TAXI.com

I'm curious to know what you guys think about when adding effects to different tracks.

What percentage of your tracks get effects, typically or specifically? By FX I mean delays, reverbs, extra distortion, flangers, or even EQ and comp when used as an effect.

What do you think about when you add an effect?

I have my own opinions and approaches, but I'm interested in what your philosophy.

I realize I am asking a general question. Specific answers are certainly welcome, but I'm interested in your broader approach to the topic.

1) Does the track need something extra?

2) Does that something benefit the wider mix?

If yes, then I add an effect.

What percentage? Every cue I do has effects somewhere in it. That's the nature of the music I produce. On many cues, every single track either has an effect or is routed along with others to a bus/fx channel for an effect (chain). What I do is also sound design heavy, so in many cases an individual track or group of tracks might consist of raw sounds that are then heavily manipulated with effects into specific sonic shapes and feels.

What do I think about? Well, I visualise the end result and then I slowly work the effects and sounds up in layers until it approximates what's in my head.

At the moment, my favourite effects tend to be gating or filter envelopes combined with creative compression and creative reverb, and lots of distortion/saturation. But that could change by tomorrow.

Ok, I'll jack up for a few comments.
I use effects in basically two ways.

Primary use as dna for tone and mixing.

Using subtractive EQ and compression to make the recorded track work in a mix space.
Sometimes sparse use of delays and reverbs can make the tracks glue together as well.
Even distortion can be used for (a certain) tone, and make tracks find their spot in the mix.

Secondary use for sound design/ adding a drop of honey / for impact.

Quite often some signature effect on the electric guitars (like a trem, univibe, filter, mod delay ect).
Sometimes (in rare occasions) a flanger, chorus or phaser on acoustic guitar and vocals.
Loops, pads and synths often already have lots of fx on, so I find myself peeling off presets, more than adding stuff.
Hell, sometimes I don't even know what I'm doing

Effects are certainly essential tools for me, so I always use them when mixing. What would a craftsman do without a box of tools?

My approach is to think what the song needs, thinking a lot like a writer, meaning I look for things that can invite listeners in to the song, maybe a signature sound, but something that suits the song.

When deciding what effects to use, I often follow the lyrics, so if it refers to say something psychedelic, I try to add an effect that can be associated with a psychedelic context, but also in a way that is not too "on the nose" or cliché (unless that's what I want). Sometimes it's also just a trial and error process, and then I make up the reason afterwards.. I guess that's when you say "the song comes to life, and have a life of it's own"

Maybe I have kind of a lyrical approach to using effects, to reduce it down to an "approach".
Haven't really thought of that before, though. But if it sounds good, it is good, to use a little Meek'ian analogy

Great answers! Thanks for the response guys. Really helpful.

I think along the same lines. I try to think about what the FX to be added serves emotionally to the track. At least that's what I tell myself

Great tracks Hector!

songcabinet, your answered inspired some other questions:

Firstly, the way you answered seemed to reveal your mixing process. That is, your objective is to get the volume and tonal balances first (subtractive EQ and comp), and then start adding other effects when needed/desired second. Is that how you work? I've been toying around with different approaches and processes. Your "implied" method seems interesting and rather logical to me. Tonal and volume balance are absolutely essential to mixing. All the other fluff just helps enhance the emotions created in the balanced mixed. I'm gonna give that method a go.

Secondly, when you say subtractive EQ and compression, are you talking about fixed effects only? For example, you typically don't want your kick to interfere with the frequency range wherein your bass shines; but just cutting those competing frequencies in the kick might not be as desirable as side-chaining the kick and bass such that when the bass plays, your compress those frequencies in the kick temporarily. I'm just curious if you really commit to a fixed subtractive EQ or if you mix with a more dynamic and active interaction between EQ and compression.

I realize these discussion are a bit abstract and that music production is largely an "it-depends-on-the-track-and-how-I'm-feeling-at-the-time" endeavor, but thinking of things in this way helps me approach a project with a vision, and if I run into trouble, I have thought about other possibilities.

mpitluk wrote:Great answers! Thanks for the response guys. Really helpful.

I think along the same lines. I try to think about what the FX to be added serves emotionally to the track. At least that's what I tell myself

Great tracks Hector!

songcabinet, your answered inspired some other questions:

Firstly, the way you answered seemed to reveal your mixing process. That is, your objective is to get the volume and tonal balances first (subtractive EQ and comp), and then start adding other effects when needed/desired second. Is that how you work? I've been toying around with different approaches and processes. Your "implied" method seems interesting and rather logical to me. Tonal and volume balance are absolutely essential to mixing. All the other fluff just helps enhance the emotions created in the balanced mixed. I'm gonna give that method a go.

Yes, I start with gainstaging the tracks, and then mix in groups. The one reference that spoke to me and helped me get a grip of the mixing process has been The ZEN of mixing http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Mixing-Mi ... 1423491505

Secondly, when you say subtractive EQ and compression, are you talking about fixed effects only? For example, you typically don't want your kick to interfere with the frequency range wherein your bass shines; but just cutting those competing frequencies in the kick might not be as desirable as side-chaining the kick and bass such that when the bass plays, your compress those frequencies in the kick temporarily. I'm just curious if you really commit to a fixed subtractive EQ or if you mix with a more dynamic and active interaction between EQ and compression.

Not sure what you mean by committing to a fixed subtractive EQ, but regarding kick and bass, I like to compress them together on the same bus, to get them to glue together. I don't really mix for others, so most of what I do is guitar driven pop, rock and singer/songwriter stuff. Often side-chaining is overkill for the mixes I do, so I haven't tried that a lot

I realize these discussion are a bit abstract and that music production is largely an "it-depends-on-the-track-and-how-I'm-feeling-at-the-time" endeavor, but thinking of things in this way helps me approach a project with a vision, and if I run into trouble, I have thought about other possibilities.

Bear in mind that I'm just a songwriter trying to get a grip of music production, so I'm not really an expert. If you listen to the mixes I have up at Soundcloud, most of them are pretty bad, allthough I like to think I've developed my skills since I did those.. haha. A lot of guys here can chime in with a lot more elaborated stuff than me.

my 2 cents on this one:

mpitluk wrote:some other questions:

Firstly, the way you answered seemed to reveal your mixing process. That is, your objective is to get the volume and tonal balances first (subtractive EQ and comp), and then start adding other effects when needed/desired second. Is that how you work? I've been toying around with different approaches and processes. Your "implied" method seems interesting and rather logical to me. Tonal and volume balance are absolutely essential to mixing. All the other fluff just helps enhance the emotions created in the balanced mixed. I'm gonna give that method a go.

I am going to echo Mike Senior's process from "Mixing secrets for the small studio". he talks about getting a stable "fader position"

so this is a process of using eq, and / or compression and then panning to try to get a mix that plays from start to end and you don't feel the need to grab a fader and push it up to highlight some part of the song. A static mix that plays like a song.

Now this also highlights the other side of a good static mix - its static. there is nothing pushed up in your face to make you notice it (say a guitar lick between vocal phrases). So then usually you end up going in to automate things so they come in and make you notice.

goofy huh? mix it so everything is one level, and then automate it so everything is interesting again.

This relates mostly to songs that are close mic'ed and often recorded in isolation (i.e. typical pop, rock, country). The same genres that adding "effects" is popular in, usually because a pop mix with no FX sounds dry and close and nothing may fit together into sounding like it was recorded in the same space (which is often desirable to give the illusion that the band played together - some genres go the other way and make things sound otherworldly by adding FX to make everything sound separate).

As you get progressively towards a more ambient recording with an ensemble that moderates its own volume (i.e. a jazz group in live performance or an orchestral ensemble) you are usually dealing with less recorded channels (in an orchestral recording you may in some circumstances have only 2 - Left and Right) - and what are you going to eq or mix in this situation? maybe you take a little sub off to prevent excess mud. maybe you notch out a little midrange that was highlighting a resonance in the room, maybe you add a db of top end to "open up" the sound. Often there is extra reverb added to the recording to make it sound bigger.

mpitluk wrote:Secondly, when you say subtractive EQ and compression, are you talking about fixed effects only? For example, you typically don't want your kick to interfere with the frequency range wherein your bass shines; but just cutting those competing frequencies in the kick might not be as desirable as side-chaining the kick and bass such that when the bass plays, your compress those frequencies in the kick temporarily. I'm just curious if you really commit to a fixed subtractive EQ or if you mix with a more dynamic and active interaction between EQ and compression.

I think again, you would eq if that helps the static balance. if things were moving around dynamically, like every time the bass player hit the open A string it was way louder than all the other notes, you might compress the bass with one band of a multi-band compressor tuned only to affect that note.

Sidechaining the bass and kick for me goes beyond just trying to fit them together - its a way to highlight the part of the low freq spectrum that each does best. punch (kick) and sustain (bass). Using sidechaining allows the bass fader to be a bit higher cause it doesn't play as loud when the kick sounds. I use standard eq to dovetail the two sounds together.

for me, eq and compression is mostly used as enhancement. To make things clearer. to make things a little more dynamically even. to accentuate things and make the mix sound larger than life and more than just a live recording - (an 1176 on vocals to give a little edge, a little parallel distortion on bass for clarity and audibility on smaller speakers, compression on drum room mics to give the feeling of a bigger room).

Just about every channel in my mixes have some kind of ambient treatment to fit things together and to increase the size of things. those are usually reverbs and tempo synced delays on busses that I can send a little bit of each channel to.

But due to the kind of music I do, I don't often use things as "effects" unless its something like an eq sweep on a synth noise patch or something like that. Most of the sounds are there from the instruments. I just enhance things and make them sound larger than life - deeper, taller, and wider. that is stylistically driven too. The more conservative genres I am making things clear and audible. More effect means the same thing to start, and then add ear candy.

thesongcabinet wrote:
Yes, I start with gainstaging the tracks, and then mix in groups. The one reference that spoke to me and helped me get a grip of the mixing process has been The ZEN of mixing http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Mixing-Mi ... 1423491505

I literally just finished Zen and the Art of Producing last night. Have you read that one? It's a great book. Helped clarify what I should be thinking about before I start recording a track. I definitely plan on reading Mixerman's mixing book as well.

thesongcabinet wrote:Not sure what you mean by committing to a fixed subtractive EQ, but regarding kick and bass, I like to compress them together on the same bus, to get them to glue together. I don't really mix for others, so most of what I do is guitar driven pop, rock and singer/songwriter stuff. Often side-chaining is overkill for the mixes I do, so I haven't tried that a lot

Got it. Didn't mean to be unclear. What I meant by "fixed subtractive EQ" was that when you, e.g., cut 10db at 500hz, then that cut remains the entirety of the mix. EQ's can be more active and dynamic in the sense that an EQ cut could be turned on and off by something.

I checked out your music, and I thought the mixes sounded great. Hope you don't mind me asking, but what listings do you typically submit to? And have you been forwarded often? I'm curious because I think your music is great. I just recently got into submitting and have yet to be forwarded.

andygabrys wrote: I think again, you would eq if that helps the static balance. if things were moving around dynamically, like every time the bass player hit the open A string it was way louder than all the other notes, you might compress the bass with one band of a multi-band compressor tuned only to affect that note.
Sidechaining the bass and kick for me goes beyond just trying to fit them together - its a way to highlight the part of the low freq spectrum that each does best. punch (kick) and sustain (bass). Using sidechaining allows the bass fader to be a bit higher cause it doesn't play as loud when the kick sounds. I use standard eq to dovetail the two sounds together.
for me, eq and compression is mostly used as enhancement. To make things clearer. to make things a little more dynamically even. to accentuate things and make the mix sound larger than life and more than just a live recording - (an 1176 on vocals to give a little edge, a little parallel distortion on bass for clarity and audibility on smaller speakers, compression on drum room mics to give the feeling of a bigger room).
Just about every channel in my mixes have some kind of ambient treatment to fit things together and to increase the size of things. those are usually reverbs and tempo synced delays on busses that I can send a little bit of each channel to.
But due to the kind of music I do, I don't often use things as "effects" unless its something like an eq sweep on a synth noise patch or something like that. Most of the sounds are there from the instruments. I just enhance things and make them sound larger than life - deeper, taller, and wider. that is stylistically driven too. The more conservative genres I am making things clear and audible. More effect means the same thing to start, and then add ear candy.

Thanks for this. I like this approach to effects. I stated that I try to add effects that enhance the music emotionally, and while that's all well and good, your answer gives me a framework to think about this in. For example, what exactly should I do to this particular instrument within the 3 dimension of the mix? Will widening the track be what achieves the emotional impact I'm after? Will making it bigger? Etc. Very cool. Thanks for that.

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what delays are used to do. How do you think about delays, and when would you decide to use one? The three reasons I tend to use them for are 1.) to widen something a bit (with a ping-pong maybe); 2.) to give the effect of a reverb yet not have the effected track move too far back in the mix, and 3.) to maybe make something a little more interesting.

Thanks for the answers. I'm finding them very helpful.

I just go by feel. Unless, I'm trying to emulate someone else's work (like for a particular listing).

Stuart

mpitluk wrote:I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what delays are used to do. How do you think about delays, and when would you decide to use one? The three reasons I tend to use them for are 1.) to widen something a bit (with a ping-pong maybe); 2.) to give the effect of a reverb yet not have the effected track move too far back in the mix, and 3.) to maybe make something a little more interesting.

Delay can add rhythmic pulse such as how The Edge uses it. A fast delay with short feedback can be used to fatten a sound or voice. Tempo synced delay at 1/8, 1/16 with longer feedback are excellent for creating tension (not necessarily applicable to songs but useful for score/underscore). Complex delays that feedback into themselves or even chains of delays can create amazing soundscapes and textures; again less useful for songs as such but there are styles that use this kind of approach such as post-rock and ambient (think Sigur Ros).