Tap
Printed From: Aurora
Category: Aurora Sequencer Software
Forum Name: Feature Requests
Forum Discription: Want us to improve something?
URL: http://www.aurorashow.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=619
Printed Date: 24 Apr 2024 at 4:00am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.06 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Tap
Posted By: Kirek
Subject: Tap
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2008 at 11:43pm
|
Can you please add in a tap function? I've held off asking while learning the product.. but with some songs it's just too useful to mark sequences quickly. |
Replies:
Posted By: deweycooter
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 7:14am
|
IMO - it's quicker, and more accurate, to mark a beat at the beginning and another a ways further into the song, and then use the split function. Provided the song is a constant tempo and you position the first and last event lines - you'll nail ALL the beats in between DEAD ON instead of having to tweak every one. Needless to say, I haven't missed the tap function. :) ------------- http://www.deweycooter.com/wiki/index.php/Aurora - Aurora Lights Wiki http://www.aurorashow.com/"> 
|
Posted By: LightChristmas
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 7:17am
First - welcome to the addicition! Check Pt.2 of the video tutorial - you'll see why a tapper is not needed, or even wanted anymore. ------------- http://www.aurorashow.com/"> 
|
Posted By: Pony_God
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 8:23am
|
I do hear the same request many, many times though... I'd like to see a pol of users that have been using Aurora, if they still want it.
SInce it is a high request, I would thing that it would be agood idea, but I wouldn't want to put something in there just to make it esier up front, but hinder as people become better sequencers. Better to not have to wean them off later. ------------- Fine. You're so smart you rig up the lights. http://www.frappr.com/dlight - D-Light users Unite! 
|
Posted By: LightChristmas
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 8:56am
|
My biggest concern is "breaking the camel's back". How many bells and whistles with the app take until we end up with a Spectrum/LSP-esque program that requires a system that a gamer would envy? The primary reason I dumped Spectrum was just that - a P4D couldn't run it without jumping - making the accurate placement of markers nigh impossible. Then we have the whole creativity issue that was broached. Sequencing IS an art-form. The minute we start getting lazy and wanting the app to "do it all", we instantly have an over-priced "Lights and Sounds" box. When any schmuck can dump music into the app and get a full-blown sequence a few minutes later, is the day our hobby dies. The day that either one happens, I'll go static. ------------- http://www.aurorashow.com/">
|
Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 8:57am
|
My present thoughts on this...
I'm in the experimental "wait and see how it goes" group at this time. In other words, it may or may not make it into Aurora as I have not decided yet.
Part of this problem is due to the fact that I haven't written any training/documentation on properly using the Spectrogram yet. Everything needed to place absolutely perfect timing marks (and to do so very quickly) is contained there. All of that said, there are currently three groups of people when it comes to reading the Spectrogram:
Group #1) This group has had some experience with live sound reinforcement, recording, and/or at least some musical training.
Group #2) Certain people are simply "wired" to quickly understand what the Spectrogram shows after a couple playbacks even without any prior exposure to one.
Group #3) The Spectrogram looks like a bunch of noisy jibberish. Unfortunately, this probably accounts for somewhere around 25% of Aurora users at this time.
While the URL to the interactive guide with musical instruments and frequency ranges combined with some occasional pointers is probably adequate as a "getting started" for groups 1 and 2, it does nothing for group 3.
It is arguable if a tapper would be anything more than a crutch for group 3 (and to mislead groups 1 and 2 due to bad habits from other software packages). If you aren't a drummer (we do have a few around here I understand), then it is unlikely that you will ever be able to consistently tap the beats within 1/10 second of where they belong. Anyone with Spectrogram training can hit them perfectly with 1/100 precision every time with just their eyes though. With even moderate practice the difference is amazing.
On the other hand, it would be possible to make an "intelligent tapper" that could combine the user's taps with the beat detection marks to automatically "snap" the taps to the closest beat detection in the event it is within a certain time window.
As I said before, I'm sitting this out at least until we get some good Spectrogram documentation together. There may be a place for it, but it certainly should not ever be used as the tool of first resort due to its non-precise nature. ------------- http://www.aurorashow.com/"> 
|
Posted By: Kirek
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 9:41am
|
I agree that for most songs you don't need tap... but with some songs the autodetect for the beat doesn't work very well, if at all. I've especially noticed on songs like "Snoopy's Christmas" from the Guardsmen. Having a tap there would be sweet. I would like to add in that as a former spectrum user... Aurora is much better for marking timing, but I still miss the tap... though on songs like TSO's Wizards... you just don't need it. As far as drummers.... us Tubist do very well hitting the beat thank you very much! |
Posted By: Pony_God
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 9:54am
|
I sould add one comment that _some_ people just want better music and more channels than the Lights and Sounds can do, but just don't know computers/music enough to ever be happy sequencing. I think that it _might_ be nice for a parrallel program that uses the beat markers as a basis, and applies minimal logic to X input channels and spits out a basic 64 channel L&S-esq show.
Would I ever want that? oh, friggin no. But I wonder if people are scared off by the 3 hours/min of a song. I know two friends that would probably go away from the L&S if they didn't have to sequence.
I know that's a bit off-topic, but this topic (I think) is a entery-level animated-ligting-user type of topic.
If we want to maintain Aurora as a light and clean application, there could also be two runtimes. One that doesn't need a Spectragraph and does tapping, auto-show, and basic commands for people that just can't sequence well. Then the other could be the advanced mode/exe, that Aurora is now that has all of the advaced options and details.
The files from both would be the exact same, just the UI wuold be different. ------------- Fine. You're so smart you rig up the lights. http://www.frappr.com/dlight - D-Light users Unite!
|
Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 10:33am
|
I agree, you really dont need the tapper BUT.......Getting people to
switch from LOR or keep them from away from Lightshowpro....(spectrum
with a new name) without it may be harder. I'll do all I can to recommend Aurora to people looking for sequencing softare. Unfortunately, most people
tend to resists change. If you have always used a tapper, you love your
tapper function, the tapper is your sequencing confort zone, your not
going to switch to something else that doesn't have a tapper function.
The software may get you a beer while your sequencing, pat you on the
back when you finish a sequence, and be the worlds best sequencing
software available, but
a certain number of people will just not purchase unless it has a tapper function. May have to do
some research and see from a business stand point if adding it may
just increase sales. I dont know the exact numbers. Coming from Spectrum and always using a tapper, I know in the beginning,
I wished it was available. Its the difference of being forced to change how you do things and being able tp try new sequencing methods out on your own while still being able to resort back to ways you already know. Just my 2 cents. ------------- Chris www.lightsonsixth.com |
Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 11:17am
|
I agree which is why I have changed my position on the issue. At one point the answer was simply "no". It wasn't going to happen. Now I'm monitoring the request and considering it for 2009. There still isn't a guarantee, but it is on the table, espically a tapper that can auto-snap to the beat detection marks. I'm curious about the 3 hours per minute statistic... has this gone up due to the copy/paste issues? I just recently completed a 210 channel sequence running at around 3:40 in 5 hours.
Of course, having written the software I'm very familiar with the best/optimum way to use it. Information on what "bad habits" are out there would be useful for writing training materials for Aurora classes in 2009. ------------- http://www.aurorashow.com/">
|
Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 11:34am
|
just a simple tapper may work out fine at least to bring in new business unless LOR or LSP has something better. Once they get here, they can learn new ways. How hard is a simple tapper to write the programming for? I dont think the tapper will be "Value Adding" to Aurora as a program, but I think it will be Value adding to Aurora as a marketing tool. ------------- Chris www.lightsonsixth.com |
Posted By: Pony_God
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 12:07pm
|
Right, I don't feel it's value for the software, but valuable for ease of transition from other applications.
3 hours, well... 2 hours or so for me.
FireFly takes a while since I have to determine both the effect and color.
chases are slow because of the amount of time to find the start, then the end, then determine the number of notes in the shase, then split it not always using the "split" because the notes could be diferent lengths, then adding the ramp over a few timning marks to create the tail. Then possibly reversing the entire chase that was just done. After that, it's copy/paste if your lucky to have multiple chase-sceanes in a row.
Wish Lizt took a long time because of the vast amount of notes that I have the mini-trees follow, and then at the beggining there are two seperate note/beats.
UUUuuuhhhhhggggg..... Then there's the classic music... You tell me where a single 'beat' is in 'I'll Be Home For Christmas' and the Grinch drives me up the wall.
Bough's of Holly went fairly quick, but it still took about 8 hours to add timing marks, then another 8 hours to add in the mini-tree movements, arch leaps, and Firefly notes/colors. Then possibly another 6 hours to add in misc. overall colors, fades, effects, and movements around the rest of the yeard.
See, you have a nicely defined area to work with. Nice meta-tree, a grouping of mini-trees, leaping FF arches, and house edges. For us, we have 100' to you left, a dozen pine trees, each of a single color, then a large busy tree with 4 colors and 2 flood colors, a swingset, 3 colors on the roof, 3 colors on the tree in front of the office, 3 colors on the garage, 3 bells on the garage, 5 snowflakes on the roof, 12 panels of color on the ground, a scrub oak with 4 colors and a flood, and them more misc wrapped trees 50' to your left.
There are only a few areas that are well defined, and dense, our display is spead out over our entire yard. Next year, we're getting more dense, so that I don't think will hurt sequenceing time.
The next large problem we're going to have is when we start moving the 500' tward the main road, then we're going to end up with more misc, general, overall lights/actions/floods/misc. stuff that will become more complex to determine timing for.
So it depends on the song, I think the fastest was 22 hours for a 3 min song, the slowest is.... 40 hours on a 4 min song, and I'm not even done. What song? -> The Grinch
So I'm the slowest sequencer around, right? ------------- Fine. You're so smart you rig up the lights. http://www.frappr.com/dlight - D-Light users Unite!
|
Posted By: bdkeen
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 2:03pm
|
I fell into Group #3 and somewhat Group #1 when I initially started using Aurora. Had played around with Spectrum and could never really get the hang of it. Used Vixen and had some sequencing done - used the tapper then to lay down the basic beat. But since Vixen and D-Light don't play together this was just a learning experience.
I understood the Spectragraph somewhat at first and as I used I came to rely upon it greatly and have come to be able to pick out a lot of things just looking at that blueish stuff. (but then I can still read the holes in 5 bit, 8 bit punched paper tape and IBM punch cards)
 ..There may be times I'd like to use a tapper but for the most part I personally fouind that I don't need it.
It would be on my list of 'if it were there I might use it now and then'. I'd sooner see the minor bug items in both Aurora and Borealis all get fixed first and the documentation have a chance to catch up a little to better help first time users. I found Aurora very intuitive and easy to use once I had just a little understanding of what everything is.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Bubba
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2008 at 5:01pm
|
Don't like the tapper and frankly if it slows down my computer one little bit I'm against it completely. After you learn the software you can sequence really fast. After the adjustment period of getting use to Aurora people won't want or need a tapper. Heck all a tapper does is place a vague reference to a beat which you must adjust to get right taking up loads of time. Well Aurora already marks the beats, you lay the lines where you want. ------------- www.brightonbrittain.com |
Posted By: rmonty
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2008 at 8:32am
|
I'm a newbie, but also a musician and programmer and here are my thoughts. At first I couldn't stand placing the event markers for every beat and really wanted the tapper. I have gotten a little more used to not having it, but may I suggest why it would be useful. Sometimes the music has so many instruments or voices, that you really can't see where the downbeat is in the spectrogram. Singling out a specific frequency rarely works due to the changing notes (i.e. voices). Having a visual plus aural way of placing event markers would be ideal, however the only way to do this is to allow placing event markers during playback, or allowing a pause function during playback. Another drawback is just using the mouse to try to click and place something accurately (Ever notice how much space on a button you have to click in an application). Even if you don't add something to add event markers during playback a pause function would be awesome. It is annoying always having to stop and then playback from a certain point only to lose where I was when I stopped. Let me add that even if you add a way to place event markers during playback, the user can still go back and adjust (by dragging) the markers to match the spectrogram.Event marking during playback would allow for those songs that have changes in beat in the middle of the song which is quite common in classical music. Placing a marker at the beginning and end and then doing a split is nice, but doesn't work for all songs.
|
Posted By: jberner
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2008 at 9:17am
|
I am very analytical but have no music training. I tend to agonize over adding timing marks. I have a very hard time pinning down on,on,on,off,on types of beats and aurora doesnt get them either on the spectrograph when voices and other 'busy' instruments are playing. I have figured out over time how to find many beat that aurora doesnt catch especially for bass but finding midrange instrument beats like guitars or flutes that are in the same ranges as vocals can be near impossible it see in the visualizer, especially when it is a singular event and not repetitious. I might listen to the same spot 10 times just to place a single mark. I dont know that a tapper would make that more accurate but it would get it pretty close. I have worked around this by just dropping the mark and sliding it around until it look and sounds right. Great for a one time event but a pain when a song might have 30 to 40 of them. At least the tapper would allow me to go throught the song placing marks where i need them in one swoop and then come back and tweak them. I spent 10 hours doing Wizards (my first show ever) and 3 hours tweaking a show i got from someone else, just on the timing events. Including timing marks I am averaging about 10-13 hours for a a 3 minutes song right now. I would love a tapper just to put close marks and then adjust, and then cut and paste them. I would also love it if the cut and paste function worked faster. |
Posted By: shawmc
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2009 at 6:45pm
|
I'd like to add that this is my 2nd season using Aurora, and it is the only light sequencing software I have used. I have wanted a tapper from the moment I started using the program. Not for the basic beats of the music, that is usually very easy with the spectrogram and the split cell function. But for the melody or fills that may be hidden behind other instruments or vocals, sometimes it is near impossible to see something in the spectrograph.
Honestly I'm surprised it is still a discussion point and not in the software already. The argument that it will dumb down the software and make it a "show in a box" is ridiculous. How is the W2E not the most "dumbed down" of all tools? As a matter of fact I sometimes use the W2E in place a a tapper when I don't have the time or patience to figure out a section perfectly. But that is a crutch not a fix, and its far from perfect. I would gladly give up the W2E for a tapper, since that is the only time I use the W2E. |
Posted By: Lightupky
Date Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 7:15pm
| tapper i can live with out but i would like to be able to change the spacing between the top and bottom of the spectrogram. |
Posted By: Pony_God
Date Posted: 29 Sep 2009 at 7:56am
|
What I would like to see is to be able to have the music looking, AND ability to move the timing lines. It's always been... listen, add, listen, adjust, listen, adjust, listen, adjust.
I'll say that I don't "miss" a tapper, but would probably use it to get the basic layout of the song first.
As for the beat-finder... Well, I ignore it. It seems to never find the beats or is always a hair off. ------------- Fine. You're so smart you rig up the lights. http://www.frappr.com/dlight - D-Light users Unite!
|