[ISSUE] VCA ___ (controls other than level)

Nuendo
41

As far as I know, Mute and Solo Automation has always been a part of the VCA system. NOT record arm or other options more suited in the Group/Link feature set.

Fredo: "i am very found of the idea to totally separate the functioning of VCA’s from grouping or linking, because most of the people already have a hard time understaning what the difference is between grouping/linking and VCA’s. There is absolutely no relationship between both functions, so IMO, anything, any function that in some way suggests that it is a sort of linking, should be avoided. "

To the above I agree.

42

Yes, there’s nothing wrong with clarity of functionality, KISS design and all the rest, but there are also the issues of intuitive workflow and flexibility to take into consideration. VCA fader functionality has been well established in hardware mixers a long time ago but this doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the best way to do it in software. The Pro Tools VCA fader design could be viewed as an attempt to improve the concept and IMO it works very well. I understand the arguments for maintaining separate functionality between VCAs, grouping and linking but we have to be careful this does not stifle innovation, or cripple visual clarity on the GUI.

43

That would be correct if we were talking about functionality that can’t be achieved with the tools already available.

Fredo

44

dear all,

i agree with fredo here.
back in the days, i’ve been working for many years on analog desks (still having 2 old ladies here), most of them beeing loaded with vca-faders. of course, no way to arm the A820- or 3324-tracks directly from the console then, which seemed nothing but logical.
the straight way for me - even if i understand very well that the paradigm may have changed, and that a controller do offer functions an analog desk didn’t have.

btw - loving the new features in NU7!

cheers,
benoit

45

Many aspects and their implementation for Nuendo are directly derived from the Euphonix System 5. Automation is nearly identical. Control Room, as well. Martin Stahl did an excellent job of interfacing between SB and Euphonix and much of Nuendo’s Eucon goodness is to his credit. I bring that up in this discussion because I believe those reference points become pertinent in the discussion. Namely, taking cues for the software from excellent hardware. In many aspects, like a plugin, Nuendo emulates/models a System 5.

And so, do we limit VCA implementation to a “traditional” approach? There was no such idea about many innovative Nuendo features in the past. As an example, there is more than one way to control “VCA Groups” on a Sys 5. One of them, that is often overlooked. is that when you have designated a channel as Group Master, it becomes in effect a VCA Fader, but actually much more. Mute/Solo…of course. But actually, the Group Master channel retains all parameters from a regular channel. As such, it can Globally adjust all like parameters in the Slave channels. And does so retaining relative settings, in the case of Send/Level/Freq/Boost/Cut, etc

A simple example: You decide all of the Slave Channels would be better off with a Hi Pass at 100 Hz. Engage the Hi Pass and set to 100 Hz on the Master.

Another example: You decide that the entirety of the controlled channels feel a little too dark. Engage the Hi Band of the EQ Master Channel and add +3 dB. All channels will increase HF Gain by 3 dB, starting from the current position.

One more thing. Yes, you can do what I describe from Linked Status. But not exactly. Because the Master Channel is not impacted by changes to individual channels, whereas Linked channels interact. It’s a one way street, leaving you with instant access to individual control or Master control without the need to toggle, etc.

The Master Channel concept of the Sys 5 is brilliant, though few I’ve seen really use it. It consolidates anything you want to do to controlled channel into a single place, including all parameters (yes that means Rec Arm) and does it in a way that is elegant. Add unlimited Nesting and it really is all that.

I’ve mixed on about every console type ever made with any sort of VCA control, starting with Melquist add-on faders in a Trident Series 80 in the early 80’s. Flying Faders/SSL/Calrec and so forth. Euphonix Sys 5 is BRILLIANT in that aspect. SB could do much worse than continuing to emulate it’s best features. And to me, a Master Fader that controls all aspects of Slave Channels is one of those brilliant features. I do wish someone would have asked me about it. I think I could do a pretty convincing show and tell. :slight_smile:

Anyway, hopefully you see my point. As it now appears, a very long point.

P.S. Is it OK to say I miss Martin?

46

I think that’s a debatable definition of “innovation” though. If “innovation” can’t be anything that could “be achieved with the tools already available” then that would make a whole lot of things “not innovation”. But who cares? It’s clearly an improvement. You could achieve your goal of verifying the members of a VCA in different ways already. Rather than pressing “solo” on your VCA to verify what tracks are members of it you could simply solo the tracks that should be members and then drag the VCA fader down. If the fader mutes all sound then all soloed tracks belong to the VCA. See? Same outcome different method. (and yes, I understand that was an example off the top of your head)

But of course you’d never promote that workflow over just pressing solo on the VCA, because the latter is easier. And that’s the whole point. If it’s easier to do something one way, why not include that as an option.

Now, in addition to that I don’t disagree with you that the other way of doing what I suggested is possible and good for some people. But if you want to set up “dummy tracks” in order to control linked tracks then

  1. in some cases you’re just doubling up on “control tracks”, right? I mean, if I want to have a VCA control my stems, and I want to be able to record enable them easily with one click and not much navigation, then I’d end up with not just yet another channel but also a different type of channel (audio). So I’ll end up with one VCA and one audio track, just to control my stems. Two channels instead of one. I don’t see how that’s an improvement over just using one.

  2. While I could think of VCAs in terms of “control channels” I can’t do that for the “dummy audio tracks” because they’re not. If I choose “hide audio channels” when in the mixer - with the intent of leaving only for example groups, outputs (my stems) and control channels (VCAs) visible my “dummy tracks” disappear - but I wanted them to be visible because I wanted to see certain tracks that functioned, conceptually, a certain way. In addition I would assume that any changes I make to the linked channels will have to be taken into double-account now since an individual channel is first linked then a member of a VCA (or potentially so at least). More to consider, no?

So in this case there are practical implications that “override” the conceptual view of how channels function. They might be thought of as “dummy control channels”, but they’re still audio tracks, and Nuendo will treat them as such.

47

But again I have to ask: How does a “rec” or “input monitoring” button on a VCA impact you in a negative way? If you’re sitting in front of Pro Tools and are using VCAs, I would assume you simply choose not to press the button if you don’t want to rec-enable the members, right? It’d be exactly the same thing here…

48

I agree with your point 100%… to the extent that I understand it :slight_smile:

49

One other point.

I would not recommend what we are discussing for inclusion in Cubase. The additional options can be intimidating unless you have some flying time as an engineer under your belt. But Nuendo is the pinnacle of DAWs in my opinion, and is designed for professionals who do real work for real money. It should not be limited by consideration of “too much”. This is NO diss to Cubase users. A different cost and demographic.

Hey, a System 5 straight out of the box is a serious handful as you’re getting familiar with it. Anyone who has flown one knows that. It’s deep and you can screw up if you don’t know what you’re doing. BUT, the plethora of features is what makes it great. If there is any DAW that should go for broke without concern about “dumbing it down for the new guy” it has to be Nuendo.

50

Getalife2,

You made excellent points.
And I completely support the idea of the Master Channel concept.
Though, I still remain stubborn on the integration of any other control than Mute/Solo and volume control in the current VCA implementation. There is no point in making a “Master Channel Extra light”. :slight_smile:
I do however support the idea that rec-arm will included when the rest of the “Master Channel” functionality is added.
Then it’s clear that there is a pile of extra functionality available.
But no half work for the moment.

Have a nice weekend.
Fredo

51

…true.

benoit

52

Just a quick note on this subject.
On our old Capricorn console we could also do this (S5 master channel), controlling other channels without locking them into a fixed group. I’d love to see this in Nuendo.
Controlling multiple sends easily without having to use groups as I want to keep having full individual control at all times.
A super feature really.

I would also like to say that the place aren’t of VCAs in the rack is a really bad idea.
Whenever you work with channels that are controlled or linked you need to see that at a glance.
So unless steinberg makes it possible to move the VCAs to the bottom and force them to stay open, then it has some rather serious usability issues still.

It’s not that I’m not happy that we finally get VCAs, I love it! It could just have been implemented a bit better still.

53

Speaking of the hundreds of consoles I’ve used over 3 decaes, the Capricorn was/is a really good sounding console. Many cool ideas there, they just probably over-reached a bit in money and development time. Did have some stability issues, but it was pretty great when it was working.

OK, sorry for off topic. But I hadn’t thought of a Capricorn in a long while. I’m sure it still sounds great.

54

Folders will get you Rec Arm, Mute and Solo.

55

Folders will get you Rec Arm, Mute and Solo.

…yes. but folders are kind of static. i wouln’d start to move tracks out of or to a specific folder just to to that, this is asking for trouble in a complex project.

(btw, and out of topic: i wished that the folders’ group-edit function would accept to recognize and include clips-lengths which are not perfectly trimmed - on the sample! - to each other. switching between the group-edit function and grouping the clips (one fonction exludes the other, and they do have completely different impacts) still feels strange to me, coming from the completely transparent and unified clip-grouping-concepts in pyramix. this among other grouping-oddities in NU).

benoit

56

Folders don’t appear on either mixers or control surfaces.

57

And on the topic of control surfaces + VCA faders + record & input monitoring - if you have your VCA faders mapped to the control surface (assigned to fixed fader positions) it’s far easier to hit record toggle on these than it is to now try and bank locate a particular fader that is part of a link group to enable record for the group.

58

Because with Linking - with respect to ANY of these functions (Rec, Mute, Solo, Select, Monitor) - when you select or Rec Arm ANY of the channels they all become selected, armed, whatever.

The point is to be able to do this individually for each member channel or Globally using the VCA master.

Hugh

59

You could hold ALT and perform the function you desire, temporarily disabling (overriding) the linking… ? Any good for you…?

60

We’re getting pretty far from the point now.