Jind
 
I have always assumed the term "bounce" itself comes from the idea that you take a ball and throw it "down" to the ground to initiate the bounce.  The act of bouncing is also a metaphorical downward motion as you are mixing "down" a select number of tracks to consolidate them to a lesser number of used tracks.

 
Having spent many years working in analog studios (dating back to the 60's) I've never heard an assumed definition of the term stated so eloquently.
 

Jind
 
Is it necessary in today's world of unlimited tracks and storage space, not to mention nearly unlimited processing power - probably not, but it's just a work-flow many are used to and I'm sure some use it still quite regularly in their day in and day out process.
 

 
I still use the function on a daily basis. When "comping" (oh, my God, did I just introduce another "term" into this thread?) vocals or guitar parts or whatever I find it much easier to work with a single track than multipe tracks or layers. I also "bounce" MIDI parts to audio tracks once I'm satisfied with them. I then "Archive" the MIDI tracks and "Hide" them which completely disengages them from using any system resources (not all of us have "megatron-super computers")...Some will argue that "Freeze" accomplishes the same thing but in my experience using effects on a "frozen" synth audio track is not as reliable doing the same on a plain and simple audio track...
 
For the record, until I started using video apps (such as SONY Vegas Pro) the term "rendering" was not something I ever associated with an audio application (so John, don't feel left out )...

but "rendering" term should be another thing, I think,
for example, if you add some effect on the track, like echo, reverb or some filter, you can say it's a rendering processing.
 
it quite different from bounce.
I thnk so.
 

Kalle Rantaaho


As mentioned above, rendering is usually (?) understood as video editing terminology. That's how I understand it, too. You don't see it used in this forum.

Every software has much of it's own terminology, and it's not going to change, you just have to get used to it.

And concerning the title question: You can bounce without mixing anything. Mixing does mean putting things together, right? If you bounce a single track you don't mix. Even if you bounce many tracks, you don't necessarily mix, if you bounce to separate tracks without determining the relations of the tracks. The way I understand it, mixing is making  the tracks go well together.

If you need to spend a week discussing every expression used in the manual, it will take some time before you get into making music

PS: I do like semantics, too. You'd be surprised how different answers was given for the question: " Does forward in a project mean moving the cursor left or right?"

1]yes, in 3D picture software, you can see rendering concept.
2] you make me puzzle.
bounce without mix? what action is bounce?
how do you bounce two or three tracks into one without mix, or blend or merge?
unless you put these tracks in a storehouse. they can unmix.
?
 

John


If you clone a track i.e. copy it, you will bounce it. Or to make processing part of the wave file one may bounce.

Bounce does not need a mix to be used.

what sense it is if you don't merge more than two materials into one track?
I can't image suppose if there are only two reels 4 tracks totally, but you have 6 mertials to record? what do you do with it?
you hve to bounce two into one and then again, so that you get 4 tracks materials, then you can mix them in the console.
if you would have 8 tracks, you needn't to bounce any one. becuse you have yet two extra track to use.
right?
--
Regards
 
 

I don't see the point in an argument over this. You and no one else is going to change this. The word means what it means even if you disagree.

Maybe you should read my previous post # 23 on the first page and all the others saying the same things. All of which went to a lot of trouble to give a history and what it really means. None the less we are still getting the same questions from the OP. At some point it has been explained and is not accepted by the OP. At what point does it become stubbornness and not a real question? 

This is on page 2 of a very simple thing to understand. That should not be the case.

re. rendering

Rendering also has a simple etymology.

You start with lots of data... you cook it in a series of algorithmic processes... and you end up with denser data.

Kind of like making horse glue.

These are all overlapping terms.... it's not helpful to emphasize their limitations when in fact they have widespread application.

best,
mike

Everyone is right.

Mike you very well may be right. I think though that the OP is not misunderstanding anything nor is he asking for a definition. I think he is contesting the use of the word. To him it is the wrong word to use. To him the word has a meaning that should not applied to the usage we are giving it. I could be wrong but I don't think so. He is not interested in its usage history or that it has been adopted by the audio industry with a meaning of its own.

papa2005

mike_mccue


re. rendering

Rendering also has a simple etymology.

You start with lots of data... you cook it in a series of algorithmic processes... and you end up with denser data.

Kind of like making horse glue.

These are all overlapping terms.... it's not helpful to emphasize their limitations when in fact they have widespread application.

best,
mike

Mike,
 
With all due respect, the etymology of the term "Render" is not as simple as you claim it to be. The term has many meanings, none of which have anything to do with "making horse glue"...
 
As for "bouncing", your Les Paul reference is quite appropriate.
 
As for the difference between the terms "bounce" & "mix", I believe I "rendered" a fairly comprehensible explanation of how and why the difference terms are used in the realm of recording.

You are correct!

I just looked it up:

render early 14c., "to repeat," from O.Fr. rendre "give back, present, yield," from V.L. *rendere (formed on analogy of its antonym, prendre "to take"), from L. reddere "give back, return, restore," from re- "back" + comb. form of dare "to give" (see date (1)). Meaning "hand over, deliver" is recorded from late 14c.; "to return (thanks, etc.)" is attested from late 15c.; meaning "represent, depict" is first attested 1599. Rendering "extracting or melting of fat" is attested from 1792; sense of "reproduction, representation" is from 1862.
I learn something every day. :L-)

Thanks for inspiring me to look up the word. I love this stuff.

best,
mike

Yes.

reader1

John


Say you add a reverb to a voice track. In Sonar to make it permanent you bounce. In the tape days you would do the same thing.

whick is adding an effect, is it yet called a bounce?
 

You need to think in terms of the old reel to reel multi track tapes. 
 
When adding an effect to a track, say a reverb, all you need do is plug it into an insert point in the channel on the mixing desk.  This is the same as plug in effects in Sonar, and is even the reason why they're called "plugins".
 
If you want the reverb on two tracks you would normally connect it to an effects send bus, BUT, if you want a different type of reverb on the second track you would need to connect two reverbs.
In the old days good reverbs were expensive, so chances are you never had enough.  the answer is to record the reverb back to the multitrack on a spare track so that it can be re-used on another channel.
 
The act of taking audio from the multitrack, sending through the reverb (or any effect) and then straight back to the multi track is called bouncing.  (The audio comes from the tape and bounces off the effects straight back to the tape).
 
In Sonar you can add effects as plugins as often as you like, you won't go to the insert effects menu and find you used all your reverbs...  But you can run out of CPU power to run them.
There are two solutions to this, 
 
You can "freeze" the entire track.  This fixes all the effects on the track into a new temporary audio file. You can't change the effects with out un-freezing (thawing) the track first.
 
You can record the effects to a new audio track.  This is BOUNCING, just like the old days. You then have two tracks, one with your orriginal sound, one with the reverb sound. You can therefore turn off the reverb on the original track and save CPU power.    The advantage over freezing in this case, you can still vary the amount of reverb on the track by adjusting the volume of the new reverb track.
 
 

reader1,

Please do the tutorials and study the glossary of terms in the help files...Don't try to compare the terminology used with apps such as AutoCAD (which I use) with DAW apps...

In all of your posts you're obsessing over "why use this term"...Do your homework with SONAR and you'll begin to understand...

John


Mike you very well may be right. I think though that the OP is not misunderstanding anything nor is he asking for a definition. I think he is contesting the use of the word. To him it is the wrong word to use. To him the word has a meaning that should not applied to the usage we are giving it. I could be wrong but I don't think so. He is not interested in its usage history or that it has been adopted by the audio industry with a meaning of its own.

John,
I have never though of its a wwong usage, I just confuse among them, mix, merge(blend) and combine...
knowing history will aid to know now.