51m0n

I dont really get plug in GAS..... I dont buy plug ins at all though, I've found nothing thats on sale that I cant do something simialr with with the stuff I've legitamtely got for free, so why waste my money (especially for shiny graphics, no one listens to an album and sees the plug ins, they hear the efffect they have, so thats what I always have to remind myself to concentrate on - so easy to be seduced by fancy GUIs). Given that digital equalisation works on the same principles regardless of the vst, what is it about those two waves EQs that gets you so excited Charic?

Top work chap! I used to use stereo wideners quite a lot (I did for som eof the backiung on Kits stuff, because so much is going on). I find it works really well on seperate components (ie a BV group) of the the mix, but if you apply it to the whole mixit sort of cancels itself out, it still works, but not as mucxh as if one or two parts of the mix step super wide. And it tends to not collapse to mono so well - not that that ever worried Bruce Swedien, and if he didnt care why should I Love the way these software plugins call themselves things like a FET compressor, there isnt a FET in there anywhere, and I bet it doesnt actually behave like a FET (does it raise the noise floor significantly for instance?) - it will be a fast attack compressor, with a very short RMS time on the sidechain 'circuit' (sub 1ms or even just peak), and will be supposed to feel like an 1176 a bit. I suppose they are trying to get people to understand what they are after, but I've come to prefer names like The Glue, and Thrillseeker LA, they dont realy tell you what is supposedly emulated, but they give you a clue as to what the intended use might be. Weird about the eq on the 2buss, and then to reverse it on the rendered file. Never tried that, but a lot of eqs have slightly diferent curves on a reduction as opposed to an increase (in the analog domain anyway). Theoretically the sake digital eq applied at the same frquency with the same Q to add a reduction of n dB of gain and then applied again with an addition of n dB of gain should null with the file with no eq applied, however its possible rounding errors may get in there somewhere, although I doubt you'd hear the difference. If I get the time I may try that - interesting... I really thought youd re-amped the keys, was it 'quite a lot' of tape saturation going on?? Ta for all the details!!

Nah, sorry yes the gear we use can only make the input signal we put into it sound louder, but it can also degrade that signal immeasurably. Tell you what, you give me your Roscoe, etc etc and pick up one of those cheap as chips starter packs from Tescoe that are your favourites and see what that does for your tone matey Personally my ability to produce the sounds I want to has been a far shorter road than most peoples on here, mainly because when I decided to get back into playing bass my mindset was very much "no compromise" on kit quality, I got the sa450 first, massive improvement over the old amp I had, then the ae410, total and utter revelation, and finally my Roscoe, and that took a few months to really start to get my head round (being a 35" 5 string) but timbrally it was all there the minute I plugged it in. Still makes me grin like berk every time I play through the whole rig.

ae410 Cos its the business

Why did he join [i]your[/i] band again?

Nah, when I said "export the stems", that meant the raw audio, you would want to then reapply all the effects as you re-rendered everything. Delay times should be fine, reverb tails may well need to be adjusted...

Cause I dont call her 'her', she has a name you know...

I've done this with Reaper on seriously complex productions (well over 50 individual tracks) My advice is to get the stems of the track in question and do the tempo change on all the stems, then reimport them into logic and render the mix. If you just do the stereo mix it will be far more obvious that its been 'played with' than if you do the individual stems then redo the mix. The results I've had from this approach has been staggering...

<SHUDDER> Oh I remember this....

Brian Ritchie from The Violent Femmes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToxmbOr00co

Using auxes saves on cpu horsepower massively for one thing - a single (stereo) channel of reverb can add reverb as required for 200+ hundred channels - the system merely sums everything at the insert of the aux channel then passes the result through the vst once. Also some fx definitely sound different to my ears when you use them like this rather than on inserts. The only problem comes if your channels you are sending from are in groups and you want to be able to control the volume of the entire group by its fader and not change the fx balance - at that point you need cleverer routing than the standard choice - Reaper lets you do this (and pretty much any other routing) although its not trivial. Insert fx are normally fx you dont want to blend with the original - so EQ and comrpession (when not parallel compressing) - again a good DAW will let you blend any and all insert fx too, which further confuses the issue. I use Aux sends etc because I'm used to real mixing desks where you couldnt plug 5 fx into every channel insert etc etc, but also fo rthe CPU savings. IMO its a must have technique for getting the most out of your rig and your mixes....

[quote name='rogerstodge' timestamp='1359219450' post='1951806'] are you saying my interface is crap??.ha ha i think you could be right Simon. It won't work no matter what i do, right where did i put me hammer? [/quote] As if I would besmirch the big B....

I've used tapping on stage as well as fingerstyle, chordal strumming, slapping, patting, ocatve slapping, harmonics, 'false' harmonics, even in the same piece. As long as it grooves and there is a musical reason to do it I couldn't care less what the technique is I need to use to achieve my goals.

Look for info on aux sends in your DAW manual, Lurks...

ASIO drivers would be the number one must have to lower latency. That and a decent interface of course........

Its all in your ears, listening, learning how to use the tools and then experimenting.... You will only get better the more you are doing thins stuff. What DAW software are you using?

The x32 doesnt have Midas pres in it, thats for definite, according to all the threads I've seen, and so on. It looks like a really really impressive bit of kit, I'd love to see one in action with the break out boxes too (which by definition are going to be exoensive, they ahve DAs in them for all the channels they break out to as far as I can tell). If it can handle the punishment it is going to get it will be a game changer I think. Of course the FOH will be even more dependant on the skills of the engineer in question - with that much per channel processing going on it will be that much easier for Captain FOH to balls up the mix totally.....

Bergantino ae410 Yes, in a straight A/B over a few hours in a band setting it even beat the Barefaced Super12T tonewise (for me - this stuff is subjective as hell). Clearly the S12T is lighter, but that isnt the point of this pointless survey It is my absolute dream bass tone, whatever style/technique I've used with it. Thats why I own one. If I played differently or had a need for (much) more low end (which I really dont) then maybe the Barefaced Bigtwin would get a look in.

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1359074897' post='1949679'] UH I think I will have to read that post about 5 times to understand the jargon , still , I am not sure exactly what the answer was going to tell me, as I guess I didn't really understand the question. hey ho , whats the next track I can sort out for you [/quote] Sorry if its all too jargon heavy mate. Its really hard not to use the terms I'm familiar with. If there are specific bits that leave you competely non-plussed after a couple or three read throughs [i]dont hesitate to ask for clarification[/i]. This is all supposed to be a learning exercise for [i]all[/i] of us (still waiting to read Skols in depth how to for his mix, will learn a lot from it I'm sure!), if anyone cant follow the terminology of an explanation then it is up to us to help them.

As for my mix, it went something like this.... Listen to the tracks up at a unity gain to see what we are dealing with. Go through them individually to check for the biggest offenders, try and foresee issues - in this case the kick and hihats were always going to be [i]really [/i]tricky to get right (really stinky bit of drum tracking as it goes!), the bass had nothing above the low mids, and so couldnt possible work on a lappie, the backing vocals were a cheeky cut and paste job and not doubled, the guitar was charming (really useable tone that fits the song really well, the keys were great, the vocal was OK but needed to be pulled into a sapce with the band, eq'ed and compressed to pop in the mix etc. Set out the tracks and group them all into sensible and useful groups and subgroups, I ended up with:- FX group - Plate reverb - Ambience reverb - Delay Rhythm Section Group - Drum kit group - - Parallel Compressor - - kick - - Snare Group - - - - Snare top - - - - Snare bottom - - hi hat - Percussion group - - loop shaker - - djembe - Bass group - - bass mids (more on this later) - - bass track - Guitar group - - Guitar 1 - - Guitar 2 Vocal Group - - lead - - bv - - bv (treated) - - bv dub delay Keys Group - - Keys 1 - - Keys 2 Which enabled mixing of sub groups (and sub sub groups) and control over sections to be maintained nice and easily. I decided right at the start to make this a very quick mix by my standards, so I limited myself to just a couple of reverbs and a delay (I've used as many as three reverbs on a lead vocal alone before now), and to try and keep things as simple as possible. Having said that I just checked and I used 20 different VSTs in the mix, thats not 20 instances thats 20 different fx, way more than 20 instances! I used Reacomp, Reagate and ReEq all over this mix, nearly every channel (and group) has a Reacomp and a ReaEq on it unless it has something a little more exotic to help eq or compress it. EQ out the nasty stuff - that turned out to be almost the entire hihat as it goes, the kick had a huge amount of eq on it too EQ the tracks to fit together - Thats some deep bass isnt it, better not compete there with the kick drum then, so I went for a slappy kick and deep bass, this is how the whole thing goes, listen to sounds competing in the same frequency range and hack chunks out of one area of one for the other and vice versa (hack may be a strong would, lets say carve). This is done with both/all tracks up to allow me to hear when the competing tracks sit nicely together. Its generally done in mono too, I want them to overlay so I can clear them up and still hear the 'essence' of what makes each sound the timbre that it is. Sort out the transients and levels to fit together with comrpession - somethings have to have a big transient spikee to have the impact they need (snare drum for instance), is there another instrument in the same area of the frequency rang that might compete with that instrument's transietn (bv's maybe) if so consider the use of very fast attack on the compressor on the competing instrument to keep it out of the way when the more important transient htis. This is hard to do, to be honest it takes a lot of mucking around with mixing to hear the music like this, and a good understanding of comrpessors to be able to think in terms of seperation in those tiny durations that we can get compressors to help prevent a build up in, or accentuate a transient spike in. I then panned the entire mix to work together nicely, being very careful to seperate elements that were competing for space to opposite sides of the stereo field. I opted for a very hard panned sound, its not quite LCR but it is very close, that seperation in the stereo makes the space for the lead vocal and so on that a radio friendly mix really needs. I then got the ambience close to right - the reverbs and delays that the whole track sat in, which involved choosing a couple of good convolution reverbs, a Plate (mainly for the vox) and a good convolution IR for the ambience (A small bright ambience from Samplicity a set of free Bricasti IRs). The filtering of the reverbs is the key to making them sound real. The delay I used was NastyDLA from Bootsy, it just lets you do lovely things to saturate the repeats and sounds gorgeous, I used a dotted 8th on the LHS and a dotted quarter on the RHS with a cross feedback type of ping pong to get plenty of delay movement going on, but filtered out all but the mid range to keep the delay from overpowering the mix, careful feedback setting is a must for this to work out ok. I think it was about now that I parallel compressed the drum kit for more punch (using the Molot compressor I smashed the hell out of it the snare and kick then mixed that back in with the original to get some more punch) and then went around adding some saturation with a mix of either FerricTDS and/or TesslaPro (mainly on groups) to various tracks to make them pop out of the mix a bit more. I used a feedback compressor (TDR feedback compressor) on the entire rhythm section to help ride the levels throughout the track a little, its a really really nice vst that very very transparent gain riding tool. I ended up liking the drums so much that I put them a bit louder in the mix than I normally would. At about this point I realised the bass wasnt going to cut it on anything but big speakers, so I took a send to another channel, heavily filteredit to include only the upper mid range that was there then ran that through a guitar combo amp & cab emulator called California Sun (from Auratone) and blended that back in with the original bass track to add a load of upper mid harmonics to the bass track itself. This was very tricky to balance but meant there was something from the bass to hear (albeit overdriven) on small laptop speakers - something I know RedStriper has tried to get right before. After that i concentrated on the vocals, using Spitfish to de-ess the lead, and reacomp to control both lead and bvs. Then it was time to find a bit of secret sauce to help pull the mix along. This was quite tricky, I wanted to double the bvs and pan them left and right, I even tried to copy a bv from a different section to get some double tracking, but alas the BVs were one shot copied and pasted so that didnt work. Finally I decided to take the one BV channel I had, copy it, effect it very heavily, and send it to a really tasty dub delay fx called TAL DUB II which allows for repeats to be filtered and overdriven very spectacularly (its one of my favourite delay fx). Then by carefull automating the send to the delay and the level from the delay through the duration of the song I could use that effect as the 'earworm' pulling the listener through the arrangement. and ended up using it for the last gasp of the outro. I hope that gives a bit of an insight. I spent about 4 or 5 hours on the mix, which is tiny by my standards. In a 'real world' scenario at this point I may have spent another couple of hours refining balances, and automating some levels (that opening snare, which has a timbre shift from intro to first verse, the lead vocal etc etc) before presenting the mix to the client for review and a round of mix tweaks. Again for me, this is rushing things along, but I only have so much time to spend on this competition I'm afraid.... Butlerk02 has sent me his album - which is a excellent. I think we are going to have a completely different set of problems mixing it though. I'm going to listen to it for a couple of days before picking a favourite track for us all to have a crack at...

OK here's my set of 'mix notes' from my sitting down and listening to everyone elses mixes. They are written as I listened throug, so they are pretty abrupt, simply because there isnt time to write an essay as the mix unfolds. Hope I dont offend anyone with any of the comments.... [b]redstriper: [url="https://soundcloud.com/redstriper-mix-stems/no-2nd-chance-un-mastered-mix"]https://soundcloud.c...un-mastered-mix[/url][/b] Panning: everything is on top of each other - no room for lead vocal Reverb on vocals: sounds rather fake, and everything else is pretty dry compared to the vox Very static mix: its left entirely to the song/arrangement to keep the listener interested [b]butlerk02: [url="https://soundcloud.com/butlerk02/2nd-chance"]https://soundcloud.c...rk02/2nd-chance[/url] [/b] Panning; too conservative still - ok on phones, less seperation on a hifi than might be best as a result Reverb on vocals: almost sounds like a small room reverb, its nearly a doubling effect rather than a reverb - maybe thats a delay doing that, in which case that delay output could do with some filtering to make it a bit less in your face and distracting? Mix helps the arrangement unfold really nicely though - percussion and rhythm guitar treatment are really nice! [b]OldG: [url="https://soundcloud.com/lucy-hastings/bc-mix-final"]https://soundcloud.c...gs/bc-mix-final[/url][/b] Theres a very odd and distracting delay on the snare in the intro and outro that makes it sound like the drummer may have been at the sherry! The guitarists are swinging around everywhere which is really distracting in headphones. I cant talk, there is a glitch on the snare in the intro on my mix too! Note to self, check the final render more carefully before uploading! Panning: other than the mad boogeying guitarist(s) its all a bit on top of each other in the center competing with our dear lead vocalist The mix is quite static again though, this song definitely can be helped a little to unfold IMO, without doing something too gimicky [b]RockfordStone: [url="https://soundcloud.com/robslusarmusic/no-2nd-chance"]https://soundcloud.c...c/no-2nd-chance[/url][/b] Panning: again pretty conservative headphone mix panning, although the panning choices are good they arent as hard as they could be Vocal reverb: another pretty fake sounding reverb/doubling thing going on, its a bit more subtle than the others though, which helps it along a lot There is something going on (a delay maybe) right on the beat which is a bit annoying and sounds very fake indeed, I think its off the vocal? Very static mix: its left entirely to the song/arrangement to keep the listener interested [b]Skol303: [url="http://soundcloud.com/skol-mixes/second-chance-by-tacsi"]http://soundcloud.co...chance-by-tacsi[/url] [/b] OK now this is very very 'clean' sounding, considering the effort thats gone in to saturate everything, pretty sure the gates are in use in full on this to achieve that kind of clean but super processed sound. The downside may be that it is almost sounding like a selection of samples put together in a DAW rather than a live performance? Really nice hammond, some compression on there somewhere to get it to 'pop' like that I would think, maybe a re-amping as well? Huge reberb length on the vocal, really well done, good bit of filtering to keep it under control Not at all sure about the eq on that hi hat though, I know its a really tough and nasty sounding hi hat in the first place, but I think more needed to be done to get this under control The re-amping of the guitiars and subsequent filtering is very very clever, but maybe too much for the song? Great re-arrangement to add more interest with the big drop in the midddle though. Very very well done (re)mix, if this were more conservative (ie a little more Tacsi, a little less Skol) I think this could have beaten mine hands down.... [b]lurksalot: [url="https://soundcloud.com/lurksalot/no-second-chance-again"]https://soundcloud.c...nd-chance-again[/url][/b] Snare-ring-tastic is that done with a lot of compression, or with eq? OK, this is clearly a mix newbie, there are some real classic mix issues in here that everyone makes when they are starting out (really pleased you entered this - thanks!). You need to achieve far better seperation between instruments, this is done with EQ and Panning in the first instance, and after thats right then compression and ducking techniques play a role too. Have a good read of the Recording101 blog on eqing and have another go at eqing this, then, when its all eq'ed as nicely as you can try a stupidly simple LCR pannign approach (everything is only allowed to be Left, Centre or Right in the mix, hard panned. The seperation will be far greater making the track easier to hear, without the build up of competing frequencies. And we havent even got on to the compression side yet Its a decent early effort though, a bit of perseverance with the basics and it will improve massively [b]charic: [url="https://soundcloud.com/thebrokensky/no-second-chance-bc-mix-comp"]https://soundcloud.c...nce-bc-mix-comp[/url][/b] That hihat that still has way too much of the 'nasty' about it IMO, you need to be vicious when you get a sound tha tis tracked that badly, only leave the good bits (however little that may be) The reverb is completely overpowering the vocal, and everything else too a bit, you're forgiven, if oinly because you didnt live through the 80's Panning is a little conservative Mix is pretty static once it gets started, although I do like the vox fade on the outro, thats a neat way to end it, nice! EQing could help "de-muddify" the result some more.... Sorry if thats all a bit abrupt!

Skytfaoooooooooolllllll.... Yup its uncanny!

[quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1359030998' post='1948664'] I'd also agree with Charic. It's a bit like bootleg recordings of a great band. You hear the quality of the sound source even through the poor recording. [/quote] I dont so much - but thats my problem

Fair enough, thats all about eq and transient control, saturation and panning, and ambience - damn that everything! I put it down to being a cheapskate and never buying any VSTs then, just using the free stuff I cant think of anything that you can put on the 2Buss that magically makes it all 'polished' sounding really. Not without getting the mix polished first. All those mastering things just make a bad job worse IME, unless you are an expert with mastering... I think Skols was at least as polished sounding (but his hihats were still a bit too 'skanky' if I'm harsh) , although I think he strayed from the intent of the original piece further (too far maybe) with his reamping of the guitars and filtering trickiness (as ace as it was, maybe it changed the track to the point of it almost being in a different genre?).