Is this common practice?

scottboyher

New member
Record vocals or drums or something. Then run that track back out to an outboard reverb or delay (100% full mix) and record the reverb only on another track while preserving the original?

So you would have the vocal track then another track with the reverb or delay..

If this is a common thing is it because you have more control over the effect?

And other uses might this have?
 
Not sure why you'd run the effect to it's own track, as opposed to just putting on the track at mixdown... I suppose if one is short on effect units or computer resources, that is a way around it.

It'd be more common on something like a guitar track where you want to apply specific effect, but don't want to commit to the exact effect level during tracking (for flexibility at mixdown)
 
i do this all the time. i cant stand reverb plugins. this process allows me to use my (1) lexicon with different settings on multiple tracks. then i can just bounce them to disk. if i end up not liking what i printed later on in mixing, i can just do another take with different settings. i still have control over the reverb level.
 
Well, I was thinking like foreverain... If it is on its own track you would have total control. You could control the level of the effect with a fader, it could be eq'd at anytime, even the effect could be effected (why I don't know :D ).

Dunno. I just have a lot of time here to think and that was another route.. LOL
 
scottboyher said:
Record vocals or drums or something. Then run that track back out to an outboard reverb or delay (100% full mix) and record the reverb only on another track while preserving the original?

So you would have the vocal track then another track with the reverb or delay..

If this is a common thing is it because you have more control over the effect?


It's not extremely common, but it isn't by any means unusual. No one's going to look at you funny and say: "Why the heck are you doing that?" :D Except for maybe Bluebear. But then he's pretty cranky sometimes.

I do it occasionally, but should probably do it more. It's just smart, for the reasons that you state. Prevents you from having to go through another generational loss through further a/d - d/a conversions.

Just to improve workflow and save time, you might want to do it while tracking, though (splitting the signal and simultaneously tracking wet and dry versions).
 
It's nice to be able to edit an effects track. For example I always track guitars dry, even if I monitor with effects, then apply the effects afterwards. Usually I'll render the effected guitar to a track to edit/mix/whatever.
 
foreverain4 said:
oh yeah, i can also automate the level via envelopes.. works for me..

Hmm, I can automate my levels via envelopes using plugins, but that might vary by software, I guess. I have used a separate track for effects on say a vocal when you want a delay that's significantly more reverbed than the original.
 
corban said:
Hmm, I can automate my levels via envelopes using plugins, but that might vary by software, I guess. I have used a separate track for effects on say a vocal when you want a delay that's significantly more reverbed than the original.


yeah, i can do that with plugins, but i prefer the sound my lexicon hardware unit.. a piece of hardware would be, otherwise, difficult to automate if it were not recorded to a track. that was what i meant...
 
Is this common practice?
Record vocals or drums or something. Then run that track back out to an outboard reverb or delay (100% full mix) and record the reverb only on another track while preserving the original?

I use it for solo guitar. Gives a lot of flexibility and variety.

Tim
 
I do this a bit, but if you're on PC then another really easy way of preserving your original is to make a copy of the .wav file. That way you don't end up running two copies of every track, but if you need to retrace your steps you just dump the original back in.
 
noisedude said:
I do this a bit, but if you're on PC then another really easy way of preserving your original is to make a copy of the .wav file. That way you don't end up running two copies of every track, but if you need to retrace your steps you just dump the original back in.
Yeah, I do that. I import my files into the software. But most of the time when I am mixing, most of my editing is non-destructive, so if I don't like what I did, I don't have to scrap the track and re-import it. Since I don't have outboard effects and mix soley in software, it works well for me. I track dry as possible. I don't even monitor with effects since I may not be able to reproduce it in software (you know plugins). About the only effect I will track is distortion, because I prefer my amp's distortion over the weak crap in my MR-8, and I haven't mastered the distortion plugin in my software.
 
Yeah, I don't think I would expect software to distort guitars the way they're supposed to be distorted. Of course, perhaps a lot of people here will say that about all plugins. Still, it's most noticable on distortion.
 
Back
Top