Are you using any volume automation on your tracks?

[JoRillo]

This might help you.

Vocal Automation.

[Upright]

absolutely perfect. Thank you sir.

[Stackx]

You have too. It's the difference between making your record sound alive and making it sound electronic

[Upright]

Originally Posted by Stackx

You have too. It's the difference between making your record sound alive and making it sound electronic

I'm just beginning to realize this.

[DjayCas]

I dont have the interview/video off top of my head but Just Blaze was talking about how in older (soul/funk) records as the song progressed and the chorus came in

the drummer would really step it up and be more prominent
but during the verse he would play the background

so when he did a record for Puff Daddy & Christina Aguilera he applied the same technique, increasing the volume of the drums to emphasize the chorus

[Upright]

Originally Posted by DjayCas

I dont have the interview/video off top of my head but Just Blaze was talking about how in older (soul/funk) records as the song progressed and the chorus came in

the drummer would really step it up and be more prominent
but during the verse he would play the background

so when he did a record for Puff Daddy & Christina Aguilera he applied the same technique, increasing the volume of the drums to emphasize the chorus

Great information right here, thank you. I thought I wouldn't get any responses, I'm glad I posted this now. Thanks again. :D

[d1rdyd]

depends on the type of track it is. SOme mixes don't need it IMO

[s.d.finley]

I use volume, mute and pan automation all the time.

[jrides]

Nope. Jeebus invented Samplitude and Object Orient Edidting, so I wouldnt have to.

[bgrotto]

I use a lot of volume automation. Like, as in, A LOT. For a record with a "mix-a-day" budget, many of the faders are kinda constantly wiggling around. For records that are a bit quicker (which, sadly, is most of em), the vocal gets the most automation, followed by any problem areas.

More compression in a mix usually means more automation, as I work to reintroduce some movement into the mix.

But it's also a stylistic thing. Since this is the hip hop forum, I would mention that I don't always do a lot of automation on much but the lead vocal, and even then, it might be less automation than other styles, because hip hop vocals tend to be more stylistically amenable to heavy compression. In those cases, I use automation creatively; it's not about keeping the volume levels consistent, it's about making aesthetic choices about details that should be louder (or quieter).

But, in hip hop, I tend to make heavier use of other kinds of automation: fx sends (delays in particular), some EQ, panning, etc.

[JoRillo]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

I use automation creatively; it's not about keeping the volume levels consistent, it's about making aesthetic choices about details that should be louder (or quieter).

[Flip_]

Originally Posted by Stackx

You have too. It's the difference between making your record sound alive and making it sound electronic

You could just play live to begin with, and control your dynamics in your playing. Using automation on dynamics is almost like using quantizing on timing, or autotune on pitch. Neither is necessary, just practice doing it live until you get it right.

The idea that ppl think you have to use automation today to make music dynamic is kind of disturbing tbh. I can understand a mixer using it as a tool to improve dynamics on a track where the artist isn't there to re-record and fix it, and thats the only option. But for the artist/musician, if you rely on tools like automation, autotune, quantizing, etc, to fix all your mistakes, you never improve. Practice more and the mistakes will fix themselves and you get better in the process..

[Storyville]

Originally Posted by Flip_

You could just play live to begin with, and control your dynamics in your playing. Using automation on dynamics is almost like using quantizing on timing. Neither is necessary, just practice playing it live until you get it right.

The idea that ppl think you have to use automation today to make music dynamic is kind of disturbing tbh. I can understand a mixer using it as a tool to improve dynamics on a track where the artist isn't there to re-record and fix it, and thats the only option. But for the artist/musician, if you rely on tools automation, autotune, quantizing, etc, to fix all your mistakes, you never improve. Practice more and the mistakes will fix themselves.

Having just finished my second live jazz album this month I can tell you that's not always the case. Tons of automation. Very little compression. The players communicate their dynamics, but it's not always the same when the mic grabs it.

[Upright]

This is turning out to be quite an informative thread. Great info bgrotto, thanks for responses guys.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by Flip_

You could just play live to begin with, and control your dynamics in your playing. Using automation on dynamics is almost like using quantizing on timing, or autotune on pitch. Neither is necessary, just practice doing it live until you get it right.

The idea that ppl think you have to use automation today to make music dynamic is kind of disturbing tbh. I can understand a mixer using it as a tool to improve dynamics on a track where the artist isn't there to re-record and fix it, and thats the only option. But for the artist/musician, if you rely on tools like automation, autotune, quantizing, etc, to fix all your mistakes, you never improve. Practice more and the mistakes will fix themselves and you get better in the process..

You must not be doing a lotta commercial sessions!

In all seriousness, your point about recording tools being a crutch for musicians is totally valid, but, in the real world, the vaaaaaast majority of musicians need that crutch. Even if they don't need to actually USE it, the psychology of knowing it's available will make them more relaxed and play better. I always find an opportunity while tracking the very first song of a record to show the drummer just how much I can do to edit a mediocre performance into something great. The confidence it inspires in them makes them play better and often negates the need for any future extreme edits on my part.

Also, as Matt noted, how the mic captures a sound doesn't always reflect how that sound was played. This can certainly be the result of a shortcoming in the engineering, but again, it's simple reality. We don't always have the time to get the mic placed perfectly, or to retake a tune because a mic moved or was bumped, or the upright bass player rotated his body a bit, or because the snare head was wearing. Sometimes, you get what you get, and it ain't great (even when dealing with great musicians) and you gotta work with it.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by Storyville

Having just finished my second live jazz album this month I can tell you that's not always the case. Tons of automation. Very little compression. The players communicate their dynamics, but it's not always the same when the mic grabs it.

Great way to control bleed if the guys are all in the same room.

Great example of volume automation being used not as a crutch, not as a creative tool, not as a fix for inconsistent dynamics, but as a simple solution to a common problem.

[Flip_]

Originally Posted by Storyville

Having just finished my second live jazz album this month I can tell you that's not always the case. Tons of automation. Very little compression. The players communicate their dynamics, but it's not always the same when the mic grabs it.

Thats fine, nothing wrong with adjusting a few notes here and there that get picked up funny, but if the take doesn't sound right I'm doing at least a few more before resorting to that, and for me personally, I'd say 95% of the time I get it how I want it by doing extra takes ,not through adjusting volumes on notes after. imo its easier that way. I'm already in the zone/groove of the song and easier to just bang out a few more runs of it, and be able to play it how I want, rather than click a mouse or push a fader to make it sound how I want afterwards.

To each his own, I guess I'm old-school when it comes to recording. I was taught as a musician do it over until you get it right. I think you become better that way. If I can get it right by playing, there's more value in that to me as I'm gaining more experience the more I play and every little take adds up. The end result is the same, but I gain no experience by using automation. And if you have to play that track live, you're going to want that extra experience playing it instead of using studio tricks.

[Upright]

Originally Posted by Flip_

Thats fine, nothing wrong with adjusting a few notes here and there that get picked up funny, but if the take doesn't sound right I'm doing at least a few more before resorting to that, and for me personally, I'd say 95% of the time I get it how I want it by doing extra takes ,not through adjusting volumes on notes after. imo its easier that way. I'm already in the zone/groove of the song and easier to just bang out a few more runs of it, and be able to play it how I want, rather than click a mouse or push a fader to make it sound how I want afterwards.

To each his own, I guess I'm old-school when it comes to recording. I was taught as a musician do it over until you get it right. I think you become better that way. If I can get it right by playing, there's more value in that to me as I'm gaining more experience the more I play and every little take adds up. The end result is the same, but I gain no experience by using automation. And if you have to play that track live, you're going to want that extra experience playing it instead of using studio tricks.

I guess that's the difference between doing things solo versus recording a full band.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by Flip_

Thats fine, nothing wrong with adjusting a few notes here and there that get picked up funny, but if the take doesn't sound right I'm doing at least a few more before resorting to that, and for me personally, I'd say 95% of the time I get it how I want it by doing extra takes ,not through adjusting volumes on notes after. imo its easier that way. I'm already in the zone/groove of the song and easier to just bang out a few more runs of it, and be able to play it how I want, rather than click a mouse or push a fader to make it sound how I want afterwards.

To each his own, I guess I'm old-school when it comes to recording. I was taught as a musician do it over until you get it right. I think you become better that way. If I can get it right by playing, there's more value in that to me as I'm gaining more experience the more I play and every little take adds up. The end result is the same, but I gain no experience by using automation. And if you have to play that track live, you're going to want that extra experience playing it instead of using studio tricks.

Great philosophy in theory, and certainly it is infinitely more rewarding to nail a part (or have the musicians you're hired to record nail a part) than to fall back on "studio tricks" (though I would argue against the use of this term for a variety of reasons). It would also be really nice if Clear Channel didn't own American radio, and if every band really could make a living in the piracy age from touring alone, and if women made the same amount men made for the same work. Sadly, these things mostly exist in fantasy, and under real-world circumstances, you gotta do what you gotta do to deliver a product that best meets the expectations (no matter how unrealistic) of your client. If that means riding the last syllable of a three-lines-long vocal part delivered in one breath that's otherwise perfect, I'm more than happy to do so.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Flip_

Thats fine, nothing wrong with adjusting a few notes here and there that get picked up funny, but if the take doesn't sound right I'm doing at least a few more before resorting to that, and for me personally, I'd say 95% of the time I get it how I want it by doing extra takes ,not through adjusting volumes on notes after. imo its easier that way. I'm already in the zone/groove of the song and easier to just bang out a few more runs of it, and be able to play it how I want, rather than click a mouse or push a fader to make it sound how I want afterwards.

To each his own, I guess I'm old-school when it comes to recording. I was taught as a musician do it over until you get it right. I think you become better that way. If I can get it right by playing, there's more value in that to me as I'm gaining more experience the more I play and every little take adds up. The end result is the same, but I gain no experience by using automation. And if you have to play that track live, you're going to want that extra experience playing it instead of using studio tricks.

There's things you can do with automation that you can't do with playing alone.

There's things you can do by playing it right that you can't do with automation.

They compliment each other - it's not "either or".

[voorhee]

I use volume automation all day. I change velocity on all instruments which is kinda the same thing that is depending on the same or VI. I'm thinking about picking up a control surface here soon as I draw a lot of my automation.

[David Ray]

I always laugh at the notion that a mix engineer WOULDN'T use a technique that could make a song better because the tracking wasn't what they thought it should be.

"Hey guys, sorry, but you will need to spend more time and $ on the project since you could have recorded better. I shouldn't HAVE to use volume automation you know!"

A good mix engineer might communicate the limitations that the recording presents- but that said: do what it takes to make what you have the best it can be.

[Storyville]

Let me rephrase it. Sometimes someone may do something quietly that's really nice - and in the live setting it works. But on record the volume is too low - the tone and texture is right, but it gets swallowed in the mix. You automate to bring the moment out. Similarly, a moment might be loud because the energy is right - but the way it translates is just overpowering. You automate it down - it keeps the energy but doesn't disturb the listener.

Sometimes a good transition needs a helping hand. It's about feeling out the moments. It's about bringing up the character moments in the vocal, or slickly changing the envelope on the bass hits.

Automation is the most powerful tool at an engineer's disposal.

[Stackx]

Well volume automation isnt always a must but to use no automation at all would be crazy. I mean I automate filters and sends and background vocals it wouldn't be the same track without automation.

[struggz]

i use volume automation alot on my tracks. in fact i cant think of 1 track where i didnt. mostly for builds and breakdowns. sometimes for the bridge.

[BeatGenerals]

Ive used all types of automation on my tracks but not so much volume besides playing with velocities which kind of gets the same effect.

[shockermatt]

i use automation all the time. volume, panning, sends, fx, etc. it's a really usefull tool that can make the track seem 'alive'.

[Dat Cracka Dan]

It's all about dynamics.

I was once told that your mix should be like a stage... At each moment, the spotlight is on something. Something should always be the center of attention. Automation helps accomplish this.
It also prevents over compression, and dynamics may be better preserved after mastering... I think ;-)

Peace