rendering vs. mixing

PeterVred wrote on 7/5/2003, 12:30 PM

i have searched for opinions on this, can't find any.
What is better sounding:
rendering from vegas,
or using a buss out and re-recording the mix into a new stereo track?

I notice my renders don't have quite the punch the song had when listening to the original tracks. So I ran the mix thru a buss out and out of my Layla, thru a dbx compressor and back into vegas. I seems better than the rendered version, but i realize it might have just been the compression that made it louder.

What are you other users doing, mixing or rendering?

thanx

Comments

kilroy wrote on 7/5/2003, 2:34 PM

We always play the mix out, sometimes through a nice analog class ''A'' chain if we think it's called for or we might stay digital. Either way, the mix is always played down in real time.

The only time we would do an internal render would be to bounce a track with lots of edits or the like. Even then we may opt to send it out and back depending on what it is and whether we think it could benefit from some outboard analog roundness.

The best sounding mixes involving digital tracks to our ears are the ones that are summed analog from individual tracks bussed from the audio app to a good desk. But you need alot of *good* convertor channels supporting the sample rate and bit depth you are working in.

Too bad that the best choices are usually the most expensive.

Note too, that while this is what gives us the results we are looking for we have heard some pretty nice stuff come in here for mastering that was all done in "the box". In general these mixes are narrower with not as much depth in their presentation, though the spectral balance can still be good with mix elements well placed and so on. Doesn't make them bad sounding necessarily, just a different signature on the mix that you either find acceptable or not.

drbam wrote on 7/5/2003, 3:54 PM

I mix out through an analog console back into Vegas mainly to use outboard processing - primarily better quality verbs and delays. Sometimes I will record a verb or delay return back into Vegas for additional mix automation. I generally only render heavily edited tracks or occasionally submixes (vocals, percussion, soundscapes, etc). And I know this doesn't really answer your question, but frankly I like the human performance aspect of live mixing. No matter how much time I spend carving out a mix in Vegas, there are often subtle spontaneous moves that happen when mixing this way that often result in something quite magical. Its a reaction to what I'm hearing "in the moment" that cannot be duplicated by drawing envelopes IMO. Maybe my impression of this is purely psychological or some sort of psychoacoustic phenomena but I don't think so. At any rate, I like this approach and it works for me which is all that really matters. As far as it "sounding better" than rendering, well of course it always sounds better because the outboard verbs are better. I do a lot of tribal-ambient material which utilizes large, long verb spaces as an integral part of the sound. For this type of music, the best plugin verbs (I've tried most of them) sound like crap when compared to my PCM 80. ;-)

drbam

PeterVred wrote on 7/9/2003, 9:45 PM

Thanks for the tips guys...i really thought i would get lots of replies on this one.
It only occured to me lately after a year of using vegas that you mixed any other way THAN by rendering. The guy who originally showed me the program rendered and I suppose had never "mixed".

Over the last year my clients have been amazed at the mixes as compared to what I used to do by hand with 2 ADATS, so I thought...why bother making it any harder.
It was only my frustration with compression plugins that has led me to consider mixing.
I have been real happy with SFs "subtle" reverb settings, and the onboard EQ seems fine too.

Only thing i miss is an onboard compressor that will REALLY limit like a dbx.

Geoff_Wood wrote on 7/10/2003, 5:34 AM

Here's another then !

How could flying out through DA and back in thru AD plus various analogue paths in between be better (apart from the use of desired external devices), than a pristine mathematically perfect render ?

If you don't need the accuracy you can alway insert some 'destructive' plugins to emulate the denigration incurred by the 'external' method.

geoff

drbam wrote on 7/10/2003, 8:34 AM

>>How could flying out through DA and back in thru AD plus various analogue paths in between be better (apart from the use of desired external devices), than a pristine mathematically perfect render ? <<

My objective is focused on a "hands on" organic, spontaneously creative mixing process which includes sounds and efx that can ONLY be captured with outboard gear. Trying to insure a "pristine mathematically perfect render" is very much secondary to me. "Better" is a subjective term and this process is "better" for the way I like to work and therefore the end result is more likely to be what I'm after. ;-)

drbam

Arnar wrote on 7/10/2003, 8:45 AM

If you need a compressor that will REALLY limit/comress like a DBX or better the get the UAD-1 plugin card from Universal Audio/Mackie.

You will never look back as its the most amazing set of plug ins i have tried and i have tried them all.

PeterVred wrote on 7/11/2003, 1:19 PM

Yipes! @ $599. i think i may have to wait on the UAD-1.

PeterVred wrote on 7/11/2003, 1:19 PM

thanks geoff!
i was wondering if anyone would defend the helpless render.

Rednroll wrote on 7/11/2003, 1:50 PM

"How could flying out through DA and back in thru AD plus various analogue paths in between be better (apart from the use of desired external devices), than a pristine mathematically perfect render ? "

Easily, the external devices have been developed for years optimized for audio sound performance, and also developed by companies that understand processing isn't just a simple math algorithm, and their algorithm's have been critiqued and take into account the effects of the hardware audio characteristics within them. Or are you going to tell me that there's no sonic difference between the Lexicon 480L and a Timeworks 4080L plugin? I still haven't heard any internal plugins that sound as good as my external DBX compressors, or a multiband compressor plugin that touches my TC Finalizer. I suppose that is because these devices are developed by audio experts, and the plugins are developed by software engineers. So yes, I agree, maybe an internal render is more "pristine", rendering through shit, makes it still sound like shit after the render, so you got a "pristine" terd when you're done rendering.

PeterVred wrote on 7/12/2003, 9:18 AM

aaah, humour DOES belong in music...thanx Red!

Chienworks wrote on 7/12/2003, 9:32 AM

I would tend to think though that most of the software in external processing devices is developed by software engineers and that most of the software engineers working on plugins are audio experts.

Rednroll wrote on 7/14/2003, 7:04 PM

"I would tend to think though that most of the software in external processing devices is developed by software engineers and that most of the software engineers working on plugins are audio experts."

Don't be too sure of that. Audio knowledge and software programming are two different animals. I currently work with 4 software engineers developing audio hardware. They have a lot of the fundamentals of audio, but rely heavily on more trained audio people like myself. Just like I rely on their software programmng expertise. Dr. Griesinger who developed many fine products and algorithms for Lexicon has his Doctors degree in "Physics" and has a lot of background in audio. He's written a lot of code, which the software engineers look at and shake their heads sometimes in wonder how it ever works, because in their mind it's not very well structured code and they feel they can streamline it and make it more robust. Then for some reason, it doesn't sound as good, and it's back to the lab again. I have run into very few software/audiofiles.

Ask them at Waves, how many Doctor degreed physics/software engineers they have developing their products. You'll soon learn that getting the right balance takes years of experience and development.

red