Working Methodologies In a DAW World

[volthause]

I have a question about how people handle larger projects in the DAW world.

How do you organize your work when doing demo's, EP's and albums?

Do separate songs all have separate directories and separate session files, or do you chain things together on the same workspace?

When working with bands I've always had a sub for the band, and then each song had a sub under that one, all separate files and such, and I began to wonder why?

Why not put all the songs on the same workspace with markers pointing to the beginnings of the separate songs? Wouldn't that make it easier come mix time, especially when we're talking about a drums/bass/guitar/vocals rock band, and all the instruments were going to be treated the same way throughout the project?

Is there any reason why this wouldn't be feasible?

[Brendo]

ive seen both done and i tend to prefer individual sessions for each song for some reason.

[Pimp-X]

I always work in one timeline, markering off the start of new tracks. It makes the workflow much easier, I find - not to mention making the fingerprint of each track match the previous, of course, with the addition of required automation and so forth.

[volthause]

That's exactly what I was wondering Pimp. Seems like it would be easier, and why the hell didn't I think about it sooner? I just seemed natural to work one at a time, but when projects are essentially the same from one song to the next soundwise, it seems quicker to use one timeline.

Thanks for the answers gents.

[Pimp-X]

That's exactly what I was wondering Pimp. Seems like it would be easier, and why the hell didn't I think about it sooner? I just seemed natural to work one at a time, but when projects are essentially the same from one song to the next soundwise, it seems quicker to use one timeline.

Thanks for the answers gents.


I have always done it this way, because, back in the day believe it or not, I worked from tape. Started tracking at one end, finished at the other, changed reels.. started again.. Track schema was the same all the way through.

Who'd want to set up their console differently for every single track? That would be madness. So why do it in a DAW? I realise that templates make this easier - but - there's still no reason to overengineer the solution, in my opinion.

So therefore, I insist my way is best, accept no substitutes. :Thumbsup:

[malice]

One folder per track, within a large folder for the whole prodject.

Mixes in a separate folder.

malice

[otek]

In Logic, each project gets a template song, an audio files folder and a bounce folder created automatically from the word go. All I do is create subfolders for each song, and save the template song under different file names.

[Goes211]

much as I agree about keeping the flow, the advantage of separate folders means that if the files for one song need to be sent off for remixing, re-edit or whatever (Oh yes, that shit happens), it takes you 30 seconds to make a copy. If everything is on one timeline, you need to start creating that copy and extracting all the right audio files (and only those needed). And trust me, these things always happens when you've got a shitload of other stuff you're already late with.

There's nothing preventing you from making a session template that fits the current band/project you're working on. Then simply copy that template into as many separate folders.
NAMING TRACKS appropriately so they still mean something to you next year is a whole 'nother can o' worms...I believe I'd read a great discussion about that somewhere. Might be the right time to dig it up.

:Coolio:

[Molly's Lips]

I too mix songs in seperate folders, but for technical reasons rather than workflow. Might just be my crappy gear, but when I'm running the DAW that ends in "le" i like to be able to set time for disk allocation as low as possible. I can get away with a lower playback buffer if the allocation is 6 minutes, rather than say, 60.

[Skwaidu]

Always a session and folder per song. I import mixer settings and effects from previous mixes as needed.

[dnafe]

I always set up a separate folder for CD title with sub-folders for each song and I make sure the audio file name has at least an abbreviation of the song title in it's name and preferably both the CD title and song name abbreviations...no mistaking which audio file belongs to which CD project/song in the event of an "attack of stupidness"

I also set up two subfolders in each song folder for mixes and unused audio files. Mixes are labeled with a date i.e. BO-Pup-mix-121206

Lastly there is a final mix sub-folder in the CD title folder

DOn

[Comte de St Germain]

In Digital Performer the different songs (chunks) can be within one project, sharing the same audio file folders and the ability to copy any settings, effects chains or whatever easily between all of the tunes.

If i need to send a song off to re-mix or archive seperately all I have to do is open a new project and select load chunks, select the song i want, the parameters I want to import and hit go. It takes all of 10 seconds.

I feel that the "chunks" method of working is one of the best things that DP has that a lot of programs don't. I can jump back and forth easily between tunes, copy aux tracks, effects, midi instruments (there's also a virtual rack that all songs can share).

So when I archive I make a DP session (single song per folder) with everything rendered to zero and another folder with .wav files rendered to zero for future and PC compatability.

[archtop]

I have done, and do whole projects in one folder.

but if something goes haywire, you risk loosing the whole
enchilada, instead of just a chip.


but it is way faster and smoother.

[Comte de St Germain]

I have done, and do whole projects in one folder.

but if something goes haywire, you risk loosing the whole
enchilada, instead of just a chip.


but it is way faster and smoother.

That gets us to back up methods.

If it ain't in three spots you ain't backed up.

[MacGregor]

I use separate folders:


Year
|
|_ Artist
| |
| |_Album
|
|_Song 01
| |
| |_Original Tracks
|
|_Used Tracks


This folder layout is easy to backup.
From the first song I create a template for the rest.
Giving the tracks useful names is the first thing I do.

[philsaudio]

I do it both ways depending on what the work is.

I use templates all the time.

For long jams I use one folder for it all but I will tell you what. If the session is 2-4 hours the DAW slows down.

peace

[Baddo]

I do it both ways depending on what the work is...

You could be blackmailed for posting stuff like this on the net.

:D :D

[Charles Dye]

I'm definitely a single song per session kinda guy.

Why not put all the songs on the same workspace with markers pointing to the beginnings of the separate songs? Wouldn't that make it easier come mix time, especially when we're talking about a drums/bass/guitar/vocals rock band, and all the instruments were going to be treated the same way throughout the project?

Is there any reason why this wouldn't be feasible?

For me it doesn't work. Cuz you'd be locked into using exactly the same sound for the drums, bass + gtrs on every song. And that will give you zero variety on the sound of the record.

Plus, the drummer may have changed the snare on some songs; or the bass part is in a completely different key or style + the sound from the 1st song won't work @ all for the 2nd; or the gtr parts are completely different on one song to the next; or the song is in a different tempo + therefore everything is different; or the drummer palys a tight closed hat + on the next he plays big sloppy open LOUD hat; and the list goes on...

I've tried it once on a live project + it sucked massively. In the end, I had to save a different session for each song + a lot of the sounds didn't work from one song to the next.

[Pimp-X]

Funny eh? Different strokes for different folks!

[Skwaidu]

Always a session and folder per song. I import mixer settings and effects from previous mixes as needed.

Charles explained *why* pretty well...

However, I have a possible live recording mix coming up, and that I think I will do as a chunk, as really *nothing* changes between songs so I'm probably able to do it in one mix session with automation.

[slabrock]

Is there any reason why this wouldn't be feasible?

I had never thought of any other way than separate folders stuff, until i "inherited" an album (actually two albums) from a guy who methodically uses the "all in same session" approach.

From then on i've used it in demoing, but never in actual records. Because when the songs are in a row, it's very difficult to go back to a previous song to mix it again, since i've adjusted everything all over for the next song and accidentally erased some marker/control tracks... whatever. (Just like in the days of 24/2", heh!)
:-D

I want to protect the songs by packing them separately.

I can record the first session in one row, though, and often do. But as soon as the finer work on the songs start, it's better to save each song separately, i feel.

If i'm really clever, i have made all the preliminary adjusting to fit, auxes and routings already, so they save with each session.
:-D

[James Murphy]

one song per session, for many of the reasons Charles gave, and also because it seriously sucks system resources to try and record , edit, and mix an entire album from one session if you are working ITB. mostly because of the edits and the sheer amount of audio.

my first post, by the way.... so hello all.

[philsaudio]

I had never thought of any other way than separate folders stuff, until i "inherited" an album (actually two albums) from a guy who methodically uses the "all in same session" approach.

From then on i've used it in demoing, but never in actual records. Because when the songs are in a row, it's very difficult to go back to a previous song to mix it again, since i've adjusted everything all over for the next song and accidentally erased some marker/control tracks... whatever. (Just like in the days of 24/2", heh!)
:-D

I want to protect the songs by packing them separately.

I can record the first session in one row, though, and often do. But as soon as the finer work on the songs start, it's better to save each song separately, i feel.

If i'm really clever, i have made all the preliminary adjusting to fit, auxes and routings already, so they save with each session.
:-D


I don't know how every DAW works but for Nuendo this is true.

1) make a session with all the tracks ( like say record a whole live show for instance)

2) make a seperate session for each song using the same tracks in each session.

3) now you have a seperate session for each track sharing the same original track data in each one.

4) go ahead and mix it like a record, chop and slice it all you want, if the DAW is non destructive and you set your edit preferences right the original tracks will remain untouched while you do everything different in each session.

peace
Phil

[slabrock]

I don't know how every DAW works but for Nuendo this is true.
---
4) go ahead and mix it like a record, chop and slice it all you want, if the DAW is non destructive and you set your edit preferences right the original tracks will remain untouched while you do everything different in each session.


Yep, that's how it works, unless you set yourself on a drastic destructive editing mission (or switch accidentally to SoundForge)
:-D

The precious original tracks are (or should be) safe on DVD and extra HD anyway, so that's no problem, really.

What i lose are all the settings i change outside recorded session automation. Plus it's very easy to snap a controller track back to blank, whether you work in Alsihad or other surroundings. At least it is to me. Not to mention the outboards, which i would have to re-adjust anyway.

Of course i love the feeling we all used to have before the age of automation and DAW (it's not been so long, hey), when every mix was finally a once-and-for-all all systems go ballet. There was something very final when the last echo died, everybody straightened up from the console and looked at each other "was that IT"? "Did i mute my channels in time?"

I just don't feel i have to relive it all over again
:-D

Peace it is, and love too

Slabrock

[Zoesch]

one song per session, for many of the reasons Charles gave, and also because it seriously sucks system resources to try and record , edit, and mix an entire album from one session if you are working ITB. mostly because of the edits and the sheer amount of audio.

my first post, by the way.... so hello all.

Hi James, welcome to the Womb!

Same here... I find that having more than one song open a)Distracts me, b)Disrupts my workflow (Tabbing between windows and suddenly landing on another song) and c)Kills my laptop real quick (Which will change soon as the Mac Book Pro should give me more power which I will exhaust with tons of plugins of course :lol: )

[eagan]

I pretty much believe in doing it more or less as MacGregor laid out in ASCII graphic form, with the minor exception of not breaking things down by year, but just having the "top level" being project. But I'm just doing things right now in my humble little personal studio mode, so I'm not keeping track of a raft of other people's projects. (And for that matter, if I were doing that, I would opt for a setup with removeable drives and separate physical disk drives for each client project, anyway.)

Going a little further with that, I also break things down into subfolders within each tune for instruments.

Another step beyond that is another level of subfolder if piling up overdubs.

In other words, if I have a tune going with a "guitar" folder, if I have a section of the tune where I'm going to do a big pile of doubled parts for a big massed ensemble sound, I will create a subfolder for those, record all that, do a submix of those layer tracks, and then take the "massed" submix and put it in the "guitar" folder, while also keeping the separate subfolder of my 20 "layer" parts, in case I want to redo any of that noise.

That way, when it comes time to mix, or even just i tweaking track balances for monitoring while recording other tracks, I just have to deal with, say, finding and adjusting "cleanGTRsection3submix" instead of a giant pile of tracks, while still having the originals around for any changes later.

Obviously a lot depends on the project and what's involved and how you like to work. Myself, I'm one for grouping things and committing to a sound for groups of stuff, and getting down to where the final mix involves, say, 8 stereo submixes instead of trying to mix 60 stereo tracks or something crazy.

And it can't be repeated enough that good clear descriptive individual filenames are important. If you're doing something where somebody is trying to do a Queen "giant vocal ensemble" thing, you don't want to get to some later part of the process and be scratching your head wondering "what the fuck is in 'vocal38'?".


JLE

[amopae]

Well, I'm currently working in my first project EVER, I'm just a child that wants to learn this stuff and since we're only demoing I found that I have one folder per song and in that folder I keep a general project were everything will be and a separate project for different instruments, in my band there's keys, drums, bass and 3 guitars, so that makes 4 Cubase projects for the arrangements and the general project to mix the definitive arrangements.

PS: This is my first post here, got here thanks to Zoesch for telling me about this site :)

[Charles Dye]

Welcome, amopae!

[bleen]

One song per folder for me. I may occassionally import settings from one song to another for a particular track, but part of the fun and challenge in mixing is giving each song on a record its own personality and signature.

The bands/artists I produce never have the same instumentation song-to-song, either, so I'd wind up with a million tracks in a single session because of all the random stuff that may happen once in one song only (the lone hurdy gurdy part...).

[John Suitcase]

It depends, but in Cubase I generally track everything, and do all edits in one session, with each take marked using the marker track. Then, when I do mixes, I start with the first song, get it solid, export the mix, and save it as a new project, with that song title, then move on to the next song. That way, I'm starting from the same starting point. After I finish song 2, I save the session again, as the next song, and so on. I'll end up with a separate project file for each song, although they're all in one folder.

For backups, I have one drive that is a backup of open sessions. Once a session is completed (gone to manufacturing), I back it up to a different drive, and burn DVD backups, as well.

I don't do the DVDs til it's 'closed', since it takes a little while, and they're 'final'.

I try to export .wav files that start at 0 for each song, for Future compatability.

[vocalnick]

One song per folder here, although I'm predominantly a self-recorder, and I might work differently with an external client, should that day come.

The album we finished recently, we started with a template for track layout etc. on the "bread & butter" instruments, then built up the bells & whistles (keys, percussion, harmonies) on an as needs basis depending on the song. So we had continuity across the board with drum sounds for example, but weren't locked in to a completely identical sound for each cut.

I can't imagine trying to achieve that with the whole album in a single project & directory... there would have been a lot more complicated automation work to do, for no apparent benefit that I can see.

[Barska]

Vote for song per folder. I also usually give distinct end for tracknames in separate songs for example GTR_DI_007 and make some sort of textfile into the folder of the whole project describing the filenamesystem. Just to make sure... I'm a control freak I suppose:Uh oh:

Live recordings are somewhat different so it's all just one big project. Still I mix them in separate sessions- at least you're gonna need different bass&voc comp etc. so why bother automation...

By the way... I was very..... very .... drunk...:Coolio:

[philsaudio]

As far as the track names I just use basic names that may repeat from song to song since they come from a template. If all my songs were dumped into one directory there would be trouble but that never has happened yet.

Filename conventions

· aaa-date_org-song_name-workdate-work_performed- mastering_info-monitoring_info.

Example
jdr-3-20-07-yellow_raincoat-3-23-07-vocal_up_1dB- productionmaster_L3-K-6_80dBspl

The first part of the file will always be the same and will also match the name of the folder the song project is in. I usually store the mixdowns in the folder that contains all the song projects which I call the album folder.

The first three fields
‘aaa’ – a three letter acronym identifying the talent
‘dateorg’ the date the song project was created and the tracking started
‘songname” the name of the song.

‘workdate’ the day the work resulting on this mixdown being performed is
‘work performed” more mixing, a vocal up mixdown, fixing, pushmix,
‘mastering_info” studiomaster =no mastering, productionmaster=mastered
if mastered list the mastering plug ins.
‘monitoring_info” K-# where -# is the level the on Bob Katz’s K-system the master plays at 83dBSPL C weighted .
##DBspl where ## is the dBSPL C weighted the song was playing back at during the mixdown.