Is this a (very) stupid question ?

G

Gillette

New member
Please be gentle :)

I'm an old guy that (for some times now) wants to learn how to record music properly, and it kinda works but I can feel something is wrong.

My recordings all sound somehow raw and "unpolished"

I use Reaper for home recordings (a little bit of guitar, piano, singing etc) and I know I'd enjoy this hobby much more if I just knew if I was stuck somewhere around basic things
Here's how I record stuff:

In the Reaper I 1) open the new track, 2) make sure that interace and inputs are ok, 3) have the track 'armed' for recording, guitar is plugged in and, before I start to record, I 4) like to choose some effects (usually some compressor and reverb) and I make sure that monitor button is on, so I can listen what I play as I record.

I know that some people prefer to record "dry" without any effects, but playing / recording guitar with some reverb is much more inspirative for me, so I'm doing it that way.

The same goes with other tracks, whether it's the bass guitar, drums, voice or some background violins (usualy some vst, Kontakt library or so..)

After I finish recording, I'll usualy have a listen to the whole thing a couple of times, and if I like it, I go to the "Render this file" so I can export it in a wav format and save it somewhere in my music projects.
And that's it.

Now (and here is the question itself) What about the Master track?

I'm seeing all over the internet that something should be done on the master track too, but I'm not sure what exactly.

The master track also has the fx button but I've already done with the effects on each track separately.

And I know it's maybe stupid to say "I don't need that master track.." but as I said, I can feel that I'm not doing something right by 'ignoring' that master track.

Sorry for long text..I hope someone could dirrect me to some proper step by step, very basic and simple procedure for beginners.
Thank you in advance and cheers

here's one of my recordings, just to have an idea how it sounds

Liug2 by Gillette Wilkinson | Free Listening on SoundCloud
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I have to say I expected something far, far worse. You're not really doing much wrong apart from making some decisions ahead of time. The reverb in some sections reacts poorly top the playing style and emphasises the occasional iffy fingering with the left hand. The need for reverb while playing is perfectly fine. So for you, record dry with no effects and then add them to the channel after the point the signal is recorded. I don't do reaper, and am a Cubase user - so what I do is record clean, and add the reverb to the replay channel so I can add reverbs or other things to make playing easier, but the track itself is clean. Then you can try different effects and reverbs in more controlled ways. Once you've picked a reverb, you're stuck with it, which is always bad news. Even if you end up with the same one, you can control it better as a replay effect.You've managed to get clarity and quality. You seem to have difficulty with the right hand thumb - it's not even between the notes played on the lower two strings. I Appreciate the intention is to record it end to end in one go, but have you considered 'cheating'? Record without the thumb
bass and then record that as a separate track and blend the two? This would let you level the bass notes up, either with editing, or perhaps compression?It could make the bass more easy to hear against the finger picking? I don't quite understand what you mean about the 'master track'?

With the other instruments I'd suggest recording without the FX, but for VSTi tracks like Kontakt the effects are always on replay anyway adjusting the eq, fx and stuff always works. Once you have multiple tracks, having too much reverb on one will really annoy you, so start the box with none, and season to taste.
 
rob aylestone said:
Well, I have to say I expected something far, far worse. You're not really doing much wrong apart from making some decisions ahead of time. The reverb in some sections reacts poorly top the playing style and emphasises the occasional iffy fingering with the left hand. The need for reverb while playing is perfectly fine. So for you, record dry with no effects and then add them to the channel after the point the signal is recorded. I don't do reaper, and am a Cubase user - so what I do is record clean, and add the reverb to the replay channel so I can add reverbs or other things to make playing easier, but the track itself is clean. Then you can try different effects and reverbs in more controlled ways. Once you've picked a reverb, you're stuck with it, which is always bad news. Even if you end up with the same one, you can control it better as a replay effect.You've managed to get clarity and quality. You seem to have difficulty with the right hand thumb - it's not even between the notes played on the lower two strings. I Appreciate the intention is to record it end to end in one go, but have you considered 'cheating'? Record without the thumb
bass and then record that as a separate track and blend the two? This would let you level the bass notes up, either with editing, or perhaps compression?It could make the bass more easy to hear against the finger picking? I don't quite understand what you mean about the 'master track'?

With the other instruments I'd suggest recording without the FX, but for VSTi tracks like Kontakt the effects are always on replay anyway adjusting the eq, fx and stuff always works. Once you have multiple tracks, having too much reverb on one will really annoy you, so start the box with none, and season to taste.
Click to expand...

Hey Rob, thank you for your time
Here's what confuses me: You say that need for reverb while playing is ok, but then you suggest to record without reverb (dry). I just don't know how to do it :)

As for the "Master track" I don't know how it is in Cubase, but here it is, down let corner of the picture, you'll se MASTER

maxresdefault.jpg


AS for cheating..I'm affraid it won't do the trick, because it is thumbpicking style, everything must be played at once :)
 
Now I am NO musician and so don't do tracks like that but, if I understand at least one of the issues? You want reverb say on a guitar track AS you play it generated by Reaper? Problem is, can't be changed post tracking. So, assuming you are building the tracks one at a time, feed the guitar to two inputs (simple passive splitter cable) and have one track "verbed" the other dry.

Also, from the screen shot it looks to me that the individual tracks are rather hot? Some over -10dBFS. This can lead to problems at mixdown I understand. The recieved wisdom is to record no hotter than -18dBFS and even a bit lower won't hurt.

I am also not a Reaper user, got it, paid for but hardly even run it. I suspect as well there is a good book available about mixing?

Dave.
 
Hold on Hold on!

If you are adding reverb using a plug-in on the track (VST), the reverb is NOT recorded in Reaper! You can always go back and change the plug-ins on a recorded track.

As to the "Master" - if you are happy with your overall mix when you render it, nothing more needs to be done. Most people take the rendered stereo track along with all their other songs they have rendered and want to put it into one cohesive whole (for CD production or download), that when true 'mastering' takes place - using EQ< compression, limiting to get all the tracks to the same general 'tone' and volume level. Some people will add compression or EQ to the 'Master Track' prior to rendering. IF you are not sending tracks out to a mastering house, this is ok.
 
...

Well, thank you guys for the answers.
I've posted picture above (not my recording though) just as an illustration where is that "master track"

I must say that everything I've learned about recording is by waching YT videos and it seems that there are many ways how to do it, depending of what kind of music there is and many other things.

At first I wanted just to plug the guitar into PC and to see what happens, which was great at the beginning but later on I wanted to add some drums, bass guitar, piano and so on

So I've learned to record one track at the time and to listen if everything sounds ok (including effects on this particularly track..compressors, reverb and so on..)

When I have that track done I go to another one (let's say bass guitar..) And again play with effects if needed.

As for the acoustic guitar, I've learned to duplicate the track and to pan this track left and right to get some "space" or stereo image..but lately I don't even do that, finding centered sound more pleasant to my ears.

So basically, when I'm done with tracks all I have to do is to export the whole song (render it).

I don't know anything about "bus routings or "sending" effects to master track and stuff like that, not even knowing which is the purpose of that.

Now, I understand that the way I record is completely amateurish and that's just fine because I am an amateur :) But when I listen to some music other people make it always sound more "like CD", somehow "tight" and polished..if you know what I mean..

My tracks sound as they were recorded "live" with the strings squeaking, clicking and scratching and I wanted to record just the pure sound of the instrument itself.

As I understand I should have learned how to use compressor and EQ right, and I did try that. Watched tons of videos on that subject, tried to play around with knobs, tresholds and attacks and nothing much happened, so I thought it must be something else that I skipped..
 
Hmm,,,Bit of blind leading the blind here but my son used to do more or less what you are doing (but in Samplitude SE8) except he would record electric guitar from a guitar amp with a mic and feed that to a mixer and then a "pro'ish" soundcard in a PC (M-A2496) .Then he would add bass G by plugging directly into the mixer (A&H Zed 10, has high Z inputs). Drum tracks from software. But, all this was done "clean and dry" no FX.

Thus he ended up with 6 or 8 tracks of various instruments which he then played around with with the software mixer, adding pugins for effect and so on. Once he had it to his taste he would simply "export" the whole thing as a stereo .wav. Now, AFAIK that is how multitrack tape was/is done? Yes, some FX like compression WERE used going in but often to avoid some of the shortcomings of tape recording, e.g. noise? Once a gaggle of tracks were grabbed the mix/balance engineer would then sit and work for hours (days?) at a "desk" wanging faders and EQ knobs about to get the desired result. That produce "a mix" which then went on to the mastering engineer.

As I said before, I know little about mixing and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about mastering! Just a very old gitamp valve jockey.

Dave.
 
While this probably doesn't help, I can say, after almost 6+ years I am still learning. I think your best bet is to record, post in MP3 clinic, hear what people have to say, tweak.

Sends and routings are just ways to use for example, one reverb for a "room sound". I do this often to make the recording sound like it is actually in a place. It is very subtle, but all the tracks go to one reverb track and I blend that will the tracks to give it the effect of a room. I learned this on this board.

Hang out on the board, read, ask and walk the journey. I have found learning about recording as much fun as recording. My new musical hero is George Martin, I now fully understand what he did for the Beetles. Now I hear music so differently, hard to explain. Keep working it an experimenting with it. You will eventually get close to a sound you like, but will never get there ;)
 
Gillette, I really like the tone of your guitar . I would suggest that you work closely with a metronome, or some sort of backing track. It sure makes things easier (if you decide later) that you want to add more tracks or instruments.. MS
 
mark skinner said:
Gillette, I really like the tone of your guitar . I would suggest that you work closely with a metronome, or some sort of backing track. It sure makes things easier (if you decide later) that you want to add more tracks or instruments.. MS
Click to expand...

Well thank you Mark, that sounds encouraging to me.
And yes, the metronome only recently became the most important tool for my playing. I've found it even more important than playing the right note, so if I miss the note it's not the big deal, but if I lose the rhythm then I must start all over again.
 
Yeah, you aren't doing anything wrong. The only reason other tracks you listen to sound more "polished" is because they record tight takes & edit parts together. You sound like you're playing one take all the way through live, and that's fine... but you won't sound like a "CD" as you say because all the "pros" cheat (not really a cheat, but you know what I mean...) by editing and comping the best of the best tightest takes possible. It has nothing to do with EQ/Compression etc... all that does is help a mix sound better, but without the best takes to begin with, all the EQ/Compression in the world won't fix it. Every good recording of a song starts with the source... also, duplicating a guitar take and panning it isn't going to give it space... you'd need to record two guitar takes played as tight as possible to get a wide sound.
 
Ujn Hunter said:
Yeah, you aren't doing anything wrong. The only reason other tracks you listen to sound more "polished" is because they record tight takes & edit parts together. You sound like you're playing one take all the way through live, and that's fine... but you won't sound like a "CD" as you say because all the "pros" cheat (not really a cheat, but you know what I mean...) by editing and comping the best of the best tightest takes possible. It has nothing to do with EQ/Compression etc... all that does is help a mix sound better, but without the best takes to begin with, all the EQ/Compression in the world won't fix it. Every good recording of a song starts with the source... also, duplicating a guitar take and panning it isn't going to give it space... you'd need to record two guitar takes played as tight as possible to get a wide sound.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I meant, that "tight" word :)

Today I wached some new Reaper tutorial "New Recordings That Overlap Existing Items in REAPER" and just found out that I never did something that way, but pretty much recorded everything in one take, or maybe two. And If I wasn't satisfied, I'd just delete the whole thing and start all over again (wich includes the same mistakes, lack of patience and the nervousness that comes with every new attempt :)
 
In recording its called 'comping' - taking the best parts of several tracks to make one good cohesive final track. GZood playing on your sample track, but I would recommend you look at the methods for miking an acoustic guitar.
 
Gillette said:
...pretty much recorded everything in one take, or maybe two. And If I wasn't satisfied, I'd just delete the whole thing and start all over again (wich includes the same mistakes, lack of patience and the nervousness that comes with every new attempt :)
Click to expand...
That's a perfectly valid way of working. I think most of us really would prefer to be able to say we did it all in one take. Give yourself some pre-roll. Don't go digging in menus, just don't feel like you have to start recording right at bar 1 beat 1. Let it roll, take a couple strums, get yourself together, and then start playing. You can trim out the stuff you didn't want later.

When I started recording, it was actually the only way to do it. With half decent tape machines we could punch in, but some people actually used to cut the tape with razors and then tape it back together.

After I got onto a media that supported it, I started doing a thing where I'd record several takes all the way through and "try not to fuck up in the same place twice", then go through and listen to the take that started best until I decided I didn't like it anymore, then check the other takes to find the one I liked better and let it go until it wasn't cool and then...

Nowadays, I will usually record the whole take. If I mess up at some point, I kind of take mental note, but try to recover and play through to the end. Then I'll drop back to some point before where I screwed up and record all the way to the end from there. If I mess up somewhere on that, I'll repeat the process so I end up with three or four takes that all end at the end, but each starts where the last one went weird. Very often, all it takes is to clean up the transitions and let it fall out exactly like if I stopped when I fucked up and then started recording again, but it does still allow making some choices about things that overlap.
 
Gillette said:
That's exactly what I meant, that "tight" word :)

Today I wached some new Reaper tutorial "New Recordings That Overlap Existing Items in REAPER" and just found out that I never did something that way, but pretty much recorded everything in one take, or maybe two. And If I wasn't satisfied, I'd just delete the whole thing and start all over again (wich includes the same mistakes, lack of patience and the nervousness that comes with every new attempt :)
Click to expand...

It just struck me Gillette that "we" have probably now lost a whole generation of people that used a tape machine and in many cases a mixer. The fact is that most DAWs are setup to follow that scheme to a degree. Maybe that's why many newbs find DAWs even more confusing than us old folk?!

"Just delete the whole thing and start again" Well ok but you don't HAVE to. As said, you can "lift" the best bit out and stitch them together. Remember, a computer is a near perfect, near infinite recorder, just let it run. Storage is peanuts. You can buy a 2TB external USB 3.0 drive for $50us and just dump wavs off to it as they build up.

Dave.
 
Thank you guys.
So much help here.

The key words for me are :

- Patience (I should learn to dedicate some time to a particularly song I'm working on in a DAW, and to forget that the Beatles made their all stuff for about 3 hours per each song, not more than that, but the audio engineers must have spent days and weeks :)

- Comping - taking the best parts of several tracks
- Microphones (positioning, gain etc)
- to Let it roll :) Funny but this is very true, whenever I click the record button I almost feel the fear of running out of tape or something, not realizing that it can go on forever
 
Heh! Well not "forever" there is a "one time write" limit I understand but it is several hours. So many Gigs?

Dave.
 
Something's that's almost the opposite but also exactly the same as "let it roll" is loop record. Once you know how long the piece you're recording will be - either because you have a structure and tempo all mapped out or because you've already recorded a previous track or whatever - make a selection on the timeline that is that long plus a couple measures on one or both ends, and then click the loop button the transport. This way when it gets to the end of the take, you don't have to take hands off your instrument or switch your brain over to engineer mode even for a second. You're already in the groove and hopefully over your jitters and you just jump right back into it. This is obviously a lot easier if you're using a metronome or other beat that is actually on the grid.

It almost seems silly to mention, but count-ins are a good thing. That's different from a preroll. In the preroll you might have simple click or even a drum loop or whatever, and you can let that go as long as you want before you start recording, but then when you come back to do another take or even a new track, you're going to want some audible clue that you actually need to start playing. You could watch the screen, or try to count, but both of these things can contribute to that "intro paralysis". Whack your guitar a couple times right before you record that first take to give future you a hint and a clue.
 
ashcat_lt thank you for your time, I've tried to understand what exactly you meant, so in this Reaper tutorial I've found this.

You don't have to wach all of it, just take look from 5:40

He doesn't call it "loop record" and I didn't see mentioning "the loop button transport" but I kinda fell that this is what you suggest?

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