Urgent: Sonar 3.0 mix buss help needed asap...

[tubedude]

I need some help with the digital mix buss procedure here, and urgently.
Which of these would be the preferred method? Currently I do it the 1st way and the difference between what I hear during mixing and then after bouncing to stereo 2 track and dithering is very big. The bass seems less bassy, the high end is not nearly as clear, really big differences here. I'm losing serious quality in the bounce to stereo area. Before bouncing my mixes are sounding great. Afterwards they sound pretty lame. Please help and make suggestions here. I will be looking into a 2 bus deal like the Folcrum or the Dangerous 2 buss in a few months, especially if I cant get a better mix going, but I need a fix for this, now. Using Sonar 3.0
Currently I am recording and mixing 24 bit/44.1, average songs are taking about 16-18 tracks. I do record all my levels as close to digital zero as possible, all of my chain and technique is correct, been doing it for a long time. I bounce to broadcast wave before moving to wavelab and dithering with Apogee UV22.

Here is my current method, number 1:

1) I basically leave my loudest tracks (kick) set at zero on the faders, and bring everything else up around that, so that most of my track levels are pretty high ( -3 to -9 on average) but it hits the main fader pretty hard with that many tracks, so I have to turn down that fader to around -9 to -11 to keep it from going over and lighting up the red. Thats with most of the tracks having a little bit of compression on the at one place or another to control peaks.

Would it be better, worse or the same to:

2) bring all my levels down evenly to where I can leave the master fader at -0 and not have it lighting up the red? I noticed this means bring most of the tracks down a LOT. But, I have not tried bouncing this way yet to see if it works better, but I plan to do that tonight.

Or:

3) Maybe try bouncing drums down seperately, then guitars, then vocals and mixing those 3 maybe with bass? I'm not sure where or why the loss is occurring, but I'm willing to try anything.

4) This is my least desirable idea, I would need more cables and have to add additional conversions which I dont like to do, but will if I have to: Running out 8 mono and 4 stereo tracks at a time to my soundcraft M8 and using its summing buss and moving it back into the computer and then finsihing up from there.

After I am done bouncing down to stereo from Sonar, I move to wavelab, add a few things like timeworks mastering compressor and maybe a little shelf, dither with Apogee UV22HR and I'm done.
What I am hearing before I bounce down is great. What I have afterwards with my current way sucks. I know the bands are all noticing this when they get home with thier stuff. I need a fix before I lose clients.
Thanks for any help you can offer.
Paul

[moskus]

If you look at the example-files with Sonar 3, you'll see that every track is reduced, and the master is peaking just under -6 dB.

But then I haven't tried to bounce one of them to disk, but perhaps it's worth a try?

[Qwerty]

If you bounce any of the demo tracks in Sonar to a WAV file and burn them to CD, you will hear that they too sound like crap.

Probably in the same way that your mixes sound "off" after bouncing.

I got the same problem too and cannot find a resolution.

Q.

[Porter]

Q,

Have you sent an e-mail to Cakewalk about this yet. I know you mentioned this earlier. I didn't know if you had done anything about it.

BTW, do you work in the city?

Porter

[Qwerty]

No Porter, I haven't........

Not laziness, but I couldn't find language to use which didn't come across sounding like - "All my mixes sound boxy and yours does too"

I can't point to anything logically that is irrefutably reproducible and proveable. Rather, it seems like a seeping lack of definition in the final, bounced sound the more tracks that are added.

I am not really sure how to send that to support without it getting into a "Does not" - "Does too!" type of argument....

Q.

I actually work from home at North Ryde.

[mixsit]

Originally posted by tubedude
... I do record all my levels as close to digital zero as possible...

...but it hits the main fader pretty hard with that many tracks, so I have to turn down that fader to around -9 to -11 to keep it from going over and lighting up the red.
... Thats with most of the tracks having a little bit of compression on the at one place or another to control peaks.

...bring all my levels down evenly to where I can leave the master fader at -0 and not have it lighting up the red?
...I noticed this means bring most of the tracks down a LOT.

I do not know for sure how much headroom there is in Sonar.... but you would never run a mixer like this.
I use a method much like your #2 example -set the main at zero and mix the tracks so that the main level comes in a tad BELOW zero, then add a bit of master gain last to trim it out. I bounce to a new track in ACKUS ( ) and A/B from that track to the 'live multitrack play' -no nasties.
(2.0XL here)

Another thing to try if you think it's still a 'bounce=dodo but it plays fine'; skip the bounce, record it live to a dat or other recorder and A/B.

ps. Just a thought. Maybe the headroom is not the same on 'live play' vs on bounce/export? We do know that you can run the v-main into the red without distortion, but you do not get away with that on 'export'.

Wayne

[Qwerty]

Originally posted by mixsit
I bounce to a new track in ACKUS ( ) and A/B from that track to the 'live multitrack play' -no nasties.
(2.0XL here)

Wayne

Hi Wayne,

Dunno about Tubedude, but I am guilty as charged. I will try this out.

Have you dumped the demo tracks? No of course you haven't - you are using 2.0 xl. The ones in 3.0 PE seem to be set up as per your instructions, (scenario #2), but I still hear a difference between the dumped version and the internal playback from Sonar.

I will employ your manual loopback suggestion in future I think and do a blind taste test for the board.

Ciao,

Q.

[mixsit]

Did you happen to see this thread from Mark4man?
http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthr...hreadid=108462
Levels seem to have made the difference there.

But I still want to know why, if the prog can sound ok processing/playing real-time, why it would fall apart when it can take it's sweet time doing the export or bounce?

[mixsit]

FWIW, more fuel for the fire ect, -levels matter, analog or digi.
From an interesting thread here at HomeRec;

http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthr...5&pagenumber=2

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by charger
There are many pros out there who could mix on a Neve or an SSL, and yet choose to do otherwise. Some of them even mix on digital. In fact, most major console manufacturers are primarily making digital mixers now. Why is that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they cost less to make, therefore they sell more?

I posted this on another thread a while ago:

http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_chris_lordalge/

Here's the relevant bit:

quote:

What is it you love about this [SSL 4000 G Plus] console so much?

Bottom line, this console has attitude. In 10 more years, these consoles will be like old Neves. They're classic. This one was installed in about 1985; it's modified as far as you can go, and it's in great shape. And it's got light meters, which I like. I'm all about the meters.

What do you mean?

I've got to see what's going on. I don't do this by ear only! I use the meters to balance things left and right, and to see what's going on with each fader so I can optimize the console.

They're set to show input?

No, the output of the fader — fader to mix — EQ'd and everything. It's all about maximizing the signal strength. You hit the tape machine a certain way, the tape machine is hitting the console a certain way, you're hitting the mix bus a certain way. You're at the sweet spot. All consoles have a pretty small sweet spot where it really sounds good.

That's something you don't hear mentioned much lately.

Well, everybody's thinking because they're digital, they don't have to worry about a sweet spot. Well, yeah, you do. Digital craps out so quick it's disgusting. In an all-digital console, the sweet spot is tiny — like a postage stamp. But there's a small window on any console where the headroom is right and where it really sounds the best. That's where I stay, in that window.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, and remember how valves were superceded by transistors? Valve gear was worthless for a period there, but we have now learnt our lesson. And this will probably apply to digital too. Actually it already started happening a couple of years ago, but a lot of people haven't realised it yet.

[James Argo]

Hehe... great post, mixsit Thanks for sharing it. Nice to read them all

Sweet spot, baby... that's it... sweet spot... It keeps ringing in my head


Jaymz

[mixsit]

Yeah babe'. 'Think that's one we can't 'buy' our way out of no matter what.



Dammit!

[tubedude]

For the record, I got two replies from Cakewalk personell with two totally different answers... although I did find something that I MAY have been doing wrong and it seems to sound a TAD better.

More in a moment.

[Qwerty]

Has a moment passed yet?

Q.

[Teacher]

had the same problem switched to samplitude and it got tons better but here's a thread where the 'big boys' weighed in on the same issue and revealed their secrets for optimizing sonic fidelty when mixing in the box

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...ing+in+the+box

[Qwerty]

So - provided we all learn where the "sweet spot" is on our copies of Cakewalk all these problems negate each other.

Am I reading this thread correctly, Teacher?

I must confess that I had not been setting my individual track levels on the basis of a Master fader set to 0dB. Dumb me.

This does seem to increase fidelity to some degree, I am still playing......

Tubedude - any other info from Cakewalk?

Q.

[Teacher]

i think so...what i got out of the thread was proper gain staging in a DAW is as or even more important then gain staging on an analog mixer.