buzz forums
http://forums.jeskola.net/

Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?
http://forums.jeskola.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=112
Page 1 of 1

Author:  bahador [ Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:06 am ]
Post subject:  Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

Working with the new HD Recorder (now that I have learned how to do it) has never been better, especially the new renderer capabilities makes it even better.

I was wondering if oskari could add this feature to the new hd recorder now that he has got his focus on it.

As you all may know most of the mastering studios out there are asking for the track-by-track export of your song and as we never had a built-in feature like that it has always been like a nightmare to make it and almost anyone here has their own method to do that.

It would be such an awesome feature if oskari could be kind to make it possible in the new recorder options, to be able to take a rendered track-by-track export of your song.

Thanks a lot and happy new year 2012.

Author:  UNZ [ Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

its built in in the form of Jeskola Loop Recorder

Author:  Reefer Sutherland [ Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

I'm not quite sure how to multi channel render with the Loop Recorder. I always use MTW..
But I guess this is a perfect topic for a Youtube-video :)

Author:  mute [ Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

loop recorder or MTWr won't automatically solve multichannel rendering issues with things like side-chains,..

Author:  mantratronic [ Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

why not? just record the inputs to your mixer (whether its master or ld mixer or something else new)

Image

am I missing something? :?

Author:  mute [ Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

Yes, generators/signals that end up using the same signal/fx path as others.

The most common occurance would be compressors. "other hosts" as others would put it (and I cringe at), can suss it out. Using a simple bassline+drums running into a single compressor as example; from the begining of time till now with buzz, i've got to render the bass track, then the drum track seperately without compression, then import those into a seperate multitrack editor and apply channel compression, then render the wavs in order to have them seperate but still have the compression/relation between the 2 intact. Reverb would be another good example, or FFT effects, or envelope following efx, and so on.. where you share the path with another signal that you may ideally need or want seperate.

Also fwiw,.. i don't find loop recorder ideal for multitrack recording.. MTWr is still the better solution. Square peg, round hole. Loop Recorder is better at what it's title declares (sidenote, wish it had a render to wavetable option).

I can understand the technical aspects behind this and know that the modular enviroment presents some issues you have to manage properly from the get go if you have multitrack in mind, but at the same time that also ties your hands from some very purposeful and modularly abusing fx routing/use. I just know I see other hosts do it, and in some cases I wonder how. I dont even know if its feasibly possible by the way buzz does its mixing, but a native multitrack renderer that could pull off some of this shit would be hella nice. Probably a pipe-dream..

Author:  mantratronic [ Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

ahh, ok, I think I see what you mean. You want each generator run through the effect chain solo'ed into the wavetable/hd at one button. Well, a new multitrack->wavetable machine is added to my list now, I won't make any promises for when or anything. msg me if you have ideas..

Author:  mute [ Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

Not nessicarily the wavetable, that was just something I mentioned as a side note about loop recorder.

I don't know if "solo'd" is the right term either, because there should still be mixing involved but with signal removal. Like a a solo'd recording wouldn't help with the compression sort of deal.

It would however, be better than what we got.. which is essentially nothing outside of manual labor ;]

Author:  bozz [ Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

mantratronic wrote:
why not? just record the inputs to your mixer (whether its master or ld mixer or something else new)

Or inputs to master. That could be at least one quick to setup option 'render each input to master as separate .wav file'.

Author:  synthphase [ Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

mute wrote:
from the begining of time till now with buzz, i've got to render the bass track, then the drum track seperately without compression, then import those into a seperate multitrack editor and apply channel compression, then render the wavs in order to have them seperate but still have the compression/relation between the 2 intact.


Wait.. What program does that without setting up some kind of side-chain? How does a channel compressor "know" about the other track if it's not chained to it in some way during the render? I'm hoping I'm not missing some fundamental feature of an "other host".

Author:  mute [ Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

side chain compression is exactly what i was referring to 5 years ago, as the simplest of examples..though it looks like i left the word out.

Author:  synthphase [ Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Could we have this feature in buzz for the HD recorder?

AH yeah that makes sense. Oh shit was that 5 years ago? Oh well. Thanks for clearing that up then.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/