Pro Tools Feedback Community

There should be the ability to turn off monitoring through Pro Tools M-Powered. If you e.g. use a consoles AUXs to add "more me" monitor or use the internal DSP mixer of a soundcard for monitoring, there is an annoying flanging effect on the resulting monitor signal because of the latency between the direct monitor signal and the signal that has passed all the way through Pro Tools M-Powered (audible even with the lowest latency setting selected in the audio engine set-up dialog).

The problem is also described in this SoundOnSound review of the Profire 2626:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/maudioprofire2626.htm

Please note that this is not a request for "Direct Monitoring" control from within PTMP. It should just be possible to enable/disable the monitoring signal path through PTMP.

Best regards

Ole Krogh

Not necessary at all. You can simply mute the track while recording.

The problem is for overdub.

Muting track is not an option for overdub as the artist need to hear his previous performance until the drop. Muting at each drop in is not a long term solution .

The "P" is for Pre/Post fader. This is something that should be in your everyday practice. This is something that every engineer knows. So if you "mute" the main fader, the aux channel is still sounding off. You are going through the aux for your or another output for your headphone feed are you?

The purpose of this function would be to allow you to monitor through a console, pre A/D conversion, so there is no latency in the cue. It's really not a bad idea, though I disagree with his recommended implementation. Ideally, it should be an option under the preferences; something along the lines of "mute input on record".

I think this is a much bigger deal than most people realize. It would make pro tools work much better with consoles.

i dont need it personally but seems logical for a console user.

It would also work much better with M-Box II or other interfaces that can send the input directly back to the performer. I've also always found it very useful to maintain communications while playback is going on. An example is when a performer hears that the punch needs to happen in a different spot.

Why is everyone voting no??? I'm recording in cubase and editing in PT just because of this problem. Who wants to hit mute every time they punch in? We NEED this!

no, dude, that had not occurred to us.

i didn't think of this.

but upon reflection, yes, it makes a whole lot of sense.

MAKE IT SO!

please.

Boy, I've needed this for several years now. I know that they've kept it off of LE / M-powered because of the differentiation of the HD line (which has this feature, albeit implemented slightly differently than we're talking about) and with LE and Digi hardware there was the Low Latency Monitoring (LLM) options (crippled though it is) but now with PT9 and them opening it up to ALL interfaces (most of which have an internal DSP mixer) we REALLY need this feature.

At least give us a plugin that is always muted except for on playback :)

I've contacted a former digi employee that now makes plugins about this very option! I'll let you know if he gets back to me. He's at http://www.masseyplugins.com/ and the one that he's developed that's somewhat close to what we need is the Talkback plugin located here: http://www.smassey.com/plugin.html

I'm hoping I've convinced him that there is a huge market to make some serious cash with a plugin that gives us this! Though, I'm not sure it's possible to write a plugin that does this, having never looked at the Digi API for Pro Tools. Hopefully though!

PS there is a thread on this at the DUC where another user pointed Steven out. I just took the liberty of contacting him :) - http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?p=1698501&posted=1#post1698501

why would would anyone vote no to an ability to turn input monitoring off? great if you don't need it - but many do. i agree that is should just be a preference (like every other major daw...)

Everyone is voting no because it is already added into Pro Tools. HD have input monitoring on every channel while the mainstream version does it for every channel universally. Read the PDF and search for "Input Monitoring" and you will see it in the manual.

Please stop saying that it is already added into Pro Tools. This is a different function than you are talking about.

Unfortunately What the IDEA is referring to is what other DAWs call "SOFTWARE MONITORING".

I think this is why we have users coming on here saying we have this feature. We don't have the ability to turn off software monitoring in Pro tools.

The poster of this IDEA may want to clarify the name and possibly post the name "Software monitoring off". Pro Tools uses the term input monitoring for the Auto-input monitor as well as in HD where there is input monitoring. These things are not referring to the definition of what the poster of this idea had in mind.

Please read the description before voting no, Thanks!

For a further definition:

The feature request is to have the ability to turn off the input signal being routed into Pro Tools, REGARDLESS of the auto-input monitor current setting. The idea is that an external mixer is supplying the input source, so under no circumstances, should we hear that input source coming through pro tools, regardless of record armed, auto input monitor on or off.

The problem enters as follows:

You are record enabled and overdubbing a vocal track. You want to hear the overdub you already did. So, you switch auto-input monitor to listen to the pre-recorded track. This blocks out the Input monitor and all is fine. (You are only hearing the performer through the mixer)

However, as soon as you punch in, you are hearing both the mixer version of the vocalist, as well as the vocals running through Pro Tools and coming back through the track - 2 vocals, all phasey and doubled.

Yes, you can just mute the track, but you have to do fancy muting, because you want to hear the preceeding material. Then, you hit record, then hit mute.

So, to summarize, we want a switch that just turns off software monitoring all together!

By the way, if you vote Yes to this one, you may as well vote to this one as well, it's the same thing:

http://protools.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Separate--Input-Monitor-Button--and--Record-Enable-Button-/23853-3779

And this original one:

http://protools.ideascale.com/a/dtd/An-option-to-automatically-mute-a-track-as-soon-as-it-starts-recording-/12317-3779

"Markeyse Mundy" - read what we are actually asking for... very frustrating for you to post this statement as it shows you have NO IDEA what this feature request is about.

Actually if any of you guys took just five minutes to read the PDF, you will see Pro Tools already have "INPUT MONITORING". And if you guys used a tape machine, then you know to route in 1 from the mixer to pro tools, then out 1 from pro tools to the mixer (on a different channel).

Input monitoring will allow you to play the track while still hearing the "Live" mic. But with it off, it will work just like a tape machine, when in idle, you can still hear everything, but while playback, even in record-enable, the recorded tracks will play. Just like if you was using a DA88. Heck, You can even rewind Pro Tools like a tape machine.

Also remember if you have the mic input coming from channel 1 from the mixer, you should not go out of Pro Tools back to channel 1 in the mixer. You will have to go to a different channel, like channel 9, or else you will get phasing problems (which will almost be the same as routing an output to an output). This is good to work with recordings before working with Pro Tools. So YES I do know what you guys are saying.

It isn't just like an analog tape machine because a small delay is introduced by the converters and software that will throw off a performer when they listen to themselves.

Disabling input monitoring through the software while not muting playback before a punch allows one to use the console or the pre-converter monitor output of an audio interface for foldback to the performer's ears.

Hey Markeyse - I just want to give clarification to this thread so that others know what we are asking for.

I understand your definition, however, you are missing one thing that we want as a feature:

First, let's assume we are monitoring through Pro tools - these things remain true:

- In pro tools: Input only monitoring: Red and Green Light on the transport. (With channel record enabled)

- When transport stopped = you hear "Live Mic" input

- When transport running = you hear "Live Mic" input

- When transport recording = you hear "live Mic input

- In pro tools: Auto input monitoring: Red light on the transport. (With channel record enabled).

- When transport stopped = you hear "Live Mic input

- When transport running = you hear Recorded track

- When transport recording = you hear "Live Mic" input

Now let's add the "Console Live Mic Input" to the mix:

The problem is, when you are monitoring through a console and no matter what mode you are monitoring through protools, you are in effect hearing 2 versions of the live vocal. The one that is playing through the above scenarios as well as the "Console Live Mic Input" you have just added.

What we want, is to turn off Pro Tools giving us the "Live Mic input" in all of the above scenarios. (That comes through the software).

Make sense?

This is why on the MBox's they have the Mix button. This allows you to monitor the "Live Input" without having to hear Protools software monitoring.

THis is also why, the temporary solution is to just mute the track because this turns off the software "Mic Live Input". However, it's a royal pain in the butt to turn it off and on and off and on......

We don't want to monitor through Pro tools, all we want to hear back from Pro tools is what we recorded at any given time, no software Live Input!

One final comment - it's not that we want input monitoring. We know pro tools has that. We want the ability to turn it off. (Hence why the feature request is for : Input monitoring OFF!

Hope this clarifies it!

OLH, technically, everything has a delay, including us. Just because it seems instant, doesn't mean there isn't delay. We just can't sense it. You should try and lower your buffer when recording. I never had a problem with it and I must have done over 1000 sessions in many different ways. Also good to have a good workstation to (and don't say you have a crummy MacBook either). Your workstation will dictact the software's performance.

Cory, You have to have a live input somewhere, regardless if it is from the software or not. That is "Direct Monitoring" if it is from the interface. Pro Tools have Low Monitoring option inside the hardware. I would also want to hear from the inputs since musicians and artist are talking to me at all times. Also, if you have duplicate voices and using Pro Tools to monitor, then you must have all of the mixer channels playing back as well. Disable that and just listen to pro tools. Nothing else should be on the LR bus. If you want to work it like a tape machine, then don't create a master fader in PT, and route the outputs through a different channel(s).And it wouldn't be a pain since you can mute every track in Pro Tools by just holding down a modifier and clicking on any "Mute" in the software to mute every track. If you hear latency from the mics, adjust your buffer.

I don't see this thing going anywhere. I stand behind my vote and see this as a non-issue. There is other things that needs PT attention more. Sorry. That is just the way I feel, and I don't feel like this feature will add a lot to PT as others will.

Dear Markeyse Mundy, the Low Latency Monitoring still has some latency. This makes musicians performing different and it's annoying to work with it. That's why I have a huge console so they can hear themselves without latency. I never use ProTools for recording because of this. I record with Cubase instead because Cubase has this "input monitor off" feature. And I didn't buy a big mixer just to turn it off and monitor through a software delay thing instead, sorry...

That is Fine CM. That is how you like to work. There is no right or wrong way to work. I personally have never used low lantency monitoring. Ever! I know the works of computers and latencies, which matter. Optimizing the computer, making sure there is no program interfering with my audio programs while in use, getting a nice fast and stable hard drive, etc. I have never had a problem where the performer has complained abbout lantency. I adjust the buffer which have a lot to do with it. In my short years of recording, Windows or Mac, through a console or directly to a audio interface, I haven't had one person complained about latency.

PS Isn't Pro Tools Input monitoring "OFF" when the green light on the channel or on the transport is off. I mean c'mon people. I rather have a native 64bit program before reading the title of this post.

The fact that people aren't complaining about latency doesn't mean that it isn't having a negative impact on their performance. Most performers are too concerned about the quality of their performance to notice latency until it becomes extreme.

The difference is in how long it takes one to perform an acceptable take, much less an extraordinary take.

It's unbelievable they did not include this feature with Pro Tools 9. Pro Tools M-Powered was hardly usable because of this, for this very reason people bought the 002/003. Generally I feel AVID has an idea how users use the software, but this omission is a mistery to me. Also one of the reasons I use HD.

Well, I talked to somebody using HD and he told me it's basically the same story there. You always have 1-2ms latency for monitoring through AD => DA conversion. This may be acceptable for recording (though a voice sounds different on headphones with that latency in for mixing bone conduction and headphone feedback naturally inside your head), but will definetly cause ugly comb filtering if mixed on top a direct analog signal via the studio mixing desk.

So the advantage of HD seems to be only having this "low latency monitoring" on all channels vs. only two channels on a Digi003. But here comes my question: Do I understand PT9 correctly that it doesn't support ASIO Direct Monitoring at all, what would be the solution at least for those ASIO soundcards having a switchable direct monitoring feature? If that confirms to be true, it really sucks. (Meaning I want my money back!)

LOL! I can't believe this is still an issue. It's sadly funny how so many PT fanboys think this is either already implemented or unnecessary because all they've ever used is mediocre mbox stuff or overpriced/limiting HD. This "upgrade if you want the good stuff" approach is what's killing avid and I say good riddance.

I always roll my eyes when a client insists on PT. Poor ignorant fool.

Yea Pro Tools is used by almost anyone. And calling your client ignorant isn't the right approach while they are keeping you with a job.

I WOULD be the fool if I called a client ignorant; however, I'm not calling anyone anything in my studio or on this board, but whether the word "ignorant" has a derogatory connotation or not, it's the perfect word for people who think pro tools is all there is or even "the best." As I hope we all know, it really makes little difference what software you use these days- unless of course you want to TURN OFF INPUT MONITORING, in which case pro tools straight up sucks.

**I'm really not even saying pro tools isn't good, but you can't help but be offended when a simple and ubiquitous feature is purposely withheld just to manipulate the consumer into buying a bunch of unnecessary hardware.**

Zero-Latency monitoring is one of the most touted features of modern interfaces. Even the cheap ones have this ability. The inablility of PT9 Native to turn off input monitoring renders this feature meaningless. So, this ability is either difficult to program into the software(doubtful) or a strategy by Avid to get people into HD. I really hope it's the former, and they will give us an update that will allow us to do what we can already do in Cubase, Vegas, Acid, Reaper and most other sequencers. If it's the latter, I feel really cheated and I want my $599.00 back.

You just did. I really don't understand. By the time you can even say millisecound it passed already x100. I'm just sick of the griping of this situation. I have NEVER had a problem about latency. I read the manuals, and make sure the system is set. I've never seen anyone complain of something that isn't really a problem. I've just got to seen many setups today on pro tools and all of it was instant. I mean, Native is about 1.2ms and TDM is less than .5. All software have some sort of latency but it really isn't noticeable. Really I would like to come to you guys studio and see what latency you guys have. And please don't tell me you're running G4's either.

@Markeyse Mundy - I'm with you to a point. I use a 003 rack and run everything through pro tools at 32ms and it works great (as long as I don't try to run more than 1 or two instrument tracks while initially tracking). However, I have a 8-core mac pro and set pro tools to use 4 cores and 99% CPU, 12 GB of ram and an OWC SSD (the best one on the market) with a Glyph raid FW 800 rack mounted external hard drive as a scratch disk. My setup doesn't really require the ability to turn input monitoring off but my setup isn't cheap either. If all you have is a laptop and an m-audio box YOU NEED THIS FEATURE. My old FW1814 could only go down to 128ms and that was super noticeable. The box had hardware monitoring though (which ROCKED) but I was stuck playing the mute/unmute game while punching tracks (this was WAY before PT9 btw). That mute/unmute punch game is a royal pain in the ass. I guess my point is that if you have all digi gear and set it up right it can work without, but with PT9 opening it up to all interfaces, and hell even in m-powered back in version 7 they needed this and that was years ago. Avid, please make it happen!

@mundy: Even if it's only a problem for people with slow computers(which it's not), why do you have no sympathy for them? Would it kill you to admit that this is simple feature that would help a lot of people out? How would it hurt you? I'm still not convinced you even understand the problem.

Try to imagine that some people are just as smart as you are, can twiddle knobs just as fast, and can read just as many manuals as you can. But even if there are no people like that, what is the harm in helping them out?

Sorry everyone have to keep up with the times. I just went to two seminars today at NAMM where both presenters stated this. If you are behind in your tech, then you are ways behind. This industry moves very fast, and technology moves even faster. Nothing personal, but Pro Programs isn't always a load 'n' play. Configuration is a must, at it is the first thing I usually do. Macs stop making the G4's how long ago? I remember messing with G4's in High School, which was well over 7 years ago. The studio at the College where I'm based at had upgraded to Mac Pros, and turned out to be the best decision made. Like some of the wise will say, you either lead, follow, or get the hell out the way.

This is not a technology issue in my case. I have a quad core screamer. I use a UAD-2 card for almost all my plugs, so my host is using a whopping 6% of it's CPU power. I can go down to 32 buffers. Anyway, I don't care how low I could get my latency, it will never match analog's zero. There are some musicians that are extremely sensitive to phasing and can hear very low levels of latency and it negatively affects their performance. That's what all this is about. Having this feature could improve the performance of some musicians, so we should have it.

It's not even about latency. It's about monitoring choices plain and simple. Every sophisticated DAW software offers it. It'd be nice to use your semi-pro $72,000 used console to monitor instead of having to muck around in the software readjusting your entire mix just to accomodate the over dub input signal. Of course there are always work arounds but you don't have to with real professional software like cubase and logic(of course elastic audio kicks audio warp's ass but that's another story and is likely change with cubase 6's new phase accurate audio warping across edit groups- of course most of the fanboys don't know much about that;)

The "hang with the big dogs or get off the porch" argument might make sense if avid made it clear that Pro Tools 9 is only fully functional with HD, but they are clearly claiming to be a full featured software unlimited by non-avid hardware. Reeling from the damage they've caused to their reputation, they appear as if they are going to make an honest attempt to take the big boys head-on by making a competitive product instead of playing manipulating games. But then here we have the lack of input monitoring control which is never mentioned on the feature comparison chart. Google foot-in-the-door technique.

Some of caught on as far back as the mix 24 days that pro tools was falling behind and realized that we would have to take steps toward independence from digidesign if we wanted the best. The first step was hacks to allow the use of converters by lavry and others, then uad and powercore freed us from their plugins.

Professionals shouldn't be cheerleaders for their tools. You'll never hear a mechanic defend snap-on. They use what's best, cost effective, convenient, and available. At least pro tools scores ONE out of four.

Let me say again that HD has the same problem only it's lots more subtle.

We Pro Tools users have often lived in our own world. (I go back to Pro Tools 1.0!)Monitoring latency was such a train wreck for native users years ago that developers were forced to come up with a solution while it wasn't that big a deal for most Pro Tools users because they were using mix and HD. Now that we have really knowledgeable users coming to Pro Tools from other platforms it's a pretty glaring shortcoming to them and one us old-timers also think ought to be addressed.

I can only imagine this seeming like a non-issue to someone who hasn't spent a significant amount of time working in other DAWs.

There is an annoying work-around: check the preference "separate record and play faders, and then turn all your 'record faders' down to zero. (that means that you have to go to each one of your channels, hit the record button, the fader turns red, you drag it to zero, hit the record button again). You can set up a template with all the channels set this way. Of course, if you add a new channel and forget to do this you risk getting blasted out.

It would be much easier if there was a simple, global, preference to turn off software monitoring...like every other DAW has.

We want OFF on recording, not on record enabled, so the workaround doesn't help.

I really don't get how anyone is against this - it is available in every other daw, I wouldn't even call it a feature as such.

I tracked an album on a lovely neve genesys hooked up via firewire to a 8 core mac pro running PT9 recently. This is potentially a great, elagant setup - but it is impossible to get down to an acceptable latency if monitoring thorugh PT-possibly the fault of the neve drivers but that is really not the point: It would not have been an issue, and the whole thing would have been SO much easier and more pleasurable if I could have switched input monitoring off. If I'm using a console to track a band I want to use the console for monitoring, not PT - hence I want to be able to turn of input monitoring. Of course there are workarounds but none are particularly elegant. If you don't understand the implications of this then please just shut the hell up (or at least don't vote against it(i'm looking at you M Mundy!!) - please stop telling people they need to "get with times" and they are running G4s blah blah - plain and simple you simply do not understand what the issue is and your condescending comments do not particualrly make me want to educate you.

Sorry Markus, I don't understand... the workaround would keep your direct monitor volume off when a track was record enabled, or record-enabled and recording. What am I missing?

The performer wants to hear both their live mike and the track being punched into prior to going into record.

After they are in record, they only want to hear the live mike and not the additionalfeed from the DAW.

Forgive me if this clarification has already been offered, but my hope would be a simple toggle box in the preferences window: [√] Disable software monitoring.

Digital Performer and Logic both offer exactly this feature, and I like using them for that reason!

"Forgive me if this clarification has already been offered, but my hope would be a simple toggle box in the preferences window: [√] Disable software monitoring.

Digital Performer and Logic both offer exactly this feature, and I like using them for that reason!"

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!

@ Markeyese Mundy, you obviously fully understand this problem and have a very poor attitude toward technology. If it works don't upgrade and if it doesn't work FIX it. If you work in an analogue studio that just uses Pro Tools as a "tape machine" then there is no need of upgrading a G4 that still works fine.

I use a Profire 2626 and a 24 track analogue console, all I want to do is make a cue mix using the aux sends on my board (because I like using REAL knobs) and have a stereo output of PT on a pair of channels. As said before just muting the record channels in PT works but is tricky for punch ins. A simple option for disabling input monitoring would enable someone like me to make my cue mixes and do punch ins without any workarounds or clicking games. It would be immensely helpful to many people.

And it isn't just about latency it's just about having the kind of routing and workflow that you want, not everyone likes to work in the same way.

And as also previously stated if you don't need this option just don't talk about it, everyone else does and implementing this idea will not hurt you in any way so why argue with it.

This is more important than ever now with Pro Tools 9 and non digi interfaces.

Muting each recorded track is a PIA and in every other DAW this is a simple tick box option. Ok, if you've got an MBox with only 2 tracks but when your recording a full band not really feasible.

I need this function badly too! - I just bought and installed PT 9 and I am frustrated that I can't turn software monitoring off like in Logic Pro 9. I always used the direct monitoring of my Motu HD 192 soundcard working with Logic Pro 9, and now with Pro Tools 9 I hear either two monitor signals delayed, or I hear it only through the software and have a big delay, or I set the buffer very small and can't use many PlugIns ... This is very silly! And it is extremely weired that some people (egos) don't even WANT to understand the problem ...

You can mute the record armed tracks in PT and use your HD192 for monitoring, you just have to play the mute/un-mute game when punching in. If you want you can get QuicKeys and make a shortcut that toggles record and mute at the same time, it works really slick, but QuicKeys is $60.

That's my solution for now.

Nice suggestion... But the point of this idea is to avoid the "work around" and make the program work like it should. As far as I can remember, Cubase/Nuendo had SOFTWARE MONITORING back in 2002. THATS ALMOST 10 YEARS!!! Why doesn't Pro Tools have the option yet? I've used M-Audio gear for the longest, and when I bought M-Powered, I was very pissed off because it lacked the SOFTWARE MONITORING option. I have the 003, but I understand the point of this idea.

The only possible reason for not having this as an option is the loss of sales for TDM HD. This would be incredibly helpful! You guys are half way there with the opening up of pro tools to core audio devices... TAKE THE LAST STEP and tear down this berlin wall of isolation (yeah, i know... corny but true)

FWIW TDM HD also doesn't have it.

Yep, - but low latency monitoring on all channels. From what I understand they don't support ASIO direct monitoring (the equivalent of low latency monitoring) yet, so the earlier comment basically describes the situation. Of course it would improve HD a lot now, too, having this feature.

My point is that it isn't a conspiracy to sell more HD.

@olh, ok then WTF don't they do it? Lack of programming skill?

Nothing easier not harder than a mute.

in pseudo code:

If (inputOffPreference & isRecording)

{

channelOutput=0

}

I wasn't saying it was a conspiracy, but latency with HD is a non issue! It doesn't matter as much since I don't have the problem with my HD rig.

I probably would still own a HD rig since it really sounds better even with the same conversion and clock then say my Symphony card did... but for people that can't spend 4k plus to solve their latency issue with tracking and monitoring, this would be a huge help.

I beg to differ about it not being an issue with HD. People don't complain but I know people who get their work done faster by hearing themselves from the console.

Hello,

It's not only about the latency, but the monitoring choice.

BTW : A such preference would not hurt you. While there's plenty of case where having the input monitoring is a problem for us.

For example, in one of our studio we use an HD2 accel on a quad mac pro, along with an SSL X desk. On the console, we would like to use the (nice) fader to tape to ride level going to protools for recording.

But for this, the console channel has to be unmuted, and thus the analog signal is obviously heard in the mixer, along the protools return monitoring signal (and they phase badly due to the short ADDA latency). The only solution is to mute in the armed protools track, but this is not even serious for overdubs and punch ins, especially if one don't have a DAW controller and have to mouse around to control the mute. We do have a mackie control, but some people don't. Also, having to mute each time is really not serious when you do hundreds of punchs per day ! We have enough things to concentrate on to handle things that software could and should do easily for us.

Even without using the fader to ride level anyway, it's much more comfortable to use the physical analog fader for monitoring.But for people without DAW controller, they have to control levels by mouse (fader of cue send), which is really not the reason some people buy expensive analog console who provide real analog faders.

Analog faders are much MUCH quicker so set than banking/scrolling around before finding the proper control.

Salvator

Great point!

Fader latency is a huge PITA. Riding a fader during a vocal performance on the way to the recorder has always been far more effective than anything I could do after the fact even with an analog console.

I just want to make something clear for some people here. Even in Analog.. there is no zero latency. The time it takes for the signal to go through the wires, the mixer, to the speaker while being directed at the same time to the tape. And what is already recorded on the tape to be read and routed to the mixer/effects to the speakers. Will always, and I say ALWAYS introduce latency.

It's a matter of how much latency can a human actually perceive physically. And well people that tells me that they can hear a 1-2 ms latency I tend to laugh really hard about.

Did you know that by simply spacing your signer to the mic by a foot will actually induce natural latency of a 1 ms? Can you hear that at all when you play the other instruments back? No, because the ear can't even perceive a 1 ms. And research sponsored by the National Science Foundation has shown that performers in an ensemble have no problem synchronizing with each other while experiencing latencies as high as 40 ms and even greater. Latencies in the 10 ms to 20 ms range actually have a stabilizing affect on tempo and are thought to be preferred over zero latency.

Granted this is in live, but if you have a professional musician who is accustomed to play part of a group, you can bet that he's not going to have too many problems with latency.

Now, as it's part of some people workflows, I of course voted yes. Why? because why would I vote no to something that can potentially help someone's workflow. Even if as stated there are work around. In this specific case I don't see it as a degradation of the HD market based to have this option given.

But please... 1-8 ms and you can hear it like a bang from a gun???? *shakes his head*

well put lex...

i hate when people vote no for the reason that doesn't affect them.

This is not the same thing at all as acoustical latency. All you really need to do is put on a pair of headphones, talk into a mike and simply compare. The comb filtering that you'll hear running through software compared to what an analog signal path sounds like is utterly obvious. The issue is how you hear yourself and not how you hear others.

It still applies as what would actually throw off a musician/signer, is not the comb filtering.. but the synchronism that is affected by heavy latency. Ie hearing what you play delayed compared to what others play. Someone that is used to listen to himself, will get through really quickly to that phase variance that you're talking about. And if anything short of professional or close to it, will continue working through it even if there is some. When we speak of latency we are actually talking of the delay that occurs in between what you play and what you hear back as what you play. And that is what zero latency is all about, not phase variance.

And even a zero-latency is a fallacy as it's impossible to get. You just don't perceive the little latency there is, which is then called zero-latency.

Folks, the problem is getting obvious as the ASIO DirectMonitoring feature is missing in PT9. When we use the Tascam US122L or the RME whatever box, there's no "low latency monitoring" as in PT HD or Digi003 on channel 1+2. It's looong delay we can't switch off. Please understand that and change your opinion from "no" to "yes" just to do us a favour. Thank you.

The workaround is to create an aux track, set to pre fader, add send from target record track(s), and mute at when punching in. It get's sticky especially during overdubs with multiple tracks. I have started a take and had to stop in the middle because I missed the mute or forgot to hit it, and when there's a high pressure client (or any client for that matter) mistakes can be costly!!

Good god, yes. I've been using Logic and RME's TotalMix flawlessly for years for zero-latency monitoring. Even at the lowest buffer settings latency is noticable and distracting, to me and many clients.

YES YES YES. I liken this to the Russians using a pencil to write in space while NASA spent millions trying to get a pen to work without gravity. When you tap the signal from the source there is no need for buffer sizes to be small. You can set them to whatever. There is no need for expensive hardware to fly the signal back and forth super fast for ya. A $100 sound card can feed the source for you with near zero latency. Avid should use there resources to create better sound converters, preamps, etc than waste time on outdated technology.

THIS IS A MUST!

Well Sonar has it so it is possible and implemented solidly in the marketplace.

My view:

This is all about the headphone mix, without a great mix we get mediocre performances, without flexibility we have routing issues.

Songs are made by singers mainly and singers forced to hear latency underperform and lose their vibe when tracking.

This is a MUSICAL problem.

I'm the original poster.

I just went ahead and coded a plugin that mute the track the moment you enter in record

Actually works great on my macbook pro with PT9. Will test in the studio tuesday, but if anyone interested to help test it out, please let me know thru pm or email (OSX only ATM). Will be freeware, yet I spent 1 day working on it, so I would accept donation to cover that day spent only.

all the best,

salvator

Hi Laus2008,

I can't seem to figure out how to either PM or email you but I'd love to beta test this for you (my email is: hechdee101 [at] gmail [dot] com).

I actually had this thought too and contacted a plugin developer about making one (you can see that about 15 posts above this). However, he told me that PT doesn't give plugin devs an API that tels when a track is in record mode or not and he said basically that coding a plugin that would auto-mute the track when the track entered record mode on a punch would be impossible. Is that not the case? Were you able to code the plugin such that you can select a few measures on the track to punch, add 4 measures of pre-roll and it will not mute the track that is record enabled until it hits the punch spot so the performer can hear what was already laid down (and hear themselves sing along with it) before it gets to the punch and then when it does get to the punch it mutes the track so the performer only hears the analog version of themselves?

If you were able to make a plugin do that (not simply mute when beginning recording all together) then that plugin would definitely be worth some cash. I'd pay at least $20 for a plugin that muted during punches. In the mean time if you would like me to help test, I'd be happy to do so!

Thanks,

-Jon

I'd be more than happy to test too. Just need to know how to contact you (laus2008) as well!

Hello,

Yes allowing punch in with preroll was the harder part of it !!

Indeed the RTAS SDK limitation was what made it tricky.

For email, my name is salvator and the domain is tritonedigital.

Alright, well, I took a guess at what your email address would be, using both .com and .net. Hopefully one of them is right!

Can't you sell that (if you're domain is what it looks like, it's not your first product!?)?

We could sell it, though in my heart I'm not comfortable selling something that should be free ! I mean, yes I spent time coding it, but this feature should be providedfor free by avid normally. So I consider it's not to the users to pay for such a "due" thing.

So I accept donation, especially from avid :-)

this should be a bug fix for pt 9 ....its supposed to work with any interface....

I am amazed at people who would vote agaist helping somones workflow, and what they have to gain from doing so.....unless its avid??? and there new evil impire.

Input monitoring is implemented in Pro Tools 10.

Are you sure it can be switched off now? I mean, literally it was always implemented, there was just no way to turn it off...

Input Monitoring was implemented, yes...but this is about the ability to turn OFF input monitoring, which wasn't, and still isn't, possible...unless I'm missing something.

@Avid Moderator- LOL! That almost sounds like the punch line to a very long winded joke(I quickly counted 89 comments to this thread!). Thanks for reminding me why I skip upgrades. I wonder what would happen if PT thought more about building brand loyalty and less about market manipulation. I really don't mean any of this to sound too mean spirited. I'm not a hater or anything. I'd love to see PT become a product worthy of it's former reputation.

from reading the manual it seems like you can only turn it off for outputs 1-2?? So STILL no global option to turn it off like every other DAW??

The implementation being tied to low latency monitoring and being limited to outputs 1-2 is far from ideal. I am not one of the "haters" of Avid, I've even already upgraded to PT 10 and forked out for the CPTK2 when upgrading as well and this is without a doubt the best Pro Tools ever and I love it. However, I am very disappointed with this "feature" being deemed "fixed".

I use a Rosetta 200 with my 003 via ADAT for my AD/DA not outputs 1-2 so how am I supposed to setup a separate headphone mix now if I'm tied to using 1-2? Not to mention I'd like to use a few plugins on the track that I'm recording.

Thanks for the comments - I've moved this back to an active status to allow for further commentary.

Glad to see this moved back here. All we want is a preference to turn off all software input monitoring so we can use a console or other cue mix system for monitoring. Given that the problem can be solved by a 3rd party free-ware plugin (Mute Tone - it works great but is not exactly an elegant solution) shows that it must be very easy for Avid to add this "feature" to the software.

Please implement this feature in PT 10.1 or some other update!

Yes, please do it for Christmas. ;-)

Yes +1 on this AVID, global input monitoring off option.

I saw this feature was changed from "active" to "completed". Then my heart sank when I saw it was too good to be true! I can not believe such a SIMPLE and BASIC feature was skipped with the PT10 launch. I HATE doing overdubs and punches in PT9, since I have to constantly mute/unmute the playback of tracks during the punches. I use an analog console to create aux mixes, so I do NOT want to hear software monitoring during punches - but I DO want to hear track playback when not recording. Can AVID PLEASE PLEASE implement this "feature", which is included on every other DAW.

Here's the best part: If/when they DO implement it, it'll be put forth as this amazing NEW idea, as though they weren't dead LAST to implement such a thing, and hey, because it's so wonderful, you won't mind forking over more money for it!...along with a host of other 'catching up with the competition' features, of course.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for these 'advances'. I'm just NOT up for the idea of having to pay for them as if they were exciting and exotic new features as opposed to the industry standard finally getting up to speed with all the 'lesser' DAWs.

Whatever, once that's in, I'll buy the PT10 update, promised.

I think the explanation of the idea is misleading. Quote: "This option/preference would mute the armed track the moment it enter in record."

This would mean that if I arm a track I will hear a double signal: one through PT and one through my external mixer. Only if I press record the double signal will go away. This is obviously not the solution. Actually it's as simple as this: By disabling software monitoring I should be able to prevent all input signals from being heard through PT. At the same time, I should still be able to play back an armed track. Just like in Logic and Cubase.

FWIW lots of performers really like the double signal because it maintains communication with the control room.

Anyone that argues with the necessity of this feature (that means you markeyse mundy), simply has never experienced the luxury of having the monitor path always open. For example, when you close PT, the monitor path disappears, which means zero communication between the CR and tracking room.

Another expample is when listening back to a take. If the talent hears something they didn't like and wants to get your attention, the only way they can do it is by jumping up and down, flapping their arms at the CR window in the hopes that you'll see them. If you haven't experienced this, then you've never tracked with PT.

Using an app like motus' cuemix or RME totalmix allows this "always on" monitor path. It is the one thing that I still miss from my cubendo/motu days. I for one am 100% convinced that this feature is knowingly held back by Avid in order to make HD more appealing. The sad part is that even PTHDs' DSP monitoring doesn't solve the problem.

Avid Mod, you can talk all you want, it's a simple concept that most of your competitors have understood for years. There's no need to even discuss this, just fix it.

Another way of stating what this feature is all about is "live inputs don't pass through to ProTools outputs". It is absolutely desperately needed if you use external hardware monitoring. Logic and Cubase/Nuendo have it, and probably others since many years now. There are numerous posts here from folks who completely misunderstand what this desired feature is all about. It has NOTHING to do with the "I" button on audio tracks in PtoSoolsHD (input monitoring).

What I meant by a double signal was one's self plus playback but not the live signal coming back from the software upon dropping into record.

Absolutely necessary feature. If you're going to open up PT to hardware from other manufacturers, you need to allow this as an option. Even Sam Ingles mentions it in the review for PT9 in Sound on Sound. It's very frustrating. Many modern audio interfaces allow for built in zero latency monitoring. We shouldn't have to faff around reducing recording faders to -inf or any of that, there should just be a tick box saying we are using our interface etc. Please fix this, even if it's difficult to do. Many people would be very happy. I'm a recent PT convert and I use it as most professional facilities use it. I have found it lacking a great many features, which is annoying as there is so many things that this product does so exceptionally well. Please see the wood for the trees.

Thank you to all the users who are keeping this idea alive and active. I started a new DUC thread as a specific plea for votes on this idea. I think if more people were aware of this Ideascale community, we might get more support for this necessary feature. Please feel free to comment, share, or bump this DUC thread as you see fit: http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=312663

What kills me about this is how UNBELIEVABLY easiy this would be to implement, and how absolutely IMPOSSIBLE it is to work around. They already offer AUTOMATED input muting, how hard can it be to just mute them all all the time? I'm back to tracking in DP (at least when I'm tracking full bands) because CueMix is the ONLY way I can get the headphone mixes I need without bogging down my computer. I have a quad core, but 20+ inputs mixed to 4 or 5 stereo headphone mixes is a LOT of processing with 128 sample latency.

Glad to see somebody understands why it takes Cubase to record in order to mix in PT. I only wish Steinberg would allow to export more than two tracks at once one day...

Thank you lighthouserecording. I agree this seems like it should be an unbelievably easy option to implement. It is actually really depressing that the software which I love, support, and PAY FOR is so crippled. Avid obviously knows that users will be using Pro Tools with external mixing hardware (they offer us multiple outputs...don't they?!) So shouldn't they realize that users are using external hardware for cue mixes? It's so freaking obvious that the ability to disable software input monitoring should be a normal feature. Not something users are BEGGING for?! In other words, this should not have to be a requested feature...like its a perk or a bonus or another "bell and whistle". I feel like we are begging to implement a mute button...Yes...it's that basic of a feature. So so so depressing. Every time I do punches and overdubs I curse the software that is the centerpiece of my studio. Why does it have to be a love / hate relationship. Feel free to respond to my thread at: http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=312663 - Avid needs to be made aware of this.

Record in Cubase and mix in PT? I prefer cubase for pretty much everything now. If it weren't for brain-washed clients I probably would never bother with PT at all anymore. Way too many hassles and work arounds.

WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODEWRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE ALREADY!!! THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR THIS FEATURE TAKING SO LONG TO IMPLEMENT!! it's NOT going to EVER make me go HD if that's what you're thinking... JUST GIVE IT UP ALREADY

It blows my mind that they have a function in the program that turns input monitoring on and off during punch-ins but are too lazy to implement a feature to turn it off all the time. I'm not upgrading until this is resolved. I've already voted and posted, and I just came back here to check and see if it was resolved yet (it's so simple it could EASILY come in an update) and now I'm just blowing off steam. AAAAAARRRRRRG!!!!!!!!

WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODEWRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE WRITE THE CODE ALREADY!!! THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR THIS FEATURE TAKING SO LONG TO IMPLEMENT!! it's NOT going to EVER make me go HD if that's what you're thinking... JUST GIVE IT UP ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - - - - - - - - - - I agree.

Guys, this has been part of pro tools for ages. It's all already there! Not sure if someone reads a comment that low down the list but if you do pls spread the message:

Go to Preferences > Operation > Record

Un-tick 'Link Record and Play Faders'

Record enable a track (shift R for selected track), pull down the fader.

Now try to turn rec enable on / off. This is exactly what you've asked for, isn't it?

Jan

I now understand an agree :)

I track in DP whenever possible now so I can use my interface's built in latency free monitoring. And I use an Aux track with an input as it's source for sending reverb to vocalists. It's fantastic - no communication blackout when opening a new project, no latency issues when I'm overdubbing to a project with beefy plugins - PLEASE offer this soon so I can track in the software I prefer to mix in! Oh, and leave monitoring of AUX tracks same as playback tracks so we can all enjoy this functionality!

ABSOLUTELY! I like editing and mixing in Pro Tools, but I also prefer to track in DP for the same reason: Punch-ins are POSSIBLE! I use a MOTU PCI system, and monitor post A/D but pre-pro-tools out of a Yamaha 01V96 so I can keep my buffer at 1024 all the time. I am not willing to compromise on the buffer thing, as it's common for me to need to dub when a mix has already been started, and lowering the buffer would set the processor on fire. I think this problem is a relic of the pre-native TDM only days where latency was not an issue and it was just expected to monitor within Pro Tools. It would be a simple thing - a global preference to simply turn Input Monitoring of Audio Tracks OFF! At that point, operation could switch into OMITTING the record/play fader switching and simply leave the playback fader there when record-armed. A punch-in would simply mute playback for the length of a record pass.

I don't know why the company has not followed through with the upgrade .I mead the customer is always right and this is very demoralizing to many engineers that prefer maybe to use a different kind of setup like a RME soundcard ect.......CMON AVID......

Hey Rob Begg:

"this is very demoralizing to many engineers that prefer maybe to use a different kind of setup like a RME soundcard "

Think about that for a minute....Ok, now you get it?

Well, then they should build a Digi004 instead of forcing people to record in apps like Cubase in order to use ProTools with third party soundcards.

The fact I still have to use MuteTone plugin should be an embarrassment to Avid.

why is this still not fixed? seriously.....

I finally go and buy Pro Tools. Only to discover that not only is this not a "default" setting - it's not even possible to do.

Why did I just spend money on this?

This is completely and utterly baffling that such an option is not the default. Absolutely inexcusable.

The only acceptable solution, IMO, is to release an update for this which includes this option - enabled by default. It's otherwise VERY tempting to see if I can get a refund.

I even waited for about a MONTH while stock was being replenished.

After such a long wait, this is disappointing.

I have a perfectly capable computer, a good sound card (Delta 1010 - the 'full' one with rackmount interface). There is absolutely zero excuse for lacking this rather simple functionality.

Well, some years back I even spent a lot of money on their 0900 support hotline to learn about this. I doubt this will be solved within this or next year. Take a look at StudioOne, fantastic app - http://studioone.presonus.com/testimonial/teddy-riley/

I'm amazed that this thread is still going. I sucked it up and ended up getting PT 10 (which has low latency montioring for all interfaces). Studio one is the shyt. I'm still getting used to the transition. But the learning curve is short. I've done the m-audio and 003 thing. But simply put, avid is not going to add the feature... Especially now.

Why especially now? I'm at PT9 and that's the only money of mine they're getting till they fixed this. Makes me really appreciate DP...