I've been getting well into parallel compression rather than compressing the fuck out of the dry signal.
Group track for all beat related elements, kick, snare, hats, perc, breaks each of them parallel compressed to varying levels accordingly and then a bit of compression on the group track to gel it all together.
Overdo it and it'll sound guff but if you nail it they'll fucking SMACK!! Whoever said you shouldn't use compression is a rapist.
is to set a compressor *late in the chain*, with the ratio 30:1, and no attack; and then lower the threshold so that it limits the db's by 3 or 4 and flattens the beat (this is for simple breaks or for grouped drums bus). so that no attack comes through. effectively like a limiter. (Set the release and the soft / hard / vintage switch last of all to taste. Try and get it fairly transparent).
Now once that is set and the signal has been limited, lift the gain to return the dbs back to the original amplitude / to compensate for the limiting.
now set another compressor *just before* that limiter, and now use this first compressor with a low threshold and tweak the attack - letting some attack through. with an average ratio (4:1 - 8:1).
All this does is it helps you shape the dynamics, whilst keeping a tight grip on the amplitude. the amplitude will not jump around now. I find this helps to reduce the "glitch" effect caused by attacks. So what you're doing is in effect increasing the dynamics but at the same time keeping a cap on the dynamics.
I know this sounds really simple or obvious. but it really works, to get some fat beats. assuming you eq everything properly before and after etc and you know what you're doing.
It sounds really obvious but if you listen to glitchy beats they've definitely not used this kind of chain. essentially what youre doing is youre limiting the compression so that the beat isnt "spiky" apmlitude-wise with wild attacks; and yet you're still sculpting in some dynamics. You just get to choose the threshold over which the attack won't trespass.
if that made any sense to anyone. try it. really simple and obvious. but perhaps not necessarily so obvious. it took me years to actually know what WTF I was doing with compression! The reason I mention FLstudio is because the compressor is really simple but pretty transparent and responsive. But it would work with most. I don't know if it is peak or RMS, though.
basically, one can either add or remove dynamics with compression. But by doing the above, you at once remove *and* add dynamics. The limiter just helps you to tame / control the end result of the attack and ratio settings from the first compressor. It's like a self-contained microwave for your beat. Just remember not to change the gain on the first, "attack" compressor. That's the crucial point. Seeing as you already set the threshold on the limiter earlier, there is no need to alter the gain. It would ruin my tip. That is my tip. Limiter first. Then tweak compressor before limiter in the chain.
after the limiter do what you want. but it ruins the chain if you fiddle with the gain on the "attack" compressor. the whole point of the tip is exactly not to do so.
This thread has turned out to be a good read. Nice one guys.
Some usefull info here it seems. ( i say it seems as i am no expert)
I did put the same post up on doa, not much response but this guy did seem to have some good things to say, though i must say we should be proud about this forum, some great info and ideas from the bannana board.
Here is what this guy posted on doa incase some might find it useful.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Goodsound loads of things really, i find it so hard to give a set rule for drums, because it all depends on some many variants,
to get really heavy drums, you need to ensure that they aren't fighting for space in the mix or the arrangement,
no good trying to have huge drums if you're arrangement is full to the brim with other elements,
writing a bass line that works with and not against the drum track to create rhythm and space is key, something i seem to remember noisia being big on,
getting a good feel for where the sounds are hitting frequency wise, so you can boost where is needed to give the sounds more weight, or even take away from around that area,
and then getting compression right, or transient shaping, making sure the hits have the right balance of initial impact and body, and remembering that other elements of the tune can fill in the weight of the drums,
oh and the dynamics of the tune, i know people are going for that slammed out sound at the moment, but you can't overstate the importance of having a difference in levels between sounds and moments, if everything is always loud, you're never going to get an impact for the hits you wants to really stand out,
If it needs compression to punch through because its getting lost or its a shit sample then compress if it sounds ok and you cant tweak with EQ boost leave it is my outlook, works for me
fair play for bringing it up liquid alot of people have weak points and fear ridicule, but this is a production forum after all with some amazing talent on it where better to ask
I've been getting well into parallel compression rather than compressing the fuck out of the dry signal.
Group track for all beat related elements, kick, snare, hats, perc, breaks each of them parallel compressed to varying levels accordingly and then a bit of compression on the group track to gel it all together.
Overdo it and it'll sound guff but if you nail it they'll fucking SMACK!! Whoever said you shouldn't use compression is a rapist.
i think you can get much more weight in your drums by eq , the weight and dynamics of the drums are more dependant on the overall balance of the mix than just using compression as a matter of course.
Clip some drum hits, generally the easiest way to get chunkiness.
quote:
ORIGINAL: nature_of_technology
and once you have achieved this, you gotta worry about getting it done in the mix?
quote:
ORIGINAL: LaowaiAndGweilo
Not following you mate, please elaborate.
By clipping individual channels you're generating a considerable amount of digital distortion and this can make the whole mix sound cluttered up with everything fighting for space...
And when individual channels are clipping (thus causing disturbance data), you have to match their loudness by raising the other remaining channels thereby running the risk of your master channel starting to clip, too.
Maybe exporting the clipping sound and reloading it into the song will help circumvent this, as you can lower the volume while still having the distorted feel.
< Message edited by nature_of_technology -- 14/7/2012 3:47:54 AM >
TBH I have never really understood the fear many people have of distortion in dance music, its not like classical or jazz where you need to keep everything pure. DnB and dubstep are pretty heavy on distortion, without it they would sound pretty weak.
Back when everyone was using an Emu sampler it was pretty much commonplace to clip the hell out them on the way in, people have been doing this for many years.
You can end up with things fighting for space, but thats really down to getting the arrangement right so things aren't fighting for that space. If things are too loud there are always stage at which you can reduce the level later on, nearly every plugin that I use has an input and output trim, or you can bus channels and get level control later on in a chain.
Mr Cunt can expand infinitely more than I can, but it's commonplace to compress drums when they're recorded.
Ok....
Firstly lets deal with one point.
NO ONE (including me) is properly qualified to talk about how old records were recorded. They would have been recorded to tape which NO ONE here uses or indeed has used (I don't mean little Tascam 4 tracks, I mean Studer etc.)
Real tape saturates when overloaded which is a form of compression and no doubt forms a large part of the Skullsnaps sound as well as the LA2s used. Also, the manner in which the compressors were set up is very vague indeed so not enough info for me to feel I could then get that sound out of a kit with any given player in any given room. Just wanted to clear that up......
In my experience and from what I have learned from engineers more experienced than myself is that for the most part, if you're compressing single drums you are nearly always making up for some deficiency in the playing. It is far more common for the compression to happen on the drum bus or the mixbus. You can achieve extremely effective drum processing from just compressing the master. THE PLAYER AND THE ROOM are the single most important factors. This has more effect on the sound than any processing I can add.
Also, compression multiplies, not sums so if you're compressing the snare at a 4:1 ratio, the drum buss at 3:1 and the mix bus at 2:1 then the total compression added to the snare will be equal to 24:1 which is pretty much hard limiting. It's unlikely you will have a big chunky sound after all that.
Please no one take this as some sort of definitive guide. Do your own thing and don't believe everything quoted and requoted on the net.
I've been getting well into parallel compression rather than compressing the fuck out of the dry signal.
Group track for all beat related elements, kick, snare, hats, perc, breaks each of them parallel compressed to varying levels accordingly and then a bit of compression on the group track to gel it all together.
Overdo it and it'll sound guff but if you nail it they'll fucking SMACK!! Whoever said you shouldn't use compression is a rapist.
i think you can get much more weight in your drums by eq , the weight and dynamics of the drums are more dependant on the overall balance of the mix than just using compression as a matter of course.
Of course you have to eq everything in your drums group correctly so that it all sits right together, but by then compressing it all together you get that smashy sound that you just can't get without it.
I've been getting well into parallel compression rather than compressing the fuck out of the dry signal.
Group track for all beat related elements, kick, snare, hats, perc, breaks each of them parallel compressed to varying levels accordingly and then a bit of compression on the group track to gel it all together.
Overdo it and it'll sound guff but if you nail it they'll fucking SMACK!! Whoever said you shouldn't use compression is a rapist.
i think you can get much more weight in your drums by eq , the weight and dynamics of the drums are more dependant on the overall balance of the mix than just using compression as a matter of course.
Of course you have to eq everything in your drums group correctly so that it all sits right together, but by then compressing it all together you get that smashy sound that you just can't get without it.
the question was achieving chunky drums not smashed or squashed as i would call it.
But heavy drums smash you in the face because they are heavy, compared to light or weak drums. You have to squash something light a bit to change it from being sparse into chunky. But yes, overdoing it will fuck it up, you have to do it by the right amount.
ORIGINAL: F L Y the question was achieving chunky drums not smashed or squashed as i would call it.
"chunkiness"? isnt it relative - to how something sits in the mix. its all relative surely? sometimes a squashed or smashed drum as you say will sound "chunky" to someones ear, simply because of the illusion / the way it stands out more in the mix / is better mixed / has more snap / crunch / character. I don't think there is a universal median for "chunkiness". Chunkiness is in the eye of the beholder I dare say.
I mean, do you want boxy, or snappy, or what? my input on this thread is mainly aimed at taming transients and whipping a break into submission. one could argue that all breakbeats are already "chunky", and that nothing thus needs to be done to them. But where do you go from there? Leave them untouched? Don't mix them?
What you call smash or squash might be exactly what that break needs - relative to everything else - in order to coax out its "chunkiness". But chunkiness does not necessarily mean boxiness, or dry signal. Chunkiness in my eyes (ears) has a lot to do with tight transients, and a well-behaved db meter. Dry breaks arguably do not possess those qualities "automatically", as they were originally mixed down for another song. And so what you get when you use them dry are those residual dynamics. to "smash" or "squash" the break further just means you are harnessing those built-in dynamics, and re-sculpting them to fit your new song.
What you are insinuating is that the fattest break is a dry one. But where do you go from there? It won't automatically fit your project. It's likely that it won't. And dynamics processing, in my opinion, should be one's first stop. As much as EQing if not more. But it's a matter of taste as much as anything. I like crunched / smashed breaks - and to me, that is "chunkiness". Breaks like in Peshay, Miles From Home, the underdog remix. They are snappy and crunched. Not boxy. Not dry. That to me means chunky.
------------------------ (Uploading examples for Mr.Cunt)
I think this debate centers around "where heaviness lays" - whether in the low mids, in the mids, or tops - ...or ...in them all together. the argument for untouched breakbeats would say that "chunkiness" resides in the low mids, and that the mids and tops do not need attention. *my* argument would say that chunkiness resides in tight transients *throughout*; i.e., all the way through the frequency spectrum. highs, lows. mids. tops. which means using compression and eq.
note: the db meter generally stays around minus 1.5db throughout - for all the audio. the difference between the dry and processed versions is more noticeable at high volumes; you'll notice the difference between the "splashy" transients of the dry version compared to the tamed ones of the processed version. (please see the included text file concerning the "Corvett" break).
...
the main difference between the dry and processed is in A)perceived volume, and B)transient dynamics. (whether or not this counts as "chunkiness" is down to personal opinion. I'm just giving one tip of many).
cheers I hope the processed or dry breaks are useful
ORIGINAL: F L Y the question was achieving chunky drums not smashed or squashed as i would call it.
"chunkiness"? isnt it relative - to how something sits in the mix. its all relative surely? sometimes a squashed or smashed drum as you say will sound "chunky" to someones ear, simply because of the illusion / the way it stands out more in the mix / is better mixed / has more snap / crunch / character. I don't think there is a universal median for "chunkiness". Chunkiness is in the eye of the beholder I dare say.
I mean, do you want boxy, or snappy, or what? my input on this thread is mainly aimed at taming transients and whipping a break into submission. one could argue that all breakbeats are already "chunky", and that nothing thus needs to be done to them. But where do you go from there? Leave them untouched? Don't mix them?
What you call smash or squash might be exactly what that break needs - relative to everything else - in order to coax out its "chunkiness". But chunkiness does not necessarily mean boxiness, or dry signal. Chunkiness in my eyes (ears) has a lot to do with tight transients, and a well-behaved db meter. Dry breaks arguably do not possess those qualities "automatically", as they were originally mixed down for another song. And so what you get when you use them dry are those residual dynamics. to "smash" or "squash" the break further just means you are harnessing those built-in dynamics, and re-sculpting them to fit your new song.
What you are insinuating is that the fattest break is a dry one. But where do you go from there? It won't automatically fit your project. It's likely that it won't. And dynamics processing, in my opinion, should be one's first stop. As much as EQing if not more. But it's a matter of taste as much as anything. I like crunched / smashed breaks - and to me, that is "chunkiness". Breaks like in Peshay, Miles From Home, the underdog remix. They are snappy and crunched. Not boxy. Not dry. That to me means chunky.
------------------------ (Uploading examples for Mr.Cunt)
im not talking about " breaks" im talking about single drum hits, thing is a lot of it is down to taste and what you percieve as chunky, i wouldnt say dillinjas breaks were chunky i would say they were clangy and on the limit , i wouldnt say that the underdog remix of miles from home has a chunky break , listen to how thin the snare sounds .
do you make a song with just a single drum hit throughout, and nothing else? production is all about relativity. how one aspect interacts with another. having a chunky snare is all good and well - but is that your only instrument? is it the only thing in the song?
note: the db meter generally stays around minus 1.5db throughout - for all the audio. the difference between the dry and processed versions is more noticeable at high volumes; you'll notice the difference between the "splashy" transients of the dry version compared to the tamed ones of the processed version. (please see the included text file concerning the "Corvett" break).
...
the main difference between the dry and processed is in A)perceived volume, and B)transient dynamics. (whether or not this counts as "chunkiness" is down to personal opinion. I'm just giving one tip of many).
cheers I hope the processed or dry breaks are useful
the first just sounded like it had verb, the comodores and corvet sounded thinner?
ORIGINAL: F L Y ... i wouldnt say that the underdog remix of miles from home has a chunky break , listen to how thin the snare sounds .
this is what I meant when I said chunkiness is in the eye of the beholder. what is "thin" and "chunky" if not as relative to something else? if you have a clunky boxy snare and it muddies the mix then to me that does not count as chunky. "chunky" includes within itself *to me*, certain parameters other than just sheer boxiness. it differs from song to song. it depends on the sounds. I'm not sure there is an "archetype chunkiness". (As in: "This is the chunkiness". it does not exist. one has to be more specific. it is relative to the song)
im not talking about " breaks" im talking about single drum hits, thing is a lot of it is down to taste and what you percieve as chunky, i wouldnt say dillinjas breaks were chunky i would say they were clangy and on the limit , i wouldnt say that the underdog remix of miles from home has a chunky break , listen to how thin the snare sounds .
But all breaks are made from single drumhits. If you chose weak drumhits and then bounced down all the single drums over one bar into one piece of audio, you'd have a break, made from weak drum hits, equating to a weak break.
If you chose really chunky single drum hits in the first place you might end up with a chunky break, but those single drum hits that are chunky would've been compressed already.
Regardless of whether your drum track is made from single hits, or single hits someone already sampled into a break, to make the drums chunkier and fuller, you'll need to use compression OR use single drum hits someone already compressed for you.
im not talking about " breaks" im talking about single drum hits, thing is a lot of it is down to taste and what you percieve as chunky, i wouldnt say dillinjas breaks were chunky i would say they were clangy and on the limit , i wouldnt say that the underdog remix of miles from home has a chunky break , listen to how thin the snare sounds .
But all breaks are made from single drumhits. If you chose weak drumhits and then bounced down all the single drums over one bar into one piece of audio, you'd have a break, made from weak drum hits, equating to a weak break.
If you chose really chunky single drum hits in the first place you might end up with a chunky break, but those single drum hits that are chunky would've been compressed already.
it depends what your using, if your using for example a dry real snare why would you assume its compressed? also is a say a 909 snare compressed? thing is if we go all the way back to the first question i said dont compress because a lot of people compress as a matter of course without listening to see if its ok anyway without, the less processing you have to do the better, and he said he wanted chunkier drums so maybe he was using compression when he didnt need to.
You said "Use the correct drum hits in the first place and you don't need to use compression"
I'm saying if you want a "chunky" drum track, to not have to use compression yourself, you'd have to be using a drum hit that has been compressed in some way for you already.
You said "Use the correct drum hits in the first place and you don't need to use compression"
I'm saying if you want a "chunky" drum track, to not have to use compression yourself, you'd have to be using a drum hit that has been compressed in some way for you already.
Because otherwise they'd not have the right sound, they'd sound weedy.
You simply choose a different sample to one that's already compressed by someone else, rather than compressing yourself the weedy ones to make them sound heavier. That's all.
Because otherwise they'd not have the right sound, they'd sound weedy.
You simply choose a different sample to one that's already compressed by someone else, rather than compressing yourself the weedy ones to make them sound heavier. That's all.
just because a sound isnt compressed doesnt mean its weedy, far from it infact.
Printable Version
RE: Chunky Heavy drums. - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread