Protools..Part 2 (simple question)

[slimcharm]

I am sure someone with knowledge of Protools would be able to answer this and I would appreciate it!I have my music track and Jessica records vocals to it.Then I click save. When I look in my save files on my computer (not in protools)..I see the music (l & R) and I see Jessicas vocals..but I dont see where the two have been combined. Is that something I have to do during the recording process.If I were in Protools I hear Jessica singing to the music ..but after I have saved and looked at it..I dont see where the combination is - instead I get separate pieces.Do I have to actually SAVE the combination? If so how do I do that?Thankyou

[mani]

You need to do a mixdown. Select file> Bounce to disk.Under the box that pops up, choose: stereo, 16bit, 44.1khz (it might say 44100), wav (or aiff if you like). There might be other stuff you have to set too, like length of song etc. When you finally press the bounce button a file selection box will pop up. Name the file after the song and save it where you want it. Make sure you remember where you've saved it!!!All of this is in the manual which you will have to read properly sooner or later.......

[mani]

The best thing you can do at that rate is read the manual, and when you come across terms you are not sure about (whether computer related or specifically Protools related) make a list of them and ask here. That way, you won't be a novice for long!Believe me I do know how confusing it is. There are several names for each function and so many menus etc. and aaarrrrggghhhh!!To start you off...A 'mixdown' is when you create your 'final mix' (or just 'mix') of the song. This is the finished version of the track* (song). The only other process that might be applied to a 'final mix' afterwards is 'mastering' but that's not something you need to worry about unless it's an album.'Bouncing' is something you do to extract an audio file from a program (Protools) so that all the effects and other changes you've made within the program are retained as part of the audio file itself. This process can be done on a single file (say guitar with echo) or to a whole mix (ie. a mixdown!)'Disk' is the Hard Drive on your computer.*'Track' can mean several things. A specific recording in a mix, like the lead vocal track, or the acoustic guitar track. Or it can mean the whole song. It can also be used as a verb to describe the process of recording..."Yeah, I'm goin' into the studio today to track some vocals. I'm soooo cool."

[davewalton]

Usually you have options in terms of what kind of file you want to export to. In Sonar, my options include WAV, MP3, and WMA (Windows Media). You should have options similar to those. Exporting directly to an MP3 will save you one step.Your export should only be to a single file. It sounds like you are exporting to seperate stereo files (left and right). You want to export all files and/or tracks to a single mix. I Googled "pro tools le tutorial" and found this:http://myweb.lmu.edu/rpardee/PT/START/t ... tents.htmI don't know if it's included as part of your package or if this is a tutorial developed by the university, but about half-way down the page there is a link that says "Bouncing Tracks (Mixing Sounds Into a Single Audiofile)". This looks like this is the info you need, since I'm not able to help you with Pro Tools specific advice.

[davewalton]

Quote:Ahhh this is fantastic..Much easier to understand than the info I was given.Look at what it says here.."Multiple Mono" means the split stereo approach that Pro Tools favors. If you want to burn the bounce to an audio CD, select "Stereo Interleaved." [There's also a "Summed Mono" option, which will combine your stereo mix into a single mono track. Note that this might result in a higher combined level and produce clipping."From reading the above I get the impression Protools will split it in two ..an L and an R like what I was getting.Or should I click on SUMMED MONO instead of Multiple Mono?Thanks Dave!!This is so typical. Wander through any bookstore in the computer/software section and you'll see rows and rows of "how-to" books even though those programs come with a help manual and sometime their own tutorials. It's like the software companies have made an agreement with the book companies to include only non-helpful materials, leaving a big market for the book companies to fill. I've had battles with dozens of programs and their cruddy help manuals only to have a third-party book come along and save the day. OK, back to the situation at hand. For the most part, at least for now, forget about mono and always think stereo. So from the choices you gave, stereo interleaved sounds like it's what you want. It said something about burning your bounce to an audio CD, but you should be able to make other choices like creating a wav file or an mp3. You just want to end up with a single, individual stereo file on your computer.Just as a reminder, if creating a WAV file check to see that your sample rate is set to 44100 and your bit depth is set to 16bit. If creating an MP3 file, I personally favor a setting of 192kbps, although you can select 128kbps and get a slightly smaller file size but with a slight loss in the quality of your sound.Now when Jessica's friends ask "What does your mom do?", she can really impress them by saying "She's a sound engineer and owns her own studio".

[davewalton]

I guess you'd have to try it but "interleaved" stereo implies that the left and right will be mixed together, which is ultimately what you want. For sure you don't want mono. Mono will make your recording sound like, well, thin. Stereo is what gives a recording a richer, fuller sound. You won't find any mono recordings at the record store.

[53mph]

"Now if you asked the question differently you may get a different response from me..ie which is higher quality or which is most durable etc."Slim...my question was "in order of quality".For me 'quality' means sound quality...not cupboard space quality I would call myself a teacher, because Educator sounds like a Chuck Norris straight-to-video action movie We speak the same language, we just use different words Mani gets top marks, and a special achievement star for putting in the bit about 1/4 inch tape. It's amazing how many people put them in this order.1. MP32. CD3. Tape4. RecordOK, none of these students are sound engineers...but still!Then I ask them to put CD, tape and vinyl in order of lifespan. It shocks them when I tell them that CD has a lifespan of 10-15 years and that it's not a reliable format of archiving....unfortunately we can't all afford Dat or 1 inch tape backups though.

[ernstinen]

I agree with Mani. A well-recorded reel-to-reel tape on a quality machine (possibly with noise reduction) is still the king. Why not CD? First of all, they're 16 bit. Also, you divide the sampling rate of 44.1 by 2 to get the highest frequency that can be recorded (22.05 kHz). Quality tape recorders can record frequencies almost TWICE as high, according to Bob Moog (R.I.P.).Now I've heard many arguments that it should make no difference because the human ear can't hear sounds up near 40 kHz, but it DOES make an enormous difference in the overall sound of the recording.In fact, I've mastered analog recordings using a top-of-the-line EQ, and I swear to God I can hear up to the highest frequency, 26 kHz. Maybe I'm part dog! But pretty soon CDs will be history, and a higher resolution digital format will take its place. You'll have to buy your record collection all over again!BTW, I worry about kids raised on mp3s. They don't know what they're missing. Ern P.S. I have many mixes onto 1/4" reel-to-reel tape at 15 i.p.s. that sound fantastic! Not only do they sound good, but they are quite a bit louder than a DAT mix due to tape compression.

[matto]

Quote:Now I've heard many arguments that it should make no difference because the human ear can't hear sounds up near 40 kHz, but it DOES make an enormous difference in the overall sound of the recording.Well, I'd agree it makes A difference, but enormous...? Most people seem to agree that the difference between 16 and 24bit is a lot more noticeable, and even that could hardly be described as "enormous" under average listening conditions...Quote:In fact, I've mastered analog recordings using a top-of-the-line EQ, and I swear to God I can hear up to the highest frequency, 26 kHz. Maybe I'm part dog! You wouldn't have to be part dog, Ern . Cutting or boosting at a center frequency of 26k will have an effect to well below 20k unless the EQ is extremely narrow Q, which a mastering EQ wouldn't be.Quote:But pretty soon CDs will be history, and a higher resolution digital format will take its place. You'll have to buy your record collection all over again!I kinda doubt that's gonna happen anytime soon. The success of mp3's seems to prove that the general public isn't really interested in better fidelity. I can't see how the record companies could successfully launch a new format whose only benefit is better sound. Perhaps if there was multimedia content added...but generally, people seem to be happy enough with the CD's audio quality.Which brings me to the CD vs Vinyl debate. The way I see it, the reason most people think CDs sound better than Vinyl is that 95% of the time they do... Your AVERAGE record is going to suffer from serious surface noise, maybe have a few scratches, and a dynamic range far insufficient for styles of music that are demanding in that area (due to the record grooves being physically to close to one another on most commercial releases). The records are also going to degrade a little bit further with every play (which of course is also true of tape).Vinyl has the POTENTIAL to sound great, but most records don't. Most people don't have a dust free environment to store their records in, velvet gloves to handle them with and a top of the line deck to play them back on .And CDs don't HAVE to sound "bad". If the source recording is HD and transferred using SBM or similar processes, the CD can sound quite beautiful.I can unequivocally state that my enjoyment of classical music went up considerably when the CD was introduced. Gone was the annoying distortion on fortissimo choir cum orchestra passages, the crackling which almost drowned out the pianissimi, and the CLICKS and POPS that would inevitably occur during the most delicate solos ...As far as the 10-15 year shelf life...this may be true for CDs you burn yourself, but my 20 year old store bought CDs play back just as well as they did when I first bought them...and sound exactly the same, after hundreds of spins, in some cases.These days it's quite fashionable to poo poo the CD...but I doubt few people TRULY miss the Vinyl Age, on the whole. I mean what good is "superior audio quality" if you can't hear the MUSIC thru all that snap, crackle and pop... .matto

[ernstinen]

Quote:Well, I'd agree it makes A difference, but enormous...? Cutting or boosting at a center frequency of 26k will have an effect to well below 20k unless the EQ is extremely narrow Q, which a mastering EQ wouldn't be.Well, Matto, normally I agree with you, but I have REALLY sensitive ears and the "opening up" of the sound seems to be an "enormous" difference to me --- maybe not to you.And a Massenburg E.Q. which I rent DOES have the capability of an extremely narrow Q at the highest frequencies. Ern