Someone on this forum came up with a way to feed a track into another track by using sidechaining. I've come up with what I think is a pretty cool technique that takes advantage of this, and want to write it up for my Sound on Sound column. However, I want to give credit were credit is due and am not finding the right search terms to locate this thread. Can someone help?
 
 

This is the first thread I recall http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3050940

I think the origins were via "New York (parallel) compression"???

scook
This is the first thread I recall http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3050940

That's the one!! Thank you. So Ludwig, if you don't want your name or studio mentioned in the article, let me know otherwise I'll include that info in the credit.

That was a great workaround.  It can be argued whether you need a track to act like a bus and but the problem that is solves is giving the user the ability to organize their working environment it a manner that is comfortable to them.  I like it.
 
I begs for a very simple plugin to be developed that would basically route the signal in a similar manner to the Sonitus Compressor without any other code in there that might be using resources that are unnecessary. 
 
Or maybe a future SONAR version would allow a bus to be dragged and dropped to any spot in the Track View or Console View like so many other DAW hosts allow.
 

Actually, I'm not using this for the purpose mentioned in the original post. What I want to do could be done with buses; it's a reverse gated reverb effect that doesn't sound quite like the Eric Prydz "pumping drums" effect used on the "Valerie" remix, but has the same kind of "breathing" effect. So basically, I'm using the Sonitus Gate as a plug-in the way you describe. It's a straight pass-through monitoring of the sidechain input to the output. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to strip away everything except the sidechain input and an output, but realistically, the gate isn't CPU-heavy and you can just ignore the stuff you don't want.
 
As you point out, the main advantage of this approach is workplace organization - for a complex project, I can put the tracks in a folder and be done with them. I may also try this for multiband processing; currently I just clone a track and process each instance. 
 
 

Hi Craig.
 
I've been using the Sonitus Gate for the ducking effect you mention for sometime now as I also find that it's CPU light and doesn't introduce any artefacts or colouration that you get with some compressors.  I also find that I can quite tightly control and attack and release times, ramp shape and easily vary the depth of the ducking effect through the track.
 
I have to say though, "Call On Me" by Eric Prydz has to be the worst dance track I've ever heard as it completely destroyed Steve Winwood's original "Valerie" song and not only that, to me it sounds over compressed and ducked to death so much so, it distorts and so on that basis, I consider it an insult to my ears and all music at all levels!
 
So in "Dragon's Den" style, "I'm out"!!!
 
I really can't stand the track as I think it's a piece of sh*t (sorry folks) but please Craig, do tell me, am I missing something as I thought Daft Punk used that ducking effect long before so I'm not sure why Prudz got so much kudos!
 
Oh I know, it was the women in the video mimicking the compressor doing the ducking.  That was the best part of that track!

I'm a Steve Winwood fan, met him in New York back in the day and also interviewed him a few years back. He's a super-nice guy and a class act. I saw him open for Tom Petty a couple weeks ago, and he had the mostly under-30 demographic in the palm of his hand. It was just him and four other musicians, no light show, no pyrotechnics, just really good music from the heart and when the band finished their set, they got a standing ovation. It was well-deserved.
 
The squashing/ducking thing has been done before, listen to what happens to the cymbals on some of the Traffic and Beatles cuts, particularly Traffic's "Hole in My Shoe." Prydz just took it to a different level. But it's not about hi-fi, it's about pushing and straining. I really like a lot of punk, I thought the Damned were pretty cool, and while Trent Reznor is in a class by himself I think he's managed to make really artful industrial sounds. All music lives within a frame of reference, and whether it's to an individual's liking or not, the context matters.
 
The first time I heard John Coltrane's Ascension I thought it was horrible. I mentioned that to a friend who said "Well, his earlier stuff was quite different." It was, and I thought it was great. So I got into Coltrane and started listening from those early albums onward. At one point, I  caught up with Ascension but when I heard it after hearing the logical procession that led up to it, I thought it was genius. Eric Prydz is no Coltrane, but it illustrates my point about context.
 
FWIW, Winwood was so impressed by Prydz's track he re-cut some of the vocals to fit the remix better. I like the track, I think the way Prydz weaves Winwood's vocal in and out of the mix is really quite evocative. Of course, the original is a gem, and Winwood's voice is so amazingly soulful that anything with his voice on it can't go too terribly wrong. But if you listen to the track as more of a re-invention of that vocal than as something comparable, I think it makes more sense. Yes, I probably would have mixed it somewhat differently, but I thought it was pretty cool...and if it's good enough for Steve Winwood, it's good enough for me 

Well, that told me Craig.    I can't argue with that.  And let's be honest, forums would be pretty boring without a bit of banter.
 
Mind you, who would argue if some current producer approached them to revamp their 30 year old song and re-release it to the modern generation because as the original writer/composer, you do nothing and you'll get huge royalties from it so it makes good business sense really.
 
To Winwood's defence, at least he re-did the vocals so obviously he cared to a degree!

RickJP909
Well, that told me Craig.    I can't argue with that.  And let's be honest, forums would be pretty boring without a bit of banter.
 
Mind you, who would argue if some current producer approached them to revamp their 30 year old song and re-release it to the modern generation because as the original writer/composer, you do nothing and you'll get huge royalties from it so it makes good business sense really.
 
To Winwood's defence, at least he re-did the vocals so obviously he cared to a degree!

You're still more than entitled not to like the song   It was not the first remix, and there was a use of the sample that pre-dated Prydz. People just like the song. He co-wrote it with Will Jennings, his frequent lyricist.
 
I doubt he got huge royalties, although I don't know. Typically the rights for a sample like that are relatively small compared to mechanical rights for the song. And of course when Winwood re-did the vocals, he would have had no idea that the song would blow up as much as it did.
 
I've had a few songs remixed for the dance market and yes, it's flattering. But it's also very cool to hear how someone will take your idea and completely turn it around. I suspect Winwood isn't any more immune to that than anyone else.
 
As an aside, it's really great that he continues to be successful and has been able to maintain a solid career for so long. He re-invented/re-worked a lot of his songs when he played them live, he didn't just "play the hits" so I suspect his mindset is pretty open about how is music is treated.