Logic Pro 9 How export track to mono wave file?


I'm sending my song to a person who is going to mix/master it in a non-logic system.

I need to export each song track to a separate MONO wave file. He told me his system won't accept stereo wave files.

Each MONO wave file needs to be the same length as the song, as defined by the start/end song markers.

My project is done at 96khz, but the exported files need to be converted to 44.1khz MONO wave files.

When I use the export menu items, the resulting track is stereo even though I changed the track to mono->output1. Also, this menu function does not allow a final bit rate to be selected so the result stays at 96khz

If I instead use the bounce functions, I can get a wave file at the correct bit rate and length, but the result is a stereo wave file instead of a mono wave file.

I can't just grab the files in the audio bin because the person who is going to mix/master them has no idea how to recreate the regions/edit info from those files.

Any ideas?

Many thanks

I figured it out. Only took two hours. And did it one minute after I posted this thread.

On the bounce menu, you have to change from interleaved to split and it creates to MONO files (R & L). Then I just discard the empty one.
Upvote 0
If a pro mastering guy asked me to give him 44.1 files when I had 96k, I would seriously consider going to another person. And if they didn't have the ability to change a stereo file to dual mono, I would run away as fast as I could.
Upvote 0
I sought this guy out because his name is on a lot of professional folk CDs, some of which have won awards.

He's doing me a favor helping me, though he is extremely busy and told me that from the beginning.

It's not a matter whether he can rip out the preferred mono channel from my stereo files, it's a matter of me doing the needed work that he requested, and saving him time and me money.

He uses only high end analog stuff and some kind of a hard disk system simply to import wave files into his preferred domain. Not sure of all the details.
Upvote 0
Look, I have been a pro mastering guy for almost 18 years. I would never ask a client to reduce the quality of a file before I mastered it... it goes against everything audio quality is about.

Why resampling or reducing the sample rate would help because they use "high end analog gear" is a very strange answer. Again, it goes against everything I know about audio quality.

That said, you are entitled to work with whomever you wish to work with. I tell everyone I work with that they have final say in everything, they are the artist not me.
Upvote 0
You may be right.

He prefers to record in his place all analog.

Maybe he doesn't want to waste money on new digital stuff

I'll know how good he is, for me, in a few days when he does my first song

If he blows me away with his work, I may end up just recording at his place

Maybe that's his angle

End results are what matters most

Thanks, Ill keep it all in mind as I go forward
Upvote 0
Mastering with analog is fine, that isn't the issue. What George is saying is that reducing the quality before analogue conversion is crazy.

I bet those awards were won for really great performances on the CDs. That is the way it should be, but it doesn't make it right to resample the digital file to a lower rate before analog conversion.

Of course much of this is theoretical, the difference between 96 and 44.1 may well be inaudible to most people, but I still think it's worth doing it "properly". I agree with george, something is not quite right with this scenario, but also it is your decision. In the end you won't know whether or not it would sound better if the files weren't downsampled.
Upvote 0
I take this as a good opportunity to jump on the topic of mastering/Audio in general and pose the question to both george and pete and any other great Tech minds.

Do you believe that resampleing in Odd numbers is a bad thing to do, Or does this not make any difference? E.g. I have been recording in 88.2KHz, to hopefully avoid errors later down the track when I convert to 44.1KHz, Do you think this is a waste of time or a valid thing to do?

Any takers?
Upvote 0
First: I appreciate taking notice of the rate conversion issue. Very valid to be concerned about that going forward.

Second: I am no audio/recording engineer, for sure, but I do have some common sense and 1000s of hours of home recording experience.

Third: what matters most is results, and not adherence to technical religion.

There are obviously many variables involved in recording, mixing, mastering. At what point you down convert to CD quality is clearly one of them.

But the skills of the people involved are probably an even bigger variable.

In addition, whether the people helping you are genuinely interested in your work and have a sense of pride in the final quality and your success are also important.

I might find someone who has all the best equipment in the world and won't down convert until just the right moment, but his/her mixing/mastering skills might be non-stellar and not up to the standards of his equipment.

I'd bet most of the places offering mixing/mastering produce fairly average results (even those with all the right equipment and people who know all the text book theory) .

And I'd bet it is hard to find those special places where magic just seems to be the standard, regardless of the equipment or whether or not the engineer went to full sail.

Fourth: there is a reason so many people who are at the top of the folk charts seem to be going to this guy. I intend to shell out a measly $50-$70 to see how my first song comes back, and then make a decision as to whether I'll stick with him or maybe start recording at his place when possible instead of at home.

I will certainly come back when the first song is done and let you know what happened.

Fifth: Again, this is a valid issue which I will pay attention to during this test. So thanks.
Upvote 0
Where is the problem with the sample rate? If Lauren had recorded in 44.1 kHz everybody would find this ok. For some reason we do not know she recorded in 96 kHz. We do not even know why she did it, maybe Lauren just wanted to learn about the difference. Now the mastering engineer wants to do her a favour or has other reasons to quickly demonstrate his skills on a first piece and does not want those big files but rather something in standard resolution to process it without additional work. I do not see a problem at all. 44.1 kHz is fine, most music is produced like that. And I doubt that the quality of a downsampled file will be less than an original 44.1 recording. Some people say it is better.

We know Lauren from a dicussion about home recording and acoustics and we know that she wants to deliver the best quality she can without transforming herself into an audio engineer. So in this case my question would rather be, "What were the reasons to choose 96 kHz as sample rate?"
Upvote 0
Where is the problem with the sample rate?

Unlikely to be a real problem of course. Well, not for me as I can hear no difference between 44.1 and 96.

But I would would not be happy if after bothering to record at 96, with all the possible advantages for people who can hear the difference, I would not be happy if a mastering engineer wanted downsampled files.

There are labels who release stuff on SACD, and they want 24/96. If that is the case, and I was going to spend a limited budget on a great mastering engineer, I would hope the mastering session would serve both purposes, ie normal CD and SACD.
Upvote 0
Hi Peter

Long time no talkey

I did it because I read it might be a better quality.

I also did not think it was a bad thing to downconvert because in order to get it on CD you have to do it anyway. But after this discussion, I surmise it is best to mix your 96khz files in a 96khz domain and then down convert only the final 96khz master???

This brings up a question: if you are going to work with a mixer/masterer who uses 44.1khz only, is it better to record in 96khz to begin with or instead use 44.1khz?

Actually, jayfolland's question above is sort of similar.

P.S. My home studio is producing much better stuff now. It may be the acoustics, may be the new mics, may be the new experiences, or it may be luck.
Upvote 0
Oh, the addition of a new Martin guitar in my studio made a huge difference in the quality of my fingerpicking recordings, though I still like my Taylor when I use a plectrum.
Upvote 0
Hi Peter
Long time no talkey
Indeed. I was wondering how you are doing now and am glad to hear that you are doing fine with your room treatment, the new microphones and the speakers.

I did it {96 kHz} because I read it might be a better quality.
This is a valid reason. Why not trying such an approach when the computer is able to handle the high resolution. It may be a matter of time anyway until we all use higher resolutions than 44.1 kHz. In the past we said that 16 bit are enough and after we went to 24 bit we say that it was not enough.

At the moment I say that digital would be fine if it wouldn't be so digital :)

But after this discussion, I surmise it is best to mix your 96khz files in a 96khz domain and then down convert only the final 96khz master???
This way you don't lose resolution before the very last stage. And you have still the choice to take the higher resolution for different media from the same final mix, as Pete pointed out.

There is one thing to think about: You have a good interface. But a dedicated mastering studio should have better converters. In a standard production chain the engineer with the better equipment does the convertion. Again, this is not a rule. Maybe your partner does not even have a good converter and the magic lies in his mixing skills however he does this job. At least I understood that in this case the subject is not only mastering but rather to make a fresh downmix of your delivered files and to give your music a magic touch.

This brings up a question: if you are going to work with a mixer/masterer who uses 44.1khz only, is it better to record in 96khz to begin with or instead use 44.1khz?
Not many people can actually hear the difference. Some people say, that high resolutions are ideal for recording classical music because they make the sound more open and bring out all the tiny things a coarser revolution swallows. On the other hand, you know, classical music is the area where an engineer is not allowed to move a single fader without written permission from the conductor.

If your computer can handle 88.2 or 96 kHz and you don't have to think about other people during your recording and pre-mixing, you can just use these resolutions. The files are double as big and and the CPU has much more to do but if it works it is ok. You don't have many tracks and don't need hours to downsample everything. Just be aware that 44.1 and 48 kHz are enough for almost all productions today. Everything above means a significantly greater technical challenge and this may pay or not. Rather not, to be honest. But this can change during the next couple of years.

I personally stick to 44.1 kHz for three reasons:
My current computer cannot handle 88.2 kHz properly.
I do not hear any difference.
I doubt that there is an audible difference for my music.

My home studio is producing much better stuff now. It may be the acoustics, may be the new mics, may be the new experiences, or it may be luck.
All together? Plus your different view after exploring the technical aspects. This does not make the music better but helps a lot for recording and the search for a personal sound.

I am looking forward to hear one of your newer pieces!
Upvote 0