what order should I apply fx ?

[picknpaws]

Hi,

I'm a noob playing with recording my guitar. I am playing finger-picking and chord/melody on an acoustic-nylon with an under-saddle piezo pickup. I am recording straight into a little portable digital recorder (24-bit).

My questions are for when I master on the computer. Here's what I currently do:

1st ---- I apply some EQ to remove bottom end boominess
2nd ---- I apply some compression to smooth out the peaks and valleys
3rd ---- I duplicate the recorded track and pan one left and one right

Now, I would like to add some final additional finishes -- perhaps some chorus, some delay, and/or some reverb.

My question is --- typically, which fx would I apply first?

I've read that for "acoustic" guitar, adding some chorus can really "fill out" the sound. I've personally found that adding some delay can also add some dimensionality. I can play with the settings, but I don't know which order to apply the fx. Is there a "typical sequence" for applying the fx???

Thanks!!!

 

[Massive Master]

My questions are for when I master on the computer.

I really, really don't want to seem petty and picky - But this has absolutely *zero* to do with mastering. I don't mean to take it out on you, but it's personally invading my life and making it miserable on more days than not.

This is not about mastering - Not even a tiny, little bit.

There. Now that we have that out of the way...

There's no reason to duplicate a mono source and pan them apart - That's no different than the same mono source (only now, it's taking twice the resources and memory). It doesn't make it stereo. It's still mono. Stereo is the difference between left and right. You can duplicate that track 37 times and pan them all over the place - but it's still the same source.

Other than that - You just need to think "through" the process -- Do you want to add chorus to a reverb signal, or add reverb to a signal that has chorus on it? There's a difference. Chances are, you want to add chorus before reverb - But I've added modulation effects to spatial effects more times than I can count - So it's worth mentioning.

But as most of what you mention are additive effects and wouldn't be in-line with the track, it wouldn't really make a difference in most cases.

 

[bohunk06]

First off, Massive Master, take it easy on this post. The person made it clear that they are new to recording and don't necessarilly know all the terminology. All this nonsense about invading your life... dude, you got issues if thats the case.

Anyhoo, I have to disagree about the copying and panning of your track. I actually do that all the time. It creates a thicker sound. I just recorded a guy doing some acoustic stuff recently and he was unable to nail a couple tracks good enough for me to use both and pan them. So I used one track, copied it and panned hard right/left. Yes, its the same track as running one right up the center, but it does thicken it up a bit. If it sounds better to you, go for it.

Secondly, I would agree that you would add chorus first. Although in your case, I don't think you are getting into adding chorus to your spatial effects yet. So for your project, it probably doesn't matter what order you insert them.

Good luck!

 

[WhiteStrat]

First off, Massive Master, take it easy on this post. The person made it clear that they are new to recording and don't necessarilly know all the terminology. All this nonsense about invading your life... dude, you got issues if thats the case.

Anyhoo, I have to disagree about the copying and panning of your track. I actually do that all the time. It creates a thicker sound. I just recorded a guy doing some acoustic stuff recently and he was unable to nail a couple tracks good enough for me to use both and pan them. So I used one track, copied it and panned hard right/left. Yes, its the same track as running one right up the center, but it does thicken it up a bit. If it sounds better to you, go for it.

Secondly, I would agree that you would add chorus first. Although in your case, I don't think you are getting into adding chorus to your spatial effects yet. So for your project, it probably doesn't matter what order you insert them.

Good luck!

And I will disagree with you about the copying and panning of your track. In fact, you're just wrong. (I know--I used to do it too!)

A recorded track (digitally, for this example) is a bunch of ones and zeros, bits and bytes.

The same track duplicated and panned left and right, versus a single track in the middle, is nothing more than the same exact set of ones and zeros, bits and bytes, doubled.

If it sounds thicker, that's because it's now louder.

Usually, the maxim "if it sounds better to you, go for it" is true. In this case, though, I'd say that if sounds better to you, ask yourself why, and figure out what you're really trying to accomplish.

I used to duplicate and nudge one of the tracks--oops, that's called delay. After I figured out delay was more efficient than a new track, I tried EQing them differently to make 'em really stand apart--didn't do anything but make me tilt my head when I listened.

Seriously, if you want something to sound that spacious, play it twice and pan 'em left and right. If you can't play the part twice (hopefully because it's full of improv--otherwise you really should be able to nail it twice), then record it in stereo.

TO THE OP: Try recording it twice. A nice lush (natural) stereo recording will blow you away. Odds are you won't even be adding any FX after you hear that.

 

[picknpaws]

Thanks for the replies!!!

I do apologize if I posted this Q in the wrong section. When I looked at the different forums, I couldn't figure exactly where to post this Q.

Follow-on question ----- there are comments about "spatial" processing. I don't know what this is. Can you provide any general guidance/input?

Here's what I'm trying to address, to provide some reference...

My recordings are good; nice a clear. But also the sound is very "discrete". That is, I can hear each string separately. For some songs, particularly slower ballads, I am trying to figure out how to "fill out" the recording so it's not quite so "specific" for each string and note. In some ways, this seems to be the opposite of trying to fix-up "muddy" recordings.

Again, thanks for any suggestions/advice, as basic as it may be....

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I've read that for "acoustic" guitar, adding some chorus can really "fill out" the sound. I've personally found that adding some delay can also add some dimensionality. I can play with the settings, but I don't know which order to apply the fx. Is there a "typical sequence" for applying the fx???

As Massive said (and I'll agree with in different words ), when it comes to reverb, you have to ask yourself the question of just what final effect you're looking for. If you're looking to make something sound as if it's an effected source being played within a room or space where there's some dimension and distance to teh sound, then place the reverb last. If you're looking to make some artifical-sounding "kewl" effect that doesn necessarily sound like an actual physical reverberation, then you can apply effects or processing after the reverb.

I personally am quite a fan of chorused acoustic guitar. that doesn't mean I use it all the time, not by a long shot. But used as a special spice only enough times to keep it special, I think it's a great sound. I have a cheesy old Alesis Quadraverb 2 that I still keep plugged in for the main reason of using it's quad chorus on acoustic guitar on special occasions. That said, though, watch the duplicate panning when using chorus. If you are using a chorus that provides a stereo return, such as many stereo or quad choruses do, I find it's usually best to let the chorus effect itself return the stereo image, in which case splitting the tracks is not only unnecessary, but can get in the way.

I'd also be careful about layering on too many effects. I'm nit saying it can't be done, but again, often times they will get in the way of each other in a way that doesn't always sound the best. Again, this applies mostly to stereo effects. For example, a stereo or multi-layer chorus can often already include delay in its algorithm. While throwing up two tracks and throwing a delay between them can sound good, if you lay a stereo returned effect on top of that that also includes it's own delay processing, the combination is not always the most desirable. And I agree with Strat that if you really want panned tracks to sound sweet, play them twice instead of duping one track.

And finally, I gotta back up Massive on his "issues" with the misuse of the term "mastering". It *does* effect him directly every day because every day he works as a full-time mastering engineer, and to call what picknpaws describes as mastering wrongly affects the potential clients image of what mastering is and disrespects Massive's job. It would be like calling Rick Bayless or Emeril Lagasse or some other head chef the guy who makes the McDonalds run for the office.

But even more than that, it's just part of the overall illness in DIY music production where people tend to skip the mixing process altogether and try to do everything instead in mastering after it is too late. This baloney needs to be nipped in the bud, and the sooner a newb learns the right terminology, the sooner they will learn the right procedure, and the sooner their stuff ill sound good.

Hell, if I had my druthers, the first thing I would do is split this forum into separate mixing and mastering forums, just to make sure new DIYers get it straight.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Follow-on question ----- there are comments about "spatial" processing. I don't know what this is. Can you provide any general guidance/input?

That refers to any kind of processing or effect mase to synthesize the sound of placing an instrument in a real space or otherwise manipulating the "size" or location o fhe instruments "image" within the stereo field. The standard use of reverb is a classic example. There are some ways to use delays to make something sound "spacious" or "wider" or even as if there is a natural echo from a "room" in which the instrument is obstensibly placed. Or even making an instrument sound more distant simply by increasing it's distance from the microphone. Those would all be examples of "spacial processing".

My recordings are good; nice a clear. But also the sound is very "discrete". That is, I can hear each string separately. For some songs, particularly slower ballads, I am trying to figure out how to "fill out" the recording so it's not quite so "specific" for each string and note. In some ways, this seems to be the opposite of trying to fix-up "muddy" recordings.

It's hard to tell for sure without hearing some samples, but it sounds like you might just need some simple reverb, or maybe better yet, record yourself in a lively space such as a tiled kitchen or empty stairway and back the mic of a few feet instead of up close.

G.

 

[Dogbreath]

and I've got nothin else to add except for the duplicate scenario.

Seriously picks...play the part twice and then pan those tracks. That "spatial" thing you're looking for is right there. It's almost a chorus effect in itself.

I used to do the copy/paste and then nudge the track as well but after I read so many guys here (and elsewhere) saying to just track it twice, I finally listened and it makes a big difference. Most of the time now, I'll add a touch of reverb and call it good.

Good luck man.....

 

[WhiteStrat]

and I've got nothin else to add except for the duplicate scenario.

Seriously picks...play the part twice and then pan those tracks. That "spatial" thing you're looking for is right there. It's almost a chorus effect in itself.

I used to do the copy/paste and then nudge the track as well but after I read so many guys here (and elsewhere) saying to just track it twice, I finally listened and it makes a big difference. Most of the time now, I'll add a touch of reverb and call it good.

Good luck man.....

Same exact path I travelled...

 

[NL5]

Anyhoo, I have to disagree about the copying and panning of your track. I actually do that all the time. It creates a thicker sound. I just recorded a guy doing some acoustic stuff recently and he was unable to nail a couple tracks good enough for me to use both and pan them. So I used one track, copied it and panned hard right/left. Yes, its the same track as running one right up the center, but it does thicken it up a bit. If it sounds better to you, go for it.

Anyhoo, as stated several times previously, all you did was make it louder. It's a lot easier to just bring the fader up........It's not "thicker" or "fuller" or anything other than louder.

 

[RAMI]

I don't care if it was mentioned 80 times in this thread, I'm repeating it. Copying and doubling a track does nothing but make it louder. Period.

 

[Massive Master]

First off, Massive Master, take it easy on this post. The person made it clear that they are new to recording and don't necessarilly know all the terminology. All this nonsense about invading your life... dude, you got issues if thats the case.

I'm not trying to argue, but seriously - Come work here for a few weeks and see how many projects come in for *MIXING* because the potential client didn't know what mastering was. Session setup, worksheets, etc., etc., -

Plug in the hard drive and there are 200-ish files in 10 folders.

Phone call -

Me: Is this (person who sent the package in)?

Potential Client: Yep.

Me: Uh, I got your package in - Ummm... It looks like you need a mixing engineer.

PC: Yeah - That's why I sent it to you.

Me: This is actually a mastering facility -

PC: Yeah - That's why I sent it in for you to master it.

Me: No, these songs aren't mixed yet.

PC: Uh - Yeah, that's why I sent them in for you.

Me: I don't mix here though.

PC: I don't understand -

Me: This is a mastering facility.

PC: Right - And...?

Me: Mastering isn't the same as mixing.

PC: WHAT?!? What do you mean?

Me: (just take it from there)

And of course, Bridget already deposited the check, so I have to keep track of that to clear so I can refund it (or refund the credit card payment, hold off on the money order or what not), arrange for the drive to be shipped back, lose a few hours of time I could actually have been working on something sent in by anyone who knew the difference between mixing and mastering, redo my entire schedule for the next day, call anyone who may have wanted that date, etc., etc., etc.

All because someone didn't know what mastering was.

It happened once again just a few days ago and honest, the phone call was amazing in comparison to the "typical" one I just put up - This guy couldn't even grasp the concept.

So yes, I might be a little "overly sensitive" to misused/misunderstood basic nomenclature, but I have my reasons.

Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go eat a cup of coffee.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Me: Is this (person who sent the package in)?

Potential Client: Yep.

Me: Uh, I got your package in - Ummm... It looks like you need a mixing engineer.

PC: Yeah - That's why I sent it to you.

Me: This is actually a mastering facility -

PC: Yeah - That's why I sent it in for you to master it.

Me: No, these songs aren't mixed yet.

PC: Uh - Yeah, that's why I sent them in for you.

Me: I don't mix here though.

PC: I don't understand -

Me: This is a mastering facility.

PC: Right - And...?

Me: Mastering isn't the same as mixing.

PC: WHAT?!? What do you mean?

Announcer: John Scrip, ladies and gentlemen!!

[Audience applause]

Announcer: "Mastering's On First" is only the beginning.That's right, folks, John will be here all week with more of his most excellent Abbot and Costello routines. Two drink minimum., Thurdsay night is Ladies' Night. All ladies coming in with an actual 2-mix in 24-bit WAV format drink free. But please, no pancake requests.



Sorry, John, I had to swing at that grapefruit. You *know* I'm on your side on this

G.

 

[Massive Master]

I thought the "eat a cup of coffee" was the funny part...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I thought the "eat a cup of coffee" was the funny part...

My fault. I thought that explained why your "Location" always has you looking for more coffee. If you made it that badly where it was actually al dente, that would explain a lot....

One of these day's I'd like to stop by with a nice big cup of fresh coffee for you and check out your Transporter Room in person.

G.

 

[Massive Master]

Be glad to have you - And there's a Caribou Coffee not 4 minutes from here. Two of them actually... And a Starbucks - But they've been sort of a let down over the last couple years...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

And a Starbucks - But they've been sort of a let down over the last couple years...

I have had nothing but bad experiences with Starbucks coffee myself. I just don't get the attraction. Maybe I've just had bad luck.

Luck or not, I'll take 32 ounces of Columbian/Houseblend (half n half) from Speedway for a buck nine any day of the week myself. Always fresh, never bitter.

I'll have to work on getting a day off for myself by myself - a rare event these days - that coincides with a time that works for you to come by and check out the Massive operation. And I'll supply the java from Caribou Barbie...er, I mean Caribou Coffee or whatever works for ya.

G.

 

[Aled_King]

I know this is a big part of what you guys do, and you pride yourself on your knowledge of this area, so could you please explain (or point me in the direction of an online guide or book):

What exactly the difference is between Mixing and Mastering?


I realise you have probably been asked this many times before, so I understand if you cannot be bothered to explain it again. I just feel that as a young guy, Who is new to recording, it would set me off on the right foot learning the difference early on.

Thanks
Aled

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

What exactly the difference is between Mixing and Mastering?

Mixing is the process of taking the raw tracks/recordings, processing them and assembling them together to create the complete, 100%, "final" (so to speak) production of the song.

Mastering is the process of taking the song or songs (the later in the case of an EP or album) and prepping them for final publishing and duplication. This prep includes setting the final song order, making sure that the songs have a properly consistent "timbre" and apparent volume level, final fades/crossfades and spacing between songs, and any processing and documentation needed specially in anticipation of printing to the destination media (eg. RIAA equalization for vinyl, CD text, track markers and PQ code editing for CD, equalization optimization for internet streaming, etc.)

To use one of my infamous and not-so-popular cooking analogies (I'm sorry, but I find cooking and audio production to be practically identical on a conceptual level), mixing is the process of adding all the ingredients together and cooking them, mastering is the process of plating and presentation.

But thanks to a combination of irresponsible marketing by companies such as TC Electronics and Isotope, who intend to sell mis-named "finalizing" or "mastering" products, and the powerful tide of Internet myth spread, there is now a belief spread amongst the newer DIYers that mixing is the process of sticking the raw tracks together just enough where they only 50% suck, and then using mastering after the mix has already been made to try and take them the rest of the way. This is the cooking equivalent of cooking a dish that doesn't taste all that great and then trying to make it taste great by adding a bunch of salt and pepper and such to the final plate after it's cooked and served.

G.

 

[buckkillr8]

To use one of my infamous and not-so-popular cooking analogies (I'm sorry, but I find cooking and audio production to be practically identical on a conceptual level), mixing is the process of adding all the ingredients together and cooking them, mastering is the process of plating and presentation.

No need to be sorry, that's just the best analogy possible