Search results

I agree 100%... which is why I always make recording compromises in favor of what the musician is used to/comfortable with. You can't get the best possible sound on tape without the musicians being in their best possible "zone". A confident musician grooving on familiar "wrong" gear will...

Why buy a half-solution when you could just buy the mic you want?

You have all of that awesome shit and you use VDrums?! ... Buy a drum kit.

That is the most likely scenario. It is also how I mix. My digital recorder has 14 analog output channels. I send the 12 most important tracks to 12 individual analog inputs on my mixing board, and everything else gets mixed digitally and sent out the remaining two output channels and into...

Exactly. Even somebody with unlimited recording tracks probably wouldn't record 15 close mic'd brass instruments. Put them in logical groupings and go about 3 to a mic.

I also use a 2480. What do you need past the 16 available channels? I have done hundreds of live recordings on the thing and I find a little sub-mixer can be very helpful when 16 channels just won't hold it. What is the project and what are the tracks involved?

The sound WILL reflect back outside. There simply isn't a place in the civilized world without something close enough to echo it back. And since the reflective surface will probably be far away, you could be looking at loud delays on the order of 1 second. Then there are issues like birds...

Like I said, this is the root of the problem. Mastering has very, very little to do with $2000 software. Mastering has almost everything to do with speakers and room treatment costing tens of thousands of dollars on the low end. It's like saying "yes, there is an investment when you learn to...

Just because something is self-serving doesn't make it wrong. You wouldn't complain if a forum full of dentists kept repeating that line.

As far as I know, the "standard" way to mix NY drums omits the overheads and rooms from the compressed buss.

The very beginning of the article seems to be the root of the trouble. It's not special or mystical in any way other than you need tens of thousands of dollars to dump into speakers and room design before you can even start listening at a level that will let you do the job. No amount of spunky...

Record better parts.

Nothing was synthed.

How can you know if the vocals work or not if you know there are problems with the rest of the mix? I don't think you quite understand what a mix is. To a small extent, yes you can have one part of the mix that is good and another part that is bad. But for the most part, the mix is either...

Give me files for a listening challenge and I'll identify the MP3. But no, MP3 encoding is not nearly destructive enough to harm the purpose of the mix clinic.

Not kidding at all. Look at Sinatra. Didn't hit the notes! It didn't matter! He is a legendary singer because his expression, tonal quality, and delivery killed. People get so caught up in the technical these days. I'm guessing that's why everything has stagnated for the past 10 years...

I would instead look for 1970's hifi speakers at a flea market. You could get something useable for $100. Headphones of any sort are an invitation for pain and frustration.

The front of take 87 glued to the back of take 43.

There were pitch shifters. All they did was shift the pitch a set amount with no regard to what the input signal actually contained. Now imagine looking at a bit of tape (no visible wave forms on a computer monitor), scrubbing it back and forth over the play head looking for literally a...

Cobain died before pitch correction was invented. His vocals never even saw a computer. That was all tape. And what I mean is that his inability to hit every note doesn't change the fact that he is one of the greatest singers ever. Nobody else can convey that emotion.