Quote from: Marrow Machines on March 17, 2016, 12:47:31 pm

If it's a pitch shift,  you can play the note and stop, but continue the pitch automation for that entire section.

lucky date has a tutorial out there about this where he automates with an envelop.

The problem is that it's a bounced out audio of 8 bar riser. Have to just try slicing.

Should be more specific to what you're using for your work.


If you're using audio dude, you might be stuck with having to slice it.

You can always make something yourself.

I try to limit my songs to no more than 5 mins. After that, it's tough to create variety, especially with my work flow.

I know i have a song when ever i got a bass line, melody, and drums.

Once i know i have a song, i know that i can finish it with different parts.

I've gone through so many phases of trouble trying to create the different sections, that i actually incorporated this tension.

I now have absolutely no tension when creating the song. Only when i need to sit and think about how to perform the musical content, routing for effect chains (i am a reason user), and arrangement ideas is when the tension exists. And i think that's better than getting frustrated.

To be quite honest, if you're finding yourself getting so worked up over a tiny little detail, i think it's time to call it a day and check out.

Knowing when to leave the party, is the art of partying. Know when you're whipped, and get back on the horse some other time.

until you develop a sense of knowing yourself and your work flow, you may never actually get to a beneficial state for creating.

Literally, take things in steps and accomplish parts of the song and eventually you will have constructed an entire track.

Leave the day satisfied with the work you've done. If you aren't satisfied, then go back to it the next day.

As much as people want to say that you have to actually create things to make it fit into the mix, i think that's kind of counter productive. You should really just focus on making individual sounds, and then with understanding of mixing them later, try to put them in and see what works.

This will lead you down the road to being more efficient with your time, but it might take a few years of seeing how it works for you.

You can only add so many layers, and so many effects to the song before it sounds weird. Find out what that number of effects and layers are (please note that effects and layers should count as the same idea; because it gets harder to jam another musical piece when a phase is roaming about your mix).

It should be a relatively low number of both things, but together they create a more powerful mix IMO.

Start being aware of your tendencies and nip them in the bud if they are bad, and learn to be satisfied with unfinished results, but satisfied with the results you have produced.

RESPECT TIME.

I use EQs on every channel and on the groups as well.
I'm still getting into compression and have been using it a lot more in my new projects.
What I'd like to know now is that is an EQ on a group useful if all the sounds of the group have been EQ-ed individually?

i find it best to leave the eq off of the group. In a way you're almost treating the groups kind of like a master channel.

You may think you're doing a good thing by eqing the group, but in reality you have less control because you're involving an entire section. Individual elements inside of the group, may not need what you're applying to the group. if you think about it like managing people, you can get more results if you spend the necessary time with each person and improving them instead of just picking apart the group. The group is made up on the individual people. the strength of the group comes from the individual strength.

I use grouping more as an organizational tool and stereo width control (either all up mono or all up stereo;i control the individual width of the group's components).

I will say that all my tracks/groups eventually run into a pre master where that has a filter at the lowest and highest setting. But that gets bipassed with my pre and post settings on the effects, but the dry signal is nice and tamed as well as my bus effects.

Quote from: Marrow Machines on March 15, 2016, 06:11:44 am

Look into pre and post settings on your busses....

every one suggested how to shape the reverb and not give it more of a depth perspective....

pre and post settings on your busses will do that for you.

ie, giving you a better control over the amount of wet, the input, and the balance between those two signals in the mix environment.

I'm not very sure what you mean with Pre & Post settings, can you explain more?

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/monitoring-pre-and-post-sound-signal-levels.html

http://www.loopmasters.com/articles/2984-Understanding-Pre-and-Post-Fader-

google is friend.

Quote from: Marrow Machines on March 13, 2016, 05:11:00 pm

Don't underestimate the power of the channel fader, eq, and panning...

Totally agree here. I view these as core fundamental mixing tools that should be learned first and used liberally to get a 90% solution. Tools like compressors, stereo imagers, and saturators can get you that last 10%, but can also really set a sound back if used improperly. Unfortunately it seems a lot of beginning producers jump straight to the advanced stuff and usually mangle what would be a decent track in the process because they read online to do this or that to "make it sound better".

Bird up bro.

I'll be sure to check out mr bills tutorials. I hadn't heard of them prior to this post. It isn't necessarily the sound design that I don't understand. I've experimented with lots of glitchy type stuff before through the manipulation of audio files.

What I dont understand is how they go about putting all that stuff together. My mind might be overcomplicating things but there sounds like there's least 10 sounds in those drops. It's that process of turning those 10 samples into music that actually still maintains harmonic its melodic complexity that gets to me.

Hoping the mr bills stuff is what I'm looking for. Thanks Marrow & Mussar!

Be careful with mr bills tutorials, i found them to be quite convoluted. Then again I haven't really used ableton that much and kind of jumped in.

BUT, what i got out of it was the ability to chain certain effects together and to keep them organized to achieve an end result.

^ Yeah I agree with the general principle that mixing should be mostly adjusting faders and panning. I like Farley's point that complicated processing in this stage should be mostly about fixing problems.

It's just that especially in electronic music mixing becomes intertwined with "choosing the sound source", in which there's absolutely no reason not to use those "fancy" techniques that RLL was suggesting. That's why I like Patcher in FL studio, I can do all the crazy processing within that, and then behave like a responsible adult with the mixer.

well, that's the cool thing about patcher.

I'd compare it to reason's combinator. Where you have the power to do a BUNCH of processing to a single channel before you even get to the "mix" effects and bussing.

But, you can only do those fancy things with patch and a combinator if you understand the fundamentals of mixing.

Yea, there's always more you can do, but doing the most with very little and a huge understanding goes a longer way than just using something because you have a slight understanding of what it's used for. That leads to improper useage of tools, which was my point.