[QLab] Script request

[Freddy Komp]

Hi all,

I have a bi-lingual gig coming up (exciting, part French, part English) and plan to use Qlab for live subtitling. I wonder if someone might be interested in writing / has ideas about a script that does the following:

a) get all files in a specified directory (either of a certain file type, or all that are compatible) in alphabetical order
b) for each slide create one group cue containing one video cue and one auto follow-on (0.1 sec) animation or stop cue to kill the previous video cue (no fancy fading at this point)
c) ideally there would be some input for the basic manipulation (screen,x,y,scale_x, scale_y) applying to all videos alike, so that if the slides are of the exact same dimensions, you don't have to fiddle with transformation for each.

Of course that wouldn't be the last thing I'd do to that Qlab file, but it would be a great help as a batch importer.

Any thoughts / help would be greatly appreciated! :)

Cheers,

Freddy
________________________________________________________
WHEN REPLYING, PLEASE QUOTE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED. Thanks!
Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.figure53.com/listinfo.cgi/qlab-figure53.com

[Rich Walsh]

On 15 Apr 2010, at 00:53, Freddy Komp wrote:

> a) get all files in a specified directory (either of a certain file
> type, or all that are compatible)

There are three different approaches you could look at: a script, a
droplet or a folder action. Droplets use the open handler ("on open
theItems"); folder actions use "on adding folder items to this_folder
after receiving added_items". For a script you'll need to use "choose
folder" to, well, choose a folder (see the AppleScript Dictionary for
StandardAdditions for the syntax), then list the contents. You can get
the basic idea of how to do that by looking at Apple's examples in /
Library/Scripts/Finder Scripts, although amusingly they use "list
folder" which - when you look it up in the StandardAdditions
Dictionary - is actually deprecated in Leopard, so may well not work
at all in Snow Leopard.

Once you have such a list you can check the kind of each file in the
list before deciding to add it to another list (the one you want to
process), but note that the strings returned for kind have changed
from Leopard to Snow Leopard (eg: "WAVE Audio File" has become
"Waveform audio").

> in alphabetical order

Google "applescript sorting lists": this is how I found the subroutine
in http://figure53.com/wiki/index.php?title=Script_-_make_a_list_of_audio_files
.

> b) for each slide create one group cue containing one video cue and
> one auto follow-on (0.1 sec) animation or stop cue to kill the
> previous video cue (no fancy fading at this point)

Most of the tools you will need to do this are in http://figure53.com/wiki/index.php?title=Script_-_make_a_soundcheck_sequence
: making cues, moving cues into groups, setting targets.

> c) ideally there would be some input for the basic manipulation
> (screen,x,y,scale_x, scale_y) applying to all videos alike, so that
> if the slides are of the exact same dimensions, you don't have to
> fiddle with transformation for each.

I don't know what you mean here, but there are examples of how to set
_every single scriptable variable_ in http://figure53.com/wiki/index.php?title=Script_-_make_cues_from_a_text_file
. These wiki pages are littered with examples of how to ask the user
for input to set a variable to use somewhere else.

Good luck! Let us know how you get on...

Rich

[Freddy Komp]

Dear Rich,

 

 

thanks so much for all these tips, and for taking me by the hand :)... and Chris, of course you are right, part of it might be the language barrier, I did feel my message was somewhat, erm, ... odd, but at the time I couldn't really think of a better way to say it. I am always eager to learn, in fact, sinking my teeth into those problems is easily liable to claim huge portions of my day, but somehow, sometimes the intuitiveness of applescript is... strangly weird to me. Like switching from Norton Commander / DOS to Win 3.11 Explorer ;)... yeah, I know, wrong crowd, right?

 

Anyhow, I follow this list closely and it has been most instructive for me - thanks once again for (all) the help, and I'll try my best to be more self-sufficient in the future!

 

 

Cheers,

 

Freddy

[luckydave]

Hi Freddy!

So, this is not a script, but I think it accomplishes what you're looking for in a little bit cleaner, and more customizable fashion. Say you have a directory with all of your image files, which are each one subtitle. You want to scan through that directory, and display each of those images one at a time. I think you've said that.

I got this crazy idea to make a "slideshow" plugin a couple of weeks ago, but never really finished it. I've just fine-tuned it to something much like what you're talking about, and I'm now thinking of it as a "subtitle" plugin. It'll very likely reappear soon as a slideshow, but for now, here's how it's useful, and thinking of it in another use case opened up the possibilities of it for me. I like that. :)

This plugin assumes all of your images are the same size, and expects you to create a background image of that same size (speaking in pixel dimensions here). It allows you to choose whatever blend mode will work best for you, if that helps. Really, it helps QLab communicate with the patch, but why not add a neat little feature while we're at it, right?

You have to type in the path to your directory, so if it's a folder called Subtitles on your desktop, it would look like "~/Desktop/Subtitles/" or "/Users/yourusername/Desktop/Subtitles/", and it takes it from there. It creates a structure with the names of all of the image files in the directory, and you choose which member of the structure to display with the Rotation parameter in QLab.

Displaying your first title, then the next on a GO would look something like this:

Q1 - image file with custom renderer set to "Directory Scanner.qtz", Rotation = 0
Q2 - Animation cue with fade time of 0, adjusting animation to 1

...and on and on. You could easily add some fades in there as well, if you want to. Just don't stop the cue automatically when the fade's done, and you'll have it sitting there, waiting to be told which title to display, and when to fade back up.

Play with it, let me know what you think, and please let me know how it goes for you. Questions etc are of course greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
luckydave
luck...@figure53.com

> a) get all files in a specified directory (either of a certain file type, or all that are compatible) in alphabetical order

________________________________________________________

[luckydave]

...and then he attaches the actual quartz file, so this last post isn't purely academic! *facepalm*

luckydave
luck...@figure53.com

[freddy]

Hi luckydave!


thanks so much for that, it does sound amazing! I would have gotten back to you earlier, but I somehow got wiped off the face of earth, well, electronically speaking...

now that I am about to play around with that awesome tool of yours, I encountered... erm... difficulties. In fact, for a solid hour I did try to solve it myself without result, and was ashamed to actually ask, but...

...

I can't really open your attachment! tried stuffit expander, extractnow, treating it like a CD image... whatever you've done, I can't seem to get anywhere with your bin file :)... any chance to get it as a qartz patch instead? or compressed in a more common file format? Maybe I'm just thick, so if you've got an explanation I'd try further :).

I'd have contacted you off list, but I thought, maybe other people are interested in piloting the thing as well...


Thanks heaps!

Freddy

--

Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:

http://groups.google.com/group/qlab

[luckydave]

> I can't really open your attachment! tried stuffit expander, extractnow, treating it like a CD image... whatever you've done, I can't seem to get anywhere with your bin file :)... any chance to get it as a qartz patch instead? or compressed in a more common file format? Maybe I'm just thick, so if you've got an explanation I'd try further :).

Do you have Quartz Composer installed? It's on your original OS install disc, under Optional Installs/Developer Tools. Just install the full XCode package, and Quartz will be in there. Then, you can open a .qtz file, which is what I attached. If it's not working, and you do have Quartz Composer installed, then something got lost in transit.

Let me know.

luckydave

[Jason Eckenroth]

Hope you guys don't mind a silly question:

What exactly is quartz and how does it interact with QLab? I'm
getting that it's part of CoreAudio and it allows for scripting
functions, but beyond that I'm a bit mystified. Some context: I've
ben using QLab for a few years now and while I've gotten into audio
and recently video cues with plenty of success, I haven't touched
scripting at all because, well, I'm no programmer, sir, and it seems
daunting in concept. But I think the time to take the plunge is now,
and if it's all simpler than I'm making it out to be, all the better.

Thanks, sorry for the derailment on this thread!

-JME

[Paul Gotch]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:44:58AM -0400, Jason Eckenroth wrote:
> Hope you guys don't mind a silly question:
>
> What exactly is quartz and how does it interact with QLab? I'm
> getting that it's part of CoreAudio and it allows for scripting
> functions, but beyond that I'm a bit mystified.

Quartz isn't to do with audio it's the graphics scheme that MacOS is
based on. All the animations you get on your OS X desktop are rendered
using Quartz.

Quartz Composer (which is part of the developer tools) allows you to
create compositions which can then be rendered by the operating system
onto a screen. Usefully OS X allows you to input video files into
Quartz compositions and then manipulate them. It's this functionality
which is most used within QLab.

The most recent developer tools can always been downloaded from Apple
by registering for the free level of membership of ADC (Apple Developer
Connection).

-p
--
Paul Gotch
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Freddy Komp]

Hey luckydave...


well, yeah, now I do feel a bit stupid :)... I've actually done some qtz composing before, but since the file was called attachment.bin, I figured it was packed or something...

clearly didn't read closely enough - now for some testing :)!


thanks once again!

Freddy



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Directory Scanner.qtz
Type: application/x-quartzcomposer
Size: 25793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:<http://lists.figure53.com/pipermail/qlab-figure53.com/attachments/20100415/4397c3fc/attachment.bin>

------------------------------

> Do you have Quartz Composer installed? It's on your original OS install disc, under Optional Installs/Developer Tools. Just install the full XCode package, and Quartz will be in there. Then, you can open a .qtz file, which is what I attached. If it's not working, and you do have Quartz Composer installed, then something got lost in transit.
>
> Let me know.
>
> luckydave
>

[Freddy Komp]

Hi again,


wonderful toy, one learns so much when modifying, thanks for that luckydave!

I've now tried to accomplish the following - a controlled crossfade in
QLab. To achieve this, I changed the use of the rotation parameter,
"packing" the crossfade level into it; image 1 is now rotation 0, image
2 is now rotation 100 and so on. It does work, however, whenever it
crosses a border between rotation 99 and 100 (199 and 200 and so forth),
there is an annoying glitch when the background image is exchanged - any
idea about that? I've attached the sample workspace including the modded
qtz and the images used.

Obviously you don't have to solve it, but pointing me into the right
direction would be awesome!

Thanks :),

f.

[Smith, Andy]

Hi all

I'm wondering if there is a way of building an EQ into Qlab audio. We
get a lot of files to play on long run events where there is need to EQ
each track separately. Of course we could midi to our LS9, but really
want something within the machine. Any ideas?

Regards


Andy C. Smith
Technical Manager
South Holland Centre
Market Place
Spalding
Lincolnshire
PE11 1SS

01775 764872

Andy...@sholland.gov.uk

--------------------------------------------------

SAVE PAPER, SAVE TREES - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!



"This Email, and any attachments, may contain Protected or Restricted information and is intended solely for the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy, print or relay on any of the information contained in it or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own anti-virus checks before opening any documents. South Holland District Council will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail. All GCSx traffic may be su
bject to recording and / or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation."

[Freddy Komp]

OK,


scrap the last request - I've solved it myself, yay :)... baby steps, of
course...

For anyone interested in more of a slide-show usage, please feel free to
use this one. Every full hundred rotation (0,100,200,300,...) you get a
pic by itself, anywhere in-between is now _smoothly_ crossfaded :)
between two images. Additionally, you still have your opacity in Qlab to
fade the whole slide show. That way, you can easily control the speed
individually from within Qlab.


Thanks again to luckydave for the basis that I have merely slightly modded!


Cheers, Freddy

[Pierre-Luc Brunet]

You people are smart. And Freddy and wouldn't really call that a slight mod!

This is very cool. I'm gonna be running a show soon with subtitles too! I might just use one of those :)

________________________________________________________
WHEN REPLYING, PLEASE QUOTE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED. Thanks!
Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.figure53.com/listinfo.cgi/qlab-figure53.com

--
Pierre-Luc Brunet
514.209.9393
pierrelu...@gmail.com

[Jason Eckenroth]

Just to further confuse the issue:

I've done some thinking on these types of features being a part of
QLab. What I'm realizing is that at some point QLab becomes a
DAW/Computer-based mixer. I mean, we could just go for it and say
that QLab could support inserts and VST plug-ins and we'd pretty much
have ourselves a party. My question, then, is threefold: is Figure53
interested in QLab becoming a(theatre-centric) mac-based
SAC(SawStudio's computer-based console) with pimped out playback, or
potentially a replacement for DAWs in general? Is there any market
research that needs to be done on how QLab would affect the existing
industries? Does the hardware support a program like this, that in
its current form is already more than capable of maxing out RAM for
days?

I think it'd be neat. I'd love to be using a mac-based SAC under the
QLab moniker in a few years. But it's also a massive project with a
lot of questions.

Maybe I'm making this too big. Maybe we can just go feature by
feature and stick with "can we add some Parametrics?"

-JME

[Charlie Richmond]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Jason Eckenroth wrote:

> Maybe I'm making this too big. Maybe we can just go feature by
> feature and stick with "can we add some Parametrics?"

Parametrics and much more are currently available via the SoundMan-Server cue.

C-)

[Oliver Driver]

But he's not asking about Soundman server!

[Christopher Ashworth]

It is true, though, that via the SMS Cue that is inside QLab you can
add EQ capabilities using a SoundMan Server.

For what it's worth, EQ is something that come hell or high water I
intend to add in version 3. I usually don't promise features like
that (at least until they're actually coded and working), but on this
one I'll at least commit to doing our damndest to get it in there.

Best,
Chris

On Apr 20, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Oliver Driver wrote:

> But he's not asking about Soundman server!
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2010, at 17:33, Charlie Richmond wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Jason Eckenroth wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe I'm making this too big. Maybe we can just go feature by
>>> feature and stick with "can we add some Parametrics?"
>>
>> Parametrics and much more are currently available via the SoundMan-
>> Server cue.

[Jason Eckenroth]

The SoundMan cue in QLab does offer a bunch of parameter control. My
question in that context would be: can we make those controls more
accessible and easier to interface with quickly?

But I'm more interested in using QLab to mix a show.

-JME

[*]

To Oliver & anyone else tempted to write such things, is it not crystal
clear that Chris welcomed Charlie into the conversation when he added a
SMS cue to Qlab?

Note Chris' own reply to yours.

FYI, you wasted more bandwidth than Charlie did by not deleting the part
at the bottom of your post about deleting irrelevant information...

*

On Tue, April 20, 2010 11:34 am, Oliver Driver wrote:
> But he's not asking about Soundman server!

[Jason Eckenroth]

Let's pull this together, guys. I really don't want this to turn into
another thread about a topic that's obviously divisive. We're talking
about productively adding features to QLab. The conversation could
include expanding on what's already in the SoundMan cues. This is not
a battleground for who gets control over the product, but a forum for
what we as individual users would like to see in a program we use
because it's awesome and makes life easier.

Thanks,

JME

[sam kusnetz]

jason wrote:

>> Maybe I'm making this too big. Maybe we can just go feature by
>> feature and stick with "can we add some Parametrics?"

charlie replied:

> Parametrics and much more are currently available via the SoundMan-Server cue.

that's not exactly true...

parametrics and much more are ONLY available via the soundman-server cue IF you incorporate a soundman-server system to your setup. that means a relatively robust windows pc with its own sound interface running in between your qlab system and your amps, or perhaps some clever use of boot camp (or parallels or fusion).

i'm not trying to be snarky, i'm just trying to be clear: the soundman-server cue in qlab does not provide eq or any other functionality by itself; what it does is allow qlab to control soundman-server.

regards
sam

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 20, at  Apr 20, 2010 5:32 PM, sam kusnetz wrote:

that's not exactly true...

parametrics and much more are ONLY available via the soundman-server cue IF you incorporate a soundman-server system to your setup. that means a relatively robust windows pc with its own sound interface running in between your qlab system and your amps, or perhaps some clever use of boot camp (or parallels or fusion).

i'm not trying to be snarky, i'm just trying to be clear: the soundman-server cue in qlab does not provide eq or any other functionality by itself; what it does is allow qlab to control soundman-server.

But it is a legit way to alter EQ on a cue by cue basis under control of QLAB.  If you need general EQ then that should be doable from your audio i/o.

I am not sure if general EQ would even make sense in QLAB given that it would usually be redundant to the sound system. Cue specific EQ could be cool in a pinch. But I think the studio would still be a better place to work on that in most cases.

All of you have DAWs right? 

Steve

[Paul Gotch]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:21:01PM -0400, Steven Devino wrote:
> All of you have DAWs right?

Depends what you mean by DAW. Many people who are not professionals use
the QLab and something like Audacity and don't have a studio.

-p
--
Paul Gotch
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[vengb]

On Apr 20, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Paul Gotch wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:21:01PM -0400, Steven Devino wrote:
>> All of you have DAWs right?
>
> Depends what you mean by DAW. Many people who are not professionals
> use
> the QLab and something like Audacity and don't have a studio.

Who doesn;t have Garage Band?



J. Vengrouskie
Soundscenes DC
Everybody does better when everybody does better.

[Rich Walsh]

On 21 Apr 2010, at 01:21, Steven Devino wrote:

> But it is a legit way to alter EQ on a cue by cue basis under
> control of QLAB. If you need general EQ then that should be doable
> from your audio i/o.
>
> I am not sure if general EQ would even make sense in QLAB given that
> it would usually be redundant to the sound system. Cue specific EQ
> could be cool in a pinch. But I think the studio would still be a
> better place to work on that in most cases.
>
> All of you have DAWs right?

One of the beauties of CoreAudio is that you can use any software
(except Pro Tools) to perform offline editing of your sound files
whilst listening to them _through the sound system_.

I have more DAWs than I can keep track of, and I hate almost
everything about almost all of them (except Pro Tools). To me it does
not make sense to try to bolt this kind of functionality onto QLab as
there are so many conflicting opinions of what makes a good DAW. Do
your editing in an application optimised for editing in the way you
work, then put the files into your playback system. Keep the playback
system simple and stable, without bloated code that is not required
for actually doing performances. PT crashed on me today in a recording
session (for the first time in 12 years, I might add): irksome in that
context, yet devastating in a show.

I worked with samplers for many years, and even though you could do
certain processes (such as EQ) to samples, it was just quicker and
better to do it offline in a DAW. I don't think I ever used EQ. Real-
time pitch-shifting - now, that's another matter!

Why take the risk of adding strain to the system by asking it to
perform in realtime things that could be done offline, like EQ of a
single cue? Much more interesting would be the ability to host one or
more AU plug-ins at the output stage. You could use this for global EQ
if you really don't have a mixing desk or speaker management system,
or you could use it for reverb, etc.

If you started adding AUs per cue then you'd just be recreating Live,
but without a huge team of people to write the software! This is not a
trivial piece of software to get your head round. QLab as it stands is
magnificent in its elegant simplicity, yet coupled with enormous power
and capacity for user expansion and customisation: scripts, quartz
files, user-defined shortcuts, etc.

Finally, how much would you be willing to pay Chris to devote time to
recreating tools that are already available for free? Audacity,
Ardour, Myna, GarageBand... Pop one on your QLab machine today!

Rich

[rickm...@sbcglobal.net]

I agree with Steve.  After using SFX, SCS and Qlab....I want to do my EQ of effects in my audio editor.  Keep it out of the playback program. Rick Malone San Antonio Viva Fiesta! --- On Tue, 4/20/10, Rich Walsh <rich...@mac.com> wrote:

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 20, at Apr 20, 2010 8:47 PM, Paul Gotch wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:21:01PM -0400, Steven Devino wrote:
>> All of you have DAWs right?
>
> Depends what you mean by DAW. Many people who are not professionals use
> the QLab and something like Audacity and don't have a studio.

Garageband will work and everyone here has that. And by studio I mean a quiet place with speakers or headphones. Nothing wrong with Audacity either right?

Steve

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 20, at  Apr 20, 2010 8:55 PM, Rich Walsh wrote:

I have more DAWs than I can keep track of, and I hate almost everything about almost all of them (except Pro Tools). To me it does not make sense to try to bolt this kind of functionality onto QLab as there are so many conflicting opinions of what makes a good DAW. Do your editing in an application optimised for editing in the way you work, then put the files into your playback system. Keep the playback system simple and stable, without bloated code that is not required for actually doing performances. PT crashed on me today in a recording session (for the first time in 12 years, I might add): irksome in that context, yet devastating in a show.

100% in a agreement.

Steve

[vengb]

On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:35 PM, Steven Devino wrote:

>
> On Apr 20, at Apr 20, 2010 8:47 PM, Paul Gotch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:21:01PM -0400, Steven Devino wrote:
>>> All of you have DAWs right?
>>
>> Depends what you mean by DAW. Many people who are not
>> professionals use
>> the QLab and something like Audacity and don't have a studio.
>
> Garageband will work and everyone here has that. And by studio I
> mean a quiet place with speakers or headphones. Nothing wrong with
> Audacity either right?

'studio' : an artist's work space
while I'd prefer my tuned-tweaked-speakered LOGIC-based home space,
I've done fine work in a pinch on a laptop with good cans, from
tracking and mixing a group to simply building FX cues...

trying to get anything at all done in Audacity drives me nuts...
other folks say real nice things about it so I think it's just a
Personal Foible ...

J. Vengrouskie
Soundscenes DC
Everybody does better when everybody does better.

[Dave Wallingford]

I have mixed feelings about this. In the context of theatre sound design, or any other sort of long term installation, I completely agree. But I also do a number of one-offs, and often don't get tracks until the day of the event. Sometimes each track needs wildly different EQ, and it'd be great to have that as part of the playback system. Of course, a lot of the time I'm using something like Sports Sounds Pro, but I like to use QLab when I can.

- Dave Wallingford

On Apr 20, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Rich Walsh wrote:

> To me it does not make sense to try to bolt this kind of functionality onto QLab as there are so many conflicting opinions of what makes a good DAW.

[Rich Walsh]

On 21 Apr 2010, at 02:56, Dave Wallingford wrote:

> I have mixed feelings about this. In the context of theatre sound
> design, or any other sort of long term installation, I completely
> agree. But I also do a number of one-offs, and often don't get
> tracks until the day of the event. Sometimes each track needs
> wildly different EQ, and it'd be great to have that as part of the
> playback system. Of course, a lot of the time I'm using something
> like Sports Sounds Pro, but I like to use QLab when I can.

How much longer does it take to open a file in an editor, EQ it in
there, replace it and refresh in QLab? How many times would you have
to do it to pay back the time invested in learning new sections of
QLab? We've been doing this for years with Audition & SFX; the speed
we work at in rehearsal for some shows is not at all unlike the
corporate world.

Why stop at EQ? Some stuff might need multiband compression, or an
exciter, or a trip to iZotope RX.

Rich

[vengb]

On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Rich Walsh wrote:
>>
>
> How much longer does it take to open a file in an editor, EQ it in
> there, replace it and refresh in QLab? How many times would you
> have to do it to pay back the time invested in learning new
> sections of QLab? We've been doing this for years with Audition &
> SFX; the speed we work at in rehearsal for some shows is not at all
> unlike the corporate world.

BINGO... actually I found early on that going from serious hard-and-
fast theatre/show put-in to doing corporate show put-in was easier
than going the other way.

and yeah, after decades of various EQ wrangling, I find can even out
a disparate set of music cues in a MBcomp faster and easier than an EQ.

Flying fast sound tweaks in 2010 is a LOT cooler than doing fast
news soundbites in 1975... but the job( " I needed it 20 min ago!!!!
" ) hasn't changed a jot...


J. Vengrouskie (who still is faster with real knobs...)

Soundscenes DC
Everybody does better when everybody does better.

[Jason Knox]

In addition to the original dry audio files for audio cues, I pretty much always create a reverbed version of the audio files (often times a long, dark decay) that's very useful for "blurring" the sonic canvas, and I very often create high or low pass versions of the files for interesting crossfade and underscoring effects.

Yes, I've been doing all of this in a DAW for a while now, but if version 3 of QLab could add just basic EQ (even just hi / lo pass filers) and some decent reverb (perhaps a taller order) it would be an amazing addition to the program that could add a lot of flexibility to the programming process.

Just my 2 cents.

[Jeremy Lee]

I know that adding AU plugs in on Chris' list. Probably pretty high. Now that he's got luckydave taking the brunt of the support, I'll bet it's on his desktop as we type...

On Apr 20, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Jason Eckenroth wrote:

> Maybe I'm making this too big. Maybe we can just go feature by
> feature and stick with "can we add some Parametrics?"

--
Jeremy Lee
Sound Designer, NYC - USA 829
http://www.jjlee.com

[Jeremy Lee]

The problem with SFX and SCS is that the interfaces are never thought out very well.  Chris seems to be able to balance power with usability in a very unique way, which is why he's currently on top of the pack.

I think that a well thought out system would be a very welcome addition to the QLab environment.  EQ and delay on the outputs would allow any modest sound system to be tuned well.  Internal sends and returns, with the returns going through QLab's automated matrix would be phenomenal.  Imagine buying one $600 copy of Altiverb for your system instead of a rack of outboard processors.  Add the ability to do live input as well and you can finally ditch all of your FX processors.

I think that implementing AU plugs on the global level rather than on a cue by cue level would be amazingly useful.  Cue by cue could get very unwieldy, especially with the nature of non-linear shows.  Do you really want to have a million plug-ins open at once?  That's what would have to happen unless you want a lag involved with initializing a plug-in when you load or fire a cue.

Anyway, I'll bet that Chris will surprise and amaze us with whatever he implements.

Best,

Jeremy

On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:05 AM, rickm...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I agree with Steve.  After using SFX, SCS and Qlab....I want to do my EQ of effects in my audio editor.  Keep it out of the playback program. Rick Malone San Antonio Viva Fiesta!

[Freddy Komp]

Merci, Pierre-Luc :)...


And just because everyone is susceptible to flattery, and because
without a similar device a huge slide show will still be painful to do,
here the whole package including a generator AppleScript cue:

In the sample workspace, select the second cue and press hotkey "M". you
will be asked for the total number of slides in the directory. The
script then generates appropriate cues, increasing the rotation, and
copying some settings like duration and continue mode from the initial
animation cue.

Have fun with it and merde for your show :)!


Cheers,

Freddy

[Roland van Meel]

Hi Freddy

I am interessted in your achiefments but i couldnt open your files ;-[
Can't get the workspace loaded.

best regards Roland

> <DirectoryScannerMod_V2.zip>________________________________________________________

[Jason Eckenroth]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Jeremy Lee <jerem...@jjlee.com> wrote:

The problem with SFX and SCS is that the interfaces are never thought out very well.  Chris seems to be able to balance power with usability in a very unique way, which is why he's currently on top of the pack.

That's a statement I can get behind.  A school I work for just purchased a copy of SCS, and puttering around in it I was mystified by how little control it actually offered.  I found I could effectively make it a programmable CD player with integrated fades and routing, and the option of running video cues.  QLab tosses it out of the water with intuitiveness and control.

 

I think that a well thought out system would be a very welcome addition to the QLab environment.  EQ and delay on the outputs would allow any modest sound system to be tuned well.  Internal sends and returns, with the returns going through QLab's automated matrix would be phenomenal.  Imagine buying one $600 copy of Altiverb for your system instead of a rack of outboard processors.  Add the ability to do live input as well and you can finally ditch all of your FX processors.

Plugins would be dynamite, and a time saver.  Director decides he liked it better without reverb: off and out of the show in 10 seconds, as opposed to opening a DAW and rebouncing a track bypassed.  Also, the more I use it the more I'm addicted to iZotope Spectron.

 

I think that implementing AU plugs on the global level rather than on a cue by cue level would be amazingly useful.  Cue by cue could get very unwieldy, especially with the nature of non-linear shows.  Do you really want to have a million plug-ins open at once?  That's what would have to happen unless you want a lag involved with initializing a plug-in when you load or fire a cue.

Anyway, I'll bet that Chris will surprise and amaze us with whatever he implements.

Well, let's give him an attainable goal before we put all of the burden on him with high expectations.  EQs and plugin output inserts are doable.  At some point, though, Chris has to decide if it actually works and if it maintains the integrity of the program.  If it doesn't, it ain't goin in.

Great dialogue goin here, folks.

-JME

[*]

The current version of QLab 2 already has full access to a world class
reverb & programmable channel strip available on every output. Just
purchase the "dongle" to enable the function here...:)

http://www.mhlabs.com/metric_halo/

*

[Paul Gotch]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:32:40AM -0500, * wrote:
> The current version of QLab 2 already has full access to a world class
> reverb & programmable channel strip available on every output. Just
> purchase the "dongle" to enable the function here...:)
>
> http://www.mhlabs.com/metric_halo/

And can also be done with MK3 MOTU boxes as well. What can't be done is
to control the DSP hardware in these boxes from QLab. Unless of course
someone has written an AppleScript to Macke HUI bridge.

-p
--
Paul Gotch
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 21, at Apr 21, 2010 3:56 AM, Jeremy Lee wrote:

> I think that implementing AU plugs on the global level rather than on a cue by cue level would be amazingly useful. Cue by cue could get very unwieldy, especially with the nature of non-linear shows.

Funny I would think that cue by cue would be simpler. It'll be interesting to see how Chris works it out. As far as licensing goes I might want a cue based capability but I would not need as global capability because it would be redundant to what I can already do in my MIO. So it would be nice if this feature were really al a carte if possible.

JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!! Please :-)


Steve

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 21, at Apr 21, 2010 9:06 AM, Paul Gotch wrote:

> What can't be done is
> to control the DSP hardware in these boxes from QLab. Unless of course
> someone has written an AppleScript to Macke HUI bridge.

Sure you can, you can just send MIDI messages.

Steve

[Freddy Komp]

Hi Roland,



that's zeltsam ;), I just re-downloaded (is that even a verb) again, and
it works for me:

(MBP unibody, MacOSX 10.6.3, QLab 2.2.8 build 1127 beta, with Quartz
Composer 4.0(103.1) and Framework 4.1(156.13))


... I've attached it again just in case, but does anybody else
experience issues?


Cheers,

Freddy





Am 21.04.10 23:31, schrieb qlab-r...@lists.figure53.com:

[Freddy Komp]

My vote, as a lot cons/pros have been discussed:

simple EQ please, AU please, preferably but not necessarily cue based -
I would have thought, too, that that'd be more beneficial than the
general one, but I'm happy to be convinced if need be ;).


cheers,

Freddy

[Christopher Ashworth]

Roland, are you using OS 10.5? I believe there may be QC features
that are 10.6-only in this composition.

[Jeremy Lee]

What- did Charlie change his name and advertising product?

On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:32 PM, * wrote:

The current version of QLab 2 already has full access to a world class
reverb & programmable channel strip available on every output. Just
purchase the "dongle" to enable the function here...:)

http://www.mhlabs.com/metric_halo/

*

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 21, at Apr 21, 2010 11:06 AM, Jeremy Lee wrote:

> What- did Charlie change his name and advertising product?

No Ra Byn is just a proud new owner. :-)

Steve

[Roland van Meel]

Hi Freddy

Iam running QLAB 2.28 built 1124 on a unibody macbook 13" OSX 10.6.3, dont.know Quartz and Framework

Best regards GuRuRo

> <DirectoryScannerMod_V2.zip>________________________________________________________

[Richard B. Ingraham]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: qlab-b...@lists.figure53.com [mailto:qlab-
> bou...@lists.figure53.com] On Behalf Of Jason Eckenroth
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:07 AM
> To: Discussion and support for QLab users.
> Subject: Re: [QLab] EQ for Qlab
>

> Plugins would be dynamite, and a time saver.  Director decides he liked
> it better without reverb: off and out of the show in 10 seconds, as
> opposed to opening a DAW and rebouncing a track bypassed.  Also, the
> more I use it the more I'm addicted to iZotope Spectron.
>

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here but you can easily do
that right now, with some forethought put into the cue while you're building
it in your DAW.


Just make a multi channel audio file and put the verb as separate tracks.

I do this all the time with one of those playback apps that doesn't have a
well thought out interface. Just create an interleaved .wav file such as:

Channel 1 and 2 - Dry sound effect
Channel 3 and 4 - Light Reverb
Channel 5 and 6 - heavy reverb

Etc.... add variation as needed

This means when you get into tech, you simply dial in the tracks you want in
the space. The added benefit is that you can then route different verbs to
different speakers in your venue. I might route the dry signal to a speaker
pair upstage. Route a mild verb to a FOH and heavy verb to surrounds. Just
as a generic example.

Works great for me.

But then what do I know.... I'm just the guy that helped create one of
those software apps with a not well thought out UI. So take it for what
it's worth. :-P


Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com

[John Leonard]

Me to. Similarly with theings like Speakerphone treatments; on a recent show I had music playing in a distant room and then scenarios where various combinations of doors were supposedly opened and closed. A multitrack wav file with the various options faded up and down as required did the trick.

Regards,

John

On 21 Apr 2010, at 18:15, Richard B. Ingraham wrote:

> Works great for me.

[Jason Knox]

I do this all the time with one of those playback apps that doesn't have a
well thought out interface.  Just create an interleaved .wav file such as:

Channel 1 and 2 - Dry sound effect
Channel 3 and 4 - Light Reverb
Channel 5 and 6 - heavy reverb

Etc....  add variation as needed

Richard, this is a great use of the multitrack functionality in QLab, and perhaps something I'll explore a bit more in the future (I typically just use multiple stereo files because It's easier to deal with stereo mixes in a DAW, but I agree that the multichannel approach is a more elegant solution once the files are in QLab).

However, I still believe that the addition of EQ / Reverb / Plug-in options is a very logical next step for QLab.  It's functionality that is in demand on practically any production, and although there are currently some (slightly inconvenient) means to achieve the same end, having it built into QLab would be a great way to add efficiency to the build / tech process for designers when time is often crunched.  Of course... I have no idea what's required on the programming side for Chris, so all of these thoughts come from a pipe dream point of view.  But Chris's ability to implement users' pipe dreams is pretty much how QLab has gotten to its current level of coolness, so...

[Christopher Ashworth]

On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Jason Knox wrote:
> But Chris's ability to implement users' pipe dreams is pretty much
> how QLab has gotten to its current level of coolness, so...

If you guys don't pull me down off this pedestal I'm going to fall off
on my own and break something.

-C

[Jason Eckenroth]

Turns out you've done some fantastic work, bud. Live it up a little. :)

-JME

[Richard B. Ingraham]

Sorry I was specifically responding to the reverb example, didn't mean to
hijack the EQ debate or weight in on that at all actually.

As for creating multitrack files in your DAW.... I guess it just depends on
which DAW you use. :-) Mine handles them with ease. But then you have to
be willing to work with the great unwashed OS from M$ to run the Sony apps.

:-P


Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com

From: qlab-b...@lists.figure53.com
[mailto:qlab-b...@lists.figure53.com] On Behalf Of Jason Knox
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:29 PM
To: Discussion and support for QLab users.
Subject: Re: [QLab] EQ for Qlab

I do this all the time with one of those playback apps that doesn't have a
well thought out interface.  Just create an interleaved .wav file such as:

Channel 1 and 2 - Dry sound effect
Channel 3 and 4 - Light Reverb
Channel 5 and 6 - heavy reverb

Etc....  add variation as needed

Richard, this is a great use of the multitrack functionality in QLab, and
perhaps something I'll explore a bit more in the future (I typically just
use multiple stereo files because It's easier to deal with stereo mixes in a
DAW, but I agree that the multichannel approach is a more elegant solution
once the files are in QLab).

[John Leonard]

You can create interleaved files in Nuendo, Cubase, Logic, Reaper and Audacity. Almost all DAWs do it these days, and Audacity is really simple to use and free. Go here for the information:

http://figure53.com/wiki/index.php?title=Hints_and_tips

Plus there's De-Interleaver which, despite the name, will take a bunch of mono tracks and interleave them to a .wavex file. It's also free and can be found here:

http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/mulch.shtml

In the immortal words of Steve Harley in 'Come Up And See Me', "Resist, resist, it's from Bill Gates you have to hide" (OK, not exactly, but you know it's what he meant.)

Regards,

John

On 21 Apr 2010, at 20:51, Richard B. Ingraham wrote:

> As for creating multitrack files in your DAW.... I guess it just depends on
> which DAW you use. :-)

[Rich Walsh]

On 21 Apr 2010, at 22:03, John Leonard wrote:

> Plus there's De-Interleaver which, despite the name, will take a
> bunch of mono tracks and interleave them to a .wavex file. It's also
> free and can be found here:
>
> http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/mulch.shtml

I've almost finished a tool that will troll through a folder of files
called "Dogs.L", "Dogs.R", "Pigs.1", "Pigs.2", "Pigs.3", "Part 1",
"Part 2", "Part 3", "Part 4", "Part 5", "Part 6", "Part 7", "Part 8",
"Part 9", etc, and spit out a 2-channel file called "Dogs", a 3-
channel file called "Pigs" and a 9-channel file called "Part" (and so
on). It uses Apple's afinterleave, which is buried deep in an Xcode
example file.

Rich

[Jeremy Lee]

Of course you can do something like that. But I find it's only useful when the show plays in a single venue. On our current tour, I'm finding that each venue requires both it's own reverb return level, as well as RT60 and EQ settings.

In order to make something sound "wet" in a live space, you have to slather on the 'verb. In a poshly upholstered venue, that kind of verb is just way too much. The tracks that are hard to manage are the ones that were created and bounced with too much verb in the first place. The ones that use a QLab send to a verb are much easier to modify for a given space.

Jeremy

On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Richard B. Ingraham wrote:

> Just make a multi channel audio file and put the verb as separate tracks.
>
> I do this all the time with one of those playback apps that doesn't have a
> well thought out interface. Just create an interleaved .wav file such as:
>
> Channel 1 and 2 - Dry sound effect
> Channel 3 and 4 - Light Reverb
> Channel 5 and 6 - heavy reverb

--
Jeremy Lee
Sound Designer, NYC - USA 829
http://www.jjlee.com

[Charlie Richmond]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Jeremy Lee wrote:

> The tracks that are hard to manage are the ones that were created and bounced
> with too much verb in the first place.

I may not be interpreting Richard's description correctly but I think he is
describing what I used to do.

>> Just make a multi channel audio file and put the verb as separate tracks.
>>
>> I do this all the time with one of those playback apps that doesn't have a
>> well thought out interface. Just create an interleaved .wav file such as:
>>
>> Channel 1 and 2 - Dry sound effect
>> Channel 3 and 4 - Light Reverb
>> Channel 5 and 6 - heavy reverb

I just used 4 channels, where 1 and 2 were dry and 3 and 4 were JUST the reverb.
If the reverb was well chosen all you had to do to adjust smoothly from very
light to very heavy was just add as much of tracks 3 and 4 in to 1 and 2,
respectively, as you want at the moment. This is pretty much identical to
adding reverb in a multitrack mixdown.

C-)

[Jeremy Lee]

Yes, you can do that, and I've done it. But you can't change the *quality* of the reverb this way, only the amount of it in the mix...

On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Charlie Richmond wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Jeremy Lee wrote:
>
>> The tracks that are hard to manage are the ones that were created and bounced with too much verb in the first place.
>
> I may not be interpreting Richard's description correctly but I think he is describing what I used to do.
>
>>> Just make a multi channel audio file and put the verb as separate tracks.
>>>
>>> I do this all the time with one of those playback apps that doesn't have a
>>> well thought out interface. Just create an interleaved .wav file such as:
>>>
>>> Channel 1 and 2 - Dry sound effect
>>> Channel 3 and 4 - Light Reverb
>>> Channel 5 and 6 - heavy reverb
>
> I just used 4 channels, where 1 and 2 were dry and 3 and 4 were JUST the reverb. If the reverb was well chosen all you had to do to adjust smoothly from very light to very heavy was just add as much of tracks 3 and 4 in to 1 and 2, respectively, as you want at the moment. This is pretty much identical to adding reverb in a multitrack mixdown.

--
Jeremy Lee
Sound Designer, NYC - USA 829
http://www.jjlee.com

[Richard B. Ingraham]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: qlab-b...@lists.figure53.com [mailto:qlab-
> bou...@lists.figure53.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lee
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 5:01 AM
> To: Discussion and support for QLab users.
> Subject: Re: [QLab] EQ for Qlab
>

> Yes, you can do that, and I've done it. But you can't change the
> *quality* of the reverb this way, only the amount of it in the mix...
>

So what? That is why I might build 3 or 4 different stereo reverb tracks.
You can easily pick a chose which one you want and how much of it.

Look I'm not saying it's as nice as having a plug in or something that you
can dial in as you choose. But until that day comes save yourself a trip to
the DAW and think ahead. Or lug around an effects processor or a small
digital desk if you like, not my problem. :-)

All I can tell you is since I started doing this, probably close to 8 to 10
years ago now, I almost never have to go back to the "drawing board" for
something as simple as changing a reverb on a cue. I think about what I
might need and I may have 3 or 4 or even more different stereo pairs of
effects tracks for a single cue. Some of those tracks will never be heard,
so sure there is some waste of processing but it's been a long time since
I've had to worry about how many tracks I'm trying to playback in the
computer simultaneously so I just layer them on. But that's better than
having to go back later and rework a cue.

There is also nothing saying you must use interleaved .wav files. You can
keep them all separate and link multiple audio files together as well if you
like. That would eliminate having several audio tracks playing back to no
outputs for no reason. I personally would rather just deal with one large
multi-channel .wav file, but that's just me.

Richard B. Ingraham
RBI Computers and Audio
http://www.rbicompaudio.20m.com

[Rich Walsh]

On 22 Apr 2010, at 10:01, Jeremy Lee wrote:

> Yes, you can do that, and I've done it. But you can't change the
> *quality* of the reverb this way, only the amount of it in the mix...

Well, you could fill your other 14 tracks up with various combinations
of just ERs, just reverbs, different RTs, different densities, etc.
However, personally I would only use this as an absolute last resort
for two reasons:

1. Reverb is intrinsically and essentially non-linear: playing the
reverb of a loud sound quietly is not the same as the reverb of a
quiet sound. Hence, although you may be able to track the levels of
the reverb up and down in line with the levels of the dry signal, the
content of the reverb track won't sound right for the level of the dry
signal. I'm not sure that's clear: think about the difference between
shouting in a cathedral (and thereby exciting the resonances), and
whispering instead.

2. More often than not, I need to stop the dry signal at an arbitrary
point and leave a reverb tail. You can't do that if you don't have
realtime reverb.

I don't understand the fixation with EQ: compression and pitch-shift
are just as useful tools to apply "on the fly". Wherever I am working
I live in a world of 3 stages: make the content, play the content,
tune the system. If you need EQ to tune the system, get a speaker
management tool, or a mixing desk, or an interface that has the
functionality of a mixing desk when you won't have a mixing desk:
don't add a function to your playback tool that you'll have to fight
past every time you want to use that tool for what it should be
optimised for. If you want to use EQ creatively, use a DAW that is
optimised for creation of content.

The question you have to ask yourself is: if you need the ability to
add EQ on every cue, and on every output, and automate those as part
of the performance, why aren't you using Ableton Live? It costs about
the same as QLab, if not slightly less. We use it in rehearsals when
we have to work really fast, but we don't use it for shows because
it's really not very good at linear cue lists. It's a tool that is
optimised to do a different job.

I'm not saying that anyone should work how I do, I'm just offering up
my logic so you can educate me on how to view the process differently.
Maybe it would help to clarify my position on using the right tool for
the right job by saying that I hate Leathermans: they're so jam-packed
with features they actually make really bad screwdrivers, etc. It
would be a shame to lobby for QLab to become a Swiss Army knife at the
cost of becoming unwieldy and unfathomable to the new user. If I need
a hammer, I use a hammer: I don't ask for my screwdriver's handle to
be reinforced so I can hit things with it. Oh, no, but hang on...

As ever, please take all that in the context of debate and enquiry...

Rich

[Philip Barrett]

> If you need EQ to tune the system, get a speaker management tool, or a mixing desk, or an interface that has the functionality of a mixing desk when you won't have a mixing desk: don't add a function to your playback tool that you'll have to fight past every time you want to use that tool for what it should be optimised for. If you want to use EQ creatively, use a DAW that is optimised for creation of content.

Rich nailed it here. There is a competing video playback product that a number of companies I work with have purchased because, compared to QLab, it seemed to offer so much more in terms of editing capabilities. Regrettably, in reality, the product is an unreliable playback system and a poor editor. Adding salt to the wound is the fact that I've never actually witnessed anyone using the "advanced" features that make this tool so unwieldy in the first place. I'm not claiming that Chris' crew would be unable to integrate the EQ requests into QLab reliably, it's just a question of the right tool for the right job.

Rich mentions Ableton but also, Apple's Garage Band (free with your Mac) is an incredibly powerful tool if you take the time to get past the glossy UI and really learn the product. I use it extensively for fast editing, mixing and even rehearsals, creating a "Podcast" for the event & using chapters for my various cue points.

PB

[Steven Devino]

Great summary Rich

Steve

[Stephen Pruitt]

Since this debate is raging, I'll chime in. 

First, I walk into a lot of theaters that have either no EQ, or only very basic EQ built into the sound board. I run a lot of dance shows, and often am either running both lights and sound myself with Qlab triggering the light board during the tight spots, or I have an operator who is smart and quick, but not a sound person, and not familiar with Qlab. I certainly wouldn't say that this is the most typical situation how Qlab is used, but here in Austin, where I know most of the people using it, and have close contact with most of the theaters and dance companies, and many of the schools, it is. 

A week ago, I was working on a dance show which was pretty basic, running Qlab and the light board myself. One of the tracks on the CD a choreographer handed me had a deep bass that was blowing the system out of the water... every other song in the show sounded fine, but that one really had to have the bass pulled down so that it wasn't rattling the subs. After watching me jump up from my tech table and run back to the booth for that one track a couple times, one of the other choreographers, who is enamored with Qlab and has been using it himself, asked me, "Why doesn't Qlab have a basic EQ, so that you can do that kind of thing instead of running back to the board?" 

I told him I didn't know, but I hoped that it would in the future. 

To be sure, I don't think that a fully implemented 31 level EQ or whatever, is necessary... if you're a good enough sound designer/engineer to use one properly to tune the space, then you're probably not going to want it inside your playback computer. But a basic one, with the ability to pull down the bass, or lift the mids for a particular track would come in very handy to the way I work. 

Stephen

Stephen Pruitt

Fluxion Scenic and Light

www.fluxiondesigns.com

See my photography at Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seamonkey78704/sets/

[Philip Barrett]

A week ago, I was working on a dance show which was pretty basic, running Qlab and the light board myself. One of the tracks on the CD a choreographer handed me had a deep bass that was blowing the system out of the water... 

So why didn't you import the track into GarageBand, reduce the bass (they even have a preset for that) and re-import back into QLab using the excellent replace cue features?

At the end of the show you could then hand the choreographer a CD of the "fixed" track along with your business card tucked inside.

Just asking (nice Big Bend pics BTW).

PB

[Rich Walsh]

In your world, what prevents you from popping the file open in
Audacity, EQing it whilst listening to it through the system,
rendering and then saving it?

This is the nub of my repeated questions: if QLab gains the ability to
apply EQ because it just takes too long to EQ files in another
application that has EQ already, will the choreographers not then be
asking why QLab doesn't have built-in compression?

Rich

[Rich Walsh]

On 22 Apr 2010, at 16:01, Philip Barrett wrote:

> So why didn't you import the track into GarageBand, reduce the bass
> (they even have a preset for that) and re-import back into QLab
> using the excellent replace cue features?

Oh, snap!

[George Wirges]

I don't think anybody wants this to become 'Q-Tools' ;-)
Just sayin'

George

"Just Listen"

[Steven Devino]

Excellent case for Cue Based EQ.

On Apr 22, at Apr 22, 2010 10:52 AM, Stephen Pruitt wrote:

> A week ago, I was working on a dance show which was pretty basic, running Qlab and the light board myself. One of the tracks on the CD a choreographer handed me had a deep bass that was blowing the system out of the water... every other song in the show sounded fine, but that one really had to have the bass pulled down so that it wasn't rattling the subs. After watching me jump up from my tech table and run back to the booth for that one track a couple times, one of the other choreographers, who is enamored with Qlab and has been using it himself, asked me, "Why doesn't Qlab have a basic EQ, so that you can do that kind of thing instead of running back to the board?"

[Charlie Richmond]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Jeremy Lee wrote:

> Yes, you can do that, and I've done it. But you can't change the *quality* of the reverb this way, only the amount of it in the mix...

In my experience, if the reverb quality is well chosen (as I said originally,
below, with lots of richness and lower level elements that emerge as it is
turned up) then the *quality* of the reverb does actually change as it increases
as a proportion of the mix.

There are playback systems that do have cue based EQ and delay.

Charlie

> On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Charlie Richmond wrote:
>
>> I just used 4 channels, where 1 and 2 were dry and 3 and 4 were JUST the
>> reverb. If the reverb was well chosen all you had to do to adjust smoothly
>> from very light to very heavy was just add as much of tracks 3 and 4 in to 1
>> and 2, respectively, as you want at the moment. This is pretty much
>> identical to adding reverb in a multitrack mixdown.

[Smith, Andy]

To go back to my original question

The ability to have EQ built into Qlab as a separate cue means that cues
like changing a sound that might appear to be coming from a TV to a full
rig is possible. EQ sweeps might become a cue-able thing rather than
built into a track. The concept of a 31 band to do this for each channel
still (in my mac-technically naive mind) is one that covers all
eventuality. A parametric eq simply sweeps up and down this frequency
range, so there is nothing that it can do that a 31 band can't, except
perhaps be easier for some users. I agree completely that there should
be a separate EQ for the system, and crossovers for the system etc, but
why limit the playback system to just playing back a clean sound? There
may be times we want to loose certain frequencies part way through a
track.

Compression? To be honest, isn't this just a level control? Why would a
playback system need that? We generally compress the whole signal coming
into the desk, but can't think why we would want it as a playback
output.

Reverb / Delay - Isn't that something else that the system should be
doing, not a playback unit? Perhaps I don't understand the creative uses
for this!

Operators - well, there's a thing! We avoid, where possible, allowing
the sound operate the stress of pressing the go in Qlab - I feel that is
controversial, but we have found that treating Qlab like an orchestra
works for us. This enables our operator to concentrate on levels with
radio mics etc, and the DSM is allowed to call the cues as they would
lighting etc. (We do, however, find it useful for the op to screen share
Qlab) Obviously we wouldn't do this for track only shows, that becomes
our lighting ops job!!

So, for me, an EQ cue that has access to 31 bands, even with a
parametric control option, is the way to go. If people don't want it,
they don't use it. If people have enough knowledge/time/money to either
export or use plug ins, then fine, but I don't see the need.

The beauty of the software is in it's simplicity and its reliability.
Some of us are able to get very deep into some of the tools, but most
users just want simplicity when it comes to pressing the go button.

Andy C. Smith
Technical Manager
South Holland Centre
Market Place
Spalding
Lincolnshire
PE11 1SS

01775 764872

Andy...@sholland.gov.uk


"This Email, and any attachments, may contain Protected or Restricted information and is intended solely for the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy, print or relay on any of the information contained in it or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own anti-virus checks before opening any documents. South Holland District Council will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail. All GCSx traffic may be su
bject to recording and / or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation."

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 22, at  Apr 22, 2010 1:36 PM, Smith, Andy wrote:

A parametric eq simply sweeps up and down this frequency
range, so there is nothing that it can do that a 31 band can't, except
perhaps be easier for some users.

The ability to select the Q (aka bandwidth) on a parametric is what makes it more attractive to some. Graphics also have overlapping bands so reducing 100 Hz also reduces the two bands on either side of 100Hz so you usually need to bump those up a little to compensate. IMO they are far more limiting and a lot easier to get bad results from.  There's probably a reason you never see a graphic EQ in a studio.

Steve

[Jason Knox]

I type this response with the full knowledge that not everybody works like I do - so please take it as such.

Andy wrote:

The ability to have EQ built into Qlab as a separate cue means that cues
like changing a sound that might appear to be coming from a TV to a full
rig is possible. EQ sweeps might become a cue-able thing rather than
built into a track. The concept of a 31 band to do this for each channel
still (in my mac-technically naive mind) is one that covers all

eventuality. A parametric eq simply sweeps up and down this frequency

range, so there is nothing that it can do that a 31 band can't, except

perhaps be easier for some users. I agree completely that there should
be a separate EQ for the system, and crossovers for the system etc, but
why limit the playback system to just playing back a clean sound? There
may be times we want to loose certain frequencies part way through a
track.

Andy, I totally agree with your wish for EQ on individual cues.  However, a 31 band EQ built into QLab doesn't strike me as the most intuitive (or flexible) interface, but that's just me.  I would just like the ability within QLab to apply an EQ to individual cues that could boost or cut the highs and / or lows, (and define the cutoff frequency), and perhaps one or two parametric band controls.  I want these EQ capabilities strictly for creative coloring in the theatre space, and perhaps the occasional "fix".  Any EQ adjustments beyond that should probably be dealt with in a DAW.

I also don't think that adding a new "EQ Cue" (mentioned somewhere earlier in this discussion) would be the best way to approach it - it seems natural that EQ could just be another parameter in the Audio Cue's inspector.  If one wanted to create the sort of crossfade effect that you describe (going from an EQ'd TV to the full sound of the Mains) you'd simply copy the audio cue, apply the EQ to the copy, and then crossfade between the two audio cues with a fade cue.  It's an effect that's done all the time right now with separate audio files, but adding an EQ parameter to the Audio Cue would make that process faster and easier to improvise in the theatre. 

Compression? To be honest, isn't this just a level control? Why would a
playback system need that? We generally compress the whole signal coming
into the desk, but can't think why we would want it as a playback
output.

I've found compression / limiting to be very handy when creating preshow music so that the music levels don't vary wildly or appear to drop out (which can often occur with orchestral music), thus sending a subtle signal to the audience that something is about to happen.  I also occasionally use compression when creating very low level cues that could potentially fall below the audible threshold.  Most of my compression and limiting needs are easily achieved in my DAW, but if Chris explores the introduction of plug-ins into QLab I can definitely see situations where global and /or cue-based compression could be useful.

Reverb / Delay - Isn't that something else that the system should be
doing, not a playback unit? Perhaps I don't understand the creative uses
for this!

This is the point where I will have to strongly disagree.  As a composer / sound designer, reverb (especially lush, dark, cathedralesque reverb) is absolutely my best friend.  It's the corkscrew in my swiss army knife, and I like wine.  Fading out music is so much more "theatrical" if you subtly fade down the music into reverb and then fade out the reverb a bit later.  The same is true for fading in music.  It helps "pull focus" on the music or sound, and whenever I teach sound design I am constantly imploring students to explore reverb.  Throwing dry audio in the mains and a touch of a verbed version in the surrounds or stage speakers can really add a wonderfully subtle thickness to the music.  And I don't have to tell anybody on this list how reverb can transform a simple dry sound into something magical and mysterious.  There are a ton of shows that can benefit from that simple effect.  I bounce out "verb" (100% wet) versions of about 90% of the cues that I build just because I've so often found reverb to be useful once I got into the theatre space.  And this is exactly why I would LOVE to see a quality reverb added to QLab (once again as a parameter that can be applied to individual audio cues).  It would save time when bouncing files, but more importantly it would allow users to get an idea in the theatre space and then explore that idea almost immediately from within QLab.  And for me, that's one of the attributes that has made QLab so great: the ability to quickly and intuitively explore creative impulses.  So why not identify additional areas where that strength that expand?

But... your mileage may vary, and I'm totally cool with that.

Jason

[Jason Knox]

So why not identify additional areas where that strength that expand?

I, of course, meant  "So why not identify additional areas where that strength CAN expand?"

or, if you want to get really grammar-dorky: "So why not identify additional areas INTO WHICH that strength CAN expand?"

Nerd.

[John Leonard]

Far-ranging and fascinating though this debate is, there was a little hint of how things might be in the future in this post from Chris, which y'all may have missed.

Chris wrote: "A beta version of v2 actually included this support on a per-cue basis, and it was pretty fun. There were some tricky issues to resolve which is why it was pulled before the final release. I'm looking forward to attacking it again and seeing if we can resolve those issues."

Having had the chance to play with this particular beta, which supported AU plug-ins, a while back, I can tell you that a) it has enormous potential, and b) there are indeed some tricky issues to resolve, not the least of which is how you deal with the various plug-ins' GUIs which differ as widely as, for example, those provided by Apple, which are very simple, compared to those provided by a company like AudioEase, where the GUI for something like Speakerphone takes up all of the screen real-estate and then some. Not being a programmer, I can't begin to answer those questions, but I know a man who can, and I'm sure he's working on it.

Regards,

John

________________________________________________________
WHEN REPLYING, PLEASE QUOTE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED. Thanks!
Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.figure53.com/listinfo.cgi/qlab-figure53.com

--

Change your preferences or unsubscribe here:

http://groups.google.com/group/qlab

[David Thomas]

Part of the beauty of running these functions as plug-ins in Qlab is simple
cost effectiveness. Many small productions aren't going to pony up for a
digital desk or much outboard gear, particularly if you are running a
straight play.

DT


On 4/22/10 3:52 PM, "qlab-r...@lists.figure53.com"

<qlab-r...@lists.figure53.com> wrote:

> Compression? To be honest, isn't this just a level control? Why would a
> playback system need that? We generally compress the whole signal coming
> into the desk, but can't think why we would want it as a playback
> output.
>

> Reverb / Delay - Isn't that something else that the system should be
> doing, not a playback unit? Perhaps I don't understand the creative uses
> for this!

[Steven Devino]

On Apr 22, at Apr 22, 2010 4:55 PM, David Thomas wrote:

> Part of the beauty of running these functions as plug-ins in Qlab is simple
> cost effectiveness. Many small productions aren't going to pony up for a
> digital desk or much outboard gear, particularly if you are running a
> straight play.

That makes perfect sense. But I hope Chris is able to charge for these goodies given the amount of time and effort that goes into getting them to work well.

Steve

[Christopher Ashworth]

An interesting lesson I learned from the early AU functionality was:

It's often useful for the AU to run independently of the audio it is
processing. In the original implementation I just stuck AUs into the
chain on each audio cue, so the reverb would stop the moment the cue
did. No good; you need the tail of the reverb to keep going.

So in addition to John's (correct) observations about the trickiness
of hosting Audio Unit GUIs there are any number of other tricky issues
to solve to make the whole thing fit together smoothly.

I'm the last guy that wants to overcomplicate things. That has been on
my mind a lot recently; how close is QLab to being, in some sense,
"feature complete"? At what point is the product manifesting its core
essence, beyond which adding more stuff would be about selling more
licenses instead of selling a better product?

I think about that a lot. But that said, I believe if we can do a
clean & stable addition of Audio Units, those really do belong in the
QLab toolkit, and can be a tremendous addition that is invisible when
you're not using it.

I don't think QLab should become a DAW-- that's a different set of
problems to solve. But I also don't think Audio Units turn it into a
DAW.

For what it's worth,

C

(mobile)

[Matthew Davis]

I've been reading this discussion about EQ for a few days now, and, being pretty new to the whole QLab thing, decided I'd wait until I understood what was going on before making any comment.

Would it not make more sense to just have a generic insert in the output for an audio cue such that you could then use any audio unit plugin that you wanted to? This would allow anyone to use whichever effect they wanted, rather than being tied to just a generic EQ plugin?

Also, it wouldn't require any new cue types, unless you wanted an automation cue for moving parameters in that Audio Unit's interface (for doing the whole "make this appear as it's coming from a radio at point x" thing).

I think most of the people who have commented would benefit greatly even if there wasn't the automation cue for the parameters of the Audio Unit, because it would allow them to do what they need (mostly), and would just be a case of rigging up an insert (or a few inserts) per audio cue using Core Audio.

Maybe I'm not getting everything that's required, but as far as I can tell, that would be the way to go.

[Matthew Davis]

Having just posted about the whole EQ discussion going on, I thought I might be allowed to ask a question about QLab.

First of all, I'm a new user - I haven't used it for anything other than messing around on my local machine yet - but I can see the potential already. I'm a professional musician, touring with theatre shows, MDing various shows, and quite often playing back click tracks for musicians on stage. At the moment, they're all running from a MiniDisc, but I can see the potential of running them from QLab straight away (multiple channel audio files so that the click can be separated, and we can still have stereo tracks going out front, near-instant access to the tracks, a more visual approach to seeing what's next etc - yippee!).

However, there's one thing stopping me from using it for theatre stuff, which is one of the things that's also stopping me using a normal MiniDisc player - vamp bars.

I know there's a vamp cue, and I've played with it, and it works well if there's only one vamp bar in a click track, but I can't for the life of me work out how to get it doing multiple vamp bars in a single audio cue, apart from having it trigger the next part of the track as a separate audio cue. Whilst this mostly works, there's a noticeable delay in getting the next section started which is a deal-breaker for something as time-sensitive as a click track keeping 11 musicians in time. I've messed with all the settings, read up on the same issue people are having, but I still can't get it to work right.

Also, as a side question, what's the best way of setting the loop points? Let's say I have my click track bounced down from Logic... I know the tempo, I know where the vamp bars are in terms of bar numbers etc, but when it comes to setting the loop points, I'm kinda having to guess, and use the visual waveform display to try to line it up until it sounds right - there's got to be a better way for calculating that stuff?

Any help would be greatly appreciated because I really want to get this sorted and propose it as a new way of running click tracks for my theatre work!

Thanks again!

Matt

[Rich Walsh]

On 22 Apr 2010, at 22:47, Matthew Davis wrote:

> I know there's a vamp cue, and I've played with it, and it works
> well if there's only one vamp bar in a click track, but I can't for
> the life of me work out how to get it doing multiple vamp bars in a
> single audio cue, apart from having it trigger the next part of the
> track as a separate audio cue. Whilst this mostly works, there's a
> noticeable delay in getting the next section started which is a deal-
> breaker for something as time-sensitive as a click track keeping 11
> musicians in time. I've messed with all the settings, read up on the
> same issue people are having, but I still can't get it to work right.

Does this help:

http://figure53.com/wiki/index.php?title=Hints_and_tips#Quantised_stopping_.26_starting_of_cues

> Also, as a side question, what's the best way of setting the loop
> points? Let's say I have my click track bounced down from Logic... I
> know the tempo, I know where the vamp bars are in terms of bar
> numbers etc, but when it comes to setting the loop points, I'm kinda
> having to guess, and use the visual waveform display to try to line
> it up until it sounds right - there's got to be a better way for
> calculating that stuff?

I'm not sure it does exactly what you need, but do you have Music Math
(http://lost-memories.com/softs/)? I think if you use the Samples tab
you can enter the tempo and the number of beats since the start of the
file to give you the equivalent in ms (eg: a tempo of 120bpm returns
that 120 beats in is 60,000ms in). So, if your tempo is 90bpm and your
loop starts at 5|1|1|1, that will be 16 beats in (in 4/4), which Music
Math says is 10.667s.

I'll add that calculation to the feature bloat list of the application
I'm working on...

Rich

[Christopher Ashworth]

On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Matthew Davis wrote:

> I've been reading this discussion about EQ for a few days now,

Kind of epic, ain't it?

> [...] you could then use any audio unit plugin that you wanted to?

> This would allow anyone to use whichever effect they wanted, rather
> than being tied to just a generic EQ plugin?

In theory I agree entirely--it'd be ideal if we can get a solid AU
hosting mechanism in QLab that will allow you to just pick whatever
AUs you want.

In practice it may or may not come to that, due to the really thorny
behind-the-scenes problems that come along for the ride on AU hosting.

Just to give a little behind-the-scenes explanation:

Back when I was working on Audio Units the last time (in the lead-up
to releasing version 2, with hopes that they'd be included), I
discovered that actually hosting the darn things is a nasty bit of
work. One of the main reasons is that, at least back then, Audio Unit
GUIs were essentially only offered in Carbon form (not Cocoa form,
which is the set of frameworks used for QLab).

You may have heard of Carbon. It's the thing that Apple killed off
when it started making the switch to 64-bit, leaving Adobe Photoshop
in a world of hurt.

To host the GUI of a Carbon AU was/is possible, but it involves all
sorts of unholy ugliness to smoosh a Carbon window on top of a Cocoa
window, and it's not very flexible, and it's not very easy, and it's
just a big mess. But if you want to be able to drop in any old AU,
you gotta handle that situation. And accept that then you're not able
to do 64-bit. Etc.

So hosting *any* AU can get pretty ugly, with that being only one of
the reasons why.

Now, hosting just *Apple* AU's is actually pretty easy and pretty
clean. So if life hasn't gotten easier in the AU hosting department,
a compromise might be to just support the stuff from Apple. Which
would still be pretty darn great.

All of those are our problems, not yours. But I wanted to give a
little peak into why it's easier in concept than it is in practice.

In terms of stability of Audio Units, folks, don't forget:

1) QLab already uses Audio Units. It's the way CoreAudio is set up to
function. Specifically, we use the MatrixMixer AudioUnit, among others.

2) Certainly adding other Audio Units--especially ones from third
parties--could introduce stability problems or CPU problems. But,
assuming that QLab got support to plug in Audio Units, there ain't
nothing saying you'd actually have to do that. If you don't stick a
plugin in your chain, it's not like QLab would put one in there just
to take up space. :) They truly would be optional. If you didn't
choose to use 'em, it'd be as if the feature had never been added at
all.


Cheers,
Chris

[Matthew Davis]

>
> Does this help:
>
> http://figure53.com/wiki/index.php?title=Hints_and_tips#Quantised_stopping_.26_starting_of_cues
>

To be honest, not really! :-) Maybe it's because I'm new to QLab, but I don't really understand what's going on in those screenshots. Does anyone have an awesome demo of doing this? :-)

>
> I'm not sure it does exactly what you need, but do you have Music Math
> (http://lost-memories.com/softs/)? I think if you use the Samples tab
> you can enter the tempo and the number of beats since the start of the
> file to give you the equivalent in ms (eg: a tempo of 120bpm returns
> that 120 beats in is 60,000ms in). So, if your tempo is 90bpm and your
> loop starts at 5|1|1|1, that will be 16 beats in (in 4/4), which Music
> Math says is 10.667s.
>
> I'll add that calculation to the feature bloat list of the application
> I'm working on...
>
> Rich

Cool... Although I'm not sure it will work 100% because Logic appears to put random amounts of silence at the beginning and/or end of bounced files. Also, I always get an issue where if the audio starts directly at the start of the file, the beginning click doesn't sound properly as the other clicks do... But I guess I could get around that by adding a bar of silence at the beginning - I'll have to give it a go!

Thanks for your help, Rich! :-)

[Matthew Davis]

>
> Kind of epic, ain't it?
>

You could say that!

>> [...] you could then use any audio unit plugin that you wanted to?
>> This would allow anyone to use whichever effect they wanted, rather
>> than being tied to just a generic EQ plugin?
>
>
> In theory I agree entirely--it'd be ideal if we can get a solid AU
> hosting mechanism in QLab that will allow you to just pick whatever
> AUs you want.
>
> In practice it may or may not come to that, due to the really thorny
> behind-the-scenes problems that come along for the ride on AU hosting.
>

Yup... I do some development and have looked into CoreAudio before... It's a bit of a minefield.

>
> Now, hosting just *Apple* AU's is actually pretty easy and pretty
> clean. So if life hasn't gotten easier in the AU hosting department,
> a compromise might be to just support the stuff from Apple. Which
> would still be pretty darn great.
>

Actually, just having the Apple AUs would probably be pretty cool in itself - You'd still get your EQ and all the other included goodies, and stability shouldn't really be an issue!

Cheers for the explanation, Chris... This list is pretty awesome!

[Steven Devino]

Matt,
One way to do multiple vamps in a single cue is to do it more than one cue :-). A bit of a pain but way better than what we had before.
Here's what I do, lets say you want to vamp the last two bars of the intro and the bridge on a track:

Make 2 audio cues using the same track.
On the first cue start at the beginning and set the end of playback to somewhere after the first vamp.
Start the second track at the same place you stopped the first.

Put a loop in each track where you want to vamp. Use autofollow to seemlessly play the first part then the second part.

Continue for each part. Its not as bad as it look.

You can set loop points visually by using the settings tab for each cue. If you are experienced in the studio its pretty easy to get it right if you zoom in enough. Or you can calculate the time and enter it by hand.


I have a simple example if you want it. Let me know.


Steve

[Rich Walsh]

On 22 Apr 2010, at 23:30, Matthew Davis wrote:

>> Does this help:
>>
>> http://figure53.com/wiki/index.php?title=Hints_and_tips#Quantised_stopping_.26_starting_of_cues
>
> To be honest, not really! :-) Maybe it's because I'm new to QLab,
> but I don't really understand what's going on in those screenshots.
> Does anyone have an awesome demo of doing this? :-)

You'll need to add your own audio file, but they should work like this:

_Quantised Cue Start_

Go Cue 1
Go Cue 2 ... the audio won't start until the 5s loop set in 1.4 comes
round

_Quantised Cue Stop_

Go Cue 1
Go Cue 2 ... the audio won't stop until the 5s loop set in 1.5 comes
round

However, I realise this might not be what you meant - as you actually
have looping audio (these examples were constructed for situations
where you wanted to vamp without looping).

With a single loop you should be OK to use a Devamp Cue that plays the
next cue: but note that the next cue will not be automatically
preloaded unless you prepare it with a Load Cue. This might account
for your gaps.

If you want to have a piece of music loop around a few bars, be
devamped, hit another loop point and loop around again then you'll
either need to split it up into two bits or use scripting to modify
the loop points on the fly.

Rich

[Matthew Davis]

Thanks for all the responses about this...

So I think I might have this working properly... I've put up a quick video, so if someone could tell me if I'm doing something horrendously stupid, that would be awesome!

The video is here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4610561/QLabVamp.mov

I think I'm doing it right, and it seems to work - I changed the click sound in the second vamp on purpose, so I could make sure it was changing!

Let me know what you guys think...

Cheers.

Matt

[Steven Devino]

Matt,
I should have said auto continue not auto follow.

One more time.
Cue 1 Play the track with a loop set for the vamp
Cue 2 Devamp Cue1: auto continue
Cue 3 Play the same track as Cue 1 starting where the loop in Cue 1 ended, include a new loop for vamp 2.
Cue 4 devamp Cue3

By the way Chris I resurrected the file I used to test this during beta testing and there is a break now between Cue 2 and Cue3.

Steve

[Rich Walsh]

On 23 Apr 2010, at 00:17, Matthew Davis wrote:

> Let me know what you guys think...

Looks right to me. Great way of demonstrating what you're up to too!
How did you do that?

Rich

[Steven Devino]

Interesting I added the preload and there is no gap but the track is not quite contiguous.

Steve

[Rich Walsh]

If it helps at all, Live has a neat way of dealing with the variable
nature of plug-ins' interfaces: a pop-up editor window displays the
plug-in's native UI, but you can also add controls of your choosing
from that interface to Live's standard Inspector-esque window. This
means you only have to deal with the native UI occasionally, and can
put the main controls into the equivalent of the Inspector. Two of
them can even be added to an XY controller.

Logic Pro has a "Controls" view that turns all the controls from the
UI into sliders, but it's not as useful.

Rich

[Philip Barrett]

> If it helps at all, Live has a neat way of dealing with the variable nature of plug-ins' interfaces: a pop-up editor window displays the plug-in's native UI, but you can also add controls of your choosing from that interface to Live's standard Inspector-esque window.

Because it certainly seems that most plug-ins have much more time dedicated to the UI (faux-60's, peeling paint, chicken foot knobs, throbbing disco lights) than in actually making them sound good.

[Dave Wallingford]

That's be nice - GUIs on some plugs drive me nuts. I like QLab & Metric Halo's GUI - simple, clean, and nothing in the way.

This sprung another thought in my head - would QLab's EQ or plugins be automatable? I.E. could I change a reverb time with something like a fade cue?

- Dave Wallingford

On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:28 PM, Rich Walsh wrote:

> If it helps at all, Live has a neat way of dealing with the variable nature of plug-ins' interfaces: a pop-up editor window displays the plug-in's native UI, but you can also add controls of your choosing from that interface to Live's standard Inspector-esque window. This means you only have to deal with the native UI occasionally, and can put the main controls into the equivalent of the Inspector. Two of them can even be added to an XY controller.

[Freddy Komp]

It has been done, in fact.

Soren did a wonderful job back then, see below. I did a mod that
basically adds midi control for all position, dimension, and rotation
(all three axisses, as far as I can remember), and an equal amount of
momentary displays of value on screen. I used this with a KORG
NanoControl, so that I could keystone intuitively live in the space,
then momentarily view the values to write them down, and then transfer
them as fixed settings. I'm sure clever people like Rich would quickly
write something that transfers all at the tip of your finger then into
QLab/Quartz. Let me know if you're interested in this very specific mod
and I'll post it.


However, Soren's old note below prompts me to open yet another can of
worms :), but I'll do that under a new topic...


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 22:50:07 +0100
From: S?ren Knud <ql...@sorenknud.dk>
To: "Discussion and support for QLab users." <ql...@lists.figure53.com>
Subject: Re: [QLab] Quartz keystoneing
Message-ID: <72FA2E5A-117D-4C15...@sorenknud.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

You are welcome,

Here is a combined workspace + patch.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2134804/QTZ%20Keystone%20%2B%20Mask.zip

You are free to edit the mask file, just open the one i send you and
edit it in photoshop (if you are smart you just fullscreen photoshop on
the projector you are going to mask). Then you open the QTZ patch and
replace the image in there with your own. If you don't have quartz
composer just download the dev pack here:
http://developer.apple.com/technology/xcode.html

best,

soren

ps. @chris: We are still looking forward to having the 3'rd axis in
animation cues so we can do keystone fully with QTZ :)

[Freddy Komp]

I use trim quite a lot, actually, saves you from digging around to much
when touring - some spaces have, erm, _interesting_ audio
characteristics and/or equipment, and this way you can quickly mod
single audio cues without having to adjust their fade cues... a definite
keeper for me.

Always wanted to explore SoundFlower to incorporate live audio in
situations where you want to control that through qlab and do not have
any automated control over the sound desk - I had a show in which I
cooked up some complicated gui scripting just to mute/unmute in the
control interface of my sound card, achieving just that ^^... but at the
time Chris told me that incorporating live sound is definitely on the
wish list... at some stage :).

>> > Just a thought and Question
>> > This debate has me thinking about the interface and how one could implement plugins?
>> > How many people on list use the Trim tab?
> i have, in fact, never used the trim tab in my four years of qlab use.

[Andy Leviss]

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Smith, Andy <andy...@sholland.gov.uk> wrote:
> A parametric eq simply sweeps up and down this frequency
> range, so there is nothing that it can do that a 31 band can't, except
> perhaps be easier for some users.

While you may prefer a graphic, this is FAR from the case. A
parametric is like an audio scalpel; a graphic is like a steak knife.
Sure, both will do the job, and the knife is better than nothing, but
if it's me you're operating on, I'd much prefer the scalpel. In my own
designs, and that of a lot of other designers and engineers I work
with, the ONLY place a graphic is desirable is in monitors for concert
situations, where the engineer may need the ability to very quickly
reach with one hand and yank down a frequency that's ringing on the
verge of feedback.

As Steve mentioned, the biggest issue is that the graphic is not as
selective as it's labeling makes it seem. Each band interacts with the
ones adjacent--to a much wider range than you'd expect--which makes it
both hard to achieve a precise adjustment, and which mucks about with
the phase response far worse than a parametric does.

For both tonal adjustments and system tuning, a parametric is far more
flexible, and far more precise. At narrow Q settings, it actually does
approach the tight notch you'd think you're getting with a graphic
(dependent, of course, on actual filter design), and at wide Q
settings, it's far wider and smoother than multiple bands of a
graphic.

In addition, problems in sound systems vs rooms don't center
themselves on the 31 ISO frequencies, so it is often a compromise to
have to try to deal with acoustic issues in system tuning with a
graphic, whereas a parametric can exactly center in on the frequency.

Many system engineers, myself included, find that--even with the same
basic curve, as close as you can get with a graphic, anyway--you get
much better sounding results with a parametric. It's all about gentle,
smooth, wide cuts...it's generally much better to gently shave out a
large area that has multiple related problem frequencies than it is to
sit there trying to notch out those frequencies with individual
filters on a graphic. I've yet to encounter a system that couldn't be
tamed with 7 or fewer good quality parametric filters; I very often
have gotten serviceable results with only the four built-in filters on
Yamaha digital consoles*.

So, IMHO, and those of many engineers and designers I respect, there
is ohhhhhh so much you can do with a parametric that you can't with a
graphic.

--Andy

*-That tends to involve creative use of multiple overlapping filters.
I've found that there are many situations where I can get paired
asymmetrical curves that do the job nicely by combining a very wide
cut with a very narrow boost in the middle of it. It's not quite a
Lake Contour or Mesa filter, but it often is close enough for a
fraction of the cost :-)

[E R Casey]

Since Chris has already stated that he plans to introduce EQ as a function in Qlab 3 I'm not quite sure why the topic warrants so much pro and counter argument. If it can be introduced without making the application unreliable it seems like a very valuable addition to the functionality and no more complex to the user than say setting an 8x8 matrix for example. In my application of Qlab time is of the essence. When I have a VO element that sounds fine as is and a music element that sounds fine as is but when layered the VO is tubby and inarticulate because of a shared spectral content I'd be very happy to be able to go to the inspector and click a tab for a three band parametric for a quick fix of the playback of the VO element in situ without opening a DAW or touching the file in any way. The Audio Units plugs seem more than adequate for that sort of thing. There seems a great deal of confusion about sound system EQ versus console channel EQ versus EQ within Qlab. The su
ggested cue by cue changes that I drew from the original discussion that brought Chris' response would be unrelated to EQ decisions that made the sound system fit the room or other considerations so much so that it seems that there is some serious confusion about what is under discussion.


E. R. Casey
Entertainment Sound Production
2311 Kansas Ave.
Silver Spring MD 20910
www.ESPsound.com
301-608-2180 office phone
301-608-0789 fax
301-440-2923 shoe phone

[Andy Leviss]

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:59 PM, E R Casey <riley...@espsound.com> wrote:
> There seems a great deal of confusion about sound system EQ versus console channel EQ versus EQ within Qlab.  The su
>  ggested cue by cue changes that I drew from the original discussion that brought Chris' response would be unrelated to EQ decisions that made the sound system fit the room or other considerations so much so that it seems that there is some serious confusion about what is under discussion.

I don't think there's any confusion; a poster suggested that a graphic
was a better choice than a parametric, even cue-by-cue, and discussion
on that difference ensued. Such a discussion necessitates a discussion
of both tonal and tuning usage, IMHO, although the reasons for
preferring parametric are the same in my case.

Further, as noted, many users use QLab sans console, and likely with
minimal system processing, so it is entirely likely that, on the
output side of life, many users would indeed use EQ in QLab to do
system tuning for the playback system. Or at least that's how I read
it.

FWIW,
Andy

[Jason Knox]

Yes, the EQ discussion has been pretty long, and perhaps even redundant and tangential at times.  However, I've always felt like this list is an excellent place to make feature suggestions and kick them back and forth a bit to see if they stick.  There are a lot of experienced designers who chime in with different takes on all sorts of topics, and Chris has a long established history of taking a thoughtful look at user input and using it to improve QLab. I believe we all ultimately benefit by throwing our chips on the table as politely as possible and then leaving it to Chris (and the other Figure 53ers) to evaluate what to take away from the discussion.

Although Chris probably wishes we'd all just shut up every once in a while.  : )