Mixing question

This is probably a noob question but when it comes to mixing and using compression and limiters on your master channel, that's going to affect the volume of your drums and bass etc as they'll be damped down once more sounds come into the mix, right? But should the volume of your drums be consistent throughout the track though? Not sure why I'm thinking this, but it sort of makes sense, on paper, for them to be the same levels all the ways through the track, like a consistent anchor for your ears, then everything else has to work around them to fit in the mix. So I'm thinking of not using any compression on the main output, but just grouping everything but the drums into bottom/mid/high end busses, then compress them separately instead. Anyone tried this, would it work or just make the drums sound too separate from the rest of the sounds?

The best compressor is just to ride the faders / automate the volume.

It totally depends on the track, but traditionally speaking, you'll only be nudging a few db either way, so it shouldn't make too much difference to the mix.

A recent demo I did: https://soundcloud.com/prestonlogan/dreams-of-coober-pedy-2-soft-mix-1 uses a lot of automation of different elements, the brain doesn't notice most of it, especially dips in the instrument frequencies, but I accidentally kept the drums down in the last section of the song (oops), which you can hear.

I've got a book about home studio mixing that's really helpful: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0240815807?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00

In the book, he shows a proper pro mixing job which has an absolute ton of volume automation on every track.

On the flipside, take a minimal techno track, there's probably not much automation going on there as not too many tracks or changes in to the mix, just good sounds that sit well with each other using EQ + compression.

Liking this track, evolves really nicely and sounds really crisp and full. Yeah I'm starting to learn more about good practises with mixing - subtractive EQing etc. I like the idea of using compression for each track then sidechain compression on pads and bass tp make room for the fleeting instrumental bits. I'm kind of wary of using automation though, I don't know why - but that seems the obvious and best way of controlling mixes at different points in the track whilst maintaining the dynamics.

Just to elaborate a bit - my tracks have got a lot of chords, long bass notes, pads etc so they're prone to getting pretty muddy - if it was all choppy and syncopated it'd probably be less of an issue.

Cheers, I think I heard your stuff on soundcloud before somehow, sounds good to me! It's quite tricky to get that warm low end without it being muddy - I think you've managed it, really good upper mids too.

  On 10/16/2015 at 12:32 PM, rev85 said:

Cheers, I think I heard your stuff on soundcloud before somehow, sounds good to me! It's quite tricky to get that warm low end without it being muddy - I think you've managed it, really good upper mids too.

Ta mate - it's all been a bit trial and error though to be honest. It's because I'm starting on an album so want to try and get a template of sorts set up that makes the whole thing less of a headache afterwards.

  On 10/16/2015 at 11:57 AM, rev85 said:

The best compressor is just to ride the faders / automate the volume.

 

very true, unless we're talking about micro-dynamics compression (where you want to deal with fast attacks for example), in which case it would be very tricky to deal with each attacks using faders!

that being said, there's no more true rule as the "shit in -> shit out" one, or putted in a more positive way: if it sounds right in the first place, then there's no need to do anything else with it. So if you need a part having with a quieter beat, why not trim the corresponding faders down for that part? And that's the same for about everything in your mix. A perfect mix virtually needs no mastering at all.

that's very general but those are my two cents anyway

  On 10/16/2015 at 1:53 PM, Antape said:

 

  On 10/16/2015 at 11:57 AM, rev85 said:

The best compressor is just to ride the faders / automate the volume.

 

 

very true, unless we're talking about micro-dynamics compression (where you want to deal with fast attacks for example), in which case it would be very tricky to deal with each attacks using faders!

 

ha, that would not be fun at all.

re: compression VS. riding faders: I don't agree.

At mixing stage, buss compression can (and should!) be used for creative, esthetic reasons. It's not about volume at all, it's about shaping / emphasizing the existing groove of your tunes, by changing (subtlety or not) the way the individual tracks interact with each other.

It's pretty different from the utilitarian/corrective compression/limiting happening - if necessary - at mastering stage.

I'd strongly recommend to watch that video: https://vimeo.com/kushaudio/ubk-1-manual-and-demo#t=325s

it's an eye-opener (ear-opener?) when it comes to creative uses of (buss) compression. Of course, you're not obliged to use that precise plugin to get these kind of results.

edit: most volume/dynamic issues on individual tracks can be often solved right at the source. Often these are performance, recording or sound-design problems. Much more efficient than any automation / compression to fix it there, whenever it's possible.

I think we were just talking about compression used to reduce the dynamic between different parts of the song (macro-dynamics). That kind of aesthetic compression intended to bring some groove is something else for sure. It could seem a bit gimmicky to try getting that with faders although I'm pretty sure it could give great results with some practice. I already tried that on separate tracks like for example pads and really liked how it sounded, basically this classic side-chain compression effect but with more variety and life to it.

I read an excellent article on that matter written by an experienced electronic mastering engineer. I'm so sorry I'm not able to find it anymore... I just remember how the website looked like and that the guy mastered a Bola release. I'll try to search again because it's really relevant to the "groove" master buss compression topic.

EDIT: yes! found it in 30 secondes, can't believe I was unsuccessful with that after 20 minutes of searches the other day.

here you go: http://blacklistedmastering.co.uk/articles/triangular-compression-theories/

PS: the guy never mastered any Bola at all apparently ha. memory...

Using volume automations against compression can also sound amazon. That's the kind of stuff Clark did a lot on Empty the bone of you (and later works, but maybe not as obvious).

  On 10/18/2015 at 11:59 AM, lin said:

edit: most volume/dynamic issues on individual tracks can be often solved right at the source. Often these are performance, recording or sound-design problems. Much more efficient than any automation / compression to fix it there, whenever it's possible.

I agree on that part.

I guess I should have phrased it all differently, been less concise and expressed more explicitly that it was just my opinion. Guilty as charged.

So, disclaimer: highly subjective post!

When working on my (electronic) tunes, I'll go back at the source whenever it's possible to fix any issues (like weird dynamic variation, unwanted resonances or too obvious frequency masking etc) that could have been avoided with better composition, performance, arrangement or sound-design. In my opinion, a tune will be infinitely easier to mix if I do my best to make it sounds as good as possible without any corrective processing. As time goes by, I tend to see mixing as a creative process more than an utilitarian one, so that most of the wanted end-result is there before I start to mix. It sounds much better that way IMHO. Of course, it's a whole different story if I'm mixing someone else's tune.

westhead: do whatever sounds good to your ears, really. The only things that matters is that all the individual tracks work together, as a whole. The drums' volume can vary htroughout the tune, as long as it makes sense musically, in the context of that precise piece of music. It depends so much on what you have in mind and what you want to achieve when mixing it.

  On 10/18/2015 at 5:24 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

i would say this is a "some of the time" thing, basically this is saying DSP is pointless because you should be able to do all these things near perfect before any effects are applied. doesn't really make sense.

He said "whenever it is possible".

In my line of private creative work it has to be possible. The source material that is played and mangled live on stage needs to be correct up front or it does not work at all. There is no easy way to bring in compressor automation with sidechaining in that situation without loosing the freedom of improvisation. Pre production is insane for that, post production is simply not available.

Thanks folks some food for thought here. The point about playing live is a good one too - as I play guitar along to a backing track basically, and it sometimes sound as though the guitar's too separate as in the recorded version the volume's all over the place because of all the compression.

I think my issue in the past is that I've been a bit over zealous adding too much compression to everything, making it sound dull - then trying in vain to raise/lower sounds - which then fucks up the rest of the track. I think learning more about subtractive EQ is helping, but I totally agree that arrangement, composition etc is the most important thing in making a mix work. I guess I'm after a definitive answer to a question about mixing when there isn't one - it's down to what sounds good to you and what you want the end result to be. I'm going to go ahead and use compressor more sparingly, sidechain compress elements that shares the same frequencies, taking sounds out and EQing where I can, rather than throwing everything at a track to mask any issues.

It always depends on the tune indeed.

It's tempting and easy to turn mixing into something ridiculously complex (I went through that rabbit hole).

Now I try to keep it as simple as possible by getting each raw element of a tune right before I even start mixing. That's a whole different workflow, and I prefer it, big times. It kinds of removes all the corrective aspect to mixing, and allows me to have a creative take on that process instead. It's much more rewarding.

Compressors are fantastic devices, it's just too bad they're that often only perceived as utilities. They can offer so much more. Have you ever experimented with parallel compression? That's what I like the most.

Listening to the most recent release on your Lo Five BC westhead, you're far from being a noob (nice tunes !!!), so just trust your ears, really.

Thanks man :) I'm getting better by trial and error but its a slow process and I don't have any real methodology. I was reading about parallel compression last night, gonna try it out for sure.

For anyone who's interested here's the thing I'm working on - in the end I did use compression and an adaptive limiter on the master bus - as some of it was just too quiet without it.

But yeah, there's an organ, a pad, piano and various other bits jostling for attention in there - I sidechain compressed the pads and organ to the melodic bits, and the bass to the kick - that's about as good as far as my knowledge goes.