Does it make a difference which DAW to send tracks to studios?

[javi_bassist]

Hello,

I am slowly working on upgrading my home studio. I have changed a few things: monitors, cable managament, DI boxes, interface... Nothing really fancy I must say. Some of my work consists on studio recording. Sometimes I am hired and we go to a studio and sometimes I record myself and I send the tracks to the person who hired me or directly to the producer. It is not a huge part of my work since around 85-90% of the time I do live work. However, I need some quality of course.
The thing is that the other day I met a friend who does much more work recording tracks at home. He probably does 30-40% of his work is in the studio. We were talking about recording and he said that a Mac and Pro Tools is mandatory because that what studios use and everyone working professionally should use them. He claims that Pro Tools is mandatory to send the project (I always send WAV tracks). I don't really like Mac I must admit. Since I learned how to build PCs, I have always used Windows. And I don't have a lot of issues (except for some drivers...). My work is pretty simple: I record two or three tracks: a completely clean track, a track with some preamp and compression and a track with effects or simulations. I have used different DAWs in the past, but lately I have been using Reaper. I even have a license. I know it might not be the best DAW, but I never had an issue. Now I am toying with the idea of trying to learn Pro Tools (I have Pro Tools Intro, since the wrok is simple with few tracks). I don't mind paying for software, but I think getting Pro Tools Artist for the amount of work that I do would be a waste of money. However, would you recommend that I take the time to learn Pro Tools? I never had any issue with Reaper and no producer has ever tell me anything about the quality of the tracks I send but I just was wondering what you guys use.

 

[EvilJ]

IMO Pro tools is a waste of money. It is what I started out on around 01, and have never regretted my switch to Reaper years ago.
Unless you need to share your session file, not just .Wav files, I would say stay with what you like.
I considered a move back to PT a while back and I found it buggy, unreliable and a waste of the monthly cost.

YMMV,

J.

 

[ardgedee]

In office work, sometimes MS Office is mandatory. Usually though you can use any word processor or spreadsheet application, they can all read and create MS Office-compatible files, and there are plenty of non-proprietary formats that work perfectly well depending on what your client/customer/etc is expecting of you.

In graphics work, sometimes the Adobe suite is mandatory. Usually though you can use any sufficiently robust graphics application, they can all read and create Adobe-compatible files, and there are plenty of non-proprietary formats that work perfectly well depending on what your client/customer/etc is expecting of you.

In audio work, etc.

If nobody requires files in proprietary Pro Tools format, then save your money. I'm guessing that when you're only submitting single instrument tracks, WAV files will always be accepted.

Ask the people you work with. Ultimately theirs are the only opinions that matter.

 

[superheavyfunk]

WAV is WAV, regardless of which application is viewing the file. You can even use VLC to open a WAV file. It doesn't change what the file is or the quality of the information that is contained therein.

Reaper is an excellent daw. I've been using it for 15 years in a professional capacity and have never had a problem. You don't need to switch unless there's a particular workflow that you need which might only be available in a different program, ie: Ableton Live for effects/video performance, or native hardware compatibility with Studio One, etc

 

[Kacey Y]

It's generally considered standard and professional to send individual tracks rendered to WAV files, printed from the same start point, so they're all time aligned from the same starting point. Sending DAW project files is something that people can and have done, but the potential for problems is massive, even if everyone is using the same DAW. The big question when sending rendered WAV files is whether or not to print them with plug-ins/fx and there's a lot of options, but it's something that should generally be discussed with whoever the files are being sent to ahead of time. For example, some people might send multiple versions of the same track, with and without whatever specific effect they had been rough mixing with, maybe even just as a reference. Some people might send files for fx bus returns like reverb or delay, or parallel compression tracks. I haven't done mixing for hire work in a number of years now, but I can tell you if someone wanted to hire me to mix a project and said "Do you have PT? because I only send PT project files and that's industry standard" I would politely find myself to be "booked up" for a while, because I guarantee the invoice wouldn't be worth the amount of new gray hairs I'd get from that job.

Reaper is a perfectly good DAW, there's a lot of perfectly good and usable DAWs out there. If you're using them to record and reference mix and just sending WAV files to someone to do a professional mix, it really doesn't matter what you use. It's just important that the basic technical and practical requirements are met (file type, time alignment, file labeling and organization, helpful and clear project notes, etc.), so you're not paying someone to spend their time deciphering and solving issues just to get started, when they could be actually mixing.

 

[funkinbottom]

Another Reaper user here, for the last six years. It is excellent, user friendly and only $60 (free updates). And, the program itself takes up very little room on your hard drive. I have a couple engineer friends that work in studios that use protools, but their DAW of choice at home is Reaper.

 

[ardgedee]

(y'all, PLEASE proofread your posts! People are making some really unfortunate typos for "Reaper" here! If you have to fix your post, the "edit" button works!)

 

[KohanMike]

There's no reason to go to Mac and Pro Tools, especially if all you do is provide one track, as others have said. I only use Mac and GarageBand for the same work, but on a Mac, Logic Pro is supposed to be better than Pro Tools. My nephew is a professional film/TV composer and only uses Logic.

 

[silky smoove]

Digital summing is identical across all platforms and cannot be any other way. If 1+1 equals anything other than 2, that indicates the software is broken. This is easily verified with a correctly administered null test. With that mind, use whatever DAW you want and send consolidated WAVs. No one will be able to tell which DAW you used.

 

[lowfreqgeek]

The quality of your interface is more important than the DAW - especially if you're only providing raw wavs. You need an accurate clock and clean, low noise preamps. The DAW only takes the raw data that the interface is capturing.

I, too, have used Reaper for years and never had any issues. Just make sure you know how to get things time-aligned and render your files so that they are easy to drop into a project in another DAW. Even then, I've had some issues with people not getting my tracks perfectly aligned to the grid, but that's on their end.

 

[Tosh]

of the 4 studios I have worked in, one used digital tape, digital hard disk, and analog tape (no Pro Tools), one used Logic, one used Nuendo, and one used analog tape plus Pro Tools.

Lots of people NOT using Pro Tools, putting out great results.

In my band, 2 people use Logic, 1 uses Reaper, 1 uses Abelton, and 1 uses a Zoom MP3 recorder. No one uses Pro Tools.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I remember seeing Henrick Linder from Dirty Loops and he was asked how they made their first record.

"I'm grew up as a PC guy so I used Cubase. Jonah is a Mac guy, so he used Logic. Aron is the only real pro and went to a studio and used ProTools. Then we just sent all the .wav files we tracked on our to the mixer and that was that."

If it's good enough for Henrick, it's good enough for most of us.

 

[Brandon Shea]

Pro Tools can handle wav files just fine. You really don't need anything that fancy to record bass as long as you're getting a clean signal, not clipping, etc.

On Windows and Linux, I think Reaper is my favorite DAW to use. It's fast and lets you set up some really cool shortcuts to make recording easier. Just one example: I have a couple keyboard shortcuts to record multiple takes in a loop, then automatically pan the last two full takes hard left + hard right for really fast double tracking of guitars. Reaper is also available on macOS if that ever comes up, and it's priced very aggressively.

On macOS, I like working in Logic. The bass amp designer plugin sounds especially good considering that it's built-in, and I also love the AI musicians they added in some of the recent updates. Drums and keys are especially fun to play along with.

 

[newfuture]

If you are actually exchanging mix files and need settings to be identical across platforms, then your DAW should match the other studio's DAW.

If are just sending left -justified .wav files, the DAW is irrelevant.

 

[longfinger]

Moving forward it seems people who collaborate remotely with audio DAWs should use services like BeatConnect or SessionWire

BeatConnect | Collaborative Music Creation

Connect and collaborate with beat makers around the world in real time with BeatConnect. Download it for free now!

www.beatconnect.com

Sessionwire | Collaborate In a Virtual Recording Studio

Transform your virtual music production collaboration with Sessionwire’s robust platform offering live video and studio quality HQ Audio.

www.sessionwire.com

Each DAW user uses their own preferred DAW and the service links them together in a way that flows better than sending WAV files.

The goal seems to be to create an environment where it is as if each person is working on the same DAW file, using their preferred DAW at home.

I have not logged in to try either of them, but it seems it might be linking the individual DAWs together via an online DAW.

For those people getting paid to do this work often enough, it seems worth the price of access.

 

[dangorange]

In your situation, 100% no need for Protools, Wav files are all you need, just make sure to send out as stems, so export from the beginning of the project regardless of how much dead space there might be.

 

[Pings Bass]

a stem is a stem, as long as your interface can match sample rate required. The DAW doesn't matter beyond enabling your recording to start at 0:00 and not bouncing a bunch of plugins and junk the stem

 

[KidAmnesia]

If what you are sending is the finished tracks in audio format, then use whatever you want. It will make no diference at all what kind of hardware and software you use.

Pro Tools is great for editing, and it's the closest thing to a standard in the DAW realm; you only would need PT if at some point you need to be able to open a PT project or send your own project so someone else can work on it; that's all. And as for Mac vs. PC, what you need is a reliable and powerful enough computer; Macs are reliable and powerful, but are not the only option.

Mac and Pro Tools (along with a couple of Yamaha NS10 monitors) might help to project an aura of profesionalism on some clients tho.

 

[FullumMusic]

I say this not as a bassist but as a producer & engineer, and someone who works in audio technology programming audio software/hardware...


It doesn't matter which DAW you use, and there's a huge faction of people in various audio & audio adjacent industries trying to make ProTools NOT the industry standard. The only reason PT is the industry standard is because it's already the industry standard. Beyond that... it's not really offering anything exceedingly better than any other DAW. And other DAWs will do certain things way better than PT does.

If you're using Reaper you're already using one of the best DAWs on the market. Because i do a lot of electronic music production, my main DAW is Ableton Live. For most other things i use Reaper. The day i removed PT from my computers was a great day. (I have opinions about PT)

If you're recording to WAV format, the computer doesn't care what DAW that was recorded into. The file format is an industry standard. The 1s and 0s go into the file the exact same way in Reaper, PT, Ableton, or Garage Band. A WAV file is just a file with a header that says what type of data to expect, and then an audio buffer (digital values for the audio). Just use 24bit/48KHz (or higher) to ensure quality.

The only reason you'd "need" PT is if you wanted to share full sessions, not just individual WAV files. But even then, unless things have improved, moving PT sessions between different computers never plays nice with itself, especially if you don't have the exact same license, version, sub-version, and every single plugin that the other computer has.

The other argument people make for getting PT is because it's thought of as the industry standard, so people think "if i don't have PT, potential clients will judge me and not hire me." And i guess if your friend was the client, that might be true. But there are plenty of professional studios that are run on Reaper, or other DAWs. And really, a lot will have multiple DAWs on their machines to utilize each DAW's specialities.

My Sound Design Masters program at the University of Edinburgh had most DAWs on all their computers, including PT. But they only ever did any tutorials or instructions or demos in Reaper. The joke was they were "De-industry-standardizing Pro Tools one student at a time."

Some people genuinely love PT, and there's nothing wrong with that. If they love PT, then it's the best DAW for them. But YOU don't need PT. Unless you plan on running a recording studio that specializes in tracking and mixing bands, you don't need PT. That's PT's specialty, and really Reaper will do at least as good a job at that, if not better. IMHO. And other DAWs are better choices than PT for other things: Ableton or FL Studio or Logic for Electronic music; Logic or Reaper for film scoring or sound design; Reaper for field recording or audio library editing and design; Reaper for Ambisonics/Surround mixing. (At one point i had a Reaper templet set up to mix into an ambisonic space: 4 overhead speakers, 8 full circle ear level, 4 below, 2 subwoofers. And then that same session would take that mix and convert it to 3 different surround sound formats as well as binaural and stereo versions. Try doing that easily in PT.)

----

The only thing to be conscious of when exporting WAV files is to export and send full stems, not just your recorded sections. I assume you already know this because you've been doing it, but it's worth saying in the thread in case someone is reading it and doesn't realize it. Stems start at 0:00:00 and go the length of the track. If an engineer sends you a rough mix stereo track for you play bass to, the bass track you send them should start at the same spot as the rough mix, even if you don't play for another 4 minutes. Your stem should be able to drag-drop into the session of any DAW, and if it's lined up with 0:00:00, everything is in the right spot. The engineer doesn't have to sit there and try to figure exactly where in the timeline to drop your file to line it up with the rest of the instruments, endlessly nudging it back and forth until it sounds right. If someone doesn't send me full stems, i won't even try to use their files until they send the full stems.

 

[fishdreams]

No. Anything works that exports WAV files. That is the beauty of it. Its much more important to export your WAV files at the correct sample rate/bit depth for the purpose, and to leave a little dynamic room, not 'normalized' to 0db across the board.