Questions & Answers

Extended & Global Part Automation (automation clips)

+83 votes
588 views
asked Dec 14, 2015 in Editing by niles (49,780 points)
recategorized Apr 18 by niles

Current Part Automation behavior
Currently you can add automation lanes within Instrument Parts pointing to automation parameters of the connected VST Instrument, called Part Automation. Part Automation is exclusively available for the VST Instrument connected to the Instrument Track. To automate a parameter of an insert residing on the audio channel of the VST Instrument you have to add an automation lane to the Instrument track or an automation track.

Part Automation can be found here:

Extended Part Automation (primary request)
I think it would be great if we could also add automation data for VST inserts residing on the audio channel of the VST Instrument as Part Automation. So extended automation and musical data are residing in one Instrument Part.

Global Part Automation (secondary request)
Since it often happens sounds triggered by an Instrument Part are modified further in the chain (e.g. by bus processing, FX channels etc.), it would be very convenient if an Instrument part can contain automation data of ANY VST automation parameter available in project. So you can keep all relevant automation data in one part. With global part automation you can basically create automation clips with Instrument parts.

Example:
A part on Instrument track #1 contains Part Automation to an insert residing on the audio channel of Instrument track #2.
To keep it simple for people who don't need this, it might be a good idea to create a tick box for the Part Automation dialogue where the user can choose to show Global Automation Parameters, to view all available automation parameters in the project (disabled by the default).

Audio Part Automation (tertiary request):
Additionally audio parts (so merged audio events) could also benefit from Part Automation. This way (global) Automation and audio data can reside in a single clip, just like it's done with Part Automation for Instrument Parts (primary request).

Audio part automation could be even stronger when it is combined with the possibility to automate Event FX parameters as requested here: Can we please have the abilty to automate event fx??

11 Answers

0 votes
answered Dec 14, 2015 by Zirrex (9,080 points)
+1 I think about it too...
Must be able to migrate the settings of automation in the classic style and returning to automation clips.

http://answers.presonus.com/3257/fr-so3-export-musicloop-with-automation-from-insert
+1 vote
answered Dec 31, 2015 by dereckboatwright (210 points)
+1000

 

and the ability to save the clips for later....
0 votes
answered Feb 16, 2016 by Artem Reverse (1,210 points)
I also thought about adding this function! I think this is very important function in DAW of 21 century.
0 votes
answered Apr 1, 2016 by scoredfilms (5,160 points)
I long wanted this in Cubase, but never knew how to request it to them. Brilliant idea. From a programming standpoint I could see them not quite getting why. But where many VST effect parameters affect the music as much as MIDI CC Lane data does, it would be very 'musical' to keep them in the same place.

Great request!
0 votes
answered May 9, 2016 by masterJoe (2,180 points)
I have been lobbying for a functionality like this during by Cubase days (without success!) and now again for Studio One. Studio One is pretty close to what it takes but has not gone all the way.

Please Presonus make this a reality for V3.x Thank you!
+2 votes
answered Jun 21, 2016 by Scoox (8,550 points)
edited Sep 11, 2017 by Scoox

Here's the thing, this FR doesn't even mention proper automation clips, and other FRs requesting this have incorrectly been flagged flagged as being a duplicate of this thread here. By "proper automation clips" I mean something like what FL Studio, Logic and Reason users have enjoyed for many years, FL Studio offering the best implementation of all. The author of this FR is probably not even aware of just how good automation clips are in FL Studio, so here goes.

Keeping automation in containers or clips (to use the words of another user) is just plainly better than the old fashioned linear system. Its way easier to copy and paste automation this way. As it is, copying automation works, but only half the time in my experience.

Here's what this looks like in Reason 5, which may have improved in later versions. In this version, automation clips can be copied, cut, pasted and deleted. However ghost copies are not implemented:

And the king of automation FL Studio, which implements all the functions found in Reason plus ghost copies, so that changing one item changes the whole lot:

EDIT: Dunno why this got down-voted, automation clips are a great idea. Logic also has this, and it works great.

+3 votes
answered Jun 21, 2016 by niles (49,780 points)
edited Jun 21, 2016 by niles

Scoox answer I don't know FL very well indeed. So fair enough, I will remove my duplicate remarks since this request is also about keeping musical data (notes) and (several) automation/controller parameters together, which indeed is different from dedicated automation clips.

I don't agree about the linearity, since part automation can be treated like your examples, which is exactly what this request is about. If the VST plugin allows it, I already prefer to use part automation over regular automation tracks to control insert parameters for the exact reason I can create ghost copies, rename/color them and move them from song to song or VST to VST and of course keep the automation protected by the regions. 

0 votes
answered Oct 17, 2016 by Contrust (2,680 points)
Awesome! Please do it ;)
0 votes
answered Jul 31, 2017 by wltchris (1,030 points)
+10000 Please! Please! Please!
0 votes
answered Mar 17 by robertgray3 (17,680 points)

Hey niles!

You mentioned in another thread (MIDI Direct Input for Effects Inserts) that this request also covers sending musical data from a part to an effects insert on another track. Maybe it's my Studio One noob-ness showing but I don't get that impression from the request. How would this system cover that situation?

Regards

0 votes
answered Mar 18 by niles (49,780 points)

answer by robertgray3

You mentioned in another thread (MIDI Direct Input for Effects Inserts) that this request also covers sending musical data from a part to an effects insert on another track. Maybe it's my Studio One noob-ness showing but I don't get that impression from the request. How would this system cover that situation?

I was referring to keeping control data and musical data together.
Currently we can only record and send part automation to inserts that support MIDI when we set up a dedicated MIDI track for those inserts.
If we are able to select a part automation lane for any VST parameter in the song (Global part automation), regardless if the track is in direct relation with the insert (or instrument), we would be able to keep parameter modifications that do relate to the sound chain but not the data chain, together.
Of course one could also use parts then that (exclusively) hold part automation to control different devices within the song. 

...