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 ? ;)
Topic Tags
Comments
audiokid, post: 432151, member: 1 wrote: NOTE: I would only sugg
audiokid, post: 432151, member: 1 wrote: NOTE: I would only suggest splitting parts of a master track into workable lanes if I was compressing different sections with different thresholds and ratios.
That's what he wants to do, no?
His original post mentioned automating a compressor so that the settings would be different for different sections...
You're right Donny, that's exactly what I'm talking about, for m
You're right Donny, that's exactly what I'm talking about, for mixing and/or mastering. Chris and I are exchanging on the possibility that spliting the tracks in many parts and sending those parts to different buses on which compressors have different settings may sound better than automation.
I'm kind of discourraged by doing this in a mix situation if you have more that 2 adjustments but for mastering it could be viable.
This whole idea is about setting a compressor that gives an average of 2 or 3db of Gain reduction to each part of a song instead of having no GR on quiter parts of the song.
pcrecord, post: 432159, member: 46460 wrote: Chris and I are exc
pcrecord, post: 432159, member: 46460 wrote: Chris and I are exchanging on the possibility that spliting the tracks in many parts and sending those parts to different buses on which compressors have different settings may sound better than automation.
You guys would be more knowledgeable than I regarding the potential negative issues involved in automation - don't get me wrong, I've automated more than just a few mixes in the past, but I can't say for sure - one way or another - whether or not the automation ended up creating artifacts within those mixes... I guess it's possible, and makes sense that - at least in theory - the more calculations you force the program to make in a given space and time could result in artifacts or sonic skewing of some kind.
I do remember hearing some of my PT buddies complain that from time to time they could hear "zippering" on automated volume adjustments, but that was years ago, and in older versions. I would assume that this has since been addressed and fixed; also, I don't know how much the computer itself plays into that scenario, as far as CPU power, RAM, and DAW settings (buffer, latency, etc.).
I don't really use automation in my mixes all that much anymore; since moving over to Samp, I tend to work more and mostly with Object Editing than I do with actual automation.
There it is ; On automation and one splitbuses version. To me th
There it is ; On automation and one splitbuses version. To me they sound the same...
I did reproduce the same threasold adjustments on the buses and the automation and I lowered the clean levels to be added to the buses by lowering the lanes faders and doing pre fader sends to the buses..
Also I had to fix some artifacts created by the cuts.. something not needed with automation...
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
The cuts should be seemless but it's good to know. In sonar, thi
The cuts should be seemless but it's good to know.
In sonar, this appears to be quicker and close enough that who would even care, right!
In samplitude, there are so many ways to blend section and edit, the automation method would be an option but not my first choice.
Back to the OP.
For giggles... I would still strap a master comp and reverb (last and very subtle) to glue it all my way but thanks for taking the time to confirm. I bet you feel better regardless of the extra time it took to confirm this all.
In regards to why you were even doing this.... Re 2-bus gluing - I'd love to try duplicating what you did, as a PBL experiment sometime. Maybe I'm doing a whole lot extra for little return too. ;)
Cheers.
Okay... so maybe it's just an aural hallucination, but at :27 in
Okay... so maybe it's just an aural hallucination, but at :27 into the song, the second file seems... well, "ballsier" to me than the first file...? But, it could also be that I'm two quarts shy on my regular coffee intake yet this morning. ;)
Both sound great to me Mon Ami. I'm certainly not hearing anything wizzly.
I'm away from my rig until tomorrow. I haven't listened to eithe
I'm away from my rig until tomorrow. I haven't listened to either of your clips, Marco, but to read there are in fact differences the other guys are hearing here, its getting more exciting!
a "Clearer" difference. ... now that is ramping this up now. Gawd I love this our forum ;) Don't share which version is which yet.
pcrecord, post: 432184, member: 46460 wrote: There it is ; On au
pcrecord, post: 432184, member: 46460 wrote: There it is ; On automation and one splitbuses version. To me they sound the same...
I did reproduce the same threasold adjustments on the buses and the automation and I lowered the clean levels to be added to the buses by lowering the lanes faders and doing pre fader sends to the buses..
Also I had to fix some artifacts created by the cuts.. something not needed with automation...[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
Nice work. I love this . The second track is better sounding. Why?
Who is singing? sounds like
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]freightgod[/]="http://recording.or…"]freightgod[/]
I think we are discussing two very different objectives. Am I co
I think we are discussing two very different objectives.
Am I correct, that you were discussing using one compression plugin to do multiple tasks on a stereo lane via automation?
OBE is like splitting a track away from a lane without actually needing to do it ;)
Because you don't have OBE, your alternative is what I suggest. But I only suggest it as a test because it of course is going to be more time consuming to what you are familiar with in your process.
Being said... I am still unsure your multitasking dynamic compression will produce the best results though. It would be interesting to compare a few ways to do this, regardless of the time it takes at this point. With practice and familiarity, things that take time in a beginning, might not take as long later. But, its the outcome we should be interested in at this point? :love:
NOTE: I would only suggest splitting parts of a master track into workable lanes if I was compressing different sections with different thresholds and ratios. I would never ask one plug-in to do this via automation. Why would you do this to save time? It seems really cumbersome and possible problematic. But again, maybe the task is a lot less of an issue so a simple step as you are doing, gets it done.
I would also be more inclined to do split sections into lanes and groups if I wanted to study the cause and effect in greater detail.
Basically, I'm looking at this process from 2-bus summing, stem mastering and how I prefer to glue clients tracks needing more love.
I would of course, always try to go into a mix or stem first, to get more into the detail before it was a final 2-bus.
If all I was doing was adjusting volumes, the timeline automation as you are doing would be perfectly adequate for me as well (with as little edit points as possible).
However, If I was looking at a dynamic compression technique, I doubt I would do it like you are doing but if its working for you, and its fast, then its perfect for you and there is no debate.