Making Recorded Songs Sound "Fuller"

Isn't it up to the Mastering house to get that "full studio quality" sound? Can you even get that without having your stuff mastered?

I know now why mastering costs so damn much after hearing some of my old band's before-and-after mastered CDs. It's fucking unbelievable. Do they do witchcraft in there or something?
 
The use of compression as popular now sets my teeth on edge.Its a pissing contest of "my CD is louder than yours" that squishes all the dynamic range out of the music.With all the extra headroom in modern digital recording,we don't have to do this!
Done artisticaly,its transparent.But how often can you hear the pumping?Or the weird cymbal artifacts?An alternate view can be obtained by listening to classical music recordings and movie soundtracks.Sorry for the rant,but this subject is a pet peeve.I hear compressor misuse more often than just about any other technical flaw.

Tom
 
people make mistakes...

I know that telling people to compress tracks sets some people off, but its an important tool, and takes some time to learn. After all, if done right, you can't even hear it.

I just meant to bring up the point that without it, I was having trouble getting my tracks to sit well together. Once I added this tool, things went from unlistenable to "merely amature".

I could be wrong, but I bet a dollar that tekker's vocal recording chain is a dynamic mic into the pre on the MD recorder.
 
I agree with MR TIM Compression is the start.I use a compresser on every mic and once i figured out how to use them i was able to get a much fuller sound .I went to http://www.artistpro.com .I thought they gave a real good explation on how to use a comppresser .So anyone who needs the knowledge check it.
 
As an example of compression run amuck, listen to any (if you can) Brittany Spears CDs..and her weird, compressed, processed, reprocessed, layered. post-human vocals. But then again, it sells.
 
Ya'll are all talking "compression." I find a better sound out of limiting (what Cool Edit calls "Hard Limiting"). It's good a various points in a mix for various reasons (getting somewhat steady kick drum, ie), but on a final mix it's the last thing I run everything though and I love it. I'll push everything up a bit (say, 3 dB), and the attack and lead times are programmable (not that I've messed with the defaults...).

Also, I "built" a four-band compressor based on the one we used at the radio station, I basically took the manual home and tried to emulate the unit with a batch script. Now when I've got the mix down, I run this batch script that compresses bands according to their own levels, and I find a better in-your-face type of sound. It's not for soft music, and it IS "copied" from a radio compressor, but it works well enough for me. I've tried sending it to a couple of folks here on the board, it didn't work for them.

Anybody know how to mail, receive, and implement batch scripts on CEP 1.2?

My point: single-band compression, when applied to the ENTIRE sound spectrum, is gonna be a little weird (bass makes the compressor think there's more energy there than there really is). If you'd like me to send you the file, my present e-mail is kellyh@netrelated.com (I missed my ISP payment, shit, pay for a year and they expect me to remember my anniversary date... sheesh). Otherwise, to improve "in your face"ness, try using a limiter a bit.
 
dumb to argue with a "recording genius" but uh i heard hard limiting should be the last thing to do because it just raises the noise floor. The recording should be done so hot that limiting is not needed.

then again i only READ it. don't shoot me please...

guhlenn ;)
 
make a recording fuller? feed it alot;)
Hey kelly I found this cool picture of a cat smokin' a cuban. If I remember next time I'm at my mates I'll grab it and post it.It will have your cat for breakfast.
 
im not a newbie at recording, but i am new at this site...so ill try to be respectful,

this is to kelly....
How does Hard limiting help make an entire mix sound fuller??

i like using compression, its been a lifesaver,

( i use a Joe meek, a pair of levelars, the DBX project one, and (GULP!!) a pair of 3630s...) any steely dan fans here????--Compression friends, compression...

But it certainly aint gonna make anything fuller if it isnt already full????...all that classic stuff was recorded on Studer analog machines....very warm and very full sounding stuff to begin with.....

Gumboots.....it probably doesnt help that youre using mini-disc....they certainly are great in the fact that there just isnt much noise or distortion, but man...good luck getting them to sound anything but metalic....i used the MD-8 and it sounded "good", but it didnt sound warm or hold any of the nuance of analog tape....a little to clean, if u ask me.....
 
gumboots,

invest in a tube pre-amp...if u are tracking all the stuff yourself one may be enough,

that will really warm up your tracks...the preamps on the md4 are lacking in the BALLS department.....and dont try to pan stuff to much,

keep everything fairly close to center....anything else sounds very unnatural, (unless you can balance a left sided track with something on the right)...listen to "lady Madonna" by the Beatles....terrible stereo imaging.....when you hear this song (as great as it is)..you will know what not to do when it comes to stereo....try to emulate ( although your own ear is the most important piece of gear in your studio) stuff like what Pink Floyd or, by more modern standard, Stone temple pilots....very great engineering on all those albums by both bands....if you arent in to them, give em a listen anyway just to hear what to do when it comes to panning....

and despite what blue bear says....dont be afraid to use the compressor.....just dont "overdo" it, especially when a track is outta control, like say drums or vocals...drums are so wild sometimes, since youre using a 4-track i can tell you arent gonna put each drum on a seperate track.....just record them flat and without compression...and when you go to bounce them..put a 2:1 at -10 on them --at the most and that should tame the dynamics a bit...vocals---YES!! compress them if your vocalist is inconsistant....if not, use the compressor just to "smooth it out...meaning just a touch to comtrol peaks....as far as the entire mix, use the compressor ( you do have a stereo compressor right???--you arent using a fx send with it are you??)----to keep all the instruments consistent with each other....again a ratio of 2:1 at the most ......maybe at around -10 dB or better......if you recorded the tracks well, this should be all you need.....since you are obviously bouncing tracks...make sure that you eq and process BEFORE you bounce...and that means you have to make sure its right before you bounce...otherwise, youll be very sorry.....

just trying to help out...my 2 cents ---(looks more like i was bored today..ha ha ha sorry y'all)

Mike
 
One thing I would like to point out here is there are alot of HOME recorders here with bare minimum of gear and bare minimum of finances to get the gear.So all these people rattle off their list of so called humble posessions and can sometimes make the poster feel very uneqquiped.
It sure is good to hear lots of advice but let us not forget sometimes you could be talking to someone who has bought what they can afford. And in some cases not nessacarily what they really wanted..
On mini disk alot of radio stations adds are on mindisk and they sound very full..pretty much the same as tv adds.they appear louder because they are full.
Which is compression:D
 
little to know $

Well if you want an inexpenctive build-it-yourself tip you could go to the pages of the March 2001 Recording Mag. Jon Bare, with the help of some friends, has designed what he calles the "Phase Phlogger". The Phase Phloggers soul purpose is to expand the sound of your recordings (isn't that what the OG question was?). And if your really don't have the time to build the Phlogger and happen to have eight open channels on your mixer you can acheive the same effect with proper pannig and polarity settings (and some cables)

It's worth looking into anyway.

nemo
 
Respectfully...

I have read a bunch of "use compression" and "use well applied effects", and "use analog tape" here.

I seen only I think two posts (sorry, I am not good at doing multiple "quotes") that really addressed the issue of making your recordings sound fuller.

It would be very important to remember this first and foremost about recordings:

Your electronic gear is going to make the least difference.

The quality and selection of your microphone is going to make the biggest difference on the front end (recording to "tape") and your monitors are going to make the biggest difference on the back end.

I will throw in too what John Sayers has been saying here lately, that you can have the best mic and best monitors in the world and it will sound like crap in a bad acoustic space.

So, you gotta have an appropriate mic for the application. You gotta have monitors that recreate the sound that mic is making. These are the two, and ONLY two mechanical conversions that happen in recording/playback, and for obvious reasons, they are the two most important things, along with a good room to record it in and to listen to it in.

After that, the quality of your preamps and A/D converters will make the next biggest differences. It is so sad to see so many people settling for low end in these two areas. Preamps are more important really because they are the place where the biggest gain change happens in the recording chain (aside from the monitor power amp, but power amps all in all are getting much cleaner with much better slew rates to move the bass.....). A/D conversion is far more important then many think. High resolution converters (20 or 24) means that the dithering (yes, dithering HAS to happen during the A/D conversion....the dithering for going from say 24 bits to 16 bits is called "redithering" technically) that happens in the A/D conversion is more detailed. Also, the quality of the chipset in the converter makes a huge difference. Many here may try to argue this, but until you have put an Apogee 16 bit converter against a cheaper converter, even at a higher bit resolution, you will never know the big difference there really is.

Next. Your mixing board is so important in your studio. It interfaces everything together. Studios are mostly built around the mixer it will house. Decision on what mic pre's and external eq's are put in the rack depend a lot on the house console. If you buy cheap here, you will be putting a lot of stuff in the rack to make up for it. Aside from that, the OP amps (or lack of them), the calibration of each channel strip, etc....on a nice mixer keep consistency in the sound, and allow to engineer to expect the very same results of any applied function from channel to channel.....Blah blah blah....

Unless you are using a turnkey type of DAW (ie. ProTool, Sonic Solutions, Sadie, Soundscape) you are making very big compromises in the quality of your mixing, dynamic, and effect processing. Hell, some engineers feel that the above systems are a compromise to sound quality, and they are worlds better then most of the riff raff you will find in the "budget" market.

So lets say you have your nice setup going. Great mics, great monitors, great room, competent mixing and dynamic/effect processing.

Who is to say you would have a good sound GETTING to that great setup? Who is to say that the part that is being played is appropriate to the song? Who is to say it is in tune? (I cannot count how many intonation problems I have heard on budget demo's!!!)

It really starts with a good song, like was stated earlier. Then, you need to have some good players playing the parts. Those good players really need to have some good tone going on. THEN, you need the nice recording setup to make it all fly. Aside from all that, you need to have engineering experience that can keep the tracks handled properly throughout the whole process. A great engineer is soooooooooo helpful. A great PRODUCER is so helpful. Blah blah blah......

I find it funny that dudes who have never spent a significant amount of money on a project in a competent studio want to buy $5000 worth of recording gear and make recordings that sound like they were done in a million dollar studio with ace engineers and a top name producer!!!! I find that beyond unrealitic.

Friend, if you want fuller sounding recordings, get at least one signal chain of some class A gear (preferably two, you might want to mic something stereo...:) ) and spend your time playing around with getting exactly the sound you want on tape with no applied processing (eq, compression, gates). Once you get that far, THEN give a little "to tape" compression a try, cause I will admit to using it myself, but in very light dosages unless the artist is just simply lousy, then the whole recording is compromises anyway, so who cares if the damn bass is pumping and breathing! :)

A friend of mine just finished a 7 song CD he co-produced, engineered, and played guitar on in his studio. He houses a Yamaha O2R console with 20 bit ADAT's, some Focusrite Red pre's, Drawmer pre's, Joe Meek pre's, Neumann U87's, a 414, 4050, 4033, ADK tube mic, etc.......

His product didn't have the normal time restraints because he was working the producing part on "spec", so the whole of the budget (he slashed his studio rate in addition for this artist) was dedicated to production. It was mastered in a facility with very very top of the line gear with an engineer who has mastered several major label releases....blah blah blah.....

You know what? With all that time spent and all that "seemingly" nice gear, it still just sounded like a very fine sounding demo! The musicians involved have been recording artists for years, and the producing was very well done. 32 tracks!!! They used them up in every song. Very tasteful decisions made. But it still lacked "that sound". It was "full" but not "deep". It had "detail" but it lacked "prettiness" in the highs.

The faults? Bad recordings room. Bad mixing room. Bad mixer.

This dude's studio is worth around $100k! The engineer has a world of experience. It would seem that they could have kicked out a "radio ready" mix with this stuff. Just didn't happen. Personally, the recording is nice to listen to, but it still doesn't have to richness and clarity of a big time recording, even though these guys did it all right. They just lacked great rooms and a great console to bring it all together. I felt too that the mic selection was a bit weak. Variety is key here.

So, that is what I think about getting "fuller sounding mixes". Friend, you are using a recording medium that uses data compression! You probably don't have single piece of gear that you would see at the Record Plant or Paisley Park.

Good luck competing with the sounds those two fine studios will kick out.

Get the sound you want to tape. You DON'T have gear good enough to manipulate it enough after the fact.

Gosh, this is long. Sorry. I am sure though that a few of you will have a merry time slapping me around for this post.

Good Day!
 
edgarderbylive said:
im not a newbie at recording, but i am new at this site...so ill try to be respectful,

this is to kelly....
How does Hard limiting help make an entire mix sound fuller??
Click to expand...

A mix that you can boost the overall level and the transient peaks are reduced, will tend to sound punchier and fatter. Although you are reducing the dynamics, but energy comes from hotter average levels as well. Over limiting is a different story.
THAT will make your sound small not to mention dull and more.....
I hope you don't mind also my suggestion that you don't try but be respectful. Respect is something you earn newbie or not

SoundCracker (is that like a cracker you eat?).

Everything you wrote is solid truth (long but true).
And no slapping you around from my side.
He can forget getting the sound he hears on multi$ productions with his home gear.

For me, these kind of posts are the most difficult to answer. How do you go about explaining to somebody that needs help, that he needs so much more then a tip here or there.
I can't send every person here out to buy expensive gear and call that a solution ( although it would help immensely, it will not improve his technique).
Giving tips like tube (for the record, there are solid -state that sound as good), analog-compression-etc... might help a bit but it's like trying to kill an elephant with a pin.....if it was a single track those things might help but on a full mix...were does one start?

An attempt to a solution might be to ask Gumdrops to break down his song to bit's starting with drums alone,
Perhaps a bit of bass with it and start from there.
Listening to his mp3 might be a start for him to understand how to fill out his sound and get closer to a decent solid mix. Then when he finds the money.........

There is a mp3 clinic here and I suggest you post such a brokendown mix and I'm sure all the people that posted
here can give more specific advice, then you can try some suggestions and see (or not) results.
 
Last edited:
Shailat and Bruce...

Obviously you are two people that have spent a little time facing your monitors and hearing what will never be! You both have probably heard good intentions "track" bad! You have seen more sincerity then technique! You have "warped" sounds beyond what may even be possible for the average human to warp!

Man! Some of the sessions I have done. It is a wonder that I can still appreciate something good. With how the brain can accept what may be traditionally "bad" and make is "acceptable" is amazing. At times, I wonder is ANYBODY can actually play their instrument well, and write a decent hook. I begin to wonder at times whether I can hear something out of tune or not. I spend so much time imagining how good a song "could" sound that it becomes easy to think what is there "is" the real deal.

Playing engineer/producer can be a lonely road. It would seem that to produce something worth while that you will lose friendship bacause sometimes you just have to tell someone that they are not delivering the goods, even though they really think they are.

I always wished there was a way to write some kind of essay or article on how to identify "the real deal", but subjectiveness seems to muddy the waters a bit. I would bet a months paycheck that many of the professional engineers on hear have a deep and expansive musical background in something other the Dream Theater sounding bands! I would almost bet too that many of the best engineers started their musical careers before 1982. Just a guess....:)

Shailat, that is so true that you can't recommend any one "thing" that will make a recording fuller and better to the ear. Do you think that many looking for that quick answer realize just how much time and effort is spent in the studio to produce major label releases? I explained above how a person with a very decent setup and loads of time on their hands just couldn't quite measure up to the major artists. Assessing where the project really failed would be a long investigation.


The more I work with artists in either studio or live sound, the more I come to the conclusion that the "full sound" many talk about exists before the song is put to tape. What little songwriter/performer/engineer/producer stuff out their that actually sounds great is more the exception then the rule.

It would seem that the best approache to recording is the expect less "specific" results and work towards sokething that represent's what is their already. Trying to compare what you have to professionally produced and recorded stuff just isn't fair.

Maybe people just need to preface their questions a bit more. Explaining your engineering experience, and what kind of gear you are using and some kind of prodution goal helps others address the "real" issues about recording it.

Damn! Got sucked in again!!! I need to sleep.

Good Day!
 
So Soundcracker what are you saying dont waste you time unless you have all pro gear or in a all pro set up
This is home recording here where you never going to get top notch studio quality but theres ways a getting better results out of your low budget shit ass equiment .Each time i do new recording it comes out a little bit better thanks to all the advise i get here.


EvasiveQue.net
 
Norm55,

I don't think that's what SC was saying exactly... if I may paraphrase for the HomeRec crowd a bit - there are very sound (geddit?!? :) ) reasons for the sometimes stringent techniques and attention to gear/acoustics/etc that goes on in a commerical studio environment. It simply isn't as easy as slapping a mic up and hitting the Record button - there are so many factors as to what is being captured by that mic - many of which are neither obvious, nor intuitive.

While some of it does not apply in a Home Recording situation with more budget gear being used, many of the techniques still do apply. And if you sweat the small stuff enough, even with budget gear, as you pointed out - your recordings will benefit greatly...

Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top