TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Is it ok to just squash the hell out of your bassline and just make everything else..
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Is it ok to just squash the hell out of your bassline and just make everything else..

dynamic?

I keep hearing mastered tracks vs unmastered tracks and it seems to me that I'm seeing a lot of similarities in how people treat their basslines.

First what I'm seeing is I guess because bass is the first thing to distort so many people are intentionally distorting their bass to get the volume they want. But what I hear basially are very point/plucky kicks, with basslines squashed to living fuck, and then they focus on making all their other sounds more dynamic.

So since employing this strategy of not caring how dynamic my bass is, I see I can get my mixes wayyy louder, and if you have enough dynamics in your synths/drums it doesn't seem to even matter?

I mean what kind of dynamic range do you aim for in your basslines? Does anyone else compensate this way and push their basslines then try to leave other things more dynamic? I think I will have to submit an example really to show what I mean. I got off today so I'm going to squash the hell out of a bassline on purpose, add some other more dynamic instruments and see if you people even notice the bass is fucked.


edit: I should have phrased this a bit differently. I think what I mean is its way more obvious to see when people are squashing their synths/fxs and what not but when they do it to the bass it seems a lot less obvious. Like a producer can tell immediately but from hearing track after track after track it almost seems mandatory to some degree that you squash your bassline. I know taste is a very relative thing but I love loud bass as anyone knows and there seems to be no other way to really go about it.

And no its not like I didn't realize this happening years ago I think what I'm aiming for more is a discussion on what other people do to their bass in terms of compression.

the bigger your bass, the less overall volume you get. Rather basic. I don't think you are actually hearing what is going on. The distortion is a way of making your bass seem louder even tough it is perceptual. By boosting the overtones, you make the base seem louder while allowing headrrom to squash the rest of you track to get your track super loud and cool. ANd for that reason that bass is the thing that determines how much louder you can go, any peak will set the maximum level so people are going to make sure the bass has 0 peaks thus as you said squashed.

I'm not talking sub bass I'm talking more mid bass. You don't really need loud sub bass imo to feel it in a mix. But say Aly & Fila for example, all their mid basses sound different from their synths and fxs. Very different in terms of dynamic range.

Unless I am just wrong then I am wrong. But it sounds like they purposely squash their mid basses wayy beyond the extent they do it to say their synths or fxs. This could very well be complete misinterpretation of what I'm hearing but let me go grab the specific track that made me make this thread..

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney the bigger your bass, the less overall volume you get. Rather basic. I don't think you are actually hearing what is going on. The distortion is a way of making your bass seem louder even tough it is perceptual. By boosting the overtones, you make the base seem louder while allowing headrrom to squash the rest of you track to get your track super loud and cool. ANd for that reason that bass is the thing that determines how much louder you can go, any peak will set the maximum level so people are going to make sure the bass has 0 peaks thus as you said squashed.

Fuck I'm confused.

So is persistently trying to push my mid bass just always going to fuck me in the end? I usually peak my mid bass at -8 but thats before its bussed where it can come up to -4 with my kick. I keep doing this over and over should I be aiming for less with my mid bass in terms of volume? Just speaking in terms of an avg full mix whats a good peak to aim for for those overtones or the loudest part of the midbass?

The reason I ask is I've always had a problem with where the fuck my mid bass should be in terms of volume. When its low I always want it to be louder but obviously when its loud then I want other sounds to be louder. Its so hard to find a balance in trance and I definitely suffer from a obsessive loudness type of syndrome. My tracks no matter what though never seem to be as loud as pros even now with assuming that I know what I'm doing.

M4B do you have FL Studio? I never asked you this before but if there was anyway you could take a look at one of my tracks just to tell me what idiot mistakes I'm making it would be extremely helpful. Or maybe I'll just take pics of everything but I can not set my levels right for shit it seems.

i prefer to cut my bass because in the final mix, it constricts the overall volume of the track.

when i run a compressor over my tracks you can definitely tell a shitty mastered track from a good one.

besides, its better to cut the bass and boost it later, leaving you with more headroom.

synths could be considered the voice of EDM. so compressing the shit out of synths would be quite noticeable. Would make sense not to compress that part as much. Generally, the highs and the lows are the things that get compressed heavily. Doing that to mids will sound annoying.

/\ Did not know that thats a great tip thanks. I always squash my mids and his in my bass and I'm thinking a multiband compressor may be the missing link here. I use it on my kick/bass bus but not on my bass channel by itself so after I cut the lows usually the entire bass is pretty squashed. I'm just trying to learn how to compressor better is what it is really. So I think I'll start by less compression on the mids and more on the his that will likely explain why my basses always sound so unorganic.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox Fuck I'm confused. So is persistently trying to push my mid bass just always going to fuck me in the end? I usually peak my mid bass at -8 but thats before its bussed where it can come up to -4 with my kick. I keep doing this over and over should I be aiming for less with my mid bass in terms of volume? Just speaking in terms of an avg full mix whats a good peak to aim for for those overtones or the loudest part of the midbass?

well i don't really prescribe to the + 1 dbfs rms levels others do. Mid bass , say 300 to 1k just so we are on the same page. Then no , I don't think you have to purposefully keep them quiet and controlled as you would a bass. Look at the FM curve. It still needs more energy to compete with 3 k but not that much like say 80 Hz. I think one of the mistakes alot of people make is cut way too much from this area. Too much and it is muddy, to little and it is thin and empty. The closer you get to the ears sweat spot, the more you want to be careful with compression. I don't know o, this is all conjecture. I would say a kick doesn't really need as much energy in this band but I also think synths do. It all depends. You have to also keep in mind that synths that are full bodied sound better. If your mid bass is taking all this space , then your synths might sound thin and harsh. And more often than not, the club pa will have a nice smiley face eq curve so that section is already being cut at the user level.

I personally hate it when people have say hihats that have no energy in an area they should have energy. You get producers that have 10 hihat patterns and highpass everything at 1k so it fit. THey don't sound like hihats. More like gay shakers. Shakers are for pussies. Have you ever seen someone pay a shaker ? Sometimes, they look like little eggs. Hippies loved shakers.

But its not rocket science. WHen you have the part with no synths, leave as is , when synths start to pile on, automate an eq. Nobody in a club ever says whoa dude, that is some killer mid bass. But without it, you will not hear the bass. I would use harmonics and acoustic wizardry to circumvent certain limitations.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney synths could be considered the voice of EDM. so compressing the shit out of synths would be quite noticeable. Would make sense not to compress that part as much. Generally, the highs and the lows are the things that get compressed heavily. Doing that to mids will sound annoying.

That being said, Vocals are one of the most compressed sounds in classic non-EDM mixdowns I believe.

also: shakers ftw.

if it sounds good it is good.. the golden rule

You're overanalysing things. If you do thing X always, your tracks will always sound like X. If you're going to use a formulaic approach of always squashing and compressing everything and having bass peak at -Y dB etc. just because you don't want to have to listen to the actual track to determine what you actually should do, you should reconsider your approach.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja That being said, Vocals are one of the most compressed sounds in classic non-EDM mixdowns I believe. also: shakers ftw.

nope.Compressed, sure, more than anything else, nope.

A wiseman taught me to stop compressing my basslines - and so I have. In fact, I hardly every compress anything anymore and my tracks sound way better.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney nope.Compressed, sure, more than anything else, nope.

Well alot of rock singers and some rappers need a compressor with a really high ratio, 7:1 to 8:1, just to record at a decent hot level and not clip when they go from being close and intimate with the mic to screaming at it.

ratio isn't telling me anything. And nobody will use compression to go from talking to screaming, They use automation.

nobody automates for that. it simply would not sound right. Compressor is the way it's always been done. you obviously have not tracked rock vocals! using a compressor during recording is standard of not necessary.

i received training from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._J._Helmerich and this is what was taught. And one of the things he mentioned was how back in the day engineers assumed Led Zeppelins vocals were recorded "riding the fader", or that he was moving away from the mic when he started to yell, but for some reason couldn't get it to sound the same. until he assisted their engineer and realized they were hitting an SSL compressor harder than any book would ever tell you to. now days lots of bands have that sound. but then it was a mystery and assumed to be automation.

i forgot how much this board hates compression

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja nobody automates for that. it simply would not sound right. Compressor is the way it's always been done. you obviously have not tracked rock vocals! using a compressor during recording is standard of not necessary. i received training from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._J._Helmerich and this is what was taught. And one of the things he mentioned was how back in the day engineers assumed Led Zeppelins vocals were recorded "riding the fader", or that he was moving away from the mic when he started to yell, but for some reason couldn't get it to sound the same. until he assisted their engineer and realized they were hitting an SSL compressor harder than any book would ever tell you to. now days lots of bands have that sound. but then it was a mystery and assumed to be automation. i forgot how much this board hates compression

No...you're thinking of GS.

what is GS? also you can't "automate" while recording.. im tallking about getting a hot level on a dynamic vocal track without clipping. where someone can safely go from whispering into a mic to belching out and still actually record it while hearing everything.

edit: nm... gearslutz...

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja nobody automates for that. it simply would not sound right. Compressor is the way it's always been done. you obviously have not tracked rock vocals! using a compressor during recording is standard of not necessary. i received training from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._J._Helmerich and this is what was taught. And one of the things he mentioned was how back in the day engineers assumed Led Zeppelins vocals were recorded "riding the fader", or that he was moving away from the mic when he started to yell, but for some reason couldn't get it to sound the same. until he assisted their engineer and realized they were hitting an SSL compressor harder than any book would ever tell you to. now days lots of bands have that sound. but then it was a mystery and assumed to be automation. i forgot how much this board hates compression

lets clear a few things up

First, we are in the digital age, unlike when led zeppelin was recording, we have alot more headroom so where as compression was a necessity, you can easily record talking and screaming and have a signal that is way above the noise floor. You simply wouldn't apply such drastic compression in the tracking part. You also reference 1 band. So although it is cool that you read about stuff, I really don't think you have ever been in a modern studio. Alot bands do, alot don't. I think you will find that they are always compressed less than any other element in the mix. Most engineers will do 3 - 6 dB of GR. And that is on pop albums.

next on the list, as far as digital audio is concerned, - 20 dBfs is hot enough. A real engineer in a real studio would understand this. A real engineer isn't going to squash the source with 2 distressors in serial while tracking. What studio where you at that did this ? not saying it won't ever happen. Certain projects that fuck about to get certain sounds might do it but this is a producer / engineer understanding. You will not find any sane engineer do this as a default on any style of music.

Further more on the topic of screaming in regards to emo/screamo bands. They are not done on the same take. Secondly, that screaming you think is loud, it actually is rather quiet. Can't account for all but any big band that does it, there is a technique believe it or not and it involves sounding like you are screaming when you really aren't. You would know this if you were there in the studio. and that is pretty much how I know you weren't. Well i believe you were at a school. That isn't a studio. That is a studio run by engineers that usually don't know how to engineer. Let me guess, vintage ribbon microphone with phantom power.

I don't hate compression, I use it on orchestral intruments. I don't like people saying shit that isn't true. I said that the vocals are the element that are least compressed. YOu are twisting my words into a typical denying the antecedent logical fallacy. I ever said vocals are not compressed, i never said they are not very compressed. I said that almost always, they are the element the least compressed in a mix. You bring up one style , one example and develop the idea that this is how it is done. It was at a school. It was by a teacher that well isn't what most would call a working engineer. Not now not ever.

And finally. Automation is always better. IF it can be automated, you don't compress. And yes you can automate while recording. Real engineers do. A dying breed unfortunately.

i'm not tallking about emo/screamo. i'm tallking about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G23WO9S5F-s and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrjRKB586s

going from mellow to belching

You can't automate every bit between every word to bring up the breathing sounds etc like a compressor can.

And no actually he is a grammy nomited engineer for Dweezil Zappa..


At the studio I work in, we record through a SSL4000 console and we use those compressors during tracking, and we use those compressors as well as outboard during mixdown. seems right to me. and i disagree, i think the "more" important signal path is in tracking rather than mixing in regards to final quality of sound. of course people will say it's wrong, pointless, to compress twice, i disagree.

i agree that the tracking part is more important. Which is why you don't over do it. Again , i never said compression isn't used. Just not as much as you think. And the compressors are used more as gentle limiters for lack of a better word. And again, in both examples, the vocals are the element that is least compressed. And they are both pre digital which makes it not as relevant as you think when working in the digital realm.

and i really doubt that they used a SSL. They did not exist. i mean the first board was made in like 1970. The one track is from 1969. That album was recorded live. Second album was made in the states so forget seing an SSL. Your teacher was off by about 10 years. Or you were not paying attention. They were still using 8 tracks. I mean abbey roads was using an 8 track console in 1970 or close to that time. The SSL is the 80s and beyond. And there was no such thing as a SSL compressor unit either. Was a helios or 1176 or combination. NOt a fucking G class SSL compressor with side chain.

just because they are loudest doesn't mean they're the least compressed.

The SSL console came out in 1975 and every channel included a compressor. And SSL boards weren't limited to over seas. They did use an SSL in the late 70's/80's, which was when T.J. (my teacher) worked as assistant engineer for them. The point wasn't the SSL exactly it was compression. you have to compress hard to get that robert plant sound. like at least 6db of avg gain reduction with fast atk/rls. if you just stand in front of a microphone yelling it doesn't sound like that. it just sounds loud and shitty. if you take a step back from the microphone and yell it still doesn't sound like that. to bring up all the details and add that color you need that compression.

compression on orchestral instruments?? that is one of the few things i would use no compression on

are you sure you know what compression is ?

anyways , i'm sure Rann has more historical knowledge than me. But SSL is to Led Zepplin what the 50s was to communist love in the USA.

yes i do! i use them often. here's a little example:



http://www.mediafire.com/?a6d0f9eacvvd3p0

before is the same track with no compressors. after is mixed with compression. caution: after is loud. try this with volume automation <:

you are applying bus compression. Of course automation will not work in this instance. I said if you can automate , it is always the better choice. Automation is applied to single audio tracks. You might compress some parts, while using automation for others. The point is that good engineers don't blindly slap a compressor on things. They know why it is on , they know what parts they want compressed and they don't use it if it isn't needed.

Now do yourself a little favour and lower the compressed version so it is at unity with the original. Does not really sound that good. Both versions suck.

and if one had the patience, you could do that with automation. A compressor is a volume knob. All those awful pumping sounds can be done via automation albeit with more control. If you need to slap a compressor on your master out to make it sound good, you don't know how to mix.

i;m not against compressors. I just think A, people have no idea what they do and how they work. B, tend to be an automatic response instead of actually listening and figuring out what needs work and attacking the problem. And that is what makes a good engineer.

One of the best tools to come about is Waves vocal rider. You can use it on anything and it is just like riding a fader but you've taken a 4 hits of speed and you have the reflexes of a ninja,

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.