The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
PLUG in question...
Old 23rd May 2004
  #1
Gear Maniac
 

Thread Starter
PLUG in question...

Charles and all...

I've got an LE system that's pretty taxed out.... Problem is, I like to treat a great deal of the tracks and instrumentation with Valve/Tape, comps, eqs and other plugs etc... but am running out of horsepower...

My question is this: In order to free up some cpu power.... Is it better to solo the track, do an internal bounce to disc (mono when the case), and end up theortically with a new "printed" version of the track in order to free up the plug in space...
or is an ITB bussing to a new audio track and a complete re-record the better way... Concerned if the dreaded BTD arguement holds up when just using single passes... or if the bussing scheme is better... (if so, are there concerns of latency on the "new" track)...
or... is it better to just Audiosuite the file consecutively?

I've loads of tracks that need some treatment, but don't want to further degrade the quality if there's a bit of funky voodoo going on behind the "a copy is a copy" theory...

any opinion and feedback is genuinely appreciated....
Old 23rd May 2004
  #2
FX smörgåsbord user
 
Charles Dye's Avatar
 

bink,

Just to let you know, there is absolutely nothing wrong with BTD. I use it everyday to print my mixes. (There may have been back in the PT3 days, but no more.) That being said, I had to print tracks to free up DSP in my first few years of PT mixing with some of the larger mixes I did + my preference was to use the busses, because I could print multiple tracks all in one pass. Usually, the kick, snare, bass, rhythm gtrs + maybe toms all at once. I then had tons of DSP to finish the mix.

I always saved the source tracks (deactivated + hid), but if any of the printed tracks needed tweaking I would just pop another eq over them to do a little re-shaping. Usually the only things I would need to change were the snare or kick might need to be a little brighter, and maybe the low end of the bass + kick might might need a re-adjustment. In all the years I printed tracks, I never once felt it necessary to go back + completely rethink a sound or undo the compression.

The one thing I remember about it was what a real groove killer it could be. It always seemed to happen just when things really started to cook with the mix. That's one of the the reasons I really love HD. It's just got so much power. With my HD system I've yet to run out of DSP.

Hope this helps.
Old 23rd May 2004
  #3
Gear Maniac
 

Thread Starter
thanks Charles...

I suspected as much.... just needed some confirmation before endeavoring too far down the path.

Tend to agree with you that saving earlier "deactivated" tracks in their raw form is advantageous... but I too rarely, if ever, feel the need to go back and re-tweak something once I've made the needed decision. Think it's always good to stay in a state of "moving forward" whilst tackling these time sensitive projects which can alway be rethought, overthought, and reworked in countless ways...

Thanks for pointing out that one advantage of doing it the bussing route, as I hadn't thought of it in terms of its "multiple pass" time benefit. Makes a lot of sense in that regard.

I agree with you as well as the nature of it being a bit of a "groove killer," but such is the sacrifice of us native users... until the HD setup is perched in front of me, these workarounds will have to suffice....

thanks so much for the reply...
Old 23rd May 2004
  #4
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

bink,
If I may discuss my experiences with the same situations.

I always found it best to patch dynamic plug'ins on the track like normal...find the setting that I liked best...save that setting then use audiosuite to apply it to the track after removing the insert.

With verbs and fx type of stuff that need's to be bussed I always set up an audio track and record the fx to an audio track after finding the settings I liked. Then you can remove the busses and free up ton's of CPU power. Might be a good idea to save these fx settings also.


If your going to be sending these sessions to a label for their master copies make sure you include documentation of what you did and save the plug-in settings with the sessions.

my $.02
Old 23rd May 2004
  #5
FX smörgåsbord user
 
Charles Dye's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by bink
Think it's always good to stay in a state of "moving forward" whilst tackling these time sensitive projects which can alway be rethought, overthought, and reworked in countless ways...
Now, that bears repeating.

And you're welcome bink.
Old 23rd May 2004
  #6
Gear Maniac
 

Thread Starter
randy...

thanks for the input. I myself have worked that way with the audiosuite scenario as well...

just thought to myself the other day that all of this "plug in on top of plug in rendering" might actually be doing something after umpteen passes to degrade the audio in some way I might be oblivious to.

so I thought I'd ask the community in general if there is really any discernable difference from an audiophile standpoint between BTD, Audiosuite, or buss bounce and re-record....once you start doing this repeatedly.

thanks for the input...
Old 23rd May 2004
  #7
FX smörgåsbord user
 
Charles Dye's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by djui5
With verbs and fx type of stuff that need's to be bussed I always set up an audio track and record the fx to an audio track after finding the settings I liked.
I didn't say it in my original post, but I only print the plugs on the inserts, not the sends, because I could be changing the sends right up until printing the mix. And if there's a special plug I want to make changes to--I don't print it. I'll keep it on the printed track (as long as it happens to work as the last plug in the chain.) My approach is to:[List=1][*] Duplicate the source track to get the printed (destination) track to have the same level, panning, sends (+ levels), automation, and plugs I'm not printing.
[*] On the the source track deactivate the sends, turn off the automation, route the main out to the selected bus, and set the level of the fader to 0 dB.
[*] On the destination track I deactivate all the plugs I will be printing from the source and set the input to the selected bus (from the destination.)[/list=1]Once recorded over to the destination track I can continue with the mix, with my automation + aux send levels where I left off, but with a lot more DSP because I'm not using all the plugs on the inserts of the tracks.

Hope this helps.
Old 23rd May 2004
  #8
FX smörgåsbord user
 
Charles Dye's Avatar
 

With multiple tracks + plugs on each track, I find the rendering as more time consuming and it creates many extra audio files that will never be used again. For example, if I had a compressor + EQ on a track I would have to render the compressed track, then the EQ'd track.

I've also discovered a few plugs that do not render the same in AudioSuite as they sound in insert form. That is reason enough for me to never render tracks this way when converting from inserts.

Hope this helps.
Old 23rd May 2004
  #9
Gear Maniac
 

Thread Starter
yeah Charles...

I was wondering if there was some discrepencies between how a plug in is treated in "insert mode" versus as an audiosuite rendering. This is a big concern for me as I've been re-mixing some tunes that were originally done on adat's... (I know, I know... 16 bit... bad convertors, etc..)

but I'm bringing a few of the tunes into PT with some new arrangements and vocal takes.... and really am finding that both Tape & Valve can take a bit of the edge off the original recordings... but I don't want to further degrade a signal that's already kind of been tapped to it's lowest common denominator... but I need to get them sounding decent for some reworkings...

so you're thinking it's best not to audiosuite just "to be sure..."

for some examples... of the originals I'm working with.

http://www.garageband.com/artist/charlottes_diary

namely... the first, second, and third tracks.

thanks for the valuable contributions from all...
Old 23rd May 2004
  #10
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Charles Dye
I've also discovered a few plugs that do not render the same in AudioSuite as they sound in insert form. That is reason enough for me to never render tracks this way when converting from inserts.

Hope this helps.
It all makes sense now. I thought I was hearing things.


I think from now on I'm going to bounce to disk...never though of that. Thanks Charles!
Old 23rd May 2004
  #11
FX smörgåsbord user
 
Charles Dye's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by bink
so you're thinking it's best not to audiosuite just "to be sure..."
bink,

My preference for printing the tracks via the busses + not AudioSuite has more to do with the fact that AudioSuite takes a few extra steps. And the assurance that I know what I'm getting. They'll sound the same, 'cause I can hear them.

Actually, I haven't done extensive comparisons between inserted plus v. AudioSuite, but I had inconsistent results with Auto-Tune and Waves C4, and for now that was all I needed.

Sorry, I'm not able to hear music where I'm posting from right now. I'll listen later.
Old 23rd May 2004
  #12
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Charles Dye
bink,
Actually, I haven't done extensive comparisons between inserted plus v. AudioSuite, but I had inconsistent results with Auto-Tune and Waves C4, and for now that was all I needed.
Oh yeah...autotune is exciting in that way.
Old 24th May 2004
  #13
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Charles Dye
bink,

Actually, I haven't done extensive comparisons between inserted plus v. AudioSuite, but I had inconsistent results with Auto-Tune and Waves C4, and for now that was all I needed.

With Autotune I think that is enough reason to definitely use it as Audiosuite. It is not the difference between RTAS and AS, but the inconsistency of Autotune itself. It is still a great and essential plugin, but I have always noticed with every version that if you play the same part twice it will be slightly different.
Old 25th May 2004
  #14
Gear Maniac
 

Thread Starter
yeah.... I too as well have had issues with Autotune... for years I'd export and use the old "standalone" audiostream version as that felt more reliable to me.

felt similarly about some of the GRM stuff when I've had a chance to use it both ways.... (I guess I'm beginning to answer my own questions with regard to BTD or audiosuite).
Old 25th May 2004
  #15
Gear Maniac
 

Thread Starter
.... my bad....... meant moogerfooger stuff... (always getting my filter plugs mixed)... that stuff sometimes I'd swear comes out differently... but maybe it has more to do with the way the effect cycles relative to the time of the tune. in any case.... sticking to btd and bussing for the most part from here on out.
Old 26th May 2004
  #16
FX smörgåsbord user
 
Charles Dye's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by karl
With Autotune I think that is enough reason to definitely use it as Audiosuite. It is not the difference between RTAS and AS, but the inconsistency of Autotune itself.
Karl,

I'm not sure if that's a typo or not. Are you saying you prefer the AudioSuite version of Auto-Tune? My preference is for the TDM version.

As most of us know AT doesn't give identical tuning results on every pass, so we print it to another track to make sure it always plays the same, but I've found that the AudioSuite version of AT3 (at least w/ PT 5.3.blah-blah) gave extremely inconsistent timing errors from syllable to syllable. YES, timing errors within a single line of the vocal. I mean when comparing the vocal before + after tuning w/ AudioSuite the resulting audio's syllables were all phrased completely differently. As if it was another vocal take.

This was a while ago so there is an extremely good chance this was sorted with AT4. My point was not to pick on a specific plug-in as much as to say that I have noticed differences between TDM + AudioSuite with some plugs, and that when taking settings from a TDM plug + pasting them to the AS version, be careful + make sure you get exactly the same results.
Old 26th May 2004
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Renie's Avatar
 

In this months Electronic Musician Brian Transeau talks about his methods again.

He says he commits his comp's (possibly EQ too, don't recall) by Audiosuite and leaves fx open.

It interesting the way he actively chooses to do this as a way of working, he doesn't need to, he likes to make a committment to his sound.
Old 26th May 2004
  #18
Gear maniac
 

Hi Charles,

Thanks for the reply. I have a TDM system, but bought the RTAS Autotune 3 because I never wanted to run the thing live. I am just about to upgrade to 4. Do you think there is a real advantage to the TDM plug and bussing to another track instead of AS? Why would TDM be so different to RTAS. This is one of the few file bases plugs that I use along with gain, soundreplacer, pitch n time. Do you avoid AS with these processors as well?
Old 26th May 2004
  #19
Gear Maniac
 

Thread Starter
cheers to BT for making decisions and moving on! always like to hear about artist(s) that I admire that aren't afraid to make committments early on... It's been a hard process for myself - as I'm sure it is for many others on this board - but sometimes we trap ourselves up into a glacial pace "putting decisions off until later..." granted, there are times when it's best to leave it til later to see how it's "fitting in the mix..." but I've found that I work best when I find something I like, print it, and move on... (just want to be sure I'm doing it the best possible way - as evidenced by the thorough opinions in this thread...)
thanks everyone for keeping a great topic active.
Old 26th May 2004
  #20
Gear interested
 
Digital Noob's Avatar
 

In an effort to learn...

Are you guys saying that instead of using audiosuite effects to free up inserts and DSP, you take a group of tracks and bounce them to a sterio pair and import them back into the session and that doing so maintains the integrity of the inserted plugs better?
Old 26th May 2004
  #21
FX smörgåsbord user
 
Charles Dye's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by karl
Do you think there is a real advantage to the TDM plug [of Auto-Tune 3] and bussing to another track instead of AS? Why would TDM be so different to RTAS.
Hi Karl,

I have know I idea why it's different, but it is. When printing the TDM version of AT3 it to another track it makes the audio only slightly later than the source track (1-3 ms). The AS version (as I said before) moves the syllables all around. It may have been unique to the configuration I was on. Don't know.

Test it for yourself. Make a duplicate of your source track, and with one track on top of the other, use the AS version of AT3 to tune one of the tracks. Now, compare them. If you get the same problem I got, the first syllable of the tuned track will be substantially behind the original track and as you scroll along comparing the two, you will notice the timing difference between the two tracks will not remain the same from syllable to syllable.
Quote:
This is one of the few file bases plugs that I use along with gain, soundreplacer, pitch n time. Do you avoid AS with these processors as well?
I have no problem using AS. I use it daily for plugs that are AS only like the ones you mentioned. I just stay away from it for converting my inserted plugs to AS plugs. At least for now. One day I will spend the time to do additional testing.

Again, my main reason for preferring to print tracks via the busses is with more than one insert and multiple tracks (I normally do it in batches of four or more) I find it has fewer steps and doesn't create extra interim sound files.

Hope this helps.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Rick Carson / So much gear, so little time!
25
johnwayne / So much gear, so little time!
11
ellipse / So much gear, so little time!
1
deuc647 / Music Computers
3
logicG5 / Music Computers
2

Forum Jump