blah blah blah

[FALKEN]

blah blah. I hate posting a boring thread. so go ahead and put negative rep points with some cursing for good measure. this thread is going to be about how I can get the most of my 1/2" setup, for my next project.

I recorded a demo for my band on my fostex E-16, and it came out pretty damn good. It got played on the radio and next to what all the other local studios are putting out, it didn't stand up. I mean, its all about the music and I sincerely believe that the band is the best music on my local show, and our performance on the recording was great. but it sonically did not stand up.

I have never been in a real recording studio.

I have been home recording for 10 years, since I was about 14.

and I always had this notion that I could out-do the local studios. Even when my only mic was a 57.

well, I tried that, and it didn't work. So I have been building my studio. I now have a fully analog system, including a tascam 32 mixdown reel. A nice low-priced mixer, low-priced monitors, and a 20VU rack full of mid-range pres and compressors. I have a collection of mics that rival any local studio. My instruments and amps are better than any local studios. I have built a ton of acoustic treatment to treat my control room and made enough gobos to isolate and treat everything in the live room (except the ceiling-i'm renting).

And I've probably made over 100 "CD's" of my own stuff over the last 10 years. live shows, improvisations, tracked albums, beats, etc. etc.

I am determined. My next project is going to be an LP. so, about 30 minutes of music. I am going to have it pressed to vinyl (hence the fully analog system) and CDs. My last recording I was going to have pressed to CD in order to get gigs but I'm just not happy enough with the sound. I am playing loud ass rock music. Not in the commercial vein, either. I am trying to do something "different", yet the same, always the same, but old and new at the same time. anti-commercial, however. therein lies the conundrum. while the music is anti-commercial, and I am definitely against commercialized production techniques, I want my recordings to be as Hi-Fi as possible. I want to out-Fi them. I think digital recordings for the most part suck. And I have been recording digitally for the last 6 years. And it just doens't sit right. Obviously there are exceptions to this and yada yada I've even made some decent digital recordings myself.

Thats just sort of the problem. My band thinks the digital ones sound better. Obviously I disagree but on some level they are right. It all depends on how much you weigh the different characteristics of each. I tend to find the fatigue of digital unacceptable, which means I must accept the loss of clarity I am getting now.

Only It shouldn't be that way. Analog recordings should be MORE clear. So what am I doing wrong??


My current hypothesis is that its the NR. So I believe I am going to use GP9 on the next one, and boot the NR. I think this will give me a higher fidelity. I'm not going to really set my machine up for it. I don't use it enough to consider the additional wear an issue. The bias for GP9 isn't really that far off. And if I try to rebias the machine, I'll probably do more damage than good. No doubt I'll screw it up somehow. 16 channels and only 2 heads.

I've tried GP9 before, and there is some hiss... but the saturation is 100% better and the clarity is restored. it sounds better. There is a strange quality to the sound but after some experimentation I think it will be better than before. but there is still the issue of hiss.

maybe a ME could clean that up.

any thoughts on any of this are welcome. I know its the same old shit, but at least I've tried to add a little more than that. I am going to invest in a top-quality dual preamp and a top-quality compressor. After that, I could still blame my cables, my cheap monitors, my cheap mixer, my 1/2" machine, or my skills. Those are the only things left. It gets expensive from there on out. Plus I don't have the engineering skills to upgrade my machine or mixer. But I can't afford this time to make a recording I am not going to use. I have to make a good one this time. My band's future will depend on it. I posted this here because I found this site looking for info on reel-2-reel's, and it has been a better resource than I have ever imagined.

 

[cjacek]

Would you care to post a song or two ? That way you'll get some unbiased opinions on how your tunes sound. Maybe you're a perfectionist and nothing, no matter how well recorded, will satisfy you ?? Also, your buddies want your stuff to sound like the masses, right ? Why would you want your stuff to sound that way ? Compete with your OWN UNIQUE sound ...... Seems to me like your buddies wanna follow what's hot and the trend now and you're being influenced by their collective criticism of your recordings and such.

Also, why you wanna "out-Fi them" ? The next thing you know you'll wanna "out-comp" them ? I mean why do you want your music to sound like most of the overprocessed, over-squashed and irritating shit produced today ? Do you really believe that if your recordings sound MEGA HI FI, that you'll get better recognition ? I don't think so. I sincerely believe that the BIGGEST obstacle any of us has is not our gear, room treatment or even how many albums we recorded but always it is some degree of lacking the neccessary recording and musical skills. Btw, I'm not saying you are like that. All I'm saying is that if you'd give Sir George Martin a cassette 4 track he'd make it sound better than its got any right to. Hey, I've heard stuff recorded on an ancient TEAC 3340 which rivalled some of the best 70's hits but sadly most will not reach this level of proficiency as our skills (and time) are not up to par.

Again, give us a listen to your stuff.

~Daniel

 

[Beck]

Could be one big thing or a lot of little things. Don’t know if I’ll be barking up the right tree but Ill take a stab at it.

If I understand correctly the E-16 tape sounded good, but the final stereo mix was lacking? Or was it just how it sounded on the radio compared to how it sounded through your monitors?

We already know the E-16 can do the job – that machine and format was an industry standard in more artist’s studios than you can name, and the basis for many albums and hits.

In the 80’s I was outdoing the local studios with a Tascam 246 cassette portastudio, so the format alone isn’t the problem, unless the machine has drifted significantly out of alignment, especially the Dolby C calibration as you’ve mentioned.

If your E-16 is in good (within spec) condition my initial thoughts are as follows:

- Try a different bias compatible tape like Quantegy 406 or BASF/EMTEC 468.
406 is warmer (softer sounding) whereas 456 can be comparatively “glassy” when pushed into the red. 468 is a low print-through formulation with less smear and retains high frequency content better than anything except maybe GP9. A narrow format like 16-on-1/2 will sound cleaner with 468 in my experience.

- Have your Dolby C system checked out. There is a lot going on with encoding and decoding of Dolby C that has to be just right or it will introduce distortion and squash high frequencies.

- I’m assuming you keep your tape path demagnetized, but I have to mention it.

- GP9 is super, but I think you really have to have the bias matched for it of it to realize the full benefits of the formulation. You don’t have to hit it with 500 nW/m and I wouldn’t recommend that on the E-16 or MSR-16 anyway, but you can bury the meters well into the red as long as the bias is right.

- You may have already thought of this, but I would go out and buy a couple CDs from the local artists you thought sounded better on the radio and see how those mixes sound on your monitors at home. A/B them with your stereo mixes. That will tell you a lot if the other guy’s stuff sounds crappy on your system – then you have a sonic disparity to resolve between your studio monitoring system and the other guy’s.

- One other thing – a lot of radio stations are processing the hell out of things… trying to warm them up and make them stand out. They introduce a lot of distortion. Since your analog stuff is already hot enough it may be making your mixes sound fuzzy.

Well, I hope I hit on something, but there are so many elements to a good recording it’s hard to know where to start.

-Tim

 

[FALKEN]

All I'm saying is that if you'd give Sir George Martin a cassette 4 track he'd make it sound better than its got any right to.

sure, but it probably wouldn't get played on the radio. i'm just trying to be realistic. I'm not trying to make my stuff sound like the masses. If I wanted that, I would just scrap my studio and go into one that caters to that sound, there are plenty in my town. But just because I'm doing something different doesn't mean that it can be inferior. In fact, the way I see it, it HAS to be superior, or I'm just wasting my time, basically. you can check out my tunes at www.nopronto.com. and I agree with you that my skills could use improvement. that is why I am here asking for knowledge. I am sure I will read and re-read these posts over and over again to make sure I didn't miss anything that might hold the key to kicking butt. please let me know what you make of my recordings so far.

my buddies aren't going for a commercial sound, I can assure you of that. I just think there is a lack of clarity on the analog recordings.

you know,

they played some led zeppelin song on the way to work this morning. I aint no zeppelin freak or anything but god damn if nobody's been able to beat that sound since.

 

[Beck]

Hey Falken,

If you could gives a quick run down of your equipment -- brands & models, that would really help alot for those of us that have had so much stuff pass through our hands... good & bad... liked & didn't like.

It only takes one weak link in the recording chain. You might have something we might say, "get rid of it."

Mixers, reverbs, monitors, etc... let us know.

-Tim

 

[FALKEN]

Could be one big thing or a lot of little things. Don’t know if I’ll be barking up the right tree but Ill take a stab at it.

If I understand correctly the E-16 tape sounded good, but the final stereo mix was lacking? Or was it just how it sounded on the radio compared to how it sounded through your monitors?

every mix I've ever done has sounded better on the monitors, whatever they may have been at the time...headphones, a stereo, monitors...

We already know the E-16 can do the job – that machine and format was an industry standard in more artist’s studios than you can name, and the basis for many albums and hits.

word. I'm just not sure if any of those artists were making heavy rock music. but for now I'll assume the E-16 can do the job.

In the 80’s I was outdoing the local studios with a Tascam 246 cassette portastudio, so the format alone isn’t the problem, unless the machine has drifted significantly out of alignment, especially the Dolby C calibration as you’ve mentioned.

seems to be good but there aren't any techs within 300 miles so I'm going to have to assume its good. when I play tones out of my computer all of the channels record and play back at the same level so I assume its good.

If your E-16 is in good (within spec) condition my initial thoughts are as follows:

- Try a different bias compatible tape like Quantegy 406 or BASF/EMTEC 468.
406 is warmer (softer sounding) whereas 456 can be comparatively “glassy” when pushed into the red. 468 is a low print-through formulation with less smear and retains high frequency content better than anything except maybe GP9. A narrow format like 16-on-1/2 will sound cleaner with 468 in my experience.

406 would be the opposite direction from what seems intuitive. I would like to hear more on this....and how it would be better than GP9.

- Have your Dolby C system checked out. There is a lot going on with encoding and decoding of Dolby C that has to be just right or it will introduce distortion and squash high frequencies.

could you check out my recording and tell me if you hear this going on?

- I’m assuming you keep your tape path demagnetized, but I have to mention it.

I demag before I start a project and that's about it. I try not to do it in the middle of a project. maybe it could use a swipe.

GP9 is super, but I think you really have to have the bias matched for it of it to realize the full benefits of the formulation. You don’t have to hit it with 500 nW/m and I wouldn’t recommend that on the E-16 or MSR-16 anyway, but you can bury the meters well into the red as long as the bias is right.

hmm....so you would say nay to the GP9 without a re-bias? I think it would be more trouble than its worth. but I am open to your opinion because you are far more expert than I.

I think what it comes down to is mud...the songs just sound weighted down and not very alive. maybe what I need is mastering. I await your replies and comments on my tunes.

 

[FALKEN]

Hey Falken,

If you could gives a quick run down of your equipment -- brands & models, that would really help alot for those of us that have had so much stuff pass through our hands... good & bad... liked & didn't like.

It only takes one weak link in the recording chain. You might have something we might say, "get rid of it."

Mixers, reverbs, monitors, etc... let us know.

-Tim

oh god. okay, here we go, from the top.

mics:

dynamics-
sennheiser 421
shure SM 57
Shure unidyne III (3)
Shure 55
Shure 51
EV 635a (2)
EV re-15
EV re-20
uher m534
akg d12e

condensers-
oktava mk319 (vocals on mp3 clips)
at4050
at4033
cad 95 (2)

pres-
bellari rp220
bluetube
FMR RNP

comps-
dbx 166xl
bluemax
FMR RNC
aphex compellor
Bellari RP282a

eq-
peavey PME2 2-channel para
ART 452 and 442 graphics

efx-
alesis quad (never use it)
fostex 3180 stereo spring reverb

mixer - yamaha mg24 (this is new. the recording is an art phantom 24)

monitors - Maudio BX8

A/D/D/A Echo Layla 24

PC is a P4 2.6 with a gig of DDR 400.



yeah...so for the most part its mid level blah junk. but I am starting to acquire some nice stuff and push out the crap.

 

[arjoll]

a lot of radio stations are processing the hell out of things… trying to warm them up and make them stand out. They introduce a lot of distortion. Since your analog stuff is already hot enough it may be making your mixes sound fuzzy.

One of the best things you can do for FM broadcast is give them a clean, non-distorted product that's not too heavily compressed and definately not clipped. Go easy on limiting as well.

There's an interesting article by Orban and Fotti here which explains what happens to your content when its played on FM. Let the station do the 'shaping' of the sound. This doesn't mean don't master, it just pays to remember that most FM processing is a lot kinder to less agressive mastering.

 

[cjacek]

sure, but it probably wouldn't get played on the radio. i'm just trying to be realistic. I'm not trying to make my stuff sound like the masses. If I wanted that, I would just scrap my studio and go into one that caters to that sound, there are plenty in my town. But just because I'm doing something different doesn't mean that it can be inferior. In fact, the way I see it, it HAS to be superior, or I'm just wasting my time, basically. you can check out my tunes at www.nopronto.com. and I agree with you that my skills could use improvement. that is why I am here asking for knowledge. I am sure I will read and re-read these posts over and over again to make sure I didn't miss anything that might hold the key to kicking butt. please let me know what you make of my recordings so far.

my buddies aren't going for a commercial sound, I can assure you of that. I just think there is a lack of clarity on the analog recordings.

you know,

they played some led zeppelin song on the way to work this morning. I aint no zeppelin freak or anything but god damn if nobody's been able to beat that sound since.

I listenned to all tracks with my AKG headphones direct from the soundcard and here are my personal feelings about it: The playing and singing are great but to me it seems as if the vocal and instrumental track are 2 seperate performances - they don't seem to marry together at all. Also, and this may be as the result of the first, but the vocal is too upfront, again, kinda detached from the rest of the instruments which seem to be buried somewhere in the back. I'd also like to hear this with some creative use of panning to give it more of a stereo image. Please take this ONLY as my own personal opinion and nothing more. But I really do believe the gear you've got has nothing to do with you not being satisfied with your tracks. It's obvious you and your musicians are talented and that you have more than adequate gear but the problem lies, I feel, with HOW the songs were recorded and/or mixed. I don't think it's a case of "clarity" but "coherency" that is missing and more precisely I mean that a sense of the vocal and instruments belonging together in a natural and convincing performace. Have you ever tried recording "live" with your band ?

~Daniel

 

[cjacek]

sure, but it probably wouldn't get played on the radio.

My TASCAM 244 portastudio can come damn near close to CD quality sound so in the hands of a proficient engineer and talented musicians I'd have a hard time believing that a cassette made on it wouldn't get air play. I recall, a few years ago, hearing some tunes recorded on a TASCAM 238, which has even narrower tracks and I bloody well thought it was done in a pro studio! Ok, these may be extreme examples and of course I don't believe you could make a decent sounding "radio ready" cut on just about any cassette recorder or by just anyone but I firmly believe that most could use more in the way of recording technique and talent than springing for "better" gear.

~Daniel

 

[cjacek]

To Falken:

Here's a thought: Have you ever tried to duplicate one of your favorite bands' tracks ? Yeah, instrument by instrument and by whatever crazy technique you can find to copy exactly what you hear on the original ... That's a technique I found incredibly helpful. Ok, it extremely time consuming and all but the things I learned I couldn't from a book or even via standard trial and error. Perhaps it's worth a try ?

~Daniel

 

[FALKEN]

I listenned to all tracks with my AKG headphones direct from the soundcard and here are my personal feelings about it: The playing and singing are great but to me it seems as if the vocal and instrumental track are 2 seperate performances - they don't seem to marry together at all. Also, and this may be as the result of the first, but the vocal is too upfront, again, kinda detached from the rest of the instruments which seem to be buried somewhere in the back. I'd also like to hear this with some creative use of panning to give it more of a stereo image. Please take this ONLY as my own personal opinion and nothing more.

....Have you ever tried recording "live" with your band ?

actually....that recording IS live! It was a live practice and I overdubbed the vocals. I think this is where the disparity comes in. the rhythm tracks are chalk full of ambience (I hadn't finished building the acoustic treatment yet) and then when I went to record vocals, I sang into a pair of gobos. =opposite sound of the rhythm tracks.

actually the "digital" tracks my friends liked better were tracked with the vocals live. maybe I ought to start trying this. but I dont have a booth or nothing.

But I really do believe the gear you've got has nothing to do with you not being satisfied with your tracks. It's obvious you and your musicians are talented and that you have more than adequate gear but the problem lies, I feel, with HOW the songs were recorded and/or mixed. I don't think it's a case of "clarity" but "coherency" that is missing and more precisely I mean that a sense of the vocal and instruments belonging together in a natural and convincing performace.
~Daniel

"HOW the songs were recorded and/or mixed" spot on. there was little to no separation on most of the tracks, which limited what I could do. also the guitars were not double tracked, which is usually a source of panning for me. instead I had 2 different mics on the same amp and panned those. not really the same thing.

its funny about the rhythm/vocals thing that you pointed out. my mom even mentioned that one. the person who probably has the ability to 'hear into' my recording the LEAST said the vocals didn't fit with the music. I can't even hear it. A lot of songs on the radio are mixed like this though....

So you think I should work more on consistency. note taken.
I still have a lot of experimenting to do with the gobos and hopefully I'll figure something out. hopefully this is what caused it. (severe dischord in ambience).

any other ideas on how I can maximize my system?

 

[Herm]

I agree with Arjoll on this one. There is a big disconect with the vocal.
Use some reverb on it and bring the volume down on it.
I applaud you for trying to not sound like everyone else But to make it sometimes we have to go a little bit in the direction of everyone else to get there.
Also dont forget your are competing with people that are using mastering.
If you can come up with the bucks I would try it once and see what happens.
Just be carefull choosing a me they can make or break a song.
Try it on one song, It shoudnt be to hard to find a descent one that will do 1 tune for at a good price.

 

[FALKEN]

all great points. thanks. keep it comin. I'm eating all of this up.

 

[jpmorris]

all great points. thanks. keep it comin. I'm eating all of this up.

Just over a year ago, I began to wonder why my recordings sounded a little 'off'. So I began to compare them against a some commercial productions. IIRC, I was using 'Psychedelicatessen' by Threshold. I quickly realised that the main difference between that and what I was doing was that my recording had a comparatively narrow stereo field.

I figured there were two ways around that.. either use more aggressive stereo panning (which would probably require more than 8 tracks, or bouncing), or cheat and get a stereo enhancer. I decided to cheat and got an SPL Vitalizer Jack off ebay. It was one of those wonderful occasions when something you buy does exactly what you wanted.

Of course, if you get the track professionally mastered, they will often do this as a matter of course. If you do that it might be an idea not to do the stereo expansion yourself as I suspect it will give the engineer less room to move.

An interesting trick to improve the stereo image on mono sources is to use stereo reverb, which will then 'feed' the stereo expander. I have heard dire warnings about this playing hell if the mix is summed to mono, but I haven't so far had any problems with it. The SPL Vitalizers are analogue.. they appear to be doing some kind of stereo frequency equalisation.

If you use the stereo expander on tracks which are panned hard left or right, that CAN cause problems in mono, but if you either mix in a centred version (I used the aux-return for that when it happened), or don't do a full pan, it will not be a problem.

This might be of some help. The 'Jack' version appears to be discontinued, although the higher-end models are still available. The 'Jack' doesn't support balanced I/O which seems to be the only big drawback with it.

 

[FALKEN]

well after typing it out and reading all of your responses and sleeping on it...it seems apparent that my problem might actually be typical of home recording setups. I know I am not the first one to be confused about muddiness and a lack of high end clarity in the home environment. that is why I was thinking GP9...so I can ditch the NR and get that much closer to the real thing...

they played some bob marley on the radio a few minutes ago. that was to me always a shining example of great production. I would have to imagine back then they used something like 409, so Beck might be on the money here.

please keep the comments coming.

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

Some of my reactions, in no particular order:

1) Great music, my friend. I was going to say "sounds like a good live recording- but not a studio recording..." and it was cool to read this morning that it IS a live recording.

2) My experience with my 1/2" 16 (Tascam msr-16) is that it crosstalks very readily at high levels wihtout NR. What little separtation you have with the setup you've described will be further compromised if you go for high output tape and crank the levels to get away from the noise floor.

3) I think separation is one of the biggest things that would help clear up these recordings. For example, last night I was wondering why the bass sounded so unfucused. If its got any significant level of bleed into the guitar and overhead mics... that'll pull it out into a wider unfocused image.

If you still need to record live in one room... I'd move the amps as far from each other as I could and have everyone turn down- expecially the bass. Put the bass and drums on opposite sides of the rooms and the guitar on the sides they will be panned to. Use headphone mixes if you can so everyone can hear what they need to, or have them move around in the room to get they mix they want. The drummer, at least, will probably want to hear more bass BUT I don't want his mics to hear more bass! So if you only have one headphone give it to the drummer. Cose mic the guitars and make sure there is very little bass bleed into them- then roll off the lows when mixing to reduce it even more.

4) This is usually a pretty dry genre- all the room ambience redcuces the clarity of the different elelments. Makes the drums sound great, but washes everything else out a bit. Maybe that's a mix issue? Backing off room mics? In your situation I probably wouldn't even use room mics in the mix. I'd close mic the kit, add overheads, and leave it at that. Afterwards, you can recreate a more controlled room sound for the kit by blasting just the kit (sometimes quite comressed) through the monitors into the room and setting up room mics to rerecord it. Same thing works for guitars.

5) I wouldn't hard pan multiple mics on the same amp with this much bleed going on. You'll probably get wider stereo and more separation by panning the same amp to one side and they other amp to the other.

6) How hard were you hitting the tape? I don't know how Dolby C works, but with DBX you aren't supposed to hit it too hard- it causes encode and decode errors and tends to kill the high end. If I hit the tape too hard I tend to find myself adding highs back in when mixing. Might just be my machine, though- I haven't had it all that long.

Anyway, blah blah blah, indeed!

Take care,
Chris

 

[cjacek]

I agree with Arjoll on this one. There is a big disconect with the vocal.

Don't you mean "cjacek" ?

 

[cjacek]

well after typing it out and reading all of your responses and sleeping on it...it seems apparent that my problem might actually be typical of home recording setups. I know I am not the first one to be confused about muddiness and a lack of high end clarity in the home environment. that is why I was thinking GP9...so I can ditch the NR and get that much closer to the real thing...

they played some bob marley on the radio a few minutes ago. that was to me always a shining example of great production. I would have to imagine back then they used something like 409, so Beck might be on the money here.

please keep the comments coming.

IMHO, the 499 will not fix the issues at hand and MAY wear down the heads faster. I think that modern tape and the 406, 407, 456, 457 specifically are plenty enough for the task at hand.

~Daniel

 

[Beck]

I had actually suggested 406 and BASF 468... I think Falken's "409" is a typo.

But after listening to the MP3s and learning more about the details of the recording I don't think the tape is a problem either. Trying other brands and types of tape is always a good idea though. My impression is it’s not the make or break element in this case.

By the way Falken, the music sounds good even within the sonic limitations of MP3.

More to come once I get some time... probably the weekend.

-Tim