The Song Fight Bulletin Board

BLT wrote:....oh wait, Booty already patented that idea.

Yeah. If you believe the lie.

Maybe you should try a "keep it simple" sort of approach? You could start over from the ground up, and really focus on whether or not each complication you're adding to your projects (eg duplicated tracks, etc.) is really adding to the overall quality of the song.

That's true, Lunk. In some cases I'm sure I'm making things worse. I really should start trimming it where I can. Songs take me forever to complete because of my over production crap that I can't seem to help myself from doing. it drives me nuts.

Billy's Little Trip wrote:It may be a preference thing. I like the sound of 1 and 3 best. 1 is the best for me because the stereo track only uses one track where 3 uses two tracks.

Maybe I'm missing something, but with #1 you've lost the ability to play with the stereo spread between the two tracks which you retain with #3. Sometimes doubled tracks work better panned to opposite sides (where they each have their own character), whereas others work panned very close to center (where they are very tight overall).

roymond wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:It may be a preference thing. I like the sound of 1 and 3 best. 1 is the best for me because the stereo track only uses one track where 3 uses two tracks.

Maybe I'm missing something, but with #1 you've lost the ability to play with the stereo spread between the two tracks which you retain with #3. Sometimes doubled tracks work better panned to opposite sides (where they each have their own character), whereas others work panned very close to center (where they are very tight overall).

Well, I don't mix two guitar tracks down to one stereo track until I've decided on every detail of how I want it, such as left and right panning, spread, EQing, warmth, etc. So yeah, I'm locked in on that stereo track as far as panning, spread, and I can't take anything away from it, but I can add. If I need to redo it, I go back to my original two tracks.

Steve Albini said something that stuck in my head. Get the sound you like on a track, lock it in and don't touch anymore. I can't remember it word for word, but something like that. So now, every time I start fiddle fucking with tracks until I drive myself crazy, I stop, set thing until they sound good, and move on.

Unless I'm wrong, you seem to be mixing down tracks just to save CPU power while you record other ones...
What I'd suggest doing is having two projects - one for the final product, and the other for recording tracks. In the first one, do as you normally do, setting effects and then exporting that mix. Next import your mix into the recording project, then take the raw track from that and import it into your master project to add effects etc. Repeat that process until you're done.

That way you'll prevent any loss of quality as the final mixdown will be using all of the tracks as you intended them, unexported. Also you shouldn't need to use Goldwave to trim the start and end of a song, just select (on all tracks) the section of music you want to export and go nuts. That'll prevent any further quality loss.

adam b wrote:Unless I'm wrong, you seem to be mixing down tracks just to save CPU power while you record other ones...
What I'd suggest doing is having two projects - one for the final product, and the other for recording tracks. In the first one, do as you normally do, setting effects and then exporting that mix. Next import your mix into the recording project, then take the raw track from that and import it into your master project to add effects etc. Repeat that process until you're done.

That way you'll prevent any loss of quality as the final mixdown will be using all of the tracks as you intended them, unexported. Also you shouldn't need to use Goldwave to trim the start and end of a song, just select (on all tracks) the section of music you want to export and go nuts. That'll prevent any further quality loss.

This is exactly what I do. In fact, I even use Goldwave to master my songs. In Cubase, I can pretty much get a songs mix just the way I want it with the plugins I have, but Glodwave is great for max volume, cleaning up and or fade the ends and sometimes parametric EQ for the muddy bands, which I seem to always have an issue with in the 1000-1500k range for some reason. But I have gotten better about EQing in my final mix, so I don't have to touch it again.

Fair enough. I've found that slightly compressing and then normalising individual tracks allows for maximum volume in Audacity, which I use for recording, mixing and mastering.

That said I'd love to find a free, fully functional program which whips Audacity's ass but haven't been bothered hunting one down.