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 1st December 2009
  #61
Gear Addict
 
bassman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
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.
Well, good news then in 4.5. Those limitations where you couldn't route higher numbered groups into lower ones is gone along with many other routing limitations. Can't think of any routing I could do in PT that I can't in Nuendo. Definitely some stuff in Nuendo that can't be routed in PT though. I use several VST Output buses for the MBH multi-bus setup and these have auxes that combine them to a final mix bus. That was the key for me to get it working easily.

Hardware inserts could certainly have been a phasing issue. For me, once I go out of the box, I have a passive summer to put it together and so have avoided some of those pitfalls. Ahhh, the days of the good ol console....

-bassman
Old 1st December 2009
  #62
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante View Post
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!
no apology needed. i agree, it's frustrating but at least some of you are trying to make it work with what you have available.

michael brauer
Old 1st December 2009
  #63
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dhiltonlittle View Post
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!
I put the shadow and the curvebender at the end of the chain before it goes to tape or hardrive. it's like mastering. I love the sound of the two working together. I keep the stereo unlinked and compression is negligible.

michael brauer
Old 1st December 2009
  #64
Lives for gear
 
dhiltonlittle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 View Post
I put the shadow and the curvebender at the end of the chain before it goes to tape or hardrive. it's like mastering. I love the sound of the two working together. I keep the stereo unlinked and compression is negligible.

michael brauer
cool, i'm doing about the same thing but an ibis instead of the curvebender. usually a low ratio with no more than a db gr. seems to do the trick! i've been using the opto on vocals a lot if it is not on the mix and love it for that also. have you messed around with using the combination mode on the mix or are you staying mainly with the discrete? or maybe just using the output transformers? always curious how others are using theirs. thumbsup
Old 1st December 2009
  #65
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spicemix View Post
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.
Yes, i think these are all good points to bring up but all this is being theorized in a vacuum meaning it's not being discussed in reference to a particular song that requires particular things to happen or not happen.

You are all over-thinking this. I can have separate sub-stereo compression going on but also using other forms of send/return compression that ties all 4 substereos together. Everything is based on feel and I don't go any further or any deeper than that. The options i've developed leave one with an almost endless amount of options which is why I developed the approach to begin with. I never wanted to ever be backup up against the wall again without some way to work my way out of it. when i mix, i mix. there's no concern whether this works or that doesn't work. i don't give a sh*t. If i turn a button and it feels good, i go with it. if I send something to 2 or 3 different sub stereos and it feels good, i go with it. If i'm over compressing i turn down the submaster until it feels good to me. And if nothing feels good i go back to mixing in stereo only. I don't give a rat's ass about trying to force anything. I have an unlimited amount of options at my finger tips and i'll always take the path of least resistance to get a song to feel great to me. know what i mean jellybeans?

michael brauer
Old 1st December 2009
  #66
Gear Addict
 
bassman's Avatar
 

Daz what I'm talking about! Freedom.....

-bassman
Old 1st December 2009
  #67
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
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.
yes that is true and i've always tried to make that clear when sharing this information. If someone hears the same way I do and all they need is to get hold of the tool than here it is. Or, they can take these tools and come up with something totally different sounding. that's just as great.

Tools + no creativity= a waste of a good thing

michael brauer
Old 1st December 2009
  #68
Rock on Michael..!

Quote:
Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
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...
Actually what we are discussing is a technical challenge.. People have found that there are bad phase voodoo issues (and I am not talking a few 'artifacts' here) that have prevented this working ITB.

Perhaps we have come further and it now works? OR soon will?

Fingers crossed..

Old 1st December 2009
  #69
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassman View Post
Daz what I'm talking about! Freedom.....

-bassman
Daz Right!! the more options, the more freedom!

michael brauer
Old 1st December 2009
  #70
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post
Rock on Michael..!



Actually what we are discussing is a technical challenge.. People have found that there are bad phase voodoo issues (and I am not talking a few 'artifacts' here) that have prevented this working ITB.

Perhaps we have come further and it now works? OR soon will?

Fingers crossed..

yes, but i think he brings up a good point that shouldn't be ignored since they work hand in hand. Considering how far they've come in the last 12 months, i'd like to think it's just around the corner....like by the time I actually learn how to mix in this damn thing.

michael brauer
Old 1st December 2009
  #71
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jono_3 View Post
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.
thank you for those kind words. It's all in the heart. With heart, the technique simply becomes an extension of your thoughts. I love mixing a great song with a great singer, i want to become one with it and experience walking through the soul of a song.That, I think is what you are reacting to, my capturing and projecting the spirit of these songs.

michael brauer
Old 1st December 2009
  #72
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 View Post
yes, but i think he brings up a good point that shouldn't be ignored since they work hand in hand. Considering how far they've come in the last 12 months, i'd like to think it's just around the corner....like by the time I actually learn how to mix in this damn thing.

michael brauer
Perhaps we just need a bigger box?

"Room service? Get me a room!" - Groucho Marx
Old 1st December 2009
  #73
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post
Rock on Michael..!



Actually what we are discussing is a technical challenge.. People have found that there are bad phase voodoo issues (and I am not talking a few 'artifacts' here) that have prevented this working ITB.

Perhaps we have come further and it now works? OR soon will?

Fingers crossed..

Sure. OK, so as for the technical reason for it not working in PT, was in a subsample latency issue causing the problem? If so, how is that being addressed? Higher sample rates? How small does the latency need to be in order to approximate the electronic round trip to the compressor racks via patchbay?
Old 1st December 2009
  #74
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
Sure. OK, so as for the technical reason for it not working in PT, was in a subsample latency issue causing the problem? If so, how is that being addressed? Higher sample rates? How small does the latency need to be in order to approximate the electronic round trip to the compressor racks via patchbay?
I think the old engine on the HD cards just wasn't designed for this sort of thing...I don't have an HD rig handy to test, but I understand auxes have latencies in the 5-10 sample range. This may be because the engine is partitioned out over multiple chips rather than on one CPU like a native DAW has. PT8 may have addressed that in the delay compensator, but I also understand they have very limited RAM available on the cards to compensate delays with. Plus I don't think their delay compensator was ever designed to solve the general case...e.g. I think master faders still don't feature compensation.

The better native DAWs may have this licked, they don't have the legacy constraints of HD.
Old 1st December 2009
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 View Post
Yes, i think these are all good points to bring up but all this is being theorized in a vacuum meaning it's not being discussed in reference to a particular song that requires particular things to happen or not happen.

You are all over-thinking this. I can have separate sub-stereo compression going on but also using other forms of send/return compression that ties all 4 substereos together. Everything is based on feel and I don't go any further or any deeper than that. The options i've developed leave one with an almost endless amount of options which is why I developed the approach to begin with. I never wanted to ever be backup up against the wall again without some way to work my way out of it. when i mix, i mix. there's no concern whether this works or that doesn't work. i don't give a sh*t. If i turn a button and it feels good, i go with it. if I send something to 2 or 3 different sub stereos and it feels good, i go with it. If i'm over compressing i turn down the submaster until it feels good to me. And if nothing feels good i go back to mixing in stereo only. I don't give a rat's ass about trying to force anything. I have an unlimited amount of options at my finger tips and i'll always take the path of least resistance to get a song to feel great to me. know what i mean jellybeans?

michael brauer
Thank you for the reply Mr Brauer. And don't worry my hide is 8 feet thick, I like your passion!

I don't think we're overthinking things trying to understand the ramifications of your approach...we're also thinking about what else this opens up. I think understanding where effects sends are tapped and returned in your approach is certainly relevant, for instance, as is knowing what to listen for to tell if you are "backed up against the wall."

Anyway I think I have a simple (if tedious and exhaustive) recipe for "Brauerizing" mix technique using a DAW and hardware inserts, you can tell me how far off I am:

1) Set up all (or most of) your compressors as if they were outboard effects, returning to a channel or stereo pair, routing that to the stereo bus. Have each one receiving from a bus named after the compressor.
2) Gain structure them according to how you think they sound best on a "nominal" input level. This could be overdriven or could be quite light.
3) For each of your track channels, route them to the stereo bus, and bring them up to a "nominal" level on the trim with the fader at unity. Do any corrective EQ or what else is needed to the track.
4) Now start trying that signal on each of the compressor sends. Use a pre-fader send with the fader down to hear series compression, use post-fader sends with the fader at unity to hear parallel compression.
5) See which compressors make you say "Wow!" and whether in series or parallel. When you find one, leave it there bypassed and move to the next send slot.
6) Repeat for all of your tracks. With experience, you will know which things to skip to save time.
7) You will now have a matrix of everything that you like for each track, and you can now gang them together appropriately. For instance, if you liked a given compressor in series on a bunch of things, that will become a bus compressor for those tracks. If you liked something in parallel for a bunch of things, that will be used as a send-return compressor for those tracks. You can optimize the routing as you wish or just leave it as is and unbypass those sends...it will still work (unless you have both parallel and series off the same track, in which case route the track's output to the series comp(s) instead of using prefader sends).
8) Adjust the relative send and return levels, compressor settings, EQs etc. across the board to achieve the exact blend of each compressor and track that works as a whole mix. Consider rerouting compressors into each other where appropriate.
9) Tap and return reverbs/delays etc. where appropriate.

Anyway I'm sure you don't do that kind of orderly exhaustive survey of your entire studio on every mix, but don't you do something much like that, but with a bunch of shortcuts? It's fascinating to think about.
Old 1st December 2009
  #76
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassman View Post
Well, good news then in 4.5. Those limitations where you couldn't route higher numbered groups into lower ones is gone along with many other routing limitations.

-bassman
I checked Cubase 4.5 and it still seems to have restrictions on certain routing scenarios. Yes, it now allows you to route a signal from a group to another group that was created earlier, but it's not possible to cross-route between groups or fold a group back to itself. My guess is that the programmers have intentionally imposed these limitations to avoid certain ADC complications and feedback loops. In Pro Tools it's pretty much possible to route any signal anywhere else, for better or worse.

I'm not trying to start a debate over platforms as it's a digital technology issue rather than a platform issue. Digi and Steinberg apparently have different approaches to the same latency issue which is inherent to digital technology.
Old 1st December 2009
  #77
Lives for gear
 
superburtm's Avatar
 

I love GS thumbsup
Old 1st December 2009
  #78
Gear Addict
 
bassman's Avatar
 

Yes, the feedback scenario remains impossible ITB Nuendo. The MHB approach is using forward/parallel paths that do not require the feedback path. I'm sure he uses feedback for a delay path but that is another animal.

I'm not trying to debate the issue as a pissing match either but just pointing out that I am doing (some of) this ITB as we speak and have no phase issues. I am using all ITB plugz. I am NOT using hardware as "inserts". I have a passive summer that I use to do that. In that respect, when using external comps on the buses, I am not ITB but more hybrid. The current mix up is all plugz.

My complaint with PT is that the PDC is very limited and requires a LOT of attention from the engineer which steals focus away from the song and mix process..... aka VIBE KILLA.

BTW, if you need a feedback loop in Cubendo, patch an out back into an in (hardware) and voila! You will have added delay from buffers but usually this is used in a delay patch anyhow so its just adding a few more ms.

-bassman
Old 1st December 2009
  #79
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spicemix View Post
I think the old engine on the HD cards just wasn't designed for this sort of thing...I don't have an HD rig handy to test, but I understand auxes have latencies in the 5-10 sample range. This may be because the engine is partitioned out over multiple chips rather than on one CPU like a native DAW has. PT8 may have addressed that in the delay compensator, but I also understand they have very limited RAM available on the cards to compensate delays with. Plus I don't think their delay compensator was ever designed to solve the general case...e.g. I think master faders still don't feature compensation.

The better native DAWs may have this licked, they don't have the legacy constraints of HD.
The subsample issue originates with digital conversion itself and all DAW's that allow round trips through converters are subject to it. None that I'm aware of have a real fix for it. The fix would be for converters to be designed with buffers that allow for a round trip time of a perfect sample amount, or for ADC to work at values finer than a sample.

There are three workarounds with varying tradeoffs that have been discussed here often.
Old 1st December 2009
  #80
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
The subsample issue originates with digital conversion itself and all DAW's that allow round trips through converters are subject to it. None that I'm aware of have a real fix for it. The fix would be for converters to be designed with buffers that allow for a round trip time of a perfect sample amount, or for ADC to work at values finer than a sample.

There are three workarounds with varying tradeoffs that have been discussed here often.
Are you sure what you are hearing is in fact a subsample timing error? Or may it be a phase shift requiring a rotation or some form of all-pass filtration to address?

I still have the summing on the Dangerous to deal with parallel compression in analog if that becomes a problem...but then again even in pure analog some of these things can still happen.
Old 1st December 2009
  #81
Lives for gear
 
Surbitone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 View Post
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
I used to use PT as my main DAW, but for several reasons, switched over to Reaper and couldn't be happier now. Routing for 'multi-multi-multi-buss- compression' in Reaper is problem free - its got a kind of z-systems style routing matrix that just makes it easy to chuck signals about anywhere and everywhere, the lc is absolutely flawless too. Couldn't go back to the hassles ever again.
Old 1st December 2009
  #82
Gear Maniac
 
hakim's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 View Post
no apology needed. i agree, it's frustrating but at least some of you are trying to make it work with what you have available.
@robot gigante: This question may be a bit OT but, is it possible to place the EQ filter after the compressor in Harrison's Mixbus stereo busses signal path like MB does?
Old 2nd December 2009
  #83
Lives for gear
 
Dog_Chao_Chao'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!!
+ 2. It has been a pleasure to follow. where else can you enjoy this much?

Thanks
Old 2nd December 2009
  #84
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakim View Post
@robot gigante: This question may be a bit OT but, is it possible to place the EQ filter after the compressor in Harrison's Mixbus stereo busses signal path like MB does?
You easily can with plugins, but AFAIK I don't think you can with their built in compressor and EQ. There isn't much documentation for it so I could be wrong though.
Old 2nd December 2009
  #85
Gear Maniac
 
hakim's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spicemix View Post
not to mention a working "solo" button
Steinberg. lol
Old 7th December 2009
  #86
Gear Maniac
 
The_Controllers's Avatar
 

Wowweeeeeeee LOL I post a question, leave my computer for a few days and come back with this!

Time to take out my notebook and start taking notes

Thanks to everyone who has posted anyway! heh
Old 5th May 2011
  #87
Here for the gear
 
razamichoacana's Avatar
 

Has anyone got Michael's technique to work in pro tools?
Old 22nd January 2015
  #88
Quote:
Originally Posted by razamichoacana View Post
Has anyone got Michael's technique to work in pro tools?
Perhaps someone that has done the Mix with The Masters session with Michael could chime in?

I read MHB has a "B Room" with some summing boxes and a smaller selection of outboard that he uses on smaller budget projects.

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=h...ed=0CDoQrQMwCA
Old 2nd February 2015
  #89
Gear Nut
 
ericsebastion's Avatar
 

I still find this a topic im really interested in cause i know thats where the pro workflow is.
Old 2nd February 2015
  #90
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsebastion View Post
I still find this a topic im really interested in cause i know thats where the pro workflow is.
Here you can download two PT templates, very similar
to Brauer's approach, from there is easy to adjust them
to your specific needs, also a track preset hack that can be
useful. The video also explains how to use the track preset hack

Last edited by Retinal; 2nd February 2015 at 11:48 PM..
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