Or, is it just a workflow killer which affects the outcome of the project?
For example, I use a 6 year old AMD processor, quad core, 32 bit, 4GB Ram, Windows 7 with no solid state drives. I find these days that my system continuously bogs down and I am forced to evaluate and make decisions because of the constraints that develop during a project dependent on its size and the type soft synths used. The kinds of things I need to consider are:

• which tracks to freeze or bounce to claw back as much processing power I can
• which tracks I can afford not to freeze or bounce because they need further work, and
• which plug in’s to use depending on how hard they hit the CPU.

It’s like reading about the old days when they recorded with a limited number of tracks and how they needed to regularly bounce and I’m thinking there was quite a bit of thought process and skill behind that.
 
I don’t want to continue with the poor workflow for much longer.  It is a pain but due to the constraints I face it has forced me to learn more about the power and features of Sonar and the soft synths I own which I think has helped me become a better mixer.

In a perfect utopian digital world , we would all have super computers ....
 
Just so you know I do get where you are coming from exactly ...
The Les Paul in my avatar list for close to 6 grand ...sometimes I love to play my cheap a$$ed  Strat
back to computers
The lap top I do most of my main composing / woodsheding  on is what I call a placeholder computer ...
The environment is cut back to the bone ...
I only have SPlat , Samplitude Pro X 2 , Mixbus 3 .6 , Traction 7 and a couple of other programs I use for transcribing music ,,,,on it
I have no 3 rd party synth packages , or much in the way of 3 rd party plugs on it w the exception of T Racks and a couple of guitar amp sims ....plus some Blue Cat and Melda Free on this thing
I absolutely love working with this computer because I don't have to wade through 25 thousand presets of a bunch of stuff I'm never gonna use anyway ....
 
My other Win computer is the total opposite ...it has all the bells , whistles and 3 rd party synths and plugs on it ...
I won't lie and say I don't like having all the extra tools , the thing is even the basic install of SPlat has more than most real recording studios from back in my era when I was doing sessions in NYC ....
48 tracks back then was a big deal ...
 
FWIW I like to sit down and have a wide open space to create in ..the less distractions the better ,,,,
I don't get inspired by someone elses presets , samples or sounds ...I like to create my own as often as I can
Same goes for plugs ...if you know how to use one compressor correctly you know how to use just about all of them
correctly ...
So having said that I have chosen to do a lot of  my grunt work on my lesser machine ,,,and to tell you the truth there is nothing stopping me from bringing the project over to the bigger computer if I think I need something done over there ......
It ain't no big thing ...if I had somebody standing over my shoulder on the clock ...it would be different....
What you are talking about is learning how to use what you have ...IMHO , that is a good foundation to build up from ...
I remember a couple of the weekly tips that Craig posted ....more than a few were workflows I had yet to learn ...
It wouldn't have mattered what computer I was on ...what mattered was I tried to learn them and once I did it didn't matter what computer I was on it was all about Mission Accomplished
all the best ,
 
Kenny
 
 
 
 
 

Hi Kenny and thanks for the great response.  We differ in so many ways. Firstly, I am a hobbyist and you have worked professionally in NYC.  Secondly, you have quite the arsenal to create music and mine is limited on the technical side and of course talent but I do have a good collection of guitars. Thirdly, you don’t like presets and I rely on them extensively. I love to lay down a basic rhythm and then surf presets to find the ones that match and from there it provides further inspiration. Or, I have the vocal and rhythm and seek out other presets to enhance the song. I wish I had the time to create my own but I truly benefit from the talents and creativity of others and I that’s what I look for when purchasing a product.
 
I start to suffer around the 15 to 20 track mark dependant on the plug in’s, plugged in. Even in your days of 48 tracks in NYC seems like a luxury. I will be buying a high spec PC in the New Year and I think I need to keep pace of the technology if I want to produce better music.

OK MCi, now I get where you are coming from ...
 
When I first read your opening post I thought it was about simulating an environment where you wanted to learn how to mix VIA an Old School approach ...
I didn't realize your computer was the main issue as to what is holding you back ....
 
Yeah , it sounds like you need a new computer . In the mean time  I wouldn't let that stop you .....
 
You can work around that pretty easy for now 
Here's a couple of things you can do if you are still interested in what I have to say ...
(all of these approaches I have done when I was in a similar position as yours ...)
 

MCi
 

• which tracks to freeze or bounce to claw back as much processing power I can

 
Since the track is frozen you now have all the rendered sounds and effects already on you track ...
I discovered a long time ago that when you freeze a track you can still edit the actual rendered frozen file...
By that I mean you can slice , dice , copy and paste sections of the track all over the place ...
the only rub is once the track is unfrozen you loose all your edits ....
 
What I used to like to do was to open up another new project in SONAR , set the new project to the tempo of the song I was working on and then copy my frozen track over to the new project in the correct place in the time line
The beauty in that was kept my parent project as it was and my child project of the song was a clean fresh start that had lot's of CPU on tap ...
If you happen to be freezing a lot of tracks in you project you may consider add this tech to your work flow ..
 

MCi
 

• which tracks I can afford not to freeze or bounce because they need further work,

Well if your working on something , your still working on it ....
if you have taken my previous suggestion I would say put that over in the new child project and have a go it it there also ...
you never know , since you already have it safely in your parent project , you have nothing to loose by taking risks  and trying things out you may not have tried .... 
 

MCi
 

• which plug in’s to use depending on how hard they hit the CPU.

This one here can be a can of worms depending on a lot of factors ...
typically a lot of people with hefty computers attempt to do every thing in real time while the project is playing ..
if you got the horse power to go there by all means ...
 
Having said that there are a bunch of ways you can approach this task ....
if it's a per track thing you can free up some resources by bouncing your soloed track into a new audio track and then archiving your parent track ....
 
if it's a master buss thing you may want to consider exporting your song as individual tracks / stems ...and reopening a new project and placing them in there ...
 
I mention this because I have no idea of what version of SONAR you are using ,,,,if you have SPLat you can always
evaluate your songs progress in the effects area by using MixRecall ...
in any event if its a master buss effects thing , you don't want to double hit your processed tracks in the parent project ....
 
As you may have deducted by now , I'm a firm believer in having a parent project with everything intact while using a child project to go wild in it .....
Not having a heavy duty PC has brought me to that crossroads ....
 
What are the benefits of trying this workflow out ? 
all your stuff will be safe in at least two places ...your current computer will probably be able to handle any wheres between 25 to maybe 40 tracks of processed audio .....
 
not sure if this helps you ...anyway have a nice one ,
 
Kenny
 
 

I don't think that gear limitations make you a better mixer. But the attitude that you're damn well going to do it no matter the gear limitations definitely will.

It is interesting and in some ways I agree with this approach because I have gone through it myself.  For me it took a slightly different form.  Firstly I only had 4 tracks to work with and as a result I spent much time learning the art of actually just combining 2 or 3 or 4 sources.  I bet many here still dont have the skill to perfectly match even say two sources. eg vocal and guitar.  There is tons to learn getting it right.
 
Even balancing 4 tracks is hard and things can get busy.  This is what track limitation imposed on me but I am glad.  I graduated up to 8 tracks and worked only with that for a long time.  Here you get to practice the art of not having any rubbish playing that simply does not need to be there.  You become slick and crafty at arranging how the 8 tracks are actually used etc.  I am glad we have more tracks now but when you only have 8 say you really learn the art of arranging.  Most people have 90 tracks playing and got 85 tracks of unnecessary stuff.
 
My first mixer had no active EQ on any channel only a HP and LP filter.  I became expert at using filters and also as I was creating electronic music at the time the lack of active EQ forced me to learn to program the synths really well so I could get the sound perfect at the source.  Because of that I can create any sound from say an analog synth.  Or any synth for that matter.  The lack of active EQ also forced me to learn to capture the best acoustic sounds where ever possible as well with mic choice and placement.  Now when I still do it I need a fraction of the plug-ins (if any) over any given individual track for a near perfect sound.
 
Using lower power computers today will teach you how to maximise the effect of what they can do.  For example my very first machine was 333 Mhz PC running external synths though through lots of midi.  And a limited amount of internal audio processing.  The midi side is how I was able to create mega sounding tracks. But also bouncing to save CPU resources wherever possible.  You find the least CPU intensive effects and learn to extract amazing sounds from them.  That machine produced massive expansive soundtracks for TV and film.  You would never know in a million years it was a Win 98 machine and only 333Mhz.  (And I got paid the same excellent amounts that I do today! Ideas reign over technology!)
 
When I was studying my Jazz degree, one of the things that struck me the most was how much sound could be made form only 3 or 4 people.  Incredible intros and things eg ambient sections using everyone to the max.  You should be able to do it with a similar number of tracks.
 
The trick is to carry this slimline approach into powerful computers.  Then they have time to burn and not even being taxed and they perform best in my opinion in this mode.  Super low latencies can be used everywhere.  Tight timing etc..
 

I have found that you tend to work with what you have.  Whether it's an old computer or a brand new one, it will do the job. Some better than others.  Mostly the issues deal with speed and memory.
 
My old Win95 machine was under the specs Cakewalk had set as the MINIMUM requirement. Well, since I didn't have the money at the time to upgrade, I loaded the program I had.... Cakewalk Pro-Delux 8 and let it roll. It took a bit longer to load some things but it ran and I was able to mix.

Fast forward to several years ago.... I built a new DAW. Loaded it up with only the music software and kept it off the internet except to download and authorize music synths and such things.  It's now quite out of date again..... that's the way of computers, but it does everything I need it to do and it's still a fast, lean, machine.

So.... to answer your question..... Will mixing on a low powered computer make you a better mixer?  In itself, no, not necessarily. However, mixing, sharing,  spending time learning your craft, honing your skills, and simply doing it as much as you can, not only with your own projects, but with projects recorded by others,  WILL make you a better mixer regardless of the computer's specs.

the right tools for the job.
 
that's what it is always about.
 
work around the shortcomings while you have to,
but eventually,
you have to make that 'grownup' decision.

batsbrew
work around the shortcomings while you have to,
but eventually,
you have to make that 'grownup' decision.

And pray tell....what is that grownup decision?
 
Jesse Q. Screed
 
 

Jesse Screed

batsbrew
work around the shortcomings while you have to,
but eventually,
you have to make that 'grownup' decision.

And pray tell....what is that grownup decision?
 
Jesse Q. Screed
 
 

simply,
get what you need to do the job right.