|
Post by noah shain on Jul 1, 2017 11:50:33 GMT -6
The bass could be too big on both. Not a finished mix. But why would I not want extra bass info that I can...well, just turn down? Fwiw I often like what happens to the bottom end of an otb mix, which I perceive as a tightening or containment of the bottom. It becomes a different process to get extended low end. So as a predominantly otb mixer I'd concur with your findings in a decidedly non-scientific way.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Jul 1, 2017 12:08:38 GMT -6
I like the VP28 mix with the added analog stage but if you didn't tell me and I had to A/ B I'm not sure I could get better than 50% on which is which.. digging the tune too... I think the d box is a great DA it just happens to have summing thrown in ( a bonus ) However I think the mojo from summing comes from the make up gain stage or analog hardware in between the summing and daw ...
I am way happier with results when I don't rack my brain worrying over tenths of Dbs and .5-.8 we boosts ..... man F that ... if it sounds good it is good 😎 And your stuff always sounds great 👍
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 1, 2017 12:09:01 GMT -6
If you want to know what your summing box is doing for you, and if you want to be brutally honest and find reality - you do the following :
With nothing else on your 2 buss or following your analog summing box.....
Sum a mix ITB and output 2 channels of your final mix into your summing box - record that back into your DAW. Then take the same mix and separate out however many stems you normally do into your summing box - 8, 16 or xx wide and record that back in. Compare the two. No other changes. That takes the illusion of what "summing" does or does not do out of the equation. 2 channels wide vs. xx wide. The analog path is the same except for how many channels wide you're doing - 2 vs. 8, 16, XXX. The vp28 convolutes the issue, making you think that "summing OTB" is giving you something it's not. It's the VP28 that's giving you the love - not the summing. You can easily accomplish the same thing with far less complexity and money - by summing ITB and putting the vp28 (or whatever) on your mix bus.
As far as headroom issues are concerned. That is all about proper gain staging ITB. Get it right, headroom is a non issue.
The cold hard reality is that most people are not really mixing OTB when they say they are. Unless you're only mixing 8 or 16 tracks in a production, (hell, drums sometimes that that many tracks), then they are summing the vast majority of their tracks ITB anyway, faking themselves out while only just combining a few stems OTB.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jul 2, 2017 10:38:54 GMT -6
The cold hard reality is that most people are not really mixing OTB when they say they are. Unless you're only mixing 8 or 16 tracks in a production, (hell, drums sometimes that that many tracks), then they are summing the vast majority of their tracks ITB anyway, faking themselves out while only just combining a few stems OTB. Question, because I've never mixed on a LFC:On a typical rock song, when someone mixes on an SSL 4000, do they parallel compress kick and snare and sum all the individual drum channels and the parallel compressed chanels to a Drum Bus- which outputs to the Mix Bus - AND output all the individual channels to the Mix Bus as well? Or, do they output just the Drum Bus to the Mix Bus? It seems to me that the purpose of Busses is to consolidate instrument groups, so that you can solo monitor the enitre group of insturments-in this example drums- from one stero output.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Jul 2, 2017 11:33:52 GMT -6
I'm reaching the same conclusion with A being more clear but not as nice and smooth-sounding as B. Came to that conclusion before reading the rest of the thread. I'd like it best if B kept the smoothness but opened up a little bit more. I should also add that I'm not really a fan of a lot of modern production styles, especially where a condenser mic was used and a lot of the hissy frequencies are upfront. B largely fixes that problem for me. Sounds like it could be made a touch more open with only a slight adjustment. A keeps this hissy stuff to a minimum and is probably the better balanced of the two mixes. Could make more sense just to tweak that one.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 2, 2017 12:58:00 GMT -6
I'm reaching the same conclusion with A being more clear but not as nice and smooth-sounding as B. Came to that conclusion before reading the rest of the thread. I'd like it best if B kept the smoothness but opened up a little bit more. I should also add that I'm not really a fan of a lot of modern production styles, especially where a condenser mic was used and a lot of the hissy frequencies are upfront. B largely fixes that problem for me. Sounds like it could be made a touch more open with only a slight adjustment. A keeps this hissy stuff to a minimum and is probably the better balanced of the two mixes. Could make more sense just to tweak that one. How does this file compare? www.realgearonline.com/post/134145
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 2, 2017 14:32:20 GMT -6
The cold hard reality is that most people are not really mixing OTB when they say they are. Unless you're only mixing 8 or 16 tracks in a production, (hell, drums sometimes that that many tracks), then they are summing the vast majority of their tracks ITB anyway, faking themselves out while only just combining a few stems OTB. Question, because I've never mixed on a LFC:On a typical rock song, when someone mixes on an SSL 4000, do they parallel compress kick and snare and sum all the individual drum channels and the parallel compressed chanels to a Drum Bus- which outputs to the Mix Bus - AND output all the individual channels to the Mix Bus as well? Or, do they output just the Drum Bus to the Mix Bus? It seems to me that the purpose of Busses is to consolidate instrument groups, so that you can solo monitor the enitre group of insturments-in this example drums- from one stero output. If I'm understanding your question, you can do it either way - engineers choice. But EITHER way, you are summing "OTB". My point was that a lot of people who say they are summing "OTB" are actually - in fact - primarily summing ITB and outputting "busses" or stems that are combined OTB, In a situation like that using a DAW and summing box of 8-16-? channels, you are in essence summing primarily ITB. (Speaking of a typical rock / pop style song where you've got anywhere from 50-150 tracks and outputting 8-16 channels of stems / busses to "sum" those OTB). So what is it that people are reacting favorably to when their mix is primarily summed ITB, with a few busses summed OTB? IMO, you can't call it OTB summing unless you're outputting all (or at least a majority) of your 50-150 channels via individual D/A to a summing box capable of handing that many channels. You know, like everyone used to use big LFAC console for. (Although back in the day, 96 channels was considered about the max you would ever see....) Gone are those days.... Having OTB summing situations that wide is extremely rare in my experience. As far as busses / subgroups are concerned, there are many different reasons to utilize them vs. going straight into the mix buss with individual channels - and it's mostly personal preference and how the engineer prefers to work. Personally, I often prefer individual channels until it just gets unreasonable (like 50+ channels of BGV's). Another very convenient way to mix in this fashion is to use VCA's - either virtual ones like PT has, or console ones like SSL has. No subgroups / busses needed. Straight into the mix bus, but control like a subgroup bus. Of course, subgroup / busses parallel compression is extremely popular in current pop mixes.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 2, 2017 22:21:58 GMT -6
The cold hard reality is that most people are not really mixing OTB when they say they are. Unless you're only mixing 8 or 16 tracks in a production, (hell, drums sometimes that that many tracks), then they are summing the vast majority of their tracks ITB anyway, faking themselves out while only just combining a few stems OTB. Question, because I've never mixed on a LFC:On a typical rock song, when someone mixes on an SSL 4000, do they parallel compress kick and snare and sum all the individual drum channels and the parallel compressed chanels to a Drum Bus- which outputs to the Mix Bus - AND output all the individual channels to the Mix Bus as well? Or, do they output just the Drum Bus to the Mix Bus? It seems to me that the purpose of Busses is to consolidate instrument groups, so that you can solo monitor the enitre group of insturments-in this example drums- from one stero output. Another reason to use busses is to compress/eq/manipulate groups of instruments separately form other elements in a mix. For example, I'm working on a record now where I'm bussing multiple kick mics to 1 bus, multiple snare mics to another bus, then those busses, along with the rest of the kit are going to a drum bus. I have compression and eq on the drum bus. Various close mic'd drums are then getting sent to a parallel compression bus for smashing. The two drum buses are then being combined with the bass in another buss and getting more eq and compression. Then I have a rhythm guitar/keyboard bus. Then there's a lead guitar/higher pitched elements bus. Then a bg vox bus. An effects bus. A lead vocal bus. All those combined in the 2 bus. Depending on the song there might be more busses if it feels right to combine things before the 2 bus. This record is very hybrid and some of those buses are itb and some are otb. However I mix this way no matter where I'm mixing. On the ssl it's the same for me. This approach allows you to compress/saturate/eq in stages and to get different groups of instruments pumping differently and colored differently and eq'd more specifically. It also relieves your 2 bus compressor from having to reign in all your dynamics. You can also automate groups of instruments together rather easily. I have 8 passive summing mixers and an API 1608 that I use to do this style of mixing otb or sometimes I use a combination of itb and otb. Whatever feels right. Multi-bus mixing like that can get you somewhere cool when you nail it. It can also make you want to kill yourself. If you don't gain stage it well you can really trash stuff and mix yourself in to a complicated corner. It took me a few years to get it to where it works pretty seamlessly and my results are fairly predictable. I'm recently inspired by DrBill's super hybrid approach and doing a lot more hardware insert stuff in protools but all my busses get out in to the analog realm for saturation and compression. Sometimes they're summed otb and sometimes summed itb but always getting out into some gear for analog bus treatment. I find that I can get a bus rocking and deep and wide with analog processing way quicker and in a more satisfying way. Including the 2 bus. Fwiw I am ALWAYS doing some summing itb and some otb. My final sum of multiple busses is almost always otb on the console. Sometimes busses land on faders or sometimes straight in to the bus returns on the 1608. I've also summed a lot on the awtac system. It's part of the rig I'm using right now. I have about 20 channels amps in the studio and they are almost a mini-console/sidecar. Well not almost...they are. Multi bus processing changed me forever. For better or worse. All that said...I am NOT after pristine audio. I like it screwed up. 😜
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 2, 2017 23:09:08 GMT -6
Question, because I've never mixed on a LFC:On a typical rock song, when someone mixes on an SSL 4000, do they parallel compress kick and snare and sum all the individual drum channels and the parallel compressed chanels to a Drum Bus- which outputs to the Mix Bus - AND output all the individual channels to the Mix Bus as well? Or, do they output just the Drum Bus to the Mix Bus? It seems to me that the purpose of Busses is to consolidate instrument groups, so that you can solo monitor the enitre group of insturments-in this example drums- from one stero output. Another reason to use busses is to compress/eq/manipulate groups of instruments separately form other elements in a mix. For example, I'm working on a record now where I'm bussing multiple kick mics to 1 bus, multiple snare mics to another bus, then those busses, along with the rest of the kit are going to a drum bus. I have compression and eq on the drum bus. Various close mic'd drums are then getting sent to a parallel compression bus for smashing. The two drum buses are then being combined with the bass in another buss and getting more eq and compression. Then I have a rhythm guitar/keyboard bus. Then there's a lead guitar/higher pitched elements bus. Then a bg vox bus. An effects bus. A lead vocal bus. All those combined in the 2 bus. Depending on the song there might be more busses if it feels right to combine things before the 2 bus. This record is very hybrid and some of those buses are itb and some are otb. However I mix this way no matter where I'm mixing. On the ssl it's the same for me. This approach allows you to compress/saturate/eq in stages and to get different groups of instruments pumping differently and colored differently and eq'd more specifically. It also relieves your 2 bus compressor from having to reign in all your dynamics. You can also automate groups of instruments together rather easily. I have 8 passive summing mixers and an API 1608 that I use to do this style of mixing otb or sometimes I use a combination of itb and otb. Whatever feels right. Multi-bus mixing like that can get you somewhere cool when you nail it. It can also make you want to kill yourself. If you don't gain stage it well you can really trash stuff and mix yourself in to a complicated corner. It took me a few years to get it to where it works pretty seamlessly and my results are fairly predictable. I'm recently inspired by DrBill's super hybrid approach and doing a lot more hardware insert stuff in protools but all my busses get out in to the analog realm for saturation and compression. Sometimes they're summed otb and sometimes summed itb but always getting out into some gear for analog bus treatment. I find that I can get a bus rocking and deep and wide with analog processing way quicker and in a more satisfying way. Including the 2 bus. Fwiw I am ALWAYS doing some summing itb and some otb. My final sum of multiple busses is almost always otb on the console. Sometimes busses land on faders or sometimes straight in to the bus returns on the 1608. I've also summed a lot on the awtac system. It's part of the rig I'm using right now. I have about 20 channels amps in the studio and they are almost a mini-console/sidecar. Well not almost...they are. Multi bus processing changed me forever. For better or worse. All that said...I am NOT after pristine audio. I like it screwed up. 😜 Do you print your busses when you have them where you want them? The trouble with that is...do I ever have them exactly where I want them?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 2, 2017 23:09:57 GMT -6
But to somewhat answer my own question...I sometimes decide to commit...or maybe a better way to say it is "just be done with it..."
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Jul 3, 2017 0:02:49 GMT -6
I'm reaching the same conclusion with A being more clear but not as nice and smooth-sounding as B. Came to that conclusion before reading the rest of the thread. I'd like it best if B kept the smoothness but opened up a little bit more. I should also add that I'm not really a fan of a lot of modern production styles, especially where a condenser mic was used and a lot of the hissy frequencies are upfront. B largely fixes that problem for me. Sounds like it could be made a touch more open with only a slight adjustment. A keeps this hissy stuff to a minimum and is probably the better balanced of the two mixes. Could make more sense just to tweak that one. How does this file compare? www.realgearonline.com/post/134145Seems to be a step in the right direction, although I find the acoustic guitars to be a little too brittle. That could be the encoding though. It says wav, but is that a lossless file?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 3, 2017 0:15:05 GMT -6
Who freaking knows...I think it's a wav...could just be that they sound brittle. lol.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 3, 2017 14:39:45 GMT -6
Another reason to use busses is to compress/eq/manipulate groups of instruments separately form other elements in a mix. For example, I'm working on a record now where I'm bussing multiple kick mics to 1 bus, multiple snare mics to another bus, then those busses, along with the rest of the kit are going to a drum bus. I have compression and eq on the drum bus. Various close mic'd drums are then getting sent to a parallel compression bus for smashing. The two drum buses are then being combined with the bass in another buss and getting more eq and compression. Then I have a rhythm guitar/keyboard bus. Then there's a lead guitar/higher pitched elements bus. Then a bg vox bus. An effects bus. A lead vocal bus. All those combined in the 2 bus. Depending on the song there might be more busses if it feels right to combine things before the 2 bus. This record is very hybrid and some of those buses are itb and some are otb. However I mix this way no matter where I'm mixing. On the ssl it's the same for me. This approach allows you to compress/saturate/eq in stages and to get different groups of instruments pumping differently and colored differently and eq'd more specifically. It also relieves your 2 bus compressor from having to reign in all your dynamics. You can also automate groups of instruments together rather easily. I have 8 passive summing mixers and an API 1608 that I use to do this style of mixing otb or sometimes I use a combination of itb and otb. Whatever feels right. Multi-bus mixing like that can get you somewhere cool when you nail it. It can also make you want to kill yourself. If you don't gain stage it well you can really trash stuff and mix yourself in to a complicated corner. It took me a few years to get it to where it works pretty seamlessly and my results are fairly predictable. I'm recently inspired by DrBill's super hybrid approach and doing a lot more hardware insert stuff in protools but all my busses get out in to the analog realm for saturation and compression. Sometimes they're summed otb and sometimes summed itb but always getting out into some gear for analog bus treatment. I find that I can get a bus rocking and deep and wide with analog processing way quicker and in a more satisfying way. Including the 2 bus. Fwiw I am ALWAYS doing some summing itb and some otb. My final sum of multiple busses is almost always otb on the console. Sometimes busses land on faders or sometimes straight in to the bus returns on the 1608. I've also summed a lot on the awtac system. It's part of the rig I'm using right now. I have about 20 channels amps in the studio and they are almost a mini-console/sidecar. Well not almost...they are. Multi bus processing changed me forever. For better or worse. All that said...I am NOT after pristine audio. I like it screwed up. 😜 Do you print your busses when you have them where you want them? The trouble with that is...do I ever have them exactly where I want them? I do not. Only reason I can see for doing that would be if the computer was straining to keep up or if I wanted to use the same outboard gear across multiple busses separately. Fortunately neither of those are concerns for me. I WILL however print the busses as stems to be included in the package of deliverables that I am required to turn in to get paid. That's the only time I print a stem.
|
|