Turn off Input Monitoring

[IceLitch]

Did they finally do this in PT11?
In Pro Tools 10 they have the "low latency monitoring" for two channels and you have to turn it off when bouncing to disk, kind of a headache.

Hopefully they just have the option now in 11 to turn off input monitoring all together like most other DAW's. I track through a mixing desk and also use it for headphone mixes. I then return the outputs of Protools to another set of faders on the mixer, so when recording big sessions, I have to "mute" the outputs of the Pro Tools tracks on my mixer, otherwise the artist or band will hear themselves doubled.
Thanks

[Drew Mazurek]

Why not just run the DAW at a 64 sample buffer?

I track full bands on my HD Native rig with the buffer at 64. It'll even do 32. I make headphone mixes and can even run a bunch of Channelstrips and this is on a Mac Pro 3,1 single 2.8Ghz.

[IceLitch]

I'd prefer to run headphone mixes and punch in's being monitored from the inputs on my digital console instead of having to go through the interface when tracking.
I understand what you are saying, but there is still enough latency on big sessions that it bothers people and lowering the buffer tooo low effects the computer's ability to recording 32 tracks at once.

Regardless, just wondering if they have "low latency monitoring" on multiple channels (as oppose to just two) or even better the option to turn input monitoring off completely, so that audio from a track will only play when the track is in play. When in record it would be nice to have the ability to turn off input monitoring, especially when doing multiple punch in's.

This topic has been discussed a few times in the past regarding earlier versions.

[musicman691]

I'd prefer to run headphone mixes and punch in's being monitored from the inputs on my digital console instead of having to go through the interface when tracking.
I understand what you are saying, but there is still enough latency on big sessions that it bothers people and lowering the buffer tooo low effects the computer's ability to recording 32 tracks at once.

Regardless, just wondering if they have "low latency monitoring" on multiple channels (as oppose to just two) or even better the option to turn input monitoring off completely, so that audio from a track will only play when the track is in play. When in record it would be nice to have the ability to turn off input monitoring, especially when doing multiple punch in's.

This topic has been discussed a few times in the past regarding earlier versions.
If you're having problems recording 32 tracks at once you need to look at your recording system. Maybe upgrade your computer for instance. You don't say what you're system is like; maybe if you did we could offer some suggestions.

[zakco]

Why is that every time this question is brought up, the responses are invariably "Your working wrong - You should be doing it this way." ?

RME, UA, MOTU, etc all have well designed cue mix capabilities including processing etc. All DSP powered, all free of being tied to PT's ADC quirks and limits. UA takes it even further with the Apollo with session recall and the use of plugins while tracking that can be used while mixing as well. Brilliant idea, torpedoed by Avid.

Every other DAW I've worked with allows you to take advantage of these features. PT does not. Now that we have new code and have addressed almost all of PTs historical inadequacies, there is really no reason other than the marketing dept running the development dept.

Perhaps an Avid rep could address this elephant in the room, instead of trying to simply invalidate the question with deflective answers.

BTW, I'm not trying to pick on Drew or Musicman here, who are genuinely trying to help...it's just that answers like
Why not just run the DAW at a 64 sample buffer?
I track full bands on my HD Native rig with the buffer at 64. It'll even do 32. I make headphone mixes and can even run a bunch of Channelstrips and this is on a Mac Pro 3,1 single 2.8Ghz. and
If you're having problems recording 32 tracks at once you need to look at your recording system. Maybe upgrade your computer for instance. You don't say what you're system is like; maybe if you did we could offer some suggestions.

are not really helpful. Addressing the problem directly would be...

[Drew Mazurek]

Sorry, but I've been in the biz for a long time and I have NEVER ONCE needed this "feature". Virtually every multitrack record ever made has been done "through" the multitrack. It's the "normal" way things have been done for decades.

No auto mute was needed with 2" machines, not needed with TDM, HDX, and if your buffer is set low enough and the computer can handle it, it's not needed with native.

Some clever companies have come up with ways to overcome inadequacies of THEIR products, good for them, but I don't see how that makes Avid negligent in not putting it into their products.

[DAWgEAR]

Sorry, but I've been in the biz for a long time and I have NEVER ONCE needed this "feature". Virtually every multitrack record ever made has been done "through" the multitrack. It's the "normal" way things have been done for decades.

No auto mute was needed with 2" machines ...

Yes, but analog does not involve the kinds of latencies that digital does.

... not needed with TDM, HDX ...

Yes, but not everyone uses TDM or HDX.

... and if your buffer is set low enough and the computer can handle it, it's not needed with native.

For some situations, that is a big if.

Drew, no offense; if you see no benefit from such a feature that is great. But many others are in situations where such a feature would make a big difference.

My understanding is that Avid eventually provided a workaround for this feature in the form of Low Latency Monitoring, albeit only on two output channels. If this request was a non-issue, why would Avid have included such a feature?

The point is that, now that a PT has a completely rewritten audio engine, perhaps any previous limitations have been overcome and this feature can be implemented on all outputs.

[zakco]

Virtually every multitrack record ever made has been done "through" the multitrack. It's the "normal" way things have been done for decades.

Disregarding tape, which, I'm sorry, is completely irrelevant to this conversation, that statement is just plain wrong. Historically it's only "normal" in DSP based DAWS with proprietary hardware. Pretty much every non PT studio I've ever worked in used a console, with direct monitoring from the interface be it RME, MOTU or whatever, Channel for Channel. I did for over a decade - many still do.

and if your buffer is set low enough and the computer can handle it, it's not needed with native. What about the times that a session has plugins that require a higher buffer, such as Antares Autotune where the developer states clearly that the plugin must be used at a minimum buffer of 1024?

Some clever companies have come up with ways to overcome inadequacies of THEIR products, good for them, but I don't see how that makes Avid negligent in not putting it into their products.I maintain that it is a decision made for no other reason then misguided corporate protectionism. Avid of course, has the right to run their business as they see fit but it doesn't put them on the same "team" as their customers. Their current stock value seems to support this theory.

Sorry, but I've been in the biz for a long time and I have NEVER ONCE needed this "feature".Good for you, but "Being in the biz for a long time" doesn't validate your opinion. It just makes you old like the rest of us...:-)

[Drew Mazurek]

I was merely pointing out the fact that the workflow Avid adheres to is the norm and what you're asking for isn't. It's a work around that Avid dealt with by using the TDM system.

Which leads me to ask the question why use PT at all if it doesn't do a mission critical thing that you need?? I bought an original RADAR24 in 2000 because it suited my needs. I was also using PTLE then synced up. The moment it no longer suited my needs, I sold it and went TDM, largely because iZ, the maker of RADAR, while a good company simply didn't supply me with what I needed.

Yes, but analog does not involve the kinds of latencies that digital does.

Yes, but not everyone uses TDM or HDX.

For some situations, that is a big if.

Drew, no offense; if you see no benefit from such a feature that is great. But many others are in situations where such a feature would make a big difference.

My understanding is that Avid eventually provided a workaround for this feature in the form of Low Latency Monitoring, albeit only on two output channels. If this request was a non-issue, why would Avid have included such a feature?

The point is that, now that a PT has a completely rewritten audio engine, perhaps any previous limitations have been overcome and this feature can be implemented on all outputs.

[Drew Mazurek]

Disregarding tape, which, I'm sorry, is completely irrelevant to this conversation, that statement is just plain wrong. Historically it's only "normal" in DSP based DAWS with proprietary hardware. Pretty much every non PT studio I've ever worked in used a console, with direct monitoring from the interface be it RME, MOTU or whatever, Channel for Channel. I did for over a decade - many still do.

What about the times that a session has plugins that require a higher buffer, such as Antares Autotune where the developer states clearly that the plugin must be used at a minimum buffer of 1024?

I maintain that it is a decision made for no other reason then misguided corporate protectionism. Avid of course, has the right to run their business as they see fit but it doesn't put them on the same "team" as their customers. Their current stock value seems to support this theory.

Good for you, but "Being in the biz for a long time" doesn't validate your opinion. It just makes you old like the rest of us...:-)

See above. How in the heck are you PT users to begin with!! :)


Sorry, but the VAST majority of records made in the last 40 years were either on tape or PT TDM. Just because you did something for a decade, doesn't mean it's the norm.

[zakco]

See above. How in the heck are you PT users to begin with!! :)

You seem to have have enjoyed the koolaid. I don't like koolaid.

In fact the more money I throw at AVID the more I feel justified in criticising them when their policies or/and or products don't suit my needs.

I'm sure there have been many features over the years that were important to you and suited your workflow, but were meaningless to me. I can't imagine coming here and telling you that your needs are a bunch of BS because "all the cool kids use PTHD" (which I do BTW). I might debate the ideas themselves, but I wouldn't bring the tone you're displaying in this thread to the conversation.

PT has traditionally been weak in the area of midi, exactly where the competition has been strong. That's been the "norm" as you keep referring to, but that didn't keep AVID from improving that aspect to reach out to a wider audience. I fail to see the difference here. other than it's an uncomfortable discussion for some.

Sorry Drew, I generally enjoy and appreciate your contributions here, but IMO you took a piss on this thread.

[DAWgEAR]

Which leads me to ask the question why use PT at all if it doesn't do a mission critical thing that you need??

I've been recording since 1990. I've used most of the major DAWs over the years. For me, all had pros and cons. All had various (different) critical things (for me) missing.

I find that PT has the most pros relative to cons and is missing the least. Only a few things I would change, and PT 11 will address half of those. I like this product and company and I want to see both become even better and stronger. I see nothing wrong with enthusiastically supporting that.

[Drew Mazurek]

Please show me where I said it was BS. I asked him why he didn't run the DAW at a 64 sample buffer. This is what I do with my HD Native card. He said he prefers to do certain things on the console and the DAW doesn't do what he needs it to do. I question the choice of tools in that application. Seems pretty logical to me.

As my TDM rig has aged (still have it), I've been looking at and testing many things. First affordable solution that I liked and that suited my needs would win. Could care less if it says Avid on it or Bob's DAW. Now I did have money in I/O and cabling that I was looking to preserve so I looked at the Native card. Guess what? I worked for me so I bought it. I also bought UAD cards for mixing (crapping for tracking--I know this--I don't try to use them for that) and all is good again.


You seem to have have enjoyed the koolaid. I don't like koolaid.

In fact the more money I throw at AVID the more I feel justified in criticising them when their policies or/and or products don't suit my needs.

I'm sure there have been many features over the years that were important to you and suited your workflow, but were meaningless to me. I can't imagine coming here and telling you that your needs are a bunch of BS. I might debate the ideas themselves, but I wouldn't bring the tone you're displaying in this thread to the conversation.

Sorry Drew, I generally enjoy and appreciate your contributions here, but IMO you took a piss on this thread.

[Drew Mazurek]

I've been recording since 1990. I've used most of the major DAWs over the years. For me, all had pros and cons. All had various (different) critical things (for me) missing.

I find that PT has the most pros relative to cons and is missing the least. Only a few things I would change, and PT 11 will address half of those. I like this product and company and I want to see both become even better and stronger. I see nothing wrong with enthusiastically supporting that.

Nor do I.

[zakco]

Please show me where I said it was BS.
By making multiple references to how, because YOU (and all the other big kids in the sandbox) have never needed it, it's unnecessary to "real" PT users, regardless of our experience or investment in the product.

I equate that to calling BS.

Anyhow, I've made my point, I support the OP (and all the others on ideascale that have been discussing this topic) and I'm not going engage further in this circular, waste of bandwidth.

[Drew Mazurek]

By making multiple references to how, because YOU (and all the other big kids in the sandbox) have never needed it, it's unnecessary to "real" PT users, regardless of our experience or investment in the product.

I equate that to calling BS.

Anyhow, I've made my point, I support the OP (and all the others on ideascale that have been discussing this topic) and I'm not going engage further in this circular, waste of bandwidth.

Just trying to help people be better decision makers in life, that's all.

Your interpretation of the thread is yours.

[ROBB007]

This has gone on long enough..The masses have spoken and I agree why can't we get this on...off..Input monitoring issue over.......We love Pro tools 64 bit still is not like the input on and off like on say a Logic system...I would much rather use a Pro tools system so again I ask can we fix this ???//:confused:

[JFreak]

We love Pro tools 64 bit still is not like the input on and off like on say a Logic system...I would much rather use a Pro tools system so again I ask can we fix this ???//:confused:

Input monitoring has traditionally been HD feature, don't know if toolkits open that for regular hardware or is it hardware dependent. But when you have it, you just click an "I" button on the channel strip right next to the red "R" button and that's it. Very easy. Maybe someone with CPTK could chime in?

[ChazC]

Input monitoring has traditionally been HD feature, don't know if toolkits open that for regular hardware or is it hardware dependent. But when you have it, you just click an "I" button on the channel strip right next to the red "R" button and that's it. Very easy. Maybe someone with CPTK could chime in?

Individual input monitoring is indeed part of the CPTK & it is not hardware dependant. The only things CPTK doesn't have in regards to 'full' HD features is solo bus AFL/PFL (despite what the old comparison chart says), dynamic voice allocation, and of course HEAT (but even HDN doesn't have that).

(Not wanting to hijack the thread either but if a full HD user could let me know by PM if dynamic voice allocation actually works without Avid hardware I'd be very grateful. Thx. I'm not sure if it's just crippled in the CPTK or it is actually hardware dependant)

[krazylain]

Why not just run the DAW at a 64 sample buffer?

I track full bands on my HD Native rig with the buffer at 64. It'll even do 32. I make headphone mixes and can even run a bunch of Channelstrips and this is on a Mac Pro 3,1 single 2.8Ghz.

I hope those comments don't reflect Avid's way of thinking.
It looks like you forgot Avid sells HDX, HD Native and Native.
Every PT user does not have access to HD hardware, and some users who do prefer to use analog consoles or digital mixers for monitoring/cue mixes.

I agree with the OP and others as Automute should be included in PT11.
We have been asking for this feature for a very long time.
Studio One, Reason 6, Sonar X2 etc give users the option to turn off input monitoring while recording.
It is 2013 and given multiple requests, it is very difficult to understand why Avid would exclude this feature.

[JFreak]

Not wanting to hijack the thread either but if a full HD user could let me know by PM if dynamic voice allocation actually works without Avid hardware I'd be very grateful. Thx. I'm not sure if it's just crippled in the CPTK or it is actually hardware dependant

Actually let me answer it here and let's just leave it there.

Not sure which part of the feature you're talking about so I'm going to give a little longer explanation.

TDM systems have actually had MANUAL voice allocation whereas LE systems were limited by X number of tracks, so LE did not have to worry about voices at all. Voices is a concept of TDM architecture and quite simply means i/o point in the mixer. Now, how the voice system in TDM originally worked was that you assigned a voice number for every audio track out there and you could have had several audio tracks with same voice assigned, provided that the audio files play back in different parts of the song. That is probably "Voice Sharing" if I remember the correct term. This was at the time when it was very hard to use RTAS in a TDM session.

At some point HD got automatic voices just like LE so no need to worry about it, except when you wanted to manually do something I just described. And I believe this is what is now called "Dynamic voice allocation", so you just manually assign same voice for multiple tracks and first one (the leftmost in the mixer) of the tracks that have audio in it grabs the voice and rest of the tracks won't just play. You can create pretty interesting effects with this.

So it has grown on real TDM hardware systems, and it can very well be hardware dependent, as in something to do with the DSP routing which Native systems do not have. Could be wrong though, but have to admit I have not tried this on a non-HD hardware ever.

[Drew Mazurek]

I am simply trying to gain some insight as to why someone would choose a tool that doesn't do what they need it to do in the first place.

Obviously, I've ruffled some feathers. Sorry.

I'm sure everyone's requested this via Ideascale, if not add it.

I hope those comments don't reflect Avid's way of thinking.
It looks like you forgot Avid sells HDX, HD Native and Native.
Every PT user does not have access to HD hardware, and some users who do prefer to use analog consoles or digital mixers for monitoring/cue mixes.

I agree with the OP and others as Automute should be included in PT11.
We have been asking for this feature for a very long time.
Studio One, Reason 6, Sonar X2 etc give users the option to turn off input monitoring while recording.
It is 2013 and given multiple requests, it is very difficult to understand why Avid would exclude this feature.

[EricWillhelm]

Sorry, but I've been in the biz for a long time and I have NEVER ONCE needed this "feature". Virtually every multitrack record ever made has been done "through" the multitrack. It's the "normal" way things have been done for decades.

No auto mute was needed with 2" machines, not needed with TDM, HDX, and if your buffer is set low enough and the computer can handle it, it's not needed with native.

Some clever companies have come up with ways to overcome inadequacies of THEIR products, good for them, but I don't see how that makes Avid negligent in not putting it into their products.

YIKES.

I think perhaps a better way to word that last bit would be to say, "Some clever companies have come up with ways to overcome inadequacies of AVID products..."

Including a feature sounds more like ADEQUACY to moi.

Anyway...

[EricWillhelm]

I am simply trying to gain some insight as to why someone would choose a tool that doesn't do what they need it to do in the first place.

Because one has (had) faith in the tool and kept hoping it'd quit resting on it's laurels and catch up.

I chose the 'Pro' tool back in '98. INPUT MONITORING OFF wasn't the first thing on my mind back then. Now that I've been in situations where it would come in handy, and seen that every other DAW does it EXCEPT the industry standard, I tried the usual waiting game in the hopes they'd it, along with many other features long-since-implemented by all the other 'inadequate' companies.

If I were to choose a program today, it would not be PT. Alas, with the money I've put into it, it makes it hard to have to start all over and learn a new program when the one you have, and are used to, keeps bringing up the rear, and expensively.

I still get a kick out of how they talked about offline bouncing at the NAB presentation, as if no one had ever seen such a thing before! Look at that! Whoah! How does Avid do it?

Same with clip gain when 10 came out. "Can you believe it?!"

I figured with stuff like that, they'd just quietly insert the feature and instead harp on things that WERE unique to Pro Tools. But that's neither here nor there. Anyway...

So to answer your question, I suppose it's analagous to the battered wife who keeps hoping her husband will come around and be the nice guy he once was. She keeps giving him one more chance, hoping to not have to play the field yet again, looking for a new, um, DAW.

[Drew Mazurek]

So to answer your question, I suppose it's analagous to the battered wife who keeps hoping her husband will come around and be the nice guy he once was. She keeps giving him one more chance, hoping to not have to play the field yet again, looking for a new, um, DAW.

So consider me your "virtual battered wife counselor".

[EricWillhelm]

Ha!

And it should be said: YES I WANT to feel proud of Pro Tools, for having chose it. I have colleagues who chose other DAWS, but are forced to use PT on occasion when other places require a PT session. Inevitably they'll ask, "How do you do [insert cool feature of their DAW here] in Pro Tools?", and I'm forced to answer, "Um, it CAN'T do that", and they snicker at me for having succumbed to the 'industry standard' Kool-Aid.

What I wouldn't give to be able to say, "Here's how we do it in Pro Tools" and have it smoke their way of doing it. And in one or two instances, it does. But 8 times out of 10, PT doesn't even cover it.

[Dave Lang]

I would like this feature. Right now I manually mute the track. It would be easier if I was able to choose an option that had record armed tracks auto mute.

thanks

[zakco]

It is 2013 and given multiple requests, it is very difficult to understand why Avid would exclude this feature.

It's not difficult to understand when you look at their product line. They held off on 3rd party hardware as long as they could, but eventually customer pressure forced the issue. The big joke was that they opened up the hardware window but intentionally crippled the functionality. By refusing to allow the option to disable input monitoring, they have made impossible to use the competitors interfaces the way they were designed to be used and therefore ensuring that there is still a functional advantage to buying the DSP systems.

Just look at the half assed approach to monitoring on all non-dsp hardware, including HD-Native. This is no design oversight, it's marketing pure and simple. Compared to ANY of the competition it's a complete joke.

Don't like it, buy HD or HDX...that's the mantra here.

The funny part is that there have been times I've wanted to disable input monitoring on my HD system, but you can't do it there either. :rolleyes:

[JFreak]

buy HD or HDX...that's the mantra here

It has always been the mantra. Do you even know that Native (PT LE = Limited Edition) only came around in 1999, or 10 years after the "real thing" which has always had unlimited software and features are up to hardware being used. All the time when LE was available this same discussion has been alive, and people have been angry at this or that limitation. But if you buy limited edition you know you can't have it all.

PT9 changed this because now there are:
- Full HD software, with whatever hardware you have deciding on the features available. Just as always.
- HD software with 3rd party hardware. Most HD features available, but hardware still deciding factor whether you have DSP or not, etc.
- Regular PT software with Avid hardware. Limited feature set but full Avid support.
- Regular PT software with 3rd party hardware. Limited feature set and limited Avid support.

So what's changed? You can now use PT with 3rd party hardware if you don't need full Avid support. There is no way Avid is going to test all 3rd party configurations so most likely you need to get support from somewhere else.

What is great about this change is that you can get (almost) full HD feature set using 3rd party hardware if you really want to. It just costs more. You get what you pay for.

That said;

I feel for you because this particular feature is very useful. But if you really think that Avid should re-thing their marketing decisions every time someone thinks that "so c'mon, this is such small feature why would I have to buy HD for it" then I'm sorry but reality is the line has been drawn somewhere and if Avid begun to change the rules every time there is a loud enough discussion then all of a sudden all the limitations would be gone. They have made a decision and they stick to it, whether we like it or not.

[IceLitch]

The frustration is that they obviously have not made the option to turn input monitoring off when in "record" in PT11.
In response to another previous post, I use Digital Performer also, where upon doing a "punch in" I don't have to "mute" the output of the audio source/artist/singer I am recording when punching in. Otherwise, the audio source/singer/artist will hear themselves twice, the track they are hearing in there headphones from my mixing console and then again from the output of the audio interface returning to the mixer...the artist needs to hear the track they are going to be "punching in" on, right? So therefore I have to mute the channel that is the output, coming from the audio interface on my mixing console at the same time I hit record in Protools in order for the audio signal not to double itself. I don't care about buffer sizes, I just don't want the signal to return back into my mixer when doing a punch in.

So when record is engaged, it would be nice if the monitoring of the output on that channel(s) could be turned off automatically. Digital Performer offers this as well as many other DAW's.

Sorry to explain this again, but some people don't seem to understand the actual issue here, I hope this clarifies it for everyone.

I use Digital Performer sometimes because of this, but I like PT for many other reasons.
I like the audio editing features in PT as well as many other things, but I feel they have purposely not included this feature because they want to try and push customers into using their (non-latency) HD systems.
Regardless if it is a Native or HD system, just include the simple option to turn off input monitoring.

As computers get faster, the issue with audio latency going through the computer/native audio interfaces and returning back into someone's headphones will become a non issue. Why dodge the option...marketing, make it difficult to use anything other than HD,
In regards to a previous post, yes, they included "low latency monitoring" to two tracks because people have been complaining about this for a long time, by re-writting the entire code (I'm not a computer programmer) it would seem to be an easy feature to include.

Therefore, why use a DAW that doesn't suit your needs? (as someone mentioned in previous post)

I don't sometimes, I use Digital Performer on large tracking sessions where multiple punch in's may be needed, like a drum fill with 12 drum tracks/mic's.
I really like the keyboard focus commands, audio editing options, exporting features in Pro Tools, so it sucks they couldn't just include the one feature that is turning me away from using Pro Tools on large tracking sessions.

[zakco]

I feel for you because this particular feature is very useful. But if you really think that Avid should re-thing their marketing decisions every time someone thinks that "so c'mon, this is such small feature why would I have to buy HD for it" then I'm sorry but reality is the line has been drawn somewhere and if Avid begun to change the rules every time there is a loud enough discussion then all of a sudden all the limitations would be gone. They have made a decision and they stick to it, whether we like it or not.


No disagreement here. Avid obviously has the right to do business the way they see fit. And the customer has the ability to spend where they do.

What ruffles my feathers is a moderator making a comment like this:

Sorry, but I've been in the biz for a long time and I have NEVER ONCE needed this "feature".

By putting the word "feature" in quotation marks and broadcasting his obviously superior experience, nothing is added to the discussion. No greater understanding of the needs of the OP, just condescending dismissal.

[Drew Mazurek]

By putting the word "feature" in quotation marks and broadcasting his obviously superior experience, nothing is added to the discussion. No greater understanding of the needs of the OP, just condescending dismissal.

Nonsense. Feature is in quotes because it's a workaround for the deficiencies of the tools and it goes against DECADES of record making, plain and simple.

People need to stop emotionalizing things like this. The battered wife remark earlier was spot on.

BTW, I was done with this until you re-quoted me and starting putting thoughts in my head and mis-characterizing the intent of my posts

[nigelpry]

In pro tools i use a workaround, have done ever since i realised the problem around day two of owning it.

I select the relevant tracks, then I can, using the option/shift key combination, record arm them all at once. i also switch these live tracks to a different set of outputs on my audio interface so they appear on a specific set of channels on my mixing desk.

Performers hear themselves via aux sends from their live inputs on the desk, not through PT. They hear previously recorded material played from PT via the desk and the same aux sends.

I can pfl their live inputs on the desk, i can also pfl their live but through PT returns to the desk separately to previously recorded tracks, to check audio quality. It works for me, although not quite as slick as in tape days, monitoring the live signal as it comes back off tape. But having established the workflow, it's second nature to me now, and it causes me no problems.

I also use MOTU gear, for when I need more than the 16 i/o (on my 003). And sometimes I use another DAW too. But of course if I use a DAW that lets me turn off input monitoring, and if I use MOTU's cuemix to send the the live inputs straight back out for latency free monitoring by the performers, one problem still remains.

If I do not ALSO monitor the live sound after it has passed through the DAW, I leave open to chance the possibility that the signal might be somehow be damaged and I would not know until the performance finished and I played it back. Poor (incompetent) routing might mean, for example, that signal meant to be recorded on one track gets recorded on another, so (eg) bass guitar and snare end up on the same track (=disaster).

My paranoia about this possibility (having done it!) means I do not ever want to turn input monitoring off. I just have a workflow in which the performer does not hear their post-DAW live signal, they only hear their live signal straight from the live inputs on the desk. But I can check the post-DAW live signal to keep my paranoia under cntrol.

Where necessary to get the performance needed, I patch the direct out of (for example lead vocal) into another channel on the desk, so I can compress, eq, put on delay, reverb, whatever to make the performer comfortable in their cans. In this case, I record both the clean and effected vocal tracks.

I'll most likely use the clean signal to work with, but having the version that the artist was comfortable with gives me a useful reference point.

[zakco]

Nonsense. Feature is in quotes because it's a workaround for the deficiencies of the tools

So if I understand you correctly, there is a measurable line between a feature request and a workaround?

If so, please explain the parameters used to determine these definitions...

[nigelpry]

Not taking sides here guys, and certainly not wanting to bring the wrath of the moderators down on me ..... but .......

Moderators have IMO an added responsibility to take greater care in their grammatical constructions so as to minimise the potential for being seen as inflamers, rather than moderators.

There are a growing number of moderator comments, across the multitude of PT11 threads being generated at this particularly emotive time for Pro Tools users, that appear to have fallen a little short of the mark.

There is a vast difference between a forum member suggesting a bad idea, e.g. why can't we have more Traktor-like DJ tools built into Pro Tools, and a forum member talking about a workflow, and the problems encountered with it, that is different to another individual's workflow.

If the workflow problems stem from a misunderstanding of how things are intended to work in Pro Tools, then of course we should collectively attempt to help the individual to understand alternative workflows that might achieve a more positive result.

This kind of response would hopefully be perceived as helpful, as opposed to responses that offer no solution (other than .... by implication ... get your wallet out and buy a HD system, then your problem will go away).

These forums are intended to allow us, as a community, to come together in a spirit of friendship and help each other to achieve the best we can out of what is a complex piece of software. Naturally, it is also a place to discuss issues of concern, and on occasion, to indulge in spleen venting in preference to that well tried alternative of banging one's head against a brick wall.

But it always saddens me when, for whatever reason, we lose our cool with each other. Come on guys, we're better than that, and it's not as if we've got nothing else to talk about.

If you have a few moments to spare, take a look at this ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum

A reasonably interesting read, you may find.

I'm off to bed now, crossing my fingers that I won't have been barred from the forum by the time I get up ;-)

[dr_daw]

Wow! There are some offside remarks and condescention from moderators and members in here.

This is always a hot topic, and from what I've seen so far, always ends with someone saying that if you want that feature buy a different DAW or get HD. To see those remarks from a Mod are completely unacceptable to me, regardless of 'who started it'.

Respect my friends, not everyone wants or needs HD, and Avid is responsible for opening PT up to the masses. I've come to accept (especially since I got PT10 in Oct, so the upgrade isn't in the budget) that I will do my tracking in a DAW that offers Input monitoring off, and mix in PT.

Please play nice and don't let your emotions take over on this subject.

[grovephil]

Seems to me the fundamental problem in this discussion is that PT is used in many different contexts other than traditional multitrack recording of audio, such as a band recording. I use PT in a home studio where I rarely record more than a stereo pair. Monitoring is a fairly simple affair and is done through an outboard desk before the signal goes to PT. It seems the most logical & simple way to do it for me but I can understand that others might find it baffling due to their workflow & hardware.
Having used Logic & Cubase extensively in the past where monitoring can be turned off, I cannot think of a good reason why it this shouldn't be an option in PT. After all, it's not adding functionality it's giving the option of turning something off. Of all the DAW I've worked with, PT has by far the most flexibility in terms of "customisation" of what is seen & done to the audio. It's just that in this one glaring area it's lacking.
Clearly Avid are encouraging users other than the top end professional studios to use PT and plenty of domestic users such as myself require this functionality. I'd think it's fairly elitist view to say "because professional studios won't use this, it shouldn't be added". There's plenty of other functionality that has (quite rightly) been added that most such studios wouldn't use. Simple - if you don't need it, don't use it.

[ROBB007]

So many excuses ..Makes no sense to me..I mean we have been over this time after time after time ..You keep asking us for features you would like us to ask you for yet you ignore most native users ....Please AVID Implement the on off feature. in input Monitoring please!!!:D.....

[EricWillhelm]

The battered wife remark earlier was spot on.

Mind you, the point of that comment was not to imply that the wives are just being overly emotional about being battered.

It was to imply that a great many of us keep hoping against hope that Avid will quit making it's customers pay through the nose for features that are standard on every other product. And yes, we should just jump ship and go to those other products if we feel that strongly. But there's where the analogy comes in. We keep the faith, and we WANT a reason to stay. Alas and alack, we keep getting slapped.

One day we'll learn.

[Holly73]

I'm sure everyone's requested this via Ideascale, if not add it.There have been several requests with lots of votes. But they all seem to have disappeared.

[sunburst79]

There have been several requests with lots of votes. But they all seem to have disappeared.

Holly I don't know if its the specific answer but they are planning a cleanup and consolidation of IdeaScale. Many features ave been implemented and there are tons of feature requests going back to PT8-10 that obviously will not be added. Also duplicate ideas get merged. There's been more than one input monitoring thread there.

[JFreak]

Moderators have IMO an added responsibility to take greater care in their grammatical constructions so as to minimise the potential for being seen as inflamers, rather than moderators.

Yes we do, and we do our best. There are just going to be bad days for every one of us, moderators included. And we are also entitled to opinions, so we are not just repeating Avid Q&A pages over and over.

If you do find out that one of us has a bad day, you would do better not responding to that post. Just as we sometimes choose not to step in to some discussion.

Let's just try to build peace if we possibly can ;)

But it always saddens me when, for whatever reason, we lose our cool with each other. Come on guys, we're better than that, and it's not as if we've got nothing else to talk about.

Exactly. The reason Avid introduced Moderator Team was not to say certain users are better than others and therefore two teams should fight each other. We are here to help both you guys out with the issues, and Avid for keeping this community alive. And we are just learning. It is natural that you (not you Nigel) see us as some kind of a target because, naturally, we have got some kind of blessing from Avid, but we are not Avid and do not know about privileged things, and we have very limited power to influence Avid on its decisions. Yes one could think that Avid listens to us more closely than perhaps the others, but let me repeat myself: we are not avid, and we can only speak up.

And sometimes we make mistakes. Apologies for the mistakes to come, as they will surely come sooner or later.

[JFreak]

Respect my friends, not everyone wants or needs HD, and Avid is responsible for opening PT up to the masses. I've come to accept that I will do my tracking in a DAW that offers Input monitoring off, and mix in PT.

That is exactly the problem we're talking about in about 90/100 threads. If we take a hundred HD customers, Avid probably gets 10 customer service requests. If we take a hundred regular customers, Avid probably gets ten thousand customer service requests. Numbers are out of my hat, so don't take this very seriously. But anyway, my point is that PT has grown to be HD and Avid has had hard time opening it up in a way that would satisfy "most" regular users. Avid can never satisfy you all, unless they would give HD away for free, but that would upset us HD users.

But no, Avid is not "responsible for opening PT up to masses" since Avid is a business and they could very well have chosen to never sell anything but hardware tied full HD version of the tool.

I suggest that all of you who feel that Input Monitoring toggle button is an integral part of a PT mixer (and I feel that too as a HD user), perhaps you would be better served by joining your force with an Ideascale feature request?

[musicman691]

I suggest that all of you who feel that Input Monitoring toggle button is an integral part of a PT mixer (and I feel that too as a HD user), perhaps you would be better served by joining your force with an Ideascale feature request?
A lot of people here have done that but sometimes one gets tired of wondering if anything like this will ever happen. If Avid has no intention of doing this then why don't they come right out and say so?

[nigelpry]

JFreak, I absolutely do not see moderators as a target. Avid hopefully chose the moderators because they are fair minded people with a good command of language, good knowledge of the subject area, and enough time to perform the role.

For your collective agreement to take on the role, and for the time you devote to discharging it, you all (and I do mean all) have nothing but admiration from me.

I understand that anyone can have a bad day, including me.

But you have to recognise that there is the potential for moderator comments (because you are Avid appointed) to be viewed differently than the posts of 'ordinary' members. Therefore, there is a strong onus on moderators to be extra careful in the phraseology they use, to make sure that their comments, or the reasons for them, are not open to misreading or misinterpretation, as far as possible.

I've been particularly concerned at comments that appear to try to close off discussion, particularly where they promote the option of sticking with the status quo as originally announced by Avid. And it is even more concerning when, potentially, the moderator is not actually someone who is affected by the matter under discussion.

If moderators make such comments, then members will make appropriate assumptions about their motives.

We all know now that Avid have declared, in an interview, that our comments are not falling on deaf ears (in relation to the CPTK Issue discussed in another thread), which carries with it the inference that they are considering their options. They may choose to stick with plan A, or they may respond with one or more alternatives.

I think that there is an onus on moderators, therefore, in the meantime, to allow ALL of us to continue to discuss the matter, and to restrain themselves from making comments that suggest certain things are a 'fait accomplie'. If you go over to the CPTK thread, you'll see I've directed some specific comments at Drew, because, IMO he has done exactly that.

I have absolutely no problem with moderators expressing their opinions, they are equally valid as mine (some might say more so, you are moderators after all).

If Drew had said ... well I believe that Avid's decision to drop CPTK is correct and I have no problem with the concept that existing CPTK owners should pay a premium to get a HD Software licence ... then I would have no problem with that comment.

But to say CPTK is dead, so let's haggle over the upgrade cost, ignores the possibility that, even as we speak, Avid may be considering reversing the decision to withdraw CPTK. Also as he's not a CPTK owner, he's not affected either way. I would argue that, in this case, as a moderator, he's in a weak position if he's trying to assert how he thinks the matter should be dealt with for those who are CPTK owners.

And as moderators, you have a responsibility, in your comments, to acknowledge that the situation currently remains fluid and uncertain.

My apologies for the slight hijacking of this thread, but it was here that JFreak made the comments I am responding to.

If moderators feel it appropriate, and necessary, we could discuss this subject further in another new thread devoted to the matter, to avoid cluttering up threads such as this one with irrelevant comments.

[JFreak]

A lot of people here have done that but sometimes one gets tired of wondering if anything like this will ever happen. If Avid has no intention of doing this then why don't they come right out and say so?

Avid is a company located in the US of America, where lawyers have the final say of what can and cannot be disclosed. The usual norm is that nothing is disclosed until a company is really ready to announce something that they need to fulfill. This leads to under-promising in hope of over-delivering. That is how someone who does not live in the US of A sees it.

They cannot say we won't do this, because it would be bad. They also cannot say we will do this, because that would be an announcement (=promise).

But they do listen to the Ideascale requests and if you want a feature request to fly, please vote for it and it will likely have more weight.

I have nothing more to say about this.

[JFreak]

But you have to recognise that there is the potential for moderator comments (because you are Avid appointed) to be viewed differently than the posts of 'ordinary' members.
(...)
My apologies for the slight hijacking of this thread, but it was here that JFreak made the comments I am responding to. If moderators feel it appropriate, and necessary, we could discuss this subject further in another new thread devoted to the matter, to avoid cluttering up threads such as this one with irrelevant comments.

True;

And perhaps no need to continue this discussion any further. I just wanted to clear some air because I felt that a good many of "you" think that "us moderators" are no longer a part of the "DUC community". That is not the case. We just have that blue badge, and by the way, we cannot even change our avatar but are forced to wear that.

Let the original topic continue :)

[ROBB007]

Please tell me JFreak what is the problem?? I mean most companies encourage and implement changes and do so this helps create a healthy happy user base...Do we need to stand in front of the company with signs ??? I love Pro Tools ..I love using PRO TOOLS ..... Please Help us use it appropriately for our hardware based systems that we have at the time which means please let us have a system that turns auto input on and off.....PLEASEEEEEE.....:eek:

[Dave Lang]

This statement is so far out of line...give me a break.

If we take a hundred regular customers, Avid probably gets ten thousand customer service requests.

Service requests? I bet they get hardly any. Who can even figure out how to get in touch with them when you have an issue?

Until you have some hard numbers I think you should stop spreading this kind of divisive misinformation.

I've owned ProTools since PTIII using all kinds of configurations and have never contacted them.

This "pro" vs. "amateur" thinking around here has to stop.

ps - it seems like there are almost as many "moderators" around here as there are other posters.

[dankin]

I've been a "regular" customer since PT 6 and have yet to call them even once....it would actually be funny if the box said "regular pro tools" and "Pro Pro Tools" since apparently you can't be a pro unless you use something with "HD" in the title.

[JFreak]

Please tell me JFreak what is the problem??

I think the problem boils down to how much any one of us have paid for Avid for the software. This is not Avid opinion though, but mine. I have posted this elsewhere as well, but how I see it there are three kinds of PT customers:

- Full customers with TDM/HDX hardware, naturally enjoying full HD software.
- Medium customers with HD|native hardware. No DSP but full software (bar HEAT).
- Entry level customers with no HD hardware, and no HD software features.

Now the recent uprising has been because previously there was a middle ground between Lite and Medium (remember that these are my naming and not Avid's). It just seems to me that Avid has chosen to simplify things a little and make this a 3-tier system, just the same close to anyone else out there in software market.

[Carl Kolchak]

I'm going to mention this again, because it seems input monitor muting is still an issue, and some people may have missed this solution i've posted in the past :

1. Insert a compressor on your recording tracks (Dynamics III, or any compressor with a side chain).

2. Activate the side chain, and set it to the same hardware input as the track it is on (i.e. track is receiving a signal from hardware input 4, set the compressor on that channel's side chain input to hardware input 4).

3. Set the compressor threshold all the way down low.

Job done!

Set and forget!

All input signals are automatically muted.

All playback is unaffected by the compressor, and plays as normal - just make sure input monitoring is set to "Auto".

Of course, it remains to be seen if this is still a problem now that PT 11 has separate input and output buffers. But even if that doesn't take care of it, my solution still works.

Cheers!

[JFreak]

I've owned ProTools since PTIII using all kinds of configurations and have never contacted them.

Precisely my point.

PT "full" (my term, not Avid's) users are less likely to contact customer support. PT "lite" (my term, not Avid's) users are more likely to contact customer support.

Now what do you think, how much does the customer suppor cost? 299 a year? 10k a year? Priceless?

Just face it folks, there are different kind of customers. Some that are willing to do whatever it takes to get things working (the full customers), and some that are willing to spend some extra dough for extra features (the middle ground), and then there are the rest of you (no pun intended) who just want to use PT for whatever you can.

Avid can choose its customers and the level of features/support Avid gives to one; that is my opinion.

[propower]

Wow -- lets get back on point...

Input monitoring smart on off when recording is mandatory for using 3rd party interfaces with low latency input monitoring.

Having to use MuteTone is a hack and in PT11 looks like it won't work

[JFreak]

I've been a "regular" customer since PT 6 and have yet to call them even once....it would actually be funny if the box said "regular pro tools" and "Pro Pro Tools" since apparently you can't be a pro unless you use something with "HD" in the title.

Let me apologize if I hurt your feelings. I just meant to say there are customers that are willing to pay "whatever", "just enough", and "close to nothing". And I have no problem if Avid makes a difference.

C'mon folks. If you really thought that full PT features should be available for anyone buying a product that costs a hundred.... please go to Soviet Union.... Oh, sorry, that collapsed in 1991 :P

Naturally I have to apologize for the analogy, but I feel that I can use that joke because we in Finland were the only country in the whole world that actually succeeded in refusing Soviets enter our home land.

[JFreak]

Folks;

I rest my case here, and I promise I will not post anything to this thread this evening. It seems I have some hot feelings about the subject so those of you who don't like me please ignore me today :rolleyes:

[nigelpry]

One last comment before we let this thread get back on topic ...

The stats comparing HD service requests with those made by the rest of us amateurs fail to take account of one thing ....

Multiple HD rig sites probably mostly have a single person managing those rigs. Therefore one phone call may be managing problems on 10, 20, 50, 100 etc HD rigs

How should we normalise those stats to take account of this.

The bottom line is that even if those stats were correct, it would only be because multiple HD rig sites have on-site support that takes the strain off Avid.

So really, that pretty much invalidates the argument, unless you believe that us amateurs should live together in a commune to minimise our need to each call Avid.

And the suggestion that we amateurs place a much greater support burden on Avid, bloody hell, please Avid accept my apologies for burdening you ... I promise not to do it again ... I now understand why you want all us amateurs to go away as soon as possible, so you can focus on professional HD users.

[zakco]

Right then...heading back vaguely in the direction of the the topic:

There have been several requests with lots of votes. But they all seem to have disappeared.

The ideascale threads were also riddled with critics who completely misunderstood the issue and diluted the conversation by arguing out of ignorance.

The biggest misconception is that native users want an "input monitoring" button ala PTHD, which is completely wrong. Such as this post where a moderator apparently missed the point entirely:

http://duc.avid.com/showpost.php?p=2029395&postcount=18

The disconnect is happening because many PTHD users have no experience with other DAWs and just plain don't understand why it's important to so many users.

[zakco]

C'mon folks. If you really thought that full PT features should be available for anyone buying a product that costs a hundred.... please go to Soviet Union.... Oh, sorry, that collapsed in 1991 :P

Naturally I have to apologize for the analogy, but I feel that I can use that joke because we in Finland were the only country in the whole world that actually succeeded in refusing Soviets enter our home land.


Perfect example.

How is this in any way related to this thread? Folks want to DEFEAT input monitoring altogether. It has NOTHING to do with wanting HD features at an LE price. The feature being requested is not even available in PTHD fer chrissakes! :rolleyes:

Can we PLEASE get that straight here?!?!

[Holly73]

Avid can choose its customers and the level of features/support Avid gives to one; that is my opinion.
And they have chosen to offer PT "for the masses". This means they also need to live with comparisons to other DAW software.

The ideascale threads were also riddled with critics who completely misunderstood the issue and diluted the conversation by arguing out of ignorance.

The biggest misconception is that native users want an "input monitoring" button ala PTHD, which is completely wrong. Such as this post where a moderator apparently missed the point entirely:

http://duc.avid.com/showpost.php?p=2029395&postcount=18

The disconnect is happening because many PTHD users have no experience with other DAWs and just plain don't understand why it's important to so many users.

Well said, Zakco.

We don't want "Input Monitoring", we want the simple ability to switch it off.

This means, we don't expect to have HD features for the "low price" we paid (even some would be quite handy), but we even want less features! :cool:

[JFreak]

And they have chosen to offer PT "for the masses". This means they also need to live with comparisons to other DAW software.

Comparisons are okay, I do lots of them.

What I don't consider okay is that "hey that Ferrari has 800hp engine, why not every Fiat out there have the same" kind of reasoning...

[JFreak]

Actually,

To continue to the previous post...

In Finland we have this joke (and no pun intended for you italianos)

"
Why do you get a Fiat for half price"
-Because one of the two cars is always on the shop!
"

And this was just a joke. Can anyone laugh?

[Holly73]

We don't want Ferrari features in our car, but if we I look to the competitors of our Fiat (Skodas, Dacia,...) we see there simple solutions for simple problems. At the same price point or lower!

[zakco]

Folks;

I rest my case here, and I promise I will not post anything to this thread this evening. :rolleyes:
Well that lasted a good 40 minutes...:-)

While I do appreciate a good scandinavian car joke, it would be nice if you read the last few posts of page 6 and indicated whether or not you are truly clear about what this thread is about...because in all honesty, I'm not sure that you are.

Last edited by JFreak; Today at 05:48 PM. Reason: fixed the quote for you. apparently you missed my joke...
I didn't miss the joke, I just didn't find it particularly funny nor did it seem to have anything to do with the topic...regardless, thanks for editing my posts for me.

[ThunderKyss]

I remember the first computer based DAW I owned didn't handle monitoring very well. I think it was called Cakewalk Home Studio. I believe that was just be fore Cakewalk 9 came out.

I hated having to buy a mixer so I wouldn't need realtime monitoring. But I did it, because I needed it.

Till recently, I started messing around with PT7.4 on my old Mac. I've owned it for years, but never really did anything with it. I also got PT10 with my 11 rack...

I assumed the input monitoring thing would have been fixed. PT is the only software DAW I know of that does not allow you to turn it off. Like others here, I've worked my way up to a digital mixer coming into my DAW... it handles all the compression & reverb before it gets to the computer, then is sent out to the users.

Input monitoring isn't something I've had to worry about for years, but if I decide to continue using Pro Tools, it will be. I don't have an ultra fast computer, & I'm not looking to get one. So far, input monitoring has turned PT10 into a GUI for my Eleven Rack, which I SPDIF into another interface.

[krazylain]

I really did not want to resurrect this thread, but figure the attached image will illustrate what users are asking for - a way to turn off input monitoring (or turn it on if you choose to monitor thru software).

The 1st image is from global options in Studio One 2.5.
If unchecked, record enabled tracks will not monitor inputs from your audio interface.
The 2nd image is from Reason 6.5 and also shows how users can change global monitor settings.

[YYR123]

OMG reason has it and PT doesn't

That's a bag of goods

[propower]

Post deleted

[manfromspace]

How funny. After all this time people who paid too much for something and got used to a backwards workflow continue to rant like spoiled little rich kids.

How wonderful for you that you're able to throw away your mommies money on needless hardware.

I dropped $700 bucks on 9 and a few hundo more on Massey plugs. Had I known what a waste I'd of stayed away and been happy with logic. Your silly remarks are what I have to endure for believing protools was worth a look.

Fact is the main reason we non-believers (quite a big crowd btw AVID) are hanging around is we hope the greedy folk who got a hold of the wheel wake up before they crash this thing into the ground. That way we might be able to do something with the G+ we burned on half... Software.

[ROBB007]

I totally agree Man from Space..Thank you so much for saying it........Im sick and tired of it but I keep believing and they{Avid} keep me on a string .......One bitten twice shy......Please wake up Avid..Its ONE THING!!!!:mad:

[peterk9]

Hope this helps - A great solution for MAC OS (only I regret to say) But at risk of repeating info here (you will find this on other older threads) here is the answer for Mac PT 10 Native users who monitor via their interface's no latency direct monitoring app or via an analog desk.


PROBLEM: For all of us PT native users who monitor live audio input via our interface's zero latency direct monitor mixer / or via an analog desk, the issue of not being able to disable monitoring the PT channel being recorded into has long been a major issue. Reducing buffer sizes never worked for me because I often dare to use aux inputs to use plug ins in the recording path!

SOLUTION: The guys at TritoneDigital (Salvator Vouakouanitou and Damon Whittemore) have made this great free download insert solution for this problem.

Its called Mutetone.

http://www.tritonedigital.com

look for Mutetone under the Products pulldown menu - or use the huge direct link below.

You have to register with them for the download - small price to pay - But check out their other great products. Mute tone is a MAC OS solution only it appears - sorry for those on the other side - and works a treat. A simple to follow set up operation enables Mutetone to appear as an insert over the tracks you are recording. As soon as you hit record in Auto Input Monitoring mode (Tracks Menu) the tracks are muted - thereby ceasing to feed the recorded signal back into your headphones with your analog desk / interface no latency monitor path. Beautiful....... :-)

direct link:

http://www.tritonedigital.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=10&category_id=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=20

[P,B,S]

Did they finally do this in PT11?
In Pro Tools 10 they have the "low latency monitoring" for two channels and you have to turn it off when bouncing to disk, kind of a headache.

Hopefully they just have the option now in 11 to turn off input monitoring all together like most other DAW's. I track through a mixing desk and also use it for headphone mixes. I then return the outputs of Protools to another set of faders on the mixer, so when recording big sessions, I have to "mute" the outputs of the Pro Tools tracks on my mixer, otherwise the artist or band will hear themselves doubled.
Thanks

Some things will most likely never change.
If the cheap Ferrari had all the capabilities that the Enzo does who would buy it.

PT is a product where you really are paying abit for the name.
There are daws that do all this and more for basically the same money.
BUT
its not Pro Tools
PT may or may not, be or sound any better than other daws but the fact is if you are a professional and you do not have PT you WILL lose clients.

Im a firm believer in using what the pro,s do and in this era of music creation it is pro tools.

Did they finally do this in PT11?
In Pro Tools 10 they have the "low latency monitoring" for two channels and you have to turn it off

So to answer your question.
YES
a long time ago in pro tools HD.
Sorry for the long sad truth :-)

[EricWillhelm]

PT may or may not, be or sound any better than other daws but the fact is if you are a professional and you do not have PT you WILL lose clients. Im a firm believer in using what the pro,s do and in this era of music creation it is pro tools.

OR you just what do what alot of folks do, and work in your DAW of choice. To quote the head engineer of a Nuendo-based shop here: "We RECORD and edit in Nuendo, export an AAF, import that into ProTools...then upload a ProTools session for the PT-obsessed client. Takes about two minutes and nobody's the wiser."

[Inthewoods]

Sorry to hear that this is still not an option. Any singer can tell you that monitoring straight through an analog board sounds better and more natural because of the lack of phase shift that you get with a trip through the computer. Running a session with a 64 sample buffer might work for a lot of situations, but it might push your system to the processing edge depending on how far along you are in the project (how many/type plug-ins you have running).
Anyway, my workaround was to have an aux channel in PT that you could mute with automation. So the record enabled track(s) was sent through this aux. The aux just went to an output. Since you need to select an overdub region anyway, you can pretty easily use this selection range to adjust the mute automation on the aux.
I doubt lacking this feature is a grand scheme to push users to upgrade....perhaps it's more just laziness :)

[alexthreat]

I'll admit I didn't read every post in this thread because it got a bit off topic with the back & forths...

I'd love to see input monitoring disable feature in PT prefs as well. Switching the system from a mix at 1024 to 128 or 64 to punch one vocal line causes a lot of issues, not just processor limitations but I've experienced delay compensation and timing shifts, especially when using midi or external devices.

If something doesn't work for me during a session I do it differently. Having input monitor disable feature opens up a world work flow options for Pt users and many will use it, whatever their reason. My 2¢.

[zion]

I'll admit I didn't read every post in this thread because it got a bit off topic with the back & forths...

I'd love to see input monitoring disable feature in PT prefs as well. Switching the system from a mix at 1024 to 128 or 64 to punch one vocal line causes a lot of issues, not just processor limitations but I've experienced delay compensation and timing shifts, especially when using midi or external devices.

If something doesn't work for me during a session I do it differently. Having input monitor disable feature opens up a world work flow options for Pt users and many will use it, whatever their reason. My 2¢.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought the new dual buffer feature will do what your asking for. The whole point is to track with low latency. Right? I thought this features allows you to record (tracks) with the low latency (input buffer) while the (automatic) playback buffer allows you playback with high track count and heavy plugins usage at higher latency (1024 or so), simultaneously. Which means the input buffer setting doesn't sacrifice the (output buffer) playback performance. So when you find the sweet spot for your system you shouldn't have to keep changing it. I believe most systems today don't have a problem with performing this. I thought the whole point of this is to also track with plugins, VI's and real-time automation. I'm not neither for or against the feature your asking for. I'm just saying! :-) IMO this dual buffer approach gives me more of what I'm trying to accomplish (To track with plugins and VI's like I'm using outboard gear but in the box). I guess it all depends on your goal and how you want to get there. Question, does this feature in other software allow you the ability to track with plugins and VI's while it is disabled or enabled which ever way it goes?

[alexthreat]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought the new dual buffer feature will do what your asking for. The whole point is to track with low latency. Right?

This is a cool feature though I've not played much with PT11 yet- I'll have limited time w/ it until the plugs catch up and therefore will be in 10 for at least the next few months.

Ive been researching this topic because I just ordered an Apollo and wanted to integrate the real time monitoring features. After some tests I've discovered that "low latency" monitor feature does what I want, this took extra time to discover though because LLM does not work with busses ( as per my first tests), only hardware inputs, and the PT literature says this is an HD feature so was a bit thrown.

That to say thanks for your input.

[bashville]

The new input latency in PT11 is supposed to be 32, correct? (Not using LLM?) Does anybody know what the real figure was supposed to be for LLM before this?

I'm trying to find information if LLM actually still "works" now in PT11. I've had my own problems with it in 10, and have seen many similar comments on DUC about it.