all the lies

I'm not interested in music anymore. Not for money or performing publicly. When I was late teens I played the favorites in a band. I loved those songs. Eventually id like to know how the Album tracks were made and with what.

Most vids on youtube are incomplete or incorrect.


We could burn them at the stake or a rotisserie thing? Lets say all options are on the table.
 
Right on. I feel like it is an especially predatory practice for music students, who are already paying an arm and a leg for their education and are already going into tons of student debt before blowing thousands more on misleading (and intentionally deceitful) content and plugins.
you got it max...its sad. Chris lord alge will openly admit that he wouldnt even be a pro if it wasnt for the kindness of Bob Clearmountain teaching him...then he does interviews and i cant believe the load of bullshit he lays on newbies. It is so far from the truth, and from what he actually does, that it is a crime. He should get honest or shut the fuck up. He is stealing peoples money. When you reach his level you are a floater. If someone doesnt come to your house, you drag your rack to the room they like and mix. His startin price for a song is $10,000..not an album, a single. He is definitely worth it, but when you give kids the hope that they can make their stuff better and the give them a wheel and tell them its a whole car, your a thief.
I know several people at different studios ( my friend has an upsatirs room in House of Blues in Nashville) that work with him regularly. He wouldnt touch one of his own plug-ins on a mix if you stole his rack before the session! and this seems to be a common practice among engineers making big money these days.How hard is it to just pass on some depth to kids truly wanting to make good music. The biggies still would get rich off their sessions and plug-ins.
His CLA La-3a is very good...very good. Is it worth the money. Absolutely worth it. So he isnt fooling you there, but that should be enough. No, he has to lie about many of the plugin capabilities, and the run master classes, taking money most people dont have, and giving them basic info that a novice engineer of 5 years would clearly know. Never, and i mean never, have i heard him give a single piece of knowledge that would bring a track to a professional level. His answers are so vague and deliberately passive. Most people listening dont know just how bad it really is. That bass compression trick I mentioned in my first post. Now that is the type of thing that makes people go " damn, how in the hell did you get your low end so huge with killer separation and still have enough headroom for the rest of the track. He learned that from the same guy I learned it from. Andy Wallace. Your never going to hear CLA mention it...never. What I want to know is why?
 
Long ago, Q101 in Chicago had the local music showcase on Sun night(1990?). You could submit a track. However so many submitted recordings were unacceptable for radio play. They used the demos to choose an artist from and option to send us to record it . They sent us to the studio on Lake St. in 45min our single was done. It played on the radio with othersin that showcase. Sounded fine. And was even with the other songs.

There is some format to it. It was done in front of me, very quickly.

I would like to know how they did it.
 
Put some poison in their drink, then offer the antidote....for a price
“Buy this special edition 1-knob plug-in right now, and get the premier 2-knob package at the discounted price of a small mortgage!”

Long ago, Q101 in Chicago had the local music showcase on Sun night(1990?). You could submit a track. However so many submitted recordings were unacceptable for radio play. They used the demos to choose an artist from and option to send us to record it . They sent us to the studio on Lake St. in 45min our single was done. It played on the radio with othersin that showcase. Sounded fine. And was even with the other songs.

There is some format to it. It was done in front of me, very quickly.

I would like to know how they did it.
It would be so cool if there were more free and useful content out there on how to track correctly. I spent like 3 years trying to figure out how to make my recordings sound good in my DAW, but I didn’t get any better until I started really digging online and piecing things together about the importance of recording tracks well. Once I invested in a decent standalone preamp, learned the very basics of
room acoustics and mic positioning techniques for different sources, and learned enough about gain staging to stay in the green I was suddenly getting usable stuff that I actually wanted to listen to! But holy cow, it took so much scouring to get even there. And I still consider myself a beginner.
 
That bass compression trick I mentioned in my first post. Now that is the type of thing that makes people go " damn, how in the hell did you get your low end so huge with killer separation and still have enough headroom for the rest of the track. He learned that from the same guy I learned it from. Andy Wallace. Your never going to hear CLA mention it...never. What I want to know is why?

That is definitely the question. Maybe it just makes more money for them personally. It’s a real shame that there is such a focus is on individual profit over a true love of production and teaching it to the next generation.
 
That's very kind of you to offer advice, I do believe the pros only give you breadcrumbs of information to keep you hooked. I have asked technical questions, I have been ignored. I've dug deep and struggle to find answers, it's very difficult to work these things out by yourself, it can be a lifelong persuit and you can fail trying. A waste of your life if not careful.

I really do appreciate if you know a few things, you are willing to share. I would be the same. I try to give advice as best I can to save people from wanting to give up, or wasting money. But I am still at the beginning of the journey even though I have way more experience than most. (To clarify - I have been dedicating straight 10hour days on every single spare day I can for the last year, something the casual just can not do, when I say more experience than most, this is completely the wrong wording, time spent! might be more appropriate)

I get pro mixes with pro recorded multitracks, I can get incredibly close to the reference tracks provided. But my own recordings in comparison sound nothing like, i've treated my room, I've thrown money at mics, at instruments, done everything I could think of!

I feel like you can get a thin recording, even in digital. I've heard this, did not experiment much with it. I've generally run into a tube pre-amp and then straight into the line-in's at reasonable recording levels but I am pushing as hard as I can get away with into the pre-amp, and boy...... this is a huge part of pro sound. Easier to mix, easier to manipulate, you can get those euphoric highs, the thickness, the guts, power, GOOD low end, it's more controlled. The whole deal. In the future I will certainly experiment with recording straight in as hot as I can get away with, bypassing all outboard gear. I am interested in doing some A/B tests.

I have a question you may or may not be able to answer. How would you approach getting a very bright acoustic guitar sound (strumming - rhythm) without it being harsh (on smaller speakers like a laptop), and vice versa, how do you approach getting a good low end, warm mellow acoustic guitar sound without it being boomy/flabby. It is not an EQ issue, it is not a de-essing issue, I feel like it is some kind of trickery with bitcrushing (nothing sounds harsh to my ears when hitting the high end with that!) Or distortion, I do believe the trick is in saturation, but finding the correct settings can be tricky. I can saturate the 200hz heavily and it seems to add a nice amount of low end AND controlls the transients, I can saturate 1-5k which adds extra harmonics in the bright/presence range for extra brightness but less harsh, at the expense of making the acoustic sound a little less like an acoustic! I am starting to think running through all of those transformers adds plenty of information, with those pro recorded multitracks I can literally boost 10db at 2k and make something SO bright. but not harsh! Why? What the hell is the deal with that?

Thing I get pissed off with is when people say (use your ears) ears get fatigued, they lie, they adapt to bad sounds, they eq themselves, they turn down, your brain compensates and using your ears is pointless if the problem is not even in the mix. The tracking? The Room? I've been hammering away at this trying to match references for years, someone with far less knowledge telling me to "use my ears" is an insult to my intelligence. It just tells me that they don't have a sodding clue.
 
Last edited:
It's settled down nicely now - and some interesting comments coming out!

It does worry me newcomers have it drilled into them they need X and Y and it's essential they have Z, but nobody mentions loudspeakers. We even have had it this week when it's been mentioned that people have no interest in recording with real speakers. No interest in stereo either I guess, just left and right. One of my colleagues sends me cubase projects to work on, and I can't. They turn up with more than 100 tracks and each one is laden with plugins I don't have, end even the ones I do have seem to be stacked up. Many times, the EQ looks bizarre and is because the plugin needs the savage EQ to tame it. In almost every case, I remove the plugins, and then spend some time doing a jigsaw - rejoining little 2 bar segments of guitar, back into a continuous guitar track, then doing the same with other sounds - reducing the 100+ tracks down to maybe 20, often less. I'll only have two guitars when they overlap. As I can automate EQ changes, they can be on one track. Visually - I can cope with up to about 20 tracks, especially if I can colour code them. With 100+ he has two screens, arranged portrait fashion. I can't work like that. He often asks what I did to the sax, or what special treatment I put on the bass. Often, it's no treatment and sometimes not even any EQ. Now we can do whatever we want and we lose track.

I know that after nearly 40 years, I still can't do drums. Jazzy kits with O/H, snare and kick I can do justice - but a full multi-tom rock kit? No. Never got the hang of it.

When I examined music technology in the UK, I soon realised very few students could do it either. I was better than them, and I was terrible. The good recorded drum kits that came through were very, very rare. Marks suffered quite badly because those drums wrecked the mark scheme. They'd have earned marks for tuning, mic placement, avoiding noise and distortion, stereo imaging, use of effects and processing. The drums were often obvious evidence of not managing any of those things. I tried so hard to pursuade my own college students to avoid miking drum kits for the end of course exam - so easy to wipe out good grades with crap drums. Then plugins started to be affordable (or free) and it got even easier to wreck the grades. Lots of the students I had who did really well in music went on to be damn good teachers. Sadly, the rubbish ones also became teachers of music technology - I went to a school to do some training and discovered the head of the music department was one of my old students. One who really should have failed but just scraped through.God knows what he's teaching his students? I bet it will be a plugin heavy course.
 
What I meant was that Protools, which is a killer editing tools, was never designed to be a recording device. It was made to edit, so the A/D convertors are shit. I really didnt know why, I just knew that a cut would bother my ears after tracking.
ProTools is the software, not the hardware, so you are referring to the AVID/M Audio interfaces, and yes, everyone knows the first interface A/D converters sounded bad - harsh, brittle.
 
That's very kind of you to offer advice, I do believe the pros only give you breadcrumbs of information to keep you hooked. I have asked technical questions, I have been ignored. I've dug deep and struggle to find answers, it's very difficult to work these things out by yourself, it can be a lifelong persuit and you can fail trying. A waste of your life if not careful.

I really do appreciate if you know a few things, you are willing to share. I would be the same. I try to give advice as best I can to save people from wanting to give up, or wasting money. But I am still at the beginning of the journey even though I have way more experience than most. (To clarify - I have been dedicating straight 10hour days on every single spare day I can for the last year, something the casual just can not do, when I say more experience than most, this is completely the wrong wording, time spent! might be more appropriate)

I get pro mixes with pro recorded multitracks, I can get incredibly close to the reference tracks provided. But my own recordings in comparison sound nothing like, i've treated my room, I've thrown money at mics, at instruments, done everything I could think of!

I feel like you can get a thin recording, even in digital. I've heard this, did not experiment much with it. I've generally run into a tube pre-amp and then straight into the line-in's at reasonable recording levels but I am pushing as hard as I can get away with into the pre-amp, and boy...... this is a huge part of pro sound. Easier to mix, easier to manipulate, you can get those euphoric highs, the thickness, the guts, power, GOOD low end, it's more controlled. The whole deal. In the future I will certainly experiment with recording straight in as hot as I can get away with, bypassing all outboard gear. I am interested in doing some A/B tests.

I have a question you may or may not be able to answer. How would you approach getting a very bright acoustic guitar sound (strumming - rhythm) without it being harsh (on smaller speakers like a laptop), and vice versa, how do you approach getting a good low end, warm mellow acoustic guitar sound without it being boomy/flabby. It is not an EQ issue, it is not a de-essing issue, I feel like it is some kind of trickery with bitcrushing (nothing sounds harsh to my ears when hitting the high end with that!) Or distortion, I do believe the trick is in saturation, but finding the correct settings can be tricky. I can saturate the 200hz heavily and it seems to add a nice amount of low end AND controlls the transients, I can saturate 1-5k which adds extra harmonics in the bright/presence range for extra brightness but less harsh, at the expense of making the acoustic sound a little less like an acoustic! I am starting to think running through all of those transformers adds plenty of information, with those pro recorded multitracks I can literally boost 10db at 2k and make something SO bright. but not harsh! Why? What the hell is the deal with that?

Thing I get pissed off with is when people say (use your ears) ears get fatigued, they lie, they adapt to bad sounds, they eq themselves, they turn down, your brain compensates and using your ears is pointless if the problem is not even in the mix. The tracking? The Room? I've been hammering away at this trying to match references for years, someone with far less knowledge telling me to "use my ears" is an insult to my intelligence. It just tells me that they don't have a sodding clue.
ok Jamez, this is long. I will post twice

I always hated "use your ears". Is code for im not going to tell you...or every room is different. Ok, lets stay with that theory. So your cutting acoustic, or drums where room can matter, but you dont have the room. When you have the room, mic and the reflectivity of your floor. celing/ size of room is everything. But if you dont have the room, so what. Eliminate it. A room only matters if your capturing the room for a sound. With no room, eliminate it...ive gotten absolutely killer drum sounds that are on records in a 12x12 foot bedroom. How? dampen the walls completely, and close mic. Take your head off your kick..mic the beater, then take two chairs and make a tunnel with a nice thick blanket over the chairs so the tunnel is straight out from your kick drum about 4 feet long and chair high. Take your vocal condenser and mic at the end of the tunnel. Head off kicj drum, D112 or Re20 close up to beater, and condenser inside tunnel.

Put on headphones and move them around slightly till you get the ENTIre beat everytime your drummer hits it with a tail at least a second long on the tunnel mic. If its 2 seconds or more-too long, move the mic. Close mic your toms with sen 421.s...dont have them, 57's will be fine, condenser like 4033 on hi hat...you want this flexibility...dont worry about double snare and flipping the phase. Thats only good for a room sound and were eliminating the room. Overheads. Stereo XY above drummers head and slightly behind...if you dont have them, use a mono mic over you top top right INSIDE the kit about 2 feet over kick angled in. Sometime stereo overheads can become more of a problem than theyre worth. You pan them wide and loose the kit. Most records, especially rock, that are worth their salt, listen to how the crashes are right in your face, but yet dont hide the kit...Expander. Anyway, after you close mic, each drum separately and the room is now gone. You will recreate the room with convolution, and when your done it will be exactly as if you had a Zepplin room. The things to watch for are phase problems and bleed you cant fix. Phase is simple. Whenever you mix, check simultaneously by simple switching your board, or DAW mixer in mono. Whatever disappears, its out of phase, so just flip the phase with a plugin.

ok, so acoustic. When you need a room for acoustics, its only because you want the wood floor reflections or the brick and glass, etc. Same theory here...eliminate it. However, acoustic is going to fight you. If want big and natural, never use a compressor on a ratio higher than 2 or 3:1. Whenever you track, track flat. For anything, it doesnt make sense to commit to something you can change later. Many times the problem becomes that an instrument alone never sits in a mix the way it will when everything else is tracked. So flat. The only reason to use compression and eq on the input stage during tracking is when the room is what your capturing. Absolutely crushing drum rooms (not overheads) or eq with a narrow Q, is because when your adding the room sound as part of the instrument sound, what you do on input cant be changed unless you record or punch in with the same pres and every setting the same. Many times its necessary for the room, but other than that track flat. Mic for acoustic. Stay with large full body condenser. U87..cant beat it no way...unless you can find a Neumann small condenser KM184. For acoustic, piano, and overheads, it is my go to mic. $1100 for a matched pair. On a budget...AT 4050..i swear there isnt anything you cant do with it. Celine dion cut her entire first album with that mic, and now they are only like $300.
 
ok Jamez, this is long. I will post twice

I always hated "use your ears". Is code for im not going to tell you...or every room is different. Ok, lets stay with that theory. So your cutting acoustic, or drums where room can matter, but you dont have the room. When you have the room, mic and the reflectivity of your floor. celing/ size of room is everything. But if you dont have the room, so what. Eliminate it. A room only matters if your capturing the room for a sound. With no room, eliminate it...ive gotten absolutely killer drum sounds that are on records in a 12x12 foot bedroom. How? dampen the walls completely, and close mic. Take your head off your kick..mic the beater, then take two chairs and make a tunnel with a nice thick blanket over the chairs so the tunnel is straight out from your kick drum about 4 feet long and chair high. Take your vocal condenser and mic at the end of the tunnel. Head off kicj drum, D112 or Re20 close up to beater, and condenser inside tunnel.

Put on headphones and move them around slightly till you get the ENTIre beat everytime your drummer hits it with a tail at least a second long on the tunnel mic. If its 2 seconds or more-too long, move the mic. Close mic your toms with sen 421.s...dont have them, 57's will be fine, condenser like 4033 on hi hat...you want this flexibility...dont worry about double snare and flipping the phase. Thats only good for a room sound and were eliminating the room. Overheads. Stereo XY above drummers head and slightly behind...if you dont have them, use a mono mic over you top top right INSIDE the kit about 2 feet over kick angled in. Sometime stereo overheads can become more of a problem than theyre worth. You pan them wide and loose the kit. Most records, especially rock, that are worth their salt, listen to how the crashes are right in your face, but yet dont hide the kit...Expander. Anyway, after you close mic, each drum separately and the room is now gone. You will recreate the room with convolution, and when your done it will be exactly as if you had a Zepplin room. The things to watch for are phase problems and bleed you cant fix. Phase is simple. Whenever you mix, check simultaneously by simple switching your board, or DAW mixer in mono. Whatever disappears, its out of phase, so just flip the phase with a plugin.

ok, so acoustic. When you need a room for acoustics, its only because you want the wood floor reflections or the brick and glass, etc. Same theory here...eliminate it. However, acoustic is going to fight you. If want big and natural, never use a compressor on a ratio higher than 2 or 3:1. Whenever you track, track flat. For anything, it doesnt make sense to commit to something you can change later. Many times the problem becomes that an instrument alone never sits in a mix the way it will when everything else is tracked. So flat. The only reason to use compression and eq on the input stage during tracking is when the room is what your capturing. Absolutely crushing drum rooms (not overheads) or eq with a narrow Q, is because when your adding the room sound as part of the instrument sound, what you do on input cant be changed unless you record or punch in with the same pres and every setting the same. Many times its necessary for the room, but other than that track flat. Mic for acoustic. Stay with large full body condenser. U87..cant beat it no way...unless you can find a Neumann small condenser KM184. For acoustic, piano, and overheads, it is my go to mic. $1100 for a matched pair. On a budget...AT 4050..i swear there isnt anything you cant do with it. Celine dion cut her entire first album with that mic, and now they are only like $300.
see, pages did it to me again..hope you can read this
I like stereo for acoustic. I play one side, then the other. Do not be an amateur and cut a track, copy it, and shift the timing. Believe it or not, those small things add up 1 by 1 to the summation of a pro sound. But if your only going to do one, put the large body right in from of the hole about 12 inches up and slightly to the side. Take your second mic (any condenser you have, and depending on the reflections of your guitar, mic the neck above your fretting hand, same distance up, and move it till you get your sound. Now here is the important part. Acoustic guitars love to muddy up at 300 cycles and they stick to the floor. That means you will get a bass frequencies that are non-directional below 150hz and you cant tell where the problem is. So, here is how you remove it. If you like a wooden floor, cool. Sounds awesome. Make sure you dampen the ceiling straight above it so you dont get comb filtering. This is obvios in vocals, but with a string instrument and just about every freq possible coming at you, you cant hear it. Dampen the ceiling for the highs. Nest, dampen any windows- This is huge...windows are the worst. Third, take care of the mid lows by putting anything,..pile of towels, blankets, mattress, etc from floor to knee level on wall in front of you and behind you, then throw a small pil of clothes in each corner of the room that is bare. Now your ready. Play your stereo mic'ed axe, and have someone listen in steroe, then A/B to mono. If the middle gets sucked out when you do like a rock and roll vampire, your mics are out of phase. Start with the 3 to 1 rule for stereo micing. Google it, it is very simple.

Once youve got your track, here is the trick to making acoustic sound great. 2k...never never never! That an electric guitar. If your acoustic is sitting in a busy track, use a channel roll off..everything under 150 cycles...yep...cut it. Since your increasing your headroom with that move, suck about 3 db at 400 cycles to un-muddy it, but the main reason is so that when you push the top, at around 10k (not 12...too harsh. We want bright and lifting strums) you get separation from piano and electric. Also, your vocals, if your a male, have thickness around 250 cycles, presence at 3-5k, so this separates the acoustic from your vocal. Now if your acoustic is the main instrument, even the only instrument, this will be too thin. Now this is loosely based on how your record it, but do not roll of everything below 150...roll of everything below 50 cycles. Look for you meat, not where most people tell you at 150-200..no look at 300 cycles. You said how do i hear it on small speakers. This is how. 300 cycles, or close to it, is where bass frequencies are most noticeable on small speakers. Remember, subtractive EQ is always best, but right now we are talking a different animal. Keep a Q of around 1 octave, and if your 300 boost gets too muddy, use another band at 100-200 with a smaller q and roll it back a half db...thats it. Now you got your low end, but for a crisp single acoustic where meet and attack is key, now you can go to your 2k if you want. I still find this too harsh though. Try this...add a touch of 7k, no more than a db, and roll back 2db at 3k . You want to hear chops man that doesnt step on a vocal. If it isnt light enough yet, add 2 db in the air section (15k). Your done man..listen to your hit!

Hey man, i hope im not trying to sound like a know it all. I just despised that no one, and i mean no one would help me..that is until i got my first record deal. Weird, but suddenly all those "nope" and vague guys, were all on the phone with diarrhea of the mouth. I will give anyone who asks everything I know without holding back. Please, go get a damn hit! And if your near Detroit and you need a mix, stop in...ill do it for nothin. I make my money elsewhere and im blessed and lucky to be able to. In this failing world, the least anyone can do is reach out a hand.

Hey guys, im really enjoying reading your posts. Many many of you sound like you really know what your doing, so i hope im not insulting anyone by assuming you dont know what Im telling you. Thanks for the inclusion guys. I look forward to some good discussion
 
ProTools is the software, not the hardware, so you are referring to the AVID/M Audio interfaces, and yes, everyone knows the first interface A/D converters sounded bad - harsh, brittle.
no brother, when i say hardware, I am talking about outgear. Compressors, limiters, effects, etc, that are actual units, not software plugins...remember im the old guy, so im using semantics you cool kids dont use anymore..sorry for being so out of touch
 
It's settled down nicely now - and some interesting comments coming out!

It does worry me newcomers have it drilled into them they need X and Y and it's essential they have Z, but nobody mentions loudspeakers. We even have had it this week when it's been mentioned that people have no interest in recording with real speakers. No interest in stereo either I guess, just left and right. One of my colleagues sends me cubase projects to work on, and I can't. They turn up with more than 100 tracks and each one is laden with plugins I don't have, end even the ones I do have seem to be stacked up. Many times, the EQ looks bizarre and is because the plugin needs the savage EQ to tame it. In almost every case, I remove the plugins, and then spend some time doing a jigsaw - rejoining little 2 bar segments of guitar, back into a continuous guitar track, then doing the same with other sounds - reducing the 100+ tracks down to maybe 20, often less. I'll only have two guitars when they overlap. As I can automate EQ changes, they can be on one track. Visually - I can cope with up to about 20 tracks, especially if I can colour code them. With 100+ he has two screens, arranged portrait fashion. I can't work like that. He often asks what I did to the sax, or what special treatment I put on the bass. Often, it's no treatment and sometimes not even any EQ. Now we can do whatever we want and we lose track.

I know that after nearly 40 years, I still can't do drums. Jazzy kits with O/H, snare and kick I can do justice - but a full multi-tom rock kit? No. Never got the hang of it.

When I examined music technology in the UK, I soon realised very few students could do it either. I was better than them, and I was terrible. The good recorded drum kits that came through were very, very rare. Marks suffered quite badly because those drums wrecked the mark scheme. They'd have earned marks for tuning, mic placement, avoiding noise and distortion, stereo imaging, use of effects and processing. The drums were often obvious evidence of not managing any of those things. I tried so hard to pursuade my own college students to avoid miking drum kits for the end of course exam - so easy to wipe out good grades with crap drums. Then plugins started to be affordable (or free) and it got even easier to wreck the grades. Lots of the students I had who did really well in music went on to be damn good teachers. Sadly, the rubbish ones also became teachers of music technology - I went to a school to do some training and discovered the head of the music department was one of my old students. One who really should have failed but just scraped through.God knows what he's teaching his students? I bet it will be a plugin heavy course.
rob, i can give you some very simple things that can change that for you. Do you know Zepplin used three mics...best drum sound in existence. Bonhams drums were so damn large..he would leave the kick head on...i dont know what mics they used except for a U67 or a U47..the old FET's.. I was told that besides the kick, they just used two condensers cranked with I believe two fairchilds in an enormous room or airplane hanger...that was it. When you cut jazz..mic your kick, and take a 414 or something to that effect and place it on a figure 8 pattern, placing it between the snare and hat, capturing them both...use a mono overhead, but place it right inside the kit, almost too low to play the toms.
Everything will slam. When you mix it, keep the whole kit at 10 and 2 oclock, panning the snare/ hat slightly to the right, and the mono room slightly to the left. After that, find a killer room verb, stereo, and pan it 9 and 3 oclock, not hard right and left. All you will get with hard right and left is a super-mono sound. Set the pre-delat to 60 to 90 miliseconds. No, its not too long. The attack of the drums will come through with that setting hard and clear before the verb grabs it, Its a way of soaking the drums in a hall or deep ambient room with a long decay, yet you never hear the verb. Washed out drums sound nasty. Try it man, you will love it.
 
First of all I want to thank you for that very detailed post. You definitely know exactly what you are talking about because after many many hours of tweaking EQ balances with endless test recordings I noticed that a few things you said that are which are completely unintuitive are what I stumbled across by accident and you are bang on! I am eager to try your EQ suggestions out because I am slightly off target from your suggestions, but not by far! For e:g I aggressively LPF at 14khz, and clear a bit around 1.5k instead of the 2-5k which you suggested, I am putting a HPF at 70hz (shallow) if no bass guitar or drums, the boost up in the air frequencies is really important, I underestimated this area, I was actually attempting warm and darker mixes by throwing a low pass filter (shallow) on the acoustic guitar at around 8k, I've tried all sorts. The most exciting and pleasant to my ear is pushing the highs like you say. But now I have a different thought process thanks to your suggestions, I will take note of the extra seperation I get by boosting up around 10k area and listen carefully while fine tuning it, your advice was invaluable to me and I will most certainly try it out as soon as I can. The compression advice is noted also, I was using very little compression in the box, and none on the way in, most of the time the compressor was not kicking in but occasionally i'll get 2-3dbs of compression at certain parts of the song. I thought the fastest attack might be a good idea to push the guitar back a little from the vocal? I was never sure, I lose punch at the cost of that setting but then it can interfere a little with the vocal. Adding a room verb seems to do wonders too, on the strumming guitar, it really makes the melody or vocal line stand right up front and in your face without the need to turn it up, but again... this comes at the expense of punch (even while messing with pre-delay), there is a lot to think about and it's tough.

I will write more back here as soon as I can, I'm in a different time zone and I was asleep so this is why there was delay, there is a few things I want to say still. There are some recorded acoustic guitars on one of Warren huarts songs that is my GO TO acoustic guitar reference. It is simply the most beautiful damn thing I've ever heard. I have the multitracks but unfortunately there was no mix breakdown so I have no damn clue how the hell he got there. He has 4 recordings of strumming guitar, 2 standard guitar takes, and 2 nashville tuned takes. I am assuming hard panned L/R. although when I try this I can hear a little flamming going on in the higher frequencies, panning in 75% or so L/R seems to sound miles better on my own recordings for some reason, my playing isn't that sloppy, and I edited even tighter also so I feel like it is bad EQ accentuating the flams, but I could be wrong!. The bass is huge in this song, using a spectrum analyzer there is a nice big bump, and to my ears the acoustic guitars are SO clear around that 300hz range, I feel like he perhaps went up quite high with the high pass filter also. To my ear it sounds like he is choosing the bass guitar to win the fight in the low end, there is definitely some harmonic activity going on, he uses Rbass a lot, it sounds subby even above 60hz (by that I mean the frequencies that make the sound very round are much higher up), I don't think there is much EQ going on with the bass guitar, the acoustic seems to be cleared around it. I think the guitars are perhaps sidechained heavily, they seem to come up quite consideribly in between phrases although unsure if master bus compression or sidechain ducking. I think one of the tricks he uses might be to have the acoustic guitars and bass LOUD at the start of the song to stop the listener from turning the song down when the vocal comes in even though it comes in hot, and then just turning everything else down a ton to leave a butt load of room around the vocal. reason I bring this up is because it really can affect my EQ choices.

Skip to 30 seconds for the song with the acoustic guitars if you was interested in what I was talking about, and trying to achieve.

I was struggling with bright harsh guitar sound so I found I got the best recording with what mics I have using a ribbon mic only, the very budget Tbone RB500 Ribbon, which is my entry into the world of ribbons, I love it, sounds awesome, I was using this on the same guitar as what warren is using in the video which is the Yamaha LL16, I brought it specifically because I thought it was going to be the answer to everything. 4inches from the 12th fret on axis actually sounds surprisingly good, I could definitely get away with that sound using little EQ if it was a solo guitar (although if solo guitar I would probably stereo mic anyway), my issue was trying to shape it around a vocal line, or melody guitar. But yes, I am recording below a cloud in my mix position, I have bass traps, I have thick duvets hanging in front of windows, I have RFZ etc. I am Close miking, there is very little room interference compared to normal. I do have an annoying 600hz resonance, not sure if that's the guitar or room but 2 or 3 db notch seems to take care of it nicely. I am recording 4 seperate takes like warren did, using nashville + normal acoustic. I wish i knew how the hell he mixed that nashville in with the normal acoustic guitars aswel! It's so bloody annoying that the one song I am working towards with my own recordings has no mix breakdown!!!!

I had a good look at the AT4050, unfortunately none for sale on Ebay. the U87 would be lovely, it's juuuust out of my price range right now. I am torn between the R121 and U87 now ......

I feel like a high end mic my be a missing ingredient, it's the only thing that seems to be missing from my chain, like in the Warren huart video above, I'm using same guitar, better interface and being recorded the same way with no outboard gear stright into the interface, in a fully treated room. the only part of the chain that is different is the mic (and obviously player). But this can come a little later, my results are very good still. But there is still room for a lot of improvement. I think your EQ suggestions will help a great deal.

I will most probably need to copy/paste your reply into my notes so I can refer back to it. lots of good information there, dense! You most certainly are not coming across like a know it all. it is very much appreciated. I need those details you mentioned, all of it. But anyway, I have plugged you for enough information! It's not fair I take up too much of your time.

I'll tell you what though.... I'm going to be sorry if you dissapear from this forum. You have got me thinking about a lot of things. And I feel more confident. I really do wish I lived near Detroit, unfortunately I am in England. You're very kind and you have made my day, I just re-read your original posts again and It has all sunk in now, I learned a lot. I'd definitely buy you a beer for that, hell... probably 20. Your post is without a doubt going into my notes permanently. Cheers man!
 
Last edited:
I tried reading the post before anyone else commented, and found it too hard to follow, and gave up. It might have been interesting.

On the old pro thing, I once started watching a Youtube video because the title suggested it would be informative, but the 'old pro' in the video spent so much time on a pre-amble about all the big names he'd worked with, I'd had enough and left.
 
That's very kind of you to offer advice, I do believe the pros only give you breadcrumbs of information to keep you hooked. I have asked technical questions, I have been ignored. I've dug deep and struggle to find answers, it's very difficult to work these things out by yourself, it can be a lifelong persuit and you can fail trying. A waste of your life if not careful.

I really do appreciate if you know a few things, you are willing to share. I would be the same. I try to give advice as best I can to save people from wanting to give up, or wasting money. But I am still at the beginning of the journey even though I have way more experience than most. (To clarify - I have been dedicating straight 10hour days on every single spare day I can for the last year, something the casual just can not do, when I say more experience than most, this is completely the wrong wording, time spent! might be more appropriate)

I get pro mixes with pro recorded multitracks, I can get incredibly close to the reference tracks provided. But my own recordings in comparison sound nothing like, i've treated my room, I've thrown money at mics, at instruments, done everything I could think of!

I feel like you can get a thin recording, even in digital. I've heard this, did not experiment much with it. I've generally run into a tube pre-amp and then straight into the line-in's at reasonable recording levels but I am pushing as hard as I can get away with into the pre-amp, and boy...... this is a huge part of pro sound. Easier to mix, easier to manipulate, you can get those euphoric highs, the thickness, the guts, power, GOOD low end, it's more controlled. The whole deal. In the future I will certainly experiment with recording straight in as hot as I can get away with, bypassing all outboard gear. I am interested in doing some A/B tests.

I have a question you may or may not be able to answer. How would you approach getting a very bright acoustic guitar sound (strumming - rhythm) without it being harsh (on smaller speakers like a laptop), and vice versa, how do you approach getting a good low end, warm mellow acoustic guitar sound without it being boomy/flabby. It is not an EQ issue, it is not a de-essing issue, I feel like it is some kind of trickery with bitcrushing (nothing sounds harsh to my ears when hitting the high end with that!) Or distortion, I do believe the trick is in saturation, but finding the correct settings can be tricky. I can saturate the 200hz heavily and it seems to add a nice amount of low end AND controlls the transients, I can saturate 1-5k which adds extra harmonics in the bright/presence range for extra brightness but less harsh, at the expense of making the acoustic sound a little less like an acoustic! I am starting to think running through all of those transformers adds plenty of information, with those pro recorded multitracks I can literally boost 10db at 2k and make something SO bright. but not harsh! Why? What the hell is the deal with that?

Thing I get pissed off with is when people say (use your ears) ears get fatigued, they lie, they adapt to bad sounds, they eq themselves, they turn down, your brain compensates and using your ears is pointless if the problem is not even in the mix. The tracking? The Room? I've been hammering away at this trying to match references for years, someone with far less knowledge telling me to "use my ears" is an insult to my intelligence. It just tells me that they don't have a sodding clue.
I tried reading the post before anyone else commented, and found it too hard to follow, and gave up. It might have been interesting.

On the old pro thing, I once started watching a Youtube video because the title suggested it would be informative, but the 'old pro' in the video spent so much time on a pre-amble about all the big names he'd worked with, I'd had enough and left.
You should totally just review the rest of the thread. It got really interesting.
 
I made the effort. Copied it into a word processor, and blew it up to read.
An interesting rant Joey.
I have been an electronics man, and get some satisfaction, on the occasions when I have enlightened a novice on some technical issue.
You can see a light turn on in their mind, and I'll offer advice off the top of my head for free.
Music teachers can string you along for money.
It doesn't end there.
In England today universities are all about bums-on-seats for profit, and not about quality education. The students end up in debt.

You obviously have much to contribute on this forum Joey. Looking forward to your future posts.
 
you got it max...and its the person turning the knobs. One of my songs from the past was mixed on a studio and engineer from The Disc LTD had just opened up. He had a Mackie 24 channel and one Presonus 8 channel compressor/gate. We used an Audio Technica 4044 for everything, even acoustic guitar. Electric we went with a 57, which you almost cant beat except for a Sen e609 (this is of course excluding ribbon mics). On acoustic, you cannot beat a U87, however the 4040 cut the axe better than my Akg 414. I was shocked. If you are a budget recorder, unless you can dump over $2000, you will not beat an AT4040, and beliueve it or not, I think there down to about $300 now. Do not let the price tag fool you. Anyway, it still to this day is one of my favorite mixes on any one of my tunes. It lacks the dimensional depth of greater gear, but it doesnt matter. It is still radio worthy because of the guy turning the knobs.
Ax, your ears are in tune brother. The Omni channel is fantastic, and you cant beat Waves prices. About the 1176: You can definitely tell the difference, unless you are using UAD. Guys, choose one or two very needed tools, and spend the money on UAD. Their prices are ridiculously outrageous, but the depth of sound is the finest in plug-in emulation. The replication of one of my favorite mixers, the Neve 88rs is so close to the real thing that only a direct A/B will reveal the difference, and lets face it, how many of us have a 3/4 of a million dollar mixer to compare to a plug-in. Waves Trans-x will blow your hair back as well. I love Waves, not only for the price, but because they make unique tools. Most of the time when you are working with instruments that are not forefront, waves probably has the perfect tool for it. Hey, noit everything in a mix can be huge. If everything is Phat, nothing is. Interplay and separation are not just for frequency and Q factor.
We need a discussion on favorite mics and plug-ins that are affordable and give a mixer the edge who cant afford big money. Lets have it. Favorite Mics anyone?
Let’s talk affordable plugins, mics, and how to use them!

I am glad you’ve heard of the Omni strip! It has really helped me learn the basics, as well as some more involved stuff. I love the DS2 tool! It has really helped me understand de-easing and multiband compression expansion.

Also—Wow, I didn’t know that the at4040 was such a versatile mic. I had the at2035 for a year or so, but I recently sold it to pick up a Rode NT-1. I have been really enjoying it for vocals and acoustic guitar, more so than the 2035. The low end just sounds so rich without being overwhelming, it’s hard to describe. Do you have any thoughts on the NT-1, Joey? How would you compare it to the AT4040?

My friend works for a tech company so he was able to afford an Apollo X8. It came with several of the plugins you mentioned. I’d love to try their Neve 88 emulation. I have a preamp inspired by the Neve console, it’s called the JHS Colour Box v2. I think most people use it as a guitar pedal which blows my mind, because I use it almost exclusively as a preamp. I’m sure it doesn’t sound the same as a Neve console preamp, but it has a dedicated Lundahl transformer inside, I really like the EQ for big shelves and mild cuts, and it just makes me really *feel* it while I’m tracking vocals, mic’d guitar amp, etc. I’m not sure if the transformer is what I’m hearing, but when I use that preamp with the settings neutral it just sounds slightly more smooth and glassy than when I use the (still pretty enjoyable) preamps on my SoundCraft epm6 mixer.

As far as free/cheap gear goes…
Have you heard of the freely available plugins made by Analog Obsession? They are on patreon, so you can support him, but for people without the means you don’t need to pay for them. If you have heard of them..any thoughts?


I am going to try all of those techniques you mentioned for recording and mixing acoustic guitar, once I move into a place where I can set up acoustic treatment next month. Do you have any similar advice for tracking electric guitar, particularly mic placement on the cab?


Thanks so much for your insights, Joey! They have been so helpful already! Wish I was in the Detroit area. Boston isn’t too far, I suppose.
 
Can anyone come up with any descriptive words to describe the differences between mics that make any sense? We have published response curves and then when we hear a mic, we try to either use bland and often badly misunderstood words like warm, hard, thin, full, bright, detailed etc. We all use them frequently and while I know what warm means in my head - I'm not convinced others have the same understanding. So many of these differences are completely removed with very gentle EQ. We recommend mics to others non-stop, and often the people recommending them do so totally in the dark. Mic XYZ might work on one voice in one recording space amazingly well. It could be terrible on a different voice, in a different space. It's a matching exercise you do in places you know. You put out the mic of first choice and it doesn't work, so you try something else till the magic match happens. See don't do that - we prescribe like a doctor on Facebook. When you see somebody using a mic oddly - doing something the rule book never mentions, or worse, warns you off, why don't we ask if it works? If it does, re-write the rule book.

We know how a Strat sounds different from a Tele and that from a LP - but we are doing the thing the guitar addicts do - start to tell people that it's not just a Tele you need, but only the ones made on a Tuesday in January with the load of timber that got left out in the rain for a week. Seriously - why don't people buy mics from dealers who take them back, so they can pick one they like. I've had surprises and disappointments and my list of mics bought because somebody recommended them without me knowing what they record, where they record and how they record, is thankfully small. Funny how even famous world respected engineers and producers change their opinions once a sponsorship deal is on the cards. AT took great care in placing their mics with 'influencers' - even before that term had been invented. Before we had parametric EQ, some desks were selected simply because their EQ centre frequencies were better thought out.

If everyone had an identical mic collection - would we all have the same favourite?
 
Back
Top