First thing I would mention is that I am doing this on Mac OS and on Ardour 8.12
I reversed an audio track but I want to keep that reverse effect when I reverse it back to fit the original audio wave form.
I have tried reversed the audio track, export it and selected to reimport it as soon as it was done exporting it, then reverse that track. Is there an easier way to do this? I may have an idea of how to achieve the effect I want but I want to make sure I doing it in an over complicated way when there is probably a simple solution.
Can you explain what you mean? If you reverse something which was reversed, it is forward again. If you want the reverse effect why do you “reverse it back”?
I did this kind of things in some old ardour sessions. The way I did was this:
copy the original track content to another track and reverse it
create an effect track (not a bus)
send the reversed track audio to the effect track (just re-route the reversed track outputs to the inputs of the effect track)
record the reversed track effect in the effect track
get rid of the reversed track
reverse the recorded effect
align to the original track
mix according to desired result
Sometimes, I tried something more fun: I simply recorded my live playing backward (yeah, it can be a bit of a brain teaser to play a part backward ) with effect(s) on (I used h/w effects and recorded as is) and then I reversed the track.
That seems kind of complex. Why not just copy a region to a new track, reverse the region copy, and then just have the additional track to mix? The goal is to end up with an original track, and a reversed copy, correct?
copy the original track content to another track and reverse it
So you have track 1 original, and track 2, copy of original but reversed.
create an effect track (not a bus)
send the reversed track audio to the effect track (just re-route the reversed track outputs to the inputs of the effect track)
record the reversed track effect in the effect track
get rid of the reversed track
So you record track 2 to another track 3, record the audio of track 2, then get rid of track 2.
So at that point isn’t track 3 identical to track 2? Why do you bother with recording track 2 to another track, then deleting track 2?
reverse the recorded effect
This is where I especially get lost. If you reverse the reversed track, it is back to being the same as the original track. That seems like a lot of work to end up with the original track and a copy.
What am I missing in the process that makes the final step not just a copy of the original track again?
the reversed track (track2) is then routed to an effect track (which contains say an echo or reverb) where the effect is 100% wet. So what is recorded in track 3 is a 100% effected audio. Then track 3 can be reversed, so in actuality you are reversing the effect, which can then be aligned to the original track (that’s why I said it can’t be a bus because you want the effect on the reversed audio so the effect can be reversed in order to be playable along the original raw track). Believe me, you can get some pretty interesting effects in this way!
Got it. I feel a bit dense, for some reason I was not catching the step of adding an effect plugin into the process.
The process the OP described seems to be as few steps as you can get, or close to it.
I would have to try later to see if the “freeze” track menu selection would do what is needed with fewer steps. You might be able to copy a region to a new track, reverse, add the effect, then freeze that track, and reverse the resulting frozen region. I think you would just have to try it to see if it was more time efficient.
) with effect(s) on (I used h/w effects and recorded as is) and then I reversed the track.