How much automation have you used?

[RAMI]

I do everything almost exactly like Miro. I chop up my parts if I want volume automation. Of course, if I need a fade or a sound to change volume gradually, I'll have to use the lines, but I hate seeing those things on my screen. Even my fades in or out are done to the actual "Item", as opposed to programming them into the envelope automation for the entire track.

As far as dynamics, I try to put that into my playing. So I don't need to change the volume on any of my drums, for example, during the mix.

Effects, maybe once in a while I'll have to automate a "Bypass" or a time change in the delay. But, generally, I set my reverb, delays, etc....and don't mess with them too much.

I tend to just put a part of one track on to a different track if I want a different effect or EQ on it. So, I guess you can call that automation of some kind. But drawing in lines for volume changes and panning, etc....is the last thing I want to do.

 

[miroslav]

I do everything almost exactly like Miro.

Maybe I should add that to my sig line....

I chop up my parts if I want volume automation. Of course, if I need a fade or a sound to change volume gradually, I'll have to use the lines, but I hate seeing those things on my screen. Even my fades in or out are done to the actual "Item", as opposed to programming them into the envelope automation for the entire track.

Yeah...that's pretty much it.
I also do all the fades to the actual "object" (as it's called in Samplitude...which is just a fancy name for a slice/piece of a track).

See...right after I record or dump from tape all my tracks into the DAW, the first thing I do to each track is to cut it up into sections/chunks. Either in-between words/phrases/note lines....etc. I think I started doing this initially as a clean-up process when dumping from tape, since tape will have some hiss when nothing is playing, but it just became my SOP because it made all my subsequent edits, comps and spot fixes that much easier.
I see a lot of people who just always work with the entire track as one whole "object", which is OK, I guess...but I find that slicing things up makes for much easier work-flow and I can focus on each piece individually and apply whatever I want to it rather than using "ranges" and "markers" and all that messy crap all over the timeline...and same thing with automation handles. Yeah, you can hide those automation tracks...but you still have to deal with them.
I feel that my approach keeps things as neat and straightforward as possible.

Now one may think it takes more time to do it this way...but IMO it's faster, though we all have our prefered SOPs.

 

[JG96]

I automate vocals quite a lot. I use logic and the way master volume automation works bothers me a bit. Once it is set so is the level for that track. What I like to do on vocals is cut them up and use the sample editor to boost gain, thus automating the track. I also almost always automate the rhythm guitar from section to section along with the master bus on the drums.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Chopping up and adjusting gain at the block/clip/object level is what I would call editing. Most of what I do there is corrective, like boosting a low line in a vocal so it hits the compressor the same way as the rest of the track. That's fundamentally different from automating the volume of a track after its inserted compressor.

Any competent user of analog mixers understands the difference between the gain control and the volume slider. The gain control is there so you can make the signal the objectively correct level for the rest of the circuit downstream, so things like compressors operate correctly. The volume slider is there to adjust the level of the signal to be subjectively good in the mix. This is the basic pattern followed by DAWs, though with more options and versatility.

 

[miroslav]

Chopping up and adjusting gain at the block/clip/object level is what I would call editing.

.................

That's fundamentally different from automating the volume of a track after its inserted compressor.

I don't know where the compressor thing came into the picture...but even so....raising the volume handles/curves all over the track VS simply adjusting the volume per "object"....is a non-destructive, non-sample changing process in Samplitude...EXACTLY the same as using volume curves. It's not "gain" adjustment, since the track is already recorded and in digital format, it's a volume adjustment.

I too initially do it as a corrective measure per "object" to get all my words/phrases in balance....but once that is done and I'm mixing....to simply do a "Group All" and raise/lower the level of the objects is identical in result as playing with the volume automation.

Like I said, by the time I'm done editing all the tracks/objects...my levels are already about 90% set and no need to mess with additional volume automation. When I start to mix, if I see the lead guitar is too low...I just grab the object(s) and change it's volume a bit more....same effect as grabbing a volume curve handle.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I don't know where the compressor thing came into the picture

Compressors came into the picture because changing levels before them does very different things than changing levels after them, and that's exactly the difference between editing levels of blocks/clips/objects and automating volume.

...but even so....raising the volume handles/curves all over the track VS simply adjusting the volume per "object"....is a non-destructive, non-sample changing process in Samplitude...EXACTLY the same as using volume curves.

Except that the end result is not at all the same when there's dynamic processing, analog emulation or any other level sensitive plugin between the two points in the signal path. So where you apply the gain really does matter.

It's not "gain" adjustment, since the track is already recorded and in digital format, it's a volume adjustment.

Gain = any change in level. I find it more precise to use "volume" to refer to acoustic amplitude (dBSPL) and "level" to refer to electronic amplitude (dBV, dBu, dBVU, dBFS). You can apply positive or negative gain at some stage of a mixer (input gain, channel inserts, eq, channel fader, group insert & fader, master insert & fader) that causes raised or lowered level you can see on a meter that results in a corresponding change in volume which you can hear.

In Sony Vegas it's called "gain" and it's been nondestructive for the better part of a decade. "Clip gain" is a newish feature in Pro Tools and it's nondestructive, much better than the old way of using AudioSuite. It's analogous to an inline style recording desk with a "flip" function. When you flip a channel from tracking to mixdown mode the input gain control, which originally adjusted the level of the mic signal, now adjusts the level of the signal coming from tape so you can furthur trim the level as it reenters the channel path. Since the routing is different with a DAW, the "tape return" generally doesn't go through the same analog path as the original input, there is the "gain" function (or whatever it's called in Samplitude) to handle that operation.

 

[sixer2007]

I too initially do it as a corrective measure per "object" to get all my words/phrases in balance....but once that is done and I'm mixing....to simply do a "Group All" and raise/lower the level of the objects is identical in result as playing with the volume automation.

In Cubase this would F everything up, unless I have the DAW all wrong

Changing the level of each little edit changes the "input gain", thus pre-fade. If you were to change this after a mix already has compression or other dynamic processing, you would have wasted a ton f time. At least, i think

 

[miroslav]

Compressors came into the picture because changing levels before them does very different things than changing levels after them, and that's exactly the difference between editing levels of blocks/clips/objects and automating volume.

Yeah...that's fine...but it all depends where the comp goes.
To get back to my "objects"...I can apply not just level change on the object, but also any FX and processing I want...IOW, I don't need to use global track processing if I don't want to. This is what makes Object editing in Samplitude blow most other DAWs out of the water.

And while all your analog related comments are true, and I do agree that even in the DAW it's good to follow analog gain structure etiquette....in the end, it's all just math in the DAW, so *AFA as pure level change*, it's the same no matter where/how you do it...but if you want to start adding specific qualifiers (FX/processing)...then it depends how you have a track set up.

My own qualifier is simple....I don't add ANY kind of global FX/Processing at the *track* level...EVER in the DAW. I do "spot processing" on Objects, as I mentioned...but then I also run all my DAW tracks out to a console and do my FX/processing OTB.

I first set up the whole mix, get all my levels balanced, do my pans, then finally some EQ adjustments...and only then do I add comps (if needed) into the equation. I know a lot of folks add comps almost as their first steps during ITB edits/mixing, so yeah, at that point they are straddled with always considering what's happening to the comp if they adjust levels upstream.
I tend to add compression as a last step, so all my levels in the DAW for Objects are set.... and my analog console faders are pretty much set. My DAW track faders are always on "0" when I mix down.
If I do need to add a comp at that stage to a console channel, then going back and adjusting levels upstream if needed is not a big deal...I mean, that's mixing, ain't it? ...but that's also my point, before I add any comps, my upstream levels are set...so then after the comp, I adjust either the comp output or the console fader.

I think a lot of ITB folks end up in a dominoes scenario, and they are slathering on all kinds of processing before they ever get to the actual mixdown...in which case yeah, it's a real PITA making changes upstream if you have a half dozen FX daisy-chained on the track....though again, even if I mixed only ITB in Samplitude, I would still use Object editing/processing and forgo global track FX/Processing. This has been discussed in the Samplitude website, and a lot of the users do like me, and simply stick with the Object editing/processing and not bother using track automation and whatnot.

Oh...the most important thing I almost forgot....the main point of doing Object level adjustments is so I don't have to use a global comp across the whole track.
That way, I only use a comp for "flavor"...and since all my levels are set upstream, the compt really is just for flavor, and not level control on a whole track.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

That's interesting and different from the "standard" way of doing things.

Getting a mix as right as possible with just levels and pans is my standard procedure. Track eq and compression is a pretty standard way of doing it and that's what I do, but I do break that pattern on occasion. Automating the plugin ends up being like selectively applying it to objects, though perhaps not as elegant.

 

[miroslav]

I think ''cuz I mix out of the DAW OTB, it opens up that "object" approach even more...but honestly, the Samplitude guys are all pretty big on Object editing/mixing...though I'm sure many also use the track approach too.
Not sure what other DAWs offer these days...but that has been a big strong suit for Samplitude...and I do believe no other DAW has yet matched that Object editing capability.
I'm not just talking about being able to slice up a track...I mean what you can really do with all those slices and the manner in which it's done has been pretty unique to Samplitude.

That said...all your points are valid for the more "standard/traditional" mixing SOPs. I just got really hooked on the Object thing in Samplitude early on, and have never once used "global track" anything.....but I know it's in there somewhere....

 

[AlecBeretz]

The gain control is there so you can make the signal the objectively correct level for the rest of the circuit downstream, so things like compressors operate correctly. The volume slider is there to adjust the level of the signal to be subjectively good in the mix.

I love that. Thank you. I don't think most people get that.

 

[GONZO-X]

automation is just a smarter tool to use, in lieu of riding faders and knobs by hand.