How to keep sound from getting to overwhelming when all the elements come together in a song when vocals etc. come in?

[Mab098157]

I've read or research a lot of diiferent uses for comp and limiter on master bus. And you can find thousands of different approaches. Sounds like your looking for a recipe... Trust your ears. Experiment, make terrible mixes and cringe when you listen back, then start over. Take notes on what you did that you like. Compare to songs that sound like what you hear in your head. Or send your tracks to one of the many pro mixers out there. Personally my mixes just 6 months ago could be better, but I feel I make progress with each piece. Don't stand still, don't linger, don't over think it, move forward.

I uses little comp on master bus to "glue" things up. To me limiter is a trick used on a peice to overcome poor mix, and should usually be used in mastering multiple pieces in a project. IMO.

[AHornsby]

I personally am wondering how common it is for sound engineers to use a limter/compressor on the master bus though, to control the levels from getting too loud in variation etc.?

For me, a limiter is way more useful. I don't like using compressors and would only use a compressor as a Hail Mary attempt at fixing a track which was recorded at too low a level. It's better to get it right (or close to it) by recording it again, if at all possible. -h

[Mark Bliss]

A limiter IS a compressor, so I am not sure what you mean there.

And as far as I can tell we are all just dancing around various interpretations of the question here and probably getting farther off topic than on.

Yes, there are many ways compressor/limiters are used of course, from tone shaping to leveling, etc. but given the range and type of the OP's questions, I strongly suspect the correct answer has to do with basic level management, (IE: turn everything down because of cumulative levels.) and that the idea of using a compressor/limiter for the intended result is misguided at this stage. I could be interpreting the question incorrectly though, its pretty muddy to me.

[msnickybee]

I always think that mixing to leave *space* for the vocals both in EQ space and Pan (as well as timing/time) is a good mode to be in

[Mark Bliss]

I agree.

And it remains my opinion that spending 2 years (for example) of time trying to gather info on the topic in little bits and spurts is pretty poor time management when a (nominally) 2 hour study could leap frog a persons knowledge so much farther and quicker. After all, its been pretty well covered often and well by some excellent writers, audio bloggers and producer tutors.

If my interpretation of the question is correct, and utterly ironic timing has any meaning whatsoever, this might be "meant to be."
I was chatting with one of my most trusted mentors last night, who brought up the often overlooked and misunderstood concept of mixing levels and headroom, and also the value and reasoning behind starting a mix in mono. And sent me a link to an old Recording Revolution blog. Then forwarded me a copy of a new post by Graham dated just this AM.

Here's the most relevant excerpt from the old blog post:

"The name of the game with mixes these days is headroom. This is especially true with mixing in the box (i.e. your software). What is headroom and why is it important? The short answer is: the range between your song’s loudest peaks and 0dbfs (or clipping). The benefit of lots of headroom? Sonic clarity and musicality. Do you want your mix to sound squished and flat? I didn’t think so. So listen up.

No Room To Mix
If you don’t leave enough headroom in your DAW then you really have to where to go with your mix. You will be hitting the proverbial (and literal) ceiling early and often. No es bueno. In the analog world we had some fudge room near the top of the meter, but the same does not hold true with digital. The solution? Free up as much headroom as possible and your mix will gain life and room to breathe. Here are the three easiest ways to get back some precious headroom in your mix.

Turn Your Tracks Down
This is the most obvious solution to the headroom quandary. Although few people seem to take my advice on this one. By simply turning down your tracks in your DAW you will be sending less signal to your mix buss and consequently will have instant headroom and clarity. You can do this in one of three ways: turn down your faders, use clip based gain to reduce track level, or insert trim plugins across your tracks with a generous level cut.

I guarantee you your mixes will come together faster and will sound better if you would simply pull all your tracks down before you begin to mix. At the modern 24 bit depth provided just about every audio interface these days, you have plenty of quiet gain and a low noise floor. No need to have really loud tracks running way up the meter. Pull them down and turn up your speakers and your tracks will sound better."
Graham Cochran

And the newsletter post from this AM:

When I was in college studying audio engineering and pouring over long boring mixing text books, I kept hearing a piece of advice from both professors and authors that just sounded so pointless to me.

Tell me if you’ve heard this before: you should mix in mono.

“What?! Why would I want to mix in mono if my mix is going to be in stereo? And who listens to mixes in mono anymore anyways? This isn’t the 1950s!”

It never made any sense to me. And no one really seemed to explain it in a way that I could understand.

Maybe I was just naive, or maybe I was just to prideful to get it, but I foolishly ignored this suggestion for a few years.

In fact, it wasn’t until I had actually started The Recording Revolution years ago that I began to use this mixing hack.

I was reading a great book by an award winning mixer from Nashville named Kevin Ward (he’s a good friend of mine too) and he brought up the concept of mixing in mono in one of his chapters.

“Oh boy, not again!” I thought.

But the way he explained mixing in mono in those few pages changed EVERYTHING about how I mix. It was like a light bulb went on in an otherwise very dark house.

Since learning and implementing this technique in countless mixes over the next few years, I have come to think of mixing in mono as one the most powerful mixing hacks around.

It’s so simple, but let me explain it to you.

Once you’ve got a rough “gut mix” going for your song, and you’re thinking it’s time to bust out some EQ or compression, stop. Put your entire mix into mono.

You can do this with a plugin or you could simply take the pan sliders/pots on your master fader and put them both up the middle. Now your mix will sound like it’s coming out of your computer screen in front of you.

Now you can start using EQ and compression.

What you’ll instantly notice is how hard it is to hear things. Guitars will be covering up other guitars. Vocals will all mesh together. It will be frustating and painful.

That’s the point!

It’s WAY to easy to mix in stereo. So easy in fact, that it leads you to not EQ properly.

You see when your tracks have no stereo separation, you are forced to EQ them in such a way that you can actually hear them, even when each track is right on top of the other.

And ultimately THAT is the point of EQ. To get separation and clarity in your tracks, no matter how they are panned.

So mixing in mono FORCES you to make the right EQ decisions, great. But who really cares if ultimately you’re going to pop it back to stereo and people will hear it with plenty of stereo separation?

The truth is, they won’t.

You see, most of the time people listening to your mixes won’t be some idillic studio sweet spot between two speakers. Sure plenty of people will listen in headphones, but most won’t.

Think about it.

When you listen to a song in the car, you’re never in the sweet spot. When you listen to music out of a stereo in your kitchen, you’re never in the sweet spot. Rather by the time the left and the right speakers sounds reach your ears, they are collapsed into one big mono mix.

Interesting.

So the only real way to get separation is through EQ. Panning is just gravy on top.

And the best way to get the right EQ moves for your tracks, is to force yourself to mix in mono.

It sounds crazy, but it works. I do it each and every mix. And you should too.

Action Step: Pull up an old mix, make a copy of the session, take out all of your plugins and start from scratch. This time, put your mix in mono and get your EQ in place. Once you pop it back out to stereo see how much more clarity you get.
Graham Cochran

[msnickybee]

Fab fab advice, yer a star Mark, thanks for posting that!

[Acoustica Greg]

Turn Your Tracks Down
This is the most obvious solution to the headroom quandary. Although few people seem to take my advice on this one. By simply turning down your tracks in your DAW you will be sending less signal to your mix buss and consequently will have instant headroom and clarity. You can do this in one of three ways: turn down your faders, use clip based gain to reduce track level, or insert trim plugins across your tracks with a generous level cut.

There really is an obsession with loudness. People don't want to be told to lower the levels on other tracks to make the vocals come up.

[AHornsby]

A limiter IS a compressor, so I am not sure what you mean there.

And as far as I can tell we are all just dancing around various interpretations of the question here and probably getting farther off topic than on.

I'd go so far as to say compression and limiting are related but not equal. For those that don't know the difference, a limiter will put a solid lid on excessively loud passages -- which prevents a signal from overloading -- whilst compression doesn't. In all practicality I know this might be hair splitting and though the results of each method might be similar, the process is slightly different.

Don't get me wrong. Chopping off too many peaks can also lead to a lot of NOISE and it's best to not have to use either of those methods.

-h

[Mark Bliss]

There really is an obsession with loudness. People don't want to be told to lower the levels on other tracks to make the vocals come up.

Yeah, but that is but a facet of the issue in my observation.

Before getting into my thoughts on that, I feel the need to clarify for those who may be following. The suggestion is about MIXING at modest levels to provide headroom. There's more to all, but just to be clear, you can render, master whatever you wish at whatever levels you want, but even for those who insist on mastering to the very edge of loudness by whatever means possible for whatever reason you may rationalize, there are probably big advantages to following the above advice IMO.

When I first began exploring producing "in the box" (ITB) I noticed right away some trends. (And I also felt there wasnt much clarity and guidance on this issue at the novice level.)
For example, if you were to start a typical project using a foundation based on typical drum loops or drum tracks created from samples, you are immediately by default starting with tracks with levels too high. Add anything and set the levels even in the neighborhood of a rough mix and you are way to hot before adding but a few tracks. Then you find the first advise is to add a compressor to this track and that, add another to a submix and you start inserting these processors and experimenting with presets that have the typical excessive make-up gain settings by default and you are WAY too hot. Add in that the default recording levels in many brands of software are set too high.

All this is a recipe for trouble for a novice IMO. I immediately discovered on my first ITB mix, that I needed a way to turn everything down by an equal amount to maintain my rough mix, or start over. I took note and in my next effort began turning things down from the start. And developed the mentality of turning other things down to accent an instrument or vocal instead of turning that track up. Things started to make more sense. I began to discover what worked on my own long before finding advise like the above. I think it would be a great benefit to others getting started to make this information more prominent.

This is also where I restate my suggestion about the value of tools like channel strip gain trim, and linkable fader controls.......
And there's still more to the topic of levels yet for another time.

I'd go so far as to say compression and limiting are related but not equal.

Not equal. But in my mind, its still the same thing, with the only difference being how it is applied.

Set a compressors ratio to infinity and its a limiter. (Conversely the plug-ins marketed as limiters are compressors with the ratio preset or fixed at infinity.)
Manipulate the make up gain to determine between upward and downward compression with either.
Manipulate the attack/release and it could become a "transient designer" or "tone shaper."
Then there's the expander. Still a compressor as far as I am concerned, just used another way.
etc. etc. (and very generalized.)

Either way, compressing/limiting is not the way to fix mixing levels that are too hot IMO.
Again, assuming that was the question!

[aj113]

...Trust your ears...

If there's one thing I've learned it's not to trust my ears. We all hear differently to each other and in any case our ears are liars. One day a mix will sound great, the next day the same mix will sound poor for a variety of reasons. Use meters and visual aids whenever/wherever possible.

[aquataur]

...Trust your ears...

If there's one thing I've learned it's not to trust my ears. We all hear differently to each other and in any case our ears are liars. One day a mix will sound great, the next day the same mix will sound poor for a variety of reasons. Use meters and visual aids whenever/wherever possible.

I don´t know how much I concur with that. It is true that our ears are variable. It is also true that trained ears are needed to listen for specific things. But it is also true that in the very end you don´t end up with something visual, but something audible. The ears are the final judge. Take pauses. Mix at low levels. Use different speakers. Make snapshots to easily revert changes.

The OP seems worried about two things: a) excessive dB level and clipping and b) instruments adding to an intransparent brew.

a) can be taken care of cautious level settings, and, if everything else fails, a limiter. But this is only a palliative measure.
for b), as has been said, leave away what is unnecessary. Mike Senior (and others) recommend, to cut the song into sections, such as chorus, lead solo etc. Start working with what you consider most important, this has to be pointing out. Have the instruments stick out you consider most important within this section and drop the others.
You may have to slice a track into the sections determined before, since there will be no level setting that will stay rigid over the whole song.

-helmut

[aj113]

...The ears are the final judge.

Indeed, but they don't have to be the initial judge. For instance, would you use your ears for

...cautious level settings...

...or a meter?

Your ears need all the help they can get, because no matter how good we think we are, we're not. I read it all the time on forums 'trust your ears' 'your ears are the best tool' etc. It's bollocks. Meters would not exist if we didn't need them. If you don't think the eyes are at least as important as the ears, try mixing blind. I would rather mix deaf than blind.

[aquataur]

I am not suggesting to disregard or prefer any of these clues, visual or auditive.

Senior suggests to take a tracks volume back by, say, 0.5 dB and listen for the effect. Then take it up by 0.5 dB and listen again. Changes like that would be barely visible on a meter.

I believe both are useful gauges, but even a meter needs to be known well.
A dynamic signal with peak and average content -- no wonder non-pro´s have a hard time finding a stable position for the fader.

-helmut

[Mark Bliss]

Ah semantics.

My ears are pretty good at telling me when something is wrong. But on the other hand, often lie when telling me something is right....... And yet in the end, what I like is judged entirely by my ears and tastes.

The problem has complex causes from the biology of hearing, like the way our perception of frequencies varies at different loudness's to the variables of monitoring systems, rooms, acoustics and so on. This is why we meter, analyse, rest, and playback on various systems and re-assess. Compensate. Repeat. Its all a part of a process of learning to get the desired end result, probably with a goal of consistency, repeatability and hopefully learning to do it quicker over time.

Mutt Lange is famously known for spending months mixing and tweaking a single song. I have no desire to duplicate that aspect of his work.

My ears lie. Yet in the end I don't drive around in my truck listening to meters either.

[midimoose]

Hello all,

This has been an incredibly educational thread for me...many thanks to EVERYONE who took part! I'm currently working on a short "orchestral" piece, and in typical impatient fashion, got in way over my head too early in the process. Started adding reverb, and panning instrument tracks WAY too early until I ended up with 3 and a half minutes of MUD... even experimented with some compression and limiting before realizing that I knew nothing about them, (I'm studying). I found myself chasing my tail all over the project, spinning wheels and making no progress.

Thanks, Mark Bliss, for the great advice from Graham Cochrane on mixing in MONO! This was a breakthrough for me. So-- I centered all pans, removed all effects, and started really listening. Pretty much starting over from scratch. I'm just beginning to EQ individual tracks now, while still in mono, and adjusting track levels as I go. I'll think about gradually moving back into stereo, and adding some minor effects LATER! I'm also on a learning curve with new monitors,(M-AUDIO bx5 carbon.) I like them, but still learning their quirks.

Thanks again-- these forums are a treasure trove of solid information. Rick.