|
Subject:Final mixdown question
Posted by: Mohoyoho
Date:9/19/2002 11:36:25 AM
I have read that many ACID users use another software for the final mix i.e. Sound Forge. What does that offer over what you already mixed in ACID? I could see if you wanted to put reverb or some other effect on the whole (or portions) track. But is there any other benefit? Can these be accomplished in ACID? I'm a newbie so please excuse my ignorance. m. |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:9/19/2002 12:53:06 PM
The one standout for me is that I can take a final mixdown (once it's been mastered and saved in WAV or PCA format) in Sound Forge and encode it into several popular formats, including MP3, WMA and RM. This is, from my experience, much faster than having to do it in ACID Pro, probably because all Sound Forge is doing is taking a stereo track with effects already applied to it and encoding it. ACID Pro, on the other hand, has to not only mix everything down to stereo and apply any effects on the fly but also has to encode it into the preferred format. It's certainly workable, but does take longer. For example, a project with 9 tracks takes about 30 seconds to encode into MP3 format using ACID Pro on my system. (PIII 800 MHz w/384 MB RAM.) Sound Forge takes only 10 seconds to encode to MP3 (with the same settings). Another benefit to having Sound Forge is probably for those who use higher resolutions and sample rates, as Sound Forge has tools that will allow a user to dither a final mix down to a CD-ready master (16-bit/44.1 kHz). The general consensus is that an audio project that was originally recorded in 24-bit dithered down to 16-bit sounds better than a similar project that was originally recorded in 16-bit. (More obvious on acoustic recordings.) Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: groovewerx
Date:9/19/2002 1:48:45 PM
no matter which s/w you use you will have to mix everything down with effects. then you'll have to master it. i collect and arrange 10-50 tracks in acid then export/render them as several .wav files. next i import them into cubase for mixing, editing and serious effect automation then mix that down to a two track .wav. from there it goes to wavelab for mastering. once thats saved i open it in acid and render the encoded versions. i could do this in wavelab but acid has more bitrate options. |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: TeeCee
Date:9/19/2002 4:23:51 PM
Well, you can't really do a mixdown in Sound Forge as Sound Forge is a stereo editor, and the mixdown is when you go from a multi-track project to a stereo file. People have been discussing mastering all over lately. Fo best results, mastering for re-sale should be done by Mastering Engineers. What we tend to do at our homes is a little bit of final pollishing, a little EQ, maybe some overall compression. Which may be what Mastering Engineers do, but there is a reason that people bring their stuff to them. In any case, Sound Forge can make it easier to polish your work up and as was stated, it can be faster and easier to change bit depth and/or file format. TeeCee |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: Jessariah
Date:9/19/2002 4:37:38 PM
pulling several mixes into sound forge also allows you to A/B different tracks that are going to be side by side on a cd or online -- therefore you can match EQ & volume by ear. I generally just concern myself with the overall mix in Acid. Sure, you can use the Master bus as a "mastering" section, but it really sounds best if you do it in two steps. |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: TeeCee
Date:9/19/2002 5:10:07 PM
Well, since you said best... If you can use the Master bus effectively, it is best you do it in Acid. When the file is rendered in Acid and then again in Sound Forge, you have more round off error, etc. in the low bits. So it is best if you can render a final product all in one sweep. Not necessarily easiest, though. TeeCee |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: jcarney42
Date:9/19/2002 7:21:30 PM
groovewerx, Vegas Video also does multitrack recording and mixing. And from what I hear, for less money than WaveLab. |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: groovewerx
Date:9/19/2002 8:58:41 PM
well carney i think you're comparing cubase to vegas because wavelab is not a "multitrack" app although it has some mutitrack functions. to explain the difference in price: cubase vst 5 (*$399) is for the professional and vegas audio (*$199) is for the novice to intermediate production levels. bottom line is you get what you pay for. invest in lowend software and you'll get lowend quality and features. if you want the best, price is of no consequence. just charge it back to your clients lol *musician's friend |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: TeeCee
Date:9/20/2002 7:48:26 AM
grooveworx: Vegas Audio 2.0 for $199 is for the discontinued, old stock version. And novice? Vegas is the shit! Except it doesn't have FX automation yet. It is the easiest program I've ever used for a straight mixdown. I usually record all of my MIDI tracks as as audio in Cakewalk/SONAR and move them to Vegas for the mixdown. CuBase has the upper hand for creation because it does MIDI, but Vegas Video does (ahem) Video as well as audio. Novice... TeeCee |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: groovewerx
Date:9/25/2002 7:34:54 PM
cubase vst5 is for video scoring as well all things your multi-app setup can do. |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: TeeCee
Date:10/2/2002 12:03:37 PM
Video scoring? I don't do video, so I'm not familiar with the terminology. If scoring is adding sounds, Vegas Video does much more than that. It does video editing with multiple video tracks, etc. And still, why do you think Vegas is a novice application? TeeCee |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: groovewerx
Date:10/2/2002 2:40:31 PM
apples:oranges cubase is an audio/midi recording app that has some video capabilities. vegas is a video editing app with some audio capabilties. why use a video editor for audio prjects or vice-versa? vegas is for the novice to intemediate user. i say this because professionals use avid and the like. vegas is nothing like avid. |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: TeeCee
Date:10/4/2002 11:35:58 AM
"apples:oranges" You started the analogy and you were stating that Vegas was novice as compared to CuBase I believe. Vegas started as an audio program and was given video capabilities and much to the dismay of many Vegas users, it now has Video permanently in the name. Other users fear is that people such as your self will believe that Vegas is a video program, not an audio program. Looks like it's happening. It's not great for production, but its interface would be perfect for mixdown if it only had FX automation. TeeCee |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: PHATDRUMS
Date:10/4/2002 12:03:44 PM
i found some early reviews/marketing of vegas where it was placing it in the maketplace up against protools whether this was the reviewers placing or marketings but eitherway as an audio app it was a very tall order for instance protools then had full atomation of effects (and what fantastic effects they were and are)and here we are 3 3.5 years later and vegas still doesnt have fx automation as direct comparison to protools it was destined to go straight to video on features it offered it simply wasnt pro enough as an audio editor alone it was two years behind just as acid is at the moment their is no point in putting features in unless they are fully finished up to the moment on release vegas and acid are not though im sure auto fx from acid 4 will be added to the next vegas but what would choose when buying an app automation or not 3years ago it seems stupid to me because i like tee cee think that vegas is a dream to use its so easy to pick up even the first time you use it it just doesnt do enough for a lot of people and thats why its not considered pro that and CALLING IT VEGAS VIDEO OF COURSE |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:10/4/2002 9:31:54 PM
"but its interface would be perfect for mixdown if it only had FX automation"- It will...Later. |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: PHATDRUMS
Date:10/5/2002 2:46:12 AM
i agree (see above) what i said is it not the fact three years on from its release a little late to introduce automation when the the competitors already had it at the time three years is a long time when your colleagues are automating like hell its not really commercially viable to hang on to product in the hope that automation will be available one day you definately lose work that way |
|
Subject:RE: Final mixdown question
Reply by: groovewerx
Date:10/5/2002 10:10:47 AM
tc- the comparison analogy was steinberg multitrack to sofo multitrack. as for waiting for sofo features: i can only suggest you get familiar with the competition. |