Post by: Norwood on March 11, 2005, 02:18:02 AM
Post by: neve1073 on March 11, 2005, 02:44:40 AM
Post by: stevieeastend on March 11, 2005, 10:05:43 AM
steve
Post by: wwittman on March 11, 2005, 01:22:21 PM
The Alan Smart version of the SSL compressor, for those things that need to sound LIKE the ubiquitous commercial radio sound.
And the Daking compressors for records that I want to sound better.
Post by: Gordon Rice on March 11, 2005, 01:48:51 PM
Point of philosophy: If my mix needs 2bus compression, there's something wrong with it and I should fix *that* instead of using a compression Band-Aid.
That said,
Point of reality: All too frequently, I find myself under budget stresses that mean I don't have time to fix the mix the way I'd prefer. As a for instance, not so very long ago I found myself mixing ten songs in 2.5 (long) days. On that project (and more than one or two others lately), the master compressor on the SSL saved my butt. Just be careful--someone else mentioned using slow attack times and I'm inclined to agree there. Depending on the mix I'll either use a very low ratio and just "squeeze" the whole thing or go with limiting and make sure the compressor only touches the very biggest peaks for a dB or two, max.
Tha SSL compressor *does* seem to give a mix that "radio-ready" sound, sometimes even if it's not actually doing any gain reduction.
Strangely enough, at present I've been given a two-day budget to rework one of the tunes on the aforementioned project--it seems that the adage "There's always time to do it again, but never time to do it right the first time" still applies.
Other people will, of course, have other opinions and I don't for a moment deny their validity--for me it's a matter of philosophy first and other people are more than likely to approach things differently.
Post by: stevieeastend on March 11, 2005, 02:06:47 PM
it seems very similar to the "loudness/limiting" thing. As the SSL stereo bus compressor does make it sound like a finished/on the radio record it could easily misused. I bring the stereo bus compressor in at the very end of the mix and find that it works best to make it sound like a finished record still sounding like a mix. I know, that sounds kind of strange but it should still contain all the obvious dynamic/level changes like "chorus opening up" etc. AND sound kind of compact.
I find that after bringing the stereo bus compressor into play the mix usual gets worser as I will then kind of abuse it. I would then try to make the mix even more finished which is at that point simply not possibly and should be handed over to mastering. So, usually the first mix after bringing in the stereo bus compressor is the one I like best. On almost every following mix I usually compress the bus more and more which I usually dislike the day after..
As a rule I almost always try to make the mix as good as possible without stereo bus compression and bring it then in. Print that mix and 9 out of ten times, this is it.
cheers from the "slow attack guy"
steveeastend
Post by: Gordon Rice on March 11, 2005, 03:43:13 PM
We're clearly of very similar mind here--I forgot to mention that if I do the 2bus thing it's the VERY LAST thing. Trying to do fader moves once I'm compressing the 2bus seems to be counterproductive.
Wish I could remember where and who--I recall seeing an interview somewhere a couple of years ago where a "big name" mixer said he'd been mixing thru the (SSL, I believe) compressor 100% of the time for a couple of years until one day he turned it off and was horrified to find out how awful his mix actually sounded!
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 11, 2005, 06:16:09 PM
What Gordon said is very important. I read an interview with Matt Wallace one time, where he was saying that one day he accidentally forgot to put a compressor on the stereo buss when he started doing the mix and realized that it sounded better. Well, fuckin' DUH!
Another thing is that you really don't need more than 2db or 3db of reduction. 4db tops. And if you play with the attack and release times, not only will you get that glue, but it will help the mix 'pump'. But yes, always see what you can solve using automation and then make compression your very last piece of the equation.
And don't forget, if you overcompress, then there's nothing the mastering engineer can do with it. You're better off giving him something with some transients, so that he can do some recursive processing on the L2 and make it sound as shitty as every other record that's coming out.
Post by: compasspnt on March 11, 2005, 07:39:42 PM
| Norwood wrote on Fri, 11 March 2005 02:18 |
I have never used a compressor on the 2 buss before... |
Yes! You have been doing it correctly!
| Quote: |
...but I am beginning to notice that some of my mixes need something to pull it all together... a little "glue". I was just wondering what you guys used, either plugin or hardware for "glue" or "color" or both. |
Well. that was a little bit of a joke, but in reality not too far from the truth, in my opinion. A great mix shouldn't need any buss compression, unless you are going for a certain effect. Remember, for a lot of recording history, no one EVER put a compressor on the stereo buss when performing a mixdown. Almost all of these classic, vintage songs everyone is raving about didn't have stereo compression until mastering, if even then.
Having said all that, I will confess that from about '86 through '94 I would use an Aphex Compellor almost always on the stereo buss, but ONLY added as the very final function performed. It did seem to be "glueing" things together a bit, and making a more finished sound. But then one day I took it out, and haven't really looked back. It is now very seldom that I will use one until mastering. On occasion I've used the SSL buss compressor, but as others have mentioned, you have to be very careful not to overdo it, and to only add it in at the end.
I have been wondering about the API 2500...Paul Wulff told me it was very cool when carefully used (of course he would have!)
One thing I feel strongly about is that things like the Fairchild, the 176, or my Lucas tube/valve ones rarely help a stereo mix. That's why the Fairchildren all left the mastering laboratory.
Post by: drumsound on March 11, 2005, 08:31:09 PM
I posted this over at Gearslutz
Read the whole thread here.
I bought a Drawmer 1969 in September of 2001. It?s been on the mix buss of 98% of the mixes I've done since. Recently I did a few mixes without it (for different clients). I was shocked at how much that thing adds to my mixes. The mixes with the '69 sound like a record and the ones without sound like refs.
I need to have it in from very early on. If I add it later nothing sounds right. The top changes, the balance changes, the vibe changes. I feel like I'm either screwing up the mix or starting over.
Like Chris I like fast attack and release. And the 'big' switch of the '69, which puts a 100Hz filter on the detector circuit, is crucial. I only have 1-2 dB of reduction (by the VU).
I think the unit sounds great.
Post by: wwittman on March 11, 2005, 10:48:53 PM
That's why I use it for those types.. not to make it sound like it's already on the radio (which is a whole OTHER level of travesty) (or "whole 'NOTHER", for you, Terry, I know you're a proud Southerner <g>)
You're certainly right that many of those classic records, especially for us older guys, were mixed without stereo compression (or mono compression!) on the mix.
But often they were compressed at mastering, so it's only a question of WHEN.
At some point, some of us decided that the sooner our records sounded 'finished' in the process, the more likely the A&R weasel (speaking as a former weasel, I can say this blithely) or record company president or the band's manager or agent or whomever would like it and think it's finished as well.
So I started mixing through compressors in about 1975.
At that time, some people thought it was a lot of compression. But in comparison to what is now the norm, it was next to nothing... and my records tend to be on the less compressed end.
But it's all a matter of taste.
Post by: Norwood on March 12, 2005, 12:10:06 AM
Keep 'em coming guys.
| Quote: |
I'm down to two choices these days... The Alan Smart version of the SSL compressor, for those things that need to sound LIKE the ubiquitous commercial radio sound. And the Daking compressors for records that I want to sound better. |
That's funny!
Post by: Bob Olhsson on March 12, 2005, 09:45:24 AM
A problem many of us old guys have run into is that a ton of signal processing can make a mix sound better in the mix room but lots worse everywhere else. The best monitors only give you a clue. The worst send you off into left field.
When I started at Wally Heiders I was surprised to see an engineer patching an 1176 across the mix bus to mix a radio spot. After the client left, I asked about it. He responded "I do a hype mix for commercials because it speeds up the session which is the main thing they care about."
If you get the miking right and pay attention to what the performers are hearing, it's amazing how little compression you really need. And then there's the guy I heard about here in Nashville who was patching a Pro Tools rig into the 2-buss of an SSL so that he could L-1 his mixes to make them sound "contemporary!"
Post by: compasspnt on March 12, 2005, 10:53:58 AM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 12 March 2005 09:45 |
At Motown we didn't even have a limiter or compressor in the mastering room, just an Ortophon high frequency limiter. Berry Gordy hated the sound of limiters as did a number of the singers who would demand that you take it out if they heard it in the headphones... |
Just as I suspected!
| Quote: |
...signal processing can make a mix sound better in the mix room but lots worse everywhere else. The best monitors only give you a clue..... |
Exactly!
| Quote: |
...If you get the miking right and pay attention to what the performers are hearing, it's amazing how little compression you really need... |
Exactly!
| Quote: |
And then there's the guy I heard about here in Nashville who was patching a Pro Tools rig into the 2-buss of an SSL so that he could L-1 his mixes to make them sound "contemporary!" |
Anyone who TRYS to sound "contemporary," whether in production values, or in sonic architecture, is making the classic mistake.
Good post Bob, as usual!
Post by: stevieeastend on March 12, 2005, 11:45:27 AM
I love this kind of sound, absolutely! But as a producer/mixer I never could convince a client to accept that kind of dynamic style. I always get best feedbacks the more the stereo compressions is on which tells me that people do not believe or trust that mastering at the very end will do the job.
So I always try to give it that finished/as known from radio and TV sound without overdoing it. In addition it kind of helps in mastering as the way for the mastering engineer is a shorter one. I must say that the SSL stereo compressor, when used properly, does a great job. It gives the whole mix a very cool sound and when you do it right it doesn?t affect the dynamics in a bad way. For me it is kind of the first step of mastering done after the mix in order to make the conversation with the client easier and to take responsibilty away from the mastering engineer, to say it in a polite way. The more I try to make it sound finished during the mix the less work for the mastering engineer and the better the results in mastering. By doing so, the difference between my mixes and the final CD are getting smaller and smaller and that kind of makes my life easier. I never could sleep that good if the mixes where way not loud enough and it was up to the mastering engineer. I sleep much better not to depend too much on mastering. And if it sounds good & finished before mastering then it?s pretty clear who is to blame if the results suck ....my experience...
cheers
steveeastend
Post by: Bob Olhsson on March 12, 2005, 12:35:15 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 12, 2005, 01:17:39 PM
First, I like a vocal to sit way up front in the mix. Stereo compression has a very subtle way of backing everything down when the vocal is happening. I also like the way it gets the bass a litle tighter sounding. Finally, the subtle pump caused by the kick or snare hits really makes rock records pump, whici I think if anything adds dynamic, rather than limiting it.
Post by: compasspnt on March 12, 2005, 09:52:10 PM
You guys MADE me do that...now STOP IT!
Post by: Brian Kehew on March 13, 2005, 06:07:18 AM
This seems to be a "thought process" that is common to people who compress and EQ "to tape" too. They want that finished sound N O W ! ! ! Just different schools of thought, eh? I will print EQ or slap to tape if I need it, but I generally will not re-do that effect, just use it "as is" when mixing.
One of my "rules to good sound" is to never do the same thing TWICE, if you can. Putting audio through things is what kills sound. Don't compress the bass to tape; you might want more (or less) when you mix. Don't EQ the snare "to tape" if you are going to EQ it again. Don't compress or Finalize the stereo bus; it will be done again in mastering, with better QUALITY gear than you probably own, when it is SAFE to judge the levels and tones needed for the overall album.
Post by: compasspnt on March 13, 2005, 07:07:25 AM
Post by: Bob Olhsson on March 13, 2005, 09:04:01 AM
At some point downstream the sound is always going to break. What we don't want is fragile sound. I think one of our main goals is to try and make sure that breaking point will only happen after the average person hears the recording on the air.
Post by: wwittman on March 13, 2005, 04:29:49 PM
but those meetings, where the label president and then the promo people and then the radio programme director and so on decide whether your record gets atention or not, COUNT.
Sometimes for everything.
FWIW, I tend to take the opposite approach to Brian's.. I EQ and compress to tape and often print effects as well.
Although I completely agree that i don't do it AGAIN at the mix.
Mixing is mostly about balances for me.
Post by: Tomás Mulcahy on March 13, 2005, 05:15:05 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sun, 13 March 2005 21:29 |
Although I completely agree that i don't do it AGAIN at the mix. |
This is bothering me. For the sake of the argument- I choose the mic I am liking today
, and go move it around the snare until I get the sound I like the most. Wait... I get the INTERN to move the mic. For an hour (before the band arrives of course).
Anyways... I HPF at 100Hz, pull out a little 250 say. Later, the band says "Great snare sound maaan!".
Then, in the mix, I compress it and add some hi shelving turning over at 3kHz
So I have eq'd twice- is that something you guys would avoid?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on March 13, 2005, 08:40:28 PM
There's an awful lot you can't ever really fix in a mix. The idea that you can just have a roadie track everything at home to save a little money for the mix is a pretty serious production error.
Post by: Tomás Mulcahy on March 13, 2005, 10:49:28 PM
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 01:40 |
The idea that you can just have a roadie track everything at home to save a little money for the mix is a pretty serious production error. |
Don't need no roadie to carry no laptop??!??
Seriously, Bob, you're really on a roll lately. You should think about doing a "Zen of pro audio" book!!
I really liked what you said over at Brad's about mastering- it's all about sequencing. Can we get that put up in 5 mile high burning letters on the PSW homepage?
Post by: Brian Kehew on March 14, 2005, 03:27:53 AM
>>The idea that compression helps radio sound is absolutely and profoundly incorrect. It can help you get a leg up in the meetings where what will get on the air is determined<<
There is no reason you can't take your UNcompressed mix and squeeze the holy hell out of it for a meeting. I recommend that. Give the devils their desire...
WWittman is also "right on"! If you do it TO TAPE - you can make a GREAT record, if you don't un-do it later. His experience will tell him what WILL be needed later (as Terry mentioned his "meters only mix") and it works.
Madonna albums were done like this - I hear - put the faders up and it's all there ready. My own experience with the "Hotel California" masters showed me that Bill Szymczyk is a genius. EVERY bit was cut to tape with perfection. Nothing is needed in the mix, but a panning selection. Done. AND it sounds friggin' awesome... Just as much work, if not more. But tons of experiecne is needed. I have a little of that already, why I can get away with only "one pass" of EQ and dynamics.
Edgar WInter's "Frankenstein" 16 tr. is also this way - it's DONE when it's on tape, but I can also hear it's not really EQ'd or compressed much - just great mic selection and placement. The world's best drum sound on those 4 tracks. Much more advanced than my skills at this point...
Post by: wwittman on March 14, 2005, 02:30:24 PM
Hard to go wrong with him. Although I don't think he was EQ shy!
In the mix, I use EQ in its original sense, to make the sounds fit together better if something is sticking out or getting lost.
But any tone shaping, any MAKING of the sound, is already done much earlier on.
I don't wait to the mix to find out what the record is going to sound like.
I'm always amazed that some people DO.
I remember Mike Chapman always insisting on going in and really cleaning up everything beofre the mix. Erasing any hums or noises before things came in and certainly anything that wasn't used.
The idea being that if we all got hit by a truck, someone else wasn't going to have to wonder what vocal we intended to use.
Cheery, innit?
But I continue the spirit of that (if without the ominous overtones) in that I really finish the record before I'm ready to mix... I certainly don't understand people who send off 6 vocal tracks to the mixer and expect him to "make a vocal" out of it.
If you CAN'T make it sound great then perhaps yes, it's better to send it to _____ (insert big name mixer here) and let him EQ and process your drum tracks and your guitars and whatever.
But if you CAN, then you're really making the record and mixing becomes almost a formality.
Which in my mind is what it SHOULD be.
The ultimate in craziness is what's coming next... in that people are starting to bring their ProTools rigs to mastering with the mix running "in the box" and "adjusting" the mix in the mastering room.
Why don't we just set up the band and play in the mastering room and get it over with? <g>
Post by: Brian Kehew on March 14, 2005, 03:10:40 PM
You mean - like they did until the 1950's!
Post by: compasspnt on March 14, 2005, 04:46:20 PM
| wwittman wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 14:30 |
The ultimate in craziness is what's coming next... in that people are starting to bring their ProTools rigs to mastering with the mix running "in the box" and "adjusting" the mix in the mastering room. |
This to me is stunningly insecure.
Post by: zmix on March 14, 2005, 05:20:19 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 16:46 | ||
This to me is stunningly insecure. |
Insecure? Perhaps, but not too far fetched. I recently had a mastering guy ask me to bring my "Pro Tools files" (which I do not use, and didn't bring) to the session.
Whatever it takes to make a better record, eh?
-CZ
Post by: Hallams on March 14, 2005, 05:48:26 PM
| J.J. wrote on Sat, 12 March 2005 18:17 |
What I find I achieve withe stereo compression is a few things: I also like the way it gets the bass a litle tighter sounding. Finally, the subtle pump caused by the kick or snare hits really makes rock records pump, whici I think if anything adds dynamic, rather than limiting it. |
I really like the Avalon 747 for this with its spectral comp options, and as others mentioned, only one or two db. I also like how the purple light lets you know it is working when the vu doesn't register as often a very subtle ammount is all that is needed
Post by: Andy Simpson on March 14, 2005, 07:30:09 PM
Now, because my ear does not like the ridiculous dynamic range of a close-mic'd and vigourously sawed violin or two, I have been trying a limiter on the mix buss.
This has clarified massively what I had only known previously by instinct....that limiting on the mix buss is very unnatural to the ear if the mix has any reverberation....which is to say that the ear is very sensitive to the proper natural decay of reverberation.
On even a slightly wet mix I can barely limit 1-2dB before the mix starts pumping and sounding terrible (makes my ears jump and the image goes to shit), yet I still have at least 5 dB too much range on the violins for my fragile ears....
However, I can limit the bone dry mix by 5-10dB and take away the 'nasty' upper dynamics of the violins, and it sounds lovely, intimate and rich (to my ear!). So I can crank the monitors and get inside the performance beautifully, without having my head taken off by the violent violins.....
Then I take the limited mix and post-apply the 'verb (although at a lesser amount) and it sounds perfectly natural....
Which leads me to the notion that the mastering guy can't possibly do any kind of mix-buss limiting/comp without completely screwing the reverbs/delays in the mix.....and that the best place for limiting is pre-reverb.....and definately pre-mastering.
I'm sure most of you already know this, but it's a bit of a realisation for me.
And anyone who has had the pleasure of hearing a master cellist from 3 ft away in a quiet dry room will understand why I love the dry, limited and imtimate sound. So.
Andy
PS I know that some of you 'classical' engineers would balk at the idea of close mic'ing & limiting classical music, but loud violins make me flinch (like a vented picolo snare) - but I do like to get close to a cello....and a little limiting can help to tame a violin that also moved quite alot in respect to the position of the mic and was played very vigourously!
Post by: wwittman on March 14, 2005, 08:27:10 PM
or at least stunningly indecisive.
Post by: drumsound on March 14, 2005, 09:12:53 PM
| andy_simpson wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 18:30 |
Over the last couple of days I've been mixing a classical quartet that I tracked in the most incredibly dry rehearsal room. The results of which I have subjected to various mix approaches including, leaving the mix dry, and adding differing amounts of reverb. Now, because my ear does not like the ridiculous dynamic range of a close-mic'd and vigourously sawed violin or two, I have been trying a limiter on the mix buss. This has clarified massively what I had only known previously by instinct....that limiting on the mix buss is very unnatural to the ear if the mix has any reverberation....which is to say that the ear is very sensitive to the proper natural decay of reverberation. On even a slightly wet mix I can barely limit 1-2dB before the mix starts pumping and sounding terrible (makes my ears jump and the image goes to shit), yet I still have at least 5 dB too much range on the violins for my fragile ears.... However, I can limit the bone dry mix by 5-10dB and take away the 'nasty' upper dynamics of the violins, and it sounds lovely, intimate and rich (to my ear!). So I can crank the monitors and get inside the performance beautifully, without having my head taken off by the violent violins..... Then I take the limited mix and post-apply the 'verb (although at a lesser amount) and it sounds perfectly natural.... Which leads me to the notion that the mastering guy can't possibly do any kind of mix-buss limiting/comp without completely screwing the reverbs/delays in the mix.....and that the best place for limiting is pre-reverb.....and definately pre-mastering. I'm sure most of you already know this, but it's a bit of a realisation for me. And anyone who has had the pleasure of hearing a master cellist from 3 ft away in a quiet dry room will understand why I love the dry, limited and imtimate sound. So. Andy PS I know that some of you 'classical' engineers would balk at the idea of close mic'ing & limiting classical music, but loud violins make me flinch (like a vented picolo snare) - but I do like to get close to a cello....and a little limiting can help to tame a violin that also moved quite alot in respect to the position of the mic and was played very vigourously! |
Wouldn't it be easier to set up a sub group with a compressor on it and then use those channels for reverb send? That way you don't need to do two passes. It would all happen within one mix.
Post by: wwittman on March 14, 2005, 09:34:24 PM
back when quad consoles were common <g>, I used to set up a stereo compressor (usually the A&DR Compex) on the REAR quad insert.
Since the console automatically folded the four busses together to make the stereo master outs, it was in effect summing the compressor into the mix.
Then I would send a tone evenly to all 4 groups and try to match the compressor level to the uncompressed front busses.
Now, during the mix, I could use the quad pans to send the tracks only to the front (uncompressed), only to the rear (compressed) or anywhere in-between.
So if I had most of the band in the compressor I might slide the vocal forward OUT of the compression a bit and I could let the reverb returns and other effects be totally uncompressed..
It was an easy way to play with the amount of compression on each mix element.
I know some mixers do similar things with sub groups and return faders of groups of compressors, but this was an EASY way to think about it... using the quad panners.
I know I mixed Time After Time that way, for example, sliding the Linn Shaker out of the compressor so it just floated in front the whole time, but leaving the synth pads in. and so on.
I hadn't thought about it in years.. until now.
Post by: Norwood on March 14, 2005, 11:50:21 PM
| wwittman wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 18:34 |
I know I mixed Time After Time that way... |
Holy crap, you mixed that... one of my favorites.
Post by: Ross Hogarth on March 14, 2005, 11:59:42 PM
lately I have been not doing any 2 buss compressing
or less and less
I find my mixes more open and more rewarding with the least amount of buss compression
it seems that with very dense mixes, the more buss compression, the easier to mix but after the fact i don't like my mixes as much
i do use the original Smart c1 and it has that sound if i want it
or the 33609 but in general
i do a lot of rides and use a lot of sub-master compression and blend it all together
Post by: jwhynot on March 15, 2005, 12:37:53 AM
I still have it plugged in tho'!
I also love the compex as a back-buss, especially on drums. I've been using the Manley Variable-mu that way, more for the whole mix - funny as far as Manley comps goes that's still my favorite use for them - tucked in as a muscle builder on the back buss.
That and the1178 have somehow never floated my boat as a straight stereo comp. I know lots of other folks make it work...
JW
Post by: drumsound on March 15, 2005, 03:27:31 AM
| Norwood wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 22:50 | ||
Holy crap, you mixed that... one of my favorites. |
Time After Time is a great one sir. I love the harmony.
Post by: Brian Kehew on March 15, 2005, 08:10:26 AM
Post by: wwittman on March 15, 2005, 10:54:52 AM
Which is, it's well RECORDED (if I do say so <g>) so mixing is a doddle.
Under-rated?
Well in some ways.., but it did sell 6 million in the US and probably 10 round the world... so not exactly unnoticed!
MY contributions are CLEARLY underrated,. however.<g>
Interestingly enough, that album was the LAST one I ever mixed without automation.
but thanks, Brian
Post by: Norwood on March 15, 2005, 02:18:49 PM
| wwittman wrote on Tue, 15 March 2005 07:54 |
Interestingly enough, that album was the LAST one I ever mixed without automation. |
You have talked about doing fader rides while tracking, do you think this makes a project easier to mix(without automation)? It seems like it would.
Post by: Tomas Danko on March 15, 2005, 02:40:13 PM
| drumsound wrote on Tue, 15 March 2005 08:27 | ||||
Time After Time is a great one sir. I love the harmony. |
Oh man, I listen to that song several times every week. Still.
Thank you!
All the best,
Tomas Danko
Post by: Brian Kehew on March 15, 2005, 03:29:13 PM
As a production, the first Cyndi LP should be "up there". I still find the first Madonna album to be the best as well, whoever wrote and arranged those songs... clever synth programming on both, supporting the song.
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 15, 2005, 03:57:14 PM
The only difference I've noticed between using a pair of 1176LNs and an 1178 is that somehow, the IC front end of the 1178 actually makes the bass more defined. And like I said, the reason that it works for me if because I use just a little bit and I use it make the mix pump, get the bass tightened and bring the vocal more in front. I'm not using it to make the mix sound more finished. If I wanted that, I'd use my Manley Vari-MU. I usually use that for overheads for my parallel compression tracks, that I sneak up with the non compressed overheads.
Post by: thomsbrain on March 17, 2005, 03:17:34 PM
If most "pop" recordings are going to see a fair amount of compression during the mastering process, wouldn't it make sense to at least throw a comp on the 2Bus every once and a while, so you can get a better sense of what your mix will actually sound like in the end?
I can understand not wanting to turn in your final mix with any compression (let the mastering guy do his thing), but I feel like it could be useful to set levels and individual compression settings (or at least do a quick check now and then) within the context of the "finished product." You're going to want to know how much the mix is going to pump with those big kick drum hits, or whether 2buss compression makes the guitars stand out too much...
Anyway, just curious about that.
Post by: nobby on March 17, 2005, 06:57:51 PM
| thomsbrain wrote on Thu, 17 March 2005 15:17 |
I can understand not wanting to turn in your final mix with any compression (let the mastering guy do his thing), but I feel like it could be useful to set levels and individual compression settings (or at least do a quick check now and then) within the context of the "finished product." You're going to want to know how much the mix is going to pump with those big kick drum hits, or whether 2buss compression makes the guitars stand out too much... |
Well, I'm not exactly a seasoned professional myself, but as far as drums go, I compress the snare and kik a bit and then compress the drums mix, so I'm not concerned about what happens down the 'pike.
With distorted guitars, the output (tube) stage of the amp tends to add a lot of compression, little if any is needed; clean guitars, season to taste. I compress the vox while tracking, a bit of mild compression on the backround vox submix (again, compressed while tracking), bass guitar gets it's own compression, and so on.
So I actually am using a fair amount of compression, but as needed on individual tracks and submixes, not on the 2 buss.
(No record company mooks to impress
)Then on to a ME who can be trusted not to turn the mix into roadkill.
Post by: compasspnt on March 17, 2005, 07:23:25 PM
| thomsbrain wrote on Thu, 17 March 2005 15:17 |
... wouldn't it make sense to at least throw a comp on the 2Bus every once and a while, so you can get a better sense of what your mix will actually sound like in the end? ... |
Absolutely a good idea, if you have an array of several great stereo compressors (all suitable for mastering) from which to choose, and a good knowledge of which ones do what different things to a stereo mix in different mastering situations.
Go for it.
Post by: bblackwood on March 18, 2005, 04:53:02 AM
| zmix wrote on Mon, 14 March 2005 16:20 | ||||
Insecure? Perhaps, but not too far fetched. I recently had a mastering guy ask me to bring my "Pro Tools files" (which I do not use, and didn't bring) to the session. Whatever it takes to make a better record, eh? |
That's what they say, but you have to ask yourself - has blurring the lines between mixing and mastering generally helped or hurt audio over the years?
I think the latter, personally.
Sure, I could probably double my billing if I promoted working from stems, but:
1) it's not about the money, and
2) I have no subconscious (or otherwise) aspirations of becoming a mixer.
I wonder if either of those options come into play when a mastering engineer recommends the mixer bring stems...
It reminds me of the mastering guys that recommend that you not use buss compression so they can make sure it's "done right" in the mastering room, ignoring that fact that as soon as you strap a compressor across the buss the balances of the mix are changed. I just don't get it...
Post by: Brian Kehew on March 18, 2005, 05:39:03 AM
| thomsbrain wrote on Thu, 17 March 2005 11:17 |
If most "pop" recordings are going to see a fair amount of compression during the mastering process, wouldn't it make sense to at least throw a comp on the 2Bus every once and a while, so you can get a better sense of what your mix will actually sound like in the end? |
Yes, IF they are going to smash the mix in a heavy way. But my records get mastered so they sound (hopefully) like a slightly better version of the raw mix. The mastering gives my work 10-15% more "polish", but there's not much change that normal people would notice. Not that my mixes are perfect by any means - but it's mainly EQ choices to make, and a touch of compression or limiting.
In other words - for some people's music, yes. For those people, it even makes sense to have a compressor on ALL the time, as your mix "reacts" to it. But, as pointed out above, mastering guys have better compressors, and may know how to work them better than you or I. Your "experiments" beforehand might deceive you, if the mastering guys don't squash it the same way you did when testing...
So why not let them have "your mix" as you intended it, and let them do their thing afterward; do not look on their work as CHANGING the sound, as much as removing the rough edges from your work... so you won't have to GUESS what it will sound like after they do their thing to it.
Post by: rush909 on March 18, 2005, 07:19:57 AM
just interested to see people's thoughts on mixing WITH buss compression on all the time...
r.
Post by: Otitis Media on March 18, 2005, 07:35:01 AM
Post by: Bob Olhsson on March 18, 2005, 12:03:29 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Fri, 18 March 2005 03:53 |
... That's what they say, but you have to ask yourself - has blurring the lines between mixing and mastering generally helped or hurt audio over the years? |
Where things got worse was when mixers began counting on mastering to bail them out. This is what led to using NS-10s and totally ignoring full-range monitors instead of insisting that studios fix mains that weren't translating. Now we've gone further with tracking being fixed in the mix and polished in mastering.
Part of this story is economics. Many begin their album on the cheap and use roughs to secure the money for mixing and mastering. Mixing and mastering are both "save jobs" far too often today but our job remains making what we are handed the most that it can be.
Post by: bushwick on March 18, 2005, 03:07:45 PM
So its down to minimal comping with either a Massenburg 8900 or a pair of Dakings. The Massenburg can cover the speed range and can be devastatingly clear. The Dakings can be very colored and give a song more weight without a whole lot of compression.
Post by: slicraider on March 18, 2005, 05:52:48 PM
I have been wondering about the API 2500
Very cool unit! I had been using one at a particular stdio for a while. It's very flexible and you can really sculpt the sound. The variable link is a fantastic mod too. The input sensing is a very powerful tool. The problem is no rental company here in NY has one.
This all brings up the issue that I have yet to see in this thread which is "frequency dependent" compression. I have been using some form of 2 buss compression for years but I always route things such that any bass frequencies are not hitting the same compressor as my mid and hi frequency info which gives me a much smoother vibe and helps maintain dynamics in my mix.
Rick Slater
NYC
Post by: compasspnt on March 18, 2005, 06:41:00 PM
| slicraider wrote on Fri, 18 March 2005 17:52 |
I have been wondering about the API 2500 Very cool unit! I had been using one at a particular stdio for a while. It's very flexible and you can really sculpt the sound. The variable link is a fantastic mod too. The input sensing is a very powerful tool. The problem is no rental company here in NY has one. This all brings up the issue that I have yet to see in this thread which is "frequency dependent" compression. I have been using some form of 2 buss compression for years but I always route things such that any bass frequencies are not hitting the same compressor as my mid and hi frequency info which gives me a much smoother vibe and helps maintain dynamics in my mix. Rick Slater NYC |
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the input on the API...gotta try one.
Would you mind writing a bit more about your freq dependent compression technique? What console are you using when you do this, how do you go about the patching, what compressors you use for which bands, etc.....
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 18, 2005, 08:33:07 PM
Post by: stevieeastend on March 19, 2005, 06:02:25 AM
I can also second Rick on the 2500. In comparison to a SSL stereo bus it is tighter and faster/harder IMO. It is a cool unit, you can get an amazing punch and loudness without any pumping when used properly.
I also use a form of "split"- compression sometimes, but find it not that necessary though as I do not compress the mix too heavily anyway and find that if I adjusts the attack/release and ratio of the SSL stereo bus properly in respect of the tempo and character of the song, this will work more often than not. The "split" way may give the track also a little "split" character but maybe thats just me being paranoid
. Maybe I should mention that I had my SSL bus compressors (I got one on each bus, A,B,C and the stereo, so all in all four SSL -style stereo compressor on each bus) modified by a german tech and it is working now VERY smooth. He moved the compressors to another place in the signal chain and got rid of a VCA, but don?t ask me how, I only ask for sound changes and he realizes it for me.
Back on topic.... If you got two or three buses you can easily split the material into two parts by sending them to different buses. Now you can compress these buses seperatly with the bus compressor and/or different compressor on the inserts of the busses. If the track is EQed very carefully (roll offs!!) this will work fine.The stereo bus will remain uncompressed. I found this useful on dance/electronic mixes.
cheers
steveeastend
Post by: Brian Kehew on March 19, 2005, 06:37:54 AM
Post by: nobby on March 19, 2005, 06:56:12 AM
| slicraider wrote on Fri, 18 March 2005 17:52 |
I have been using some form of 2 buss compression for years but I always route things such that any bass frequencies are not hitting the same compressor as my mid and hi frequency info which gives me a much smoother vibe and helps maintain dynamics in my mix. NYC |
Okay, but is that really 2 bus compression or are you compressing seperate submixes/stems?
Post by: Hallams on March 20, 2005, 08:06:23 PM
Post by: compasspnt on March 20, 2005, 10:05:04 PM
Post by: wwittman on March 21, 2005, 09:23:48 AM
Another company I think has brilliant marketing way beyond their audio quality.
I quite agree with Bob about mixing (ESPECIALLY) and now mastering too often being remedial.
Or heroic interventions; when such things shouldn't be called for in the first place.
It rarely if ever turns out well and certainly not as well as if it had been done right to begin with.
But I'm not so sure I agree on the reason for the profifertaion of NS-10's or other similarly lousy speakers.
I'm on record as believing that nothng works as well as big monitors in a well designed room.. so that you can really HEAR all you're putting on tape/harddisk.
But for a very long time, engineers listened on little cubes or small speakers in the desk or even on home radios wired to act as speakers only, in an effort to get a radio or "real world" reference.
Then Bob Clearmountain was very vocal about his use of the Yamaha (with its tissue mod) and soon everyone HAD to have them.
Although Bob, to his credit, always said it worked for HIM, not that it should be a standard.
One audio magazine at the time even ran an article by some guy comparing the TYPES of tissue used on Yamaha tweeters.
Which makes suggesting preamps for particular microphones start to sound almost sane. (well, almost)
The difference was that originally the idea was to use a small speaker as an alternative reference.
Not to replace REAL monitors with crappy consumer speakers.
Where, exactly, along the way all that went terribly wrong, I don't know.
But like most things in audio, I suspect it has to do with money.
How many studios do you see now where their ONLY monitors are a set of Genelecs?
These people are not going to spend the money for Augspurgers, let alone for George himself to make the room right, when the conventional wisdom is that they 'don't need to'.
As far as custom mastering... well I remember that differently as well.
Some labels ran good mastering facilities.
I quite happily had records mastered at the Abbey Road cutting room and they had talented engineers and did a great job.
But I also had records completely butchered (FAR from a straight transfer) by the Columbia/CBS cutting room in NY and it was clear that developing a relationship with a mastering engineer with some artistry and a better attitude was in my interest.
If that's "custom mastering" then it was a major improvement for me and my records.
Example:
I remember one record that we had mastered at Sterling for the LP release, but it was CBS policy to have their cassette masters done in house.
So we sent over a Sterling EQ'd copy to CBS and they made the cassettes.
Then when we got the commercial releases, the first 8 seconds of intro had been cut off!
Apparently the genius over there had decided that the acoustic stuff in the front was an outtake (on the EQ'd copy) and took it upon himself to cut it off.
THAT'S why we didn't use the label mastering when we could avoid it.
Not because I expected George Marino to finish my mix for me.
Post by: Bob Olhsson on March 21, 2005, 10:15:04 AM
| wwittman wrote on Mon, 21 March 2005 08:23 |
...These people are not going to spend the money for Augspurgers, let alone for George himself to make the room right, when the conventional wisdom is that they 'don't need to'... |
Post by: slicraider on March 21, 2005, 11:01:59 AM
| Quote: |
Would you mind writing a bit more about your freq dependent compression technique? What console are you using when you do this, how do you go about the patching, what compressors you use for which bands, etc..... |
Terry,
Steveeastend and I have the same basic approach using the J9000 and it's four stereo busses. Occasionally I will strap some type of exciter across a buss and add a small amount to the L/R along with the compressed busses but those cases are rare. The real key for my approach is to keep the low frequency stuff out of the main compression buss so that it doesn't pump. Sometimes I compress the lows but often I don't and I just send them straight to the L/R buss.
Sorry to respond so late but I have been busy employing this technique.
Rick
Post by: Bob Olhsson on March 21, 2005, 11:22:12 AM
| slicraider wrote on Mon, 21 March 2005 10:01 |
... The real key for my approach is to keep the low frequency stuff out of the main compression buss so that it doesn't pump. ... |
Post by: stevieeastend on March 21, 2005, 11:41:20 AM
IMO the Avalon 747 is one of the units, which does not translate the whole frequency bandwith the way it should be. It is just does not feel right to me. It is not that like having the mix just compressed with a little sound colour, which you get f.e. with the SSL, API, Manley. When using the Avalon it feels like that the whole frequency picture changes in a unnatural way IMO. If you like the sound of the unit, I think its better to use during the mix on certain instruments...
It would work for some commercial purpose, demos and such for sure but if you want to go for the best sound possible I would not go for it...
But it is also a question which desk you are using and for what purpose as well, I think....
cheers
steveeastend
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 21, 2005, 06:15:12 PM
Post by: stevieeastend on March 23, 2005, 01:26:20 PM
At the end of a mix I fire in the stereo compressor of the SSL stereo bus more often than not. Adjust release and attack etc.. But sometimes, with some tempo or music style you get the feeling that the attack of the bass and bassdrum gets kind of washed as the character of the SSL compressor got a kind of pumping, "making everything warm and together" character, IMO.
It can be sometimes hard to achieve the nice colour you get from this compressor AND have the bass and bassdrum still stay tight, especially in electronic and dance.
So in order to get the bass and bassdrum out of the rest, you route all your channels to bus A and the bass and bassdrum to bus B.
Now you copy the same settings you used for the stereo bus compressor, which did not work, to bus A compressor and B compressor, which is possible as you got one for each bus. (A,B,C and stereo bus). Then you turn the stereo bus compressor off. Then you leave the settings, you have made for the stereo bus compressor on the bus A compressor as you liked that before. On the bus B compressor you adjust the threshold until you like the setting for the bass and the bassdrum, adjusting ratio and release I find a little dangerous as my paranoid ears found that they would then kind of fight with the other tracks in a "stereo-compressor-wise-way".
So this would be a very careful way of treating the bass and bassdrum differently in stereo bus compression as the rest of the tracks. Just the threshold would be then a little different as I do not compress the bus too heavily anyway. But many small steps sometimes make a big difference in the end. Another possibilty is to send the bass and bassdrum straight to the stereo bus and not to bus B. As the stereo bus compressor is turned off, bass and bass drum will stay uncompressed "stereowise" in comparison to the rest of the track.
So you got the settings you liked for the track for all channels expect the bass and bassdrum and so kept the low stuff tighter.
cheers
steveeastend
Post by: stevieeastend on March 23, 2005, 01:35:38 PM
Sending the bass AND the bassdrum was just an example as I used it that way for some electronic and dance stuff, which had nothing to do with mainstream rock music. What you send to which bus depends heavily on the music style and the tempo of the song, IMO. I got really no idea how this approach would work for rock but I will be mixing two rock songs next week and will try it out.
cheers
steveeastend
Post by: John Ivan on March 24, 2005, 10:17:16 AM
I don't have a good enough comp to put on the buss. I have mixed in rooms that did and after listening and mixing a few tunes with compression, I went back to none. My mastering guy thanks me. I compress the drum bus minus the overheads sometimes and I have compressors that I like on certain things. In a way, I do stem's but, I blend them myself. I do a backing vocal buss, a drum buss. On rock music I will buss all the guitars except solos into one of my Altecs,and so on. I just find that if I work at getting things to sit right without compression the masters come back in better shape. The broadcast chain beats everything to death these days anyhow { some of my stuff has made the radio in England and in the mid west !! YEA!!! ;-} }. This is just how I work. Lot's of folks get great results WITH it so, it's a matter of taste. right?
It's so cool to read all these heavys around here..
Post by: slicraider on March 26, 2005, 08:40:04 PM
| Quote: |
I got really no idea how this approach would work for rock but I will be mixing two rock songs next week and will try it out. |
OH yea I think this works great for rock.
Rick
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 27, 2005, 12:38:40 PM