mix through a compressor?

[djclueveli]

Some people asked me "better than what" when i ask if i should mix through a compressor and to answer that, better than means if should A: Mix through a compressor or B: Not mix through a compressor

i was watching mix it like a record and charles dye mixes through the AC1 plugin. Does anyone one else use this approach?

 

[xstatic]

But alot of folk know that limiting at the mastering stage takes alot of the punch away from drums since it it chopping some of the transients off. Well limiting can takes away punch from alot of things really.
Thats why I listen to my mixes with an L2 on them to get the right amount of punch. Just makes my mixes sound better after mastering.

Eck

The point I was tyring to make here is that mastering SHOULD NOT take away the punch of your mix. In fact, often times it will increase the punch of certain things. In my opinion if you are losing anything in the mastering process besides actual raw dynamics, than you need a new mastering engineer. If your mix is already punchy, than a good mastering engineer will keep it that way, and often times even make it a bit more so.

I guess however if you are to be mastering it yourself than I can see where this could be useful. Then again, if this is the case (please do not take offense because this is meant in broad terms and for anyone in specific) than you still need a new mastering engineer.

It is my practice to never use a limiter or compressor on a master out purely for volume unless it will NOT be mastered by a professional mastering engineer. I do see no problem however with using 2 buss comps if they change the way the mix sounds in a positive fashion (for tone and envelope reasons, not for volume wars). I know that this does have an added side effect of reducing the dynamics throughout the song to a certain degree, but this is still a part of mixing, if you are doing it for sonic purposes.

Basically, I have no problem using and even mixing through 2 buss comps. I never start a mix with one activated, but usually apply it when I am 80 or 90 percent done with a mix and then make some minor channel changes based on how the comp is affecting my mix. Once I get to this point and feel that the mix is done to the best of my ability, than I do not add any sort of limiter or anything. That is the ME's job and what I pay him for because he will do a much better job of that than I will based on experience, better tools, and a lack of elongated intimacy with my mix. If my mix is clipping, I do not slap an L2 in, I turn down the master output so it isn't clipping.

 

[Yareek]

Some people asked me "better than what" when i ask if i should mix through a compressor and to answer that, better than means if should A: Mix through a compressor or B: Not mix through a compressor

i was watching mix it like a record and charles dye mixes through the AC1 plugin. Does anyone one else use this approach?

Do you have the DVD? I've read a lot of what the man has written and he's got some great ideas. I'd love to pick that up sometime.

 

[djclueveli]

No yareek i don't have the dvd i jus saw a clip of it here https://youtube.com/watch?v=cJ7g0aOZPlg

good tips

 

[masteringhouse]

Whoah, there, bucko. I never said I hated 2-buss compression. I said, if it's to be done, it's probably best to do it after the mixdown, not during it, for the reason that it keeps the ME's options open.

G.

If overdone yes, but when done properly 2-buss compression is part of the sound of the mix. I have no problem when done correctly, but I'm talking about seasoned engineers with a few years under their belt.

There's a reason that there's a bus compressor on boards like SSLs, Tridents, etc. but it's not to pre-master a mix or to make up for bad mix technique.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If overdone yes, but when done properly 2-buss compression is part of the sound of the mix. I have no problem when done correctly, but I'm talking about seasoned engineers with a few years under their belt.

There's a reason that there's a bus compressor on boards like SSLs, Tridents, etc. but it's not to pre-master a mix or to make up for bad mix technique.

Yeah, I undertsand that, especially the part about the experienced ones being better equipped to doing it right. It's the same story as with tracking; those who have been around the block enough times can (and do) thrown stuff on the tracking because they've already done it a hundred times before that they know the exact result they're looking for. Same thing here, though - trust me - I'm not trying to put myself in the same league as the big boys.

I still believe in having a clean mixdown, however, and in adding mixdown compression after the fact if it is so desired so that there is always the clean mix to fall back upon if need be. It's like hitting the "Save" button on a Word document; I just like to have that stage there with the opportunity to take the mix in another direction if desired without having to go back and re-rig the mix and remix in order to go back that step.

And yeah, OK, I can see perhaps making two buss copies of the mix, - with and without the comp - if I'm using a board that has "that sound" on the buss comp. It'd be easier and cleaner to just run off the two mixes right then and there than it would be to go back and re-path a two mix just to run it through that same compressor later. But I'll still have a non-comped copy as a safety.

(OK, I'll beat you all to the punch: Yes, I guess that make me a non-comp-poop .)

Also, I'm not saying that it's that way or the highway; there is no absolute right/wrong here. There are exceptions to all of that, as I (and you ) have said. I was just trying to clarify my position that I believed in what I did regardless of experience level, and it was a logical procedural belief and not a bias against rookies that drove my point.

G.

 

[TuoKaerf]

The thing about adding a compressor on your Stereo Buss is that you should be able to take it off, and the mix should not change much. If you are having to stomp that compressor to get a good "mix" sound, your mix sucks. It is something that should be added near the end of the process to add some kind of sonic quality that the particular box or plugin offers.

It is less for the compression as for how the box ties in my high and low end in a different way. The mix can stand on its own without it, its sort of like an added bonus.

 

[masteringhouse]

Yeah, I undertsand that, especially the part about the experienced ones being better equipped to doing it right. It's the same story as with tracking; those who have been around the block enough times can (and do) thrown stuff on the tracking because they've already done it a hundred times before that they know the exact result they're looking for. Same thing here, though - trust me - I'm not trying to put myself in the same league as the big boys.

G. I'm sure that you can create a great mix with compression as well as without. Sounds like you need to have more confidence in your abilities!

I usually advise against newer engineers here from doing it because of lack of proper gear or experience. In those cases it's better to do without.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

G. I'm sure that you can create a great mix with compression as well as without. Sounds like you need to have more confidence in your abilities!

Very kind of you to say, Tom. I'm not so sure that I lack confidence in my mixing abilities . I'm realistic about them, but I also have perhaps more than my rightful share of belief in what I do and can do .

I'm sitting here having trouble coming up with an honest response to that. I've already typed and deleted a couple of things that I thought might have been at the root. But I think it comes down to process routine.

It's the *routine*, I think, that maybe I'm talking about here more than anything. But it just seems to make sense to me that there is a natural breakpoint in the process where the tracks are summed together into a stereo mix. That breakpoint, it seems to me anyway, is a natural point for saving the progress thus far. One creates a mix, then one works on the resulting mix; in between, a safety copy should (again, just IMHO) be made. the way I see it (again, just IMHO), compressing the stereo mix is part of the second part of that process, coming after the process breakpoint.

And I kinda-sorta take that a bit further. If I'm self-mastering, that's one thing. But if I'm sending the project to someone else's ears, I kinda look at modifying the two mix as the job of the ME, and that my doing it first - even if it is just a little for a sprinkle of sonic glue or tint - as either at worst, hamstringing the ME, or at best, doing something with lesser gear and ears than he has, and therefore doing something that best be left to the ME. Once I have a summed mix that sounds as good as I can get it from within the mix, that's the end of my jurisdiction; I should trust the ME to take it from there. Yes of course I can communicate with him, and possibly - like I said earlier - send him a second copy with an example of the direction I'd like him to take it, but I should in my own best interest leave any processing to the resulting mix to him.

I would, however, like to hear your take on that from the other side as an ME, Tom. I'd of thought you'd want as pristine of a two mix as you could get, no matter how good (or bad) of a MixEng I might be. Maybe you can teach this old dog something different here?

G.

 

[tkingen]

If my ME wants a little more headroom, that can be acheived by LOWERING THE VOLUME...

It strikes me funny that this concept must be YELLED to be heard. Btw, nice post!

 

[masteringhouse]

I would, however, like to hear your take on that from the other side as an ME, Tom. I'd of thought you'd want as pristine of a two mix as you could get, no matter how good (or bad) of a MixEng I might be. Maybe you can teach this old dog something different here?

G.

Pristine to me doesn't necessarily mean removing the the intent of the client as far as the overall density and impact/punch of the mix. That Charles Dye clip that djclueveli posted brings up some very good points. While I don't completely prescribe to the idea of "mixing to the bus compressor" using a 2 bus comp while mixing can alter your descisions on what you are doing with EQs and levels on the individual tracks to a large degree.

One area in particular is the drums since these take up the majority of the dynamics in an average song. You can push the drums further obviously if you are using it on the two bus, and even further if you are using comps on the individual tracks and maybe even some parallel comp on a drum group or using parallel compression. That's a big fat drum sound if you don't overdo it! Each comp is playing a different role though, one being to level out a track and make say the snare hits more even, another is to fatten the kit, and yet another is to help keep all of the elements of the mix more cohesive. Notice none of this is to make the track louder or to provide some sort of automatic level control for a bad mix. Decisions on the volume of a track need to be made once you have all of the tracks and listen to them as an entire album so that the forest can be seen through the trees.

Also, if you're going for that "saturated" rock sound, and not going to tape, a bus comp is likely the next best thing in a completely digital world.

That's alot of stuff from a mix viewpoint that you are relying on the ME to create and take responsibility for.

Now, all of this said, if an ME gets stems all of this goes out the window as Brad Blackwood has brought up on a few previous threads here on the forum. That's a big reason why a two track mix done right will always be better than trying to re-create the same from stems. All that you can do in this case is the same or worse.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Pristine to me doesn't necessarily mean removing the the intent of the client as far as the overall density and impact/punch of the mix.

Ok, I can see that. I guess I've just been trying to be TOO kind to the MEs, in a way.

I keep trying to relate it back to the transition from tracking to mixing, and the more I think about it, the more your statement about the importance of the level of experience of the engineer seems to be the key to what you are saying, and makes sense. If I get stuff from a tracking engineer who knows his craft (and with whom there is no disagreement as to how the final production should sound), he'll hand me tracks that when I lay them out on the board or in the timeline require almost nothing but a little automation and a touch of verb for a perfect mix; they practically mix themselves. That's because the TE has already gotten the equalization and dynamics right in tracking. But that requires an ear and a skillset that only the best or most experienced trackers have.

I can see it being the same way at the mix-to-master transition, I guess. If the MixEng knows his chops, the 2mix can be halfway polished already. And 2buss compression is most likely or most often going to be part of that "pre-polishing".

OK, I can see that. As to whether I have the chops or not, I guess you'll just have to tell me on the next project I send your way (and I expect you to be honest ) .

G.

 

[Ironklad Audio]

Mixing and mastering are seperate for a reason. I never worry about what the mastering engineer will do, thats the mastering engineers job.

the only loophole with this way of thinking is that it doesn't take into account all of us poor suckers who have to handle the mastering after the mixing

if i'm working a mix that i know the band is going to have me "master" later on, i find it quite useful to reference some sort of comp/limiter on the master buss while i'm mixing

 

[masteringhouse]

If I get stuff from a tracking engineer who knows his craft (and with whom there is no disagreement as to how the final production should sound), he'll hand me tracks that when I lay them out on the board or in the timeline require almost nothing but a little automation and a touch of verb for a perfect mix; they practically mix themselves. That's because the TE has already gotten the equalization and dynamics right in tracking....

I can see it being the same way at the mix-to-master transition, I guess. If the MixEng knows his chops, the 2mix can be halfway polished already. And 2buss compression is most likely or most often going to be part of that "pre-polishing".

Oh hell yeah!

The best masters that I've done are the ones that require the least amount of processing. There are a some that I've received from guys like Shelly Yakus, Phil Nicolo, and back when I was doing 'Biscuit guys like Brendan O'Brian that would only require 1 or 2 db cuts here and there with light limiting or compression. Those guys make me sound like a genius.

But it's that way at every stage of audio production, great talent means great tracks, great tracks mean great mixing, and great mixes mean great masters ...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But it's that way at every stage of audio production, great talent means great tracks, great tracks mean great mixing, and great mixes mean great masters ...

At the risk of repeating myself for the millionth time:

It's the performer's job to make the tracking engineer's job easy.
It's the tracking engineer's job to make the mixing engineer's job easy.
It's the mixing engineer's job to make the mastering engineer's job easy.
It's the mastering engineer's job to make the listener's job easy.

I guess it comes down to how good the engineer is at each stage. A lousy mixer might want to stay away from doing too much processing to the 2mix in the same way that a lousy tracker might want to stay away from doing too much to the recordings.

OK, that makes sense, as now does your comment about confidence. This is why you're the man, Tom. You schooled this old dog from the start. Very good advice.

G.

 

[xstatic]

the only loophole with this way of thinking is that it doesn't take into account all of us poor suckers who have to handle the mastering after the mixing

if i'm working a mix that i know the band is going to have me "master" later on, i find it quite useful to reference some sort of comp/limiter on the master buss while i'm mixing

That is true to an extent. However, it still may be helpful to think of them seperately. If you just focus on making the best mix possible, than mastering will be easier and better no matter who does it. I also did mention earlier that if you arfe going to "master" things yourself that you may want to inroduce your limiter a little sooner. Either way though, I would do my best to treat things seperately otherwise you are relying on something that does not exist.

 

[Ironklad Audio]

yea totally

and on a side note, i can't wait until the day when i can say that i have the capability to master tracks...not "master"

and please, nobody take that last statement and turn this into a philosophical debate regarding what does/doesn't constitute mastering

 

[ecktronic]

Massive Master, would you say that a professional mastering engineer should be able to limit (for example) a heavy rock song to -10db RMS without the master loosing any punch from the drums or anything else? Saying that the mix was at -25db RMS.
If so, what kind of limiter can do that? Cause Id love one.

Eck

 

[Ironklad Audio]

15db is a damned lot to squeeze out of a mix...

 

[ecktronic]

15db is a damned lot to squeeze out of a mix...

Well not really for the heavy rock/metal genre it isnt. System of a Down limit their music to -6dB and so do Queens of The Stonage. Now thats silly!

I suppose I could replace any stray kick or snare hits and save myself maybe 5dB at tops so I would only be boosting the master 10dB, but its still the same amount of limiting if you know what I mean.

Eck