How does the whole printing stems through PT from Cubase work?

Although some people simply like to get PT sessions, there is nothing wrong with printing individual audio files and sending those over. Just make sure that the Cubase locators don't change, so the start times are all identical, otherwise there will be sync issues.

There's a 3rd option: Export Stems and bring them into a PT session to deliver to your engineer. Exporting as broadcast wave files let's you snap them directly to the proper time code when importing in Pro Tools.

*One* of the reasons people like to print into Pro Tools is because they like it as a final check that everything is OK since you are doing it in real time. Personally, I can't stand working that way -- I have to double check my work away from the studio otherwise I'll end up endlessly making non-critical revisions. So I export (to Dropbox), throw on some cans and take a walk or do some chores.

brek said:

There's a 3rd option: Export Stems and bring them into a PT session to deliver to your engineer. Exporting as broadcast wave files let's you snap them directly to the proper time code when importing in Pro Tools.

*One* of the reasons people like to print into Pro Tools is because they like it as a final check that everything is OK since you are doing it in real time. Personally, I can't stand working that way -- I have to double check my work away from the studio otherwise I'll end up endlessly making non-critical revisions. So I export (to Dropbox), throw on some cans and take a walk or do some chores.

Click to expand...

Thats good to know! Is there also an option where Cubase prints into PT in real time on playback? I recall someone mentioning this to me a while ago, is this a thing or still is?

At RCP the Cubase rig was synced to a Pro-Tools rig . Everything was bussed out; Shorts Longs etc. Just hit play and record

best

ed

tcdlim said:

Is there also an option where Cubase prints into PT in real time on playback? I recall someone mentioning this to me a while ago, is this a thing or still is?

Click to expand...

It is possible but requires one of these two...

• Cubase and PT running on same computer using an audio interface with loopback function to send outputs from Cubase to PT
• Cubase and PT on different computers with two audio interfaces, one routed into the other

It depends what exactly you want to record live into PT. If only the final stereo or surround mix, then an interface with a single ADAT output will do it. If STEMs, then you will need many more tracks, which means a more expensive audio interface.

So it is certainly an option if you choose to go that route, but is more expensive.

Edit: Also keep in mind the track i/o limits imposed on Pro Tools. For example. Pro Tools Studio allows 64 simultaneous i/o. So something like a RME Madiface USB would be a good option there to take advantage of the full 64 channels. If you buy Pro Tools Ultimate, you get many more simultaneous recording tracks.

ed buller said:

At RCP the Cubase rig was synced to a Pro-Tools rig . Everything was bussed out; Shorts Longs etc. Just hit play and record

best

ed

Click to expand...

Hi Ed,

Just curious if the whole Short / Long thing extended to pretty much every orchestral instrument or if certain sections were split out that way more than others.

For example, are we looking at...

• Piccolo Short
• Piccolo Long
• Flute Short
• Flute Long......................
• Horns Short
• Horns Long
• Trumpet Short
• Trumpet Long......................
• Vlns Short
• Vlns long
• Violas Short
• Violas Long............

etc.

I imagine synths, percussion, and sound design can get a bit more tricky to compartmentalize since there is great variety in those types of sounds that you may need split out for mixing purposes.

Best,

-T

Tom_D said:

It is possible but requires one of these two...

• Cubase and PT running on same computer using an audio interface with loopback function to send outputs from Cubase to PT
• Cubase and PT on different computers with two audio interfaces, one routed into the other

It depends what exactly you want to record live into PT. If only the final stereo or surround mix, then an interface with a single ADAT output will do it. If STEMs, then you will need many more tracks, which means a more expensive audio interface.

So it is certainly an option if you choose to go that route, but is more expensive.

Edit: Also keep in mind the track i/o limits imposed on Pro Tools. For example. Pro Tools Studio allows 64 simultaneous i/o. So something like a RME Madiface USB would be a good option there to take advantage of the full 64 channels. If you buy Pro Tools Ultimate, you get many more simultaneous recording tracks.

Click to expand...

Oh it seems like hosting both DAW's on the same system be more convenient but requires greater computing power. As for the 2nd option, I'd go with stems. This might sound like a silly question, but would 64 simultaneous i/o's give me an option of 64 stems?

Tom_D said:

Hi Ed,

Just curious if the whole Short / Long thing extended to pretty much every orchestral instrument or if certain sections were split out that way more than others.

For example, are we looking at...

• Piccolo Short
• Piccolo Long
• Flute Short
• Flute Long......................
• Horns Short
• Horns Long
• Trumpet Short
• Trumpet Long......................
• Vlns Short
• Vlns long
• Violas Short
• Violas Long............

etc.

I imagine synths, percussion, and sound design can get a bit more tricky to compartmentalize since there is great variety in those types of sounds that you may need split out for mixing purposes.

Best,

-T

Click to expand...

well for one it depends if if was mixed stems. Than Brass long and Short etc. Most of the time it was submixed. But wherever possible longs and shorts where separated. Virtually no woodwind though...Not a big thing at RCP

best

ed

tcdlim said:

Oh it seems like hosting both DAW's on the same system be more convenient but requires greater computing power.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. It can work on a relatively powerful computer. I have tested it with my PC I built and was able to send ~64 channels from one application to the other via RME loopback on the same computer. In this exercise I also had VE Pro 7 running in the background with approx 48 GB of samples loaded (I have 64 gigs of RAM total on this machine).

tcdlim said:

As for the 2nd option, I'd go with stems. This might sound like a silly question, but would 64 simultaneous i/o's give me an option of 64 stems?

Click to expand...

No. It is 64 mono channels, which equals 32 stereo stems or 16 quad stems, etc. So you can see how if you want to print many STEMs live, you need quite a few channels on your audio interface to split things out.

ed buller said:

well for one it depends if if was mixed stems. Than Brass long and Short etc. Most of the time it was submixed. But wherever possible longs and shorts where separated. Virtually no woodwind though...Not a big thing at RCP

best

ed

Click to expand...

Is this because long and shorts are produced differently with different eq and compression settings? I would assume shorts would need to cut through the mixes more which entails certain types of production for presence etc.. ? Just figuring out why longs and shorts are seperated.

Tom_D said:

Yes, this is true. It can work on a relatively powerful computer. I have tested it with my PC I built and was able to send ~64 channels from one application to the other via RME loopback on the same computer. In this exercise I also had VE Pro 7 running in the background with approx 48 GB of samples loaded (I have 64 gigs of RAM total on this machine).


No. It is 64 mono channels, which equals 32 stereo stems or 16 quad stems, etc. So you can see how if you want to print many STEMs live, you need quite a few channels on your audio interface to split things out.

Click to expand...

oh! gotcha!

so im guessing hardware like the Avid MTRX Base Unit comes into play? or some other hardware like it? I see a lot of avid stuff on composers rigs. Would this be the purpose?

tcdlim said:

oh! gotcha!

so im guessing hardware like the Avid MTRX Base Unit comes into play? or some other hardware like it? I see a lot of avid stuff on composers rigs. Would this be the purpose?

Click to expand...

Avid-specific gear is typically required for the DSP aspect of Pro Tools Ultimate - meaning that processing power is offloaded to the Avid hardware. It can become very expensive that way, and is not absolutely necessary depending on your requirements.

For example, any PT version can work with a 3rd-party interface, but you will not have the DSP processing I mentioned, and you will be limited in the i/o depending on the version of PT you have. In all my testing I mentioned previously, it was with RME interfaces (not AVID hardware) and Pro Tools Studio, which is their mid-tier product.

Have a look at the AVID website which compares the different versions.

I have not personally owned any Avid hardware, and so cannot speak directly to any of it in use.

The main reason you will see AVID stuff in many working composer's rigs is that they often deliver a Pro Tools session for either mixing (to a mixing engineer) or the dub stage (where they add the music stems to the rest of the mix with dialogue, SFX, etc.). In addition to this, studios that are recording live will utilize AVID hardware for its low latency.

tcdlim said:

Is this because long and shorts are produced differently with different eq and compression settings? I would assume shorts would need to cut through the mixes more which entails certain types of production for presence etc.. ? Just figuring out why longs and shorts are seperated.

Click to expand...

no. they just need to be balanced very carefully and HZ has learned the hard way, cover yourself for later!

Best

ed

ed buller said:

no. they just need to be balanced very carefully and HZ has learned the hard way, cover yourself for later!

Best

ed

Click to expand...

Oh right! I would assume this is for long passages of either longs or shorts? How about an instrument that plays a theme with equal long and short notes? would these be stemmed as you've mentioned or will it have its own stem.. 'LEG' etc..?

Tom_D said:

Avid-specific gear is typically required for the DSP aspect of Pro Tools Ultimate - meaning that processing power is offloaded to the Avid hardware. It can become very expensive that way, and is not absolutely necessary depending on your requirements.

For example, any PT version can work with a 3rd-party interface, but you will not have the DSP processing I mentioned, and you will be limited in the i/o depending on the version of PT you have. In all my testing I mentioned previously, it was with RME interfaces (not AVID hardware) and Pro Tools Studio, which is their mid-tier product.

Have a look at the AVID website which compares the different versions.

I have not personally owned any Avid hardware, and so cannot speak directly to any of it in use.

The main reason you will see AVID stuff in many working composer's rigs is that they often deliver a Pro Tools session for either mixing (to a mixing engineer) or the dub stage (where they add the music stems to the rest of the mix with dialogue, SFX, etc.). In addition to this, studios that are recording live will utilize AVID hardware for its low latency.

Click to expand...

this is fantastic, ty!

Also if you are thinking of experimenting with live printing from one application to another, read up a bit on Midi Time Code (MTC) and Midi Machine Control (MMC). You will have to know how to set those up on each DAW in order synchronize/control multiple DAWs so they playback together.

As with interfaces, there are other ways to do the sync with AVID hardware (Sync X) but much more expensive and not absolutely necessary.

Tom_D said:

Also if you are thinking of experimenting with live printing from one application to another, read up a bit on Midi Time Code (MTC) and Midi Machine Control (MMC). You will have to know how to set those up on each DAW in order synchronize/control multiple DAWs so they playback together.

As with interfaces, there are other ways to do the sync with AVID hardware (Sync X) but much more expensive and not absolutely necessary.

Click to expand...

oh I see. Instead of using AVID Sync X, would something like the Antelope OCX-HD 768 kHz HD Master Clock be an alternative or something like it?

tcdlim said:

oh I see. Instead of using AVID Sync X, would something like the Antelope OCX-HD 768 kHz HD Master Clock be an alternative or something like it?

Click to expand...

I don't know the antelope device.

Essentially you are required to set up synchronization in two different domains when using a second computer for audio and recording

One is synchronization of the audio interfaces. This can be done by adat, aes, madi, avb, dante, whatever protocol you use. Or via separate word clock. Either way is fine.

The second is synchronization for the transport of the two daws. That is what midi time code, or alternatively linear time code (one of the outputs that the sync x provides), is for. It means when you hit play on one computer, the other one also will play at the same position.

Ultimately you can achieve all this with, for example, two rme babyface interfaces. Use adat between the two for audio clock and recording between computers. Use the midi for midi time code for transport sync. Done. This setup gives 8 channels, or 4 stereo stems.

Tom_D said:

I don't know the antelope device.

Essentially you are required to set up synchronization in two different domains when using a second computer for audio and recording

One is synchronization of the audio interfaces. This can be done by adat, aes, madi, avb, dante, whatever protocol you use. Or via separate word clock. Either way is fine.

The second is synchronization for the transport of the two daws. That is what midi time code, or alternatively linear time code (one of the outputs that the sync x provides), is for. It means when you hit play on one computer, the other one also will play at the same position.

Ultimately you can achieve all this with, for example, two rme babyface interfaces. Use adat between the two for audio clock and recording between computers. Use the midi for midi time code for transport sync. Done. This setup gives 8 channels, or 4 stereo stems.

Click to expand...

this is great thank you. In terms of protocol, I see ADAT and MADI is pretty prevalent in other film composer setups, are there any quality differences with these or are they all the same roughly?

Also what's the medium to top tier audio interface that could give me an option to live record 32 stereo stems?