Beeps: yeah once you get a tone that works within the mix, the black clouds leave. See, when we layer, we have a load of sounds pushing the envelope. Though we want them powerful and heard, the compression needs to be a bit more active. When you hear someone talk about subtle compression, they are either:
 
a) not using a high gain tone (light gain and blues type tones don't need as much compression because they aren't as sonic. The more sonic a tone is, the harder it is to control it. Sonic meaning loads of distortion to the point of insanity)
 
b) are a really good player who plays dynamically
 
c) not completely understanding compression at all.
 
7 out of 10 home recordists under 5 years experience do NOT know how to use a compressor correctly nor can they tell one is even being used until it gets used to the extreme. Most of my students in this situation answer with "I THINK that compressor sounds right."
 
If we took a poll on this forum asking who really doesn't know exactly how to use compression or what to listen for, if people were truly being honest, you'd be astonished at how high the numbers would be. That said, it's nothing for anyone to be ashamed of. I'd be right there raising my hand along with them back in my 1-5 years. I had to literally be shown compression examples before I "got it". That's really all people need. It's amazing what you learn when someome actually shows you examples. That's one of the coolest lessons I teach....observing and learning compression as well as choosing the right compressor.
 
Funny story real fast. Years ago, I decided to pay for that Metal Method that Doug Marx put out. Though he knew some basic theory, had the metal look and a decent tone, he wasn't a very good player. Sorry to say that about a person, but unfortunately, like some of the stuff in the 80's (as hard as it is for me to admit to this being an 80's lover lol) it looked better than it sounded.
 
That said, one of the cool things he went into, was effects as well as how to use them, where to place them and he really went in depth on this. It took up an entire VCR or 2 if I'm not mistaken. He didn't just give on/off examples, he really dove into each effect. When he got to compression, that all by itself was worth everything I paid for that entire group of video's. Yep, Doug Marx helped me learn how to use a compressor. His teaching methods were awesome in this area.
 
The before and after compression teaching was so well done, I actually borrowed from it and made up my own lesson plan. He literally went through the compressor he used showing you how to use it as well as how everything works, when there is too much, when there is not enough, what to listen for...it was just awesome for the time. The problem with his method of teaching was it only covered guitar....which isn't really a problem, that's what the vid was geared towards....guitar.
 
For me and what I teach, I have a wider scale to cover as well as a wider compression spectrum with numerous uses. But he definitely helped me immensely back then...and then my mentor improved on it even more showing me compression examples on my own material. To me, that's how we learn. As I've said a million times....all the books and videos in the world will not show you how to process your material. What good is learning how it's done on sounds you can't achieve or can't achieve yet due to not having the means? Whatever the case.....hopefully some of the stuff I've covered in this thread will help people. If not, throw up an example and we'll totally rip it apart if need be and fix it. :)
 
-Danny

michaelhanson

Danny Danzi
The above last sentence holds a crap load of weight and should be observed by everyone. Masking makes instruments disappear. Proper eq and compression will NEVER make an instrument disappear. You will always hear every nuance even though the instrument may appear too low level wise.
 
-Danny

I almost started a thread last night called...."I MISS Danny".  Then I spotted a couple that you have rescently posted in.  This is always such valuable info for me.  Thank you brother for the info that you share so graciously. 

You're too kind brother Mike. Thanks for that....and you are most welcome always. :)
 
-Danny

I guess it's up to me to ask a dumb question then...For guitar would it be better to Eq out more of the low end freqs (I'm not talking about the high pass filter) or use a comp that can bypass the lowend? Pro-C for example can be set to let the lowend pass through and helps with the typical pumping effect that I don't care for often.

I'm still absorbing and contemplating Danny's last post before replying but, Clint... considering how much clarity you managed to get out of your recent release I think you should be telling US what you did. Whatever it was seems to have worked.
 
It wasn't a super thick mix AFAICT but still... everything was right there, in it's own little space, doing what it needed to.
 
You think I was jsut being nice before but seriously... those finals really impressed me to the point of envy.

clintmartin
I guess it's up to me to ask a dumb question then...For guitar would it be better to Eq out more of the low end freqs (I'm not talking about the high pass filter) or use a comp that can bypass the lowend? Pro-C for example can be set to let the lowend pass through and helps with the typical pumping effect that I don't care for often.

The only dumb question is the one you never ask. :)
 
You could use a multi-band compressor that would handle the low end. But to me, it would be more of a surgical compressor for problem areas. We have to remember....there are good low end freqs in a guitar and offensive ones that degrade the sound and mask it with other instruments. You have to determine if you have them first and foremost. You just don't start high passing like crazy if you don't need to. If you DO have nasty low end, it's a good rule of thumb to remove it before you even record.
 
The pro c example you asked about is perfect. However, you don't want to over-do it either because then you could be left with a tone that is missing that extra girth it may need. Thick tones have good, controlled low end as well as good mids that shape the tone. Removing lows or whatever else is the right idea, but only if you have a problem with this stuff in excess.
 
Like....for example, I've seen people post "high pass at <insert freq here>" all the time. That does the guy no good that may not even have that frequency in his tone. We can't "just do" anything. It all has a cause, effect and of course a purpose. One of the most important things to learn here is instrument/tone identification. A lot of this comes from your experience as well as how accurate your monitors are. If you can't hear the right things, you can't tweak the right things.
 
Here's the other thing. Say you are using the pro c and are using the analyzer inside of it. Just because you see something ramp up doesn't mean it's a problem area all the time. We may have one section of a song that makes our LED or our eq graph ramp up. It's not always a bad thing, but it's also nice to know why it may happen.
 
As I mentioned before in one of the other posts in this thread, certain chords bring on volume/LED boosts. Sometimes it's due to the chord that is played, other times it's due to the low end PLUS the chord that is played. In this particular situation, you can either automate an eq to handle the area where this happens, or you can run a multi-band compressor to police that frequency. Stuff like this is where a compressor of that nature can be helpful in moderation.
 
You have to first identify what the tone needs before you start removing low end. In the last 15 years of me recording, I have never had to lower the bass in any of my guitar tones. High passing was enough. As a matter of fact, I rarely touch any of my tones to disc other than a little compression (or a lot if I'm layering) a high pass, a low pass and maybe a mid range carving to compliment the song. Sometimes a thick tone works, other times a thinner tone works and you need less mids or low mids. If you can determine what may be going on with your tone, it will help you to fix it faster in the mix. Once you know what issues you may have, if you see them often, that tells you it may be a good idea to alter them from the creation stage so you get an even better recording. :)
 
-Danny

Check out what Clint's been up to, Danny...
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxE-vu1wlIA
 
I think this sounds great... even through youtube compression and my crummy headphones via the onboard soundcard on my laptop.

Thanks Beep, your too kind...or I got lucky! Hahaha! The song your talking about doesn't have a lot going on, so it doesn't really apply to layering several high gain guitars. I asked the question I did because I will typically do some Eq work but I don't use comps much. (wonder why I own so many?) Lately I've been using some light leveling compression on tracks, or a tape sim for the light compression they provide. Any insight I can get from Danny is always worth asking the question...and I appreciate his thoughts and time as always.

Beepster

Afrodrum
I recently found Melodyne useful for doubling guitars. Its ultra fast, go for it when you don't have time, your guitar goes out of tune quickly, you want to use inspiration for something else or any other reason.
 
Clone track --> make melodyne region --> quantize c.70-80% --> hard pan original and melodynized track --> done.

I've FINALLY gotten around to trying out the included Melodyne and have had similar ideas for single note lead parts.
 
However to extend it to other stuff (I love doing big crazy rich chordal work to the point I consider my rhythms to be almost lead parts) I think I'd have to do the upgrade to Melodyne Editor... and that's a pricey ticket even with the Sonar discount.
(...)

You don't need to upgrade to Editor to work on quantizing double stops and chords. Essential will move the chords back and forth as it was a single note.

Hi Danny.
You're quite right. Until recently, I tended to avoid compression because I didn't really get it.
My latest project, I don't care, features four guitars, bass, and two drummers. I had the panning pretty much where I wanted it, but I wasn't quite getting the definition I wanted.
So I asked myself, "What would Danny do?". (really)
I brought in some compressors, put a limiter in the master bus, and manipulated the parameters and EQ until everything popped into place. It took some fiddling, but I have a better feel for compression now, and it turns out I used a lot of what you mention here.
If you wouldn't mind, give it a listen:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/I-dont-careMix-5New-m3141972.aspx
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
This has been a really informative thread. It's this kind of stuff that makes the techniques forum a great resource.
Good questions, great answers.

Yeah Beeps, as much as I too love that Clint song, something like that is a bit different than what we're talking about and it probably won't need layering. Remember when I mentioned "the more sonic the tones are, the harder they are to work with?" The only sonic tone in that song is his lead...which by the way Clint, is an awesome warm tone and perfectly played for the song. :) Now....
 
If Clint wanted to pull out his backing music in exchange for some crushing guitars, that could be a challenge. It would change the vibe of the song, but it could be pretty cool to see how many rhythm guitars you could add before things got messy or inaudible. :)
 
RobertB: What would I of done? Probably ruined your song with mindless shred and wankage. LOL! ;)
 
You're in the same boat as Clint in that your piece is clean in the backing department. The only dirty guitar is your lead. So you shouldn't really have any problems with cleaner instruments in your backing track. Cleaner stuff is fine because it's not sonic sounding. Sonic meaning distorted like your lead guitar. When you start loading up super dirty guitars in an attempt to create layering, this is when we can run into problems with all the stuff I've been talking about here. So most of this has been in regards to dirtier guitars.
 
As far as how your piece sounds, it definitely has some potential and seems to be sitting well for what you presented. Nothing sticks out at me as being blatantly wrong other than a few bad notes on the lead guitar. :)
 
That said, we can have similar problems with acoustic guitars and here's why. We try for the same thing with acoustic that we do electric and that is...to create a big fat tone. What we fail to realize is, that big fat tone probably will not work in the mix. For acoustic guitars, whether they be doubled or even quaded, we risk low end oooomf and mid range congestion. This makes the guitar disappear into the backing with vocals, piano, certain keyboard lines and anything sharing the mid range field. So in a sense, this is the same as a super dirty guitar minus the drive/gain.
 
However, acoustic guitars are much easier to deal with because they are cleaner. BUT....another problem we sometimes get faced with is the size of our acoustic guitars. They can sound so big, anything else in the mix sounds small. It depends on if you mic the acoustic guitar or line it in from a pup built in. 9 times out of 10, a lined in guitar will sound small and sort of lacking. But...the part that's lacking is the part you usually have to control on a mic'd acoustic because it becomes too rich. So the richer and fuller the guitar is, the harder it can be to control with other instruments.....even if it's acoustic. The lined in guitar sounds are usually missing that thickness and low end you'd need to curb in a mic'd acoustic.....but they are usually missing too much.
 
The mic'd guitar tends to have too much low end and thickness....so this is where you need to play with frequencies and of course compression. Acoustic guitars are way more dynamic than dirty electric guitars. So the compression used on acoustic guitars will be very different and will need to be more touchy feely. As soon as you squash it too much, you lose dynamics where with a dirty electric, you don't need dynamics as much.
 
-Danny