Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scott Hallam
➡️
I won't be mixing any songs that don't contain electronic sounds though so that's a bit of a moot point.
https://www.discogs.com/artist/1501336-Scott-Hallam
Have a listen to any of the tracks by all means.
The way I used to work (1993-2002) was to mix via a Soundcraft 32:8:2 desk straight to DAT so everything recorded was a 'snapshot' in time.
I would usually run through a track two or three times making adjustments as I went and on the final run record it - no editing, no compression (and to this day I still don't have or use a compressor - no need for one)
Electronic sounds aren't already processed though, I do run things through reverbs/delays/phasers/other effects and of course knowing a desk's EQ inside out is more important than adding compression as mastering engineers will agree with.
With modern DAW's it's become easier to record parts and then do a final mixdown when all the stems are EQ'd and mixed - the process takes three or four times as long as it used to as with multi-tracks it depends how many you have that you need to work with.
Thanks for your reply Scott. Actually, I don't quite agree that electronic sounds are not processed...and by that I meant compressed. Almost every single electronic drum sound I've brought up has been compressed already quite dramatically...to the point where you don't actually need to compress electronic drums sounds....or at least I haven't needed to (or much). Synthesizers and other types of sounds I also find that they usually don't need much compression...if any at all. So I agree with you on that.
Unprocessed acoustic instruments however....definitely need compression to compete...especially drums....to get some impact and excitement. Also...bass...and vocals I'm usually compressing quite alot. Here's one of my mixes where you can definitely hear the impact added by compression. This was all processed from dry acoustic sounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vOYFWnBx38