Talk me off the ledge please!

[Ashermusic]

Sonically I doubt it will make my songs sound better or worse but I feel like when I complete a song, bouncing all the software tracks to audio sans fx, and bringing them all into a fresh project where the same console channel strip emulation (not sure it it would be Neve, API, SSL, or Harrison) with a Studer tape plug-in on each and mixing in that.

Talk me out of it, .please!

[Lawrence]

Every audio attempt to improve your mixes is worth trying.

[wst3]

not an easy call, and it depends a lot on the software instruments that you use.

Back in the dark ages most people did not commit MIDI tracks to audio for a couple of reasons, not the least of which was that it changed where level changes occurred. If you were using a hardware synth, and you were changing the volume using MIDI volume control (CC7) that COULD sound different than changing the volume in the software mixer, or changing the volume in a hardware mixer, or changing the volume in from the synth front panel.

A lot of those variables have disappeared, and changing levels anywhere in the signal path should result in roughly the same result.

That said, I do lean towards committing all my MIDI tracks to audio, sans any processing or effects. I also commit the FX busses to audio, but I'm not sure why, since I'm going to use pretty much the same routing when I am mixing the audio.

Seems like an awful lot of extra work, and it is. For reasons buried deep in my dinosaur brain it just feels "better" or "more natural". If I have the time over the holidays I think I need to do a comparison, and maybe save myself some time.

HOWEVER, I will still commit all audio to new tracks when I am finished - think of them as "micro-stems"

[Ashermusic]

So I have tried experimenting with one of my pop songs where I bounce all the software instruments to audio along with my vocals, bring them into a fresh project alternative in Logic Pro, pull the faders down, and start mixing with one of the console channel strip emulations I have. Then I try replacing them with a different emulation; then I try adding the same EQ and Compressor plugins on each; then other EQs and Compressors.

My preliminary conclusion are that they all can produced decent but different sounding results. But it's hard to say for me that the end result is significantly better or worse than the way I have been doing it, which is season to taste. But working exclusively with audio and starting with all the faders down does somehow switch me from singer-songwriter mindset to audio mixer mindset

One thing I have discovered though is that generally on my voice, I have forgotten how much I like the UAD 1073 Pre-Amp and EQ with the 70's vocal boost preset as a jumping off point. Paired with any LA2a or 3a optical compressor.

[wst3]

That recipe sounds like a fantastic starting point!

Here's my thing, ignore as you see fit...

Better and worse seldom apply to music - be it composition, arrangement, production, or even performance. (OK, there are genuinely bad performances, but we'll skip over that). It's like asking who is the best guitar player... it is a patently silly exercise.

There is such a thing as "I like this better", but it is constrained by so many variables that it becomes a matter of personal taste.

One of the downsides of a DAW and 10,000 plugins is that it leads to constant experimentation, or it can. I'll use a specific EQ and compressor, usually from habit, and then I"ll wonder if different plugins might be more pleasing to my ears. I have spent (wasted) an hour or two chasing that rabbit. The problem is that sometimes I do hit upon a combination that I really like, and like better than my previous pass(es).

I think it was you, Jay, that turned me on to the PSP Infinistrip. I seldom (never?) pull it up as my first try. But I will drop it in if I am having a problem getting the sound I am looking for. And even worse, sometimes it does the trick. I think this is true for EQ and dynamics, but it is also true for all the effects.

Sometimes I think life was easier when I was constrained to a couple of compressors and the channel strip EQ on my console. Actually, I know it was easier, but not sure about better - and there we go again with the futility of comparisons.

For me, for music, it is almost always about different, not better or worse. More pleasing maybe?

When I was still recording live players the start of every session had the singer standing in front of half a dozen microphones. I knew these microphones well, I'd been using them for years, and in almost every case the one I thought would serve the singer best turned out to be the one I used.

I tried to keep an open mind though, and every once in a while I'd get a very happy surprise. One case in particular sticks in my mind. The singer was a young lady with a very Eva Cassidy quality about her, and I just KNEW that I wanted to record her with a TLM-193, a very honest microphone (to my ears anyway). Still I had her sing into several, and the one I liked the most, for her, was an AKG C-414, a microphone I almost never use because I just don't like the way it sounds on most sources. The reason I never sold it, of course, is that every once in a while it was the exact right choice.

I have this ancient TEAC PE-120 microphone (it was also badged as a Nakamichi) that is a dog. It required an oddball battery (a friend told me how to reconfigure it for phantom power, so I can't use that excuse any more). EXCEPT it is the perfect microphone for my Martin D-18. I don't know why the two get along so well, they just do. Most other microphones sound boomy or dull, or just not like what I hear. And yes, I've spent hours experimenting with placement. With the TEAC microphone it doesn't seem to matter where I place it.

And then there is the infamous Neuman KM-84. That thing is filled with black magic. I've never stuck it in front of anything it did not compliment. I'd buy a pair if I was still recording people for money, but that's the only way to justify it. It is the exception to the rule I suppose - again, to my ears.

So you are, I think, spot on - different tools, different workflows, will have different results. All but guaranteed. It comes down to the combination that works best for your ears.

And yes, I am rambling, and yes, I sound like an old curmudgeon - so be it...

[Ashermusic]

Thanks Bill. I guess I have concluded that the best approach for me is that when I have a new song or cue is to open a Logic project that is similar, delete all the content and start with that. If I am unhappy with the results, which is rare, THEN start experimenting.

In other words, if it isn’t broken I don’t need to fix it just because I have so many options.

[Lawrence]

Thanks Bill. I guess I have concluded that the best approach for me is that when I have a new song or cue is to open a Logic project that is similar, delete all the content and start with that. If I am unhappy with the results, which is rare, THEN start experimenting.

In other words, if it isn’t broken I don’t need to fix it just because I have so many options.

Not only is that a good idea, it might even apply to existing projects-export the separate tracks without fx and plug them into an existing project that really worked for you,

[wst3]

In other words, if it isn’t broken I don’t need to fix it just because I have so many options.

Now there is some advice I really should consider!