render questions (theoretical)

Bob Greaves wrote on 3/20/2005, 7:30 PM

I have noticed that sometimes with audio using a customized two step process is faster than a single step process. For example, mixing a complex 24 bit 44.1KHz 18 track audio mix down to a high quality mp3 takes less time if I first mix it down to a stereo 24 bit 44.1 KHz audio file which is then rendered to a 320 Kps 16 bit mp3.

Has anyone experimented if it faster to render to an uncompressed file which can then be used as a single track veg file to re-render it in the desired compressed format?

If so did this take more time, same time, less time?

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 3/20/2005, 7:37 PM

Rendering a multi-track to a single uncompressed file should be faster than rendering a multi-track timeline to a single compressed file for a number of reasons. (i also just tried this with an 8 track project I'm currently working on) It's much the same as rendering to MPEG from a multi-event, color corrected, blurred, titled video project. You'll generally get a faster render going to DV or other higher grade format first, and then creating your MPEG from that rendered file. The MPEG will ALWAYS render faster from a compiled file than it will from a raw project, but you need to take into consideration the initial render, plus the time of the MPEG render.
Audio is the same way. You'll get a faster render coming from uncompressed/PCM, but you've got to account for the initial render to the first PCM file. It may discount the time you save going to the PCM first.