# Should I Bounce all VIs to Audio Tracks for Final Mixing?



## Firepan (Jul 5, 2011)

Hi There -

I am kind of new to the VI world. I have been creating a lot of tracks using virtual instruments - EPIC, Ambient, Roctronica, etc. I am at the mix stage on many of these and wondered if I could get some in depth opinions about whether or not to bounce each midi track to audio for better EQ and other processing control during mix. I am interested in all thoughts. Thx...

Mike


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 5, 2011)

It depends upon your tools.

When I was using Sonar 5, 6, or 7 to sequence GigaStudio, I would bounce the tracks individually in order to mix them in Vegas, because I didn't like Sonar as a DAW. And then I'd go to Sound Forge for mastering.

Recently, I got Sonar X1b, which has some very nice mixing tools. And the latest versions of PLAY, Vienna Instruments, and the Kontakt player seem to work well with it, so now I can do one stop shopping within Sonar. I'll probably still master in Sound Forge though, as I have some nice mastering plugs that only work in that app...

So... Bounce when you need to go to other tools. And freeze or bounce when you need to free up RAM.


----------



## rgames (Jul 5, 2011)

Hello Mike! And welcome to the forum!

Great question, but, as you probably guessed, there's no single answer. A lot of it comes down to workflow, what you intend to do with the tracks, and how you like to do your final mix.

Of course, if the stems are part of your deliverable, then of course you do it.

Here's my take:

I almost always write stems for each instrument/group but I don't normally mix from them. For me, the stems are there for one main reason: someone might need the stems at a later date, even if they don't need them right away. For example, say you get a placement via a library and they say "Hey - we have a $10,000 placement for a track you submitted two years ago, but we want the track without the cymbal" The odds that your VI's will still work with two-year-old projects are slim, but you can certainly load up the audio stems and re-mix the track. So they're very good for archiving - that's the only real reason I do it.

I generally do my mixes/masters straight from the VI outputs. Most of my tracks are of a common format, so my template is set up to do that.

It used to be an issue when processing power was a concern but that's not an issue any more - you can load up your VI's along with a bunch of plugins nowadays and the processors chug along just fine. So the flexibility afforded by leaving everything in the VI's helps save a lot of time.

There are a number of reasons *not* to do it that way, including the desire to mix in another host like Pro Tools or to make easier use of external hardware. My ears, however, can't hear the difference, so I keep it all in the box under Cubase 

Also, once you mix down to audio, you have fewer issues with start/stop locations, chasing cotrollers, etc. So depending on how much work you do at the mix/master stage, it might be more convenient to generate stems and work from them. A hybrid solution is to use something like the Cubase freeze function - that basically allows you to work from the stems but still access the VI's if need be. However, it's a little trickier to share those mixdowns with others and they're not so great for archiving.

Good luck!

rgames


----------



## Firepan (Jul 6, 2011)

Hey Guys - 

Thank you so much for your feedback. Your thoughts and opinions certainly help. 

Here is my rig: 

Rain Recording PC (W7n 7 64Bit) - 16GB RAM, many Glyph Drives, etc
Nuendo 5.x.x (64Bit)
Wavelab 7
UAD Omni with a ton of UAD Plugs (i.e. Neve's, SSL, etc)
Arts Acoustic Reverb and others
East/West - Platinum Composer plus others like Gypsy, Dark Side, etc
Komplete 7
LA Scoring Stings
Symphobia
Cinematic Guitars
Volience
Evolve Mutations
Vienna
....and others

My template includes several audio tracks for printing segments of my compositions: 

Drums/Perc
Epic Drums
Grooves/Loops
Synths
Keys
Piano
Bass
Guitar
SFX/Impacts
Strings
Choir

I have built a fairly large Orchestral/Hybrid template because the new business I started is focused on music for ad campaigns (i.e. Film, TV, Games, Corporate). I am a guitar player so much of my stuff is guitar driven/orchestral. Most of the stuff I hear, say at Immediate Music (http://immediatemusic.com/) or Trailermen (http://www.trailermen.com/) sounds well mixed, very EQed and probably mastered. 

How are you EQing VI's without a bounce? Are you using one instrument per instance of VI and EQing the VI; using the EQ within the VI, or something different. I am trying to achieve the EQing and presence that those mentioned above are getting. 

Also, I believe you mentioned doing your own mastering. I have Wavelab for that and have a good suite of the UAD plugs for helping there; however, is it easier to use something like T-Racks? Once again, I am trying to gain articulate separation, presence and volume. 

I guess I am asking for quite a bit. >8o LOL

Thanks for all of your time and help.

Mike


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jul 6, 2011)

...and here is my approach:
2002 I had to change from Logic to Cubase because Logic said goodbye to the WIN-Users... 
All my Logic-Projects are valueless today because I always mixed directly the output - I don't have any other audio-file from that time. No remix is possible ... with better reverbs, better effects and mixers... It's a pity.
Since then I *always* create audio files of my projects and this with every single VI. Of course I produce them without any effect...
So I will be free to use them at any time - removed from any license, DAW, ...
Of course I mix my projects just with these audio-files.
Another advantage: The projects opens much more faster without all the VIs and their Samples on board...
As others mentioned above, there are disadvantages as well... 

So a solution could be: Mix your project without any audio-file.
But if it is an important project save also audio files without effects.

All the best
_Beat Kaufmann_


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 6, 2011)

Beat Kaufmann @ Wed Jul 06 said:


> ...and here is my approach:
> 2002 I had to change from Logic to Cubase because Logic said goodbye to the WIN-Users...
> All my Logic-Projects are valueless today because I always mixed directly the output - I don't have any other audio-file from that time. No remix is possible ... with better reverbs, better effects and mixers... It's a pity.
> Since then I *always* create audio files of my projects and this with every single VI. Of course I produce them without any effect...
> ...



+1

I always do my mixes with only audio tracks. There are also other reasons for me to do so: I often use timestretch, pitch, normalize e.t.c, and it is much easier fo me to mix only audio.


----------



## Ztarr (Jul 6, 2011)

Great input and advice here.


----------



## rgames (Jul 6, 2011)

Firepan @ Wed Jul 06 said:


> How are you EQing VI's without a bounce? Are you using one instrument per instance of VI and EQing the VI; using the EQ within the VI, or something different. I am trying to achieve the EQing and presence that those mentioned above are getting.


I have separate outputs for each instrument or group and put the plugins (including EQ) on the outputs. I don't (generally) use the EQ's or other plugins included in the VI's.



> Also, I believe you mentioned doing your own mastering. I have Wavelab for that and have a good suite of the UAD plugs for helping there; however, is it easier to use something like T-Racks? Once again, I am trying to gain articulate separation, presence and volume.


I also have Wavelab but only use it for batch conversion and renaming...!

You can put the same plugins on the output bus in Cubase/Nuendo/Whatever and produce final output from there, straight from the VI's.

I'll go out on a limb here: unless you're producing an album, there's really no need for a separate "mastering" stage. Applying "mastering" to individual tracks doesn't differ much from "mixing" with the exception of bit reduction and dithering on the output bus.

If you're producing an album then you're concerned about level consistency and flow from track to track. That's what I consider mastering. If you just want a loud track, well, pile on your favorite output bus loudness maximizer and mix it loud!

rgames


----------



## Firepan (Jul 6, 2011)

Man, all great information and extremely helpful. Thank you so much. 

Okay, so with all the above said. Let's say I want to print segments of my mixes (e.g. Strings, Grooves, Guitars, etc)

As you can see in my previous thread, I have several tracks that are audio in which I will print segments to. I am setup as follows:

Track (either midi/VST or Audio) to Group(s) (Drums/Bass/Guitars etc), and I set these to (output) no bus, then I choose the associated group as my input on the segment tracks (audio) and voila, I print audio. The only problem is that I am not printing any effect treatments. I typically set up FX channels for Reverbs and Delays and use either the individual track or group sends option to invoke them. Only problem is they are setup to output on the Stereo Out Bus (My Main). So, the effects don't print because they're not in the signal path. 

I am sure I am probably doing something wrong. Any insights from you guys on how to print my segments with reverbs etc? Should I just slap reverbs and delays on the groups, especially for strings and such?

I am considering using a highly recommended guy for segmentation mastering, but I want to have my effects on the segments.

Thoughts?

Once again, thank you so much.

Mike


----------



## John Rodd (Jul 17, 2011)

What exactly is "segmentation mastering" ?

I have never heard that term. 

the "segmentation" part of it.

I do a lot of music mastering, FWIIW.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 18, 2011)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 06 said:


> Beat Kaufmann @ Wed Jul 06 said:
> 
> 
> > ...and here is my approach:
> ...



+2.


----------



## lux (Jul 18, 2011)

I've been always said that mixing audio files is better than mixing Vi's. Alway promised myself to give a start to that habit.

It hasnt happenet yet.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 18, 2011)

depends on the project but keeping everything in midi until there is approval from the client is a good idea so that way you do not have to re do the audio parts again. 
you could have everything routed into stems, so bouncing is easier. 

with that said, im an audio junky and i much rather have it all in audio. 
for me its cause of logic, i feel that something is screwed up with the delay compensation when handling big orch samples from kontakt so the timing is wierd so i bounce it to audio and can spot the waveform. 

also, if u do more electronic styles, then like me, its better to have audio to work with than midi. 
you can do so much with audio files for musical sound design. 

again, the issue is that if u need to do changes when scoring to picture, dealing with audio is the worst, in terms of file management and simpleness.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 18, 2011)

gsilbers @ Mon Jul 18 said:


> depends on the project but keeping everything in midi until there is approval from the client is a good idea so that way you do not have to re do the audio parts again.



I save 2 versions. (Actually, I save as many as 15 sometimes.)


----------



## cc64 (Jul 18, 2011)

Hi Mike,

+1 to what Beat says and also to me it's a no-brainer to bounce to audio as soon as i finish a cue approved or not. Why, well i can't live with the idea that i come in to the studio one morning and my MacPro is physically gone...Fire, burglery...

No one as the exact same setup as mine so coming along to a friend's studio with midi files is pretty useless IMO even more so if you're already close to a deadline. On the other hand if i have .waves on my back-up drive i'm ready to mix or continue work on my lost cues anywhere anytime...

My 2¢

HTH

Claude


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 18, 2011)

I've been bouncing my a$$ off (real-time) the last little while - 6 or 7 stems. I HATE IT!!! *







* right now. :mrgreen:


----------



## hazza (Jul 18, 2011)

Just to offer a different opinion...

Personally for VI stuff I never mix to audio or stems unless there's some specific processing I want to do or the client requests it. Admittedly I have never been a ProTools guy so I have never got into the whole whats-better-to-mix-in debate, but purely from a time constraint perspective I can't imagine finding the extra hours to bounce off everything and do a whole new mix. It's all pretty much ready to go bar a few tweaks by the time I get to the end of the writing / production stage.

In terms of archive, on the odd occasion something needs to be resurrected I just dig up the Logic project backup and replace any out-of-date plugins.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 18, 2011)

Being able to provide a final mix in one pass sure is nice when on deadline. Anyone who has done a 48 Hour Film knows what I'm talking about.


----------



## toddkreuz (Jul 18, 2011)

Im always doing everything at the same time.
Im mixing, performing midi, tracking live instruments, etc.

By the time im done entering parts and recording its 98 percent mixed. 

No need for me to bounce, other than to have archives.


----------



## david robinson (Jul 18, 2011)

gsilbers @ Mon Jul 18 said:


> depends on the project but keeping everything in midi until there is approval from the client is a good idea so that way you do not have to re do the audio parts again.
> you could have everything routed into stems, so bouncing is easier.
> 
> with that said, im an audio junky and i much rather have it all in audio.
> ...



hi.
agreed.
much prefer audio as i can easily? shift the position of the file so it gets into time with the rest.
i'm tweeking the alignment of every track right up 'til the final.
j.


----------



## dasindevin (Jul 19, 2011)

i namely work on ads, so there is a constant whirlwind of revisions and changes in a stupid short amount of time...
so sticking with MIDI for the most part is completely necessary - i'll sometimes freeze or print if i am running a bit low on RAM, but to have to re-commit to audio for nearly every revision would kill me in terms of turnaround/deadlines (especially those "there's a picture change and we need it resync'd and posted in an hour" moments) 

that being said.. i also route everything by category to stems before they hit the two buss (for that last level of control and the ability to just check each box in cubase when bouncing and then i suddenly have stems


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Jul 19, 2011)

hm..i set up a rather complex bus system that allows me to record all the individual stems ( with fx on seperate trax ) from my template in one pass, so i just hit record and record the tracks back into cubase in real time. 

I think there is a real danger in keeping stuff midi only...you know, 5 years down the line...you need that specific cue, wanna develop that old masterpiece you never found the time to finish...? Yeah.., sorry new os, the shitty plug in does not work,. Please locate samples: you can be pretty sure that after some time...you will not be able to re-open those old projects as intended, keeping the audio is safer, more flexible and makes sure you have the original stems and projects available even if Steinberg goes belly up, or whatever. 

I tend to think of midi like junk, it is not a proper track and recording until i get in onto "tape"


----------



## Casey Edwards (Jul 20, 2011)

I have my Cubase setup in organized buses so that I can mix down to separation in families and in register. i.e. LO WOODS, HI WOODS, LO STRINGS, etc. and all of these going to one ORCHESTRA bus just in case I need to adjust a master level in the orchestra without effecting the master stereo bus if I have things other than orchestra involved. 

I do have a question though, do you guys mix down your stems wet or dry? My reverb is on the last chain of stems that I use to mix down so my stems are always wet. Is this standard?


----------



## PeterMalick (Jul 21, 2011)

I agree with Pzy-Clone, and to that end, I'll print-em dry. That way you're not married to the FX some time in the distant future, when you might want to change it.


----------



## mejon (Aug 19, 2011)

When I was still using Pro Tools for composing, I would always print all VIs before mixing. Mostly because PT would sometimes be glitchy with high VI track counts. Since I switched to Logic, I rarely print tracks beforehand.

Archiving finished sessions is a whole other matter, and I'll always consolidate all audio tracks, VI tracks, fx tracks, etc.. When it's a Logic session, I'll pull the consolidated tracks into Pro Tools to check everything, and vice-versa....


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Aug 20, 2011)

John Rodd @ Mon Jul 18 said:


> What exactly is "segmentation mastering" ?
> 
> I have never heard that term.
> 
> ...



Hi John, (guys, John Rodd is a kick ass mixing and mastering engineer, and it's really great that guys of his caliber hang out at VI-Control: check out his web site!)

i think that he means mastering from stems, rather than from a stereo or surround mix...

BTW, i always wondered how the top engineers deal with that. I often mix and master my own projects and will set up a mastering plugin chain for my mix. 
Clients need stems, and in this case, the mastering chain that was applied to a whole mix doesn't necessarily work as well when applied to the stems one by one...

How do you do it John?


----------

