Low mix volume due to very bad peak to average ratio

[BazzBass]

I do not understand your aim to add compression in two steps. This makes no sense. You only add compression when the dynamic range is too wide, there is too much difference between the softest signal and the loudest. You compress to close this gap,then add gain to make up for the highest peak being compressed. You can't do it in two steps, all that means is that you didn't compress it sufficiently the first time. The real aim is to record at such levels that you don't need to compress anything except at the mastering stage to bring it all together.

Just my opinion.

 

[Bambi]

Hello BazzBass, my question about doing the whole compression separated in 2 smaller steps was just to know if it made any audible difference compared to doing it all at once. On the other hand, and parting from my inexperience in the field, it seems that recompressing the same instrument is not that unusual after all. I think MJK mentions it too, in his method for getting louder final mixes

 

[-mjk-]

I don't generally double process like that though. The secondary compression is across the whole mix or master. I try to record stuff the way I wanted to sound in the final mix so as I'm laying tracks I'm trying to get it as close to the final product as I can.

 

[Bambi]

Hello MJK, very interesting. I've learned some advantages of recording a clean signal and applying any process later in the mix, but I would like to know if there are any advantages too in recording the signal already processed, instead of doing it later. I don't know if it is just a matter of preference or if you reach some result that you can not reach doing it the other way. Do you apply effects too when tracking?

 

[BazzBass]

some examples might help to clarify.

If your guitar sound through your amp is exactly what you want to record, then stick a mic on the amp and use that. If the sound you want is not coming out of your amp and pedals, record it clean thru a DI and add fx later.

Recording acoustic drums would be recorded differently,maybe you'd record it clean,and add reverb, compression and EQ at mixdown,to better be able to separate each drum sonically with eqing

Bass could be recorded thru a DI with one signal being dry and the other with fx, then blend them later

there are so many different ways to record each instrument,you just have to find what works for you and your gear.

Using a DI or preamp pedal allows you to record two different signals,one clean,the other with effects. Then you can blend them later to your liking.

 

[-mjk-]

@Bambi you mean a dry track, because we always want to have a clean recording.

What do I do? I do whatever it takes to get what I want. It depends what I'm working with. If I had a device that only has one effect at a time and I need that effect on different things and with different settings, then I would have no choice but to record them with those effects and those settings. I however have a tremendous amount of experience doing this from the 24 track analog days so my results are likely to be more successful than someone who's never done it before. The issue is that once the effects are on the track, you can't take them off again. It takes a lot of practice and it takes a diligent approach at the monitoring so you can set up the other tracks so they sound relatively close to the final mix that you want, so you can match the effects.

In our studio in Boston we had a Yamaha Rev7 digital reverb. That thing had the best chorus I ever heard, but of course it only does one thing at a time. So it was common for me to take a mono guitar and record it on to two tracks with the stereo output of that beautiful chorus, so I could have the device free in the mixdown to be used as a digital reverb. You just got to do whatever it takes.

 

[Bambi]

Hello BazzBass and MJK; ok, I see then some of the advantages of recording a processed signal instead of a dry one. Certainly, if you have the sound you like previous to recording, and you can't get that exact sound later in the process, then that's one of the various good reasons to record the signal already processed.

I've been doing some more trials these days with my drums and my mixes, and I've come with a couple of doubts regarding the subject of the thread (final volume, compression, etc), with which I don't know if you could help me. I'll tell you my doubts:

1) When using compression and limiting not just to shape the sound, but to increase the audio volume, is it usual to compress and limit further than just the peaks? Or you only get rid of the peaks, and then use other techniques to increase the volume?

2) As applying limiting to the whole mix changes the balance among the different instruments, is it usual to create a slightly unbalanced mix and reach the exact balance later during limiting? Or rather it's usual to create the most balanced mix possible and then apply limiting trying not to change the balance too much?

3) On the same regard, as applying compression or limiting to the drum bus rises the volume of quieter elements, like hi hat or ride cymbal, is it usual to lower them a little bit when mixing the drums, to compensate for the later compression? Or again do you just create the mix you like and try not to change the inter-balance too much when compressing?

 

[-mjk-]

@Bambi 你想太多了....

You do what sounds best without over-thinking everything.

Everyone develops hand-eye coordination. Recording engineer have to develop hand-ear coordination. Knowing what knob to turn based on what you hear is an acquired skill that is developed over years of work.

You mix while using compression, if the mix needs compression. If you had to mix in the dark, you'd ever get anything done. If the mix doesn't need compression, then it doesn't.

Where are all these "doubts" coming from?

1. I use the compressor to get the sound I want. I never think about how much I'm digging into the waveform below the peaks. I use my ears.

2. I never create anything but the best mix I can do and I don't care what I have to do to get it. If any post-processing messes up the mix, the post processing is wrong. Any post processing should enhance the mix. I use my ears. This is exactly like digital photography. If you get the shot right in the camera, leave it alone. If you apply some filter and it looks like crap, press Control-Z.

3. "Later compression?" What do you mean? The only later compression would be in Mastering. Any compression on the final mix after the fact should be part of the Mastering process. Reference my statement above about mixing with compression if it needs it.

Your last statement is the most accurate of all. Yes, I create the best mix I can - end of story. All recording engineers do that. Keep in mind that creating the best mix may or may not require some kind of bus compression. This "inter-balance" you speak of - again, I use my ears. I don't even think about it. The music will tell you what it needs. Granted, you need ear training to hear it though. You seem to be of the opinion that adding compression will destroy the balance of the mix. It might if you apply it like that.

@Bambi Do you ever worry about the filter caps in the power supply of your Model 12? I mean, what if the filter caps on your power supply go south but not so badly that it blows the mains fuse and you never know they are leaking, but you've recorded tracks with sub audible 60Hz junk on it that causes serious intermodulation distortion across the mix?

What if there is some magnetic source nearby that causes an inaudible oscillation in your condenser microphone at a super-sonic frequency that gets recorded?

Seriously, if I worried about .01% of the stuff you are talking about, I'd never get anything done. You really do not realize how trivial these issues are. I don't care what some bedroom laptop "producer" says on YouTube.

No disrespect meant, but several people have told you that you are over-thinking everything.

Just get on with it and make some music!

 

[BazzBass]

here's what a lot of people don't seem to grasp, people at home on a Portastudio are trying to be as good as trained and experienced audio engineers who studied for years and worked at recording studios for years to get to where they are now.

Noobs are asking 'how do I make my recordings as good as yours?"

the answer is simple, spend, oh, fifteen to twenty years doing this

simple

 

[-mjk-]

Too bad all those studios are gone. No more apprenticeships. I always had a couple of young people around trying to learn.

 

[Mark Richards]

always had a couple of young people around trying to learn

Me too.

I also know of one guy who started out at 16 sweeping floors; graduated to turning the tape machines on and off; and soaked up everything he saw and heard. When the Beatles' engineer suddenly moved on to other things, at 19 or 20, Geoff Emerick stepped in to become the Beatles' recording engineer for Revolver, and went on to win Grammy Awards for Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road. He did that through never-ending fearless experimentation, thinking outside the box, and ignoring many of bureaucratic EMI's "rules for recording".

But I digress.

Let me just say that I agree 100% with the last few comments by mj and BazzBass.

 

[Bambi]

And what do you think I'm doing here? You all talk about apprenticeships, people willing to learn, and all the other things. And really, what do you think I'm trying to do here in the forums? When have I ever pretended to know what you know after years of experience? All I've done is speak humbly and respectfully for your knowledge and for the little I know about your trajectories. My way to learn is ask and extract conclusions from others experience, and also try things by myself to get my own conclusions. I've told you a couple of times that many of the questions I ask is because I don't have the necessary gear yet, or because, for one reason or another, haven't been able to try that things by myself. Actually, many of the things I ask are a consequence of the trials I make, and I ask to understand the results and see how can I improve them.

I know I over think everything, but that's how I am, and besides its inconvenients, it has helped me for several things in my life. I appreciate your help these weeks, and I'm doing a lot of progress. I also appreciate your encourage to learn things by practice, and that's what I do, beside writing in the Forum. If you don't want to engage in conversations with me, you don't have to. But you must understand that I'll keep asking the doubts I find in my way, as I need to learn all I can to get where I want. I guess that as you've all done in your life to get where you are now

 

[-mjk-]

@Bambi, if you're addressing me, it's all good and well. Yes, you've been respectful of course. I'm concerned when I see anyone holding back from doing things because of uncertainty when there isn't any risk involved, to speak of. Let's face it, we're talking about home recording some tunes on the Model 12. You can't really hurt the thing unless you do something really bad like connect the output to an input. You have enough knowledge already to just try things and see what happens. This doubtful questioning may have served you well in some aspects of life, but that doesn't work with art. With art you have to go with your gut. Besides, I really want to hear your tunes! As a producer, I've pissed off hundreds of clients, lol. But I pushed them hard and got incredible performances out of them. So let's hear what you got!

 

[BazzBass]

Me too.

I also know of one guy who started out at 16 sweeping floors; graduated to turning the tape machines on and off; and soaked up everything he saw and heard. When the Beatles' engineer moved on to other things, at 19 or 20, Geoff Emerick stepped in to become the Beatles' recording engineer for Revolver, and went on to win Grammy Awards for Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road. He did that through never-ending fearless experimentation, thinking outside the box, and ignoring many of bureaucratic EMI's "rules for recording".

But I digress.

Let me just say that I agree 100% with the last few comments by mj and BazzBass.

And on the Get Back sessions, the tape operator was Alan Parsons !

 

[-mjk-]

Among other things, @Mark Richards said:

thinking outside the box, and ignoring many of bureaucratic EMI's "rules for recording".

I remember when Tom Scholtz shocked the recording engineering community by openly saying in a magazine article that he added however much EQ he wanted to a signal to get the sound that he wanted.

Today it's not even used for equalization anymore. It's used for complete tonal shaping.

 

[Mark Richards]

My point:
The basic tracking and mixing tools and concepts have been around for years, to be learned through reading (something I do continuously), self-education, seeking out formal training, etc.; IMO, the experimenting & implementation however can't be taught. Using the tools effectively in a given situation requires thinking creatively, sometimes outside the box, to hear and learn what works and what doesn't.

This will be my last post in this thread. I have work to do. See y'all down the road.

 

[Bambi]

Hello, thank you for your messages. MJK, thank you for your words. I actually was answering to you three at the same time, as I've never pretended to know what you know after all these years, and I've never pretended that I could get at home a production quality similar to any professional studio, with expert technicians, producers, musicians and gear. Regarding learning, experimenting, etc, it seems that you think that I keep myself from trying new things, or something like that, when actually I have tried things, related for example to drum sounds and adjustments, that I haven't seen anybody try here at my local music scene. Just to illustrate this example, I send you some pictures of my mini and extremely muffled drumset here at home:



However, I agree that I'm too rational rather than practical. Anyway, all these weeks I've been experimenting with Audacity, my Model 12 and different instruments and audio gear I have, but don't get to like the results. So, on one hand, inspired by what I talked with you (MJK, Mark, BazzBass and Arjan), and to improve my drum recordings, I've gone back to my electronic drums. Obviously they are far from perfect, but better suited for my music than my acoustic mini drumset. And, on the other hand, I ordered some new gear to continue my trials and my learning (the 880 PRO headphones and a hardware compressor/limiter). The learning process will be hard, but very fun at the same time.

Mark, thank you for your ideas about experimentation and trying new things. Lastly, MJK, to share my recording with you, I don't know if I should upload the file in this thread or send it to you privately. I can upload it here in case that Mark, Arjan or BazzBass wished to listen to it and comment anything. I'll try to make a raw mix the following days, but I must warn you that it is a very amateur recording

 

[-mjk-]

Hi @Bambi. Regarding your recordings, it's entirely up to you. You may post a link in the forum for mixes, or you may start a private Conversation (the envelope icon at the top right) and add users with whom you would like to share. And don't worry, we've heard everything under the sun. It has to be a link though, to a cloud storage solution kind Dropbox it Google Drive.

 

[BazzBass]

haha I started recording in the 80s on Portastudios, in bands called Rough Mix and Distorted Tarts. Nothing you could post would be WORSE than anything we recorded lol

 

[Bambi]

Hello MJK and BazzBass; ok, MJK, I'll see if I upload it publicly or privately. Regarding the need of the share being a link, does one to the files in WeTransfer also serve? If not, I may use Google Drive. I'll do the mix and upload it when I have it. BazzBass, there's nothing I must fear, then However, you can bet that I have my own history of poor rehearsal recordings, kinky band names, and all the other necessary features to become a true rock musician