Auto Punch in/Out

[mcatalao]

Also, your idea of a punch in is incorrect. There's nothing recorded out of the punch in, but the application manages the start and finishing of the recording, the player has the queue of his previous (correct) performance and plays on top getting the same "feeling" of the previous performance.

My idea is correct. And I did use it myself back in the day BEFORE we got DAWs.

If your timing is not tight, your punch will fail exactly BECAUSE the punch in/out points are set before you do the punch, and therefore fixed on the timing of your track. If your playing timing sucks (to put it politely ), your performance will be cut by the punch points. Add to that the simple fact that overdubs are often done because of sloppy timing, and things get very tedious. Comping solves this problem because you can nudge the wanted parts into the correct timing. Something that won't work with a punch, specifically because you don't record outside of the punch in/out points.

If the timing is wrong, you set up the punch in a tad before the incorrect timing. Punch ins are usually tied to locators (i say usually because i think in reaper they're tied to regions), that can be set up wherever (in fact whenever) you want, and not tied to the sequencer grid. In fact, just disable the grid in reason and the locators can be placed wherever you want them.

Anyway, for me the point is making the "artist" do it right, may it be a timing issue, an incorrect breath, a glitch on a note, a dog that barks during a take, whatever! Punch in is a tool as any other that you use when you need it. There are so many more reasons to use a punch in and over dub, because anything can happen in a performance. And the point is correcting stuff right on the spot, not losing days of your life selecting the correct comp. It's not fluid. It simply isn't.

Again, bitwig, studio one, and reaper are very young daws that had punch in implemented on the release date, if their product owners thought punch in was not needed they wouldn't bother implementing it.

A feature is not useless if you don't use it. You don't value it, I do. That's it.

[QVprod]

Also, your idea of a punch in is incorrect. There's nothing recorded out of the punch in, but the application manages the start and finishing of the recording, the player has the queue of his previous (correct) performance and plays on top getting the same "feeling" of the previous performance.

My idea is correct. And I did use it myself back in the day BEFORE we got DAWs.

If your timing is not tight, your punch will fail exactly BECAUSE the punch in/out points are set before you do the punch, and therefore fixed on the timing of your track. If your playing timing sucks (to put it politely ), your performance will be cut by the punch points. Add to that the simple fact that overdubs are often done because of sloppy timing, and things get very tedious. Comping solves this problem because you can nudge the wanted parts into the correct timing. Something that won't work with a punch, specifically because you don't record outside of the punch in/out points.

I have to agree you're mistaken on this. Someone with horrible timing will have bad takes in general. Has nothing to do with punching in. The scenario you mention only applies if you're not recording to a click (or things aren't locked to the DAW tempo), which in Reason and likely everywhere else aside from maybe reel to reel tape, most people are. While I rarely use auto punch in my workflow, I manually punch a lot, especially when recording other artists. It's the same thing. You would usually have the artist/musician play/sing along before the punch starts which eliminates any syncing issues.

Comping is not an alternative to punching in and out. They actually work hand in hand. All the takes are lined up the same way they would be if you did the entire take over. You then choose the parts of that section you punched.

[guitfnky]

that criticism was aimed at Ableton Live, but yeah, I'm finding the regions in Reaper to be fairly intuitive for structuring so far. not quite as good as Blocks at this point, but that could be down to the fact that I'm still pretty early on in learning Reaper.

Most people that use blocks (at least as I've seen mentioned) is to mark song sections on the timeline. That is obviously what regions are in Reaper so if that is what someone wants it's fine. However, if you use blocks as an arrangement tool, by actually putting stuff into blocks, then you walk into one of the big omissions in Reaper. Reaper basically does not have an integrated arrangement system. You can get something going with the use of several plugins, scripts, combined shortcuts (very powerful btw) but it will be a kludge of some sort. As I stated elsewhere, that's what I did before moving to Reason.

I did a write-up of my system in Reaper, it should be somewhere on the Reaper forum. If you like, I can dig it up for you.

I definitely use Blocks as intended—for arranging, not marking sections. so far I'm okay with how regions work in Reaper, but then I've only just started using it (less than 2 months), so how I'm using the program is still far from mature. I'd be curious to look at what you came up with, but no need to go out of your way if it's not a quick find for you.

[Billy+]

Using blocks for loop points was / is the first thing I generally do when I'm after looping a section that has multiple elements.

I've always wondered why people ask for a secondary option I guess some people are just stubborn.

Blocks are great for creating sections inside as well as looping sections inside the main sequencer

Getting back to the topic

has anyone looked at touch portals multi action macro for punching in/out ?

[crimsonwarlock]

I'd be curious to look at what you came up with, but no need to go out of your way if it's not a quick find for you.

Here you go: https://stash.reaper.fm/v/36548/Reper_l ... rkflow.pdf

[guitfnky]

I'd be curious to look at what you came up with, but no need to go out of your way if it's not a quick find for you.

Here you go: https://stash.reaper.fm/v/36548/Reper_l ... rkflow.pdf

nice--thanks man! read through it at a high level and it seems pretty robust. I may try this out down the line once I've gotten a better handle on things in Reaper.

[JohnnyBee 67]

Hi! Johnnybee here! Just dropped in to say that it's almost one year since I upgraded from Reason 7 to Reason 12. Reason is amazing but I would use it much more if it had AUTO PUNCH. Don't want to start any wars here. Just saying how much nicer it would be FOR ME. Guys like the crimsonwarlock have their reasons (no pun intended) for not liking auto punch but personally, I like the feature. Pro studios use it. I don't think adding it would take anything away from it. In almost every project since I upgraded I found how great and awesome the rack plugin is and I use that in almost every project I do in Cakewalk (Bandlab), especially the effects. So,all in all, it was well worth the upgrade.
Happy Reasoning y'all
JohnnyBee

[crimsonwarlock]

Guys like the crimsonwarlock have their reasons (no pun intended) for not liking auto punch...

I never said I don't like it, just that I don't see the need for it anymore

Aside from the fact that people are used to this way of working, which I totally respect, punch-in/out was invented to solve the headaches of manually slicing tape. This problem doesn't exist anymore in digital sound editing, and we have much more powerful tools to replace it.

Having recorded to multitrack tape (both in pro studios and my personal studio) back in the day, and needed to depend on punch-in/out to 'correct' things, I'd even say it is a clunky way to work. These days, why would you record over an existing track (which is what punching does), when you have basically unlimited tracks to work with?

[DaveyG]

These days, why would you record over an existing track (which is what punching does), when you have basically unlimited tracks to work with?

Put simply: speed. For simple, short corrections it's much more efficient and quicker to punch in and out on an existing track rather than record to a second track and then comp or edit the tracks. A good DAW would offer both methods (but I'm not expecting RS to ever add auto punch!)

[wendylou]

It’s a nice feature to have, but there are ways around it. Tbh I rarely use or need auto punch so I kind of get how it can be overlooked for those who aren’t guitar players or vocalists.

I used to have a video of how to hack an auto punch in Reason but it’s not on my channel anymore. But it’s relatively simple to set up if you really need it. Requires the external midi device and a virtual midi driver loop midi is an option for windows. IAC is built in on Mac OS. Assign a midi note to the record button via remote override and create a clip with that not in the sequencer

When the play head hits the clip it’ll start recording. Place a 2nd one where you want to punch out.

Here ya go, from our own Carly(Poohbear). He first describes how to set up an auto stop, then around 1:40, he shows how the same trick can be used to create a Punch-in and out:

He's got more Tutorials & Techniques on the forum, here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7503909

[crimsonwarlock]

For simple, short corrections it's much more efficient and quicker to punch in and out on an existing track rather than record to a second track and then comp or edit the tracks

That is, if you get it right during the first punch. And if you are good enough to do that, why didn't the first recording suffice? Especially when the part is "simple and short". In my experience (both myself and while working with other musicians), when something is not quite right, it takes multiple punch tries to get it right because it was somewhat hard to do it right the first time. And that is where comping is obviously superior.

[QVprod]

For simple, short corrections it's much more efficient and quicker to punch in and out on an existing track rather than record to a second track and then comp or edit the tracks

That is, if you get it right during the first punch. And if you are good enough to do that, why didn't the first recording suffice? Especially when the part is "simple and short". In my experience (both myself and while working with other musicians), when something is not quite right, it takes multiple punch tries to get it right because it was somewhat hard to do it right the first time. And that is where comping is obviously superior.

In DAWs that have a good comping feature (Reason is one of them), comping is built into the track so there’s no need to use multiple tracks. Comping takes from other tracks is a much slower workflow in modern DAWs than what’s natively available in most cases. You don’t need to nail the first try because you have all the takes available on the same track.

[crimsonwarlock]

In DAWs that have a good comping feature (Reason is one of them), comping is built into the track so there’s no need to use multiple tracks. Comping takes from other tracks is a much slower workflow in modern DAWs than what’s natively available in most cases. You don’t need to nail the first try because you have all the takes available on the same track.

That goes without saying, reason I didn't mention that. When we discuss comping (as I mentioned it several times), it's obvious to use comping-specific workflows if they are available. And as this is a Reason forum, it is also obvious that Reason has a good comping feature built-in.

[QVprod]

In DAWs that have a good comping feature (Reason is one of them), comping is built into the track so there’s no need to use multiple tracks. Comping takes from other tracks is a much slower workflow in modern DAWs than what’s natively available in most cases. You don’t need to nail the first try because you have all the takes available on the same track.

That goes without saying, reason I didn't mention that. When we discuss comping (as I mentioned it several times), it's obvious to use comping-specific workflows if they are available. And as this is a Reason forum, it is also obvious that Reason has a good comping feature built-in.

But this is exactly why auto punch makes sense. The resulting punched take is in the same track.Sure you can just record it to another track, but this is more efficient.

[JohnnyBee 67]

That goes without saying, reason I didn't mention that. When we discuss comping (as I mentioned it several times), it's obvious to use comping-specific workflows if they are available. And as this is a Reason forum, it is also obvious that Reason has a good comping feature built-in.

But this is exactly why auto punch makes sense. The resulting punched take is in the same track.Sure you can just record it to another track, but this is more efficient.

I could comp in Cakewalk but I always choose not to and use the Overwrite mode. I can't see recording a whole part (track) 10 or 15 times then choose the best takes when to me it takes less time to just record it once and correct only what needs to be corrected. John Lennon created comping and I can see a use for it for some people but not for me. To each his/her own.
I'd like to see Reason include it. I would love to do more recording in Reason but as somebody above said, it probably won't happen. Just kinda hoping the programmers will take notice some day.

I'll check out Poohbear's video. Looks interesting.

JB

[QVprod]

But this is exactly why auto punch makes sense. The resulting punched take is in the same track.Sure you can just record it to another track, but this is more efficient.

I could comp in Cakewalk but I always choose not to and use the Overwrite mode. I can't see recording a whole part (track) 10 or 15 times then choose the best takes when to me it takes less time to just record it once and correct only what needs to be corrected. John Lennon created comping and I can see a use for it for some people but not for me. To each his/her own.
I'd like to see Reason include it. I would love to do more recording in Reason but as somebody above said, it probably won't happen. Just kinda hoping the programmers will take notice some day.

I'll check out Poohbear's video. Looks interesting.

JB

For clarity, punching is related to comping. quite almost the same thing actually in modern DAWs. Punching in in Reason puts the resulting recording on a comp lane the same as it would for a full take.

[crimsonwarlock]

But this is exactly why auto punch makes sense. The resulting punched take is in the same track.Sure you can just record it to another track, but this is more efficient.

Obviously you didn't get where I came from here, or didn't read my previous posts in this topic. I was talking about different tracks because that was the alternative back in the days with analog tape. And because we did have a limited number of tracks available, punching was the solution to NOT needing to record to another tape track. As I said before, the need to be careful not to use many tracks went away with the DAWs we have today. The fact that comping can create separate parallel recordings inside a track is besides the argument, as they are still increasing the track count in comparison to analog tape recorders.

And again, it seems obvious to me that comping inside Reason's comping system is more efficient than recording to separate tracks. I never said anything to the contrary.

[JohnnyBee 67]

I could comp in Cakewalk but I always choose not to and use the Overwrite mode. I can't see recording a whole part (track) 10 or 15 times then choose the best takes when to me it takes less time to just record it once and correct only what needs to be corrected. John Lennon created comping and I can see a use for it for some people but not for me. To each his/her own.
I'd like to see Reason include it. I would love to do more recording in Reason but as somebody above said, it probably won't happen. Just kinda hoping the programmers will take notice some day.

I'll check out Poohbear's video. Looks interesting.

JB

For clarity, punching is related to comping. quite almost the same thing actually in modern DAWs. Punching in in Reason puts the resulting recording on a comp lane the same as it would for a full take.

In Cakewalk you can opt to punch in/out using the same lane if you wish
JB

[QVprod]

But this is exactly why auto punch makes sense. The resulting punched take is in the same track.Sure you can just record it to another track, but this is more efficient.

Obviously you didn't get where I came from here, or didn't read my previous posts in this topic. I was talking about different tracks because that was the alternative back in the days with analog tape. And because we did have a limited number of tracks available, punching was the solution to NOT needing to record to another tape track. As I said before, the need to be careful not to use many tracks went away with the DAWs we have today. The fact that comping can create separate parallel recordings inside a track is besides the argument, as they are still increasing the track count in comparison to analog tape recorders.

And again, it seems obvious to me that comping inside Reason's comping system is more efficient than recording to separate tracks. I never said anything to the contrary.

I believe I get exactly where you’re coming from and I’ve definitely read the whole thread. You’re arguing against the need for punching in the modern era (because there are unlimited tracks) and I’m arguing the use case for still doing so. The only reference to comping I made is that punching in in Reason records in the comp lane making it simpler to deal with than separate tracks.

[QVprod]

For clarity, punching is related to comping. quite almost the same thing actually in modern DAWs. Punching in in Reason puts the resulting recording on a comp lane the same as it would for a full take.

In Cakewalk you can opt to punch in/out using the same lane if you wish
JB

We’re saying the same thing. Reason does this by default

[selig]

My idea is correct. And I did use it myself back in the day BEFORE we got DAWs.

If your timing is not tight, your punch will fail exactly BECAUSE the punch in/out points are set before you do the punch, and therefore fixed on the timing of your track. If your playing timing sucks (to put it politely ), your performance will be cut by the punch points. Add to that the simple fact that overdubs are often done because of sloppy timing, and things get very tedious. Comping solves this problem because you can nudge the wanted parts into the correct timing. Something that won't work with a punch, specifically because you don't record outside of the punch in/out points.

I have to add that one of Pro Tools most useful features is the fact that any track that is in record, always records even before you punch in. So you DO in fact record outside of the punch in/out points, which if you haven't experienced it is as important/ground-braking a feature as 'undo' IMO.

As for punching, I've mostly worked with musicians who totally comfortable punching in/out seamlessly. On analog it was preferable to punch than to comp since comping gave up a 'generation' of tape quality. So you get good at it. Because you HAVE to!
For folks who never learned to punch in with feel you have to do the extra work you mention. With punching it's often just a quick rewind/play/punch in/out/done. With comping, you record far more than you will use (sometimes a good thing) then need to spend the time putting things together.
I'm a "whatever it takes to get the part" guy at heart, so I'm happy to click away with a mouse to get a part pieced together when necessary, but man most times you just need to do a quick punch and move on with your day.

Personal update, I'm loving recording with LUNA with it's low latency monitoring through plugins, auto-punch, and especially pre/post roll which I leave ON all the time because it plays ACROSS your edits/selection instead of starting right ON the selection. It just means you can be moving a clip around and hear how it transitions due to having pre/post roll always on. I have long used 1 bar pre roll and 999 bars post roll (so playback never stops after the selection) with Pro Tools and glad to have that workflow available again.

[crimsonwarlock]

You’re arguing against the need for punching in the modern era (because there are unlimited tracks)...

No, I'm arguing against the need for punching because we have digital comping now. You started to talk about unlimited tracks, and how comping is better, while I mentioned the lack of unlimited tracks on a tape recorder as the reason for punch-in/out existing. Besides, no matter how it is implemented, comping means using additional tracks in parallel.

As for punching, I've mostly worked with musicians who totally comfortable punching in/out seamlessly.

Oh, I totally agree. In my experience, punching in seamlessly was never a problem, especially because punching means you can play along before the punch happens. The problems were always with getting a good take the second time (hence needing to punch), as problems with performance are mainly linked to parts that are more difficult to get right, and punching does not make that any easier, a hard part to play remains a hard part to play. Which resulted in doing multiple punches over and over, degrading the tape (as you said).

[guitfnky]

for some people, punching in and out is a better workflow, period. why argue against something so subjective?

[crimsonwarlock]

for some people, punching in and out is a better workflow, period. why argue against something so subjective?

I already said I respect that some people want to work that way. I'm not arguing against (auto) punching, it is a working system in its own right. I'm arguing there are alternatives available in the absence of auto-punch.

But I'll leave it at that. This discussion has already started to run in circles.

[guitfnky]

for some people, punching in and out is a better workflow, period. why argue against something so subjective?

I already said I respect that some people want to work that way. I'm not arguing against (auto) punching, it is a working system in its own right. I'm arguing there are alternatives available in the absence of auto-punch.

But I'll leave it at that. This discussion has already started to run in circles.

I guess I thought it was kind of self-evident that there are alternatives available in Reason, but fair enough.