A few questions for you

[Stubby03]

Why should I mix down to a stereo file. I simply add what I need to a master track. And 2, I understand wav files sound better than mp3's. I mix to a mp3, to my memory stick, to my laptop, to iTunes, to my ipod. Is there a better way of doing things. Ive always wondered these things. I have just spent the last 2 years learning to mix. Not so much past that. Thanks for your help

[Mark Bliss]

The stereo file part of the question needs clarification.
Do you mean the way the visual waveform representation in the DAW appears to be a stereo signal after mixdown?

Wav files are lossless audio files that can accurately represent what you mix down. For the highest quality, you would want to save in a lossless format.
MP3 encoding reduces the file size by dropping out bits of data the encoding algorithm considers less important. It can be handy for sending files electronically, streaming audio, storing huge numbers of songs on a device, etc.
The lower the MP3 resolution, the more lossy. The audio effect can be quite noticeable at low resolutions.
In general I would describe it as introducing hints of that sound you hear in a satellite phone call, or a Skype call.
On the other hand, very high resolution MP3's can be hard to discern from a 16 bit 44.1Khz wav for all but the most critical listener.
Some additional things to note however- using MP3's as tracks in the DAW can cause some timing issues that wav avoids.
Another example you might want to consider- If you upload a wav t Soundcloud, the streaming playback is an MP3. A barely acceptable resolution at that IMO. BUT, if you allow downloads, the downloaded file is the original wav. Some people would care about that.

I'd suggest the choice is yours. If your priority is file size, saving as MP3 is a viable option. If your priority is getting the best quality representation of the audio you created, you probably want to choose at minimum 16/44 wav.

I could add more if you wish, but that's a general overview. Also you didn't mention recording, which adds more to the answer.

[steelstring]

The first part of your question was already mine some time ago.
When a mono track is rendered with fx via MIX TO NEW AUDIOTRACK it will become stereo. Mostly this is unwanted for me, who i.e. wants a stereo bass-track? Workaround is opening in external audioeditor and process/convert to mono and then reload into your project.

[Stubby03]

Thanks to both of you. That helps. I have seen a single track, mixed down from several recorded tracks, on mixcraft videos on youtube. I'm sure it was mixed down before mastering. What would be the difference with me doing this, mixing down to a single track, vs just leaving my song they way it is, several tracks, and adding what I need on the master track.

[Mark Bliss]

On the stereo question, using Steelstrings bass track as a general example:

When you record the bass it is going to be a mono signal input. (with rare exceptions we will ignore here.)
Now we have a recorded mono track. It is output through a virtual channel strip split into two channels, split equally to left and right, but what you are hearing at the output of the DAW is still that same mono audio. (assuming you haven't panned the track or added any stereo effects, etc.)

If for whatever reason, you mix down that track in solo, you are making a copy of that same audio you have been listening to from the DAW output. Still functionally mono, though technically an "interleaved stereo file"
It is summed to your ears, in the middle, still functionally mono.
There is no real reason to get hung up on the fact it is represented visually as a stereo file. It is two equal audio files that you will hear EXACTLY the same as the mono file it represents. You can use it without any further action on your part.

While I wont say never, there are very few reasons one would need to use the workaround of converting the file in some way, only to import it and be listening to the same exact audio output from the summed stereo output of the DAW. There are exceptions, but this need would be pretty rare. Its highly unlikely in your case that this is of any concern whatsoever.

On the mastering question, it is vague what you mean as far as "do what I need on the master track"
But If I am guessing correctly.....
People work both ways. Neither is necessarily incorrect.
It used to be more common to mix down a project and have that mastered. But you aren't talking about send it out I don't think, my suspicion is you are asking based on an intention to experiment with DIY "mastering" right?

I am also guessing you intend to do some processing on the master bus.
My suggestion if I am correct on all this:
I think with experience a good audio engineer can do a great job on a mixed down file as was traditional. But this assumes a pretty high quality mix and proper mix down levels, file formats, etc.
For the person who is still learning to mix, and experimenting with "mastering" I think it might be best to work on an open project, at least until some degree of skill is achieved.
You are going to find that working with various compressors and limiters as is common, it will effect the mix in various ways that you will want to go back and tweak. Again and again at first, hopefully learning as you go.

I hope I am on track and I hope that helps get you started. Hard to give great answers without more specific detailed info as to the users intentions.

[Stubby03]

You answered my question. Thanks Mark

[Acoustica Greg]

Hi,

In regard to the mono/stereo question, you can go to mix down and click the details option, then select specify settings to set it as a mono file.

Greg

[Mark Bliss]

Apologies, yes I got distracted while answering and meant to get to that. Yes you can.

But..... I suspect in the context of the original question this is as I tried to explain in all that mess- something Stubby simply needs to not worry about. Just roll with it. A few reasons do exist why one might desire to, but I didn't think that's the case here.

But yes, if you really do need or want to mix down the track to mono, you can. Sorry I accidently left that out. It was dinner time and I smelled food and was rushing to finish typing.

Edit after thinking about this overnight-
Some things aren't clear, such as the reason for mixing down the file and reimporting in the first place, or more specifically why one might be too concerned about maintaining the mono status.
What I have noticed is that the representative waveform in the DAW just throws some people off.
There could be a concern over file size, which to me doesn't seem like a big thing.
Another might be the intention to "re-amp" (or something similar) the signal, which could be accomplished either way, but perhaps would be simplified by maintaining the mono signal.
I cant really think of any other reasons to be terribly concerned about it. Maybe I am missing something. Anyone have any others?

[aj113]

The first part of your question was already mine some time ago.
When a mono track is rendered with fx via MIX TO NEW AUDIOTRACK it will become stereo. Mostly this is unwanted for me, who i.e. wants a stereo bass-track?

Someone who has stereo chorus on the bass.

Workaround is opening in external audioeditor and process/convert to mono and then reload into your project.

It doesn't need a workaround; if it doesn't have any stereo effects, it's already in mono.

If you're bothered by the visual effect of looking at both the left and the right channels together, right click and choose either right or left from the channels menu. This will change the waveform visually from two tracks to one.

[ran001]

Hello all,

Hope this is the right thread to ask a few questions. For mixing, there are some who say it is better
to apply EQ on the master rather on the solo/individual tracks.

I notice the reference projects within Mixcraft DAW, there are plug-ins on each of the solo tracks as well as on the master output. Care to comment? Thank you.

[aj113]

Use the individual channels as a priority, use the master channel to fine-tune.

[Starship Krupa]

Why should I mix down to a stereo file. I simply add what I need to a master track. And 2, I understand wav files sound better than mp3's. I mix to a mp3, to my memory stick, to my laptop, to iTunes, to my ipod. Is there a better way of doing things. Ive always wondered these things. I have just spent the last 2 years learning to mix. Not so much past that. Thanks for your help

1. Not sure I understand the question; hope the others answered it.
2. WAV's and FLAC's do sound better than MP3's. Whether there is a better way depends on what you are doing with your audio files once they are mixed down.

If you are making something that is just going to be copied around to your own personal devices to be listened to, and you need to save space, and sound quality isn't a big issue, then maybe mixing to MP3 works best.

I am recording music that I want to distribute via BandCamp, iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube, and similar, and since some of those sites support upload/download of lossless formats like FLAC and WAV, I mix down to FLAC. That way I start with the highest possible quality. Any loss comes later. All those sites handle conversion to the lossy formats like MP3 and AAC (MP4) by themselves, so I don't have to worry about creating multiple mixdowns. If I want to make an MP4 or MP3 or whatever version, I just use MediaHuman (converter) on my end.

[Starship Krupa]

For mixing, there are some who say it is better to apply EQ on the master rather on the solo/individual tracks.

Where to apply EQ very much depends on where you need EQ.

Sometimes you can have, say, a single acoustic guitar track that has too much boomy low end, and where it is "better" to apply EQ is on its individual channel rather than on the master bus. If you were to apply it to the master bus, you would remove low end from tracks where you want low end, such as bass guitar and kick drum.

In another instance, you can have a submix with 5 background vocalists all singing in unison, and there is a midrange "honk" buildup that sounds harsh and should be brought down. In this case, EQ on the submix is what is called for, because it doesn't need to be on the entire vocal submix, nor does it need to be on the master bus.

Finally, we may have a mix that sounds great, everything is blended well, all the instruments are audible, they have their own sonic space in frequency and in panning, there is a good soundstage, nothing leaps out obnoxiously, the featured instruments are prominent enough to be memorable, etc., but there could stand to be a little more "air" where the vocals and the cymbals meet, and the very lowest frequencies are a little boomy. Rather than going back to the mix and trying to tweak the EQ and levels on individual instrument channels and submixes to shift the frequency balance, here is where it's time to use your ears and a sweet-sounding mastering EQ and touch it up just a few dB in those places.

So do you see? In my opinion, anyway, it's not an either/or. It's "when appropriate."

[ran001]

thanks Aj113 and Starship Krupa.