Rendering digital tracks

  • 7 Replies
  • 2054 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShinyThang

  • *
  • Platinum Album
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
« on: June 16, 2013, 07:10:32 AM »
I don't know but I been told ... You should render digital tracks before mastering to take some of the load off of your CPU. Well, I've done it on two tracks now and I don't reckon it makes much, if any difference.
Does anyone else do this and if so, why?  <bracing myself to look a fool>
They're, there, their  ...  They're all different!

www.soundcloud.com/geoffjamesevans

seriousfun

  • *
  • Stadium Tour
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
    • Allan Kilgour - Original Compositions
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2013, 08:53:32 AM »
Theoretically you shouldn't be mastering your own tracks so they would need to be rendered at any rate. Also when mastering you should load all of your rendered tracks so that you can ensure they will all play at the same consistent level and sound well when transitioning for track to track.

Having said this I shoot myself done cause I do my own mastering but I do find it exceedingly helpful to have all me rendered tracks together in my mastering program, or daw if you are using a daw, and comparing them for continuity during the mastering process.

As for the load off the CPU idea I can neither confirm nor deny this. First time I have heard of it actually.

Ramshackles

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Stadium Tour
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
  • https://soundcloud.com/ramshackles
    • Ramshackles @ Facebook
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2013, 02:09:41 PM »
Mastering is done on the stereo mix, or occasionally with stems (stereo groups of tracks, usually 4-8 groups). So you would export (or bounce if you use tape) the final mix to a stereo track and re-import that to your mastering session (or better, use someone else to master).

Stephen Palmer

  • *
  • Open Mic
  • **
  • Posts: 105
  • Music for music's sake
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2013, 03:06:56 PM »
Mastering your own music is an art, for sure, but not impossible. Ideally get a hot-shot audio engineer to do the work (a different pair of ears is very important), but it's perfectly possible to work on your own music. And cheaper.

Boydie

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Stadium Tour
  • *****
  • Posts: 3977
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2013, 09:36:30 PM »
Hey Shiny - no such thing as a foolish question!

The best way I can think of to explain it is to use the recording of an electric guitar as an example...

If you record an electric guitar using a mic'd guitar amp/cab to get your "tone" the DAW will record that as a "rendered" sound

If you then decide to add some compression, eq, other fx and some reverb within the DAW most software will do this non-destructively so that you can go back at any time and tweak the settings - eg change the reverb for a different type

To maintain this flexibility every time you play your project in your DAW these effects are applied in real time "on the fly" - ie your DAW will play back the rendered guitar recording (the sound recorded from the mic'd cab) and put the compression, eq and fx "on top" of this recording every time you play it back

It is this extra processing that can eat up CPU if you have lots of tracks and fx, soft synths etc. etc.

This is why you are not noticing much difference with just a couple of tracks

To save on CPU you can "render" the tracks so that they are permanently recorded with all of your FX applied - this is also known as "printing" your track or "bouncing" or "freezing" (which I will come back to later)

The rendered track is your original recorded track + all of the fx applied - so it results in a rendered file that does not need your DAW to apply the fx as they are already recorded onto the track - eg a WAV file

This has the advantage that your DAW now only needs to play the track back and does not need to do any "on the fly" fx - resulting in less CPU strain

The other advantage is that you can send your track as a WAV file to someone (eg a mastering engineer) that uses a different DAW or does not have the same fx (eg softsynths or hardware) since the fx are "recorded" onto the rendered track

The disadvantage is that your fx are permanently applied so you can't go back and tweak a setting

HOWEVER...

Most DAWs have a "freeze" function that allows you to let the DAW temporarily render your fx to save on CPU but you can easily "un-freeze" to make any tweaks to your fx settings, giving the best of both worlds

However, you may run in to problems sharing frozen tracks with others so it is always best to "render" them so that they are how you want them - you could always give 2 versions - one with your fx and one "clean" to allow the mastering engineer to have more options

If you have a half decent PC and audio interface - and work with a sensible number of tracks - it is unlikely you will need to render tracks until you have finished your project and are ready to share it with the world as a WAV or MP3

I hope this helps you understand how it all fits together

Boydie
To check out my music please visit:

http://soundcloud.com/boydiemusic

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BoydieMusic

KEROUAC1957

  • *
  • Open Mic
  • **
  • Posts: 108
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2013, 10:11:55 AM »
Thanks Boydie. Nice explanation

Dutchbeat

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2013, 01:26:56 PM »
thanks, Boydie, even i get it now......and it gave me idea how i can potentially further increase the number of tracks i use for one project  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Stephen Palmer

  • *
  • Open Mic
  • **
  • Posts: 105
  • Music for music's sake
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2013, 09:06:14 AM »
The Freeze function is an especially useful one...