02-07-2012, 08:44 PM
Hm, Artbass,
thanks for explaining this. I think the psychological component is indeed the most interesting aspect of this approach. For mixing, anyway.
I think I understand that the goal is to use processing as sparingly / effectively / deliberately as possible. Also it seems to me that strictly limiting bus levels is supposed to enforce the necessary discipline.
A couple of things still puzzle me. First and foremost, an increase in processing intensity does not automatically cause an increase in level. For example, low-cutting a track tends to reduce level rather than increase it. Even compression does not increase level per se. Therefore, limiting levels does not always force one to "turn down" anything, let alone keep one from overdoing the processing. Or am I missing the point...?
Do you remember any practical example of how this rule has affected your mixing decisions, like which processor you did or didn't use in which configuration (insert / send) on which instrument, or how you dialed it back in order to keep levels low? Or, asked differently, how do you believe would your mixes have sounded differently had you not applied this rule?
Marc
(02-07-2012, 08:04 AM)Artbass Wrote: [...] The second - and this is what is the more important effect to me - is more a psychological effect. In order to achieve these low levels on the masterbus you have to turn the outputs of the processors down. This seems to result in less and more controlled processing (when it comes to me) as you reduce the louder-is-better-problem and actually listen to the processing. [...]
thanks for explaining this. I think the psychological component is indeed the most interesting aspect of this approach. For mixing, anyway.
I think I understand that the goal is to use processing as sparingly / effectively / deliberately as possible. Also it seems to me that strictly limiting bus levels is supposed to enforce the necessary discipline.
A couple of things still puzzle me. First and foremost, an increase in processing intensity does not automatically cause an increase in level. For example, low-cutting a track tends to reduce level rather than increase it. Even compression does not increase level per se. Therefore, limiting levels does not always force one to "turn down" anything, let alone keep one from overdoing the processing. Or am I missing the point...?
Do you remember any practical example of how this rule has affected your mixing decisions, like which processor you did or didn't use in which configuration (insert / send) on which instrument, or how you dialed it back in order to keep levels low? Or, asked differently, how do you believe would your mixes have sounded differently had you not applied this rule?
Marc