Making your tracks sound larger

Would it make more sense to add the tape sat/color first in the chain? I mean, if you are wanting increase the harmonic content of a track, wouldn't you want to do it on the source so the later plugs are effecting those added harmonics?

I'll give this a spin tonight - thanks!
 
Nice stuff! Have you been watching MILAR? Lol
but seriously, I just got McDsp analog channel and the differnce it has made is incredible.
 
Good stuff, just one noob question. Are you rendering individual tracks with the emulation, and then pulling them back in the mix? Or are you applying the emulation to group buss's?

And did I read that right? Are you normalizing all the drum tracks in your project or just the stereo mix for the example?

I don't render each track individually in most cases, I just did in this bit here so you can heard the individual tracks. I bus out every type of different instrument, which is All Drums, Bass, All Guitars, and all Keys, and then a master bus, so 5 or 7 if I do quad tracked guitars becuase i like to split guitars 1 and 2 from 3 and 4 and then bring them back together in a master gutiar bus which then goes back.

I am weird, but I like to use the bus's to do the actualy volume mixing and overall effects. The effects I put on certain tracks are effects that trim up the sound to fit and cut in the mix and i do small fine tunning with volumes such as drums, but most of my finalizing volume and effects take place in the bus

Yes I normalize all the individual tracks, I have had the luck of being close to peaking at 0, but then foudn taht I didn't have the volume i needed after the fader was maxed out and I had input sensitive effects such as compression or some form of saturation, so I like getting all the signals as loud as possible. I would rather be too loud and have to turn down than not have enough volume.

Would it make more sense to add the tape sat/color first in the chain? I mean, if you are wanting increase the harmonic content of a track, wouldn't you want to do it on the source so the later plugs are effecting those added harmonics?

If you are refering to the trim eq and whatnot, that doesn't count becuase we are essentially trimming up the sound that we want to go into the satration. Other than some minor eq on the kick and snare and a low pass on the gutiars, everything in my mixes up until the master didn't have any eq. That though is actaully becuase I like to have the sound fixed and sounding good before I record it so I do minimal work possible. If it doesn't sound right, then redo it, don't expect the eq to work and if you do it my way (and the way many other great producers that I go it from) you won't have to worry about fixing issues that could have been fixed during the recording process. Anyway, the tape is getting practically raw inputs, but yes if yiou were going pre-digital old schooll, they used to record directly to tape and then send that to a SSL board that was hooked up to their monitors. The way I did it was the new school digtal/analog hybrid ITB and use the tape as a buffer in the later stages to get some warmth and other analog effects. Each way will have different effects, I was just demonstrating the way that is most commin in digital studios today that run digital out tracks through tape (keeping with the industrail standard)

Nice stuff! Have you been watching MILAR?

who?

EDIT: nvm, damn that seems like a pretty cool DVD. I should check it out.
 
Eh...

I don't think the "effected" track sounds any better. It has some weird issues in the high end. It sounds a lot bigger, but that's just because its about 6db louder. Even them out and the raw tracks sound a lot cleaner and more distinct.
 
the bigger effects are in the guitars, which are pretty huge if you compare the before and after, the other big on is the tons and hi hat. other than that its a subtlety. The issues in the high end, simply the fact i can't mix or eq there very well, my ears fatigue to easily when I am dealing there and I always fuck shit up.
 
Yes I normalize all the individual tracks, I have had the luck of being close to peaking at 0, but then foudn taht I didn't have the volume i needed after the fader was maxed out and I had input sensitive effects such as compression or some form of saturation, so I like getting all the signals as loud as possible. I would rather be too loud and have to turn down than not have enough volume.


This doesn't sound like a good practice. I don't really understand why you would do this. Once you have 2 Tracks peaking near 0 you're already clipping the master bus with faders at unity. 24 tracks=major overload.

When you run out of volume for soemthing in the mix it just means all the other faders are too loud. Unless proper tracking levels were neglected.

Your digital gear is not calibrated to track that hot You should be tracking at around -18dbfsrms (average) and trying to not have peaks about -6dbfs.
 
This doesn't sound like a good practice. I don't really understand why you would do this. Once you have 2 Tracks peaking near 0 you're already clipping the master bus with faders at unity. 24 tracks=major overload.

When you run out of volume for soemthing in the mix it just means all the other faders are too loud. Unless proper tracking levels were neglected.

Your digital gear is not calibrated to track that hot You should be tracking at around -18dbfsrms (average) and trying to not have peaks about -6dbfs.

Right now I am only tracking guitars and bass, I just like having my tracks as hot as possible, just for the reason taht I like to have all the bus faders near unity and not clear the fuck down to -30 or something like that. Like I said, if the volume is too high (which it will be) then the master fader comes down, its a hell of a lot easier to have too mcuh volume and bring the master fader down than to totally readjust a shitload of tracks so that one that is too quiet when maxed can be heard.

I like to have a lot of play with my mixing faders. I will keep the bass at unity gain and then bring all the levels to match the bass. First drums, then gutiars, then keys, followed by vocals if I ever did any. Usually most of the time even wuith the bass noamalized its notwhere near peaking all the time, just occasionally with the RMS around -16. When the rest of the instruments are all balanced and I am ready for the master bus limiting, the final master fader is barealy below unity (anywhere from -16 to -5) when it is all said and done.

IMO as long as your master tracks aren't clipping every way is the right way, many different ways to approach the mix, mine just might be a little bit different from the norm
 
Excellent information, well put together, and very well written. 5stars. If you ever want to come work for me in Detroit, let me know ;-)

that would be cool but I can't justify moving half way accross the country especially of the fact that I like wherer I am. I would love to have a job like that though.
 
Winter, you need to stop low-passing your guitars so low. They're so fucking muffled dude, open em up a bit!
 
I've been partial to these PSP audioware plugins we have at the studio. All kinds of warmers and saturators. I put them on almost every track. I for one love the MILAR technique.
 
WinterSnow, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about tracking levels. I'm a firm believer in that the master fader should never be brought below unity. And, also that channel/bus faders should always be lower than the master fader. Anyways, I digress....:heh:


Great post, and thanks for taking the time to type that all out!
 
yep the MILAR DVD is awesome. some stuff you think you already know, but the approach is very interesting. Bit cheesy and over use of video effects, but the content is ace