Looking for specific (or most common) method for tracking

Musicianaire

New member
Two things before I start: :)

  1. If this has been discussed before, please link me to the thread.
  2. I realize what I'm about to ask is subjective and has many possible answers, but I'm just trying to get a basic idea of how to begin.

After much research I still can't determine what would be a more productive method of tracking. Here is what I think would work:

  1. Record a track.
  2. Apply EQ, compression, whatever, to make that track sound reasonably good (or at least better than completely dry).
  3. Record another track.
  4. Apply EQ, etc., as before.
  5. Rinse & Repeat
Then, during mixing, I apply whatever EQ, compression, etc. that might be needed to smooth out the mix as a whole.

Would that be a good way to do it, or would I be creating more problems?

Or should I simply track everything dry, and leave the EQ and other processing for the mixing phase?

FYI, I prefer not to add any processing on the way in. I like recording dry. My question is whether to apply any processing to each individual track, or do it while mixing?
 
I tend not to apply eq and compression while in the tracking process unless something really needs it, and then it's just provisional processing that gets revised later when I have more context.
 
I do pretty small stuff so the most I usually resort to is level and maybe (temporary) panning, just to make space for the person performing to hear their track without pushing levels too much.
 
Personal preference, really. You can do it either way. If you're using a DAW program, it doesn't really matter.

I use track presets therefore EQ, compression, effects, etc are already set up. The presets are track settings I saved from previous projects.
 
Unless you have really good outboard gear and a way to utilize it well, then an obvious no.

But it seems you are recording with a DAW/computer. So you in essence are recording dry to begin with. Unless you 'bounce' or whatever any particular DAW calls replacing the original recorded file, you are recording dry. Effects are just added as inserts to the original recorded wav file unless you replace it.
 
Personal preference, really. You can do it either way. If you're using a DAW program, it doesn't really matter.

I use track presets therefore EQ, compression, effects, etc are already set up. The presets are track settings I saved from previous projects.

By that do you mean templates you reuse on a new proj?
I do that for Shure. But the templates are always saved and reused -with all those track tools off by default. I would not want to assume what was needed on a previous project to be what's needed on the next one. Nor have to un-do all that stuff every time I started a new 'save-as new-proj name' version.

Record a track.
Apply EQ, compression, whatever, to make that track sound reasonably good (or at least better than completely dry).
Record another track.
Apply EQ, etc., as before.
Rinse & Repeat
And def not this. As mentioned, having a bit of context available in a mix is a better place from which to dive into it. With some exceptions.
 
By that do you mean templates you reuse on a new proj?
I do that for Shure. But the templates are always saved and reused -with all those track tools off by default. I would not want to assume what was needed on a previous project to be what's needed on the next one. Nor have to un-do all that stuff every time I started a new 'save-as new-proj name' version.

Yeah, templates or channel settings. It's just me doing the same thing using the same equipment, so I use my saved settings as presets. I want a consistent sound across all my songs.

Templates will apply settings to all tracks/channels and load in all the VSTs, instruments, etc. Channel settings are just for each individual channel. (added this more for the OP than anyone else.)
 
You can have eq,comps and stuff on the track if you already have your arrangement planned out, know your mics,sounds, etc . Otherwise, I would say don't add anything to make an individual track sound "great" or even good(though you want it to be as close to correct coming into the track by proper mic setup,etc) by itself because it will potentially just muddy up your mix.

I don't know exactly how much experience you have but one of the most common mistakes newbies make is not realizing that individual tracks often end up sounding like crap when solo'ed in a full mix because of the eq cuts, compression etc that is used to make multiple sound sources work together. If everything sounds full range and glorious in solo it almost always sounds like a big trashy mess added together.

If you have a tracking plan(eg; parts, instruments, vocals are all already planned out/rehearsed prior to recording)and you know your equipment , you can do a little compression maybe some eq and filtering on the way in but IMHO trying to get one track at a time sounding good in solo is an exercise in futility unless it's a solo guitar(or violin or whatever) piece.

To me the objective is to get down the sound of the part. If you are writing/composing/arranging while tracking you may end up replacing one part with a new idea as you work so spending time to make it sound best when it's in solo could end up being a complete waste of time. Ultimately, since your question is about the most efficient way to record, getting the sound as good a quality as needed for the part(sometimes you need something that sounds like trash by itself) first on all the tracks and eq, compress, etc after the fact is usually faster. Caveat, once you know your equipment and know what sound your going for you can set up templates/presets for anything you like and that will free up time also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What Gto said ^^^. Record the track well to start with. If you have to apply EQ to make it sound good by itself, something's wrong.
 
Two things before I start: :)

  1. If this has been discussed before, please link me to the thread.
  2. I realize what I'm about to ask is subjective and has many possible answers, but I'm just trying to get a basic idea of how to begin.

After much research I still can't determine what would be a more productive method of tracking. Here is what I think would work:

  1. Record a track.
  2. Apply EQ, compression, whatever, to make that track sound reasonably good (or at least better than completely dry).
  3. Record another track.
  4. Apply EQ, etc., as before.
  5. Rinse & Repeat
Then, during mixing, I apply whatever EQ, compression, etc. that might be needed to smooth out the mix as a whole.

Would that be a good way to do it, or would I be creating more problems?

Or should I simply track everything dry, and leave the EQ and other processing for the mixing phase?

FYI, I prefer not to add any processing on the way in. I like recording dry. My question is whether to apply any processing to each individual track, or do it while mixing?

You're hearing this from a few others, but I would argue the better approach is:

1. Record a track.
2. If it doesn't sound reasonably good, re-record that track.
3. If it does, record your next track.
4. Rinse and repeat.
5. When finished, set levels and pan, and THEN start applying EQ, compression, etc as necessary.

You shouldn't be making EQ decisions until you can evaluate them in the context of the mix, unless you know exactly what you're looking for up front (i.e - I have no problem tracking with outboard EQ on my mic pre on the way in, since I know what I want my raw tracks to sound like). If you DON'T know exactly how you want something to sound, well, that'll come with time... But, in the meantime, just focus on recording your tracks as cleanly and as accurately as possible, and getting the best performances you can. You can usually salvage a mix if the performances are great and the recording is clean even if the tones aren't really ideal, but poorly recorded tracks (clipping, noise, muddy and indistinct sounds, etc) or poor performances are going to drive you to madness in the mix.
 
One of the places where I record isn't just a studio, it's a rehearsal and performance space where I mostly record one band. And it has a well isolated control room. When I'm not recording I'm mixing live, so I can spend a lot of time balancing all the instruments' tones. I'm mixing and recording through a medium format console with channel eq and outboard compression which I can leave engaged if I wish. When I record with those effects it's not a matter of guesswork how they'll fit into the final mix. Still I often bypass the live eq and compression so I don't limit my options later, and if I apply them in the DAW during tracking I have a pretty solid idea of how they're going to fit into the final mix. When I'm recording a less familiar performer I tend to keep my options open until later.
 
Two things before I start: :)

  1. If this has been discussed before, please link me to the thread.
  2. I realize what I'm about to ask is subjective and has many possible answers, but I'm just trying to get a basic idea of how to begin.

After much research I still can't determine what would be a more productive method of tracking. Here is what I think would work:

  1. Record a track.
  2. Apply EQ, compression, whatever, to make that track sound reasonably good (or at least better than completely dry).
  3. Record another track.
  4. Apply EQ, etc., as before.
  5. Rinse & Repeat
Then, during mixing, I apply whatever EQ, compression, etc. that might be needed to smooth out the mix as a whole.

Would that be a good way to do it, or would I be creating more problems?

Or should I simply track everything dry, and leave the EQ and other processing for the mixing phase?

FYI, I prefer not to add any processing on the way in. I like recording dry. My question is whether to apply any processing to each individual track, or do it while mixing?

Why are you adding EQ? Why are you adding compression? What you’re doing is not wrong, it’s just more accepted to have a reason, or need to bring something. Imho I’d try to get the best tracks I can with my hardware not using EQ, or compression. If I can’t I’d prefer to still just use compression, and no EQ. When I do use EQ, and compression it’s because I have a specific reason. Imho I’d try to get the best sounding raw track I can with the least amount of signal chain. If I have to eq or compress to get it right then and only then would I use them ( excluding using compression for color). Once I have the best raw tracks ( all of them). Then I start mixing processes, this is when I start adding in EQs and compressors(if needed).
 
I don't know exactly how much experience you have but one of the most common mistakes newbies make is not realizing that individual tracks often end up sounding like crap when solo'ed in a full mix because of the eq cuts, compression etc that is used to make multiple sound sources work together. If everything sounds full range and glorious in solo it almost always sounds like a big trashy mess added together.


That´s pure gold!!!
 
Why are you adding EQ? Why are you adding compression? What you’re doing is not wrong, it’s just more accepted to have a reason, or need to bring something. Imho I’d try to get the best tracks I can with my hardware not using EQ, or compression. If I can’t I’d prefer to still just use compression, and no EQ. When I do use EQ, and compression it’s because I have a specific reason. Imho I’d try to get the best sounding raw track I can with the least amount of signal chain. If I have to eq or compress to get it right then and only then would I use them ( excluding using compression for color). Once I have the best raw tracks ( all of them). Then I start mixing processes, this is when I start adding in EQs and compressors(if needed).

Hence my statement:

Musicianaire said:
apply whatever EQ, compression, etc. that might be needed"

"might" being the key word here. ;)
 
After much research I still can't determine what would be a more productive method of tracking. Here is what I think would work:

  1. Record a track.
  2. Apply EQ, compression, whatever, to make that track sound reasonably good (or at least better than completely dry).
  3. Record another track.
  4. Apply EQ, etc., as before.
  5. Rinse & Repeat
Then, during mixing, I apply whatever EQ, compression, etc. that might be needed to smooth out the mix as a whole.

Would that be a good way to do it, or would I be creating more problems?
Ok. This is a workflow question. Give me some more specifics on what you're tracking, because the workflow for layering and dubbing guitars is sometimes very different than the workflow for shooting vocals, drums, pianos, live horn sections etc...

Something that may help: It is perfectly acceptable to record six vocals with nothing but a hi-pass and send them to a mono bus. Then place all your processing on that mono bus, then send that mono bus to your headphones when you track. That will save you from having to copy/paste the vocal track 6 times. It also saves you from having to manage 6 different EQ's. That is if you intend for all 6 vocal tracks to sound similar when you're tracking a subsequent vocal track.

Or should I simply track everything dry, and leave the EQ and other processing for the mixing phase?
no no no. If it helps you sing better when you have a 'cleanup mix' on a session, then do a cleanup mix. It is very common for pro studios to do this. Just like how a shit monitoring mix can majorly fuck over a band that's performing live, a shit monitor mix in the vocal booth can fuck over a talented session player. The reason is that its distracting. And hearing/critical listening is EVERYTHING when it comes to music performance.

FYI, I prefer not to add any processing on the way in. I like recording dry. My question is whether to apply any processing to each individual track, or do it while mixing?
Go ahead and process stuff on the way in. Just don't over process it. Preamp saturation, light compression, reasonable and modest EQ... that'll almost NEVER hurt you to print. The only exception is if you work in video game or cinematic audio (which is mainly what I do, but I'm also highly familiar with music mixing). In that instance, the tracking room is not considered a place where EQ, compression, and time based processing decisions should be made. Always print dry when doing stuff like voiceover ADR, cinematic narration, foley effects etc...
 
Back
Top