How To Use Delay

[MMensch]

And if what I get has only a single rhythm track, then so be it; that's usually going to be quite good enough. I never quite understood the incredibly widespread fascination with doubled/panned rhythm tracks that is so prevalent on this BBS. OOooohhh....stereo!!

I think what it is is that the bar keeps getting raised for musical animation from a purely technical standpoint, and having the widest possible stereo image and lots of conflicting, yet compatible psychoacoustic cues is considered to be just the bare necessities. I think the points you've made as to how you (don't) use delay are totally valid and it's all the more admirable if you can make this work, but I think it takes an educated listener to be able to see through that nowadays.

I'm listening to mp3s at the moment, and a while ago ago, "I'm Still Standing" by Elton John took over from Eric Prydz's house re-working of "Another Brick in the Wall". Two great songs back to back, but the contrast in sound was so startling that it actually made me took notice, even though I like to think I look at songs for what they are and not for their sonic trickery. But it wasn't just the loudness ("I'm Still Standing" is a rip from the original, non-remastered mid-80s-released CD), it was also the difference in terms how busy the arrangement was and the like.

The point I'm trying to make is as follows: if I had some highschool kids, or even adults I suppose, that weren't total musical buffs but just normal listeners sitting in the room with me, I suspect that they'd urge me to skip Elton because it would sound boring and bland to them - and I could only half blame them, to be honest. Yet if you remixed it from the master adding only reverbs, delays, and hard compression as is the norm today, they probably wouldn't even notice that it's a song close to three decades old - and hell, if it were done tastefully, even I might enjoy it more. So if you want to reject this philosophy, you want to be sure that you know what you're doing, especially with your listeners in mind, which I'm sure you do, too.

 

[mixsit]

I think you are referring to a dotted quarter note?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotted_note

Yes of course, not a neasure and half! Thank you.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That view is based on the assumption that two performances are always better than a doubled track.

Not always. just 99% of the time

OTOH, you - and most of this BBS - seem to base your viewpoints upon the assumption that doubled tracks are almost always better than just a single track. I don't buy that. My god, if for some goofball reason I were forced to go the rest of my life without doubling anything in any of my mixes, it honestly wold not bother me that much at all. Yet the impression one gets from this board is that every goddamned song ever created has to by law have doubled/panned something n it.

Your example of the doubled organ stymies me. I don't know whether when you say "organ' you're talking about a B3 or a Farfisa, but either way I'm having a hard time imagining when I would want to double either of them, let alone with a delay. I'm not saying it's impossible or I would never do it, but I certainly would not be predisposed to it.

But that all depends on the genre as well. Imagine Vangelis or Eno w/o delays

It's called Tomita .

Yeah, I know you always gotta represent the playing with sound design point of view because that's what you're into, George, and that's fine. And you know I have a lot of that in my history too. And yeah, Eno and Parsons' Project have dome some incredible things with delay (check out Parsons' "The Gold Bug" on the "Turn of a Friendly Card" album for a really neat combination of delay and pan space to create a 3D soundscaape.) But let's be honest, George; for most of us that stuff is the exception to the rule of day in, day out production, and bears almost no relation to the used of delay and doubling and such that everybody here is referring to using in garage band rock.

There is the use of delay and other gadgets as part of the music, a la Eno and Parsons, and there is the use of delay and other gadgets as covering for the lack of music, a la most home recording efforts.

The point I'm trying to make is as follows: if I had some highschool kids, or even adults I suppose, that weren't total musical buffs but just normal listeners sitting in the room with me, I suspect that they'd urge me to skip Elton because it would sound boring and bland to them - and I could only half blame them, to be honest. Yet if you remixed it from the master adding only reverbs, delays, and hard compression as is the norm today, they probably wouldn't even notice that it's a song close to three decades old - and hell, if it were done tastefully, even I might enjoy it more. So if you want to reject this philosophy, you want to be sure that you know what you're doing, especially with your listeners in mind, which I'm sure you do, too.

Well two responses to that Elton example. First, I'm sure that if you have Elton in the room live playing acoustic piano and performing that song, the kids would have no problem with the lack of gadgetry in what they hear. The fact that it's on a recording and not live should make no difference in that regard. Second - and far more to the point (for me, anyway) - is that the last time I mixed anything where I gave a shit what an 18 year old thought about it was when I was 18. And that's not ageism, either; I also couldn't give a shit what a 50 year old thinks about it.

Unless I'm working under specific direction from a client to do otherwise, I NEVER mix for an audience of any denominator; I mix for the music and the mix. If the music and the production is worth it, people will listen to it. If it's not, then gimmicking it up just to fool a few teenagers is just adding to the problem, not fixing it.

G.

 

[MMensch]

Second - and far more to the point (for me, anyway) - is that the last time I mixed anything where I gave a shit what an 18 year old thought about it was when I was 18. And that's not ageism, either; I also couldn't give a shit what a 50 year old thinks about it.

Unless I'm working under specific direction from a client to do otherwise, I NEVER mix for an audience of any denominator; I mix for the music and the mix. If the music and the production is worth it, people will listen to it. If it's not, then gimmicking it up just to fool a few teenagers is just adding to the problem, not fixing it.

I hope to get to this point someday, i.e. to be able to make the most both from what's there in the song and from my strengths as a mixing engineer, and to hell with the flavour of the month. I'm nowhere near that, however, so I do try to keep in mind the contemporary production norms. Not that too many people notice that, mind - everybody keeps accusing me that while my mixes have become reasonably good and tasteful over the years, I remain stuck in the 80s. (I actually used to be proud of that for a while but it's now beginning to get on my nerves because I've realised that the 80s are a sort of a technological platform nowadays and that I should work on taking my sound beyond that.)

 

[mixsit]

Not always. just 99% of the time

There is the use of delay and other gadgets as part of the music, a la Eno and Parsons, and there is the use of delay and other gadgets as covering for the lack of music, a la most home recording efforts....

Um, hopefully making ambience, depth and setting sound stage are in there somewhere right?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I hope to get to this point someday, i.e. to be able to make the most both from what's there in the song and from my strengths as a mixing engineer, and to hell with the flavour of the month. I'm nowhere near that, however, so I do try to keep in mind the contemporary production norms. Not that too many people notice that, mind - everybody keeps accusing me that while my mixes have become reasonably good and tasteful over the years, I remain stuck in the 80s.

Again, I am just espousing personal feelings and philosophy here, not saying how things "should" be based upon some Gospel according to the SouthSIDE or anything like that . This is just one guy opining, that's all...

I don't think that going with flavor of the month is so much a matter of one's strengths or weaknesses as a mixing engineer as it is a matter of still having to figure out one's own voice and style. Once one has the gumption to first find, and then follow, their inner vision, then (some of) the techniques can follow.

It's much like playing an instrument, IMHO. One can try to emulate someone else's tone, or they can recognize and follow the style that is built into THEIR OWN fingers, and their tone and technique will follow, usually much better than if the just try to clone what their favorite guitarist has already done.

Perhaps it may help you to not think of yourself as stuck in the 80s that you have to escape, but rather as your 80s prediliction as a foundation on which to build. Don't try to jump into the '00s by trying to emulate the current "norms"; instead create the new sound of the '10s or '20s by taking what you are already good at as a foundation, and updating it by imprinting your own style on it.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Um, hopefully making ambience, depth and setting sound stage are in there somewhere right?

If a pre-delay is part of the desired ambient sound, sure. But that's not of necessity quite the same issue as setting the delay to the song tempo or the use of delay as an instrument doubling technique.

And frankly, even pre-delay is an optional luxury, IMHO. If one cannot create a decent ambiance, depth or soundstage without delay or pre-delay, they're probably just not trying very hard.

Of course removing delays and pre-delays from the tool box would limit one's options to a degree; I'd be an idiot not to admit that (and I already have plenty of other reasons to be called an idiot ). But if one really needs any of those removed options to make or break a mix, there's something wrong; no mix should have to depend on such effects to succeed.

G.

 

[miroslav]

...you - and most of this BBS - seem to base your viewpoints upon the assumption that doubled tracks are almost always better than just a single track.

Mmmmmm...not sure where I'm saying that...that it's always better to double???
I was only making one point about doubled VS played-twice...but I don't double everything, but though there are things I do like to double, and things I prefer to play twice…depends on the song and sound I’m after.

Your example of the doubled organ stymies me. I don't know whether when you say "organ' you're talking about a B3 or a Farfisa, but either way I'm having a hard time imagining when I would want to double either of them, let alone with a delay. I'm not saying it's impossible or I would never do it, but I certainly would not be predisposed to it.

Well...try it...you might like it!
There's nothing really that odd about it.

Double the organ track (it’s a Hammond L – aka "baby B3”), pan them hard L/R...then apply just enough delay to create the right amount of separation, and so that the vibratos of the two actually oscillate against each other L - R or R - L...whatever fits better within the mix.
It's a cool sound, IMO, and totally different from using a single organ track and just panning it to one point in the sound stage….though I do that also, depending on what I’m after.
You seem to be rather stuck in the single-track mode!

It's all about how one hears the production in their head...and then records/mixes toward that....right?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You seem to be rather stuck in the single-track mode!

Nope, I'm stuck in the "listen to the music and collaborate with it" mode . And I gotta tell you, rarely does the music ever say, "I want you to synthesize this smoke screen of an effect and splatter me all over the pan space in order for me to sound 'cool' ". If the keyboard part is a cool part, it's cool, and probably doesn't need a stereo gimmick to make it so. If it ain't, trying to force it to sound 'cool' by layering it with effects is just blowing smoke.

(And before someone else brings it up, yes, my argument is weak because I do like Leslies. Just not hard-panned. )

Again, I'm not saying never...it's not like I never doubled tracks before. It's just that it's now turned into such a been there, done that, cheesey cheat of an effect these days...right up there with AM radio vocals, except even more prevalent.

It's all about how one hears the production in their head...and then records/mixes toward that....right?

Yep. I just wish more folks had more in their head than just, "Dude, I gotta double and hard-pan my stuff because it sounds so freakin' awsome." It's like stereopohonic sound was just invented in the 21st. century.

And again, miro, like I said, it's a matter of personal taste. I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong. I was just expressing my opinion - based upon objective observation - that doubling/hard panning is both overblown and overused these days.

G.

 

[miroslav]

... yes, my argument is weak because I do like Leslies. Just not hard-panned. )

If I had a Leslie...I might not double & hard pan some of my organ tracks!
But it's really NOT just a "gimmick" or forced "cool"...it's a different way to do an organ w/o Leslie.
I'm still using a real Hammond!

Look...there's all kinds of "FX/gimmicks" done in the studio that aren't just the direct documentation of a performance...even when going back 50 years.
Thing is...some have become very commonplace over the years, so they are now "acceptable"...yet I think one must keep an open mind for new approaches if they sound good within the mix.
A plate reverb is still a "fake"...yet it's now considered "vintage cool", while a digital reverb might be considered a "fake" by some.

Like I said...try the organ double track SOP I mentioned...you might like it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Look...there's all kinds of "FX/gimmicks" done in the studio that aren't just the direct documentation of a performance...even when going back 50 years.

I saw this one coming right down the OC24 backbone, because I hear it all the time and it's just baloney; if you don't heavily rely upon gimmick effects, you're a documentarian. Everything is always one fringe end of the spectrum or the other in this InterThingy, isn't it? Either you gotta double and hard pan stuff like it's going out of style, or you're a Lou Adler documentarian. If people would learn how to actually MIX and not rely upon gimmicks to try to do the mixing for them, they'd discover the entire creative world that exists in between. (and no, that wasn't directed at you specifically, miro; I'm not saying you don't know how to mix. I'm talking trends and generalities.)

If/when the music calls for it, I'll double up. But these days doubling has become so pervasive and cliche and tired, that there'd better be a damn good, above and beyond reason for me to do it. When someone says "double the guitars" these days, my Pablovian response is to yawn.

I'm tired of the freakin' Beatles; enough already! I'm tired of Medieval dragon slayer cartoon album covers with over-muscled men and women with torn bathing suits on the cover, both of which have boobs that are way too big to be any good. And I'm sooo freakin' tired of hearing mixes built around "k3wl-sounding" doubled and panned instrumentation. No attempt at any kind of logical argument otherwise can change any of that for me.

G.

 

[Terry Wetzel]

Here is my take on this.

For what it's worth, I personally salute all you people,(not an ethnic insult), who excell in math! Your genius astounds me. I barely made it through high scool math. Good in basic, forget algebra! I'm 69 years old and just don't have the time for mathmatical equations! Delay originated somewhere back in tape recording history as "tape echo"! It may have been an accident, who knows. However, it became a fundemental part of rock and roll and rockabilly music because of the mysterious quality it added to the recordings. It also gave birth to phasing and flanging which are integral i digital delays.There was no math to compute. It depended solely on the speed of the tape and the distance between the tape machine record and playback heads. Yeah, it may have been a gimmic but after all, it helped to launch a new music form. I personally think the sound it produced is superior to any digital delay. Just my opinion.

 

[miroslav]

I saw this one coming right down the OC24 backbone, because I hear it all the time and it's just baloney; if you don't heavily rely upon gimmick effects, you're a documentarian.

Never said that. I said there are studio techniques (aka "gimmicks") that are considered commonplace and very acceptable that go well beyond straight “documentation”, and have been in use for 50 years, and if you use the acceptable “gimmicks”…you shouldn’t be too quick to frown on new ones.

Everything is always one fringe end of the spectrum or the other in this InterThingy, isn't it?

No...not really...you're couching it that way.

If you are just on your soap box for the real extreme abusers...then bark away!
However, I think I've clearly said that my choices are dictated by the song, the mix...and what I'm trying to do with it.
It's not some automatic SOP..."Double everything...pan it hard...put xxx milliseconds of delay on it".

Point is...you can't call something a cheap gimmick when someone else uses it...but when you use it, then what, it's a focused artistic decision?!
You keep leaving yourself a back door that allows YOU to use the gimmicks...

If/when the music calls for it, I'll double up.

...but then slam it shut for others...

When someone says "double the guitars" these days, my Pablovian response is to yawn.

Your argument is pulling out the rug on them as soon as there is mention of "doubled tracks" for anything.
I'm saying try it before deciding if it will work for you…that’s how I arrived at the double organ approach.

Like I said...sometimes it's single tracks, sometimes split-doubled, sometimes played-doubled, sometimes true stereo...
....but I DO understand your points when applied to people who always do the same thing, to excess, on everything!
My pet peeve is the overused Autotune “chirp”.
There are some mixes where if done very lightly, sparsely, discriminately, tastefully…it COULD sound OK, but the way it’s overused and slathered like pancake syrup at IHOP on a Sunday morning….it makes it difficult for anyone TO use it…EVER…without coming off cliché.
All I’m saying is…you need to hear it within the context of the mix rather than have preconceived prejudices about studio techniques (aka “gimmicks”) as soon as they are verbalized.

 

[miroslav]

Your genius astounds me. I barely made it through high scool math.

.....


There was no math to compute. It depended solely on the speed of the tape and the distance between the tape machine record and playback heads.

Nothing "genius" about it.
Heck...you can just use your ears if you don't want to bother with any math.

AFA the old tape echo...well, there was only one delay choice...so they had no need to do any math!
Of course...they got smart about it quick enough and made units where the playback head could be moved....and the rest is history!

I still have my multi-head tape echo unit from the mid-70s, a Multivox (similar to the Roland Space Echo units).
There's no easy way to compute the actual delay times with the multiple heads and variable tape speed...but I used it a LOT back in the day...just by listening to the groove.
It's a very cool sounding unit...nothing I have in digital form sounds like it, but the digital delays are almost 100% "clean"...so each has its use.

 

[mixsit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixsit
Um, hopefully making ambience, depth and setting sound stage are in there somewhere right?

If a pre-delay is part of the desired ambient sound, sure. But that's not of necessity quite the same issue as setting the delay to the song tempo or the use of delay as an instrument doubling technique.

And frankly, even pre-delay is an optional luxury, IMHO. If one cannot create a decent ambiance, depth or soundstage without delay or pre-delay, they're probably just not trying very hard.

Of course removing delays and pre-delays from the tool box would limit one's options to a degree; I'd be an idiot not to admit that (and I already have plenty of other reasons to be called an idiot ). But if one really needs any of those removed options to make or break a mix, there's something wrong; no mix should have to depend on such effects to succeed.

What the...?
All I said was I like to use delay as an ambient/movement/depth tool.
You know, like any other tool.
'Not trying very hard', 'no mix should have to depend on such effects'..?

I saw this one coming right down the OC24 backbone, because I hear it all the time and it's just baloney; if you don't heavily rely upon gimmick effects, you're a documentarian. Everything is always one fringe end of the spectrum or the other in this InterThingy, isn't it? Either you gotta double and hard pan stuff like it's going out of style, or you're a Lou Adler documentarian. If people would learn how to actually MIX and not rely upon gimmicks to try to do the mixing for them, they'd discover the entire creative world that exists in between. (and no, that wasn't directed at you specifically, miro; I'm not saying you don't know how to mix. I'm talking trends and generalities.)

If/when the music calls for it, I'll double up. But these days doubling has become so pervasive and cliche and tired, that there'd better be a damn good, above and beyond reason for me to do it. When someone says "double the guitars" these days, my Pablovian response is to yawn.

I'm tired of the freakin' Beatles; enough already! I'm tired of Medieval dragon slayer cartoon album covers with over-muscled men and women with torn bathing suits on the cover, both of which have boobs that are way too big to be any good. And I'm sooo freakin' tired of hearing mixes built around "k3wl-sounding" doubled and panned instrumentation. No attempt at any kind of logical argument otherwise can change any of that for me.

G.

Ok, in this thread about delays' you're just going jaded' here for a spell . That's cool. I get that too some times.

 

[Terry Wetzel]

Nothing "genius" about it.
Heck...you can just use your ears if you don't want to bother with any math.

AFA the old tape echo...well, there was only one delay choice...so they had no need to do any math!
Of course...they got smart about it quick enough and made units where the playback head could be moved....and the rest is history!

I still have my multi-head tape echo unit from the mid-70s, a Multivox (similar to the Roland Space Echo units).
There's no easy way to compute the actual delay times with the multiple heads and variable tape speed...but I used it a LOT back in the day...just by listening to the groove.
It's a very cool sounding unit...nothing I have in digital form sounds like it, but the digital delays are almost 100% "clean"...so each has its use.

Miroslav. Is that tape echo unit still available? I used to press my A3340-s into service but it's out of whack now. If I could find a source for a good quality tape echo unit I'd buy it in a heart beat! All my songs are early rockabilly stuff so it would suit my purpose. Or I'll try to master the math. Thanks

 

[miroslav]

The Multivox and Roland Space Echo units are no longer being made...but you can find 'em on eBay. I see the Roland stuff all the time, though people are getting a bit nuts with their prices. The Multivox is a rare animal, but also comes up from time to time...and there are a few other vintage tape echo units that pop up from time to time.
Just hit type "Tape Echo" or "Tape Delay" in the eBay search box under Musical Instruments.

There are some current manufactured units...Fulltone Tube Tape, but that's more of an Echoplex-style and not like the Multivox/Roland units, and is aimed more at the guitar playing crowd, though can be used for whatever.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm freaking tired of mixes built around doubled and panned instruments and with little more musical value than that. That is an expression of fact; I'm tired of it. There is no debate or argument there, I *AM* tired of it. Trust me, I am in a position to know how I feel .

Not everything in this world is an argument.

You don't have to agree with me, maybe you're not tired of it. But I AM, and that IS a fact. That doesn't make one of us right or wrong (as I've already taken pains to say a few times in this thread.)

And it also doesn't mean that it's a spoil for a debate or argument.

So please take a break from the tired old political tactic of parsing my words while ignoring my meaning and my intent just to try and sport up a false debate.

You like your doubled organ (no double entndre meant ), and that's fine. I never said anything against that at ALL. The closest I came was that I couldn't think offhand of a need for it for my own purposes. So do us all a favor and leave me the latitude to express an occasional personal opinion about things unrelated to you without having to turn it into a useless debate every time.

G.

 

[mixsit]

Glen, check your PMs.

 

[miroslav]

So do us all a favor and leave me the latitude to express an occasional personal opinion about things unrelated to you without having to turn it into a useless debate every time.

As we all know Glen...it takes at least two to have a useless debate!
You kept quoting me…so how could I not think it’s related to what I’m posting?

You personally being tired of "stuff", is one thing...
…but the way you express it in the thread directly scoffs at EVERYONE ELSE who uses that "stuff" and implies that your view is “more on the mark”.
That's really the only part I'm debating.

AFA the actual "gimmicks"...I have every intention to use whatever I think works within the mix.

PS
No need to get uptight bro (if you are)....I think we are generally in agreement about OVERUSED "gimmicks"...