Exporting/rendering all tracks with send effects printed

[mholloway]

I know this is probably not too helpful, but I respectfully suggest that maybe you should re-consider why you feel this kind of workflow is necessary for you, because the function you are asking for doesn't exist in any single DAW out there. I'm all for experimentation and "breaking the rules" in this field, but it seems like in this particular case you're just making a pretty big headache for yourself. You want a single return channel to basically act as if it were multiple channels, one for each regular channel that is sending material to it, so that this information can ultimately be sent back to the original channels independently. Unfortunately, nobody's return channels are quite that flexible/complicated.

I get what you're trying to achieve; but most of this issue simply stems from the desire to use sends in one program but ultimately mix your tracks in another program; right there your dual approach is a bit awkward, because using sends is generally considered part of mixing; in other words, the way you are choosing to divide up your workflow is mostly responsible for why you're encountering this rather idiosyncratic problem.


edit: I might be way off here; was checking into Cubase's export options and though I can't seem confirm it, it looks like -maybe- it does what you're talking about. interesting, for sure! take or leave above comments!


-M

[merges]

I agree with you in principle—in fact, I am doing my mixing in Live. It's that I want to export "mixed" stems for chopping up and using in live performance. Very much something Live should be accommodating to. I think many people would agree it's a known amorphous/ambiguous process, a weakness in Live's user experience/workflow (moving from arrangements/compositions to a given live performance setup).

Anyway yea I think it's totally technically feasible, because of how simple it is. It might make renders ridiculously long, but I stand by my assertion that it should be an option. I haven't had a chance to try the other solutions mentioned here but I will give them a shot too!

[bicarbone]

don't use sends, use inserts instead?

[salatspinatra]

Just skimming, (teaching myself about Resampling) but how about freezing the track then digging in the browser for your processed folder and then dragging that track file back out?

[auditory canvas]

One way around it is to export all dry stems, then set up the same return tracks in your live set, and use clip automation to send the required amount per clip to the relevant sends. That way you can make adjustments to each clip whenever you want to without having to go and create new clips/stems.

I do this for reverb and delay in my live show set, so I don't have to keep tabs on the send levels for each track's effects when I change clips/songs.

[onestophits]

Umm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to do, but, if you want to export all your tracks with effects/enhancements on them, why not just omit using return tracks, mix/enhance each track however you see fit, freeze and flatten all of them, and then bounce?

[mholloway]

Umm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to do, but, if you want to export all your tracks with effects/enhancements on them, why not just omit using return tracks, mix/enhance each track however you see fit, freeze and flatten all of them, and then bounce?

because insert FX are not the same as send FX, that's why. Inserts operate Serially, and sends operate in parallel. If you want to put a Reverb onto a track as an insert, you will be stuck with a dry/wet mix on the verb -- the more wet, the less dry, etc. Half the point of a Send is that you can adjust the amount of signal going into the verb, while keeping your original signal (the channel volume itself) exactly the same. That's the difference between serial and parallel processing. That said, you -can- set up the same results with an insert, but you have to Rack the insert, create a 'dry' chain and a 'wet' chain, put the verb on the wet chain set to 100% wet as though it were a send, and then control the volume of the wet channel to determine how much of the verb you want to hear. It'd be a pain (which is what the OP is trying to avoid) but technically speaking if replicated all your used Send FX within parallel racks like this for every channel (ughh...) you could bypass using returns altogether for the mixdown.

[merges]

Yes, as mholloway points out sends/returns and inserts are different. I often want to use the same effects on multiple tracks. S/R are perfect for this, and for preserving the dry signal. If I have 30 tracks and want to change a single parameter in a reverb, for instance, it is not really a good solution to have to manually change it manually on all 30 tracks…

[kaluza01]

I apologize for resurrecting such and old topic but I am wondering if anyone knows if Live 10 will address this issue.

Exporting 15-20 stems is common for the work I do and it is a PAIN to have to export each group so all of the FX and Mastering chain get printed. Many times I have incredibly tight deadlines and it can be 1-2hours of exporting time.

I don't think there could be a more useful function to me than to be able to export all of my groups/stems at once.

Thank you

[kaluza01]

Thank you. Unfortunately I'm not part of the Beta testing program but I will check this out. I wish more people would talk about this function but I have the feeling it's not important to anyone not working with stems on a regular basis.

[yur2die4]

I don't understand why people would try to get individual parts of the send return structure separated. That by its very nature changes the character of what it would be like if you had the combination of all the sounds.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to get 'only' the outputs of the return tracks as a summed whole from the original tracks?

Some return fx might have qualities to them which change based on the overall amplitude of the audio. So when you have a few elements added in contrast to something busier, the effect might have drastically different behavior and would not sound the way it did when it was originally mixed. So when you pipe individual channels through what you otherwise pipe a sum of channels through, I'd imagine that gets messy.

But.... if it is working out. Who am I to judge.

[kaluza01]

The main problem is that i work on projects where the editors want anywhere from 10-20 stems of my track. And they want them to have the FX — both return and master chain — printed on these so that with a few volume adjustments on the editor's end, they can have my final mix with the stems at their fingertips. If i use the current RENDER TRACK - INDIVIDUAL TRACKS or SELECTED TRACKS, the FX will not get printed and they will sound nothing like in the mix.

Yes, technically the sum of all these stems when dragged into a new project will not equal the mix (I have heard mastering engineers say they are ways to actually do this but it's a very laborious process) but again, some volume tweaking and the job is done. Besides, this is why the editors are asking for the stems in the first place: to have complete control of the mix.

By the way, I can honestly say this: sometimes in my projects I will have incredibly tight deadlines where after doing revisions, editors and studios will need new stems in a matter of 30-45 minutes. With how Ableton works right now, the process of manually having to render/bounce each stem out of 20 or more, takes a very LONG time. It's so stressful. I have missed deadlines because of this.

If only they could get rendered all at once...a man can dream...a man can dream.

[Stromkraft]

I don't understand why people would try to get individual parts of the send return structure separated. That by its very nature changes the character of what it would be like if you had the combination of all the sounds.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to get 'only' the outputs of the return tracks as a summed whole from the original tracks?

Yes, certainly but I think maybe what most producers want is to be able to easily get a) individual tracks not going to a buss, b)the busses and c) returns out to their own tracks in one go. That is all tracks, but omitting d) tracks going to a buss. With these a mix can be recreated in another DAW, more or less faithfully with some minor adjustments.

What you can do now is to export all tracks, which give you both empty files (from non-playing tracks) and potentially doubles depending on your buss structure. You can't use selected tracks for one single export as you can't select both regular tracks and the returns. You have to go twice, so forget live playing in real time on exports.

The main obstacle is, if you're using master buss processing — in my case "Main Buss" do all that — then other busses won't pick up that processing, which will render something likely quite different unless that master buss processing can't be recreated in the new project, possibly in another DAW.

And to get back to the original post, if you expect to be able to export what is actually not heard in your mix, you should maybe think a little more and export track by track. As if exporting what is heard isn't hard enough. I suggest with get the later working first.

[Stromkraft]

What the OP (and I on Centercode) are asking for, is the ability to have both ways done easily :)

Something like "batch export selected tracks with effects". I can see that, but I also feel this is so somewhat futile as the mix wouldn't really be sound the same anyway and if you're mixing in another DAW, then maybe you should use Live effects.

I'm all for improving the export possibilities, but I'd suggest being able to export what is actually there easily first. I seriously doubt many producers would prefer this with exporting individual tracks with effects as the whole idea to separate the effects is actually separation, not fusion.

On the other hand I do understand the need as I go up against that "export stem busses with master buss processing" from time to time. It doesn't take long time to export each stem trough the master buss though. Now, if I was producing a 200+ tracks score, this might not be sufficient.