ITB mixing demands compression.

[pingu]

I feel to get a good mix in the box you need quite a bit of processing on the master fader and a decent amount of compression on the individual tracks.

Yay nay

[T_R_S]

I guess thta's why they put Comps on every channel on an SSL and on the Mix Bus.

[pingu]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

I guess thta's why they put Comps on every channel on an SSL and on the Mix Bus.

Fair enough.

I spoke to a big time producer who is working with a close friend, and he says he uses no compression at all, cept on bass.
Though he does have access to any gear he wants.
Getting the sound source from the get go and recording to tape.
It seems we have to emulate the natural compression of tape.

He is not ITB though.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by pingu

I feel to get a good mix in the box you need quite a bit of processing on the master fader and a decent amount of compression on the individual tracks.

Yay nay

For many pop styles that could be semi-true. If you hit the targets correctly during tracking (tones / harmonics etc.) it becomes much easier. For styles like folk music or soft jazz ballads some processing across the master during mixing could be a bad thng.

It all depends on who's mixing and what they're mixing for.

Lawrence

[heathen]

I find the more good analog gear (comps and eq's) I use in the mixing process helps to thicken the sound naturally and result in not needing as much or if any digital comp on individual tracks.

[theblue1]

Also, when you're a bigtime producer you tend to work with bigtime studio talent (I don't mean the dorks in the picture on the cover, I mean the guys who come in to actually play the music that ends up on the album) and those guys tend to -- I'm told -- lay down tracks that require little editing, little EQ, and little compression.

Additionally, bigtime producers tend to have bigtime MEs following up in back of them, fixing what slips by.

So if a guy wants to mix on NS10m's, not use compression, or hang from the ceiling while he produces, it's not the same as it would be for an engineer in an "affordable" studio or a micro-indie self-producer. And then there is, indeed, tape saturation...

[Kiwiburger]

Originally Posted by pingu

I feel to get a good mix in the box you need quite a bit of processing on the master fader and a decent amount of compression on the individual tracks.

Yay nay

Sort of Yay and Nay. Not every track needs compression. Generally bass and vocals do.

I believe mixing should never be confused with mastering. They are two different things. Mastering ideally shouldn't be done in the same room by the same person - let alone in the mix.

So with that in mind, I believe it is wrong to apply any effect (compression, limiting, eq, reverb - anything) over the master bus when mixing.

Compression - especially software compression - tends to be damaging to the sound. It's a trade off between controlling dynamics where necessary, and the damage done by the compressor. Unless you really, really need to control the dynamics, the sound is usually better without compression.

Just compressing to try to make tracks louder is probably destructive. If you can make your mix sound good, with good spectral balance, then the mastering engineer can make it loud.

[Benmrx]

Although we had both a bit to drink the other night, I was chatting with a fairly well known indie rock producer hear in Seattle, and this was the topic at hand. We both agreed that when tracking straght to Pro Tools (or your choice of DAW), you're gonna need to hit those compressors more so than if you had tracked to tape.

The obvious thing here is that a 2" 24 track, can basically be used as 24 channels of compression...depending on how hard you hit the tape. When tracking without tape........especially with anything that involves a drumset, it's those damn transients.

On tape, I'll smack the snare (there by compressing it...or saturating....whatever, just rounding off the transients), but going straight to Pro Tools, I have to record a quieter signal, because smaking the A/D converters sux ass.

Don't even get me started with vocals.

[pingu]

Originally Posted by Benmrx

Although we had both a bit to drink the other night, I was chatting with a fairly well known indie rock producer hear in Seattle, and this was the topic at hand. We both agreed that when tracking straght to Pro Tools (or your choice of DAW), you're gonna need to hit those compressors more so than if you had tracked to tape.

The obvious thing here is that a 2" 24 track, can basically be used as 24 channels of compression...depending on how hard you hit the tape. When tracking without tape........especially with anything that involves a drumset, it's those damn transients.

On tape, I'll smack the snare (there by compressing it...or saturating....whatever, just rounding off the transients), but going straight to Pro Tools, I have to record a quieter signal, because smaking the A/D converters sux ass.

Don't even get me started with vocals.

This is what im talkin about.

Also for me to get things sounding like a song, it aint going to happen without a
tape device on the buss and a comp.
Compression on just about every track and also multing.

But maybe its just me and what i like but i would be interested to see if anyone can do a decent mix ITB without compression or anything on the 2 buss.

Im very doubtful.

[Kiwiburger]

I think you are still confusing mixing with mastering ...

[i51423]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

I think you are still confusing mixing with mastering ...

What's wrong with mixing with compression on the 2-buss? I wouldn't consider that "mastering" at all.

[Kiwiburger]

They way I see it - if this is music you care about, you will be sending the mix to a mastering engineer. He will have much, much better compressors than a dodgy software job. So why screw it up before he has a chance?

I strongly believe that a mix should have nothing - not even a limiter - on the 2bus. You shouldn't be approaching 0dBFS - leave some headroom for the ME.

A ME only has two tracks to work with. Do you want him using his good gear in "rescue" mode, trying to undo some damage you've done?

Also - most of my mixes max out my CPU. Why waste CPU over the 2bus. Even if you want to master your own mix - at least do it as a seperate process. With the extra CPU saved, you can use higher quality plugins on your tracks.

I don't agree with the concept that you can use low quality plugins on tracks, and that "mastering quality" plugins are only useful for mastering. I only want the best for everything - which is why I need all the CPU I can get.

[Benmrx]

Originally Posted by pingu

i would be interested to see if anyone can do a decent mix ITB without compression or anything on the 2 buss.

Im very doubtful.

I will say that I'm pretty new to the idea of putting anything on the 2buss, and have gotten good results when mixing ITB in the past, and not using tape, but I always end up using much more compression on individual tracks if tape wasn't used.

[Jules]

I get so much of my compression done ITB with plug ins - that I have little use for my hardware SSL stereo compressor.

I used to use it on drums or on the mix - all the time...

I use

Sony
URS
McDSP
UA

Plug in compressors

[Tubthumper]

Jules, which of the URS comps are you using??

[joelpatterson]

While Jules ponders his answer, I'll throw out that I always have a Limiter as the last stage out of the Master fader, and before that quite often a Multiband compressor (this is in Digital Performer.) I wouldn't want to try to get healthy levels without them two.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by Tubthumper

Jules, which of the URS comps are you using??

To be honest since first checking them out, the Ilok install for my URS 1970 & 1980 has run out or needs a re set... (Eq wise I am always using the URS N12)

However

I was VERY impressed with the 1980 - the side chain & filters (a little like the "BIG" button on the Drawmer 1968) really allowed for EASY to set up, extreme control over drum punch / attack etc..

I wish I had it for something I am mixing at the mo.. (must fix!!!)

Favorite for drums are

Sony Dynamic's, McDSP Compressorbank (play with that "bite" setting! to get the attack JUST right!!) and the URS 1980.. ALL of those are great IMHO

[pingu]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

I think you are still confusing mixing with mastering ...

I think your confusing mastering with mixing.

[joelpatterson]

I think it's easy to confuse mixing with mastering and vice versa.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by pingu
i would be interested to see if anyone can do a decent mix ITB without compression or anything on the 2 buss.

Im very doubtful.

It certainly can be done with certain styles. Get an acoutic guitar, a bass player a couple or three vocalists and a good drummer doing a soft rock / soul / folk ballad. You can (and should be able to) mix that to a great result without compressing the 2-bus.

Now some of the stuff on the radio is another story altogether.

I think the problem is partly that we've become so used to the sound of compression we often don't consider it "right" unless it's "tight". You can certainly fit the full dynamic ranges of most any band or instrument right onto digital without compressing the tracks going in or compression the 2-bus.

Great players and singers "compress" themselves to a certain degree... when they play they adjust their levels and dynamics accordingly... all you gotta do is mix it.

I do use compression on the 2-bus mainly because my business is mostly demo-based, hardly anything I ever do gets to a pro ME. With that in mind I do what I can to make it sound better, "tighter", whatever.

Like Kiwi said though it's not actually sonically "better" per se, it's more like commercial CD's "tightly" enough compressed to not draw attention to itself in comparison to the other stuff out there... if the song is good enough.

If it's due to go to a pro ME I don't put anything on the 2-bus but 24-bit dither.

Here's a song I mixed last night. I hit it with 4db of compression with a RenComp and had an L2 on it to raise the level. To me the raw mix sounds better sonically, but it's "looser" than commercial songs in this genre.

Another demo. dfegad Hip-Hop. I also produced the track for this demo. Very basic stuff, no bridge no musical movement.

Lawrence

[pingu]

Like Kiwi said though it's not actually sonically "better" per se

Of course its not sonically better.

Every process is a degradation.

[eligit]

Originally Posted by pingu

Of course its not sonically better.

Every process is a degradation.

then why not hold off on the degradation until the ME gets a chance to use his 50-100k of specialized gear (rather than a plug in) to handle that part?

give that dude a "no comp on the 2 bus" 24/88.2 file....the final product will be the best it can be. right?

this then goes to the "how close to 0 (in average AND peaks) do you want to go at the digital 2 buss" discussion.


obviously tracking individual instruments with comp or using a plug in comp on individual tracks is something totally different.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by eligit

give that dude a "no comp on the 2 bus" 24/88.2 file....the final product will be the best it can be. right?

not right. not wrong either. making the product 'the best it can be' goes far beyond mere issues of tone.

the point to this whole game (from our end) is the mix. tone is a factor, but so are balances and attitude. mixing into a 2buss compressor allows you to create a mix that you simply CANNOT create without the compressor patched in, nor can you create it by slapping the compressor on after the fact. the envelope shaping and tonal response of the compressor are integral to the mix. i have built mixes where the mix comp was invisible, you'd never know one was working so diligently. but hit that bypass button and everything fell completely apart, you would never in a million years build a mix like that and send it off to mastering.

if the only tool you have to allow for that kind of action is a plugin, one that perhaps degrades the tone but enables a mix that surpasses in every other regard --- balance, energy, coherence --- is the choice not obvious?

the use of 2 buss compression at mixtime is a delicate craft, and allows for possibilities that are unavailable anywhere else, anytime else. this point cannot be overstated, and you can ignore it at your own peril.

this is art, after all, and i'm always suspicious of any conversation about art that contains some variation of the phrase "you should never." limitations and rules? really?


gregoire
del
ubk

[pingu]

Originally Posted by u b i k

not right. not wrong either. making the product 'the best it can be' goes far beyond mere issues of tone.

the point to this whole game (from our end) is the mix. tone is a factor, but so are balances and attitude. mixing into a 2buss compressor allows you to create a mix that you simply CANNOT create without the compressor patched in, nor can you create it by slapping the compressor on after the fact. the envelope shaping and tonal response of the compressor are integral to the mix. i have built mixes where the mix comp was invisible, you'd never know one was working so diligently. but hit that bypass button and everything fell completely apart, you would never in a million years build a mix like that and send it off to mastering.

if the only tool you have to allow for that kind of action is a plugin, one that perhaps degrades the tone but enables a mix that surpasses in every other regard --- balance, energy, coherence --- is the choice not obvious?

the use of 2 buss compression at mixtime is a delicate craft, and allows for possibilities that are unavailable anywhere else, anytime else. this point cannot be overstated, and you can ignore it at your own peril.

this is art, after all, and i'm always suspicious of any conversation about art that contains some variation of the phrase "you should never." limitations and rules? really?


gregoire
del
ubk

Could not have said it better.

[David-Morpheus]

Originally Posted by u b i k

not right. not wrong either. making the product 'the best it can be' goes far beyond mere issues of tone.

the point to this whole game (from our end) is the mix. tone is a factor, but so are balances and attitude. mixing into a 2buss compressor allows you to create a mix that you simply CANNOT create without the compressor patched in, nor can you create it by slapping the compressor on after the fact. the envelope shaping and tonal response of the compressor are integral to the mix. i have built mixes where the mix comp was invisible, you'd never know one was working so diligently. but hit that bypass button and everything fell completely apart, you would never in a million years build a mix like that and send it off to mastering.

if the only tool you have to allow for that kind of action is a plugin, one that perhaps degrades the tone but enables a mix that surpasses in every other regard --- balance, energy, coherence --- is the choice not obvious?

the use of 2 buss compression at mixtime is a delicate craft, and allows for possibilities that are unavailable anywhere else, anytime else. this point cannot be overstated, and you can ignore it at your own peril.

this is art, after all, and i'm always suspicious of any conversation about art that contains some variation of the phrase "you should never." limitations and rules? really?


gregoire
del
ubk

[eligit]

Originally Posted by u b i k

not right. not wrong either. making the product 'the best it can be' goes far beyond mere issues of tone.

the point to this whole game (from our end) is the mix. tone is a factor, but so are balances and attitude. mixing into a 2buss compressor allows you to create a mix that you simply CANNOT create without the compressor patched in, nor can you create it by slapping the compressor on after the fact. the envelope shaping and tonal response of the compressor are integral to the mix. i have built mixes where the mix comp was invisible, you'd never know one was working so diligently. but hit that bypass button and everything fell completely apart, you would never in a million years build a mix like that and send it off to mastering.

if the only tool you have to allow for that kind of action is a plugin, one that perhaps degrades the tone but enables a mix that surpasses in every other regard --- balance, energy, coherence --- is the choice not obvious?

the use of 2 buss compression at mixtime is a delicate craft, and allows for possibilities that are unavailable anywhere else, anytime else. this point cannot be overstated, and you can ignore it at your own peril.

this is art, after all, and i'm always suspicious of any conversation about art that contains some variation of the phrase "you should never." limitations and rules? really?


gregoire
del
ubk

good answer....