Merge two audio tracks? - PG Music Forums

Is there a way to merge to Audio mono tracks like in PT?

Under the Track menu pulldown.

Hi Rharv! I have "Merge two mono tracks to a stereo track" but want a merged mono track?

It is called (simply enough) Track-Merge.

This should yield desired results. Pay attention to the track numbers in the boxes!

Sorry Rharv ;-) I have a tendency to miss the obvious, but thanks a lot!

No problem at all, I do it all the time.
Took me a few posts to catch on to the big ol' 'Prefs' button in RB would take me to the preferences dialogue quicker than other methods I was using..

Rharv heleped me before, but ....Something is going wrong again here, either I have forgotten the technique or...? I want two audio tracks, track 10 and 3 merged onto track 3 (not stereo) which is the proper way to do this??

Track - merge will combine the two tracks to a blank track.

Then you have move that track back to track 3 if you want it there.

Rharv, when I use Track/ Merge Two audio tracks to a stereo ... I get a stereo track (which is how it's supposed to be). But when I use
Track/Merge .... I also get a stereo track?

Set the track you want to merge to as a mono track beforehand ..

Are the two tracks you are merging together both mono tracks?

Both tracks are mono and the track I merge to is also chosen as Mono?? I don't know exactly what happens?

I just tested, and you are right, somewhere along the way it started forcing it to a stereo track. Both channels are exactly the same when done this way, so you *could* then split that stereo track to two monos, keep one mono and delete the rest of the litter you don't want.

I don't see anything that would make it easier if you really need the mono track.
Wonder when it switched to forcing a stereo track? I know it used to do mono when requested...

But what's really weird: I'm sure it worked correctly the first time (earlier in this thread) when you told me what to do ?????
But thanks anyway, Rharv!

Maybe a recent update changed it..

That maybe true. I think I updated RB not so long ago. Maybe we could have PG people look into this?

Send a message to support (bottun at top)
I'll mention it too.

I just realised that I have RB 2009? I just ordered the 2010 update, so maybe that will solve my problem?

nope
happened here with latest version..

Hi Rharv!

I got this reply from PG, can you decipher if they understood my problem?:

"Hello,

If you are trying to export your tracks in a mono format so you can import
them into another DAW just import the stereo file to two mono tracks thus
splitting it. You can usually do this by dragging a stereo file from
Explorer over two mono tracks in your other DAW and dropping it. If you have
two instruments playing in your RealBand file and want them to be rendered
to separate mono tracks just pan one hard left and the other hard right and
follow the steps above.

Thank you,
Jareth
PG Music Inc."

No, they didn't get the problem, they assumed you were trying the new drag&drop features.

Explain that you are trying to stay inside RB, and simply want to merge two mono tracks to another mono track inside RB.

That's what I thought, I have replied and tried to clarify my problem, thanks Rharv!

You guys are missing the obvious. Please sit down. Copy & paste.Merge with existing data

Good point John, but the fact is it used to work when merging two mono tracks ; it stayed mono. Now it changes to stereo, so why have the second 'merge two mono tracks to stereo' option?
The first one is obviously not functioning correctly..

Still does. In PT however the PT dialog only allows the merge of 2 tracks were as the RB dialog allows the merge of multiple tracks thus I think the reason to merge to stereo.

There is still that stereo option though, right? There *should* be a merge that doesn't change the mono track format, when needed. I question how often it would be 'needed' but since you work in mono a lot I would think you'd agree.
Good wish-list item at the very least, but I can see contacting support and asking if they know it changed. May have slipped by with an improvement.
Beta doesn't catch everything!

Anybody tried setting the global record input option to mono L before attempting this?

Might change what you get, just a thought.

--Mac

Interesting concept - nope, hadn't thought of that!
Will try it though.

Doesn't have anything to do with this thread really but I do everything in stereo I just don't pan anything left or right but it's still stereo.

John,
In your three songs thread I thought you said you mixed everything in mono?

Mac, this deosn't make a difference here, whether set to stereo left or right.

I guess in this day and age there's really no real mono just stereo were both tracks are the same.

Here's how I've often used PT with no problems: If I have a difficult guitar passage I sometimes break it up on several tracks, and when I'm satisfied with all my parts I merge 'em back into a single mono track.

Cheater!

I hope they give it back to us, although cut/paste or copy/paste could be used for this as John mentioned

If you merge two mono tracks (in PT) I have always had the notion that they would merge in accordance with the channels volume settings, where as a copy/paste won't take the volume setting into consideration?

In PT this is true I believe, we were discussing Realband here though.

I usually use the gain change to adjust the volumes before merging. In all actuality I rarely merge anymore until the final mixdown, as todays machines can handle the multiple tracks without much problem so I leave the options open for down the road.

That's true Rharv! My only reason for merging is to get a clearer overview over the takes, due to my "cheating" a single track may spread over so many tracks that I have a hard time remembering what they contain:-)

If you are compiling tracks, it is often better to copy/paste paying attention to the checkboxes included in the pop up window. I think John mentioned this earlier.

Why not just "arm" a new mono track, mute everything you don't want to merge,
then hit the record button and let it play through to get the ones you want on a new mono track.

(I'm not at home so I only assume this will work in RB)

Good luck!
LLOYD S

For many soundcards the method Lloyd mentions will mean it gets run the the DA - AD conversion cycle again.
Effectively making it a second generation track. May be fine for some, may not for others.
Some soundcards allow it to happen in the digital domain.

You are really making this hard on yourself. RB can merge any number of tracks all at once. Yes it will merge to a stereo file but who cares. You'll have two identical tracks. One will come out the left one out the right. It'll sound and act just like a mono file cause when you play a mono file the soundcard splits it to 2 stereo tracks anyway. You just can't see it.

Well, not really, I guess it's because I have been doing it lots of times in PT I miss the function in RB :-)
By the way, I just got a similar answer from PG:

"When you merge the mono tracks, you'll see the merged track is a stereo
track but the L/R tracks are MONO. So in order to get a mono track out of
it:
[ Track > Split a stereo track into 2 mono tracks ]
Delete one of the mono tracks, and the stereo track

That should do it. Let us know if that doesn't work for you."

I consider it a work around and am sure that it will be remedied in future releases. Don't get me wrong, I'm really satisfied and content with RB, I had just gotten so used and delighted with PT that I compare everything to that :-)

The method they (support) described is the 'best' workaround at this point.

Why are you bugged by seeing two waveform. It comes out of your sound card in stereo. There is no such thing as mono anymore. I have never seen a mono sound card.

For one thing the file is twice as large
Second, regardless of some thoughts on panning stereo signals, the balance of L&R is not kept in the stereo field as well as two mono signals, nor is there as much control over the L&R signals when grouped.

Not all of us who use mono tracks mix in mono <grin>
Got nothing to do with being bugged by seeing it.

Quote:

For one thing the file is twice as large

So we have plenty of room these day.

Quote:

Second, regardless of some thoughts on panning stereo signals, the balance of L&R is not kept in the stereo field as well as two mono signals, nor is there as much control over the L&R signals when grouped.

Maybe I'm just old but to me panning a streo track or a mono track sounds the same to me if the SOURCE was mono

Quote:

Not all of us who use mono tracks mix in mono <grin>
Got nothing to do with being bugged by seeing it.

I don't mix in mono I mix in stereo with everything dead center. I don't do recordings to listen to. I mix for live.

OK someone needs to teach me this multiple quote thing so the quote is blue and my answer is white.

Quote:

OK someone needs to teach me this multiple quote thing so the quote is blue and my answer is white.

Simple...just start with {quote}, enter the quoted text, and end it with {/quote}. (substitute the { and } with [ and ] characters - I used the curly brace so it wouldn't actually quote).

Then, after the {/quote}, enter your answer. When you want to quote a new section, then just enter {quote]Quoted Text{/quote} again (don't forget to substitute the square brackets for the curly ones).

So your response would have looked like this:

Quote:

For one thing the file is twice as large

So we have plenty of room these day.

Quote:

Second, regardless of some thoughts on panning stereo signals, the balance of L&R is not kept in the stereo field as well as two mono signals, nor is there as much control over the L&R signals when grouped.

Maybe I'm just old but to me panning a streo track or a mono track sounds the same to me if the SOURCE was mono

Quote:

Not all of us who use mono tracks mix in mono <grin>
Got nothing to do with being bugged by seeing it.

I don't mix in mono I mix in stereo with everything dead center. I don't do recordings to listen to. I mix for live.

Hope that helps...

Quote:

Maybe I'm just old but to me panning a streo track or a mono track sounds the same to me if the SOURCE was mono

True dat

John,
Thanks. What I did was hit quote on Rharv's message first. Then added the { Quote} before and after each section with my responses after each section and it came out like above.
Rharv,
"true dat" what me being old or there's no difference to you either. LOL

OOPS
Didn't notice the the beginning of a quote is {quote}and the end is {/quote} of course using [ & ] instead of {&}

I guess I just answered my own question about being old.

John,
Seeing as you have looked at this post what are your comments about the mono issue?

My personal feeling is in line with RHarv's on this. I know on another thread, I had requested that we should have the ability to:

1) Split a stereo track to two mono tracks (which can be hard panned left and right for the original stereo separation, or panned as you see fit.
2) Convert a mono track to a stereo track.
3) Merge two (or more) mono tracks to a mono track.
4) Merge two (or more) mono tracks to a stereo track.
5) Merge two (or more) stereo tracks to a stereo track.
6) Merge two (or more) stereo tracks to a mono track.
7) Merge two (or more) mixed tracks to a stereo track.
8) Merge two (or more) mixed tracks to a mono track.

I wouldn't think these would be too difficult to implement, and that should make everyone happy. There are times when I want stereo tracks; there are other times where I want strictly mono tracks. And while yes, storage is cheap, stereo WAV files are still 10MB per minute (mono is half that), so I don't really see the need to double the storage to have the exact same thing on the left channel as the right channel on the same track.

I've been following this thread with interest. I guess I'm old school or just old, whatever. When I was doing studio work back in the day, or doing live location recording now, nobody used stereo mic's. One mic, one track, all mono, that's it. Yes, there's exceptions like putting 8 drum mic's on a subgroup to two tracks or something but basically one mic, one track. It's up to the engineer to create a stereo field out of that.
Since I'm not doing commercial stuff anymore, having the RT's be stereo tracks can be an intellectual annoyance but I don't really care because they're well mixed and sound good.

Bob

Hi John!
I totally agree with you! Would be nice to have all the possibilities you mention! Hope PG listen in!

I can relate to the recording notes from Bob above. Bass, vocals, etc IMO should be mono tracks, unless you intentionally record them with effects that require stereo. However, even that stereo signal can be defined by not having it 100% L and R. I often like to have even the stereo tracks split into two mono tracks. It opens up a lot of what you can do with placement in a mix. Want more of the upper piano and less bass so there is less 'mud' in a mix? How about turning up the right channel and cutting the left a bit, and then still being able to put the piano (both upper and lower range) in a well defined spot in the stereo field by being able to point both channels to a narrower area so it sounds more like you are out front hearing a live band as opposed to sitting in the driver seat of the piano (or drums for that matter).

Just one of many examples of when a even a stereo recording can be better handled as two mono tracks..
I know there are other ways tp accomplish what I said, like editing only the left side of a stereo track. RB has quite a few hidden nuggets like that.. but having two mono tracks sure can make a difference to my ears.

Split the Stereo track to two mono tracks and you automatically get a duplicate track to ARCHIVE. Use the Mute button to archive it. Work on the other track. If you do anything destructive that you'd like to start over about at any time, you have the other track, still there, still in the pristine.

Just a thought,

--Mac

There is a way of doing this, albeit roundabout, use Audio > Export to copy the stereo file to your work folder and then use Audio > Import to import the wave file clicking "No" to Stereo and then selecting the Mono version.

The best option would be to have a dedicated command to do this.

It can be done in 2 steps.
Merge-- 1,2,3,4,etc to 10. This will give a stereo track. Then you use the "split stereo track to 2 mono tracks" in the dialog were you choose destination put the same track number in both boxes. It'll change the stereo track to one mono track.

Hi, John -

I wouldn't have thought of that (using the same destination for both tracks to get a single mono track. Not necessarily intuitive, but it definitely make sense. Thanks for that tip.