[linux-audio-dev] Freeze?

[Benjamin Flaming]

On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:04 am, Paul Davis wrote:
> the problem is that in a typical DAW session, you can potentially
> freeze most tracks most of the time. so how can you tell what the user
> wants frozen and what they don't?

     I want my plug-ins frozen the instant I close the parameter editor. ;)

> More importantly, freezing consumes
> significant disk resources. Can you afford to do this without it being
> initiated by the user? A typical 24 track Ardour session might consume
> 4-18GB of audio. Freezing all or most of it will double that disk
> consumption (and its not exactly what you would call quick, either :)

     Agreed, it's a very definite trade-off - storage space for CPU cycles.  
It is my observation, however, that storage space is cheap, and readilly 
available.

> sorry, but i don't think so. if i have a bus that is channelling audio
> in from an external device (say, a h/w sampler), you cannot possibly
> freeze it.

     However, buses which simply contain a submix of several audio tracks can 
be safely frozen, saving both processing power and disk bandwidth.

     The purpose of my project is to create a working environment which 
encourages songs to be organized in such a way that offline rendering can 
*usually* be done transparently.  Thus, the hierarchal tree structure.

     When I finish comping the vocals for a chorus, I want to be left with 1 
fader, and 1 editable audio track, for the chorus.  If I need to make one of 
the voices softer, I can bring up the underlying tracks within a second 
(which is *at least* how long it usually takes me to find a single fader in a 
48-channel mix).  While I'm making adjustments, Tinara will read all the 
separate chorus tracks off the disk, mixing them in RT.  When I move back one 
layer in the mix hierarchy (thereby indicating that I'm finish adjusting 
things), Tinara will begin re-rendering the submix in the background whenever 
the transport is idle.  When the re-rendering is done, Tinara will go back to 
pulling a single interleaved stereo track off the disk, instead of 6-8 mono 
tracks.

     The basic idea is to turn mixing into a process of simplification.  When 
I'm finishing up a mix, I don't want to deal with a mess of tracks and buses, 
with CPU power and disk bandwidth being given to things I haven't changed in 
days.  I want to be able to focus on the particular element or submix that 
I'm fine-tuning - and have as much DSP power to throw at it as possible.

     This will also make the use of automated control surfaces much nicer, 
IMHO.  Since there will be fewer elements in each layer of the hierarchy, 
fewer faders would be needed.  Additionally, it would be easier to keep track 
of what's going on.  I've worked extensively with Digi Design's Control|24, 
and my feeling is that things start to get messy when there are more than 
about 12 faders (not to mention how easy it is to get lost when there are two 
or more banks of 24 faders!).

     Just for the record, please understand that any negativity I may express 
toward conventional DAW systems is *not* directed toward Ardour.  It's just 
pent-up frustration with Pro Tools ;)

|)
|)enji