Sentinel Music Studios

Disclaimer
All information in this document is Copyright © 2024 Dell Krauchi, Sentinel Music Studios and RML Labs. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, or otherwise, without prior permission and written consent of Dell Krauchi, Sentinel Music Studios and RML Labs. All trademarks and brand identities as are employed within this text are employed solely for descriptive purposes only and remain the property of their respective owners.

The Addendum
Under a separate cover is an Addendum, of which contains various content – that though this content was deemed absolutely necessary to this present text, that such text was purposefully omitted so as not to interrupt the natural follow of this present text. References to that Addendum will be noted throughout this present text via the employment of "superscripted numerals"…

Employment of "italics"
It is important that proper attention is paid to that text that employs "italics" – as the employment of italics is deliberate and therefore, purposeful. First, italics are employed as a means of emphasizing text. Second, italics are employed for quotations – such as when quoting text from a particular application User Manual....and so on

Preamble
As a young performer in the late 60's and early 70's, I was never one for acquiring lots of "gear"...just a guitar and an amp…no pedals, echo, reverb...and so on. However, such performances were always executed within a "band" environment – simply meaning that I could focus on guitar playing along with the occasional vocals.

Then...
Back then, the band owned the PA – with each of us owning all of our own equipment. Thus, the employment of "other" hardware...monitors, a separate and dedicated mixing console [...along with a FOH engineer], and so on, were not a real concern to us at that time. That was then...

...and now...
As a current "solo" performer, I have opted to maintain that same level of simplicity – inasmuch as I am able to do so. And though, as with others, I did suffer from "GAS"¹ issues from time-to-time – getting older does tend to alleviate such gaseous anomaly issues over time.

This being said, being actively involved – both personally and professionally, with computers and computing, this latter involvement only tends to potentially exacerbate this gaseous anomaly.

About "Solo" Live Performance #1
As the term hopefully infers, solo performance is simply, "the musician and nothing else" – at least from a merely human perspective…"GAS" aside.

This "musician and nothing else" distinction is important to note and for the following, very important, reason: "That nothing-but-nothing must be allowed to interfere with the performer's ability of being able to focus all of their time and attention entirely on the musical aspect of the performance".

Sounds simple enough…"But is it?"

The sole objective of this text...
To ensure that those whom are perusing this text are not wasting their valuable time, I thought it prudent to present to you the sole objective of this text – and which is,

Involvement
To ensure that the significance of "solo live performance" is properly-and-correctly understood in the context within this
text, it is therefore, both important to understand and to realize that as a solo live performer, I am actively involved in four, separate and distinct functions namely, 1) as a Roadie², 2) as a producer, 3) as an engineer, and 4) as a musician. The significance of these four, separate and distinct functions will become more apparent as we proceed.

The "Criteria"
The criteria employed for this project consists of two categories, 1) Preliminary criteria, and 2) Design criteria. Each of these criterions will now be discussed in turn.

Preliminary Criteria
The preliminary criterion consists of two factors, 1) familiarity, and 2) learning period. By familiarity I am referring to the software, and more specifically, where that software has features that are considered as being "common" with other similar software applications.

1) Familiarity
For example, a Digital Audio Workstation [DAW] should have features that are common amongst the various developers, for example, user interface, tracks, channels, and so on. Regardless of the features that are considered as being privy to a particular developer's design implementation, a DAW-is-a-DAW-is-a-DAW!

The very same principle could be applied to "word processing software", "Internet browsers", and "guitar amp simulation software".

And again, this same principle should be applicable to "live performance software" in that there should be features that are common amongst these various offerings.

2) Learning Period
With regards to the learning period, there are two points that need to be mentioned, 1) it will be construed that the "first employment" of any software application has a definite "learning period" – regardless of the extent of that learning period, and 2) more importantly however, will that learning period be applicable to other similar softwares? From my own personal experience, this "applicableness" with the other offerings...was simply NOT the case!

For example, working with a number of the other offerings – though those applications employed similar features, such familiarity was of no, real, practicable benefit in lessening the learning period with a subsequent-and-similar application. This point is important and is therefore, well worth remembering!

Proprietary versus Non-proprietary
Though the employment of these two terms may not be "text-book" definitions, the manner in which these terms are meant to be employed here in this present text – I do believe – will suffice.

1. Proprietary: Simply..."Fixed". From my personal perspective, proprietary refers to hardware that literally forces the end user to abide by a fixed, and therefore, inflexible, "modus operandi" - with this modus operandi being solely determined by the developer of that hardware - whatever that "modus operandi" is. With regards to the software...developer may, for whatever reason, include features within that software that have absolutely no correlation to other, similar softwares.
2. Non-Proprietary: Simply then..."Non-fixed". Again, from my personal perspective, non-proprietary refers to hardware or software that permits the end user to ultimately determine how that hardware or software is to be finally deployed.

Purpose
The purpose in my mentioning the above two terms is simply to note that whatever equipment is being employed in this solo live performance environment must be "non-fixed".

For example, preference will be placed on those software applications that permit the end user – as noted previously, to decide how-when-where-and-what is installed.

Lastly, preference will be placed on those software applications that do indeed, correlate with other similar softwares. Hopefully, these points will become apparent as we proceed.

A Question
Before continuing, I would like to ask the solo performer's amongst us, one seemingly insignificant, yet, for our purposes here, profoundly relevant question – and that question is,

• Note: Again, "solo performance" as meant to be understood here in this present context, will refer to music that is "...primarily of an instrumental nature".

If being able to perform live music in this manner is of any interest to you at all ...then please read on...

Considerations
In order to maintain – what will herein be referred to in this text as "a simplistic approach" to live performance – especially solo live performance, as you will discover, such an approach is contingent on the "gear" - that is, the hardware and the software that will be employed to meet this simplistic approach objective.

The Seven Design Criteria
To meet with this "simplistic approach" objective then, all of the gear must meet with the following seven design criteria:

1. Portability: To be as portable as is possible.
2. Practicality: To be as easy to setup and to take-down as is possible.
3. Platform: To be entirely Windows-based.
4. Intervention: To be able to perform an entire evening's solo performance with no - or at least, minimal intervention on
                             the part of the performer.
5. Prohibitions: To prohibit the employment of any type of pedal-board or other such "external" guitar-related gear.
6. Connectivity: To allow for connections for up to four devices consisting of three guitars and one microphone.
7. Coverage: To be able to accommodate a maximum floor area of thirty-five square feet - or five feet by seven feet.

Significance
As you will discover, of the aforementioned seven design criteria, the most significant, and more specifically, the most critical of these seven design criteria, are the fourth and the fifth elements namely, and very simply, 4) minimal intervention, and 5) no external gear. You will discover precisely why these two criterions are so critical as to the success or to the failure of this endeavour as we proceed...

"Outlining"
As a point of interest, I would have saved myself considerable time, effort and indeed, capital – especially with regards to the software-side of things, if I had taken the time to outline this endeavour at the outset! "Hindsight is better than foresight" would have been the wisdom of the day. Thus, I am hopeful that this text may be of some practicable benefit to others in this regard?

The Solutions Sections
It is important to note that at various points within in this text, various solutions are provided 1) as a means of adding credibility to the net outcomes as a result of these solutions, and 2) to demonstrate the various steps that were taken to achieve the final end result.

With the above points in mind, we will now consider each of the above seven design criteria in turn...

Design Criteria #1: Portability
The primary goal of this criterion was to keep everything as small and as light as is possible. With the exception of the custom case for the computer and other related gear – with this custom case weighing in at approximately 45lbs, I do believe that I have met with this criterion.
• Note: Please see the Addendum for an itemized list of both the hardware³ and the software⁴ that was employed in the realization of this criterion.

The secondary goal of this criterion was the subsequent, overall affect that Criteria #1 would have on Criteria #2.

Design Criteria #2: Ease of setup and take-down
The goal here was to have the equipment set-up and equipment take-down periods of times ranging from fifteen to thirty minutes – maximum!

In both of these scenarios, I have been able to complete set-up times within 20 minutes and take-down times within 20-25 minutes. Therefore, this design criterion has also been met as well!

Design Criteria #3: To be entirely Windows-based
All of the software that is employed within this project is entirely Windows-based. For further information of the specifics of this software, please see the Addendum⁴.

Design Criteria #4: To be able to perform an entire evening's solo performance with no – or at least, minimal intervention on the part of the performer.
As I began researching these various design criteria, I soon came to realize that of the seven criteria involved – that this criterion was to be the single most important criterion.

To understand why this criterion is so important, I believe that it is absolutely imperative to understand precisely what is meant by the phrase "with no – or at least, minimal intervention on the part of the performer".

I will first consider what this phrase is not referring to – then second, what this phrase is referring to. Therefore...

…what this phrase is not referring to…
This phrase is not referring to "musical intervention". As a performing musician, the very fact that I am actively involved in the performance of the "live music" should clearly demonstrate that I am indeed – very much involved in this process. But again, this type of intervention is not what is being referred to here. Therefore, to continue…

…what this phrase is referring to…
This phrase is referring to what will be referred to as "non-musical intervention". This non-musical intervention consists of four processes, namely, 1) the developmental process, 2) the pre-performance process, 3) the performance process, and 4) the post-performance process.

The Four  Processes
Following is a very brief explanation of these four intervention processes:

1. Developmental: This process would involve all of the preparatory work involved in the other three processes.
2. Pre-performance: This process would involve all of the preparatory work involved at the beginning of the actual performance - and which will herein be referred to as "the load-in".
3. Performance: This process would involve all that is involved in and during the actual performance.
4. Post-performance: This process would involve all of the concluding work at the close of the actual performance - and which will herein be referred to as "the load-out".

As you will soon discover, the most important of these four processes is the third process - which is the performance process...

About the "Performance Process"…
As to specifically why this particular process is the most important of the four processes is due entirely to the fact that it is this process that involves the actual performance of the music. It is important to understand then, that the sole reason that I am so actively involved in each of the other three processes – and in particular, the first, is to ensure that the requirements of this third process are met in the first place! I do hope that this point makes sense?

About the "Developmental Process"…
This process involves what will occur in the other three processes and which involves all of the research and developmental processes in order to be able meet with the objectives of the other three processes – and again, in particular, the third process.

About the Hardware
In light of the above, what I soon came to realize during my research with regards to the hardware – and more specifically, with regards to the "chassis" that would house all of the hardware that would be required, that the only "real" option open to me was for me to design the chassis myself in order that this process could be realized!
• Please refer to the Addendum³ for information on the equipment designed specifically to assist in the realization of this process.

About the Software #1
As with the hardware, I also came to realize during my research that the software was not only an important ingredient – but rather, as I was to discover later, it was the "type" of software that was being deployed that would be absolutely critical to either the success or the failure of this entire project! This point is so very important and therefore, should be remembered!
• Please refer to the Addendum⁴ for information with regards to the software that was employed to assist in the realization of this entire process.

About the Software #2
One seeming insignificant point needs to be mentioned here and that point has to do with what is commonly referred to as "offline" employment. The term "offline" simply describes a connection that "is broken or disconnected". When a device is offline, that device is unable to send or receive "outside" information through that device. Why is this significant? Great question!

Most often, in a "live performance environment", the computer is generally "...not connected to the Internet". Thus, if any of the software requires an active Internet connection, that software then, may not be applicable for employment in such a situation. Thus...
• Please note that reference to such "offline employment" does not infer, or suggest at all, that the RML Labs software is not able to be deployed in a "local" networked environment. Please refer to the Addendum⁵ for information with regards to the "remote" capabilities of the RML Labs software.

About "Solo" Live Performance #2
With regards to the title of this text, though the focus is indeed on solo live performance – as one of the stated criteria notes, "the equipment must accommodate connections for up to four devices", and which will consist of "three guitars and one microphone".

With regards to employment of a microphone, the microphone will not be employed "for singing", but rather, the microphone will be employed for "Emcee" purposes. This point is important and is therefore, well worth remembering. More on this point later.

About "Theatre Production"
During my research, I came across information pertaining to, "...theater and production show automation..." Until then, I had never considered that the environment that I was currently involved in was akin to that which would occur within a theatrical environment – though in my particular situation, nowhere near to the extent of such involvement. This information – as I was soon to discover, would be a real "game changer!"

"Scope"
A word-or-two with regards to the scope of this solo live performance environment is warranted. Thus, the scope of this solo live performance environment will be focused on "...a single performer employing whatever 'instrument' is at their disposal at that time...voice, piano, guitar...and so on". This scope is important, and is therefore, well worth remembering.

About the Software #3
As a direct result of the discovery of the significance of, and may I say, the critical nature of, the software, I spent a considerable amount of time, effort and indeed, capital, in researching the various application options that were available at that time such as, Abelton Live, Camelot Pro, Cantabile Performer, Cubase, Gig Performer, Harrison Mixbus, LiveProfessor, PG Music Power Tracks Pro, Plogue Bidule, Rack Performer, Reaper and Steinberg VST Live…to name but a few.⁶

However, and this is an important however, as I was later to discover, that though most of the above software applications were designed specifically for live performance employment, that none of these software applications met with the preliminary criterion noted previously namely, familiarity, and learning period. In short, these applications simply left me...wanting something more!

An important discovery...
When all hope seemed lost, I was to later discover – or more accurately, to "re-discover", what might be construed as two "rather obscure" software applications – both of which were developed by Mr. Bob Lentini of RML Labs.

As the software and the subsequent information relevant to this section, is, as I noted, "absolutely critical to either the success or the failure of this entire project" – I sincerely believe that further information is warranted with regards to some of the nuances of these two rather obscure – and yet rather unique, software applications.

The Two Applications
The two software applications that were chosen to be utilized in this present scenario are, 1) Software Audio Workshop – SAWStudio...or SAW, for short, and 2) Software Audio Console – or SAC, for short. So, we have SAW…and we have SAC. More information on these two software applications now follows...

About SAWStudio

SAWStudio is, in simple terms, a Digital Audi Workstation – or a DAW. However, and this is an important however, SAWStudio is so much more than your stereotypical Digital Audio Workstation software application.
§  Note: Due to the sole purpose of this article, I will not delve into all of those details and nuances here. However, for further information, please refer to the Addendum⁷ for further information on SAWStudio.

About SAC

SAC, is software that is commonly referred to as "a-mixer-in-a-box" software application. To ensure however, that SAC is properly understood, I tend to refer to SAC as "...a software implementation of a physical, hardware-based, digital mixing console..." – representative of what is shown in the image below:

However, as with SAWStudio, SAC is also, so much more than the other attempts at a-mixer-in-a-box software application – such as Harrison Mixbus.
• Note: As with SAWStudio, due to the sole purpose of this article, I will not be delving into all of those details and nuances here. Please see the Addendum⁷ for further information.

About the Alternatives
With regards to the possible alternatives, as mentioned previously, I would like to address the five following important points:

1. Of the twelve possible alternatives as previously noted, the following four possible alternatives will be those of primary interest in this text, 1) Camelot Pro, 2) Cantabile Performer, 3) Steinberg VST Live, and 4) Gig Performer.
• These four alternatives were selected as these applications were designed with a specific focus on employment within a live performance environment...though all, not necessarily, a solo live performance environment.
2. Comparative pricing - at the time or writing:

3.  Though the combination of SAW and SAC may be somewhat "cost prohibitive" to some – as well as being platform-specific, the following points should be taken into serious consideration:
a) That the four possible alternatives are considered as propriety applications – in that these applications were designed to fulfill a very specific need.
b) Thus, these applications are really-and-truly only designed to function within the purview for which these applications were designed! This point is important and therefore, is well worth remembering! See the section entitled "About the Software #3" above.
c) SAW, as was mentioned previously, is a "Digital Audio Workstation" and therefore, SAW consists of all of the inherent functionalities of a DAW application - such as Cubase, Ableton Live, Reaper, and so on.
d) SAC is "a software replication" of a physical, digital, hardware-based, digital mixing console and therefore, SAC consists all of the inherent functionalities of a physical, hardware-based, digital mixing console.
4. That both SAW and SAC can not only be employed in a manner similar to that of the four possible alternatives, but that both SAW and SAC can also be employed in such a manner that is simply beyond the scope of the other four possible alternatives.
5. As you will discover later in this text, all of the possible alternatives require the employment of MIDI as their primary means for "programmatic control" of the software – with the possible exception of one.
• On the other hand, SAW and SAC can employ not only MIDI for such "programmatic control" of the software, but that SAW in particular, can employ other means for "programmatic control" of the software. More on this programmatic control aspect later...

About "Steinberg VST Live"
This application might be the only possible exception here as the overall functionality of this application appears to be similar to that which would exist in a Digital Audio Workstation. However, due to time constraints and more importantly, to the overall design scope of this application, Steinberg VST Live was deemed unsuitable for my particular needs.

Summary #1
In the final analysis, none of the alternative applications permitted the degree of control that I was seeking – and in particular, that most of these alternative applications required the employment of, and were very dependent on, the employment of a MIDI – and therefore, a MIDI controller of some kind would then be required.
• Note: The employment of a MIDI controller does not fulfill the requirements of the original design criterion – in particular, Criterion #5 namely, "To prohibit the employment of any type of pedal-board or other such 'external' guitar-related gear."

SAW and SAC – "In Tandem"
As you will discover, the real power behind the employment of these two software applications however namely, SAC and SAW, is when both of these software applications are employed together – or, as Bob refers to this employment, as "linked".

Following is a screen capture of my current SAC configuration…

…and here is a screen capture of my current SAW configuration…

The "Links"
In the following two images, please observe the following…in the upper left-hand corner of each of these software applications is the bracketed text: [SAC – Link] and [SAW – Link]…

 

What these two links permit me to do is to "toggle" between these two software applications – but only when required to do so – with such toggling being involved primarily during the developmental process.
• A very important note: Very seldom then – if indeed ever, is such toggling required during an actual performance! As you will discover, this point is so very, very important and is therefore, well worth remembering!

Employing the SAW/SAC Links
According to the User Manual's it states, "SAWStudio includes internal links directly to SAC. The SAC Link option is activated from within SAWStudio and once a connection link between SAWStudio and SAC has been established, you can now pass data in both directions for recording and playback with SAWStudio using internal shared memory buffers that completely bypass the Windows soundcard drivers. SAWStudio will automatically disconnect from the drivers and use the internal shared buffers to communicate with the outside world through the SAC engine. Soundfile View recording will be disabled when the SAC Link is active, but Soundfile View playback is possible."⁸

An important observation to note here...and which is the key point to be drawn from the above, is that "SAWStudio will automatically disconnect from the drivers and use the internal shared buffers to communicate with the outside world through the SAC engine."

Why is this point so important? Simply in that under normal circumstances, digital audio has the potential of placing considerable "load" on the computer system being employed at that time. Adding more load to that existing load...is simply not practicable!

However, and this is an important however, Mr. Lentini, being well aware of this anomaly, designed the softwares to communicate to each other in such a manner so as not to place further load on the system! Well done, Bob!
• Note: For further information of the specifics of these capabilities, please refer to application User Manuals.⁸

"Front-end" and "Back-end" Employment
For our purposes here in this present text, SAC is acting as the front-end…whilst SAW is acting as the back-end during the entirety of this developmental process. A word-or-two then, about this front-end/back-end employment is now warranted.

The Front-end/Back-end
For the purposes of this text, the employment of these terms will refer to a specific scenario wherein that which is in the back is controlling that which is in the front. For example…

As can be seen from the above diagram, SAW – which is in the back, thus, the back-end, is controlling SAC – which is in the front, thus, the front-end – through the [SAC – Link] link.

Now, whatever this particular control involves will be explained a bit later. Suffice it to say for the moment, that even though all of this control work that SAW is performing is not being observed – as SAC is literally "covering" SAW, SAW is still performing all of this background control work nonetheless. And the work that SAW is performing in the background is simply, absolutely amazing!
• The reason that "SAC is covering SAW", is due entirely to the available screen real-estate. For those system that employ dual monitors, this coverage would not be an issue.

I do believe that a bit more information on this SAW|SAC employment is still warranted...therefore, a bit more background information will now be provided…

Channel Count
Both SAW and SAC – being, in reality, companion applications, make provision for total of one hundred and fifty channels!
§  Important note: In contrast to what was stated previously in the section entitled, "Proprietary versus Non-proprietary" – Bob has chosen to include features within his software development process that has definitive correlation with both applications!"

 

Both SAC and SAW provide for a total of one hundred and fifty channels! These one hundred and fifty channels consist of 1) one-hundred and twenty input channels, 2) six return channels, and 3) twenty-four output channels.

In the image below, six input channels, six return channels and six output channels have been reconfigured and then displayed:

About "Companion Applications"
With regards to SAW and SAC being "companion applications" then, in contrast to what was stated previously in the section entitled, "Proprietary versus Non-proprietary" – Bob has chosen to include features within his software development that has definitive correlation with the other software!" This correlation can be easily observed in the above image as both applications do indeed have similar features.

Application Configuration
As shown in the image above, both SAW and SAC permit the reconfiguration of these various channels – so as to be specific, to the "job-at-hand". For example...

1) For SAW
Of these one-hundred and twenty input channels and twenty-four output channels that SAW has available then, I have re-configured two of these input channels and one output channel in SAW as observed below:

Observations
The "Backing Track" data is being sent from SAW to SAC via Track O-01 [A]. SAC can be configured to send all of the relevant "channel mix data", back to SAW for recording purposes via O-01 – if required, to Track I-02 in SAW [B].

2) For SAC
Of these one-hundred and twenty input channels and twenty-four output channels that SAC has available then, I have re-configured six of these input  channels and one output channel in SAC as shown below:

Observation 1
Again, SAC is receiving the "Backing Track" data from SAW to Track I-05 in SAC via "SS Mixer Channels".

Observation 2
The output of the SAC input channels – I-01 to I-05, is being sent to O-01, with this output being sent to a pair of active speakers.

To continue...3) For SAC
I have created twenty-one "Scenes"…as observed below:

Observation 1
According to the SAC User Manual, "Scenes are snapshots of all 25 mixer settings and can be used to instantly recall the consoles to a preset state."⁹ And though each of the above listed scenes are important, the most relevant scenes for our purposes here at the moment are the ten "AmpSim" scenes "Preset 000" to "Preset 009"….

 

Observation 2
Each of these ten scenes will subsequently "trigger" – or launch, presets within Mike Scuffham's "S-Gear 3" AmpSim software application. For example, launching scene "Preset 002" launches the "Europa, Variation 2" preset…

…whilst launching scene "Preset 005" launches the "KC's Blues, Variation 1" preset…and so on…

A very significant detail...
It is imperative to understand that all of these "scenes-launching-presets" scenes are just fine-and-dandy…except for one small-but-very-significant detail…"How do I trigger these Scene changes in SAC…all without user intervention?"
• Remember: That minimal intervention is one of the critical design criterions [#4] that must be met in order to accomplish the objectives of this "simplistic approach"!

Following are a number of attempts at a potential resolve to this issue...

Solution #1a: The Space Bar?
Within SAC itself, it is possible to trigger scene changes in SAC via the employment of the [Space bar]. Okay? But such employment would require subsequent intervention from me – that is, with "me" employing the [Space Bar] during the actual performance to do so.

Now, employing the [Space bar] just might be alright on occasion, however, for the KC's Blues session for example, there are no less than six preset changes that would need to be invoked! Therefore, the employment of the [Space Bar] is not going to be very practicable at all here!

Solution #1b: MIDI?
On the other hand, I could employ MIDI to trigger the Scene changes in SAC…but again, such MIDI employment would require some kind of external device – which does not meet the original design criteria [#5] – "to prohibit the employment of any form of pedal-board or guitar-related external gear". Therefore, the employment of MIDI is not going to work here as well...Okay!

Solution #1c: The Links?
Well...guess what? This is precisely where the "links" come into play – literally!

Employing the Control Track
Selecting [SAW – Link] in SAC produces the following end result…

Observation 1
What has just transpired here – or more importantly, what is being observed here…is the transition from the front-end to the back-end – and more specifically, with this transition occurring...in real time.

I will now explain to you exactly what is transpiring here…and indeed, what is transpiring here is the work of absolute genius!

Observation 2
1.      A pre-recorded audio file for KC's Blues – at "A", is inserted into SAW's MultiTrack…
• Please note that I am working within a DAW application at the moment!

Positioned just below SAW's MultiTrack is the Control Track…

2.      The Control Track is employed to control – thus the name, many of the operations that would normally occur within the SAW environment – even those operations that would normally be invoked by the end user.
• Note: Please see the Addendum¹⁰ for an itemized list of the various Control Track commands that are available...with this list being indeed – quite extensive!

The Selected Cmds
The Control Track's "Built-In Cmds" that I would like to focus on here in this particular scenario, are the following:

The above commands are inserted at specific points within an audio wave file that was previously inserted into the SAW MultiTrack. For example, here is a portion of the KC's Blues Backing Track…

…and here is a brief explanation of what is precisely transpiring in the above image.
• Note: Remember, that all of what is transpiring here in SAW is also occurring simultaneously in SAC – with SAW's Control Track triggering – or controlling, in particular, the various scene events in SAC:

To make this entire scenario all work-as-it-should, one of the Control Track's Built-In Cmds is the "SACLink Recall Scene By Name" command – which is without-a-doubt…an incredibly significant and versatile command!¹⁰

In particular, what this command accomplishes is "to send a command to SAC to recall a named scene from anywhere in the Scenes View listbox – and where the command will find the scene and jump to that scene within the listbox, thus recalling that scene".

To continue...
Okay? What does all of this mean to you and to me? How about this…

This being able to perform…without any intervention on my part, permits me, the performer, to focus entirely on the show, thus leaving all of the background work for launching the Scenes in SAC via the Control Track in SAW. Absolutely Wonderful!

But wait…there is more…! SAW is not only involved in the playback of the pre-recorded backing track, SAW is again...also launching scene changes in SAC! Just think about this feature for a moment – having each-and-every preset change within S-Gear 3…occurring automatically and seamlessly – all without your intervention! Again, Absolutely Wonderful!

Some very interesting observations...
Observation 1: Interestingly, I have had many in the audience ask me either during a break or just after a performance how was it that I was able to make changes in the sound of my electric guitar without me apparently having to do anything?

Observation 2: This observance on the part of the audience is really-and-truly quite remarkable…and I believe this observance to be so for the following two reasons, a) it demonstrates that they, the audience, are both listening and watching, and b) it demonstrates that they, the audience, are indeed concerned about how a performance is, in a real sense, delivered to them. Very interesting indeed!

To continue...
This takes care of the preset changes within S-Gear 3 for the electric guitar performances. However, what of the "other" performances – or, more specifically, the "sets"?

The Sets
For our purposes here, a "set" is "a group of associated SAC/SAW session files and which are associated with a particular performance". To complete this scenario then, a word-or-two needs to be mentioned with regards to the overall arrangement of these "sets" that make up a complete performance.

The "Six" Sets
To begin with, a complete performance consists of six sets namely:

1.      Intro tunes
2.      Emcee
3.      Nylon-strung guitar performances
4.      Steel-strung guitar performances
5.      Electric Guitar performances
6.      Outro tunes

Sets and Session Files
All of this Control-Track-launching-Scenes is again, fine-and-dandy…except for yet, still another small but very significant detail…"How do I launch the various session files that make up the sets and which are required to run an entire show – with no, or at least, minimal intervention on my part?"

Manual launching of the session files would again require intervention from me – with a subsequent interruption in the actual performance to do so. Remember, no external gear is permitted! [#5]

So what stroke of genius does Mr. Lentini have up his sleeve to rectify this situation? Introducing, "Show Control!"

Solution #2: Show Control?
As stated in the SAWStudio User manual, "The Show Control View offers features for playlist-style operation. The Show Control View resides outside of and separate from the session EDLs, and actually allows lists of independent EDLs to be controlled in a sequential or non-sequential playback arrangement. The view is basically a listbox where you may add session EDL entries in a specific order. Each entry may have a Continue option and a Midi Trigger option that controls the playback flow of the list at that point. You can use Show Control playback in combination with Control Track options inside each session to setup some very powerful playback options for theater and production show automation."¹¹

Employing Show Control
The following is an image of the Show Control configuration that is employed in all of my performances:

 

Some Observations
From the following image, please make note of the following:

 

 

^AI prefer to meet with the audience prior to the beginning of a performance. These three intro tunes permit me to do just that.
^BThe Emcee introduces each of the various sets during a performance – four introductions in total.
^These three sessions are performed back-to-back…and therefore, all without my intervention.
^DAgain, I prefer to meet with the audience at the conclusion of a performance. As with the intro tunes, the three outro tunes allow me to do just that.

Performance Conclusion
With Show Control then, all of the above sessions will automatically advance one-after-the-other – in a sequential playback arrangement until the [End_of_Show] session file is reached.

"No Time Limits?"
However, there is still, one more final concern with regards to the above that needs to be considered – with this consideration having to do with the Emcee performances, the nylon-strung guitar performances, and the steel-strung guitar performances. Why? What is this consideration you ask? Great question!

Simply this, "That such performances – unlike the electric guitar performances, consist of what I would refer to as having no time limit constraints." I do hope that this very important and significant consideration will make sense in a minute? So, let us continue...

With the electric guitar performances, such performances are performed, as noted, back-to-back – with each performance consisting of a pre-determined – or set, period of time. However, and this is an important however, with the Emcee, nylon-strung guitar performances, and steel-strung guitar performances, these performances do not have a pre-determined – or a set, period of time! What is one to do?

Though all the nylon-strung guitar performances and steel-strung guitar performances "are all scored"¹², during an actual performance, these arrangements will be performed in a rather free-form and improvisational manner – thus allowing for not only for variations in the actual composition, but also variations with regards to the actual durations of these compositions as well! So, just how is this particular issue to be resolved?

This same principle would apply to the Emcee – who should be able to communicate with the audience in "a free and inspirational manner" – again, all without time-limited constraints. Following is a potential resolve to this issue...

Solution #3: The Control Track and Show Control?
Well, according to the SAWStudio User Manual, we read, "You can use Show Control playback in combination with Control Track options inside each session to setup some very powerful playback options for theater and production show automation."¹¹ And this is precisely what is being accomplished here! Incredible!
• Note: In the above section entitled, "About Theatre Production", reference was made to "...theater and production show automation..." ...and how such information would be a real "game changer"! This is what that previous section "...on theatrical production" was referring to!

From the image below, please observe the following – and which is employed during a nylon-strung guitar performance set:

Observations
From the above images, please make note of the following:

^AThe key element here is "Insert Point E". Though the command employed here is in reality, called, "Stop / Cue Next / Play" – I have simply renamed this command as "Pause" – as this designation more appropriately reflects what it is that needs to be accomplished here…and which is to simply pause the performance for an indefinite period of time.

From the SAWStudio User Manual, "The Stop Playback / Cue Next / Play causes playback to stop at this position and then cues to the next Cue Location position and begins playback immediately."¹³

All that is required from me at this point is to simply tap the [Space Bar] to continue with this current performance – with Show Control triggering the next performance as shown in the Show Control triggering listing – which is, in this particular situation, the Emcee performance.

Summary #2
In summary thus far then, during an entire performance, I am only required to tap the [Space Bar] during those performances that include a "Pause" command – a total of six taps to be exact!

A very important question...
However, does this implementation of the [Space Bar] during those performances that include a "Pause" command contravene Criteria #4, "To be able to perform an entire evening's solo performance with no - or at least, minimal intervention on the part of the performer"? Great question! And the answer, "Actually", "No! It does not!"

...and the answer...
Though intervention on my part is indeed required at these six points, that such interventions do not – in any way whatsoever, interrupt the natural flow of the actual performance. Why? Simply because it is only at the end of a musical performance that such interventions are invoked! This point is so very important and therefore, should be remembered! Remember, Criteria #4 states, "...with...minimal intervention on the part of the performer!"

Therefore, please consider the following:

1.      If you really think about this "intervention period" of time for a moment, that during such performances, I am intentionally pausing – No! Not stopping…the actual set for a very definite and specific purpose.
2.      This "pausing of the performance" does not require any intervention on my part – all being managed by SAW through the deployment of Show Control and the Control Track!
3.      From the audience's perspective, all that the audience is observing is me doing is "reaching out" and tapping something on the computer – as I am not required to view the actual screen display in any way whatsoever! Brilliant!
4.      It is also worth mentioning here that this "tapping of the [Space bar]" could, and can, proceed completely unnoticed – for example, whist I am performing a "curtain call" or whilst I am changing out guitars for the next performance.
5.      Lastly, as the subsequent set is – in each and every situation, an Emcee set, the audience is generally focused more on me whist I am "talking" rather than what is transpiring on the computer at that particular moment. Brilliant!
• Remember: That the next session is always the Emcee set, and thus, I will be always be communicating with the audience at this time.

The [End_of_Show] Session
I believe that there is one final tid-bit that should be mentioned here, and this final tid-bit has to do with the final performance, appropriately called, "End of Show". Please observe the following…

From the above images, please note of the following:

…and that is – as they say, "That!"

Here is an image of the final "End of Show" Scene - of which has been appropriately called "Finish":

From the above image, please observe the following:

• Note: This period of time then, would be that time at the conclusion of the entire performance, when all of the power-down, the eventual take-down and the load-out work procedures would be performed.

Show control: Options Icon
I was recently updating an existing session file, when I suddenly realized that I had forgotten to mention another incredible feature-set of the employment of either the Control Track or Show Control.

According to the SAW User Manual it states, "Options Icon: [Right-Clicking] on the blue pyramid Options icon will hide (minimize) SAWStudio and leave the Show Control view visible on top of whatever is underneath. This can be used to control SAWStudio's Show Control playback functions from inside SAC for instance. Right–Clicking the zone again will restore SAWStudio to the screen."¹⁴

Below is an image of the Options icon:

Observation 1
1.      As with regards to the actual colour of this icon – the colour is entirely dependent on what is referred to as "shades"¹⁵ for employment within the RML Labs environment. As can be observed in the image above, the shade that I have opted to employ displays the icon in a gray-colour. Below is and image of the default graphics for the SAW "Options" icon...

2.      Following is a screen-shot of the end result of a right-click on the Options icon from within SAW:

Observation 2

From the above image, please make note of the following:

1.      SAW is now "functioning" within SAC.
2.      It is important to understand that SAW is not in any way affecting SAC – SAC is operating independently of SAW, whilst SAW is operating independently of SAC.
3.      As noted above, this employment permits the control of the Show Control playback functions from within SAC. Again...brilliant!
4.      With Show Control functioning-and-active within SAC, this also provides access to the various options and editing features of Show Control – such as adding and/or deleting sessions, altering the order of the sessions, and so on.

Summary #3: Separating "work" from "play" – literally!
Bob's design of and implementation of the Control Track and Show Control permits the performer – "pre-show" if you like, to manage all of the technical aspects of a performance – without interfering in any way with the musical aspects of a performance! In a real-and-true-sense, the only connecting link between these two functionalities is when the musician is required to invoke the [Space bar].

Though, in my particular situation, I am functioning as the roadie, the producer, the engineer and the musician, that it would be possible to assign three of these tasks to others – thus permitting the musician to focus all of their time and attention on the performance itself and therefore, not having to be at all concerned about what is transpiring "behind the scenes" – so-to-speak. Brilliant!

Finally, all of this information then, satisfies the design criterion for #4...and therefore, to continue...

Design Criteria #5: To prohibit the employment of any form of pedal-board or "external" guitar-related gear.
As can be seen from the above – due entirely to the manner in which SAC and SAW have been designed, and need I say which so wonderfully accommodates my modus operandi, that such employments permitted me to not have to rely on any form of external guitar-related gear to complete an entire performance – and "all with minimal intervention from me". Absolutely wonderful!

Design Criteria #6: To allow for connections for up to four devices consisting of three guitars and one microphone.
Through the employment the Behringer ADA8200 audio interface in conjunction with the RME HDSP9632, this design criterion has been met as these audio interfaces do provide for – at least, four discreet audio inputs.

Design Criteria #7: To be able to accommodate a maximum floor area of thirty-five square feet – or five feet by seven feet.
To begin with, here is a diagram of the pre-conceived floor plan that I had in mind for the equipment layout:

• Note: Please see the Addendum^3,4 for an itemized list of both the hardware and the software that was employed in the above configuration.

Summary #4: Conclusion
1.      I would like to now ascertain if the all of the above information does meet with my original design criteria expectations? Here is what I have been able to ascertain:

2.      As can be seen from the above listing, it would appear that I have been able to meet with all of my original design criteria objectives, along with some very nice unanticipated results – two of this these unanticipated results being primarily the ability to literally 1) manage all of the technical aspects of a performance beforehand, and 2) doing so all without interfering with the musical aspects of a performance.

MIDI Employment and Deployment
A word-or-two should be mentioned with regards to the employment of MIDI.

Though the employment of MIDI – as a control feature, has never been one of my personal preferences, the employment of MIDI within SAW or SAC is readily available for those that wish to employ such a protocol.

For example, SAW provides an add-on feature called, "MIDI WorkShop" – which provides access to the employment of VSTi's – or "virtual instruments", such as Native Instrument's Kontakt...as well as many, many others. This being said, SAW, as a standalone application, does permit the employment of MIDI.

And though one of the design criteria was "...to prohibit the employment of any type of pedal-board or other such 'external' guitar-related gear..."...that this criterion must be understood as being a matter "of personal preference", and therefore, such personal preferences should not be construed as being binding on others. I do hope that this makes sense?

"The Learning Curve"
A word-or-two should also be mentioned with regards to "learning curves".

To begin with, the term "learning curve" is a relatively new term and which was first employed in 2018, and which is defined as "...the rate at which something can be learned or the degree of difficulty in learning something..."¹⁶ Okay! What does this learning curve have to do with this present text? Interestingly, a great deal!

As mentioned previously, SAW is a "Digital Audio Workstation" and therefore, SAW contains all of the inherent functionalities of a DAW application. Thus, since beginning with Steinberg Pro 24 for the Atari, then migrating to Cubase, then Power Tracks Pro, then Reaper...all of these applications, being DAW's...all have similar feature-sets. Thus, the transition to SAW was all that much easier!

SAC, on the other hand, is "a software replication" of a physical, hardware-based, digital mixing console and therefore, SAC contains all of the inherent functionalities of a physical, hardware-based, digital mixing console. Thus, working with digital consoles such as Roland's VM-3100 Pro, Roland's SI-24 and the Yamaha O1X - all of these "digital devices", did assist me with minimizing the learning curve when learning SAC. Okay!

Therefore, if I understand – even in the most minimalistic sense, the basic functionalities of a DAW and then the basic functionalities of a hardware-based, digital mixing console, then I am in the position of simply learning how to apply that which I already have knowledge of – to a new scenario! Man! I do hope that I am making sense here?

There are two points that are absolutely critical to understand here, 1) with the other offerings, I found that I had to learn a completely new environment when moving from one application to the other...rather than being able to build on information which I already had previous knowledge of, and 2) though the current SAC and SAW configuration consists of six inputs and one output, it would not be at all difficult to update that current configuration to accommodate "other" instrumentalists – such as vocalist and a pianist!
• Note: It might be worthy of note here that – as there is the possibility of the addition of other instrumentalists – such as a vocalist and a pianist, that templates have already been pre-configured in the event that such a scenario does arise!

Again, as noted previously, "That both SAW and SAC can not only be employed in a manner similar to that of the four possible alternatives, but that both SAW and SAC can also be employed in such a manner that is simply beyond the scope of the other four possible alternatives"...and that this point is what is crucial to understand here! Again, I do hope that I am making sense here?

In very simple terms, "I am not having to learn how to re-invent the wheel!"

Finally, SAC and SAW does meet with the preliminary criterion with regards to familiarity and learning period as noted previously.

The common thread…
If there is one significant aspect that would be what I would refer to as the common thread throughout this entire text is that apparently Mr. Lentini has given considerable and serious thought as to just how one would actually employ a piece of software – in particular,  in reference to theater and production show automation!

And with regards to the actual software itself, I have not spent any time at all on what Bob's software is like to actually work with and what that software actually sounds like!

"Inconspicuousness"
Yes!...inconspicuousness is a real word and which simply means, "...not likely to be seen or noticed". Thus, in my own personal experience, Bob's software design and implementation is indeed inconspicuous…and more specifically, that his software does not get in the way of the performance – either physically or audibly, in any way whatsoever. Well done, Bob!

In closing…
I do sincerely hope that some will find this text informative, technically comprehensive, more importantly, musically productive – and that this information will be of some practicable benefit and employment to others.

And finally, if you have not yet taken the opportunity of the consideration of Bob's software products, then I would strongly suggest that you do so…and see for yourself all that SAW and SAC can bring to the table.
• Note: Software demonstrations are available on the RML Studio Web site. Please see the Addendum for further information⁷.

In my humble opinion, SAW and SAC represent two of the best values in audio music and production software available today. And with regards to "mixing in the virtual realm" – all that I can say, is that there is simply nothing else like it!

Sincerely,



Date: March 3, 2019
Updated: March 4, 2024