Re: [Traverso-devel] Some remarks / missing features

[Jonatan Liljedahl]

Nicola Doebelin wrote:
...
> I might be wrong, but what I had in mind is the following:
> 
> When recording, the signal path is:
>   input channel -----> wave file
> 
> When playing back, the signal path is:
>   wave file -----> processing (plugins etc.) -----> output channel
> 
> When monitoring is active, the wave file part is skipped:
>   input channel -----> processing -----> output channel
> 
> But now that I think about it again, your solution is probably better. After 
> all it's the input signal that is of interest when setting up a recording 
> session, not the processed signal.

I have a hardware studio here which I work a lot in (yes, you know, real
devices instead of a computer! ;) and I often do exactly as above, I
have some signal on a channel which I send to some effects, then I want
to record it but I want to hear the effects while recording, so either I
send only the dry channel input to the tape recorder but still listen to
the effects, or I send the monitoring channel from the tape recorder to
the effects and listen there.

For example, I think many people like to hear some reverb while they're
recording their vocals, etc..

...
> This sort of simulates the technique used with tape machines and stand-alone 
> HD recorders. Instead of markers, the operator started playback before the 
> faulty region, and pressed the record button just before the error to switch 
> all armed tracks from playback to record mode.

Just a note: even tape machines and stand-alone HD recorders often have
punch in/out markers.

-- 
/Jonatan    -=( http://kymatica.com )=-