Mixing&Mastering to increase power

Vedant Rana

New member
Hey! How to add power in the drop? And I'm talking about the lead power. Listen to this:

MADDIX & JAYDEN JAXX - Voltage

The drop is huge. I wanna know how they did it! It is so energetic I really wanna know!
 
If you set the compressor ratio to 4:1, a rather long release time and the threshold for a hard compression, then the content becomes a bit "unstuck" from the speakers especially if you have other compression within the signal that gets released as well. So I think to create the sound you need two layers of compression, one at a more isolated scope and one at a less isolated scope. Try an 1176 type of compressor for this.
 
Last edited:
You do that by making the music come in louder right after the drop. You can do that simply by making everything else quieter (particularly through arrangement), and you can combine that with doing like most people do and simply ride the master fader down. It's a common technique on records to very slowly pull the master fader down like 1dB or so over the course of an entire section of a song (like an entire verse) and then slam it back up to -0 right on the downbeat of the chorus. So in this case, slowly bring the master fader down over the course of the build (or preferably long before that). So your master fader might be coming down 1dB over like 30 seconds or more. This is too slow for the listener to register that things are getting quieter. To the listener it sounds like the song is staying at the same volume. Then after the drop right on the downbeat bring the master fader INSTANTLY back up to -0. And boom, sounds like your song just became a dB louder. You can do this over and over and it feels like the song just gets louder and louder every time - because people never notice it getting quieter (because it gets quiet too slowly to notice).
 
You do that by making the music come in louder right after the drop. You can do that simply by making everything else quieter (particularly through arrangement), and you can combine that with doing like most people do and simply ride the master fader down. It's a common technique on records to very slowly pull the master fader down like 1dB or so over the course of an entire section of a song (like an entire verse) and then slam it back up to -0 right on the downbeat of the chorus. So in this case, slowly bring the master fader down over the course of the build (or preferably long before that). So your master fader might be coming down 1dB over like 30 seconds or more. This is too slow for the listener to register that things are getting quieter. To the listener it sounds like the song is staying at the same volume. Then after the drop right on the downbeat bring the master fader INSTANTLY back up to -0. And boom, sounds like your song just became a dB louder. You can do this over and over and it feels like the song just gets louder and louder every time - because people never notice it getting quieter (because it gets quiet too slowly to notice).

Yes, for an even stronger impact you can do it in a ratio with the compressor (before and after the signal attenuation), so that when you bring the signal back in, you also bring the attack back in for even more impact, works great in combination with two stage compression. This can be good because it can help fight ear fatigue and hence keep the listener more attached. During the volume riding stage I also add volume bumps here and there especially when various sound sources come into the mix, to help bring enough loudness/impact to the mix at more gentle rms levels and to utilize more of the stereo field. If you don't have the dry tracks available and in sync at the end, you can assume you have probably slightly over compressed certain parts of the frequency range at the end, so to get good impact from the dynamics it helps to expand those transients back into the mix. In the mix optimization stage I tend to do that separately on the mid and side, by sweeping the frequency range, guided by my specific goals for the mid and the side component. The good thing about doing that just in case, is that the transients might be added back in no matter why they were not there. As long as the ears like it and it works in the context it's good. But I prefer to do this prior to the actual mastering, so that whatever the dynamic profiling is during the mastering, it will be done on that as the baseline for mix vs master A/B. My mixing goal is to raise the bar so high that if the mastering engineer is able to improve it, then it is a great master. When several final master prints are better than the mix (with or without loudness compensation), then it's even better, because then you get to choose the master that improved the mix the most. But when none of the master prints improved the mix, then you know for sure the mastering engineer has not finished his/her work yet. That's why it pays off to focus on pushing the quality of the mix to the absolute max, because it will automatically force the quality of the mastering higher. LOL Ideally that should also be the case between recording and mixing. The recording vs. mix and mix vs. master A/B are of course essential. If the mixing engineer is struggling to improve the recording and the mastering engineer is struggling to improve the mix and you know these guys are great engineers, then you really know how great the recording engineer job was. That kind of situation can be quite awesome... (when the recording sounds awesome)
 
Last edited:
Some examples of riding the master fader for impact. Go to my website here: Chris 'Von Pimpenstein' Carter - Hit Mix Engineer & Record Producer It’s all stuff I mixed (and some I produced as well).

On the second to last song Stormy Strong “Where Is My Mind (Huge Gold Remix” (an EDM track) I can tell you that I rode the master fader down from about 1:00 to 1:47 and bumped it back up, then against at 3:00 (or maybe earlier) – 3:56, then again at 4:00 – 4:25. The lowering of the volume is so slow that you can’t tell it’s happening. Then all of a sudden it sounds LOUDER. It’s not really louder, it just returned to -0dB.

On the first song Bec & Sebastian “Barricade” the master fader is lowered about a dB in each section before a chorus and comes right back up to zero at each chorus. So this works for any genre where you need more impact when the chorus comes in. Just slowly turn it down for as long as possible before the ‘loud’ part hits and turn it back up right on the downbeat instantaneously. “Barricade” got a bunch of commercial radio play; Bec & Sebastian were finalists on “The Voice.”

But understand, this is just an icing on the cake technique. 98% of the "oomph" when a section comes in is due to the arrangement.
 
So I think to create the sound you need two layers of compression, one at a more isolated scope and one at a less isolated scope.

What is an "isolated scope" with a compressor? In all my years, I have never ever ever ever heard anyone refer to an isolated scope with compression. Just "scope" is something I've never heard of unless you are measuring a compressor with an oscillo"scope" which obviously has zero to do with what you are inferring. Could you kindly elaborate?
 
What is an "isolated scope" with a compressor? In all my years, I have never ever ever ever heard anyone refer to an isolated scope with compression. Just "scope" is something I've never heard of unless you are measuring a compressor with an oscillo"scope" which obviously has zero to do with what you are inferring. Could you kindly elaborate?

I meant isolation level, I was using the more sloppy expression isolation scope. But essentially it is signal isolated by a particular boundary, the "scope" term refers to the boundary and broad/narrow comes from the degree of isolation by the boundary. So for instance the audio track L isolation level or isolation scope would mean the left channels of the sound sources. A music track group has a much broader isolation level. So in the context of compression in this thread I was referring to whether you are running a bunch of tracks/sound sources into the compressor (lower/wider/broader isolation level) or some individual one (higher/more narrow isolation level). And my idea for achieving what OP wanted was to have both compression on both/two levels, which means individual elements are attenuated/released by the compressors besides the group of them (which makes a greater impact on the attack and release when you balance these between the two comps), which ones I left for OP to decide, because that's also a matter of taste.
 
Last edited:
I meant isolation level, I was using the more sloppy expression isolation scope. But essentially it is signal isolated by a particular boundary, the "scope" term refers to the boundary and broad/narrow comes from the degree of isolation by the boundary. So for instance the audio track L isolation level or isolation scope would mean the left channels of the sound sources. A music track group has a much broader isolation level. So in the context of compression in this thread I was referring to whether you are running a bunch of tracks/sound sources into the compressor (lower/wider/broader isolation level) or some individual one (higher/more narrow isolation level). And my idea for achieving what OP wanted was to have both compression on both/two levels, which means individual elements are attenuated/released by the compressors besides the group of them (which makes a greater impact on the attack and release when you balance these between the two comps), which ones I left for OP to decide, because that's also a matter of taste.

So “Isolated scope” is basically your made-up term for how many tracks are (or are not) bussed to a compressor. With one track being the most isolated in scope and program material being least isolated in scope. Because if you make up a term, and nobody else knows what it means, then it’s kind of hard to follow what you are saying. Now that I understand what you are saying, I don’t think your method will work. Here’s what you said:

“If you set the compressor ratio to 4:1, a rather long release time and the threshold for a hard compression, then the content becomes a bit "unstuck" from the speakers especially if you have other compression within the signal that gets released as well. So I think to create the sound you need two layers of compression, one at a more isolated scope and one at a less isolated scope. Try an 1176 type of compressor for this.”

So you are suggesting to use a 4:1 ratio with hard kneed compression… and then recommend an 1176 for this? That is a total contradiction. 1176s have very soft compression curves at 4:1. Please explain? Please also explain how you set how hard the compression curve is using the threshold because the only compressors I’m aware of where how hard or soft the knee is can be varied by the threshold are the 16x and 26x (more or less) dBX compressors. 1176s certainly can’t do this (they don’t even have threshold controls). So what compressor do you recommend that allows the hardness to be controlled by where you set the threshold? Just trying to make sure I understand what you are talking about.
 
So “Isolated scope” is basically your made-up term for how many tracks are (or are not) bussed to a compressor. With one track being the most isolated in scope and program material being least isolated in scope. Because if you make up a term, and nobody else knows what it means, then it’s kind of hard to follow what you are saying. Now that I understand what you are saying, I don’t think your method will work. Here’s what you said:

“If you set the compressor ratio to 4:1, a rather long release time and the threshold for a hard compression, then the content becomes a bit "unstuck" from the speakers especially if you have other compression within the signal that gets released as well. So I think to create the sound you need two layers of compression, one at a more isolated scope and one at a less isolated scope. Try an 1176 type of compressor for this.”

So you are suggesting to use a 4:1 ratio with hard kneed compression… and then recommend an 1176 for this? That is a total contradiction. 1176s have very soft compression curves at 4:1. Please explain? Please also explain how you set how hard the compression curve is using the threshold because the only compressors I’m aware of where how hard or soft the knee is can be varied by the threshold are the 16x and 26x (more or less) dBX compressors. 1176s certainly can’t do this (they don’t even have threshold controls). So what compressor do you recommend that allows the hardness to be controlled by where you set the threshold? Just trying to make sure I understand what you are talking about.

I might have misunderstood what quality about the sound in the reference material Vedant Rana likes, but I was thinking that maybe he/she likes it a bit in your face with a bit of rear-front and mid-side movement. Yes I know the 1176 has very soft compression curves at 4:1, but you need to feed it enough input also. An 1176 style compressor with low ratio, medium attack and long release applied on the instrument level and a similar compressor with slower attack and faster release on the group level will make the attack of the group soft and when that releases the individual sound sources will jump in the face due to the slower release and temporarily widen the stereo image as well. The instrument level compressor must be pushed much harder than the group compressor. The group level compressor works to contract and is more focused on the attack and stereo (since the center panned instrument track(s) in the group are reduced in level using the volume faders, relative to the side panned instrument track(s) so that the compression hits the sides), the instrument level compressors work to release and when they do they do so at specific locations in the stereo field dynamically depending on the content. So the aim is to focus the attack energy into the center and the decay energy into the side (the more the louder they play which is dynamically determined), while also providing some in your face and dynamic stereo qualities about those tracks for energy and excitement and get some added softness into the mix as well. One can experiment with a delayed very dry reverb on the side panned instrument tracks in the group to further amplify the release.
 
Last edited:
I might have misunderstood what quality about the sound in the reference material Vedant Rana likes, but I was thinking that maybe he/she likes it a bit in your face with a bit of rear-front and mid-side movement. Yes I know the 1176 has very soft compression curves at 4:1, but you need to feed it enough input also. An 1176 style compressor with low ratio, medium attack and long release applied on the instrument level and a similar compressor with slower attack and faster release on the group level will make the attack of the group soft and when that releases the individual sound sources will jump in the face due to the slower release and temporarily widen the stereo image as well. The instrument level compressor must be pushed much harder than the group compressor. The group level compressor works to contract and is more focused on the attack and stereo (since the center panned instrument track(s) in the group are reduced in level using the volume faders, relative to the side panned instrument track(s) so that the compression hits the sides), the instrument level compressors work to release and when they do they do so at specific locations in the stereo field dynamically depending on the content. So the aim is to focus the attack energy into the center and the decay energy into the side (the more the louder they play which is dynamically determined), while also providing some in your face and dynamic stereo qualities about those tracks for energy and excitement and get some added softness into the mix as well. One can experiment with a delayed very dry reverb on the side panned instrument tracks in the group to further amplify the release.

I'm a bit dubious of your overall approach. But the thing that know has me scratching my head is this line: "I was thinking that maybe he/she likes it a bit in your face with a bit of rear-front and mid-side movement." Please explain how slapping an 1176 on an instrument and then on a group (I'm assuming the 2buss, but whatever...) is going to create "rear-front and mid-side movement." I fail to see how you are creating that movement, particularly in the M-S realm, with what you are describing. And even if it did (which it won't), why would that get you anything like the sound of the example the OP posted? Please explain.
 
I'm a bit dubious of your overall approach. But the thing that know has me scratching my head is this line: "I was thinking that maybe he/she likes it a bit in your face with a bit of rear-front and mid-side movement." Please explain how slapping an 1176 on an instrument and then on a group (I'm assuming the 2buss, but whatever...) is going to create "rear-front and mid-side movement." I fail to see how you are creating that movement, particularly in the M-S realm, with what you are describing. And even if it did (which it won't), why would that get you anything like the sound of the example the OP posted? Please explain.

When you place a compressor on a group of instrument tracks, it acts on whatever are the loudest peaks within the signal that exceed the threshold. By making the side panned instrument tracks loud enough you can guide the compressor to act on those more than the rest within the stereo field. This has the effect of moving the weight of the stereo image more towards the center during the attack portion of the timbre when it acts more on the side panned tracks. During the decay portion of the timbre when the compressor releases, the weight of the stereo image is moved back to its original position. This causes a temporary stereo contraction towards the center on the sound sources in that group. Now, because within the group you have individual sounds that also at the same time is a in a state of compression, when the release happens and they still keep releasing a bit when the stereo image as gone back to its original width, the combination causes a more dramatic effect, especially because you are pushing the compressor on the instrument tracks much harder. Why you have front to rear movement has to do with the signal attenuation itself and that requires certain volume balancing acts, such that the high frequency sound sources are part of what the compressors are attenuating. But what that does is that it temporarily reduces the presence and while at the same time the signal decreases in level it temporarily moves the sound in the z direction into the speaker. The combination causes front to rear movement, much because of how hard you push the instrument level compressors. Now, because you are doing that you are essentially crushing the transients, which is why you also need to have the dry tracks in parallel, but the effect is still there and you balance it all to taste.
 
Last edited:
I think by now anyone reading this thread has come to the realization that you are just taking various audio terms (including some make-believe ones), grabbing a few random (and I mean RANDOM) techniques, throwing in the names of a piece of gear or two (regardless of you knowledge of them), shaking the whole thing up and then dumping it out in the form of a post. I consider my job here done. We’ve talked about this privately before; it leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it misleads people who are too new to spot the nonsense.
 
I think by now anyone reading this thread has come to the realization that you are just taking various audio terms (including some make-believe ones), grabbing a few random (and I mean RANDOM) techniques, throwing in the names of a piece of gear or two (regardless of you knowledge of them), shaking the whole thing up and then dumping it out in the form of a post. I consider my job here done. We’ve talked about this privately before; it leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it misleads people who are too new to spot the nonsense.

Your comment does not make any sense to me. I find that you are on a big ego trip right now.
 
Back
Top