this works but nothing sounds better than taking the time and just doubling it... that's just my own opinion though when you double it all it does is make it louder but doing 2 different tracks sounds better in my own opinion
@sblopez08 there is a different purpose for doubling than there is for parallel compressing. He is not trying to recreated a stereo sound from one guitar. Parallel compression is especially great for acoustics.
Yeah, it would be better to send to signal from the original track to an Aux send and compress that.
Also, instead of inserting a new EQ plugin and copy and pasting the settings (rather long winded) why didn't you just hold 'Alt' and drag the EQ plugin onto the new guitar track. This would copy the plugin and all its settings in less than a second....?
There is little good in duplicating tracks. For some reason, it's just much too digital. 2 mono tracks of same guitar, different eq and compression plug-ins on each is much better. As in, shaping your bottom mids and low with one, and high mids and treble with the other. Thanks for bothering though...
Or....... you could boost the lows and highs and leave the mids where theyre at, not scooping them. Thats what I do live to make stuff sound more full.
@Geetarfrik yea. that seems to be overall good for most people's ear. The nice lows to the chords and crunchy highs. That makes a smooth feel to the guitar track.
offsetting it a tad and adding a slight reverb to further change each track would add even more desirable thickness. Of course, actually physically playing another guitar track will always sound thicker.
Well for the average user it doesn't matter what you use because people usually don't know how to use ProTools well so it's all the same in terms of recording
BUT, for people like me, Pro Tools is absolutely necessary for top notch quality sound because I know how to manipulate all of it's features to get crystal clear, perfect sound
I've been doing a lot of A-Bing between Pro Tools and Cubase systems. They each use a different algorithm to bounce their files, and for me the Cubase algorithm has sounded better. I'm not just saying this as a promotion either. I'm primarily a Digidesign guy (having invested a few thousand dollars in racks, Pro Tools LE, and plug-ins), but as sad as it has been to come to grips with, I love both the sound and the setup of the Cubase system more.
@pablosalin i dont know what the resolution for the other DAWs are, PT 8 is 48 bit, reassuringly they have a white paper about it, if you are willing to accept some self promotion the paper is fairly informative, and is something that the other manufacturers should do as well.
@ScorchinBeats i use pro tools, sonar, FL studio right next to each other and i can tell you that they simply record audio as it comes in, how your DAW sounds is only going to sound as good as whats going into it.
However their audio engines are a little different in ways but not so much as to actually color the sound or make it sound any "better"
Biggest problem with this is if you make any edits on the original guitar track, you would have to do the whole copy region thing all over. Should have just split a send to an aux track and insert the compressor.
@AASteveo i think hes just trying to use parallel compression just with a smaller ratio...crank the ratio up for some punchier tracks...works great on percussion
hmmm you can play around with tricks like this if you must, but your much better off spending more time on the initial guitar tone, ie you shouldn't be recording a thin sounding guitar in the first place. If the source is good you can easily make it great with eq and comp without having to double anything... besides, its all about getting it to sit nicely in the mix and usually thats just capturing the essence of each instrument with nothing too big on its own, or the mix might be a real fight.
this is actually a common technique that even pros will use- i dont do it myself but i think the way hes showing u isn't 100% right- i think when done its to capture a frequency range you cant create with one but im not sure- i jus muck about with it till it sounds gd n it still sounds pretty professional lol
Why all the fiddling with creating another track, copy and paste settings, and worrying about pan and levels? What ever happened to duplicating the original track?
NOPE! Try this: record your guitar part (mono of course). Take your track and add a STEREO delay. Have the left side of the delay dry 0% and the other side completely wet 100%. Add a short delay and continue move up the time until it starts to sound like a delay. You want it to be long enough to give the track a lot of width but not long enough that you notice the delay. After that add your other effects and work it into the mix. Learned that from one of the best.
why playing with the phase by moving tracks or record it again... the point here is to fatten a sound without creating comb filtering or stupid phase shifting. The proper way would be to duplicate the track, putting the same plugins than the original and when it comes to the compressor you put it also on the original track but with a neutral setting so the tracks goes through the same delay of processing and boom! mix the second track with your fader. Done
don't see why it would go out of Phase, its the exact same track but in a different place. something will only go out of phase when the 2 wavelengths don't match up, since its the same track, it wouldn't (to my knowledge).
I copy it and set it slightly out of time with the original, and put one more to the level channel and one more to the right so neither channel is the same, but they both mix together nicely and makes it sound more dynamic.
Do you have issues with that technique, say if you are recording a guitarist who is not so good at recording in perfect time. Just that I have tried both techniques and once when I recorded doublt guitars, the second recording was slighty off time. It ended up sounding really good but if it were for a different song I don't think it would work.
You guys are missing the point...parallel compression isn't about doubling it is about smoothing out the dynamic envelope in a natural sounding way. It is a HUGE part of the east coast sound.
Why not just right clik on the name of the track and duplicate it. Then throw the compressor on the 2nd guitar track ... Or... Compress first then duplicate
Why didn't you just duplicate the track, and rename it. Then you don't have to copy the audio the EQ settings the volume and the pan. All you have to do is right click on the track name and click dupicate. BTW yes Mac does have a right click. Just go to utility settings on the Mac (the light switch) and set up the right click as secondary .
to send a pro tools session from one computer to another, you have to copy the session and all its audio files to like a usb pen or summin, there should be a folder in your computer somewhere for that particular session, that has all ur session info on it and ur session and also all the audio files and all that other shit, just click and drag the folder to the usb pen then you can transfer it to the other computer hope that helps you!!
Something not mentioned is that unless you have delay compensation, which you won't in PTLE, you'll want to also put the same comp on the original, just set to 0 threshold and 0 ratio.. otherwise you'll get phase issues because one track is being delayed by the comp.
Copy the whole session folder (including the session files, audio files folder, fade files folder etc etc.), anything that's in there, and then use any regular way of data transfer such as external hard drive swapping etc.
Too much digital distortion on that sound. Prefer using analog first and then move the makings to the digital world. Sounds better, a lot... I think. Opinions?
That's kind of the same thing really... Eventually you have to put it into the computer, but there's tons of Guitar Amp RTAS that a make that Guitar sound like whatever you want. Also this is way to much work for that beef up. I'd just take Izotope Ozone and put it through the tube a little. 10 seconds and bam, fattened up Guitar..
yeah I know. I was wondering why he did it the long way. Also if you hold option or alt and then click and drag the plugin to another track it will automatically bring the plugin over with the same settings
just let you know that with modern version of protools, to copy a setting from a plugin to another track, just keep pressed alt (on mac) and drag the plugin to be copied to the new track....done!
monstertunes is right, but the thing I prefer to do is to record 2 different guitars, pan them a bit and thats it - your sound is BIG :) Its like a chorus sound, i personally like that :) ... well, you can hear that there are two guitars but its not a trouble. Usually I pan the two guitars differently (eg. 70-30) and make the one which is closer to the center of the recording louder. This way the whole mix sounds lighter to me and I dont have the feeling of "too much" guitars in the "space".
select your piece of music from begginin to end, then you have to export as audio mixdown, then they promp you to a dialog box where you can select if you want .aiff, stereo, MHz etc..... it's pretty easy
in response to Crunk Soulja: pro tools people? pro tools is the most predominant and widely used recording software out to date.. but anyways, doing that is a really inefficient way seeing as you use up 4 tracks for a simple stereo sound..
I agree with the previous poster. Duplicate the track and then use parallel compression. HOWEVER, IMO, unless you're trying to put the guitar further back in the mix, this doesn't sound all that great.
IMO, a better way to fatten a guitar track is...
Duplicate the track, pull tracks down -6db, pan the original to 15 to the left and pan the the duplicate track to 15 to the right, and then add a 15ms delay to the second track. Voila
i don't know, maybe this is just a amateur move, but i record two performances (with guitar) and split them 100% left/right to create an illusion of stereo.
is this a better way? or just a useful tip on recording someone if they play sloppily and you're unable to get two of the same performances?
Not convinced to be fair. Just seems like a long winded way to explain parallel compression. Why muck about doing this when double tracking is free, sounds ten times better, and would probably take a fraction of the time and effort this took.
Well put; you seem to have a long-winded way of bitching about something so damed unimportant. Why fuk about doin' this when double-talking is cheap. Sounds ten times worse than an old nag, and would've taken half the life of the one you don't have.
double trackings totally different because its two different performances. Parallel compression is a dynamic track and a squashed track put together for some extra 'beef' if you like. Works very well on snares, kicks etc and over the whole drum kit
a while back there was pro tools free. but its discontinued and it only works on MAC 0S 8 and windows 98. You may still be able to find a download some where if you use those operating system.
you may be able to find a program for xp or vista so you can run programs for older versions of windows. but it may be kinda unstable with that.
i ve used the mbox for years. true, it's cheap. does the job. no head room for vocals though. eventually stepped up to a digi 003. should have done that years ago! so much more stable, more headroom, better sound.
i need a bit of advice-i got my guitar sounding awesome all the way at a good level but i was wondering during the solo would it be a good idea to make all the audio a bit quieter for the solo or something. im just having problems keeping it all at a good level but making the solo audable enough to be the focus. cheers
Try using a different EQ setting for the solo guitar. Boost some of the high-mids a bit; around 1-3kHz as a starting point. Sweep the boosted frequency while the track is playing and find the frequency that, when boosted, makes the solo guitar jump out in front of the mix. This will help keep your overall levels in check, since you're not boosting the overall volume of the solo guitar track.
Sounds like an EQ problem(make sure to cut frequencies that compete). Maybe panning issue? Also, the solo should be around the same level as the lead vocals. Good luck!
Look up "ducking" for side-chain compression. Basically you put a compressor on the rhythm tracks and it only kicks in when the side-chain (ie. lead) is playing... So whenever there is signal from your solo guitar, the rhythm tracks will lower in volume automatically.
I am a mix engineer at a pro level studio and I use parallel compression on a lot of things in my mixes. My favorite is on rock drums. Put the kick,snare, and toms into an aux with an 1176 or LA-2A plugin and smash the crap out of em. I'm talking about hitting em with a -20db average gain reduction at a 4:1 ratio (on the 1176). Then mix it in conservatively with the clean drum channels and stand back!!!
One isn't really better or worse than the other. It really depends on what features you like or what you're used to. Your interface's A/D (Analog to Digital) converters are what make the difference in sound quality.
Pro Tools uses it's own Plugin format known as RTAS - Realtime Audio Suite.
Most Virtual Instruments and plugins come with RTAS installers aswell as VST installers.
FXpansion do a VST to RTAS wrapper which works with a lot of plugins - Essentially allowing you to convert VST only plugins, to RTAS - Very useful tool indeed!
Using another Aux track to do this is just as good and doesn't take up track count or clutter your audio regions window. Also, if your gonna use another audio track, use the duplicate function on the original track instead of creating a new one and copying the manually settings.
i don't use Pro Tools but there should be either an export option or a save button (the save button mite only save as a pro tools file but u shud be able 2 chage it)
would it not have been more efficient to use parallel compression on an auxiliary send? I've never been able to tell the difference between parallel compression and normal compression anyway, specially not in this video.
haha dude first off, logic 8 is a song writers tool, pro tools is an engineers tool. yes, but are used in the industry and yes both are aweosome. i have logic 8 and pro tools HD. pro tools is about 9 million times better.
Um no, they're just used a little differently, Pro Tools is an industry standard, my point being Logic 8 is not a Pro Tools "killer" i have to agree with guitargy861, Pro Tools, so much better.
If ya want to get a nice wide hudge stereo image of the guitar in that video u should also try to do the exact same thing buddy just did but instead of putting compression on it, pan both tracks hard left and right and nudge one of the tracks a tiny tiny bit untill you have fine tuned the stereo image, it will sound nice and big and wide and you wont waste too much dB
you can infact get a copy of the protools software free from alot of torrent sites but it wont work unless you have the digidesign hardware to use it with.
hi,Pro tools come with BFD drums sound. and i got the upgrade version but after i install them in i cant use them in Pro Tools i can click on the file and hear them in winamp. but not the plug in of pro tools. what should i do?? HELPPP
my protool came with BFD. and i got the BFD/XFL upgrade version. how do i get it to work together? i alrady install the upgrade version but when i went in the protool plug in it don't have the new sound that i installed. What should i do?
If you just bus it to an aux channel, you are only adding upward compression.....thats different than parrallel compression....read about the two and you will have a better understanding
it never ceases to amaze me how much some people can do, it's easy to think that people who can use music technology are too lazy to learn to make their own music, but seeing stuff like this makes u realize how much there is to learn.
I am but a humble musician, i'm desperate to learn this kinda stuff, anyone got advice on how to get started?
some good tips here, but it's generally better to replay the part instead of just copying it. You won't play the parts exactly the same both times, so you'll build more of a wall of guitar.
totally true.... but why not use parallel compression on both... that way you get the volume of the compressed track with out losing the dynamics... also as said above... I'd use a bus instead of duping the track.
i've used most of the famous mixing and mastering software ,they sound great on my home system but when i post my song on youtube or myspace i'm extremely disappointed.
YouTube and Myspace add compression to your files in order to keep the streaming light. Any kind of compression affects the final quality of your sound.
have you mastered your tracks, if your just exporting straight from you mix without mastering what your hereing in pro tools isnt what your end result will be for example, very low in volume
The best way to fatten it up is just to record 2 separate takes. But i suppose if you didnt do that and your job is just to mix then this is a good solution,
Wouldnt it be more effective to just double the recording? That's what i do, clean or distorted always come out with a real fat sound and those little milliseconds of being off are what make the difference.
its always better to double a guitar by recording two tracks and not just copy it and move a little to the side
Noahshollow 4 months ago 2
@Noahshollow Right on brother. It takes extra effort but the results always outshine the other methods.
MilosDorian 3 months ago
@Noahshollow do you mean recording two tracks at the same time or play through the song twice?
Chubzter15 5 days ago
Mike Shinoda using this xD
LeafMaster510 5 months ago
this is not parallel compression....
glassprison01 8 months ago
this works but nothing sounds better than taking the time and just doubling it... that's just my own opinion though when you double it all it does is make it louder but doing 2 different tracks sounds better in my own opinion
sblopez08 9 months ago 7
@sblopez08 there is a different purpose for doubling than there is for parallel compressing. He is not trying to recreated a stereo sound from one guitar. Parallel compression is especially great for acoustics.
oldrockrock 8 months ago
Yeah, it would be better to send to signal from the original track to an Aux send and compress that.
Also, instead of inserting a new EQ plugin and copy and pasting the settings (rather long winded) why didn't you just hold 'Alt' and drag the EQ plugin onto the new guitar track. This would copy the plugin and all its settings in less than a second....?
TheDJPCol 1 year ago 4
to fat up THAT guitar the best deal would be to sound scan it in melodyne, and repatch the midi file with an overdriven les paul standard... sheesh!
gwb911 1 year ago
Couldn't you just duplicate the first guitar track then add compression to the copy?
Muddyw67 1 year ago
is the drums and the base from the pro tools?
BMadd7 1 year ago
this is good if you have only one input on your setup but if you really want a 'fat' guitar sound use multiple mics....pan them...eq...etc...
J4wsome 1 year ago
There is little good in duplicating tracks. For some reason, it's just much too digital. 2 mono tracks of same guitar, different eq and compression plug-ins on each is much better. As in, shaping your bottom mids and low with one, and high mids and treble with the other. Thanks for bothering though...
Mozaeous 1 year ago
Or....... you could boost the lows and highs and leave the mids where theyre at, not scooping them. Thats what I do live to make stuff sound more full.
Geetarfrik 1 year ago
@Geetarfrik yea. that seems to be overall good for most people's ear. The nice lows to the chords and crunchy highs. That makes a smooth feel to the guitar track.
blo0magic 1 year ago
Comment removed
ErliNibzBeats 1 year ago
offsetting it a tad and adding a slight reverb to further change each track would add even more desirable thickness. Of course, actually physically playing another guitar track will always sound thicker.
scorchedsound 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
Preeemo 2 years ago
that was kinda cool. no compression on the original guitar ?? right ? a cheap way is to send that guitar to an aux with a less than 30ms delay.
yea pro-tools actually doesnt have the cleanest mixer but are YOU gonna know the difference? ?
DannyOFtod 2 years ago
Does pro tools REALLY sound better than Cubase/sampltiude etc?
ScorchinBeats 2 years ago
I used protools for years on a roomates machine. I have CUbase4 now and there isn't much difference for the average user.
cubase/samplitude/cakewalk will never compete with a huge studio protools HD system, but when are you gonna buy one of those?
waterkeeper03 2 years ago
Well for the average user it doesn't matter what you use because people usually don't know how to use ProTools well so it's all the same in terms of recording
BUT, for people like me, Pro Tools is absolutely necessary for top notch quality sound because I know how to manipulate all of it's features to get crystal clear, perfect sound
DopeMC209 2 years ago
I've been doing a lot of A-Bing between Pro Tools and Cubase systems. They each use a different algorithm to bounce their files, and for me the Cubase algorithm has sounded better. I'm not just saying this as a promotion either. I'm primarily a Digidesign guy (having invested a few thousand dollars in racks, Pro Tools LE, and plug-ins), but as sad as it has been to come to grips with, I love both the sound and the setup of the Cubase system more.
catchtherabbitmusic 2 years ago
no.. no one is better than the other... the best one is the one you understand and the one you are used to
pablosalin 2 years ago 8
@pablosalin i dont know what the resolution for the other DAWs are, PT 8 is 48 bit, reassuringly they have a white paper about it, if you are willing to accept some self promotion the paper is fairly informative, and is something that the other manufacturers should do as well.
tongueboy500 1 year ago
@ScorchinBeats i use pro tools, sonar, FL studio right next to each other and i can tell you that they simply record audio as it comes in, how your DAW sounds is only going to sound as good as whats going into it.
However their audio engines are a little different in ways but not so much as to actually color the sound or make it sound any "better"
iNcReDaBEATZ 2 years ago
@ScorchinBeats y... it does
xPaulHeinex 2 years ago
Biggest problem with this is if you make any edits on the original guitar track, you would have to do the whole copy region thing all over. Should have just split a send to an aux track and insert the compressor.
AASteveo 2 years ago 48
Grouping the regions would be easier in my opinion
TheStompbox 2 years ago
simply do all your edits first =) @AASteveo
Ringo2k7 1 year ago
@AASteveo or you can do all your editing first on the track then clone it ...
robvk6 1 year ago
@AASteveo i think hes just trying to use parallel compression just with a smaller ratio...crank the ratio up for some punchier tracks...works great on percussion
bo0mk1d 1 year ago
@AASteveo By the time your mixing you should have finished your edits anyway. or just group the tracks and in most DAW's the edits will work for both
revrsng 10 months ago
hmm... why make a copy, is using an aux send a copy through bus makes any differences?
Cheers
Tejoz 2 years ago
hmmm you can play around with tricks like this if you must, but your much better off spending more time on the initial guitar tone, ie you shouldn't be recording a thin sounding guitar in the first place. If the source is good you can easily make it great with eq and comp without having to double anything... besides, its all about getting it to sit nicely in the mix and usually thats just capturing the essence of each instrument with nothing too big on its own, or the mix might be a real fight.
haynesmachine 2 years ago 4
this is actually a common technique that even pros will use- i dont do it myself but i think the way hes showing u isn't 100% right- i think when done its to capture a frequency range you cant create with one but im not sure- i jus muck about with it till it sounds gd n it still sounds pretty professional lol
ComplexIntelligence 2 years ago
well that sounds muddy as hell.
khaosparty 2 years ago
Why all the fiddling with creating another track, copy and paste settings, and worrying about pan and levels? What ever happened to duplicating the original track?
shift+option+D, it'll take like 2 seconds
nick5105 2 years ago 6
NOPE! Try this: record your guitar part (mono of course). Take your track and add a STEREO delay. Have the left side of the delay dry 0% and the other side completely wet 100%. Add a short delay and continue move up the time until it starts to sound like a delay. You want it to be long enough to give the track a lot of width but not long enough that you notice the delay. After that add your other effects and work it into the mix. Learned that from one of the best.
fvallejo2 2 years ago
yea thats a good trick :D
ibl33d 2 years ago
why playing with the phase by moving tracks or record it again... the point here is to fatten a sound without creating comb filtering or stupid phase shifting. The proper way would be to duplicate the track, putting the same plugins than the original and when it comes to the compressor you put it also on the original track but with a neutral setting so the tracks goes through the same delay of processing and boom! mix the second track with your fader. Done
LittleNemoTheDreamer 2 years ago
hi people can someone professionist man tell me which recording and making music software is the best? what about cubase is it really good? thx!
alemon22 2 years ago
Works very well with drums too.
purplemonkeyelephant 2 years ago
Does it becomes out of phase, when you copy an exact region? or that's only while recording?
metalpraxis 2 years ago
don't see why it would go out of Phase, its the exact same track but in a different place. something will only go out of phase when the 2 wavelengths don't match up, since its the same track, it wouldn't (to my knowledge).
slayer987633 2 years ago
Well, that depends. See if your in grid mode, you would have to match the exact increments of the other guitar track to make it sound in time.
Metalunited101 2 years ago
wow double a track and add compresion, amazing. can have my two minutes back
skipstalforce 2 years ago 110
Just try it! You'll be amazed.
magicguy218 2 years ago
I do it too... But I do not copy the audio track, I record it again because it sounds more realistic and wider...
waynegacy666 2 years ago 6
I copy it and set it slightly out of time with the original, and put one more to the level channel and one more to the right so neither channel is the same, but they both mix together nicely and makes it sound more dynamic.
SeanSM92 2 years ago
Do you have issues with that technique, say if you are recording a guitarist who is not so good at recording in perfect time. Just that I have tried both techniques and once when I recorded doublt guitars, the second recording was slighty off time. It ended up sounding really good but if it were for a different song I don't think it would work.
Jezzibrum 2 years ago
You guys are missing the point...parallel compression isn't about doubling it is about smoothing out the dynamic envelope in a natural sounding way. It is a HUGE part of the east coast sound.
horngod420 2 years ago
@skipstalforce our two minutes and fifty eight seconds !!!
frambook 9 months ago
it´s called New York compresion..you can use thin in all file if you want more "pumping".
Rayyarhs 2 years ago
this is too much work....
Why not just right clik on the name of the track and duplicate it. Then throw the compressor on the 2nd guitar track ... Or... Compress first then duplicate
LOL I simplified this video in less than 30 sec.
Candice125 2 years ago 6
That track is mono! Stereo is the way to go. Two mics! Two Inputs.
Eliteguitarschool 2 years ago
as you can see, he pans the guitar.
I assume this is because the track is in stereo but he is only demonstrating with the right monitor.
googletubgirl 2 years ago
no its recorded Mono but mixed in stereo
sweepxcore 2 years ago
Save it to a flash drive.
Eliteguitarschool 2 years ago
Why didn't you just duplicate the track, and rename it. Then you don't have to copy the audio the EQ settings the volume and the pan. All you have to do is right click on the track name and click dupicate. BTW yes Mac does have a right click. Just go to utility settings on the Mac (the light switch) and set up the right click as secondary .
olampa 2 years ago
to send a pro tools session from one computer to another, you have to copy the session and all its audio files to like a usb pen or summin, there should be a folder in your computer somewhere for that particular session, that has all ur session info on it and ur session and also all the audio files and all that other shit, just click and drag the folder to the usb pen then you can transfer it to the other computer hope that helps you!!
ryanozzborne 2 years ago
Something not mentioned is that unless you have delay compensation, which you won't in PTLE, you'll want to also put the same comp on the original, just set to 0 threshold and 0 ratio.. otherwise you'll get phase issues because one track is being delayed by the comp.
drlove6977 2 years ago
Can anybody explain in 'simple english' how I can send a Pro Tools session from one computer to another?
I have recorded my arrangement in midi and audio. In 'simple english' though?
MGAVBRACE 2 years ago
Copy the whole session folder (including the session files, audio files folder, fade files folder etc etc.), anything that's in there, and then use any regular way of data transfer such as external hard drive swapping etc.
phillbagg 2 years ago
Its simple. get a Blank DVD-R or a jump drive and copy the protools session on to it then plug it in your other computer and open it in protools
9255905 2 years ago 2
Just be sure you bring your audio files along as well!
airburst88 2 years ago
import session data
HoboCabbage 2 years ago
Too much digital distortion on that sound. Prefer using analog first and then move the makings to the digital world. Sounds better, a lot... I think. Opinions?
tombration 2 years ago
That's kind of the same thing really... Eventually you have to put it into the computer, but there's tons of Guitar Amp RTAS that a make that Guitar sound like whatever you want. Also this is way to much work for that beef up. I'd just take Izotope Ozone and put it through the tube a little. 10 seconds and bam, fattened up Guitar..
Chatty707 2 years ago
it's the gtr amp
olampa 2 years ago
just do duplicate track and it will copy all the settings
deadgent 2 years ago 3
yeah I know. I was wondering why he did it the long way. Also if you hold option or alt and then click and drag the plugin to another track it will automatically bring the plugin over with the same settings
Chatty707 2 years ago
just let you know that with modern version of protools, to copy a setting from a plugin to another track, just keep pressed alt (on mac) and drag the plugin to be copied to the new track....done!
.
italianguitar 2 years ago
Wouldn't be easier/faster to just duplicate the track instead of copying the audio and paste to a new track?
Mind that I haven't used PT in a while so I don't remember if it does have a duplicate command
mac2k2020 2 years ago
yah it still has the duplicate feature
eyepatchinc 2 years ago
this is called stem compression
theendcredits 3 years ago
what youre doing is called "Stem Compression"
theendcredits 3 years ago
if you hold option and drag the insert it will just copy to wherever you drag it.. instead of going in and copying the preset
theendcredits 3 years ago
monstertunes is right, but the thing I prefer to do is to record 2 different guitars, pan them a bit and thats it - your sound is BIG :) Its like a chorus sound, i personally like that :) ... well, you can hear that there are two guitars but its not a trouble. Usually I pan the two guitars differently (eg. 70-30) and make the one which is closer to the center of the recording louder. This way the whole mix sounds lighter to me and I dont have the feeling of "too much" guitars in the "space".
kriszpaul 3 years ago
thats what i do as well
kyle122388 2 years ago
when you are done making the music how do you save it so it could be an audio file?
BlueSkullProductions 3 years ago
select your piece of music from begginin to end, then you have to export as audio mixdown, then they promp you to a dialog box where you can select if you want .aiff, stereo, MHz etc..... it's pretty easy
ollisto 3 years ago
i thought it was just file/bounce to disk (the highlighted region)
texdaddy123 3 years ago
The BEST way to thicken your guitar sound is to quad track.
Record the same riff or whatever 4 times( DON'T Copy + Paste, record it manually 4 times) then pan the tracks:
Track 1: 100% Left
Track 2: 100% Right
Track 3: 65% Left
Track 4: 65% Right
Then route them to a group channel (or whatever you Pro tools people call it, haha) and compress it.
CrunkSoulja 3 years ago
Agree!
NEWSFLASHDRUMMER 3 years ago
in response to Crunk Soulja: pro tools people? pro tools is the most predominant and widely used recording software out to date.. but anyways, doing that is a really inefficient way seeing as you use up 4 tracks for a simple stereo sound..
theendcredits 3 years ago
I agree with the previous poster. Duplicate the track and then use parallel compression. HOWEVER, IMO, unless you're trying to put the guitar further back in the mix, this doesn't sound all that great.
IMO, a better way to fatten a guitar track is...
Duplicate the track, pull tracks down -6db, pan the original to 15 to the left and pan the the duplicate track to 15 to the right, and then add a 15ms delay to the second track. Voila
monstertunes 3 years ago 8
i agree...
LostProphet03 3 years ago 5
just use a stereo delay on the single track with one at 0ms and the other at 15ms, and adjust the stereo panning!
spongah 3 years ago
i don't know, maybe this is just a amateur move, but i record two performances (with guitar) and split them 100% left/right to create an illusion of stereo.
is this a better way? or just a useful tip on recording someone if they play sloppily and you're unable to get two of the same performances?
soundslikesally 3 years ago
You could just use a stereo delay for that
AskMicB 3 years ago
why dont u just duplicate the whole track and then add the compression? wouldn't tht be faster
tubedudes 3 years ago 10
im pretty sure u cant do that, it needs two seperate sound waves
jimtheguitarfreak 3 years ago
Not convinced to be fair. Just seems like a long winded way to explain parallel compression. Why muck about doing this when double tracking is free, sounds ten times better, and would probably take a fraction of the time and effort this took.
McnikkyT 3 years ago
Well put; you seem to have a long-winded way of bitching about something so damed unimportant. Why fuk about doin' this when double-talking is cheap. Sounds ten times worse than an old nag, and would've taken half the life of the one you don't have.
hartistry1957 3 years ago
now that was just dam unneccassary
jimtheguitarfreak 3 years ago
double trackings totally different because its two different performances. Parallel compression is a dynamic track and a squashed track put together for some extra 'beef' if you like. Works very well on snares, kicks etc and over the whole drum kit
indicaproject 3 years ago
I use this with drums all the time, but can it be done with vocals? has anyone tried that?
AskMicB 3 years ago
Double tracking? I double track nearly all my vocals unless the vocalist is particularly gifted.
BonzoMuse 3 years ago
I heard that theres a free version of ProTools, can anyone onfirm?
c0rnch0p 3 years ago
a while back there was pro tools free. but its discontinued and it only works on MAC 0S 8 and windows 98. You may still be able to find a download some where if you use those operating system.
you may be able to find a program for xp or vista so you can run programs for older versions of windows. but it may be kinda unstable with that.
blinklover2 3 years ago
you still need hardware interface to open pro tools, so even if pro tools was free you need digi hardware to run it
chuckawobbly 3 years ago 7
faster way to copy the EQ settings to the other track: hold option, then click and drag the plug in to the other track.
xplicit666 3 years ago 2
how do you get the guitar on the computer? (i've never used this program) do you use something to connect the guitar?
Shun101010 3 years ago
you plug it into your interface!
dngl21 3 years ago
the cheapest thing on a micro budget and with good results is an mbox
soundslikesally 3 years ago
i ve used the mbox for years. true, it's cheap. does the job. no head room for vocals though. eventually stepped up to a digi 003. should have done that years ago! so much more stable, more headroom, better sound.
voteforgoat 2 years ago
which software is this
mehran133 3 years ago
pro tools
Gredran 3 years ago 2
i need a bit of advice-i got my guitar sounding awesome all the way at a good level but i was wondering during the solo would it be a good idea to make all the audio a bit quieter for the solo or something. im just having problems keeping it all at a good level but making the solo audable enough to be the focus. cheers
derangedband 3 years ago
Try using a different EQ setting for the solo guitar. Boost some of the high-mids a bit; around 1-3kHz as a starting point. Sweep the boosted frequency while the track is playing and find the frequency that, when boosted, makes the solo guitar jump out in front of the mix. This will help keep your overall levels in check, since you're not boosting the overall volume of the solo guitar track.
andrewt248 3 years ago
Sounds like an EQ problem(make sure to cut frequencies that compete). Maybe panning issue? Also, the solo should be around the same level as the lead vocals. Good luck!
Loutube2006 3 years ago
u can do whatever u want in edit mode, but i advice u to record as much dynamic range as u can( ofc without distortion).
haxhimergja 3 years ago
Look up "ducking" for side-chain compression. Basically you put a compressor on the rhythm tracks and it only kicks in when the side-chain (ie. lead) is playing... So whenever there is signal from your solo guitar, the rhythm tracks will lower in volume automatically.
phillbagg 2 years ago
Where do you find Pro Tools?
BlackLegion1994 3 years ago
Guitar Center's pro audio department has Pro Tools. Sweetwater is a good place to check out Pro Tools gear, too.
andrewt248 3 years ago
I am a mix engineer at a pro level studio and I use parallel compression on a lot of things in my mixes. My favorite is on rock drums. Put the kick,snare, and toms into an aux with an 1176 or LA-2A plugin and smash the crap out of em. I'm talking about hitting em with a -20db average gain reduction at a 4:1 ratio (on the 1176). Then mix it in conservatively with the clean drum channels and stand back!!!
andrewt248 3 years ago
I heard you need some hardware to use this program, is it true? Or do you just need the program and a line in jack or a microphone?
Thanks!
XianXiuHong 3 years ago
Yeah you need a Pro Tools compatible audio interface.
LimitlessStudios 3 years ago
unless you have a good audio card you will need an interface between your pc and instrument try m-audio fast track pro or line 6 ux2
vitorp69 3 years ago
hey, would a tone port gx interface work ??
regards.
apophis84 3 years ago
whats better, pro tools or sonar cakewalk?
kissandcontrolXXX 3 years ago
i find pt easier
CVholik 3 years ago
lucky you! =)) IMO - Snar is easier but...but all of us are damn different! both are nice though
twangeste 3 years ago
One isn't really better or worse than the other. It really depends on what features you like or what you're used to. Your interface's A/D (Analog to Digital) converters are what make the difference in sound quality.
andrewt248 3 years ago
does pro tools work with MPK 49??
Trapz47 3 years ago
what are you using windows movie maker???or plizz tell my
sanisparkour 3 years ago
your voice is very calming :)
poqo1 3 years ago 2
distortion: nice and nice in one package.
Dennemark 3 years ago
does protools support vst plugins such as stenbergs hypersonic ... ???
fidel11 3 years ago
Pro Tools uses it's own Plugin format known as RTAS - Realtime Audio Suite.
Most Virtual Instruments and plugins come with RTAS installers aswell as VST installers.
FXpansion do a VST to RTAS wrapper which works with a lot of plugins - Essentially allowing you to convert VST only plugins, to RTAS - Very useful tool indeed!
dbage46 3 years ago
No. Pro Tools only uses RTAS. However, you can get a VST to RTAS converter easily.
I am trained and certified with Pro Tools. That being said, I am not at all a PT fanboy. I use Sonar 99% of the time. I just like Sonar better.
BUT I do like Pro Tools, a little. And the fact is that it is the industry standard, so its important to stay sharp with it.
All audio software is the same. Every car gets from A to B.
Digidesign will charge you $500 for OMF support though! My single biggest beef!>:(
johnnyd83 3 years ago
SONY SOUND FORGE MUCH BETTER
MasterPlan201 3 years ago
LOL
ryanjwebb 3 years ago
Using another Aux track to do this is just as good and doesn't take up track count or clutter your audio regions window. Also, if your gonna use another audio track, use the duplicate function on the original track instead of creating a new one and copying the manually settings.
CodyCost 3 years ago
hey june 30th? I'll be in the 5-week summa program so maybe I can just schedule it for that...
and anybody know how to convert protools recorded music to mp3 so I can store it on an ipod?
jazzdog2 3 years ago
i don't use Pro Tools but there should be either an export option or a save button (the save button mite only save as a pro tools file but u shud be able 2 chage it)
ChazSupreme 3 years ago
bounce to .wav
Import to iTunes
right click and convert.
Fractalzend 3 years ago
Simple. Effective. Sorted.
Stundek 3 years ago
would it not have been more efficient to use parallel compression on an auxiliary send? I've never been able to tell the difference between parallel compression and normal compression anyway, specially not in this video.
j035u5 3 years ago
looks harder to use and much more complicated than logic 8
dannypp1 3 years ago
logic 8 (protools killer)is the best believe me
walidosss 3 years ago
haha dude first off, logic 8 is a song writers tool, pro tools is an engineers tool. yes, but are used in the industry and yes both are aweosome. i have logic 8 and pro tools HD. pro tools is about 9 million times better.
guitargy861 3 years ago
Um no, they're just used a little differently, Pro Tools is an industry standard, my point being Logic 8 is not a Pro Tools "killer" i have to agree with guitargy861, Pro Tools, so much better.
Blakethomasband 3 years ago
i wanna get protools in a few months after i get my mpc
pusher1012000 3 years ago
mac?
RancidPunk182GD30S2M 3 years ago
no pc
abletonSuite7 3 years ago 3
If ya want to get a nice wide hudge stereo image of the guitar in that video u should also try to do the exact same thing buddy just did but instead of putting compression on it, pan both tracks hard left and right and nudge one of the tracks a tiny tiny bit untill you have fine tuned the stereo image, it will sound nice and big and wide and you wont waste too much dB
mr666machete 3 years ago
OR you could just play it again and pan that. This requires you to be a tight player though.
GuitarGodgt 3 years ago
you can infact get a copy of the protools software free from alot of torrent sites but it wont work unless you have the digidesign hardware to use it with.
downie123 3 years ago
mbox mini!!
jazzdog2 3 years ago
Well wicked video, as they say in the music industry check it out guys if you want a really chunky fat guitar sound , this guys the man
piopatrick 3 years ago
hi,Pro tools come with BFD drums sound. and i got the upgrade version but after i install them in i cant use them in Pro Tools i can click on the file and hear them in winamp. but not the plug in of pro tools. what should i do?? HELPPP
phonjang 3 years ago
my protool came with BFD. and i got the BFD/XFL upgrade version. how do i get it to work together? i alrady install the upgrade version but when i went in the protool plug in it don't have the new sound that i installed. What should i do?
phonjang 3 years ago
where can i get a demo of this
elppen 3 years ago
anybody know where i can get pro tools for free?
ArmyBoy47 3 years ago
you cant get pro tools for free, you NEED an mbox (soundcard hardware) to make it run unfortunatly :( im buying a copy on wed though :D
sjayrfc 3 years ago
If you just bus it to an aux channel, you are only adding upward compression.....thats different than parrallel compression....read about the two and you will have a better understanding
logicmidiman 3 years ago
Wouldn't it be easier to just use the compressor as a send effect, rather than copying the whole track?
djrasteri 3 years ago
it never ceases to amaze me how much some people can do, it's easy to think that people who can use music technology are too lazy to learn to make their own music, but seeing stuff like this makes u realize how much there is to learn.
I am but a humble musician, i'm desperate to learn this kinda stuff, anyone got advice on how to get started?
overage1233 3 years ago
what version of pro tools is he using???
Travelershockey5 3 years ago
Why duplicate the whole track? You can simply buss it to an aux track and insert the compressor on that...
lowpass 3 years ago 7
exactly, if all you wanted to do was to add some expression, you could've easily bussed it to a Aux track with compression on it!
Assyrianpianist 3 years ago
An aux is also lost processing intensive than a whole new audio track
DetectiveDan48 3 years ago
why would you compress the aux track unless your wanted a blend of he uncompressed and compressed?
emiller1221 3 years ago
some good tips here, but it's generally better to replay the part instead of just copying it. You won't play the parts exactly the same both times, so you'll build more of a wall of guitar.
boardryder4 4 years ago 4
totally true.... but why not use parallel compression on both... that way you get the volume of the compressed track with out losing the dynamics... also as said above... I'd use a bus instead of duping the track.
defectivegenius 3 years ago
Great dude!
I'm a 15 year old just starting Pro Tools for my Pop Punk band.
The guitar kicks as now!! Thanks!!
CanadianRuski 4 years ago
HI guys,
i've used most of the famous mixing and mastering software ,they sound great on my home system but when i post my song on youtube or myspace i'm extremely disappointed.
How do you explain that?
fojeba 4 years ago
Check your compressions settings and your sampling rate. The lower the settings the less data it pushes through...therefor less fidelity.
Also, youtube might down sample and re-compress what you upload to it.
unescapablex 4 years ago
YouTube and Myspace add compression to your files in order to keep the streaming light. Any kind of compression affects the final quality of your sound.
killthepixelnow 4 years ago
Its all depends on the speaker source and what type of space your are listening in.
hardaswick 4 years ago
have you mastered your tracks, if your just exporting straight from you mix without mastering what your hereing in pro tools isnt what your end result will be for example, very low in volume
whataguychris 3 years ago
Good Stuff. One day people will learn Protools off of Youtube,great times we're livin' in great stuff
johnbucio 4 years ago
right on bro good post. music is available to all with technology
Mahavishnu80 4 years ago
Coulda done the first 1.30 of this video in about 0.2 seconds by simply pressing Shift - Option - D. Way to go.
travisbickle2006 4 years ago
The best way to fatten it up is just to record 2 separate takes. But i suppose if you didnt do that and your job is just to mix then this is a good solution,
SteraonDan 4 years ago 2
he sure is squashing that guitar looks like hes got over 10 db of gain reduction goin on... yet it doesnt sound squashed.... right on
HoboCabbage 4 years ago
Wouldnt it be more effective to just double the recording? That's what i do, clean or distorted always come out with a real fat sound and those little milliseconds of being off are what make the difference.
the477 4 years ago