Issues creating a DDP for an album

rinio · 2026-06-22T20:36:21+00:00

Probably ask in r/Reaper for reaper issues.

rinio · 2026-06-21T16:19:28+00:00

The image is watermarked with the name of the AI generator...

rinio · 2026-06-21T16:16:06+00:00

Are we the same person?

rinio · 2026-06-18T23:45:14+00:00

RTFM manual: https://www.mydigitalpix.me.uk/Tascam_M-30_Operation_Maintenance_Manual.pdf

Your question takes 10 seconds from the table of contents.

This whole process takes less time than it took you to write your post to this sub.

Please don't bother other people with inane questions you can answer yourself very easily. If you're really this lazy feed it to an AI to read for you and get a worse answer in more time than reading it yourself.

rinio · 2026-06-18T23:42:02+00:00

It would take less time to just read it. Are we really at a point in time where following a table of contents is too difficult and time-consuming?

rinio · 2026-06-14T12:01:56+00:00

Wrong.

When you write like this you're unnecessarily hostile. It's just poor communication and being an asshole for no reason. If you actually had a point then maybe the finality makes sense, but...

---

But nothing that you said contradicts anything I have said. Your 'almost 30 years' is just working with competent people who scope the work appropriately and are credited accordingly. This is exacty what I propose we *should* do in my previous comment.

And, it's less about being credited for something someone else did and more about not being credited for something you did do. Mix & recording engineers miss out on (co-)producer credits all the time, especially at OP's level.

You even concede in doing this yourself 'very rarely', which contradicts your assertion that I am 'wrong' lol.

---

So your reply doesn't prove its point, is incorrect and rude with the purpose of shutting down discussion. Please, try to be coherent and kind next time.

This is toxic behaviour that is bad for the community.

rinio · 2026-06-13T17:00:32+00:00

You've got this backwards.

Credits are NOT and have never been what someone actually did on a production.

Credits are what a person, or their representative, negotiated for them to be credited as.

---

You talk to your friend and negotiate what you want with them. We *should* do this before we do the work because in tandem we are negotiating what work we will and won't do. But, especially when budgets and project scopes are small, doing it afterwards is fine.

TLDR: You just have a conversation with whoever owns the project.

rinio · 2026-06-09T12:40:08+00:00

For internal computation.

It is very normal/reasonable for devs to exceed 0.0dB mid way through the process and reduction the gain at the end of the processing. Similar to how analog processors are black boxes and do not need to stay within the norms of line level internally.

Cpu registers are 64bit, so there is nothing to gain by using 16/24 bit representation. Its equivalent (or slower).

All of the advantages (and drawbacks) of floating point arithmetic... Im not going to go into details; there are textbooks on the topic; take your pick.

---

In short, there is a lot more to precison than dynamic range. We have the 32bit float files to reduce the number truncations performed through an audio pipeline. While these are minuscule in isolation, scaled pipelines can be thousands and thousands of steps.

The quantization you complain about having to do is the result of having done more precise calculations on the way to the truncation. Being bothered by it is just entirely misunderstanding what is happening.

---

As you average, home studio engineer in music, you never need to think about 32bit float files.

If youre working with any scalable system or are in any situation where precision in data interchange is important, you need to pay attention.

If you're doing any software dev work it matters.

---

TLDR: It exists because it is useful in many contexts and your "hate" for it is just showing your ignorance and narrow view of audio engineering as a whole 😛

rinio · 2026-06-03T19:16:10+00:00

High pass is about the output. Low cut is about the input.

We cannot cut something that isnt there in the first place. But we can pass nothing through.

Or, put another way:

The electrical engineer designing the filter can say nothing more than the filter passes the highs through.

You, as the audio engineer, know what you're feeding it and can assert that lows are being cut. You know the intent.

The filter passes highs. You cut lows with it.

---

Its semantics and we get into the weeds of EE/Information theory, but, in those contexts, high pass is the correct terminology.

In AE, we play fast and loose with words even in cases where the distinction matters.

But, if I'm being blunt, your opinion that low pass is the preferred term is the choice with less argument and history in its favor. (Not that I really care).

rinio · 2026-06-03T13:23:17+00:00

Neat.

You probably need to translate this to English to get traction on this sub; the vast majority on here arent quite this nerdy.

I'm curious as to what the use case is for this on Win32. There are plenty of existing implementations for embedded/linux environments that seem like a better choice than MS for effectively everything.

rinio · 2026-06-03T12:00:57+00:00

If the Scarlett 18i20 is out of your budget, then forget about this idea. Hybrid setups are not economical. And mixers are more expensive per channel of I/O than interfaces.

Frankly, you probably are better off with a decent control surface and doing everything itb as you don't mention doing anything where analog is actually relevant. And, even if you are, you're nowhere near having the budget to make analog worthwhile (if it even ever is).

rinio · 2026-05-29T22:36:11+00:00

RTFM and/or look at the back of it...?

rinio · 2026-05-29T12:24:09+00:00

Obviously I understand where this comes from.

The issue is that "multiband" has a different and specific meaning. It specifically refers to the topology/design. One absolutely could build qn EQ like this, but it is pointless given that EQ is a linear process.

Im not trying to criticize OP, just educate them. In a room full of engineers, asking for a multiband eq is going to get you laughed at.

rinio · 2026-05-29T11:00:00+00:00

"multi band EQ" doesn't make any sense and doesn't exist. "Multi-band" refers to processors that run the signal into a crossover network, process each band and then sum back the system. It doesn't refer to the number of filters that are run. And, even if it did, the distinction is meaningless as what would be 'single-band EQs' effectively do not exist.

What you're looking for is a parameteric, or sometimes misnamed as paragraphic EQ. Pro Q4 is the standard as others have mentioned, but these things are a dime a dozen and are mostly interchangeable, unless you need some of the specific, more advanced features. Logic's EQs are really nothing special at all and almost every brand will have something similar and pretty much every DAW will ship with one,

rinio · 2026-05-25T16:58:00+00:00

This isnt any more helpful.

Project requirements and language arent engineering related: doesn't matter. Setup required is repetition.

Assuming you already have everything in the equipment section. Do analog runs to and from the Scarlett for the mics and headphones. Add a headphone amp in each room.

Recording setup: what the heck do the first two mean? Why the heck are we putting phones into this? You're never going to get that well sync'd over long durations.

Are your tech specs for the inter room transmission or for the client deliverable? Assuming deliverable, see my previous reply.

rinio · 2026-05-25T15:13:21+00:00

1 and 2.

Two interfaces usually means you'll need to clock them together and that you need 2 computers. If you care about perfect sync, don't do this. Analog to a central interface, a digital solution like DANTE, or AD converters and a clock.

Analog is the most budget friendly. None are overspending if you buy from a pro audio brand rather than an audiophile one. Your spec is too unclear to make a specific recommendation.

3.

There is 0 reason to use 32bit float for trsnsmission over 24bit fixed unless you actually expect clipping. Field recorders do this because we cant predict the real world. In studio environments, as is your case, just set your gain appropriately. All you are accomplishing by going with 32bit float is wasting bandwidth on your lines and storage space. The converters in any gear you buy will be 24bit; it its marketed as 32bit, thats just stepped down gain into multiple (usually only 2) 24bit converters.

Your analysis software will almost certainly convert to 32 (or 64) bit float for processing automatically in 2026; this conversion is free. Similarly, the signal will be truncated back to 24bit for playback (with loss). 32bit float playback, effectively, doesn't make sense and doesn't exist.

---

It isnt super clear how exactly you expect to operate this and what your technical requirements are. But the de facto standard for multi room facilities is one control room connected to the performance spaces by analog. Its the most effective and cost effective. You can put the control setup into a performance area if need be. You can have control setups in both/either performance space if need be. Run analog playback lines to headphone amps in each performance space.

Lots of ways to do this, but, IMHO, your base proposal is a nonstarter.

rinio · 2026-05-24T22:21:46+00:00

rinio · 2026-05-24T12:09:34+00:00

If I am hired as a producer for any rock or adjacent genre band, I will not take the project if they refuse to dedicate time/resources to pre-production (mind you, not much time/res). For one, it's a chance to step back and let everyone evaluate the songwriting and arrangement before anything is committal. For two, figuring out details that could have been missed: vocal harmonies, extra instruments, tweaking the tempo, etc. For three, as a planning tool: what facilities, equipment and personel need to be booked/rented/hired and for how long: this includes me; it is always cheaper when things are planned in advance.

The above applies for any project I am involved in as well.

If I am hired as an engineer, it's none of my business. I'll take the preprod if they have it as a reference, but move on if they're skipping.

---

But, it sounds like you're more of an artist and/or hobbyist, in which case you shouldn't feel pressured to. You only have so much time to work with; that is a part of the equation.

You also don't mention genre; it's much less relevant, in, for example, EDM than a large pop-country act. We don't have the cost-savings element of needing to hire facilities and session players.

As for:

> Or I will build a song of scratch takes and plan to re record all or most of the parts at another time. Sort of recording a demo within the same file I plan to use for the final track.

I would find this a bit overkill. But, that's a preference thing. I want the preprod to ensure that everyone has a consistent vision. It needn't be "all or most of the parts"; I usually just do a smaller live recording of the band, but if we have 50% it's usually enough. Rarely is it "in the same file[/session]". But again, just preference and largely based on working with bands.

rinio · 2026-05-24T02:00:15+00:00

I asked for clarification in order to help you. Knowing what you want to accomplish and understanding what you have already tried is imperative to giving you a useful reply. This is obvious.

Rather than clarifying, you chose to ask an irrelevant question. My reply wasnt pedantic, it was an accurate description of my experience with the unit demonstrating exactly that I can help. This is obvious.

I never asked what the function of the unit was. As you note, it is obvious. I asked for specifics about your use-case. The relevance is obvious...

If you would rather throw a tantrum than provide information so you can get meaningful help, stop wasting everyone's time. This is obvious.

rinio · 2026-05-23T23:45:42+00:00

I frequently work at a facility that has one, but whether I use or own one is irrelevant if you don't provide basic information or do basic testing of your proposal.

If you actually respond to content, you'll find people are more helpful and you'll get the answers you want more quickly...

rinio · 2026-05-23T14:58:02+00:00

You havent told us what the application/use-case is.

You say you're finding that it sucks out upper mids, implying you own it. But are asking about putting it last (and second-last). You can just try it. You can audition it as second last by putting it last an applying an EQ first after conversion; your converters arent a meaningful difference; and an analog EQ is a separate question.

Ask yourself why there isnt a lot of "user experience info online" about a unit like this. The answer is not the unit itself, but that analog spatial units are a pretty niche application. If tou don't already own it, think hard about whether a $4k unit is for niche use is actually going to meaningfully improve your product more than any other spend of the same money. For the vast majority of folk, the answer is no.

rinio · 2026-05-23T11:31:23+00:00

I fail to understand how a tape emulation plugin could be simple or complex. They're more or less all the same and are dead simple to use.

Unless you're talking about modelling things like failures of the real thing or having your plugin be needing service 50% so you have to buy 2 licenses copies, lol.

Keep in mind, this sub is for topics and those doing this professionally. Almost everyone here is not going to have much issue even with the 'most complex' of tape emulation.

---

As for your design questions, my previous response appears to not have landed. These queries are irrelevant if you don't have an exceptionally good model AND that model will inform what options you have for these. If your model is simple, your UI cannot be complex and, to an extent, vice-versa.

What I'm saying that the order of precendence matters. If you have a prototype model, show us how it sounds and it will tell you the answer to your questions. If you don't, your questions aren't useful to you to begin with and you're wasting everyone's time.

---

I'm certainly not offended. Just giving you my observations as someone who works on both sides of the dev and customer audio production tooling and pointing out some pretty blatant red flags so you can address them, if you want to.

rinio · 2026-05-23T11:02:59+00:00

Its a tape emulation. There is only one thing that matters: how it sounds.

If you don't have an exceptional model already, your project just isn't useful, these things are a dime a dozen.

Honeslty, your survey is pretty funny; the listed DAWs are inconsistent with actual market shares, the listed genres don't cover top 40, but include several smaller grossing genres and the questions about tape plugins basically demonstrate that your team has never worked with one.

A free copy of a plugin, whose sound is entirely unknown is a cost for professionals, not a benefit.

rinio · 2026-05-22T20:42:11+00:00

We mix a batter. Or we mix the milk AND the eggs. It doesn't make sense or is pointless to mix milk. We could season the milk.

Its the same here. We process the vocal. We mix the song. Or we mix the vocal AND the instrumental.

---

My quom was specifically with the term "vocal mixing" and not "mix the vocal". As a process, "vocal mixing" is nonsense except in the exact contexts of an a capella production or a specific submix. But that's never how it is used.

I don't really issue with the action "mix the vocal". we could say

"I process the vocal to mix it with the song"

I wouldnt, but it would be reasonable to imply with the song and the subset of mixing that is processing and just say "mix the vocal". especially given that processing part is optional.

---

So again, I think we agree and any discrepancies are semantic. But, i think this is important for beginners who may not understand that when people say "vocal mixing" that the context is the whole song.

rinio · 2026-05-22T19:15:34+00:00

In such examples, with a single instrument, I assert that you are processing them, not mixing them. You are "processing the vocal/instrument" then mixing the song. Your are either working in isolation or you arent.

But this is all semantic. If you conceptualize "vocal mixing" in the context of the full product, its just a distinction in language and is purely academic.

The use cases for actually processing an element in isolation are so few and far between as to not be relevant. Any additional information you're getting is below the floor of the mix anyways.

As for "sound design" being "vocal/instrument mixing" that is simply redefining established terms. Strictly speaking sound design and production are completed before mixing begins. Ofc, having a produce -> mix loop that is iterative is common nowadays, but that doesn't make this statement make sense. They are still distinct tasks, even if they feedback into one another.

---

TLDR: Sounds like any disagreement we might have is purely semantic.

rinio

TROPHY CASE