Drums>Firewire Mixer>Daw?

[5stringer]

Please help! I've been recording 8 tracks of drums through my M-audio ProFire 2626 using Cubase 5. The problem is, the drums are pretty much lifeless unless I add compression, EQ, and inserts on every track, thus eating up alot of CPU power. I've also tried FX sends to handle some of the sound shaping.

My question is, is it possible to improve the sound quality of the drum track's initial recording by first running each mic through a firewire mixer (ex. Mackie 1620i) then into the DAW in order to be able to EQ each drum prior to tracking it. Or is the firewire mixer's sole purpose to be used as a summing tool during mix-down? I'm assuming the goal is to get the best possible track recorded so there is less "window dressing" needed later.

 

[WhiteStrat]

Please help! I've been recording 8 tracks of drums through my M-audio ProFire 2626 using Cubase 5. The problem is, the drums are pretty much lifeless unless I add compression, EQ, and inserts on every track, thus eating up alot of CPU power. I've also tried FX sends to handle some of the sound shaping.

My question is, is it possible to improve the sound quality of the drum track's initial recording by first running each mic through a firewire mixer (ex. Mackie 1620i) then into the DAW in order to be able to EQ each drum prior to tracking it. Or is the firewire mixer's sole purpose to be used as a summing tool during mix-down? I'm assuming the goal is to get the best possible track recorded so there is less "window dressing" needed later.

Actually, it's usually best to record as raw as possible so you're not stuck with eq or compression that doesn't work. And I do the same thing--8 tracks for drums in, with EQ and compression on almost all of 'em. I've got a very robust computer, though.

Have you tried "freezing" the tracks? I've never needed to, but I know Cubase has that option--it's supposed to "print" the FX on the track so it takes less CPU power. But you can then unfreeze them and still make changes.

 

[5stringer]

So, it's pretty much standard practice to record the drums "dry" initially, then compress and eq each drum during mixing. The analog mixer would be used strictly for mixing after all tracking is finished?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Have you tried "freezing" the tracks? I've never needed to, but I know Cubase has that option--it's supposed to "print" the FX on the track so it takes less CPU power. But you can then unfreeze them and still make changes.

^^^^^ +100.

This thread is why God created track freezing/locking.

At least until you get your drum heads replaced and tuned and then fine-tune your mic placement. That should eliminate your need for all those plugs to begin with.

G.

 

[D_Vincent]

I would eq and compress after the drums are recorded.

To cut down on the amount of plugins being used when mixing drums I usually do this.

Treat the kick drum untill it sounds they way you want it...Gate,Comp,Limiter,EQ,some saturation perhaps and then render that track down to a WAV file.

Now bring in the new kick drum WAV file track...mute the original kick drum track (dont delete it though) Save FX chain and then remove all the plugins from track.

Now you have the treated WAV file track of the kick without the plugins...If you need to adjust track later on just go back to original track and bring in your saved FX chain and do some minor tweaks then Render as WAV file again and replace old WAV file with new.

 

[WhiteStrat]

^^^^^ +100.

This thread is why God created track freezing/locking.

At least until you get your drum heads replaced and tuned and then fine-tune your mic placement. That should eliminate your need for all those plugs to begin with.

G.

I agree with you inasmuch you agree with me re:freezing the tracks. But I disagree about not needing the plugs.

My kit is maintained impeccably, and my drummer plays with punch and passion. My mics are the right ones for the jobs, and placed well, if I do say so myself. And I still manicure each track (kick & snare the most; overheads the least; toms somewhere in between).

Drums have this wonderful punch in the room that even the best mics don't capture--not without some help on the back end! If you don't get great tracks, you'll never bring 'em to life, but even if you do get great tracks, they still need to be pushed (at least for a big rock and roll sound). A retro 60's sound, or a jazz kit? Yeah that can be accomplished with the right tracking. But the big rock and roll sound has to be sculpted a bit.

 

[5stringer]

Well, so far my cpu has been able to handle all the inserts though the "cpu performance meter" is noticably higher. I wasn't sure if there was a step along the signal chain I was missing. I have experimented with running my bass guitar through a channel strip (Focusrite ISA) prior to tracking with great results...or should the bass be tracked "dry" also???

 

[TimOBrien]

A lot of your eq/compression/etc needed might be due to your not micing the drums properly.

Even a little bit either way or different angles (or the room) can be a big change.

Major studios go through this all the time.

You can certainly put efx on the tracks but once you do you're stuck with 'em.

As suggested above, do 'em dry and print your effects to new tracks to free cpu. Disk space is cheap these days.... far cheaper than cpu cycles.

But you might want to look at your technique, too....

 

[WhiteStrat]

Well, so far my cpu has been able to handle all the inserts though the "cpu performance meter" is noticably higher. I wasn't sure if there was a step along the signal chain I was missing. I have experimented with running my bass guitar through a channel strip (Focusrite ISA) prior to tracking with great results...or should the bass be tracked "dry" also???

If you really love the sound you're getting, go for it. But I track bass dry as well. I do a little EQ shaping, and some serious compression usually, and I like to be able to adjust those things based on what the mix needs.

 

[5stringer]

OK - so... when i read about that "Neve" sound associated with channel strips or the great mic pre's on the more expensive recording consoles - their sound shaping qualities are added post-tracking?

 

[WhiteStrat]

OK - so... when i read about that "Neve" sound associated with channel strips or the great mic pre's on the more expensive recording consoles - their sound shaping qualities are added post-tracking?

I honestly can't tell ya that. I wasn't there when they did that. Sorry!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I agree with you inasmuch you agree with me re:freezing the tracks. But I disagree about not needing the plugs

.To each their own, I guess. We've recorded everything from double-kick metal to Christian rock to classic rock to covers of Lady Gaga in our new room, and since replacing the heads, other than fine tuning the various mic levels to accomodate the drummer's style and the music style, very little other adjustment has been needed. No compression and only the occasional slight EQ.

Perhaps the OP may not be able to eliminate the need for plugs totally, but (not counting track freezing) having to use so many plug instances as to bog down his CPU - whatever CPU he's using - should not be necessary. IMHO and IME, if you gotta use that many plugs, something's wrong.

But that's just IME. Perhaps IYE it's been a different story.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

OK - so... when i read about that "Neve" sound associated with channel strips or the great mic pre's on the more expensive recording consoles - their sound shaping qualities are added post-tracking?

Not necessarily. Most of their "sound" is inherent in their circuit design and makeup; just the fact that that gear is inline and being used can be enough to make a difference, as compared to most of the stuff used down on our amateur level.

Some of those big consoles are known for their EQ quality, though, and yes, many pro engineers will use that EQ during tracking and record with outboard compression. The truth is, there's nothing wrong with using FX and signal processing during tracking *IF* you have the experience and know exactly what you want or need to wind up with after all the dust has settled. At our place we track vocals with compression all the time, because we got that pretty much figured out.

But the conventional wisdom around these parts is to track clean and wait 'till mixing to mess with that stuff for two reasons. 1) because most of us do not have Rupert Neve-grade pres, EQs and compressors, and 2) because many, if not most, home recorders have not only lesser-quality gear and plugs, but lesser experience or ears to get it just the way they need it on input before having the rest of the tracks to work against. By keeping it clean during tracking, you're not committing yourself to a one way street you can't undo without going back and re-tracking.

G.

 

[WhiteStrat]

(I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, I just wanted to offer up a comparison. I've always wanted to compare raw & processed drum tracks anyway, and this thread has kinda provoked me to do so. I'm a guitarist, so maybe I'm all wrong about my drum tracking!)

I suppose it's all about what you're going for. I have no doubt that a good drum sound can be crafted at the tracking stage. I think I've done it. Here's a recent session, no plugs anywhere, just pan and levels set:

That doesn't sound bad, does it? I think it sounds pretty good. And for a lot of purposes, it might be done. (Heck, maybe I should learn to be more organic and work with that--but I push it.) See next post.

 

[WhiteStrat]

Same tracks, after they've all been put through my meat grinder:

To me that has more of the oomph and power that a kit has when you're in the room with it! Oh yeah, we've mentioned EQ and compression, but another key ingredient in my meat grinder is gating. I gate everything except the overheads--helps maintain the "bigness" and separation in the kit.

 

[WhiteStrat]

Now, here's those processed drum tracks in the mix:

I suppose it's all a matter of taste, but I just like that big "in your face" sound...

 

[5stringer]

That makes alot of sense! I guess I shouldn't be looking for that polished sound while tracking - instead I should pay more attention to the resonant quality of each drum and experimenting with mic placement - fine tune and polish later.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

(I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, I just wanted to offer up a comparison.

I understand; I'm not trying to be argumentative either, which is why I said your experience may be different. My apologies if it came across otherwise.

One thing I've come to understand ever better than before since I've started working with four other good engineers under one roof is that there's often a half-dozen different ways of skinning a studio cat, and more often than not there are several of those ways that are perfectly OK, even if they are entirely different.

It just seems sensible that while perhaps some may *like* using a lot of processing on the drum tracks - which is fine - it should not be *necessary* to use so much as to bog down a whole computer. If the drums sound OK to the human ear, they shouldn't need a whole lot to sound OK thru the microphones either.

G.

 

[WhiteStrat]

That makes alot of sense! I guess I shouldn't be looking for that polished sound while tracking - instead I should pay more attention to the resonant quality of each drum and experimenting with mic placement - fine tune and polish later.

Well sort of...you wanna get 'em as polished as possible when you're tracking.

My point was that after replacing my heads, tuning the kit, and tweaking the mic placement, I had some great raw tracks. But they still weren't the final product.

So track as carefully as you can--like there are no plugins! Then you're guaranteed to have the best possible raw tracks to work with when it comes to pushing them further if you need to.

 

[WhiteStrat]

I understand; I'm not trying to be argumentative either, which is why I said your experience may be different. My apologies if it came across otherwise.

One thing I've come to understand ever better that before since I've started working with four other good engineers under one roof is that there's often a half-dozen different ways of skinning a studio cat, and more often than not there are several of those ways that are perfectly OK, even if they are entirely different.

It just seems sensible that while perhaps some may *like* using a lot of processing on the drum tracks - which is fine - it should not be *necessary* to use so much as to bog down a whole computer. If the drums sound OK to the human ear, they shouldn't need a whole lot to sound OK thru the microphones either.

G.

I've worked with some killer mics where little to no EQ is needed. So let's say you can do without that. And with some decent off-axis rejection, gating isn't an absolute requirement. So let's say you can do without that.

But when it comes to drums (esp the kick and snare) I'll go out on a limb and say compression always helps! The human eardrum is way better than any mic. The human ear responds to moving air in such a way as to create a "punch" that mics don't replicate. A good mic will pick up the right frequencies, but it still takes some compression to put that punch back in.

I'm not trying to create something above and beyond what the ear hears. I'm trying to use my tools to recreate it. And raw, recorded drums, with a great kit and my best mics, don't smack my eardrums like the kit did when I was standing next to it. So I'm gonna punch 'em up!