New Project, or New Sequence?

[Mountainfeverstudios]

Just curious what everyone else does. When recording an album, do most people create new project for each song, or create a new sequence within the project?

I alwasy create a new project for each song. Keeps the size down. Less chance of a major catastrophe I think.

[FMiguelez]

.

From that point of view you are right, IMO. Especially if the songs are unrelated (as totally different songs).

However, many of us use different chunks in the same project for certain other things, such as different versions of the same thing (a 20 second jingle with a lift to 30, the cues for a certain reel, etc.).

The latter is especially powerful when combined with virtual Rack instruments (and some effects). You save a LOT of CPU this way.

But I would definitely approach songs for an album each on its own project.

My 2 pesos, which with the current exchange rate, its more like my $0.0002

[Mr_Clifford]

+1 what FM said.

I usually use sequences within the same project for film cues, but generally use separate projects for songs on an album. Mostly probably because you're not likely to want to swap back and forth and cut & paste between songs on an album as much as cues within a film project. And big project files with lots of sequences do seem to plod a bit - most noticeable when saving.

Different arrangements/versions of the same song though - that's where multiple chunks/sequences really comes in handy.

[ec_pat5150]

+1 for multiple projects.

Especially if i'm doing a record.

But if the client has only booked say one of two days, and wants to do like 3-5 straightforward songs, i'll use the same sequence. That way we can mix one song, and in turn it mixes the rest. Saves time for stuff like that.

[twistedtom]

Your thinking is imho right on so +2 and +1 for what Cliff said about video projects.

[waterstrum]

Another opinion,

I like having everything in one project.
With the new machines, it all loads pretty fast.
Most of my projects are records and I've had no problems with this technique.
The upsides are: fast switching and V-rack access.

Sometimes I split it in to 2 or 3 projects, but my pref is 1.

[grouse]

For me, definitely a new project for each song. I like the separation. There's something cleansing (?) about closing a project and opening up a new one. Less confusing too. New sequences for different versions of the same track, remixes etc.
Also, It would really suck to have a problem opening up that project if it contained the whole album.

[mhschmieder]

A real time-saver, this thread.

Finally the questions I need answering, are answered automatically, without my having to take precious time to experiment.

Now I know I can afford to take the risk on using chunks on certain contexts, and v-racks, and that my mix settings will/can be global.

[Shooshie]

I don't think I've got a single file (project) anywhere on my hard drives which contains only one sequence. Sometimes that's because one idea leads to another, and I just hit "duplicate track layout," or even "duplicate sequence," if I want to sue the same mixes. But I always make multiple backups of the file itself -- sometimes as many as 4 or 5 per day, depending on the progress I'm making. Then, a problem is easily fixed by either going back to a previous backup, or by loading in a sequence from a previous backup. What I don't always do when working for myself is to copy the backups to another disk to protect myself from disk failure. When working for others, I'm meticulous about those things, but I've so seldom had disk problems without warning signs that I have gotten lax about that. A recent failure of a WD My Book 1 TB drive has been a rude awakening to my laxity. I shall be more conservative about that -- make more backups on other drives -- in the future.

But in regard to the present discussion, if there is any connection between two sequences, I put them in the same file.

Shooshie

[zaratero]

Hi. I´m doing my first 8 song album in one project this week.
Pros:
-Much faster song switching for recording and listening back while tracking
-Bundles, Click, monitoring and vrack setups stay the same, no more adjusting the very last changes everytime you open a new project for a new song in the exact same enviroment.
-Easy importing of file, mixes, track setups, from one song to another (chunk to another I mean ), fastest comparison between mixes.

Cons:
-Opening went over 10 and saving went over 3 minutes when the referenced soundbites went over 60 GBs. It´s back to normal (2 minutes to open, 1-10 secs to save ) now that I did a cleanup of sounbites and undo history and saved a new file.
-Risky? I use incremental backups in a daily basis, and save as "Project.1.1, Project.1.2,....and so on during the day. I feel it´s safe as I always have at least a project from 4 hours before, so feels the same as working on different projects for that sake.
-Soundfile naming schemes. I have to study a bit to be able to rename tracks with some reference to the chunk name in an easy way.

My first impression...this is were DP stands out from other DAWs...The ability to keep all your resources at hand at all times, opening a project for the day, and switching song in a matter of seconds for clients. ( I used to miss the first setup I ever used for recording..Orion DR and DA88s... I´ve never been so fast song switching while tracking...until now )
I like this way of working...I feel I have everything at sight, and recalling this way is faster.
Take it easy.

[Kellog]

This is a good question. For me, it depends on the type of project. If it's a young band doin fast punk songs on a budget, I do em all in one- even all in a row in one sequence while tracking (At least for basics). I just use markers to navigate, Then it's just about their performances and not waiting for my gear to get ready. Then I'll either move the chunks to other sequences or load into new projects to mix. Individual songs are much faster to load and work with on my G5. But when they are all together it's easier for me to mix them all 'similarly' BUT, if each song from a client (or me) has new track layouts and styles, then I use new projects for each. I love finding out how we all work and that DP is so malleable.

[James Steele]

Another opinion,

I like having everything in one project.
With the new machines, it all loads pretty fast.
Most of my projects are records and I've had no problems with this technique.
The upsides are: fast switching and V-rack access.

Sometimes I split it in to 2 or 3 projects, but my pref is 1.

Hmmm... that would scare me as far as if by some freak thing your project file became corrupted. I suppose you might be able to load a sequence from the corrupted project into a new empty one... but it just feels risky.

[waterstrum]

Another opinion,

I like having everything in one project.
With the new machines, it all loads pretty fast.
Most of my projects are records and I've had no problems with this technique.
The upsides are: fast switching and V-rack access.

Sometimes I split it in to 2 or 3 projects, but my pref is 1.

Hmmm... that would scare me as far as if by some freak thing your project file became corrupted. I suppose you might be able to load a sequence from the corrupted project into a new empty one... but it just feels risky.

James, I share your fear of risk and corruption, but......
I like having the whole album in one or two or three projects.
For me this technique has worked for about 10 years.
I'm always saving backups etc.
Individual song by song projects work fine also.
No need for fear.
Just another way of using our beloved DP.

[mhschmieder]

Wow, chunks are great!

Last night, I spent some time reading printouts of various chunk-related topics and hints from the forum, as well as the DP 6 user manual and the DP Power book from Thompson Publishing. Once I was comfortable with how chunks work, I began experimenting with some existing projects.

I found this to be quick and painless overall, as it helps better organise and compare similar projects (especially radio/tv cues, soundtrack incidental music, etc.). No crashes and no errors or glitches, but I did have to be careful about bundles not adding redundant versions of the same input/output names.

Furthermore, I am finding that creating a new project and importing related projects as chunks, is the ideal way to convert legacy projects from SD II to interleaved Broadcast WAVE. The only caveat is that you have to do a "Merge Soundbites" to permanently convert separate L/R tracks to interleaved.

I also tried V-Racks, but even making a simple single-VI V-Rack in a one-chunk project crashed DP on my system. I tried it three times, but all three times the VI that I tried to wrap was BFD 2.1 Release Candidate 3, which has some issues with closing/reopening per session so may be no fault of my computer specs.

I can see V-Racks helping a lot towards grouping common VI combinations used in scoring. I may try it again tonight with stuff other than B.F.D.

I was also able to get Templates working properly again (there was a period where I had trouble with them and gave up on named templates for one or two point releases back in v5.x days), and the combination of Templates and Chunks is very powerful and dramatically speeds up project setup.

In fact, never again need I lose energy and productivity at project setup phase, as I can have a new project going in less than five minutes vs. the usual 45 minutes that it has taken me in the past to structure a project for all of its tracks, track folders, VI's, MIDI/audio pairings, etc.

[FMiguelez]

Wow, chunks are great!

Aren't they AWESOME?
Once you incorporate them into your workflow, as you are doing now, your smile will be from ear to ear.

I also tried V-Racks, but even making a simple single-VI V-Rack in a one-chunk project crashed DP on my system. I tried it three times, but all three times the VI that I tried to wrap was BFD 2.1 Release Candidate 3, which has some issues with closing/reopening per session so may be no fault of my computer specs.

I can see V-Racks helping a lot towards grouping common VI combinations used in scoring. I may try it again tonight with stuff other than B.F.D.

Too bad they aren't working in your system. I hope it's just realted to BFd 2.1 and it's working on all other VIs and plug ins. You might like these even more! This is such a great feature to preserve CPU. The only shortcoming I find in V-Racks is that you can't automate them. There are workarounds, such as automating an aux back into the regular chunk. But i think this has to do with the design. Nevertheless, it's a wonderful feature overall.

I was also able to get Templates working properly again (there was a period where I had trouble with them and gave up on named templates for one or two point releases back in v5.x days), and the combination of Templates and Chunks is very powerful and dramatically speeds up project setup.

Indeed. The combination of Templates and Chunks is EXTREMELY powerful. But if I may suggest: if you add THE 3rd element -CLIPPINGS into that combination, then it becomes STUPID powerful. Seriously. Clippings, chunks and Templates are such a time saver. You may even find you can lose the Template part out of the equation

Have fun, mein freund!