Glue (Producers Please)

... on Track, Buss, and Master Buss: 
 
What is it?  How much/how little? When to use it?  Why/Why not?  Where is it most/least important, Etc.
 
By glue (gel), I think I understand we oft want to make things stick consistently around the RME levels, more than the peak transients or troughs. 
 
There seems to be various types of glue, iirc ... not just digital compression ...
Things like comps, multi-comps, vintage EQs, harmonic exciters, vintage warmers, tube and tape, solid state circuits, etc. ... impart different types of glue.
 
Please consider macro dynamics and peak transients in your ponderings.
 
All producer and home producer thoughts are welcome.  Thanks in advance!

Philip


... on Track, Buss, and Master Buss: 
 
What is it?  How much/how little? When to use it?  Why/Why not?  Where is it most/least important, Etc.
 
By glue (gel), I think I understand we oft want to make things stick consistently around the RME levels, more than the peak transients or troughs. 
 
There seems to be various types of glue, iirc ... not just digital compression ...
Things like comps, multi-comps, vintage EQs, harmonic exciters, vintage warmers, tube and tape, solid state circuits, etc. ... impart different types of glue.
 
Please consider macro dynamics and peak transients in your ponderings.
 
All producer and home producer thoughts are welcome.  Thanks in advance!

Hi Philip,
 
I was going to stay away from this thread because I'm not really a "glue man" so to speak. However, if you like the sound of my productions then what I do and don't do may be of interest to you.
 
First off, the REAL glue people talk about usually comes from an outboard comp. There is just something about the analog gear in this situation that blows any plugs you may use for this out of the water. It's something you would need to do a side by side comparisson with to really tell.
 
That said, there are only two pieces in my arsenal that come close to replicating this. The Fatso Jr. and the Studer 800. The Fatso can be used by itself and really does come close to what you would get out of an outboard comp due to the levels of warmth it gives you. When you use an analog compressor as your 2-bus glue, the sound characteristics as well as the unit itself, warm up the mix and give it character. This is why some guys are so bent on using stuff like this. The Fatso is so close to giving you this sound, to me it's not worth using a hardware comp unless you have something that completely alters the sound to where your mix becomes a totally different animal.
 
That said, there are two ways people go about this. You can use the 2 bus comp as something to literally glue the mix together a little tighter or you can use it to add character to the mix while also making things a little tighter and capping off little peaks that would be there if you didn't use it. The compressor you use in this situation is all about "vocal character". What it does is, when you put it on your 2-bus BEFORE you mix, it forces you to come up with a different eq curve than you would without it. For example, if we ran into an API 2500 hardware comp, the warmth it would add would force you to make different decisions in your frequencies. Without the comp adding color and character, your eq settings per track would end up much different.
 
If you used a Fatso and experimented with some of the "warmth" controls as well as the saturation it can give you, it's doing the exact same thing and pushing things as close as it can being in software form. It's not the same, but it's close enough in my opinion to where I really don't see the reason to spring for a hardware piece. The other piece would be the Studer. The cool thing about the Studer is, you have warmth and a VERY convincing saturation from it. This plug along with your favorite compressor in the 2-bus is a lethal combination. You use the Studer to saturate a little and warm things up adding color and character, then you add the compressor of your choice before it or after it depending on which sounds better for your project.
 
Now all of the above said, you use quite a bit of loops and samples with your stuff. Some of the loops and samples you use are very synthetic. You're not going to notice a major difference in your material because your peaks and transients are never out of whack. It's real instruments that really benefit from this. Sure, you can take a mix and run it through a comp with character and change the tonality....I'm not saying it wouldn't do anything. But when you use samples and loops etc, they are created to pretty much have an even, consistent sound. Only bass drops seem to run a bit amuck from time to time. But most of the other stuff is so consistent, there aren't any real peaks or transients to worry about that cause mayhem.
 
In your material, one of the things I have always been impressed with, is your consistency. I'd hear mixes from you before we started working together and think "how the heck is he getting that so clean?" I think...if you don't mind my honesty....that you are over-thinking things in a sense and this new technology is working on your head. I believe if you posted a poll on this forum asking others to vote on your mixes on a scale of 1-10 that you would consistently get 7's and above from anyone with a decent set of ears.
 
In your last mix you posted up, you introduced a few things into your mix that I hadn't heard before...and one of those things was a bit of a muddy low end with a bit of saturation. I do not feel your material needs any of that in my opinion. But if you feel it needs to be dirtied up, no one can make that call but you. I have always been impressed with your cleanliness as well as how all your stuff is always audible even if something may be a bit low or loud in a mix. This to me is success. You aren't masking or burying things. Even if we say "well this and this can come up" or "this and this is a bit loud" it's ALWAYS audible and nothing is masked.
 
That right there is something every home studio owner should strive to achieve because let me tell you, it's not easy. One of the most common issues we have in this field is frequency masking. You know it's happening as soon as you start raising a fader and something else disappears while you do it so you raise that something else, then you can't hear the initial instruments you were raising to begin with. Let me put it this way...if you can make things super loud in a mix to where everything else is heard, you have a good mix.
 
So in my mind based on what I've heard from you past and present, I sincerely don't think you need any of this at all. Part of your style that puts you in a different place than others that are doing your style is your cleanliness. They have a bit of dirt going on. I personally do not like this dirt. It sounds lo-fi to me. Though some lo-fi stuff is acceptable and quite apparent in this style of music, I also feel it can degrade a mix a bit too. When I listen to a Philip production, I know that sucker is going to sound clean and polished and I've grown to love and expect that sound from you. Maybe that's your issue with your productions? The clean thing sounds too polished to you and you want that dirt others are getting? I think it's what separates you from them. You have your own sound...your own identity...and it works....and works VERY well.
 
But if you are really serious about this 2-bus comp stuff, I'd start with the Fatso and select the "bus glue" preset. From there, work with the warmth controls and amount of compression you want. This needs to be done before you attemp to mix the tune though as it will affect your outcome. Most times for me, I will not push a 2-bus comp harder than removing about -2dB of gain. But see, on a hardware comp, you might push it a bit harder so it literally gives you a sound characteristic. You gotta jump on a hardware comp a bit more. Sort of like a tube amp. You won't phase a 100 watt Marshall unless you nail it hard...and if you do, God bless you and your neighbors because it's going to be incredibly loud. A 50 watt cranked all the way up is still going to be ear-bleeding loud. So you sort of have to grab this same principal with a hardware comp. You don't have to kill it to make it give you color, but you'll need to ride it harder than you would a software comp because of the circuitry in the hardware comp doin' its thing.
 
Or like I said, try the Studer and then your favorite comp before or after it depending on what type of sound you're looking for. The Studer offers so many sound color options along with the most realistic tape saturation sound I've ever heard. It literally sounds like my reel to reel machines saturating. And, you have control over bias, tape, tape speed and then of course you can open up the control panel on the studer and fine tune it from there. I've been using it on the Van Halen demo I'm working on for my cover band. I have a pretty convincing EVH tone...but something is always missing. It was the tape saturation they used at the time. You can literally hear it driving his tone and giving it a bit more color than it would have without it. I'm still not spot on of course, but I'm so darned close, I really don't want to try any harder. If I did, I'd lose my "Danny sound" and I want a bit of myself in there as well.
 
As for when to use, why and where...it all depends on what your needs are. Sometimes I put a compressor on every guitar track. Other times I compress lightly on each guitar track and then send the guitars to a bus with a Precision bus comp to comp those guitars as an entity. On my drums, I'll comp my kick and snare and then send the whole kit to a drum bus and put a Fairchild on the bus just for a little glue to keep the whole kit nice and tight. I try not to compress toms and cymbals unless I absolutely have to.
 
For piano's and synths, I compress on the actual track and may send them to a bus with light compression...it all depends on the sound of the instruments and what I'm looking for. I'll put it to you this way....there are times when I have such a good print and have executed things so well, I may not even use a compressor. I like those situations. If you don't need it, you don't use it. Never go into a project saying "I have to use this because I'm supposed to." Sometimes you may want to run parallel compression on a drum track, other times it can degrade the track and make things too forceful for the song. Sometimes you want to compress something for the effect part of it, other times subtle to 0 compression is acceptable.
 
As for 2-bus stuff, I have never found I've needed it much. I do use it from time to time, but it depends on the dynamics of the song. If you know how to mix and eq, you can make your mix sound like anything you want without having that on the 2-bus in my opinion. However, it's not the same as having a hardware comp to feed through. That just gives things a different type of sound. It's not even for the compression part really because you don't use much in a "glue situation." It's more for color with a bit of a compression tightness going on. You have to decide if you really feel you need that coloration or not. I can do without it, though in other situations, the Fatso works wonders....or I can use the Studer and a NEVE 33609 or the Studer and an API 2500 or Fairchild and it's VERY close to what a hardware comp would emulate.
 
So give some thought to this. I've never had a problem with your productions and have always admired how clean your stuff is for that particular genre. I personally would not change a thing and dirty it up...but if you feel the need, the above is what I would try...or you just run out and grab a hardware comp and do it that way. There are many different ways you can go there...most all of them will be fairly pricey because what you are paying for is the sound/color characteristics of that compressor. Best of luck....I hope this helps a bit. :)
 
-Danny

dbx MC-6.

my secret glue.

MakeShift


Philip,

Great question and one that I have thought about asking myself.  Very interesting responses.  Danny, thank you for your lengthy and very informative answer.  Like usual, I am going to have to read it over several times to full absorb everything you have said.  That is, if I can ever find a quiet moment around here. 

Sounds like glue or summing, is most easily done through hardware if I am summarizing what I have read by all, so far. 

I was watching a You Tube lesson reciently...I know that can be dangerous as well...but it suggested that so many of us home recordists are recording using different types of instruments, in different rooms, sometimes particially in the box; some times accoustic.  The environments are such a mixture, compared to the traditional style of all recorded in a great sounding  room.  This video was suggesting that using something as a glue, whether just a touch of the same reverb on each track, or summing  to very light compression, to glue all of these differently recorded tracks into one similar sound source.

I suspect this was somewhat Philips question.  I look forward to seeing more responses.

Not a problem Mike. You have the right idea, yeah. It's usually going to come from some sort of outboard device. As Mike pointed out, there are several ways to go about that. Camera mic's, board pre's etc, can all color and saturate a sound. That saturation turns into a form of good compression when used correctly. Though I'd not consider them "glue", they process differently than software will. I have an old video camera....one of those really big ones that recorded VHS tapes. Something awesome about the mic in that as it always recorded my band really well. I'm sure the VHS tape may have had something to do with that also, but that mic never clipped or distorted in a bad way.
 
I also feel that the word "glue" has a few different meanings to different people. To me, it's always been to glue a mix or a few instruments together. To others, it's compression to the point of tonal characteristic alteration...and in most cases, it's in a bad way. For example, I get a few mixes that come in from time to time that are nearly square boxing on me before I touch them at they are at -6 dB to -3 dB. When I ask the engineer why he felt the need to do that, the response is always the same....they like the sound of a certain compressor for 2-bus glue and need it at a certain level before it cops the tonal character they are looking for. This square boxing is no longer glue though...it becomes epoxy in this state and makes my job a bit more difficult. If they are going to compress like this, they should just finish the job on their own without an ME. I refuse to do work on projects like that...so they either fix the mix and lighten up, or they can go somewhere else.
 
When you look at good mixes of the past where bus glue was used, you never see a square box wave form. Just a little glue to tighten up the mix or a few vintage pieces for tone quality. Most times the only one that can hear the difference is the engineer...other times the effects of this can be more apparent. That's the extent of it for *most* users. There are others that have some pretty strange processing chains though. Some of which I'd never think of using...some I'd never use period. But they work for certain individuals, so it's all good. :)
 
-Danny

I was going to stay away from this thread...

Jeez, I'd like to see how much you'd have to say about a topic you were passionate about! 


Just funnin' ya, Danny. I know you're passionate about every aspect of this game, even stuff you don't use yourself. Me too. 


Like you, I am very spare with any kind of overt glue processing. Real organic glue happens way before the 2 bus, from the choice of instruments to the song arrangement, from automation to reverberation. Putting something specifically gluey on the stereo bus is icing on the cake, and perhaps unnecessary.


I think the term "Glue" is a fairly recently-coined word, at least in its current connotation, which it acquired as people migrated from mostly tape to mostly digital. After the switch they missed the gluing effect of tape. 


Tape compression (saturation), track bleed and tape hiss all contribute to a blurring effect. Gentle, frequency-dependent nonlinear compression, along with a dash of harmonic distortion and maybe even a little noise, and you've got something at least reminiscent of the same effect.


As for its relative importance in the process, IMO not very. But then, I revel in the crisp clarity of digital audio and am not overly nostalgic about magnetic media. In that I may not be representative, particularly among my own age group.

I feel like I should clarify one thing about how I used the phrase "camera mic". It was meant to imply that nothing good happened at the microphone. Camera mics are utility grade and powered by a power supply that is meant to power a camera, not a mic. My point was that the *glue* was happening without any help from the mic.

:-)


best regards,
mike

Danny Danzi

.... it's not digital that's harsh...it's YOU that's harsh in your sound selection."
 
The reason I say that, it's only giving you back what you put into it. If you have a harsh guitar tone to start with, you get a harsh guitar tone back.

I agree.  This "theory" began when digital and the CD in particular began to gain in popularity.  I heard it and dutifully believed...... until....


In a record review in Guitar Player Magazine some time back in the late 70's or early 80's a reviewer made the statement on reviewing the new TRIO CD.... (Linda Rondstat, Dolly Parton, Emmy Lou Harris) with some of the finest Nashville session players on dobro, lap steel, fiddle, mandolin, and guitar (as well as some other instruments) .... that "This album was the reason CD's were invented".


Being curious and not much of a bluegrass fan, but loving the voices and music of Linda and Emmy Lou..... I purchased said CD. All I can say is "WOW" .... I was impressed and duly converted and became a fan of TRIO.  I still listen to it now. If you have not hear the TRIO..... it's money well spent. 


But to the point.... the sound on that CD is amazing. Such clarity in the tone of the instruments. You can hear the rosin on the bow. No harshness in there that I could hear. The engineering is done right.


Tape, back in the day had the ability to take the edge off of the harshness to some degree since tape is not a loss less medium. Every time you run a tape past the head, the content lost some of it's original tone character due to residual magnetism in that head. Levels and "on tape" natural compression also contributed to that as well. 


Digital is the same after 3 bounces as it is after 1003 bounces.... so if something is harsh to begin with, it stays that way. 


Many times, I have deleted a track that just didn't seem to fit in no matter what I did to it to try to force it in. Digital at times is too honest for me. 

To reply to Danny's question, yes it is harsh. And no, I am not harsh, nor do I make harsh audio decisions but my wife would disagree overall about my relative harshness. 

Digital is clearer above the point where tape saturation used to roll things off. If you don't round it off with EQ, preferably with your mic choices and external hardware, it builds up in the higher range. If you don't take my word for it, go watch the latest Dave Pensado episode where Ken Scott (the Beatles former mixer) talks about his challenges in this area. You can find it on Youtube. Or Michael Shipley who had Black Lion Audio design his converters to reduce the harshness on Alison Krause's latest album Paper Airplane.

It's real, its known, and usually is exacerbated by plugins. Why, I don't know but to get back to glue...it's really about trying to get the track to sound warm and rolling off EQ, is one way of getting there. That's kind of what a tape saturation plug does, emphasizes the lows and rolls off the highs. All of this in a general sense mind you.

The mix that Cakewalk just put up on their blog, in my view, is too glued. It's a dull representation of what musically seems to be going on. I would like to hear others view on this. http://blog.cakewalk.com/

droddey


Glue, roughly, is the opposite of separation, IMO. Everyone can achieve a HEAVILY glued mix, and in fact most beginners can only create heavily glued mixes, actually way, way over-glued because they don't understand how to control separation. I used to be  master of this. 

 

GUILTY !!  I have just emerged from this phase of newberism in the last two weeks or so....  Overcompressing every damn thing, I was also failing to listen to the tracks raw as I started to mix to see if the tones worked or not.  I would pull up and screw with Eq's and preconcieved notions of what the eq should look like for that instrument.  Sometimes they just don't need it, or need much anyway.  Things are a bit more enlightening on this side of that dark tunnel I had to go through to learn it.  A few other things I picked recently too:
 
1) I haven't tried the studer 800 out any other tape sims but I have learned that what I thought I liked about cakes tape sim fx I actually hate.  The warmth is good but can be achieved via EQ without the bogus "tape saturation" which to my ear sounds like distortion.  And not the good kind.  
 
2) having said that, I have learned to embrace the clean sound of our beloved sonar (digital recording) and not to dirty it up much with plug in saturations.  I have used the saturation in the vx64 vocal strip for many vocal tracks and then went back and in every case I liked them better with little or no saturation at all.  My mic pre has an Ax7 tube and the saturation I get from it on the way in, I like.  So Imagine outboard 2 bus comps would most likely impress me the same way over their digital counterparts.
 
3) In sooooo many cases in audio recording I have found less is more. way more.   In most cases learning eq's, comps, even reverbs it was not that I wasn't doing it enough or had noobs set "wrong" other than that I was applying WAY TOO MUCH of everything.  Drastic Eq's, too much compression, too much verb etc....    Verbs have a cavern setting but it's not because anyone has ever enjoyed a rock concert inside a cavern!
 
I am certainly not among the more experianced here so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to my ear, things glue together more organically and more natural sounding when the arrangement,sound source capturing, and track eq's are working with one another rather than trying to run each other over.  I have some mixes I fight with (see the songs forum for evidence) and others that I LOVE and strive to duplicate.  Though every song is so different so i has been more difficult for me to figure out what I did so right on one project and so wrong in another, but it many cases when I found the problem it was that I over-did something. 
 

Chuck: Yeah, making things listenable at offices, restaurants, etc. ... requires some smearing and blending of non-dominant instruments.

Also, congrats on your recent venue.  Myself, I've just been invoked as our church's chief musician ... our last piano player split ... hahahahah!

AT: You're an animal!

Droddy: I think you hit it spot on ... you've cleared many of the clouds (glue vs. separation ... treating music as backdrop-layers, etc.). THANKS for your additional chimes and ponderings.