One song per project or more?

T

The549

a hack
When doing tracking, do you make a new project for each new song? I use Reaper, and was also wondering if it would be faster....I have always done all songs in one project per session. What do you do?
 
Generally one per. Exceptions- a live gigs, rehearsals, 'let it roll situations. You can get a flow going sometimes but the automation can really start building up as things like the various eq, compression levels on tracks shift.
 
I use Reaper too... and definitely new project for each song. We do record our practices on occasion, so I'll let it roll through a whole set for that, but if we end up trying to use any of that, I'll split it up into separate projects.
 
I used to do one per song. Now I do the whole project in one. once all the songs are roughed in, I resave each song under a different name, so I essentially have them split back up. Seems to work the fastest.
 
NL5 said:
I used to do one per song. Now I do the whole project in one. once all the songs are roughed in, I resave each song under a different name, so I essentially have them split back up. Seems to work the fastest.
Click to expand...

Hello everyone. Glad to part of your forum.
I have been doing one session (to start) for years now and it works good. As long as everything was tracked with the same setup, you can get a good rough mix for every song. Some eq settings and maybe your fx tracks set up. Then split into differernt sessions and you have the same mix for everything. Then tweak away.
It's the closest thing I've found to mixing like we used to do with the analog boards.

Tony Laughlin
Audio Engineer/Promoter
www.grooveboxmusic.com
 
NL5 said:
I used to do one per song. Now I do the whole project in one. once all the songs are roughed in, I resave each song under a different name, so I essentially have them split back up. Seems to work the fastest.
Click to expand...
grooveboxTony said:
Hello everyone. Glad to part of your forum.
I have been doing one session (to start) for years now and it works good. As long as everything was tracked with the same setup, you can get a good rough mix for every song.
Click to expand...
You know what, you both hit a very good point here. I do notice that on every shift to the next song I have to re-do the improvements dialed in on the previous. This could have a nice bump on the flow of things, not to mention I really like to 'mix during tracking. That alone is huge. Hmm.
I may just have to re-rethink this thing. :cool:

And a 'hey there to the forum there Groovebox. :D

..not mention the project data hell glitch I had to move sh*t for two hours Sunday night anyway..! :rolleyes:
 
The problem with "one session per project," though, is that if you're talking about a 3 song demo it may work pretty well, but a 74-minute 15 song project with, on average, 30 tracks a "song" is going to be a HUGE resource drain. Maybe it's harder for me since my computer is a couple years out of date, but it'd be a nightmare to try to add additional tracks, past a certain point.

I do one project a song, the exception being if I were working on a "two part" song, where one song was basically an intro for another that sequed directly into the next.

I think there's a lot to gain from tracking pretty much in one large swathe, though - lay down some scratch tracks for all of your songs for the project, then record all the drums, then all the rhythm guitars, then all the bass, then all the leads, etc and keep all the raw tracks similar in tone and amplitude, and then saving your FX settings as presets from the first song you mix and just applying them to everything else, to keep the "sound" consisitent from song to song. I'm still demoing for my first proper album, so it hasn't been a huge issue yet, but when I do go to start tracking for real I suspect I'll go about it in a similar manner...
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
The problem with "one session per project," though, is that if you're talking about a 3 song demo it may work pretty well, but a 74-minute 15 song project with, on average, 30 tracks a "song" is going to be a HUGE resource drain. Maybe it's harder for me since my computer is a couple years out of date, but it'd be a nightmare to try to add additional tracks, past a certain point.
Click to expand...

I dunno, but generally a band has the same 30 parts give or take on every song, so you still have the same amount of tracks. I've done whole albums this way w/o any problems - usually more than thirty tracks too.
 
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
 
Last edited:
I was (re- :)) thinking during initial rhythm section tracking, maybe into some over dubs, then breaking it out.

but a 74-minute 15 song project with, on average, 30 tracks a "song" is going to be a HUGE resource drain.
Click to expand...
And we're meaning the same set of tracks 'serial here right (not new tracks in the same time slots? Other wise I don't see why there'd be increased resources?
 
Maybe this is just a knowledge gap on my part, but I always assumed that most DAW's pre-loaded all project files in RAM, and that accordingly a 74-minute track was more demanding on system resources than a 5 minute one?

If I'm dead wrong, let me know because, well, that's the sort of thing that's generally nice to know, lol. :)
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
Maybe this is just a knowledge gap on my part, but I always assumed that most DAW's pre-loaded all project files in RAM, and that accordingly a 74-minute track was more demanding on system resources than a 5 minute one?

If I'm dead wrong, let me know because, well, that's the sort of thing that's generally nice to know, lol. :)
Click to expand...

I dunno, Cubase has a setting on how much audio to pre-load - you get three choices - 2, 4, or 6 seconds..........

Like I said, I have the entire album in one file, then split it off once the rough mixing is done, so that I can tweak each song individually. Really speeds things up, and never been a problem.
 
Just a little more info:
I use the one session approach in cubase and in pro tools (depending on which studio I'm working out of). To be fair, yes, the computers are dedicated to audio only. No internet and no extra bs. They can handle quite a load. But they are not super computers or anything.
If I track a band that uses 12 drum mics two or three guitars a bass mic, bass direct, several vocal tracks, I don't know...keys...whatever. I would have about 25 to 30 tracks. I get rough levels and eq's. Then start to create aux tracks, busses, fx, etc... Now I could be upwards of 50 tracks with a 70 minute song (unbroken still).
Right around the time I get to vocals, the computer starts to slow a bit. This is my cue to break up the songs. I create my 12 or 15 sessions (one for each song). Now anything I do to one track I have to remember to do it to all (if it pertains).
My original point is that it really speeds up the process. Maybe you could only get to the eq and fx stage before your computer starts to lag. That would be your cue to break up the tracks. I think it would still save you time in the long run.

Tony Laughlin
Audio Engineer/Promoter
www.grooveboxmusic.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top