# Why is Mixing with Stems Better?



## robgb (Jun 6, 2020)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I find I get much better results when I mix with stems rather than midi files. I'm not sure why this is true since they sound virtually the same. Anyone have any idea why this is true? Anyone believe it's nonsense?


----------



## Audio Birdi (Jun 6, 2020)

robgb said:


> Maybe I'm crazy, but I find I get much better results when I mix with stems rather than midi files. I'm not sure why this is true since they sound virtually the same. Anyone have any idea why this is true? Anyone believe it's nonsense?


I'm guessing because when you've got MIDI to mix with, you'll perhaps go back to tweaking it more and more. With stems, you have less of an issue of wanting to tweak endlessly and simply focus on mixing more-so.

I don't mix with stems, as I mix as I go and then tweak after finishing a piece.

The other factor is that it's less intense on computer CPU / RAM too since you've rendered each midi part to audio.


----------



## Manaberry (Jun 6, 2020)

When I discovered that mixing is a really really big part of the process, I've created a proper workflow for each part.
I compose with my composition template then I export all instrument audio (merged mics.) to the mixing template.
The approach of mixing starts with orchestration (and also mic choice) but once that part cannot be more polished already, the mix must be the next and only phase to care about.

There are so many creative possibilities during mixing and new choices that can be made without worrying about composition. It frees up my mind focusing on mixing or composition only. My tracks are much better by doing that way.

So I'm pretty sure it's doing the same for you. You are more focused on mixing, so your mix sounds better.


----------



## jononotbono (Jun 6, 2020)

Bouncing everything to Stems and then mixing in a separate session is how I love to work. Sometimes time doesn’t allow this though and have to “mix as I go”. The results are never as good as a separate mixing project.

Ive just started to use Pro Tools for this instead of Cubase as well.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 6, 2020)

robgb said:


> Maybe I'm crazy, but I find I get much better results when I mix with stems rather than midi files. I'm not sure why this is true since they sound virtually the same. Anyone have any idea why this is true? Anyone believe it's nonsense?



Hi Rob, 

I don't think it's nonsense at all.

I guess a few hypotheses about why it's better:

1. If you're using midi, you may be triggering different round robins each playback, so you might not be getting exactly the same basic sounds;

2. Depending on what kind of plugins and their inherent latency, mixing with audio can cure that (assuming you are using a DAW or Pro Tools that compensates).

3. Your mind is in a different space. As long as you're in midi, there's the temptation for focus to blur back and forth between composing (midi) and mixing. Seems as though once one commits to audio, there's kind of a mental 'switch' that takes place.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## Rob (Jun 6, 2020)

In addition to all that's already been said, I'm simply terrified at what midi can do at the very last minute... had a few bad experiences just before delivering the file. Once it's audio I'm much more confident it will stay as it is. Furthermore, I feel dinamic curves are smoother in audio, like fades etc... eq also seem more precise on audio material, don't know why.


----------



## purple (Jun 6, 2020)

Well, it allows you to focus on mixing rather than endless MIDI editing.

Also, it probably is less difficult for you computer, making it happen faster and smoother.

And sometimes it can be nice just to have a cleaner project, especially if you, like me, use folder tracks for each instrument and individual tracks for most articulations. I can bounce each instrument and break it all down to a few dozen tracks, one per voice/instrument, rather than hundreds on a big MIDI project.


----------



## jonnybutter (Jun 6, 2020)

I don't know why they have to be *stems*, but the biggest reason I mix digital audio rather than midi (usually) is timing. I find it much easier to get audio files lined up compared with midi tracks, although with a simpler mix and powerful computer, it's not always an issue. Also what others have said about having a different head for mixing, which is true too. But timing and stability are the main things.


----------



## robgb (Jun 6, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Your mind is in a different space. As long as you're in midi, there's the temptation for focus to blur back and forth between composing (midi) and mixing. Seems as though once one commits to audio, there's kind of a mental 'switch' that takes place.


I'm thinking this is what it is for me. I'm concentrating on mixing, not composing. The last piece I did, I resisted the urge to mix at all in the midi stage. I simply got all the tracks down and concentrated on getting each track right and not being overly concerned about the overall mix. Rendered them out to stems, then imported them and organized and normalized everything, then went to work. And that's when the piece really came alive.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 6, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Hi Rob,
> 
> 3. Your mind is in a different space. As long as you're in midi, there's the temptation for focus to blur back and forth between composing (midi) and mixing. Seems as though once one commits to audio, there's kind of a mental 'switch' that takes place.
> 
> ...



For me, this. Because mixing is the last thing I learned to be decent at and the part of the process that came least naturally to me, I think differently when I put on that hat. (no hat jokes, please.)

Bouncing to stems in anew project alternative in Logic allows me to treat the material as if someone else already composed it, which helps me.


----------



## Macrawn (Jun 6, 2020)

Do you folks find that adjusting the volume levels on a track is so much easier using a stem vs. an automation track unless you really need some fine detail in it? I watched a vid of Jake Jackson adjusting volume levels at various points on a stem, cutting the stem ajusting the section and cross fading the ends of the section back in. Then lightbulb went off in my head and I was like duh, why am I not doing that? I hate automation tracks and automation tracks are such a pain to change once you put one down. For Jackson time is money so he has to be fast, I don't need to be fast but since I hate automation tracks I'd rather ajust volume this way if it doesn't require fine detailed ajustment. I'm still bad at mixing though.... edit for grammar


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 6, 2020)

Macrawn said:


> Do you folks find that adjusting the volume levels on a track is so much easier using a stem vs. an automation track unless you really need some fine detail in it? I watched a vid of Jake Jackson adjusting volume levels at various points on a stem, cutting the stem ajusting the section and cross fading the ends of the section back in. Then lightbulb went off in my head and I was like duh, why am I not doing that? I hate automation tracks and automation tracks are such a pain to change once you put one down. For Jackson time is money so he has to be fast, I don't need to be fast but since I had automation tracks I'd rather ajust volume this way if it doesn't require fine detailed ajustment. I'm still bad at mixing though....



I have done both. I wouldn’t say it’s easier but it is more precise.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jun 6, 2020)

jonnybutter said:


> I don't know why they have to be *stems*, but the biggest reason I mix digital audio rather than midi (usually) is timing. I find it much easier to get audio files lined up compared with midi tracks, although with a simpler mix and powerful computer, it's not always an issue. Also what others have said about having a different head for mixing, which is true too. But timing and stability are the main things.


This also. Don't know how many times when I've bounced, the timing is off. But then my computer may not be powerful enough. 

And along with that, I bounce because it does take less power in that I can add some effects to just the instrument and bounce with those effects so that it is less effects I need later - if that makes sense. The less effects needed on the final bounce, the less CPU spikes I have that mess up everything. 

In fact, I've been know to re-bounce audio with additional effects just to lower the final mix effects. That sounds weird - it is more with my pop/rock mixes. I might have 5 effect inserts on a vocal track. And then 10 or more vocal tracks between the harmonies and doubles. It adds up fast. I will probably still have them as separate tracks so I can still pan them, just with the basic effects included.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jun 6, 2020)

Macrawn said:


> Do you folks find that adjusting the volume levels on a track is so much easier using a stem vs. an automation track unless you really need some fine detail in it? I watched a vid of Jake Jackson adjusting volume levels at various points on a stem, cutting the stem ajusting the section and cross fading the ends of the section back in. Then lightbulb went off in my head and I was like duh, why am I not doing that? I hate automation tracks and automation tracks are such a pain to change once you put one down. For Jackson time is money so he has to be fast, I don't need to be fast but since I had automation tracks I'd rather ajust volume this way if it doesn't require fine detailed ajustment. I'm still bad at mixing though....


I've done this in ProTools. It is easy to splice a track up, change the volume in each section and crossfade. But it depends on what I'm working on. That is usually better when things don't record evenly - or at least that is when I've used it. Automation is easier when you want a smooth lowering or increasing of a sound. Then I usually just draw it in. 

And? I'm not a pro, so I don't have the time constraints other that class project deadlines.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 6, 2020)

robgb said:


> Maybe I'm crazy, but I find I get much better results when I mix with stems rather than midi files. I'm not sure why this is true since they sound virtually the same. Anyone have any idea why this is true? Anyone believe it's nonsense?



take it one step further...

mix it with pro tools 😮


----------



## jononotbono (Jun 6, 2020)

dzilizzi said:


> 've done this in ProTools. It is easy to splice a track up, change the volume in each section and crossfade.



Yes. Clipgain is one of the best things for balancing elements in a track, ever created.

I've been slowly learning more about mixing from a mix engineer I work with and he constantly stresses to me that mixing is completely about timing. From everything in latencies, to transients lining up, to adding movement in a mix using specific techniques. So yeah, definitely have all VIs bounced to Audio (so timing is exact, round robins are changing every playback... etc All that stuff).

I'm hoping in about 100 years getting to a decent standard but like anything, it takes a long time to become amazing at something.


----------



## jason.d (Jun 6, 2020)

I find that when I try to mix with MIDI and want to concentrate on a specific part of the track, sometimes when I play from that specific part it doesn’t trigger a long sustain that began 5 seconds before, for example. Or maybe there was a CC change that triggered around the start of a note and I played after that trigger. It can be a frustrating experience and sometimes I’d find myself starting the track from the beginning just to know for sure I was hearing what I originally intended.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Jun 6, 2020)

I feel the round robin aspect needs to be stressed more severely. When mixing you should never ever work with variables - and as long as you're working with midi, all your instruments are offering varying performances and from a mixing perspective, that's *bad*.

Especially when it comes to the surgical EQing - it can be utterly useless when working in midi.


----------



## ryans (Jun 6, 2020)

It's funny, in the past I would always perform the MIDI, print to audio, mix.. two very different steps.

Over the years my MIDI performing brain and mixing brain have merged.. and I find it much more efficient to do both at the same time... or at least mentally switch back and forth between the two brains... and I like having the ability to tweak a MIDI performance during a final mix. 

That said.. many of the issues mentioned by others, I have as well.. so I typically print tracks to audio that are causing me issues (eg. troublesome round robins)

I do agree variables are BAD.. so my hybrid half MIDI, half audio approach is a compromise, but.. I find it faster ..and I have come to value speed... writing fast, mixing fast always yields the best results, for me... if I obsess over tiny details for too long, or in multiple stages (perform/mix/master etc.) it just ends up worse... 

Ryan


----------



## José Herring (Jun 6, 2020)

Early on in Cubase I found that mixing stems lead to better audio results. Now not so much.

But, I do find myself converting midi to audio files a lot these days. As was mentioned the randomness of multiple round-robins for not only short articulations but drums and even legato transitions, ect.... I found myself when I was trying to keep everything in midi printing about 20 mixes to get one that didn't have something weird in it. 

I don't have the patience any more to create all the stems necessary to get a good mix by stemming things out. But, committing as much as possible to audio and mixing as I go seems to be my preferred workflow. 

I'm not an engineer. I really don't have any inclinations of becoming a good one. But, I'm a decent DAW programmer so I stick to my domain. When the project is big enough I do get a pro to mix. But, for self funded and smaller projects, I'll just keep it in the DAW domain and everything seems to be good.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 6, 2020)

ryans said:


> It's funny, in the past I would always perform the MIDI, print to audio, mix.. two very different steps.
> 
> Over the years my MIDI performing brain and mixing brain have merged.. and I find it much more efficient to do both at the same time... or at least mentally switch back and forth between the two brains... and I like having the ability to tweak a MIDI performance during a final mix.
> 
> ...


You beat me!


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Jun 6, 2020)

Have you guys ever experimented with Midi fed into a bus and have an audio track record from the bus. It's really good and you can just press play and record on your audio tracks and it will record your mix. It makes it super easy to fix performances by just punching in the part.


----------



## jononotbono (Jun 6, 2020)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Have you guys ever experimented with Midi fed into a bus and have an audio track record from the bus. It's really good and you can just press play and record on your audio tracks and it will record your mix. It makes it super easy to fix performances by just punching in the part.



Yes. This how you record stems in your project without having to export/import anything.


----------



## robgb (Jun 6, 2020)

Macrawn said:


> Do you folks find that adjusting the volume levels on a track is so much easier using a stem vs. an automation track unless you really need some fine detail in it? I watched a vid of Jake Jackson adjusting volume levels at various points on a stem, cutting the stem ajusting the section and cross fading the ends of the section back in. Then lightbulb went off in my head and I was like duh, why am I not doing that? I hate automation tracks and automation tracks are such a pain to change once you put one down. For Jackson time is money so he has to be fast, I don't need to be fast but since I hate automation tracks I'd rather ajust volume this way if it doesn't require fine detailed ajustment. I'm still bad at mixing though.... edit for grammar


This is how I do it in Reaper.


----------



## robgb (Jun 6, 2020)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Have you guys ever experimented with Midi fed into a bus and have an audio track record from the bus. It's really good and you can just press play and record on your audio tracks and it will record your mix. It makes it super easy to fix performances by just punching in the part.


Or you can simply freeze your tracks. I set up Reaper so that when it "freezes" a track it merely creates a new track with audio and hides and mutes the original midi track.


----------



## Illico (Jun 7, 2020)

On Cubase, you can freeze all Virtual Instruments Tracks (don't use MIDI tracks but Instruments Tracks), then all are wave bounced (fixed RR, etc), you can choose to freeze channel settings (instrument EQing, etc), then you can MIX on group buses. On the Mixer, you can hide your Instrument tracks. All stuff are present in one project, but you are focused on one process at a time.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 7, 2020)

ryans said:


> It's funny, in the past I would always perform the MIDI, print to audio, mix.. two very different steps.
> 
> Over the years my MIDI performing brain and mixing brain have merged.. and I find it much more efficient to do both at the same time... or at least mentally switch back and forth between the two brains... and I like having the ability to tweak a MIDI performance during a final mix.
> 
> ...



You are correct about speed, but remember the old adage “haste makes waste.”

Or as we used to ask, “do you want it now, or do you want it great?”


----------



## robgb (Jun 7, 2020)

Illico said:


> On Cubase, you can freeze all Virtual Instruments Tracks (don't use MIDI tracks but Instruments Tracks), then all are wave bounced (fixed RR, etc), you can choose to freeze channel settings (instrument EQing, etc), then you can MIX on group buses. On the Mixer, you can hide your Instrument tracks. All stuff are present in one project, but you are focused on one process at a time.


Yes, it's the same with Reaper (and probably most DAWs), but even with the ability to freeze and hide midi tracks, I believe it's still important to export the stems and open up a fresh new project using only the stems to mix. I take the attitude that I'm a mixing engineer who has been sent these stems by someone else for mixing. I work with what I have in the project and only go back to the original midi project if it's absolutely necessary. Most of the time I only go back if I can't tweak something directly in audio.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 7, 2020)

robgb said:


> I take the attitude that I'm a mixing engineer who has been sent these stems by someone else for mixing. I work with what I have in the project and only go back to the original midi project if it's absolutely necessary.



Decoupling from midi and going to audio makes sense to me too. Actually, I often find it an enormous relief to focus solely on the sound -- feels as though I'm nearing the finish line.

Without consciously intending to adopt that approach, I have been doing it for quite some time because I record audio in Pro Tools instead of my DAW. I started doing it that way many years ago so I could record soloists with zero / very little latency. On top of that, I typically pass on my PT sessions to an engineer, either just for mixing or recording a larger ensemble, so putting into PT straightaway makes sense. 

Particularly if it's a big session with dozens of cues and therefore hundreds of individual tracks, trying to export everything into Pro Tools (or worse, _paying someone else_ to import that audio) would stress me out horrendously. Not to mention the possibility that somehow the timing has drifted, or they didn't use the same frame rate -- aaaagh! -- and you're standing there with players waiting to record and everything's a mess. Nightmare.

That said, Digital Performer, and all the full-featured DAWs nowadays, have powerful audio editing and mixing functions, so I am certainly not urging anyone to buy Pro Tools unless there's some good reason. 

As I said, the mental relief of focusing solely on audio helps me concentrate better.


----------



## robgb (Jun 7, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Decoupling from midi and going to audio makes sense to me too. Actually, I often find it an enormous relief to focus solely on the sound -- feels as though I'm nearing the finish line.


Absolutely. And there's no longer the stress of making music. Instead we're sculpting the raw materials, and it's really where the piece comes alive.

I equate it to movie editing. Most movies are a mess until a great editor gets hold of the material.


----------



## Henu (Jun 7, 2020)

There seems to be a bit mixing up of the terms- some people are talking about audio mixing and some people are talking about pure (audio) stems. Just to chime in on the former, I completely agree with @robgb . The stuff starts really come to alive after you've got rid of the arranging phase.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jun 8, 2020)

ryans said:


> It's funny, in the past I would always perform the MIDI, print to audio, mix.. two very different steps.
> 
> Over the years my MIDI performing brain and mixing brain have merged.. and I find it much more efficient to do both at the same time... or at least mentally switch back and forth between the two brains... and I like having the ability to tweak a MIDI performance during a final mix.
> 
> ...


Absolutely this. I do a "mix" but it's more of a quick level/pan thing and checking previous decisions still hold water.

I don't agree that the arrange and mix phases should be siloed into separate creative head spaces. I think half the "mix" is in the arrangement itself - think how an orchestra naturally balances with good orchestration. I find a do a lot of mixing as I compose - shelving EQ for example to carve out space for other parts. It's all one, big, sometimes messy process.

That said, I only work with low track counts (compared to VIC) and I work quickly. For a huge arrangement, I'd certainly consider rendering to audio before mixing. Add to this, I'm also talking about working in the "middle ground" where composers have to "be the engineer" too.


----------



## Dietz (Jun 8, 2020)

Macrawn said:


> [...]
> I watched a vid of Jake Jackson adjusting volume levels at various points on a stem, cutting the stem ajusting the section and cross fading the ends of the section back in. Then lightbulb went off in my head and I was like duh, why am I not doing that? [...]


... maybe because it's a different solution for different tasks ...? 

As long as you don't use any track processing that depends on the input volume you might as well use clip gain for volume automation, that's right. As soon as there's anything like compressors, limiters, gates, multi-band dynamics, dynamic EQs, saturation, distortion, any kind of "analogue modelling" plug-ins ... you will actually automate the threshold of these processors, which is most likely not what you want to achieve.

For me, clip-gain is a tool to even out a performance, while automation is for balancing the mix (generally speaking).

... apart from that: Typically, there's so much more to automate in a mix that it's not worth the hassle to get rid of that single parameter "volume". 8-)


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 8, 2020)

I usually just mix everything right inside the project, I never found a difference in audio quality. Plus, I find it a PITA to have to start another project with all the stems (yes, I’m lazy). The only time I ever bounce-in-place is when a VI isn’t playing nicely. A prime example are phrase-based sequences from Sonokinetic, they are hit and miss.


----------



## Henu (Jun 8, 2020)

Stem (audio) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





"In audio production, a *stem* is a discrete or grouped collection of audio sources _mixed__ together_". A single track is _not_ a stem.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 8, 2020)

Henu said:


> Stem (audio) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure it is. It could be just a single audio file (stem) containing a mix down of say, the percussion tracks. That would be a grouped collection of audio sources, no?


----------



## Dietz (Jun 8, 2020)

Henu said:


> Stem (audio) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It might be one. If there's only one single crash cymbal hit in your whole arrangement, this might be all you could mix into that "perc stem". 

_EDIT: @Wolfie2112 was a tick faster than me. ;-D_


----------



## Henu (Jun 8, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> It could be just a single audio file (stem) containing a mix down of say, the percussion tracks. That would be a grouped collection of audio sources, no?



Exactly. And of course what @Dietz says is true as well, but naturally I'm not talking about that scenario when raising this point up.  But yes, a stem is a single audio file consisting of e.g. your grouped percussion tracks. If you mix with audio and have different percussions as single audio tracks in your projects, they are not refereed as stems but just simply_ tracks_.

The thing is that if people refer single audio tracks as "stems", it is completely different thing that an actual stem. And some people you might work with may expect _actual_ stems, and sending them 10+ percussion tracks isn't what they wanted when they called for those "percussion stems".


----------



## Joël Dollié (Jun 9, 2020)

Oh my god, I've called "tracks" "stems" all this time.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 9, 2020)

Sure a stem is whatever the mixer wants to have grouped together or discrete, but obviously if every track is a stem nothing is really a stem, they are just tracks bounced to audio.


----------



## IFM (Sep 24, 2020)

A little late here but I am setting up/modifying my main template. The plan is to export to mix in ProTools. I used to always have a 2nd machine for recording/mixing back when it was all hardware synths/samples.

I'm at the planning stage of seeing how to split up stems. I'm not sending to dub at this time since these are solo albums but would like to hire an engineer from our industry to mix it all and/or also have live players (orch).

Therefore I'm seeing how divided I want to make the stems (plus I've been mixing for years too so love diving into it more). 

Hi and Low Longs and Shorts...gets crazy, and I know and that can change depending on whom I'm working with. 

So for the OP and others, how far are you breaking down your stems?


----------



## Scoremixer (Sep 27, 2020)

IFM said:


> A little late here but I am setting up/modifying my main template. The plan is to export to mix in ProTools. I used to always have a 2nd machine for recording/mixing back when it was all hardware synths/samples.
> 
> I'm at the planning stage of seeing how to split up stems. I'm not sending to dub at this time since these are solo albums but would like to hire an engineer from our industry to mix it all and/or also have live players (orch).
> 
> ...



Speaking as a guy who'd be mixing, I generally want them as divided as you can provide them.

Hi and low longs and shorts is really the minimum I'd want to be working with... Basically if it exists as a separate sound in your DAW then I'd like it separate. The exception might be synth patches that combine to form one composite sound.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 27, 2020)

I generally use three per section, high, mid, and low. I don’t separate long from short.


----------



## Synetos (Sep 27, 2020)

I prefer to export all the Midi/VSTs to audio tracks. The "stems" end up being tracks routed to group channel tracks, not discrete exports. It cleans up the mix and is easier to split out, chop up, etc. I think of midi tracks as just a raw performance recording...like a vocal or guitar track. Sure, they get edited and such, but when I am done with a midi track it gets exported to an audio track and imported into the mix template. It's as much a DAW resource conservation thing, as any other motivation.


----------



## enyawg (Sep 30, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> For me, this. Because mixing is the last thing I learned to be decent at and the part of the process that came least naturally to me, I think differently when I put on that hat. (no hat jokes, please.)
> 
> Bouncing to stems in anew project alternative in Logic allows me to treat the material as if someone else already composed it, which helps me.


Being a mastering engineer for many years it’s a bit like that, although probably not technically, but it’s a different side of the brain (or hat!). So I agree that stems result in a better mix for me, as long as the stems are mixed from midi ok! As going back and forth a lot can be a headache. I compose and midi-mix in Reaper and stem mix in Pro Tools HD when it’s a job delivery.


----------



## CoffeeLover (Oct 5, 2020)

i learned to record with microphones
then mix the audio. 
then i quit for a while and came back 3 years ago maybe and im still avoiding sample instruments with my recordings. i always end up hiring players here and there cos my sample-instrumentation and mockup is extreemly crappy so i try to mask it a bit with real instruments 🥵


----------



## PeterN (Oct 6, 2020)

I dont think its better, thats my own experience. When you bounce midi in Logic Pro X, it makes subtle changes to the file, and the audio quality from midi to audio looses subtle nuances. Thats why I dont mix in stems, because the midi will go through two audio bounces.


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 6, 2020)

PeterN said:


> I dont think its better, thats my own experience. When you bounce midi in Logic Pro X, it makes subtle changes to the file, and the audio quality from midi to audio looses subtle nuances.



No, it does not.


----------



## PeterN (Oct 6, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> No, it does not.



It does. On Internet it says it doesnt, but it does  I got good ears mate, when I trek in jungle nobody hears the cicadas when I do, always makes me wonder how high frequencies I hear  

I trust my ears on this.


----------



## doctoremmet (Oct 6, 2020)

Jay, remember that Infinistrip “cramped EQ” thing on KVR back in April? Guess you and I have really bad ears. I think I am happy with that


----------



## PeterN (Oct 6, 2020)

doctoremmet said:


> Jay, remember that Infinistrip “cramped EQ” thing on KVR back in April? Guess you and I have really bad ears. I think I am happy with that



I recommend a cicada test. When you stop hearing them in middle of rainforest, then you can use EQ tools instead.


----------



## doctoremmet (Oct 6, 2020)

PeterN said:


> I recommend a cicada test. When you stop hearing them in middle of rainforest, then you can use EQ tools instead.


Happy to be almost deaf! ❤


----------



## J-M (Oct 6, 2020)

If possible, I export everything to audio and create a separate session. Some elements I keep as midi, because...you know, mic positions.


----------



## macmac (Oct 6, 2020)

Guys, if your intention is to print the MIDI to audio to mix in a separate project, yet you’ve been mixing a little bit as you compose (e.g. pans, levels, plugins), do you zero everything out before rendering out each track (fresh start for the mix)?


----------



## Bear Market (Oct 6, 2020)

PeterN said:


> It does. On Internet it says it doesnt, but it does  I got good ears mate, when I trek in jungle nobody hears the cicadas when I do, always makes me wonder how high frequencies I hear
> 
> I trust my ears on this.



No it does not. If there's a difference, it is because you have not reset RRs.


----------

