Automating audio track on input

[Dan Pinder]

Is there a way to automate the fader for an audio track on input? So that it behaves like an aux when in input mode. Having an irritating limitation I'm hoping to circumvent.

The track cannot be an aux instead—the tracks will eventually be put into record and stems printed.

Any ideas? I don't want to create new tracks to handle what should be a simple task.

[Sean Russell]

Originally Posted by Dan Pinder

Is there a way to automate the fader for an audio track on input? So that it behaves like an aux when in input mode. Having an irritating limitation I'm hoping to circumvent.

The track cannot be an aux instead—the tracks will eventually be put into record and stems printed.

Any ideas? I don't want to create new tracks to handle what should be a simple task.

Well, until your last sentence I was going to suggest grouping another audio track to the track in record, making the automation happen, and then copy/pasting the data once you'd recorded the pass from the new audio track that wasn't in record.

[Dan Pinder]

Yeah, the need to create extra tracks is kind of ridiculous. If you would describe a standard PT Audio Track as the combination of a track on a recorder (with it's attendant record-ready, input controls) and the tape return channel on the desk the output of the recorder feeds (metering, fader, pan, bussing etc) you should still have to provision of automation on the track regardless of the state of the recorder.

If during track laying, you wanted to automate the faders down during a tacit section, you would be able to do that on a real console, be it the input side or the return side. Why doesn't Pro Tools let automation function when in input? a real console never has to decide whether a signal is off tape or just passing through the recorder in input and pro tools shouldn't either—it just gets on with it. I think this logic is a misunderstanding of the role of the recorder. A simple preference would save you from yourself.

[Eric Seaberg]

This is one of the primary reasons we decided NOT to get an ICON as our console interface for ProTools. I'm the head of audio shooting a TV show tracking 80-90 tracks at one time while doing a live mix for all of the video decks. I try to get the mix as close as I can but know that, if I miss something, I can always come back and fix it easily.

Since ProTools WILL NOT record automation during the recording process, we opted to go for an SSL console that doesn't care what kind of 'audio recorder' it's connected to... as long as it has incoming timecode, it will write automation. I lay automation while we're tracking the live show to the SSL and ProTools is nothing more than a 128-track tape recorder.

We've even set it up so the live audio I'm mixing does NOT go through ProTools processing, alleviating any problems with latency. Inputs come straight into the SSL and split direct to ProTools (via SSL's DigiLink system) as well as the SSL mix faders. Since the automation is recording the mix faders, when I replay from ProTools, my mix is played back and I can make minor changes as needed.

[Dan Pinder]

That's an excellent example. Another one we've discovered is the fact that you cannot solo an aux acting as an fx return without having to solo safe what might be feeding it. Imagine it: you have to solo or solo safe the sources, but if you don't want hear the dry signal, put the sends into pre fader then mute the original. To much faff. You should simply be able to solo the return and hear what's coming out of it. I have long been a supporter of the physical console metaphor that pro tools is famous for, but this is taking it too literally when you can do this in any of the daws not based on a legacy of hardware. Avid should strongly consider moving some of these concepts into the present!

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by Dan Pinder

That's an excellent example. Another one we've discovered is the fact that you cannot solo an aux acting as an fx return without having to solo safe what might be feeding it. Imagine it: you have to solo or solo safe the sources, but if you don't want hear the dry signal, put the sends into pre fader then mute the original. To much faff. You should simply be able to solo the return and hear what's coming out of it. I have long been a supporter of the physical console metaphor that pro tools is famous for, but this is taking it too literally when you can do this in any of the daws not based on a legacy of hardware. Avid should strongly consider moving some of these concepts into the present!

Read the manual. It's called AFL/PFL and PT does it. It does require separate outputs for this as it is non destructive, just like a console. And when done with an ICON controller, is seamless.

[Sean Russell]

VCA's can do that, right?

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by Sean Russell

VCA's can do that, right?

But a track in record or in Input won't respond to it.

[Dan Pinder]

Originally Posted by dmazurek

Read the manual. It's called AFL/PFL and PT does it. It does require separate outputs for this as it is non destructive, just like a console. And when done with an ICON controller, is seamless.

I felt like my reading of this chapter meant that I would have to solo safe a bunch of things but I will be able to test it today. Solo safing would be a deal breaker. Will report.

[Dan Pinder]

Originally Posted by Sean Russell

VCA's can do that, right?

VCAs I'm sure are useful, and I'm resolved to get to know their virtues better, but they're really for groups and our application is for individual tracks. Sad that they don't override some of Tools' worst transgressions.