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
Michael Brauer's PT Template? Dynamics Plugins
Old 29th November 2009
  #31
Gear Addict
 

it's been two years since I did that seminar and tried without success to do the COMPLETE set up of what I now call Brauerize. phasing was an issue. in the next few months i'll be spending more time trying mixes in ITB and I'll figure out how to make it work. using 4 busses is not the challenge here and it doesn't even scratch the surface. it's everything else I do that creates havoc when on guitar is sending to a sub stereo, sending to stereo aux compressors, sending to the unprocessed stereo bus, sending to other stereo compressors off busses in ITB. why am i doing all this ****? because I can.

michael brauer
Old 29th November 2009
  #32
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zboy2854 View Post
There's a lot of confusion flying around here. Read the Tape Op article as well as the Q&A on Michael's web site, it explains everything you need to know about how the multi-buss setup works..

Michael Brauer on Compression - TapeOp Magazine

Q&A
thank you for that.

man, i go eat turkey, rest a little and then suddenly what i do is just parallel compression. i'm glad you guys are out there doing quality control for me.

michael brauer
Old 29th November 2009
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Mr. Brauer,

The QA staff at the DAW makers should know that they need to test complex routing topologies, and any coding staff at the DAW makers should know they need to support such complex topologies with perfect timing (not to mention a working "solo" button ) if they are brazen enough to call their product a "professional" solution.

I don't think any DAW comes out smelling like roses doing the things we ask them to do today. The problem is solvable in theory. Are the human resources up to it in practice?
Old 29th November 2009
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Ben B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 View Post
you are trying to describe something that i do as if it's void of music. again. look up parallel compression. sending two or four different busses to sub stereos doesn't make it parallel, if it did, i'd tell you it did.

michael
No disrespect, but I did no such thing. I also don't need to look up parallel compression, as I have been using it for more than 26 years.

It is quite possible, though, that I didn't thoroughly read the SOS article and missed the point of whatever your technique is about. I will read it again, this time more carefully. (I actually bookmarked the link, because I meant to go back and read the whole thing -- as well as the Tape Op article.)

At first glance, though (an admittedly quick perusal) it appeared to be the use of several separate parallel compression busses where different compressors were being used for different purposes (with some signals in more than one path simultaneously -- in parallel) and subsequently summed. If that's the heart of it, it is parallel processing no matter how specific the implementation. If that's not the heart of it, and I've completely missed the point (which seems highly likely at this point), my SINCERE apology will be forthcoming. All I had to go on was Psycho Monkey's post, but now that I have more information at my disposal, I will definitely check it out.

By the way, I think your mixes sound great -- so whatever you're doing, it's working!

-Ben B
Old 29th November 2009
  #35
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben B View Post
No disrespect, but I did no such thing. I also don't need to look up parallel compression, as I have been using it for more than 26 years.

It is quite possible, though, that I didn't thoroughly read the SOS article and missed the point of whatever your technique is about. I will read it again, this time more carefully. (I actually bookmarked the link, because I meant to go back and read the whole thing -- as well as the Tape Op article.)

At first glance, though (an admittedly quick perusal) it appeared to be the use of several separate parallel compression busses where different compressors were being used for different purposes (with some signals in more than one path simultaneously -- in parallel) and subsequently summed. If that's the heart of it, it is parallel processing no matter how specific the implementation. If that's not the heart of it, and I've completely missed the point (which seems highly likely at this point), my SINCERE apology will be forthcoming. All I had to go on was Psycho Monkey's post, but now that I have more information at my disposal, I will definitely check it out.

By the way, I think your mixes sound great -- so whatever you're doing, it's working!

-Ben B
hi Ben, no disrespect taken and maybe I'm mistaken but that would mean i'm not perfect, I don't think i could handle the shock But in my 30 years of mixing(which doesn't mean anything since the technique was used prior to both of us) the way I was told about parallel mixing was from an old engineer in England who I think was one of the guys that started it it. He would take the music from the stereo bus, compress it, and then bring up the same source un-compressed. By combining the two he could get a dynamic mix. He called it parallel compression. If he were to take some of the instruments and feed it to one bus and then feed other instruments to another sub stereo and them sum them, that was not parallel compression. that was simply feeding different different music to different stereos. But if you send one instrument to two different busses, that would then be parallel compression.

But, in my situation i'm using a combination of techniques together to achieve a goal of a more dynamic and unrestrictive compression meaning that bringing up a vocal will not cause an adverse effect on the rest of the stereo information ( which is how this whole thing came about for me when I was mixing Aretha back in '81).

When I did the multi buss article for tape-op i was sharing an approach that was somewhat unique. the multi buss technique was not in of itself unique since some of the early neve consoles had 3 or 4 sub-stereo busses but it was more about the application that I had developed. Since that article I continued to develop ideas that incorporated two other well known techniques, parallel compression(from that english guy) and send/return compression( from david Kahne). I changed the name multi buss compression to Brauerize because it had evolved over the years into a much different animal and so multi buss compression no longer was an accurate description. If one were to say what I did was only multi buss, parallel or send/return they would only be partially right depending at what point in development I was at.

At the center of this one needs to look beyond the tool to understand why I incorporate all these different ideas and how it translates to the way I mix and think. Anybody could be using all or part of my approach and use the tools to mix mostly in pre-compression mode. It might work well for somebody but is not the way I use it. You can use Brauerize any way you want if the outcome is that you're happy with a mix. I've helped people in TV and other formats use part of the approach and they've had great success.

What I wanted to do was to offer people a different approach to the classic stereo mixing technique we all grew up with, that's the point of why I shared the information, but if you want to use it as I do, then it's important to understand the "how and why" of my approach of this tool when mixing music. i came up with an alternative approach to stereo compression mixing because the traditional approach didn't work for me and I found myself backed-up against the wall too many times. For whatever reason, what worked for everybody else didn't always consistently 100% of the time work for me. I was always told to never mix in post compression for obvious reasons. So I went about learning what it felt like to mix that way and understand how to avoid the pitfalls that post compression brings to balancing so that it worked for me instead of against me.

And i've said this many times, i do not push this as the one and only way. i'ts an alternative approach that allows for different results. Most of the time I use this technique but there are times it doesn't feel good for the song so I go back to stereo compression mixing as was the case on the new release of John Mayer's "who says". it didn't feel good using my approach so I assigned everything to one stereo compressor and it felt perfect. I don't care which one works as long as at the end of a mix a song feels great. That's all this is about and to think any deeper is just geek time.

the last thing I will ever do is defend a tool over another. I honestly don't give a sh*t about arguing over a tool unless it's in reference to an application. For you to be in the business 26 years, this is something I'm sure you are in agreement with.

Again, the tapeop article is very very old and doesn't accurately describe what I do now, not to mention, a very important aspect to the technique back then was omitted that tied things together. It was omitted due to length of the article not because of error. If you want to have a better understanding it's best to first read the article and a couple more that i've done since then that are all on my site under "articles" and most important the "Q&A" section that fills in the blanks. MHB Productions - Home

hope this clarifies things a bit and I'm glad you brought up another side of it.

michael brauer
Old 30th November 2009
  #36
Gear Addict
 
jono_3's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 View Post

man, i go eat turkey, rest a little and then suddenly what i do is just parallel compression.
Maybe people need to convince themselves that what you do is parallel compression so they have an excuse when it doesnt work for them...?

That being said im still(relatively unsuccessfully) trying to chip away at my own mini variation of the Brauer-esque stone using PTLE, 4 stereo sub groups(3 comp'd and one clean), a few hardware stereo compressors, a few plug in compressors, and a Dangerous D-Box. I think I have basically overcome the latency issues, now if I can just get tracks to sound and feel like Evil Urges!
Old 30th November 2009
  #37
Gear Addict
 
Empora's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
I guess you would know better than... Michael Brauer... muhahaha!

If MB himself says you can't do his multibus setup in PTHD and it only works on a console, you really think you can in LE??? "Should be just fine" Are you guessing?

You might be able to compensate for the plugin latency but you can't for the routing and sends.

Thanks man,

Just trying to offer some help as to how the guy might have a go at some "Brauer STYLE" processing. Might not be EXACTLY the same or whatever but some of the theory behind it could be put to use. I was offering an alternative. Just bugs me when people nay say like that. Take the tools you have and apply them as best you can!!

LE can be a pain in the ass but much is still possible, IMHO no one should copy this technique exactly, it simply will not work the way it does for MB. The reason it works for him is down to him, not his gear. This is not to say that some of the ideas couldn't be used in a way that isn't a carbon copy.

I'll be quiet now heh
Old 30th November 2009
  #38
Gear Addict
 
Empora's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
I guess you would know better than... Michael Brauer... muhahaha!

If MB himself says you can't do his multibus setup in PTHD and it only works on a console, you really think you can in LE??? "Should be just fine" Are you guessing?

You might be able to compensate for the plugin latency but you can't for the routing and sends.

Thanks man,

Just trying to offer some help as to how the guy might have a go at some "Brauer STYLE" processing. Might not be EXACTLY the same or whatever but some of the theory behind it could be put to use. I was offering an alternative. Just bugs me when people nay say like that. Take the tools you have and apply them as best you can!!

LE can be a pain in the ass but much is still possible, IMHO no one should copy this technique exactly anyway, it simply will not work the way it does for MB. The reason it works for him is down to him, not his gear. This is not to say that some of the ideas couldn't be used in a way that isn't a carbon copy.

I'll be quiet now heh
Old 30th November 2009
  #39
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Empora View Post
Thanks man,

Just trying to offer some help as to how the guy might have a go at some "Brauer STYLE" processing. Might not be EXACTLY the same or whatever but some of the theory behind it could be put to use. I was offering an alternative. Just bugs me when people nay say like that. Take the tools you have and apply them as best you can!!

LE can be a pain in the ass but much is still possible, IMHO no one should copy this technique exactly, it simply will not work the way it does for MB. The reason it works for him is down to him, not his gear. This is not to say that some of the ideas couldn't be used in a way that isn't a carbon copy.

I'll be quiet now heh
i agree with you 100%. there is a way to do it and somebody will find it now or when the technology catches up. Use some of the tools that work and drop the ones that don't work for you. This is not and has never been meant to be the one and only way. it's meant to be a starting point and a different way of thinking must first be understood before going down this road.

michael brauer
Old 30th November 2009
  #40
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lacerta View Post
from what ive understood from reading mb's web site about the technique, is that it is based on WHAT he is sending to the busses, not just the busses. its based on frequency material so one bus is lows, one mid, one high, one no comp, etc. not just parallel comp on the drum bus, gtr bus, etc., which is what i think is the more typical way to parallel compress
no, not really . it's not frequency dependent, it's musically driven. drums have the complete bandwidth and so does a bass. it's about dividing up the instruments so that they are independently compressing within their stereo and not effecting the level of other instruments assigned to other sub stereos. so bass and drums work well together, ask any drummer and bass player, they like to lock into each other. you get a nice groove going with whatever compression is happening and it stays in the sweetspot. You add the guitars that are going to another sub stereo and get that pumping nicely without having having an impact on the compression you had going with the drums and bass....and so on and so forth.

michael
Old 30th November 2009
  #41
Lives for gear
 
dhiltonlittle's Avatar
 

michael, just curious how you have incorporated the shadow hills mastering comp into your work flow. i've owned one for about a year now and love it!
Old 30th November 2009
  #42
Lives for gear
 
Surbitone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
Sorry to burst your bubble but:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/1131465-post16.html

Good luck doing it in Pro Tools. LE? Worse, forget about it.
I've done it with very good success, but not in LE I'm afraid (Reaper firmed it!). I don't think it would have been possible to do it more than 18 months ago though. Plugins haven't completely come of age, but I was pleasantly surprised when I tried it with some of the better / best ones out there (EMI TG05', V-Comp - T-Racks 3 EQP1a , API 2500 - PSP Retro Q , T-Racks 3 670, PSP Oldtimer kissing the main 2-buss by 1/2 db). Sounds very nice, certainly a nice, flexible way to approach mixing ITB thumbsup

------------------------------------------

BTW, I beleive MB mixes into the 4 buss comps + 1 clean 2- buss (might be wrong, but sounds great here), and not in parallel with the 4-busses as someone else previously stated. I think alot of the parallel is done before it gets to this stage, ie, vox multing etc..
Old 30th November 2009
  #43
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jono_3 View Post
Maybe people need to convince themselves that what you do is parallel compression so they have an excuse when it doesnt work for them...?
I think there are different opinions on what the definition of parallel compression is. I know the sound of it therefore i know how to get that to work.

If you send one sound source to two paths you are going parallel or down parallel paths, if you are sending two instruments to two different paths you are sending them to individual and separate mono or stereo multi paths or multi busses. one instrument->multi path= parallel or multi path // one instrument-> one path = one un shared path

Just because i use multi busses doesn't make what I do parallel compression unless I happen to send an instrument to two different busses. I think that's the confusion here.

michael brauer
Old 30th November 2009
  #44
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surbitone View Post
I've done it with very good success, but not in LE I'm afraid (Reaper firmed it!). I don't think it would have been possible to do it more than 18 months ago though. Plugins haven't completely come of age, but I was pleasantly surprised when I tried it with some of the better / best ones out there (EMI TG05', V-Comp - T-Racks 3 EQP1a , API 2500 - PSP Retro Q , T-Racks 3 670, PSP Oldtimer kissing the main 2-buss by 1/2 db). Sounds very nice, certainly a nice, flexible way to approach mixing ITB thumbsup

------------------------------------------

BTW, I beleive MB mixes into the 4 buss comps + 1 clean 2- buss (might be wrong, but sounds great here), and not in parallel with the 4-busses as someone else previously stated. I think alot of the parallel is done before it gets to this stage, ie, vox multing etc..
thank you, you get it. and whatever i may have said 6 months or more regarding the fact that it doesn't work in ITB was also followed by "at this time". meaning technology hadn't yet caught up dealing with the many levels of latency at the time of the post. That changes on a monthly basis. Anyway, starting next year, i'll be doing separate mixing of projects in ITB and i'll put together a template that does work because....

michael brauer
Old 30th November 2009
  #45
Gear Addict
 
Empora's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 View Post
i agree with you 100%. there is a way to do it and somebody will find it now or when the technology catches up. Use some of the tools that work and drop the ones that don't work for you. This is not and has never been meant to be the one and only way. it's meant to be a starting point and a different way of thinking must first be understood before going down this road.

michael brauer
Thanks Michael, great to see you on here taking time to explain and discuss this with us!!
Old 30th November 2009
  #46
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empora View Post
Thanks man,

Just trying to offer some help as to how the guy might have a go at some "Brauer STYLE" processing. Might not be EXACTLY the same or whatever but some of the theory behind it could be put to use. I was offering an alternative. Just bugs me when people nay say like that. Take the tools you have and apply them as best you can!!

LE can be a pain in the ass but much is still possible, IMHO no one should copy this technique exactly, it simply will not work the way it does for MB. The reason it works for him is down to him, not his gear. This is not to say that some of the ideas couldn't be used in a way that isn't a carbon copy.

I'll be quiet now heh
Apologies if that came out a little harsh- I think I'm a little sore from spending hours trying to get something similar to work but being burned by the timing issues with the routing in PT.

In retrospect I personally would rather have spent that time mixing.

Think I'll wait until they release a version that has those problems fixed before I spend time trying it again. To me it's been like trying to play pool with a crooked cue stick.

It definitely is possible to have software that has solid timing with routing and sends but possibly the implementation might not be as flexible as with traditional DAW routing. I bought Harrison's Mixbus because it claimed to do that, and it does work, but for now you only get four of the fully compensated busses which does limit what you can do, even though you can send to them and the master bus simultaneously. It uses closed console style routing for the busses. In terms of grouping and automation it is still a little limited compared to PTHD though.

Again, apologies... and if someone really does get it to work in PT, post up how!
Old 30th November 2009
  #47
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empora View Post
Thanks Michael, great to see you on here taking time to explain and discuss this with us!!
+1

Thank you.
Old 30th November 2009
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 View Post
no, not really . it's not frequency dependent, it's musically driven. drums have the complete bandwidth and so does a bass. it's about dividing up the instruments so that they are independently compressing within their stereo and not effecting the level of other instruments assigned to other sub stereos. so bass and drums work well together, ask any drummer and bass player, they like to lock into each other. you get a nice groove going with whatever compression is happening and it stays in the sweetspot. You add the guitars that are going to another sub stereo and get that pumping nicely without having having an impact on the compression you had going with the drums and bass....and so on and so forth.
And I'd like to add, thinking about bus compression quite a lot lately, that if three or four bus compressors in parallel is (often) better than one, then quite possibly 30 or 40 compressors is better than 3 or 4. And ITB, you have those available (although Mr. Brauer has them available analog! ).

Something to keep in mind is that bus compression is the enemy of depth. How can I say that? Well, if you want to "flatten" a mix, make it lifeless, dimensionless pap, you will overcompress the whole mix with a bus compressor. The signals you mixed low to set them behind will be brought forward, and the ones mixed high to be in front will be pushed back, and everything will sit in this plane in the middle.

This is one of the hazards of what I believe Mr. Brauer is calling "post compression" i.e. putting the compressor on after mixing rather than mixing through it. But I think the additional point is that even if you mix through the bus comps you will still be fighting their flattening effects. Careful attack and release times and compression amounts can help keep depth, but I'd also be careful to not misinterpret raised reverb levels as additional depth. Those reverbs will now have artificial envelopes that may no longer work as a depth cue, and it might be better to leave the reverb uncompressed.

Compression of course gives you volume and weight and size, plus it can give you tone...if you want a submix or the whole mix to have a certain tone without loss of depth it may be possible with an analog bus compressor that isn't actually compressing. If you want to tie a whole drumset together, or as Mr. Brauer just suggested, a whole rhythm section, then using a bus comp on that submix may work without affecting the soundstage arrangement of other instruments, and that is a lot of the benefit of the multi-bus technique that I see.

Parallel compression lets you blend in the tone of a compressor partially (rather than all or nothing) as well as provides different envelopes e.g. intact transients than what you can get in series. Several compressors have "mix" knobs to make this easy. Send and return compression lets you pool this parallel effect and distribute it unevenly amongst a set of sources to have a controllable degree of tying different parts together tonally and levelwise.

But I guess my added point is, for some arrangements, bus compression or any shared compression might not be a win at all...having nothing tied to each other, but instead each channel on its own discrete compressor (or none), may be the deepest and most interesting mix you can do. It will certainly be the most straightfoward as you can mix largely in solo, with no concerns about interaction, and then use volume automation to do your glueing together. For e.g. electronica where natural cues are absent, it might be just the ticket.

Anyway I know nothing about any of this compared to Mr. Brauer I just thought I'd share my recent thinking and am interested in what he or anyone else might have to say about it.
Old 30th November 2009
  #49
Gear Addict
 
Empora's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
Again, apologies... and if someone really does get it to work in PT, post up how!
Know worries mate and amen to that too
Old 30th November 2009
  #50
Lives for gear
 

Michael, you're technique is so refined and so much a product of your many years of trial and error that I think that it's a bit like Picasso giving a blow by blow (stroke by stroke?) description of his technique in the hope that it may work for someone else.
If someone doesn't "hear it" like you do, then they're better off devising their own unique methodology that allows them to find the sound they hear in their head...

Seems there are too many people who seem happy to be a wannabe, but the fact remains that there is only one Bob Clearmountain, CLA, Andy Wallace etc, and that meticulously copying someone's style is as useless on our side of the glass as it is on the other.

Find your own way folks.
Old 1st December 2009
  #51
Gear Addict
 
jono_3's Avatar
I dont think its necessarily a matter of technique emulation, I think its a matter of technique evolution that people want to adopt. Michael's innovations in mixing are being proven by the records he mixes. Virtually no one can have the same setup, and literally no one can have the same ears and perspective. I want to take the concepts that he's developing, figure out how and why they work, and in the process maybe I can apply them to my own music.

The biggest one of these concepts being "It's all about the song". You dont even need another buss or new rack for that one! It sounds so trivial but if I can get that into my head before I go at a mix, it turns out very different and better 100% of the time. It's simply more effective communication.

When I first listened to Regina Spektor's "Far", I didn't know what tracks MB had mixed. Without looking at the credits, I listened to the album start to finish making mental notes of favourite/standout tracks. The other day I did the same thing with the new John Mayer. I mean absolutely no disrespect to the other mixers involved, they did a great job, but for me personally, the most compelling and engaging tracks on both albums were all done by Mr.Brauer, pretty much without exception. Especially on the Regina Spektor.

Its the difference between pop music and something thats so emotionally compelling that you'll sit in your running car when you get home from a long day at work because, for some reason, you feel like you HAVE to listen to the song until the very end and you dont know why. No plug in, template, or compressor can do that.
Old 1st December 2009
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jono_3 View Post

I mean absolutely no disrespect to the other mixers involved, they did a great job, but for me personally, the most compelling and engaging tracks on both albums were all done by Mr.Brauer, pretty much without exception. Especially on the Regina Spektor.

Its the difference between pop music and something thats so emotionally compelling that you'll sit in your running car when you get home from a long day at work because, for some reason, you feel like you HAVE to listen to the song until the very end and you dont know why. No plug in, template, or compressor can do that.
But it's not only MB's method that produces the end result, it's his vision. Producers and mixers with vision never seem much interested in anyone else's methods, their own methods just "happen"- after their own years of trial and error. Sure we all had to learn about gain staging and which compressors are good for what etc , heck even parallel processing, but the complex and unique nuances of a method's like MB's can only be "owned" by him. In fact I remain unconvinced that complex parallel processing will lead to an improvement in most people's mixing the way it may for MB's. It may be a distraction, especially in ITB mixing where the distractions are already myriad....
Old 1st December 2009
  #53
Gear Addict
 
bassman's Avatar
 

I have been using the MHB approach for quite some time now and really for the same reasons he described in coming up with the first mult-bus idea - not getting painted into a corner!

I had this happen time and time again and wanted a way out, freedom to pursue the mix without being cornered in by the mix compressor. I asked a lot of questions back when the initial thread was live and learned a WHOLE lot. That is the point of copying!!! How else you gonna learn?

I've copied things that TLA and CLA did on tracks I recorded then they mixed. Even bought gear they used and found tricks that really worked. MHB has some freekin awesome tricks that have helped me. By trying the techniqes, I discover new things for me! Lord knows, it gets a bit lonely out here sometime.... Need a water tower to chat over. Ahhhh, but there's G-Slutz to keep me company....

Just today was mixing a track and started to try his vocal approach after re-reading some of the old threads spawned by reading this one. Worked really well. Made my life easier and got the vibe going on the vocal quicker. I am on Nuendo and so don't really experience any of the latency issues that the PT guys deal with. That sh#t would drive me nuts. One of the main reasons I went over to Nuendo back at 2.0 when PDC first began.

-bassman
Old 1st December 2009
  #54
Gear Addict
 
jono_3's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
it's not only MB's method that produces the end result, it's his vision.
I absolutely agree
Old 1st December 2009
  #55
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spicemix View Post
This is one of the hazards of what I believe Mr. Brauer is calling "post compression" ...

I believe he was implying post-fade compression, the hazard being that fader moves affect the compression level. It's possible to get a good static mix with post-fade compression but if you start doing rides or level changes the compression also changes which can sometimes be beneficial, but oftentimes not.

On parallel compression, I remember stumbling into that accidentally long before I knew what it was called. I would put the few decent compressors I had on buss inserts and assign channels to the busses. Sometimes I would realize that a particular channel or channels would be routed to bus 1 (for instance) and also L-R. Thinking that I'd made a mistake I would take the channel out of L-R and realize that it sounded better when it was in. So I'd let the "mistake" stick.

In my experience DAW's do allow for happy mistakes sometimes but I agree that where parallel signal paths are concerned they're not so forgiving of mistakes and/or experimentation. I believe this is one of the things that has contributed to the negative opinion of ITB mixing. It's really important to check that all parallel routing is maintaining phase/timing. This is well and good for intentional experimentation, but when mistakes happen, like the above-mentioned scenario, it often produces unhappy results.
Old 1st December 2009
  #56
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassman View Post
I am on Nuendo and so don't really experience any of the latency issues that the PT guys deal with. That sh#t would drive me nuts. One of the main reasons I went over to Nuendo back at 2.0 when PDC first began.
I've seen the same problems with Cubase and Nuendo, at least with v.3 and 4.
Old 1st December 2009
  #57
Gear Addict
 
bassman's Avatar
 

The only times I've seen any phasing issues in Nuendo (V4 here) is when the offending plugin is not reporting its latency correctly or if the processing involves some sort of time-domain stuff. Otherwise, phase aligned here certainly with compressors (UAD, PSP, Sonalksis mostly).

What sort of issues do you find?

-bassman
Old 1st December 2009
  #58
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
I believe he was implying post-fade compression, the hazard being that fader moves affect the compression level. It's possible to get a good static mix with post-fade compression but if you start doing rides or level changes the compression also changes which can sometimes be beneficial, but oftentimes not.
I considered that as the other possible definition of "post compression." The problems having fader changes into a compressor were a major reason I gave up completely on analog summing devices in favor of hardware inserts.

There is also the issue of sends pre compression...it can be better to route the effect returns into the same compressor affecting what they were fed...or, run the sends post compression.

As you can see the topologies and their consequences get so complex you really need an overall strategy I think to master the situation efficiently.
Old 1st December 2009
  #59
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassman View Post
The only times I've seen any phasing issues in Nuendo (V4 here) is when the offending plugin is not reporting its latency correctly or if the processing involves some sort of time-domain stuff. Otherwise, phase aligned here certainly with compressors (UAD, PSP, Sonalksis mostly).

What sort of issues do you find?

-bassman
I think Cubase/Nuendo avoids much of those troubles by not allowing certain routing schemes that are possible in Pro Tools. At least that was the case when I was using it a lot which was a few years ago, up till Cubase 4.1 or thereabouts. I don't think it was possible to route things the way MB does. Maybe they've changed the bussing architecture since?

Most of the problems I had were involved with hardware inserts. But I do recall ADC getting wacky at times just using plugs. Maybe it was caused by plugins.
Old 1st December 2009
  #60
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spicemix View Post
I considered that as the other possible definition of "post compression." The problems having fader changes into a compressor were a major reason I gave up completely on analog summing devices in favor of hardware inserts.

There is also the issue of sends pre compression...it can be better to route the effect returns into the same compressor affecting what they were fed...or, run the sends post compression.

As you can see the topologies and their consequences get so complex you really need an overall strategy I think to master the situation efficiently.
True. Always thinking of different/better ways, and the best way for any given situation.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
jnorman / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
4
big country / Music Computers
12
dkerins / Low End Theory
2
DanRather / Music Computers
1
doug_hti / Q+A with Mike Shipley
4

Forum Jump
Forum Jump