Warming up a digital mix!

[mjau]

Now that someone mentioned analog compresison, it comes to mind that running my final mixes through my transformer based pres (which have a lot of headroom) does seem to impart some sonic qualities of compression. The mixes seem more saturated like filling in the empty spaces that were there because of the pristine quality of digital. But, at the same time they also feel more punchy.

Getting back to my original post, I was wondering: has anyone else has tried this - running mixes back through a couple of pres before bouncing to disc?

I haven't done it with mixes, but have run some soft synths into the DI of my mp2 pre's and push them pretty hot at the input stage. Tends to make the soft synths a little less sterile.

[trodden]

Now that someone mentioned analog compresison, it comes to mind that running my final mixes through my transformer based pres (which have a lot of headroom) does seem to impart some sonic qualities of compression. The mixes seem more saturated like filling in the empty spaces that were there because of the pristine quality of digital. But, at the same time they also feel more punchy.

Getting back to my original post, I was wondering: has anyone else has tried this - running mixes back through a couple of pres before bouncing to disc?

I mix out of da box digi 001 and alesis ai-3 through a soundtracs that dokushoka sold me. I take the L/R outs which i keep kinda low due to what the board does when you get those levels up there and run each channel into the DI of my api 3124 and apply further makeup gain. I like what it does, sounds cool to me. so yeah, whatever works i guess, if it sounds good. doesn't necessarily "warm" things up but i can hear a difference doing that compared to using just the masterfader. i could be crazy though. in fact i'm still drunk from last night.

where is that bottle of wine?

[@?,*???&?]

Cost you $35.

I stumbled into the habit of taking a multi-band compressor, a shaving off one hell of a lot of the top end, everything above 5kHz--not dropping it out completely, but really toning it down--and that got rid of this "digital" hissiness, or not hissiness exactly because it's true-to-life accurate sound... but digital tends to accurately deliver so much top sizzle that it lends an unreal character to the sound, that's what I mean by "digital being artificial" or whatever people say.

You let the low end predominate, and in its case the digitality really helps, giving you full and "beefy-like" presence, true to the heft and powerfullness that was there in the original sound.

Actually, less than an hours work. With postage, probably more like $15.80 or something.

Man, the magic of multi-band compression!

[cjogo]

multiband comp -- easy to use --all the I/O's >> Behringer DEQ --under $200 used.

"warm up" http://cgi.ebay.com/PEAVEY-TUBE-SWEETEN ... dZViewItem

knob controls:
Sugar - controls tube effect
Spice - controls timbre (tone)

[kinger]

I insert my ART PRO VLA (lowest ratio compression, only hitting about -2dB) running into a three-head cassette player (running in "monitor" mode, output from the playback head) into my stereo mix. Neither device is really considered hi-fi but the end result sounds much more like the old recordings of which I like. Does that make me a hep-cat? Or maybe a dork? Do people still say "dork"?

[joel hamilton]

I have printed through line amps, pre's, compressors, all kinds of stuff... even finalizers (woah) and other "mastering boxes" like a BBE and shit like that.
I finally wound up just getting it right DURING the mix, and not relying on too much magic from the final capture device. I do like printing to two tracck analog once in a while, but not as a given way of working by any means. Certain things that feel slightly neon to me, I will just run a de-esser cranked way up to like 15K and let it tap that track. Like OH that were tracked straight into the box, or even a snare sometimes that is just too "immediate." I actually like to de-ess the OH on certain projects, just WAY up outside of anything too critical, like 15-17k. You would be suprised how that stuff is just lopped off in the finished product of many "big" records. Look on an RTA, and check out the sonic signature of a modern record. Not much going on up at 17k at all. you can see the slope of the LPF that was used. Take that knowledge to your individual tracks. On certain records i have mixed, i have had a gentle (6db/octave) lowpass engaged on my console on every single track. Every single track. To make things present without being bright is kind of always my goal. There is something incredibly musical about "suggesting" the air around all the elements rather than just scorching the listener. Try LPF'ing a violin, it just gets better.... Sometimes I even LP something just so I can wind on a more pleasing 12k with a pultec, rather than just the aliasing hash flying around in PTHD....
Transformers do this quite well. You should try making a box with a pair of nice 1:1 xformers in it, nothing else. A couple of well known mastering people I have worked with have boxes like that and sometimes it is just the right thing to light those suckers up and get some beautiful "grind" or slight "bend" to the top end of the whole mix.

[heylow]

Joel.....

Wow...great post. Super cool way of looking at that stuff. For the record, that "present without being bright" thing....right on and I actually think you're the king of that shit.

Rock.


heylow

I have printed through line amps, pre's, compressors, all kinds of stuff... even finalizers (woah) and other "mastering boxes" like a BBE and shit like that.
I finally wound up just getting it right DURING the mix, and not relying on too much magic from the final capture device. I do like printing to two tracck analog once in a while, but not as a given way of working by any means. Certain things that feel slightly neon to me, I will just run a de-esser cranked way up to like 15K and let it tap that track. Like OH that were tracked straight into the box, or even a snare sometimes that is just too "immediate." I actually like to de-ess the OH on certain projects, just WAY up outside of anything too critical, like 15-17k. You would be suprised how that stuff is just lopped off in the finished product of many "big" records. Look on an RTA, and check out the sonic signature of a modern record. Not much going on up at 17k at all. you can see the slope of the LPF that was used. Take that knowledge to your individual tracks. On certain records i have mixed, i have had a gentle (6db/octave) lowpass engaged on my console on every single track. Every single track. To make things present without being bright is kind of always my goal. There is something incredibly musical about "suggesting" the air around all the elements rather than just scorching the listener. Try LPF'ing a violin, it just gets better.... Sometimes I even LP something just so I can wind on a more pleasing 12k with a pultec, rather than just the aliasing hash flying around in PTHD....
Transformers do this quite well. You should try making a box with a pair of nice 1:1 xformers in it, nothing else. A couple of well known mastering people I have worked with have boxes like that and sometimes it is just the right thing to light those suckers up and get some beautiful "grind" or slight "bend" to the top end of the whole mix.

[lotusstudio]

Thanks, Joel and everyone, for posting to my topic. Those are good things to try. I often feel my mixes have too much presence or high end, but I tell myself that it's a good thing. Even when it sounds strident I am still telling myself, "good, I'm getting lots of treble". Now I will experiment a little more with mitigating that. I think you (Joel) worked on "It's a Wonderful Life" which is something I absolutely LOVE to listen to again and again and I really marvel at the sonic qualities of that album - it never hurts my ears even though it seems like it should. It blows me away. So, thanks for the tip.

One other thing, I've read your posts about your preference for recording at 88.2K instead ot 96K. Using PTLE I have been recording at 96K. Because I mix mostly in the box with plug-ins, I thought the higher (96) would preserve more of my original sound after all those digital recalculations with eq, compression, etc. What do you think?

Also, I believe it is just a stupid myth about being easier to dither down to 44k from 88 as opposed to 96. What do you think?

[joel hamilton]

Thanks, Joel and everyone, for posting to my topic. Those are good things to try. I often feel my mixes have too much presence or high end, but I tell myself that it's a good thing. Even when it sounds strident I am still telling myself, "good, I'm getting lots of treble". Now I will experiment a little more with mitigating that. I think you (Joel) worked on "It's a Wonderful Life" which is something I absolutely LOVE to listen to again and again and I really marvel at the sonic qualities of that album - it never hurts my ears even though it seems like it should. It blows me away. So, thanks for the tip.

One other thing, I've read your posts about your preference for recording at 88.2K instead ot 96K. Using PTLE I have been recording at 96K. Because I mix mostly in the box with plug-ins, I thought the higher (96) would preserve more of my original sound after all those digital recalculations with eq, compression, etc. What do you think?

Also, I believe it is just a stupid myth about being easier to dither down to 44k from 88 as opposed to 96. What do you think?

The stuff I recorded on its a wonderful life, and the new sparklehorse, were not straight into PT.
I use 88.2 because I like the "ring" of it better than 96. It must be the filtering, but i simply like it better. I am not concerned in most cases with the SRC requirements after that, as I either mix to two track analog, or let mastering do the SRC with a dedicated box.

[trash180]

I seem to remember Robert Schneider from Apples in Stereo talking about running his mixes through his Neve pres or som'n. Like to the point of overdrive...anyone remember? Is it in the book?

I've had the same experience with violin the lowpass. There's a lot of things that can handle quite a bit of lowpass. It helps put things in the background a bit more too.

[cjogo]

We just work hard on capturing the artist the "best possible" ..into the DAW. Placement of mic--room acoustics, etc. (That's our warm path) It eliminates so much work later, especially EQ & Comp. We do use the limiter (slightly) on the Manley DVC, for tracking. We resort to the multi-comp, final levels, and spatial widening > on the Behringer DEQ..maybe a few dips on the EQ, if need be. THat digital path leads to the Masterlink.

[timbertrout]

Here is my mixdown technique (a somewhat direct answer to lotusstudio's original question):

For background, I use an ADAT HD24 into a Mackie 24.4 mixer into a Alesis Masterlink. Standard connection between Mackie & Masterlink would be XLR-XLR, right? Well, I vary from that...

I go 1/4" unbalanced main outs from the Mackie into the Hi-Z inputs on my beloved Universal Audio 2108 Mic Pre. From the 2108, it's XLR-XLR into the Masterlink.

-Sometimes I hit the red pretty hard on the 2108.

-Sometimes I play with the impedance switch on the front of the 2108, seeing what sounds best.

-I keep the Mackie Main Out Fader at about -10db. Keeps the Main Out level on the Mackie at around 0 on its LED meters, rather than into the amber...or CLIP...this seems to help; the Mackie main section gets ugly at the top of its range. But when running the Mackie straight into the ML, it has to be run that hot to get good levels on the ML...so the 2108 is providing about 10db of "necessary gain" rather than just an "effect."

-The 2108 is set at its lowest direct level in (25db)...the output is usually around 6.5...When the Masterlink meters seem to be set in an optimum fashion, I'll crank the 2108 input up to 30...just to see what happens... Often the peaks don't hit any harder, but the average level goes up...and the sound doesn't get squashed or harsh or lifeless...But sometimes I have to back off the Mackie out level a bit or it starts to clip at the ML end or the 2108 begins to fuzz out...or I'll immediately lower the 2108 back to 25... then we're gold.

I like the results...for quiet acoustic stuff, it'd probably less-than-optimum due to oddball gain structuring, and perhaps impedance mismatches. But I'm pretty uneducated about that stuff...I do know that for songs with guitar-drums-bass, I like the results compared to "standard" mixdown path mixes:

-cymbals get saturated, without sounding brittle distorted or harsh.
-drums seem to have more impact.
-Guitars get more dimensional sounding
-It's like compression without compression...somehow louder, more in your face, but without trashing the dynamic range...Not Flaming Lips crunchy...Not Distressor Squashy...Just sounds a little less like, well, an ADAT...And oddly the recordings seem to become more 3D and more dynamic...

One other incidental trick...if my mix is balanced to my taste, but the snare hits still make the ML clip I increase the snare channel input gain on the MACKIE until the snare channel is clipping a bit. Then I lower the snare fader... Yeah! Mackie distortion as limiter. Works nicely if I'm careful, especially if there is some good snare bleed on the OH/room mics..Tames close-mic peaks without tone-sucking the snare.

My .002

KCB

Tracks using this method:

http://www.timbertrout.net/fireproofsam ... humboy.mp3
http://www.timbertrout.net/fireproofsam ... reamer.mp3

and more at http://www.timbertrout.net/forum/phpBB2 ... .php?t=176

BTW I was inspired by a Tapeop interview with John Vanderslice years back to try this. He used a Brent Averill 1272 instead...

[lotusstudio]

Right On Timbertrout! I dig the songs.

Music sounds a kind of like the Mommyheads.

Thanks for revealing your thoughts.

[supafuzz]

Transformers do this quite well. You should try making a box with a pair of nice 1:1 xformers in it, nothing else. A couple of well known mastering people I have worked with have boxes like that and sometimes it is just the right thing to light those suckers up and get some beautiful "grind" or slight "bend" to the top end of the whole mix.

Hey Joel...My new studio is setup to mix in the box until the big analog board
we're building gets finished [all discrete transistor /transformers in and out with 4 band inductor eq's!!!] I've heard that coming out of PT and back thru the convertors [let's say into a piece of hardware like your proposed transformer box] degrades the sound... Is it noticeable? I would love to come out of the box during mixing to run thru a stereo compressor or my Neve eq's etc

thanks
harley

[joel hamilton]

Transformers do this quite well. You should try making a box with a pair of nice 1:1 xformers in it, nothing else. A couple of well known mastering people I have worked with have boxes like that and sometimes it is just the right thing to light those suckers up and get some beautiful "grind" or slight "bend" to the top end of the whole mix.

Hey Joel...My new studio is setup to mix in the box until the big analog board
we're building gets finished [all discrete transistor /transformers in and out with 4 band inductor eq's!!!] I've heard that coming out of PT and back thru the convertors [let's say into a piece of hardware like your proposed transformer box] degrades the sound... Is it noticeable? I would love to come out of the box during mixing to run thru a stereo compressor or my Neve eq's etc

thanks
harley

If what you gain is more than what you lose, in your opinion... go for it.

I like "re-capturing" the sound of a console and transformers and tubes and tons of great classic gear because they all impart something on the source, then I record those tones with whatever is appropriate... Tape, right back into PTHD, DAT...
Whatever.