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
exporting Neundo project files to Protools session? DAW Software
Old 24th May 2004
  #1
Lives for gear
 
DirkB's Avatar
 

exporting Neundo project files to Protools session?

Hi All,

I'm recording in Nuendo and the record company I'm about to sign a production deal with, wants me to deliver the recorded tracks so that they can be imported in Protools.

Anyone know how to do this conveniantly? Of course I could make all files starting at 0.00.00 but that would mean some serious waste of Cd-rom space .

Any tips?
BTW I'm recording 24bit 44.1kHz WAV files.

Greetings,
Dirk
Old 24th May 2004
  #2
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

The tracks all need to start at the beginning of the song and need to extend the full length of the song, and should be 24 bit, sample rate whatever that is, and in .wav format. Which I see you allready are doing.

You'll also need to note the sample rate so the engineer importing them into pro-tools will know what sample rate they are.

There's no waste of cd-rom space if you consolidate the region (that's what they call it in pro-tools..not sure about Nuendo) after recording to make it the length of the song. The extra space is digital silence, there's no audio there and therefore the information is small enough that you won't notice.

Also make sure you name all tracks so someone else can easily tell what they are. And make tracking/mixing notes and include those in the cd-rom you send to the label. Documentation is critical. Think about the person 30 years from now who might need to do some work with your sessions...are they going to be able to easily or will they have to fight with the files to figure out what you did?

Also include all mic's you used and if possible pictures or documentation of the tracking process..mic placement and such. Signal chains should also be documentated.

If you work professional enough the label might hire you for other projects....you don't want to send them cd-r's and have them say...man..this guy's a wack job.

No pressure......
Old 25th May 2004
  #3
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally posted by djui5
The tracks all need to start at the beginning of the song and need to extend the full length of the song,
No. Although it doesn't hurt anything, they don't "have" to extend the full song length. Only to the end of each respective track. It would be visually more consistant if they did, but could waste a lot of cd space if, for example, some tracks only had recorded parts in the intro or many tracks ended a great distance from the full end of the song.




anthony
Old 25th May 2004
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Frost's Avatar
 

Actually digital silence is just all 0's and takes up exactly the same amount of space as audio. This will leave you with big files still.

Instead, in the audio menu you can bounce to an audio file. Then export to omf file. You can go into your pool and write a dvd of the new audiofiles and the omf file. Then load the omf file into protools. This will read the time stamp and the audio but no automation or plugins.

Frost
Old 25th May 2004
  #5
Lives for gear
 
DirkB's Avatar
 

Thanks,

I'll be trying to OMF thing, should work.

Greetings,
Dirk
Old 25th May 2004
  #6
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by stereotype
No. Although it doesn't hurt anything, they don't "have" to extend the full song length. Only to the end of each respective track. It would be visually more consistant if they did, but could waste a lot of cd space if, for example, some tracks only had recorded parts in the intro or many tracks ended a great distance from the full end of the song.




anthony

I understand your point..but you also have to think about the possibility of someone questioning where the end of the song might be, even if its bluntly obvious. As for wasting cd-space, I wouldn't consider files like that a waste of space.

Maybe if you record something that's 20 seconds, then consolidate the track to song length..making the region say 4 min's long will add considerable size to the file, but I've never checked that and will next time I'm in the studio. I was under the impression that it didn't.
Old 25th May 2004
  #7
gko
Gear Head
 
gko's Avatar
 

import audio to original

When importing broadcast wave files there is an import feature in PT to import to original time stamp. All the audiofiles go to the place in the new PT file they were recorded at in Nuendo, if they were recorded as broadcast wave file.

gr Gertjan
Old 25th May 2004
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
OMF export works. I've done it.
Old 25th May 2004
  #9
Lives for gear
 
DirkB's Avatar
 

What about fades and crossfades, are they "documented" in the omf file?

Greetings,
Dirk
Old 25th May 2004
  #10
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally posted by djui5
I understand your point..but you also have to think about the possibility of someone questioning where the end of the song might be, even if its bluntly obvious. As for wasting cd-space, I wouldn't consider files like that a waste of space.

Maybe if you record something that's 20 seconds, then consolidate the track to song length..making the region say 4 min's long will add considerable size to the file, but I've never checked that and will next time I'm in the studio. I was under the impression that it didn't.
Likewise, I understand your point. And I've certainly seen and been guilty of some pretty stupid things. But I think it would be hard to miss the fact that the end of the longest track (or tracks) is the end of the song using this method.

As for the track size, a track of just silence that lasts 4 minutes would use the same media space as a track of 4 minute audio. If you take a track that has 1 vocal part lasting 20 seconds and consolodate to the same length as other tracks lasting 4 minutes, you would increase its media space to that of 4 minutes; about 40 MB give or take. (1 min. stereo [email protected] = aprox. 10 MB)

As for broadcast .wav files, they do carry the time stamping with them. But spotting every region could be incredibly tedious depending on the session. If all tracks are consolodated into a continuos region per track and simply start at the same point, they can just be lined up to that and you're on your way.

OMF is certainly an option, but it's much more popular in the post-production world. It's also (or at least was at one time) an expensive "option"; not a default part of PT. Therefore, many users don't have it. You should check to see if they have that option


anthony
Old 25th May 2004
  #11
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by DirkB
What about fades and crossfades, are they "documented" in the omf file?
If you "flatten" the Broadcast Wave Files then all the fades, cross fades, layers, etc. will transfer as one track... if you don't "flatten" the files then you'll have to consolidate the files when you import it to P-T [I don't remember the command sequence to 'flatten' the files in Nuendo... but I'm sure it's in the manual somewhere].
Old 25th May 2004
  #12
Lives for gear
 
DirkB's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletcher
If you "flatten" the Broadcast Wave Files then all the fades, cross fades, layers, etc. will transfer as one track... if you don't "flatten" the files then you'll have to consolidate the files when you import it to P-T [I don't remember the command sequence to 'flatten' the files in Nuendo... but I'm sure it's in the manual somewhere].
Yeah, that's what I thought. I can bounce the parts to audio, I guess that's what you mean with 'flatten'. I'll check the manual what's the proper way of doing things...

Greetings,
Dirk
Old 25th May 2004
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Nuendo will render the fades as files. Also, make sure that any stereo inyetleaved tracks are converted to 2 separate mono tracks. otherwise you will lose one of the sides, as the OMF export in Nuendo does not like dealing with stereo.
Old 25th May 2004
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Anothe rthing to do, is get them to buy you an Mbox or similar set-up with OMF support so you can do the transfers and check them yourself before sending them out.
Old 25th May 2004
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Geert van den Berg's Avatar
 

Another thing that I think is worth mentioning is that OMF import and export in Pro Tools is an additional option and mostly used in the post production world. I use it sometimes. I think that many music studios don't even have it installed as it cost some money. Making long audio files works everytime, so it's safe. If you have short pieces of audio, say the intro, I also don't see the need to make the audiofile the same as the songlenght, as long as all the starttimes are the same for every track. Another option is to consolidate (bounce in Cubase/Nuendo) every track and then use the snap to original timestamp feature in PT's, as long as you note this on the cover of the CD. As for edits, if your material is good, I wouldn't care if it doesn't have any handles to change something. It's handy but not the most important. And then a song is maybe to CDr's, so what? CD's are cheap. And as been said, make sure everything is named correct and documented.

You could check with the company if they'd use the same studio for mixing every time and then you could check with them as how to deliver. It would be a waste of time to make something they can't work with directly. I wouldn't buy an Mbox since you would also have to buy the OMF option (DigiTranslator) and you wouldn't use It for anything else.
Old 25th May 2004
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
It's easy. They can either make the mixdown facility buy Digitranslator to get the work.
Or they can buy you an Mbox with omf capabilities. Either way, they're going to have to pay, and it's not your problem, but theirs. They want your work, so they shoudl figure out how to deal with it.
Old 25th May 2004
  #17
Gear Head
 

Guys...........this OMF stuff really seems a bit to the extreme to me......

As I stated earlier, I'd be surprised if they even have OMF capability since it's an expensive add on option. Second, just consolidating the tracks into single regions all starting from the same point, with good, clear documentation should be plenty and quite acceptable by even major label standards.

My personal experience says that keeping it simple makes the best impression. OMF is not simple. Go to the DUC on Digidesign's site and read some troubleshooting posts on it.......
Old 25th May 2004
  #18
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by stereotype
Guys...........this OMF stuff really seems a bit to the extreme to me......

Second, just consolidating the tracks into single regions all starting from the same point, with good, clear documentation should be plenty and quite acceptable by even major label standards.

Thank you.

So to do OMF with fade files on your tracks you need to flatten the track, then bounce each track individually to disk, then export as omf?...f'n $hit.....that's a lot of work if you ask me.

http://grammys.com/pe_wing/guidelines/index.aspx

On the bottom is the master delivery recommendations for sending session files to labels.

Of course you can do what you want...so if you want to send in bounced omf files....then be my guest.
Old 25th May 2004
  #19
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Henchman
It's easy. They can either make the mixdown facility buy Digitranslator to get the work.
Or they can buy you an Mbox with omf capabilities. Either way, they're going to have to pay, and it's not your problem, but theirs. They want your work, so they shoudl figure out how to deal with it.

Not to start a war but I'll bet if you had that kinda attitude they probably wouldn't want your work again.....and would probably send it back and make you fix it on your own time...
Old 25th May 2004
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by djui5
Thank you.

So to do OMF with fade files on your tracks you need to flatten the track, then bounce each track individually to disk, then export as omf?...f'n $hit.....that's a lot of work if you ask me.
No, you just select OMF export from the menu, and it automatically renders the fades on export.
The davantage of OMF export, is that if you are using loops and repeated sections, the final session size can be significantly smaller than converting each track as a complete separate continuous file.

And once you've figured it out, it is actually pretty simple.
Problem is. most people are too lazy to learn how to do it.
Old 26th May 2004
  #21
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally posted by djui5
http://grammys.com/pe_wing/guidelines/index.aspx

On the bottom is the master delivery recommendations for sending session files to labels.
There you have it. Why complicate things with OMF overkill.
Old 26th May 2004
  #22
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Henchman
It's easy. They can either make the mixdown facility buy Digitranslator to get the work.
Or they can buy you an Mbox with omf capabilities. Either way, they're going to have to pay, and it's not your problem, but theirs. They want your work, so they shoudl figure out how to deal with it.

Quote:
Originally posted by djui5
Not to start a war but I'll bet if you had that kinda attitude they probably wouldn't want your work again.....and would probably send it back and make you fix it on your own time...
Oh yeah, I can't wait to tell my clients (former ones after the following!) to inform the label and studio that they have to buy Digitranslator if they expect to use my tracks. Especially since they know fully well all they need are broadcast .wavs all starting together.
Old 26th May 2004
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
I personnally prefer to receive OMF's becasue it allows me to fix bad edits by having the ability to pull out the wav files again if I want.
Old 26th May 2004
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by stereotype
Oh yeah, I can't wait to tell my clients (former ones after the following!) to inform the label and studio that they have to buy Digitranslator if they expect to use my tracks. Especially since they know fully well all they need are broadcast .wavs all starting together.
I wouldn't say HAVE to buy. But I would recommend it though. It jsut allows for more options if anyone wants to re-edit something or change or bad edit.
I would think that buying Digiotranslator would eb a pretty insignificant anoutn to add to a budget for a record.

then again, it should be a free function in Pro-tools, just like every other DAW.
Top Mentioned Products
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
soundslover / High End
5
borism / Music Computers
4
oortnyc / Music Computers
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump