Popping in here again.

I can't speak for RB's internal audio mix engine, but as far as I know, with most DAW software, when one renders the project to .wav, the output faders are very often automated and by golly they have an effect on how much a particular track contributes to the overall mix level.

I record at 24 bit because it lets me be lazy. I used to sweat the details when all I had available was 16 bit. I would almost always record as close to zero dB on the meters as possible, because on each and every track, that gave me the best signal to noise ratio. With 24 bit A/D, there's an additional 48 dB (6 dB for every bit) of quantization signal to noise ratio available over recording in 16 bit. If I can't make good use of somewhere in that 48 dB then I kind of shouldn't be in the hobby.

The output mix VU meter in any DAW software should tell you if you are into digital output clipping territory. Go red=bad. Stay out of the red=good. It's really that simple. If the render to .wav option inside of RB doesn't simply map this to whatever bit depth and sample rate you choose, then there's a problem.

You should be able to mix to your heart's content inside the PG software. If you have to mix in a different software than what you record, either one of three things is happening: the record software needs some work, or you need to learn how to mix properly inside of it, or there is some feature in your other DAW you should be pounding on PG to include inside RB.

RB, as far as I can tell, is pretty capable to handle the mixing task. Mixing is one of the simplest functions of any DAW software. Why one should have to go outside of it is a bit beyond my comprehension, to be honest.

I think I'm really missing something here. Also, for nearly all intents and purposes with computing power and capability of the last 5 years, you should be able to mix entirely without destructive editing. All of this discussion about the destructive edit aspect of things is one of those things that should quickly fade to the past in your toolbox - that is my experience. It's faded into memory as computing power has increased and DAW software takes advantage of multiple computing cores.

Used to be I did alot of rendering of individual tracks and effects to audio to keep the CPU load down in a project while mixing. However, with my track counts of normally under 12 or so, it's rare that I'm killing the CPU on my lappy which has a quad-core processor, with several VSTi and VST all saying to the CPU "Hey, I need to use you for a second" simultaneously. Keep in mind the effects that are nearly always most CPU hungry are time-based modulation effects like reverb and delay. This is because they require CPU calculation not only on the current sample, but all of those previous samples that are still in the 'tail'. Very CPU hungry. Learn how to bus them to keep CPU happy. Fader changes are just about the least amount of CPU churn that's possible. If I remember my rudimentary digital arithmetic from way back in about 1987 or so, fader changes are simply a gain change which is simply a multiply or divide operation. Bit shifting, I believe. Way simple for the CPU. Guess why multiply and divide were on some of the first digital calculators? It's simple for the calculator. Doing a destructive gain change is just not a good spending of your time and it's destructive. You can't ever change it back - not saying that going back and changing one's mind is always productive - usually it's not.

I read on here lots of folks that say something like: I use RB to record and compose, then I take all my tracks over to XYZ for mixing (insert your 2nd DAW of choice here for XYZ). What a pain in the bum! What is it about program XYZ that is so much better than RB, or PTPA?

I haunt KVRaudio quite a bit and there there are folks using everything from tracker type sequencers to ginormous ProTools rigs and all manner of stuff in between. It's a VERY rare occurrence to read anything there about people regularly transferring projects from one DAW to another just for mixing purposes. Here, it's talked about often. There you'll read more arguments about folks doing tape transfers into ProTools or Logic or something, or mixing using purely outboard busses like the Dangerous audio summing boxes and such, but rarely are there project transfers from one DAW to another simply to mix and render to either 2 track or whatnot.

You must have your reasons for keeping your head wrapped around two different DAW softwares. I have a hard enough time learning one deeply. I'd like to hear what your reasons are because that transfer of a recording project from DAW to a different DAW as at the very heart of this discussion.

For what it's worth, I've collaborated with folks sending me rendered audio from these DAW softwares in the past and used them with zero issue with me providing tracks back to them:

PowerTracks Pro Audio
Mastertracks (I think that's what it was called - it's the other DAW Mac uses also)
ProTools
Cubase
Reason
FL Studio
Tracktion
Garageband
Logic

there may be others, I just don't know. It's never been an issue. Never been a signal to noise ratio issue importing or exporting.

You must have your reasons for doing this. If one is simply just using RB to generate the band tracks, then I can understand the appeal of this specific use, and then using the workflow of a different DAW software. But if you are doing ANY mixing in RB, and then moving to a different DAW, then I don't get it.

Just curious to hear reasoning from anyone who has bothered to read this rather long sermon.

-Scott

My Songs, photos, writing,etc.
My Sound Cloud