![]() ![]() ![]() So when we are working with a number of tracks together such as drums, we will be wanting to create new playlists for them all at once, that can be done using track groups, if you are new to track grouping you can learn about them in our tutorial here #Protools 10 playlist export pro#I’ll start by talking about how the playlist function labels your takes, Pro Tools will add a numeric count to the end of your track name, for example if you original track was labelled ‘Guitar’, the next playlist would title the track ‘Guitar.01’ then ‘Guitar.02’ and so on….īut hang on, isn’t your second take then going to be labelled ‘Guitar.01’? If you’re ok with this then go right on, but if you suddenly need to locate take 16, wouldn’t it make more sense to look for ‘Guitar.16’? This can be achieved by labelling the original track ‘Guitar.01’ from which Pro Tools will increase the number per each additional take, makes sense to hold this habit when creating and labelling your sessions. Playlists allow you to record multiple takes on one track keeping everything clean, and a dream when it comes to combining different sections of takes to one master. Pro Tools thankfully thought ahead and offers a solution in ‘playlists’. But other than that can be really time consuming.When in the studio tracking a large number of microphones at one time, such as a drum kit, a session can quickly become messy an unorganised as more takes and dubs are recorded as well. This kind of scenarios IME works well and usually stems or BWAV clips with timestamp in header are sufficient. Or for instance creating skeleton of song with dry beats and synth tracks with some working vocal guide in lets say Ableton, then import to PTHD for final vocals overdubs and mixing. Like recording of live event to standalone multitrack recorder -> editing and sync to picture in one DAW like Reaper -> mixing in PTHD -> mastering. ![]() I think, it is possible to use multiple DAWs in project, but each one always for whole production step, that way mentioned translation restrictions doesn't hurt workflow too much. I believe it is technically very hard to get deeper interoperability than typical clips, positions, pan, levels and maybe automation curves due to differences across DAWs. But I won't blame particular DAW manufacturer and these woes also applies to generic translation formats like AAF or OMF. But as the other poster suggested, I imported the stems printed with my plugins and the no plug wav and it turned out to be almost as much work as if I had just started from scratch in pro tools.As I wrote earlier, project exchange across DAWs can be really PITA. I started mixing a project at home on reaper thinking I was just going to do some editing but next thing I knew I was close to finished and I wanted to bring the files into PT at my work studio to finish the mix and take advantage of some plugs I have there. But as the other poster suggested, I imported the stems printed with my plugins and the no plug wav and it turned out to be almost as much work as if I had just started from scratch in pro tools. Sometimes checking of all things, which can be different in project after conversion, and adaptation to target DAW is almost same task as recreating it from scratch. I think, if it isn't really necessary, is best to avoid it and use stems as you mentioned, you gonna loose flexibility, but on the other hand, it won't be different sound. #Protools 10 playlist export plus#Plus due to different panning laws, DAW internals and possibly used plugins in Reaper project, it will be definitely sounding different and can't be 1:1 translation. Also try to read their conversion guide excel table with exact features, which are preserved during particular project conversion.īut be aware, that for instance bus routing (AUXES) aren't translated. They also offers some e-mail assistance and sample project conversion before buy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |