Farview
Well-known member
Were they using the scopes to dial in their guitar tone? Adjusting the vocal level in a mix?? Setting the compression on the bass??
I would bet not.
If you run out of gain mixing tracks , should you compress it for more volume?
- Thread starter LazerBeakShiek
- Start date
I would bet not.
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
WRONG!
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
Thomas Peco from Babylon , called himself that because he was using the PECOsope so much ..
Message, Nine T Nine, Numann, Babylon, Loud lion, Marichello, Dalton, etc..
Best music ever..Best guitar solos...I think half of those bands had Richie Sambora as guest..no shit. Message and Sahara was BonJovi before bonjovi.
Message, Nine T Nine, Numann, Babylon, Loud lion, Marichello, Dalton, etc..
Best music ever..Best guitar solos...I think half of those bands had Richie Sambora as guest..no shit. Message and Sahara was BonJovi before bonjovi.
Last edited:
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
You know...Message. David Rosenthals project after Boston with Riche Sambora..
Last edited:
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
This dude was chill.
CHICAGO playin the hits 103. 5 the BLAZE! .....it was the best of times , it was the worst of times..
Everything after like 1994 is garbage.
CHICAGO playin the hits 103. 5 the BLAZE! .....it was the best of times , it was the worst of times..
Everything after like 1994 is garbage.
Last edited:
Farview
Well-known member
Really? You are enamored with your guitar rig from that Era, Babylon sounds an awful lot like Def Leppard, and Message is right out of the 80s as well.
You might notice that all the guitar sounds in those videos are crunchy, not fuzzy.
Wtf is a pecoscope? A picoscope is a spectrum analyzer, but no one making music professionally is worried about making their waves look good on a scope that the audience will never see.
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
All these labels have been dissolved, so I think you can stream them? They never made CD's. I dunno. Whatever. Message, was Sambora, Rosenthal from Boston, Vocals from Juliet. I cannot remember anymore..
Last edited:
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
YES! Like you bought what the guy was using. Exactly what he was using. If his had the blue stripe , so should yours.
Last edited:
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
It sounds better. It is a precision tool. I can make a dynamic signal and match it. The ears are necessary, but the tool measures, so I can understand. Make calculated changes and have a more predicable outcome. I think my O scoped mixes sound better overall. Mistakes and tuning I am not interested in yet.
Last edited:
rob aylestone
Moderator
It seems we cannot convince you that art and technical are not remotely the same thing. The only thing I use after the mix is a stereo checking monitor because most of my stuff ends up played on big PA systems, so the last thing I want is mono, but I am always mega careful with panning - especially on already wide signals. I've got pretty good over the years at hearing something and using the scope to fault find what's going on. I simply cannot see the point in looking at a waveform - it's not like it's a sine wave and we are checking for crossover distortion, or skew - that kind of thing that the engineers are interested in, it's music. What does a saxophone waveform look like? Why does it matter. You say the tool measures? What? We have meters for this. In my studio - because of the other things I do, there is a scope and an analyser. The other day I was doing some 80s synth recreations - because it was there, I connected the scope to the output of the Tascam interface. I never record hot, so thought I'd measure the output of the synth doing continuous tones - no reason, just for fun and it was .6v The waveform was wild - and constantly changing - especially in phase components. Your waveforms are a snapshot and absolutely no use for any form of accurate measurement or detailed analysis - not that such a thing would be useful.
You are chasing rainbows. None of this has impact on your mixes. Use your ears. Not once have I ever done this. You say it sounds better - once we persuaded you to back everything off and go back to basics.
When I taught in college we'd sometimes have ultra technical folk who would follow blindly every 'rule' they found and use every 'tool' and they still produced rubbish. They would record a real pianist playing a keyboard, via MIDI to the DAW and they'd notice some notes ahead or behind the beat and they'd fix them. They'd record a singer and pitch correct all their little off-correct pitches. The result? A sterile boring and dull recording. You are so hung up on these things I don't think your ears work properly any more.
You are chasing rainbows. None of this has impact on your mixes. Use your ears. Not once have I ever done this. You say it sounds better - once we persuaded you to back everything off and go back to basics.
When I taught in college we'd sometimes have ultra technical folk who would follow blindly every 'rule' they found and use every 'tool' and they still produced rubbish. They would record a real pianist playing a keyboard, via MIDI to the DAW and they'd notice some notes ahead or behind the beat and they'd fix them. They'd record a singer and pitch correct all their little off-correct pitches. The result? A sterile boring and dull recording. You are so hung up on these things I don't think your ears work properly any more.
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
Amplitude and voltage over time. No, you have nothing else that does that.
What if thats no so bad. The result is a less hissy mix with crunchy guitars.
really, gimme a break dude. Im playin around stabbing in the dark.
Hey have you come across a list of instruments and their dynamic top and bottoms?
Like saxophone- 120hz-2000hz
piano 300-7000
clapping 600-5000
etc. THESE ARE MADE UP FIGURES
If there is such a thing. Truth is all contributing forum members have helped. I try your suggestions and ideas usually right away. Im not there yet. But at least the mix should not make anyone's ears bleed. After following suggestions the guitars sound ok.
Last edited:
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
Bass Frequency Range | StudyBass
In this part of the series we'll look at the frequency range of the bass and where it fits in with many other popular instruments.
www.studybass.com
JamEZmusic
Active member
those figures look liks suggestions to high pass instruments in busy mixes.
a piano extends much lower than guitar because it can play notes as low as bass guitar. Id high pass piano at 40hz if at all if it was a featured instrument
a clap should have a lot of nice stuff at 200hz, a Hihat even has stuff at 800hz even which people like to boost
sax should have lots of nice stuff way above 2khz.
Where did you find those figures? Definitely just high pass up until you hear when it is taking something away from the instrument a little and then back it off!
Edit: ah, that latest image you posted just proved my point
I used to Low Pass a lot because I loved the sound of warmth and no harshness. In the end though, it's better to Low pass to remove the junk but nice shelf cuts to TURN DOWN those higher frequencies to correct balance. So Low passing guitars at 3khz is too aggressive, it will sound much better if you low pass at 8khz but turn down the 3khz-8khz with a shelf or the guitar will sound unnatural. Keep a few elements of your mix bright, but the stuff you want in the back turned down in those presence frequencies eg: 3khz and above.
If you low pass everything too aggressive, I think you will really struggle to get a nice balanced mix. I do know why you are doing moves like this, because I have been through it all myself. I found that I was very dissapointed every time with the end result, especially when listening to nice bright open mixes of the same songs.
I'm going to have to duck out of this thread for a bit. I have a lot of work coming up and I need to concentrate on that for now.
Oh, a LPF at 5khz is a standard thing I do on bass guitar, which the image above is pretty much spot on there. but 8khz LPF even on the nastiest harshest electric guitar is pretty much the maximum I'd go. It would be big bell cuts or shelf filters to just turn that nasty high end down from there on. Try doing that. Or don't! Low pass at your 3khz if you are determined, Sometimes it's better to find out for yourself! Just keep in mind what I suggest and please do try this also and see what mix you end up liking more. I'd put money on it being the controlled high end though.
One other note, if you low pass at 3khz on electric guitars, then you lose ALL control of being able to brighten up the guitar further down the line if you need it, and backing off the low pass filter to bring back brightness will NOT work because that high end you didn't like will just come back. So this is another reason why It's really great to just turn down that high end, you can get away with a lot more around the presence frequencies, essentially you can keep almost the entire songs tracks frequencies overlapping around that but that area does need to be tightly controlled, there is a fine balance. Just keep on at it! You're only going to learn so much from each attempt. And sometimes it will feel like you are getting worse at it because you start to use more tools (wrong). I think we all go through it. And is a very natural process.
Forget what the fucking waveforms look like though. Pointless. I look at the waveforms only to make sure my phase is correct. and I even only reall care about that for the drums, to make sure the spot mics are in phase with the OH's. And with the Bass guitar if I record DI and Amp together, those waveforms will always be wrong and for low end instruments phase is important.
a piano extends much lower than guitar because it can play notes as low as bass guitar. Id high pass piano at 40hz if at all if it was a featured instrument
a clap should have a lot of nice stuff at 200hz, a Hihat even has stuff at 800hz even which people like to boost
sax should have lots of nice stuff way above 2khz.
Where did you find those figures? Definitely just high pass up until you hear when it is taking something away from the instrument a little and then back it off!
Edit: ah, that latest image you posted just proved my point
I used to Low Pass a lot because I loved the sound of warmth and no harshness. In the end though, it's better to Low pass to remove the junk but nice shelf cuts to TURN DOWN those higher frequencies to correct balance. So Low passing guitars at 3khz is too aggressive, it will sound much better if you low pass at 8khz but turn down the 3khz-8khz with a shelf or the guitar will sound unnatural. Keep a few elements of your mix bright, but the stuff you want in the back turned down in those presence frequencies eg: 3khz and above.
If you low pass everything too aggressive, I think you will really struggle to get a nice balanced mix. I do know why you are doing moves like this, because I have been through it all myself. I found that I was very dissapointed every time with the end result, especially when listening to nice bright open mixes of the same songs.
I'm going to have to duck out of this thread for a bit. I have a lot of work coming up and I need to concentrate on that for now.
Oh, a LPF at 5khz is a standard thing I do on bass guitar, which the image above is pretty much spot on there. but 8khz LPF even on the nastiest harshest electric guitar is pretty much the maximum I'd go. It would be big bell cuts or shelf filters to just turn that nasty high end down from there on. Try doing that. Or don't! Low pass at your 3khz if you are determined, Sometimes it's better to find out for yourself! Just keep in mind what I suggest and please do try this also and see what mix you end up liking more. I'd put money on it being the controlled high end though.
One other note, if you low pass at 3khz on electric guitars, then you lose ALL control of being able to brighten up the guitar further down the line if you need it, and backing off the low pass filter to bring back brightness will NOT work because that high end you didn't like will just come back. So this is another reason why It's really great to just turn down that high end, you can get away with a lot more around the presence frequencies, essentially you can keep almost the entire songs tracks frequencies overlapping around that but that area does need to be tightly controlled, there is a fine balance. Just keep on at it! You're only going to learn so much from each attempt. And sometimes it will feel like you are getting worse at it because you start to use more tools (wrong). I think we all go through it. And is a very natural process.
Forget what the fucking waveforms look like though. Pointless. I look at the waveforms only to make sure my phase is correct. and I even only reall care about that for the drums, to make sure the spot mics are in phase with the OH's. And with the Bass guitar if I record DI and Amp together, those waveforms will always be wrong and for low end instruments phase is important.
Last edited:
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
Thank you for your assistance.
Where did you find those figures? The numbers in my post....I made em up.
Where did you find those figures? The numbers in my post....I made em up.
Farview
Well-known member
Then why are you having such a hard time coming up with a mix that doesn't sound like crap? You obviously have all the tools and are making all the right decisions based on what the waveform looks like, why aren't your mixes stacking up?
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
I dunno . You tell me.
Last edited:
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
Is this so bad? A couple months ago I could NOT make 5 tracks line up in the DAW. Now they are within two milliseconds.
If I put the LPF HPF set before the Reaverb VST. The reverb is uneffected , correct? How far does the reverb tail need to splash over the fundamental? reaverb has its own dampening system. I dont want to dampen the dampener with a filter cut.
try it
www.discodsp.com
If I put the LPF HPF set before the Reaverb VST. The reverb is uneffected , correct? How far does the reverb tail need to splash over the fundamental? reaverb has its own dampening system. I dont want to dampen the dampener with a filter cut.
try it
discoDSP Scope
Assist dynamics processing and sound synthesis using a visual waveform
Last edited:
Farview
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure we all have... you are concentrating on what your sound looks like instead of what it sounds like.
LazerBeakShiek
Rad Racing Team
There is nothing wrong with using a tool or trying to understand the VST tools in Reaper. I am gonna try them all. How you feel about that?
You're making this too big of an issue, I think.
You're making this too big of an issue, I think.
mjbphotos
Moderator
First thing you need to do is get your mix into decent shape without tons of EQ, limiting and all the other tools you are trying. I think it all points to the fact you are doing the mix too loud to start with. And I bet the source of that is your EZDrummer tracks - if you are not getting the drums right to start, its an uphill battle. From what I read before, you are not sending each 'drum mic' from EZD to separate tracks in Reaper? Are you going into the midi piano roll and adjusting volumes (velocities) in it? The problem with it is that some of the hits in the drum loops provided are at full velocity, so have to be manually pulled down after inserting them in a track - Or are you making a drum track in EZD-stand-alone?
I can send you a Reaper 'template' with the standard EZD2 drum tracks all set up for it.