Hello, Oskar. I have recently gotten into music production. I'm very confused about sidechaining multiple tracks from one track. Is there a way to put one sidechained compressor on one track but then have that one compressor work on multiple tracks? Have you already made a video about this that I could maybe watch? By the way, you're my favorite producer/teacher on KZfaq and your videos have already helped me immensely. Thank you, from Portugal :)

@@thedarknight5714 I'm curious to hear Oscar's answer as well, but what I have done is use a separate, silent, very transient track to act as a trigger for multiple elements to be side-chained, to keep them all in sync. You can also route all tracks you want to be effected by one common side-chained compressor to a separate bus, before routing them the master. 💪🎶

@@thedarknight5714 I hope I understand your question correctly.. but I suppose you want one compressor ducking (sidechain compress) multiple tracks. If you make a group channel and put a sidechain compressor on it, you can route all the channels you like throught that compressor. grtz

@@qracle TBH I have no idea what a bus is or what it does (or how to route to a master XD) I've heard people mention it on many occasions but I've never seen anyone explain it. That's mia culpa, though. Thank you for the tip, man. :)

@@michaelleenen2634 Oh I actually already do that. Probably not how it's meant to be done though ha ha. I think that the other commenter's idea involving a bus is worth looking into, however. Thanks for the advice, bro. :)

Tell me about it

It's probably all in the mastering

@@Flux_One mixing

@@020halo both

@@Flux_One It all starts at production stage. Sound design choices , frequency balance, mix. Mastering is just to polish stuff that is already good

Well said 👍

Wondering or wandering?

@@AlexFarleyMusic Both:)! Loll 😁👍😎

Thanks for saying that! However, I’m only putting forward one argument for why 2 is best, it’s totally a judgement call and tastes differ, I think it’s just cool to be able to put words on it so you can make decisions that suit your taste!

The thing is though being an art it’s totally subjective and you can make what you want. Though if you had been shown the examples on a bigger system you may come to the same conclusion on 2 being the better more balanced mix. Still music is about making what you like and sometimes break the ‘rules’ is a way of coming up with something original and unique. I personally love reverb heavy mixes that break the rules on having the wet just there. Then I go can shape and side chain bits of the wet signal to make it work and not muddy up the mix. Breaking the rules then coming up with my own way of making work a d sort be back in the rules again. Trust your instincts I’d say and experiment. Sometimes though it’s worth checking and really analysing the mixes of who you aspire to and see what your missing.

yeah I immediately was like #2 is butter.

Cheers Kieran :)

@AD Shyn Would releasing various different mixes for various different situations be a practically-legitimate way of covering all of the bases? The pun was not intended. Surely, it's incredibly difficult to create one mix to rule them all. Could the time and effort spent in creating a "Phone Mix", "Club/Mono Mix", "Car Mix", "Closed-Back Headphone Mix", "Open-Back Headphone Mix", "Spotify Mix", "Audiophile Mix", etc. be viable?

@@TheValueOfN Really you want to just aim to mix your tracks to sound transparent & consistent on whatever they're played on, from little casual in ear buds to decent headphones, from "average" to good speakers; mix so it sounds as good with a subwoofer as it does without (if you don't low cut the "unwanted, often inaudible subs" in all the channels that contain them (EQ with spectrum shows us they're everywhere), it will totally mess up your balance and "frequency range", and a subwoofer (unlike average speakers, or in ear buds) will bring any "actually audible unwanted subs" right in your face (even though the same track "seems" to sound "fine" on systems with less low end range). An EQ with an analyzer (EG Fabfilter Pro-Q) will "visually show you" a lot of simple mix errors which will allow you more time to focus on things you need to "mix by ear". Throw an EQ on your master channel, look at the spectrum. Is it relatively flat, solid and loud? Or are peaks moving around like crazy with a lot of dynamic range? Is it showing way more low end than mids/highs (downward slope) even though it "doesn't sound overly bassy & muddy"? If so, you're gonna hear that on a system with more range, even if you can't hear it at home. As you mute/solo different channels, you constantly see how each one directly affects the master mix EQ readout (this way you can easily find that 1 element causing problems). I find (usually atleast) that if the spectrum on your master EQ "looks good", it will often sound good (purely EQ & levels wise) when you take it to other speakers. Even without "often essential" stuff like compression, just some careful EQ'ing and levelling can go a huge way. I like to put an EQ on more or less everything just to "probe/test" (put an EQ on 30 channels, and 28 of them WILL have unwanted subs, even sounds with zero audible low end, EG hi-hats, or singing birds); if I can't "hear" if it needs EQ'ing, I can "see" it. I think if we rely only on "visual mixing" we could lose the ability to "mix by ear", but if you use both together, mixing INO becomes so much easier!

🥰

Where exactly are the 2 shelves filters placed? Is it on the bass, on the kick or on the master?

the filter that youre sidechaining to the kick--is it a low pass filter or a high pass thats being engaged when the kick hits?

Cheers Blake 😁