Dose of Noob Reality

[noisewreck]

How about Saturation plugs?????? Valve, Tape ect.......ect........... I used to think every one I tried was next greatest thing on earth. Then I learned to equal the gain going in AND OUT, then flip the bypass on and off.........ooops where did all my MOJO GO? Ohhhhhh that was just VOLUME........

It's a matter of what you put through them and how severe you are. Also, it's about expectations. Even if a plug says "I am the best emulation of the wood grains on the end cheeks of a Prophet-5"... or something similar, I still just treat is as a product in its own right.

As for saturation plugs, I like the PSP Saturator, and Cubase's Magneto believe it or not. I mostly use them as sort of a cross between saturation and compression. In mild amounts they can be useful for various things. One thing's certain though, those are not plugs you'd put on the master bus and have an instant 2" Otari machine

 

[mixmkr]

I understand the general concept of this thread, but disagree with the intended advice. To think that a pile of "raw" tracks has a better chance of sounding better than "processed" tracks to me seems pretty slim, especially given the equipment, recording spaces, general knowledge, etc, etc of the average "do-it-yourselfer" recordist. I think a better approach would be to know more about these FX, plugins, rather than to dismiss them across the board.

Maybe a better direction would be to know how to use them, but keeping them unoticeable in their use. It is a common statement, that typically a compressor is being used correctly if you don't "hear" it. Being basically a fancy volume control, why would you typically want to hear artifacts of volume adjusments? You wouldn't, but to say many, if not most tracks could benefit with the correct use of compression would be correct.

The same would go for:
1. high pass filters to clean up things, etc.
2. Low pass to keep your dog happy.
3. the use of reverb to create space (on DI sources as an example) and the blend tracks.
4. Parametric or notch filtering to rid of noises, syballents, annoying frequencies.
5. etc, etc...

I view these items nothing different than selecting a particular mic or preamp to gain a desired result. If you unitentionally, "hear" the mic, than most likely, it is a bad choice or just maybe a bad mic.

In other words, if all we had to do was just record raw, dry tracks, no processing and just blend them together adjusting volumes, we might as well do away with mastering too.

But, since I wash my clothes in reverb, I understand the "overuse" syndrome and support the "sparingly" remark. Use it to compliment, add, reinforce or even create. Don't use it to CREATE a production. Weird eq'd, autotuned, reverberated and compressed vocals are only interesting for the first line of the song. Unless you know the rules, you can't break them first...and for the ENTIRE song either .

That's why much of the music nowadays is really poor (in MY opinion), because it IS recorded good, but the music isn't there. Too much relying on cool sounding FX or just relying on production. But, not to say that kind of "sound" doesn't have its' place too. Think Alan Parsons with nice but simple synth sounds. But then, the chord changes aren't shabby either.

 

[grimtraveller]

Welcome. We've been waiting for you.

Man, that's spooky ! It's like dialogue in a scene from one of those scary movies you see as a kid that haunt you to your early 20s !

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY MixmkrI understand the general concept of this thread, but disagree with the intended advice. To think that a pile of "raw" tracks has a better chance of sounding better than "processed" tracks to me seems pretty slim, especially given the equipment, recording spaces, general knowledge, etc, etc of the average "do-it-yourselfer" recordist. I think a better approach would be to know more about these FX, plugins, rather than to dismiss them across the board.

Maybe a better direction would be to know how to use them, but keeping them unoticeable in their use. It is a common statement, that typically a compressor is being used correctly if you don't "hear" it. Being basically a fancy volume control, why would you typically want to hear artifacts of volume adjusments? You wouldn't, but to say many, if not most tracks could benefit with the correct use of compression would be correct.

The same would go for:
1. high pass filters to clean up things, etc.
2. Low pass to keep your dog happy.
3. the use of reverb to create space (on DI sources as an example) and the blend tracks.
4. Parametric or notch filtering to rid of noises, syballents, annoying frequencies.
5. etc, etc...

I view these items nothing different than selecting a particular mic or preamp to gain a desired result. If you unitentionally, "hear" the mic, than most likely, it is a bad choice or just maybe a bad mic.

In other words, if all we had to do was just record raw, dry tracks, no processing and just blend them together adjusting volumes, we might as well do away with mastering too.

But, since I wash my clothes in reverb, I understand the "overuse" syndrome and support the "sparingly" remark. Use it to compliment, add, reinforce or even create. Don't use it to CREATE a production. Weird eq'd, autotuned, reverberated and compressed vocals are only interesting for the first line of the song. Unless you know the rules, you can't break them first...and for the ENTIRE song either .

That's why much of the music nowadays is really poor (in MY opinion), because it IS recorded good, but the music isn't there. Too much relying on cool sounding FX or just relying on production.

I think the general tenor is not that the gizmos are wrong or shouldn't be used, just that some of us recognize that we've overused them in the past because they were there.

 

[Richard Monroe]

Yo Mixmkr! Just for the record, nothing that I have had said should be interpreted to mean that I oppose the use of EQ, compression, noise gates, FX, or any other postproduction tools. Furthermore, there are many times that I will use these up front. It's a bitch to try and play bone dry electric guitar, for the most obvious example. Nor do I argue that a final mix and master composed of bone-dry raw tracks is the way to get the best final product.
My argument, simply, is that focusing on finishing and processing of tracks and mixes tends to distract us from getting the best raw tracks and mix possible. Furthermore, I believe that getting the best raw tracks possible decreases the need for subtractive processing in postproduction.
That said, it is only fair for me to admit that my personal preference is often for minimalist processing, and I believe that most current pop/rock recording is overprocessed. I find layered guitars, for instance, more muddy and annoying than "phat". I have never heard a classical string quartet that I thought really needed a flanger. That probably means that I am unlikely to produce the next great hiphop/reggae fusion album. I'll sit up nights worrying about it

 

[grimtraveller]

That probably means that I am unlikely to produce the next great hiphop/reggae fusion album. I'll sit up nights worrying about it

There's a rumour buzzing round town that Jah Warrior AK47 are looking for you to discuss production on their upcoming sessions, Richie......

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think there's a difference between using post processing to bring the best out of a track and post processing to try and make a track something it's not; and the more experience one gets, the more they tend to gravitate towards the former instead of the latter.

G.

 

[gecko zzed]

I think there are three main reasons for 'downstream processing': remedial, refinement and recreation.

With remedial use, you are using effects and so on to try and correct defects in the original tracking, e.g. poor pitching, phrasing, mike placement and so on. While sometimes necessary, these problems are usually best fixed up the source. The danger is relying too much on it to fix things that should never have been there in the first place.

With refinement, you use effects to make even more of what is already good, for example, adding space and depth to a mix. In many cases, using effects here is putting into a mix the things that are missing when you go through the recording process.

With recreation, you use effects to create interesting and new sonic landscapes. In this case, the process, rather than the performance, becomes the art form.

It is possible, through using effects, to dazzle and distract the listener from the paucity of content. Nowhere is this more evident than in the cinema, where you have movies like Avatar that are cinematically amazing, but with an impoverished and cliche-ridden story line.

For me, effects are there to add to the content, not distract from it.