How many plugins on avg do you use per track in a mix?

[Farview]

Are you using verb as an insert, or an aux? I will have every drum track going through a verb, but I don't insert a verb on every track.

 

[BRIEFCASEMANX]

Are you using verb as an insert, or an aux? I will have every drum track going through a verb, but I don't insert a verb on every track.

If a track is going through any sort of EQ or Verb or compression be it insert or send or on every track in the DAW, I'm counting that as a plugin. I'm more interested in exactly how much processing each track goes through than a total plug count, I guess.

 

[BRIEFCASEMANX]

Okay, then - If every track needs some sort of plug, then the core sounds weren't right in the first place...?

On a homerecording level, it is not always possible to get the core sounds right. At a major studio with awesome acoustics, generally better players that generally have better equipment, i might disagree. Even then, some pro guys apparently use a ton of plugs. But they are, I'm guessing, goign for a more processed "modern radio" type sound than you would go for(correct me if I'm wrong). So I just think it depends on the context.

 

[pingu]

*PER TRACK* in a mix or the whole mix...?

If every track needs a plug, somethin's wrong somewhere...

Got to agree with you there.

But somehow Charle Dye works a bit of magic with all those plugs.


I cant afford a HD rig or all of those plugins so i try to make sure my tracking is
exceptional. (Not saying that Charles doesnt work with great tracks)
But the digital game has tought me rigour when it comes to tracking.

 

[noisewreck]

Sometimes I use EQs for effect, sweeping their frequencies using automation

I'd say it depends, at sound-design stage it could be up to 7. However during mixing, anywhere from 0-3.

 

[crowning]

Having the option 0-4 would be much more appropriate because most tracks
in my songs use NO plug-in, but there are always tracks with 1 or 2
plug-ins as well.

Tom

 

[Nakatira]

I usually use, some eq and compression on most tracks,+ verb on some trax. and the occasional modulation effect

 

[Cult_Status02]

I usually only need to eq a bit and compress the snare and vocals some. Other than that, I keep it pretty much raw.

 

[chessrock]

I'll admit that almost all tracks get at least some sort of high pass filter, and sometimes a noise gate.
.

 

[Cazzbar]

OK, if you feel like you cannot possibly track any better (without moving to a specially treated studio of course and spending all that you have).. i.e. you already have 24bit recording, condensors for your drum overheads, 57 on snare, going direct with guitars pods (i'm talking about tracking now ) condensors for vocals etc... etc... then I guess you have to be clear on why you're pluggin your tracks (I know I'm not at the moment)

We all want that 'killer' mix I guess... but is the point of plugs first to fix a track, and then to get it as close as possible to the holy grail of homerecording and make it sound professional like the records you buy?

I've always kinda thought that less is more, that you should trust your recording equipment to give you an accurate reproduction of the sound and then maybe take off any unrequired hiss etc...

But then that Charles Dye bloke is saying that no matter how amazingly accurate your recordings are, if you want that holy grail of a professional mix then you must bang on a zillion plugs and really know what the heck you're doing!

OK, I'm almost ranting now.....

It's just the learning curve with recording and tracking is cool, the more you know the better your tracking becomes (you can upgrade your recorder, buy better mics, know where to put them etc...) but with mixing, it appears the more you learn, the more confusing it becomes!

I don't know about anybody else, but I always feel really paranoid when I go for a plug, I can hear voices in my head saying "You don't wanna do that!" or "Oi! Never boost, always cut!" and lately "Buy my DVD for 200 dollars because let's face it, you're just guessing now!"

To me it's as though there needs to be two areas of mixing advice, one for the guy at home who wants a version to impress his friends and be able to happily send off as a demo, and the other to try and emulate professional studios... I feel a lot of the advice is somewhere in the middle and therefore maybe conflicting.

I hear people 'rolling off' bass on most tracks, sounds like a good idea if it's not required... but then I can't help but think how did that unwanted bass get there in the first place! I can understand trying to fix a tracking problem, but if instruments can't be played together without causing problems then maybe the instrument mix is wrong or they're badly tuned in the first place, or is this a case of people trying to get that 'professionaI sound'

So, to eventually answer the question of the thread... I think at the homerecording level, I'm going to stick with adding plugs "If it obviously needs it" and not be too paranoid... I feel using the output gain on my compressor (but only minor compression) brings my drum tracks to life, and vocal compression+verb is kinda necessary... other than that, I'm leaving it! Chasing the dream of a professional studio mix will take up valuable playing time me thinks

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I've always kinda thought that less is more, that you should trust your recording equipment to give you an accurate reproduction of the sound and then maybe take off any unrequired hiss etc...

But then that Charles Dye bloke is saying that no matter how amazingly accurate your recordings are, if you want that holy grail of a professional mix then you must bang on a zillion plugs and really know what the heck you're doing!

Both of those sides are true in a general sense.

Though the second side depends greatly on one's definition of "professional mix", a definition which - like fashon and solar climate - changes every five years or so. The "professional mix" of the mid 2000's is one where heavy engineering and squashed dynamics are in vogue. If that what one wants, then heavy use of plugs and/or external iron is an essential part of the recipe.

But my take on the whole field, regardless of past or current production fashon, is that the Law of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) remains fundamental. While the processes of tracking, mixing and mastering are all very important in the overall process, GIGO dictates that for the best combination of quality and efficiency in the engineering process, one would be best advised to frontload their concerns to the tracking phase and get the source tracks as good and as close to the desired target as possible.

This does not necessarily mean an accurate documentation of a natural sound, though it can mean that; that depends on what one desires for their final result. What it means is to lay the tracking in such a way as to reduce the amount of time, material and effort required in the mixing and mastering.

For many modern genres of music being produced in the current fashon, extensive processing probably going to be required, which can mean a ton of plugs. But, IMHO, that does not mean that one should not still choose to use such plugs judiciously and (when logistically feasable) design the engineering process in such a way as to keep the number of required plugs to a necessary minimum.

For too many up-and-coming engineers, today's production style is an excuse to "fix in the mix"; they figure since the output is going to be heavily processed anyway that they can procrastinate the details and do all the work as corrective processing in the CR. I see at least two problems with that. First is the inevitable pendulum swing in production style and fashon. When that swing back to artist talent, recording clarity and natural dynamics comes again (in exactly what form and to what degree, who can say? But it will happen), those who know only how to engineer by saturation processing are going to be lost. Second, even before such a swing happens, even with today's environment, relative ignorance of the tracking process and reliance on saturation processing increases the cost of the overall production in time and materials. It's much more efficient (when executed properly) - and frankly easier on the engineer - to ninja the tracking and keep the required post-processing adjustments to a functional minimum; only what is required to get today's artificial sound.

Just one guy's opinion.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

I hear people 'rolling off' bass on most tracks, sounds like a good idea if it's not required... but then I can't help but think how did that unwanted bass get there in the first place! I can understand trying to fix a tracking problem, but if instruments can't be played together without causing problems then maybe the instrument mix is wrong or they're badly tuned in the first place, or is this a case of people trying to get that 'professionaI sound'

Subharmonic content has a lot of potential sources, especially for a homereccer. Somebody brushes the body of their instrument, moves in their chair, a bit of computer fan noise, 60Hz hum . . .

In a live performance all that stuff would slide and most people won't notice and nobody would care. But a multitrack mix in at it essence an unnaturally assembly of sound that at best tries to emulate a performance. Therefore, to create and enhance that illusion, procedures are required that would not be contemplated when, for example, recording an orchestra live.

 

[Agent47]

I'm mostly MIDI, so the only audio I use is drum loops and sound fx. Usually use Cubase SX3's internal compressor/EQ, so only plug would be a special effect.

Recently produced a song for a client and used quite a lot of plugs on the vocals, gutiar and drum samples, but that was a rarity.

 

[Cazzbar]

Thanks for the reply Southside Glen, a very balanced view of the whole thing... I've been a bit frantic lately trying to get a demo mix sorted asap and naturally trying to make it sound as 'professional' as possible, and you've calmed me down a lot by saying the heavy use of plugs approach is basically a fashion rather than what you need to do.

And as you say I've been quite careful with the tracking, if a guitar sounds a bit too tinny for example I've got the guy to change the sound on his guitar and do it again instead of EQ'ing the problem away. And all the instruments we're using sound good when played together, and they're sounding as good (if not a lot better) when individually recorded and played back together (although I've yet to add the vocals, so I'll probably be back in here asking for dipping techniques etc... !)

And I yep mshilarious, if a track needs fixing then I understand using plugs to do that

 

[Hollowdan]

Where is the "try not to use more than 2, prefer to record it right and need none" answer?

Reverb on aux1 (dialed in to taste on each track)
submix drums with reverb and compressor on subgroup
slight EQ on ONLY the tracks that need it
occasional compressor here and there lightly applied
delay or chorus once in a great while on bass and backing vocals (somtimes on guitar leads)
I actually prefer to naturally EQ stuff by blending multiple tracks in different ways throughout the song, panning, and phasing tracks to cause seperation
NEVER a compressor on the master bus (PUMPING BAD!!!) in fact I only use slight EQ on the master bus (save the compression for mastering, DYNAMICS PEOPLE DYNAMICS!!!!!!!!!) "I am such a rebel sometimes I don't even use a compressor during mastering :O :O :O " lol (DYNAMICS!!!!!!!!!!)
So yeah, 1 or 2 plug-ins per track usually max.

 

[Emusic]

Mostly recording vocals and ending up with quite a few plugins. Allways EQ as I dont have an outboard eq - not even an eq on the pre/mixer. Then comprssor/limiter comes in somewhere in the chain. Reverb, echo or delay is allways with the track.
Summa summarium - too many

 

[surfmaster]

i think a lot of this hangs on one bit of context thats pretty important. the type of session. if you have an acoustic singer-songwriter you arent going to need as many compressors running or eq's just because of the nature of the subject. but if your recording a hardcore band, your gonna need those compressors on the drums and bass and sometimes the electric guitar needs some more oomph with eq and noise gating is almost essential.

 

[TuoKaerf]

I turn to plugs/hardware only when I need it or to use as an effect...Here's my usual breakdown if everything is recorded well-

Kik-Little compression and EQ
Snare-Compression and EQ
Toms-Gates and a bit of verb
OH's-EQ to get rid of the boxy mids, and a bit of compression
Rooms-Compress the hell out of them.
Bass Guitar-I like a pumping bass, so I usually hit it pretty hard with a compressor, usually a Summit.
Electric Guitars-High Pass Filter ocassionaly, and some verb off and on
Acoustic Guitars-Depending on tuning some EQ, and a bit of verb
Vox-DeEsser if needed, delay and verb if song dictates.

Mix Buss (use hardware for this)-Either a Neve 33609 Stereo Compressor (or the SSL Quad Compressor), and a pair of API 550b EQ's.

 

[XLR]

I prefer using nothing because each plug veils the sound just a little and robs the expression of something, subtle though it may be. But I use them anyway when I need to. Looking back at the last several projects I did, some channels had several, most had one or one - probably averaging 1 plug per channel. I use limiters the most as channel plugs, EQ and broadband compression the least. EQ and broadband compression usually veil the sound the most, to my ear, so I try to avoid them when I can.

I do most of my processing on the stereo mixdown, where I usually use three plugs.

Tim

 

[littledog]

I don't know Charles Dye, but I wouldn't mind seeing the actual quote in context, because it is hard to imagine anyone recommending that you should put 4 or 5 plug-ins on every single track as a matter of principle. In fairness to him, it would be good if someone could put a link to the article in which he made this statement, or at least post the name and date of the magazine.

The question as originally asked is pretty much unanswerable, because there are many good reasons to use plug-ins, and many good reasons not to. A lot depends on the style of music, and whether you are dealing with well-recorded tracks or are trying to salvage barely useable ones, or do surgery on damaged audio.

If you are restoring an old archived recording, for instance, you would have completely different needs than if you are dealing with freshly recorded tracks. If you are mixing well mic'ed high quality acoustic instruments that were in a nice room, your needs would be totally different than if you were stacking and automating plug-ins to create a unique synth pad that morphed in interesting and unique ways over time.

To try and generalize a plug-in strategy that would universally cover all these situations is both silly and meaningless. Again, with all due respect to Charles Dye (whoever he might be), if there is a truely "universal" bit of advice, I submit it would be: "Fix what needs to be fixed. What already sounds great, leave alone." That works for me.