|
|
Post by wiz on Aug 24, 2018 16:57:02 GMT -6
drbill ?? When you guys are running off mixes for TV and Film duties, and they ask you for a no vocal mix... how are you guys with 2 buss processing handling it? I am thinking buss compression here.... I have been asked for two versions, one as normal, and one without the vocal... cheers Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 24, 2018 17:19:30 GMT -6
That's really difficult, because the film soundtrack assembly will require the same sound for the instrumental version and if the vocal is "riding the WAVs" so to speak, then without the vocal, the mix will sound entirely different.
When faced with that situation in the past, the best way I found to deal with it is to have ALL the music on a sub-group and the vocal(s) on a subgroup with their own effects separate, then mix the two to taste for the 'vocal'
version and the music stays pretty much the same for the instrumental version.
But there are other techniques as well....
LET'S HEAR FROM SOMEONE ELSE!
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Aug 24, 2018 17:55:34 GMT -6
That's really difficult, because the film soundtrack assembly will require the same sound for the instrumental version and if the vocal is "riding the WAVs" so to speak, then without the vocal, the mix will sound entirely different. When faced with that situation in the past, the best way I found to deal with it is to have ALL the music on a sub-group and the vocal(s) on a subgroup with their own effects separate, then mix the two to taste for the 'vocal' version and the music stays pretty much the same for the instrumental version. But there are other techniques as well.... LET'S HEAR FROM SOMEONE ELSE! I was thinking, about using a full mix, to drive the side chain of the buss compressor of the no vocal mix... thoughts? cheers Wiz |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 18:19:50 GMT -6
That's really difficult, because the film soundtrack assembly will require the same sound for the instrumental version and if the vocal is "riding the WAVs" so to speak, then without the vocal, the mix will sound entirely different. When faced with that situation in the past, the best way I found to deal with it is to have ALL the music on a sub-group and the vocal(s) on a subgroup with their own effects separate, then mix the two to taste for the 'vocal' version and the music stays pretty much the same for the instrumental version. But there are other techniques as well.... LET'S HEAR FROM SOMEONE ELSE! I was thinking, about using a full mix, to drive the side chain of the buss compressor of the no vocal mix... thoughts? cheers Wiz
You'd most likely still get seperate results even if it's nothing too major, I agree with Ward but want to expand. I learn't this technique off a Grammy winner who was kind enough to share his knowledge here on RGO.! What a place.!
So think of comp'ing on the two like a weighing scale effect, the more signal you place through that and the mastering brick wall the more something will shift. What he did is limit every single channel and added chain stacked comp's to the busses before the limiter. So when it comes to finishing touches (like mastering) all you'd do is apply the brick wall for safety / volume levels.
You could essentially take a piece out and at worst you'll effect the LUFS level, but not the overall balance of the track. With LUFS meter's it's relatively simple to get it in the same statosphere, so it's not a big issue.
I wouldn't mind doing this as it may provide a little more consistancy. P.S I'm not a Film / TV mixer, just seems like a good way of doing things no matter what the application is..
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Aug 24, 2018 18:20:53 GMT -6
That's really difficult, because the film soundtrack assembly will require the same sound for the instrumental version and if the vocal is "riding the WAVs" so to speak, then without the vocal, the mix will sound entirely different. When faced with that situation in the past, the best way I found to deal with it is to have ALL the music on a sub-group and the vocal(s) on a subgroup with their own effects separate, then mix the two to taste for the 'vocal' version and the music stays pretty much the same for the instrumental version. But there are other techniques as well.... LET'S HEAR FROM SOMEONE ELSE! I was thinking, about using a full mix, to drive the side chain of the buss compressor of the no vocal mix... thoughts? cheers Wiz That’s how I do it if I have to. I’ll also add that I’m not terribly interested in changing the Sonics of a mix or production, or the way I work, in order to suit the needs of a film. Now, if you are hired to write and mix a song for a film and they require a main mix and an instrumental that’s a totally different thing. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 24, 2018 19:28:41 GMT -6
Forget all the side chaining and stuff.
If all they are asking for is a vocal mix, and a TV mix minus vocal :
Do your mix as you normally would (but go light on the hard limiting / compression - leave more dynamic range than a radio ready mix), and then do a version with the vocal muted. Done.
But......
If they are asking for stems :
Do the above, THEN :
Print all stems with NO 2 Buss compression. Anyone who understands mixing (and most libraries, TV, Film guys do) knows that the combination of all stems does NOT equal the "final / finished" mix. If you want extra credit points, buss all individual tracks to stems, put stem tracks on input, buss all stems to final mix buss, affect mix buss as you normally would. Print all at the same time. Done. The stems will have no processing on them, and the 2 buss mix will sound as you want it to.
Mixiing through stem busses right from the git go saves a lot of re-bussing things and things getting cross pollinated.
If you REALLY must be heavily compressed, and if you have enough hardware and verbs (or are mixing ITB) to not "cross pollinate" between stems while still getting things as you like - only buss process stems with no 2 Buss processing at all. Do it all on the stem busses. Print Stem Busses which are routed to your 2 buss mix with no processing which equals your 2 buss mix. Tricky, but it can be done. I never go that far. Rarely provide stems unless someone is willing to pay well for it.
Less is more when it comes to the "mastering" part of it all....
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Aug 24, 2018 19:31:09 GMT -6
I used to do a lot of songs for tv and printing stems or instrumental mixes was always a pain in the ass.
What I do now is setup a bunch of “super groups” for each instrument. So all the drums, and drum fx feed the drum “super group”. All the vocals and vocal fx returns feed the vocal supergroup, and so on and so on. The super groups all stay at unity and never have any processing applied. They, in turn, feed the master bus, where I have some bus processing (comp, slight eq, etc). When it’s time to print stems I just batch export in Cuba’s, straight from the super groups and have all my stems printed at once. It bypasses the buss processing his way, but so far it’s the best system I’ve come up with. Also, if I need to do an instrumental mix I can easily mute the vocal super group and be assured no track or sneaky vox effect slipped by me.
So my system is not without its issues but it’s working pretty good so far. Its cool hearing others take on this issue!
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 24, 2018 19:37:11 GMT -6
PS - just re-read.
VERY SIMPLE - just mute the vocal on the second mix. Most of the comments are in regards to delivering stems.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 24, 2018 19:40:20 GMT -6
That's really difficult, because the film soundtrack assembly will require the same sound for the instrumental version and if the vocal is "riding the WAVs" so to speak, then without the vocal, the mix will sound entirely different. But almost always, when they want to cut away to the instrumental only version, they are dropping under dialog. At that point, in my experience, the difference between the mixes really won't matter. Remix engineers know how to deal with this. They do it every day. It is VERY important to "start" both versions identically down to the sample so that there will be no phasing, or timing hiccups, etc. when they cut back and forth between cuts. Makes it WAY easier for the music editor who will love you much more than if you are "close" but not perfect. Print from the exact same start point. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 24, 2018 19:46:12 GMT -6
I was thinking, about using a full mix, to drive the side chain of the buss compressor of the no vocal mix... thoughts? cheers Wiz
You'd most likely still get seperate results even if it's nothing too major, I agree with Ward but want to expand. I learn't this technique off a Grammy winner who was kind enough to share his knowledge here on RGO.! What a place.!
So think of comp'ing on the two like a weighing scale effect, the more signal you place through that and the mastering brick wall the more something will shift. What he did is limit every single channel and added chain stacked comp's to the busses before the limiter. So when it comes to finishing touches (like mastering) all you'd do is apply the brick wall for safety / volume levels.
You could essentially take a piece out and at worst you'll effect the LUFS level, but not the overall balance of the track. With LUFS meter's it's relatively simple to get it in the same statosphere, so it's not a big issue.
I wouldn't mind doing this as it may provide a little more consistancy. P.S I'm not a Film / TV mixer, just seems like a good way of doing things no matter what the application is..
Ehhhh.... I'm a grammy winner as well, and I'd never do that if it's destined for TV/Film. If you're hitting the track hard enough that dropping out the vocal is seriously affecting the instrumental track, then you're hitting too hard for TV/Film. If anything, I only soft master for TV/Film, turning in mixes that have as much dynamic range as possible but being "loud enough" so that they don't seem wimpy when the music editor / director auditions them for the first time. Hitting things hard make it exponentially harder for the remixing engineers to place things in the film mix. And if it's hard for them to get it to sit right in the mix...guess what....they will downplay your track and your chance of landing the placement just went down exponentially as well. I've often been asked to take 2 buss processing off for the final delivery. I do TV/Film music every day now, and your approach - while interesting, and clever - is really overthinking it, an quite possibly over smacking it. KISS is my motto. Super compressed and hard limited hurts your chances for the placement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 20:36:07 GMT -6
You'd most likely still get seperate results even if it's nothing too major, I agree with Ward but want to expand. I learn't this technique off a Grammy winner who was kind enough to share his knowledge here on RGO.! What a place.!
So think of comp'ing on the two like a weighing scale effect, the more signal you place through that and the mastering brick wall the more something will shift. What he did is limit every single channel and added chain stacked comp's to the busses before the limiter. So when it comes to finishing touches (like mastering) all you'd do is apply the brick wall for safety / volume levels.
You could essentially take a piece out and at worst you'll effect the LUFS level, but not the overall balance of the track. With LUFS meter's it's relatively simple to get it in the same statosphere, so it's not a big issue.
I wouldn't mind doing this as it may provide a little more consistancy. P.S I'm not a Film / TV mixer, just seems like a good way of doing things no matter what the application is..
Ehhhh.... I'm a grammy winner as well, and I'd never do that if it's destined for TV/Film. If you're hitting the track hard enough that dropping out the vocal is seriously affecting the instrumental track, then you're hitting too hard for TV/Film. If anything, I only soft master for TV/Film, turning in mixes that have as much dynamic range as possible but being "loud enough" so that they don't seem wimpy when the music editor / director auditions them for the first time. Hitting things hard make it exponentially harder for the remixing engineers to place things in the film mix. And if it's hard for them to get it to sit right in the mix...guess what....they will downplay your track and your chance of landing the placement just went down exponentially as well. I've often been asked to take 2 buss processing off for the final delivery. I do TV/Film music every day now, and your approach - while interesting, and clever - is really overthinking it, an quite possibly over smacking it. KISS is my motto. Super compressed and hard limited hurts your chances for the placement.
Just because you have limiters on tracks it doesn't mean you need to hit it hard, just a matter of gain staging.. It's like using a brick wall limiter, it's fine until you start pushing the input too hot. If you are doing things super light where the 2-buss comps aren't really doing anything then there's not an issue in the first place is there?
I'm always interested in new ways to do stuff, so just thinking aloud..
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 24, 2018 23:31:00 GMT -6
Cool. Reading how you laid it out sounded like it was getting slammed. Maybe I misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Aug 26, 2018 19:18:59 GMT -6
thank you everyone for the fantastic responses.
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 26, 2018 20:45:34 GMT -6
thank you everyone for the fantastic responses. cheers Wiz Love ya, brother! |
|
