Automation: How does one automate a rock track?

dav nagle

Automation: How does one automate a rock track?


So I am interested to hear from everyone how they will automate a rock track?

Is it important to keep the verses lower than the chorus and the bridge somewhere in between etc..? Come on lets have it!

LaVidaLoca

If it's been recorded properly, it wont need much automation - the musicians do that by playing the song the way they play it - with dynamics.

Personally I would only ever automate , say a lead vocal, to make sure it's always on top of the mix, or maybe for the same reason with a guitar solo or something.

I wouldnt have all the faders flying about the place.

trackmixstudio

Hi Dav,
I am mixing a few tracks for a band called ABAM on Saturday.
http://www.myspace.com/abamband
There will be lots of automation pushing and dropping out guitar layers etc.
The studio is only down the road from you in Blanchardstown if you want to swing by and sit in on the mix.
I did the track on their myspace and have just finished tracking 5 more songs.
They are amazing players and everything is super tight so the mix will be a mix rather than end editing and timing fixing session.
If you are interested in coming along let me know and I will make sure the band are cool with it. Some bands don't like people sitting in but I reckon these guys will be OK with it.
Michael
PM me for my mobile number.

dav nagle

trackmixstudio wrote: »

Hi Dav,
I am mixing a few tracks for a band called ABAM on Saturday.
http://www.myspace.com/abamband
There will be lots of automation pushing and dropping out guitar layers etc.
The studio is only down the road from you in Blanchardstown if you want to swing by and sit in on the mix.
I did the track on their myspace and have just finished tracking 5 more songs.
They are amazing players and everything is super tight so the mix will be a mix rather than end editing and timing fixing session.
If you are interested in coming along let me know and I will make sure the band are cool with it. Some bands don't like people sitting in but I reckon these guys will be OK with it.
Michael
PM me for my mobile number.

Amazing I PM you

studiorat

If the faders aren't moving your not mixin'!
When I started as an assistant we'd have the whole band sitting at the console each operating a couple of faders each all marked on the desk with pencil. Then the engineer would ask did we all get our bits right? then we'd listen back to see did the cuts and moves work. One of the bad things about using a computer where you move faders with a mouse is you can't move one fader up and another down without doing it in two passes.

I usually get to automation towards the end of a mix, then I'll listen to specific parts of the song and balance the parts for each part take a few notes and then automate.

frobisher

I can't quite tell from the original post if you are wondering if a finished stereo track gets automated? There are no rules but aside from fade ins and fade outs that would be rare.

Automation is one of my favourite things about PC mixing. It's really, really useful. It can be used to tweak levels on individual tracks to get them right were you want them. And despite half of the world being bamboozzled by millions of plug ins, mixing is essentially about putting instruments in their right place. Automation REALLY helps this. Although I find over the last while that I tend to put each constituent part of an instrument on its own track so levels can be set and left easily. But then again that isn't always the right thing to do.

It can be a good creative tool too. Often I've automated a pad, rythym guitar or drum machine hi-hat to move up and down to the beat or off beat where ever suits the section can sound super. I've also automated melodic guitar parts to move up and down in a way that a guitarist would never do but can sound really dynamic within a mix. It takes the ear. Automation is one of those things you should get to know well. As studiorat says it used to mean several passes trying to get all the fader pushes and pulls right now all you need to do is move a mouse a few times and you have it all!

dav nagle

Yeah I have a Digi 002 and the automation on the desk is great. I always automate. My question was how does one automate a rock track? What I should of pointed out in my thread was... are there any automation tricks in regards to pushing and pulling faders that can dramatically swish the sound one way or the other and perhaps is there any plug in automation tricks that people use that are extremely effective? You know, things that one may discover?


Cheers guys keep em coming!

dav nagle

studiorat wrote: »

If the faders aren't moving your not mixin'!


Does this quote essentially mean that in a mix everything should be automated even if just a touch?

PaulBrewer

Usually, taking it that you have good tracks recorded, my plan is get a good balance on the whole track.

Then add a bit of Automation , if needed.

Backing Vocals are a common one where the BV goes from a line of lyric to oohs and/or aahs. Usually they're much quieter and need a boost.

Or another example might be a break down or middle8 where the band drops out. The overheads might be too much there but right for when the band kicks in.

As is often the case simplicity goes a long way!

frobisher

dav nagle wrote: »

Yeah I have a Digi 002 and the automation on the desk is great. I always automate. My question was how does one automate a rock track? What I should of pointed out in my thread was... are there any automation tricks in regards to pushing and pulling faders that can dramatically swish the sound one way or the other and perhaps is there any plug in automation tricks that people use that are extremely effective? You know, things that one may discover?


Cheers guys keep em coming!

Swish?! As in from left to right or and phase effect of some sort?

dav nagle

frobisher wrote: »

Swish?! As in from left to right or and phase effect of some sort?

Well yes I am talking about the fact that if one can program a fader and push levels up and down surely there is some situations where you can create interesting level effects using automation? Cheers all!:)

studiorat

dav nagle wrote: »

studiorat wrote: »

If the faders aren't moving your not mixin'!


Does this quote essentially mean that in a mix everything should be automated even if just a touch?

Yup! even if its just for a word or a note of drum fill etc. If you don't have to move stuff through the different parts of the song you are using too much compression.

I remember someone describing a Mutt Lange mix session to me and he was telling me the console looked as if it was shimmering there were so many tiny fader moves going on. Automation of EQ etc on vocals also used on those sessions, though for that I just use another track or two.

cornbb

dav nagle wrote: »

Well yes I am talking about the fact that if one can program a fader and push levels up and down surely there is some situations where you can create interesting level effects using automation? Cheers all!:)

Its possible alright... when I used Cubase it was possible to draw in automation in the shape of different waveforms (square, saw, sine etc) so, for example, interesting rapid panning back and forth was possible. This wasn't really what automation was intended for though, a plugin designed for the same task would do a much better job.

On the other hand, if you are using a plugin synth/drum machine etc and the various parameters of that are automatable, some very interesting effects can be achieved by modulating attack times, filter cutoff frequencies etc.

PaulBrewer

studiorat wrote: »

dav nagle wrote: »

I remember someone describing a Mutt Lange mix session to me and he was telling me the console looked as if it was shimmering there were so many tiny fader moves going on. Automation of EQ etc on vocals also used on those sessions, though for that I just use another track or two.

Yes, Mike Shipley who mixes for Mutt spends up to a day on the Vocal ALONE on a Shania Twain mix....... and very successfully gets a human to sound like a singing computer

I'd rather spend my time on Boards.ie!

jtsuited

dav nagle wrote: »

Automation: How does one automate a rock track?


So I am interested to hear from everyone how they will automate a rock track?

Is it important to keep the verses lower than the chorus and the bridge somewhere in between etc..? Come on lets have it!

automate what in a rock track?
if you're asking for a general overview of automation, then Paul pretty much hit the nail on the head. Get a great (not good) mix going, then make your tweaks.
by the way if your planning on automating the level of one of your tracks DON'T automate the fader. Use some sort of gain utility plugin. this way you can move your fader anywhere you want and you'll still have your automation on the level.

The amount of mixes i've had to do where i spend the whole time deleting automation data on faders is unbelieveable.

frobisher

jtsuited wrote: »

by the way if your planning on automating the level of one of your tracks DON'T automate the fader. Use some sort of gain utility plugin. this way you can move your fader anywhere you want and you'll still have your automation on the level.

Good one.

dav nagle

frobisher wrote: »

Good one.

Very interesting, thanks

jtsuited

it's a mistake i've seen loads of people make. then they spend the rest of the mixing time, redrawing automation, and/or doing second passes. think it comes from the original marketing hype about motorised faders.

ogy

or bus your original channel to another channel (called a group channel in cubase, not sure about PT) that way you can automate the channel fader and have another fader to control the overall level.

frobisher

jtsuited wrote: »

it's a mistake i've seen loads of people make. then they spend the rest of the mixing time, redrawing automation, and/or doing second passes. think it comes from the original marketing hype about motorised faders.

What are you using to avoid this?

jtsuited

frobisher wrote: »

What are you using to avoid this?

well as i said before, some sort of gain/trim utility. or as ogy said, send it to another group fader.
personally i use the gain/trim option as i don't want to have too many faders active in a mix.

jtsuited

if you are looking for some sort of gain utility/extra fader thingy, this is the best one i've found.
sonalksis freeG

if you've got screen real estate to burn, this is proper handy!!:)

studiorat

I usually have the faders in a straight line when I'm recording, not always possible but it always gets me back to near a version of my working monitor mix. If I'm overdubbing for example I'll set the channel fader to zero and fit the sound into the mix that way. I did mention I seldom use solo?

You can of course set all your faders, automate a pass and then set your desk or DAW to trim mode, so all your faders are back at zero again. I prefer to have the faders in their relative mix position though as the visual cue of what sort of level I could expect the signal to be at. I also find it's easier when you are using the faders' actual log taper particularly when the faders are further down their track.

I don't really understand how it's easier not to delete plugin automation than it is fader automation, am I missing something here?

With an SSL or something the automation is stored after each pass, if you delete or change it by accident you can import that information back into the mix. It's also possible to do the same with Pro Tools assuming you are saving regularly or using auto back up.

ogy

I usually have the faders in a straight line when I'm recording, not always possible but it always gets me back to near a version of my working monitor mix. If I'm overdubbing for example I'll set the channel fader to zero and fit the sound into the mix that way.

Do you mean you balance the initial performance with the trim pots? I thought you should always get the hottest level you could without clipping going in? Does this only apply to when your layering everything one element at a time as opposed to recording a live performance plus overdubs?

don't really understand how it's easier not to delete plugin automation than it is fader automation, am I missing something here?

the idea is that you can have automation levels all relative to each other and a master level control to move all the levels relative to each other e.g. if you need to bring everything on the track down to avoid clipping at the master fader or something.

PaulBrewer

ogy wrote: »

Do you mean you balance the initial performance with the trim pots? I thought you should always get the hottest level you could without clipping going in? Does this only apply to when your layering everything one element at a time as opposed to recording a live performance plus overdubs?


.

Theoretically yes. However that idea was born in the Analogue age when it was all about Hiss avoidance!

The Rat's plan is common enough insofar as it's a musical decision as opposed to a technical one and probably applies more to an Analogue desk user.

I used to do the same thing when I used tape and a console. The gain to be able to skip between tracks and always have a reasonable mix far outweighed the minor signal to noise loss.

Gawd be with the days when we used line up the machine twice a day and clean the Heads every two hours!

jtsuited

studiorat wrote: »

I don't really understand how it's easier not to delete plugin automation than it is fader automation, am I missing something here?
.

in the analogue days it was slightly different as you could afford to be stickin the faders well up but in the digital domain, all it takes is one digital over and you're losing quality.

so when you have automation on a fader, and you decide to bring that fader slightly back in the mix, you have to redo the automation for the whole track. it's just easier to have your 'fader' automation being done on some sort of gain utility plugin so if you decide to bring that channel down in the mix you just adjust the fader and your automation (relative) to that signal's level is still there.

studiorat

ogy wrote: »

Do you mean you balance the initial performance with the trim pots? I thought you should always get the hottest level you could without clipping going in? Does this only apply to when your layering everything one element at a time as opposed to recording a live performance plus overdubs?

No. Mixing, I set my balance the way I want it and do a first pass into the computer so to speak. Then I set the automation to trim mode. This sets all the faders to a null point, usually 0dB. The actual fader level will be different but the fader knobs will be at zero. Then if I want to change a level I can just pull the fader a dB or whatever. This trims the level, but keeps the automation moves.
However like I said, I prefer to mix with an "absolute" fader level, because of the faders logarithmic taper. If something is set to say -30dB it needs a different fader adjustment than if the fader was set near zero. I just punch in to write, or touch in Pro Tools where I need to.

Setting recording levels to a optimum 0dB VU, was important when using tape to get a good signal to noise ratio. With digital it's not quite as important. So I usually define my level "to tape" by how it sits in the mix with the fader at zero. It's not always possible but, if there's any trade off in quality due to not using up all the bits or something it doesn't seem to bother me. Overs are a different business...

ogy wrote: »

the idea is that you can have automation levels all relative to each other and a master level control to move all the levels relative to each other e.g. if you need to bring everything on the track down to avoid clipping at the master fader or something.

Trim will allow you to select all the tracks and pull back the whole mix, still keeping the moves, cuts etc. Pro Tools also has virtual VCA groups for the same use.

studiorat

jtsuited wrote: »

so when you have automation on a fader, and you decide to bring that fader slightly back in the mix, you have to redo the automation for the whole track. .

Not true I'm afraid. Either punch in and out, or use a trim function. Or select the whole automation for the track and move the whole automation line on the screen.

jtsuited

studiorat wrote: »

Not true I'm afraid. Either punch in and out, or use a trim function. Or select the whole automation for the track and move the whole automation line on the screen.

edit: he is getting what i'm saying!. I'm saying that for convenience sake, if you use a gain utility, it means that you don't have to punch in or out automation/ redraw automation in the mix. it's a simple adjust the fader and the automation is left untouched.

trackmixstudio

In Logic, if you command click/drag the yellow level (or whatever is the selected parameter) meter on the arrange window just below the solo button on the selected track, you can move the level up/down and the automation moves relative to where you move.
Very handy if you have done lots of automation then want to push the overall level of a track a bit.
A gain utility will do the same job but this method is more elegant and negates the need for adding plugins.
This is kind of a hidden feature that would be hard to find.

jtsuited

trackmixstudio wrote: »

In Logic, if you command click/drag the yellow level (or whatever is the selected parameter) meter on the arrange window just below the solo button on the selected track, you can move the level up/down and the automation moves relative to where you move.
Very handy if you have done lots of automation then want to push the overall level of a track a bit.
A gain utility will do the same job but this method is more elegant and negates the need for adding plugins.
This is kind of a hidden feature that would be hard to find.

nice one man, it is indeed hidden. thanks!