Basis Bounce To Track Question

Just when I think I'm gettin it I'm stumped again.

I've attached a pic of 4 tracks. The first 2 are 2 mics recording a conga drum. I have mixed them and blended the two tracks and now I want a single mono track so I can compress, reverb, EQ etc. and try and get a nice conga sound.

So I select the two tracks, hit bounce to track and I get the two lower mono tracks. I bounced the tracks twice is why there are two lower tracks, one dithered and one without.

My question and I'm sure this is really basic is why does it look like those bottom two tracks are peaking so badly?

I suspect it has something to do with summing? Dithering had no effect.

I don't remember audio signals 'adding up' like this but maybe that's the way it's always worked?

It doesn't look like they QUITE peak over but still I would like to learn about the phenomenon.

I would have said off the top of my head that 2 identical tracks sum to +3dB.

I'm not trying to question... maybe I'm questioning myself? Do you have a reference handy so I can brush up on the details?

Humblenoise, regardless of that... do you know much about pan laws? I can't see the interleave buttons on your track view... where did they go??? so it's hard to guess how pan laws might apply to your situation.

best regards,
mike

Yes, I record with multiple mics frequently... but this really isn't much different than bussing multiple tracks either.

It seems like you are observing basic summing... I'm still curious about Brundlefly and my differing thoughts but at least you should expect a 3dB boost simply by summing the two tracks.

It's pretty routine to bring down the levels of each track as your track count goes up.

But, on top of that basic issue you may also have a pan law misunderstanding happening.

Now the we know what your interleave is set at... we need to find out what you pan law is set at.

I haven't looked for that in X1 but you should go fiund it and let us now what it's set on.

Then we will refer to a chart made by altima_boy_2001 many years ago which shows all the unexpected arbitrary things that happen when you bounce with different laws.

http://harmoniccycle.com/...NAR/Sonar-pan-laws.pdf

You may find that in addition to the expected summing that a pan law circumstance is causing further gain.

best regards,
mike

I think I steered you in the wrong direction.

You'll want to choose a pan law and then mix TO it.

I looked at the chart and see that if you are going to mono to mono it should have no effect on any pan law.

The reason there are so many pan law choices available is to match the specific of any other hardware or software that you might also mix through. It's a nice touch that can make a studio operation a bit more consistent in all it's output methods.

0 dB Center, Balance Control is a very common choice for people that are not trying to match a piece of hardware or some other DAW.

I suggest you use that until you have some other strong reason to choose another.





All of this brings me back to this most basic idea. Turn down the levels of your constituent tracks as the track count increases. It is a routine procedure and entirely normal.

SONAR's 64 bit engine will not clip with just 2 tracks but a 24 or 32 bit render/bounce may clip easily.

I think that may be why you are surprised... it probably didn't sound clipped until you bounced it.

Let me know if you need further clarification.

best regards,
mike

Thanks Brundlefly!!!

I never saw that thread... I would have remembered.

As you probably know, my back ground is analog audio and I guess the 3dB convention is all we learned.

We used to stack our PA boxes at center stage on disco night just to make everything louder.

all the best,
mike


Humblenoise, the conclusion is the same... turn down your track levels to taste.

I often run the live view waveform on my buses simply to see the clipping happening at an early opportunity.

best regards,
mike

I also see I was bouncing 'entire mix' with levels set too high. I THINK I'm beginning to understand a little more.

thanks for your help Mike, brundle