the transition properly is just doing things the hard
way IMO. But each to their own.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 14/07/2016 9:34 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/13/2016 6:52 PM, geoff wrote:
Most peoples' (computer) monitors don't have knobs ! And many (most)
don't have control surfaces with knobs/wheels.

That's why people like me haven't been fully convinced that the computer
is the right tool for working with audio . . . unless augmented by some
hardware that the proverbial "most" people don't have.

Why do you care what "most people have"? YOU can buy whatever tools YOU
need for your method of working, which those "most people" don't need,
ie. analog style editing.


I have a knob on my Mackie Control and Contour . If doing stuff
extensively on the surface, the knob/wheel is best. But if you are using
computer-centric functions that require mostly mousing, I find the scrub
slider on SF/Vegas/Acid is more convenient (and more versatile).

You're looking at two different functions here. I wouldn't use a jog
wheel, that even if possible (menu selections, for instance), are better
done with a mouse. Those things were designed with a mouse in mind. But
editing with your ears was never really designed in most DAWs because
they didn't have good controls for it.

When I've tried using keyboard keys or the slider in Acid, I find that
I'm always overshooting, because my ear isn't tied (through my brain and
hand) directly to the "tape" motion. A properly implemented jog wheel
follows the dynamics of your finger pretty well. A poorly implemented
one (and I've seen a few) are no better than toggling between two keys
on the keyboard or dragging a slider with a mouse.

At least that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

You're welcome to it. A control surface and Wacom pen is the best way to
edit in the box AFAIC, but never bothered to assign a scrub wheel to a
pot. Never saw the need.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 14/07/2016 11:23 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/13/2016 9:01 PM, geoff wrote:
On 14/07/2016 11:55 a.m., Ron C wrote:
Hmm, don't most mice have that wheel thing between
the right click and left click buttons?
Why can't that be assigned to this scrub function?

Does in Sound Forge Pro Vegas, etc.

It does? I've been using Sound Forge for 20 years and I've never noticed
that.

20 years and you haven't RTFM yet? :-)

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/13/2016 11:59 PM, geoff wrote:

You have to hover the cursor over the scrubbing 'handle'. Otherwise you
are zooming the waveform in/out as usual.

You live and learn, eh ?

Still alive, but not learning much here. That's not scrubbing. Moving
the mouse wheel with the cursor over what's better described as a
shuttle control starts playback forward or backward in increments of
speed. But unlike a true scrub, you have to return the handle to zero
with the scroll wheel in order to stop playback.

You have to keep turning a scrub wheel in order to keep the audio
playing. The audio stops when you stop turning the wheel . . . just
like playback stops when you stop moving the tape. With what Sound Forge
offers, you can get from one part of the song to another sort of like
with tape monkey chatter, but you can't accurately park the cursor right
at the note where you want to cut.




--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com