It makes complete sense to me, although I'm not sure how you would go about automating the threshold setting on the GR of your choice... is that possible? I'm asking because I've never attempted to automate the parameters of a VST/ effect/plug-in before, I always automate the effect return.

Perhaps automating a parallel GR could accomplish something similar?

I guess I'm suggesting to look at the compression as a sort of FX in this scenario...

Say you were to create an Aux send on all your tracks, and then on that Aux, you inserted a compressor/limiter, you could then automate the level of the Aux return, pulling the level back during those louder sections, thereby decreasing the amount of compression being sent to the Master Bus ...

I don't know which DAW platform you are using, pal.... so I'm just basing it on my own platform, which is Samplitude, where Aux's and Subs appear on my mixer just like channels/tracks do, so I can automate those aux returns just like I can with track levels ( faders).

Although at that point you would be automating an aux return and not the actual threshold setting of the compression...

Just thinking out loud...

With sonar, nearly all plugins settings can be automated.. I still have to try it with Fabfilter's that I use now but I'm pretty sure it does it.

Oh yes it does it, text from their web page :
FabFilter goodies
Of course, you also get all the usual FabFilter goodies: perfectly tuned knobs, interactive [="http://www.fabfilter.com/help/pro-c/using/midilearn"]MIDI Learn[/]="http://www.fabfilte…"]MIDI Learn[/], undo/redo and A/B switch, Smart Parameter Interpolation for smooth parameter transitions, an [[url=http://="http://www.fabfilte…"]extensive help file[/]="http://www.fabfilte…"]extensive help file[/] with interactive help hints, sample-accurate automation, advanced optimization and much more!

So the use that I think of is on the master bus. Lowering the comp thresold on the lower level parts of the song using automation.
My idea is apply if you want your comp to barely touch the dynamics but have the same action on quiter parts of the song. Without this method, on dynamic songs, the comp would do GR only on louder parts.

If your DAW doesn't do it directly OR if you want to do it in the analog world, you can automate the volume of the master bus Aux send and feed it to the side chain of your compressor. Or send the same signal of the master bus to another stereo bus then use the output of that bus to the side chain of the comp..

I have a mix to work on this weekend, I'm gonna try this. I'm kinda exited that I came up with this on my own.. (even if many already use it) ;)

Honestly, I've never automated plug parameters. It's probably possible in Samp, I would think it's likely that my plugs ( waves, T-racks) also allow it, I've just never done it before; instead I've always just automated the aux/FX returns.

I'm interested to see how this works out for you... please keep us informed.

Although now, thanks to you, LOL, I'm also interested to see if this can be done on my platform with my current plugs as well. ;)

I often use plugin automation, Mainly for feedback and volumes on delays and for occasionnal EQ curves or some saturation plug-ins that I don't want to apply equally to the whole song...

Automation of plugin parameters is old news. I just don't do it personally because it's yet another thing I have to think about :=/ LOL.

It's something I occasionally do, but only when, for example, the song has verses single-tracked and choruses multi-tracked. It can be fiddly without any automation.

pcrecord, post: 432028, member: 46460 wrote: Many agree that a bit of compression on the masterbus will glue your mix but what if you want to keep more of the level changes of the song from verse to chorus etc..?

Are we talking about a master as well?
2-bus or a master track is really the same thing to me. Actually mastering just means its all done to me. Editing a 2-bus lane can be some of the most create steps for some people.
Assuming I'm understanding the goal here... I do all sorts of interesting things to a 2-bus or master. This is yet another reason why I capture to a second DAW (however not needed to do this).
Could you split your 2 track from the chorus to verses etc off on their own lanes and apply whatever effect you need to do it that way? Just because they are summed doesn't mean we can't keep disassembling summed lanes like we do to individual lanes. ( The beauty of stem mastering).

I'd take more control of each section (chorus 1/2/3 / verse 1/ 2 /3 etc... to manipulate them.
Possibly build something to ride a side chain comp in those new lanes. Sum it all back together again when you are happy.

Hope that helps.

audiokid, post: 432041, member: 1 wrote: Could you split your 2 track from the chorus to verses etc off on their own lanes and apply whatever effect you need to do it that way? Just because they are summed doesn't mean we can't keep disassembling summed lanes like we do to individual lanes. ( The beauty of stem mastering).

I do disassemble tracks alot but try to refrain doing it lately. It's easier to work automations with less track when you have a 8 track controller.. Also what it does is that I have less plugin instance involve...

For what you are describing, (I think) this is how I would be attacking it.
In fact, I sometimes see automation as the worst offender.
Samplitude is the king at all this because we can treat a chorus as an object. You don't need a plug in running in the background in the same way you do in sonar. Maybe Donny see's into this and may chime in as he knows both platforms well. More object based editing minds trying to help ... ;)

Not that I'm suggesting you buy Sam but the concept of object based editing and what you are looking to accomplish may be easier than you think

It sounds like you are looking at a vocal rider of some kind?

If I wanted to do that I'd either Run 2 Groups of the entire mix with a comp plug in either insert with different settings and automate mutes for the sections Or run 2 comp plugs on the master bus and automated them turning on and off. Whichever works better for your DAW.

Chris Perra, post: 432049, member: 48232 wrote: If I wanted to do that I'd either Run 2 Groups of the entire mix with a comp plug in either insert with different settings and automate mutes for the sections Or run 2 comp plugs on the master bus and automated them turning on and off. Whichever works better for your DAW.

How do you think it could be better than automation of one plugin?

Settings on the plug in. Some plugins have limited automation options.. or don't work very well.. It's just a different way of doing it.

For me I would find it easier to get the settings on 2 separate compressors than start with one and adjust the same one in a different part of the song and then assign automation to it. Is it a gradual setting change or a jump for each section? If a jump,...2 separate would be easier for me personally.

audiokid, post: 432046, member: 1 wrote: Maybe Donny see's into this and may chime in as he knows both platforms well. More object based editing minds trying to help

Maybe this is why I don't use automation on the actual plug, because with the Object Based Editing in Samp, I don't really have to.

I don't think I could be much help with Sonar, though - my familiarity with the platform stops after PE 7/8; it was after this that Sonar released the 'X" versions and I never got around to upgrading to those because someone here (audiokid ) talked me into giving Samplitude a try. ;)

So, I don't really know how the later versions of Sonar are laid out, what it's capable of or how they have changed/improved... although I would think that generally they're keeping up with everything else that all the other DAW platforms are - Sonar is a very popular DAW, I'd be surprised if they weren't up to date on the things that most users want.

As far as automating the actual plugs themselves, I think the reason that I've never really delved into that is because Samp's OBE allows me to work with effect parameters - along with many other actions as well - so automating within the processors has never been something I've had to do. I'm not saying that those who do automate within the effect are doing anything wrong... everyone has their own way of working, certain processes that they are familiar with, and whatever process works is what people should use.

Assuming that Sonar doesn't have OBE to the degree that Samp does, there are still easy ways to accomplish what you want to do... I do agree with Chris ( audiokid ) though, in that any DAW can have more than just one "master bus"... any bus can be used as a "master". I frequently use different buses - not only for the standard grouping of tracks, but also as master buses that are dedicated to certain sections of a mix, and in that regard, you could always create several different buses ( or Auggies), to which certain sections of the mix/song are assigned, which would allow you discreet processing for those different mix sections, and through basic automation, simply mute or unmute these buses as you want, or as the song calls for.

For example, you could assign all your tracks ( and track groups) to two buses - one labeled "verse bus", the other labeled "chorus bus", to which you would apply whatever level of GR you deemed necessary for each, and then, during basic automation, simply mute one bus while you un-mute another. This way, the input levels to the GR would never change; the only difference would be that the verse bus would have different GR settings than the chorus bus would.

You could also do the exact same thing using Aux's as well, in the case where you are using a DAW that doesn't allow you to assign one track to several different outs/buses at the same time.
Simply assign all tracks ( and subgroups) to two stereo Aux sends - one labeled Verse Aux, the other Chorus Aux. Then, insert whatever processing you want on the Aux returns for each, and again, using basic automation, mute or unmute those Aux Returns as you see fit, or as needed.

In Samp's mixer view, all subs/buses/aux's appear the exact same way that tracks/channels do - they have input trim, EQ, Inserts, Aux, Bus Assignments, Pans, Mutes and Faders, just like standard tracks do, and can be automated in the exact same way that the regular audio tracks in the mixer view can.

FWIW

d.

Chris Perra, post: 432055, member: 48232 wrote: Settings on the plug in. Some plugins have limited automation options.. or don't work very well.. It's just a different way of doing it.

For me I would find it easier to get the settings on 2 separate compressors than start with one and adjust the same one in a different part of the song and then assign automation to it. Is it a gradual setting change or a jump for each section? If a jump,...2 separate would be easier for me personally.

What I find challenging in your idea of using mutes is that you need to be very precise with the timming to avoid artifacts.
On my DAW automations are very easy and accurates. Which one do you use Chris ?

DonnyThompson, post: 432057, member: 46114 wrote: Maybe this is why I don't use automation on the actual plug, because with the Object Based Editing in Samp, I don't really have to.

But I'm talking about the master bus or 2-bus here, not parts of the tracks. Can you create objects in a stereo bus with Samplitude ??

DonnyThompson, post: 432057, member: 46114 wrote: Assuming that Sonar doesn't have OBE to the degree that Samp does, there are still easy ways to accomplish what you want to do...

The way Sonar does it is by giving an effect bin to object, so for exemple you can load a delay, just for a word. But again this is on the track level not the Buses.

DonnyThompson, post: 432057, member: 46114 wrote: I frequently use different buses - not only for the standard grouping of tracks, but also as master buses that are dedicated to certain sections of a mix, and in that regard, you could always create several different buses ( or Auggies), to which certain sections of the mix/song are assigned, which would allow you discreet processing for those different mix sections, and through basic automation, simply mute or unmute these buses as you want, or as the song calls for.

That's the way I did it and there is nothing wrong with that, but you may be duplicated plugin instance which is what I try to avoid. Instead of having 2 seperate Comp, you have just one. So less CPU use. If any one cares about that ;)

I never said my Idea was better and I'm happy to read how others do it.
On one side some split the tracks and assign the parts to different buses
Others send all the tracks to 2-buses and use automated mutes.

To me doubling the track count isn't very apealing because I have a 8 ch midi controler so it would mean scrolling to more pages if I want to retouch a channel
And I find it equally easy to automate mutes or comp threshold...

It's an interesting dicussion !! :)

I use cubase 7.5 I haven't had any issues with automation. Earlier versions had some weird stuff happening.

You could also use volume automation if mutes don't work well. Automating the plug in is equally as good. 2 groups or plug ins is just a different work flow

pcrecord, post: 432059, member: 46460 wrote: But I'm talking about the master bus or 2-bus here, not parts of the tracks. Can you create objects in a stereo bus with Samplitude ??

This is a classic example of where a 2 DAW mixdown process shines.

Marco, this sounds very simple but maybe I'm not understanding what you are wanting.
Are you basically wanting to compress parts of a master (verse, chorus, bridge, solo)?
I'm guessing you have a song finished but its not mixed down (glued per-say) so in theory the 2-bus master tracks are not created yet? Which is why you can't break parts of them away to compress and glue?

PS
You don't need mutes or automation and it should all be seamless and very easy to construct. Easy in perspective to what you will achieve.

Regardless of what extra things a song needs, I always create groups (verse, chorus) plus bass, drums, hats, guitars, keys, effects, solo's etc etc etc) and mix down groups where I use 2-bus processing. Always.

From there:
You can continue to master them (ITB) or output groups as stems without any compression so the groups are now either ready for:

1. hybrid audio tracks
2. prepared for (ITB or OTB) collaboration, remix or stem mastering.
3. 2 DAW summing and capturing
   class="xf-ul">
   
   This (can be) an ideal way to work on commercial re/mixes and how I would choose to master (help, collaborate or finish) everyone I work with. In fact, I would always want both 2 channel mix and stems so I can choose what's best for the project and vision.
   Stem mastering is much easier to improve , fix, alter, remix and glue music. Its simple and the choice way I want to work.

   From this step (having the uncompressed stems),
   I would cut the stems into sections and put them into their own channels and assign (if necessary) comps/2-bus processing to each of them using separate plugs or hardware.. I would do exactly what Chris Perra suggested and not use the same plugin for all the steps.

audiokid, post: 432068, member: 1 wrote: This is a classic example of where a 2 DAW mixdown process shines.

Marco, this sounds very simple but maybe I'm not understanding what you are wanting.
Are you basically wanting to compress parts of a master (verse, chorus, bridge, solo)?
I'm guessing you have a song finished but its not mixed down (glued per-say) so in theory the 2-bus master tracks are not created yet? Which is why you can't break parts of them away to compress and glue?

Initially I didn't have the need to confirm how to do it and neither the need to convince anyone it was a better way to do things. I just thought some would like to know it is possible to do it that way ;).

The reason that I'm doing this is for mixing purpose and only if you have a song that some parts are at lower levels and you want to keep it that way and you want to use a compressor to glue things together but don't want to crush the louder parts or boost the quieter parts.
I'm always using a master bus or 2-bus what ever how you want to call it. All the tracks revert to this bus before going to the master output of the DAW. I usually never put anything on that bus and the level is always at 0db. Some will ask why I do that if nothing is on it; The reason is simple, I see the final level of the mix without having to put my Output fader up and blasting my ears... So on that bus, I propose to put a compressor and set it so that the louder part of the song has about 2-3db of gain reduction like anyone would do, just to glue things together. Thing is, if you do that, on the quiter parts of the song the comp won't react at all and no gain reduction will be apply.
By lowering the treashold of that comp for the quieter parts, you keep the general dynamics of the song but gain that glue effect on the whole song.
I thought I would be using this while mixing but I'm now seeing application in mastering as well... ;)

The benifit for me, as I said, is that I only use one plugin and less tracks or buses..

I should have explain it like that at the begining lol ! ;)

pcrecord, post: 432072, member: 46460 wrote: The reason that I'm doing this is for mixing purpose and only if you have a song that some parts are at lower levels and you want to keep it that way and you want to use a compressor to glue things together but don't want to crush the louder parts or boost the quieter parts.

exactly, which is why I always create groups and stems regardless of what my mixdown process is. I always do this because its easier to blend musical parts that were created in steps or that need precisely what you are wanting to do.

Samplitude educates us in a way that you no longer look at mixing music like Pro Tools and friends (DSP hogs).
Object based editing ( or audio clips) are very similar to stems. The object (again... the clip of an audio segment) are very similar to stems but now in the channel lanes (can be manipulated ITB or sent OTB there as well).
Example: You can make an entire chorus into an object. Done.

(EDIT) NOTE:
You don't need Samplitude to do what I am suggesting.
However, the brilliant code makes mixing (alternative approaches) on any platform, easier. Which may be what you might want to do the next time you want to better isolate, adjust volumes, manipulate parts of a song using compression and so on.

I bet you will return less and less to the complicated processing other (DSP hogs) platforms create for us.

Never the less, please keep us up to date. Its all fun!

audiokid, post: 432077, member: 1 wrote: Example: You can make an entire chorus into an object. Done.

In samplitude, could this be done with multiple tracks becoming an object ?

pcrecord, post: 432081, member: 46460 wrote: In samplitude, could this be done with multiple tracks becoming an object ?

Oh ya!
for that matter... not that you would ever need to but hundreds of objects for that matter.

Now do I have your attention! ;)

Once you start looking at audio lanes like objects, the entire concept of mixing and breaking tracks all up into workable sections becomes more logical. Object editing is really hard to understand (because no other DAW does it). You actually have it, and can get past the way other DAW's are coded.
Example, Pro Tools is designed to keep you using plug-ins and needing more DSP. Its a trap and a marketing system to sell software. UAD, same thing. They are traps and bloated systems.

Samplitude was created to optimize the music production system on older computers. Smart people learned how to make it work at a mastering level before the software trap all started.
Samplitude allows us to manipulate audio on the clip (loop etc), with full edit, bus, aux, master, process, tune etc etc etc.... at the audio clip the same way we would on a bus or master section of an entire song at the end of it.
Object is another name for an audio clip. But, Samplitude is basically a full blown mixing and mastering solution anywhere you want to edit.

Does this make more sense?

I'll post a video and when you watch it, try looking at it without thinking about Sonar.

http://recording.org/search/1848308/?q=The+Object+Editor&t=xengallery_media&o=date

[GALLERY=media, 263]Samplitude Pro X: The Object Editor Part 1 - An Overview - YouTube by audiokid posted Mar 23, 2015 at 9:09 PM[/GALLERY]

To confirm, and I'll retire my contribution to this thread because I'm not intending this to turn into a Samplitude thread... (but how can I help it lol!)
You can take this approach to any DAW. I would go back to where Chris Perra and I were discussing the groups and where I mention how I would turn your groups into workable sections to where you can adjust volumes or process them without effecting other sections of the song.
I would do that by bouncing groups into stems and assigning them to individual lanes. Then put a 2-bus comp etc on that and mix it to the other sections.

This avoids using one plugin and unnecessary automation to do it all; imho, a really awkward (if not badly noticeable) way to get what you want done.

audiokid, post: 432082, member: 1 wrote: Oh ya!
for that matter... not that you would ever need to but hundreds of objects for that matter.

Now do I have your attention! ;)

Yes you do !! ;) It open a tons of creative possibilities.. :)
But selecting the tracks to create multiple group objects for the different parts of the song seems like a longer journey than just automate a treashold knob isn't it ??

That feature in samplitude is cool.... most people do the same thing.. just moving the different clips to separate lines.. it's does clean up stuff better visually with samplitude though. As far as plug in hogs. The plug ins in samplitude using that approach appear to be active till you freeze them. Is that correct?

I can freese tracks in sonar too.. Althought I only do it with Vsti and tracks with Amp sims.
I don't suffer from having too much plugins (dropouts or artifcats or latency). I just got the habit of using less as possible since a few converstions we had here that unveiled the possibility that the more the computer works, the quality could suffer. I have no proof of that but I'm not taking any chances.. ;)

pcrecord, post: 432028, member: 46460 wrote: Hi fellows,

I was just wandering if anyone use or tried this technic I'm thinking about for several days now.
Maybe it's a common thing but my brain just figured that possibility by itself lately !

Many agree that a bit of compression on the masterbus will glue your mix but what if you want to keep more of the level changes of the song from verse to chorus etc..?

Anyone thought of using a thresold automation to apply a lower thresold in the verses and a higher one on the choruses ? My Idea is to apply the same amount of gain reduction on the entire song instead of having the louder parts being more compressed...

Is this making any sens ? ;)

Good thinking!
Manny Marroquin actually does exactly that.
Ride the threshold at your own risk.. haha

pcrecord, post: 432087, member: 46460 wrote: But selecting the tracks to create multiple group objects for the different parts of the song seems like a longer journey than just automate a treashold knob isn't it ??

Possibly yes, possibly no. I suppose its whatever produces the best outcome.

If I can fix or apply something permanently apposed to using automation, I will always go that route. Object editing has changed my way to use automation on say, vocals and instruments. I find its easier to get it right at the object apposed to riding something all the way through a session. In your case, it sounds like you need to ride it though.

I used to automate like it was a necessary sugar. I use automation more for effects like delay tails, nature sounds, audience, ambiance effects, fades or rises and so on.

Chris Perra, post: 432088, member: 48232 wrote: The plug ins in samplitude using that approach appear to be active till you freeze them. Is that correct?

yes,
I usually use OBE for things I know I will eventually freeze or that have no added impact on CPU.
Common things I do at the object are: De-essing, level editing, tuning, EQing to match punch-in from later dates and so on. In fact, most of all my edits are things I know I would not regret later. Then again, I will save the session so I have a restore point.
The only time I actually use plug-ins that remain on to the end of a session are effects, sidechain compression or spacial tools that I may need to tweak at final mixdown . Everything else is done at the object and /or saved for the Master section on DAW 2.

audiokid, post: 432098, member: 1 wrote: I find its easier to get it right at the object apposed to riding something all the way through a session. In your case, it sounds like you need to ride it though.

I can but I don't need to ride it..
I can select the part of the song and create a change for that part with 2 mouse clicks (for an equal change for many measures that's what I do)
Of course I still need time to listen to the results and make sure it sounds good. That's the most important thing right there ;)
See what I mean at 44sec of this video

cool, that's all basic, excellent automation methods. It appears you have it sorted already and are only needing a basic time line automation?
I call that automated riding. Its still riding the wave with additional automation using valued processing.
This used to create an audible "zipper" effect in Pro Tools plus all sorts of "random" phasing issues when stereo tools were automated on a 2-bus. The L/R coding couldn't always keep the phase integrity while processing (especially comps) in real time. Which is only why I am mentioning this in the first place. Your OP was about comping in a stereo process. Here is my rational "shop talk" :)

The more automation was done to a session (as track count or DSP demands increased), the more unnatural music sounded.
I suppose they have the zipper issue silenced better today but this type of stereo processing and what it can do to stereo transient preservation, still worries me.
Mono tracks: at least when the processing starts "randomly" chocking code, it doesn't screw the phase on the lane, but (in a very detailed discussion about phase) often there is the subject "unedited" (band/ performance bleed) in other tracks that don't get edited in the single process. Bleed Examples : drums , cymbals, voice pitch and most of all, "the room reflections and ambiance" are the worst effected from wave riding. It creates a random pumping/ phasing and nulling effect that most people don't even notice. I'm going beyond the basic thread but its one more reason how bad things accumulate in a mix, to avoid. I render to avoid random. If I do something to one track, I also follow where it could be bleeding or dropping in and out of unsuspected other channels, and duplicate the process if at all possible.

When we are recording live music, there is a reason why the old days sounded more enjoyable. We couldn't do all this perfection to each track to music back then. Even though the sonics lacked, music sounded so much more phase natural, dynamic and imho, enjoyable. My way of avoiding random cause and effect, I make sure I do things together in steps, look for any traces of cause and effect in other tracks, then render rather than letting the random turn it all unnatural.

Personally, I try to avoid stereo timeline riding methods whenever possible because it can add unpredictable random phase issues with some plug-ins and computers.

I know I am going far deeper into all this, but what the heck... mixing talk is addicting. :love:

All very good considerations Chris that's why I like your posts ;)

pcrecord, post: 432127, member: 46460 wrote: All very good considerations Chris that's why I like your posts ;)

Thanks.

pcrecord, post: 432028, member: 46460 wrote: Hi fellows,

I was just wondering if anyone use or tried this technique I'm thinking about for several days now.
Maybe it's a common thing but my brain just figured that possibility by itself lately !

Many agree that a bit of compression on the master-bus will glue your mix but what if you want to keep more of the level changes of the song from verse to chorus etc..?

Anyone thought of using a thresold automation to apply a lower thresold in the verses and a higher one on the choruses ? My Idea is to apply the same amount of gain reduction on the entire song instead of having the louder parts being more compressed...

Is this making any sens ? ;)

Now that we've dissected this discussion, it would be very interesting to have you try both processes to see which sounds better for you.

1. Session 1 - Using one plug-in and the automation as you are describing in Sonar,

2. Session 2 - Break and duplicate (chorus'/ verse's, bridge, etc) into sections and place them into separate lanes. I would still create groups for these sections and apply dedicated compression on the group(s), not the tracks. I may also use a final master comp and possibly a stereo reverb on the "master bus" to glue it all together.
   class="xf-ul">
   (Note: If you do this, keep the original version but mute it. Duplicate all the parts (chorus'/ verse's, bridge, etc) so they are lined up to your original Session 1. This will make the A/B more accurate. Yes, this may be more time consuming but imho, it will be worth it for this experiment.

   Assuming this is for more detailed results: In Samplitude (or most DAW's), I bet you would get better results finalized faster via #2 way than the time it would take you to accurately get the automation right. Compression Automation is an endless tweaking imho. You can fuss with it for hours sometimes. But that's another topic.

audiokid, post: 432134, member: 1 wrote: Compression Automation is an endless tweaking imho.

Not so, I tried it this morning and it was a very fast and easy thing to do. I did ajust the comp for the loudest part of the song and then just automated lower treashold for the other parts. In 5 min the comp was doing 2-3db of GR on the entire song..
But I'm open to challenges Chris, I'm gonna try the splitting lanes technic this week and let you know ;)
After all How it sounds is far more important that how fast I can do it !!!

Good to hear.

Maybe your needs for this are very subtle. I know what you are suggesting is faster, in a subtle simple step, but it really may not be that case if you are shooting for a more glued sound.

pcrecord, post: 432139, member: 46460 wrote: But I'm open to challenges Chris, I'm gonna try the splitting lanes technic this week and let you know ;)
After all How it sounds is far more important that how fast I can do it !!!

Cool, I hope you follow my steps.

Would you mind uploading the track in question. I suppose it would be helpful to even be hearing what you are doing to it. Maybe it's so subtle, which of course, a simple auto curve is all that's needed.
If its an obviously noticeable,
I would be open to share what my process would sound like too. I wouldn't do anything more than what I described above (Session 2) which would be 100% ITB on a laptop (headphone monitoring).
Regardless of how many channels are in a song, the steps of grouping and placing a master verb on the master bus is where I hear glue-like benefits. It could be dynamic comping isn't really your answer.

edited above.

You know what I realise ? the first song I tried this, it was a guitar/voc intro, then soft verse, chorus, more busy verse then bridge, then chorus..
It makes a lot of different dynamics.. so many many spliting.. lol ;)..

pcrecord, post: 432148, member: 46460 wrote: You know what I realise ? the first song I tried this, it was a guitar/voc intro, then soft verse, chorus, more busy verse then bridge, then chorus..
It makes a lot of different dynamics.. so many many spliting.. lol ;)..

Interesting - Please explain more?