Mic preamp vst and saturation vst

D

davecg321

New member
My plugin chain on most tracks is burnley 73, e.q, compression etc..

I use the burnley 73 primarily for the mic preamp stage as this really add some thickness and depth to tracks which I can't get with my interface pres. (I only ever use a little to a modest amount, unless I want to use it as an effect)

Would it be desirable to then add some tape saturation at the end of the chain also?

Loudness is not in Mastering: Is all about the MIX! Crest Factor and tips to achieve loud mixes - YouTube

In the video above the guy stresses to make use of saturation to maximise the loudness potential of our mixes. I would assume that he has already tracked everything using decent pre's

Much appreciated

D
 
davecg321 said:
My plugin chain on most tracks is burnley 73, e.q, compression etc..

I use the burnley 73 primarily for the mic preamp stage as this really add some thickness and depth to tracks which I can't get with my interface pres. (I only ever use a little to a modest amount, unless I want to use it as an effect)

Would it be desirable to then add some tape saturation at the end of the chain also?

Loudness is not in Mastering: Is all about the MIX! Crest Factor and tips to achieve loud mixes - YouTube

In the video above the guy stresses to make use of saturation to maximise the loudness potential of our mixes. I would assume that he has already tracked everything using decent pre's

Much appreciated

D
Click to expand...

At what point in the video are you referring? I'm not interested in watching all 27 minutes...
 
If you just scroll to the end and look at his mastered mix (the one in red)...it's all you need to see. :D

AFA as adding tape saturation...it's really about YOUR mix and what works for it. There's no formula, even though the guy in the video is talking as though there is. He's using a multitude of plugs/processing on each track...and TBH, I don't know why mixing has becomes such an involved thing. The way some people talk, they make you believe that you need a dozen plugs per track just to get each track to sound good and sit in the mix well...which IMO only implies that the tracking sucked to begin with.

Anyway...without hearing your mix, it's pointless to tell you what to use or not to use on it.
Try the tape saturation...you decide it it helps or not.
The thing about "saturation" plugs...is that they're adding some harmonic distortion, and that, in moderate levels, can be used to change the loudness perception without the need to simply increase levels...but it's not something you need to add on everything by default...like some formula.
 
CoolCat said:
TBH, I don't know why mixing has becomes such an involved thing-

amen..
Click to expand...

+2

You don't need saturation unless the song calls for it and it sounds good, so just listen. And making it loud will probably destroy your mix (especially at the master stage) and annoy listeners. The loudness wars kinda peaked and things are going the other way now.
 
Yeah, what's with the dozen plugins on every track? It's gotten completely out of hand.
 
miroslav said:
The way some people talk, they make you believe that you need a dozen plugs per track just to get each track to sound good and sit in the mix well...which IMO only implies that the tracking sucked to begin with.
Click to expand...

the Burnley 1073 doesnt look bad $59. It claims zero latency and can be used real-time.
its got saturation which I guess is the real reason the 1073 is sought. the OP mentions compression too.
So the chain of the OP looks pretty standard. The tracking tones would be the logical reason why so much mixing trouble is seen....and all the mixing plugs added to each track in that demo.

I dont know? if the OP would need another saturation vst it means the Burnley1073 vst doesnt have enough saturation. If thats the case then saturating the main buss with yet another saturation plug-in might saturate it and achieve the goal. How many plugs go on the MixBuss?

Maybe all the plugs can make up for a bad room or something, just repeating miroslav...tracking stage issue seems logical for why so many plugins required.
 
Meh. Most of my mixes have minimal processing but I do mostly instrumentals. The best vocal chain I ever made was very complex and I followed a formula from a website. I tinkered with settings quite a bit though. In the end I had two tracks for one vocal take, each with multiple compressors and EQs. One slightly delayed, and a bit of reverb on both. Don't think my tracking sucked.

Anyway, I'm just saying that complex chains shouldn't be ruled out.
 
ibleedburgundy said:
Anyway, I'm just saying that complex chains shouldn't be ruled out.
Click to expand...

Not at all, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. My point was that complex chains have become the norm on most tracks and then again final mixes for many people...and I find it hard to believe that much is needed for most of the time... then again, maybe it's not, and people just can't help themselves...adding a little bit of everything just because it's there in their VST menu. :)

Speaking of your complex vocal tracks...I just did something along those lines, mainly for the sake of experimentation...split the track, different reverb, dual but different compression, EQ...(no delay)...and then blending the two. It was one way of getting a vocal sound, but I'm sure I could have kept the processing much leaner, and still gotten to a good sound.

Your "formula" that you used...was that from some big-name mixer's site, or just something you saw and thought it an interesting experiment? If you have the actual "formula" I would be curious to see what it's about....unless it's some "proprietary" mixing secret. ;)
 
"In the video above the guy stresses to make use of saturation to maximise the loudness potential of our mixes. I would assume that he has already tracked everything using decent pre's"..

Well, with a stock Mixbus DAW, all that is already in the channels, and busses. Ya, more can be better : )

Just a older version on this computer - v3.7
 

Attachments

  • tapeSAT.jpg
    tapeSAT.jpg
    405.6 KB · Views: 11
miroslav said:
Not at all, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. My point was that complex chains have become the norm on most tracks and then again final mixes for many people...and I find it hard to believe that much is needed for most of the time... then again, maybe it's not, and people just can't help themselves...adding a little bit of everything just because it's there in their VST menu. :)

Speaking of your complex vocal tracks...I just did something along those lines, mainly for the sake of experimentation...split the track, different reverb, dual but different compression, EQ...(no delay)...and then blending the two. It was one way of getting a vocal sound, but I'm sure I could have kept the processing much leaner, and still gotten to a good sound.

Your "formula" that you used...was that from some big-name mixer's site, or just something you saw and thought it an interesting experiment? If you have the actual "formula" I would be curious to see what it's about....unless it's some "proprietary" mixing secret. ;)
Click to expand...

Article has a dumb name haha. Oh well. It worked decently enough for me in this application. Recording attached.

How to Mix In-Your-Face Rock Vocals
 

Attachments

  • Fuss 11.5.16.mp3
    4.7 MB · Views: 15
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top