Page 5 of 16
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2025 12:16 CEST
by UHLS
Hi sthauge, hi all,
Thanks for initiating the discussion about compression.
I agree with you and others "no comp" guys on many points, but one thing always triggers me, and that's the creation of legends in music production.
"Swedien didn't use compressors," "Rudy van Gelder didn't use compressors," "Al Schmitt did too," etc.
With all these statements, as with all other legends, you take a small piece of truth and ignore a large part of the story.
And the truth is that Swedien did not have any extra compressors in his signal chains because he - like other old guard - pushed tape compression to its limits.
Tape compression was both - a blessing and a curse in those days - and engineers lucky enough to have production costs without regret, destroy miles and miles of tape until the signal-to-noise ratio reached its highest limit.
Back then, people wanted to keep the signal chains as short as possible because every component added thermal noise to the signal.
Since tape only has a dynamic range of approximately 40-60 dB (don't nail me on that number), microphone positioning and, above all, musician discipline played the most important role in the recording process. Only musicians who had their dynamics completely under control could play with the big boys. (Even today, all serious studios have "dB clocks" on the wall, which are supposed to make it easier for musicians to find the right dynamics).
Back then, recording was simply a secondary part of mixing and consumed the largest part of the budget. Mixing, on the other hand, was a walk in the park compared to recording in terms of time.
Thanks to digital audio and today's virtually noise-free electronics, large signal chains has become an important part of mixing compared to the past, and especially popular music such as pop, rock, metal, etc. is unthinkable without bold compression today - even if it's only "digital tape compression", if you want to follow the old ways.
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2025 18:16 CEST
by Edling
Well I don't agree with anything said regarding compression (or any other hard fact rule), and I've been mixing for 30 years
Unless you're recording/mixing classical music, or perhaps jazz, then your only job as a mixing engineer is to make the mix sound as
exciting as possible. There are many tools to your disposal to do so and compression is one of them. Again, every tool can be used in the wrong way, in which case you end up with a less exciting mix, but that's what your ears are there for!
And if you come across any rules when mixing, try to break them, if the mix sounds more exciting, then it probably was a bad rule
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2025 20:20 CEST
by sthauge
Hi
@scottfitz thank you for an interesting post and the thoughts on the topic. Yes, our ears and our brains, that interprets what we hear, is fantastic. A lot have been lost with introduction of .MP3s and later the loudness war that have crippled the sound(my opinion).
I just remembered what was important when it came to technical spec for an amplifier back in the 70s and 80s. The usual stuff like freq rang, S/N ratio, THD, etc was important, but one thing we where looking for in the specs was 'Slew Rate'. 'Slew Rate' is the measured number of the amplifier capability to build voltage quick when a transient hit. It was measured in volt pr microsecond. The higher the better. An average amplifier was able to give eg 20 volt/ms, but a high end amplifier could give eg. 110 volt/ms or above. The higher 'Slew Rate', the more transparent and clear sound you get. It was all about transients and to reproduce them in a speaker best way possible.
@UHLS Thank you for filling in with more info about historical aspects of compression. Yes, tape compression and tape saturation was part of the soundscape back then.
@Edling I cant't see that anyone have talked about hard rules of compression here. It have been some interesting views on compression, what to gain, what to think of, historical perspectives etc. Just some thoughts that people can learn from. Those new to mixing have got some historical background and views on development in use of compression over the years.
We totally agree on two things:
1. ''your only job as a mixing engineer is to make the mix sound as exciting as possible''. My only comment to this statement is the use of the word 'only'. I think that as a sound engineer you would benefit from having musicality, musical ideas, innovative thinking, experimenting etc.. On the second most sold album of all time, Pink Floyds 'Dark side of the moon', the engineer, Alan Parsons was the head behind the 'bells and clocks' intro to the track 'Time'. He was not only mixing an exciting sound, he was active contributing in the creation of the album.
2. I'm all in for experimenting, so when you say '' if you come across any rules when mixing, try to break them''. Everyone should try that to see if the 'rule' is legit. There's a lot of advises and rules out there that need to be challenged.
Most of us are sitting in our studios, a corner of a bedroom, in the garage etc mixing music without colleges to discuss mixing topics with, so this type of discussions have a lot of value, but now I'm finished with the topic for now and revert back to the competition.
Have a great faderday
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 02:03 CEST
by scottfitz
sthauge wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 20:20 CEST
Hi
@scottfitz thank you for an interesting post and the thoughts on the topic. Yes, our ears and our brains, that interprets what we hear, is fantastic. A lot have been lost with introduction of .MP3s and later the loudness war that have crippled the sound(my opinion).
I just remembered what was important when it came to technical spec for an amplifier back in the 70s and 80s. The usual stuff like freq rang, S/N ratio, THD, etc was important, but one thing we where looking for in the specs was 'Slew Rate'. 'Slew Rate' is the measured number of the amplifier capability to build voltage quick when a transient hit. It was measured in volt pr microsecond. The higher the better. An average amplifier was able to give eg 20 volt/ms, but a high end amplifier could give eg. 110 volt/ms or above. The higher 'Slew Rate', the more transparent and clear sound you get. It was all about transients and to reproduce them in a speaker best way possible.
@UHLS Thank you for filling in with more info about historical aspects of compression. Yes, tape compression and tape saturation was part of the soundscape back then.
@Edling I cant't see that anyone have talked about hard rules of compression here. It have been some interesting views on compression, what to gain, what to think of, historical perspectives etc. Just some thoughts that people can learn from. Those new to mixing have got some historical background and views on development in use of compression over the years.
We totally agree on two things:
1. ''your only job as a mixing engineer is to make the mix sound as
exciting as possible''. My only comment to this statement is the use of the word 'only'. I think that as a sound engineer you would benefit from having musicality, musical ideas, innovative thinking, experimenting etc.. On the second most sold album of all time, Pink Floyds 'Dark side of the moon', the engineer, Alan Parsons was the head behind the 'bells and clocks' intro to the track 'Time'. He was not only mixing an
exciting sound, he was active contributing in the creation of the album.
2. I'm all in for experimenting, so when you say '' if you come across any rules when mixing, try to break them''. Everyone should try that to see if the 'rule' is legit. There's a lot of advises and rules out there that need to be challenged.
Most of us are sitting in our studios, a corner of a bedroom, in the garage etc mixing music without colleges to discuss mixing topics with, so this type of discussions have a lot of value, but now I'm finished with the topic for now and revert back to the competition.
Have a great faderday
Thanks for all your input
@sthauge. I think in hindsight I have lost a bit too much snare transient in my mix and therefore some clarity etc. is gone. I was interestingly trying to force myself to use some different plugins and the Distressor on the drum bus is set on attack 8 which could well be too short with the amount of GR it is doing. Additionally I used a 10ms attack on the mixbus compressor which I have pretty much never done before and I think that has also taken some of the snare transients.
thanks again for your help and experience in mixing
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 15:58 CEST
by White Punk OD
BenjiRage wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 12:36 CEST
It's both interesting and worrying how ChatGPT can throw up two different answers to the same question - that has been my experience with it too. We use it occasionally at work and we've seen it outright lie to us before, so yeah not the most reliable source!
Dropping by for a second, made experience with Grok. This one is very well-equipped to get involved in the management of software production. Many suggestions are obvious, while many issues have more than one possible solution.
First of all, to use generative AI for anything productive, you need very strong self-perception, else it takes you to dreamland.
Grok tells you which sources he used, and you can get him dig a bit deeper. But if the student is clueless, Grok is not of much help because who will steer the debate? You read what some people somewhere on the internet have written, summoned by a LLM. Is it true?
My deeper knowledge is based on viewpoints by the constructivist Heinz von Foerster, regarding issues like authenticity, and the notion of "truth".
It is extremely tempting to use such a thing as a classic Greek "Oracle". You can't go more wrong than that. After all, the Oracle had an owner and a ventriloquist. And this will be true for any AI. They call it "alignment".
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 19:55 CEST
by Swiv_In_Da_Mix
;)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IWiNyy ... sp=sharing.
. Mix!!!!!
plugins used:
UAD/Waves/Stock Protools
Send effects
Valhalla Vintage Verb Vox
h-Delay 1/8th Vox
Vocals
Not much than some stutter & pitch along with volume balance and the regular plugins.
The source of the vocal is excellent.
Mixbus
Ozone/blackbox plugins
General:
I wanted to make this mix sound natural as possible not compressed just volume balance.
My thought process was to do it like how the reggae engineers would mix a song a go for the emotion i.e. the feel of the performance with minimal processing that can be heard. Thanks to the producer and the vocalist without capturing the performance I would have struggled more to mix the song so I would appreciate it we could get more information on the chain used i.e. convertors when tracking the vocal /mic/compressor/mic-pre.
Hopefully this upload smh this is my second post, the 1st post I did didn't go so well lol hopefully this was is a charm.
props to all the mix engineer on the especially those who are willing to share ideas and move forward with learning partnerships....
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 20:04 CEST
by BenjiRage
Swiv_In_Da_Mix wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 19:55 CEST
... so I would appreciate it we could get more information on the chain used i.e. convertors when tracking the vocal /mic/compressor/mic-pre.
You might not have read all of the text in the provided mix pack - it details that the vocals were programmed using Synthesizer V (IE: it's a computer singing
) so there is no recording chain as such!
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 20:18 CEST
by Henrik Hjortnaes
BenjiRage wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 20:04 CEST
the vocals were programmed using Synthesizer V (IE: it's a computer singing
) so there is no recording chain as such!
Yes, I wanted to comment on that. To my ears, it's pretty impressive for a Synth to create those vocals. Does it take a lot of work by you to get that result? You know, pre-setup, editing, post-stuff?
Overall, your song is great. All your performances are well placed, well played, and everything fits nicely to make a song with movement.
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 21:34 CEST
by BenjiRage
Henrik Hjortnaes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 20:18 CEST
Yes, I wanted to comment on that. To my ears, it's pretty impressive for a Synth to create those vocals. Does it take a lot of work by you to get that result? You know, pre-setup, editing, post-stuff?
Overall, your song is great. All your performances are well placed, well played, and everything fits nicely to make a song with movement.
Thanks for the kind comments! Yes the first time I heard a song with SynthV vocals I was like "naaaahh, no way is that a computer", it was quite a jaw-dropping moment - it does a pretty impressive job like you say.
You can get basic vocals out of the program really quickly, but I spent a heck of a lot of time crafting and tweaking the tracks for this song. In the end I probably spent as much time programming them as I would have if I'd had a real singer to record and done multiple takes with (alas I can't sing a nice lead myself, my voice doesn't have the range)
It certainly isn't a time-saver and definitely not a replacement for a real singer, but it's a great creative tool to have in the arsenal and had I not had it I probably wouldn't have written the song.
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC104 June 2025 - Submissions until 21-JUN-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2025 00:38 CEST
by Henrik Hjortnaes
BenjiRage wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 21:34 CEST
It certainly isn't a time-saver
Well, great job, it sure paid off in regards to sound
Can I ask how you are going to ensure loudness match during evaluation, which tool and process for that, and if your speaker response in the room is tolerable, good, bad, unknown? Perhaps you will be using headphones also? I'm just curious, don't worry
