Subject:Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Posted by: pHuNzOnE

Date:9/6/2006 3:53:08 PM

I own Cubase SX 3 and Ableton 5.2 as well as AP6. I love the ease of stretching and pitch shifting in AP6. And increasingly it's midi functionality is satisfactory.

I like to use both midi and audio loop tracks in projects.

I am always getting to the point of 'choking' my cpu ... despite having respectable processing power.

Usually I try to use effects and sends on multitimbral outputs from my softsynths to sweeten up each midi track.

It occured to me the other day: Why bother? Why not just laydown a 'dry' synth track with the best sounding patch I can find, render it to audio in AP6 using the 'individual' tracks options, resave the project, 'nuke' the midi tracks and softsynths in the 'resaved' project and import those rendered 'individual' tracks.

I still have the original project if I want to redo a part with another instrument or otherwise muck around with the project.

But now, just using audio I should be able to insert, send and mix to my heart's content without worrying about 'choking' my cpu.

So my question is: Is there any possible reason not to do this? Such as, for example, I might not ultimately be able to get the same audio quality or tone if I hadn't recorded it directly with the effects from the multitimbral outs.

Your thoughts please?

DF

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: randygo

Date:9/6/2006 5:31:36 PM

Why bother "nuking" them and dealing with two projects when you can just render them and mute the original tracks? Use folders to help organize things.

This way you can always go back to your original tracks, tweak, and rerender if necessary.

This is a situation where a "freeze" function is kind of handy to help minimize some of the housekeeping involved. Maybe in Acid Pro 7?

Cheers,

Randy

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: pHuNzOnE

Date:9/6/2006 6:50:15 PM

Well ... because I think the synths are using cpu resources even when 'muted.' As a matter of fact ... I think even 'freeze' functions, while cutting down on what is used, are still using resources.

So once you have your synced to pitch and time midi track rendered to audio (and remember I'm wanting to use the multitimbral outputs, i.e., as many as 16 per synth) wouldn't you be better off making your project as lean as possible and just mixing with the audio?

So, my question still is: (to rephrase and reiterate and assuming I'm rendering to 24 bit so that I'm minimizing digital noise when tweaking the audio in the tracks) with respect to the end product, i.e., a stereo mix, would it make any difference in the audio quality of the track if it were to be first rendered to audio and then 'sent' and 'effected' prior to mix down as opposed to 'sending' and 'effecting' the synth output directly and rendering it.

Phew ... rereading what I just wrote makes me wonder if anyone can understand my question? Wish I could make it more simple.

Anyway ... I'm just asking the question regarding the audio quality comparison, not about other advantages of having a single project, etc.

DF

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: pHuNzOnE

Date:9/6/2006 6:55:52 PM

BTW ... thanks RandyGo!

Rereading what you wrote ( a good practice ... for me anyway!) suggests you may have obliquely answered my question.

You say "why bother 'nuking' them ..." Does this mean you are saying that the 'dry' midi to audio rendered tracks subsequently 'sent' and 'effected' and rerendered are going to be acoustically equvalent to those rendered from the 'sent' and 'effecetd' output of the synth? Assuming of course the same levels, envelopes, sends, effects, etc.

DF

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:9/7/2006 11:36:12 AM

If I recall correctly, any muted MIDI track that's routed to a soft synth will not use any resources. (The same applies to any muted digital audio track.)

If I knew that I might go back to the original MIDI track for any tweaking, I'd just keep it around. Mute it and throw it into a folder like Randy mentioned.

Iacobus

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: thenoizzbox

Date:9/7/2006 12:11:18 PM

If the soft synth buss is not in use I would mut that as well. I do that as well sometimes. I'll render the buss to an audio track then mute it along with the MIDI tracks that were playing through it.

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: pHuNzOnE

Date:9/7/2006 3:58:49 PM

Thanx Guys ...

OK ... I guess your opinions are that muting will take all the cpu load off as if the synths were not loaded in the project.

Stil ... theoretically ... were I for whatever reason to render the midi/ synth tracks to audio 'dry' and then 'effect,' 'send' and mix them exactly as I would have if I'd done so at the level of the synth outputs ... would the audio quality of the the track in question be identical, degraded, etc?

I'd love to know this answer. I understand a digital copy is not like the paper copier where each copy of a copy degrades. But I also hear that when a digital track is 'rendered' and thereby presumably 'destructively' affected by the fx chain, noise can enter the file ... although either less so or negligibly with 24bit recording. That might suggest that rendering the synth output with effects would be more 'pristine' than taking a rendering of a 'dry' synth output and 'rerendering' it with effects in a mixdown.

Just curious about all these 'zeros' and 'ones.'

DF

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: randygo

Date:9/7/2006 4:09:45 PM

Just render at 24-bits with a decent level and no dither and you will be fine.

Cheers,

Randy

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: Vocalpoint

Date:9/8/2006 7:43:37 AM

pHuNzOnE,

I do this all the time...not really in Acid but in my larger projects assembled Nuendo. The bottom line is the same no matter what app you are using to compose - there truly is little point in taxing the DAW to the max but piling on the effects and such to an open VSTi channels.

What's important to me is not only maintaining horsepower for mixing later but flexibility. Rendering a dry VSTi to audio is no different than recording my Telecaster to a totally bone dry audio track so I mold it after. What you want to keep tho is your original MIDI sequences so you can roll out the same notes/composition/playback with a different patch later on in your tracking process.

Here's an example that I use exclusively with my drum tracks. First I get a great basic MIDI drum structure happening by letting Jamstix do most of the work and by using Jamstix internal soundset. Once I get a drum track worth working on - I write the MIDI data to a new track in Nuendo and begin my edits (still working/monitoring mny edits via the Jamstix internal sounds).

Once that MIDI file has been refined to the point where I can commit to it - Jamstix gets deactivated and I load up my awesome Superior Custom and Vintage kits for the real sounds that will end up on the track.

For this portion (when my MIDI drum track is ready to go) I assign it's output to Superior C&V and play the track back once to load all the C&V sounds into memory. Then I use C&V Drummers excellent Bounce feature to render the entire drum performance to 14 separate audio files. These files are imported into my Nuendo project and I am ready to rock.

The C&V bounce allows for both "close" and "room" takes of each drum in the kit and I can really get surgical control over a monster drum mix. The end result is exactly the same as have a perfect studio drum kit - perfectly miked up and perfectly recorded with all mic bleeds and everything included. The beautiful thing is - once I have everything in audio - I deactivate the MIDI drum track...I deactivate off Superior drummer...turn off Jamstix...CPU is at zero and I am ready to move on.

The key points to remember here is that everything is flexible. Suddenly I don't like a turnaround at bar 33? Quickly edit the master MIDI drum file...turn on C&V...take a minute or two to render out the changed parts...and I am good to go.

Also - on your digital copy question - my 24 bit "rendered" drum tracks are untouched and non-destructively messed around with in Nuendo for the whole process. Yes - I guess I could hack and slash away and actually destructively mess with the original...but if I need to do something like that - I just bounce an effected section to a new file and use that. My originals are dry...untouched and exactly the same as when first bounced...and there is no difference that I can here sonically between Superior C&V playing a cymbal crash and the rendered version of that crash.

If you want to avoid any chance of noise or destructively printing FX to a rendered file...then just make sure there are no FX on the track at render time. I prefer to work with the driest files possible and mold them via realtime FX when everything is bounced down to audio.

Hope this helps!

VP

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: pHuNzOnE

Date:9/8/2006 2:07:37 PM

VP

Thanx!

Your post RAWX and is exactly the info I was looking for.

I think I misspoke regarding the files and 'rerendering.' What I should have said was placing the effects/ sends on the 'bone dry' track in the mixer of cubase, for example, and then 'render' to the final mixdown. And for this I still assume you want the 'bone dry' in 24 bit, right?

A last bit of 'technical' issue. I read on a forum once ... since lost the link ... from a guy who apparently is one of the developers for the Sony Oxford plugs for Pro Tools that beyond the hearing range issue, 48K files are preferrable to 44.1K in respect to processing, i.e, sends/ effects, etc.

Do you have a take on this?


Great help.

DF

Subject:RE: Project Question: Midi to Audio then Mix?

Reply by: Vocalpoint

Date:9/8/2006 3:20:06 PM

"48K files are preferrable to 44.1K in respect to processing, i.e, sends/ effects, etc."

Nope. I generally see some 48K with video tracks etc (and guys who like to use 14 cent Soundblaster audio cards etc)...but for guaranteed sonic beauty...44.1K 24 bit is my defacto standard layout. Keeps it easy for the final dither down to CD too...

VP