Best way to handle Punch In (PT 12)

[heysimo]

Hi,

I can't figure out the most practical way to do the punch in in Pro Tools; it is unclear to me how the "Low Latency Monitoring" function operates, and now that Avid introduced the input monitoring for the non-native version, I'm more confused than ever. I'm quite sure I'm missing something .. Let's make a scenario:

-Band playing live. I hear them and they hear themselves through the returns of the analog board (or UAD Console) or whatever pre-daw, no-latency system.
-buffer set high in order not to stress the Mac unecessarily
-half song recorded; we have to punch in to record the second half; they need to hear the recorded and themselves at the same time and of course when I punch in, the recorded part should not be heard.

Now, where's the problem.

When I arm a track, I don't want anything to come out of Pro Tools, cause I am listening through the board; but:
-if I mute the tracks, I can't punch in, unless I duplicate tracks (one track for the pre-recorded and one for the punch)
-if I activate Low Latency Monitoring, I don't hear anything out of Pro Tools, which is great, though sends are automatically disabled. So punch in is not possible.

So .. what's the smart way to do this ??
Thanks!!

[studiostuff]

I'm not sure why the band would need to hear themselves "live" before the punch. They will hear the first half track, and as they play along, they will hear themselves due to some amount of "bleed" of the live sound into the headphones to "mix" with the track.

Select the punch location by putting the cursor where you want the punch.

Select a sufficient amount of "runway" or lead-in time so they can get with the groove.

At the punch location when you are in "record", the previous track will become the "live" feed as they record. The band will no longer hear the track, they will hear themselves live as they record the second part of the tune.

Am I missing something...?

[john1192]

Originally Posted by studiostuff

I'm not sure why the band would need to hear themselves "live" before the punch. They will hear the first half track, and as they play along, they will hear themselves due to some amount of "bleed" of the live sound into the headphones to "mix" with the track.

Select the punch location by putting the cursor where you want the punch.

Select a sufficient amount of "runway" or lead-in time so they can get with the groove.

At the punch location when you are in "record", the previous track will become the "live" feed as they record. The band will no longer hear the track, they will hear themselves live as they record the second part of the tune.

Am I missing something...?

hi, you are missing this ... https://www.gearslutz.com/board/avid...ools-12-a.html

[dr_daw]

After reading the posts in gs I get the feeling you're still not getting it. The best way to punch in the way you describe from my understanding. Would be to monitor through protools. Then use the input monitoring feature. The issue being in order to have the latency correct; nothing can be routed though an aux. this way you're not monitoring through the analog only through pt.

The other suggestion has been explained. Do multiple takes of the song and comp it together. Then only fix with punches on the tracks that need it. Unless the whole band ****s the bed in the same spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heysimo]

OF COURSE monitoring through Pro tools would fix the issue !!!
The point is, how doing it without !!! And without duplicating tracks !!!
Why would I even ask otherwise ??

You didnt even understand the situation I described .. you're probably too, smart to read, arent you?

[john1192]

Originally Posted by heysimo

OF COURSE monitoring through Pro tools would fix the issue !!!
The point is, how doing it without !!! And without duplicating tracks !!!
Why would I even ask otherwise ??

You didnt even understand the situation I described .. you're probably too, smart to read, arent you?

hold on please .. Heysimo .. we do not speak to each other like this here .. thats not productive .. you will alienate yourself here and no one will want to help you..

i hope you understand !! you have just turned me off to helping you at the moment until you understand what I am saying !!!

this is sincere, and everyone here is just trying to help you .. make sense .. ???

cheers john

[dr_daw]

Originally Posted by john1192

hold on please .. Heysimo .. we do not speak to each other like this here .. thats not productive .. you will alienate yourself here and no one will want to help you..



i hope you understand !! you have just turned me off to helping you at the moment until you understand what I am saying !!!



this is sincere, and everyone here is just trying to help you .. make sense .. ???



cheers john

+1

Here's my last 'smart thing' I will tell you. Read the manual.

[heysimo]

Originally Posted by john1192

hold on please .. Heysimo .. we do not speak to each other like this here .. thats not productive .. you will alienate yourself here and no one will want to help you..

i hope you understand !! you have just turned me off to helping you at the moment until you understand what I am saying !!!

this is sincere, and everyone here is just trying to help you .. make sense .. ???

cheers john

Of course I read the manual .. and I am not the one who started going OT.
The thing is, The manual does not describe the behaviour of "Low Latency Monitoring" option in detail for the different situations.

First thing unclear to me, for example, is why disabling the send to a phisical output leaving active the main output active .. they are the very same thing: a phisical output!
But the result is that, if you play a track armed with a send to a phisical output (cue), this very send would automatically switch to bypass (if Low Latency Monitoring is enabled) so the musician on cue won't hear it ... but the producer in the control room will. Which makes a problem for punch in, of course! You either have to create the duplicate of the track or the musician won't hear what he played before the punch!

This situation does not regard Pro Tools alone, but its interaction with another "mixing object" (may it be the analog board or UAD Console etc) so of course the PT manual does not bring all the answers .. I am trying to reflect on a more agile workflow, if there is.
If not interested, just don't reply!

Peace.

SS

[john1192]

hi Heysimo, 1st off you Quoted me instead of the guy that advised you read the manual .. right !!! yes ..

and you said there is nothing in the manual regarding this situation .. right !!

2nd, My Post that you did quote above, was how you are speaking to people that are trying to understand your workflow and ideas for a better workflow .. you are not being nice, and hence people are not going to be of help .. does not work that way .. right !!! Yes .. would you speak to us face to face like that .. probably not, right !!!

so Respectfully, lets enjoy this conversation please .. !!!

this could be a language thing - which can happen .. but there are some contradictions that i will point out to try and Clarify what WE are Reading ..

now to try and help again .. for Clarity ..

1) "half song recorded; we have to punch in to record the second half; they need to hear the recorded and themselves at the same time"

2) "When I arm a track, I don't want anything to come out of Pro Tools, cause I am listening through the board"

#1 says you need to hear the recorded and themselves
#2 says you do not want anything to come out of Pro Tools, you wish to hear through your console ..

see the confusion that we are Reading ???

so you MIGHT just have to reword your Workflow so we understand a little better, if you are not getting the answers or ideas that you would like ..

make sense ???

"If not interested, just don't reply!" of course i would not Reply if NOt interested .. if i was not interested i would not have replied with my Quoted Comments .. to help you get some help by being a little nicer to people .. again face to face i highly doubt you would speak to anyone like this that you thought might give them some help ..

peace as well to you ..

cheers john

[john1192]

in addition to the above posting ... and what i posted over in the other forum ..

Low Latency Monitoring could be causing you to not get what you wish for workflow wise ..

i mention this to see if anyone else that uses this workflow might be Sparked by the comment .. and have some better answers for you .. we all work together and you might find that we are all the same people on both Forums ..

cheers john