After watching the mix deconstruction videos I wonder if all that riding is a 'normal' thing pro mixers do?

I'm just asking because the only automation I normally do is volume and it is pretty minimal.

I can't speak for Bruce, but yes, I ride levels on tracks, eq's, reverbs, and compressors during mixdowns. The Mackie HRD24 lets me automate my track levels and I'll bounce to an unused track to bring in compressor, reverbs, or eq changes I've done by hand.

OK, Harvey (and Bruce, or anyone else, but you were the one in the barrel...) here's the question:

In a non-classical mix, final mix and mastering is done to make a track 'radio-friendly', i.e., squeeze the crap out of it to make it as loud as possible. There are usually no dynamics left, so this kind of over-the-top gain riding is needed just to get any sense of dynamics at all - note, I'm referring to gain, not things like reverb and delay levels, which are more creative than anti-destructive. IF WE DIDN'T COMPRESS THE LIFE OUT OF OUR PROJECTS, WOULD WE NEED THE HEAVILY-DETAILED GAIN RIDING, OR IS THIS JUST A WAY TO ADD BACK IN WHAT THE COMPRESSOR IS TAKING OUT?

I presume most competent musicians play with a sensibility regarding dynamics and level, and take this into subconscious consideration when performing the original track, even when overdubbing. (But then, I'm a jazz musician, not a rocker, and such nuances as volume may be irrelevant to today's head-bangers?)

In my own mixes, I usually just do section level changes - down for the bridge, up for the solo sort of stuff - and because a) I don't hear with the detail of a full-time mix engineer and b) I don't compress heavily and c) I'm lazy!

But I'm also curious, and I'm going to make this a separate topic...

Hey soundsmith,
I know I replied in the other post to you already but, I must say, that being a musician myself and a "headbaner" as you've termed it.
I also play in many styles, including some Jazz.
I studied Jazz guitar with Chuck Underwood, a personal friend of mine and long time guitarist for Patti Labelle. Why would a headbanger do such a thing? To get a new outlook, to understand jazz better.
Playing dynamics is not something that rockers do not understand. I'm not trying to start a fight here, anything but my friend. I find that headbangers are much more open to other types of music than most musician's ehom I have met.
Radio adds is own form of compression (ADC) automatic gain control. It is for this very reason that final decisions on compression are usually best left to a qualified mastering engineer. I'm not saying to never use compression. I'm saying that as with any effect usually less is more. Pick up an album by Yngwie Malmsteen's rising Force, the first one with a song titled "Black Star" om it and, listen to this wonderful musician use playing dynamics in a brilliant manner. Ifyou enjoy clasical music you will instantly recognize the influence of JS Bach in this man's music.

As a brick home has "weep holes" to allow the structiure to breathe, so riding can be a way to create this is in a mix. Amplitude as well as EQ and effects automation. Please give this wonderful recording a chance. I am in agreement with you completely on the volume wars subject.
This is IMHO a very bad usage of compression in the mix stage. Better to leave final dynamic decsions to a competent mastering engineer.
Dynamics make music breathe if used properly.
There is a wonderful book by Bob Katz that I highly reccomend to one and all, it's entitled "Mastering Audio"
This wonderful read is well woth the almost $50 dollars it costs. I know it gave me a better understanding of how to deliver a good mix to a mastering engineer. And Bob's on our side on the subject of dynamics being sorely missing in a lot of todays mixes. I know I'll be reading and re-reading this book for years. Pre-Prodution is another thing that helps a whole lot. This gives you as producer/engineer, the oppotunity to coach the dynamics into the music before it is recorded. I'mnot claiming the title of expert here, anything but. I choose to remin a student. This post is in the interest of understanding. Us metal guys get a bad rap. Most of us love all forms of music.

peace-ONE
Lz

lz...

Ummmm,....resize that pic maybe? Just a thought? I like pics from Royer as much as the next guy but pls....................

quote:

Originally posted by Lz:
Hey soundsmith,
...Playing dynamics is not something that rockers do not understand. I'm not trying to start a fight here, anything but my friend. I find that headbangers are much more open to other types of music than most musician's ehom I have met.
As a brick home has "weep holes" to allow the structiure to breathe, so riding can be a way to create this is in a mix. Amplitude as well as EQ and effects automation. Please give this wonderful recording a chance. I am in agreement with you completely on the volume wars subject.


There is a wonderful book by Bob Katz that I highly reccomend to one and all, it's entitled "Mastering Audio"
This wonderful read is well woth the almost $50 dollars it costs. I know it gave me a better understanding of how to deliver a good mix to a mastering engineer. And Bob's on our side on the subject of dynamics being sorely missing in a lot of todays mixes. IUs metal guys get a bad rap. Most of us love all forms of music.

peace-ONE
Lz

I will agree that a lot of metal gets a bad rap, and there certainly are some wonderful musicians in the genre, Yngwie being one - if he could only learn to spell... And I have Bob Katz's book, and totally agree that knowing the process goes a long way toward improving the sound. It's not the music so much as the market requirements that are crippling today's production process. Dynamics are crucial to feel, and even in a balls-to-the-wall screamer there should be room to breathe occasionally. No fight, we're on the same side.

And youo may be right that rockers are more open to alternative - no, can't use that word, it's already taken - different musical forms; I know that most of the jazz guys I know stopped listening in 1960, even if they weren't born yet...

But if you just finished recording the best solo of your life, with all the dynamics and tonal embellishment exactly as you wanted, how would you feel about soime engineer who wasn't even at the session, and never met the band, deciding the gain structure of the solo, overriding your carefully constructed dynamics to superimpose his interpretation of what you intended? This happens a LOT in todays' media mogul vs. artist environment, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Example, sort of: I just had an entire track removed from a song I wrote. The track was the rhythmic foundation of the entire song, the melody and this part were tightly linked, and with the part gone, the song became another sad, tired head/solo/head out thing, instead of an organic construct. The sneaky thing was that this was done AFTER the final mix, which I had approved, was completed, because, as I was told, the mix engineer did not like the tone of the track, so he jusr deleted it...

I guess a lot of this depends on how involved in the creative process the engineer or producer is. I think it also depends on the style of music. In pop, it's expected that the artist will contribute a performance, and in many cases, that's it. It's up to the producer, musicians, and engineer to create the rest of the final product. So, in that context, the techniques that Bruce is demonstrating seem appropriate.

My personal feeling is that anything that strengthens the song is what you should do. However, that brings up a new question. Who do you trust to decide what is best for the song? I think the answer varies, based on the situation. Sometimes it is the songwriter, sometimes a band or the musicians, and sometimes it is the producer. Some producers are hired for that purpose. Other producers are just supposed to ensure a high standard of technical quality. It's best to set up expectations about the producer's role before the recording begins.

It's easy to feel insulted and manipulated when the producer and/or sound engineer take over and start making all sorts of modifications to a track you just recorded. It seems to me that there is a full range of taste and ability among musicians and engineers. I've known musicians that were great performers and masters of their instruments that just didn't have an overall picture of what their own music could be (you know - the "can I take yet another five minute solo after the bridge" types). It can be useful to have someone with an overall perspective.

Now I'm rambling. In short, if you know your strengths and weaknesses, you can figure out how to proceed. If you're good at looking at the song as a whole, don't let the engineer take artistic control. If, however, you're mostly adept at working with individual parts, get someone who has a good track record with applying a vision for the overall music and trust them when they start riding the faders.

I always ride to enhance the dynamics of the PARTS and how they fit together. It does not matter if there are already live dynamics for me to enhance or if there are no dynamics at all.

-B

LOL soundsmith, sorry for the typos. Sleep seems to help with this technicality, at least in my case!
To answer your question concerning my feelings on a mix engineer who wasn't at the original sessions making decisions that were contrary to my original artistic intent, I would most likely be upset.
Shared artistic vision is very important IMO.
Today however, such things are a fact of life.
I do understand why sending a recording to someone else to mix is done. It's a matter of perspective. The problem is, who's perspective? Some A&R; person who is clueless to the artists original vision sending the mix to an engineer simply because, a simular project which he/she mixed made a lot of money? Dialog between the Team
(yes even the musicians) that is creating a recording might help but, this is unlikely to happen. I truly believe that, such issues have been created because we have the music (art) and business
(the art of making money) combined. In the end the business wins. Could this be changed? Probably. Should it be changed? Probably. Will it change? Probably not. On the surface it looks like we have come a long ways from the days of recording an actual band playing together in a room. My question is, did we take the right path? I guess it just is what it is my friend.

As a musician and songwriter before getting into audio, I had been reluctant to do a lot of fader riding. With automation, I had been doing a lot of muting/ unmuting tracks during mixing though.

Bruce's demo opened up a whole new way of looking at fader riding though. It's a new and powerful tool I can use. One example is during a guitar solo, there was this annoying string squeal right in the middle of a keeper track. It took me a few tries, but I managed to bring the fader down and up in a fraction of a second and the squeal is way down in the mix now.

Automation makes me bolder and willing to try new things, since I can always overwrite or undo whatever I try.

Wouldn't volume envelopes do the same thing? Sonar has volume controls built into each track that can be adjusted at the sample level, all it takes is a little time to get it exactly where you want it, and the adjustment is non destructive.
Later
Albert

quote:

Originally posted by Gambler's Choice:
Wouldn't volume envelopes do the same thing? Sonar has volume controls built into each track that can be adjusted at the sample level, all it takes is a little time to get it exactly where you want it, and the adjustment is non destructive.
Later
Albert

I'm sure it would. I don't have Sonar and I don't have volume envelopes. In fact, I have precious little in the way of editing, so I have to figure out workarounds.

nobby:
My apologies, guess that was an assumption on my part. The sonar program came free (LT version) with the E-MU soundcard, and I just got so accustomed to it I figured "everybody got one". Kind of like a cable modem, some one mentioned how long they had to wait to download something on dial up, and I was shocked to think somebody still did dial up. The things we take for granted. It was rude of me to make assumptions,and I apologize.
Later
Albert

quote:

Wouldn't volume envelopes do the same thing?

Yes but for me, what is missing with volume envelopes is the "live performance" aspect of mixing when riding faders. There are some dynamics and nuances that simply can't be re-created when doing envelope editing. Of course you can get a mix to where you want it with the utmost precision, but the magic that often occurs with fader riding is lost. A good analogy would be trying to create a live sounding keyboard performance by clicking each note, one at time, with your mouse. That being said, if a person has never mixed on an analog console, then I suppose this is a moot point. But for those of us who came up in the analog world, its extremely hard (if not impossible) to let it go. Some good control surfaces are able to accomplish this now and I'm researching some of them. At some point I would imagine I'll move completely in the box, but for now, I leave the volume envelopes for the final tweaking and editing. I work with a lot of submixed stems, so I do spend a great deal of time tweaking envelopes. Its the best of both worlds IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by nobby:
Bruce's demo opened up a whole new way of looking at fader riding though. It's a new and powerful tool I can use. One example is during a guitar solo, there was this annoying string squeal right in the middle of a keeper track. It took me a few tries, but I managed to bring the fader down and up in a fraction of a second and the squeal is way down in the mix now.

Automation makes me bolder and willing to try new things, since I can always overwrite or undo whatever I try.

PMFBI... the new kid on the block and all...

But regardless of mix medium, what I think has been kinda' opened up to me in the deconstruction video, is that riding - or not - should be at least explored on each song. Maybe not to the point of rediculous times spent, but as an exploration into the "enhancement" of what each song is meant to covey by the songwriter/composer/artist.

I'm still hybrid; analog console and outboard/digital storage, so my riding is either fingersonfaders or my VCA automation package.

My work is primarily live performace or live session tracking. I've evidently been rather stuck in a "It is what it is" mindset... e.g. only riding solos up a bit, getting a good overall mix and dumping goofs and glitches. The deconstruction opened my eyes to a new way to think about a song.

Or am I just thick and missing your point?

X

"but the magic that often occurs with fader riding is lost"
I guess the thought of "magic" has been lost a long time ago for me, the only thing I really want to make now is money, so any tool that makes my job easier or makes me more efficient or gets it done quicker is all the magic I need
That being said...to each his own, and more power to you.
Albert

quote:

Originally posted by Gambler's Choice:
nobby:
My apologies, guess that was an assumption on my part. The sonar program came free (LT version) with the E-MU soundcard, and I just got so accustomed to it I figured "everybody got one". Kind of like a cable modem, some one mentioned how long they had to wait to download something on dial up, and I was shocked to think somebody still did dial up. The things we take for granted. It was rude of me to make assumptions,and I apologize.
Later
Albert

No apology necessary. I'm always interested in new, different or alternative techniques. That's what we're here for, isn't it?

I'll be moving to a new platform with fewer limitations, and the sooner the better. In the meantime, there's no harm in my learning different techniques even if I can't currently apply them.

quote:

Wouldn't volume envelopes do the same thing?

Yes but for me, what is missing with volume envelopes is the "live performance" aspect of mixing when riding faders.

I agree. The rides should be intentional and will sometimes be unexpected or extreme.