macrae11 wrote:I think the big question of whether you're "guilty" or not, is your reasoning for doing it. If you're mixing with compression to get some more loudness/punch, then I would say don't do it. Get loudness/punch from your mix and then decide if you need compression.
macrae11 wrote:I was not so subtly asking which of my two categories your reasoning for doing it was. Wink
Drumwaiter wrote:Since so far 100% of my mixes don't go on to mastering, I do some compression/limiting on the 2 Buss to try give my mixes a bit of a boost.
macrae11 wrote:Ok I was thinking that your statement could be interpreted either way. A bit of a boost = more volume?
macrae11 wrote:If this is what you were meaning, I would recommend against it. Are all of your songs singles, or do some of them make it to an albumish type medium? Even something like Myspace. If they're all completely one offs, then I would say add your processing during mix, but after everything else is done. Mastering style two buss compression/limiting can stomp on transients pretty good which will affect how you mix, particularly percussive instruments. Not saying you couldn't learn to mix well with this, I just wouldn't recommend it.
macrae11 wrote:If your stuff is ever going to be showcased together, like I said, even a Myspace page, I would recommend taking all the songs that live together and do a "master" of them all at once. Just for consistency if nothing else.
macrae11 wrote:If you do decide to do your final processing at the mix stage, just make sure you also print an unlimited version, just for future safety. You never know what future medium your work might end up on, and what the requirements might be. If your mix falls apart when you take the processing off, then you should IMVHO definitely remove the processing while mixing.
Fair enough.Drumwaiter wrote:Tons of good advice in here.macrae11 wrote:Ok I was thinking that your statement could be interpreted either way. A bit of a boost = more volume?
My statement was meant to be taken however you wanted to take it, because it allows dialogue either way.
Two reasons. In theory if your mix requires copious amounts of compression and limiting to hold it together and keep it tight, then your mix wasn't that good to begin with. You should be able to get a much better sound, by having a better mix, and applying smaller amounts of compression and limiting, which should sound more open but still with impact. Even if you want the super compressed sound, I would still argue that it will still sound significantly better with a better mix.Drumwaiter wrote:macrae11 wrote:If this is what you were meaning, I would recommend against it. Are all of your songs singles, or do some of them make it to an albumish type medium? Even something like Myspace. If they're all completely one offs, then I would say add your processing during mix, but after everything else is done. Mastering style two buss compression/limiting can stomp on transients pretty good which will affect how you mix, particularly percussive instruments. Not saying you couldn't learn to mix well with this, I just wouldn't recommend it.
This makes complete sense, and is a great reason not to do this. The opposite argument would be that since the end user only hears the compressed/limited version, what does it matter what the unprocessed version sounds like?
Drumwaiter wrote:macrae11 wrote:If your stuff is ever going to be showcased together, like I said, even a Myspace page, I would recommend taking all the songs that live together and do a "master" of them all at once. Just for consistency if nothing else.
Is there anyway I could do this consistently in Cubase? The reason I'm asking is that soon I'll have done a few recordings that will be on Myspace or on a CD or some sort of medium where the songs are together. I've never noticed any differences in my finished "masters" before so could I just keep going down this road undetected? Or... Should I be considering getting a mastering/audio editing suite to avoid the use of this kind of thing while mixing? Any thoughts or suggestions? Maybe Wavelab 6 could handle that kind of stuff while also being able to work as a audio editing program with functions like batch conversion, audio "clean-up" functions and so on. However I'd be interested to hear anyone else's suggestions on that. I know Andrew, you use something else. I know Jef uses Wavelab, so any insight there would be great too.
Drumwaiter wrote:macrae11 wrote:If you do decide to do your final processing at the mix stage, just make sure you also print an unlimited version, just for future safety. You never know what future medium your work might end up on, and what the requirements might be. If your mix falls apart when you take the processing off, then you should IMVHO definitely remove the processing while mixing.
That's some pretty sound advice. No pun indended.
macrae11 wrote: In theory if your mix requires copious amounts of compression and limiting to hold it together and keep it tight, then your mix wasn't that good to begin with. You should be able to get a much better sound, by having a better mix, and applying smaller amounts of compression and limiting, which should sound more open but still with impact. Even if you want the super compressed sound, I would still argue that it will still sound significantly better with a better mix.
macrae11 wrote:I really like Wavelab, and might even consider switching over now that they have a mac version. Until you're sending masters to a plant to be replicated though, you don't really "need" a program like Wavelab. For the price though, Wavelab is a great investment, and a great tool, that could make your life a ton easier.
Drumwaiter wrote:
They don't "need" it, but I can't compete in the loudness wars without it. Had I not done that to Feedback's single, I'd have to crank up the dial on my radio to hear RSVP after Justin Beiber just blasted through a whole hell of a lot hotter.
Exactly what I'm saying.Drumwaiter wrote:
Soif I was to buy software of that kind Wavelab 6 is a good choice for me is what you seem to be saying?
Just the Vintage Warmer which I find very forgiving and perfect to help things stick together in a mix.macrae11 wrote:So never any compression on the 2bus Malcolm? Even just a gentle squeeze to bring things together?
Mathieu Benoit wrote:
One of the biggest things I find this year since I've been working in the studio so much is that my resolution is increasing. I used to remember Andrew saying "Bring this up .5dB, and that down 1.5dB" and I'd think to myself how can he even know that? Well if there's anything I learned this year is that once you start getting good at getting your balances together, .5dB is a the difference between just right and it's going to drive you nuts for the rest of your life if you don't fix it.
Context is everything.Alain Benoit wrote:Mathieu Benoit wrote:
One of the biggest things I find this year since I've been working in the studio so much is that my resolution is increasing. I used to remember Andrew saying "Bring this up .5dB, and that down 1.5dB" and I'd think to myself how can he even know that? Well if there's anything I learned this year is that once you start getting good at getting your balances together, .5dB is a the difference between just right and it's going to drive you nuts for the rest of your life if you don't fix it.
A really disassociated analogy would be this, from a hundred yards most people couldn't say whether a clothesline pole was 30' 4.5" or 30' 5 3/4", put them next to each other and the difference is easily noticeable. The point is that in a rock mix where most tracks are relatively within a 10dB of each other, 1dB does make a noticeable difference. It's all relative.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests