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

[surfmaster]

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.

amen to that

 

[NYMorningstar]

Do a google search on Charles Dye plugins and you'll find some podcasts that you can download and listen to(takes a few minutes to download). I copied the link to #4 which is a little over a half hour of the show but it's worth the time. I think as technology changes so do we need to change.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think as technology changes so do we need to change.

NY, could you explain that a bit more? I'm not sure just what you mean by that; depending on just what that means I think some of us could either agree 100% or completly disagree 100%.

G.

 

[NYMorningstar]

NY, could you explain that a bit more? I'm not sure just what you mean by that; depending on just what that means I think some of us could either agree 100% or completly disagree 100%.

G.

Didn't mean anything other than that as the technology changes we need to be open to it and not be stuck in the old dog new trick rut.

We should not fear grabbing for a plug or two, three, four, five or whatever, the limitations are becoming non-existent as processing power increases. Rather, we should embrace them and figure out exactly what they can do in every situation we have.

I believe in playing the mixer like an instrument and when we hear a situation where the effect would be beneficial, use it. Experiment till ya drop and don't get stuck in the rut. As long as you don't lose sight of the goal and the plugins are improving and not degrading the mix, um by golly use them. Sure it's great to have a good source but there is nothing saying that if it's tracked right then you need to stop improving it.

This field is huge and if a person wants 5 plugins on each track then that defines that person and if he is enhancing his project by doing just that, then we need to appreciate that too. I think music needs to take a turn away from the overcompressed volume war and what better way do we have of getting there than to try out different approaches?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Didn't mean anything other than that as the technology changes we need to be open to it and not be stuck in the old dog new trick rut.

We should not fear grabbing for a plug or two, three, four, five or whatever, the limitations are becoming non-existent as processing power increases. Rather, we should embrace them and figure out exactly what they can do in every situation we have.

I believe in playing the mixer like an instrument and when we hear a situation where the effect would be beneficial, use it. Experiment till ya drop and don't get stuck in the rut. As long as you don't lose sight of the goal and the plugins are improving and not degrading the mix, um by golly use them. Sure it's great to have a good source but there is nothing saying that if it's tracked right then you need to stop improving it.

This field is huge and if a person wants 5 plugins on each track then that defines that person and if he is enhancing his project by doing just that, then we need to appreciate that too. I think music needs to take a turn away from the overcompressed volume war and what better way do we have of getting there than to try out different approaches?

That's a very well-reasoned point of view.

I don't really disagree with it, but I do have one big caveat that I'd like to wrap around it. This caveat is going to draw a LOT of boo's from the audience I'm sure. I'll just have to deal with it .

It's one thing to take great tracks and make them sound even better through extreme creative processing. It's another thing altogether to try and take marginal tracks and make them sound great through extreme corrective processing. I personally think the philosophy you describe is great for the former, but a disaster for the latter.

If one can lay and mix great tracks as a minimalist, and then lay on the black boxes to take them to the next level a la Brian Eno or Alan Parsons or (insert your favorite mixing producer here), that's great. If one needs to lay on the extreme processing just to get their tracks to be of pro-level "listening quality", then I think the black boxes are acting more like mother's little helpers to the engineer and are really cramping their engineering abilities and mixes, and not making them better.

To put a Zen-like twist on it, it's not until one *does not need* to use extreme processing to get a good-sounding mix that they should open themselves up to the possibility of doing so.

There's another thread around here somewhere where a guy is saying that his mixes just are not up to snuff and is wondering what toys he should spend money on next to make his mixes sound better. He lists in detail what he already has; nothing to write home about, it's entry-level gear for the most part, with a few brands mixed in there that many in these forums would hold their noses around.

I haven't responded to that thread directly, but I keep thinking that thread over.I keep settling on the same conclusive thought that he should just save his money for a while. The fact is that Brian Eno or Alan Parsons - or whoever you plugged in as your favorite mixing producer a few paragraphs ago - could take his gear list and his room the way it is and make a Grammy-nominated album with it. Not just because of the cache of their names, but because they are good engineers.

Not only is this guy's gear not the problem with the quality of his mixes, better gear - or adding more plugs to his signal chain - is not the solution to them either. Additionally, if he were ready to truely take advantage of more/better gear, the very first indication of that readiness is he'd be able to identify exactly where the gear is holding him back and would know what to get next.

To bring this all back to the point of this thread, if one needs to use a carload of plug-ins just to make a listenable mix, they probably should go back to basics and learn how to do it without the plugs first. If, however, they have reached that level of competency (a level I am never quite convinced I can consistantly hit myself yet) and wish to lay on the plugs as a form of creative sound shaping above and beyond that, then sure, they should go wild with it.

IMHO and all that legalese.

G.

 

[NYMorningstar]

- or whoever you plugged in as your favorite mixing producer a few paragraphs ago.

Since you mentioned plugging my favorite mixer it's Bruce A. Miller, who by the way is offering a free online course to anyone interested at the BAM Audio Studio http://bruceamiller.us/bamaudioschool/index.html.

-

Not only is this guy's gear not the problem with the quality of his mixes, better gear - or adding more plugs to his signal chain - is not the solution to them either.
G.

I know nothing of this particular person but I can tell you of my own experience. I played guitar for 15 years on shit equipment. Not only was I not able to find the sound I was looking for but it held me back in terms of my learning and progress. It was not until I got my first strat and Marshall stack that I was able to shine, go figure. Sure, now that I'm a more accomplished guitarist, I can take a piece of crap and make it sound pretty damn good but I cannot make it sound as good as a (fill in your best piece of equipment here). The equipment itself is a work of art and in the same way, so are these plugins.

The point being I agree with you to some extent. Don't depend upon equipment to the point of inhibiting the development of your engineering basics and skills.

There is also the other side however, that having the right tools also helps you learn. Your "Zen-like twist on it, it's not until one *does not need* to use extreme processing to get a good-sounding mix that they should open themselves up to the possibility of doing so.", could very well be retarding the learning process.

 

[Cazzbar]

There is also the other side however, that having the right tools also helps you learn. Your "Zen-like twist on it, it's not until one *does not need* to use extreme processing to get a good-sounding mix that they should open themselves up to the possibility of doing so.", could very well be retarding the learning process.

I thought it was an excellent post from SouthSIDE Glen. It reminded me of the two types of people, one who buys his first guitar with a helpful book and studies and practices his instrument for years to try and achieve a decent standard, and the other who buys his first guitar along with 50 different wah-wah pedals who is sure these are going to make him sound great.

The guy who studies his instrument will still have fun playing with and learning all the effects, and maybe find a couple which accentuate the nicer parts and maybe hide a few of the rougher edges.

But you can certainly be a world class accoustic guitarist without any effects. The same with recording, if you understand your equipment well, know how to track properly, know the difference between 0dBVU and 0dBFS, just learn the basics and learn them well, you'll be able record and mix great songs. Once you've learnt your trade, effects could make them better still. But the people who get turned on about effects straight away will always struggle to make decent recordings.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The point being I agree with you to some extent. Don't depend upon equipment to the point of inhibiting the development of your engineering basics and skills.

Cazzbar's guitar player analogy hits it right on the head, I believe.

NY, we're not that far apart, I don't think. The above quote is really at the core of what I'm trying to say.

You're right that having the larger tool kit can indeed be a positive learning experience, if the student has the proper attitude about it.

My issue with the whole thing is that since coming to this board I have witnessed a pervasive basic belief amongst most (not all, but certainly a majority of) up-and-comers in this racket that the gear does the engineering. I truely believe this to be the absolute number one cause of the problems reported to these boards. All the work in the engineering chain is backloaded because the further down the workflow chain you go, the more sophisticated the gear.

The typical problem process typically goes something like this:

- Tracking is for old timers and documentarians. A mic and a preamp, how boring. Let's just get the tracks down and we'll just throw EQ and compressor and imaging plugs at the track during mixing; we'll find a combination of presets that'll be close enough for rock and roll. We'll let the plugs do our tracking during the mix when we really should be mixing instead. Because it's less work for us to let the plugs do it all.

- Then for "mixing", we'll just flatten the tracks with compression and stack them like layers in lasagna. The compressor is doing all the "mixing" we need. The only manual mixing we have to do is pan the guitars hard left and right and throw everything else more or less down the middle. My ears can handle panning at least. Piece of cake.

- We'll save all the rest of the mixing for the mastering stage where we'll try and fix the incomplete mix by throwing beaucoup multiband compressors, exciters and finalizers at it, force-molding the two mix instead of creating a creative and proper-sounding mix first. It's much easier to let the hardware/software do it at the end.

- Finally, we'll get on the internet and ask why our mix doesn't sound like the pros.

It's because they are leaning on the gear (hard or soft) to do the work for them. It just doesn't work that way.

Now if someone gets the gear with the intention of taking the time to learn the proper technique for using (and not using) it, then you're right; that's a completly different story and a very educational experience. But it's one we frankly just don't see very often around these parts.

I'd love to trip across a thread where someone posts an MP3 that sounds absolutely fantastic, like it was done at Paisley Park; really beautiful. With one exception. The drum kit is a bit loose sounding, and could really use a little track compression before being submixed. So the poster comes back and says, thanks guys, I guess I'm ready to start using my compressor now, eh?

G.

 

[gtrman_66]

It depends on how well it was tracked most of the time. If something tastes good like it is, I'm certainly not going to dump a bunch of salt and pepper on it just because I can.

On the mix Im working now,a countryish-rock allman brothers-esque thing, this is what I have going (from memory, I'm at work right now)

lead vocals- a touch of compression and a bit of verb

backing vocals -moderate verb

electric guitars-none

keyboards-none

acoustic guitar- a touch of verb

bass- a dab of compression and a little eq

kick drum- a bit of limiter and a touch of eq

snare - a little verb

overheads -a little verb

so far, that's all the processing I'm using on the song, I may add some or even subtract before I'm finished, but I tracked it as good as I could with wht I have to work with and I'm pleased with the results so far. I can't see mucking up a bunch of good core sounds on an organic sounding tune like this one with a lot of unnecessary effects etc.

 

[musicstew]

I find this always varies depending on the tune.

I try to avoid getting into a repetitive mode as this seems to take away being creative. Having said that the most used plug-ins for me are compression and equalization.

I don't always use them on every track, but they can be quite useful and are used often.
I let the musical part tell me what it wants and try to stay intuitive about this option.

-Stew

 

[TragikRemix]

i use as little as possible.

first attempt at recording; 3+ plugs on every track. pushed my computer a little hard, sounded like crap anyway.

most recent (3rd attempt); drum replacer plugs on kick and snare. verb on the drums as a whole. mixed drums into a stereo track. added bass run through a preamp with a tad of eq on the preamp, i mean next to nothing eq, just a boost in the bass and treble, and 4:1 compression at i think, maybe -10 for the threshold. doesnt sound half bad. OH placements killed the entire thing though, all the cymbals sounded like crap.

total plugs, 2.

 

[TragikRemix]

oh yeah, i forgot to mention.

just got DFH superior drums, getting the vdrums tomorrow, and from fooling around writing some midi drums out, i don't need anything on the drum tracks except some volume adjustments!

i always criticized v drums and midi because its 'not real', but its easier, they are real drum samples, and it sounds 100x better than what i can achieve with a real kit...

but im still building a drum isolation room and buying a jazz kit to put it in.

i was using plugs to fix my crappy tracking. i've concluded that i just need to track better, placement and room acoustics and better mics, and cut back on the plugs. i use compression to fix things like a drummer who is random in his kick drum velocity, and those bassists who accidentally pluck a note too hard. no more 'compress the shit outta it cause it sucks ass!' nope nope nope.



im developing..

 

[Mindset]

I usually use like 1-4 plug in's, after I sent them to my outboard

 

[Mindset]

I usually use like 1-4 plug in's, before I sent them to my outboard. But I've changed my settings right now, so that instead of having my stuff as outboard gear, I've used them going in now, and use my plug-ins' after.

 

[TragikRemix]

mindset stop following me around! lol you posted after me on my last few posts...

 

[BRIEFCASEMANX]

I think I'm up to about 4 per track now. And my mixes are sounding better than when i was using less plugins, whether it has to do with the extra plugins or not is debatable.

 

[rushofblood]

Most of the time I tweak out some kind of sound with TRacks on the master, where it just enhances it without squishing it. Anything else is pretty much just for effect, except maybe some vocal processing (compression, eq), roll off the low end on guitars, and I'll use microphone modeler sometimes. Oh, and softsynths, but those don't count.

 

[slidey]

around 2-3 on average but none if I get away with it

 

[slidey]

mindset stop following me around! lol you posted after me on my last few posts...

a stalker huh LMFAO

 

[jmorris]

some may have 3 or 4, many none,just depends. if its a live gig, studio, instruments,players