I have recently found that I have been adding far too many plug-ins to my recordings. One is inclined to get the impression by reading other posts that we must have an eq, a compressor, a reverb, a tune, a stereo, or whatever into the mix. This I have been doing without having the slightest clue as to why? and simply listening to hear what has happened (experimenting I suppose) The result has been a jumbled mess
I normally have four vocal tracks on a recording ( a doubled lead vocal, and a high and low harmony) I now take these tracks to an effects track where I have Reatune, Rea eq (set to wide vocal) and a reverb ( still looking for a reverb that I really like though ... want just a little to lift the vocals)
On the master track I add Rea eq with a high pass filter and a Loudmax limiter, and sometimes a stereo widener
The result is much closer to what I am searching for, but not quite there yet.
Anybody got any suggestions or comments that would help?

--------------------
Sam

Quote whis4ey:

---

One is inclined to get the impression by reading other posts that we must have an eq, a compressor, a reverb, a tune, a stereo, or whatever into the mix.

---

So far so good.

Quote whis4ey:

---

This I have been doing without having the slightest clue as to why?

---

Not so good.

Quote whis4ey:

---

On the master track I add Rea eq with a high pass filter and a Loudmax limiter, and sometimes a stereo widener. The result is much closer to what I am searching for, but not quite there yet. Anybody got any suggestions or comments that would help?

---

Could you post up a link, before and after you've added the FX, and tell us what you don't like about it...? It's impossible to say what it needs without hearing it.

One could argue the best recordings require no plug ins at all..................

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

It is tempting to keep adding plug ins, but they aren't always necessary. You should always A/B the channel to see what effect the plug-in is having and whether it is adding anything positive to the mix. Try to ensure level matching on compression and other effects which affect the output gain as it is easy to think something sounds better, when it is just a little bit louder.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

Try not using any plugins at all and use your ears first. Even though there may be presets on the effects you list, they're highly unlikely to fit in exactly with what you're recording & your environment. When I first started using computers to record on, way back in 19canteen, I didn't use any compression & very few eq plugins at all. I just carried the way I recorded to tape onto the computer. Try using fades instead of compression to control level. Mic placement can take care of most eq requirements. Experiment! Of course modern mixes are stuffed full of all sorts compression and eq mayhem, but you can learn all that stuff anytime. Meantime, it is always good to get a project finished. Then you can let other folk here it and they will make suggestions for improvements to you. Then discussion can really open up and you'll learn what you need to know. Have fun, keep it simple & get it out into the world!

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

One could argue the best recordings require no plug ins at all.

---

I'm not so sure about that. Recording is inherently unrealistic. Equalisation was created to compensate for the limitations of the technology, in order to make things sound more like they should.

Quote:

---

Equalization practice for electrical recordings dates to the beginning of the art. In 1926 Joseph P. Maxwell and Henry C. Harrison from Bell Telephone Laboratories disclosed that the recording pattern of the Western Electric "rubber line" magnetic disc cutter had a constant velocity characteristic. This meant that as frequency increased in the treble, recording amplitude decreased. Conversely, in the bass as frequency decreased, recording amplitude increased. Therefore, it was necessary to attenuate the bass frequencies below about 250 Hz, the bass turnover point, in the amplified microphone signal fed to the recording head. Otherwise, bass modulation became excessive and overcutting took place, with the cutter into the next record groove. When played back electrically with a magnetic pickup having a smooth response in the bass region, a complementary boost in amplitude at the bass turnover point was necessary. G. H. Miller in 1934 reported that when complementary boost at the turnover point was used in radio broadcasts of records, the reproduction was more realistic and many of the musical instruments stood out in their true form.

---

But besides that, why stop at what sounds natural...? There's more to art than the attempt to copy nature.

Quote BJG145:

---

Equalisation was created to compensate for the limitations of the technology, in order to make things sound more like they should.

---

Yes... to correct for the equipment failings... not originally as a 'creative tool' and certainly not as something that has to be used all the time!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Huh, well, it would make for a very short "Inside Track" feature if the engineer said: "Actually I didn't do anything with this - it sounded just fine as it was."

Quote whis4ey:

---

One is inclined to get the impression by reading other posts that we must have an eq, a compressor, a reverb, a tune, a stereo, or whatever into the mix.

---

It is a very common fallacy, and one we meet all the time on our Studio SOS visits. We are often asked to take a stab at remixing someone's work, and the first thing PW and I always do is bypass all the plug-ins to see what the sources actually sound like. Invariably our host will come rushing back into the room saying how much better it sounds, and asking what we've done!

Quote:

---

This I have been doing without having the slightest clue as to why?

---

And therein lies the problem. Any craftsman will tell you that you have to understand what the tools at your disposal do and how they should be used before you can use them effectively!

The plug-in 'preset' is the work of the devil and should be cast out! I would urge everyone NEVER to use a preset. f you don't know how to set up a signal processor from scratch to achieve the desired result, then you shouldn't be using it at all....

But more important than that, you have to learn to listen to the track and decide first what is needed. Is the sound well balanced tonally? If not, would it be better to move the mic or change the mic? With the exception of HPF, most other applications of EQ are actually compensating for poor mic choice or placement, and it's much better to sort out the tonality at source than mess with the EQ later.

Next you can think about dynamic control and the ebst way of dealing with that, and so on. The aim should be to minimise the processing by getting things right at source as far as possible. It is obviously possible to do very clever things with the proessing (you only have to read Mike Senior's re-mixes to realise that), but that is a very advanced level that few have the skills and experience to apply effectively.

Sometimes as a home studio project the vocal performances will need a lot of help, and there is no way around that, but again skillful application when it's needed is usually better than slapping on heavy handed processing throughout.

Reverbs really should be configured as a send-return process, where many channels feed into the one reverb process, rather than inserting a different reverb on every channel. Not only is this incredibly wasteful of computing power, but it can also lead to a confusion of different (fake)acoustic spaces that just adds to the mix confusion. A couple of different reverbs and maybe a delay or two should be all that's needed.

The bottom line is that plug-ins won't make a good mix. Good ears and skillful application of the right processes in the right places will.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Yep to all the above.

As a learning tool, start my mixing your track using just levels and panning. Make a good stab at getting it sounding as good as you can.

From that point, tackle particular issues and add something to solve that issue. So, for instance "the drum track is really dry and artificial, let's add some reverb" add give it some room reverb. "The bass is too uneven" so add a little smoothing compression. "The electric guitar is too muddy and clashes with the bass" so roll off some low end.

This way you are picking tools for a particular reason, and are thinking about the reason why you need a tool, and *then* adding the tool and using it.

I just finished mixing a new album. It has come out very well, the mixes have actually exceeded my own expectations, which is always a good feeling.

I did a plugin count and I averaged 150 plugins per mix, plus a hardware bus compressor and a hardware tape sim. on the main bus. That 150 includes FX plugins and Slate Digital VCC on the main tracks.

I'm not sure if 150 plugins is a lot, a little or an average these days - but the key for me is I noticed each plugin is doing very little. A dB here or there of EQ - a few dB's of GR on various tracks, a touch of delay, a touch of reverb.

All the sweetening is very subtle individually, but as a whole the results are a big, 3D soundscape.

I see each plugin as a little worker ant, on it's own it can lift the mix very little, but 150 worker ants can collectively lift a mix into a great place without it sounding unnatural and over processed in any one place.

tf

Quote Trebor Flow:

---

I see each plugin as a little worker ant, on it's own it can lift the mix very little, but 150 worker ants can collectively lift a mix into a great place without it sounding unnatural and over processed in any one place.

tf

---

I like that.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Quote Trebor Flow:

---

I see each plugin as a little worker ant

---

The red ants sound better than the black ones, I think...

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Edited by Hugh Robjohns (29/06/12 01:54 PM)

I think compression is the default plugin people use before thinking whether or not it's necessary.

--------------------
www.thediplomatz.com

It's most entertaining when they use a preset compressor and don't bother to adjust the threshold, or even reaslise that it needs adjusting!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

i once had a guy in ...he wanted me to look and maybe help remix his stuff....so first thing i did was remove all the plug ins...hit play....the guy nearly jumped out of his seat..."what the hell did you just do?.that sounds amazing."
i told him ....on every channel he had a differant reverb eq and compression. the vocal had 10 differant effects on it...the lesson he learned that day ..
listen to the sound dry...then work out what you want it to do...most of the time,if you have done it right...a tiny smattering of reverb just about does it...

it was also the first and the last time i had seen any one put a heavily modulating chorus on a kick and snare.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/onemanandalaptop

and i just learned that i should read the rest of the posts before replying

--------------------
www.myspace.com/onemanandalaptop

Quote paul tha other:

---

and i just learned that i should read the rest of the posts before replying

---

Great minds, eh?

On the content of your post:
It's hugely gratifying and affirming when this happens. It's very disconcerting when you do it to yourself. I have in the past congratulated myself on the significant improvements I'd brought to a project only to find I'd opened the 'base' version with no significant manipulation at all. At least I was alone at the time so no-one need ever...

...oh bollocks.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

One could argue the best recordings require no plug ins at all..................

Bob

---

Whilst this was said with tongue in cheek, it's been interesting reading this thread, so a few extra thoughts.

Using plugins without having a clear idea of what you're trying to achieve is a little like having a wonderfully detailed map, but no destination in mind. Whenever I use a plugin, I already know where I'm wanting to take the sound.

But returning to the no plugins scenario, I think they are often used as an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The more we can get the sound we want through mic selection, positioning, room acoustics and, of course, musicianship, then the better we are.

And yes, I have produced projects with no or few plugins admittedly often classical in nature, and they sound great. Which is not to say projects with plugins can't sound great as well...

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz