Bringing "life", "air" and other unclear ambiguous terms to my recordings....

C

Chibi Nappa

New member
Bringing "life", "air" and other unclear ambiguous terms to my recordings....

I've been pretty frustrated with some of my work lately. There is just something missing.... I can only describe it as "life" or "sparkle" or something like that. When I listen to a pro recording in my monitors (or anywhere), the music "feels" huge, wide, crisp. Even if it is just a single clean electric guitar and vocals, it eats up the whole spectrum, spreads itself out, and just "lives" for lack of better terms. When I listen to my recordings, they sound small and confined. Eq'ing in more highs doesn't do the trick. After I push it past a certain point it sounds like a processed mess....and it still sounds like it is missing "air"!

So anyway, here are a few recordings I have done. I am not posting this in the mixing clinic because I don't need input on the specific songs themselves, and I'm pretty sure it is a recording problem in the first place. I think the songs sound more "good" than "bad" overall, I just want to take it to the next level.

http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=2823&alid=-1

and some older stuff...

http://www.garageband.com/artist/omnisoul

For anybody wondering, I am using a Roland VS 2480 with a Mackie VLZ 1204 mixer in front. Microphones aren't expensive, but not compleat crap either. Some nice Shure large diapharam condenser that belongs to our singer.... Don't know the model number but I'd guess a $400 or so price range, some SM 57's, Studio Projects C1, some Octava MC012's.... stuff like that.

Any ideas? Upgrade the word clock? Better mic placement (I've spent hours placing those damn things)? World class pre-amp?
 
i think most of what separates home recs from the big dogs is the use of compression. not squashing everything to death, but knowing how to apply it and where. other than that, top notch instruments and musicians are a big part of it too. sounds like you have some pretty good musicians. i would maybe look in to some different pres other than the mackie. the mackies are ok, i have 32 ch worth, but i dont put anything really important through them, like overheads, snare drum, acoustic guitars, or vocals. have you tried sending your mixes to a pro mastering house?
 
foreverain4 said:
have you tried sending your mixes to a pro mastering house?
Click to expand...
Yes and no.... the second link above (garageband) has 4 songs that were sent to a pro, but it was kind of a "favor" for super cheap since our singer was one of his students. He was not able to spend the full amount of time on it as a result.

As for not using the Mackie pre's.....the only other alternative is the Roland VS2480 itself. I figure the Mackie is the lesser of two evils. Could the pre's really destroy my recording that much?

And as far as the musicians and their instruments.... I firmly belive that our drummer and bass player are 100% professional level, and their instruments aren't too shabby either. I also think the singer has some honest tallent, and the other guys play their instruments with a high degree of competance....for the most part. :)
 
yea i noticed that too. When I hear a home recording I instantly know it was recorded at home. If I record an e chord strum it will sound very different than the same E chord on a professional recording
 
It could be....

The roland uses 24 bit converters but converts the data through proprietary compression down to the 20 bit level. Do a search on the internet. I've heard this complaint before from VS product users who ahve worked at the pro level.

Or the preamps your using is cutting off upper order harmonics leaving you with excess mid range. Sometimes you need to cut in the low to make the highs more clear, the ying and yang of eq. Take a parametric and pull down a few db at 200 to 350hz..see if the mid range and highs clean up..

SoMm
 
well, yeah

<< Could the pre's really destroy my recording that much?>>

destroy? no. but "not help"? absolutely.

you've gotta remember, "pro" recordings are recorded in professionally designed and treated rooms, using top quality mics and cables into top quality boards with top quality pre's and top quality outboard gear. a mackie's pre's aren't horrible (i live with em), but they're certainly not API or SSL quality either. and Mackie pre's definitely have a "sound" to them. no way around that.

it's kinda like asking why a passat doesn't perform like a ferrarri.

sounds like the musicians have their shit together, though, and that's always the first kink in the chain.

so it's prolly a bit of everything. the room, the mics, the pres and the outboard gear. SoMM's comments about the VS and the bit rate might be dead on, too.....i have no experience with that unit.

we as home rec'ers need to remember, you get out what you've paid in. IMO, "modest gear" will usually turn out a "modest product". that's the danger inherent in all of this "best bang for the buck" stuff.....there's a ceiling on the finished quality at some point. you can't expect "pro results" without "pro gear"....at least, not every time all the time.

to be honest, i'm still thrilled i can do all of this at home, warts and all, and not have to shell out cash for studio time. i can turn out a recording that sounds comparable (if not better) to the $30/hr studios in my area, and for my personal enjoyment and satisfaction, that's all that really matters......b/c lord knows i'm not shelling out for $50 or $100/hr studios any time soon.


wade
 
The number of commercial studios in my area that use neve and api and other top on the line gear is absolutley

0.... zero, none, ziltch. zip, nada.
 
Just so I'm not missunderstood here....

I'm not trying to make "OK Computer" or anything like that. I just know I can get closer, even using a Roland VS. Victor Wooten put out a CD recorded on a Roland VS 1680. It had the "life" I'm talking about (I'm sure he used outboard pre's). But the point is I know the Roland itself isn't the limiting factor in this specific problem.

Heck, if I could even sound as good as some of the top guys on this site I'd be happy.

And I already cut lows on the EQ.... Like I said, I don't think it's on the mixing end. I just can't seem to get a good sound into the machine in the first place.
 
<< zero, none, ziltch. zip, nada.>>

yeah, but are they using a mackie 1204 into a Roland? i'd bet not.

that's my point.


wade
 
<< I just can't seem to get a good sound into the machine in the first place.>>

well, at the expense of sounding redundant (or annoying you :D), this could be where the problem lay. if it doesn't sound good going to "tape", it's not gonna sound good coming off the tape.

does it sound ok before it goes into the roland? if so, then maybe the problem's there. maybe the problem's in mic placement. or maybe it's that you're not using the right mic for the source (mic selection). or maybe it's the room itself. maybe it's the guitar. or the amp. or your fuzzbox. or your fingers. i mean, honestly, there's a myriad of reasons why it might not sound "good to you" or "comparable to the pros".

keep in mind that a lot of "pro" places spend days getting "usable" sounds from drums. they spend hours getting the right mic in front of the right amp. the preproduction part of commercial pro recording is vastly underrated and quite often overlooked in the home arena. a movement of even a half inch can make the difference between a shimmering guitar and a turd warmed over.

my point being, even with all other things equal, an sm57->1204->VS will not equal a M147->Avalon->VS......and even that's never a given.


wade
 
How long have you been doing this, and do you have any sort of formal or informal training?


It just sounds to me like you might need a little more practice and polishing up on your mixing skills. What you have sounds pretty good, for the most part, when compared to other DIY stuff I've heard.

Your basic tracks are fine and the foundation is there. If I had your original files, I could probably mix something like this and make it sound pretty close to commercial quality . . . just by EQ'ing, compressing, reverbs, etc. etc.

There's just some mixing "basics" that I think might be missing. Vocals aren't quite compressed right, but the performance and tracking sound fine. The guitar sounds like a good enough track to work with, but it gets lost in the mix. Ditto for the bass. Drums sound SOLID, performance-wise and tracking-wise. But they're not compressed or EQ'ed the right way . . . and the cymbals are waaaay overpowering, which is putting sort of a veil or wash over everything else, making the other tracks sound less detailed, etc. Doesn't sound like there's any good, artistic use of reverb or ambience, to give it a sense of space.

But don't get down on yourself. You're getting great use out of your equipment, and none of it is holding you back as long as you're not trying to make okay computer with it. :D Just keep practicing and brushing up on your mixing skills. It's a very involving, complex, ever-evolving skill that has to be learned and developed . . . just like playing guitar or drums.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... So maybe it is a mixing problem then.

I would still like to put better sound to tape (errr disk), but maybe I could go in and give it another mix. I've been mixing for about 2 years now, but only have really gone at it in the past year. No training of any kind. I gotta' get me some of that. :) Dynamics especially. I try my darndest to leave compression, gates, etc off of the tracks entirely, but often it can't be helped (snare drum, vocals). I just mess around until it sounds right. Apparently, I need to mess around more (and go hunting for some dynamics tutorials).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top