Use chunks to compare mixes of different songs?

[schmargle]

Hi there. After many years of using DP, I've finally discovered chunks.

I'm mixing a five-song EP and wanted to compare mixes of the various songs/sequences in a way that would let me make quick, small changes in each. So, I loaded all five sequences as chunks into a kind of master project. Now I can switch between chunks/sequences and make little adjustments. So, for example, if I notice that the kick in sequence #3 is lower than in the other sequences, I can make that change fast. Then I can quickly make another change in sequence #4.

In the past, I had to listen to bounced stereo sounds in iTunes or in a mastering-like DP project. If I needed to make changes, I had to take notes and then crack open the original project again.

I can think of several downsides to my method:
—If I had more sequences, with lots of tracks, there would probably be a huge strain on the CPU, memory, or disk.
—Right now all the soundbites from all the songs are in the same Audio Files folder. So I wouldn't record this way (they'd all get mixed up), and archiving files from this master project could be a pain.

But my questions are:
—Does anyone else do this?
—Is there a better way to do what I'm after? For example, it would be great if there were a way to either (a) have multiple projects open at once or (b) link the changes in a master project back to the original project, so that when I move a fader in the master project, that change will be registered the next time I open up the original project. But I don't think anything like that is possible.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

If you’re using VIs, setup V-Racks! Then every time you change a chunk, the VI will stay loaded in the background and not have to reload every Thom you change to a different sequence.

If using large VIs with lots of samples and/or high scripted, load only ONE instance of that VI for that instrument in the V-Rack. You can add more instruments in the V-Rack but not on the same channel. This will improved CPU performance as the machine access different cores for each channel.

“Chunks” are the single most important feature in DP. I hate the word (why not call it a freakin’ sequence?) and the fact that DP is otherwise fantastic is just an added bonus.

[FMiguelez]

But my questions are:
—Does anyone else do this?
—Is there a better way to do what I'm after? For example, it would be great if there were a way to either (a) have multiple projects open at once or (b) link the changes in a master project back to the original project, so that when I move a fader in the master project, that change will be registered the next time I open up the original project. But I don't think anything like that is possible.

For you to get out of DP something resembling what you want, you'd need V-Racks, as MLC mentioned above.
You can have your VIs there AND ALSO you can port some of your effects and aux stems (if any) over there (in one or more VI-Racks). This way, any change you make in a V-Rack would affect ALL sequences (chunks) that is routed to use that same effect. So if you, for instance, lower your threshold in a compressor that is in a V-Rack, it would affect the current and all other chunks that use it.

This might work, but you'd need to set it up in such a way that your changes in song A are useful and desired in songs B, C. D and E, which I find very unlikely, unless it's a mastering-related job, which could then work.

There would still be, I imagine, some things that you would want to control at the chunk-level in a dedicated way, so you'd most likely also have some routing within each song normally + whatever you decide to include in V-Racks.

I used to put my effects, such as reverb, delay, etc., in V-Racks, but for MIXING, this method leaves a LOT to be desired (YMMV according to your particular goals). It didn't really work for me because of lack of automation facilities (which must be handled at the chunk-level) and other issues that limit its flexibility for my producing style.

Mastering might be better, but there are other more work-friendly and useful ways to handle mastering in DP.

[schmargle]

Thanks for the replies. V-Racks sound interesting. I could see using them for mastering or even kind of pre-mastering, to see what multiple sequences will sound like through the same mastering chain. But I think from what you both have written and from what I read in the manual, they might add some complexity and still not quite reach the desired goal.

The bottom line is that I would be bringing a common/shared V-Rack into each project, correct? But then, I think I'd still need to open each individual project and hit play. I wouldn't be able to toggle from one sequence to another without opening separate projects.

If the tracks in V-Racks don't hold audio, I'm not sure how I could get it work within a master sequence without doing what I've already done—loading all the individual sequences. So in that case, I wouldn't be gaining much. I would just have more aux tracks.

(Clearly I don't understand V-Racks yet. I'll keep reading and experimenting.)

[daniel.sneed]

AFAIK, V-rack is perfect for holding things such as, aux-bus FXs, VIs, Master or preMaster processing.
This apply only if these may stay in a single state, while switching between different chunks.
Of course, this is personal workflow related.

In my own experience and workflow, V-racks have been a must for long.

[frankf]

There are 3 types of Chunks in DP: Sequence Chunks, Song Chunks and v-rack chunks. All reside in the Chunks window. It took me a while to fully understand DP Chunks and that the name Chunks is not the same as Sequence.

I use Sequence Chunks all the time for comparing versions of film cues, etc. I also use Mixes for comparing level adjustments between mixes.

V-racks to me are the virtual equivalent of hardware racks without patch bays and cabling. I always have at least 1 for VIs and 1 for for non track specific effects.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[SMS]

Depending on the complexity of your sequences, your idea could work well. If there aren't a lot of VIs, etc., a Sequence Chunk will load pretty quickly. Of course, then the individual Project files should also load pretty quickly, too...

—If I had more sequences, with lots of tracks, there would probably be a huge strain on the CPU, memory, or disk.

Don't think so. Sequence Chunks don't use CPU or memory untill they are play-enabled. If you put them in one "Song" which will also work, you can put them in album order, but then, yes all will have to load when the Song is play-enabled. Sounds like this could be great for you, as then you can just pop around to any spot in any song to compare, etc.

—Right now all the soundbites from all the songs are in the same Audio Files folder. So I wouldn't record this way (they'd all get mixed up), and archiving files from this master project could be a pain.

When I do this, I just make sure that audio tracks have some simple identifier in their name (thus the generated audio files will have the identifier), like "fmLeadVox" where 'fm' would be an abbreviation of the song name or something. Be careful with "delete unused soundbites" if 'sharing' the audio in this way.

Also, you can easily split into separate files when done... simply open a new project, import a Sequence Chunk with the option set to copy audio. (I'm assuming this will only grab audio used in that chunk, but I could be wrong...) Do for each chunk you want as a separate file. In each separate project you could then delete unused soundbites, flush, compact, etc. for archiving. All that said, not sure why you'd need to have separate files for archiving as long as it's working with the multiple chunks.

I go back-and-forth about when to put things in a VRack or not, there are (as others have alluded to) situations where each approach is more practical.

[schmargle]

When I do this, I just make sure that audio tracks have some simple identifier in their name

See now that is smart.

Also, you can easily split into separate files when done... simply open a new project, import a Sequence Chunk with the option set to copy audio. (I'm assuming this will only grab audio used in that chunk, but I could be wrong...)

Yes, you have the option to import only the audio associated with a chunk when you load a chunk.

Thanks for the response!

[SMS]

Read about Songs (which are sort of 'sequences of sequences') in the DP manual. The more I think about it, the more I think it wil be a good solution for you. You can easily mess with album order, etc.