Mixing Tips from Harvey Gerst and the ubiquitous Mixerman (R.A.P. regulars)

Blue Bear Sound

New member
Some good stuff here:

by Harvey Gerst
The Dreaded Mixdown

This is where many new recordists fall down. It's one of the hardest things to get right, but there are a few things you can do to help get your mixes closer to where they should be, right from the start.
(MixerMan, who gets paid big bucks to do this, will hopefully jump into this thread at some point.) It requires a different mindset from tracking and arranging. It also requires that you not be married or in love with any one part in the song.

Tip 1. Get as far away from the song as possible before you try mixing it. Don't try to do a mix right after a tracking session. Your ears are fried, and you're too close to the song right now. Objectivity is the word to remember. Wait a few days or even a week or more, if you have that luxury. Yes, some people can do a good mix right away, but that usually takes years to acquire that skill. If you haven't been doing mixes for many years, you ain't one of those people, so wait.

Tip 2. Mix low. Yes, cranking it sounds cool, but it will also introduce more room reflections and give you a warped picture of the sound. Crank it when you think you've got the mix nailed, but keep it low for as long as possible.

Tip 3. Listen to the song, not the tracks. The biggest mistake new mixers make is soloing each track and making it sound full and rich by itself, then they wonder why the whole thing sounds bloated and muddy. There are several methods that work to construct a good mix. You can start by bringing all the faders up, with the pan pots centered, and all effects turned off, or you can decide what the key element in the song is (the vocal, for example), and start working from that. Different engineers use different methods.

Tip 4. Build a box - a small stage in your mind. Imagine a stage. You control where the player appears on that stage. Panning lets you control left to right placement, volume and reverb lets you control front to back, and eq lets you control the frequency blend (low to high).

Tip 5. Resolving conflicts in the mix is the single biggest problem facing a mixer. You'll always find several tracks competing for attention in the same frequency range. The kick competes with the bass. The bass competes with the low guitars. The guitars may be competing with the vocals. The keyboards are all over the place. It becomes an even bigger problem for most people when they solo a track and work to make that instrument sound as big as possible. Bad move. All the instruments hafta work together and a particular instrument has to sound good with ALL the other instruments.

For the good of the song, some of the bottom end on the bass or the guitars may have to be eliminated. Yes, the instrument may not sound good when it's soloed, but it will blend in better when you listen to all the tracks. It's up to you to decide which instruments need to be shaved, but if you concentrate on the song first, it will start to become more and more obvious what needs fixing.

Tip 6. Take frequent breaks and get away from the music for a few minutes. Rest your ears. If you're doing it right, it's the most demanding part of the whole recording process. You are literally listening to ALL the instruments at the same time, following them all at once, and it's easy to burn out. Wanna see an engineer really blow up? Try talking to other people in the control room while he's trying to work on a final mix.

There's a lot more, but we'll save it for another day, or wait to let others weigh in on this most difficult of all subjects.

--------------------

Harvey Gerst,
Engineer
ITRstudio.com

AND MORE --

by "Mixerman" (who's true identity is a RAP secret)
Ahhhh.. my favorite subject. I could speak for hours and hours on mixing. Harvey's tips are great. Defenitely valuable to the beginning mixer.

What can I add? Well let's start with the fundamentals of what you're working with. It's allot to digest, particularly with Harvey's list, and it should probably have it's own header, but I'll put it here anyway.

Barring 5.1, you only have 2 speakers to work with. But we live in a 3 dimensional world. So we're basically creating an illusion so that a mix sounds 3 dimensional. Let's call this a spatial illusion

When mixing there are 5 planes of spatial illusion. Level, panning, frequency, spatial perception, and contrast. These five planes are all used to create space in a mix.

Front to back: (Level)
Level gives an element of a mix it's own space. Compression on individual channels helps keep the level so that it doesn't disappear in the mix. A loud instrument will appear forward, or towards the front. A quiet instrument will appear to be back or further away.

Left to right: (Panning)
Panning allows you to give an element of the mix it's own space. For instance putting a guitar part hard right keeps it from washing out the vocal.

Up and down: (Frequency)
Frequency is the use of EQ to boost or cut frequencies that either muddy or clear the mix up. For instance 250Hz-700Hz are fairly muddy frequencies, and if you have too many instruments using this frequency range the mix could be muddy. Everything in an arrangement or mix should have it's own unique fundamental frequency space.

Far and near: (Spatial Perception)
Spatial perception is the use of reverbs, chambers, plates, delays, far mic placement, etc.. to create the illusion of space in the mix. An instrument with allot of reverb can sound like it is placed in a large hall. An instrument or a vocal with a long delay, can sound like it's in the alps. An instrument that's completely dry, will sound like it's in a small carpeted room, right next to you.

Sparse to dense: (Contrast)
Arrangement is the use of muting, and altering the recorded arrangement to create space where it is needed to accent the more dense parts. The use of density to contrast sparse is great for creating the illusion of dynamics in a mix, within minimal dynamic range. The use of a limited dynamic range makes for better listening in more casual environments, where there tends to be external noise.

All 5 of these planes work together to create the illusion of space in a mix. One is no more important than any other in general, although one or two of the planes could prove to be more useful in a given mix. Not all are a requirement for a great mix either. For example, your mix should to be able to break down to mono, and still be a greqat mix.

I could speak in great detail on each of these planes. I could take them one at a time each week if anyone's interested.

I'll save Mixerman's 10 Steps to Better Mixing for another day.

Mixerman

From Los Angeles
 
Another Day... Mixerman's 10 Steps to Better Mixing

More good stuff............

by Mixerman, of RAP fame
This was originally posted on RAP. David James pissed me off with a post about a site that was written about better mixing. In my opinion it was extremely lame, so I came up with these. I typed the list fast and furious, and to be honest, I don't know where it came from (if I weren't an agnostic, I know what I might think).

Oh well, enough about its origins, its stood the test of some time in my opinion, so here's the list.

1. Mixing is an attitude
2. If the song sucks, the mix is irrelevant.
3. Working the room, keeping people entertained, happy, and relaxed is half of mixing successfully.
4. Putting everything proportional in a mix is going to make a shitty mix.
5. Gear are tools in a mix that make life either easier or more difficult, they are not what makes a mix good or bad.
6. A mix can be GREAT and not have great sound.
7. If nothing about the mix annoys someone in the room, the mix is often times not done.
8. Mixing can not be taught, it can only be learned.
9. The overall vibe of the track is much more important than any individual element.
10. Just because it was recorded, doesn't mean it needs to be in the mix.
11. Be aggressive.

Oops that's 11!

Mixerman
 
Someone's been hanging out at recording.org :) I've got Mixerman's tips printed out and hanging on my wall...Now if you can just dig up Fletcher's 3-mic drum technique, i'll be impressed :)

-travis
 
Christ!!!!!! You're not impressed already???????

...what more do you want -- someone to mix for ya too?????????????????????????

:D :D

I'll look for that article...

Bruce
 
How about a challenge next time...

:D

You asked? You got.........

by Fletcher at Mercenary Audio
Fletcher's famous post about the 3-mic technique:

> >From Fletcher@mercenary.com Mon Nov 22 08:32:41 1999
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
> Subject: Re: 3 mic drum technique?
> From: Fletcher <Fletcher@mercenary.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:32:41 -0400
>
> proaudio101 wrote:
> >
> > How do you do this with the overheads (where should they be in height,
> > distance, aimed at?), and are KM84 usually good tools for the OH pair?
> > Will there be any polarity problems if I throw in a snare and room mic
> > into this method for a 5 mic thing?
> >
>
> There a half a dozen "3 mic drum techniques" that I'm familiar with.
> Is there any particular one to which you refer?
>
> Here are a few of them:
>
> I usually start with a mic in front of the kit. It could be 6 feet or
> one foot off the bass drum. The object of this mic is usually to get
> the "front of the kit". I look for a good bass drum sound, but also
> the bottom of the toms and a bit of snare...cymbals will also exist
> here. The tuning of the kit, the proficiency of the drummer, the mic
> selection and placement are all pretty damn important...you can do a
> little EQ to this, but not a whole hell of a lot. When you use
> equalizers on this mic, you will find that you often mess up the
> balance of the drums within the context of the kit. Depending on the
> tone you're looking for, a ribbon, lg. diaphragm condensor or dynamic
> might be the most appropriate.
>
> For ribbons my choices are usually Royer 121's, RCA-77's...for lg.
> diaphragm condensors, Neumann 47 FET's, M-147's; dynamics MD-421, AKG
> D-30's often work pretty well, but they're a bitch to find and I don't
> own one. Sometimes [rarely] a Shure 57.
>
> Now, in mono, one speaker, I put up a second mic. This can go
> anywhere from directly over the snare to over the drummers right
> shoulder...or anywhere in the arc in between. The key here is to add
> that mic so you get the snare, hat, top of the toms and cymbals
> without the cymbals being out of balance with the rest of the kit. If
> the drummer can't control this balance, you're pretty much fucked and
> should revert back to the close mic'ed SR methods they teach at the
> recording schools.
>
> The reason I do this in mono-1 speaker is to insure that I'm not going
> to fuck with the bottom of the bass drum because of an inconsistent
> phase relationship with the front mic. For this I will often use a
> ribbon, like a Coles 4038, or a condensor. U-67's often work. I find
> that as I get closer to 'behind the drummer', a small diaphram
> condensor, like a KM-54 will often work a bit better.
>
> Mic #3 is often placed next to the floor tom, just peeking over the
> rim of the drum at the snare. It's usually placed equidistant from
> the over mic as it relates to 'ground zero' [where the drummer
> actually hits the snare drum, not the center of it]. As always, one
> speaker mono is your friend.
>
> Another set of fun ones...a pair of small diaphragm condensors [I
> usually like an SM-2 Neumann for this] about 4-5 feet over the front
> mic, aimed at the outer edges of the crash cymbals. I like an SM-2
> because I have to worry about the phase relationships of the two mics
> less, but still worry about that relationship as it relates to the
> 'FOK' [front of the kit] mic.
>
> There's another I've done where I use two lg. diaphragm condensors
> [like 47's] and spread them out. Like one in front of each rack tom
> [on the side of the toms. When I do this one, it seems that if all
> three mics are equidistant from 'ground zero' my setup time is pretty
> well reduced. Don't forget mono one speaker, or you may end up
> wanting to drink Drano when it comes time to mix.
>
> Adding room mics is often cool, it kinda depends on how you're
> tracking. I hate musicians performing with headphones, so I like to
> get everyone set up in the same area so they can hear themselves.
> Like the old record said...'Let It Bleed'. The biggest problem with
> doing this is the bottom of the bass bleeding into the FOK mic and
> causing the bottom of the bass to get really smeary sounding. You may
> have to move the bass amp around for a while until you can get clear
> audio and the drummer can still hear and lock up with the bass player.
>
> Sometimes a small speaker like a 10 or a 12 done as a satalite speaker
> placed in the null of the pickup pattern of the mics will work wonders
> getting the drummer to lock with the bass player while you move the
> bass amp farther away from the drum kit...gobos will often come in
> pretty handy too.
>
> I find I get alot of my guitar reverb/ambience, at least on the basic
> track, by moving the guitar amp so the little bit of bleed in the drum
> mics makes it a cool ambience for the guitars...but doesn't overpower
> the drum kit.
>
> You will be surprised [I know I was] the first few times you do these
> tricks how little bleed there actually is between instruments. If
> there are two guitar players, I recommend setting them up on opposite
> sides of the kit, that way you'll get a better stereo picture when you
> disengage the mono button.
>
> So...room mics...now that you have the whole band set up in a
> room...mic the room. You should get a reasonable balance of all the
> instruments...it should sound like a band in a room [fancy
> that!!]...the mono button is still in until you're positive that
> you're not totally fucking up the clarity of the bottom of the track.
>
> Need more snare you think [first of all, if you really do, the
> drummers a pussy and should learn how to hit the fuckin' things]...but
> in those applications...a Shure 57 aimed about a foot off the side of
> the center of the shell of the snare drum usually will add all you
> need without complicating the rest of the balance.
>
> A few other notes...first, the drummer *must* be competent...second,
> the kit should sound good, and be well tuned or you're screwed. There
> will be damn little EQ that can be applied to any of this without
> totally screwing up the whole picture, so it's gotta be right the
> first time.
>
> You will also find that a large room, or at least a room with a high
> ceiling comes in damn handy or this can start to sound boxy in a
> hurry. I usually try to get soft things around the drum kit. I
> actually carry an 8' high, 20' wide [in the back], and 10' long
> [sides] that decend from 8' high in the back to 4' high in the front
> soft [4" insulation, cloth covered] booth. Front gobos as needed,
> usually just a gobo between the amps and the kit will work pretty well
> at helping you control the bleed.
>
> This usually alieviates the bounce and splatter that will be caused by
> reflections off of hard walls. Depending on where you position the
> kit, these reflections [especially on the cymbals] will come back to
> haunt you as Haas effect shit...
>
> There are times when you're artist is going to need to play loud.
> Often, this means that the other players won't be able to hear the
> drummer when they're playing. This is when you really need a great
> big room...because you go to the old phone book/Rolodex and call the
> local SR company. Now, mic the kit as if it were a barroom, with
> those mics only going to the SR speakers, the mics to the tape are
> still the original mics you set up earlier. You can run the SR mics
> to the tape if you want...most times I don't have enough desk to
> bother, sometimes I'll just take an extra stereo feed off the SR desk,
> thought I find it's the first shit to go if I run out of overdub
> tracks, or perhaps I'll add a little in and do a drum bounce if I need
> more tracks...
>
> Last one I did like this, we used 4x EAW KF-850's a side [about enough
> system to do a 1500 seater with some headroom]. I also use this
> system if you're having the band play to loops. For larger acts that
> are already using "in-ear" monitor stuff...you can bring their monitor
> engineer along to set this kind of thing up [saves you beau coup
> hassle], but rather than treating it like a headphone system [which it
> actually is], I still try to maintain "gig"/stage levels.
>
> If you don't need to get loud, then the musicians will usually balance
> themselves. Scratch vocal? Yeah, sometimes they are needed aren't
> they...well, if you're using an SR system, that's where it goes, if
> you have the 'ear monitor' option...a little in there too...if they're
> playing relatively quietly, like they don't need any of the SR
> stuff...often the singer can just belt it out over the band, other
> times a little guitar amp on a stool will work nicely [the mic being a
> handheld...record it just for shit's and giggles, sometimes you even
> get on the bonus plan and get a performance].
>
> At times, a floor monitor [like at a bar gig] will work well...make
> sure you can EQ the monitor so the little bit of bleed you get from
> the scratch vocal track can be used as a vocal reverb when it's time
> to mix. Sometimes it's a way, way cool thing to have the reverb of
> the scratch track be the main vocal reverb...not only are there always
> performance variations, but if you're trying to place the singer in
> the same room with the band...it works like a charm. Just like the
> guitar and bass amps...you may need to move it around for balance.
>
> Most of the time the singer will actually gravitate to the spot in the
> room where the band's balance is best...sometimes using a stereo mic
> like an SM-69 [or on the last one I just did...Guysonic's Mr. Liteguy
> stereo head] at that spot works like a dream. With Mr. Liteguy, we
> got a doo-rag on him, a pair of shades and a cigarette hanging out of
> his mouth pretty quickly. We called him 'Curtis'...that way everyone
> pretty much forgot he was hangin' around...he was just another dude on
> the venue [that didn't cut in front of you on the dinner line...most
> excellent of him].
>
> Tracking my basics like this I find I use fewer effect overall...that
> the overdubs require fewer effects, and the overall outcome is usually
> 'larger' sounding than when I do use a bunch of effect. The downside
> is that you have less control over the individual tones. You can't
> really do alot of "muscling it around" engineering. I know alot of
> brothers feel it's their god given purpose in life to move a whole
> shitload of knobs and stuff...so these methods will often cause a
> whole bunch of stress as knobs become less involved in the
> process...but you can use compressors to really make the whole thing
> come alive...so there are some knobs that can be turned.
>
> Other problems: if you're working with shitty musicians, there is a
> bit less you can do to obscure the fact that they suck. Fixing
> individual mistakes in the basics becomes more difficult depending on
> the level of separation achieved, and how bad the clam is. This
> mostly applies to bass players, but depending on how much guitar is in
> the drum mics...and again, how bad the clam is...it can be a bitch.
> This, from my experience, happens rarely.
>
> I've also found that more often than not when someone makes a clam, it
> drags down the groove for a bar or two. If they're performing to a
> loop, then you can often cut in that section from another
> performance...if the drummer/band is really tight, they might have
> even done multiple performaces at the same tempo...cutting takes
> together I guess is kind of an old school thing...I still work analog,
> so this is relatively easy to accomplish in my world...probably is
> working hard disk as well...but might, as in probably, will be a bitch
> and a half to deal with if you're using VCR's.
>
> Good luck...oh yeah...don't get discouraged...the first half dozen or
> so times you fuck with this stuff, it get's really
> overwhelming...practice on stuff that really doesn't matter that much.
> The first time I gave myself over to 3 mics on the drums, I was up all
> night the night before sweating it, puked before I left the house, and
> wasn't sure if I wanted to continue with the program all the way into
> the second day of the session.
>
> Once I got past the anxiety and the 'everything I know is wrong' phase
> of the mental part...it started to get easier.
>
> At this point I doubt I'll ever go back to the "too many mics"
> thing...but it took a while to get there. Another bonus...last
> project I recorded, I had three full setups, 3 drum kits, 3 guitar
> rigs, 3 bass rigs all set up in different environments, all coming up
> on a 40 input desk. All three setups were bussed to identical tracks,
> and I used the automation grouping to select which environment I was
> going to record. We had the "Mainstage" [the one with the big PA] as
> group one, the "Memphis Room" [small amplifiers in a smaller, walled
> off dead area] as group two, and the "Iggy Room" [big assed room what
> was finished in barnboard with hard floors and a high ceiling...we
> called it the Iggy room because the tone of the room reminded me of
> 'Lust for Life']...it was group 3.
>
> We also fed the loops off the main recording console to each of the
> environments where they were required. There were a couple of songs
> where I had "turn off the loop" cues. These were either in like one
> bar breaks within the song, or to let the band take the out of the
> song without the loop keeping time.
>
> Being terminally lazy, muting the loops from the control room became
> much easier. Now, another consideration...because there were no
> headphones involved...I was monitoring the band off the machine in
> repro...when I had a mute cue, I had to return the deck to 'input' or
> I'd be tardy on the cue. Because the band wasn't monitoring off the
> deck, I could switch back and forth at my leisure. We used the "loop
> send lines" if the muscian needed to monitor the track to do a fix
> punch.
>
> We could try any of the songs in any of the environments simply by
> selecting them with the automation group masters, and moving the
> musicians to that room and having them play. I think it made the
> record pretty interesting and diverse sounding, it also seemed to aid
> in getting some pretty bitchin' performances from the musicians [which
> afterall is said and done, what this sport is really all about].
> --
> Fletcher
> Mercenary Audio
> TEL: 508-543-0069
> FAX: 508-543-9670
> http://www.mercenary.com
 
LOL! **bowing down** :) I can't find anything with this new google/deja shit...i finally got a printer a few weeks ago, and i've been trying to print out all the great stuff i've read on r.a.p., alt.music.4-track, here, and recording.org over the years (well, not years for RO)...The main problem is remembering what the things were that I wanted to print out :) Thanks!

-travis
 
PS...

If anyone else wanted to print this out, I cleaned it up a little bit:

Fletcher's 3-mic drum micing

I usually start with a mic in front of the kit. It could be 6 feet or one foot off the bass drum. The object of this mic is usually to get the "front of the kit". I look for a good bass drum sound, but also the bottom of the toms and a bit of snare...cymbals will also exist here. The tuning of the kit, the proficiency of the drummer, the mic selection and placement are all pretty damn important...you can do a little EQ to this, but not a whole hell of a lot. When you use equalizers on this mic, you will find that you often mess up the balance of the drums within the context of the kit. Depending on the tone you're looking for, a ribbon, lg. diaphragm condensor or dynamic might be the most appropriate.

For ribbons my choices are usually Royer 121's, RCA-77's...for lg.
diaphragm condensors, Neumann 47 FET's, M-147's; dynamics MD-421, AKG D-30's often work pretty well, but they're a bitch to find and I don't own one. Sometimes [rarely] a Shure 57.

Now, in mono, one speaker, I put up a second mic. This can go
anywhere from directly over the snare to over the drummers right shoulder...or anywhere in the arc in between. The key here is to add that mic so you get the snare, hat, top of the toms and cymbals without the cymbals being out of balance with the rest of the kit. If the drummer can't control this balance, you're pretty much fucked and should revert back to the close mic'ed SR methods they teach at the recording schools.

The reason I do this in mono-1 speaker is to insure that I'm not going to fuck with the bottom of the bass drum because of an inconsistent phase relationship with the front mic. For this I will often use a ribbon, like a Coles 4038, or a condensor. U-67's often work. I find that as I get closer to 'behind the drummer', a small diaphram condensor, like a KM-54 will often work a bit better.

Mic #3 is often placed next to the floor tom, just peeking over the rim of the drum at the snare. It's usually placed equidistant from the over mic as it relates to 'ground zero' [where the drummer actually hits the snare drum, not the center of it]. As always, one speaker mono is your friend.

Another set of fun ones...a pair of small diaphragm condensors [I usually like an SM-2 Neumann for this] about 4-5 feet over the front mic, aimed at the outer edges of the crash cymbals. I like an SM-2 because I have to worry about the phase relationships of the two mics less, but still worry about that relationship as it relates to the 'FOK' [front of the kit] mic.

There's another I've done where I use two lg. diaphragm condensors [like 47's] and spread them out. Like one in front of each rack tom [on the side of the toms. When I do this one, it seems that if all three mics are equidistant from 'ground zero' my setup time is pretty well reduced. Don't forget mono one speaker, or you may end up wanting to drink Drano when it comes time to mix.

Adding room mics is often cool, it kinda depends on how you're
tracking. I hate musicians performing with headphones, so I like to get everyone set up in the same area so they can hear themselves. Like the old record said...'Let It Bleed'. The biggest problem with doing this is the bottom of the bass bleeding into the FOK mic and causing the bottom of the bass to get really smeary sounding. You may have to move the bass amp around for a while until you can get clear audio and the drummer can still hear and lock up with the bass player.

Sometimes a small speaker like a 10 or a 12 done as a satelite speaker placed in the null of the pickup pattern of the mics will work wonders, getting the drummer to lock with the bass player while you move the bass amp farther away from the drum kit...Gobos will often come in pretty handy too.

I find I get alot of my guitar reverb/ambience, at least on the basic track, by moving the guitar amp so the little bit of bleed in the drum mics makes it a cool ambience for the guitars...but doesn't overpower the drum kit.

You will be surprised [I know I was] the first few times you do these tricks how little bleed there actually is between instruments. If there are two guitar players, I recommend setting them up on opposite sides of the kit, that way you'll get a better stereo picture when you disengage the mono button.

So...room mics...now that you have the whole band set up in a
room...mic the room. You should get a reasonable balance of all the instruments...it should sound like a band in a room [fancy that!!]...the mono button is still in until you're positive that
you're not totally fucking up the clarity of the bottom of the track.

Need more snare you think [first of all, if you really do, the
drummers a pussy and should learn how to hit the fuckin' things]...but in those applications...a Shure 57 aimed about a foot off the side of the center of the shell of the snare drum usually will add all you need without complicating the rest of the balance.

A few other notes...first, the drummer *must* be competent...second, the kit should sound good, and be well tuned or you're screwed. There will be damn little EQ that can be applied to any of this without totally screwing up the whole picture, so it's gotta be right the
first time.

You will also find that a large room, or at least a room with a high ceiling comes in damn handy or this can start to sound boxy in a hurry. I usually try to get soft things around the drum kit. I actually carry an 8' high, 20' wide [in the back], and 10' long [sides] that decend from 8' high in the back to 4' high in the front soft [4" insulation, cloth covered] booth. Front gobos as needed, usually just a gobo between the amps and the kit will work pretty well at helping you control the bleed.

This usually alieviates the bounce and splatter that will be caused by reflections off of hard walls. Depending on where you position the kit, these reflections [especially on the cymbals] will come back to haunt you as Haas effect shit...

There are times when you're artist is going to need to play loud.
Often, this means that the other players won't be able to hear the drummer when they're playing. This is when you really need a great big room...because you go to the old phone book/Rolodex and call the local SR company. Now, mic the kit as if it were a barroom, with those mics only going to the SR speakers, the mics to the tape are still the original mics you set up earlier. You can run the SR mics to the tape if you want...most times I don't have enough desk to bother, sometimes I'll just take an extra stereo feed off the SR desk,thought I find it's the first shit to go if I run out of overdub tracks, or perhaps I'll add a little in and do a drum bounce if I need more tracks...

Last one I did like this, we used 4x EAW KF-850's a side [about enough system to do a 1500 seater with some headroom]. I also use this system if you're having the band play to loops. For larger acts that are already using "in-ear" monitor stuff...you can bring their monitor engineer along to set this kind of thing up [saves you beau coup hassle], but rather than treating it like a headphone system [which it actually is], I still try to maintain "gig"/stage levels.

If you don't need to get loud, then the musicians will usually balance themselves. Scratch vocal? Yeah, sometimes they are needed aren't they...well, if you're using an SR system, that's where it goes, if you have the 'ear monitor' option...a little in there too...if they're playing relatively quietly, like they don't need any of the SR stuff...often the singer can just belt it out over the band, other times a little guitar amp on a stool will work nicely [the mic being a handheld...record it just for shit's and giggles, sometimes you even get on the bonus plan and get a performance].

At times, a floor monitor [like at a bar gig] will work well...make
sure you can EQ the monitor so the little bit of bleed you get from the scratch vocal track can be used as a vocal reverb when it's time to mix. Sometimes it's a way, way cool thing to have the reverb of the scratch track be the main vocal reverb...not only are there always performance variations, but if you're trying to place the singer in the same room with the band...it works like a charm. Just like the guitar and bass amps...you may need to move it around for balance.

Most of the time the singer will actually gravitate to the spot in the room where the band's balance is best...sometimes using a stereo mic like an SM-69 [or on the last one I just did...Guysonic's Mr. Liteguy stereo head] at that spot works like a dream. With Mr. Liteguy, we got a doo-rag on him, a pair of shades and a cigarette hanging out of his mouth pretty quickly. We called him 'Curtis'...that way everyone pretty much forgot he was hangin' around...he was just another dude on the venue [that didn't cut in front of you on the dinner line...most excellent of him].

Tracking my basics like this I find I use fewer effect overall...that the overdubs require fewer effects, and the overall outcome is usually 'larger' sounding than when I do use a bunch of effect. The downside is that you have less control over the individual tones. You can't really do alot of "muscling it around" engineering. I know alot of brothers feel it's their god given purpose in life to move a whole shitload of knobs and stuff...so these methods will often cause a whole bunch of stress as knobs become less involved in the process...but you can use compressors to really make the whole thing come alive...so there are some knobs that can be turned.

Other problems: if you're working with shitty musicians, there is a bit less you can do to obscure the fact that they suck. Fixing individual mistakes in the basics becomes more difficult depending on the level of separation achieved, and how bad the clam is. This mostly applies to bass players, but depending on how much guitar is in the drum mics...and again, how bad the clam is...it can be a bitch. This, from my experience, happens rarely.

I've also found that more often than not when someone makes a clam, it drags down the groove for a bar or two. If they're performing to a loop, then you can often cut in that section from another performance...if the drummer/band is really tight, they might have even done multiple performaces at the same tempo...cutting takes together I guess is kind of an old school thing...I still work analog, so this is relatively easy to accomplish in my world...probably is working hard disk as well...but might, as in probably, will be a bitch and a half to deal with if you're using VCR's.

Good luck...oh yeah...don't get discouraged...the first half dozen or so times you fuck with this stuff, it get's really overwhelming...practice on stuff that really doesn't matter that much. The first time I gave myself over to 3 mics on the drums, I was up all night the night before sweating it, puked before I left the house, and wasn't sure if I wanted to continue with the program all the way into the second day of the session.
Once I got past the anxiety and the 'everything I know is wrong' phase of the mental part...it started to get easier.

At this point I doubt I'll ever go back to the "too many mics"
thing...but it took a while to get there. Another bonus...last
project I recorded, I had three full setups, 3 drum kits, 3 guitar
rigs, 3 bass rigs all set up in different environments, all coming up on a 40 input desk. All three setups were bussed to identical tracks, and I used the automation grouping to select which environment I was going to record. We had the "Mainstage" [the one with the big PA] as group one, the "Memphis Room" [small amplifiers in a smaller, walled off dead area] as group two, and the "Iggy Room" [big assed room what was finished in barnboard with hard floors and a high ceiling...we called it the Iggy room because the tone of the room reminded me of 'Lust for Life']...it was group 3.

We also fed the loops off the main recording console to each of the environments where they were required. There were a couple of songs where I had "turn off the loop" cues. These were either in like one bar breaks within the song, or to let the band take the out of the song without the loop keeping time.
Being terminally lazy, muting the loops from the control room became much easier. Now, another consideration...because there were no headphones involved...I was monitoring the band off the machine in repro...when I had a mute cue, I had to return the deck to 'input' or I'd be tardy on the cue. Because the band wasn't monitoring off the deck, I could switch back and forth at my leisure. We used the "loop send lines" if the muscian needed to monitor the track to do a fix punch.

We could try any of the songs in any of the environments simply by selecting them with the automation group masters, and moving the musicians to that room and having them play. I think it made the record pretty interesting and diverse sounding, it also seemed to aid in getting some pretty bitchin' performances from the musicians [which afterall is said and done, what this sport is really all about].
 
Back
Top