Hi
@JChenault,
I'm confused about what you are asking the
console to do versus what you want the
console to do.
...
What I want to do:
I am sitting in a
cue with my front lights at 100%. I have an
inhibitive submaster that lets me take them to a lower
level. - so I take them down to 50% on my inhibitive sub.
But I want to be able to
sneak the center area up 10 pts. It would seem that I should be able to create a
submaster that would do this ( perhaps by playing with priority or the exclusions property) . I can't make it do this.
In this scenario, the
level that the
console is calculating on is 100%. You bringing the
inhibitive submaster down to 50% does not change the stored
level for calculation of inhibit until you record that
level.
Thanks for the replies and thoughts.
My use case is two subs ( one inhibit - one
HTP). The
base level is coming from a
cue. The issue is that if the Inhibit sub is set to ( say) 50% - I could not get the output of the 'center area' up as high as I want. I am limited to the
headroom in the original
cue.
This is because, without Exclude from Inhibitive Sub enabled, the
level calculated is (
HTP (either
Cue or Sub)
Level * Inhibitive Sub %) and since you can't have a
submaster with a
level above 100%, you can't get a higher proportion relative to the maximum
level allowed by the inhibitive.
The "interesting" thing was what happened when I tried to set up the
submaster to ignore inhibitive ( this is an option in the interface, but not talked about in the
manual)
This is covered in the 2.5.0
manual supplement where the feature was introduced.
Eos Family Operations Manual Supplement 2.5.0 said:
Exclude From Inhibitive Sub - content cannot be mastered by an
inhibitive submaster
If the underlying
intensity of the
cue had my center area at 80%, and the Inhibitive sub was at ( say) 50% ( giving an output of 40% on the
stage). If I took an
HTP sub that 'ignored' inhibitive, it would do nothing until it reached a
level of 80% at which
point the
channel output would immediately jump to 80%. Not what I wanted at all. ( Sounds like this feature is not ready for prime time to me)
This is the correct behavior for an
HTP sub since the original
level that the
inhibitive submaster was inhibiting is 80% so the
HTP didn't put the
submaster in control until the
level reached 80% at which
point the sub took over and jumped to that value since it is now in control and not listening to the
inhibitive submaster.
We also looked at priorities. If I set the
HTP sub at a higher priority, when I started to move the sub, ( from 0 to 1%) it would immediately jump to 1%. Again no ability to do a smooth
fade.
Again the
console is doing what you are asking it to do. You are telling the
console that the
submaster with the higher priority should be in control and so when it sees a
level (even a lower
level) it jumps to that
level.
The guy I talked to did not quite understand that I wanted a smooth bump not a flash.
I'm not sure what you mean by smooth bump either. Are you saying that you want the
level to increase from the inhibited percentage by 10% without jumping or that you want to have a
sneak time applied to the
level change?
I'm guessing that you want the lights to
fade up in your "(80*50%) = 40%" example to be able to
fade up 10% from 40% using the sub
fader. As long as you want to only
fade up from 40% and never back down, you could set your second
fader to
LTP with "Exclude from Inhibitive Sub" enabled and at the same priority as your
inhibitive submaster. When you
fade that
submaster up, it will start from 40% and
fade up from that
point. You can then update/record the
cue.
The gotcha with the
LTP fader is that if you overshoot and bring it back down, it's going to calculate from the original
HTP value (80) and since it is ignoring the inhibitive sub, you will see it jump up and continue up until the sub no longer has control then the
level will
return to the inhibited 40%. To avoid this unwanted behavior on bringing the
fader down after recording the
cue, set the stomp behavior to "
release" so that when the record action is complete and the
fader loses control, it is released from control until the physical
fader is moved to 0 and then up again. To reset without rerecording, assert the original
cue to also stomp on the
LTP sub and bring the
fader back down and try again.
Ultimately, you are running into a combination of inhibitive percentage calculations combined with changing which source is in control of the
level. Unfortunately, we've yet to develop a reliable "do this only when I mean it, but know when I don't mean it without me telling you" method of control.