Ableton Forum

I remaster each of my tracks so they sit well back to back regarding volume, EQ, etc. I stumbled on a tip that saves lots of CPU.

If you continually use the same track, why waste CPU complex warping it every time you play it? Now, when I remaster the AIFF, I warp it at the same time. So, the rendered AIFF is mastered and warped at the same time.

Now I use the new AIFF in my set. It doesn't even have to be warped every time you play it... it's already done! However, if you want to use markers, etc, just re-warp it in tones mode with a single warp marker at 1.1.1 at the warped tempo.

Cool idea but what do you use to remaster? Soundforge? I use wavlab but I am thinking of buying soundforge. I guess, I have not tried the demo yet. Whats better than wavlab? I use version 4 because I didn't want to upgrade to version 5 because the bulk of new features seemed to be centered on 5.0 surround which I'm not quite into yet.

I do not understand what you mean by rewarping a track repeatedly. Isn't it the case that once a track is warped, the warp marker placements stay in place as long as you have "auto warp long samples" off in preferences? Just trying to get on the same page with ya...

Not explaining myself very well...

By 'remaster' I mean applying a Live Effects Group of saturator, EQ, compression, and limiting to 'level' the relative volumes of tracks.

You're right about warping. Once it's done, it's done. What I meant was to say was that I incorporate the warping into the rendering when 'remastering', so that the computer doesn't have to do the warping number-crunching every time the track is played.

It's not intended to be 'pro' remastering by any stretch of the imagination, but it lets, for example, a Motown track sit next to a modern brickwalled hip-hop track a little better.

Hope that's clearer!

jms5881 wrote:Cool idea but what do you use to remaster? Soundforge? I use wavlab but I am thinking of buying soundforge. I guess, I have not tried the demo yet. Whats better than wavlab? I use version 4 because I didn't want to upgrade to version 5 because the bulk of new features seemed to be centered on 5.0 surround which I'm not quite into yet.

I do not understand what you mean by rewarping a track repeatedly. Isn't it the case that once a track is warped, the warp marker placements stay in place as long as you have "auto warp long samples" off in preferences? Just trying to get on the same page with ya...

I am also used to Wavelab but stayed with 4, 5 is not worth it. I tried Soundforge , not as good as Wavelab.
The best ist Master Samplitude, not that expensive like full version ( dont need 999 tracks) like Wavelab 2 tracks. List is 300 or something like that but I traced some online shops for 260 € It is definitely great deal, Samplitude is highest quality and I like the whole concept, intelligent and user friendly.

hambone1 wrote:I remaster each of my tracks so they sit well back to back regarding volume, EQ, etc. I stumbled on a tip that saves lots of CPU.

If you continually use the same track, why waste CPU complex warping it every time you play it? Now, when I remaster the AIFF, I warp it at the same time. So, the rendered AIFF is mastered and warped at the same time.

Now I use the new AIFF in my set. It doesn't even have to be warped every time you play it... it's already done! However, if you want to use markers, etc, just re-warp it in tones mode with a single warp marker at 1.1.1 at the warped tempo.

This is only useful if you plan on playing a track at a given tempo and have no intentions of changing that tempo.

Every time you wanted to play the track at a different tempo, you'd have to do this again.

This is only for tracks that are always played at the rendered tempo. All of the loops are left to complex warping during the performance.

psilosly wrote:Every time you wanted to play the track at a different tempo, you'd have to do this again.

In this case you can use the original, "asd-referenced" track.

I got hambone's idea and it helps me as I run at cpu edge quite often. But I never thought of compiling the original track Good hint.

does the quality difference between .wav and .aiff is audible when you remaster at soundforge or wavelab after exporting from live?

Yeah, I noticed the Operator instrument is quite hard on the CPU. I may try a dry mix down of the instrument, as the FX need to be live for me.

"By 'remaster' I mean applying a Live Effects Group of saturator, EQ, compression, and limiting to 'level' the relative volumes of tracks.

You're right about warping. Once it's done, it's done. What I meant was to say was that I incorporate the warping into the rendering when 'remastering', so that the computer doesn't have to do the warping number-crunching every time the track is played. "

Sorry, but do you just mean using "render to disk" to render the audio? That does automatically render with the audio warped... right?

Yep. I drag in a track, tweak the Audio Effects Group (my poor-man's remastering), warp it, then Render to Disk.

Drag the resulting rendered file back into Live, hit warp, and you'll notice there's only a single warp marker at 1.1.1. Now you can play it back with CPU-light tones or texture mode, which can still tolerate minor tempo changes without noticeable artifacts.

Most of my tracks I always play at the original tempo anyway, apart from when transitioning between tracks with different tempos. If they differ radically, I launch a loop (sometimes to the rear of the room only), fade the loop in, fade out the first track, speed up/slow down the percussion loop until it matches the incoming track, then launch and fade in the new track. I'll leave the loop in complex mode because of the accelerando/ritardando, or if it's percussive, in beats mode.