Search results

It kind of sounds to me like you are confusing level with volume. You need to record a certain level to get the best signal to noise ratio, then adjust the volume in the mix to make everything listenable. It is two separate processes.

If you do go the DI route, get an active one. Active dis work for anything, the downsides are the need for phantom power and they tend to be more expensive.

That would work for headphone feeds, internment will kind of depend on how long the snake is and what instrument. It would be safer to get a di box and run it down the xlr

I'll bet the capstan isn't engaging.

I agree with BSG, when you put the effects on a aux bus, you need to set the effect to 100% wet, so you aren't adding dry signal back to the mix.

That pedal may be looking for instrument level and you are feeding it like level. You could test that by running a cable from the aux 1 output right into the return that you were plugging the pedal return into. If it doesn't distort, then you must be overloading the pedal.

Probably Bob Rock. Alan Parsons does really good mixes, but they all have a soft, low impact thing that I don't like.

We already saw that "muddy" means different things to different people. But, to your point, of course there are crappy mixes out there. Probably more than ever, simply because record companies don't invest in productions the way they used to. Since time is money, and there is a small fraction...

There are no universal "problem frequencies". There is only imbalance.

I think you are thinking about it wrong. All the frequencies need to be represented in a relatively balanced way. Focusing on any one part of the spectrum is not the key to a balanced mix.

You aren't seeing new faces in this post because you are talking about speakers from 30-40 years ago. Only so many of us have been doing it for that long.

I think the real question is "why normalize the tracks in the first place?" Assuming you are the one recording them, just record them at the proper levels and the plug-ins will simply work properly.

One thing to note is that a compressor/sustainer pedal is a different animal than a standard compressor. It's also used for a slightly different purpose.

Speeding things up always works better than slowing them down. You will just have to try it and find out. There should be a non-destructive way to do it, so you can always revert back if necessary.

They were an industry standard 35 years ago because common playback systems and the expected sound of music was different. I mixed plenty of albums on them, but it was much easier and less fatiguing once I got the genelecs. But, if you are happy with them, you are good to go.

When you take a mono track and pan it center, you are sending equal amounts of signal to both sides. This would be equivalent to a stereo track with the same amount of signal on both sides. If you take a stereo track with the same signal on both sides and pan both of those sides to the center...

It doesn't matter or change anything that it is now dual mono. Every mono signal panned center is essentially dual mono by the time we listen to it on headphones or two speakers.

It's like most other things in audio, it depends. In general, the things you do to vocals the most would tend to make sibilance worse, so putting the de-esser last would make sense. However, some sibilance is caused by the lack of throw or volume of the vocal. With the vowel sounds being...

When you mix them down to a single file, you should have the option of doing a mono mix down. No, sending it to a stereo bus will not change the panning.

Do you just need the variety, or do you need the ability to switch and rearrange things on the fly, like at a show? If you bought the individual pedals and found an old Bradshaw system to do the switching, that might be the easiest way around this. I can't imagine Bradshaw switching systems...