quote:

Now, I usually start up a track with at least 15 or 20 sub-groups set up and all routed differently, like I’ll have the kick and snare on a group and compress those, then send that to another group and add a couple percussion elements and EQ or compress that group. From there, I’ll route most of the highs like hats or shakers to one group and operate on them to make them all really flow together — maybe some compression, EQ, maybe a very mild flange or phase for some movement.

thats what he said but i dont really get the part where he sends the signal from group to group and so on? how does he achieve that? does he mean the send/return stuff?

http://www.beatportal.com/feed/item...gartner-part-2/

greetz

He is talking about routing channels to different Busses or Groups. For example, you may have several groups setup in a template, say, a Kick Bus, Snare Bus, Bass Bus, Hat/Perc Bus, Synth Bus, Lead Bus, etc. The kick is routed to the kick bus, one or more basses route to the Bass bus, one or more hats get routed to the hats bus and so on.

Apparently he will then take the output of those busses and route them even further to other busses. So for example, he routed the kick bus, hats bus and snare bus to another bus simply called "drums".

In some software the send/return channel itself is, in fact, a bus, but he probably isnt using his send/return bus to do this. He routed the output of the channels themselves to each bus or busses and then you can route the output the busses themselves to other busses and so on.

What he is talking about is not that unusual really, lots of producers do this.

his production is really neat. A friend recently showed me one of his tracks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt4H7S0Yc_0

Last edited by RichieV on Jan-08-2010 at 05:19

quote:

Originally posted by MrSchallplatte thats what he said but i dont really get the part where he sends the signal from group to group and so on? how does he achieve that? does he mean the send/return stuff? http://www.beatportal.com/feed/item...gartner-part-2/ greetz

If your environment is Ableton (not sure if wolfgang's is) its actually quite easy to do just what he said.
You highlight tracks you want contained on a "bus" or "group" and can simply group these tracks together using a quick select function in ableton in session view by righ clicking and selecting "group tracks".
That new "bus/group" will now leave you with a higher level audio effect rack, and routings that you can apply whatever it is u need (effects, processing etc) across all intruments and samples contained in that "bus/group". you can continue to group more and more elements or even groups of groups together using the same method in the session view resulting in casade like affect of bus routings.

I must be weird because sometimes I think I'm the only producer who doesnt use subgroups like this. Every element of my songs have their own track and I effect/compress/eq each sound individually to taste to create my final mix.

I thought the whole point of using subgroups was to share the limited hardware and CPU resources of the days of old, routing many sounds to share these, eliminating the need for more.

But with modern day computers, especially if you are using all software, this shouldnt be a problem?

Am I missing something here?

___________________
Click Here to Subscribe to the Blake Jarrell Concentrate Podcast

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell I must be weird because sometimes I think I'm the only producer who doesnt use subgroups like this. Every element of my songs have their own track and I effect/compress/eq each sound individually to taste to create my final mix. I thought the whole point of using subgroups was to share the limited hardware and CPU resources of the days of old, routing many sounds to share these, eliminating the need for more. But with modern day computers, especially if you are using all software, this shouldnt be a problem? Am I missing something here?

lol dont worry man im in the same boat, its just not ideal to me.

___________________

@Soundcloud

:::OUT NOW!:::
Garrido & Skehan ft. Erin - Waiting For You (Nightshift Remix)
Elvin Ong - Motion (Nightshift Remix)
Tidal Forces - Machine Blue (Nightshift Remix)

quote:

Originally posted by meriter Your primary focus should be making good music. That's all. No one gives a shit how you do it. And the people that do are fags.

So far as I know it's a knowledge engine, not a search engine, so you type in things you want data about, not to find the latest nudie pictures of tomb raider.

___________________
Nothing lasts, nothing lasts, everything is changing into something else. Nothing is wrong, nothing is wrong, everything is on track...

You know, William Blake said... uh, nothing is lost. Nothing is lost and I... I really believe that, we only move on...

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell I must be weird because sometimes I think I'm the only producer who doesnt use subgroups like this. Every element of my songs have their own track and I effect/compress/eq each sound individually to taste to create my final mix. I thought the whole point of using subgroups was to share the limited hardware and CPU resources of the days of old, routing many sounds to share these, eliminating the need for more. But with modern day computers, especially if you are using all software, this shouldnt be a problem? Am I missing something here?

I think it just comes down to personal preferences and a way of working. I do this for several reasons.

1. Sometimes I like to apply group processing to similar elements. For example, I'll have a Hats/Percussion bus where I'll apply a compressor on the actual bus, instead of each element. It gives a different vibe or "feel" than using it on individual tracks.

2. I like to be able to mute/solo an entire group of elements at once. Bussing allows me to do this very quickly. I can solo just the kick and bass if I am working on just those parts. Sometimes 'll even use it as a creative tool when mapping out an arrangement in my head.

3. Stems. Sometimes I like to send an entire group of tracks outside the DAW for one reason or another, and by doing this I can just record or send the output of a bus. This also helps when working with other artists, as I can send just 8-10 "stem" tracks, for mixing, post-processing, etc. I also have a master FX bus where send almost everything for certain "tricks", such as the "HP filter crescendo everything but the drums right before a break or major change" trick.

4. CPU. Even with a quad core machine, I still have a limited amount of CPU power, both natively and on my DSP solutions (UAD). If I want to use a CPU heavy processor (such as the UAD Neve 33609), it makes more sense to use it on a bus. Certain compressors are designed for use on a bus and tend to work better in that context rather than on an individual track.

5. Old habits. Its really sort of a way of working that was a lot more prevalent in the days of analog mixers. I come from that era personally, so some of it is just force of habit, but obviously there are benefits to doing it this way. Most hardware mixers have a fixed number of busses for exactly this type of usage. Its a tried a true method in the mix process.

Last edited by Eric J on Jan-08-2010 at 08:12

Ah, Eric beat me to it with a far more in-depth reply.

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell Am I missing something here?

It's just a matter of personal preference really. It doesn't matter what way you do things if it achieves the result you are looking for. I assume you know that

I'm slowly trying out some of this myself at the moment. I usually do everything individually as well apart from minor drums compression to help it glue together.

___________________

Storyteller Website | Storyteller @ Facebook | Storyteller @ Beatport | Storyteller @ Soundcloud | Stephen J. Kroos - Europa (Storyteller Remix)
Anthony Mea - Get It On (Storyteller Remix)

quote:

If less is more think about how much more more would be. -Frasier

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell I must be weird because sometimes I think I'm the only producer who doesnt use subgroups like this. Every element of my songs have their own track and I effect/compress/eq each sound individually to taste to create my final mix. I thought the whole point of using subgroups was to share the limited hardware and CPU resources of the days of old, routing many sounds to share these, eliminating the need for more. But with modern day computers, especially if you are using all software, this shouldnt be a problem? Am I missing something here?

The main advantage of grouping is that it opens up a whole new audio effect rack applicable to every instrument contained within. Instead of say trying to side chain 5 intruments individually. Why not just group the tracks and throw a single SCC on the group's effect rack. Is that not easier to maintain, control, tweak etc?
This also becomes extremely usefull when eq'ing and processing as wolfgang mentioned. You can take your two heavy elements such as kick and snare and get them sounding nice and tight as if there one single sample in the track, and then progressively add and process other elements into the groups as you continue on
I personally dont group most of my tracks either, but have began to see the advantage in grouping percussions when it comes down to eq'ing/processing. It use to be such a pain in the ass keeping track of every setting across my entire percussion rack (compressors on eq's on each drum). Now with grouping, i can process combinations of intruments to single effect vst's with extreme ease.

Essentially when you get down to it, its almost like opening a whole pile of return tracks, and routing your audio accordingly depending on what effect processing you want applied to each track. Only using the group function makes it alot more simple to control.
Grouping also allows you to play back an entire set of intruments with one click, extremely handy for live purposes, without the need to arrange alaborate cell patterns within the session view.

quote:

Originally posted by AppliedScience The main advantage of grouping is that it opens up a whole new audio effect rack applicable to every instrument contained within. Instead of say trying to side chain 5 intruments individually. Why not just group the tracks and throw a single SCC on the group's effect rack. Is that not easier to maintain, control, tweak etc? This also becomes extremely usefull when eq'ing and processing as wolfgang mentioned. You can take your two heavy elements such as kick and snare and get them sounding nice and tight as if there one single sample in the track, and then progressively add and process other elements into the groups as you continue on I personally dont group most of my tracks either, but have began to see the advantage in grouping percussions when it comes down to eq'ing/processing. It use to be such a pain in the ass keeping track of every setting across my entire percussion rack (compressors on eq's on each drum). Now with grouping, i can process combinations of intruments to single effect vst's with extreme ease. Essentially when you get down to it, its almost like opening a whole pile of return tracks, and routing your audio accordingly depending on what effect processing you want applied to each track. Only using the group function makes it alot more simple to control. Grouping also allows you to play back an entire set of intruments with one click, extremely handy for live purposes, without the need to arrange alaborate cell patterns within the session view.

I see now

I thought maybe there was a theory that compressing certain elements together (like a drum group etc) ALWAYS yielded a better sounding result than just tweaking each sound on its own and thats why this technique is so widely used. seems that the real reason is moreso that its just easier for some people, and i can totally understand that.

___________________
Click Here to Subscribe to the Blake Jarrell Concentrate Podcast

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell I see now I thought maybe there was a theory that compressing certain elements together (like a drum group etc) ALWAYS yielded a better sounding result than just tweaking each sound on its own and thats why this technique is so widely used. seems that the real reason is moreso that its just easier for some people, and i can totally understand that.

yea the organizational side of it is a big factor. But like many people will say on here. Just do what sounds best! Theres 100's methods and techniques to use to end up with a high quality results. Its all just personal preference, theres no right or wrong way.