The professional sound

[peksi]

I am a bit lazy writing this question only after 1 minute of searching this forum for answers, please forgive my laziness. But I believe this question needs to be refreshed every now and then.

I listen to for example David Guetta's track and in the first few seconds there might be just a bass drum and one synth instrument: a bass, a lead or something between. It sounds incredibly good and full. With just 2 instruments he can fill spectrum of sound goodness that makes my body wanna move to the music.

How does he do that? How the heck can he get 2 instruments sound so good??? If I just mechanically replicate that the difference is very notable.

I am a composer but my mixing and producing skills are not that good. I could outsource the mixing and producing part but I am not that professional and nor I want to be.

I would like to use all available plugins, helpers and tech to create as professional sound as possible while keeping 100% control of beats and notes, minimizing sound engineering while concentrating on the artistic part. What are the best single plugins and helpers to make different kinds of tracks sound rich and dynamic?

I hear people talking about Vinco, fat inserts etc. Could you please share your recommendations about plugins and techniques on different types of music and channels? How can u get the space filled and rich? Or how do you make room when you have more instruments?

For example I found out a few years ago that using a compressor in BD channel and by adjusting the release time I could get much more professional sounding, real punchy beat. Also when sidechaining compressor from BD to bass or other instruments I could get the sound I hear from radio a lot

[astroman]

it's definitely not about Vinco or any 'fat' sounding plugin - in fact it's the opposite
less is more
the more plugins, the less defined your sound will end - even the best ones have side effects
(after all it's never lossless processing in the digital domain)

that doesn't mean to avoid plugins at all, but to choose them with care and apply only(!) where necessary
to be honest I don't know Guetta productions in detail, but I get your idea
such productions have a well defined context of the parts with precise placement
(usually the reverbs are extremely transparent)

imo (today) you don't need to squeeze anything from a single kick, you can pick the right one from a collection
I'd rather stack sounds a little(!) bit than to push them via compressor
which means: don't pile kicks up on each other, but rather add a click or whatever is missing from a different source
(this leaves the definition of the single instrument untouched, while processing will alter it)

grouping instruments (so all get only 1 plugin, instead of giving each instrument it's own) helps a lot
mid-side mixing can be very usefull to arrange focus and sound environment

here's Your loft my acid (Fearless Transhouse Mix Long) by Death in Vegas as an example for kind of minimal sound mega-production, featured in an Oreal ad... nice to watch, too
note 'chain-clicking', cam noise and other environmental 'noises' integrated into the track...

cheers, Tom

[scopus]

astromans right, less usually is more took me long time to understand and realize that my mixes were being ruined by over use of fx, try to get the best source sound u can, and we all know how good scope is for that, and try keep it clean as can except delays, reverbs,eq cutting where needed... shit in shit out.i personally think compression should be only used when necessary to preserve dynamic in the music, instead more vol automation. im not sure what guetta does but a good trick to make things sound huge is doubling-recording something twice, hard pan l and r, stereo imaging...and also like astroman said try layering sounds, can take time to get right but well worth it,

[kensuguro]

I would like to use all available plugins, helpers and tech to create as professional sound as possible while keeping 100% control of beats and notes, minimizing sound engineering while concentrating on the artistic part. What are the best single plugins and helpers to make different kinds of tracks sound rich and dynamic?

I think it's inevitable that a composer needs to be fairly well versed in sound design in this day and age. So production is very much included in the "artistic" part, though engineering as in micing the drum may be more of a specialized task that you can delegate to a specialist.

For definition, I believe it's a combination of production and writing. Production part needs to make sure the audio stream is intelligible (proper eq and spectral space distribution) and dynamics is huge where needed and squashed where needed. For the shimmer you can use an exciter like psyq or bbe maximizer equivalent, and it helps with definition a bit, but don't rely on it cuz then your stuff becomes overprocessed. The writing is also very critical since if the parts are muddy then plugins won't help. Keep good temporal and pitch domain separation, and make sure each part is as efficient as can be. You'll end up with less notes, less instruments, but more music that way. (like everyone thus far has already said)

Mixing techniques also vary with genre, so perhaps if you can tell us which genre you're going after (4x4 bass pump pop?) would help. If it's bass pump, you can do sidechain, or do upward compresssion. Pretty popular, but with that, you'd have to be careful how the parts are written because the pump can really mess up intelligibility. But that's just an effect, it shouldn't define your sound.

But anyway, don't sign off sound design and production as "not a composer's job". It's never too late to start, and you'll quickly see that many composers have already spent years and years perfecting their sound design and production skills. The sound has your name on it, so you should invest time to produce it very well. The little tricks that make a track sound great are numerous, and it's not really something you can write out, or read and immediately implement. This stuff takes time. Your ears need to evolve, you need to learn about different comps, eq, etc and pick out your favorite ones... It's taken me over 10 years to get to the point where I felt I was proficient in mixing. (IMHO, anyway) There's a lot to learn, and a lot of benefits.

[garyb]

if you don't want to become an engineer, or at least a technician, you have no business trying to run a studio, even in a bedroom.

the information can't be given in a step-by-step. it takes understanding what the real purpose for each bit of gear(plugins are just representations of gear) is. you will need to read, watch videos and ask specific questions.

in general, if you don't know exactly why a device is useful, you should avoid using it.
in general, less processing sounds better. one problem with computers is that people can use tons more processing than they would if they were stuck using hardware. the main reason is that it's expensive as hell to use real gear. being able to use all those extra plugins doesn't necessarily make a production sound better. in general again, a few properly used processors will sound infinitely better than a whole bunch of plugins.

[dante]

My sound has improved markedly over the last 2 or 3 years. I would say the main reason being ScopeRise. It has forced me to really get inside all the devices I've reviewed, talk to the developers, users, anyone who has an opinion or techniques, tips, all the while using everything I've read or written in a production sense, publishing it on SoundCloud and ScopeRise then getting feedback for improvements, and trying out all suggestions as much as I have had the time for. Yes some stones remain unturned but I fully intent to revisit those as well, and have a good list of 'further learning'.

It's all this collective knowledge and experience which goes into a mix more than just the sum of the individual plug-ins. It's not just about learning a plugin or technique then moving on. Revisit old territory in light of new knowledge, or in light of new comments someone may make that makes you think again about some aspect of sound creation. Even two experts may have a differing opinion, but they are still both worth listening to and trying for yourself before deciding which way YOU want to go.

Also, Scope itself is not just about it's own plug-ins. It's about integration with the rest of your software and hardware. Scope is not self centred (egocentric), but megacentric (thats what I call it anyway).

I imagine great cooks still watch Masterchef, and no-one of them became that overnight without studying all aspects they could. And the journey never ends.

[astroman]

Scope is not self centred (egocentric), but megacentric (thats what I call it anyway). ...

the proper buzzword today would be meta-centric
(bearing a nice self-contradiction as extra spice)
but whatever it is... it remains the most smart way to chain processings and route them in the direction you like

cheers, Tom

[dante]

here's Your loft my acid (Fearless Transhouse Mix Long) by Death in Vegas as an example for kind of minimal sound mega-production, featured in an Oreal ad... nice to watch, too note 'chain-clicking', cam noise and other environmental 'noises' integrated into the track...

cheers, Tom

I'd agree there, from that clip, about minimal arrangement adding to the clarity and presence. My mixes by comparison tend to be busy, so looses some definition. Its a trade off - you want more happening, you've got to pay some space in return. The incidental noises just seemed to fit in without paying any clarity tradeoff.

Noted about meta-centric. I think that's the first time someone's corrected me on a word I made up but it's appropriate.

[Warp69]

(usually the reverbs are extremely transparent)

here's Your loft my acid (Fearless Transhouse Mix Long) by Death in Vegas as an example for kind of minimal sound mega-production, featured in an Oreal ad... nice to watch, too
note 'chain-clicking', cam noise and other environmental 'noises' integrated into the track...

Ehm, well not in this case, right?

[Warp69]

I listen to for example David Guetta's track and in the first few seconds there might be just a bass drum and one synth instrument: a bass, a lead or something between. It sounds incredibly good and full. With just 2 instruments he can fill spectrum of sound goodness that makes my body wanna move to the music.

How does he do that? How the heck can he get 2 instruments sound so good??? If I just mechanically replicate that the difference is very notable.

Alot of work?

When you listen to a Guetta (or any tracks on beatport) beat loop (bassdrum), you'll likely hear alot of offbeat hits that generate a sense of rhythm. 4/4 is not only 4/4 - the first beat of the 4, hits precisely on the bpm timeline, but the next 3 hits does not. They are moved like 0.1ms-2ms either forward or back in relation to the correct bpm time. That way you create a sense of irregular movement in the beat that 'makes your body wanna move to the music' compared to 'normal' 4/4, but you still preserve the overall 4/4 feeling.

It's not only a question about sound processing, but also arrangement.

A bassdrum can easily contain 4 layers of sounds - many even include a deep sine with the same key frequency (octaves lower) as the key of the track.

[garyb]

secrets

[wayne]

ssshhhh!

[astroman]

(usually the reverbs are extremely transparent)

here's Your loft my acid (Fearless Transhouse Mix Long) by Death in Vegas as an example for kind of minimal sound mega-production, featured in an Oreal ad... nice to watch, too
note 'chain-clicking', cam noise and other environmental 'noises' integrated into the track...

Ehm, well not in this case, right?

to be honest... I was too distracted to pay attention to what your ears picked up with ease...
I just found it a well produced, yet simple track with nice atmo, a bit punchy, good flow...

cheers, Tom

[astroman]

Noted about meta-centric. I think that's the first time someone's corrected me on a word I made up but it's appropriate.

actually it wasn't a correction, but a joke about tech bla bla... everything got to be, got to go META today

cheers, Tom

[peksi]

Thanks for all the tips. And that secret part made me wow

My bad has always been getting stuck in details before the song itself is finished. That way I burn up all my artistic fuel leaving me cold in the middle of unfinished piece. Kinda like being in bed with a woman, finishing too quickly and losing all feeling after that. Of course that never happened to me.

I think it is important to plan your song, finish it and only then start spending time in rearranging / making it sound good since it seems to take ages. What do you say? Is this how you do it?

[dante]

It's not neccessarily how I do it. I'll spend hours getting the chorus to sound great before I've even written a verse ! As long as you keep momentum, the order is not all important. Go to bed, and allocate a couple of hours the next day when you've got a clearer head.

My songwriting teacher would disagree, as he teaches a strict order, and I understand why. Sometimes I will work that way but also nothing wrong with being able to break that mold. As a producer you might get delivered a guitar riff, some MIDI drums and a vocal stem and be told to 'finish the song' from those alone.

[scopus]

this is something i find differs from artist to artist, and song to song, but personally i feel when first create a song usually ur a certain state of mind n feeling which is creating that song so u want to capture as many ideas in the moment as possible, for me usually is a day or 2 no food or sleep,until completely out of ideas. i find in those "holy" moments somehow all the right ideas,sounds,n notes come efortlessly like its not me at all than when momentum dies n goes to shit its back to me y dont really take credit for most of what i make, can spend weeks making garbage but in one day can it can all come if ur mind is in the right place so when it is i think total waste to spend that time tweaking eqs n caught up in details n stuff. when ur out of ideas is when to do the busy work ,sometimes can takes while for a song to come together completly and get all the ideas it needs so take ur time n let the song build itself, my 2 cents

[TX83]

I am a bit lazy writing this question only after 1 minute of searching this forum for answers, please forgive my laziness. But I believe this question needs to be refreshed every now and then.

I listen to for example David Guetta's track and in the first few seconds there might be just a bass drum and one synth instrument: a bass, a lead or something between. It sounds incredibly good and full. With just 2 instruments he can fill spectrum of sound goodness that makes my body wanna move to the music.

How does he do that?

It's all about the mastering. Even a bad mix can be "rescued" by a good mastering. Not only the mastering makes the track loud and full (it needs a clear mix ((high-end hard and software) to sound commercial), but its the primary reason why the tracks are pumping. Thats why there are many mastering-only studios out there. One of the most important finals steps in producing.