Voda La Void
You can't get greater than a 3dB increase when adding two sine waves together.  

With respect, this is not true.

The second sine wave can be just louder and that would do it.

To say you cannot sum two waves and see an increase of more than three dB over either of the originals is not correct.

gswitz

Voda La Void
You can't get greater than a 3dB increase when adding two sine waves together.  

With respect, this is not true.

The second sine wave can be just louder and that would do it.

To say you cannot sum two waves and see an increase of more than three dB over either of the originals is not correct.

 
Yeah, that was a sloppy statement on my part.  I was speaking in the context of identical amplitudes, but I made a sweeping statement, my apologies.  The point I was trying to get at was that if you really are setting both at 0, then when added together the best you could ever see in increase would be 3dB.  More than that means one wave is larger than the other, as you pointed out.  
 
And I think that's the idea behind the 3dB technique here, that either wave by itself set at 0 doesn't mean they will add "in balance".  That's why you don't just set each one at 0 and get the same result.  The whole point of this is that those two instrument's frequencies are going to interact with each other, and boost and cancel instances along the cycles, so by setting one at zero, then adding the other until you get a 3dB increase, you've set them essentially equal when they interact with each other.
 
 

It is also confusing with power and voltage. When two identical in phase voltages add they will produce a 6 dB increase in voltage which is double the voltage (= 4 x power) When  a voltage goes up by 3 dB you get double the power.
 
As well as those two signals not being in perfect phase there may even be a decrease in voltage or in parts of the cycles, an  increase of 3 dB but remember for any cycles that are in phase it could be as high as 6 dB. What you end up with then is a complex wave now that may have some parts of the cycle being as much as 6 dB higher.
 
That trick is nothing more than using a VU meter to mix 2 components which you can do to a certain extent.  And it does work well. Using the full scale of the VU to balance two things accurately.  And on a decent VU (hardware) it is more accurate as well.
 
But later when you mix you won't be running the kick/bass signal in at 0 dB VU.  Turn up your monitoring now and then start adding mix components in. That kick/bass setting will be lower now and add to drums and then the whole drums/bass/ groove might be hitting -4 to -3 all up allowing for rest of the mix (vocals) then the instruments to come in and bring things up to 0 dB VU overall. That is the plan. 

sharke, here's my take for what it's worth....
 
The biggest issue with something like this is, the old problem we've always had with bass and kick. And that is...when to boost the lows in those instruments vs. just boosting the volume. So if you used this technique, you still have an issue as to whether or not what you are hearing is based on your faders or that your low end levels have been boosted.
 
Most of the time, the levels are what need to be adjusted more so than the low end levels being boosted on said instruments. The biggest issue for people is knowing which to increase. For example, newer mixes are adding sub low frequencies with tighter Q's. We have bass hitting down into the 40-60Hz range while kick drums are being accentuated from 70-90Hz for their low end push.
 
A few years ago, it was reversed. Kicks were boomier and bass guitars had more of a tighter low end from 70-90Hz. I actually prefer that to this day for myself. I'm not crazy about all the sub low bass that gets used today. Though it seems to be industry standard because the world is listening on ear-buds, it doesn't have to be MY standard. I think it sounds horrible. I'd rather my kick give me a thud that sounds and feels like a baseball bat to the stomach and my bass play the supporting role so I can literally play the thing and not worry about it getting lost in low end.
 
But the object in all of the above, is to know when to boost lows as well as which ones, and when to just turn up the fader. I can't see how this technique would help anything to be honest. If you ARE in a situation where your kick or bass IS pushed in the low end area and you try this, you may be left with an instrument that is more felt than actually heard.
 
This is a huge problem with bass guitar today. If you had to audition for a band with some of those sub lows the bass are pushing out, you sometimes can't even pick out what the guy is playing. It's so loaded with mud and rumble. If you were to have a bass like that and use this technique, your low end is already boosted....making the bass louder than the kick by 3dB will introduce more mud. I'm with Dan C....definitely use your ears and forget about all these new techniques people are trying to push on us that supposedly simplify or make things better.
 
Off topic a bit...but sidechaining....there's another useless technique for people that basically can't make a kick and bass work properly without frequency masking. So they hook something up that allow the instruments to take turns. Like really? Here's where it can work nicely...
 
You can put it on rhythm guitars and a lead guitar. Or, any rhythm and lead instrument. When the lead kicks in, the rhythm instruments back down allowing the lead to take center stage. When the lead is done, it's back to your regular scheduled program and the rhythm instruments are back where they need to be. But read that again....it can also be taken care of with something more simplistic. Automation. :) If we can't handle frequency masking, there is no sense putting a band aide on things. The fix is simple...side chaining in THAT situation, is as silly as using hyper compression on everything for the sake of being "loud." Just my take though....people should use whatever works.
 
But it's like anything in life for me. Before I learned a single dirty word in my life, my mother taught me all the clean words. All the parts of the body, all the slang words came at about 4th grade, unfortunately. BUT....I knew the real stuff before I learned the slangs and the shortcuts, see where I'm going with this? ;) I think it's super important for all of us to know how to handle issues before we resort to short cuts or simplified techniques that really take something away from the mix. That's just me being me though. :)

i'm kinda with danny on this approach,
of working out the relative complementary eq between the kick and bass first,
as to NOT elevate mud,
and then work out the levels somewhat close to each other by ear.
 
sometimes you want the kick to be louder,
and sometimes the bass louder.....
 
but for me,
the most important thing is to CUT frequencies that sound muddy on each track first...
then compare them together, to make sure there is not one UN-COMPLEMENTARY frequency that both together bring out in abundance... and then nuke it.
 
i have found myself favoring slight boosts with q's around 4, of 65 hz for the low kick,
and 80-90hz for the low bass, 
and getting rid of a lot around 164 hz on the bass track, with a medium-narrom q,
and cutting the kick a bit higher up than that, 240-320hz with a wider q
 
cuts. more than boosts.
 
but it all depends on the individual track and quality of capture.
if you are working with samples on the kick, usually you can use those pretty much 'as-is', with some minor eq tweaks.
 
 

Try this experiment: pull up some of your favorite mixes and solo the kick and bass while referencing a VU meter. How close do they come to satisfying this shortcut rule? IOW, if you mute one or the other, does the level drop by 3dB?
 
Of course, none likely will, but then it's only intended to be a ballpark technique. The question becomes: would it have actually made finding that balance easier, as opposed to just "earballing" it?

I wouldnt go as far as to say things like sidechaining have no value.
 
It all depends on what you are working on.  If you are producing something by john fogerty or the beatles....  sure it doesnt necessarily matter.
 
if you are doing any modern dance/club/rock/and many forms of metal..  it can almost become a necessity.
 
LOUDNESS is what everyone wants to hear when it comes to those styles of music nowadays.  The tracks need to slam.  One of the most effective way to get energy into a track is by highlighting the drums.
 
You dont so much make the drums part of the mix.  You make them sort of dominate the mix in these styles of music.  Listen to like a metallica or nickleback album of the last couple years and it becomes obvious the way the industry is going in these styles of music and many others.
 
now....im not saying everybody should like this trend.  Its definitely not for everybody, nor should it be.
 
But...if your clients are in those circles...  it is what they expect.  And you have to be able to produce what your clients want.
 
using sidechain compression to squeeze other elements away when the drums are being hit is a way to keep the volume of the drums to a level that is sensible to the mix.....  yet it will make those kick and snare hits come out and grab you because you will perceive them to be louder.   in the styles of music where you actually dont want the drums to sit harmoniously in the mix, its a great way to get them to slam. 
 
I agree that some people probably overuse it, or simply use it when its not needed.  That is just part of the learning curve.  Figuring out when to do things, and not just doing everything you know how to do all the time simply because you know how to do it

greg_moreira
I wouldnt go as far as to say things like sidechaining have no value.
 
It all depends on what you are working on.  If you are producing something by john fogerty or the beatles....  sure it doesnt necessarily matter.
 
if you are doing any modern dance/club/rock/and many forms of metal..  it can almost become a necessity.
 
LOUDNESS is what everyone wants to hear when it comes to those styles of music nowadays.  The tracks need to slam.  One of the most effective way to get energy into a track is by highlighting the drums.
 
You dont so much make the drums part of the mix.  You make them sort of dominate the mix in these styles of music.  Listen to like a metallica or nickleback album of the last couple years and it becomes obvious the way the industry is going in these styles of music and many others.
 
now....im not saying everybody should like this trend.  Its definitely not for everybody, nor should it be.
 
But...if your clients are in those circles...  it is what they expect.  And you have to be able to produce what your clients want.
 
using sidechain compression to squeeze other elements away when the drums are being hit is a way to keep the volume of the drums to a level that is sensible to the mix.....  yet it will make those kick and snare hits come out and grab you because you will perceive them to be louder.   in the styles of music where you actually dont want the drums to sit harmoniously in the mix, its a great way to get them to slam. 
 
I agree that some people probably overuse it, or simply use it when its not needed.  That is just part of the learning curve.  Figuring out when to do things, and not just doing everything you know how to do all the time simply because you know how to do it

Right, completely understood. Again though, that doesn't have to be MY way as I noted before. I've turned away more client work due to not wanting to degrade audio than I can tell you about. And I'm completely happy with that. They always come back anyway once they hear how bad their stuff sounds. Instruments taking turns in a mix and all these other short cuts don't teach the home recording guy anything about fixing problem areas. In a world where people are releasing their own stuff, it's even more important to know what you're doing the right way. These new things are ruining mixes more than helping them if you listen closely.
 
As a teacher in the recording field, it is my sincere belief that you should learn how to fix the problem before you try and short cut/short change it. We've had incredible mixes over the years that in my opinion, obliterate some of the stuff we hear today that didn't use those techniques. I'm actually not old school and keep up to date with modern sounds and mixes. But that doesn't mean I have to like them or condone them.
 
The idea of music is also art and to be you. I don't keep up with anyone or benchmark myself. I do what I do...it works or it doesn't. But people can save themselves a lot of grief knowing the right way to do things and THEN you can maybe try the short cut to see if it's for you or not. I just hear way too many ruined mixes because some joker had something to sell on the internet. :-\

batsbrew
i'm kinda with danny on this approach,
of working out the relative complementary eq between the kick and bass first,
as to NOT elevate mud,
and then work out the levels somewhat close to each other by ear.
 
sometimes you want the kick to be louder,
and sometimes the bass louder.....
 
but for me,
the most important thing is to CUT frequencies that sound muddy on each track first...
then compare them together, to make sure there is not one UN-COMPLEMENTARY frequency that both together bring out in abundance... and then nuke it.
 
i have found myself favoring slight boosts with q's around 4, of 65 hz for the low kick,
and 80-90hz for the low bass, 
and getting rid of a lot around 164 hz on the bass track, with a medium-narrom q,
and cutting the kick a bit higher up than that, 240-320hz with a wider q
 
cuts. more than boosts.
 
but it all depends on the individual track and quality of capture.
if you are working with samples on the kick, usually you can use those pretty much 'as-is', with some minor eq tweaks.
 
 

Hahaha I'm so with you on this! We do the same stuff! My kicks end up pushing anywhere from about 55-65 and my bass sounds are exactly the same as yours. ;)

Danny Danzi
 
 
Right, completely understood. Again though, that doesn't have to be MY way as I noted before. I've turned away more client work due to not wanting to degrade audio than I can tell you about. And I'm completely happy with that. They always come back anyway once they hear how bad their stuff sounds. Instruments taking turns in a mix and all these other short cuts don't teach the home recording guy anything about fixing problem areas. In a world where people are releasing their own stuff, it's even more important to know what you're doing the right way. These new things are ruining mixes more than helping them if you listen closely.
 
As a teacher in the recording field, it is my sincere belief that you should learn how to fix the problem before you try and short cut/short change it. We've had incredible mixes over the years that in my opinion, obliterate some of the stuff we hear today that didn't use those techniques. I'm actually not old school and keep up to date with modern sounds and mixes. But that doesn't mean I have to like them or condone them.
 
The idea of music is also art and to be you. I don't keep up with anyone or benchmark myself. I do what I do...it works or it doesn't. But people can save themselves a lot of grief knowing the right way to do things and THEN you can maybe try the short cut to see if it's for you or not. I just hear way too many ruined mixes because some joker had something to sell on the internet. :-\

oh we're definitely on the same page.  I dont want to come off like Im trying to provide instruction as in 'this is the way to do it', nor am I suggesting that anyone needs to like it either.
 
I try not to look at things in terms of what is better or worse, only because sometimes "worse" is what is best for the song.
 
Guys like Andrew sheps is a good example.  folks go to him because he will push your stuff into the red and distort it lol.  Bad form a lot of the time....but some circles have decided that its the only way to fly.
 
nothing wrong with turning down those styles if you arent a fan of doing things that way.
 
thats how we keep some perspective around :)