# Mixing with midi or audio



## Anami (Feb 26, 2020)

Not sure if this is discussed earlier..
But considering we deal with revisions and alternate versions of our music I was wondering which workflow you guys use. 
Do you mix everything in midi? (When working with virtual instruments) Or do you bounce to audio? 
I don't care about latency (When I record something I switch to low latency mode) But does mixing midi tracks cause extra problems because of the processing? 
Really curious of what everyone is doing.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Feb 26, 2020)

If I understand the question correctly, it is a question of whether A) projects can be mixed directly from the VST instruments (Midi) or B) whether audio files are created first and then mixed.

*An advantage of A)* is that you can always intervene flexibly, i.e. you can change things, whereas with B) you have to decide once and for all before you can read out the audio files.

*The disadvantage of A)* is the *advantage of B)*. I used to be a WIN-Logic-user. Back then I mixed all projects directly from Logic (A). All projects are useless today. If I had created audio files (B), I could remix them today and, most importantly, still use them. So the disadvantage of A) is that you have to have all licenses and libraries for a long time, even after years, to be able to restart a project. If you just have the "naked" audio tracks, you can still use them after 20 years without problems and remix them with the new and more modern possibilities.

I personally like to mix with audio files for another reason. Composing and playing music is clearly separated from the job of "mixing". If it weren't, I would constantly switch back and forth between the different production steps. Either I mix or then I compose / arrange. So I definitely finish each job once and go on to the next one.

Beat


----------



## Daniel (Feb 26, 2020)

Anami said:


> .........
> But considering we deal with revisions and alternate versions of our music I was wondering which workflow you guys use.
> ........


Still revisions = midi mixing.
Final decision = audio mixing.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 26, 2020)

There are definite psychological benefits to rendering everything to audio and mixing from there. It makes you move to the next stage and discourages paralysis-of-choice syndrome. It also helps you switch off the composing 'neurons' and and activate the mixing 'neurons' that have have different motivations and concerns in my experience. 

If something is really annoying and wrong you always have the option of going back and fixing it. It generally frees up resources on the computer so that plug-ins can be added with more freedom and is of course more consistent because you are not triggering different sample round-robins each time. It also sounds better to me, though I don't know why. Need to have your workflow sorted and set though.


----------



## NekujaK (Feb 26, 2020)

All of the above comments are spot on. I just want to add that in this age of in-the-box digital music production usually involving just a single individual, the line between composing/recording/mixing frequently gets blurred.

In the "old days" when musicians had to come into a studio to record their parts, everything had to be down on tape before mixing could begin, so there was a very clear distinction between tasks. But it isn't uncommon for folks to "mix as they go" in the DAW world, or go back and adjust performances and VI settings after everything is recorded and mixing has "officially" begin. Basically, it's no longer necessary to have that hard line distinction between recording and mixing.

That said, as others have mentioned, musical creativity/performance is a different cognitive process from mixing. For me personally, I try to keep them separate, but still, I often find myself making mixing decisions during the recording process, and also make modifications to my recorded tracks while I mix. The nature of working in a DAW by oneself enables this kind of flexibility - and it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It's just one way of working.

Obviously, if someone brings you a project to mix, then there's usually no going back and adjusting the source material. But when you're working on your own, you can do whatever you want!


----------



## Anami (Feb 27, 2020)

Thank you all! 

For me it's not the question when to switch to mixing mode but more about a practical issue when dealing with different versions of a song. For example: 30sec edit, 60sec edit. Sometimes I make small differences in tempo or harmony. When I'm working with midi everything is ready and I can revisit quickly if necessary. But the main question is: What problems technically gives mixing with midi? Like phase, things not aligning etc...


----------



## Akarin (Feb 27, 2020)

I use the best of both worlds: I freeze the tracks in Cubase. It unloads the VSTis and generates an audio file behind the scenes. If I need to edit, I can unfreeze and tweak the MIDI, mic positions, etc.


----------



## Alfeus Aditya (Feb 27, 2020)

Depends on the time I have. I don't have an assistant yet, so if I have a little time, and I work with midi, I mix it in midi form too. Even in the final process (no more changes to the composition). maybe that's just me


----------



## Alfeus Aditya (Feb 27, 2020)

Anami said:


> Thank you all!
> 
> For me it's not the question when to switch to mixing mode but more about a practical issue when dealing with different versions of a song. For example: 30sec edit, 60sec edit. Sometimes I make small differences in tempo or harmony. When I'm working with midi everything is ready and I can revisit quickly if necessary. But the main question is: What problems technically gives mixing with midi? Like phase, things not aligning etc...



I would choose to work with MIDI if in your position.
so far, i rarely experience phase problems with samples.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Feb 27, 2020)

For me, straight from midi. It's quicker, takes less time and I might want to tweak the midi during mixing.

That said, I often bounce to audio and freeze as I work. For example, I'll "print" a part which varies each time due to round robins, or long drone type stuff which is easier to deal with as audio.

I'm old school in that writing and mixing are separate processes for me. I'll add effects as I write if they're a part of the sound (like a timed delay for example) or a perhaps a quick EQ to carve off some low frequencies. I save the compression, panning etc for the mix.


----------



## brenneisen (Feb 27, 2020)

Alex Fraser said:


> I'll "print" a part which varies each time due to round robins, or long drone type stuff which is easier to deal with as audio.



also evo's are easier to work when audio


----------



## Haakond (Feb 27, 2020)

I always separate my midi, mixing and mastering files. I find it way easier to focus on each thing that way, and not get distracted.


----------



## RichiCarter (Feb 28, 2020)

There's no reason why you can't mix straight from MIDI, although most guys tend to avoid it, as a standard CPU can start to struggle with the processing, particularly when working on large sessions.


----------



## pderbidge (Feb 28, 2020)

The whole point of upgrading my PC was to not feel forced to bounce tracks unless I wanted to. For me, I tend to only mix things as I go that need obvious tweaks but wait to actually "Mix" when I'm done composing. At that point whether I bounce a track to audio or not depends on the processing I want to do to it. Some things are easier or just make more sense to process as audio while others don't matter that much. 
The bigger concern I would have is the flexibility of making future changes without too much hassle. If you need to go back to your mix and make different versions of the same composition are you able to do that without having to mix the whole thing over again? Some audio tracks can be remixed easily while other tracks need access to the Midi data to make the changes you want to make. I "try" to make sure I don't paint myself into a corner.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 29, 2020)

I prefer to do my final mix with audio only, when time allows.


----------



## Jerry Growl (Feb 29, 2020)

I am currently adapting my workflow to the relatively new Cubase 9ish and 10 Pro features "Render in place" .
For me it works both creatively and saves my RAM when needed. The main benefit compared to freezing is that you can easily edit the audio, while a frozen track just stays an unchangeable block with an invisible waveform.

So instead of freezing the instrument track (which at times caused me severe problems and crashes) I select the midi I want to render to audio. Cubase then creates a new audio track that copies the exact signal chain of my VST and mutes the midi. You can even print the signal chain if you want. If you use several audio outputs for the VST, you will see multiple audio tracks, all with exact routing. I can now disable the instrument track to save RAM. The disabled midi track is easily revisited.

When I need the same VST instrument again later on, I just enable it again, and do the same process when done. You can easily remove the disabled instruments from view (to clean up your view) with a keyboard shortcut (there is none by default, but you can make one very easy).

Also I'm learning to work with direct offline processing to save CPU. It's such a saver for slower systems (like mine) And however huge and topnotch your computer is, you will always at some point run out of juice. Direct offline processing works great because you can go back to a particular plugin parameter, adjust it and the whole signal chain is printed again.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 29, 2020)

If your question is, "is there a CORRECT way to mix?" the answer (as you can see from the foregoing posts) is, "no." People get along all kinds of ways.

One somewhat minor advantage of audio, apart from focusing just on mixing instead of recomposing everything, is that tempo-linked effects like delays may be easier to control in audio. Some of them go haywire if there are slight changes in tempo from the DAW.

Other than that, I think @VinRice is right to describe the advantages as partly (maybe mostly) "psychological" for most composers. I'm sure my engineer is cringing now...

Besides, if you're writing a song with lots of effects, you're going to have a different answer than if you're composing with a traditional orchestral sound.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 29, 2020)

Here's why it appeals to me:

1. I can change my buffer to the highest setting, 1024, giving me lots of power for any of my FX plug-ins.

2. I don't have to worry about buggy software instrument behavior (hello, Kontakt 6, I am looking at YOU!)

3. Because I am a composer who learned to mix much later rather than en engineer who learned to compose, I simp[y think _differently_, when I do pull down the faders, and start to mix, old school. At that point I am only wearing one hat. (No Jay hat jokes, please

I think I get a better result this way. Doesn't mean, as John says, it is a better way, just a better way for me.


----------



## GNP (Feb 29, 2020)

I'd much prefer to mix with audio, but the problem is like you mentioned - revisions. It's much easier to alter and change things in MIDI. So i tend to hold off rendering MIDI, until hopefully, everything is final.

The next challenge is preparing an AAF file to send to the cinema mixer, that contains everything you've printed. So I tend to try to make the MIDI mix as final as possible, so that in audio, they are exactly as I intend them to be heard (without extra EQing or whatever, just totally as they are), when I prepare an AAF to send to the cinema mixer.

This feels rather limited at the moment....


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 29, 2020)

GNP said:


> I'd much prefer to mix with audio, but the problem is like you mentioned - revisions. It's much easier to alter and change things in MIDI. So i tend to hold off rendering MIDI, until hopefully, everything is final.
> 
> The next challenge is preparing an AAF file to send to the cinema mixer, that contains everything you've printed. So I tend to try to make the MIDI mix as final as possible, so that in audio, they are exactly as I intend them to be heard (without extra EQing or whatever, just totally as they are), when I prepare an AAF to send to the cinema mixer.
> 
> This feels rather limited at the moment....




In Logic Pro, I just save it as a Project Alternative.

I see no reason sending the audio bounced out without the extra FX should sound differently than the software instruments sound as you intended them to be heard. A bounced audio file should from the MIDI should sound the same.


----------



## GNP (Feb 29, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> In Logic Pro, I just save it as a Project Alternative.
> 
> I see no reason sending the audio bounced out without the extra FX should sound differently than the software instruments sound as you intended them to be heard. A bounced audio file should from the MIDI should sound the same.



Agreed. Only caveat for some others is that their computing power may not be enough to handle both streaming MIDI plus effects and EQ on it, especially if you have high track count.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 29, 2020)

GNP said:


> Agreed. Only caveat for some others is that their computing power may not be enough to handle both streaming MIDI plus effects and EQ on it, especially if you have high track count.



Isn't that all the more reason to free up the software instruments and only go back to them when you have to?


----------



## GNP (Feb 29, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Isn't that all the more reason to free up the software instruments and only go back to them when you have to?



I actually haven't tried such for Cubase. Not sure if we're able to add effects and EQ while stuff is freezed.

But I do get by.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 29, 2020)

GNP said:


> I actually haven't tried such for Cubase. Not sure if we're able to add effects and EQ while stuff is freezed.
> 
> But I do get by.



I am not talking about freezing, I am talking about creating an alternative version with bounced audio.

But, whatever works for people is fine, I am not the workflow police.


----------



## GNP (Feb 29, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I am not talking about freezing, I am talking about creating an alternative version with bounced audio.
> 
> But, whatever works for people is fine, I am not the workflow police.



Yeah I do that too. 

No worries, appreciate that.


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 29, 2020)

I usually bounce elements that have some kind of relevant randomness in them, like s&h LFOs etc.
Same goes for libraries with poorly edited round robins (in my case that's usually the shorts of Spitfire symphonic strings)
Further i like to bounce in place short elements that use lots of inserted effects (mainly supportive sfx elements) In these cases bouncing in place also has the function of setting an end to the [per se endless] process of sound mangling.
Finally, when working with very long evolving samples (like bowed cymbals or e.g. 2 bar patterns that i've programmed inside of Breaktweaker etc etc) it also simplifies my life because i don't have to start each time at an earlier position.

Another thing:
Usually i make submixes of recorded instruments in separate sessions even before these submixes are the final ones.
For these cases i have a naming routine where i keep the name of the actual version constant and change the name of previous versions. So, each time i open the session that uses the submix, logic will pick the actual file and keep the applied region based automation.
Normally, when i modify audiofiles, the new ones get ascending numbers in their names.
In the cases of submixes, the actual audiofile's name always ends with PREV01 (for: preview). When a version gets replaced, its name gets changed to PREV01alt01 etc (again with ascending numbers)

This is really handy for cases where a submix consists of lots of voices with lots of overdubs with different mics, where you would easily get huge tracks numbers.


----------



## robgb (Feb 29, 2020)

I do a light mix in midi to give me an idea of what I want, then generate dry stems and start from scratch for the real mix. As for revisions, in Reaper I bounce a track to a stem. I have it set up to automatically disable and hide the VSTi track after the bounce and can always enable it if I need to make a correction.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Feb 29, 2020)

I understand the reasons for mixing from midi but what if you record guitars, shakers, etc? How do you salvage these or add to them with rewrites or picture edits?


----------



## Living Fossil (Feb 29, 2020)

givemenoughrope said:


> I understand the reasons for mixing from midi but what if you record guitars, shakers, etc? How do you salvage these or add to them with rewrites or picture edits?



Happens all the time. Melodyne has saved lots of situations for me...
And RX (for high quality time stretching)
Shakers are easy in regards of time stretching. Just choose an algo that doesn't touch the transient portion of the sound.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 29, 2020)

MIDI.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 29, 2020)

In Logic now, track disabling turns _everything_ off in those tracks so I have started rendering mainly stems plus those individual 'character' tracks and reimporting them into the original project. Frees up resources but allows me to go back and turn on the original midi at any time. This is a finalising stage however when everything is (theoretically) finished.


----------



## Anami (Feb 29, 2020)

JohnG said:


> If your question is, "is there a CORRECT way to mix?" the answer (as you can see from the foregoing posts) is, "no." People get along all kinds of ways.
> 
> One somewhat minor advantage of audio, apart from focusing just on mixing instead of recomposing everything, is that tempo-linked effects like delays may be easier to control in audio. Some of them go haywire if there are slight changes in tempo from the DAW.
> 
> ...


IT's not about the 'correct' way. I'm just open for suggestions in workflow. I think as a media composer there can be moments when making more versions of one track (and maybe even requests of an alternative version of an older track) that it can get a little hectic and unclear what you were working on. For me the pro's of having midi tracks is that I can have a fast overview of what was happening and a huge advantage of being able to change things. But I was wondering if there could be technical problems when mixing in midi. You mentioned time based ffx getting out of sync. Thats a good point I haven't thought of yet. Most of the time I'm working on orchestral stuff. But that's something to consider when doing other music. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Saxer (Mar 1, 2020)

Editing and mixing audio offers a deeper level of detail. Timing correction, crossfades, volume... things like submixing sections and copying them to different tracks with different rooms for different parts in the song. Much easier than to automat and re-rout lots of midi tracks.

But most of the time I mix directly from midi.
First reason is the time needed for creating a new audio mix. I need fresh ears and when a track is ready I already spent a lot of time with it. So I'd better have a few days between producing and mixing.
Second reason: the mixing work that's already done in the production process. I'm always in the mix. I have to dump that work to start new just to do the same work in audio again.
Third reason is budget. Midi mixes are mostly good enough and nobody pays the extra time.
And last but not least: there will be change requests from clients. Redoing all steps from midi editing to bouncing audio to edit audio to the mix is a nightmare.

I do audio mixing for some of my own tracks. Just for fun.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 1, 2020)

Anami said:


> ... But I was wondering if there could be technical problems when mixing in midi. You mentioned time based ffx getting out of sync. Thats a good point I haven't thought of yet. ...



A perfect example, not of problems in midi, but limitations, is the "Sicario" score, by the (sadly) late Johann Johannsson. You can hear things in the first few cues alone that you just can't do with midi. And there is tons of stuff in "Arrival" that he recorded with some kind of field mic and then slowed way down / tortured into shape.


----------



## Anami (Mar 2, 2020)

JohnG said:


> A perfect example, not of problems in midi, but limitations, is the "Sicario" score, by the (sadly) late Johann Johannsson. You can hear things in the first few cues alone that you just can't do with midi. And there is tons of stuff in "Arrival" that he recorded with some kind of field mic and then slowed way down / tortured into shape.


Yeah, sound design is not practical in midi  But when dealing with deadlines and orchestral/instrumental tracks it's often about speed and flexibility. Context is something to consider. For me it's about the situations when in hurry and dealing with instrumental tracks.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 2, 2020)

Anami said:


> But when dealing with deadlines and orchestral/instrumental tracks it's often about speed and flexibility.


Yep, in that blind panic when you realise the deadline is only a couple of hours away, you've spent too long fussing with the midi CC and there's no time to render as audio. I just throw the plugins onto the VI tracks and prey the computer will hold out long enough.


----------



## labornvain (Mar 2, 2020)

Why do people need rules for things?

Have your cake. And eat it too.

Sometimes you need to render instrument tracks to audio. Sometimes, you don't.

Yesterday, I had a piano part that wasn't cutting through on the B-Section. The solution was not automation. It was scaling up the velocity, as in the piano player playing louder, in the B-Section.

The only reason this topic even comes up is because somebody said that it's better to print to audio and start from scratch, like a real mixing engineer would.

What a complete load of bullshit. I make a living mixing. I always prefer to get live instrument tracks.

The only reason to ever print an instrument track is because, for various reasons (export, freeze a performance, free system resources, or archive a project for future resilience), because you need to.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 2, 2020)

labornvain said:


> The only reason this topic even comes up is because somebody said that it's better to print to audio and start from scratch, like a real mixing engineer would.
> 
> What a complete load of bullshit. I make a living mixing. I always prefer to get live instrument tracks.


For me the reason is just the opposite. It’s because I am NOT a “real engineer “ but a composer who has learned to do it adequately that I am more effective mixing with audio. I simply think _differently_ once I stop thinking about the virtual instruments as a composer/orchestrator.

I will brag though that using that technique I mixed my album “Honestly “ all by myself two years ago and my mastering engineer said to me, “Jay, I really didn’t need to do much to the tracks because they were mixed well.”


----------



## Daniel (Mar 2, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> For me the reason is just the opposite. It’s because I am NOT a “real engineer “ but a composer who has learned to do it adequately that I am more effective mixing with audio. I simply think _differently_ once I stop thinking about the virtual instruments as a composer/orchestrator.
> 
> I will brag though that using that technique I mixed my album “Honestly “ all by myself two years ago and my mastering engineer said to me, “Jay, I really didn’t need to do much to the tracks because they were mixed well.”


Purchased! I like all the songs!


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 2, 2020)

Daniel said:


> Purchased! I like all the songs!



Wow, Daniel, what a lovely thing for you to have done, thank you so much! PM me your email address and I will send you demos of four new songs that I may release as an EP.


----------



## Daniel (Mar 3, 2020)

You are very generous, Jay. 
PM sent. I am very happy to listen & learn your music works, moreover you mentioned if you were mixing them. I hope one day I can be as productive as you did in music producing.


----------

