The recording process...........chain of events

[jjones1700]

Okay, as much as I try to dive in and read all I can about recording, analog, and the like.............there seems to be some "mystery" about the whole recording chain. Would anyone care to enlighten me on the process chain? I'm not sure what every part involves. You know, like tracking, mixing, mastering, etc. Nothing too in depth, just a quick rundown of the various stages.

[avieth]

I think you've got them right there; tracking, mixing, mastering.

First, all the musical whatevers are tracked. This is up to the artist for the most part, since it's their work. You've just got to decide how to use your available tracks ergonomically.

Then, once all the portions are recorded you begin mixing. Work with the artist to get all the levels, panning, and outboard effects just right. Once you are satisfied, the mix is recorded on to a two track medium and if you want to master it, you go to the next step.

Mastering. This is where you apply compression, EQ, and limiters to the final stereo mix. It's not absolutely necessary, but definitely has a positive effect on your recordings. Mastering an album can give it a much more consistent feel.

[jjones1700]

Cool. That sheds some light on it for me. Thanks!

[elly-d]

mastering is a must, if its going to be played next to other albums, say on radio or something, then you want the volume and eq to be similar to others. comparing your final mix with albums in a similar style is helpful.

[jjones1700]

Wow, so that means you have to have separate masters for radio, vinyl, CD, etc., etc., etc.????

So why would an album need to be "remastered"? Take the album DSOTM (Pink Floyd.......of course) or any of the other various albums that have been on CD for a decade or so and yet the record labels release a "remastered" version of it. What's the difference and why? Sorry for all of the questions.

[trancedental]

When an album is remastered my understanding is that the recording comes straight from the original master tape(s) not the second generation copies that came from that original master . The copies usually sent to processing plants & / overseas to make vinyl, CD, cassette & other formats.

I heard that some classic albums were released on CD for the first time in the '80's by using the vinyl second generation masters instead of going back to the original tape!

[Richard King]

Back in the old days I worked as a remastering engineer for Pickwick International. This was sort of a KTel outfit before KTel existed. We used to get master tapes (well, copies of the original master) from the major labels and remaster them for release on the Pickwick label (always vinyl since CD's weren't around yet). A very brief explaination of what I did back then can be found here: http://www.pbase.com/rking401/image/68147229. Some of my equipment has changed since I wrote this in 2006, so don't laugh too hard at the Yamaha computer speakers that I mentioned. They have been replaced with JBL LSR4328's, a slight improvement was noticed.
It's fun having my name attached to an Elvis record, even if no one knows who that person is that is named as "Remastering Engineer".

[rayc]

CDs made from masters prepared for vinyl sound VERY different to those prep'd for CD. Just as those produced for normal vinyl are different for thnose produced for "1/2 speed mastered" discs.
Much of the diff was caused by compensation for signal accommodation such as RIAA EQing for standard LPs etc.
I have an Elvis costello album on LP (great), CD without the corrected mastering (dull, lacking bass & a little quiet), also REmastered for CD (not bad at all) & the moste recent with bonus tracks OVERmastered to sound like it's all loud all the time.
the LP sounds best in that collection - & I was miffed to be riped off so many times - I was also a sucker to be ripped off so many times too.
Richard - what were your secret orders when it came to remastering some of those classics? Also, what was your personal mission?

[Richard King]

Originally Posted by rayc

Richard - what were your secret orders when it came to remastering some of those classics? Also, what was your personal mission?

I wouldn't call many of them "classics" as I got to work on a lot of stuff that I would never listen to again. No secret orders were given (I was not told to over compress to make them sound louder or anything like that, thankfully). I was simply set loose in the room and once there attemtped to make them sound as good as possible with what I was given to work with. Of course, this was in the mid/late '70's and everything was analog, so I didn't have all the digital toys that are available now. I don't know if that would have been better or worse though, I suspect worse and more time consuming. I had a good time doing these projects and was exposed to some music that I never would have been exposed to, which was one of the more enjoyable part of the job. I did things like the attached along with a fair amount of classical and jazz "stuff". By the way, each day was started with a full calibration of the machines that I would be using that day. Levels were set using test tones at the head of each of the master tapes. I got pretty good at tweeking machines at that time.

[rayc]

Thanks for the response mate - good to get an insight into the era (I bought a hell of a lot of vinyl across that time zone).

I was also interested to read your attachment as I do a fair bit of LP restoration for myself (lots of irreplaceable records).
My gear is far further down the food chain than yours but it's fun & I don't automate it like so many progs do. I use waverepair - pretty good prog & I can get as deep;y into hands on as I feel like or the LP is worth. I don't, however, attempt to master the results as it's far to mysterious an art for me. A bit of EQing to deal with wear or bad pressing, some very careful noise removal as well as pops, clicks, scratches etc. & the old evil normalisation if I took the signal in a bit low but no mastering - funnily enough I hadn't even thought about taking a file into cakewalk to play with a plug in!
Oh, I fib - I've occasionally used an Omnisonic 801 Imager on the way into the pre if it's an old LP that has demonstrates some hidden depths (I found some amazing stuff in the detail of an old Hendrix LP with it) but the results are a) unpredictable & b) messes with my head when trying to decide if it's better or not.
Again - thanks!
jjones - sorry for hijacking the thread.

[tomekgmz]

Tkanks for helpful informations, but I still don't know what exactly is needed to make an analog record.
mics -> preamps/mixer -> tape recorder ?
Can you advice some gear for the start?

Another question is how to convert analog to digital for a few demos in mp3.