Volume Automation & Sound Texturing/Layering...

[steve.h]

I'm convinced that this is what truly separates the men from the boys when it comes to Producing/Engineering. I'm at the point in my own projects that the actual sounds I'm getting for the basic instruments (drums, guitar, bass, vox) are nearing the point that I feel they'll no longer be "getting in the way of the song"; meaning, the quality is high enough that it's easy to forget about the sound of the individual instruments and just listen to the music. I'm not quite there yet, but it won't be long as I'm learning new stuff every day, and each project is sounding vastly better than the previous one.

Anyway, listening to my mixes, and many other amateur mixes on this board and elsewhere, I'm convinced that many people get stuck at the "getting good sound-quality" stage of their evolution as Producers/Engineers/Artists. While ever-increasing sound-quality is a formidable/respectable goal to be sure, I feel personally that I could gain a lot by starting to focus more on creating/enhancing the emotional experience through intelligent use of volume automation and sound texturing/layering. Many of my favorite albums are so lush with subtle effects and layers and the mixes are so vibrant; I can't imagine being able to think of so many complimentary sounds!

Now, some albums/genres are genius in their simplicity (Rage Against the Machine comes to mind for me anyway), but some of my favorite albums have so much going on it's just amazing to think of (Thrice's "Vhiessu", Muse's "Black Holes and Revelations", any Radiohead, NIN, or Tool record, etc.) It makes me feel like maybe I (we?) might be focusing too hard on getting 'that perfect guitar tone' or things of that nature, and not enough on the more difficult matter of creating & enhancing emotion through my (our?) craft? I don't know, perhaps I'm just tired and babbling, but I haven't been able to find any other posts of this nature, so I figured I'd throw this out there and see who bites.

I'd love to hear what 'yall think!

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by steve.h

I'm convinced that this is what truly separates the men from the boys when it comes to Producing/Engineering. I'm at the point in my own projects that the actual sounds I'm getting for the basic instruments (drums, guitar, bass, vox) are nearing the point that I feel they'll no longer be "getting in the way of the song"; meaning, the quality is high enough that it's easy to forget about the sound of the individual instruments and just listen to the music. I'm not quite there yet, but it won't be long as I'm learning new stuff every day, and each project is sounding vastly better than the previous one.

Anyway, listening to my mixes, and many other amateur mixes on this board and elsewhere, I'm convinced that many people get stuck at the "getting good sound-quality" stage of their evolution as Producers/Engineers/Artists. While ever-increasing sound-quality is a formidable/respectable goal to be sure, I feel personally that I could gain a lot by starting to focus more on creating/enhancing the emotional experience through intelligent use of volume automation and sound texturing/layering. Many of my favorite albums are so lush with subtle effects and layers and the mixes are so vibrant; I can't imagine being able to think of so many complimentary sounds!

Now, some albums/genres are genius in their simplicity (Rage Against the Machine comes to mind for me anyway), but some of my favorite albums have so much going on it's just amazing to think of (Thrice's "Vhiessu", Muse's "Black Holes and Revelations", any Radiohead, NIN, or Tool record, etc.) It makes me feel like maybe I (we?) might be focusing too hard on getting 'that perfect guitar tone' or things of that nature, and not enough on the more difficult matter of creating & enhancing emotion through my (our?) craft? I don't know, perhaps I'm just tired and babbling, but I haven't been able to find any other posts of this nature, so I figured I'd throw this out there and see who bites.

I'd love to hear what 'yall think!

Steve, if I were near ya, I'd kiss ya!

Welcome to the art of mixing and the understanding that it's not just sticking the tracking together so it can be mastered.

You mention automation in the title. One of the things that drives me nuts about the majority of home reccrs - at least as represented on this board - is their extensive use of track compression in order to get things to "sit in the mix". While *some* compression is often in order, especially if the musician is subpar, I much rather keep it light and use level automation to paick and choose when and where I want an instrument to slightly stick out and when to keep in the background. This adds much more texture to them mix without making the mix too busy.

G.

[legionserial]

I like to use a automation on the cymbals a lot for a slightly more emotive sounding mix. Works nicely if you ride the cymbals up a bit on the choruses, or whatever calls for it really. If part of a tune needs to sound more energetic than a preceeding part, it can work really well if you do it subtley. Panning automation can have a similar effect if done well.

Similarly, very slight tempo increases or decreases to suit the timbre of the song can add another layer of 'emotiveness' (if there is such a word). Obviously that's more a of a preproduction thing than a mixing thing though.

If I looked at mixing as just a way of sticking tracks together I wouldn't spend half as long on it per tune. I look at a mixing board or DAW or whatever as another instrument that all the other instruments are eventually played through. And obviously with that comes a certain degree of musicianship and artisticness (again, if there is such a word).

[mrhotapples]

THIS is one of those things where having a board comes in handy...It's awkward and hard to get used to dragging up a fader on a computer screen. Until I started using automation in Sonar recently when I started tracking better sounds, I had no idea WHY they had that fader screen : ) makes it much more realistic I suppose.

[Concrete_Lake]

Slightly off topic- but what is it about Black Holes & Revelations you like?

[NL5]

Originally Posted by mrhotapples

THIS is one of those things where having a board comes in handy...It's awkward and hard to get used to dragging up a fader on a computer screen. Until I started using automation in Sonar recently when I started tracking better sounds, I had no idea WHY they had that fader screen : ) makes it much more realistic I suppose.

It's WAY easier to do inside the computer.

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by mrhotapples

THIS is one of those things where having a board comes in handy...It's awkward and hard to get used to dragging up a fader on a computer screen. Until I started using automation in Sonar recently when I started tracking better sounds, I had no idea WHY they had that fader screen : ) makes it much more realistic I suppose.

The fader is screen is nice to impress the chicks. The real tool is the volume evelope, which is in the main track view of sonar. Thats where the fun is. You basically do a rough mix, then adjust nodes or remix with automation on select parts.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by DavidK

The fader is screen is nice to impress the chicks. The real tool is the volume evelope.

LOL, yeah, that pretty much nails it on the head. Regardless of the software, the "mixer screen" is something I virtually never actually use; I only pull it up when I want to have a screen that looks impressive to someone who is impressed by such things. Pull up the mixer screen and a nice coloful spectrum analyzer and you are the next Dr.. Frankenstein in their eyes! Those are the van de Graff generators and Jacob's Ladders of the 21st century

But when you want to get serious and actually do some mixing, put that pretty boy crap away, pull up the timelines and snap on the rubberbands.

I love a nice control surface myself; you can't beat two hands and real physical tactile control with just a stinkin' video cartoon image and a mouse. But when you're dealing with a zillion tracks, the ease and flexibility of automating a complex mix via rubberband control cannot be beat.

G.

[Sloan]

This is something that I find hard to get across to the musicians/artists as well. A lot of times, when you can hear with an outside ear how the parts fit together as a whole, they don't. When you tell them to let that guitar feedback longer or just record lot's of extra sounds and such, they don't understand really how having more material than your actually going to use is beneficial to their song.

It's just like creating a movie - shoot a shit ton of footage and trim it down and edit it to form a complete, seamless experience that creates a connection that's far deeper than "just a movie".

[mrhotapples]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

LOL, yeah, that pretty much nails it on the head. Regardless of the software, the "mixer screen" is something I virtually never actually use; I only pull it up when I want to have a screen that looks impressive to someone who is impressed by such things. Pull up the mixer screen and a nice coloful spectrum analyzer and you are the next Dr.. Frankenstein in their eyes! Those are the van de Graff generators and Jacob's Ladders of the 21st century

But when you want to get serious and actually do some mixing, put that pretty boy crap away, pull up the timelines and snap on the rubberbands.

I love a nice control surface myself; you can't beat two hands and real physical tactile control with just a stinkin' video cartoon image and a mouse. But when you're dealing with a zillion tracks, the ease and flexibility of automating a complex mix via rubberband control cannot be beat.

G.

I've been using nodes and envelopes for quite some time to control pretty much anything I can get to talk to Sonar like that, but there's things like panning leads and bringing up overheads and room mics that seem to come out better if I can do it on the fly, and I didn't even give it a shot mixing ITB until I realized it was much easier to change volume as I listened and wrote the curve to the envelope with fake representations of faders versus using keyboard arrows or dragging to fill up little bars. So they may be show for some people but it's making it easier to 'play' the mix rather than programming it.

[mrhotapples]

Originally Posted by Sloan

This is something that I find hard to get across to the musicians/artists as well. A lot of times, when you can hear with an outside ear how the parts fit together as a whole, they don't. When you tell them to let that guitar feedback longer or just record lot's of extra sounds and such, they don't understand really how having more material than your actually going to use is beneficial to their song.

It's just like creating a movie - shoot a shit ton of footage and trim it down and edit it to form a complete, seamless experience that creates a connection that's far deeper than "just a movie".

That's why I like recording bands with lots of ideas that don't want to just play their parts and split. Sometimes people don't realize that the things they don't notice at first (it's taken me YEARS sometimes to notice tiny things in music I listen to every single day) really make the song.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by mrhotapples

I realized it was much easier to change volume as I listened and wrote the curve to the envelope with fake representations of faders.

That's an important sublety in ITB mixing that seperates the men from the boys that you bring up; getting the right curves.

I admit I never did it the way you describe, I personally just never liked dragging faders with a mouse or keyboard; something about it just seems and feels "wrong" to me. I know, it's just a personal thing; I understand what you describe. I had to go through a more trial-and-error process at the beginning to figure out what kind of curves worked where and what mimiced what I'd do on a real fader, but now it's pretty much second nature for me. Maybe if I didn't have my adversion to cartoon faders I might have developed that faster.

The bottom line is, though, to understand that there is no such thing as too complex of an envelope, and that real life faders are not linear in function. Let the complex curves fly if you need to .

G.

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by mrhotapples

I've been using nodes and envelopes for quite some time to control pretty much anything I can get to talk to Sonar like that, but there's things like panning leads and bringing up overheads and room mics that seem to come out better if I can do it on the fly, and I didn't even give it a shot mixing ITB until I realized it was much easier to change volume as I listened and wrote the curve to the envelope with fake representations of faders versus using keyboard arrows or dragging to fill up little bars. So they may be show for some people but it's making it easier to 'play' the mix rather than programming it.

In track view (main page) of Sonar ( I use Sonar 3), if you select a track it brings a fader channel up on the left. You can use that to make your initial volume and pan settings. I find it much easier than going to the fader screen.

[mixsit]

Originally Posted by DavidK

In track view (main page) of Sonar ( I use Sonar 3), if you select a track it brings a fader channel up on the left. You can use that to make your initial volume and pan settings. I find it much easier than going to the fader screen.

Interesting how well we can settle into our fav modes of opperation- It had been so long I had to go to the frikin' help menu just to find 'The Inspector'...

[jndietz]

This is how I feel about a lot of things regarding music. Producing is probably the most crucial step in recording a song as far as the song goes (not the mixing, mastering, tracking side -- the technical stuff). It all boils down to that one song and how you get it across to the world and let them notice different things about that song each time they hear it.

[mrhotapples]

Originally Posted by mixsit

Interesting how well we can settle into our fav modes of opperation- It had been so long I had to go to the frikin' help menu just to find 'The Inspector'...

I lost my navigator once and I had to do the same thing. Sonar's pretty complicated!

[chazba]

One very good way to get used to hearing layered sounds is to listen to symphonic music. The composers initialy had to hear it in their heads. Imagine what it must have been like without recording media. They had to work with an orchestra for days, weeks years...to get the sound. Conductors face similar challenges even now. I'm sure that DavidK could offer many examples from his career . We have it made with the technologies available to us, but we still have to be able to "hear into " the mix to bring ut the music. Here is an example where not all men are created equal. Some could never even understand what we're talking about while to others its painfully obvious. We gotta learn to listen and to notice what affects us and how we are affected.
I can relate to what was said about constantly improving and advancing our skill levels. For me, just realizing that it was about layering and subtlety, even with the least dense material (fewer instruments) made a huge difference.


chazba

[rayc]

In Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.3 I do my automation from the mixer view. It's where I doscovered it & have become comfy wih. I read/heard about the envelopes & went to those screens but I was SO rudimentary with it that I stuck with the skill I'd developed - not very lifelonglearning of me I know. Still I was pretty chuffed that I learnt how to automate the levels at all - also I can see the fader move which is a visual cue to my not so auditory learning style.
I use automation because my bass playing, in particular, is SO inconsistent in levels that I have no other choice apart from heavy, heavy limiting which sound awful but to ride the faders.
It is fun though.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by rayc

In Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.3 I do my automation from the mixer view. It's where I doscovered it & have become comfy wih. I read/heard about the envelopes & went to those screens but I was SO rudimentary with it that I stuck with the skill I'd developed - not very lifelonglearning of me I know. Still I was pretty chuffed that I learnt how to automate the levels at all - also I can see the fader move which is a visual cue to my not so auditory learning style.

So much depends upon what one "grows up on". For me, it's weird, because I grew up on analog mixers, which is why I still love hardware control surfaces for DAWs. BUT, I grew up on the software working on creating the Discreet Online software (basically like today's Sony Vegas), which had the rubber banding but did not have a cartoon mixer. So that's what I'm used to with the automation, and it is second nature to me. I guess there's a bit of schizophrenia there .

Nothing wrong with sticking with the tool that's comfortable for you, whichever one it may be. Nothing wrong with using an old Underwood typewriter instead of a word processor if you can write a bestseller with it. It's the results that count.

G.

[TexRoadkill]

I agree with you Steve. I love albums where there are little textures that you may not notice until years later listening on headphones or in the car. "Did I just hear a banjo?"

We did a lot of texturing in our latest album and the mixes were a bitch. It took me 6 months to mix it and by the end some of the songs had over 100 tracks. Thank god for limiters. They really helped me to get stuff to sit just under the radar.

Check out Weisbaden, Judas or Sunrise, lots of little stuff going on. Everything from wind to dog barks, jets, foot stomps and breaths.
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/...1537&alid=1741

I wanted to actually record a kitchen sink but we ran out of time