is there "delay compensation" for writing automation via faders??

[bacchus40]

geezus.. you guys serious!??

and i was all excited about purchasing an AVID ARTIST MIX... mostly for that purpose!!

now you're telling me the damn thing doesnt work!!?? wtf!!.. /passes out

[Craig F]

it's not the controller, it's Pro Tools in general

[WildHoney]

Seems to be. I gotta wonder about the ethics of selling hardware (C24/ICON), that is billed as offering a tactile mixing experience, that is only really useful with one piece of software, and not mentioning anywhere in the literature that that software cannot deliver the experience any user would expect it to deliver.
At the very least there oughta be a big asterisk in the automation section of the manual that says:

ATTN: ETHERNET CONTROLLER USERS -- DO NOT ATTEMPT TO USE YOUR CONTROLLER AS A MEANS OF ENTERING AUTOMATION DATA IN REAL TIME, AS WITH A TRADITIONAL MIXING EXPERIENCE. ANY AUTOMATION WRITTEN WILL BE OFFSET BY THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SYSTEM DELAY THAT PLUGINS AND ROUTING ARE CAUSING, CAUSING AUTOMATION DATA TO PLAY BACK LATE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A WAY TO IMPLEMENT A FIX, BUT IN SIX YEARS WE HAVEN'T EVEN POSTED A REPLY TO ANY OF THE NUMEROUS REPORTS OF THIS ON THE DUC, NO LESS ADDRESSED THE ISSUE IN A SOFTWARE UPDATE.

[bacchus40]

bwaahhaha... i'd love to see that in print!!

Originally Posted by Craig F

it's not the controller, it's Pro Tools in general

doesnt really matter does it!??? considering both are owned by the same company!??

[chris-euphonix]

Works fine for me.

(I'm using Logic and sometimes Cubase)

[bacchus40]

Originally Posted by chris-euphonix

Works fine for me.

(I'm using Logic and sometimes Cubase)

yeah i did read up on it and seems to work fine with those...

how does that make sense!? hahahha... i'm actually about to
pick up 8 faders anyway... i just really hope Avid is gracious enough
to come up with a cure for this... we cant be outdone by the other guys can we!!??

[WildHoney]

Got to perform a more thorough test today. I created a new session with one audio track and one aux track. Audio track routed to aux track. Aux track routed to main hardware outputs on the a 192 interface.

On each I put an L3MultiMaximizer and 8 L2's. This puts the total system delay very close to, but still under the limit of ADC.

Next, deactivated all plugins. Set automation on the audio track to touch. Press play, move fader, press stop, automation prints in time.

Then, activate all the plugins only on the audio track. Press play, move fader, press stop, automation prints in time.

Finally, deactivate audio channel plugins and activate aux channel plugins. Press play, move fader. Automation, when recording, appears in time. Press stop and automation data jumps late by (it seems) the total amount of system delay (CMD-2 show that value in the session setup window -- in this case, 4091 samples).

I've posted the test session used here if anyone can verify the results: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/46797835/FileChute/test.zip

So what this is telling me is that if you use plug-ins on an aux track in your workflow, you cannot write automation, via controller (C24 in this case), in time. I'm not sure I know any ProTools users (in music production/mixing) who don't use aux tracks either to sub mix parts within a mix, or at the very least, as a mix bus on which to apply compression, limiting, etc. So, assuming my test is verifiable, is this just the way it is??? And will all DAW's do this when use aux tracks? FWIW, my assistant did the same test on his LE system and reported the same results.

[Herbieoz]

Can you post this (if not done already) in the protools part of the forum.

[WildHoney]

Originally Posted by Herbieoz

Can you post this (if not done already) in the protools part of the forum.

Done. Posted in HD/TDM for Mac forum: http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=327989&page=3

[Trazan]

Originally Posted by WildHoney

So, help me understand here, people. Does NOBODY use their controllers to writer fader automation? Is that why this doesn't concern anyone? Nor concern Avid? I'm just not understanding why this behavior isn't more well-known. It'd seem to me that if you're spending $10K+ for a C24, ICON, etc, you'd probably, at least at some point, if not all the time, draw in a fader ride via the controller and find that it just doesn't work properly.

I don't think it's related to the controller. I had the same problem when I wrote real time automation with the mouse. Even when drawing automation, for that matter. Applying a large buffer in PT put the automation off.

I haven't worked with critical automation timing lately, so I'm not sure if this is the case in PT 10.

EDIT: didn't notice there was a second page in this thread...Could be two different issues here, it seems. I remember automation that was perfectly in time on the timeline, acted late - according to buffer size. That automation is written "off" is another (or additional) problem...
I was on an LE system without delay compensation at the time, so the first issue might not apply on systems with delay compensation (?).