recording newb question

pima1234

pima1234

Fractal Fanatic
Okay, not new to recording, but coming back after a 10 year hiatus....

I used a Korg D1600 for many years (yup, old school, and somewhat lo-tech). With that, I knew that when I mixed down, everything was there. No more effects needed to be applied, because I mastered in Samplitude.

With Garageband (on my way to eventually upgrading to Logic Pro X), I don't get a separate 2 channel bounce to then apply mastering. Other programs to this (Cubase, for instance, I believe).

So my big question is, if I make a mixdown (with or without the mastering), but need to go back and remix, do I need to turn off all the effects so they're not added again? I cannot find an answer to this anywhere.

Thanks!
 
If you 're-mix' then you 're-render' a brand new file so you leave your effects on if you want them. It's like do-overs. This also allows several versions of your mix for comparison of levels, fx, etc.
 
Thank you.

So, I get a good mix, save it, leave the effects the way they are, then come back and add mastering once my ears have settled.

One problem I was having is, that when I exported a file after having saved it, it was far too loud. Turning off automatic normalization was the first solution. But, I had to go back and turn off all mastering effects so the exported file wasn't all distorted.
 
I always create a Submix Bus prior to the Stereo Out Bus. Then mix at relatively low volume targeting about -18 to -12 dbfs. I will put bus effects like EQ or Multiband on the Submix Bus and finalize with a Gain/Limiter to adjust final volume to desired level. I reserve the Output Channel for metering and diagnostics.

In this day and age, if you self master, much of the mastering is done as you go. However by utilizing the method I mention above you can render a mastered track or you can bypass the effects in the Submix Bus and render a track to send to 3rd party mastering without the final bus effects and at a lower volume. You literally have mastered and unmastered on the fly. Also it has been my experience that it is far easier to bump volume than chill out.
 
I use Reaper. Basically your question applies to Garage Band, which I haven't worked with, but it sounds from the other responses like you would be able to save your work and then apply mastering.

Your post made me think about how far I've gone away from using mixing-board-wide type FX sends.

Now I do very much realize this goes off topic to your question. But what the hell, I thought I would describe how I am working (at the moment) as an exercise for myself if nothing more. I don't know if this is typical.

For me I don't trust my ears enough to go without saved submixes, and basically I never think in terms of having an FX send to send all my tracks to. To me this is sort of antiquated because there is so much quality digital recording software out there to get beyond the results of that method.

Of course, I'm not playing live, but composing. If I were doing recordings for a band, as a record of work, the FX send method would work fine for that. While applying radically different reverb FX to one's individual tracks may result in dis-jointed sounding audio, for me it is still better to at least think in terms of different FX for the individual tracks.

To write music, mostly I do my own drums, synth and bass using Vst's.

First I record some simple bass/drum rhythm tracks just as kind of a metronome and gauge; and combine them into a stereo track (and if there are time signature or tempo changes these are worked out as part of this).

Then I do the guitar dry, while experimenting with FX. I need to have dry recorded guitar tracks saved as working material.

Next, for the drums and synth stuff it helps me to do a lot of experimenting, without recording a lot of tracks, and save the auditioning files as a reference for how I like the individual and master FX. (In other words I may load a particular reverb or delay FX, switch out synths and synth presets, a lot, before I get into more detailed work (this more detailed work is more of a piece-wide mixing/mastering process, using something like soniformer by voxengo). Then once I have an idea of the overall EQ of the finished work, I go back and render the tracks, and render the tracks plus FX. Sometimes I can eliminate the dry tracks. Other times I stack the dry and FX tracks together in the end.

Once all the non-guitar stuff is done I may experiment with a lot of takes, and try a lot of FX, on a track by track basis.

Then mastering is just a matter of minor adjustments to levels and compression and very slight EQ changes.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Thank you!

So then, Reaper is good enough? Is it fairly intuitive? I'm going to start researching it. One really important thing I need (because I won't just trust my ears, either) are meters, etc. Does Reaper have good tools for monitoring levels, balance, and phase?
 
So far, so good with Reaper. I'm learning. It is fairly intuitive. There's a forum, wiki, YT videos, etc. Good stuff.

Now I just need the FAS-FX reverb plug-in. (Oh, someday to have the Axe FX as plug-ins... That will be absolutely amazing!)
 
Having come from Samplitude (10, I believe), Reaper is a different animal. Samplitude has always been ahead of the game, it seems. I believe the ability is within Reaper, but I might need to check into some additional plugins.

I need a good noise reduction plug in and I'm not getting the right mix with Reaper. Having separate meters that weren't just plugins helped so much in Samplitude.

Mastering in Samplitude was an absolute breeze. I learned what worked, with just a few plugins, and it was easy to tweak and achieve the right levels while maintaining openness and dynamics. I'm not getting that with Reaper. Time to watch the mastering video, I guess,
 
Not sure yet. Somewhere between my guitar, AX8, and the recorder.

I use a L.R. Baggs Lyric in my acoustic and was going direct. I'm sure the noise is from the guitar mic. I'll just have to record with a mic, not direct.

Actually, the recommended noise reduction method with the included tools in Reaper works reasonably well, just not quite as well as the older Samplitude.

And actually, one problem I was having, which may be the source of my noise problem, is when I render. The wav file seems to have noise that I didn't hear when listening direct from Reaper. It's much more noticeable when rendering or exporting to mp3.
 
I will be blunt Pima. You should have no need for noise reduction in a 24 bit digital setup. Using analog gear, multiple layers, maybe.

The fact that you're needing NR indicates a problem that probably is solvable. When exported to MP3 you will be intentionally injecting noise (dithering) when reducing from 24 to 16 bit but you won't 'hear it' per se'.

I had a Baggs Anthem before I yanked it out and sold it.

Find the source of your noise and your recording quality will rise due to no noise and 1 less plug-in in the chain.
 
Thank you.

I've been coming to that conclusion.

The Lyric has been excellent for live use, and I don't hear any noise that way. I may just re-record my lead part and try that.

Having great difficulty getting things to sit in the mix when mastered, and without noise.

It's been nearly 10 years (about 9 really) since I've done any recording. So, that's a huge part of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom