i would kill-KILL-to get an in-person clinic with andrew scheps. when he talks, it's in a language i understand. he's one of the few i truly comprehend when he explains something. and the fact that he's prepared to demistify his art to the extent that he does is so, so rare. everyone else makes it sound so exclusive. andrew scheps makes it accessible.
Bro there is nothing to demistify just learn ur craft properly and u will understand and realize 99% of what u hear on youtube about audio is Absolut BS learn ur own tricks and how the tools in the studio actually work and ull realize u dont need most of what people try to feed u
What people should really take from this is that mixing is an art form, and like any artist, whether painting, sculpting, making music, etc, you don't want to become stagnant. For the love of God, do not take what he's saying as "parallel compression now bad". He's simply run his course with it, and now he's on to something else, much the same as how a painter might switch from chalk to pastels. It doesn't mean chalk can no longer make great art; it simply means the artist wants to make great art with a new/different tool/technique. Hope this makes sense
Totally. All of our tastes change over time. I always get frustrated with mix projects that are an album split out across a year, song by song. The earlier mixes feel like another person did them to me. We don't even realize how much we change.
@@progressionspod I absolutely know what you mean. I’m working on an album right now, and for the exact reason you just explained, I’m doing it in steps so that each step is done at the same time. I’m producing each song first, then mixing, etc.
Two things here. Yes, the reason I love compression is it makes the quiet stuff louder, I call it "hype". Two, designing your own kicks and snares and having control of a production from start to finish allows for those kicks and snares that make you laugh every time... and with this new ring mod sidechain stuff, it will really make you smile. Electronic music is crazy.
What we have done since the early 70s (after the whole Dolby parallel compression thing) Was to hardly use parallel compression at all in the end, Loud always sounds better (to most) and using a compressor to “tame” was a necessity as it still is with someone like the powerful Ann Wilson of Heart So bring up the level and the low stuff gets louder, use regular compression and tame the loud stuff It’s not that we never use parallel compression. It has become a personal preference of which sounds better both isolated and of course, more importantly in the mix I don’t use plug-ins for compression or preamps while tracking or mixing and personally many of the 500s are not worth my time, Prude? Old school? Psychological aversion? Call it what you will
Am I understanding this wrong or the last sentence by Andrew was a mistake? Shouldn’t it be Fast Attack, Fast Release? Because he says otherwise transients will double up, right?
I understand Andrew's 'No' as a response to the second part of the question: Q: So, listening to everything you said, I translate as: faster attack though...cause you...are you... [1] do you wanna kill those transients in those parallel tracks or [2] do you wanna let those live? AS: No! [answering 2] Cause it will double them up [if you use slow attack on parallel]... Compressors in general [on insert]: I'm slow attack, fast release [to allow transient, in contrast to fast squashed parallel]
Well.. sound through the manipulation of oscillatory waveforms, employing complex voltage-controlled oscillators (VCOs) and digital signal processors (DSPs) to synthesize harmonic structures. The core process begins with a phase-modulated waveform generator, which produces sinusoidal, sawtooth, or pulse-width-modulated signals as fundamental building blocks. These signals are then routed through voltage-controlled amplifiers (VCAs) and multimode filters-utilizing variable resonance and cutoff frequencies-enabling dynamic spectral shaping. Modulation matrices, governed by low-frequency oscillators (LFOs) and envelope generators, introduce timbral fluctuations and attack-decay-sustain-release (ADSR) dynamics, creating intricate auditory textures. Advanced synthesizers integrate frequency modulation (FM), phase distortion, and granular synthesis techniques, where time-domain waveform granules are reassembled into non-linear soundscapes. Additionally, digital systems incorporate waveguide synthesis algorithms, simulating physical resonators by iteratively solving differential equations for complex acoustic modeling. These processes are synchronized within a master clock’s latency-compensated signal path, ensuring phase coherence and harmonic alignment for precise sound design.
Never thought of it as just sort of "reverse" compression as he says, making the quiet stuff louder. (Which technically is what an expander does, but that's a totally different conversation. I don't know that I've ever used an expander in my life.)
I think bringing the quieter bits up is "upwards compression" (at the same time as the peaks are being pushed down. An expander increases dynamic range by boosting the transients while reducing the quiet bits, a bit like a transient shaper that's set to boost the attack portion rather than the sustain.
"Slow attack - fast release", this is my usual compression approach too. As for "parallel compression", for some reason I like it better how it sounds when I do it the other way around: I compress with 100% mix, but gently and with relatively long attack times, so that the track can still "breathe", and then I may add a little bit of the dry signal to it.
Thats's the key: the parallel comp path needs to be fast attack and at least 2:1, if not high higher ratio. And threshold so that on lowest parts of the signal there's *no* gain reduction. ie: the lower the signal, the more the two paths simply *sum* . Thus, lifting the low stuff judiciously also brings up overtones. ie "warmth". Good for adding density - *if* needed.
Andrew ends by saying slow attack / fast release, which sounds right to me. But almost every other YT instructional says very fast attack when doing PC. I think the point is to keep the natural transients on the original and beef-up the body on the secondary PC track, like he said, in effect giving you the possibility to lower your summed volume yet retain presence in a mix.
Maybe the takeaway here is that the mix engineer (whether he knows it or not) produces a mix based only partially on absolute guidelines. The rest is based on his aesthetic judgement. But the latter may change over time. Mr. Scheps, refreshingly, is quite aware that his constantly evolving aesthetic judgement plays a significant role.
Totally! We get into some of that in the full interview. They idea that fundamentals guide your learning and once you understand the tools you can break the rules. Ultimately what sounds good is good (Andrew quote). He also brings up that all of the educating he does helps him reflect on how his process has changed over time because he has to verbalize it to people on podcasts and in masterclasses. I hope you dig in on the full chat, it's a personal favorite of mine.
Just so I'm clear, when Andrew says he hardly uses parallel compression anymore, does he mean he doesn't use his REAR BUS technique anymore? Or that he doesn't use parallel compression on the master bus anymore? Thanks a lot for sharing.
Hmm, the thumbnail is a bit confusing as Andrew meant "it doesn't matter what it sounds like IN SOLO" and not what it sounds like over all. The thumbnail is causing wrong thoughts.
💯 Mixing in context is the fastest way to increase quality and decrease amount of time spent. Once you understand that it's the sum of the parts your whole approach changes. I do think you need to do the solo thing until you understand that basics of mixing and how all the processors work, it's all part of the journey.
The reason to keep a lot off of your mix bus, if possible, for me has mostly to do with creating stems (a label requirement) and also when moving to the Atmos mix. For Atmos, I want to work with the stems; but those stems ideally should recreate the stereo mix with little deviation from the final master. If there is a lot on the mix buss, the stem creation won't react the same and the stem levels and dynamic reactions to compressors are incorrect. Otherwise, you have to go through some very complex sidechaining to create stems that react correctly to every step in the mix bus plugin chain. It's not easy to do correctly. It's also a more proper, old school approach to mixing... where you know how to get the sounds at the individual track or group level... and not rely on an extravagant mix bus chain to hold a mix together. Frankly, that's a bit amateur-ish and indicative of people not really being that skilled at actual mixing. For me, the ideal goal is that the stems combine to essentially recreate the final mix; and it's close enough at that point that any final mastering of the stereo mix is minimal.... maybe tiny EQ adjustments and final level. That allows you to better match the Atmos mix to the stereo mix baseline without having to creatively and subjectively rebuild it. While Atmos should sound more exciting and dynamic... if you venture too far from the stereo mix, it is highly likely either the artist or label will reject the Atmos mix for being too far off from the stereo version. You don't want to chase your tail in this stage.
Totally agree with all of this. The aggressive "top down" mixing approach that a lot of people are into is nearly impossible to stem out. I definitely have a fair number of processors on my mix buss, but they aren't doing the work. My stems nearly phase cancel to the mix. In the full interview we touch a bit on the challenge of working on mixes that have been created with aggressive master processing. The files for mix never sound like the rough so you really need to find out what people were doing with the master to even get the balance back. Thanks for jumping in and sharing! I hope you check the full chat out.
If someone hands you stems, you're going to change the mix anyways. So you put your own hot-sauce on it to your own tastes and go from there. It's a given that stems won't sum up to a full mix. They are stems, not the whole plant.
@@fakshen1973Nope. Sometimes the requirement is for the stems to recreate the final mix as closely as possible. There is some creative leeway when creating the Atmos mix from stems. But listen to what I'm saying.
He means the transients on the smashed track. He lets some transients poke out on the smashed track instead of "use fast attack to kill the transients on the parallel compressor" way, AKA "the right way of using parallel compression". Therefore, if you leave the transients intact on the compressed track (slow attack), when you blend it in with the uncompressed track, the transients on both tracks will double up.
Ive tried this whole stupid fad and its stupid and pretty usless i hate it and i can get way better sound without it. You must like crap if u wanna mix in a shitty version of a sound and think that sounds better smh yall are smoking crack all these so called modern technics are dumb and most dont work. I mix properly like Oldschool analog mix engineers and use minimal plugins and processing and my mixes sound light years more transparent, wider and cleaner than pretty much any one else. I mean he said it himself and ive proven it with my mixes. Everyone wonders how i do it and i tell them stop flooding ur mixes with usless plugins and learn how to use the tools of the studio properly dont just use it cuz it looks cool or everyone else uses it
Hardly a fad. It's been around since the 70s and was known as 'New York Compression' back then. It's a technique to achieve a specific sound/goal. Period.
i would kill-KILL-to get an in-person clinic with andrew scheps. when he talks, it's in a language i understand. he's one of the few i truly comprehend when he explains something. and the fact that he's prepared to demistify his art to the extent that he does is so, so rare. everyone else makes it sound so exclusive. andrew scheps makes it accessible.
He does such a good job at explaining things. Put one of those mix with the masters seminars on the wishlist!
Bro there is nothing to demistify just learn ur craft properly and u will understand and realize 99% of what u hear on youtube about audio is Absolut BS learn ur own tricks and how the tools in the studio actually work and ull realize u dont need most of what people try to feed u
EXTREMELY well put, sir!
@@JibberJabJones Indeed, I would have equally enjoyed listening to that man talking, even if I hadn't been an audio engineer!
Parallel comp is a great way to manage the RMS levels to give body to a signal and character.
Scheps has a Behringer Model D and also a Behringer Neutron !!! How cool is that !!!!
What people should really take from this is that mixing is an art form, and like any artist, whether painting, sculpting, making music, etc, you don't want to become stagnant. For the love of God, do not take what he's saying as "parallel compression now bad". He's simply run his course with it, and now he's on to something else, much the same as how a painter might switch from chalk to pastels. It doesn't mean chalk can no longer make great art; it simply means the artist wants to make great art with a new/different tool/technique. Hope this makes sense
Totally. All of our tastes change over time. I always get frustrated with mix projects that are an album split out across a year, song by song. The earlier mixes feel like another person did them to me. We don't even realize how much we change.
@@progressionspod I absolutely know what you mean. I’m working on an album right now, and for the exact reason you just explained, I’m doing it in steps so that each step is done at the same time. I’m producing each song first, then mixing, etc.
Two things here. Yes, the reason I love compression is it makes the quiet stuff louder, I call it "hype". Two, designing your own kicks and snares and having control of a production from start to finish allows for those kicks and snares that make you laugh every time... and with this new ring mod sidechain stuff, it will really make you smile. Electronic music is crazy.
Andrew's explanation made parallel compression make a lot more sense to me. Thank you :)
He's so great at breaking ideas down!
What we have done since the early 70s (after the whole Dolby parallel compression thing)
Was to hardly use parallel compression at all in the end,
Loud always sounds better (to most) and using a compressor to “tame” was a necessity as it still is with someone like the powerful Ann Wilson of Heart
So bring up the level and the low stuff gets louder, use regular compression and tame the loud stuff
It’s not that we never use parallel compression.
It has become a personal preference of which sounds better both isolated and of course, more importantly in the mix
I don’t use plug-ins for compression or preamps while tracking or mixing and personally many of the 500s are not worth my time,
Prude? Old school?
Psychological aversion?
Call it what you will
This is insightful
Andrew is an insightful person. Check the full interview out if you're into longform. It's my personal favorite conversation on the podcast.
@@progressionspoddef will. I always value what he has to say.
excellent explanation
Great video and such cool tips to parallel compression.
Am I understanding this wrong or the last sentence by Andrew was a mistake? Shouldn’t it be Fast Attack, Fast Release? Because he says otherwise transients will double up, right?
I understand Andrew's 'No' as a response to the second part of the question:
Q:
So, listening to everything you said, I translate as: faster attack though...cause you...are you... [1] do you wanna kill those transients in those parallel tracks or [2] do you wanna let those live?
AS:
No! [answering 2] Cause it will double them up [if you use slow attack on parallel]... Compressors in general [on insert]: I'm slow attack, fast release [to allow transient, in contrast to fast squashed parallel]
I think he means if he’s using a compressor as an insert?
@@edsohovocals thanks for clearing that up, I too was not sure if it was a mistake or not
Well.. sound through the manipulation of oscillatory waveforms, employing complex voltage-controlled oscillators (VCOs) and digital signal processors (DSPs) to synthesize harmonic structures. The core process begins with a phase-modulated waveform generator, which produces sinusoidal, sawtooth, or pulse-width-modulated signals as fundamental building blocks. These signals are then routed through voltage-controlled amplifiers (VCAs) and multimode filters-utilizing variable resonance and cutoff frequencies-enabling dynamic spectral shaping. Modulation matrices, governed by low-frequency oscillators (LFOs) and envelope generators, introduce timbral fluctuations and attack-decay-sustain-release (ADSR) dynamics, creating intricate auditory textures. Advanced synthesizers integrate frequency modulation (FM), phase distortion, and granular synthesis techniques, where time-domain waveform granules are reassembled into non-linear soundscapes. Additionally, digital systems incorporate waveguide synthesis algorithms, simulating physical resonators by iteratively solving differential equations for complex acoustic modeling. These processes are synchronized within a master clock’s latency-compensated signal path, ensuring phase coherence and harmonic alignment for precise sound design.
This is pure gold!!
Never thought of it as just sort of "reverse" compression as he says, making the quiet stuff louder. (Which technically is what an expander does, but that's a totally different conversation. I don't know that I've ever used an expander in my life.)
I think bringing the quieter bits up is "upwards compression" (at the same time as the peaks are being pushed down. An expander increases dynamic range by boosting the transients while reducing the quiet bits, a bit like a transient shaper that's set to boost the attack portion rather than the sustain.
"Slow attack - fast release", this is my usual compression approach too. As for "parallel compression", for some reason I like it better how it sounds when I do it the other way around: I compress with 100% mix, but gently and with relatively long attack times, so that the track can still "breathe", and then I may add a little bit of the dry signal to it.
Reverse style 🎉
Same!
Thats's the key: the parallel comp path needs to be fast attack and at least 2:1, if not high higher ratio. And threshold so that on lowest parts of the signal there's *no* gain reduction.
ie: the lower the signal, the more the two paths simply *sum* . Thus, lifting the low stuff judiciously also brings up overtones. ie "warmth". Good for adding density - *if* needed.
Andrew ends by saying slow attack / fast release, which sounds right to me. But almost every other YT instructional says very fast attack when doing PC. I think the point is to keep the natural transients on the original and beef-up the body on the secondary PC track, like he said, in effect giving you the possibility to lower your summed volume yet retain presence in a mix.
Gonna experiment with this! thanks.
Glad you dug it!
Parallel compression is to Blend... ❤️
Love it.
Maybe the takeaway here is that the mix engineer (whether he knows it or not) produces a mix based only partially on absolute guidelines. The rest is based on his aesthetic judgement. But the latter may change over time. Mr. Scheps, refreshingly, is quite aware that his constantly evolving aesthetic judgement plays a significant role.
Totally! We get into some of that in the full interview. They idea that fundamentals guide your learning and once you understand the tools you can break the rules. Ultimately what sounds good is good (Andrew quote). He also brings up that all of the educating he does helps him reflect on how his process has changed over time because he has to verbalize it to people on podcasts and in masterclasses. I hope you dig in on the full chat, it's a personal favorite of mine.
This guy is great ! 👍
One of the best. And a great hang!
He has transcended P. Compression.
I wish I could mix more, but it takes me forever to record stuff
Just so I'm clear, when Andrew says he hardly uses parallel compression anymore, does he mean he doesn't use his REAR BUS technique anymore? Or that he doesn't use parallel compression on the master bus anymore? Thanks a lot for sharing.
I took from it that he wasn't using less parallel compression overall. I should have followed up with that in the chat.
Hmm, the thumbnail is a bit confusing as Andrew meant "it doesn't matter what it sounds like IN SOLO" and not what it sounds like over all. The thumbnail is causing wrong thoughts.
good to hear that even scheps isn´t playing the loudness game anymore.
And he did win the loudness war. haha
@@progressionspod Death Magnetic. Horrible.
Took me some time to understand but always soloing stuff is just bs. The context is all that matters
💯 Mixing in context is the fastest way to increase quality and decrease amount of time spent. Once you understand that it's the sum of the parts your whole approach changes. I do think you need to do the solo thing until you understand that basics of mixing and how all the processors work, it's all part of the journey.
Yeap I need more busses on my console 😢
+50 points for having a console.
@ Did five mixes on it today, need one revision. Only has 4 busses but it does the job well 😀
The reason to keep a lot off of your mix bus, if possible, for me has mostly to do with creating stems (a label requirement) and also when moving to the Atmos mix.
For Atmos, I want to work with the stems; but those stems ideally should recreate the stereo mix with little deviation from the final master. If there is a lot on the mix buss, the stem creation won't react the same and the stem levels and dynamic reactions to compressors are incorrect. Otherwise, you have to go through some very complex sidechaining to create stems that react correctly to every step in the mix bus plugin chain. It's not easy to do correctly.
It's also a more proper, old school approach to mixing... where you know how to get the sounds at the individual track or group level... and not rely on an extravagant mix bus chain to hold a mix together. Frankly, that's a bit amateur-ish and indicative of people not really being that skilled at actual mixing.
For me, the ideal goal is that the stems combine to essentially recreate the final mix; and it's close enough at that point that any final mastering of the stereo mix is minimal.... maybe tiny EQ adjustments and final level.
That allows you to better match the Atmos mix to the stereo mix baseline without having to creatively and subjectively rebuild it.
While Atmos should sound more exciting and dynamic... if you venture too far from the stereo mix, it is highly likely either the artist or label will reject the Atmos mix for being too far off from the stereo version. You don't want to chase your tail in this stage.
Totally agree with all of this. The aggressive "top down" mixing approach that a lot of people are into is nearly impossible to stem out. I definitely have a fair number of processors on my mix buss, but they aren't doing the work. My stems nearly phase cancel to the mix.
In the full interview we touch a bit on the challenge of working on mixes that have been created with aggressive master processing. The files for mix never sound like the rough so you really need to find out what people were doing with the master to even get the balance back.
Thanks for jumping in and sharing! I hope you check the full chat out.
If someone hands you stems, you're going to change the mix anyways. So you put your own hot-sauce on it to your own tastes and go from there. It's a given that stems won't sum up to a full mix. They are stems, not the whole plant.
@@fakshen1973Nope. Sometimes the requirement is for the stems to recreate the final mix as closely as possible.
There is some creative leeway when creating the Atmos mix from stems. But listen to what I'm saying.
I love the kaleo stuff
Caveman said in the end it will double them up?????
He means the transients on the smashed track. He lets some transients poke out on the smashed track instead of "use fast attack to kill the transients on the parallel compressor" way, AKA "the right way of using parallel compression". Therefore, if you leave the transients intact on the compressed track (slow attack), when you blend it in with the uncompressed track, the transients on both tracks will double up.
@VinnieLeeStudio right, why would you want that?
There are no rules only good practice🤔
Blah Blah Blah Blah
My take in it too. Blabberish discussion back and forth.
Ive tried this whole stupid fad and its stupid and pretty usless i hate it and i can get way better sound without it. You must like crap if u wanna mix in a shitty version of a sound and think that sounds better smh yall are smoking crack all these so called modern technics are dumb and most dont work. I mix properly like Oldschool analog mix engineers and use minimal plugins and processing and my mixes sound light years more transparent, wider and cleaner than pretty much any one else. I mean he said it himself and ive proven it with my mixes. Everyone wonders how i do it and i tell them stop flooding ur mixes with usless plugins and learn how to use the tools of the studio properly dont just use it cuz it looks cool or everyone else uses it
Hardly a fad. It's been around since the 70s and was known as 'New York Compression' back then. It's a technique to achieve a specific sound/goal. Period.
Get a grip of yourself and grow up.
Where can I find your work, SantaAnaCreations?
Do you teach other people?