Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[resolectric]

When clients ask me for the separate tracks i do a "bounce" or multitrack export (i'm using Nuendo) rendering each track with the effects used in them and all starting at Timecode 00:00:00.

I charge for the time it takes to do the render and prepare a media for storage; usb pen, dvd, hard disk, etc.
I also charge for the media if i have to supply it.

I never supply the session file, Nuendo's "npr" file, since that would be giving away my method of working in what regards to  track settings, effects, eq's, comps and automation parameters.
I believe those are personal.
Besides, a session file won't be of much use even if my clients have the same DAW software that i use since they would still need all the same plugins.

So, i give them the audio tracks but charge for the time it takes to export them.

[sam161]

That's what I was getting at.

Sorry if it didn't come across that way lol.

[rankus]

resolectric wrote on Wed, 10 September 2008 06:34

When clients ask me for the separate tracks i do a "bounce" or multitrack export (i'm using Nuendo) rendering each track with the effects used in them and all starting at Timecode 00:00:00. I charge for the time it takes to do the render and prepare a media for storage; usb pen, dvd, hard disk, etc. I also charge for the media if i have to supply it. I never supply the session file, Nuendo's "npr" file, since that would be giving away my method of working in what regards to  track settings, effects, eq's, comps and automation parameters. I believe those are personal. Besides, a session file won't be of much use even if my clients have the same DAW software that i use since they would still need all the same plugins. So, i give them the audio tracks but charge for the time it takes to export them.

This my MO as well, but I do not render any effects... just straight tracks as they were recorded.  I feel that the effects are part on my work as well... but also feel the raw tracks should be preserved as recorded.

[Nick Sevilla]

rankus wrote on Wed, 10 September 2008 10:39

resolectric wrote on Wed, 10 September 2008 06:34 When clients ask me for the separate tracks i do a "bounce" or multitrack export (i'm using Nuendo) rendering each track with the effects used in them and all starting at Timecode 00:00:00. I charge for the time it takes to do the render and prepare a media for storage; usb pen, dvd, hard disk, etc. I also charge for the media if i have to supply it. I never supply the session file, Nuendo's "npr" file, since that would be giving away my method of working in what regards to  track settings, effects, eq's, comps and automation parameters. I believe those are personal. Besides, a session file won't be of much use even if my clients have the same DAW software that i use since they would still need all the same plugins. So, i give them the audio tracks but charge for the time it takes to export them. This my MO as well, but I do not render any effects... just straight tracks as they were recorded.  I feel that the effects are part on my work as well... but also feel the raw tracks should be preserved as recorded.

Hmmmm. I just worked on a project, where the recording engineer did some rough mixes.

Then, when I opened the ProTools sessions, and played it back, it sounded nothing like the rough mixes.

The artist was PISSED OFF. Since the engineer was paid in full for all work performed, AND the clear understanding was that the mixes were rough. In fact they were so rough, there weren't any lead vocals on them yet, since the singer has yet to write the lyrics.

Needless to say, the engineer lost a client. So much for "inter-studio" operability, when and engineer decides to not hand all his paid work over to the artist.

Do you guys feel that removing effects and plugins will somehow "save" you from the artist going elsewhere? Or what is the real reason? Do you think the artist will take your work and finish it themselves? Or actually learn to engineer (oh...yeah, that will happen...)

In the few ties I have handed over DAW projects, I include ALL my work, and even give the next engineer, if there is one, a list of the plugins I used, so when they open up the session, it WORKS. I usually get compliments, and return business.

In my experience, it does not matter how you deliver, because in the end, it's your EARS and the brain behind them that makes the songs sound great, not the plugins or gear.

My 2c...

[imdrecordings]

Hi Nick.

It all goes back to what you work out in the first place.
I really can't see a point to giving them processed tracks, unless that's what they ask for.  But even then, I would have a hard time understanding why they would need this.  
Once something is done, live with it.

I've had someone ask me for something simalar to thesituation you discribe, but only if I just recorded the material.  I would provided them with two session files:one with the mixer and files fully reset and the other with a ruff mix I may have done as a quick reference for the band.   It's always changing though, because everyone/situation is different.


In this case, my friends are just a bunch of Musicians and tweakers that are just getting into the A.E. field, ever since they purchased Laptops and interfaces.  
  They'd like the opportunity of playing around with the tracks used on their last album and having my processed tracks would be a mistake, IMO.  They'll probably come out with a little cdr-EP of remixes and fun stuff in the future, using the tracks on this album.  Sh*t!! I'd like to remix a song or two in the future without their involvement and throw it in their sweet little faces!
I'm sure it will be interesting.

If someone chose not to work with me again after I delivered something not to their liking, I'd be bummed if they came to such a conclusion without contacting me to remedy the situation first or at least explain my decision.

[Fig]

Nick Sevilla wrote on Wed, 10 September 2008 15:24

Needless to say, the engineer lost a client. So much for "inter-studio" operability, when and engineer decides to not hand all his paid work over to the artist.

Does the artist have all those plugins?  I don't.

Quote:

Do you guys feel that removing effects and plugins will somehow "save" you from the artist going elsewhere? Or what is the real reason? Do you think the artist will take your work and finish it themselves? Or actually learn to engineer (oh...yeah, that will happen...)

If I imported your session into my rig, I wouldn't have any plug ins - so it would, indeed, sound very different from the playback on your rig.  I know this isn't the topic really but - if band asks for the WAVs, they should be labelled and raw - for my uses of such data anyway, taking it from your studio to mine (still dunno why, but folks do it).  Your session file is useless to me, I just want the WAVs.

If they want them rendered or bounced or whatever you wanna call it - "frozen" with all aspects added to it added - that's studio time in my mind.

Quote:

In the few ties I have handed over DAW projects, I include ALL my work, and even give the next engineer, if there is one, a list of the plugins I used, so when they open up the session, it WORKS. I usually get compliments, and return business.

See above - your plugin info is useless to me.  Session file?  Who needs it.

Quote:

In my experience, it does not matter how you deliver, because in the end, it's your EARS and the brain behind them that makes the songs sound great, not the plugins or gear. My 2c...

OT, but I agree with your ears assessment.

However, it DOES matter how its delivered, and the receiving party should specify what they would like - we're not mind readers.

Just last night we tried working on a few projects (in ProTools, I still can't wash it off) that came from a guy (artist) who asked for "the files" from another studio.

We got MIDI with no voices printed and scratch tracks - thanks fellas.  They're outta business - go figure.

I guess Fibes is right though, you gotta discuss it up front.  

"In-house" projects are obvious to me, though.  We have some clients that don't know other studios even exist.

Warm analog regards,

Fig

[Nick Sevilla]

Hi Fig,

I'm sorry if I sound condescending, or that this might sound like a rant. It comes from my own personal experience.

In my last case the recording engineer knew beforehand that the tracks were basics, and that a lot more work was going to happen after him. The comment from the Producer was this "Oh, I guess I won't be going back there again".

In the world of "D.A.W" what is important is to be able to deliver a hard drive to the client, have them fly or drive to another studio to continue work, and have the session show up in the new studio EXACTLY as they heard it in the previous studio.

I get this often, since some of my clients get other singers and performers to collaborate with them on a song. Not all these artists can be driven / flown in to my client's home city, so the producer or myself will go to where these other artists reside, in order to record them.

This is why D.A.W. can be so powerful - because they allow an artist the freedom to go work anywhere in the world, with whomever they want, and not have a lot of time to lose on setting up hardware.

Sometimes, all I have to do if FedEx a DVD with the audio, and then simply receive back a Pro Tools session with the new audio via FTP site, and continue my work.

There are a lot of clients that I work with, who do this kind of recordings i.e. Scratch demos at their home DAW, then basic tracks in another city in a big facility, then more overdubs back in their home, sending a Pro Tools session to another artist via FTP / FedEx,then final mixing in yet another big facility.

Now imagine the scenario if at every juncture, each engineer had to redo rough mixes from scratch, and even use different DAWs. Do you know what a waste of time that can be? I know, I've been there, and believe me, it is no picnic.

But, you can do whatever you like with your clients. If you do not do this kind of workflow I can understand why you do not care to pass on your plug ins and rough mixes. I just like for my clients to work on their albums without having to worry about any technical issues, nor any engineer issues, and have the mix they heard in studio A come up in studio B sounding the same.

Cheers

[Fibes]

Nick Sevilla wrote on Thu, 11 September 2008 18:17

Hi Fig, I'm sorry if I sound condescending, or that this might sound like a rant. It comes from my own personal experience. In my last case the recording engineer knew beforehand that the tracks were basics, and that a lot more work was going to happen after him. The comment from the Producer was this "Oh, I guess I won't be going back there again". In the world of "D.A.W" what is important is to be able to deliver a hard drive to the client, have them fly or drive to another studio to continue work, and have the session show up in the new studio EXACTLY as they heard it in the previous studio. I get this often, since some of my clients get other singers and performers to collaborate with them on a song. Not all these artists can be driven / flown in to my client's home city, so the producer or myself will go to where these other artists reside, in order to record them. This is why D.A.W. can be so powerful - because they allow an artist the freedom to go work anywhere in the world, with whomever they want, and not have a lot of time to lose on setting up hardware. Sometimes, all I have to do if FedEx a DVD with the audio, and then simply receive back a Pro Tools session with the new audio via FTP site, and continue my work. There are a lot of clients that I work with, who do this kind of recordings i.e. Scratch demos at their home DAW, then basic tracks in another city in a big facility, then more overdubs back in their home, sending a Pro Tools session to another artist via FTP / FedEx,then final mixing in yet another big facility. Now imagine the scenario if at every juncture, each engineer had to redo rough mixes from scratch, and even use different DAWs. Do you know what a waste of time that can be? I know, I've been there, and believe me, it is no picnic. But, you can do whatever you like with your clients. If you do not do this kind of workflow I can understand why you do not care to pass on your plug ins and rough mixes. I just like for my clients to work on their albums without having to worry about any technical issues, nor any engineer issues, and have the mix they heard in studio A come up in studio B sounding the same. Cheers

This is an entirely different scenario that you speak of IMO.

The again I print anything NOW that I want to be like that later, call me old skool but making decisions NOW saves time later.

[Fig]

Nick Sevilla wrote on Thu, 11 September 2008 17:17

Hi Fig, I'm sorry if I sound condescending, or that this might sound like a rant. It comes from my own personal experience.

No apologies, but I think you are speaking of something else entirely.  The OP's project is DONE already!

<snippage of your dissertation>

Quote:

Now imagine the scenario if at every juncture, each engineer had to redo rough mixes from scratch, and even use different DAWs. Do you know what a waste of time that can be? I know, I've been there, and believe me, it is no picnic.

Sir, this is how I learned to make records when they were on reels.  You call a "waste of time" what I "do for a living".  Pulling up mixes is the whole reason I am there

Quote:

But, you can do whatever you like with your clients. If you do not do this kind of workflow I can understand why you do not care to pass on your plug ins and rough mixes.

My point was that I have no plug-ins.  All my processing is done with three-dimensional, dedicated hardware devices.  If a client wanted comps, gates, verbs and effects printed to their WAVs, I'd do it.

Obviously if a project of today, in a DAW, was to be done as you described, it would be foolish to not work as you described.

Quote:

I just like for my clients to work on their albums without having to worry about any technical issues, nor any engineer issues, and have the mix they heard in studio A come up in studio B sounding the same.

A noble goal, to be sure.

Read the original post, though - different, methinks.

Osci-later,

Fig

[marcel]

I think guys responses to this are going to depend on how 'analogue' their workflow is.  I use plugs when I simply cannot use hardware, or when the task (say basic filtering or gating) is so rudimentary that it's not worth tying up hardware to perform it.  With a console, that's relatively rare.

I prefer to get a bunch of files with the same start point, as I have to reassign outputs/do my own sub-mixing/work out my own balance anyways.  This is defined by my workflow, tho - I prefer to have everything up to the mixing stage playing back 'as is'.  I find I resolve more problems more quickly this way.  A basic tracking session with a bunch of EQ or dynamics on the playback channels is an unsuccessful session, IMHO.  

[Fibes]

If I'm working as # 2 tracking guy on a project and there will be more down the line with a follow up mixer I do as i always do: Track and print how the instruments are supposed to sound and those are the files that are delivered.

If there is some delay on the vocal that is important I print a track if the artist deals with it.

Hell, I've sent drums L_R, guitars L_R, Bass, Vocals L-R to mixers before knowing how it might end up.

If people get fired because their plug ins aren't on the next session somewhere else it should only be because they weren't paid to print those plugs (the only way to assure the future sessions 1 to 1 relationship...) someone didn't communicate. It's important to remain flexible but reading minds costs extra.


BTW J- 6 pound 8 ounce boy.

[j.hall]

Fibes wrote on Sun, 14 September 2008 16:18

BTW J- 6 pound 8 ounce boy.

YES!!!!!!!!

i expect pics in the email box soon.

we're having another boy as well.  can you say.......power trio!!!

[mattrussell]

coming into this kind of late, but i was asked (by yet another band) to do this very recently.  when this happens, i always just ask them to provide a drive and i simply copy the data from my drive to theirs and then use toast to verify the folders.  simple as that.  i NEVER spend time burning DVD's for the client unless i'm being paid a crazy amount of money to do so.  just do not have the time to do it.

every month or so, i clean off my drives and i do indeed burn DVD's, but i keep those as a 'just in case.  it takes LOTS of time to do this, so i have a second mac i use for web/disc burning.  most of my sessions are on firewire drives, so it's a simple matter of plugging the drive i used into the other mac.  


EDIT:  i never output tracks separately unless, again, i'm being paid an insane amount of money.  it's simply not a part of the deal and it opens the door for them to blow up the mixes i did and then not take credit for ruining my work.  if they need something for live use (loops, b/u vox, etc), i'll do that if they pay me.

[Devin Knutson]

I output 0:00 start wavs as a regular part of the process.  When I'm done comping/editing, I make output wavs of the comped/edited tracks and start a new session with them.  I mix from that new session.  If I need to make an editing change, I go back to the edit session, tweak it, and bring its output back in to the mix session.

It sounds like a ton of extra work, but it really isn't at all, once it's just part of the process.  It frees up DSP power for the mix because the DAW isn't having to render crossfades and edits in real time, and it has saved my ass a couple times.  When something goes completely pear shaped I don't have to go all the way back to the original pre-edit takes and start all over.

If the client wants their files that they paid for, I copy the entire work folder to their drive, and they can sort it out (I'm generally pretty good about naming and labelling).

[CHANCE]

I recently went through this. A band that has recorded many projects over the past 10 years. I was never asked to keep or store their projects. Since HD space is so cheap, I did it anyway. I was recently asked if I had their old projects and when I told them yes, they said they wanted them with all the virtual tracks, punches, etc. in other words un-consolidated/rendered. I told them no problem, just bring me a HD and I'll do it for free. What do they do? They bring me a large external USB (1) HD. I told them it will take days to do this transfer. I did the transfer only to find out that they had someone that was going to re mix in Protools and couldn't open the files. I told them I need to consolidate so everything lines up as  continuous files. At this point I felt that I was entitled full compensation for my time.