Proper workflow/process for metering and manually levelling tracks with automation?

Happy Sunday, all. Just another query about a mundane but potentially beneficial mixing task.
 
So after I purchased the Concrete Limiter in that recent sale I posted a thread about using it on a bass track to smooth it out. I did not get a chance to reply because I got busy with some life mayhem but sharke and scook made provided an excellent insight. Basically it was to use volume and/or gain automation to level the track as best as possible before applying and limiting or compression. I have seen this done in many of the more professional mixing tuts I've watched but had kind of let that concept fade into the white noise of all the other stuff I'm cramming into my noodle but in retrospect it is definitely something I'd like to do even if it is labor/time intensive.
 
So I need a proper workflow and could use some tips. Specifically...
 
1) Metering: I know I can eyeball things with wave and/or just listen but that's a little imprecise. I was thinking that I could set the track level meter to "Peaks" with the "Hold Peaks" option engaged, pick a target dB level and then watch for spots that are higher/lower than the predetermined level I want. Then I just adjust the envelope accordingly and double check to make sure it doesn't sound weird.
 
BUT... is there a better way to do this or a better tool/trick within Sonar? Is there some secret way to choose my target level based on the overall level of the track so I am not turning things up/down more than they need to (I'm assuming some kind of RMS metering beforehand could help)? I'd like to avoid a) create more work than necessary for myself as well as not somehow weakening the signal (if that's possible with such things).
 
2) Gain vs. Volume: sharke initially mentioned volume automation but scook followed up with gain automation. I'm assuming that gain would be the one I want to use so the signal coming into the PC/fx bin is already smoothed as opposed to using volume which depending on Pre/Post status(es) of the strip would merely adjust the end result which would mean the limiter/compressors would still be getting slammed with the spikes and whatnot.
 
So Gain or Volume envelope?
 
3) Nodes and Envelopes: I have always shied away from extensive envelope manipulation because it just seemed weird and confusing to me in the past. Until the past couple years I actually used to just slice up clips and adjust the entire line instead of messing with fancy curves and nodes and whatever else and it was ALWAYS just volume/gain tweaks (which I didn't understand the difference between until just as recently). Point is I understand envelope automation now from a theoretical standpoint now but am pretty much a n00b in that regard. So a couple questions to make things easier...
 
a) What is the best/quickest method for inserting 4 nodes? Ideally I'd like to just swipe a problem area and have 4 nodes created automagically (straight on the line so there are no changes even if I'm a little above/below the base line) so I could then just drag the line in between the outside ones up/down and move the nodes back/forth on the timeline as needed for fading. I do not want to have to click four times just to create the initial nodes or worry about causing level changes when inserting them. I just want four nodes at "unity" (or whatever the base line is at) then adjust from there. Perhaps a lot to ask but that seems like the most common set up for an envelope change. Sorry if that's confusing.
 
b) Constraining nodes: What is the binding to constrain nodes to their current level? I should just look that up but basically I just need to keep my two outer nodes at their current level so I don't end up making then outside of the envelope area angle. I hate that.
 
c) Tools: Which tools are best suited for this type of envelope editing? The Smart Tool is great for cruising around but I find it a pain in the butt trying to hunt around for hotspots or remembering elaborate key bindings when I am doing lengthy/repetitive tasks such as this. Many times using two dedicated tools and using the toggle binding is sooo much easier so which ones should I fiddle with first to do what I am describing?
 
I know this is all stuff I could crash course myself on and probably will but am interested in hearing some more experienced users workflows in this regards. I won't be doing just a little bit here or there I actually want to go almost transient to transient with my automation envelopes with certain things so getting these skills down is important. As sharke pointed out in the thread I'm referring to the really intense pros envelopes end up looking like a pile of wacky spaghetti sometimes. I think it could definitely help make the final mixing easier, FX work more effectively and the end result sound more pro.
 
Could be an interesting discussion too.
 
Cheers and thanks. I'm polishing a comp right now (unrelated... just tightening up splices) so I'll be back and forth.

Heh. Sorry, Craig. It's been on my mind for a few weeks so I've been trying to envision the workflow and that's the end result. Don't expect any point by point answers. More just ideas on the specific points from the automation fiends.
 
I will look into the metering option. That's a good idea for finding spikes and hadn't considered it. Not being familiar with that feature I'm only guessing but I'd imagine I could then set it so that after I tame the spikes I could set it so that the signal I want (that I have already set my spikes to peak at) will be the very top of the meter. That way the desired levels will register as a full meter and areas that need to have there volume increased dip.
 
Probably didn't explain that well but theoretically it could work and be more reliable than the Peak/Hold option.
 
As far as the Apply Effect.... again something I'm not familiar with but that seems a little too permanent and non interactive to me. I'd like to keep my options open until I have it completely correct and cutting through the mix where need be. I also need to learn how to quickly and effectively use envelopes anyway so it's a bit of a learning exercise as well (which pretty much defines everything I'm doing with my current project).
 
Thanks for the suggestions.

Wow. That sounds pretty intense. The only real wave editor type thing I own (on my main DAW) is Pyro and as much as I love it I think it would end up being more cumbersome (and I think it has a samplerate/bit depth limit I would generally exceed at 96/24).
 
The Tool Copy thing is something I have never heard of and will have to look into it if only for curiosity's sake. I'm used to being able to explode clip sections in my old DAW but Sonar (X series) doesn't seem to do that. At first I thought it did but it turned out to be the Loop Constructor View (which was ever so confusing when I first encountered it thinking I was merely dealing with an exploded view... lol).
 
However with my limited fiddling with the automation envelopes in Sonar X2/X3 it will do what I want it to. It's just a matter of how annoying and tedious it's going to be. I REALLY like the fact we have automation lanes because that was one of the things that made me shy away from envelopes before (it's confusing to look at a pile of spaghetti when you barely know what you are doing as it is). I just need to approach all this logically.
 
Basically my experience so far has been a lot of fumbling around trying to insert the nodes I need without altering the envelope then trying to get the desired effect. Eventually I get what I want but I can't spend two or three minutes (at best) setting up a single alteration if I am doing transient to transient work.
 
Oh crap... I just realized that I need to figure out how to link envelopes across tracks too because of all the dual input stuff I record. I think that is just a matter of creating a group on the specific parameter though (like right clicking the gain knob on one track, setting the group then adding the second tack's gain knob to that group... I hope).
 
Yeah, I'm a babe in the woods here. And I thought this would be simple. YIKES!!!

John T
 In fact, that's a feature I'd like to see added; the ability to switch regular tracks between showing clips and showing an audio preview.

That'd be cool but wouldn't temporarily freezing the track produce the same result? Seriously asking... I rarely use freeze.

Here's the instructions for adding a Wave Editor to the tools menu
 
http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/Knowledge-Base/2007013099/Adding-third-party-audio-editing-software-to-SONARs-Tools-menu
 
Pyro is a burning program and not a wave editor, it might include some basic tools. 
The good Wave editors all cost money, Wave Lab Elements is $98 the least expensive so I bought that. But It no workie in the tools as I said. Steinberg and Cakewalk just don't play well together,,it's a plot!  
There are demos I'm running this one it's awesome. 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/download/trials/soundforgepro
 
There is a way to demo Adobe Audition too but they make it weird with the cloud thingy. I'll pass. 
OK it's finished updating , back to work, Now to install X3e.. Deep breath and more coffee. 
 
 
 

Hi, Dean. Hope you're well. That Vocal Rider thing looks interesting and gives me a pile of ideas as far as envelope creation for other creative purposes (some of which relates to tracking/plotting EQ stuff to follow fundamentals or other ridiculous mayhem that is woefully off topic). As far as traditional fader riding man is that a romantic premise for me and I'd love to be able to do that skillfully but is certainly an acquired skill and in need of a decent control surface (which I don't really have aside from the piddly knobs on my Oxygen 25 and padKontrol but do intend to do some live level rides eventually with those device but more for creative effect weirdness).
 
Now if I could figure out a way to maybe get something like the concrete limiter to write an automation envelope that might be interesting but I'm not sure if that is possible and it would probably be more just a guideline envelope I'd attempt to recreate manually.
 
I agree with using my ears for this but I think what I'd like to do is do it by numbers first (basically get everything leveled to a static number) then listen back soloed then again in the mix and adjust as needed to sit well. Obviously after that as I continued mixing I could alter the envelope(s) further. Just build it up (or tear it down) as the mix progresses.
 
My current method of "set it and forget it" with minor alterations has been fine for my little experiments and personal mixes but it's time to move on if I ever expect to be taken seriously. Fortunately I'm obsessive enough to not mind doing it all manually but I do have my limits so a good workflow is crucial so I don't spend too much time on minutia (which I am prone to).
 
As far as a Wave editor I have an ancient version of Wavelab on my old DAW but can't port it over or have the money to get a new version. I'd rather snag some Izotope stuff anyway though and that's been on my "must get" list for a while. I forget exactly which bundle I was looking at but it was the more mastering oriented thingies so if it can integrate into Sonar as you have described (which I was not aware of) then all the better.
 
Cheers and thanks.

So installed Sonar and Sound Forge wasn't in the tools menu.
So I followed the instructions and it worked. I can now highlight a Bass track and it opened in Sound Forge, I tried a simple normalization for a test and saved and returned to Sonar which prompts you to re load the saved file, done, took no time at all. I'm stoked, guess I'll be buying SF. 
 
isotope if it runs a stand alone version could also be added to tools I would imagine. But I believe you just access it like any other plug in inside Sonar or your Wave editor.
 
Sonar and Sound Forge are sharing all their plug ins right now.I wonder how many will still work after the demo expires. 
 
I originally had Wave Lab 5 but Only Wave Lab 7 will run on 64 bit systems so I bought Essentials for only $98. Even though I can't tool copy I use Wave Lab for the next steps after an export.  Steinberg like Sonar has opted out of MP3 batch conversion so I use Gold Wave a free trial wave editor that though basic is real handy. 

For leveling the CW CA2A is great. I wouldn't use the CL for that. Its mainly a brick-wall limiter. I put the CL on the master buss to prevent overs. I do not push it hard. With my sub buses I try to keep them from clipping with the faders set. I know that Sonar wont clip but I just think its better overall. I do not ever let my master buss clip.
 
I use automation in conjunction with my Mackie control. If I do automation it will be levels using the faders. One nice use is for instrument solos bringing them up and them putting them back. But I have been known to ride a fader now and then.

 
Post removed...

scook
 
32bit editors work fine. The editor opening without the wave is a symptom of an incorrect "Type" value in the registry. Type should be set to WaveEditor not "Wave Editor" or any other value.

That was it!  Simple typo.  Once again SCook to my rescue.  Thank you!!



-Ron

Paul P
Thanks for this !

I think the link should be removed. There is a ton of spyware on this site (my antivirus went off like a fairy cake) and the link is unofficial.
 
Cheers....

I spent most of last night "playing" with my newly working tool copy. If you follow my latest project is a Bluegrass/ acoustic album and Banjo on most songs.. The Banjo can spike out real easily so it's hard to bring it up with out overs. 
So I was stuck with Sonars tedious volume envelopes, Tried a few compressors but they are not fast enough, even the LP 64 lets overs through. 
 
But last night now i have the tool menu working I was in peak editing hog heaven. 
Got them all done in no time and now the banjo can come up in the mix properly. 
I started out trying Sound Forge but quickly returned to using Wave Lab. 
Wave Lab is more intuitive and requires fewer mouse clicks. One feature that really shines is the processing tools stay open. In Sound Forge the dialog box closes after you use it requiring 4 or more mouse clicks to get it back,,, that adds up.  This is the same problem in Sonar. 
This demo version of SF 11 pro doesn't come with the good plug ins they list on the web site. :(
 I guess they would be too easy to steal. 
I just downloaded the studio version to try too. 
 
Anyhow this brings us full circle back to the OP's topic. My workflow will now defiantly be using the tools menu to polish up tracks. It makes it possible to work using both of my all time favorite programs, Cakewalk and Wave Lab. Note that both these applications cost just shy or $100 each, that's a powerful set of tools for $200.  
 

Thanks for the interesting thread guys. It took a bit of a left turn but there is much valuable knowledge here. I still need to hammer out a decent workflow but I think I just need to brush up on the automation section of the manual, roll up my sleeves and develop a style.
 
Cheers.

scook

Beepster
I think I just need to brush up on the automation section of the manual, roll up my sleeves and develop a style.

Agreed. Some like to draw them or write them with a control surface or faders. Some don't use automation at all preferring destructive approaches. I don't mind using a mouse and adding nodes where needed. Zooming can get very accurate results. If the tracks are the same, copy and paste can reproduce track automation.

Yeah, I think I was just feeling a little intimidated by it yesterday but I've always managed to slog through things if I pay attention. Yesterday after I posted this I was FLYING through some pretty intricate comping/stitching like I had been doing it for years but really it was only my second true comping session. Gave me back a bit of confidence.
 
Still ended up producing an interesting thread. Some good insights to other software and although I'm not sure how exactly I'd employ that Tool Copy feature at the moment it's intriguing. I never would have heard of it otherwise unless I managed to clown my way through the entire manual (which I should actual get on at some point... ugh).
 
Cheers, guys.