I'm currently trying to setup my studio. Personally I really like the approach to compose in Cubase and mix in Pro Tools.
Both Cubase and Pro Tools are on separate machines in the same room. Currently I export the tracks from Cubase, copy and import them via network into the Pro Tools system and mix them independently from the original Cubase files.
This approach works quite well for me. The only major drawback is that sometimes I need to fix little things in the original Cubase project while working with the Pro Tools files. This often leads to several file export-import round trips.
Would it make sense to connect both systems via digital audio interface (e.g. MADI with 64 channels)? The idea would be to add a send in the Cubase track which sends audio to a hardware output channel and connects to the Pro Tools input channel.
Is the approach more efficient over the file export-import? Will there be any major technical drawbacks? If sends are added to different Cubase tracks which send their audio to asio output channels - will PDC create timing trouble or does Cubase align the timing automatically?
Are there alternative approaches? How do you work if you compose in Cubase and mix in Pro Tools?
How do you compose in Cubase and mix in Pro Tools?
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 2 posts since 11 Apr, 2014
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 33176 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
I'd imagine that e.g. replaying a modified simpole 2-bar drumloop directly into PT would be faster than a bounce-export-copy-import cycle. On the other hand, I'd imagine that e.g. replaying a modified full-track-length melody directly into PT would be slower than a bounce-export-copy-import cycle. On the other other hand, replaying a modified 2-bar drumloop which is actually composed of layered multiple tracks directly into PT might be faster than a bounce-export-copy-import cycle.SazzSomewhere wrote:Currently I export the tracks from Cubase, copy and import them via network into the Pro Tools system and mix them independently from the original Cubase files..
.
.
.
Would it make sense to connect both systems via digital audio interface (e.g. MADI with 64 channels)? The idea would be to add a send in the Cubase track which sends audio to a hardware output channel and connects to the Pro Tools input channel.
Is the approach more efficient over the file export-import?
So in short, I think it depends on how you actually work.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 2 posts since 11 Apr, 2014
Does it make sense to use solely Pro Tools as a mixer without recorded files? Create in the first step a live rough mix and if everything works well transfer the files afterwards and do the cleanup work?
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 33176 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Personally, I'd find it hard to set up automation etc against audio that isnt recorded, but it could work. Workflow's a very personal thing, so I'd suggest you just go ahead and try it to be honest; it cant hurt, and if it works for you, then teh win. If not, then you figured out something about your preferred workflow; again, win.SazzSomewhere wrote:Does it make sense to use solely Pro Tools as a mixer without recorded files? Create in the first step a live rough mix and if everything works well transfer the files afterwards and do the cleanup work?
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRian
- 538 posts since 7 Apr, 2007 from Melbourne, Australia
I work in a studio with a composer that worked in Cubase, but the mixing was done in a Pro Tools HD system. (we now use Cubase exclusively though for various reasons). It was setup that way so mixing could be done while the composer worked.
We had 48 channels of digital audio from Lynx cards to the PT system via AES/EBU. A standard template was loaded in Pro Tools with all relevant inputs are monitor tracks assigned so most things had their own dedicated channel (unless groups or submixes were used in Cubase for some stuff). A similar template was used in Cubase which had the stock sounds and tracks we often used assigned to relevant outputs.
After using this for a time (I didnt set it up but "inherited" the system) there's a few things I thought about the set up. A lot of this may not be relevant depending on what you're doing:
* Keep it simple
Dont bother with dedicated ins/outs for every track in PT. Keep it down to basic subgroups (ie. drums, guitars, synths etc). The added routing complexity is just a PITA for workflow unless you really need it. Realtime record anything individually into PT you might need. Kinda similar to if you use a summing mixer. You can just realtime record all your stems in PT in one pass for mixing/editing.
* It was a PITA for film work because everything had to be duplicated and in perfect sync. With lots of picture changes that became a lot of extra work. You're going to want to have a solid master clock distributor also if you're using any other digital devices in the studio. We ran SMPTE off a MOTU MTVAP. That may or may not be relevant depending on what you're doing.
*Decide which platform you're going to do most of your mixing/editing on. It gets to be confusing going back and forth. You have 2 different sessions on the go. I know some people who just use PT as a basic tape recorder and don't mix or edit with it. Personally, I don't see the point of that.
*I rarely actually mixed much in PT as a track was being built as I needed control over things but the composer needed to hear everything. Nice idea in theory, but not in practice. In your case, I'd set and forget PT until the arrangement is done and dusted in Cubase.
*You'll want a very good low latency card on the Cubase system for doing stuff this way
TL;DR Yes, exporting tracks can be quicker depending on length etc. Or quicker if heavy plugin processors are involved, as they can chew up the time for exporting. I no longer work this way as I prefer editing/mixing in Cubase itself. I found the extra effort needed not really worth it. You might want to keep it simple and just keep doing it the way you are unless you really need live PT monitoring input simultaneously.
We had 48 channels of digital audio from Lynx cards to the PT system via AES/EBU. A standard template was loaded in Pro Tools with all relevant inputs are monitor tracks assigned so most things had their own dedicated channel (unless groups or submixes were used in Cubase for some stuff). A similar template was used in Cubase which had the stock sounds and tracks we often used assigned to relevant outputs.
After using this for a time (I didnt set it up but "inherited" the system) there's a few things I thought about the set up. A lot of this may not be relevant depending on what you're doing:
* Keep it simple
Dont bother with dedicated ins/outs for every track in PT. Keep it down to basic subgroups (ie. drums, guitars, synths etc). The added routing complexity is just a PITA for workflow unless you really need it. Realtime record anything individually into PT you might need. Kinda similar to if you use a summing mixer. You can just realtime record all your stems in PT in one pass for mixing/editing.
* It was a PITA for film work because everything had to be duplicated and in perfect sync. With lots of picture changes that became a lot of extra work. You're going to want to have a solid master clock distributor also if you're using any other digital devices in the studio. We ran SMPTE off a MOTU MTVAP. That may or may not be relevant depending on what you're doing.
*Decide which platform you're going to do most of your mixing/editing on. It gets to be confusing going back and forth. You have 2 different sessions on the go. I know some people who just use PT as a basic tape recorder and don't mix or edit with it. Personally, I don't see the point of that.
*I rarely actually mixed much in PT as a track was being built as I needed control over things but the composer needed to hear everything. Nice idea in theory, but not in practice. In your case, I'd set and forget PT until the arrangement is done and dusted in Cubase.
*You'll want a very good low latency card on the Cubase system for doing stuff this way
TL;DR Yes, exporting tracks can be quicker depending on length etc. Or quicker if heavy plugin processors are involved, as they can chew up the time for exporting. I no longer work this way as I prefer editing/mixing in Cubase itself. I found the extra effort needed not really worth it. You might want to keep it simple and just keep doing it the way you are unless you really need live PT monitoring input simultaneously.
-
- KVRist
- 279 posts since 8 Sep, 2010 from Earth (most of the time)
Simple, just import the wave files.
