Automation

A

airbag76

New member
Hi there and happy new year

I am watching video tutorials about mixing talkin about an on the fly first approach (no fx, no automation, no eq etc) just setting up some basic levels and paning to the tracks.

My question is

ok I ve made that on the fly mix and now I have to automate. what am I doing with those settings?
Do I have to keep "track 1 on the fly level" as a reference point and all automation never to exceed it? and if yes
what happens to guitar if in a certain point bass for example is automated lower than the original "on the fly" set up?

My point is that everything sounds easy on tutorials but there are many other factors that can destroy a mix....

So any ideas about automation together with on the fly mix?

thanks
 
does your mix need automation is the first question to ask yourself

i.e. there is nothing written anywhere at any time in the history of recording that says you must

  • automate any parameter
  • compress any track
  • apply a limiter to any track including the master buss
  • eq any channel
for every track in a project and in every project

Every project brings its own challenges and needs which may not require any of the above tools to be applied.

I know a lot of people here and elsewhere swear by all of the above but I have yet to be given a compelling argument to do it other than that some tutorial told them to do it and so they do it blindly

It is particularly important to remember that most of those tools are corrective in nature not creative, unless you count adding clipped distortion to your tracks as a creative choice (I can't think of many engineers who would deliberately turn their mix to crap)

Eq as a sound design decision is fine: just don't then try to eq the sound further to counteract the creative eq you have already applied

For recording and mixing live audio I will use compressors if needed

if your basic levels are set and you are happy with the overall sound then all you are really considering now is fine tuning/tweaking your mix to bring different instruments in different parts of the arrangement

- tweak your solo levels mildly,

i.e. more than 3db increase or decrease (a doubling or halving of the signal intensity) and you should reconsider what it is that you are trying to achieve;

if you tweak less than 1.5db (increase smaller than 1.412/decrease smaller than 0.707 in signal intensity)) then again consider whether or not you really need to do anything at all; this is below the Just Noticeable Difference for signal intensity so most folks will not hear it (maybe Robert Fripp can, but not many in your target audience)
 
Last edited:
bandcoach said:
does your mix need automation is the first question to ask yourself

i.e. there is nothing written anywhere at any time in the history of recording that says you must

  • automate any parameter
  • compress any track
  • apply a limiter to any track including the master buss
  • eq any channel
for every track in a project and in every project
Click to expand...

Well said, every sound has unique needs you'll have to cater to.
 
I usually only automate things to either fix something (evening the dynamics of a vocal track or another recording) or to keep things interesting (highlighting something by adjusting levels). Most of my automation is small when I'm mixing, but I honestly just go with what I'm hearing and feeling. As mentioned, there are no set rules. Do what makes your mix sound great.
 
As others have said, automation at the mixing stage should be used if and when necessary and really is a personal preference.

Personally there are three main areas where I find myself using automation in almost every mix:

(1) Vocal Riding

Some people like to use compression to control their vocals to a level where little or no automation is required to keep the vocals bang up front in the mix. Since I keep my vocal channels in the box (whether I use outboard or not) I prefer to compress less and then do a reasonable amount of vocal riding to achieve this, I find it gives me a more open vocal sound... although it takes longer.

In the final stages of my mix I will play the song back at very low level on the speakers, in my case I will use auratone/avantone speakers for this purpose. I'll then automate the volume of the lead vocal fader up and down (phrase by phrase or sometimes word by word) so that the vocal is kept in the "pocket" and so that you don't need to strain to hear any words or phrases. This may be movements of as little as 0.2dB or as much as a few dB, depending on the vocal and instrumentation at a particular point. I'll progress from the beginning of the song to the end and try to do the whole thing in around 30 mins. You'd be surprised at the difference this makes.

(2) Dynamic / Interest Automation

Automation is one of the easiest ways to create dynamic interest in a song. Songs that have static balances can be quite boring on the ear, and a little volume automation can do wonders. This can include track volume levels, FX returns, drum parallel levels etc. I'll use subtle volume automation to accentuate changes in the song's arrangement (from verse to pre, pre to chorus etc.). I might use volume automation on instruments that play through several sections, for example a synth that is loud in the verse may be quieter in the chorus. I might use pan automation, so that the main guitars are slightly wider in the chorus than in the verse to open things up. I might make the lead vocal drier in the chorus than the verse, as there is more instrumentally and it doesn't need to be as bedded in. I might do FX send/return automation to do delay spins on words, or extended reverb tails on the end of the chorus into the verse. I might volume automate certain phrases of an instrument to dynamically bring attention to them. etc. etc. etc.

Having had the fortune to observe some of the biggest mixers at work on large consoles, I can say that they generally use fader automation on the desk to create interest in their mixes. Sometimes this can be a real dynamic performance, and very vibey and feel based. It will involve making lots of pencil marks on faders and then doing repeated automation passes where the faders are moved manually as a performance from section to section. This can easily be recreated in the box, and can be aided by control faders if that's your vibe.

(3) EQ Automation

Generally I'll find that different sections of a song need slightly different EQ balances. I'll automate the settings on EQ plugins on individual tracks to maximise my use of the frequency spectrum in that section of the song.

An obvious example would be a song that has a piano and a vocal on the intro, and then drums and bass come in 8 bars later in the verse. Obviously in the verse I would probably cut the low end of the piano to leave room for the kick and bass and get a nice frequency balance. I don't need to do this on the intro because there is no bass.

If I leave the piano EQ untouched the instrument may sound a little thin in the intro, I can get away with a different EQ and have it slightly fuller and natural sounding with a little automation. This is a big bonus in plugin EQs, they don't have to be static.

I hope this gives you a little perspective on what can be achieved with automation. Have fun!
 
Hi and thanks for your replies. I guess my problem is that I am 100% work in abstract sound design projects and not with the usual
bass, guitar, drums etc...
I mean that there are constant changes in timbre, frequencies and dynamics, levels...
sounds got messed up masking one another and fx most of the times are not "realistic".
through that mess I am comparing my music with other musicians similar jobs and always missing something (clarity maybe?).
Thats why I started that "back to basic" survey watching tutorials, reading etc (all of them about commercial music though) and as far as volume and automation its really about that. there is no guitar playing all the time (no fades, set volume etc) its a constantly changing soundscape most of the times...

thanks
 
so I hear an homage to Fripp in some of this as well as some basic noise style stuff

infradead (another mod) may be a better person to speak to about this

personally I think that what you have is more than acceptable and works at many levels - the change-ups that you are trying to do are mostly executed well, there are just some glitches here and there (Invest in ugliness beginning for example) but these could also be seen as deliberate acts rather than misses
 
Thanks, I guess I v got insecurity issues to solve. to tell you the truth I am receiving the same feedback from many people so I think has to do with me...
I ll try to contact infradead (nice name...)

thanks again for your interest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top