Rendering MIDI to Audio

Hi,
how you guys are eq and effecting the MIDI parts you created. I don't think MIDI efffects, but usual insert effect put on the channel, which is the output from MIDI /similar posibilities like working with audio channel/ but it's not the audio channel. maybe bit confusing.
example.
When I'm working with Battery, have 6 outs of it and want to render to wav. I put the insert on each channel I want, eq each channel I want and then export to Wav.
I can't see the difference, if there is a one, when I will render the 6 outs from Battery and then eq and efx the Wav file..
is there any difference in these two ways???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BloodStar

When I'm working with Battery, have 6 outs of it and want to render to wav. I put the insert on each channel I want, eq each channel I want and then export to Wav.

---

if you do this and later on decide you don't like the sound of eq/effects you are stuck with them.

Hope I understand yer question correctly...

If u eq/ efx... a wav file of the total of the 6 channels u spend less cpu power but u have less flexibility if u find that something isn't perfect (ex. u might find later that one of the sounds iis a bit 2 loud)...

If u bounce each track individually u have loads for control and u can have diferent eq/ dinamics/ efx 4 each make the summ as great as u want!!

Z

yes, I mean 6 channels out of Battery into one group channel and my question is: Is there any difference when I will equalize or put insert effects on the group before rendering to wav, or I will let it without any effects unequalized and will do all this on the rendered Wav.

i've been wondering the same thing recently;
should you, when writing with midi instruments, apply eq/compress/make it sound as good as possible, BEFORE bouncing down...
or leave the sounds coming out of the instrument untouched (to a resonable point) and apply eq/compress/make it sound as good as possible, AFTER bouncing down?
or do combination of both?

It's all down 2 cpu power... best is 2 do everything in a way that can b tweaked and reverted back at any time... but that means leaving a lot of Efxs/ dynamics/ eq working in realtime...

So it's all a matter of planning ahead!

Z

yes, working with Wav is more cpu friendly than working with MIDI,. but reverting things back in time is great when working with midi. e.g. when I will effect group of drums while working with MIDI,, filter it cut some lows and then I will filter it again and also cut the lows when it's down in Wav.. is this a mistake,or not?,

I think u mean working with midi is more cpu friendly than audio... working with vst Is is in fact one of the heaviest cpu works...

after cutting it aint there so I guess there ain't much point in cutting again!

Z

I know that MIDI work kills the cpu. Thanks for your patience Ze, I see the second part of your last answer. It doesn't make a sense to cut again after render to Wav, which is the fact I wasn"t sure about. I'm more clear about it now. Thanx

I don't bounce anything till the track is done. I'm not a fan of working with audio loops of stuff i've written. I'd much rather work in MIDI, so if for example, i am listening to the track when it is almost completed, and a part goes on a bit to long without a change, all I gotta do is edit that part, simple.
If you really like to work with Audio, i'm not sure if it matters when you apply effects, unless CPU really is that much of a concern, then you should apply them before bounce so that you aren't running your processors on an audio track.
Freeze function is a doll in these situations.
another idea is to send different tracks of similiar sounds to a bus, and only apply effects to the bus. That way you can use fewer processors, i.e. one compressor or reverb for four tracks, and keep everything in real time with an option of reverting back.
mmmm...

somtimes it's fun to bounce some notes to audio before you've written the part and then try and write it with the audio ... you can do some yummy things.

Audio allows u 2 do some nifty things aswell... I too prefer 2 keep my Midi (albeit sometimes rooted 2 VST Is)... and bounce as little as possible... but when I have the basic idea down I tend 2 go 4 the bouncing so that I can get on with the eq/ comp/ efx etc...

If I have VST is I do this straight and don't bounce at all unless I'm running out of CPU power...

I can't say enought about the pleasures of having a Powercore (or UAD 1... which I'm getting this week weeeeeeee :) )... makes it possible 2 have most of my eq/ dinamics/ efx running from it so I keep the pc fairly unstressed and can use loads of VST is :)


Just 2 set the record straight .. there is a small confusion u r still making bloodstar... Midi work is really really light on yer cpu.. I used 2 use a 486 dx2 pc in the old days (cubase 1.10 - no audio of vst is or plug ins) for all my music (all on hardware)... Now what happens is that u r routeing yer midi 2 a VST Instrument (which is what is actually heavy). Being a Virtual Instrument, it's audio output arrives at an audio channel in yer audio mixer (so that's an extra weight).. it is this channel that u r eq'ing/ efx, etc... (more heavy processing)...
SO .. Midi is very "simple" & "light", the way we use midi can b very heavy (vst Is) or still absolutly light (external "real" Hardware instruments)...

hope this clears it!

:)


Z

PS - because "virtual instruments" are getting so brilliant, and u immediately use brilliant eq/ dynamics/ efxs straight in yer seq. I am getting more and more into software and less hardware... but I still prefer 2 keep this as a Midi sent 2 a VST i till the end of the track of 'till I need 2 bounce bcause there is no more cpu! :(

Z

Hi,
when I told working with MIDI I meant working with MIDI and then routing to VSTiand then applying EQs,EFXs,and all this ****. sorry for inaccuracy.
I'd like to work just with MIDI till the end, but my CPU doesn't agree with it. So it is a must to export some channels to Wav and then work with it.
I'm always exporting channels where I'm fine with them and see that I won't do any changes, but techno is about changes, imo, so it's hard, but u know :twisted:
thanx Ze....

no prob. just ment 2 set it straight for all the people out there that read but don't get involved (... yet ;) )

Z

Im not sure I understand the answers to this post??? So is there a way to have your vsti, say absynth on midi channel 1 and just record this as audio without sending it out your mixer and back ti the input of the soundcard?

This would be very handy for me at the moment as I only have my computer set up and not my mixer and woulod like torecord some vsti tracks to midi as they are slowing my computer down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nomak

So is there a way to have your vsti, say absynth on midi channel 1 and just record this as audio without sending it out your mixer

---

Well, you can "solo" that track and export it as audio (wav or aiff) and import it back into your sequencer like that... I guess.

:shock:

Guys tell me U had realised this b4!?!? This is the main thing of having VST is u can totally diss any other hardware...

Press solo if u want 2 isolate only a certain sound (the midi track needs 2 b active 2 send the notes for the VST i 2 play of course)

use the locators 2 define the size of the region (loop) u want. GO to the file menu/ export/ audio Mixdown... check carefully the name of the file, place where u want it sample rate/ etc...

Z