Acoustic drums: separate tracks for every part - yes or no?

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
Post Reply
User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

27 Apr 2023

I'm porting a drum track from Steven Slate's SSD5 to Reason Drum Kits. SSD5 has map-able outputs, so every drum instrument can have its output routed separate to the mixer. It also has overheads and a room section. RDK, on the other hand, has only a subset of the instruments available as separate outputs, although it does have overheads (for the cymbals) and room. As I want to export stems and do mixdown in a separate project, I prefer individual stems for each part of the drum kit.

Real acoustic kits are being recorded, in most cases, with mics placed according to the outputs available on RDK. So, it does seem to be sufficient. However, being able to balance and/or process separate parts (especially cymbals) during mixdown looks to be useful.

If you are using (sampled) acoustic drums, how do you go about this?
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

27 Apr 2023

In digital audio, you can really do what you want. Traditionally it’s near impossible to isolate cymbals on a real drum kit so that gets captured by overheads. If you wish to process cymbals separately from that you can, but keep in mind for certain sounds it may break the cohesion that may be there as it’s picked up in the other mics. This may work perfectly fine for the song you happen to be working on though.

User avatar
MarkTarlton
Posts: 795
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

27 Apr 2023

If the option is there I like to have overheads and room mics separated along with each drum so I can balance and process without affecting the other sources.... for example, if you're compressing the room mics heavy, and need to low pass some of the cymbal harshness out, you're not losing the crispness of the high end of the cymbals because you have that covered with the overhead mics which can be processed differently.

Kick and snare will get their own processing, usually they are the most important for me, I want control of shaping those elements without compromising too much of the other sources. Same goes for toms.

in a perfect world I like to record drums, and than overdub cymbals so I have the most control for heavy processing and balancing.You can smash the drums without making the cymbals go crazy. Or if that isn't your thang, you still have complete isolation which makes life a little easier, assuming you have a good enough drummer to do that :) BUT we're talking sampled drums, so whatever slate has I'd try and stay faithful to the original files provided without making "stems" so you don't paint yourself in a corner when it comes time to mix.

WarStar
Posts: 296
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Contact:

27 Apr 2023

Yes, if you have stems.. gives you way more control than one stereo file..

User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

28 Apr 2023

QVprod wrote:
27 Apr 2023
In digital audio, you can really do what you want. Traditionally it’s near impossible to isolate cymbals on a real drum kit so that gets captured by overheads.
That is obvious, but...
QVprod wrote:
27 Apr 2023
If you wish to process cymbals separately from that you can...
The point is that with Reason Drum Kits, you cannot. It doesn't have the separate outputs for individual cymbals.
QVprod wrote:
27 Apr 2023
but keep in mind for certain sounds it may break the cohesion that may be there as it’s picked up in the other mics.
If you have separate outs for everything, you can simply recreate overheads and room signals. In that case, you can even create a close room and a far room, which is often done with drum recording in pro studios. This is impossible without separate outputs.
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

28 Apr 2023

crimsonwarlock wrote:
28 Apr 2023
QVprod wrote:
27 Apr 2023
In digital audio, you can really do what you want. Traditionally it’s near impossible to isolate cymbals on a real drum kit so that gets captured by overheads.
That is obvious, but...
QVprod wrote:
27 Apr 2023
If you wish to process cymbals separately from that you can...
The point is that with Reason Drum Kits, you cannot. It doesn't have the separate outputs for individual cymbals.
QVprod wrote:
27 Apr 2023
but keep in mind for certain sounds it may break the cohesion that may be there as it’s picked up in the other mics.
If you have separate outs for everything, you can simply recreate overheads and room signals. In that case, you can even create a close room and a far room, which is often done with drum recording in pro studios. This is impossible without separate outputs.
For audio recording most engineers are just doing overheads and room which is why most virtual drums mainly have the mics available as outputs. Sure you can sort of simulate a room and overheads but why do all the extra work if it was captured well in the first place? I recall watching an interview of the engineer who recorded Chop Suey. Cymbals were recorded separately, and the end result is great in the song, but he said it was a pain to mix.

Sorry if I misread, but I thought you just wanted opinions, didn’t realize you specifically looking for a RDK solution. In which case you actually can separate the cymbals by triggering them in separate instances of the same patch. Or you can explode the midi and bounce to track just the cymbals.

User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

28 Apr 2023

MarkTarlton wrote:
27 Apr 2023
in a perfect world I like to record drums, and than overdub cymbals so I have the most control for heavy processing and balancing.
Agreed. So, why is this not possible with Reason Drum kits (or similar plugins), while SSD5 does have this option.
MarkTarlton wrote:
27 Apr 2023
BUT we're talking sampled drums, so whatever slate has I'd try and stay faithful to the original files provided without making "stems" so you don't paint yourself in a corner when it comes time to mix.
The point is, with SSD5 I actually CAN export stems without problems because I will have separated stems for everything. With RDK I won't have separate stems for cymbals, so I can't. It means that I have to commit to a cymbal mix during tracking (and into a stem) that I don't have full control over during mixdown. Besides all this, it is common practice to mix with stems. There are many reasons to do that, like preserving CPU power or doing mixdown in another DAW.

To make things clear, I'm moving away from VST plugins as much as possible, including SSD5 (for too many reasons to go into here). So far, it seems that RDK isn't up to the task, although I do like how it sounds.
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

28 Apr 2023

QVprod wrote:
28 Apr 2023
Sure you can sort of simulate a room and overheads but why do all the extra work if it was captured well in the first place?
That is indeed the question. If the cymbals are balanced in the overhead mix, why do all the hassle.
QVprod wrote:
28 Apr 2023
I recall watching an interview of the engineer who recorded Chop Suey. Cymbals were recorded separately, and the end result is great in the song, but he said it was a pain to mix.
In SSD5 you actually "mix" the cymbals into the overhead channel, and it isn't a problem at all, it gives greater control.
QVprod wrote:
28 Apr 2023
Sorry if I misread, but I thought you just wanted opinions, didn’t realize you specifically looking for a RDK solution. In which case you actually can separate the cymbals by triggering them in separate instances of the same patch. Or you can explode the midi and bounce to track just the cymbals.
I'm asking for opinions :puf_smile:

An RDK specific solution is an option. What you propose here is actually a useful idea. I could setup a combinator for that. I'm also building a solution with Kong to see where I get with that, but it is a lot of work. The question (for opinions :puf_wink: ) is whether it is worth the work to get this. Basically, the issue that I perceive is that I might have to go back to the tracking stage to redo the cymbal balance. But my perception of this issue might be entirely wrong, and there aren't any possible issues with individual cymbals during mixing. So yes, opinions :puf_bigsmile:
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

28 Apr 2023

crimsonwarlock wrote:
28 Apr 2023
QVprod wrote:
28 Apr 2023
Sure you can sort of simulate a room and overheads but why do all the extra work if it was captured well in the first place?
That is indeed the question. If the cymbals are balanced in the overhead mix, why do all the hassle.
QVprod wrote:
28 Apr 2023
I recall watching an interview of the engineer who recorded Chop Suey. Cymbals were recorded separately, and the end result is great in the song, but he said it was a pain to mix.
In SSD5 you actually "mix" the cymbals into the overhead channel, and it isn't a problem at all, it gives greater control.
QVprod wrote:
28 Apr 2023
Sorry if I misread, but I thought you just wanted opinions, didn’t realize you specifically looking for a RDK solution. In which case you actually can separate the cymbals by triggering them in separate instances of the same patch. Or you can explode the midi and bounce to track just the cymbals.
I'm asking for opinions :puf_smile:

An RDK specific solution is an option. What you propose here is actually a useful idea. I could setup a combinator for that. I'm also building a solution with Kong to see where I get with that, but it is a lot of work. The question (for opinions :puf_wink: ) is whether it is worth the work to get this. Basically, the issue that I perceive is that I might have to go back to the tracking stage to redo the cymbal balance. But my perception of this issue might be entirely wrong, and there aren't any possible issues with individual cymbals during mixing. So yes, opinions :puf_bigsmile:
I will say some of the Drum VIs tend not to get the overhead mixes perfect, or it could be just really hard to account for the inconsistency of programmed midi vs drum velocity from a real drummer. The cymbal mix in plugins is likely to compensate for that. It’s different than isolating cymbals on recording a real kit, but fair enough that negates my cohesion statement as far as virtual drums go.

I think the answer if it’s worth it is it depends. How do you intend to process the stems. Say if you want to squash the room mics, then it might be better to have the cymbals included in that.

User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

28 Apr 2023

QVprod wrote:
28 Apr 2023
I think the answer if it’s worth it is it depends. How do you intend to process the stems. Say if you want to squash the room mics, then it might be better to have the cymbals included in that.
This is exactly how I perceive the possible problem. If I don't have separate signals, I have to commit to certain things in the tracking stage that I can't change during mixing. By the way, this is not only about cymbals. RDK also doesn't have separate outputs for the toms (even the floor tom is batched with the rack toms :shock: ). I'm already thinking about your solution with separate RDK instances, with just two instances I can have everything (cymbals and toms) separate :thumbup:
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
DaveyG
Posts: 2499
Joined: 03 May 2020

28 Apr 2023

The big question is why do you want to port from SSD5 to RDK? RDK is just not in the same league so it would be a backwards step. You'll spend lots of time doing it and get worse results.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

28 Apr 2023

WarStar wrote:
27 Apr 2023
Yes, if you have stems.. gives you way more control than one stereo file..
Yes, and individual tracks will give you even more control than stems!
;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

28 Apr 2023

DaveyG wrote:
28 Apr 2023
The big question is why do you want to port from SSD5 to RDK?
Basically, I'm moving to a Reason-only setup because I hate all the individual license management stuff that most VST plugins come with. Additionally, SSD5 is indeed crazy powerful, but it is also very particular in what is installed where and tends to stop working if you move the actual plugin to another location on your system. Setting up dedicated VST directories for Reason killed it immediately, and it was a drag to get it working again.

Within the Reason RE ecosystem, RDK is the closest thing afaics. Although it appears that building acoustic kits in Kong gets me closer to SSD5 territory.
selig wrote:
28 Apr 2023
WarStar wrote:
27 Apr 2023
Yes, if you have stems.. gives you way more control than one stereo file..
Yes, and individual tracks will give you even more control than stems!
;)
Aren't stems the same as individual tracks? I mean, I export the individual tracks as stems. What am I missing here?
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
DaveyG
Posts: 2499
Joined: 03 May 2020

28 Apr 2023

crimsonwarlock wrote:
28 Apr 2023
Aren't stems the same as individual tracks?
No, or yes, depending upon who you ask!. It seems to be increasingly common (incorrectly imo) to describe individually rendered tracks as stems. Stems should typically be a bunch of sub-mixes, typically one for each main element of the song (guitar, vox, drums etc) but there are no hard and fast rules. The objective is to reduce dozens (or hundreds!) of tracks into a handful of more manageable things, each mixed down in a sensible way so you can mix them further or hand them to someone else to remix.

User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

28 Apr 2023

DaveyG wrote:
28 Apr 2023
crimsonwarlock wrote:
28 Apr 2023
Aren't stems the same as individual tracks?
No, or yes, depending upon who you ask!. It seems to be increasingly common (incorrectly imo) to describe individually rendered tracks as stems. Stems should typically be a bunch of sub-mixes, typically one for each main element of the song (guitar, vox, drums etc) but there are no hard and fast rules. The objective is to reduce dozens (or hundreds!) of tracks into a handful of more manageable things, each mixed down in a sensible way so you can mix them further or hand them to someone else to remix.
My understanding is that stems are the equivalent of tracks on a multitrack tape. The mixing engineer mixes from what's available, being it multitracks or exported stems from a DAW. That can mean that everything is on its own track/channel/stem, or that certain things are grouped, like with a bus-structure. In the tape-days, stuff was sub-mixed to stereo (or even mono) when there were not enough tracks available to do everything on a separate track. But with DAWs becoming ever more powerful, I think that stem-ing only busses is already pretty rare these days.
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
MarkTarlton
Posts: 795
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

28 Apr 2023

when you're talking drum stems, they are the equivalent of more than one audio track sub-mixed to a new stereo or mono audio track(combined elements). Example - Top snare and bottom snare summed together, and bounced or printed would qualify as a stem.

A lot of newer engineers will refer to stems as individual tracks , but in my opinion that is the wrong terminology since the term has been around for a long time from the analog days. A job most assistants would do at the end of a session would be to print the stems so you could easily rebuild the mix at a later time.

I would say you can call an individual mono source track, or stereo track a stem if processing was being used, for example - say on channel 1 you have a vocal, and you decide to parallel process it wit a reverb and delay, those elements all combined to a different channel or bounced to a new file would qualify as a stem, so that the effects are baked into the new bounce, than you could call it a stem even though it's a mono track...make sense?

User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

28 Apr 2023

MarkTarlton wrote:
28 Apr 2023
when you're talking drum stems, they are the equivalent of more than one audio track sub-mixed to a new stereo or mono audio track(combined elements). Example - Top snare and bottom snare summed together, and bounced or printed would qualify as a stem.

A lot of newer engineers will refer to stems as individual tracks , but in my opinion that is the wrong terminology since the term has been around for a long time from the analog days. A job most assistants would do at the end of a session would be to print the stems so you could easily rebuild the mix at a later time.
I've watched a lot of mixing sessions by Warren Huart, who I would certainly not classify as a "newer" engineer, and he definitely comes from the "analog days". He calls the audio files that are used for mixing "stems" and often the snare top and bottom are still separate in the mix session.
MarkTarlton wrote:
28 Apr 2023
I would say you can call an individual mono source track, or stereo track a stem if processing was being used, for example - say on channel 1 you have a vocal, and you decide to parallel process it wit a reverb and delay, those elements all combined to a different channel or bounced to a new file would qualify as a stem, so that the effects are baked into the new bounce, than you could call it a stem even though it's a mono track...make sense?
It makes sense. Because that is exactly what I call a stem. During tracking there is always processing done on each track, so exported tracks do have processing "printed". Same as in the "analog days" when we (yes we, I was around then, check my signature :puf_wink: ) used to do as much during tracking (recording) so we could re-use the available processing equipment again for other things during mixing. My current setup for vocals is still like that, recording through a hardware vocal chain processor before it hits the DAW. Reason Drum Kits have processing for each instrument (comp, EQ, distortion) before it hits the mixer. Exporting those channels to audio will print these FX, so that qualifies as processing as well, making it fit your definition of stems.
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

29 Apr 2023

crimsonwarlock wrote:
28 Apr 2023
Aren't stems the same as individual tracks? I mean, I export the individual tracks as stems. What am I missing here?
Not at all the same thing, though they are related very often confused - I thought the joke would be obvious. It’s becoming the “I’m an old guy” meme to point out the difference! Part of the problem likely comes from the mixed metaphors - If tracks were called “leafs” then maybe “stems” would make far more sense…

Stems come from the film world, where individual tracks are sub-mixed into FX, Music, and Dialog stems. Stems in music would be Drums, Keys, vocals, guitars. In a mixer we call these ‘sub-mixes’, and then use “stems” for the exported audio files. DJs can use stems for re-mixing tracks live, as one example. They are also sometimes used in mastering and for archiving (allowing record labels the ability to easily remix tracks, for better or for worse).

Tracks come from multi-track tape machines. If you are mixing a song and ask for stems you’ll get what I described above, but if you ask for the multi-tracks you’ll get the individual tracks as they were recorded. Assuming you’re talking to someone who understands the history, I guess!
That said, you MAY get all the drums on one track if that’s how they were recorded (on an old 4 track recording, for example).

So tracks represent the most ‘granular’ version of the recording available, and stems can represent any pre-mixed version of those tracks. However, the more the terms get misused, the more confusion there can be. I have received stems when requesting tracks for mixing because of the assumption they were the same thing. Not a deal breaker, just a time waster - and also confusing when trying to answer folks on audio forums… IMO it’s a shame since both terms are very useful/unique and already clarify exactly what you mean in both cases. If they begin to mean the same thing then we will eventually need a NEW term(s) for on or the other, or both, really…

Here is a good explanation IMO:
https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/stems- ... rence.html#
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

29 Apr 2023

selig wrote:
29 Apr 2023
I thought the joke would be obvious.
Fair enough. But I thought my issue was also obvious...
crimsonwarlock wrote:
27 Apr 2023
As I want to export stems and do mixdown in a separate project, I prefer individual stems for each part of the drum kit.
So, your joke didn't take my original question into account. Any confusion about the terminology didn't invalidate my question. The topic title even says "tracks". I've learned a lot from you here on the forum and your livestreams, and I was actually hoping you would chime in with some ideas about the topic. But never mind, QVprod came up with a great solution :thumbup:
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
DaveyG
Posts: 2499
Joined: 03 May 2020

29 Apr 2023

crimsonwarlock wrote:
28 Apr 2023

My understanding is that stems are the equivalent of tracks on a multitrack tape.
Your understanding is wrong. :thumbup:

User avatar
crimsonwarlock
Posts: 2244
Joined: 06 Nov 2021
Location: Close to the Edge

30 Apr 2023

DaveyG wrote:
29 Apr 2023
crimsonwarlock wrote:
28 Apr 2023

My understanding is that stems are the equivalent of tracks on a multitrack tape.
Your understanding is wrong. :thumbup:
OK, let's put it another way. For example, you sub-mix several backing vocals down to two tracks on multitrack tape. This would qualify as a "stem" for every definition given by others here in this discussion (sub-mix, processing, etc.). Now you have some tracks on your tape that qualify as stems, and some tracks that are just the initial recordings. If you say these are the tracks, then you are wrong because there are also stems in there. If you say they are stems, then (as you say) you are wrong again because there are non-stem tracks in there. So if you give this to someone else (for mixing or whatever), you have to say "here are some tracks and some stems". This will only add to the confusion and probably the reason I've NEVER heard anyone describe it that way. So now you have to choose to say tracks or say stems. And because back in the "analog days" we had limited tracks, the larger part of these tracks would have sub-mixes and therefor be stems. And tmo that is the reason that people call them stems, as an umbrella term for tracks, no matter if there are a bunch of direct recorded tracks in there that might technically not be seen as stems.

So, that's why I say that my understanding is that stems are the equivalent of tracks on a multitrack tape because in the "analog days" many or even most of those tracks were in fact sub-mixes and therefore stems. I would even say that almost everything recorded on less than 24 tracks (meaning 16 and down) resulted in only having stems in the end. I don't think people (including myself) are using the term wrong, I think it is how the term is used today: to point to the rsulting/exported final versions of the recorded tracks.

By the way, in Reaper (that I used for over a decade) exporting tracks is called "stems", and in all those years I've seen nobody on the Reaper forums calling out for this to be wrong :puf_wink:
-------
Analog tape ⇒ ESQ1 sequencer board ⇒ Atari/Steinberg Pro24 ⇒ Atari/Cubase ⇒ Cakewalk Sonar ⇒ Orion Pro/Platinum ⇒ Reaper ⇒ Reason DAW.

User avatar
ljekio
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Jan 2015

30 Apr 2023

I try different options for layered drums. Until I realized what sounds more transparent and what is more solid. Mix different kicks and snares on a common drum bus or to make buses for each element (BD, SD, HH, etc) and then bring it all to a common drum channel.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

15 Jun 2023

crimsonwarlock wrote:
29 Apr 2023
selig wrote:
29 Apr 2023
I thought the joke would be obvious.
Fair enough. But I thought my issue was also obvious...
crimsonwarlock wrote:
27 Apr 2023
As I want to export stems and do mixdown in a separate project, I prefer individual stems for each part of the drum kit.
So, your joke didn't take my original question into account. Any confusion about the terminology didn't invalidate my question. The topic title even says "tracks". I've learned a lot from you here on the forum and your livestreams, and I was actually hoping you would chime in with some ideas about the topic. But never mind, QVprod came up with a great solution :thumbup:
Sorry, I assumed "more control" answered the question, while admitting it was hardly answered not directly.
I've always preferred the main drum track to be delivered with each instrument on a separate track. But additional drum loops can be a stem such as what you get when using a REX loop.
Bottom line, I want the most granular version of the tracks possible when mixing.
Selig Audio, LLC

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests