Workflow Question: Tracking vs. Mixing

I just do frequent "Save As" with fresh names like *this_song_21a.cwp"

And I throw away anything I think I'm done with. I can always go back a grab it from an earlier saved project version if I ever remember it and decide it is worth retrieval.

best,
mike

So does this mean that you start fresh with every mix as far as choosing effects and bus structure etc. or do you have a template or standardized project file that you have created over time that contains the effects and signal path that you normally use for mixing?

i use a template for my synth drums. session drummer 2 has a lot of routing, plus on that template i have my guitars panned how i like and everything all neat in folders. busses all set, eqs set for synth, ect..

i also do the songname10-01a.cwp. in case i need to go back one step or two.

Thanks for the responses.  What's gotten me thinking about this is that it seems like it would be a good idea to come up with a "standard" project file with tracks, buses and effects already in place so that I can just get down to business.  But, it always winds up (for me) that this is impractical because every project demands a different setup.  I just wish there was a practical way to get to work on a project without "reinventing the wheel" every time.

gamblerschoice


Once all of the tracks have been recorded, I will save to a "songnamemaster".cwp, and work from there. I will then apply any effects, bounce all midi to audio, establish the buss structure. I am now working with audio only, and the fx bins are empty, so there is virtually no load on the cpu. Pan and volume envelopes, cloned tracks, etc., are done at this time. Then maybe some fx work in the busses.

I think that's the organized way to do it, and one day I hope to actually do it that way. Unfortunately I'm always changing & re-recording parts down to the last minute, so I've just gotten used to using the same file for tracking & mixing.

Templates don't work for me, but I'm hoping to change that now that I have a control surface.

Basically I have the most disorganized approach to songmaking ever, like Dave said, reinventing the wheel every time But in defence of that method, I think it lends itself to a lot of creative new ideas & experimentation.

When you compare the time to set up a track to record in a DAW with the time it used to take in an ADAT or analog tape environment, you save a bunch of time even without templates.

If I'm going to do multiple recordings with a group of talent then I make a quick template of how I have things set up between the first and second number.   I do a quick SAVE AS in case I botch something up but after I've got a new copy, I delete all the wavedata and save the track setup as a tempate or as a project.  I just reopen that blank project and the first thing I do is save it as the new song name and run from there.

..."Unfortunately I'm always changing & re-recording parts down to the last minute,"...

I have adopted a "three takes only" formula. I have found that after three takes, I can cut and paste the three tracks into a good single track, and then delete the unused parts.

I also forced myself to work with as few fx as possible, and use the same ones as often as I can. I set the fx fields once, maybe adjust them a second time, and hit apply. I found that if I keep looking for that perfect sound, that perfect take, etc., I never get anything done.

Discipline, and experience with what works, and a desire to actually complete a project were the original drivers, especially when I was working on my own music. Now that I spend most of my time working on other people's mixes, I don't charge very much, so every time I re-do something, it costs me money. Find what works, use it and quit re-inventing.

Of course, that is my philosophy, and I don't pretend to claim my way is the best, just the best for me.

Later
Albert

Bristol_Jonesey

..This workflow makes it totally unnecessary to start afresh when tracking is finished, but I export as a 24 bit .wav into a "mastering" template with all my preferred plugs on it's own master bus once the mix is "finished".

Can someone please explain what "finished" means?

+1 on a separate 'master template. I see a huge paradigm shift when a string of mixes get put into context like that. I think this a good thing at all levels whether it’s going to mastering or not. Especially given how much more latitude you have for improvement with the opportunity to then go back to the mix to dial them in.