Trying a New Technique for Mixing LOUD!!!!! (Clip-To-Zero?!?) 

Thanks mate

Do it mate. It works a treat!

I’m still experimenting and learning new things about this technique daily. Hope you enjoy the trip!

Thanks Shanon. Yes, this technique has definitely got me rethinking when Im going to be using compression vs clippers!

Yes mate. Give it a go. I definitely had fun with it!

Thanks mate. Glad it was useful

Agreed

Yes he does. I didn’t feel like I needed one on this track though. What did you think?

@@Tutorial_ism Your track sounds very nice imo, and this CTZ strategy is very effective as you just showed us with the comparison. I think we have been kept in the dark regarding clipping, limiting and compression and the more this topic gets attention, the more the overall audio production community will benefit. Thanks for covering this.

*she

@@wawztzta8296 I seriously don't know whether I should feel happy or sad for that to be pointed out. Anyways that was not the point.

@@phynyxsound cheery attitude you have going on there

Thank you

watchu mean " in the box" ?

@@Lulu-mg9by it means 100% in the box (computer) so 100% software without using hardware (for mixing).

This is what’s baffling me, because Baphometrix specifically says not to use the faders 🤔

yea, his tutorial says those loud key elements should peak at 0. you have to duck stuff if other tracks add to this

As far as I know, when you hit the plugin at zero, the input and the drive will do pretty much the same thing. However if you were to come in to the plugin at below zero you would still be able to clip you signal at the level you are coming in at. The advantage of this technique is that you can swap Saturate for a limiter or another clipper for a different flavour and be confident of the outcome

Go check out Baphometrix channel. She explains all of these things in depth!

@@Tutorial_ism Buddy, I had. Thats how I found your channel. I am an engineer with 3 albums and a lot of singles. I am upgrading her theory

You should now watch baphometrix tutorials. Btw, clipping comes LAST, put the plugins at the end of the fx chain. Then eq, compress, etc, into the clippers...

Smart

I can see how that would work better. So you do not recommend sidechaining before limiting or clipping?

Sound design and effects first and clipper last one in the chain.

I do all my processing before I clip but then setting faders comes after. Go check out Baphometrix channel if you haven’t already. She will be covering the full mixing strategy very soon!

Thank you mate, appreciate the compliment!

I would just use the pre-gain in Cubase’s channel strip

@@Tutorial_ism unfortunately I don't use Cubase I use fl. Any other suggestion as an alternative plugin with the same functionality of dpmeter5?

Thanks mate. I only just noticed that feature today, wasn’t sure what to set it to but I’ll switch my default to 300 now. I had 500ms in my head, but for what reason I could not tell you!

Baphometrix mentions this in his video

The idea is to clip the kick to 0 and keep it at that level, all other sounds will go around it. And I would clip individual tracks, maximize their energy and then just mix them together by cutting space for the kick, like how Baphometrix does it - I wouldn't add any processing after the individual track has been pushed to maximum energy.

@@ThatBonsaipanda Thanks for the quick reply, feel like this is going to have quite an impact on my mixes. Have a great day!

Yes. I ran in to a clipper at 0 on all the main elements of my track as the last stage of each insert. I did do further processing on things like my drum bus and such before I hit my clipper though. Don’t know if that is fully in line with Baphometrix’ strategy, but it felt good to me at the time 😂

@@Tutorial_ism Thanks for the reply!!

To be fair, there are still a couple of things about his set up that I don’t understand… but I have just mixed my third track with what I understand of the strategy, and I am improving each time!

Only works for fully ITB

LUFS do not represent the actual loudness because they represent the LUFS lol

It was so I could do further processing in sub groups down the chain. Alot of plugins don’t do well being driven so hard, especially some of the analogue modelled stuff. And plus, you still don’t want to be above zero by the time you hit the stereo out

@@Tutorial_ism Ah, so then what you showed in the video was more the end of the arrangement stage and for mixing you (of course) have to go down again for meeting sweet spots of certain mixing plugins, where after those mixing steps you probably would do the same CTZ steps again.

Yes mate. Well at least that’s the way I incorporated the technique in to my workflow!

I just recorded another video on this after using CTZ for a few weeks now, will upload shortly. It will hopefully make things a little clearer

The aim is to reduce the dynamic range as much as you dare. Only you can decide whether it sounds destroyed!

Agreed!

In/ Out and fader buttons are 3 different things. the balance can be created by turning up or down the fader volume knob (on the mixer of your daw). for exemple it’s not because your fader buttons is at 0db that the sound assigned to that channel « is » at 0 db. (hope you understand i used Google Translate). And also it’s not because a sound tuch the 0 db that he obviously overcompressed. Personally i didn’t watched the clip to 0 strategy on the Baphometrix channel except this video but what i’ve understood is that you need to have the output that tuch 0 db and then clip (no worry you are in 32 bits so there is no really « clip » and you don’t « clip » on the mixer channel, it’s not obligation). (Clip inside a plugin is different than clip in a mixer channel and even different again than clipping in the master chain, and you don’t want to clip in the master channel, that’s again 3 different things). i also heard it’s better to use limiter for transpance on tonal element and clipper on drums and everything that is not tonal, ofc this is not a rule : if it sound good, it « is » good

@@Retro-zn2jt Thanks - sorry I missed your reply. I realise now that the underlying premise of this technique is clipping transients (of peaky material); the post-clip can as you say and as shown in this video be pulled down by the channel fader to balance the clipped track in the mix.

I didn’t say it was a new technique, what I said was it was new to me!

@@Tutorial_ism yeah i heard that... I am saying because some people think this way... I wasnt pointing at you. Btw due to this method i am getting -5db lufs of loudness without messing up the result ..which is insane

@@Tutorial_ism i am following Baphometrix since long time. His videos about CTZ is extremely in depth. Currently he has a series on this method with a dedicated playlist which contains more than 20 vidz. Each vid is 1 hour+. Thanks to you for a short summarised video on this.

Agreed… and this why I don’t do mixing haha

B has more lowend but I wouldn’t say it’s terrible

@@r2worksee not only the low end haha

B sounds way better. A distorts.

@@Tutorial_ism Why are you making a video on this technique when you have no idea what you're talking about? Lmao