Question about wrapping up mix

[Rock Star 87]

I've heard many different opinions on this, so I'm gonna ask. If I have drums running from bars 1-16, then 32-48, do you automate the volume fader down the whole way from 16-32. Does it matter if you keep the fader at the set volume if there's nothing running on the track.

[Greg_L]

if theres nothing happening from 16-32, cant you just insert silence or delete that whole span and leave the fader alone? thats what id do, but im a rookie, so take that advice at your own risk.

[SonicAlbert]

I personally would drop the fader down or mute the track between long sections like that.

[Chibi Nappa]

Originally Posted by SonicAlbert

I personally would drop the fader down or mute the track between long sections like that.

Unless you have a noisy recording, I don't see why you don't just leave the faders up. Don't look for a solution to a problem that isn't there.

[chadsxe]

Originally Posted by Chibi Nappa

Unless you have a noisy recording, I don't see why you don't just leave the faders up. Don't look for a solution to a problem that isn't there.

If the track is not being used take advantage of all possible siliencing and muting. Things you can't hear can build up to be a big problem later.

[Chibi Nappa]

Originally Posted by chadsxe

Things you can't hear can build up to be a big problem later.

And then you can hear it, and then it's a problem and you fix it.

If you can't hear it, it doesn't matter that the potential is there for it to become a problem. It may combine with other noise and cause trouble, it may not. I stand by if you can't hear it, it isn't a problem. I just don't go trying to fix stuff that isn't doing anything to hurt my mix.

[Robert D]

One of the things that studio interns have traditionally gotten the pleasure of doing after the requisite floor sweeping and cable coiling, was to "do the minutes". That meant to go through the song and set all the mute points for dead track sections. Tape makes noise whether theres anything recorded or not, so muting dead track space was important. With digital, where there is no object or clip, there is no noise whatsoever. If there's an clip, object, or whatever your DAW calls it, but it's a dead section, you can trim it to where the signal starts or stops, or set mutes. Fader automation is the last thing I'd do just because a lot of fader automation start to become an un-necessary load for the CPU. Each fader move is a whole bunch of time based code executions, and if you are already pushing it on CPU headroom, it can be enough to cause trouble.

[littledog]

If you are working digitally and mixing in the box, it is so easy to erase or mute the silent sections, you might as well do it. Just make sure that doing so doesn't result in a noticeable ambience change.

If you are mixing through an analog mixer, and you have automation on the mixer, then you may want to automate a channel mute for that point or a fader move to minus infinity.

But as others said, if you can't hear any problems you might spend your time more fruitfully on stuff you can hear.

[noisewreck]

Originally Posted by littledog

Just make sure that doing so doesn't result in a noticeable ambience change.

If this is an issue, you can trim the parts so that there is a bit of the "silent" part left as a trailer and leader, and then just use the fading options on the parts (at least Cubase has this, I am sure other DAWs have similar features) to fade out to complete silence and the fade back in. This way the ambience change becomes less noticable and you still end up with clean mix w/o automation.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by noisewreck

If this is an issue, you can trim the parts so that there is a bit of the "silent" part left as a trailer and leader, and then just use the fading options on the parts (at least Cubase has this, I am sure other DAWs have similar features) to fade out to complete silence and the fade back in. This way the ambience change becomes less noticable and you still end up with clean mix w/o automation.

Noisewreck bet me to this one

Yeah, in the box if there's nothing there in the rack at all, muting the silence is unnecessary. However, bringing the envelope down to zero and using that for quick natural fades at the beginning of each clip or during the silent parts within a clip definitely enhances the sound. You're getting rid of whatever ambient or equipment noise there may be and doing so gently instead of with a one-sample-long cut or mute which is much more audible.

A small but added bonus is that a quick glance at your timeline immediately tells you where there's supposed to be sound there or not, regardless of the level of visible vertical zoom you have on the timeline. You know with a snapshot that the track is indeed silent and supposed to be at point X, and it's not just that you can't see the waveform inside the clip or that you have neglected to put a leep a clip in that location in the timeline.

I am someone who is very conscious of CPU usage as I don't have the fastest PCs in the west, but frankly I don't find levels automation to chew up many cycles at all, especially when compared to most VST plugs. I can automate track volume, plug levels, and pan all over the place with forty tracks and not have my CPU even breathe hard, let alone break a sweat like it does when I start adding plugs themselves. Until now I have not even bothered mentioning envelope automation and CPU usage in the same paragraph, because it's never been an issue for me. YMMV perhaps.

G.

[blueroommusic]

Glen...this is true for the most part as far as automation goes, but when you have a big load on the CPU and you start doing crazy automation, each point on an envelope definitely makes a difference on how your system runs...

most professional programs have ways to alleviate CPU usage; for instance, Sonar allows you to "freeze" plug-ins...in addition when you hide all your tracks it helps the system run much smoother.

...not trying to argue, i'm just saying

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by blueroommusic

Glen...this is true for the most part as far as automation goes, but when you have a big load on the CPU and you start doing crazy automation, each point on an envelope definitely makes a difference on how your system runs...

most professional programs have ways to alleviate CPU usage; for instance, Sonar allows you to "freeze" plug-ins...in addition when you hide all your tracks it helps the system run much smoother.

...not trying to argue, i'm just saying

There's nothing there that I disagree with, Blue.

But the fact is if you already "have a big load on your CPU", then that's what the big load on your CPU is...not the automation.

This is a bit OT, perhaps, but your post does bring up an important point. The implication that one first puts a huge load on their CPU (presumably through the use of a shinola-load of real time plugs) and then looks at "crazy" automation as a secondary process is probably over-dependant upon compression and under-mixing their mixes.

But in the final analysis, you're right; all one has to do is lock any track they are not currently working on and CPU load is a non-issue.

G.

[blueroommusic]

umm...drunk right now..try to respond..

I try to use as little plugs as possible, but the plugs I do use take a LOT of CPU...Waves, Izotope, Antares, convolution verbs, blahakjlaskd...and I have a monster computer, but when running 40-60 tracks of audio, it takes a lot out of her..

anyways, automation does better if you don't use it in an on/off manner if you can avoid it (can't remember technical term at the moment)...a smooth envelope also helps the CPU tackle automation a little better..

[Rock Star 87]

CPU load isn't a big deal, but my bitch is if the drums run from 1-12, then I deleted the recording so that there's absolutely nothing running on that track until the drums start at 32 again, should I automate the faders down from 12 to 32 if there's no recording playing at all?

[blueroommusic]

no...don't worry about it if there's no audio there...your just wasting your time...

out of curiosity, why do you record (I presume) the parts of the song seperately, instead of in one take?

[noisewreck]

If you have deleted it... that that there is no actual PART then no. That's the whole point. If you have deleted, so there is absolutely no audio, it's complete digital silence, then automating faders/muting the track is pointless. You don't gain anything by it other than wasted CPU cycles.

[Rock Star 87]

well blueroom, here's my story

I'm on such a tight budget, and my computer is so souped up, that all of the instruments used thus far have been MIDI or softsynth. None of the instruments that I own/play have thus far been needed in a song. So I do record my MIDI to audio all in one take, and I just cut out any silence manually.

[Robert D]

To re-iterate, fader automation doesn't present much load to the CPU, but I brought it up in the case of a maxed out system, in which case it could be the proverbial straw. Actually, there's another reason I don't use it for mute duty. I have a control surface with motorized faders, and all those faders flying around un-necessarily make a little noise, and put un-necessary wear on the motorized faders.

[noisewreck]

I want motorized faders...

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Robert D

To re-iterate, fader automation doesn't present much load to the CPU, but I brought it up in the case of a maxed out system, in which case it could be the proverbial straw. Actually, there's another reason I don't use it for mute duty. I have a control surface with motorized faders, and all those faders flying around un-necessarily make a little noise, and put un-necessary wear on the motorized faders.

Agreed, that makes sense all the way through.

G.

[Carter]

Yeah motorized faders are nice............... Im glad I have some!!!!!!!!!