Well, I don't mix down to another DAW....I send my two track recording of the mix to the mastering engineer...thru We Transfer as 24/48 wav's. I record my mix in my session to a separate two tracks of the same session in real time. Yes it takes a little longer but who cares. It sounds better than 'bouncing'. Since it stays in the same session theres no conversion.

kmetal, post: 430619, member: 37533 wrote: The destination SR is what I was getting at. Do you do anything different for say a tracks iTunes version versus the album? I don't know that I've even heard .wav music much in the past few years via all the internet radio I listen too. Not being a jerk chris, rather, I know how tuned in you are to phases issues, and am curious how you deal w the myriad of destination formats? Particularly because you use the mixdown daw method.

Kyle, you never come across as a jerk. :love:

Generally speaking,
Just for the record, I don't consider myself an M.E; I simply choose to use a process and system which allows me to mix into a master like a M.E.

Ive always been interested in being able to do as much as I could with music, which is why I got into hybrid mixing in the first place.

Some mastering engineers use some form of outboard gear. When i tried this, I noticed how analog gear added a shift. :love:
However, The more I studied this, I noticed good shift had little to do with the amount of gear and more to do with the pass itself.
The other huge factor had to do with hearing the sum on the DA side of the pass.(y)

My DAW(s) of choice are also ones that mastering guys seem to prefer. I figured if Sequoia is good enough for mastering it must sum and export well.
Mp3, Wave whatever ... All sound really good to me.

Davedog, post: 430637, member: 4495 wrote: Well, I don't mix down to another DAW....I send my two track recording of the mix to the mastering engineer...thru We Share as 24/48 wav's. I record my mix in my session to a separate two tracks of the same session in real time. Yes it takes a little longer but who cares. It sounds better than 'bouncing'. Since it stays in the same session theres no conversion.

I see that a lot in screenshots of pro mixes, and notice pensado does that on his tutorials. I'm wondering if this somehow bypasses the summing in the master bus, which seems to be where the bottlenecking occurs?

I dont think its a bottleneck. I think it lack of hearing accumulated over use of software.

I think the added value that comes from hybrid has more to do with one pass and less itb bouncing and excessive use of savage plugin moves.

Davedog, post: 430637, member: 4495 wrote: Well, I don't mix down to another DAW....I send my two track recording of the mix to the mastering engineer...thru We Share as 24/48 wav's. I record my mix in my session to a separate two tracks of the same session in real time. Yes it takes a little longer but who cares. It sounds better than 'bouncing'. Since it stays in the same session theres no conversion.

I'm a little confoozled, Dave...

It appears as though you are describing the file transfer method and not the actual rendering of the final mix from your DAW...

You still need to render/output/export/bounce to disc ( or choose any of the descriptions that's all nomenclature for the same thing, depending on your DAW software) your project's mix to a final 48/24 2-mix .wav file though, right?

Or am I missing something? ( which is very possible as I'm a bit sleep deprived these days... LOL)

Davedog, post: 430637, member: 4495 wrote: It sounds better than 'bouncing'.

That confuses me greatly ! I meen, this must be DAW dependant, but I can't understand why recording back the song in real time (while it's doing all the processing and calculation) is better than offline processing.. Is it due to the noise shaping or chosen resolution ?
I'm always doing the export audio fonction but I've got a loopback fonction on my RME interface, should I try this too ?

pcrecord, post: 430668, member: 46460 wrote: That confuses me greatly ! I meen, this must be DAW dependant, but I can't understand why recording back the song in real time (while it's doing all the processing and calculation) is better than offline processing.. Is it due to the noise shaping or chosen resolution ?
I'm always doing the export audio fonction but I've got a loopback fonction on my RME interface, should I try this too ?

I did a test, detailed above, demonstrating that in Sony Vegas 6 the offline render ("bounce") nulls perfectly with the live audio stream from the multitrack project. If there were any difference whatsoever the peak holding meter would not read -∞. I invited people to try the test to see if there was any difference on their systems but nobody seem interested in having this information.

where you are missing it all is by summing in the DAW ... try the test bringing out stems and summing out side the box ... there's a huge difference for the better.

I can see the confusion. Let me 'splain....

After all tracking and editing is done, I group all the sections of the sounds into 'like' groups.....We all do that...right? In PT I do this by creating an stereo aux channel and assign everything to it through a bus. Its the same as old school with a large console which is basically what PT has.....All DAW's do....Each group is assigned a master fader but the only thing it does is control the volume of the Aux bus its assigned to. Its a vca master and has no output to anything. These Aux's are where I use plugs if needed as well as any plugs on the individual tracks within the group. I don't use a lot as a rule....I achieve my balances with in the groups for the instrumentation assigned to each and create a master Aux Bus with a master fader.This Aux bus remains at ZERO and under no circumstances will that ever change so the balances are all controlled with the vca master faders within each group to the master bus. When I'm satisfied with the mix, I create a stereo audio track, arm it and assign the output of the master bus to it. Then I record the mix within the session and this is my Print Bus. It is 'exported as' and does not rely on any conversion as its still in the 48/24 it was created as within the same session. Exporting does not add a set of conversion...Its next conversion is at the ME's machine which its also recorded into at whatever SR is needed...in this case 44.1/16. All of this avoids the collapse of the PT master bus which we all know sounds like crap. Separating all the groups with their own set of vca master faders also stops a lot of the plugin smear and phase problems since the master bus is not being slammed with all this stuff simultaneously.

This methodology is simply a hundred times clearer and easier to get that huge mix sound with.

One thing having an aux on each group allows , is the use of tools like Little Labs phase tools and others if theres a problem. Since I tend to check my phase at tracking it doesnt really cause much concern here.

As always...this is just how I learned to do this. It works for me. YMMV

Assuming I read Dave right, this is pretty much how group but I continue on as Kurt describes sending all the summed groups OTB (all processed together in one analog pass), followed by capturing the complete stereo sum on the second DAW. I feel really strongly that the mix is (positively altered more in tack) when you don't clock the capture to the original mix, (round trip back to the tracking DAW). If I was doing it any different, I most likely wouldn't even go OTB.

But, I'm getting the Folcrom soon so new possibilities are on the horizon for me once again. :)
Less passes on everything from too many analog products to conversion and bouncing the better is what I'm hearing.

Topic is getting interesting(y)

Maybe the Vegas has better math than PT?

Summing outside the box has its own issues. I CAN do that..I have enough studio for it and was pointing towards that, but this method is much cleaner and clearer than anything I could get OTB.

I figured so Chris. I just don't go outside the box and i don't rely on the mix bus to render anything. the only stereo output is to the speakers. I made records before I learned this using the 2-bus in a traditional way. I won't do that ever again.

Davedog, post: 430686, member: 4495 wrote: Maybe the Vegas has better math than PT?

Summing outside the box has its own issues. I CAN do that..I have enough studio for it and was pointing towards that, but this method is much cleaner and clearer than anything I could get OTB.

According to Boulder, Vegas can work at two independent SR. But, its still a weird DAW to me.
I think you are smart doing it the way you are at right now, Dave... You sound like you have your shit together, better than ever these days.
I'm excited to hear your new mixes sometime.

Davedog, post: 430681, member: 4495 wrote: When I'm satisfied with the mix, I create a stereo audio track, arm it and assign the output of the master bus to it. Then I record the mix within the session and this is my Print Bus. It is 'exported as' and does not rely on any conversion as its still in the 48/24 it was created as within the same session. Exporting does not add a set of conversion...Its next conversion is at the ME's machine which its also recorded into at whatever SR is needed...in this case 44.1/16. All of this avoids the collapse of the PT master bus which we all know sounds like crap. Separating all the groups with their own set of vca master faders also stops a lot of the plugin smear and phase problems since the master bus is not being slammed with all this stuff simultaneously.

Ahhh. Okay. Now I understand what you are getting at. So, the ME receives a simple export of a 48/24 file that has been recorded, and not a file that's been rendered in the traditional way through the master bus. This is interesting. I'm rolling this over in my head and wondering how I might try this in Samp...

audiokid, post: 430688, member: 1 wrote: According to Boulder, Vegas can work at two independent SR. But, its still a weird DAW to me.

I could have two sessions open in different windows running at different sample rates if there were two audio devices on separate clocks.

Are we talking about Sony Vegas? The Video production program?

Hmmm... I never really thought about using Vegas as a DAW.

I mean, obviously it can be... I just never looked at it that way before.

On a separate note...

I'm wondering if/when DAW manufacturers will start including different export options for rendering final mixes.

Obviously, more than a few intelligent users feel that routing thru the master bus, and using the "standard" rendering action, results in less than perfect results, and that there are those who have come up with workarounds because of this...
Chris ( audiokid ) and Bos ( Boswell) prefer to mix to a separate and uncoupled DAW, while Dave ( Davedog) has found a way in PT to circumvent the standard "bounce to disc" command...

So, I guess my question is, does anyone think it's possible that the various DAW program manufacturers will eventually take this into consideration, and in the future, provide alternate ways to render a final mix, so that guys like Chris, Boswell and Dave won't have to come up with their own work-arounds to get the highest quality sonic results possible?

Ok I get you my question back ; why recording back the master bus in the same project would be better than offline exporting that same bus to a file with the same resolution of the project.
You know what I'm gonna try it and to a null test.. I'm very curious of the outcome.. ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 430696, member: 46114 wrote: Chris ( [="http://recording.org/members/1/"]audiokid[/]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/] ) and Bos ( [[url=http://="http://recording.or…"]Boswell[/]="http://recording.or…"]Boswell[/]) prefer to mix to a separate and uncoupled DAW, while Dave ( [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]Davedog[/]="http://recording.or…"]Davedog[/]) has found a way in PT to circumvent the standard "bounce to disc" command...

From my understanding (Pro Tools related to his unique workflow), Dave is not finding a way to circumvent the bounce to disc, he is more or less doing this to improve the sum.
If he hears an improvement in the summing this way, I think for that very reason then, he is on the right track. I for one dumped Pro Tools years back because i hated the summing outcome. It sounds like he's found a way around it for that.
Personally, I would still track at the destination SR to begin with or even better, track at 96 and do what I do to avoid bouncing down in comparison.
Also, lets assume the ME Dave sends his work to will end up bouncing down to 44.1 anyway.

DonnyThompson, post: 430696, member: 46114 wrote: Are we talking about Sony Vegas? The Video production program?

Hmmm... I never really thought about using Vegas as a DAW.

I mean, obviously it can be... I just never looked at it that way before.

It has always been for audio production. Video editing was a function added way back before Sony bought out Sonic Foundry.

Hmm.. I didn't know that.

DonnyThompson, post: 430711, member: 46114 wrote: Hmm.. I didn't know that.

hehe, I bet all the ladies love you! :D Gawd I hope you never leave us for another women. We love our Donny here.

:love:

My ME records the tracks in real time into his program at the final SR. It would be the same as Chris does his work except the mastering engineer is in another room but it is a different computer....(actually we use the same Mac except his is an 8 core) ...The point is to never let the PT sum everything to a different SR. It is here where they fail a bit. The collapse of the summing through a single stereo master to a destination SR is something we all have heard for a number of years and this is the very thing to avoid. A lot of records in the recent past avoid this by the engineers using this method I describe. It could be the reson that some things are starting to sound better with less phase problems and more dynamic headroom. Since I don't do really 'heavy' music and I don't do 'pure pop' I need to emphasis the subtle emphasis on dynamics and I need the clarity and size for each instrument in a mix that requires it to be tight while at the same time loose and flowing.

I saw a simplified version of what Dave described, in an instructional video for PT. they were demonstrating using the aux as the master so you could perform fade outs on the track itself but still have the effects (auxs/master) trail off seperately as they were sent to the master bus directly, and are therefore effected only the master fader, at that point. If I understood it correctly, it was years ago.

Bos could explain my layman and often unique/ odd, scattered way of describing sound (we love the Bos :love:)
For giggles... I look at summing like this.

Sooner or later everything has to be on the left or right side of the fence. Analog was so easy because it fell where it fell. Digital, science and conversion makes up or places bits which we all know can create issues. I'm thinking... when you create two things the same, something snaps or cancels out, phase, swirl whatever... . If you can track at a high sample rate, then uncouple that mix and recapture it at the destination SR in one pass, the bits seem to fall into place, better.

On a side note and thinking about all the stuff I've read over the years... : I often think forum answers don't get the whole story from people who are exclusive to their craft, meaning, recordists don't always understand the mastering, the mastering don't always understand the recording and the mixer usually just does the best of what he is given while he is also thinking about replacement and augmentation... hmm, if I did this I wonder if it would fix that.
Then there are the best of the cream guru's who tell us that this is what they do, which is based on sonic perfection of all three areas which really has nothing little to do with all of us living on the street.

When you are in full control of the three stages (recording, mixing, mastering) its easier to hear where one can be improved (pro active) or preventions. The DAW is supposed to be able to do this for us.

When I listen to guys that are 100% ITB, I get why they are smiling and can do it on a laptop. The pros know the limits and pass it on to the next guy who also knows WTF is going on.

The problem we are all faced with now were less obvious when we recorded to tape.

How I hear it.
Bouncing down basically comes down to which way it will all fall. Tracking better and checking your mixes in mono sure help avoid a lot of what you don't have control over. We tend to reach for plug-ins to make shit sound better. To my ears, mixes always sound better when I get rid of the bloat and get back to the simple. They bounce better and they compress better. Some methods like uncoupling avoid the possibilities something gets put on the wrong side of the fence to early in the game. Or even better, "preventing" it from happening because you caught it during the summing and was able to go back and fix it before it turned into indistinguishable smear. The constant blaming of something that really wasn't at fault.

Digital audio is awesome. But its also less forgiving, more revealing, harder to know when to stop being sloppy. Easy to fool us into thinking we are doing the right thing and so on. Its so detailed.
I look back at myself and see a razor knife in a child's hand. Or a chain saw in flower garden. Or 4 inch paint brush to draw a line. Coming from analog, you can turn a knob way further without destroying something as easy. Digital, it seems all you need to do it one bit too much to cut the wrong line and there it is, waiting to fall on the wrong side of the fence. Sooner or later it has to go one way or the other.
Gawd, what a nightmare just to capture and replay it back...:love: love hate.:confused:

Comming back to how to export.
I've searched all Sonar X3 routings.. and I can't find a way to record the output of a bus or the main out to a channel.
I can use the loopback fonctions of the Fireface 800 but it would be sending the signal outside the DAW not routing it internally..

I guess before I have some summing gear or a second DAW, I will continu to use export audio...

I may search Cakewalk's forum to see if everyone does the same.

This is where I'm getting hung up as well - in that the routing would still require me to leave the DAW, ( Samplitude) using a bus other than the master to route the signal to 2 of the available 6 alt outputs I have on the Presonus VSL, and then, returning that signal back into 2 inputs of the same Presonus.

I mean, I'm sure I could do this... I'm just not sure that I'd hear any obvious benefit from doing it this way. It would still have to go through another stage of conversion; and while I don't think that Presonus has "bad" converters, they're certainly not the same quality as higher-priced stand-alone ADC's and DAC's.

In my situation, other than busing out to a completely separate DAW, I don't see how this would make all that much difference - if any - and, there's the possibility that it may even end up degrading the integrity of the signal.

I'm not saying that I doubt what Dave is doing, because I don't.

Obviously he has found a method that is working out for him, and by all means, he should do what he feels gives him the best quality he can get, according to what his rig allows him to do.

I just don't know that I'd end up getting the same successful results with my current rig. But... I'm certainly willing to listen to suggestions as to how it might end up working with my rig in my current workflow.

Doing a round trip to the analog domain is not the same as what Dave is doing and I think it's pointless to compare both techniques..
To do this, our DAW need to be able to record on a channel the signal comming from a bus. Sonar can't do this.
I could go wild and use Rewire to record the signal in an other software but again I'm not sure I want to deal with the extra CPU usage etc..

But the bad reputation of export fonction still intrigues me because I've been using it for the past 15years with Cakewalk. ;)

Davedog , I'm curious what converter and DAW system your ME is using ?

Its cool you guys are trying Dave's method. I'm out to lunch on understanding Pro Tools summing work-arounds at this point or why we would do this apposed to just capturing the mix on a separate system (like the good old 2 track tape days, but better) :love:. Avoid the Master section of Pro Tools all together.
Two DAW's is so simple and effective. Mind you, you do need a few extra pieces to the puzzle. I don't think there is a short cut but if there is, I'm all for it.

Just thinking out loud and tossing in some experimental fun into this... if Dave has the uncoupled Mastering system already in place (in the other room), I would try to share the DA master monitoring feed into my mix room so I could mix into the master and monitor it from that "uncoupled" DAW's DA feed. It would be interesting to hear how the two sums compare ;) (Pro Tools sum to the Master DAW sum).
You wouldn't have the control of using good Mastering plugs at this point but it sure would open your eyes into what I am doing real fast. This is why I use the Dangerous Monitor ST (or any independent monitor controller for that matter). Another (related) topic.

Well, now I'm shocked. To think that any DAW couldn't do as basic a task as recording one channel to another is strange at best. Even in the tape days we were able to do this. How could we have survived on 8,16,24 tracks without being able to 'bounce' to 2 or 4 tracks, a section of material to open up more channels for more hijinks??

This is all about taking your 2-bus and assigning it to another bus on its output and assigning that output to the input of a new stereo audio track which is assigned to stereo left/right or whatever nomenclature your system uses to denote output to your speakers. NOTHING else can be in the stereo outs at this point. Everything has to be assigned to a bus of some sort....this is where I get the fidelity....by grouping things in their own bus (we all do this right???) not having everything in the session going to one master bus/fader out...each group has its own vca master NOT assigned to an output but simply controlling everything within that group....which has an aux sub-master as its output to a master aux which also has its own vca master......Yes there is a master 2-bus but we are never going to convert from this....we are simply going to record its output in REAL TIME to a stereo pair and export this to a folder which we can then take offline and send to the ME or store on a drive and take that if local.......

Does this make more sense? My process is exactly like Chris' up the point of recording the 2-bus mix into an uncoupled machine. In my case I am recording it into an uncoupled machine except its in the ME's room and he's doing the step of recording the mix into his machine at which time he adds all the mastering necessary to make it sound even greater. If we were in the same facility it would be as Chris' setup is a true hybrid...except there is no trip through an analog OTB device before the second capture.....This ITB to ITB but uncoupled and at whatever SR is needed. If I recorded at ANY SR I choose the result is the same....the 2 track capture he gets is an unconverted copy of the mix @ the session SR with whatever plugs I want to add through the LAST AUX inline. There is ZERO master outputs ie: master fader to stereo L/R...there is a master on the the last AUX sub master but it has no output...only control of the AUX and where its level sits in reference to the recording level of the stereo channel its being sent to....The output of this 'recorded channel' is only to the speakers and not OUT of the session and thru any conversion. It is all inside itself. The only time it leaves the session is to be exported just like any other file would be. There's no conversion in that, just a copy of the stereo 2 track of the mix .......

Maybe we can see something that PT HD can do.....but I don;t believe for a second that ALL the other DAWS aren't capable of recording to tracks within their own session. Elsewise why use em??

Chris....I think my ME uses ProTools HD with all sorts of high-end specialty plugs. I know he has the Steven Slate Mastering Suite and other goodies, and an AVID current generation converter but his has probably been tweaked by Black Lion even though its new.....All of his gear is either hand made or been specialized at some point.The new STC monitors will be awesome i'm sure...I haven't heard em yet but they are the rage right now in Pro Recording land.

Okay, I get it now. You are doing the same thing when tracking a Midi channel VSTi. I do this all the time. Bus out and assign an input channel to track the bus, record - and there you have it.
I wouldn't do this to mixdown but if it works, and you hear it improve the sum, right on.
(edit) You are basically printing the stems (yes?) which in that case, right on.

There are so many ways to skin it. My hats off to those who figure it out for themselves while remaining sane to the end of their careers.

Chris if you are talking about recording a track made thru Midi in order to use it like other tracks, then yes, its like that....sorta.....This method has a lot to do with the vca master faders on each set of groups. These faders have no assigned output only an input. They do nothing except control the overall output of a group through the assigned output of a sub-master or Aux, if you will, that is then bused to a "master Aux also containing a vca master.....There are NO MASTER 2 tracks and the problems they cause in PT when they are used. A Master Fader with an assigned output becomes the Master 2-Bus and thats what I avoid. The auxes, even though they have outputs assigned are dealt with in a different way, As I Understand It, inside of PT. There is no Master Fader assigned to stereo L/R.

My knowledge of "why" is limited and so is my description I'm afraid. I assure you that this makes for a much much better sounding mix in any case.

I will post examples as soon as I get a release from the clients.

Davedog audiokid TimDolbear

I'm not trying to nay-say this method, Dave .... nor am I doubting that this works for you... so please don't think that's what I'm trying to do.

To the contrary - I'm very much intrigued by it... and am actually trying to wrap my head around the method, and trying to figure out how to do this ... using Samplitude (Pro X Suite).

DonnyThompson, post: 430764, member: 46114 wrote: Davedog audiokid TimDolbear

I'm not trying to nay-say this method, Dave .... nor am I doubting that this works for you... so please don't think that's what I'm trying to do.

To the contrary - I'm very much intrigued by it... and am actually trying to wrap my head around the method, and trying to figure out how to do this ... using Samplitude (Pro X Suite).

Boswell
And I will second that, but being said, I see no use in this from Samplitude's sonic position, if any DAW for that matter. I'm trying to understand how it would improve a sum and the only thing I can come up with is a long shot,
This is a wild guess and I don't even know how to say this.
Could separating / summing groups take some "pressure" off the DAW's ability to better organize bits so they don't shift as much as they "may" when there is more information being summed at once? Thus, Dave hears a clearer end result by capturing (recording) sums of groups?
Or, does Pro Tools do something weird in the Master Section?
Or, can a DAW screw up a sum or bounce if it has to deal with too much info at once?

I personally always group and always use a particular formula from how I go from tracks to groups to mastering(capturing). I have been analyzing how a mix sounds with and without my order and I do believe that there are better times to do things in a mix. Meaning, I use certain effects for only groups and only do certain things on the master bus.

Maybe whatever Dave is doing, is it related to the order of events that helps "his DAW" and/or digital audio summing get it right.
This falls into a summing problem solving solution/debate, yes? Or what are we talking about here?

audiokid, post: 430765, member: 1 wrote: Thus, Dave hears a clearer end result by capturing (recording) sums of groups?

Do I have this right, Dave?

I have no way of knowing whether this method would be of benefit to me or not, because I've yet to figure out how to do it.

I've posted a query of this over on Samplitude's forum... and it may turn out that I can do this, or, it might turn out that this can't be done, or maybe it can only be done in the newer Pro X 2 ... but I haven't upgraded to 2 yet, I'm still on Pro X Suite 1.

Whether there would be any sonic improvement or not still remains to be seen. I can't tell until I find out if it's even possible in my current version of Samp.

My personal take on it is that - whether I would choose to switch to this signal flow method or not - I'd at least like to know that I could do so if I wanted to.

PS.. there is a "mix to file" feature on the master bus, which apparently mixes to a .wav file in real time, and even allows you to make changes to the mix as it is mixing to this file... but as far as I can tell, it's still mixing to an external file, and not to an internal stereo track residing in the same project.

Davedog, post: 430751, member: 4495 wrote:
Chris....I think my ME uses ProTools HD with all sorts of high-end specialty plugs. I know he has the Steven Slate Mastering Suite and other goodies, and an AVID current generation converter but his has probably been tweaked by Black Lion even though its new.....All of his gear is either hand made or been specialized at some point.The new STC monitors will be awesome i'm sure...I haven't heard em yet but they are the rage right now in Pro Recording land.

Dave, from what i understand, you just give a stereo file (or 2 mono files) to your ME, but then how does he go from your SR to the final one?

niclaus, post: 430770, member: 33719 wrote: Dave, from what i understand, you just give a stereo file (or 2 mono files) to your ME, but then how does he go from your SR to the final one?

He records my 24/48 session into his DAW at 16/44.1 in real time. This doesn't create ANY converting as it is simply a recording into a different machine with no clocking involved.

audiokid, post: 430765, member: 1 wrote: Boswell
And I will second that, but being said, I see no use in this from Samplitude's sonic position, if any DAW for that matter. I'm trying to understand how it would improve a sum and the only thing I can come up with is a long shot,
This is a wild guess and I don't even know how to say this.
Could separating / summing groups take some "pressure" off the DAW's ability to better organize bits so they don't shift as much as they "may" when there is more information being summed at once? Thus, Dave hears a clearer end result by capturing (recording) sums of groups?
Or, does Pro Tools do something weird in the Master Section?
Or, can a DAW screw up a sum or bounce if it has to deal with too much info at once?

I personally always group and always use a particular formula from how I go from tracks to groups to mastering(capturing). I have been analyzing how a mix sounds with and without my order and I do believe that there are better times to do things in a mix. Meaning, I use certain effects for only groups and only do certain things on the master bus.

Maybe whatever Dave is doing, is it related to the order of events that helps "his DAW" and/or digital audio summing get it right.
This falls into a summing problem solving solution/debate, yes? Or what are we talking about here?

Yes.

Davedog, post: 430779, member: 4495 wrote: He records my 24/48 session into his DAW at 16/44.1 in real time. This doesn't create ANY converting as it is simply a recording into a different machine with no clocking involved.

Excellent!

DonnyThompson, post: 430764, member: 46114 wrote: Davedog audiokid TimDolbear

I'm not trying to nay-say this method, Dave .... nor am I doubting that this works for you... so please don't think that's what I'm trying to do.

To the contrary - I'm very much intrigued by it... and am actually trying to wrap my head around the method, and trying to figure out how to do this ... using Samplitude (Pro X Suite).

Let me see if I can upload a screenshot of a session with highlights.....not sure I can but I'll look into it.

No one should ever do something they aren't sure about until they have practiced its ins/outs......