|
|
Post by nick8801 on Sept 30, 2021 14:37:12 GMT -6
Top down mixing No thanks Ok. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Sept 30, 2021 16:58:56 GMT -6
Top down mixing No thanks Yeah. Again never seen anyone take this approach on an actual record... I could dismantle all the reasons I think its dumb but don't have the time and probably most would think I'm some kinda asshole... and they might be right. Will just say I can't imagine knowing how or why to add buss processing until I've gone through the individual elements, pinpoint the relationships and have a rough mix at least halfway framed in. Probably also worth mentioning I could only take about 5 minutes of the Kenny video but could listen to someone like JJP ramble for a couple hours... YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 30, 2021 19:48:47 GMT -6
I think most of us have some preferred bus processing in place, but even that may give some pretty different options day to day. Mine is generally very little, hardly hitting it.
My first rough is almost always hpf or low shelf cuts only to get the bottom perspective in the zone, then as close a mix as can be had with that alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Oct 1, 2021 0:15:35 GMT -6
It would be boring if everyone worked the same way :-)
I'll say one thing that's a certain for me.
If a mix doesn't sound great - and I mean really great with just faders and pans and zero processing of any kind .... well then something went wrong
earlier on in the creative process, either the writing stage, arranging or tracking and choice of sounds.
Then how you add processing/ sweetening is personal preference.
I used to get "all anal" about individual tracks then group to buses then as an after thought something on the mix bus or nothing on the mix bus
but personally I found I usually manage to polish the vibe and energy out of a track.
So after getting things sounding great with just faders and pans I now go with broad stroke colours on the stereo bus and you know I'm now 80% there
reducing the amount of phase distortion by avoiding too much individual channel EQ and not over compressing the dynamics.
Yes I'll go back in and fix anything that stands out on an individual basis. I'll fix up the usual suspects like HPF on the kick and some HPF/low mid cuts on ac and electric guitars,
some individual processing goes with the territory - but it's a fundamental approach change to go with some stereo bus processing as a glue and overall wash of colour
and I'm finding I'm keeping way more vibe and dynamics with a "top down approach".
(though I never new it had an official name) and it's odd I spotted this thread because I've been moving towards this approach slowly for a few years now.
I should note, I mix in a DAW (Cubase) and possibly if your on a LFC like a Neve 88 or SSL 9K then different rules apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by robschnapf on Oct 1, 2021 0:34:16 GMT -6
That is unwatchable.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 1, 2021 8:15:50 GMT -6
Funny, when I saw the thread I guessed “top down mixing” to mean starting with the vocal and ending with adding bass and drums (the bottom) seemingly not. But watching the video I can see I’ve recently adopted this approach of TDM. So now my new approach has an official name. Cool. I recently bought a vari mu bus comp and tube bus EQ and I’m into that from the get go plus a VCA first on the bus. VCA - vari mu - EQ on my stereo bus. Then I look at busses and last tracks. It does work well, but I’m finding it relies on getting the arrangement and tracking perfect at the outset to leave less processing needed at the mix phase. So if a mix sounds great with nothing more than faders and pans it’s going to sound fantastic with a top down mixing approach. "Top down" generally means to start with the vocals and move towards the rhythm section. The use of top down here makes sense but it's confusing to someone who's heard "top down" for decades before. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 1, 2021 8:17:25 GMT -6
Seems like your comments in this thread have some sour grapes behind them..? |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 1, 2021 8:25:09 GMT -6
I always start with master bus processing now. It's almost always the same too. I've come to love the sub-bus processing too. Why put tons of plugs on single tracks when you're also crowing about instruments being part of a whole? Treat them like a whole. All the rhythm guitars go to a bus. Drums to the bus. Main vocals to a bus. Backing vocals to a bus. You get my drift.
Easily halves the number of plugs I need to use and I don't have to mess around with a lot of single tracks.
I don't get the hate on going for the master bus first. You're going to go through it anyway, might as well start your mix through it so that you adjust the mix as it would sound, rather than apply master bus processing later and then have to circle back to all the tracks to adjust them again.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Oct 1, 2021 10:12:44 GMT -6
Interesting watch, thanks for sharing!
One thing that sorta bugs me though is that he's working the drum buss compression pre-eq, but then copies the buss eq to the channels, which totally changed the tone and response of the buss compressor. The pre-eq compression sounded better, responding more to the lower spectrum of the kit and kinda dancing / grooving with the drum pattern better. Once the compression was post-eq, it got a bit overly snappy and (for lack of a better word) "digital" sounding.
Anywho, I'd contend that this sort of approach is a fine way to run off quick rough mixes, provided the playing is good, the arrangement is simple, and the recording is adequate. Sadly, that's a rare trifecta in my line of work 🤣🤦🏻♂️
|
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Oct 1, 2021 12:00:24 GMT -6
Funny, when I saw the thread I guessed “top down mixing” to mean starting with the vocal and ending with adding bass and drums (the bottom) seemingly not. But watching the video I can see I’ve recently adopted this approach of TDM. So now my new approach has an official name. Cool. I recently bought a vari mu bus comp and tube bus EQ and I’m into that from the get go plus a VCA first on the bus. VCA - vari mu - EQ on my stereo bus. Then I look at busses and last tracks. It does work well, but I’m finding it relies on getting the arrangement and tracking perfect at the outset to leave less processing needed at the mix phase. So if a mix sounds great with nothing more than faders and pans it’s going to sound fantastic with a top down mixing approach. "Top down" generally means to start with the vocals and move towards the rhythm section. The use of top down here makes sense but it's confusing to someone who's heard "top down" for decades before. That’s what I assumed as well. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 1, 2021 12:35:11 GMT -6
Cool video, this works totally fine, can be used when working super fast. I’m pretty sure top down is vocals first, as in whatever sits on top of the rhythm? Copy and pasting 2bus onto subgroups is a DAW only thing. Brings me back to the multiband/L2 days, when every group had the 2bus MB and L2, and one last L2 on the master just in case (I don’t miss those days)
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 1, 2021 12:39:44 GMT -6
I always start with master bus processing now. It's almost always the same too. I've come to love the sub-bus processing too. Why put tons of plugs on single tracks when you're also crowing about instruments being part of a whole? Treat them like a whole. All the rhythm guitars go to a bus. Drums to the bus. Main vocals to a bus. Backing vocals to a bus. You get my drift. Easily halves the number of plugs I need to use and I don't have to mess around with a lot of single tracks. I don't get the hate on going for the master bus first. You're going to go through it anyway, might as well start your mix through it so that you adjust the mix as it would sound, rather than apply master bus processing later and then have to circle back to all the tracks to adjust them again. This is how I (try to) work. Sometimes everything needs extreme help. I just don’t like a lot of plugins, so i have a limiter, maybe a tube comp plugin on the master, let the tracks breath as much as possible for as long as I can. Eventually the subgroups get treatment, and individual tracks as needed |
|
|
|
Post by robschnapf on Oct 1, 2021 14:21:01 GMT -6
Seems like your comments in this thread have some sour grapes behind them..? No sour grapes. the video was stilted and oddly phrased like somebody wasn’t turning the cue cards fast enough. drove me crazy. as far as top down, I just completely disagree with that approach. maybe because I’m mixing hybrid don’t know but as an approach it hurts my brain. I think you have much better resolution and balances when the mix buss is the last thing you treat. I find that when mixing into compression too early, if you pop it out, you mix can fall apart. so the compression and treatment is really masking issues and letting you get away with stuff. Which is fine I suppose, but I’m into making it right. if you do it later in the process, your mix stays together and i find, the balances are much more refined and nuanced. also I don’t want to treat everything with the same sorts of compression. acoustics have a certain treatment, clean electric another, dirty maybe none, indidvidual kick and snare different drum buss yet another etc etc. all part of coloring or not. so I don’t like large scale sub grouping with one treatment for the group. amd I don’t want to mix into compression until the time is right. so that’s what I’m talking about. but yes there’s more then one way to do stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Oct 1, 2021 14:49:09 GMT -6
also I don’t want to treat everything with the same sorts of compression. acoustics have a certain treatment, clean electric another, dirty maybe none, indidvidual kick and snare different drum buss yet another etc etc. all part of coloring or not. so I don’t like large scale sub grouping with one treatment for the group. amd I don’t want to mix into compression until the time is right. so that’s what I’m talking about. but yes there’s more then way to do stuff. Couldn't agree more. Maybe a slightly esoteric view but compression is more or less the only tool we have available that lets us screw with time. Like depending on how attack & release are set we can alter where someone's playing is sitting in relationship with the rest of the band. Things like pushing the bass player ahead or behind the beat... For me a large part of the gig is making sure the record feels good. Compression isn't solely about controlling dynamic range... IMO that's a very basic, almost caveman way to look at things. So no, I don't use the same compressors with the same settings & sources on every record. That sort of paint by numbers stuff doesn't work for me. And yes the video, delivery is incredibly stunted. Between that and the uhh... "information" I found myself losing IQ points and had to bail. All for exploring and picking up new tricks but I'm also going to call out bullshit when I see it. If someone gets something out of it cool... but to me it was stinky. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Oct 1, 2021 15:12:03 GMT -6
Funny, when I saw the thread I guessed “top down mixing” to mean starting with the vocal and ending with adding bass and drums (the bottom) seemingly not. But watching the video I can see I’ve recently adopted this approach of TDM. So now my new approach has an official name. Cool. I recently bought a vari mu bus comp and tube bus EQ and I’m into that from the get go plus a VCA first on the bus. VCA - vari mu - EQ on my stereo bus. Then I look at busses and last tracks. It does work well, but I’m finding it relies on getting the arrangement and tracking perfect at the outset to leave less processing needed at the mix phase. So if a mix sounds great with nothing more than faders and pans it’s going to sound fantastic with a top down mixing approach. "Top down" generally means to start with the vocals and move towards the rhythm section. The use of top down here makes sense but it's confusing to someone who's heard "top down" for decades before. That's what I thought top down meant as well. |
|
|
|
Post by enlav on Oct 1, 2021 15:49:27 GMT -6
Maybe this says something more about my abilities (or lack there of) as a recording engineer, but I tried doing this sort of Master>Buss>Individual track approach on an old session last night, and I couldn't do much EQ on the master before a boost or cut started to either aggravate some band in one instrument or cut away the clarity/depth/body of another source, so the EQ parameters I was transferring from Master to Busses was pretty close to flat. I also found myself "reaching" for EQ plugs while I was doing initially level balancing.
For higher-track count sessions I generally track completely dry, which might serve as a detriment to this process. Specifically referring to the method provided by the video: Still interested in this as an exercise at the very least, but I think I'd need to have the right session for it. Easily halves the number of plugs I need to use and I don't have to mess around with a lot of single tracks. I don't get the hate on going for the master bus first. You're going to go through it anyway, might as well start your mix through it so that you adjust the mix as it would sound, rather than apply master bus processing later and then have to circle back to all the tracks to adjust them again. +1 on the plugin count point. When I let the session get a little out of hand, and I suddenly have 12 group vocal tracks looking for that "punk anthem" sort of tone, you better believe I just route them all to a stereo buss and slap EQ3 on it. Before deleting all but 2 or 3 of them. There are definitely times where I'll get a little nit-picky on volume swells from a particular track or something, but I'd rather automate those than toss individual compressors on each.
Regarding the master buss processing hate: I used to be a guy that lived and breathed by the rule... NO PROCESSING... after my go-to mastering engineer outlined what he wanted from me. All tracks below -3 dB, remove all processing from the master, native resolution/sampling rate, etc.
I've since come to terms with the fact that he deals (or dealt?) with a lot of bands that do their own stuff, send him smashed files, and expect him to work magic into it. When I had projects that could pay for his rates, I sure as hell probably wouldn't have trusted myself at the time to not screw it up either.
Nevertheless, I find it very unnatural for me to have something on the master early in the mix... though I'm sure something like a Silverbullet would change that.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Oct 2, 2021 4:30:47 GMT -6
The cool thing with a master bus EQ (and really it has to be a top quality tube unit otherwise the whole point is diminished) is you can paint in a broad stroke
EQ curve to the piece which is unifying and glueing - plus your boosting with an ultra high quality analogue unit with infinite resolution (no digital artifacts to deal with)
This avoids boosting with individual channel digital EQ plugins and means you way more likely to need to do individual cuts with your digital EQ which sounds way better than boosting.
I just find the finished result sounds less "digital" and "crunchy" in that awful 0 and 1's way digital can add (hard to put into words)
That's why I think TDM lends itself so well to the world of DAW mixing where you're mostly ITB but you have a decent hardware mix bus chain and maybe a few hardware pieces on a few buses.
If I was on a 64 channel Neve 88 desk with flying faders (what's that about $250,000) then sure the analogue channel EQ on that desk is gorgeous and different rules apply.
Horses for courses I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Oct 2, 2021 5:38:16 GMT -6
Today’s live broadcast job gives a perspective - try this with a PA system! Hahahahaahahahhaha
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 2, 2021 5:41:04 GMT -6
Another thing you can do is "hunt for clues" with a mix bus EQ. Once you find the offending frequency, turn it off and go find what individual channel (or channels) needs the move done. I did that on a mix yesterday. I think the bass guitar was too boomy or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Oct 2, 2021 6:07:58 GMT -6
Today’s live broadcast job gives a perspective - try this with a PA system! Hahahahaahahahhaha  |
|
|
|
Post by enlav on Oct 4, 2021 7:31:28 GMT -6
Today’s live broadcast job gives a perspective - try this with a PA system! Hahahahaahahahhaha How about conference sound reinforcement?
I feel sorry for some of the folks working those gigs. Here, enjoy making this room sound "great" with the smallest/cheapest Yamaha Mixer we could find, speakers on poles. Sorry, the graphic EQ is being used in the Wellington Room, you'll have to make due with the mixer's built-in 7-band graphic EQ.
(Now let's see how quick it takes people to forget how wireless mics work.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2021 17:15:27 GMT -6
also I don’t want to treat everything with the same sorts of compression. acoustics have a certain treatment, clean electric another, dirty maybe none, indidvidual kick and snare different drum buss yet another etc etc. all part of coloring or not. so I don’t like large scale sub grouping with one treatment for the group. amd I don’t want to mix into compression until the time is right. so that’s what I’m talking about. but yes there’s more then way to do stuff. Couldn't agree more. Maybe a slightly esoteric view but compression is more or less the only tool we have available that lets us screw with time. Like depending on how attack & release are set we can alter where someone's playing is sitting in relationship with the rest of the band. Things like pushing the bass player ahead or behind the beat... For me a large part of the gig is making sure the record feels good. Compression isn't solely about controlling dynamic range... IMO that's a very basic, almost caveman way to look at things. So no, I don't use the same compressors with the same settings & sources on every record. That sort of paint by numbers stuff doesn't work for me. And yes the video, delivery is incredibly stunted. Between that and the uhh... "information" I found myself losing IQ points and had to bail. All for exploring and picking up new tricks but I'm also going to call out bullshit when I see it. If someone gets something out of it cool... but to me it was stinky. Agree 100%. I can emulsify the lamo bass player to be 100% a part of the guitar tone. I can make him play to the drummer or the guitarist by controlling his attack with capable enough compressor. All of the reaper videos sound a little ridiculous to me. ReaComp is only usable as a pumpy dumpy shitbox imo. At least download the free versions of the tdr comps so they can get some actual control to about 5-10ms attack settings or so. And other video makers are worse than Kenny G. Linear release… but we truly do not have that much control. We are controlling the modulation of the signal by a rectified, clipped (threshold), and filtered (attack and release filters) copy of the signal. And this is the best we have. The alternatives with lookahead and transient shaping are less natural. But compressors only sound natural when they have a ton of program dependency, feedback, and multiple Release stages so the settings we can choose matter less than the basic settings. The better ones don’t let you make it sound awful and the user is choosing to insert then and pick the generally correct settings. Some pump and dump aliased shit box “1176” plug that can’t peak limit cannot be controlled by the user at all because it can’t act upon anything close to a rectified copy of the signal. It’s akin to adding random distortion and pumping. Why did the drummer even play the drums digging in with such a “tool” ? Do mixers believe in wiggling the faders ? Because that’s what’s happening. |
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Oct 4, 2021 18:25:21 GMT -6
I like Kenny Gioia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2021 18:47:53 GMT -6
He's great at explaining reaper. The material he uses is unnatural and that he's forced to stick with the stock plugs hurts lol |
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Oct 4, 2021 19:01:44 GMT -6
He's great at explaining reaper. The material he uses is unnatural and that he's forced to stick with the stock plugs hurts lol Yes. Totally agree. I look at his tutorials more from the Reaper user perspective. I learn a lot from him. He’s also great at keeping things simple and focused. There’s no bull. Everyone is free to have an opinion on the top down mixing video. I like trying out approaches that make my brain work a differently. Some people need to start by eq’ing a kick drum. Usually, I do too lol. Do whatever gets the emotion out of a mix. I think experimentation is fun. Sometimes it gets me new places that I wouldn’t normally hit taking more traditional approaches. |
|
