Electric Guitar Routing for Options

[JSmith1234567]

Hi!

I had an idea of using multi-channel tracks to record electric guitar.

This springs from the idea of tracking guitar with the options to have a signal with all of the pedals and also a direct signal for re-amping or whatever.

Or more likely tracking/overdubbing guitar with whatever pedals and amps you get your sound with including the time-based ones, and also simultaneously tracking with all that stuff EXCEPT the time-based stuff that would box-in and leave no options for whoever is mixing the stuff.

You could easily be in multi-record and just record two or more stereo tracks at the same time, but I had a different idea.

Basically the idea is to record guitar without having to edit multiple stereo or mono tracks, but just one track per part.

Surround .wav tracks aren't really encoded surround tracks, they are just multi-track files.

Quad is just 4 discrete mono channels, 5.1 is just 6 discrete mono channels, 7.1 is just 8 discrete mono channels, etc.

Then you could set up input-routing to one of these formats, but when you go to editing, you would only be editing ONE single track, not the hassle of simultaneously editing two or three or whatever, and hoping they all stay locked to each other.

Then at the end of the process, which is what I can't figure out, you would route each stereo pair to a bus or a bus-to-new-track so you can work on them sonically the way you want, but without having to split them into serrate stereo tracks and then once again having to edit multiple tracks if needed.

What I can't figure out is the output routing...how to route each channel in a surround file to where you want it to go in DP?

ProTools has "sub-routing", but that's ProTools, not DP.

There was a thread a number of years ago about routing surround;

viewtopic.php?t=59505

but it really doesn't address what I am trying to do, and the solutions in it seem like there might be a better way now?

[HCMarkus]

Unless the guitarist is using something like a Helix with the tuning function in play (which would make the DI rather useless), I always get a DI track in addition to whatever the player is putting out their amp or modeler. SO very handy and often saves the day, especially if I am getting tracks to mix or from a remote player who I wasn't able to guide as the parts were laid down.

Your idea is very interesting. Have you considered using sends from a Quad track, routing the send to different Aux Buses? Not sure that would work, but it is a thought...

I can't add anything else potentially useful except to mention properly implemented Track Grouping works well to keep the DI and Amp track lined up during editing. But I'm sure you already knew that. And as you suggest, mistakes that screw things up with grouped tracks are not hard to make.

I look forward to any discoveries!

[JSmith1234567]

Hey thanks for that!

I am going to check both of those out today.

I don't know if you can send from a surround to a mono track or bus, and how you would pick which channel of the surround track? It may be possible.

Or use multiple sends as you suggested, and then just mute the channels you aren't using on the return?

There is some (I think it's a Melda plugin?) that lets you choose and modify output-matrixes, and I remembered opening it up on a surround track in DP.

I'm always surprised to see what plugins I own will show as available in surround tracks. Very few 3rd party ones.

I've used DP's "Calibration" plugin for allot of weird uses. It's kind if finicky, especially the "solo" buttons, but it's helpful in a bunch of situations.

The track-grouping I need to check out again.

In earlier versions of DP it didn't seem to work they way I wanted it to.

It would get things slightly out of alignment by mistake, which was death for surround-stems, drums-tracks. whatever needed to keep phase in perfect alignment.

This could mean that A) I never spent the time to really learn how to use track-grouping correctly, or B) it works better now!

Probably choice A) I'm guessing!

[mikehalloran]

I normally record a mic'd or amp'd track plus a direct signal. If I need more, I'll duplicate either or both—takes a few seconds, then apply effects as needed and route to the outputs as the client wants. DP makes this all quite easy. I don't understand the desire to accomplish any of this in real time.

[HCMarkus]

I normally record a mic'd or amp'd track plus a direct signal. If I need more, I'll duplicate either or both—takes a few seconds, then apply effects as needed and route to the outputs as the client wants. DP makes this all quite easy. I don't understand the desire to accomplish any of this in real time.

I think the issue arises from Track Grouping and the fact that, if one is not careful, tracks can lose coherency while editing. But I've been using track grouping for years without major issues.

IIRC, biggest problem is if you double click on a waveform so you are operating within, one track of a group can be edited without the edits crossing over to the grouped tracks. Then the tracks are no longer seen as grouped. The fix is to cut the tracks to the same length, restoring the group for edge editing and other tasks.

[mikehalloran]

…
IIRC, biggest problem is if you double click on a waveform so you are operating within, one track of a group can be edited without the edits crossing over to the grouped tracks. Then the tracks are no longer seen as grouped. The fix is to cut the tracks to the same length, restoring the group for edge editing and other tasks.

I have long wished for Apple to let me assign the Command ⌘ key to a footswitch to make that process a lot easier for me.

[JSmith1234567]

I normally record a mic'd or amp'd track plus a direct signal. If I need more, I'll duplicate either or both—takes a few seconds, then apply effects as needed and route to the outputs as the client wants. DP makes this all quite easy. I don't understand the desire to accomplish any of this in real time.

I think the issue arises from Track Grouping and the fact that, if one is not careful, tracks can lose coherency while editing. But I've been using track grouping for years without major issues.

IIRC, biggest problem is if you double click on a waveform so you are operating within, one track of a group can be edited without the edits crossing over to the grouped tracks. Then the tracks are no longer seen as grouped. The fix is to cut the tracks to the same length, restoring the group for edge editing and other tasks.

Hey yeah thanks!

That is exactly what it was.

I was moving/editing sets of 5.1 Stems from my score once it was mixed, to line up with new film edits.

The grouping options in DP were somehow weird for me, although again maybe I was just doing it wrong.

But I noticed things getting bumped out of place by tiny amounts, so of course terrible phasing occurred.

I gave up on doing that, but it's been a few years/versions of DP, so I need to go back in and try it again!

It would be the same problems with editing a set of drum tracks too, I guess?

That is why I at the beginning of all of this I said I wanted to keep the guitar parts as one single .wav file, not linked or grouped files.

This way there would never be any concern about stuff getting even slightly bumped out of phase. It would stay sample-accurate down to the tiniest degree.

Of course for film stems, there is no such thing as a 30-track .wav file, though with the whole Atmos thing now, I'm sure we are going to be headed there soon!

[JSmith1234567]

By "30 track" I meant getting six separate 5.1 stems into one single .wav file/track to edit, then split back out.

I guess this is back to the original idea, which is how to split out a multitrack .wav file into individual tracks.

By routing, not converting.