helping my partner on the final leg to mixing down

[yukipon]

Hello.

My friend Arenson has been struggling to understand how to get the most out of the program, and he is appreciates the help from the moderators. He has basically one question he has not been able to find a clear answer to. He asked me to try try to explain. I looked and am also unsure exactly, so I will just state it:

When you are ready to take you work in Metro and save it to disk as a regular audio file, you have two menu choices. One is EXPORT TRACK and the other is MIX AND RENDER AUDIO. He understands the utility of combining several tracks with the latter menu item, but it says (and it looks to be so) that when you only have one track, both menu items will accomplish the same. Is that true? He wants an aiff file.


And he asks why it is necessary or desirable, as he was told by SUPPORT, to select NEW after he has exported to an audio file.

Here is the text. I think the original was from Jerm 2 years ago.

"...I use the 'export track' command to write the final output to the *correct place and in the correct audio format that I want. Finally, I use the 'new' command in Metro and do not save. This releases all plug-ins and deletes all files in the current project that have never been saved or placed on the *clipboard. In the above scenario, the 'Mix' file will be deleted but the exported file will remain."

Paul understand the LOGIC of getting rid of unneeded things, but the file has already been exported. So he asks, "why bother with NEW unless you are going to start on another file."

I read and re-read the quote he showed me and I said i think that is probably WHAT it means, that he just is taking things too literally and he could certainly just EXPORT (or RENDER/MIX to file) and forget about it.

Can anyone help?

Best regards

Yuki[/i]

[Jerm]

Hello.

... but it says (and it looks to be so) that when you only have one track, both menu items will accomplish the same. Is that true?

Mix and export are different although similar. There is no reason to mix one track other than to render effects or combine audio regions but there are other functions to perform those tasks. Export will export the given track exactly as it is, disregaring any effects. It is strictly an audio export (for an audio track anyway).

The big difference between export and mix is that export allows you to select a location for the file and the exported file is not a candidate for deletion. Whereas Mix (usually) places the mix on a new track and if the file is never saved will be deleted when it is out of scope.

And he asks why it is necessary or desirable, as he was told by SUPPORT, to select NEW after he has exported to an audio file.<snip>Can anyone help?

This question has been asked and answered through private email and I believe on this forum. Here is what I wrote to Paul yesterday in regard to the procedure involving the new command that you quote above...

"Well you do not need to keep all of the audio files created during the mix, especially if you have done fades or other things that create and use a lot of disk space. This procedure exports the final mix without saving all the intermediate .aif files that are taking quite a bit of space on your hard drive. If you don't understand, keep reading it a few times and then ask a more specific question about what you do not understand."

The new command automatically deletes any orphaned audio files that have never been saved. If you don't care then you should probably just use 'save as' and name the new file 'my hit song (final)' or something. Then you can come back to mastering at any time.

[yukipon]

Thank you for your response, Jerm. Before I begin, Paul (Arenson) said he will not bother you with MIDI related questions since he learned (from you or others?) that can't easily save in a mixdown. He said that since his keyboard has AUDIO out, he will use the audio of the keyboard in mixing with voices. Just to mention that at the outset. And he will enjoy METRO for MIDI as a standalone, separate from his audio-keyboard recordings.

Mix and export are different although similar. There is no reason to mix one track other than to render effects or combine audio regions but there are other functions to perform those tasks. Export will export the given track exactly as it is, disregaring any effects. It is strictly an audio export (for an audio track anyway).

This is VERY helpful. Especially that EXPORT does not take the effects with it. Arenson did not realize this.

Maybe because he is not so technically inclined, he could not pick out those differences in the manual. He exported and thought it sounded different, and preferred mix. Now it makes sense why this is so. I will tell him to just use MIX when he finishes a piece.


May I ask you about RENDER. METRO itself has RENDER or MIX in the menu. But the term RENDER is not explained in the online help (as far as we could see). We only see a diagram of MIX. Little things like that he couldn't get.

ABOUT STEPS FOR MIXING

The new command automatically deletes any orphaned audio files that have never been saved. If you don't care then you should probably just use 'save as' and name the new file 'my hit song (final)' or something. Then you can come back to mastering at any time.

Yes, that is what I suspected. He was assuming that he was finished with it and would never need it again. I said you were probably assuming that EVEN IF he exported it, he may want to keep working on it.

Anyway, I think I will tell him that if he doesn't plan to worry about MIDI, then just to stick with MIX/RENDER.

Thank you very much for your help. I think it resolves it.

He says he needs a followup on the other question SUPPORT answered. I will ask in the next question since it might get missed in this one.

[yukipon]

Paul got your response by email about using effects buss. Again, thank you. He says you said that *for his purpose*, it is better to use adding the effect directly to the track. He initially was led to believe by (MIS?)reading that effects buss was more efficient. And so he spent a lot of time on trying effects buss.

To make it simple, let's say he has only 3 tracks. On one he wants some reverb (voice). On the other he also wants some reverb (real flute), maybe a little less. On the 3rd he wants nothing (guitar).

The one way is just to add reverb separately to voice, flute. Although he had thought it was simple to use the effects buss, and then send back the reverb to the two tracks in which he wants it, just adding less to the flute than to the voice. And adding none back to the guitar.

Then, after he got your response, saying it might be better to use the effect applied directly to the track (I think you called it an INSERT), he understood that in the above scenario, the effect would be gathered in the buss and what was being returned to the voice and flute would be the combined reverb from the dry sounds - voice flute and guitar.

If this is so, he says he now understands why you said it would be better to apply even the reverb separately to each instrument.

->Please tell me if this is correct. Because it helps answer the below.

He said he THOUGHT if he used PRE instead of POST then he could have each instrument (VOICE) getting its OWN reverb and not getting a combination of VOICE and FLUTE and GUITAR. (the dry sounds).


I said this sounds fishy to me, and maybe better to do as you suggested
and just insert (add) reverb separately to each instrument.

->Is this ALSO correct?


So finally he asked me, "then why do we have effects buss". I said maybe in the END, when you are ready to mix down, you want to add the reverb to all the parts, more or less equally. But you should use very little effects before then, and mostly separately to the track as you (Jerm or support?)
suggested

-> Is this ALSO a correct answer for what he wants to do?

Thank you. I think getting him (and me) over this hurdle will solve every issue. We are both just acoustic musicians from the days of the Roberts 4-track reel-to-reel tape recorder (1970?). Garageband works more simply, but Metro seems to offer more power (higher bit rate).

Best regards
Yukipon

[Jerm]

Why do I have a strange feeling that Yukipon does not really exist?

[yukipon]

I apologize. I know it must be hard to think it has been explained. I am Paul's partner. We share the same house most of the time.

But he is embarrassed that after he asks a question that he still does not understand it.

Maybe sometimes because of learning abilities. Maybe because the version and the help are sometimes different (example: render is not show in the help, only Mix but it appears as a menu item). And maybe also because sometimes the questions themselves are not clear, and so the answer is also going to be different than what he was thinking about.


And he hesitates to ask again because he feels stupid. So he asked me to give it shot.


I THINK we got the answer that for our purposes MIX is better than EXPORT since we want the effects.

(We still do not know what rendering is, but it is not so important--it is in the menu but not explained).


In looking at this

[url]
http://www.sagantech.biz/support/Met01066.htm[/url]

OK---it DOES say press and change to PRE (to add the dry sound to the bus?).

So that is a misunderstanding. It doesn't say why to use pro or post, but anyway, the basic question is as above.

Thanks. Almost there.


Thank you. Apologies again for being pests.

[arenson]

I have to apologize for my many questions. Ok, I may have a learning disability. But I am trying. And almost there, as Yuki says. i KNOW it is hard for you. My misunderstandings are fundamental ones, not related to METRO. Not even related to audio stuff. Just to ability to process explanations.

I talked to an audio engineer. He said I may be misreading the help you gave me and also here:

I read --for example-- in
http://www.sagantech.biz/support/Met01066.htm


"In the Pgm row, if you want, click the Post button to change the effects routing of Aux 1 to Pre volume fader."

Ok, then I SHOULD be using PRE? I misread that as SELECT POST.


If, as your wrote in a private email, it is better to add the effects to each track, I will do so. It is just that in the above help document you suggest that the effects buss is the more efficient way. Audio tech person I spoke to said:

quote]Assigning all the channels to one aux bus for fx processing will definately combine the fx of those channels, and you will be stuck with that fx mix. I still say use pre and do the fx for each channel individually, then combine them later when mastering. Takes more time, but less of a headache, and you can change your mind.[/quote]

That seems to be an argument for NOT using the buss. And I guess choosing PRE-or POST is not relevant. If true I will will resign myself to just using the direct insert and forget about the buss altogether.

Once again, apologies. I am in over my head I know, but this seemed a way better option than GARAGEBAND.

[Scoot]

There is too much going on in this thread to answer a lot of questions so I'll just answer one..........

Why have an aux bus?

The aux bus is used to add an effect to a bunch of tracks where you could have varying amounts of the SAME effect.

So put a reverb on an aux bus and on track 1 use 10%, on track 2 use 86% and so on.

In this situation you are adding an effect to the aux bus to save on CPU....as each effect of reverb added on an individual track would take the same amount of CPU. (Add a particular reverb which consumes 7% CPU to 5 tracks takes 35% of CPU on the aux bus taking into account CPU bus disk etc maybe it may take only 12% - (scoot's wild example)).

Therefore if you have a huge powerful computer or you work on one track at a time and then save off a wet AIFF of the track, before going onto the next, the aux bus for effects becomes a waste of time.
There is also little to be gained if you want 3 different effects on 3 seperate tracks.

Usually however you may keep all the tracks 'DRY' and have the effects still adjustable till final mixing. If thats the case every bit of CPU could be important and the aux bus could shine.


You can also use the aux bus to install a VSTi like sampletank where you can have 16 channels of instruments adjusted from inside the plugin.
The other use of the Aux Bus.

[yukipon]

Thank you Scoot.

I think you make it clear.

So it makes sense: Depending on the amount of effect you "add back" to the original track, like you say 10% on track 1, etc.

So put a reverb on an aux bus and on track 1 use 10%, on track 2 use 86% and so on.

The only thing that is/was hanging us up is, if you send the signal from those 3 tracks (voice, guitar, flute for ex.) to the effect, and then send back varying amounts of the (let's say) wet part, doesn't that actually send--how can I explain it?--a muddier effect because it combines the 3 instruments. That I guess is the main thing. Maybe my question is only relevant with a dozen tracks?

I do see how it saves time if, as you say, you want the same effect on a bunch of tracks.

I also see how it may pay to wait until I am almost finished before adding effects since I know our ideas change as we lay down more tracks. With Garageband we did not add anything at all until the end and it was ok.

Thank you Scoot.

Yuki