Preparing DP Mixes for Mastering

[Todzilla]

Colleagues,

Having spent a year or two tracking and mixing stuff for a release, I have a few questions regarding preparing a mix on DP for mastering.

I found lots of generic info on the web, but specific to DP, I wonder about the following:

Is "Bounce to Disk" going to get the same result as bussing everything to a two track pair and recording a mixdown? related: is B2D the optimal way to make a mix? I've had a few cases of weird track drop-outs using it.

Isn't it best to create a wav using the default project format? Through some lapses in discipline I have several different project formats and I'm hoping my mastering house is okay with this.

Any other DP-specific tips for prepping mixes for mastering?

[buzzsmith]

Others will have more expertise, but...

1. I like to to do a real time mix...listen and watch as the mix goes down.

2. Therefore, when exporting, I export to Wave interleaved. I don't think the project default is an issue although there may be something to be said for the least conversions, the better.

Another possible pointer is to leave enough headroom on your mixes for the mastering guys do do some of their magic. (Don't smash to 0 dB.)

Hope this is of some value to you...

Buzzy

P.S. According to your sig, why are you still on DP 6? 7.2(x) is so much better.

[FMiguelez]

.

I've had a few problems with BTD myself. IME, when my computer is working really hard, and if I have many VIs active, BTD is not always reliable. So I got used to printing the final mix to an audio track. That always works perfectly.
I hope BTD is better now with DP7. Even if it is, I actually prefer recording the mix inside the session.

I don't know if it would be worth recording the file at 32 bits... DP gives you that option now, but I doubt we could tell the difference between 32 and 24 bits (I would ask the ME about this and his preferred formats and delivery methods).

[FMiguelez]

P.S. According to your sig, why are you still on DP 6? 7.2(x) is so much better.

+1

[Prime Mover]

.

I've had a few problems with BTD myself. IME, when my computer is working really hard, and if I have many VIs active, BTD is not always reliable. So I got used to printing the final mix to an audio track. That always works perfectly.
I hope BTD is better now with DP7. Even if it is, I actually prefer recording the mix inside the session.

Funny, I've had the opposite problem, and if you think about it, it makes sense. Play/record is trying to do everything in realtime. Theoretically (and I can tell from speed decreases during the count), if you are bouncing to disk, DP doesn't have to do it in real time, if there's processing headroom, it can go faster, if it gets bogged down, it can go slower. Whereas playthrough-record is the computer trying to give you an accurate playback in time, and it can hickup in order to try and keep up with itself.

For that reason, I ALWAYS BTD. Maybe it's unwarranted in smaller projects, but I spent too long on an old TiBook with a slow G4 processor, and it became a habit that I have no particular need to break.

[FMiguelez]

Funny, I've had the opposite problem, and if you think about it, it makes sense. Play/record is trying to do everything in realtime. Theoretically (and I can tell from speed decreases during the count), if you are bouncing to disk, DP doesn't have to do it in real time, if there's processing headroom, it can go faster, if it gets bogged down, it can go slower. Whereas playthrough-record is the computer trying to give you an accurate playback in time, and it can hickup in order to try and keep up with itself.

For that reason, I ALWAYS BTD. Maybe it's unwarranted in smaller projects, but I spent too long on an old TiBook with a slow G4 processor, and it became a habit that I have no particular need to break.

What you wrote makes total sense. That's what I would expect as well. But, un-intuitively enough, what I described is what I've experienced.

Since you are recording in real time, what you hear is what you get. If there are glitches you can immediately know.
I must say that I use different HDs for audio and samples, and I always close every window when I record like this (to relieve the CPU a little), so perhaps this helps.

When bouncing to disk, and the computer is very stressed, DP (in my G5) seems to "forget" or simplify automation. Sometimes the reverb or delays sound softer. And sometimes VIs are not even included in the final file. This doesn't make sense, as you said, because DP is doing all the processing off-line, so it could take as long as it needed to process everything, but it just doesn't seem to be the case every time, IME.

The worst thing is that this happened only SOMETIMES and under certain circumstances. Since I never knew for sure what would happen, I just stopped using BTD and just created a clipping for recording the final mix (since DP 4).

I confess I haven't really tested BTD with DP7. Maybe it works great now and I need to test it fully to trust it again... I hope it's reliable now! BTD is much faster and much easier to set up...

But since our experiences regarding this are opposite, I guess the best he can do is try both and see what works best. I suppose one way to be sure everything is perfect is to confirm that the recorded or bounced file cancels out with the session's full mix.

[Dan Worley]

Colleagues,

Is "Bounce to Disk" going to get the same result as bussing everything to a two track pair and recording a mixdown? related: is B2D the optimal way to make a mix? I've had a few cases of weird track drop-outs using it.

With each release of DP that I install, I null test BTD and real-time mixes just to make sure something didn't get screwed up. I can't remember all the results, but I'm pretty sure they have always nulled out, except for a few time-based effects, and some VIs that just would not bounce properly.

I'm with Buzzy and FM. I much prefer and feel more confident printing real-time mixes. Partly because I tend to screw up and forget to select or deselect something when using BTD.

Isn't it best to create a wav using the default project format? Through some lapses in discipline I have several different project formats and I'm hoping my mastering house is okay with this.

There's nothing to worry about here. If you BTD, just select the format you want from the bounce dialog. If mixing in real time, export (if need be) the resulting soundbite in the file format you want from the Soundbites window. But really, no ME is going to have a problem with mixed file formats. But also, you don't have to bounce or export in the format that the project was in. It makes no difference.

I'll tell you something I do just as a precaution when I'm exporting soundbites from the Soundbites window. I turn off the dither in the Audio menu. I read an article in "SOS" (I think) which said that that dither was active when exporting. That has worried me ever since, probably unnecessarily so, because I've tested and retested that dither setting in all kinds of different scenarios throughout DP, and, quite frankly, I don't think it does a thing.

c-ya,

Dan Worley

[Phil O]

The only advantage I see to BTD is that it's usually faster than doing it in real time. But, I never feel confident that the bounce was perfect so I end up listening to it as a check, making it about twice as long in the end. For this reason I always work in real time unless it's a quick knock-off for non-critical purposes.

As far as file formats, headroom, etc. is concerned, ask the engineer who will be doing the mastering what he/she prefers. That will always yield the best results.

Phil

[jloeb]

I'll tell you something I do just as a precaution when I'm exporting soundbites from the Soundbites window. I turn off the dither in the Audio menu. I read an article in "SOS" (I think) which said that that dither was active when exporting. That has worried me ever since, probably unnecessarily so, because I've tested and retested that dither setting in all kinds of different scenarios throughout DP, and, quite frankly, I don't think it does a thing.

I'm with you on "it doesn't do a thing." See this long-a$$ thread, which unfortunately has to be read a good bit of the way through to really get a sense of the right answers:

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... AS#p356097

Particularly if you're exporting without changing the bitrate, I can't begin to imagine why (nor even how) DP would engage dithering. So I leave it on.

[Prime Mover]

Not really sure why headroom would matter. As long as it doesn't clip, I've always been under the impression that the mastering engineer would be able to deal with it just fine. Maybe I'm wrong though, as I was about normalization (wow was I wrong). I've always been of the school of "hot as you can make it without distorting", as the more bits you have working for you the better. The mastering engineer can set her own thresholds on dynamic processes. But then again, I've been known to be wrong... very wrong.

[jloeb]

Not really sure why headroom would matter. As long as it doesn't clip, I've always been under the impression that the mastering engineer would be able to deal with it just fine. Maybe I'm wrong though, as I was about normalization (wow was I wrong). I've always been of the school of "hot as you can make it without distorting", as the more bits you have working for you the better. The mastering engineer can set her own thresholds on dynamic processes. But then again, I've been known to be wrong... very wrong.

Sorry to have to say it but...

It's well-established that if you are going to give something to a mastering engineer, what you want to give them is a good mix, where the relative levels and characteristics are what you want them to be, but without worrying about the overall absolute loudness of the track. In general, leave all the peaks intact, and on the 2buss apply only minimal compression if any, no limiting, no maximization and leave peak value at -4 from full scale or lower.

The reason for this is that it is axiomatic that the mastering engineer is going to be able to do loudness maximizing/master buss EQing/whatever compression or saturation, if any, is needed on the final mix better than you can, because that's what they do professionally and they have the experienced ear, gear and independent judgment to do it.

But they still have to work beneath digital zero, just like you do. They can't put back any dynamic range that you have removed by overcompressing the material; but they can compress it as hot as you want (and more transparently), if that's what you tell them to do. So give them room to do it, or not do it.

In contrast, if you're "self-mastering," then loudness maximization and the judgment calls associated with it are entirely up to you.

[intrepritra]

Not really sure why headroom would matter. As long as it doesn't clip, I've always been under the impression that the mastering engineer would be able to deal with it just fine. Maybe I'm wrong though, as I was about normalization (wow was I wrong). I've always been of the school of "hot as you can make it without distorting", as the more bits you have working for you the better. The mastering engineer can set her own thresholds on dynamic processes. But then again, I've been known to be wrong... very wrong.

I try to keep my mixes below 75%.
Too many times I've listened to mixes and hearing artifacts.

[thethethediamondz]

definitely real time for me. i only use bounce to disk for quick checks, running to the car.

it's true (as said above) that u end up listening to the entire bounce anyways. u know exactly what u got with real time. i haven't done scientific tests, actually my tests have always been scattered and a little perplexing in their results, but overall, i'm left with the feeling that i can't trust bounce to disk for the final product without a listen check first.

so u might as well. (actually, i end up doing a listen check to the realtime bounce anyways, so it probably doesn't matter, at least as far as time spent)

[Todzilla]

Great info folks!

Sounds like there is a slight preference for real time mixes, especially given that my old machine is straining to keep up during some B2D operations.

As for why I'm on 6.2? Well, some folks will certainly disagree, but I heard 6 was the last release that was designed to efficiently work on Tiger (I'm on 10.4.11), which is the last OSX optimized for the old PowerPC chipset. Since stability is my ultimate platform goal, this is as far as I can go until I upgrade my Mac (G5, dual proc 1.8GHZ w 3.25G of RAM).

I'll be upgrading soon (as I can afford it, and when $1000 buys me a ridiculously souped up machine), at which point I'll load the then latest and greatest version of DP (if it's still around, sigh...).

Lastly, I didn't see a lot of features in DP 7 that make me lust for an upgrade. I'm not a big amp sim guy. The feature jump from 4.16 (where I was for a long time) and 6.2 was huge for me.

[David Polich]

Real-time mixdowns here. Basically because I'm old-school and used
to listening to the mix as we ran the tape. Many times I've caught
things I simply didn't double-check or lost track track of ("oh man, I forgot I needed to mute that hat from bars 32 to 48").

A number of mastering engineers have told me they're fine with
mixes that peak at -3db from zero. That's where I usually set the
peaks, with averages running around -18 db from zero. I do this with the
2-track mix in Peak, not in DP.