Brief Summary

Committing sounds complete with processing as you track them is a popular approach, but for those who don’t do it it seems unnecessarily restrictive. Why do it? Part of the answer lies in understanding what mixing ought to be and how changing technology has affected what mixing is today.

Going Deeper

We’ve probably all heard the advice, often from experienced or veteran engineers, that it’s important to commit to sounds as you record them. However in a DAW environment, isn't that just limiting choice? If I can run all the processing on my mix in real time, why would I print the results? Especially printing as I record so there’s no way of getting back to the unprocessed original if I later reconsider my choices? As long as your computer is fast enough to do the necessary work it just sounds like an unnecessary constraint.

Why Do So Many Experienced Engineers Commit?

In an article from Universal Audio which we featured on the blog some time ago

Some of their featured mixers had their respective opinions on this issue, for example Joel Hamilton’s take could be summarised as ‘why wouldn’t you?’. He said:

“Look, if it sounds great on the way in, who would ever say, ‘Can we take that 4dB boost at 10k shelf off the snare? It sounds awesome, but I’m not sure I want it to sound awesome.’ Who would ever say that?”

Jaquire King’s position was similar. If nothing is established, your ability to make progress suffers:

“Creatively, I just think it’s always better to make firm decisions and carry them forward, If you’re working in a mindset and a framework where that is not the case, nothing feels final, or critical to the whole picture.”

In our podcast ‘The Great Balance Mix-Off’ we discussed the importance of level. How loud parts are relative to the other elements is after all far and away the most significant part of a mix. Nearly every other mix parameter is basically changing an aspect of the sound which makes it more or less noticeable in the mix, whether that is EQ, compression or reverb. The fader sits above all of these.

This is interesting because if the balance of a mix is the criterion on which it succeeds or fails, why would you distract yourself with any other task at this crucial stage? A mix which has no elements which aren’t subject to further, often fundamental, change will always be a moving target. DAWs have made it easy, even encouraged us to postpone making decisions all the way to the mastering stage. The existence of ‘Stem Mastering’ proving this point perfectly. However anyone who has ever mixed live sound will understand that it’s easy to get a good mix if the sound off stage is good. If it’s not then ultimately nothing can save it. You can just make it less bad.

In the studio of course we have the luxury of time to be able to do far more to manipulate the results but the fact remains that if you have a great sound coming off the timeline then the battle is almost won.

This isn’t news, and one of the interesting things which came from our discussion on the podcast was the historical context of a ‘Jukebox’ mix from tape via an analogue console, a task which most engineers today probably haven’t experienced.

Lack Of Recall

On an analogue console there are two mixers in one. One for input and one for monitoring the tape tracks. The distinction between the two isn’t as obvious on more modern inline consoles but on older split consoles there is an input side and a monitor mixer and they are located in different places on the console. The monitor mixer had rudimentary controls, volume (often on a rotary control rather than a fader) pan, and effects sends. Often that was it. For a more thorough explanation of this idea of two mixers in one, check out this PureMix video of Andrew Scheps explaining exactly this with the help of a rather lovely vintage Neve.

The significant part about the monitor section of a split console, often referred to as the ‘jukebox’, compared to modern DAW sessions, was that as opposed to opening a session and the mix parameters being recalled ready for an overdub, in an analogue system a monitor mix had to be set up every time a reel of tape was put on the machine.

This is the reason the balance mix task in the Great Balance Mix-Off wasn’t a contrivance, an arbitrary mix challenge like mixing only using plugins the names of which begin with ‘F’ or similar. This ‘jukebox’ mix is a task veteran engineers did over and over again.

Of course you needed to be fast, but it’s a restricted set of parameters so it shouldn’t take long. However it was also all the motivation you needed make sure that the sounds recorded to tape were as close as possible to what the record would sound like. If you’re just blending ‘good’ sounds to sit together, then that is the work of minutes. If your drums need corrective EQ to sound like a record, you’re going to have to do it over and over again unless you print it, and if you’re going to print it then the right way to do it on an analogue system is as you record. After all, if your DAW’s mixer reset itself every time you closed it, you’d probably print your plugins too. Luke described it as “baking in the recall”.

Role Of Hardware In A DAW

Most of the examples of committing sounds in a DAW involve the use of hardware, an input chain through which tracking is done and the resultant sound is recorded to the timeline of the DAW. If this is done on every track of the session then the mix ends up far closer to the exercise in balancing that it probably should be. But people working in the box can of course commit in the same way as those using hardware.

It is recallability which has ultimately encouraged people who previously used hardware to move their mixes in the box. But the two places where hardware is still a popular choice for those mixing in the box is on input, tracking through not only a mic preamp but with compression and EQ, and on the master bus.

In this video from Puremix you can see how Jimmy Douglass, while mixing the kind of material associated with extensive use of in the box processing, stool chooses to use some Neve EQ across the mix.

Can You Commit In The Box?

If you are a software-only person you can still commit sounds during tracking, making decisions at the tracking stage. For example UAD have long offered this option in their console software. Setting up a Print track so that the plugins you choose are baked in to the recording on the track is just a matter of routing in your DAW’s mixer and if you use Pro Tools there is the Commit feature which allows the processing of plugins to be rendered to an audio file on the track while also making the plugins inactive. This feature is useful for reducing the processing load on a host computer, archiving sessions to future proof them against plugins becoming unavailable, or for greater compatibility when sharing sessions with others. But as an easy way in to this way of working where decisions are made this is a great first step. Of course you can un-commit but part of the point of the whole committing process is to draw a distinction between decisions which have been made and those which are yet to be made.

Maybe committing your sounds will improve your mixes. Having fewer decisions at the mix stage and having to focus on the balance, which after all is the most important thing.

Do you commit your sounds?

How Do I Watch These Videos?

The videos featured in this article are extracts taken from the premium content available on PureMix. Most video tutorials are available to PureMix Pro members for as little as $24.99 a month.

Sign up to get advanced audio tutorials where Grammy-winning engineers teach you mixing concepts by showing you their techniques and tricks while mixing song by Pharrell, Imagine Dragons, Ziggy Marley and more. 

If you would like to watch more free tutorials you can sign up for free at pureMix or browse the entire pureMix tutorial video library and choose the individual videos that appeal to you.