Different tracking sessions sounding different...

[rgraves]

Hi all,


Running into what I think is a problem,

After working on a project over several weeks on several of the songs I have noticed that the different takes of particular tracks (mainly vocals and distortion guitar) sound noticibly different. Not only volume-wise, but actually tone wise it sounds like a completely different guitar or voice or whatever.

Basically, it doesn't sound like it was done in one take. Now, all the settings on the amp and otherwise where the same, but mic placement could have been different because I had to reset-up everything over the course of the several weeks, no doubt that is causing this...

But my question is, first of all is this common? And if so how do engineers fix this difference in sound...it doesn't seem to be as much of a problem when it's in a huge mix, but a couple of the songs are imstrumentals and it didn't go ahead just by adding the other instruments.

Compression? EQ? start over??

hehe, thanks

 

[bigtoe]

very common. even if you get the mic distance right...i find everything changes from day to day.

how do you fix it? pull your hair out and do what you can. sometimes accentuating the difference is the answer.

or

re-track.

el bummer...a few bands i do don't care one way or the other....until you come to the mix... of course...

Mike

 

[xstatic]

This is a common problem. Not only was the mic placement different, but also probably the preamp, EQ etc... Not to mention that the performer was undoubtably a little different. Did you write down all your settings? Are you sure you are using the same pre's EQ's, etc...? Are you sure that you even have the same mics out? Even with settings being exactly the same, it can be hard to get things too sound uniform. Even just from the beginning of a session to the end of a session it can be that way, or even take to take. Things always change. Try a little EQ to help minimize that difference if you are stuck at mixdown phase. If you are still tracking, compare takes and see what it is exaclty that you need to try to get it to match at the source. Amps can also be misleading. Just because they are set the same, that is no guarantee of them sounding exactly the same. Amps to to change a little as they warm up and are played longer. Also, players tend to change quite a bit with how hard they play, maybe even what pick they are using, or slight variances in the tone knobs of their guitars. Sometimes they even change their pick-up selector without realizing it. Basically, there are TONS of reasons why it sounds different. Sometimes you do just have to retrack, but usually you just have to sit down, listen to the difference, and find a plan

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It's a common problem if proper safeguards and techniques are not followed, but can be kept to a minimum if the sessions are handled right.

Step #1 to to take and keep copious and detailed notes on the exact setup of a session. This includes:

- exact gear setup; gear model numbers, signal chain, knob positions, which channel of the mixer, etc. This goes for all amps and gear in the sound room as well.

- Exact mic selection, setup and technique. On a 4x10 cab, a mic placement half inch in one dimension and an inch in another can make all the difference in the world. As can the choice of preamp or even mixer channel strip number into which the mic is plugged.

- Sound room layout. This is an extremely important but often overlooked detail. Pro studios will literally measure and map out on a floor plan of the studio, the exact position, down to the inch, of every instrument, gobo, blanket, riser, performer and microphone in that studio for that session and when it comes time to pick up where they left off, recreate the scene of the crim...er...recording exactly.

- Environemtal conditions. Temperature and humidity play with sound and with transducer efficiency as much as everything else does. If these environmental factors are not kept in fairly reasonable control from one session to the next, they can and will have an audible effect.

- The performers themselves. This is one of the biggest factors, especially the further down the experience ladder the performer is located. If that guitar player is just not hittingthose strings with the same intensity and dynamic style today as he was yesterday, there's nothing you can do behind the glass to make up for that.

G.

 

[rgraves]

Southside Glenn,

I'm sure you're right about this...
Actually I did make notes of everything you mentioned...and all the equipment is in exactly the same position from day to day, but the only thing I failed on was mic placement...I just kind of estimated how I had it from day to day, and it's clear as day a different take whenever the different take comes in place...

it's just weird because as a stupid example I was listening to the CD "Use your illusions 2" by Gun's and Roses and it took them 3 years to complete some of those songs with like over a thousand takes on the vocals on some of the tracks from a documentary I read, but the vocals sound like 1 flawless take...there is no audible change that I can find from verse to verse or chorus to chorus....

In professional projects like that, do they try to eventually have only 1 complete take of a song, or just cut and paste away like us home recorders do??

If so, they do a hell of a job to make it sound seemless...

 

[Chibi Nappa]

It's just one of those things... Go home for the night. Don't move a thing. Don't change a setting. Come in the next day and play and... BAM! Totally different tone. It just happens. All the time.

Get your parts done in one shot. Don't start in on a particular instrument track unless you plan on finishing it in the same session, 'cause chances are that sound will be gone later.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

it's just weird because as a stupid example I was listening to the CD "Use your illusions 2" by Gun's and Roses and it took them 3 years to complete some of those songs with like over a thousand takes on the vocals on some of the tracks from a documentary I read, but the vocals sound like 1 flawless take...there is no audible change that I can find from verse to verse or chorus to chorus....

In professional projects like that, do they try to eventually have only 1 complete take of a song, or just cut and paste away like us home recorders do??

I'd bet the farm that Use Your Illusion was done on analog tape, so I doubt vocal take 1000 was cut together with vocal take 35. They probably just experimented for 3 years getting the melodies, inflections, accents etc that they wanted and then ran with it.

But professional protools projects? Hell yeah they'll cut take together from all over the place. Depends on the producer, really.

 

[Micter]

I have a guitar rig set up with the mics in place, the mic pres haven't changed, the amp settings are the same, nothing has been touched. I come in the next day to lay down some tracks and the amp sounds different to me. As far as I can tell it's just one of those things that you can't explain, can't change, and have to deal with. It means ditching some tracks and starting over at times. On other days you can plug in and everything sounds the same. Glen has some great thoughts but even that doesn't explain the whole of the issue but for whatever reason different sessions sound different even if nothing has been moved.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

it's just weird because as a stupid example I was listening to the CD "Use your illusions 2" by Gun's and Roses and it took them 3 years to complete some of those songs with like over a thousand takes on the vocals on some of the tracks from a documentary I read, but the vocals sound like 1 flawless take...there is no audible change that I can find from verse to verse or chorus to chorus...

Without having read any production notes on that particular album I can only specualte, but here's my bet:

A big reason it took them 3 years and a thousand takes was indeed to get just the right sound to match the previous session's sound. As I mentioned in my previous post, a big factor is actually the performance itself. You've probably heard that getting just the right sound and that magic performance at the same time is like "catching lightning in a bottle." It's a magic moment that only comes along rarely. They may have had to go through a thousand bottles just to catch that same lightning another two or three times.

Also, 100 of those thousand takes may have been to grab the rhythm buitar tracks, anotheer 200 for vocals, another 125 for the backup vocals, etc. That many takes over time does not necessarily mean - though it could - that they were looking to paste the perfect 3rd bar with the perfect 4th bar on the same track, but rather than they were taking their time stacking the tracks, getting the perfect tracking on each one. In that case, it's not a matter of splicing different sounding takes together, but rather a matter of collecting a series of "perfect" takes for each track, one at at time, and then assembling them together into a full mix.

Famous examples of this kind of project are Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody", the complicated vocals of which took (if I remember correctly) 6 months to build in the studio*, and the typical Beach Boys vocal sessions in the studio which would take anywhere from days to weeks for just one song. (all analog, BTW.)

G.

*The biggest concert ripoff I personally experienced was a Queen concert I saw back in the early 80s. We were really curious to see what they did for "Rhapsody". You can imagine our disappointment when for the middle "operetta" section the fog machines came on, the band left the stage and a tape of the studio mix played over the PA, with the band not coming back onstage until the finla third of the song.

 

[blueroommusic]

it took them 3 years to complete some of those songs with like over a thousand takes on the vocals

that's because Axl is a diva, not to mention an awful vocalist...shit if I had 1000 takes on a vocal, you bet your ass it would be spot-on...and from what I hear it was 1000 takes on just the vocal, not the rest of the album...god I hate that guy.

 

[killmachine]

yeah I think we've all ran into the above mentioned problem. I take mental notes on whats changed, as opposed to try and get everything exactly the same. You know it's gonna change no matter what you do, even room temperature can make a difference it what it comes out.

Hell, if you think about in a multi-room studio it's definetly not uncommon to find a band using the different rooms for different things. It's all really a matter of keeping all the foundational elements the same. IE drum set up, basic guitars, amp settings, etc etc...

Pesonally I like changing mics and mic positions to see if I get something I like out of it. Or multiple mics then chosing the combo I like the best.

 

[ikijapan]

I'd bet the farm that Use Your Illusion was done on analog tape, so I doubt vocal take 1000 was cut together with vocal take 35. They probably just experimented for 3 years getting the melodies, inflections, accents etc that they wanted and then ran with it.

But professional protools projects? Hell yeah they'll cut take together from all over the place. Depends on the producer, really.

So by the way, does that go to say that virtually all big budget and big studio projects still go to analog tape? Even with protools and all that getting supposedly popular in some big studios?

 

[TexRoadkill]

I'd bet the farm that Use Your Illusion was done on analog tape, so I doubt vocal take 1000 was cut together with vocal take 35.

With tape they still do punch-ins and comp different takes together. Analog techniques are the same as digital the tools are just different.

I never attempt to do punch ins on later sessions unless it's an emergency because it is nearly impossible to duplicate the sound exactly. Always try to get a part completely recorded once you've setup the mics.

 

[littledog]

All may not be lost. Since you were using the same mics and preamps, etc., a lot of what sounds "completely different" may turn out to be mostly volume concerns. I'm not discounting the multitude of issues that changing mic distances and placement can cause, but you might be surprised how much of the differences can be mitigated, or at least camouflaged by some careful volume automation.

Now, this assumes that you are talking about punches on individual tracks. It's a more serious issue if you are talking about splicing sections of whole takes together that were recorded on different days - there it might be harder to hide the tonal differences.

But I've been forced, on occasion, to record some lead vocal fixes that were sometimes done months or even years after the original takes. Some judicious EQ and careful volume matching has helped me to get away with it - although no one would ever recommend intentionally working that way.