1 Long File or Multiple Shorter Files?

[Sparky1]

Hi there


Is it better to have 1 long continuous audio file or have it chopped up into smaller sections - specifically when there is a long gap between the actual audio in the file...


Trying to understand if there are any benefits to either - in terms of computer demand or otherwise...


Thanks,


Sparky

[albee1952]

In what regard? What is the end goal? There are logical reasons for both, but my preference is to keep each song(assuming a music production) as its own session. Certainly, if mixes will go to a mastering house, then certainly separate into songs. More info gets better advice

[Sparky1]

Originally Posted by albee1952

In what regard? What is the end goal? There are logical reasons for both, but my preference is to keep each song(assuming a music production) as its own session. Certainly, if mixes will go to a mastering house, then certainly separate into songs. More info gets better advice

Thanks albee1952 for the good questions...

This would be at the mixing stage - being the individual tracks within the song. Some tracks have audio only during the chorus - but they are one continual file/track - contained as one.

Just learning to mix my own stuff and trying to learn how to maximize the performance of my session/computer.


Sparky

[Carl Lie]

Depends on the player(s) with me. 50/50. With any modern computer I'm not sure it matters either way. Someone will now tell me I'm wrong about that...

C

[Obsidian Dragon]

I agree that is does not seem to make any difference in terms of performance on today's computers. From a theoretical point of view, a computer does still works to stream data for audio even though the audio is silence. On the other hand, if there is a gap (no audio clip) then the computer does not need to stream anything and therefore does not need to do work (or very little processing). I take for example the sample session that Avid provides, "Low Roar." When a track does not have any audio playing, there is usually a gap in the clips instead of continuous silence. This may also reduce the buildup of the noise floor as silence with any tiny noise can get multiplied over many tracks until it become audible. Gaps in the audio clips don't contribute any noise. Sometimes when I am recording a dialog, I will actually cut the parts that have no wanted audio (be careful about cutting ambience, delays, and reverb tails).

[Sparky1]

Originally Posted by Obsidian Dragon

I agree that is does not seem to make any difference in terms of performance on today's computers. From a theoretical point of view, a computer does still works to stream data for audio even though the audio is silence. On the other hand, if there is a gap (no audio clip) then the computer does not need to stream anything and therefore does not need to do work (or very little processing). I take for example the sample session that Avid provides, "Low Roar." When a track does not have any audio playing, there is usually a gap in the clips instead of continuous silence. This may also reduce the buildup of the noise floor as silence with any tiny noise can get multiplied over many tracks until it become audible. Gaps in the audio clips don't contribute any noise. Sometimes when I am recording a dialog, I will actually cut the parts that have no wanted audio (be careful about cutting ambience, delays, and reverb tails).

That’s kinda the way I was leaning in my thought process as well.

Thanks for the detailed explanation - much appreciated Obsidian Dragon!

Sparky

[Stephen Bond]

Having all track consolidated to the Session length is preferable when archiving or transporting files to other DAWs. Nothing gets lost or out of sync.

Stephen

[Sparky1]

Originally Posted by Stephen Bond

Having all track consolidated to the Session length is preferable when archiving or transporting files to other DAWs. Nothing gets lost or out of sync.

Stephen

Good point Stephen Bond.
Just so I understand…. Are you suggesting when I am completely done with a session and am saving it for archival purposes only - I should consolidate all the files?

I understand the reason if sending the files to someone else - but not sure if the same applies if I am storing the session as historical data…

Thanks

Sparky

[lesbrunn]

Originally Posted by Obsidian Dragon

I agree that is does not seem to make any difference in terms of performance on today's computers. From a theoretical point of view, a computer does still works to stream data for audio even though the audio is silence. On the other hand, if there is a gap (no audio clip) then the computer does not need to stream anything and therefore does not need to do work (or very little processing). I take for example the sample session that Avid provides, "Low Roar." When a track does not have any audio playing, there is usually a gap in the clips instead of continuous silence. This may also reduce the buildup of the noise floor as silence with any tiny noise can get multiplied over many tracks until it become audible. Gaps in the audio clips don't contribute any noise. Sometimes when I am recording a dialog, I will actually cut the parts that have no wanted audio (be careful about cutting ambience, delays, and reverb tails).

Plus, you save storage space working that way. I always have a gap during significantly long bits of silence, for example on tom tracks or background vocals.

[lesbrunn]

Originally Posted by Sparky1

Good point Stephen Bond.
Just so I understand…. Are you suggesting when I am completely done with a session and am saving it for archival purposes only - I should consolidate all the files?

I understand the reason if sending the files to someone else - but not sure if the same applies if I am storing the session as historical data…

Thanks

Sparky

For historical data, it does make sense to consolidate all clips starting from the same point (bar 1 of the session) so they can stay in sync with each other, in case for any reason the files have to be exported out of the session. This can happen for all sorts of reasons.