Dogbreath
Im an ex-spurt
Good thread...
(munching popcorn, twiddling knobs...)
(munching popcorn, twiddling knobs...)
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
You mean as in Orville Reddenbacher popping corn from Ohio, or Blue Crystal Popcorn from Northern California? If it's the later...I have a doctor's note!
G.
Dogbreath
Im an ex-spurt
You mean as in Orville Reddenbacher popping corn from Ohio, or Blue Crystal Popcorn from Northern California? If it's the later...I have a doctor's note!
G.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Oh, Glen - I meant as part of the mixing phase - before considering a mix final, more or less rape it with a limiter to see if there's anything I've missed. If so, fix it, then send it off to be mastered, and if not, send the unlimited file off to be mastered.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Well, I suppose it won't hurt too much to do it, but I gotta ask; if you're sending off to be mastered, why do their job for them? Unless you don't think that they will take care of that part of it, in which case I'd have to wonder why one would go with them to begin with.
Again, just IMHO, but the way I look at it is if you got separate people/facilities doing the mixing and the mastering, then get your mix sounding the way you want and that's it. Worrying about what it may or may not sound like if/when it's thrown against the wall is the "jurisdiction" of the mastering engineer and mastering phase. That's what I'm paying them to worry about (amongst other things). It's kind of like my ex-sister-in-law that insisted on cleaning up the house herself before the maid service showed up
.And what if they decide that throwing the mix against the wall is not really what's needed? Or if their mastering limiter has a rather different color than yours? Then trying to EQ to prepare for that might be sending your mix down the wrong path, and could just as easily give the mastering engineer just as much (or more) work to do as not "prepping" the mix would do.
Again, IMHO, YMMV, KACL, WMAQ, etc.
G.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Glen - I'm not talking about limiting because I think 1.) that's necessarily part of mastering or 2.) I want to do their job for them, but rather as a "test" to see if there's anything I'm missing in the mix. Reading this:
As a guy with at least some experience mixing, but who is by NO means a pro, I read that as "sometimes, there's some low amplitude muddiness that's awfully hard to hear on a raw mix, but can be brought out by any limiting during mastering and is one of the reasons why you can't just go nuts with a limiter in mastering, because not every mix can take it very well." Ok, I'm thinking, if that's the case, then as part of the mixing process, why not pause and intentionally simulate the effect of over-limiting, to see what happens and if there's anything you're missing?
To fall back on the old standby cooking metaphors, it's like grilling a steak. Some cuts of meat, if you throw them over an open flame under high heat, will char up on the outside but not necessarily dry out. For example, a nice 2 1/2" thick ribeye with good marbling could probably be burned to charcoal on the outside without drying out the interior, but if you try to do that to a 3/4" filet mignon, you'd get something akin to shoe leather.
If a mix is kind of like a steak, then the idea is you don't know which you have when you first start cooking. Is it a nice, thick, well marbled steak, or is it thin and lean? You really don't know, which is why evidently a lot of mastering guys don't slap a hard limiter on and make up 6-10db in a single pass - they add a few db at a time, slowly cooking it, until they can tell that any more and it'll be overcooked.
However, where a mix is NOT like a steak is that in the real world you've just got one try to get the steak right, but there's no reason you can't mix down a project, limit the hell out of it, and watch what happens to tell what sort of steak you're working with. Is it the big juicy ribeye that can be seared up to a crisp and still stay juicy, or is it the thin filet that'll dry out on you and taste awful? By doing a "dry run," I'd think you can check to see if there are any problems latent in the mix that are going to limit what can be done during mastering, and potentially then go back and fix them before the project goes off to mastering - sort of like stopping and looking at your steak to see which it is, and if it's the filet considering maybe exchanging it for the ribeye if you know it's going to get charred up on an open flame.
Am I totally crazy?
As a guy with at least some experience mixing, but who is by NO means a pro, I read that as "sometimes, there's some low amplitude muddiness that's awfully hard to hear on a raw mix, but can be brought out by any limiting during mastering and is one of the reasons why you can't just go nuts with a limiter in mastering, because not every mix can take it very well." Ok, I'm thinking, if that's the case, then as part of the mixing process, why not pause and intentionally simulate the effect of over-limiting, to see what happens and if there's anything you're missing?
To fall back on the old standby cooking metaphors, it's like grilling a steak. Some cuts of meat, if you throw them over an open flame under high heat, will char up on the outside but not necessarily dry out. For example, a nice 2 1/2" thick ribeye with good marbling could probably be burned to charcoal on the outside without drying out the interior, but if you try to do that to a 3/4" filet mignon, you'd get something akin to shoe leather.
If a mix is kind of like a steak, then the idea is you don't know which you have when you first start cooking. Is it a nice, thick, well marbled steak, or is it thin and lean? You really don't know, which is why evidently a lot of mastering guys don't slap a hard limiter on and make up 6-10db in a single pass - they add a few db at a time, slowly cooking it, until they can tell that any more and it'll be overcooked.
However, where a mix is NOT like a steak is that in the real world you've just got one try to get the steak right, but there's no reason you can't mix down a project, limit the hell out of it, and watch what happens to tell what sort of steak you're working with. Is it the big juicy ribeye that can be seared up to a crisp and still stay juicy, or is it the thin filet that'll dry out on you and taste awful? By doing a "dry run," I'd think you can check to see if there are any problems latent in the mix that are going to limit what can be done during mastering, and potentially then go back and fix them before the project goes off to mastering - sort of like stopping and looking at your steak to see which it is, and if it's the filet considering maybe exchanging it for the ribeye if you know it's going to get charred up on an open flame.
Am I totally crazy?
Dogbreath
Im an ex-spurt
yup. 
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
No, you're not crazy - not that I can tell anywayAs a guy with at least some experience mixing, but who is by NO means a pro, I read that as "sometimes, there's some low amplitude muddiness that's awfully hard to hear on a raw mix, but can be brought out by any limiting during mastering and is one of the reasons why you can't just go nuts with a limiter in mastering, because not every mix can take it very well." Ok, I'm thinking, if that's the case, then as part of the mixing process, why not pause and intentionally simulate the effect of over-limiting, to see what happens and if there's anything you're missing?
...
[cooking analogy understood and appreciated, edited out only for brevity]
...
Am I totally crazy?
. I'm not sure how else I can say it other than to repeat the idea that IMHO one should not mix to anticipate the mastering engineer.One should mix only to make the mix the way they want it, and let the mastering engineer worry about the rest of it. You don't know what he/she is actually going to do to it; so how can you know what to "test" for or what to "fix"?
And as far as just "fixing" the mix itself, let you ears tell you that as is. Re-EQing to sound good when crushed is not necessarily going to sound good when you un-crush it again.
Just IMHO blah, blah blah....
G.
T
tonesponge
New member
I just got one of the ART Pro VLA IIs to use for pre-comping during tracking, and learned that unlike the VLA, the VLA II does not have auto attack.
Does the lack of auto attack make the VLA II less suitable than the VLA for use in tracking?
Does the lack of auto attack make the VLA II less suitable than the VLA for use in tracking?
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Not at all. It just means that the II forces you to pick your own attack setting, which is preferable anyway.
G.
T
tonesponge
New member
Thanks, Glen.
If I limit myself to using no more than 3:1 ratio, 2-4dB of reduction, and an equal amount or less of makeup gain, will I assuredely NEVER shoot myself in the foot on the way in with this thing?
Is there a safe release time setting range I can use during tracking as a rule of thumb?
If I limit myself to using no more than 3:1 ratio, 2-4dB of reduction, and an equal amount or less of makeup gain, will I assuredely NEVER shoot myself in the foot on the way in with this thing?
Is there a safe release time setting range I can use during tracking as a rule of thumb?
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
If you pre-determine to limit yourself to any given setting range, you're bound to shoot yourself in the foot sooner or later.
You might as well ask, "If I limit myself to using only a screwdriver and turning the screwdriver only clockwise and only with such-and-such pressure...".
Compression is a tool, nothing more, nothing less; just like a screwdriver is only a tool. You use it when you need to use it and how you need to use it, and don't decide arbitrarily that you'll use it with such-and-such settings. Use it however it's needed for any given situation - turn that screwdriver hard if it's a tight screw, but soft if it's head is going to strip, etc.
The same for release. There's no such thing as a setting that's "safe" all the time. You set it to get the effect you need for any given situation.
How do you know how to do this? Study and practice. If you haven't already, checkout the free "Compression Uncompressed" e-booklet on my website (on the "Resourses" page) for a detailed introduction to compression. Then just start playing with the VLA II's various settings for all the knobs, using the e-booklet as a starting reference. The more you play with it, the better of a feel and ear you'll get for how it all works, and you be compressing (and not compressing) just like downtown before you know it.
G.
You might as well ask, "If I limit myself to using only a screwdriver and turning the screwdriver only clockwise and only with such-and-such pressure...".
Compression is a tool, nothing more, nothing less; just like a screwdriver is only a tool. You use it when you need to use it and how you need to use it, and don't decide arbitrarily that you'll use it with such-and-such settings. Use it however it's needed for any given situation - turn that screwdriver hard if it's a tight screw, but soft if it's head is going to strip, etc.
The same for release. There's no such thing as a setting that's "safe" all the time. You set it to get the effect you need for any given situation.
How do you know how to do this? Study and practice. If you haven't already, checkout the free "Compression Uncompressed" e-booklet on my website (on the "Resourses" page) for a detailed introduction to compression. Then just start playing with the VLA II's various settings for all the knobs, using the e-booklet as a starting reference. The more you play with it, the better of a feel and ear you'll get for how it all works, and you be compressing (and not compressing) just like downtown before you know it.
G.
T
tonesponge
New member
I think I am starting to get a pretty good handle on compression settings, except for release time.
The audible change from adjusting release time seems much more subtle to me than the other settings.
I've read your tutorial on that twice now, the first time being a while back, and it still sounds like we just move it into a range where sustain is optimally increased while avoiding clashing with or smearing the rhythm.
I read in another article that, if I understand it correctly, said to set release next to last (ratio being last) until the sound pumps in time with the music. Then it said to go back after setting the ratio and tweak that release setting using math (e.g., tempo is 120 and release is set to 500 ms to make a quarter note).
You seem to say at first that obvious pumping is usually bad, but then that it can be OK if it enhances the rhythm and groove of the music. Are you basically in agreement with that part of that other article then?
Here's a link to the article 3D Mixing Part 4: Compression
The audible change from adjusting release time seems much more subtle to me than the other settings.
I've read your tutorial on that twice now, the first time being a while back, and it still sounds like we just move it into a range where sustain is optimally increased while avoiding clashing with or smearing the rhythm.
I read in another article that, if I understand it correctly, said to set release next to last (ratio being last) until the sound pumps in time with the music. Then it said to go back after setting the ratio and tweak that release setting using math (e.g., tempo is 120 and release is set to 500 ms to make a quarter note).
You seem to say at first that obvious pumping is usually bad, but then that it can be OK if it enhances the rhythm and groove of the music. Are you basically in agreement with that part of that other article then?
Here's a link to the article 3D Mixing Part 4: Compression
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
That sums it up pretty nicely. The rub there is just how one defines the word "optimally"; that's up to the guy turning the knobs to decide. Read on...
It sounds like we're in basic agreement.
The idea of timing processing effects to accent the beat of the music is a common one that's also used a lot in figuring out delay times on a reverb/delay. The actual equation is
60,000 / BPM = 1/4 note in milliseconds.
Multiply that by 2 to get the length of a half note, divide it by 2 to get the length of an eighth note, etc.
*BUT*, that's what you do ONLY when *YOU* want that effect. There's nothing that says that's what you should always do. You probably would not want that effect on ballad vocals, for example. Do you really want Ella Fitzgerald's voice to artificially pump, or do you want the compression to be transparent with no pumping at all? Do you want that rack tom to pump with the beat of the music, or do you want it to provide an off-beat accent fill?
Again' you gotta decide for yourself by using your ears. It sounds like you're still kind of looking for recipes and formulas by which you can set and forget; try not to focus on those things and focus instad on how things actually sound and how you think they should sound.
G.
Last edited:
M
mixsit
Well-known member
You were asking in context to track compression but something to look for with release in general..
The effect of going from fast to slow release can come off as; 'Forward/back, 'aggressive 'in your face'/smooth, or 'brighter-livelier/more mellow in tone.
Although it's a somewhat universal effect 'fast/slow here is dependent quite a lot on context ..and I don't know if your optical comp is fast enough for this so a good test subject might be a typical full feature plug on a moderate to up tempo vocal (not compressed yet) and should be best heard within the masking and context of the mix. (We are assuming a reasonably level track here –as in not compression for fixing wild jumps or as long term 'leveling'.
Set a nice general purpose start point; Hard knee, (peak detect' rather than RMS if available) 2:1.
You want to let some 'front end life in for this to work so let's say 10-20ms attack, several db GR.
Look for the change in presentation as you work your release from around 10-50 on the fast side, 50 to 300 or so on the slow side. (..Give lots of overlap/play here for differences in context and comp styles, but this may happen rather quickly as you pass 20-50, or may not go 'soft/mellow until a few hundred.
Also this context gives a bit of an alt to the 'tempo/pumping movement' approach. There are times where I would look to pace or movement in the comp effect, but more often I tend to think in terms of shape of the problem –and the source, and how much edge' -and return time first, ratio 2nd, then threshold.
Rise, repeat, adjust and 'tune.
Again, the effect is fairly universal, can apply to full mixes as well. But it assumes there is some life up front to allow a track to speak' and have some authority' to begin with.
And to that I add- Consider very carefully committing to your attack time in tracking.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Just for the record:
The VLA II has a range of a quarter of a millisecond (0.25ms) to 50 milliseconds on attack and 150 milliseconds (0.15 sec) to a full three seconds on release.
G.
T
tonesponge
New member
I started tracking bass with it today, and I just had to do trial and error until I found something that worked for me. I first made a track without using any precomp, and then used it as a reference to compare with my precomped track to make sure it was actually yielding an improvement. I know we're not supposed to be mixing with our eyes, but it was also a big help to be able to see the waveform that's recording, and get confirmation that an adjustment was making a visible problem better or worse. That's something I haven't been getting using plugins, except by bouncing down stems, and that kind of feedback is not immediate, and I don't usually do it. So I think precomping during tracking is helping me learn how to use compressors better than compressing in the box. Todays lesson? A little bit of compression goes a long way.
Once I started getting significant improvement over the reference track I made, it became more obvious how much release was too much or too little, but there was one thing I didn't expect. It's a 95 BPM song, but my release wound up being about 180 ms, so I didn't wind up syncing the release with the quarter note (630 ms) or the eighth note (315 ms). I was playing quite a bit of sixteenth notes though, so maybe that's why it seemed to me that I needed the faster release.
Once I started getting significant improvement over the reference track I made, it became more obvious how much release was too much or too little, but there was one thing I didn't expect. It's a 95 BPM song, but my release wound up being about 180 ms, so I didn't wind up syncing the release with the quarter note (630 ms) or the eighth note (315 ms). I was playing quite a bit of sixteenth notes though, so maybe that's why it seemed to me that I needed the faster release.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
That's a huge lesson right there. There's folks that have taken a lot longer that you have to figure that gem out
.It sounds like you're on a good learning tack. Bass is a great instrument for the VLA, too; you should be able to get some great sounds out of it.
G.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Lesson two..? And exactly why I touted going easy-nay on the empo-ta stuff.
Context trumps the numbers, let alone 'x amount of release might mean different audible results in different contexts (-even differences in how they actually act, designed or specified?)
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
What mixsit said, plus...
Don't take 180ms literally. What really happens with release is that after the input level starts to drop there is a lag rate measured in dB/ms for how quickly the output signal returns toward its uncompressed level. Just use your ears and make it sound right and/or good.