Way to bounce mix channels WITH sends/returns per channel?

[selig]

Here's the channel setup for the lead vocals of the song I'm currently mixing:
mixer-vocals-grouping.png

Yea, no thanks (at least until we can hide tracks). Many projects already fill the mixer window, my goal is cleaner setups that function the same but allow me to move around quicker.
For example…
Here's the channel setup of a song from a while back, pretty typical except maybe I'd add a bus channel for the vocals.

Screen Shot 2024-02-19 at 10.55.51 AM.png (414.41 KiB) Viewed 608 times

[selig]

ok now I'm confused, can you show a picture of what you mean in that last part of "built in return etc"

Just above the fader in the Master Section:

Screen Shot 2024-02-19 at 11.09.32 AM.png (227.8 KiB) Viewed 605 times

[antic604]

All approaches have trade offs. It's a matter of understanding them and being able to CHOOS the one you want/need. If there's only one available, there's no choosing

Luckily all ARE available - some DAWs are quicker than others, but all options remain available. Not sure what limitation you may be referring to?
One approach has no trade offs, which is to use the original mix!
That is, IF it is available – but the same caveat applies to stems, or even multitracks (which are more likely to be available than stems w/FX etc).

Ok, let's consider a simple project, with 3 tracks (rows) and 2 FX Sends (columns):

Code: Select all

                    DELAY              REVERB
KICK                                     X
SNAR                  X
HHAT                  X                  X

The Bounce Mixer Channels in Reason will give you 5 files:
- KICK
- SNAR
- HHAT
- DELAY (SNAR + HHAT)
- REVERB (KICK + HHAT)

What I'm looking for, is 3 files instead and that can only be achieved in Reason by soloing each of the 3 tracks and bouncing the master:
- KICK + REVERB (KICK)
- SNAR + DELAY (SNAR)
- HHAT + DELAY (HHAT) + REVERB (HHAT)

Both approaches, when summed, will give you MASTER (assuming the FX aren't level dependent, e.g., are not a compression, saturation, distortion) and give you different options: 1st gives you the ability to balance dry tracks vs. wet FX, 2nd allows you to balance tracks between each other, preserving the wet FX / dry track ratios.

In Reason, 1st is readily available and automatic, 2nd is an iterative manual process.

So "limitation" isn't a fortunate way to describe it, but clearly one is more preferred - and easier - than the other.

Whereas e.g. in Studio One this is simply a choice between "Channel" stem export (Reason's way) or "Track" stem export, i.e. the 2nd in my example.

[selig]

Luckily all ARE available - some DAWs are quicker than others, but all options remain available. Not sure what limitation you may be referring to?
One approach has no trade offs, which is to use the original mix!
That is, IF it is available – but the same caveat applies to stems, or even multitracks (which are more likely to be available than stems w/FX etc).

Ok, let's consider a simple project, with 3 tracks (rows) and 2 FX Sends (columns):

Code: Select all

                    DELAY              REVERB
KICK                                     X
SNAR                  X
HHAT                  X                  X

The Bounce Mixer Channels in Reason will give you 5 files:
- KICK
- SNAR
- HHAT
- DELAY (SNAR + HHAT)
- REVERB (KICK + HHAT)

What I'm looking for, is 3 files instead and that can only be achieved in Reason by soloing each of the 3 tracks and bouncing the master:
- KICK + REVERB (KICK)
- SNAR + DELAY (SNAR)
- HHAT + DELAY (HHAT) + REVERB (HHAT)

Both approaches, when summed, will give you MASTER (assuming the FX aren't level dependent, e.g., are not a compression, saturation, distortion) and give you different options: 1st gives you the ability to balance dry tracks vs. wet FX, 2nd allows you to balance tracks between each other, preserving the wet FX / dry track ratios.

In Reason, 1st is readily available and automatic, 2nd is an iterative manual process.

So "limitation" isn't a fortunate way to describe it, but clearly one is more preferred - and easier - than the other.

Whereas e.g. in Studio One this is simply a choice between "Channel" stem export (Reason's way) or "Track" stem export, i.e. the 2nd in my example.

I only suggested there was more than the "one available" you mentioned. We seem to now be on the same page?

[QVprod]

I'm pretty sure Reason can't do this automatically. Lucky for me I would never use this feature, but the world is a big place and somebody somewhere needs to do just this (not just you).

This use case really appals me too.
If you're exporting inserts and sends per channel that means you're exporting the mix you did in reason right? At least inserts and sends. If so, what is the reason (no pun) to export the returns, instead of just sticking to this mix?

Anyway, the way reason bounces mixer channels is tapping into the mixer points as it was a real mixer, i think you're quite right and at the moment this isn't feaseable.

There is one use case which I'd find this to be useful. Exporting stems for TV/Film purposes. However, this would be from a song that's already been mixed. But those of use who naturally use sends (for sound design) out of natural studio engineer habit can also benefit.

[antic604]

I only suggested there was more than the "one available" you mentioned. We seem to now be on the same page?

Yeah, sure. The same way one could say Reason has polyphonic audio pitch editing, because you can duplicate the audio clip to 2+ additional tracks and edit them separately. Or that it has transient detection sensitivity in slice mode, because one can manually remove or add transients. Or that it has MIDI comping, because you can record your takes into consecutive clips, then stack them up on separate tracks and use multi-track editing to comp them

[selig]

I only suggested there was more than the "one available" you mentioned. We seem to now be on the same page?

Yeah, sure. The same way one could say Reason has polyphonic audio pitch editing, because you can duplicate the audio clip to 2+ additional tracks and edit them separately. Or that it has transient detection sensitivity in slice mode, because one can manually remove or add transients. Or that it has MIDI comping, because you can record your takes into consecutive clips, then stack them up on separate tracks and use multi-track editing to comp them

Not following - I simply did not agree at all with your assertion there was only "one available" way in Reason.
I thought we were now in agreement there was more than one way if you count doing it "manually", which totally counts in my book.
But you seem to be qualifying that now, so not following your train of thought here...or you're just yanking my chain?!? lol

[antic604]

Yeah, sure. The same way one could say Reason has polyphonic audio pitch editing, because you can duplicate the audio clip to 2+ additional tracks and edit them separately. Or that it has transient detection sensitivity in slice mode, because one can manually remove or add transients. Or that it has MIDI comping, because you can record your takes into consecutive clips, then stack them up on separate tracks and use multi-track editing to comp them

Not following - I simply did not agree at all with your assertion there was only "one available" way in Reason.
I thought we were now in agreement there was more than one way if you count doing it "manually", which totally counts in my book.
But you seem to be qualifying that now, so not following your train of thought here...or you're just yanking my chain?!? lol

We agree it's possible manually in Reason.
I disagree Reason has that as a literal feature.

Any and all chain-janking would be followed by a relevant smiley

[cocoazenith]

Manually as in soloing each track and rendering the master [track count] times?

If that is the case I have a question. May be a noob question.

If you render one track at a time like this and the master has absolutely no effects activated on it, then the whole process will be completely transparent/unaltered and there will be no summing whatsoever, right?

The resulting stems will look and sound identical to those exported via the Bounce Mix Channel (Track Channel + Send Channel).

To sum it up (pun intended)...Is the master completely transparent/passthrough when left unaltered?

Hope i'm not reviving the age old discussion on Reason "coloration" with this

[selig]

Manually as in soloing each track and rendering the master [track count] times?

If that is the case I have a question. May be a noob question.

If you render one track at a time like this and the master has absolutely no effects activated on it, then the whole process will be completely transparent/unaltered and there will be no summing whatsoever, right?

The resulting stems will look and sound identical to those exported via the Bounce Mix Channel (Track Channel + Send Channel).

To sum it up (pun intended)...Is the master completely transparent/passthrough when left unaltered?

Hope i'm not reviving the age old discussion on Reason "coloration" with this

Not sure you understand Summing - when you add two things together you are “summing” (addition). You want to do this accurately, and luckily it’s easy to do with computers. So yes, summing in a DAW is transparent. If it adds color, you can be sure you’ll be charged for it since it’s a feature folks pay for in other DAWs! Likewise, if summing adds color it will be something that’s bragged about, not hidden away…

But your conclusion is correct, the master (and every other part of the signal path) is completely transparent when left at Unity with no additional processing. And yes, you are reviving the age old discussion, but that’s probably not a bad idea to do so every few years since the misinformation appears to be quite persistent IMO.

[cocoazenith]

Manually as in soloing each track and rendering the master [track count] times?

If that is the case I have a question. May be a noob question.

If you render one track at a time like this and the master has absolutely no effects activated on it, then the whole process will be completely transparent/unaltered and there will be no summing whatsoever, right?

The resulting stems will look and sound identical to those exported via the Bounce Mix Channel (Track Channel + Send Channel).

To sum it up (pun intended)...Is the master completely transparent/passthrough when left unaltered?

Hope i'm not reviving the age old discussion on Reason "coloration" with this

Not sure you understand Summing - when you add two things together you are “summing” (addition). You want to do this accurately, and luckily it’s easy to do with computers. So yes, summing in a DAW is transparent. If it adds color, you can be sure you’ll be charged for it since it’s a feature folks pay for in other DAWs! Likewise, if summing adds color it will be something that’s bragged about, not hidden away…

But your conclusion is correct, the master (and every other part of the signal path) is completely transparent when left at Unity with no additional processing. And yes, you are reviving the age old discussion, but that’s probably not a bad idea to do so every few years since the misinformation appears to be quite persistent IMO.

I used the term sum because there was some (mis)information on the internet which stated that playing an audio file rendered from the sum of all the tracks in a Reason project file (so the rendered master out/no effects) sounded different than playing separate bounced mix channel stems placed in an new project.

I am indeed reviving the old age discussion

[selig]

I used the term sum because there was some (mis)information on the internet which stated that playing an audio file rendered from the sum of all the tracks in a Reason project file (so the rendered master out/no effects) sounded different than playing separate bounced mix channel stems placed in an new project.

I am indeed reviving the old age discussion

There are SO many valid reasons why those COULD sound different. Many folks don't understand basic testing concepts, but to be fair there are a lot of variables in some cases and folks end up comparing " apples to oranges" and being surprised they sound different.
Back in 2016 I did this summing testing that proved (to me) that there is no difference in the audio path OR summing algorithm between Reason and Logic (the two I had available). So either these two are doing it right, or they're both doing it wrong!

[antic604]

Manually as in soloing each track and rendering the master [track count] times?

If that is the case I have a question. May be a noob question.

If you render one track at a time like this and the master has absolutely no effects activated on it, then the whole process will be completely transparent/unaltered...?

Depends on what's sitting on the FX track

Imagine you have 3 tracks, sending their signals to FX track which has an "analog modelled" delay, where the amount of coloration / saturation / distortion / filtering in the feedback path depends on the strength of the incoming signal.

If you bounce those 3 tracks and the FX channel (using the default way "Bounce Mix Channels" work) then the FX file will contain processing relevant for the sum of those 3 tracks. Summing back those 4 files - 3 tracks, 1 FX - will sound identical to how your project sounds.

However, if you go through your 3 tracks one-by-one, solo them and bounce (empty) Master, then each file will contain the FX processing relevant for that one track only. Summing those 3 files will NOT sound like the original mix, because it will have LESS coloration / saturation / distortion / filtering.

In other words, in case like this, FX(1+2+3) > [ FX(1) + FX(2) + FX(3) ]