Collaborations, a discussion on logistics

[Guernica]

Hey Guys,
I am starting this thread here because the folks who frequent this place are the ones it concerns most.
The collabs that I have done w/ Lt. here were done in a very straight forward and simple manner. The tracks were downloaded by Lt. Bob, he put down his parts, then sent them back to me as split stereo tracks on CD. We have been discussing slips in sync possibly due to mp3 transfer and latency. There is an obvious difference between syncing sax and drums. To tell you the truth, it is possible that the sax tracks didnt sync "perfectly" on "unconditional". But if they didnt, I couldnt tell. I know the sync was tight on "Parasite" because rather than download a file, Lt. Bob was sent the tracks on CD..... then sent them back finished the same way. I am going to post a download for myself of a click at 320 bps, then do some experiments syncing it to see if it fluctuates at all throughout the duration of the test. Being that it is all digital, I wouldnt think that there could be that possibility....... but Im just a dumb ole Bass player who's gotta find out for himself.

.......I would very much appreciate any input regarding past experiences (positive and negative) with Collab logistics. Im hoping to collect a contribution of Information here that we can all use.

.........lets get it on

 

[Barometer]

Hey G,

Great idea. I've been talking to some about doing collabs and was considering the options as a drummer. I would much prefer actual tracks on CD or FTP (I don't mind big downloads), even project bundles from the same software if multiple parties are using the same one. That way I can send a 6 track drum piece or a stereo mix if preferred to the person who is doing the mix to get the best result. I would think that with actual tracks there could be no sync mistakes, no? My $.02

 

[crawdad]

You were asking about mono and stereo files in the other endless thread and heres my take on that. You can use both. The best way to sync tracks is, I now realize, to have the track start at 1/1/000. For example, I track a song and want you to play bass on it. When I send it to you I put a one time click right at 1/1/000--regardless of when my musical track actually starts. Lets say that the track starts at 4/1/000. So I send you a stereo file and you put it into whatever digital platform you are using. Line up my file so it starts at your 1/1/000.

Now record your bass. At the same 1/1/000 in your program, copy my click at the head to your bass track. If necessary, merge your bass and the new copy of the click as one file. My click and your click should be perfectly in sync--no echoes, flams etc.

At this point you could send me back your bass track, which starts at the same 1/1/000. When I get it, it should be perfectly aligned with my track if I drag it to the very beginning of my tracks window. I should hear no flams or echoes either. From there, we should be in sync (not the band but musically speaking)

You could send a stereo keyboard track using the same method.

I would be very interested in your MP3 experiment. I predict that you will have noticable generation loss after 2 or three bounces and conversions.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I agree with that. It's not a matter of how good the Mp3 sounds....it's the same as with analog tape, you're getting into 3rd and 4th generations and whatever effect the conversion process introduces, no matter how small, is going to be cumulative and at some point is going to be audible.

Also...putting the click on1/1/000 is so obvious! How did I miss that? Clearly if you do that then you can quickly and accurately sync things up perfectly every time> That's so cool; it definitely addresses the problem.

Barometer...I haven't forgotten you. I've just been running hard but I'll get you some tunes to play on before the week is out. First we'll talk privately about the things you mentioned in your PM the other day.

 

[Barometer]

Thanks, I'm sorry did I miss something here. I just thought it was taken for granted that everything starts at 1/1/00? At least that's the only way I was told to do it in Sonar.

But please explain the MP3 thing a bit more. Does the compression actually change the length of the music, maybe by milliseconds on either side, does that make a difference?

 

[SLuiCe]

I'm a Sonar user too, and can imagine no other way than syncing from 1.1.000.

And I would say the fastest and least de-generating method would be to send .wav's over broadband via chat software...scan for viruses...then line it up at 1. Should be a done deal. If you're on a dial-up, no big deal. Send a CD. I'm talking about single tracks in single .wav files. I think by now most of the regulars have lost all tolerance for quality reduction

This is just theory, and there are probably other ways.

 

[Guernica]

Sluice-......here comes a really dumb question . How does file size compare? Ive never used .wav files for any recording purposes. I use a stand alone recorder, not a 'puter. Is the size of a .wav dramatically bigger or smaller than say the size of a 320 bps mp3?
If smaller, this would make using wav files an obvious choice. No compression, and quicker transfer times...... that would sound like a winner to me......

 

[B.SABBATH]

.......I would very much appreciate any input regarding past experiences (positive and negative) with Collab logistics. Im hoping to collect a contribution of Information here that we can all us .........lets get it on

hey guys,


I've done 5 collaborations so far.. (plus 2 more that never made it to the light,) and 4 others I'm working on now..

I am satisfied with most of them, and the sound degredation was not noticeable.. I am thinking of posting some sound tests of my own. Maybe I'll use Erlands collab or something... I can post the one he sent, and then post the one I loaded into my recorder and back to Nowhere.. It all stayed in 256kbps land until the end.. Now I prefer 320 though.. I would love to see if anyone can hear a difference with my tracks left out, and me not telling you which was stepped on..



Lt. Bob, I saw your post in the other thread about the sax that you added to 'dead man'.. (That was some GREAT playing btw,) but the sound problem was introduced on your end.. (with all due respect my brother) I 'think' the mp3 you sent me of it was 128 (definitely not 192 like I think you said) I'm also pretty sure that my original mp3 that you added to was 128.. (I lost that original dead man you added to when my puter crashed.) So that is a bad example.. I think I was a bit harsh because that was the first collab I ever heard of my music.. I learned things just by hearing it, but that example can't be used as what happens to the sound.. Listen to the other collabs I did.. The problems they had didnt have anything to do with mp3 degradation.. (BTW, I would love to have that version of dead man with the sax, it got lost when the puter crashed)




I probably sound really thick headed about this, but it only requires that people take a little extra time in the beginning to get there parts sounding good.. There is a producer named 'Terry Date', and he recorded bands like 'Pantera, Soundgarden' etc., and he does everything at the time of tracking so there is little to do later.. He mixes as he goes..



My main problems with other methods are like this..

For example, someone might be a great guitar player, or whatever they do, but they might not be good at mixing, producing etc.. So, I send them a 320 of my music, and tell them to add a guitar solo.. All they have to do is make sure there part sounds good.. Post up a sample mix that I can hear, and offer my input.. If they do it right, and keep it 320, you should not be able to hear any differences in my original sound.. I have tried it and it worked..


Why should so much be saved for the end? I guess I suffer from 'option anxiety,' but I like to get it down as I go.. Too many options can keep you on a song longer than you should, instead of nailing it, and moving on to the next one.. No one has told me my stuff sounds like crap yet.. I guess it's hard to ask anyone to trust me with there sound, when I trust no one with mine, but if it's done right, I don't think *most people* could tell the difference.. I would never want what happend on 'that other thread,' to happen to me.. I would have noticed that from the start, and not posted it.. Similar to the other 2 collabs I did that were never posted.. I guess it all depends on who your collaborating with..



Anyway, this is how I did/do it.. It's not the best, but the differences in sound would probably be unnoticeable to people who used the other method... In some cases, even better because no one would be able to screw it up.. The 'option' wouldn't be there..


I don't agree that it's about having more options at the end.. IMHOP, it's about doing it well as you go..


Anyho, I hope that good ideas are introduced in this thread, and that everyone finds the method that works, for whoever is involved..




I haven't had my 'mourning' cup of coffee yet, so please excuse/disregard everything I just said..



I have to go to work now..






Gurenica - I just saw your post.. The Wave file of my last tune was about 37 mb's. The VBR version is 9.4 megs.. If you compare the sound, the VBR is very, very close.. It would be hard for *most* to tell the difference imhop..

 

[Guernica]

Gurenica - I just saw your post.. The Wave file of my last tune was about 37 mb's.

Holy Shit........ that would give my poor dial up connection a Grand Mal seizure .....


Regarding getting it all done as we go: The fear that I have of that is the inability to get the first things mixed properly for things to come that may be unforseen. For example: A collaboration my entail me sending someone some bass tracks and drums. Even after discussing levels, etc. It is really tough for me, at this early stage, to anticipate the levels and processing of the cymbals, hi-hat, etc.....and even the bass, before additional stuff is put down because I have no idea what those parts will be (or how they will sound). All I can do is mix it so it sounds good the way it is...... bass and drums..... then do the best i can at anticipating what im not sure of. Will my cymbal level overpower the guits? Is the bass guit conflicting w/ acoustics or keys due to excessive low end? Is the bass level going to step on any creative keyboard ideas? It just seems like having total flexibility at the end would remedy any problems like that. Otherwise, any level work or eq scooping would have to be done at subsequent levels of the process..... ....and that might not be a good thing. I agree w/ you regarding a speedy process though....... The talent in here is of a caliber where no matter how its done, its gonna sound great...... I guess im just being a touch anal

g

 

[B.SABBATH]

I hear ya G, (I read your post before you edited it)

The only reason why is was able to suggest lowering the cymbals on our collab etc, is because after all these recordings, I am starting to have a feel for what's needed before I add my stuff.. I hate loud electic cymbals and high hats.. Like I said though, if I post mixes as I go for you to hear, we all have input during the process.. As far as having the bass e.q. clash with the synths etc, I will alter my sound to fit.. I found the biggest problem so far to be people who use instruments that are out of intonation!




LMAO!! Just messin' with you G, I'll work it out bro!..



I tried to send muzeman a wave when we collaborated, but neither of us was able to recieve a file bigger than 20 megs..


Did I mention VBR?



I am soo late for work now, I may be fired when I get there..

 

[Lt. Bob]

I too have to go to work but real quick

Sam ----no offense taken at all. This is what this discussion is for.

On dead man my conversion was to 192 but it got changed to 128 when I uploaded it to Nowhere. I was a newbie at the time and I didn't know how to change the rate that nowhere uploads at, still don't for that matter.
Also....even using 320 Mp3s, your example shows why it would be good for a guitar player to send you a Mp3 of his part. Even using Mp3s, you would avoid having to listen to his mix, make suggestions and ultimately have to live with whatever he finally did. If he sends you a track (even e-mailing Mp3s ) you would be able to simply mix it in with your tracks the way you think it should be,

Also, I have a copy of Dead Man and I'll get it to you as soon as I have time....probably this weekend.

 

[Barometer]

I'm still voting for if there's time, burn CD's and snail mail. For those of us with broadband, FTPs can be set up to get over email file size limits. The mixes can be previewed over the web (and I think Sam has a great point there) and comments and adjustments can be made on that. I just know I'm too much of a mixing newbie to get involved in that end. Some of you who I hope to work with will have much more knowledge and experience in mixing and I would sure like to be able to send that person the cleanest and best quality information possible.

 

[JR#97]

I've done quite a few collaborations and most of them across different platforms/media. Once you know everyone's format and who is mixing, then there isn't much to it. The simplest way is to use stereo-wave files for everything. Left track is the audio, Right track is a click track. No matter how much drift or wander, you can always sync every track by the click track. It is time consuming but it works. It also requires everybody involved to be able to get their audio into a computer. A quick example:

JR#97: guitar, banjo, - HD, PC
SilentBob: drums, bass - Tascam 1/2", PC
KevinBrah: vocals, guitar - Roland 1680, PC
TimZ: mix and master

Kevin recorded a basic track with vocals and guitar and a click track. He sent SB and me an mp3 with the basic track on the left, click on the right. I loaded the mp3 in my recorder and played to the basic track and ignored the click. SB does the same.

Everybody sends their tracks as .wav files with a click track to TimZ and he loads them up in his set-up and syncs everything up via the click track. The HD recorder tracks usually don't have to be stretched, but the Tascam 1/2" tracks d0... every 2 or 3 measures or so. Works like a charm.

The last 2 collaborations I did, were all done mp3 style... no sync problems other than performer timing problems. But again, I always ask that collaborators include the basic track on one side of the mp3 file just in case.

 

[crawdad]

B. Sabbath--for me, it is about having options. I have done it the other way too and have had good results. I used to work with a reel 4 track and a 2 track. I'd put a sequenced mix on 1 and 2, usually adding a guitar as that was recorded. Then, I'd put a lead vocal and another instrument on the remaining two tracks and mix that down to the 2 track, bring that mix back to the 4 track and add harmonies or whatever on the last two remaining tracks. It worked for the Beatles and all. You do have to make mix decisions at every step and then you can't change it down the line. There is good and bad in that for me. YMMV.

At least with what I am doing now, I still have the option to correct my mistake. And, yes--rub it in dude I made a mistake. I guess I'm not as completely together and brilliant as you. Sorry I can't help that. Ooh--maybe I better get MY morning coffee too! (its a joke Sam--really)

While the jury may be out on MP3 compression and degradation, my feeling is that working with digital is bad enough even at uncompressed 44.1--so if the goal is to try and make records that stand up to pro results, MP3 is like taking another step backwards. If thats the only option somebody has and its just making music for the fun of it, then-sure- why not use VBR MP3? Its better than the 128 version. If we are trying to attain pro standards, it seems preferable to use uncompressed digital files. By the way, I think your stuff sounds fine whatever you are doing and this is not a knock on your results.

My suspicions come from an article I read on Minidisc, where they took some audio and bounced it Minidisc to Minidisc. After about six or seven bounces, it was really starting to go bad--by ten, it was in the dumper. Since MP3 is also a compression scheme, I suspect the same would happen. Those compression schemes take the "unused" bits and throw them away--stuff below 20htz and above somehting like 20khz. It also thins out the data somehow. Imagine doing this several times. Thats my hesitation with it. I got enough problems without losing my audio quality as i go.

 

[dobro]

Well, what are the options?

1 Dialup or broadband.

2 Webhosted downloads or that live file transfer via chat software idea. I've even thought of using Nowhere - so what if somebody hears a work in progress? It might be fun for them. It might attract more traffic to Nowhere.

3 Wav files or mp3s.

There are probably various combinations of the above. It's simple enough to operate in mp3s until you get something you're happy with, and then post a CD of the wav file.

The broadband option is wonderful, but both of you need it to make it work. The webhosted mp3 option works for everybody. Which reminds me... I contacted a webhost called php yesterday, and asked about mp3 storage and transfer and passwords and stuff. Here's what they said: "You can password protect parts of your site with .htaccess. We do ask all our users to stay under ten gig/month transfer."

What's .htaccess? They charge about ten dollars a month - that's reasonable, right? Also, ten gigs transfer a month is pretty big, right? Anybody used them?

 

[King Elvis]

I have never been asked to collab and have never participated in one, but I would love to do it.

 

[cordura21]

I wrote a little thread about this, what do you think?


Recording Collaboration Method
by Cordura21

I'll divide the process in 2 steps: tracking and mixing

1) Tracking

Midi ruler

The first guy who tracks -usually the drummer - will lay down his tracks along a midi file. This midi file has the tempo information. Everybody should use this midi file as the template to record to. You can fire a click track with this midi file and save the bandwith of sending a recorded click on a stereo file. You can also use variable tempos along the song, you just have to reflect those changes in the midi file's tempo map

I will leave 4 bars empty at the beginning of the file, just in case that you have to add a count or something.

Overdubbing

This step concentrates on saving bandwith. I think that at the tracking stage, it's ok to overdub to an mp3 file. So in the example, the drummer will put on a server (or transfer) an mp3 file of his recording to the next musician, who could be the bass player, but he will keep the big wav files in his computer. Then this next musician will download both the midi file and the mp3 of the drummer. He will convert the mp3 to wav, align it to the 5th bar of the midi file and use it as the guide to lay down his tracks. When he's finished, he will upload or publish two mp3's files: one with just his track (we call this the marginal file) and one with his tracks mixed with the previous ones (this one is the serial file). Next musicians will do the same.

This has the advantage of saving bandwith by not sending wavs and clicktracks, and using this double file method you can collaborate in a serial way or in a paralel way. You can build one track over another using the serial file, that's the common way. But if for example the bass player is delaying the project, then you can grab the drummer's marginal file, or grab any of the marginal files that are available and mix them yourself and make the overdubbing track that best suits your needs.

You'll need to convert these mp3s to the audio format you DAW uses, but there are free programs that do it and this extra step will save you much more time than downloading uncompressed audio files. For the fastest and bandwith efficient way, you should just download the serial file of the last collaborator, it shouldn't be more than 5 megas.

2) Mixing

Now that the tracking is done, al you need to do is to access the actual uncompressed files of each of the collaborators and mix them. If you use the midi file as a ruler, you just have to snap them to bar 5 and they will be in sync.
Keep in mind that at if you sync from the beginning, you're wasting lots of space, cause there are some instruments that don't play all over the song. So it would be wise to split uncompressed audio files so you don't transmit the silence, which is a waste of bandwith. Since we have our midi ruler, the mixer can put them in place pretty easy. That can be arranged with a file name convention.

File Name Convention

CollabName_TrackName_Position.wav

(or CollabName_TrackName_Position.mp3, althoug in the tracking stage you just need the final mix of the collaborators not their separate tracks)

Collab Name: pretty self explanatory
TrackName: a bass player will have usually one track. But the drummer can have more of them - one for kick, one for snare, etc...
Position: the position in bars and beats, according to our midi ruler. Try to keep it as round as possible, even recording small silences just to make it fall in a bar or a beat.

Of course, if you don't mind using lots of bandwith, just seems them with all the silences from bar 5.

About the best way to share and transmit files

There are many ways, if someone has ftp it's great. But you can do alot with programs like mIrc. This one is a chat program under the IRC protocol that has something called DCC, that allows to transmit and receive files. It can also do servers, so it's not even necesary to have all the collaborators there. That can be a cool alternative (www.mirc.com). It's also great cause you can chat as you collaborate, and take will make it so much smoother.

If you're sharing mp3s then you can even mail them. P2P programs like Kazaa are easy to use but they are crowded and you can run the risk of having the work in process published. They also have many viruses. ICQ is a cool alternative too.

About format conventions

It'll be cool to start the project with some bits and sampling rate conventions, that will make the mixer's life easier and will also avoid the risk of overconvert files, with the corresponding degradation. Using the same DAW software would be perfect. Mac user: don't use Sound Designer files, PC users can't read them.

Cheers, Andrés

 

[SLuiCe]

Guernica- To answer your question- If you extract a song from a CD with oh say Easy CD CReator, you can extract it as a MP3 OR wave. The wave will run from about 25 MB (for about a minute) to about 80 (say 7 minutes). But there is little to no compression. It's basically like sending a CD, but minus that generation. And ya, it would be a long painful process on dialup. When you burn a cd, generally you're basically usually .wav's. In you're case, I imagine CD's are the way to go.


(By the way, did you get my PM response about the Triton?)

 

[SLuiCe]

Guernica- To answer your question- If you extract a song from a CD with oh say Easy CD CReator, you can extract it as a MP3 OR wave. The wave will run from about 25 MB (for about a minute) to about 80 (say 7 minutes). But there is little to no compression. It's basically like sending a CD, but minus that generation. And ya, it would be a long painful process on dialup. When you burn a cd, generally you're basically usually .wav's. In you're case, I imagine CD's are the way to go.

(By the way, did you get my PM response about the Triton?)

 

[Guernica]

I hear ya G, (I read your post before you edited it)

.......I didnt wanna seem rude man

out of intonation

.......OUCH!!! .....fucker

......I respect the way you wanna do things and cant wait to hear the tracks. I need 2 things right now. A better connection and VBR


Great Information Crawdad.....

Cordura21-.....great post man.... Im not terribly familiar w/ midi (other than syncing a drum machine to my recorder) but thats an option that nobody has brought up. In making a midi map, would that be the same as a click? I mean, can another midi device read and lock up with the sync off of the track, or would the person receiving have to program the midi file into the device.... ....sorry if thats a dumb question .....the idea is interesting though.

SluiCe-....pm regarding the drums you mean? Yeah, I got it. ...I can tell im gonna be doing alot of reading in that manual.