The TECHNIQUE that made the most difference for YOU?
Apr 4, 2014 13:37:19 GMT -6
tonycamphd and henge like this
Post by popmann on Apr 4, 2014 13:37:19 GMT -6
Ok....so, consider this a companion to JK's "what piece of gear made the most difference" thread. Instead focusing on the technique or paradigm shift that made the most difference in your recordings. I've got a new mix of my own stuff up right now, and both these occurred to me:
1) being OCD about EQ and compression and saturation not "changing perceived volume". This is a construct mostly of digital SOFTWARE mixing--as even hardware digital mixers you could usually do it with compressors but not EQ. This is why DAWs' channel EQ should never be used, IMO--I've never seen on with a makeup gain control. You can use the built in PLUG IN...but, it needs to be an insert. Basically, you want to be able to hit bypass and it not change overall perceived level much. Many commented about the Elysia MusEQ being super transparent--which is also what got me thinking about this. Now, it's a fine EQ, but what makes it SEEM transparent, IMO, is that it's doing some sort of real time gain compensation--so, when you roll up some 4khz, it's downing the output volume a little to compensate--roll out some lows and it's upping it, etc. The fact is MOST digital EQ is transparent. Most EQ in general is transparent when used that way. And SHOULD be used that way. It's amazing the amount of times I think the EQ is killer and hugely transformative, only to gain match for bypass and realize it's just making something louder or quieter....yes, quieter sounds "better" too--meaning, instead of the EQ, pulling the fader down a DB or two is just as effective, I was just using the EQ to pull specific frequencies down a little more.
Back to the mix I have up--when you're OCD about these things, you can do what I just did--hit bypass on ALL inserts...and the balance remains. In fact, it shows you how little you're really doing, grand scheme. Mixing is a cumulative nuance thing. When I bypassed everything...the overall RMS dropped a little...some things poked out sometimes that didn't...etc...of course the rough mix sounds better--but, not by the amount I think people tend to think mixing does. If you've NOT been OCD about this, when you globally bypass, it will all sound completely different...and you will think you're really being amazing and transformative. So--be forewarned. If you want to think the mix is "where it happens"...maybe ignore my advice.
Now, sometimes, you HUGELY compressing something--like a lead vocal and raising it's RMS SO much that will get out of whack...which brings me to that part--you can't actually match it's perception. If you DO, the compressor will NEVER sound better, because the uncompressed will be FAR louder. So...what I've done with those is to match the "normal peak" volume. Like when you're belting that line--bypass should make no difference in volume. That way, what you're really doing is deciding how much you want to push UP the low level details, rather than how much peak you need to tame. That IS semantics...but, if you view it that way, you'll get the right level of compression on such things faster and to some degree avoid the internal loudeness war--where you made some track so much louder and now you've got to compress another one to keep up...so, then there's this other track...etc.
2) I've spoken of this, too--but, what VCC brought to MY table--separating the effect of an analog circuit (or emulation) from the musical/mix function--be it EQ or compression. I spent a lot of years with a big rack of analog goodies because one compressor sounded great on this kind of guitar....another sounded great on bass...another on vocals...snare...etc...what I ended up doing is compressing a LOT where the main thing I really liked and made it "good for source" was the sound of it's circuit. In fact, it led to my experimenting with the Burl AD--to see if I could get away from the digital "saturation plugs" and simply use what I needed for function of balance. in fact, when I first took the demo of the Burl home, I recorded a vocal with it and the RME simultaneously....inserted my typical Fairchild emu plug in...and they sounded nearly identical. But, the story was told when I then took that off and put the generic Cubase VCA compressor on. The Burl track sounded even BETTER than it did with the colorful Fairchild....and the RME sounded small and odd. Which is both testament to tools not being about the end result...and how cool the Burl is for workflow. I get the track where I can use whatever to compress of EQ it--where with the RME, I "need" my analog colorful units. Which isn't to say a Fairchild won't be used again on my own stuff--program based limiters DO bring something unique to the mix table by way of their detection circuits. But, I don't need it FOR it's nice color. And it should be noted that while VCC brought it into MY world--there are plenty of other options...and mixing this one cut through the Burl, the only VCC being used are busses. Some MPX tape on the snare I didn't track...and a guitar I did, because I frankly WANTED it to distort on the peaks. I could use something else...but, since I also wanted a slap delay...two birds...
So, what's your entry into this thought? Here's what isn't helpful--"I think mic technique made the most difference"....that doesn't help anyone--if that's your entry, be specific with an example.
1) being OCD about EQ and compression and saturation not "changing perceived volume". This is a construct mostly of digital SOFTWARE mixing--as even hardware digital mixers you could usually do it with compressors but not EQ. This is why DAWs' channel EQ should never be used, IMO--I've never seen on with a makeup gain control. You can use the built in PLUG IN...but, it needs to be an insert. Basically, you want to be able to hit bypass and it not change overall perceived level much. Many commented about the Elysia MusEQ being super transparent--which is also what got me thinking about this. Now, it's a fine EQ, but what makes it SEEM transparent, IMO, is that it's doing some sort of real time gain compensation--so, when you roll up some 4khz, it's downing the output volume a little to compensate--roll out some lows and it's upping it, etc. The fact is MOST digital EQ is transparent. Most EQ in general is transparent when used that way. And SHOULD be used that way. It's amazing the amount of times I think the EQ is killer and hugely transformative, only to gain match for bypass and realize it's just making something louder or quieter....yes, quieter sounds "better" too--meaning, instead of the EQ, pulling the fader down a DB or two is just as effective, I was just using the EQ to pull specific frequencies down a little more.
Back to the mix I have up--when you're OCD about these things, you can do what I just did--hit bypass on ALL inserts...and the balance remains. In fact, it shows you how little you're really doing, grand scheme. Mixing is a cumulative nuance thing. When I bypassed everything...the overall RMS dropped a little...some things poked out sometimes that didn't...etc...of course the rough mix sounds better--but, not by the amount I think people tend to think mixing does. If you've NOT been OCD about this, when you globally bypass, it will all sound completely different...and you will think you're really being amazing and transformative. So--be forewarned. If you want to think the mix is "where it happens"...maybe ignore my advice.
Now, sometimes, you HUGELY compressing something--like a lead vocal and raising it's RMS SO much that will get out of whack...which brings me to that part--you can't actually match it's perception. If you DO, the compressor will NEVER sound better, because the uncompressed will be FAR louder. So...what I've done with those is to match the "normal peak" volume. Like when you're belting that line--bypass should make no difference in volume. That way, what you're really doing is deciding how much you want to push UP the low level details, rather than how much peak you need to tame. That IS semantics...but, if you view it that way, you'll get the right level of compression on such things faster and to some degree avoid the internal loudeness war--where you made some track so much louder and now you've got to compress another one to keep up...so, then there's this other track...etc.
2) I've spoken of this, too--but, what VCC brought to MY table--separating the effect of an analog circuit (or emulation) from the musical/mix function--be it EQ or compression. I spent a lot of years with a big rack of analog goodies because one compressor sounded great on this kind of guitar....another sounded great on bass...another on vocals...snare...etc...what I ended up doing is compressing a LOT where the main thing I really liked and made it "good for source" was the sound of it's circuit. In fact, it led to my experimenting with the Burl AD--to see if I could get away from the digital "saturation plugs" and simply use what I needed for function of balance. in fact, when I first took the demo of the Burl home, I recorded a vocal with it and the RME simultaneously....inserted my typical Fairchild emu plug in...and they sounded nearly identical. But, the story was told when I then took that off and put the generic Cubase VCA compressor on. The Burl track sounded even BETTER than it did with the colorful Fairchild....and the RME sounded small and odd. Which is both testament to tools not being about the end result...and how cool the Burl is for workflow. I get the track where I can use whatever to compress of EQ it--where with the RME, I "need" my analog colorful units. Which isn't to say a Fairchild won't be used again on my own stuff--program based limiters DO bring something unique to the mix table by way of their detection circuits. But, I don't need it FOR it's nice color. And it should be noted that while VCC brought it into MY world--there are plenty of other options...and mixing this one cut through the Burl, the only VCC being used are busses. Some MPX tape on the snare I didn't track...and a guitar I did, because I frankly WANTED it to distort on the peaks. I could use something else...but, since I also wanted a slap delay...two birds...
So, what's your entry into this thought? Here's what isn't helpful--"I think mic technique made the most difference"....that doesn't help anyone--if that's your entry, be specific with an example.
