bobernaut
Thanks greg, for your answer and input, I know it takes quite an effort to write this stuff in and for no reward, but I say thank you sir! I have recently been messing around with the parallel compression because I think that I can see that it pretty much must be done in order to achieve the competitive amount of "loudness". I have read various articles about parallel compression but it was nice to have you explain more specifically what you do and how you do it. I knew that there was still something that I was missing and I believe that it is probably the parallel compression largely. That, and saturation, but that is probably another topic. I mean, where else can I get this volume from? If all else is correct (recordings, technique etc) then there are not too many places left to find more volume...loudness...other more technical terms. Not that I know of, anyway. 
So, thanks for your say in this. I am about to go nutty with the parallel compression to see if I can find that extra loudness (perceived, right?).
Also, chucke, I tried your set-up and I think I dig it. I added a couple of small things to it-what you might refer to as "secret sauce", and I am really close now. So thanks again!
 
Oh yeah, I have that Yoad (Yo-ad) video already and it contains great info. I really do need to watch it more though apparently. Knowing that you recommend the same video means I ain't all that far off (maybe).
 
Thanks everyone for your input-I think I am up another notch due to all of your answers!
 
bob

oh no problem at all!
 
As far as parallel compression is concerned, I dont want you to get the wrong idea that it is a one stop shop to create all the loudness.
 
It is a contributor for sure, but not a necessity to acheive loudness.  I use it for more 'effect'.  Just hypothetically speaking if my main drum buss were sitting at -1.  Id probably blend in the parallel compressed bus somewhere around -10 to -12.
 
It does add 'some' volume, but more than anything, it adds some space and depth and punch and brings the drums forward a little.
 
to further explain some things I might do in order to add perceived loudness is simply using EQ and stereo panning to really give things a place and make them heard.
 
For example say were talking about a heavy guitar sound.  Id double track it.  Literally play the same riff twice.  Pan one 75% left, the other 75% right(compress each track very much the same way I explained my drum technique) then buss them and compress that buss with the same light compression.
 
Id also give each guitar an EQ that complements one another.  Like in the left track, Maybe Id do a 2 DB boost at 500 to make it sound rounder.  In the right track Id do a 2db cut at 500 just to take away some frequency that I added in the other channel.  Then Id take the left track and do a 2 DB cut at say 2500 to take some edge off, and a 2DB boost at 2500 in the right channel to add some edge.  And then finally maybe Id boost somewhere from 4500-6000 by 2db in the left channel, and then cut the same frequency by the same amount in the right.
 
The end result is you arent actually changing the overall recorded tone of the guitar by any great degree. All the frequencies you cut in one are brought forward in the other and the net end result is the tone doesnt change a whole lot, yet you make holes from one side to the other for them to fill one another.  It adds separation and makes both tracks stand out better even without making them louder.
 
making small boosts and cuts across all the instruments helps to give each one a notch to fit into. Putting things in places in the stereo field further helps to add separation and also minimizes the same frequencies from various instruments from all standing on each other and competing for the same place.  Sometimes just hearing everything more clearly makes everything sound bigger.
 
lastly...  it doesnt always work lol.  Sometimes I create too much 'loudness' in the mix and when I begin to master....  I can definitely hear that Ive killed too much headroom even when the meters look good.  Things just start to sound artificial and bouncy in the wrong places and I have to revisit the mix itself.
 
Im still always learning when and where and how much loudness I can push into the mix before it starts to hurt the master. Its hard to explain but even if the meter says you have headroom...  if you have overdone it in the mix and removed too much dynamics in the mix......  enough mastering compression to glue it all together often makes it too bouncy
 
unfortunately there cant be just one single magic bullet lol
 
 

Sorry Sander, It is nothing personal.
 
Im just trying to help this guy out and I feel like you want to start another debate over a topic that we previous beat to death in another thread.
 
Im going to be totally honest here. I watched that 19 minute video and was waiting for any kind of suggestion, any kind of clue, any kind of sign where the guy would say.. "For mastering you should use min phase EQ".
 
Nothing !  I heard nothing of that nature.
 
Im sure your a good guy and have a lot to offer but there's too much drama here man .
Im sure you don't care but Im Blocking you. good luck in the future.
 
 
 
 
 

Hi again greg and chucke, and thanks again for all your help. Hey, Greg-I can't think you enough for what you have divulged-wonderful! (Same with chucke too!)
 
I am basically doing most of the things you guys do, with a couple of exceptions. If you feel like, please give your opinion on these things. If you don't; its perfectly cool, man.
 
1) I actually record 4 guitar tracks and pan 70% left/right and 50% left/right. Why? I have read from many professionals and non-professionals, that this is their trick to achieving that really thick, heavy guitar tone/sound. I too, do the very heavy stuff similar to Killswitch Engage or 5FDP. Yes, it is brutal to perfectly copy 4 tracks in metal but that's what I have done.
 
2) I was wondering why no one was mentioning imaging. Do you guys use stereo imaging on the mix bus, master (not master bus) or not at all? I think that it is an awesome tool but I do hear some say that it clutters up the mix, and I sure don't want that!
 
No, Greg, I got your meaning on the compression. There is a point, to me, where its too much, so I have to choose wisely, so to speak.
 
There certainly seems to be a wide variety of ways to get there but one needs to know not just the basics, but what absolutely must be done and followed, and where one can go off the path a bit. I thank you guys for telling, nay, explaining in depth, what it is that you do with your music.
 
Hey, chucke, I really appreciate your help so please don't think you have not helped me out a ton-because you have! I am having great results with what you have shown me. As far as I am concerned, you know your stuff and are kind enough to share, and that's nothing but wonderful stuff! Jack it up!
 
Thanks everyone for your time and help,
 
bob

Chuck, it's not the mastering, it's the low cuts, as I've said every single time I'm mentioning this. The video even starts with an explanation of that. But I'll drop it too. I'm not going to change your process, nor do I want to, if you're happy with it. Block away. At least I've offered some alternative info for the OP.

By the way I'd recommend that video to anyone, it's a great explanation of the (less expected) side effects of EQing.

blimey

Hi again!
 
As far as panning and tracking goes...  here is how I'm doing it right now.  Sort of pseudo quad tracking for the heavy stuff.
 
I run the guitar to a direct box and split it.  One line goes to an amp, which is mic'd, and the other is line in and I record just a clean sound.  I can then either re-amp that clean sound(which I do sometimes but rarely), or use a guitar amp simp (something like TH3 which comes with platinum and maybe other versions too but Im not sure...but this is normally the method I take).
 
So in one take I end up with 2 tracks.  I pop on that amp sim and dial up a sound complementary to the mic'd sound, and I pan BOTH tracks from that take the same way.  Lets say left.
 
Then I do another take, again recording the mic'd signal and the line signal and adding a virtual amp, and pan BOTH of those from that take right.
 
In reality its just a double take, but I get 4 tracks out of the deal(even though I have 4 tracks it doesnt truly sound like quad tracking).  I can use that amp sim track to add some flavor down the road by pinging through different amp models and seeing what really mixes well with the mic'd sound
 
I like this method better than actually truly quad tracking most of the time(I say most of the time because sometimes I do like quad.  Just depends on what Im after).  Something about actual quad tracking the same riff seems to take away focus even with a great, tight player.  When that focus and tightness seems to start going away.... I find myself trying to dial in more kick drum, adding too much 3k to the guitars, and trying to bring more top end out of the bass guitar in order to get that tightness and focus back.  And I'm not ashamed to admit I sometimes overdo it and have to go back and pull some of those 'corrections' back and just deal with the fact that it wont be as tight as Id like If I am to leave all 4 guitar tracks in there.  This doesnt necessarily apply if we are talking about a rhythm with a complementary lead part thats playing in octaves or harmonies or something like that.  At that point I could go either way(either have rhythm in one ear and the complementary lead in the other..  or just double track both and pan both left and right, ending up with 4 real tracks)
 
Just a quick tip.  If you do quad track..., and especially if you are quad tracking the same riff,  use less gain/distortion than you think you need.  If the amount of gain sounds 'just right' jamming solo...  once stacked 4 times it actually to my ears tends to sound like it puts a blanket over the guitars and contributes to the lack of focus.  Dialing a little light makes it end up just right once you stack it multiple times.
 
About panning, ... for the longest time Id pan 75% left and right and call it good.  Or in the case of quad tracks...  Id have two tracks with a bassier sound that Id pan 70& left and right, and 2 tracks with more sizzle that Id pan 80% left and right.  Real similar to what you are doing now, but just a little further with the pans.  I rarely go 100% on anything.  I try to make 90% my upper limit.  To my ears...once things hit 100% and have no presence at all in the other speaker it seems like it takes some energy out of the track.  Maybe its just mental and Im afraid of seeing the knob twisted so far but I swear I hear something that I dont like too lol
 
I've recently started to experiment with automating panning more.  Like, I will use my double track method with the direct box that nets me 4 tracks, and using envelopes, I will set the envelope up so that one pairing of guitars are both 70% left, with the other pair being 70% right during the verse.  When the pre chorus picks up I will have the envelope expand the panning on both channels to 80%, and then when the full chorus kicks in, I will set the envelope to grow it further to 90%.  Sort of making the stereo image grow or shrink during bigger and smaller parts of the song.  I often do the same with the drum overheads too and have them move in an out just a little from one part to the next.
 
I do a lot of hard rock and metal stuff too, which is not very dynamic music, and is usually pretty squashed when its all said and done.  So Im using things like that to try to "create" some dynamics, in a space where there arent many, if you will.
 
I wont swear by that technique just yet though.  Its really subtle and I think I'd need to duplicate a mix, but not automate the panning just to hear a before and after in order to say if its really 'worth it' if you know what I mean. 
 
 

Oh and about imagers, I like them, and I dont have any rules about where I use them.  Kinda just wherever it seems like it makes sense.
 
Lets say Im recording a song with an intimate acoustic guitar featured(think like tears in heaven from clapton)....  or a blues kinda guy(something like pride and joy from SRV).  Those are two styles/examples where you wouldnt typically be double tracking and trying to pan the main guitars.  You might have some strumming or some licks or something in the background that you can pan one way or another....  but for that main guitar part that needs to stand on its own, these are times where I would use a stereo imager and maybe stereo reverbs or delays directly on the track itself to make that one sole guitar take up a little more real estate in the stereo field, and get some reflections of it further into the side channels.
 
But sometimes I will also plop one directly on the master buss, usually first in the chain and open it up maybe 15-25% just to see if I like what its doing, and sometimes I do.  Sometimes it can sound odd, especially if you really push it, but when it works it works! 
 
 
 

Hi Greg, and thanks for more info, I do appreciate it! That method you spoke of is not something that I would likely do because I am trying to everything right out of the box, because I am fairly convinced that it can be done and that this "box" way is the future. Yes, I know, it breaks the heart (mine too), but I don't think that things will reverse as far as this goes. This is no statement pertaining to you and your advice, though, just a boring generalized statement which can very easily be over-looked. There have been so many times that I thought about just going through the mic and amp because I didn't really love the tones that I was getting and having to accept but I discovered that eventually, one can find the right tone if they play around enough with all the settings and plugs. I think what you are doing is pretty smart though and I will put it (your way) in my memory banks!
 
Its funny that you mention, essentially, distortion, drive etc., because I forgot to ask you what settings you use to record with. It seems an easy answer but, as you know, it really is not. I have found that the amount of drive that sounds good actually can't be used or anywhere near it. I use around 40% drive and sometimes less. This on the more "heavy" amp sims. I appreciate your wisdom about stacking and can say that I am past that one, but thanks anyway. It may help someone else!
 
I completely agree with you on the panning. Way left/right seems to create an undesirable hole in the middle (to me, anyway). Interesting what you said about trying to make up for it with the EQ. I am currently striving to find that ideal "metal" sound without going to synthetic, because I really can't stand that particular sound-very phoney-metalish.
 
For me, as soon as I go much past 50-60% left/right, I start to feel as though I am losing my base. I used to do the far right, far left thing too.
 
That's really interesting about you automating the panning, it makes good sense but I am not sure if I want to go down that road yet. I will certainly think about it though and may well end up messing with it, so thanks for including that concept because I really had not considered it other than the lead (sometimes).
 
I appreciate your input on stereo imaging as well. I feel about the same as you on this. Do you suppose that it is merely a matter of taste? Maybe this is why they say not to mix and master your own stuff-too many variables for the artist but no problem for an outside mixer. Maybe we are too close to "our baby" for our own good? Nah! We will keep going, won't we? I have been experimenting with using an imager on the master as well. I don't know how else to make the mix seem to be everywhere like I hear on some famous pro records. Maybe its just a matter of a pro's experience and success?
 
 
Well, like I said, Greg, thanks so much for all your input. I have that to bounce up against when I am trying to make my decisions. Same for all you other guys too, thanks!
 
Hey, Sanderx, thanks for the link. I watched it but this may be too much for me to take in one pass. I see your point, but it doesn't seem simple to me-not on one pass, anyway. I think I am more of a Pensado-type of guy maybe-not saying he isn't sharp, because he is. Thanks for your help.
 
 
Thanks everyone, I am sitting much more stable now thanks to all your input. Massive thanks!
 
bob

Hey Bob!
 
I am totally not opposed to keeping it 100% in the box either.  The fact that I have a couple good amps around here to mic is why we use them when we can, but I don't consider it to be mandatory.  As a matter of fact, if I had anyone here wanting to record and they WANTED to use all software stuff vs me having to mic stuff up etc...  Im all for it.  Personal preference...  I like the feel of a good tube amp when playing.  I know a software amp will sound absolutely fine when its all said and done, but during tracking for performance reasons, and depending on what I need from the performance, I guess I like playing through an amp myself... and why not mic it at that point lol.
 
I could just as easily use all software amp sims, and have done that plenty too.
 
Now just a disclaimer.  If the quad tracking thing works for you, obviously stick with it.  To me this is more about preference than anything.  I wasnt trying to turn you off from it, as much as I was trying to explain why I dont do it as often as I used to.  Obviously we wont have the same experience here, so take the next part with a grain of salt :)
 
about that whole double track vs quad deal..
 
If your recording interface has hi-z and low-z inputs...  you can still use the direct box theory...or just a general splitter box with two instrument ins on your interface.
 
The end result of that would be getting 2 clean tracks per take.  Once you do your second take, you get 2 more clean tracks, netting you 4 clean tracks to apply 4 different software amps.  More or less the same thing as my earlier explanation without micing anything :)
 
as far as drive goes...  I kinda just approach it like wherever I think i have found a great sound...  I roll back that gain maybe 10% before recording if I know Im gonna be stacking a lot of distorted guitars.
 
If it ends up at 40%, then thats where its at.  Seems to me that most software amps have all the distortion I need between 50-65%, so recording with 45% or so is not out of the question

Bob,
If you want post a mix (or master if you prefer) and we can have a listen.
I do this often with other producers in my circle. We bounce ideas of each other all the time.
Sometimes its that one thing you don't hear in a mix that is a bit too up front.
 
The most important things I have learned over the years (as far as recording, mixing and mastering my own material). Is the bias we have when it comes Mixdown time.
We hear that solo part because we recorded it our self, so sometimes it isn't loud enough in the mix because we know its there. Sometimes even the untrained ear is good to hear their suggestions.
I have also found the more people to critique your mixes the better. some times we hear a repeating phrase from individuals like "the vocals are too loud" or "I don't hear the drums enough". this helps us put together the pieces.