Naming Tracks and Channels

[mr_es335]

Good day,

Q1a: Are tracks horizontal and channels vertical?
R1: Yes|No...
Q1b: If No, what and why?

The scenario A
1. Piano solo recorded on Track 1 of Midi WorkShop
2. You now want to a) save this recording as a stereo wave file

Q2: What is the term used when converting MIDI to Audio?
R2:

The scenario B
1. Guitar with vocals, Guitar to I-01 on L and vocals to I-02 on R
2. Both are recorded separately and in mono
3. You now want to a) process the two of these "things" together, then b) save this "thing" as a stereo wave file

Q3a: What is the term used for a) processing the two of these "things" together?
R3a:
Q3b: What is the term used for b) saving this "thing" as a stereo wave file?
R3a:

Q4: Is there a difference between "mixing" and "mastering" and if so, what is this difference?
R4:

Q5: What do you suggests/recommend for a track naming scheme that encompasses both MIDI and Audio?
R5:

Q6: Maybe, just maybe, two potentially "trick" questions..."What is the absolute least number of inputs you should have on an audio interface and why?"
R6:

Thanks in advance.

PS: Minimal responses would be greatly under-demeciated!

[John Ludlow]

Since no-one has chimed in - I'll take a stab...

R1: No.

Q1B R1: I think the term 'track' originally had to do with physical, multitrack tape associated with a tape recorder with multiple write heads. When multiple tracks are recorded on tape, the width of the tape is divided into areas devoted to each separate audio stream that is recorded. And these physical linear 'tracks' are each separated by small areas of tape width that are not written to. So, at that time, a track always had to do with the recording process. Whereas, the gear the analog electrical signal passed through that was associated with a sound source was called a 'channel'. Sound tracks were persistent, whereas the sound passed through a channel and then was gone - unless its terminus was a tape track. Usually, a channel was part of a mixing board. This was pre-digital so the sound was analog all the way from the source to the track via a channel.

Today, this has become confused because digital recorders contain both aspects of 'tracks' and 'channels' - and yet not too. What is recorded is just a bunch of bits. The closest 'thing' to a physical 'track' is probably a file. And before the sound is committed to a file it can be massaged - the way it would have been using a mixing board channel - although both components exist within the same application. Really - a new set of terms could have been invented that would be more accurate. But... we continue to use 'track' and 'channel' because the physical paradigm is useful and familiar. Still - neither is really technically correct, and there is a lot more crossover between a track and a channel than there used to be. And so a lot of times people use 'track' and 'channel' interchangeably.

R3a: Mixing.
R3b: I call it 'writing' but that's probably wrong.
R4: Mixing is combining several sound sources together into an output channel (or track if the result is persistent). There are several disparate things associated with the word 'master'. Originally, a 'master' started as a wax cylinder that was essentially engraved with an analog signal. Later, that process was changed to cutting on a metal disk covered in lacquer. That, engraved, disk was then transferred to a more resilient metal copy that was then used as a sort of mold to stamp out vinyl records. That aluminium and lacquer disk was the 'master' recording used to make all copies of the record.

But, there were other things associated with that mastering process. For instance, a large transient could cause the stylus in a turntable to leap out of the groove it was supposed to stay in - resulting in a skip. So, processing had to happen to the mix on its way to the master to prevent the technology's limitations from ruining the resulting record. Digital removed some of those issues, but added other technical processes.

But, in addition to physical things, 'mastering' was where slight changes could be made to the overall recording to improve it - sometimes in relation to other recordings on the compilation (tracks on the CD...). There are specialized recording engineers, like our Steve Berson, who add these final touches to the mix. Often these days though, the recording engineer also does the mastering - but it is still about making slight changes to the finished mix.

R6: I'll go with '2' - resulting in one stereo channel/track/recording.

[mr_es335]

Hello,

Okay, here are my responses:

Q1a: Are tracks horizontal and channels vertical?
R1: I would say, Yes". I do not ever believe that I referred to my Teac 3440 as a 4 channel tape recorder...but rather as a 4 track tape recorder. Or what 8 track tapes?

• A channel on the other hand, would be akin to a mixing console.

Q2: What is the term used when converting MIDI to Audio?
R2: I would use the term "render".

Q3a: What is the term used for a) processing the two of these "things" together?
R3a: I would use the term "mix", as in Build Mix To HotTrack.

Q3b: What is the term used for b) saving this "thing" as a stereo wave file?
R3a: Not sure...but maybe mastering?

Q4: Is there a difference between "mixing" and "mastering" and if so, what is this difference?
R4: I do believe that there is. The previous explanation may suffice.

Q5: What do you suggests/recommend for a track naming scheme that encompasses both MIDI and Audio?
R5: For both MIDI and audio, the name derives from the source material.

Q6: Maybe, just maybe, two potentially "trick" questions..."What is the absolute least number of inputs you should have on an audio interface and why?"
R6: One. The key to me and my understanding here is the term "simultaneous".