you can't hit "record" while running in playback mode, even with the track set to record.
However, punches are pretty easy and are usually done 1 of 2 ways:
When punching in/out in the middle of an event- "split" the event after the last word before the punch in point, then split again just after the last word where you want to punch out. Now you have the "punch-in event separated, so backup before the punch point, set the cursor, then using the control key, highlight ONLY the punch-in event. Hit record and recording will overwrite that event with a new "take".
Note that the computer actually starts recording from the cursor point, but you don't see it, it's behind the old event...you can then drag edges of old and new takes to suit.
The second type of punch, where you are going to record from a point, and go to the end, split the even before the punch point, and drag the split off portion out to as long as you will need to complete the take. or just record on another track, and drag the new take where you want it.
clear as mud? not the answer you wanted? tinker...you will love what vegas can do after you get used to it...it is a great and simple real time program.

maybe someday there will be an analog type of punch in like our old tape decks had, but till then change you perception of recording and all else will follow.
Pete

Vegas has an extremely flexible and powerful event selection and recording "paradigm" that it uses instead of punch-in. Check out the manual for more information.
For people who are used to the punch-in method standard on tape machines and other dedicated recorders it takes a little getting used to (including me) but I would never ever use punch-in again (even if Vegas offered it) after getting used to the flexibility of using the Vegas/event method.
You will never "miss" a punch-in again ("oops I was late on the punch-in").
Approach it with an open mind and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Particularly with the ability to endlessly loop on an event with each take being non-destructively stored on the same track. No need to punch or stop or reassign a new take to a new track.
Also with this method all punch-in overdubs can be completely non-destructive on the same track as well. It's really fantastic.
B.

Thanks for the tips, guys. I'm not crazy about either method because they both require prep work that can slow down the process. I'm a very fast editor, but there are situations where on the fly punching is preferable to all other methods and I wish Sony would add it as an option. That said, I do like the safety Vegas' method affords (very much like Logic Audio), and even in SAWStudio, which is my main PC audio program, I often opt to use two adjacent tracks for performers who aren't particularly adept at assembly type recording. This is how I did my session in Vegas today, and it worked like a charm.

Hello,

In a perfect world I will agree with you, but on the reality, I only can make one operation, push the record button, not have the time for split and mark an event. I made more of 130 takes of a vocal in the same track (word by word) in two hours (In the last record that I worked), simply no way if you don't have punch in/out on fly.

Example: You have in the studio a very famous pop star, he want to record fast, and he want make a lot of takes, and you say "I need ten seconds more between punch because I have the most modern recording software", probably he will reply "The most modern?".

My reality, I use the Steinberg Nuendo (Principally for this reason, tempo track too), and waiting for the punch in/out for the Vegas

Cheers

Ramallo,
I've ran into that instance before, but have a solution. I agree Vegas needs punch-in on the fly, I wrote an extensive list of reasons where people would need this functionality and where Vegas falls short in this area to Sony Engineering.

I'm hoping if you have a famous pop star in your studio, then at least you have a mixer board setup properly for seperate monitoring. So what I would do is start recording and the original track would be on a seperate fader on my mixer and the new part would be on it's own fader. When it's time to do a punch you hit 2 buttons on the mixer with one hand, 1 muting the original track fader and the other unmuting the new track (esscentially an auto monitor punch). With the other hand I would hit the M key, dropping a marker where the punch happened. I know it sounds like jumping through hoops, but so is learning Nuendo and becoming effecient working with 2 apps and importing/exporting back and forth.

Hello Rednroll,

Thanks for your advice ;-)

But I usually make this extreme punch in/out with the backing vocals, when have the needed of close to lead vocal, or double the lead vocal. The problem are: I can have 8 tracks of identical lead vocals in one sesion (Very easy), with a lot of punch in/out (Very small events) on every track, and don't have material time for make a order with the marks (16 tracks with your trick), finally I compose a one or two tracks with the 8 (helped with the producer), I will go fool with the double of tracks and a lot of marks. This is a example of a extreme situation, but no rare (specially with pop or rock).

I started with digital multitrackers with a Protools Nubus (ten years ago or more), probably my needed of punch in/out are because, I worked a lot of years with old analog 2" tape machines ;-). I had needed of learnt Protools.

But, I was tired of the "big brother" (In my country Spain, all studios work with Protools), and started to find other apps, I bought the Vegas 1.0 (Now 4), and I bought the Nuendo 1.0 (Now 2), and I tried to learn work with this apps. For me, basically all the multitrack host are equal, with the menus and buttons in different position. I bought the Nuendo because the Vegas 1 and 2 was useless for me, but I'm very comfortable when I mix with the Vegas, and the mixes that I make with Vegas are better sounding (Subjetive).

I usually work with Nuendo, but I want to work with Vegas (I only use for mix), and I always request the same, punch in/out on fly, variable tempo track, and OMF and AES31 support (As well Broadcast Wave), with the Nuendo I can send a OFM to a Protools machine (Here is very usual send a work to other studio), with the Vegas I can't (Now with externall aplications, yes).

Sorry for my english ;-)

Best Regards

P.D. I use the Nuendo in the Studio, I use the Vegas in my home Studio.

Ramallo,
Your story sounds identcal to mine. I too was raised on 2" and then Adat/DA-88 tapes, then also got into Protools which like you say everyone was using. The problem like most beginner engineers the pay is not too good and I couldn't afford to buy the $5000 hardware and a new MAC for a Protools system. After that I worked in a Studio that used Neve Audio Files for commercial production. This is where I picked up the Donut method, that I use in Vegas, because the Neve's didn't have punch-in on the fly ability either. After I got use to this style of working I actually prefer it better, then the punch-in on the fly method. Having roots in that area though, I can see where other users could use this, especially for those "Feel" punches, and also being able to jump into recording when doing a playback, and the talent starts doing something you want to capture.

The issue I found with the donut method was overlapping punches. While I prefer to record whole verses or choruses at a time, then perhaps punch in a fix here or there, many artists (rap especially) like to work phrase by phrase or even word by word. Now with punching on the fly, no big deal, but as vegas stands now I have to do massive editting while the client is standing in front of the mic just to feed him playback for the next line. This is not realistic and I have frustrated several artists because of the nescessary lag while I edit. Don't get me wrong here, if I can possibly convince an artist to give me bigger chunks and only use punchins for fixes I'm much happier and personally I think the takes sound better, but some sessions just don't go that way. Personnally I prefer not to have 6'3" 220lb hip hop artists get pissed at me cause the pauses between takes are killing their vibe.
Steve S.

Punch-in method:

Make a new blank track adjacent. Hit record, as many takes as you want. Trim off any excess and drag the take you want up to the orignal track.

Just as easy (easier ?) as setting up a punch-in point, but a different way of thinking. You need to either manually mute the original over the re-take section, or split/mute it first.

It would be nice to have the choice of the traditional method - I'm sure SF could design a suitably streamlined way to implement it !

geoff

You just pretty much described the Donut Method Geoff.

I'm from the old school also,and used to punching on the fly etc, but if my memory serves correct, AStuder A800/A827 or Otari M/TR90 still had to cycle the tape to a predetermined point set with the auto locator (this required time), the machines i'm refering to had large motors which handled the 2" tape really well, but were not fast by any means. I believe you can audition parts, become accustomed to viewing wav forms and do splits and re-cues faster with todays software than with the old machines once some "chops" are developed.

-jb

AUTO INPUT functionality with punch on the fly must be implemented before any industry professional will ever take this program seriously in a real world, professional audio multitrack recording environment.

I mix with Vegas and love it, but I will not record with it until these issues are addressed and implemented.

The thread about what Vegas needs is a complete waste of time and is overwhelming the Sony developers with a pile of crap that can be addressed when the program does the basic fundamental aspects that are necessary when recording in a professional environment.

The thread "What Vegas Needs" has been running since September... why?

...Somebody needs to stop it!

...There are too many people making complete nonsense requests for the program, when the fundamental aspects of multitrack recording have not EVER been addressed!

"AUTO INPUT functionality with punch on the fly must be implemented before any industry professional will ever take this program seriously in a real world, professional audio multitrack recording environment."

That's a pretty broad statement. I agree that punch on the fly has it's use for many users. If you read up a few posts though, I mentioned I had worked in a production studio that used Neve Audiophiles. That studio consisted of 15 seperate studios with Neve Audiophiles as the recorders/editors. These are 8 track digital editors expandible to 24 track and didn't have punch on the fly abilities. Now the cost on these rooms ranged from $200/hr to $375. The prices for each Audiophile was $30K-$50K. The viewpoint of this studio and others doing the same type of work, was that if you where using a computer to do your recording, then you really weren't an "Industry Professional". So the point I'm trying to make is that your term of "industry Professional" is much larger than your "circle of industry friends."

16 year old technology rooms that are charging people $375/hr for their room: You or anyone who uses a room with 16 year old technology is a complete fool. I use the RCA B room all the time for less than half that... Oh yeah, I forgot .... you live in Michigan or something like that where there's all kinds of big time studios making records. LOL :)))))

If you are referring to an operational scenario from 10+ years ago, then I still don't understand your point. Are you trying to insinuate that this is considered acceptable and "the norm" for people who are recording with hard disk and program based systems? Or is the insinuation that Industry Professionals are not recording with computers?

You are a complete joke ......Merry Christmas :))))))))) LMFAO@RednRoll.Com :)))))))))

IT IS NOT acceptable to try to "work-around" this scenario in a "Professional Recording Environment" & Industry Professionals WILL NOT & DO NOT consider this appropriate and/or consistant with the way that we work in a multitrack recording environment.

That is why I & the rest of my formidable peers that use Sony Media applications expect these changes to be implemented in the release of V5.

Also, I feel confident that you WILL NOT see a release of V5 without these fundamental elements implemented and completely functional.

I don't have any history with audio at the level being discussed here.
To me the whole punch-in concept sounds daft. It makes sense only if there's some technical limitation that forces you to use it.
Surely just recording to a new track and cutting that into the old track if it's OK is a much better system. I can see many ways for a punch-in to go wrong and destroy what was OK before, yet apart from a few extra mouse clicks I can see no down side to recording to a new track.

"Surely just recording to a new track and cutting that into the old track if it's OK is a much better system. I can see many ways for a punch-in to go wrong and destroy what was OK before, yet apart from a few extra mouse clicks I can see no down side to recording to a new track."


It's actually very safe. I often do multiple complete passes of vocals all the time on the same track and build the comp track as I go, keeping phrases, words, verse or chorus, and I don't keep the artist waiting an innappropriate amount of time. Of course it helps if the Musical Director or Producer trusts your judgement as you work fast. And you can always audition or build different comp tracks later for review.

-jb

Tmrpro,
You really are a joke and I just love having these discussions with engineers like you who think the whole recording industry revolves around your "opinion" and work method. I just hate to have to be the one to give you a reality check like this and inform you that it doesn't. I know that's a pretty big reality hit for your ego to handle all at once, so I don't expect you to grasp it right away. Then you even have the naivity to criticize Michigan as if it there's nothing going on in the recording industry. Well, I can excuse you for that because I realize you're probably not up to date on modern music and probably never heard of the number 1 album sales artist Eminem. Or maybe even Kid Rock, who's sold a few copies also. How about the artists they're bringing up along with them like Uncle Kracker and D-12? Let's go back a little further before them with Ted Nugent and Bob Seiger. Am I getting to your era yet? How about I go back even a little further for you when Motown took the wind out of the sails of Nashville with "Hitsville U.S.A." I know that must have been another hit to your ego seeing you're still riding on the coat tails of Elvis, Johnny Cash, and Jerry Lee Lewis coming from Nashville out of one recording studio. God bless that studio they did some great work and brought us the king of rock and roll. It must be difficult for you making a career riding on those coat tails seeing all those artist are dead now BTW.

Let's go into the advertising production side for Michigan. I know living in the South you might not be aware that Detroit is named "Motown" because it's the number 1 automobile production state in the U.S. Along with that there's quite a few big advertising adjencies to support that industry. Michigan is in the top 3 advertising production studios in the U.S. along with L.A. and New York and then followed by Chicago. I'm not sure where Nashville falls in at the bottom in that industry, nor does anyone really care.

All that aside I do agree Vegas could use punch on the fly ,because there is a couple things that could be useful with having it. I even wrote quite a lengthy discussion to Sony on this topic of the current limitations of Vegas not having it along with auto-input. Have you done the same, expressing the need for it and how it should be implemented and your current limitations without it? I suppose not, you're too busy in this forum telling us how "Industry Professionals" wouldn't even consider using Vegas without it with no substanciating knowledge behind it. Sorry I don't fall into your circle of industry friends with this viewpoint, I've gotten quite a amount of work done without it along with quite a few other "industry professionals". So please, try not to speak on our behalf, it's really an insult because your knowledge doesn't seem to be so broad. Please try to step outside of your bubble and join the rest of us and we can have a constructive conversation for the good of everyone.

Hey farss,

Hope you're having a Happy Holiday season!

When I cut basic tracks for a record, I have at least 5 guys recording at the same time in the following setup:

1. Drummer - Acoustically isolated in Drum booth - 8 mics to 8 mono tracks
2. Bassist - sitting in control room running direct with stereo outputs to 2 mono tracks
3. Acoustic Guitarist - isolated in guitar booth - 1 mic to 1 mono track
4. Electric Guitarist - in control room with amp miced in isolation 2 stereo pairs near & far going to 4 mono tracks
5. Keyboardist - in control room direct with stereo outputs to 2 mono tracks

There are reasons (from a mix standpoint) that we like to keep tracks, including the keyboard's stereo pair, on individual mono tracks which can be a whole different discussion.

You must understand that everyone must be able to hear themselves perfectly and have a very good performance monitoring situation in order to perform at an optimal level. This means in this particular situation that we are monitoring 19 levels and we are also maintaining a consistant and correct level-to-track. In other words; we have to make sure that our tracking levels are not too-low and that they are not clipping and that the players can hear themselves and the rest of the performers in an appropriate manner.

A take is commonly determined in a live recording scenario by how well the drum performance was. It is very rare that you punch a drum track, although in some cases you do. But, the keyboardist may have a punch at one location and the bass player may have a punch at another location and one of the guitarists may have a punch at another location.

It's one thing to have a template set up to coinside with this particular tracking situation to allow you to move on to the next song for the album, but it is a totally different thing to have a template setup for a number of punches and the variables that may occur in any given situation. & remember with Vegas you can not monitor the track because auto input is not happening. So then the variable of multilateral montioring situations becomes a whole other bag of dirty worms to contend with.

When I'm tracking a master session like the one described, these 5 players are getting paid about $200/hr each. So, the cost of using these players for this particular master session runs about $1k/hr.

The players get paid for the time that you are spending trying to create new tracks and monitoring scenarios for every single punch that may need to occur which would most likely take far more time to complete than it would to repair.

There is not a single label on this planet that would appreciate a "written-in" overage to compensate a producer for paying players for all the time they were not recording and you were setting up your program and monitoring situation for the next punch.

Now, if your overdubbing with a single player or cutting vocals, the comp' scenario that you described is workable and could be accomplished without a major loss off time and effort. In fact, I prefer cutting vocals using the comp' method. But, tracking a multi-player recording session is a very different situation.

***...number 1 album sales artist Eminem. Or maybe even Kid Rock, who's sold a few copies also. How about the artists they're bringing up along with them like Uncle Kracker and D-12? Let's go back a little further before them with Ted Nugent and Bob Seiger***

I suppose you had the opportunity to work with any of these these folks at your 16 year old technology studio that rips people off at $375/hr?

again ... LMFAO@RednRoll.Com

& the music industry presence in MI? The labels that have offices there? BMI? ASCAP? SESAC? Who is in your little town of horrors from a business presence standpoint other than automobile manufacturers and advertising agencies which are supported by them?

I wrote a synopsis with illustrations for Sony Developers which can be downloaded and looked at here:

http://tmrpro.com/sf

& you outta just scroll down to where it says "Rush on Strings" here to justify my position:

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/products/productnews/acidnews.asp

"I suppose you had the opportunity to work with any of these these folks at your 16 year old technology studio that rips people off at $375/hr?"

Well, Kid Rock has done work in this studio on numerous occassions. So the answer to your question: Yes, I have. I'm sorry if your caliber of work can't afford to charge rates like this, but when people really want the best and can afford to pay for it, then yes they are willing to pay these rates. If you think I'm making this stuff up then visit that studios website for yourself and take a look at the rates. You don't stay in business as long as they have and charging those rates without clients willing to pay for it. Obviously, you can't phathom that scenario with the quality of talent you bring into your studio. So I guess you really have no ground to stand on when talking about "industry professionals". It just goes to show how limited your experience really is, no matter how many record companies you have in your town. I guess all those record companies just aren't willing to pay good money for your caliber of work your producing.

http://www.ronrose.com/S_AudioPost.html
http://www.ronrose.com/S_AudioRecording.html
http://www.ronrose.com/S_Remote.html

"http://tmrpro.com/sf"

You wrote this, and actually own up to it? You should be ashamed to call yourself an "industry professional" and write such blantantly wrong information. This document really gives me a good laugh and really demonstrates your lack of information in basic recording knowledge 101.

Here's some direct quotes I can pick out right away that are wrong:

"Whether using tape or hard disk, ALL multitrack recorders use the same fundamental principals concerning monitoring for overdubbing; it is called "Auto Input"."

That's not "Auto Input" at all. You better go take some recording classes and learn what "Auto Input" really is.

"Remember, the concept of multitrack is to record many different tracks at once or at different times. Recording different tracks on the same song at different times is also referred to as overdubbing"

LOL!!! This statement really made me laugh. That is totally not the definition of overdubbing. It's pretty bad when you don't even know the correct definition of what "overdubbing" is. Or better yet, what is this definition? Is it "overdubbing" or is it "the concept of multitrack". Or is it like you basically say if you paraphrase that information "the concept of multitrack is overdubbing" Maybe there's some other "industry professionals" in this forum reading this, and they can have a good laugh as I did when they see your definition of overdubbing.

Your diagram is pretty aweful too. Anyone who's done any recording professionally will tell you the musicians get their monitor from the "cue" section, which is sent pre/monitor fader. Therefore the engineer has a seperate monitor section from the musicians and can solo particular parts without interupting the musicians headphone mix during the performance. I taught recording classes for 5 years and if I had given misinformation like this, I would have been fired from my position. I will forward your writings to that school, so they can use it as an example of engineers working in the field who haven't had a proper recording education. You might want to pass that writing onto some of your industry professional circle of recording friend peers and have them proof read it. Maybe one of them can point out to you how wrong you are. For now you should go bury your head in the sand, for even considering yourself an "industry professional".

***...will tell you the musicians get their monitor from the "cue" section, which is sent pre/monitor fader. Therefore the engineer has a seperate monitor section from the musicians and can solo particular parts without interupting the musicians headphone mix during the performance.****

You ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT!!! Your reference which you probably cut & paste from a document search on the internet is referring to a console --- NOT A TAPE MACHINE!

...AUTO INPUT is a function of a Multi Track Recorder NOT A RECORDING CONSOLE you total D.A.

LMFAO@RednRoll.Com AGAIN!!! LOL .... Hehehehehe!!!

I can't help but be totally amuzed by your BS! But, it also wastes my valuable time.

If you haven't noticed my presence here lately, it because I don't enjoy participating in your holyer than God attitude and childish geeky BS that doesn't add up in the professional recording world.

I'd like to know who studied under you during your 5 year tenure as a recording professor so I can make sure that they will NEVER work in my circles.

So, what's the name of the "Kid Rock" record you worked on .... I'll have a lot of fun with this one... What was your name again RednRoll? Because I happen to know Robert Richie personally and have his cell number and I can get him to post on this forum to dispute your total and complete idiotic statements that are absolutely nothing but lies.

You're a fool RednRoll@iwannabearecordingengineer.com!!!