Skip to main content

If You're not using Samplitude...

Member for

21 years
You should be.

I've spent the last few days working within Samplitude Pro X Suite, and it is simply fantastic.

Those of you who follow the general mindset that all DAW's are the same should give this program a try.. because once you do, you won't think that way anymore.

I've been using Sonar for a hundred years now, I started using Cakewalk Pro back in the mid 90's when I was doing quite a bit of MIDI production and at that time, Pro Tools was shaky on the integration of audio and MIDI. In fact, my engineering peers at that time who used PT had to also use Digital Performer just so that they could work on the midi end of their productions.

I went with Sonar because it did integrate audio and midi very well. As the years went by, I got to know it inside and out. I also continued to work with PT quite a bit as well, because I had clients who had projects in that format, who would bring their tracks in to me to either mix or add tracks to.

Several months ago, I decided to give Samplitude a try. There was a thirty day trial period, so I figured I had nothing to lose.

What I didn't realize at that time was that besides having nothing to lose, I had everything to gain.

I decided to do an apples to apples comparison.

I took tracks - exactly the same tracks - and imported them into Sonar, PT, and Samplitude.
The difference was like night and day.

In comparison, here is what I found:

Sonar "does something" to the audio... and not in a good way. I don't know what it is technically, but I can tell you that the result is a "smeared" and "phasey" sound..

Pro Tools wasn't much better, except it seemed that I needed to use more of a particular processor (stock PT Plugs) to get the desired results I was seeking... so if I wanted to add sparkle on top, I needed to add more of the desired frequency range than I did in Samplitude.

When listening in Samplitude, the difference was immediate - as if someone had flipped some kind of "sonic truth" switch. The audio was crystal clear, defined, tight... imaging was beautiful.
It is incredibly accurate, sonically tight, defined - and without adding the "clinical sterility" that I've experienced in PT.

(Sonar didn't add any of this sterility, in fact, it went the opposite direction and added smeared frequencies, and overall sonics were ill-defined. Imaging was also smeared...)

(I know I keep using that word but it's the only descriptive term I can come up with that describes what I'm referring to)

I have no idea as to why this is...whether the difference is in the coding, or the architecture of the busing, or what... I don't know enough about the technical side of program development to know "what" code can cause "which" issues.

All I can say is that since I began working with Samplitude, it's as if someone "cleaned" my audio playback with some kind of "sonic Windex"... LOL... I think Tim Dobear from Magix described it in similar fashion when he was trying to explain the differences between Samplitude and other DAW's to other engineers who were skeptical.

This is not the result of a suggestive psychology, it's not a "placebo".
The difference is there. It's true, and I'm here to tell you that it most certainly is very real.

I'm not trying to sell anyone anything. I don't work for Samplitude, I get no commissions from them... and neither Sonar or Avid has done anything to me personally to make me turn against them out of spite.

This is strictly about the quality and accuracy of audio, and the power and efficiency of the programs that help us to achieve what we want as engineers.

I would suggest that anyone who doesn't believe me take Samplitude for a test drive.

Yes.. okay... there's a learning curve... as there is with any new platform. But those of you who are experienced with DAW-based production shouldn't have any trouble getting used to it after a few days. Also, the internet is filled with great instructive how-to videos for Sampitude.

So far customer service has been fantastic. Queries are answered within minutes, problems solved in a very respectable time span. Go ahead and tell me truthfully that you've had the same experience with Avid. ;)

Also, the stock plugs and processors are fantastic. Also included are many VSTi's, one of which has really impressed me - Vandal - which is a guitar amp/cab simulation, with a full range of foot-pedal/stomp box effects. The modeling in this VSTi has really impressed me, and that's not an easy thing to to do, considering that for the most part, I pretty much HATE all guitar amp sims. LOL

But Vandal is pretty sweet. As of this writing, I have yet to open or experiment with the other VSTi's that come with the package... there's a whole collection of synths I haven't even opened yet.

Great sounding Reverbs, Delays, Compressors, Limiters, BSC, vintage processing emulation... is all included in this package, and all of these processors were coded for this platform.

Based on what I've experienced thus far, I'm fairly confident that I can get rid of pretty much all the plugs/processors that I've accumulated over the years... and that includes libraries like Voxengo, Waved Diamond, Blue Cat, etc. I simply don't need them anymore.

That's it... you can believe me or not, I understand your potential skepticism... as I used to be quite the skeptic myself in terms of DAW platforms and "differences".

But I urge you to give this program a try.

PT has become the standard in digital audio production... but it shouldn't be.
It should be Samplitude. There's simply no comparison in terms of quality, fidelity, processing and efficiency.



Member for

12 years 2 months

kmetal Mon, 07/18/2016 - 08:07
Awesome my man! Just what I was hoping to hear. I'm not a huge fan of switching DaW's but have switched for one reason or another every 2-5 years since '00.

I'll be sure to check out this vids, I'm gonna start watching them soon, to get prepared for when things are set up around here.

Member for

6 years 4 months

Brian Van Tassel Fri, 05/01/2015 - 12:34
ChrisH, post: 428638, member: 43833 wrote: If I compared a stereo render of raw unprocessed tracks in Cubase 7 vs Samplitude, will I hear a difference just from the audio engine? Like Chris Perra said

Chris ,

I believe it depends much on the nature of the project. I have been going crazy , trying to tell my friends and colleagues about Samplitude , and they mostly think that I am either a crazy fanaddict, or that I am trying to sell them Samplitude as some kind of pyramid multilevel marketing scheme; and I have reassure them that , "No , I do not work for Samplitude" . . . I am just seriously freaked out by how good it really is ! lol ! In truth , when I recorded just a few parts in Cubase, I really could not tell as much of a difference ( although their was one ). If you work mostly with Vsti's , Midi, and just a few vocals, Cubase is definitely the way to go (Although I would still mix and master in Samplitude, imho). Great work is done daily in Cubendo and Wavelab ( Great programs ). But , it is when I recorded layers upon layers of acoustic percussion instruments , that I noticed the Dramatic difference. Ah , the headroom , the clarity, the natural blending of the harmonics, the space , the breath . . . Yes , you will hear Sam users "waxing poetic" about the euphoria of the pristine hybrid audio engine, and the mastering quality plugins that come stock with the program. This is true ;-)
To me it is very telling that Cubase's demo is a synth midi composition , and Samplitude's demo is a full acoustic orchestra. They are both being very honest about their focus and the focus of their technical origins. Cubase's audio engine is supremely engineered for electronics, sytnhs, & midi , ect. , & for acoustic audio, they are also as good as most. Samplitude's audio engine is supremely engineered for acoustic orchestras, and yet it handles midi and vsti's as well as most. I am sure that your mics, pres, and converters are so good , that any daw would do for you. I would suggest , perhaps, doing a project from start to finish in Samplitude, and see if it is more than a placebo effect for you. I suspect that most Sam users enjoy the "Best Kept Secret" mystique about this daw . . . & yet I also feel that the World should know ;-)

Member for

6 years 4 months

Brian Van Tassel Fri, 05/01/2015 - 12:43
audiokid, post: 428647, member: 1 wrote: Sam/ Seqioua 13 was enough of a game changer for me that I have now sold all my hardware I used for mixing and mastering. You should download the 30 demo and see for yourself. We all have our reasons. The workflow to this DAW is pretty different and the learning curve is a big one too.

Really, Truly , the dream of the all-in-one solution for composing, recording, mixing, mastering, and CD authoring, with minimal hardware . . . Samplitude/Sequoia 13 . . .
. . . A few good mics and a decent audio interface , & my mobile commando recording rig is in a constant state of Bliss . . . ; ~ )

Member for

5 years 9 months

Terry Leigh Britton Wed, 12/30/2015 - 21:06
In Samplitude Pro X2,

You can drag an effect plugin in the mixer to MOVE it from one track to another.

You can COPY a track plugin to another track, including all of its settings, by holding down the CTRL key and dragging that plugin to the second track.

You can DELETE any plugin from a track by selecting the plugin and hitting the delete key. You can delete more than one at a time by CTRL or SHIFT selecting the TRACKS you want to affect (by clicking their numbers) and then selecting "No Effect" from the drop-down plugin menu of any of the selected tracks' plugins entries, as in the first video I posted above.

I do not know about the other versions, as I only have Pro X2 here.


Member for

6 years 10 months

Matt Wed, 12/30/2015 - 21:14
Thanks for your tips Terry and Chris.

I am not one to over use plugins, but I do eq almost every channel at least a bit...when you say you are using 10 plugins or so, are you counting the EQ? Not tryign to find a recipe, but trying to pick your brain a little. As a drummer, I focus a lot of that and I find I have to take a resonant freq out of the toms sometimes and eq the snare and so on...I count that as a plugin, but I'm wondering if you only eq the drum bus instead? And for drums also, do you put a reverb on the drum bus includng the kick? I usually have the kick dry and put some very on the rest...again, trying to pick your brain ;)

I have read quite a bit about having less reverbs so that everything feels like it's in the same space. I tend to agree as it blends better.


Member for

21 years

audiokid Wed, 08/06/2014 - 08:52
Donny, my DAW isn't available to reference (at the lake) so I'm going on memory.
Why do you need the tempo to do this? Your tempo is set in the transport section. But, maybe you cleared a view while you were experimenting? You could reset your settings to default or go to the View and select what you want to see.

But back to the transient detection,
Make sure you select the track so its highlighted! Then proceed with the video tutorial.
Have you been successful with transient detection at all? Its a two step process. Get the detection happening, then, do the transient to midi. A new track will be created below the original
Sorry, I can't explain the steps precise. Have you gone to the Magix support forum yet?
First detect the transients like you see in the video and then turn it into a midi track. I don't see the need for the tempo, that sounds like a remix feature confusing you.


Member for

21 years

audiokid Wed, 12/30/2015 - 23:54
Matt, post: 434794, member: 48561 wrote: I have read quite a bit about having less reverbs so that everything feels like it's in the same space. I tend to agree as it blends better.
I agree

Matt, post: 434794, member: 48561 wrote: when you say you are using 10 plugins or so, are you counting the EQ?
No, EQ is part of the main platform. But I don't use other EQ, no need to. But I do use the EQ116 in the object to remove what I don't want, then render it. When I start a mix, I will do the basic stuff that is really about getting rid of things I definitely know I will not regret later. Once the entire session is cleaned up, phase aligned, ess, even replacements. All the the things that I know need to be done to have a good clean recording to start with. I do this on the objects and render. Once this is done, I then do baby steps and mix, plugins active where needs until I get to the next stage where its mixed and ready to pass onto the mastering bus, via stems my capture DAW2 or directly to the master on DAW 1. At that point and start doing to compromise between track adjustments, bus adjustment and the master. No what I mean? Sometimes its better to EQ a bus a touch more so the entire session sits better in the master, other times its better if the master deals with it. I usually only have a few plugs remaining.

Matt, post: 434794, member: 48561 wrote: I'm wondering if you only eq the drum bus instead?
Depends. Sometimes I get a mix that is really good and all I need is a Eq on the drum bus, Other times the snare or kick might be totally whacked, so I need to go into the track and fix it. If its really bad, effecting the bottom end of the mix, I will replace the kick, snare etc. I can find and sample a good version of an existing snare or get one in my library that works or will help fix problems.

Matt, post: 434794, member: 48561 wrote: And for drums also, do you put a reverb on the drum bus including the kick?
I usually use one reverb for everything.
I look at reverb as the room of the performance. I try to use one verb on a stereo aux or bus lane. Preferably a Bricasti OTB in a stereo/ analog pass. If you don't have a Bricasti, I use VariVerb on the second DAW and mix into it that same way I would the Bricasti. The difference is , I'm not doing an analog pass and the verb is now on the Mastering bus of DAW two. with less options to control it from DAW one. Its complicated explaining this.
That being said, yes, I will use slight verbs on a snare and kick on DAW1 which could be on the track or the drum bus. But again, its usually the same verb that is also used OTB for the main one that is emulating my main space.Less is always more when it comes to reverb. And one is better than three imho.
I find it really beneficial to use one verb so all the reflection in the session pass through it at the same time. Its the way it would be live. Live is what I am always going for. Even i I am doing electronic music, I still think the same way. Like its a performance all being played in real time. The less out of time reflection in a song, the more musical and fuller the sound is to my ears.

Member for

8 years 9 months

DonnyThompson Thu, 08/10/2017 - 16:14
I think that the most important thing a musician / songwriter can do, is to get to know their DAW program as much as possible. Get to a point where commands and functions become second-nature.
(Actually, I think it's important to hire someone who knows what they are doing so that the musician can be a musician and focus on the song, but I understand that many songwriters are now recording themselves ).
Knowing your platform allows you to be more creative, be more of a recordimg artist, because you're not spending boat-loads of time trying to figure out how to do a particular technical thing, which can take precious time away from music creation... and which can interrupt the flow of your creativity. We all know there's that cool thing that happens as a writer/musician when you're in "the zone". Once you interrupt that, it can be tough to get back there again.

While I love and use Samplitude almost exclusively these days, and I've come to know it pretty well, there are still things about the program that I don't know. But the more I get to know it, the more time I find myself actually creating music. And I would recommend getting familiar with your platform of choice to anyone, regardless of the DAW platform they use : be it PT, Sonar, Cubase, Logic, S1, Mixbus, whatever....
Now... I do think that there are some platforms that may be better-suited towards writers and home recordists, some that have easier learning curves; DAWs that may not be as feature-rich as Samp or Avid - which in their full blown versions are progs that are geared more towards audio professionals - and as such, have steeper learning curves, because they can do more...
But, for those who want to work quickly and efficiently, or just do simple recording to get their ideas down, to work out arrangements, harmonies, instrumentation...they should consider a program that is targeted more towards that type of simple recording, than those platforms that offer multitudes of features and commands - that most beginners don't know about, or how to use, or for that matter, even care about - or want.
Getting to know your DAW - really getting to know it - regardless of which you use, will result in more time being spent actually recording ... than spending hours trying to figure out why you aren't.
IMHO of course. ;)

Member for

11 years 6 months

JohnTodd Wed, 08/06/2014 - 12:00
OK, another question. I've been recording vocals and trying to comp them. Since I recorded my vocals in different sections, they are in 3 places on the timeline (same track.) Please refer to this screenshot:

Now when I select all 3 objects and go into revolver/take composer, only the first object is there and the last two are gone.

But when I glue the object together on the track, then revolver/take composer shows up with this weird "spectrum" thing where all my takes sound liek white noise.

Any ideas?

Member for

6 years 9 months

rjuly Mon, 12/22/2014 - 07:54
Sequoia arrived several days ago - I'm very impressed with it so far, especially the sonics. Learning curve is deep however, and I can see it will require some serious woodshed time.

Let me start with a question about basic signal routing. I sometimes like to mix to subgroups and record the subgroups as stems. I have bused some tracks to a subgroup, and while I can see them, as soon as I try to record to that subgroup track, the audio signal disappears. Can I bus audio to a subgroup track and record it?

Member for

8 years 9 months

DonnyThompson Thu, 12/31/2015 - 00:40
Stock EQ is generally not considered a "plug" as most would recognize it. EQ is oone of thse tihngs that most expect a DAW to have, because it's so often used on every track to one degree or another.

Plugs would be things like reverb, delay, gain or channel strip modeling, etc.

A few things:

Samp's approach with OBE ( Object Based Editing) is really a winner in terms of doing all kinds of things with an audio file - from pitch correction to stretching, EQ to FX, Editing, Fades, etc.
As Chris has mentioned... get to know the OBE... it's gonna change the way you think about typical mixing.

Here's a video on YouTube that Kraznet has posted, where he explains how to revert back to Menu Version 11 on Pro X (1). This is important, because so many of his instructional videos are based upon this previous menu layout, and it makes things much easier to understand when looking for certain commands, functions and features in his tutorials. This will in no way affect your audio, or anything else about the program. It just makes it much easier to learn what he is describing in many of his instructional vids:

I'm not sure about what is happening with your DAW freezing up... I have an AMD quad core/3.5ghz/with 16 gig of RAM and I can use many, many ( far more than 10) plug inserts if I choose to, ( VSTi's, too) and without any issues.
(Generally speaking, VSTi's will tax your system more than VST's will, but I've had instances of 12-14 different VSTi's all running at once without any problems; although it depends a lot on what VSTi's you are using, as some are more memory hungry than others).

Have you opened your audio interface's software menu and looked at your buffer settings? The general rule of thumb is to use the lowest setting for recording ( 128, 256, 512) and then switch to higher values for mixing ( 1024, 2048).
If your interface doesn't allow you to control these values, then you can switch them within Samplitude: hit the "Y" button on your keyboard and it will bring up the settings menu; open "audio system" ( it should default to this first because it's the first selection in the menu) and this is where you can set your buffers.

As for compression, there are times where I will insert it on a bus, but in the last year or so, I've grown to like parallel gain reduction more. Also referred to in the past as "New York Compression", this involves using Aux sends and returns, and then inserting the gain reduction plug into the Aux return. You can then control the amount of reduction in the mix by adjusting the aux fader. (It's important to note here that some compressor plugs have a "mix" function on them, which essentially accomplishes the same thing as parallel method, but I still prefer the first method, as I can also add EQ to the aux return where the compressor resides ). Here's a more detailed explanation ( this video uses Pro Tools as an example of how to do it, but this can easily be translated to Samplitude as the principle and routing are the same):

Chris ( @audiokid ) generally isn't a fan of "modeled" compression or EQ plugs; he prefers to use the real thing(s), whih is of course a great thing to do if you can afford to do it that way, but... there are those who can't afford that luxury, and who need to use plugs to achieve what they want. The following info is for these users...

There are different types of digital gain reduction; some are fairly transparent sounding ( Waves R-Channel, Fabfilter, etc.) where others will impart a certain "color and character" ( LA2, 1176, SSL Bus Compression, Fairchild, etc.)
You need to determine which is best for what you are working on at the time. I will tell you that in the cases of modeled "classic" compressors and limiters, a little can go a very long way. Start out conservatively, adjust the amount to taste.
And again, in reference to that, I strongly urge you to find out more about parallel GR methods. Having the ability to blend in the amount of the compressor's output into the mix really does make a difference in your audio, particularly with dynamics.

Reverb is one of those things that's "relative", ( as is the use of any effect, really) and should be chosen within the context of what you are working on at the time.

Very often, a natural sounding space is desired, where everything "wants" to reside in that same space, lending to a more organic, natural sound.

But, there are times when some songs are better served by "supernatural" space(s) too. Pink Floyd's Us and Them has a vocal delay that is anything BUT natural. There's no natural space in the world that would provide that type of delay and frequency of echoes... but, for that song, it works. The snare in Simon and Garfunkel's The Boxer is a "supernatural" verb, as are the vocals in Bridge Over Troubled Water.
Asia's Only Time Will Tell, and Brian Adams' Cuts Like A Knife and Sumer of '69 are others. It's up to you to determine what works best for what you are working on at the time, and what sound you are ultimately after.
It's not enough to unequivocally say that "all reverbs should be natural", or that "all reverbs should be supernatural", either. It's up to you to determine how the song is best-served, and what you want the mix to sound like. Those are artistic decisions, which can only be made by you. ;)


Member for

4 years 8 months

Johnny Blade Thu, 08/10/2017 - 20:44
It is very well placed. Does someone "dominate" your DAW? To know is not to dominate - I know the English language but I do not dominate it.

I swallowed the Samplitude manual countless times and I believe I have already used almost all the possibilities offered by the program. Currently I do not work more directly with music, but audio management continues to be a pleasurable hobby. If a simple need to record a CD to listen in my car is the order of the day, then Samplitude is a click away from my presence.

Donny checked the question: the important thing is to master a work tool - whatever it is.

From the moment I connected with Samplitude, I practically established a marriage. I can say that I know the sensibilities and robustness of Samplitude. I found my soul mate. I do not live for it, but I do not live without it. It is a great companion for moments of reflection, and since my vocation is monogamous, it is the only one who I love to see by my side, always.

Well, many (many!!!) wine glasses aside, the most important thing is to find a tool to get accustomed and, from there, master it. And that's what I meant.

Be happy with what you want. I am happy with Samplitude. :)

Member for

21 years

audiokid Wed, 08/06/2014 - 12:09
Depending on your order of edit, an object can be independent or tried to multiple objects. As an example. If I was doing a wide effect to multiple objects, I would highlight them all, double click them and make the object edit. If I was doing a more specific, like a de-essing just to thats phrase, I would only double click the one object. If you glue it, its is rendered and done. If you have edits that are mixed up, where some are attached to multiple changes, the rendering may not be possible because it can't render parts attached to something not selected. But it will ask you if you are aware of that also.
Does this make sense?

I don't use revolver, so I'm not sure of the specifics but the software works the same for all object based editing.

Did this help?

Member for

12 years 2 months

kmetal Thu, 08/10/2017 - 21:45
I've done a ton of freelance work over the years, finding myself in front of just about every Daw out there, on macs, tablets, phones, laptops, and pcs.

What I've found is, if you've got the hang of one of them pretty well, you'll have a fairly easy time on any of them as at as the basics of tracking and editing. The vocab will change as well as the menu structure and shortcuts, but the basic funtions of any of them are straightforward.

It's when you get past the basics that the mastery of certain programs comes into play. That's where being proficient can save time and make money, and daw selection is important.

Having been messing w sam for a little bit, it's the program's stability, efficiency, and lack of coloration that's most important to me. The object editing, and frequency based editing are high on the list too, tho I've not jumped into that yet. High track count, fair licensing policy, and affordability are things that not every program of this quality level offer.

One quirk I dislike is the pluggins don't seem to be re-arragneable, and the first plug seems to always default to the first slot. This could be my mistake, or a setting...? For example I'll usually toss a compressor and/or limiter on the master bus when all the elements are in the mix and the rough eq and balance and auxes are somewhere reasonable. I'll typically put the limiter on the bottom slot, and the comp above (before) the limiter, leaving the first two slots blank for potentially another eq and/or comp. this seems to not be possible in Samplitude (pro x3), and is sort of annoying, and borderline counter-intuitive. Again I'm assuming it's something I'm doing wrong, but if not, that would be my first and so far, complaint about sam. Second would be the in-ability to get rid of the eq section on the channel. Since I'm trying to keep things as easy as possible to move between platforms and daws, the built in eq settings would not move into say PT or Media Composer. Again this could be my mistake.

Since I'm not über fancy when I'm working, things like reliability and small CPU hit have become much more important to me than they have in the past. Object based editing is probably the only feature that truly seperates sam from other daws in the class, and they are years ahead of the competition in that reguard.

Samplitude runs smoothly on machines/devices that have no buisness running a daw. I've never really mastered a particular program, nor am I particularly slow on any of them. I tend to learn on an as needed basis, or from tricks and tips mostly. I've undoubtedly taken the long way around only to watch someone do it in a couple keystrokes lol.

Sound quality and reliability aside, I feel the daw selection is one of the least important things relative to recording technique, gain staging ect. They all pretty much do the same thing in similar ways. That makes it easy to pick the one that's most comfortable or caters to your style of engineering/writing best. I don't find any of them "missing" anything and most of them run solidly. There isn't much of a compromise between them all which allows you to pick your fav without feeling like your sacraficing something.

That said sam is my favorite so far along w pt (which is love/hate) since Adobe audition 2, back in the early 2000's. With reaper right up there for quality, ability to run on a thumb drive, reliability, and price.

I think there is a serious lack of hardware integration in all the daws, leaving people who are used to a mixing board and control knobs, with nearly no options. Softube is offering a pluggin controller that's compatible with softube and UA stuff, so perhaps a truly integrated daw and control surface is just beyond the horizon for mortals unable to pay the avid price.

Eventually they'll be a system similar to radar or the standalone hardisk recorders, or the mackie hdr/D8B recorder and mixer system, that will rid the daw of the software and hardware bloat associated with the basic PC/Mac. There's no reason in this day of digital, a system like that couldn't be successful and vastly outperform the computer systems we all use right now.

With a lot of the digital mixers offering direct recording to a thumb drive, we can't be too far off.

For example look how efficiently 'apps' work on devices VS how programs run on computers. The ability to start from a clean slate and code from the ground up for the devices OS really shows what you can get out of relatively modest hardware. A smartphone can do 24 tracks w pluggins reliably, something a desktop would somewhat struggle with, just over a decade ago.

I think it really is time for a dedicated audio/video platform or format or OS or whatever you wanna call it. Perhaps more daws will catch on to Linux.

As complex as Samplitude can be, I was able to jump in without much manual hunting for like a few basic mastering style sessions, start to finish. I'm very happy with sam.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Wed, 08/06/2014 - 12:16
Also, this may be a useful wow for you.
A fast way to edit and check objects. Double click to open an object. Look at the editor now. While keeping an eye on the editor window, touch another clip (like your 1st, 2nd, 3rd... vocal clips) in the timeline. You will see the object editor change to reflect the selected object you just touched. This is an obvious and very proficient way to check, edit effects to volumes > effects are open or changed. Touch the object and go.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Mon, 12/22/2014 - 09:22
rjuly, post: 422632, member: 48681 wrote: Let me start with a question about basic signal routing. I sometimes like to mix to subgroups and record the subgroups as stems. I have bused some tracks to a subgroup, and while I can see them, as soon as I try to record to that subgroup track, the audio signal disappears. Can I bus audio to a subgroup track and record it?

(NOTE: I'm not in my multitrack studio now to test this)

I'm not quite following you here most likely because I've not tried to record into a subgroup. Just a guess, Subgroups bypass the AD or midi input as it can contain multiple tracks bused into it. Just curious, when trying to record into a bus, is the input AD the same as the pre assigned to it?

I always create subgroups or AUX as you describe ( Drums, Bass, Guitars, Keys, Vox, Harmonies, efffect) , assign their DA Stems (1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8 etc) to the analog console/summing box or simply, the master bus...
The bus audio resides on the track lanes. You won't see audio on the subgroup lanes but you can include automation, plug-ins, extended processing there too.

Did that help?

Member for

21 years

audiokid Thu, 12/31/2015 - 00:56
DonnyThompson, post: 434799, member: 46114 wrote: Chris ( @audiokid ) generally isn't a fan of "modeled" compression or EQ plugs; he prefers to use the real thing(s)
No, not quite accurate. I am not a fan of broad compression in the mix session. I love tracking with them (UA LA2A. ) and I appreciate them in the second DAW (ITB) most of all. I avoid using compression whenever possible because I don't like destroying the dynamics. But I love them ITB, in a side chain application lot!
I avoid analog compression OTB all together. ITB comps are much better today. But, that doesn't mean I think we should use them all the time. Subtle amounts are tolerable. They definitely smear audio.