I have a song, recorded in 77bpm. I listened to it now, and I think it may be to slow. I want to speed up the entire thing to 83bpm so I can listen how it will sound. The only solution I have found so far is to change the tempo of the song, then manually change the tempo of all the audio, using the "Time stretch region length to locators" thing, but it's a pain. Is there a way I can do this.
asked Jun 8, 2014 at 19:18
-
Sound Design is a site for sound design and production professionals and enthusiasts. Music related sound design that would be done by musicians is off topic as this is not a Q/A site for musicians. While musicians also design sounds, it is a different style with different requirements and needs than what is covered here.– AJ Henderson ♦Jun 9, 2014 at 13:45
-
@AJHenderson - I am less familiar with the SE Sound Design but am very familiar with the SE Music Practice and Performance page, where this would definitely be off topic. I could understand this being off topic if it were more specifically about the music taking place but this has to do with functionality of software to design the sound of the piece of work, which could potentially translate to a film score matching the footage. I imagine that this would be on topic and would potentially post similar questions on this page. What aspects of DAWs are acceptable to ask about on this site?– BassticklerJun 12, 2014 at 15:15
-
@Basstickler - the key is if it is something that a musician would want to do or something a recording engineer would want to do. Changing the tempo of a song is really more of a musical decision, rather than a sound design one. This particular question may be borderline (which is why I didn't close it outright) but it runs the risk of bringing far more off-topic things in to scope, such as questions about actual music style choices and such that are not sound design related at all. How is changing tempo fundamentally different from choosing a key or chord progression?– AJ Henderson ♦Jun 12, 2014 at 15:31
-
@AJHenderson - I would say that the main difference is that someone who is given audio, not writing the music, may need to match that to their other media, such as video, and that could involve tempo adjustments. You don't have to be creating the audio to make the adjustment. I could imagine someone having two audio tracks that need to line up in such a way that a tempo change could unite them, such as a crossfade from scene to scene. I do see your point though. My larger concern is that this seems to be the place that accepts DAW questions on SE and I'm not sure where else one would ask.– BassticklerJun 12, 2014 at 18:24
-
@Basstickler - well if you like the question, be sure to upvote it as that is part of how we can tell what the community wants. If the community want's this kind of question, I wouldn't object, it just seems to go against what historically have been viewed as fitting. I personally am indifferent.– AJ Henderson ♦Jun 12, 2014 at 19:33
|
Show 3 more comments
3 Answers
Best way I could find.
Make all your audio "follow tempo"
The way to do this is to mark the region,
and check the "follow tempo" checkbox in the inspector.
After you have done that you can just change the BPM to the desired speed.
Now, sometimes the "follow tempo" checkbox does not show up. I read somewhere that this is because the follow tempo feature is only available for regions recorded in the current session/project(unsure). And not available for bounced stuff.(say you bounced some MIDI or something)
For me though, the regions that did not have this checkbox in the inspector followed the tempo when it was changed anyway, damned if I know why.
If it doesn't, you could just change the tempo of these regions manually by using the "Time stretch region length to locators" feature.(google it, you'll find it)
EDIT: It seems that "follow tempo" is not available for regions in tracks that have "flex" enabled. I at least had a region where this was most definitely the case.
answered Jun 9, 2014 at 5:22
I am not really familiar with Logic10 so I couldn't give a step by step for this (I use Logic 9) but I can offer a thought that should translate to 10.
If you just want "listen to how it will sound", as you mention in the question, you could bounce the whole track down and adjust its tempo. This will allow you to only have to adjust the tempo of one track/region, which will be relatively quick, and you can hear a preview before you adjust all of the tracks/regions. This will also allow you to try a few different tempos relatively quickly and be able to experiment with the tempo if the change wasn't satisfactory.
Once you have a tempo defined, you can likely change a handful of tracks at once. Bounce everything down to new tracks, all with the same starting point. Then adjust the tempo. Now try selecting all of the tracks at once and drag the length to fit. I'm not familiar Logic 10 , like I mentioned, so I'm not sure how the time stretch function is controlled there but in 9 you can click and drag.
Hopefully this does translate to 10 for you. You can also experiment with bouncing the tracks without any effects, so you can change the tempo of the raw audio, then move the newly bounced regions back to the tracks with effects. This should give you a cleaner time shift and allow everything to be edited after the change, especially effects that are tempo sensitive. I would want to get rid of the empty space on the tracks when they are silent, which I would do by selecting all of the tracks that are silent at once, then either using the split region function, or by using the marquee tool.
- Set the tempo of your project to 83 bpm.
- Right click in and empty space in your arrange window and click on select all.
- Expand your areangent window to a large size.
- While holding down Option, drag the corner of one of the audio regions to the nearest bar (it should be just a short distance).
- This will timestretch all of your regions to the new tempo. This can take a long time for your Mac to process all at once, so you may just want to execute the procedure on each track individually.
