The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Give em' what they want.. Equalisers (HW)
Old 2nd September 2011
  #1
Gear Addict
 
MikeRL's Avatar
 

Give em' what they want..

So in trying to give the mastering engineers exactly what they want, and to allow them to do the best job they can, i have decided that (im currently mixing totally ITB by the way) i will be mixing with absolutely nothing on the master fader. No limiting, EQ, or compression.. just trying to get the mixes to sound great without any of that on the 2-buss. That way i dont back the mastering engineers into any sort of corner, and i learn to get mixes sounding great on their own


My question is this.. for those of you mastering people that request no buss compression/processing from the mix engineer, do you find tape saturation plugins.. Like Waves MPX for example, to be of any concern?

In other words, should i view something like waves MPX as a stereo processing tool like limiting and compression, and should leave it off the mix? or does an effect like this have no real bearing on your ability to get the job done...


i hope that is a clear question.
Old 2nd September 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 

I say you're aiming for a good goal. If you want to use a tape saturation emulator, go ahead, but do a mix without it also. It can sometimes act as a crutch that heavily influences your decisions so be careful to keep your levels consistent. Treat it like you're actually working with tape, making sure the average level isn't too high or low, because that influences how much the plugin affects the mix. Like, if you decide to raise the vocals, you'll have more saturation all of a sudden.

Also, this is a pet peeve of mine, but can we all stop saying "2-buss"? You can have a 2-buss or 4-buss console etc, but this is not the same thing as putting a compressor on the main buss of said console.
Old 2nd September 2011
  #3
Gear Addict
 
MikeRL's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wado1942 View Post

Also, this is a pet peeve of mine, but can we all stop saying "2-buss"? You can have a 2-buss or 4-buss console etc, but this is not the same thing as putting a compressor on the main buss of said console.
I used to the term 2-buss to not use the term "master", which i had used in the previous sentence.. a pet peeve of MINE is to read the same jargon over and over again when the author cant think of another way to word his/her thoughts...

i thank you for your thoughts.. i just hate getting a vocabulary lesson here at GS, im pretty sure my post was clear in the first place.
Old 2nd September 2011
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
The main concern is to avoid merely adding something on the end. Always monitor via it, then do whatever you need* for the mix, sonically, but do nothing just for "level".
* and if in doubt, also do a mix without.
Old 2nd September 2011
  #5
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeRL View Post
I used to the term 2-buss to not use the term "master", which i had used in the previous sentence.. a pet peeve of MINE is to read the same jargon over and over again when the author cant think of another way to word his/her thoughts...

i thank you for your thoughts.. i just hate getting a vocabulary lesson here at GS, im pretty sure my post was clear in the first place.
Fair enough. I'm just really picky about terminology and "on the 2-buss" has a very fuzzy meaning because it could mean anywhere on a 2-buss console. I don't use "master buss" either.

Take care.
Old 3rd September 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 
IIIrd's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeRL View Post
So in trying to give the mastering engineers exactly what they want, and to allow them to do the best job they can, i have decided that (im currently mixing totally ITB by the way) i will be mixing with absolutely nothing on the master fader. No limiting, EQ, or compression.. just trying to get the mixes to sound great without any of that on the 2-buss. That way i dont back the mastering engineers into any sort of corner, and i learn to get mixes sounding great on their own


My question is this.. for those of you mastering people that request no buss compression/processing from the mix engineer, do you find tape saturation plugins.. Like Waves MPX for example, to be of any concern?

In other words, should i view something like waves MPX as a stereo processing tool like limiting and compression, and should leave it off the mix? or does an effect like this have no real bearing on your ability to get the job done...


i hope that is a clear question.
Shouldn't be, but you could ask the ME to put it to tape perhaps.

You can eq your mix if you need to, but why you would mix and monitor through an eq is beyond me...but tweaking your mix isn't a sin...sqaushing it to buggery is silly though
Old 3rd September 2011
  #7
Lives for gear
 

dunno about terms
who is the official arbiter

seems common tht 2buss means the final output buss with only two tracks which are L/R stereo pair.

all other busses normally have more tracks (or could have unless it is a small mixer).

so who prints the official dictionary of audio terms?
ieee ?
AES ?
ISO ?
who ??
Old 3rd September 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Storyville's Avatar
Perhaps the official terms are made by a company called Lexicon?

Ahahahahahahahahahaha.

That wasn't funny at all....
Old 4th September 2011
  #9
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
seems common tht 2buss means the final output buss with only two tracks which are L/R stereo pair.

all other busses normally have more tracks (or could have unless it is a small mixer).
Huh? I think you are confused.

"Bus" refers to the outputs of the desk that the input channels can be routed to. A 16 channel desk with only a stereo output master fader is a "2-bus" desk... or a 16x2 mixer. A 4-bus desk has 4 outputs (2 stereo, or 4 mono for example)...

a 16 channel, 16 bus desk doesn't mean that the other busses "have more tracks". It still only has 16 mono busses that are all identical in nature. It simply means that any pair of those busses can act as a stereo master fader, depending on how you route the audio. Every "stereo buss" has the ability to sum the audio from the channels into the final stereo mix.
Old 5th September 2011
  #10
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrode View Post
Huh? I think you are confused.
He is.

But I would be remiss in not adding that it's bus, not buss. One 's.'

From the word "Onmibus" or "for all"


DC
Old 5th September 2011
  #11
Registered User
 
Rick Sutton's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
He is.

But I would be remiss in not adding that it's bus, not buss. One 's.'

From the word "Onmibus" or "for all"


DC
You guys just missed the bus.heh
Maybe y'all should join in on the fun we're having.

are outputs buses?

Speaking of fun.....Dave, I've sure been enjoying my EQP-1A3 eq's. Kudos to you and Steve.
Old 5th September 2011
  #12
Gear Nut
 
Greg Dubuis's Avatar
 

Verified Member
My 2 cents

Hi DC,

Buss is most used in England.
Bus is most used in America.

Cheers,
Greg
Old 27th September 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
I like to send mixes to Mastering sounding the way my client and I want them to sound. I don't want to bring a mix 80% there and say, "Hey ME! Bring it home!". So if that means I use a compressor or an EQ or a tape sim plug or a live chicken on the 2-bus I do it. One thing I'd recommend against is putting a brickwall limiter on just for "volume". That I would leave to the ME. Not to say processing in Mastering does not have its place, but where this idea came from that you can't get the sound of the rekkid in the mix room and have to "wait" for mastering is a bit of a mystery.
Old 27th September 2011
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
I like to send mixes to Mastering sounding the way my client and I want them to sound. I don't want to bring a mix 80% there and say, "Hey ME! Bring it home!". So if that means I use a compressor or an EQ or a tape sim plug or a live chicken on the 2-bus I do it. One thing I'd recommend against is putting a brickwall limiter on just for "volume". That I would leave to the ME. Not to say processing in Mastering does not have its place, but where this idea came from that you can't get the sound of the rekkid in the mix room and have to "wait" for mastering is a bit of a mystery.
+1

Interesting trend that people now start to mix 'for the Mastering Engineer'..

Mix with everything that you think will help your mix.
Then send it off.

I agree though that limiting/clipping for pure loudness reasons should be avoided unless you are an experienced mixer.
Old 27th September 2011
  #15
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
dunno about terms
who is the official arbiter

seems common tht 2buss means the final output buss with only two tracks which are L/R stereo pair.

all other busses normally have more tracks (or could have unless it is a small mixer).

so who prints the official dictionary of audio terms?
ieee ?
AES ?
ISO ?
who ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrode View Post
Huh? I think you are confused.

"Bus" refers to the outputs of the desk that the input channels can be routed to. A 16 channel desk with only a stereo output master fader is a "2-bus" desk... or a 16x2 mixer. A 4-bus desk has 4 outputs (2 stereo, or 4 mono for example)...

a 16 channel, 16 bus desk doesn't mean that the other busses "have more tracks". It still only has 16 mono busses that are all identical in nature. It simply means that any pair of those busses can act as a stereo master fader, depending on how you route the audio. Every "stereo buss" has the ability to sum the audio from the channels into the final stereo mix.
Mix buss or mix bus works for me...it's the bus your mix comes down....just like the drum bus is the bus your drums come down....that said, I don't really have any problem with the other terminology either, if it's clear what's being said.
Old 27th September 2011
  #16
Lives for gear
 
allstar's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kosmokrator View Post
+1

Interesting trend that people now start to mix 'for the Mastering Engineer'..

Mix with everything that you think will help your mix.
Then send it off.

I agree though that limiting/clipping for pure loudness reasons should be avoided unless you are an experienced mixer.
+2

I can't imagine getting into the final stages of mixing and having to imagine what it will sound like when it's "finished".

In some ways the final mix is the sum of all the decisions and all decisions affect each other. You leave something to imagination and the decisions are influenced by it's omission, the mix is different. . . . not the greatest explanation I'll concede !
Old 27th September 2011
  #17
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
So if that means I use a compressor or an EQ or a tape sim plug or a live chicken on the 2-bus I do it.
I hear UAD is coming out with a chicken sim next year.
Old 27th September 2011
  #18
Gear Nut
 

if saturation is part of your creativity or of essential matter for your style, then leave it. if its for gaining sound quality, then its a no go.
Old 27th September 2011
  #19
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
From the word "Onmibus" or "for all"
Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus.

heh


Mychal
Old 28th September 2011
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Jesse Graffam's Avatar
 

The important thing to check out is the waveforms from any saturation type effects. Some of them, which I won't shame here, are quite literally brickwall clippers, and even worse (like erratic random bursts of asymmetry, and DC).

Btw Dave, I has teh lust for that tube in that new pic. Part of a new limiter to create audio at a nuclear level?
Old 28th September 2011
  #21
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Graffam View Post
The important thing to check out is the waveforms from any saturation type effects.
Sérieusement? (as they ask in parts of Lithuania).

I can't believe how bad that mix looks!

Sounds great, looks bad.

I can't remember the last time I checked out the waveform of one of my mixes...
Old 28th September 2011
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Jesse Graffam's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
Sérieusement? (as they ask in parts of Lithuania).

I can't believe how bad that mix looks!

Sounds great, looks bad.

I can't remember the last time I checked out the waveform of one of my mixes...
When someone mentions the word "meter", I don't assume they mean shutting off the monitors.

The reason I mention a scope is valid for all types of audio paths. It's important to understand where the headroom turns into distortion on any path or effect... not just so you can avoid it, but sometimes you might use it to your advantage also. Whatever sounds best, of course. I think it's worse to have things sounding bad, and to not understand where it's coming from.
Old 28th September 2011
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Beyersound's Avatar
Why would you leave your "mix buss" compression to a mastering engineer? If that is what they "want", maybe they aren't the ME for you. I would certainly want to hear my mix buss comp working in real time as I'm mixing, it is part of the overall sound. I can understand leaving final mix EQ to them, as well as final limiting/volume, that is supposed to be their specialty, and their rooms/gear are more suited to it (EQ choices) acoustically.
Old 28th September 2011
  #24
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Graffam View Post
When someone mentions the word "meter", I don't assume they mean shutting off the monitors.

The reason I mention a scope is valid for all types of audio paths. It's important to understand where the headroom turns into distortion on any path or effect... not just so you can avoid it, but sometimes you might use it to your advantage also. Whatever sounds best, of course. I think it's worse to have things sounding bad, and to not understand where it's coming from.
Who mentioned "meter"? A word search of this thread reveals one instance : yours. And now mine. "Shutting off the monitors"? Are you confused by another thread?

Let me see if I understand you correctly, the OP asked if a saturation plugin was bad on the 2-bus and your response is "a scope is valid for all types of audio paths?". So, get a scope to tell you what it is doing? This seems trés bizarre (as they say in Bulgaria). How about listen to it, if you like it and it helps the mix use it. If you don't, take it off.
Old 28th September 2011
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Jesse Graffam's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
How about listen to it, if you like it and it helps the mix use it. If you don't, take it off.
So you don't think anyone in the whole industry has trouble hearing clipper distortion?
Old 28th September 2011
  #26
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Graffam View Post
Btw Dave, I has teh lust for that tube in that new pic. Part of a new limiter to create audio at a nuclear level?
Maybe next year.

That tube is a photo-multiplier that was used in a navigation system. It would look at star constellations (even in daylight) based on the time/date and position in the sky and correct the INS data.

Pre GPS.


DC
Old 28th September 2011
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Storyville's Avatar
People are oddly polarized on this issue. There are many mitigating factors when it comes what gets sent to an ME.
Old 28th September 2011
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Unless the compressor you are using is equal to or better than what the ME uses, why would you use it on the master bus(s)? It's squashing the dynamic range with an inferior product. Of course you may particularly like the sound of your own compressor but I know none of mine are as good as a $2k+ outboard.
Old 28th September 2011
  #29
Lives for gear
 
allstar's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by StringBean View Post
Unless the compressor you are using is equal to or better than what the ME uses, why would you use it on the master bus(s)? It's squashing the dynamic range with an inferior product. Of course you may particularly like the sound of your own compressor but I know none of mine are as good as a $2k+ outboard.
You can't mix into a compressor you don't own.
Old 29th September 2011
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by allstar View Post
You can't mix into a compressor you don't own.
The compressors I own are not high-end, so I would choose not to mix into them at all on the master buss. Again, if the idea is to color the sound of the entire mix isn't that the job of the ME who has the expensive gear particularly suited to that exact purpose? Personally I prefer not to mix to suit a master compressor unless that is indeed the one I will use to master. If I had a G-buss then hellz yes I would use it.

Of course this involves a level of trust with the ME to aim for the sound you seek, so I would probably send them one version with master compression, and one--which is the one I would want him to use--without.
Top Mentioned Products
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump