Do you use parallel processing in your mixing?

[crimsonwarlock]

Many famous engineers use some amount of parallel processing, or even a lot (like Andrew Scheps). Although it seems to be used primarily in rock and similar genres, where mixes tend to be rather dense (layered guitars, layered vocals, dense drum arrangements, etc.), I can see the benefits for other genres as well.

As Reason has the option to quickly setup parallel channels for mixing, it seems obvious to use these mixing techniques in Reason. However, this option and related mixing techniques are rarely discussed here, so I'm curious if you are familiar with these techniques, and if you are using them regularly, sometimes, or not at all.

I voted for the first option myself because I've replaced using sends almost completely with parallel channels for better control over mixing parts.

[dioxide]

Voted option 2. I have done this but results can sometimes be similar to applying the same effects as an insert, so I don't make a habit of it. Note that anything with a Wet/Dry control is parallel processing though, so here we're really talking about effects where it might be less common such as compression or distortion.

[guitfnky]

anyone who sets a plugin/processing mix knob to anything other than 0% or 100% uses parallel processing.

[crimsonwarlock]

...so here we're really talking about effects where it might be less common such as compression or distortion.

Indeed. I'm talking about techniques like setting up a parallel crunch channel for drums where you use compression, distortion, etc. and mix that back in with the original drum mix. Or setting up complex processing for vocals, like reverb into EQ, into some light distortion, and mix that in parallel to the vocals mix.

anyone who sets a plugin/processing mix knob to anything other than 0% or 100% uses parallel processing.

That is not entirely correct A mix-knob on an effect, like on a reverb, lowers the clean signal above the 50% mix, to get to a full wet signal. Level-wise, this gives a difference. Using sends is more like parallel processing, but sends are shared across all channels, where parallel channels are specific to a mix-channel or a bus.

[motuscott]

Many reverb units do not respond well to sponge bath.

[crimsonwarlock]

Many reverb units do not respond well to sponge bath.

[PhillipOrdonez]

Always

[Quarmat]

Not as often as I should :S

[crimsonwarlock]

[Przemyslaw]

I miss some option for "yes, I use it often...", between options 1 and 2. I use Reason Compression parallel in basically every song, but not super heavy. However, the mix button in various dynamic plugins is often between 5-90%. Recently I used the so-called "back mix buss" and it's an interesting solution.

[crimsonwarlock]

I use Reason Compression parallel in basically every song, but not super heavy.

I'd say that puts you into the first option But do you ever setup a parallel channel with one or more FX on it?

I'm experimenting with Andrew Scheps's rear-bus technique myself. As I basically don't use the sends anymore during mixing, I use a send to create the “rear-bus”. One thing to keep in mind is that the rear-bus compressor needs to be dual-mono, something that is often overlooked in the tutorial videos on YT.

[PhillipOrdonez]

Been using my own version of that rear end technique for the past few years on every mix I've done. Great results!

[Przemyslaw]

I'd say that puts you into the first option But do you ever setup a parallel channel with one or more FX on it?

I'm experimenting with Andrew Scheps's rear-bus technique myself. As I basically don't use the sends anymore during mixing, I use a send to create the “rear-bus”. One thing to keep in mind is that the rear-bus compressor needs to be dual-mono, something that is often overlooked in the tutorial videos on YT.

Yes, I selected the first option The number of FX depends on the track of course, if I'm approaching economically, I use zero fx inserts using only comp and filter/eq in the ssl mixer. Sometimes I use many fx tools so that it stops being a parallel comp track and becomes a parallel fx track. Sometimes I have problems with synchronizing the parallel track with the original one despite the Latency Compensation option turned on, at least it used to be like that, I don't know if it still happens, I'd have to check if any of you noticed it too.

[tomusurp]

I'm in the second boat. Sometimes I just forget it, other times I'll either use them on vocals, on the whole mix or specific busses or tracks that I feel might sound good with a beefed up sound like the bass or kick. Usually I don't like parallel on any synths or snares because I like those to be more supportive rather than stand out. And typically I compress and distort any parallels

[jam-s]

I really like to use PP to make vocals pop out of a dense mix and to give them some additional layers.

[Popey]

I use parallel processing in most tracks in some form, be it parallel compression or for fx with wet versions in Ableton group(like a combi) which I feed in to the dry single and modulate through a track. I usually have a couple of different fx lines on a single synth sound.

[crimsonwarlock]

[selig]

I'm experimenting with Andrew Scheps's rear-bus technique myself. As I basically don't use the sends anymore during mixing, I use a send to create the “rear-bus”. One thing to keep in mind is that the rear-bus compressor needs to be dual-mono, something that is often overlooked in the tutorial videos on YT.

If you’re talking about the SSL/quad bus compressor rear bus trick, then all four channels are linked to one mono gain reduction signal. It’s actually really easy to set this up using one compressor if you’re interested.

[mcatalao]

TBH, i don't feel the need to do it on everything. Sometimes i think that these super engineers say stuff like this just because they can. I'm sure they get together to drink some coffe or an apple juice and have fun on us mortals, like Dave Pensado and Andrew Shepps "ah i told those idiots i do PP on everything, and now they have to upgrade their pc's so it can handle 300 gazillion compressors and eq's... They even buy more of my plugins because i said they were great for PP, so more money in the pocket... Bozos".... LOL

Anyway, i just use my ears, I do PP if i feel I need it but i don't make it some sort of mantra or super important rule.

[crimsonwarlock]

If you’re talking about the SSL/quad bus compressor rear bus trick, then all four channels are linked to one mono gain reduction signal. It’s actually really easy to set this up using one compressor if you’re interested.

I had to Google for that and that's not what Andrew Scheps uses. His technique is based on his old Neve console, which has a second stereo bus, much like the SSL quad setup, but no integrated bus compressor. He sends everything except the drums to the second (rear) bus and compresses that bus independently from the main bus, and mixes this compressed signal back into the main mix. He uses an 1176 style compressor that has an unlink option, so the left and right channel compress individually from each other. In Reason I'm currently using The Mace, as it can work as a dual mono comp (it has the unlink option), but this can easily be done with two instances of any compressor in mono mode. As the rear-bus is basically a second mix or submix, this behaves identical to a send, so this is very easy to set up.

[crimsonwarlock]

Sometimes i think that these super engineers say stuff like this just because they can. I'm sure they get together to drink some coffe or an apple juice and have fun on us mortals, like Dave Pensado and Andrew Shepps

I take this as a bit of tongue in cheek, but to give credit where it's due, Andrew Scheps is very open about how he works and shows his actual mixing sessions where he explains things

[selig]

If you’re talking about the SSL/quad bus compressor rear bus trick, then all four channels are linked to one mono gain reduction signal. It’s actually really easy to set this up using one compressor if you’re interested.

I had to Google for that and that's not what Andrew Scheps uses. His technique is based on his old Neve console, which has a second stereo bus, much like the SSL quad setup, but no integrated bus compressor. He sends everything except the drums to the second (rear) bus and compresses that bus independently from the main bus, and mixes this compressed signal back into the main mix. He uses an 1176 style compressor that has an unlink option, so the left and right channel compress individually from each other. In Reason I'm currently using The Mace, as it can work as a dual mono comp (it has the unlink option), but this can easily be done with two instances of any compressor in mono mode. As the rear-bus is basically a second mix or submix, this behaves identical to a send, so this is very easy to set up.

Interesting, I asked because my googling has some saying SSL and some saying Neve. Can you explain why you prefer unlinked mono compressors, which tends to mess with the center stereo image?
Sounds like this is just “Motown Compression” (some call it NY compression). The SSL trick is actually pretty cool if you get around to checking it out.

[crimsonwarlock]

Interesting, I asked because my googling has some saying SSL and some saying Neve. Can you explain why you prefer unlinked mono compressors, which tends to mess with the center stereo image?

It is not my preference, it is Andrew Scheps's, and he used this technique on many famous and successful productions. Who am I to argue with that

Sounds like this is just “Motown Compression” (some call it NY compression). The SSL trick is actually pretty cool if you get around to checking it out.

Of course, NY-style compression points to parallel compression, so this is basically the same. However, NY-style compression is/was mainly used on specific parts of a mix, like drums or vocals (and Andrew Scheps does that also), but I've never seen NY-style compression named as a technique on the full mix (which doesn't mean it wasn't done, just that I never heard of it). The topic title is about parallel processing, and not just parallel compression. It also refers to running reverbs and other FX on parallel channels to get greater control over these signals. Andrew Scheps also runs (just) EQs on parallel channels. Another example is to have a parallel channel for the drum-bus and smack that one with distortion and mix that in. He is also one of those engineers who aren't concerned about minute technical issues like EQ phase shift: if it sounds good, then it is good... or as he put it, "The only thing that matters is what comes out of the speakers". A notion I subscribe to wholeheartedly

By the way, we discussed the emphasis/de-emphasis EQ trick here on the forum before (I posted that Dan Worral video about that). Turns out Andrew Scheps uses a similar trick for vocals, on a parallel channel, where he puts a compressor between two Pultec-style EQs.

[mcatalao]

I take this as a bit of tongue in cheek, but to give credit where it's due, Andrew Scheps is very open about how he works and shows his actual mixing sessions where he explains things

Well... It is a bit ironic but sometimes when we kid theres a bit of truth there. It is my opinion that you have to contextualize these "tips". Most of what Sheppps is doing the last 15 years is mixing very hard styles so a lot of these techniques can be wrongly applied in a lot of the stuff i do. Some of the techniques he talks about are even difficult to fully achieve in reason and these tend to create hotter, less dynamic mixes than I'm aiming to achieve. Don't take this as pedantic or that I'm ditching his knowledge. I'm just saying I wouldn't mix a Diana Krall album as i would a Red Hot Chilly Peppers one and he's doing more of the latter nowadays... Not thats bad per se, but I'd be more unterested in techniques Shepp used in Adele's stuff...

[crimsonwarlock]

Most of what Sheppps is doing the last 15 years is mixing very hard styles so a lot of these techniques can be wrongly applied in a lot of the stuff i do.

The things he mixes is right in my ballpark, so for me there's that

Not thats bad per se, but I'd be more unterested in techniques Shepp used in Adele's stuff...

His mixing techniques have evolved over time, especially since he moved completely ITB. But he always states that he mixes the same way no matter the genre or artist, mainly because of how his Neve desk used to be set up. His main techniques are aimed at having more dynamic control and I don't see how that would only be useful for heavy styles. Reason (I think) that many top engineers have copied his techniques.

Emulating his techniques in Reason is super easy, as everything is based on his Neve desk, and the SSL mixer in Reason has the same (or even more) functionality