Want to get better mixes in less time, using fewer plugins, and save CPU power? Of course you do.
I’m a huge fan of what I call Top Down Mixing and it has helped me out a ton in recent years. Taking part of this approach to the next level in what I’m calling the Heavy Mix Buss Theory will only help you more.
Take a look.
Do Not Create Another Song Until You Read This Guide
(Price: $17 Free Today)
Discover the 6 Steps for Creating a Radio-Worthy Song From Scratch
My name is Graham Cochrane and I'm the founder of The Recording Revolution, one of the world's most loved audio recording and mixing blogs with over 200,000 readers each month. 
Pretty kool.
Hey graham! I love this way of working too, i use a lot of steven slate’s stuff because i really dig em. Ive been using vcc as a first insert (awaiting version 2 to be even less cpu intensive!) the vbc, the vtm and sometimes a combo of revival and a pultec emulation on the 2 bus, and it does a lot of the heavy lifting! Its amazing how when you focus on great tracking techniqes, and a little mix bus processing, clients go, “wow, that was quick, its almost done!” Hahaha or so we hope! Its crazy what a db of compression can do, and a db bump in the highs can do, i feel this way you have a lot of control without getting overwhelmed on individual channels. Thanks graham!
Great technique, Graham! Actually just got done watching the Dueling Mixes version yesterday. I think it’s a cool technique that I will try out for my next mix.
In this month’s DM song, I really tried the top-down mixing approach. In a song with 62 tracks, I certainly didn’t want to be plodding my way from left to right, processing every track! (I’m not so sure my 5 1/2 year old MacBook Pro would have handled it!)
It was amazing how quickly the mix came together. After spending quite a while on the static mix, I boiled the whole thing down to essentially 6 tracks and then spent the bulk of my time EQing and Compressing those tracks. Made the mix come together *much* more quickly than going one track at a time. This is a solid technique, and I’m definitely going to be using it more!
Thanks Graham
Alex
I’ve been applying this theory/practice for years in live venues when you eq your room. Here you’re balancing your sound system based on the room’s response. Overall, it’s efficient regardless of how much CPU/memory you have. As you said/questioned, eliminate the mud globally or on individual tracks? I prefer doing this in one place, especially with the number of tracks you have in your mix. Likewise, sub/master mix compression provides the same efficient outcome. Live or recoding, the same holds true. Keep up the great work. Awesome album from your “Starbucks Mixing Studio” too!!
Hey Graham, great video. I’ve been wondering for a long time – How much should you put on the mix buss before leaving the rest to mastering? Do you ever master songs, or do you let someone else do that?
This has no impact on mastering. It’s simply part of the mix.
Noooooo! Stop! Graham, you convinced me a couple of weeks ago not to buy any more gear, so I refused Slate’s recent promotion, thinking I was being all righteous, and now you show me a bunch of saliva-inducing Slate gear …. see, now I want a tape saturation thingy, and the other cool and beautiful-looking stuff …. I’m reaching for my credit card …. somebody stop me!!!
Seriously though, thanks for the post, and the amazing difference all those mix-buss gadgets (drool) made to the mix.
Bahaha. Like I said, don’t pay attention to WHAT the plugins are. Just the impact a few can have if on the mix buss. I will say though that beyond EQ and compression, saturation is by far the most helpful plugin to have.
I’ve been trying that out already. Not knowing the terminology, but now I have kinda flow that I’ve been working with.
(Mix buss):
SSLEQ,
SSL COMP,
Waves Vitamin (all stereo).
(Post:)
L3LL LIMITER
Tracks recorded at musical levels, nice ambient sounds, (parallel processed bass & drum loops)
This is great but what about the mastering engineers that request no plugins on the mix bus? Would you just not disclose this? Am I’m not directly asking if it’s okay to deceive…
There’s no reason a mastering engineer should care what’s on your mix buss. The only thing they would be concerned about is you putting a limiter on there. That I can understand.
Hey, Graham,
How is it you are routing.
I am familiar with a method I learned from you: everything heads to submix aux via Submaster (master fader) and out of the submix to The master fader.
This is different.
Nope. This is exactly what I’m doing.
p.s. I was putting processing on the final master fader.
Great tip Graham. Thanks. I’m confused whether I should try to get a great sound on my individual drums and percussion instruments “individually” first, and then sculpt the combined sound on my drum bus? Or, sculpt the drum bus first and then go back to the individual drum tracks for tweaking? What do you suggest? This seems similar to your idea of working on the mix bus first and then maybe going back to the track s for further processing. Thanks for your support. I appreciate what you are doing.
Either way can work. Working “backwards” like this can be super helpful though.
Great idea, I like the simple sensible approach!
For me mixing into a master chain has been my go-to approach for years and here’s why:
1. When you use reference tracks as a guideline (which I do a lot), your reference is usually a mastered stereo track. So if I compared a master reference to my mix, I’d somehow compare apples with pears. The master bus compressor and limiter will add density/ glue/punch and some highs to the mix so if I compared that to a mix, I’d be mislead and it would probably lead to wrong decisionmaking. Mixing pros who work in a professional environment are used to listening to studio mixes, most home-studio owners aren’t – some have never heard unmastered mixes!!!
2. What most of us are listening to on the radio, computer, phone or stereo is the final product which is a master, not a mix . So if my master is of similar quality as my reference tracks and sounds great on those devices, I’m probably in the ballpark.
3. When working on the master bus, you can achieve a lot more in short amount of time by tweaking a multiband comp + some eq compared to applying it to individual tracks (see Graham’s video). The goal should be to get good balance between instruments and levels in the first stage and then I want to get as close as possible to my desired reference sound, let’s say to 85% of it. Then you can still work on individual tracks to improve them.
So all in all it’s a big time saver.
I always mix into the SSl Bus comp + Ozone + some other plugs (which are switched off most of the time). In Ozone you can capture the frequency spectrum of your reference track and compare it (even match it) to your track, so you can also visually identify problem frequencies in your mix and get clues to what instruments might be troublemakers. However I have to say that it has to SOUND right not LOOK right.
Thanks – been trying “top down” for a few weeks. I have a mix buss that is a buss (not the master).
Actually, I have multiple mix busses. route tracks to the first buss, then use sends to route to the next buss(es) in the stream. Each of the busses can have different processing and settings. A/B between sounds is as simple as toggling the mute of the mix buss. I can use the volume fader on the buss to adjust – poor man’s Perception plugin 😉
Hi Graham,
I don’t know if you read this, but I’ll ask my question and let’s see.
I follow all your stuff and your tutorials and your mindset are great!! I’ve learned a ton!
Over the last two years I mixed a lot thru Masterbus-Processing and mixes (depending on the source material) came together quite fast.
A lot of my clients also want stems for TV or live-gigs. The stems behave quite different, when you bounce them separately, what makes sense because not ALL the stems run simultaneously through the master bus-proscessing (i.e. compressor)
Can you tell me a workaround where I can work with master bus processing but still the sound and feel of the stems combined is the same?
Lately I came to some pretty good results ONLY processing the stems. So that would be an alternative solution, wouldn’t it?
Thanks so much for all your advices!
Harry
Yeah Harry, your last point would be the alternative. Process on the stem tracks (or group tracks).
Thanx!
It’s good to see that you take your time to answer these questions!
Keep up the great work!
Hi Graham,
Aren’t you just replacing part of the mastering process?
Cheers
–JP
Nope. This is just mixing.
Mastering is not simply adding plugins to the master fader – it’s balancing mixes to each other so they sound good together on an album and on different playback formats.
I know–that’s why I said “part” of the process 🙂 I mean, besides the “intertrack” work on mastering, the “intratrack” EQ/compression/etc will be already done, won’t it? Of course we need to keep an eye on headroom too when handing over to mastering, or the mastering engineer won’t be happy…
Hi Graham,
I like this approach in theory, and I hear what you’re saying about carving out a mud frequency on the Mix Bus, but I tend to find that everything has a slightly different muddy frequency – or can have. And if I find that nasty, muddy frequency in different places on different track, this can help a little towards separation. So my kick almost always sounds muddy at about 400Hz, so I carve there; a guitar might sound muddy at 200 and an acoustic at say 300, depending on this and that, blah, blah…. By spending a little time deciding where the mud is on each track, I have made space for other things, rather than cut a one-size-fits-all dip in the mix; that’s not to say that I wouldn’t end up taking a small slither out somewhere in that region – in the whole mix – because there is a big chance that I would; but it would be thinner, and the other cuts would be spread across a number of tracks in different areas, and therefore less noticeable.
I don’t want to take away from this idea though, because in many circumstances it would work; and I love the sound that you achieved!
I go along with this. What does Graham say?
Yep – I’ve done both. Cut on the mix buss or cut on each track as needed.
I know–that’s why I said “part” of the process 🙂 I mean, besides the “intertrack” work on mastering, the “intratrack” EQ/compression/etc will be already done, won’t it? Of course we need to keep an eye on headroom too when handing over to mastering, or the mastering engineer won’t be happy…
Graham,
I am fairly new to mixing but I have been using this technique for a while. I might use 2 plugins on some tracks but I load my mix bus with the plugins that I am most comfortable with. I will say that its very efficient on my computer’s cpu and it also helps me focus on the mixing with volume and panning instead of relying on plugins get a better mix.
Thanks for all your hard work and your willingness to teach others!
Best
Manny
Thanks Manny!
Hey, Graham
I just watched the DM version and was confused.
Do you mix in mono using this method?
If not, why?
I’m sure someone will point out how dumb this question is, but I’ve been practising what I’ve learnt in Graham’s Remix series and don’t understand why this mix was in stereo.
If I remember correctly, you do the leveling of individual tracks in mono. Once that’s all sounding good, then you can start adding stereophony to the mix.
P.S.: It’s not dumb–you just have to remember that he presented a mix that was probably 99% finished. When he took all the stuff off the master fader, I heard most, if not all, of the stereo stuff go away. This should give you a better idea of what he’s saying.
This is the end of my mix. I mix in mono ALWAYS when doing EQ and compression early on. The point of mono is to make sure each track is having separation and you’re using EQ to do that. This is just showing you how to get the mix in better shape faster from the start.
Awesome Graham.
I love the simplicity. It’s quicker and cleaner.
Thanks for clearing up the confusion about “limiters on the master”
I am wanting to learn more about your routing and use of the “submix” channel then “mixbus” to main output. – I see the routing but I’m not sure what role the “submix” plays in the routing – must be a video where you explain that…
Thanks a million for your teaching…
Carey
Yep – just watch this: http://therecordingrevolution.com/2011/04/06/master-faders-in-pro-tools-video/
Hi Graham. If you talk about working on volune balance for at least an hour does this include volume automation or Do you work really an hour on a static mix?
The static mix.
So I can do this in Auria? I’ll have to try it. Not sure if I have saturation or. Multi band compressor. I might. I’ll have to check. I’d love to save some cpu and ram though. 🙂
Saturation and multiband compression are not built into Auria directly. You have to buy extra plug-ins. That would be FabFilter Saturn or PSP MicroWarmer for saturation and FabFilter Pro-MB for multiband compression. Especially on the iPad you should consider a top-down approach like Graham is describing. Also remember that you can always freeze and un-freeze tracks. If you have finished working on one track (supposing you are going through one track at a time) you can print the impact of the plug-ins to save CPU cycles. Whenever you need to change a setting you can always go back. Using busses and the mixbus instead gives you some more flexibility.
yeah, with this hight quality recording……………………………………………………………………
I have a completely different way of doing the order of the Mix and the Masterbus, i wing it the whole time, ad-hoc, improvise. and deal with things as they pop-up, bit by bit… That might seem like disorderly chaos so to speak, but it’s not, even this way of mine can be done in a methodical manner. Nevertheless i don’t doubt Graham for a second, or his mixing skills.
As i’m sure Graham would agree with, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. However, i will give this method a go just for fun and see how it affects my brain synapses and neurotransmitters. Different ways feel more comfortable to different mindsets and personalities, yet i am aware that Graham was merely offering some food for thought… Cheers bro.
Food for thought indeed 🙂
Great Video Graham I would love to see a detailed video of the different things you did on the mix buss to make it sound better!!!
Graham, is it a good idea to do basic automation prior to inserting any plugins?
I like to do automation later in the mix, but others do it early on.
This reminds me a lot of mixing on the analog board to tape and compressing etc, on the board mix bus.
Great, Graham!
I´m always impressed again how continually come back to the first rule of limiting your options as if your life depended on it. Imagine you have only the mix bus to work with… 😉
Bingo!
I tried mix buss EQ a few years ago because my mix was too muddy. It solved the muddiness but I felt that the mix lacked clarity. I suppose this is because it had turned the masking frequencies down rather than actually solving the problem. When I actually thought about which tracks were making the mix so muddy and EQ’d them individually it cleared everything up, it sounded much better.
I think that since then I’ve never really been a fan of mix buss EQ. How do you use mix buss EQ? Speed, simplicity and CPU efficiency aside; Does this actually sound better than if you had EQ’d everything individually without using mix buss EQ?
For me, I use mix bus EQ sparingly, and usually near the end of the mix. Typically any boost or cut will be no more than 3 dB. I use a reference mix and just try to make the overall tonal balance of the song roughly match the reference.
But you’re right, mix bus EQ does not help with masking frequencies, or the tonal balance between tracks. You need individual EQ for that. But mix bus EQ can take the entire mix and enhance it just a bit more overall.
That’s my experience anyway. Hope it helps!
Alex
What Alex said – this is no substitution for proper EQ on a track by track basis, but more of a gentle tone shaping that can make the mix closer to what you want, faster.
Hi Graham …. let me know if there any need to master a rendered stereo track if i am using a top down mixing technique
i saw one of your best trick “EQ BEFORE COMPRESS” IS THIS APPLICABLE WHEN YOU ARE USING A BUS COMPRESSOR on a master bus
victor John – flying records Dar es salaam TANZANIA l(Africa)
Mastering is all about balancing songs on an EP or album, level matching, and final output volume. So it really just depends on your situation.
you real helped me a lot with your simple but powerful tricks through videos and articles ….. i real appreciate you brother ….. BE BLESSED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST……… Say Amen
Hi Graham, I always use mix bus compression as you did, before doing any processing to the individual tracks. However there’s something I’ve always wondered about. When initially doing mix bus compression, I will set it so that it is doing a max of 2db of compression. I will then go and do processing to the individual tracks.. but then after I’m done all that, I go and look at the mix bus compressor again, and now it’s only doing maybe half a db to 1 db of compression. Do you leave it at that or should I adjust the mix bus compressor to again do 2 db of compression or what would you suggest? Thanks!
Then readjust till it sounds right.
Hi Graham
I have tried this a few times, and got some really good results quickly!
then the little ogres on my shoulder whispered
“you should feel guilty for not sweating over this mix for hours” 😉
I hope they go away 😉
Haha. They will, they will.
I have been registered with you for several years. This post made more immediate difference than any other. I compose in-the-box with Reaper and was just starting a project when this post came up. Decided to use it and WoW!
I also used the next post about using a multiband compressor and it is great also.
The music is Sitar Dream
Thanks so much
Cy
Awesome Cy!
This makes so much sense to me. I just did a mix where I added light compression to a bunch of tracks and then when I put some “glue” compression on the mix buss, I ended up removing or lessening the compression on most of the tracks because they sounded over-compressed! LOL!