Fishmed
Well-known member
Ford Van said:
Thomas Edison found about 18,000 ways not to make a lightbulb before he found the way to make it.
Thomas Edison found about 18,000 ways not to make a lightbulb before he found the way to make it.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Amazing what one can find when they go back and re-read a thread from the beginning. This Fordie, is your very first response to Donny's querey on this thread. And you were absolutely right.Ford Van said:
After that you went off on a jag about purists who EQ or compress nothing and that they were either working with the Paisley Park inventory or simply fooling themselves if they thought that raw tracking was the answer. Again you were absolutely right. I am in total agreement with you on all those points.
Then THAT somehow got convoluted into EQ the you-know-what out of your mixes to fix the tracking problem. And that's where I stepped in the pile.
Sonic Al is interpreting me correctly. My point was that "fixing in the mix" - while it may be a necessity in many situations, I agree - is not what we should be telling rookies. That is a bad habit that needs to be nipped in the bud early. I wasn't talking about using extreme techniques to move your metal mix above the fray, I was talking about the recommendation to use tools to fix a technique problem. If the guy doesn't know how to use a hammer, you don't recommend that he should swing it harder or get a bigger nail.
You are absolutely correct that studio tricks with hardware and software are great for making OK trackings great when one has the technique, and that there is no substitute for getting down and dirty with the gear yourself to get a feel for how such techniques work. I agree completly with that as well. It's the recommendation that the gear should be used to replace technique that I have serious problems with. I mean, come on, when was the last time that you heard a quality engineer say that "fixing in the mix" was a good first principle to work from? Yes, it's sometimes necessary. But it should not be taught as a go-to technique.
That's all I was trying to say. If you need to continue this mine-is-bigger-than-yours argument we're having rather than actually considering that point, then you'll have to try picking on someone else.
G.
Ford Van
Banned
Ok, it looks like we need to go back to your original post Mr.Glen, cause you seem to be talking a different game now.
Okay. But the FACT is that heavy eq is in fact how MANY recordings that have a "commercial sound" were achieved by using heavy EQ, and a couple of guys who have actually WORKED on big time recordings have posted that they concur with this!
I swear to god that this originally read "a 2 or 3dB boost or cut...". Oh well, even at 6dB, it is a silly comment.
There are simply sound that are NOT obtainable unless you apply heavy processing! A 6dB boost or cut with eq is relatively nothing for a kick drum! While we could talk for days about how we might possibly double track a kick drum, with one mic being just on the beater head to pick up just attack, and the other being outside the resonant head to pick up just resonance, the fact remains that you would probably apply QUITE heavy eq to remove unwanted frequencies from both mics!
There is FAR too often that the bass players "tone" is lacking in the 400-500Hz range on the instrument itself. Certainly, if they had some different electronics in the bass, they could boost that before it is recorded, but there is certainly nothing wrong with doing a HUGE boost after the fact with an eq! In fact, I persoanlly think that doing like a 18dB boost at 400Hz, with a limiter on the bass can really make the bass HUGE sounding, but still retaining some good articulation. This is just a small example of how eq is used to trigger compresssion and cause a distinct sound that you CANNOT achieve any other way!
Well, at least we got ONE good idea from you, to "sweep around a bit and see what works best for each instrument". But, by god, I guess any more than 2 or 3dB of cut/boost and all bets off?
Okay. But the FACT is that heavy eq is in fact how MANY recordings that have a "commercial sound" were achieved by using heavy EQ, and a couple of guys who have actually WORKED on big time recordings have posted that they concur with this!
I swear to god that this originally read "a 2 or 3dB boost or cut...". Oh well, even at 6dB, it is a silly comment.
There are simply sound that are NOT obtainable unless you apply heavy processing! A 6dB boost or cut with eq is relatively nothing for a kick drum! While we could talk for days about how we might possibly double track a kick drum, with one mic being just on the beater head to pick up just attack, and the other being outside the resonant head to pick up just resonance, the fact remains that you would probably apply QUITE heavy eq to remove unwanted frequencies from both mics!
There is FAR too often that the bass players "tone" is lacking in the 400-500Hz range on the instrument itself. Certainly, if they had some different electronics in the bass, they could boost that before it is recorded, but there is certainly nothing wrong with doing a HUGE boost after the fact with an eq! In fact, I persoanlly think that doing like a 18dB boost at 400Hz, with a limiter on the bass can really make the bass HUGE sounding, but still retaining some good articulation. This is just a small example of how eq is used to trigger compresssion and cause a distinct sound that you CANNOT achieve any other way!
Well, at least we got ONE good idea from you, to "sweep around a bit and see what works best for each instrument". But, by god, I guess any more than 2 or 3dB of cut/boost and all bets off?
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
I think were getting messed up in the "fix " thing
If we are talking about "fixing" things, then yeah, it probably couldve been tracked better
but if we are talking about getting the sounds we are expected to get? These are so often now *created* by extreme mangulation of the signals, they dont exist in the real world. +/-24dB of eq would be TAME compared to what it usually takes to make these newer kicks for instance
If we are talking about "fixing" things, then yeah, it probably couldve been tracked better
but if we are talking about getting the sounds we are expected to get? These are so often now *created* by extreme mangulation of the signals, they dont exist in the real world. +/-24dB of eq would be TAME compared to what it usually takes to make these newer kicks for instance
Ford Van
Banned
pipelineaudio, how often have you had to "fix" things in the mix because of poor tracking. Be honest.
For me, it has been EVERY production I have ever worked on. There are just times when you figured it wrong, or when because of circumstances out of your control, you cannot get the sound you want. Maybe it is gear restrictions. Whatever.
Big time engineers "fix it in the mix" all the time. No, not what they prefer to do, but what they HAVE to do.
If we are JUST here to learn how to track, then we don't need a "Mixing/Mastering" section at all! The fact is, there is a LOT of "fix it in the mix" going on in big time audio! You aren't going to read about these cats having to do so, because they don't want the hit to their reputation. But anybody who has worked in this business for a while knows damn well that you "fix it in the mix" a LOT!
What is editing? Why, it is a form of "fix it in the mix".
What is compression? Same.
What is volume adjustment?
What is adding effects?
It is ALL "fix it in the mix".
If you we are restricted to JUST capturing sound right, we should just get rid of the eq's, compressors, effects, and only use rooms and mic placements! Of course, we should only record live to a stereo track too!
Fix it in the mix is what it is all about! You are always fixing something! Otherwise, you wouldn't be needing to re-mix the audio.
Adjusting volume between instruments is a form of eq. I don't hear anybody suggesting that if you have to turn something up or down 6dB than it wasn't tracked right!
Anyway, barring any further silly comments about how eq should be avoided, or attacks from silly people, I am done with this subject. I feel like I have made VERY good points, and have shared excellent advice.
For me, it has been EVERY production I have ever worked on. There are just times when you figured it wrong, or when because of circumstances out of your control, you cannot get the sound you want. Maybe it is gear restrictions. Whatever.
Big time engineers "fix it in the mix" all the time. No, not what they prefer to do, but what they HAVE to do.
If we are JUST here to learn how to track, then we don't need a "Mixing/Mastering" section at all! The fact is, there is a LOT of "fix it in the mix" going on in big time audio! You aren't going to read about these cats having to do so, because they don't want the hit to their reputation. But anybody who has worked in this business for a while knows damn well that you "fix it in the mix" a LOT!
What is editing? Why, it is a form of "fix it in the mix".
What is compression? Same.
What is volume adjustment?
What is adding effects?
It is ALL "fix it in the mix".
If you we are restricted to JUST capturing sound right, we should just get rid of the eq's, compressors, effects, and only use rooms and mic placements! Of course, we should only record live to a stereo track too!
Fix it in the mix is what it is all about! You are always fixing something! Otherwise, you wouldn't be needing to re-mix the audio.
Adjusting volume between instruments is a form of eq. I don't hear anybody suggesting that if you have to turn something up or down 6dB than it wasn't tracked right!
Anyway, barring any further silly comments about how eq should be avoided, or attacks from silly people, I am done with this subject. I feel like I have made VERY good points, and have shared excellent advice.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
I guess I stepped in a pile too.
The thing is I agree with most everything that you are saying, Ford Van. But you are coming at it from an angle of experience. If you are a newbie reading this stuff you might think that there are no rules and anything goes, dial in whatever extreme settings you want, etc.
That is just not the case. There *are* rules, and you have to know what the rules are before you can break them, or even use them properly. You learned those rules yourself, in whatever way you approached it. The rules aren't necessarily something you read in a book, or even something stiff and boring, but are instead principles that need to be observed. If the meat and potatoes aren't there, it isn't a healthy meal it's just all dessert.
There's no question that heavy use of eq, compression, and other techniques are perfectly acceptable and even required to get certain sounds. There's no disagreement there.
There's also no disagreement that experimentation is good, it certainly is.
However, I've heard plenty of tracks that were over compressed, over limited, over eq'ed, and over effected and it did *not* serve the music well. In my scoring work I sometimes need to use licensed tracks, and need to listen to hundreds of tracks in order to pick those we will use on the project. A very large percentage of what I hear is simply unusable in a professional setting due to the artist/engineer's ignorance of some basic principles of audio production. Combine that with untrained ears and poor judgement and you have unlistenable tracks.
When listening to hundreds of submitted tracks it becomes very clear which tracks are from home studios mixed by guys that don't know what they are doing. It also becomes very clear who really does know what they are doing with a mix. The difference is not guesswork, it is following principles and using good judgement, something that can be trained to a certain extent.
Some of the music on those tracks can actually have some interesting ideas, but the production is so poor that it really does ruin the music. That is possible you know, it *is* possible to over eq, compress, limit, and effect a production into the dirt.
The thing is I agree with most everything that you are saying, Ford Van. But you are coming at it from an angle of experience. If you are a newbie reading this stuff you might think that there are no rules and anything goes, dial in whatever extreme settings you want, etc.
That is just not the case. There *are* rules, and you have to know what the rules are before you can break them, or even use them properly. You learned those rules yourself, in whatever way you approached it. The rules aren't necessarily something you read in a book, or even something stiff and boring, but are instead principles that need to be observed. If the meat and potatoes aren't there, it isn't a healthy meal it's just all dessert.
There's no question that heavy use of eq, compression, and other techniques are perfectly acceptable and even required to get certain sounds. There's no disagreement there.
There's also no disagreement that experimentation is good, it certainly is.
However, I've heard plenty of tracks that were over compressed, over limited, over eq'ed, and over effected and it did *not* serve the music well. In my scoring work I sometimes need to use licensed tracks, and need to listen to hundreds of tracks in order to pick those we will use on the project. A very large percentage of what I hear is simply unusable in a professional setting due to the artist/engineer's ignorance of some basic principles of audio production. Combine that with untrained ears and poor judgement and you have unlistenable tracks.
When listening to hundreds of submitted tracks it becomes very clear which tracks are from home studios mixed by guys that don't know what they are doing. It also becomes very clear who really does know what they are doing with a mix. The difference is not guesswork, it is following principles and using good judgement, something that can be trained to a certain extent.
Some of the music on those tracks can actually have some interesting ideas, but the production is so poor that it really does ruin the music. That is possible you know, it *is* possible to over eq, compress, limit, and effect a production into the dirt.
Ford Van
Banned
I don't disagree that many guys "over do" stuff. But, by the same token, I hear a LOT of stuff that "under done"!
All the time I hear stuff where I would have eq'ed the piss out of a certain track.
So, be fair! While you hear over use of tools, you also hear under use of tools.
So, let's drop this talk about "rules". The only "rule" is to do what get's the production to sound the way you want. Most innovation came because of somebody wasn't afraid to just DO something. Many people just need to innovate for their own good.
All the time I hear stuff where I would have eq'ed the piss out of a certain track.
So, be fair! While you hear over use of tools, you also hear under use of tools.
So, let's drop this talk about "rules". The only "rule" is to do what get's the production to sound the way you want. Most innovation came because of somebody wasn't afraid to just DO something. Many people just need to innovate for their own good.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
I agree that the term "rules" is kind of misleading and a turn-off. That's why I went with the term "principles".
The real issue in all this is regarding the concept of judgement. The mix engineer ultimately has to be able to make the judgement between what is good and what is bad. Much of what you are saying in this thread assumes the engineer is capable of making good judgements with his or her choices. And there's the rub.
A safe and boring mix isn't any better than an overdone mix, they are each equally unlistenable in their own way. It again comes down to judgement.
I think it is possible for someone to arrive at the skills and judgement levels to make a good mix on their own, but man that is hard and very few can do it in that kind of an isolated setting. When apprenticing and working in an environment with others, you are exposed to the factors that affect and develop judgement. You can see the process used by others when making their judgements, how they deal with the musical and personal situations that arise. You might not agree with everything you see and hear done, but it all feeds in. This is what I mean by "training" for an engineer.
The real issue in all this is regarding the concept of judgement. The mix engineer ultimately has to be able to make the judgement between what is good and what is bad. Much of what you are saying in this thread assumes the engineer is capable of making good judgements with his or her choices. And there's the rub.
A safe and boring mix isn't any better than an overdone mix, they are each equally unlistenable in their own way. It again comes down to judgement.
I think it is possible for someone to arrive at the skills and judgement levels to make a good mix on their own, but man that is hard and very few can do it in that kind of an isolated setting. When apprenticing and working in an environment with others, you are exposed to the factors that affect and develop judgement. You can see the process used by others when making their judgements, how they deal with the musical and personal situations that arise. You might not agree with everything you see and hear done, but it all feeds in. This is what I mean by "training" for an engineer.
Ford Van
Banned
I agree that it is probably better to work with others with experience. No doubt that this can help you learn faster.
But, what if that more experienced person tells you to never experiment?
If I am going to error on advice, it is ALWAYS going to be in the direction of the person TRYING something! If this guys tries to "eq the fuck out of" something, and finds that after trying this that he has not achieved his desired results, he will have narrowed down the "solution". But, he might also have people question HOW he eq'ed it, and been given some great guidance.
But if we go at it Southside's way, he should just scrap the track and record a new one.
But, what if that more experienced person tells you to never experiment?
If I am going to error on advice, it is ALWAYS going to be in the direction of the person TRYING something! If this guys tries to "eq the fuck out of" something, and finds that after trying this that he has not achieved his desired results, he will have narrowed down the "solution". But, he might also have people question HOW he eq'ed it, and been given some great guidance.
But if we go at it Southside's way, he should just scrap the track and record a new one.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Ok, I have to admit that I inadvertantly left some other stuff out of my last post. I'm glad that we seem to be analyzing each other's posts and thoughts in a more constructive manner, because I honestly think that though we do have some basic philosophical difference, that we're realy not all that far apart.Ford Van said:
Can we agree to stop all the name calling (for which I'm just as guilty ans anyone else, and I apologize for that. I was in kind of a crabby mood last night and I was wrong for getting as hyperbolic as I did) and persue this a little more objectively?
Your first statement is especially true in the metal arena, and does apply to other genres as well. I give you that. But I still contend, and I think you'd have to agree, that if the tracking is not there, the mix will not be there regardless of the processing.Ford Van said:
As to the second statement about listening to "big names", I have listened to a LOT of big names, both in person and in print, and it often winds up soundling like "experts" in a court case. For every "expert" one can find to support the prosecution's case, another "expert" can be found to support the defense's case. In this case I might, for example, offer up Chuck Ainley and Mark Knopfler and the approaches they use to tracking and mixing, which are diametrically opposed to what you're offering. Yes they have better gear than the folk here, but so do your guys. Is one right and the other wrong? of course not.
Not very metallic. In fact, the whole idea of heavy metal didn't even arise until you brought it up in post #24.DONCOL07 said:
That again sounds very metal-centric to me. Now, I'll admit and grant you that I do not work a lot in metal, my regular associates and clientele just to not inhabbit that orbit of music, but I have dome my share of metal in the past, both live and in the studio. But I can tell you (and I'm not lying here), that for non-metal stuff I rare use more than four mics and often times only three, and I get excellent results. Yes, of COURSE I apply EQ and compression (and sometimes delay or verb, depending upon the needs of the mix) - I am not the "purist" or "documentarian" that Pipline makes me out to be - but rarely does it need any kind of boost, cut or compression that gets anywhere near the double digits. And, you know, if it does need that, I usually hear that it needs it before I put the take in the can for mixing and make the correction at tracking. Now if the time or budget can't afford that, or someone else has done the tracking and I need to polis it up for the mix, then I'll "fix it in the mix", of course. A guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta doFord Van said:
.I agree completly that bass is one of the most tempermental instruments when it comes to uneven amplitudes across it's spectrum. Add in the varying quality and techniques of the players themselves and you can wind up with a bass line that fades in and out of the mud like bad wow from a warped vinyl.Ford Van said:
I have never tried your technique of boosting 400 to the sky and then crimping it off before the headroom runs out, I shall give that a try sometime when it seems the mix will fit. Thanks for the idea. But frankly - and again this may be that we work mostly in different genres, or maybe it's just that we have different tastes, - I have usually not found the need to go that extreme. Usually a bit of compression to level out the amplitudes a bit followed by a "sweetening" of the meat at ~400 (rarely more than 3 or 4 dB, almost never more than 6 or 7) usually does the trick for me.
No, that's going hyperbolic again. As you saw yourself, I said 6dB earlier, not 2 or 3. And when I did or do say those numbers, it's usually in the context of trying a counterbalance EQ; instead of boosting a deficient track by, say, 6dB, boosting the deficient track by, 3dB and cutting the blocking track(s) by 3dB. I still get the 6dB "spread" but, for me, it sounds less obtrusive - less EQ'd, if you will - than the single big boost, and it spends less headroom in the overall mix, leaving more room for other stuff.Ford Van said:But, by god, I guess any more than 2 or 3dB of cut/boost and all bets off?
Other than the hardware vs. technique thing I mentioned in the last post, what I left out was to reiterate the idea that Sonic Al picked up on so well. That in these forums, 9 times out of 10 the rookies who post questions are *already* cranking their EQs and compressers to eleven when not only is that not their problem, but it is really causing them further problems. Many pros may do tricks like boost 400Hz by 18dB, but that is more often than not - in my experience anyway - the *last* thing the rookie needs to get into their heads until they get the fundamentals right first. They start thinking about extreme recipies like that before they learn how to properly set their gain staging or mic the kick or ride the envelopes or whatever the fundamental at work, and they'll just find the path to a great sounding mix even steeper than normal.
And when the rookie is using the stock Audition plug-in EQ and not an outboard Pultec or even Pultec emulator, that 18dB boost is not going to sound the way it does in your CR, by a long shot.
G.
Ford Van
Banned
I sure seems like now you are listing a LOT of "exceptions".
We haven't even scratched the surface of "exceptions".
As to "fundamentals", you haven't even posted any examples of your work, to show the "rookies" how well you have the "fundamentals" down. So far, you are just an opinion that is very different than some people that HAVE posted their work that can be scrutinized by all, to access whether they know what they are talking about or not. I HAVE posted my work here many times, and if it sounds like crap, the "rookies" can even hear that and wouldn't take my word on anything. But, YOU are an unknown quality here!
So, if you are not prepared to back your opinions with your work, then to me, your words don't mean much.
We haven't even scratched the surface of "exceptions".
As to "fundamentals", you haven't even posted any examples of your work, to show the "rookies" how well you have the "fundamentals" down. So far, you are just an opinion that is very different than some people that HAVE posted their work that can be scrutinized by all, to access whether they know what they are talking about or not. I HAVE posted my work here many times, and if it sounds like crap, the "rookies" can even hear that and wouldn't take my word on anything. But, YOU are an unknown quality here!
So, if you are not prepared to back your opinions with your work, then to me, your words don't mean much.
X
xfinsterx
New member
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Right on then.
Just checking.
Ill let you and Ford Van continue the battle royale.
But still id like to be at least given a link to where i can hear a mix (for a music group not a movie) that you alone have AE'd and mixed.
Oh and the ball stapling thing.....you gotta admit that was a tad humorous.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
Ford Van said:
Its far worse than that. Becuase of my absolute terror at the idea, usually, of commiting eq or compression to tape, I tend to leave a LOT of stuff in that could have been immediately discounted. This means that the mix later on bears little resemblance to what was originally tracked, as everything needs some thinning
but it doesnt matter even there
By the time we get to the bass overdubs usually, the songs are SO different than what was originally planned. I RARELY have the fortune of being able to have a final vision of what the song will be at the original tracking time
reality is, most of these bands dont even have their lyrics written by the time it comes to do vocals!
SO there is NO "record everything for the way its going to sound in the end" as you HAVE NO IDEA what its supposed to sound like in the end * and the band doesnt even have the song finished yet! *
As far as straight just screwing up? LOTS of times, Ill think I had the tom mic in a safe spot, and then spend the rest of my life editing out crap
Not taping a singers head to a wall can be a colossal screwup of mine. Mics, pre's and converters themselves often have "sweet spots". Allowing a singer to move in and out of those can end up needing a LOT of fixes later on down the road.
Guitars! Setting up a guitar and saying " ok play what youre going to play in this song" then adjusting for it. Then when the song goes down, you realize, hey he played it totally different. GUitar mics are optimized for a part within a MILIMETER of tolerance, moving the mic either way can make it totally different. Hopefully I catch it while were tracking but not always, that can take some fixing later
Ford Van
Banned
I thought so.
FEW productions start out with proper pre-production!
FEW productions start out with proper pre-production!
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Yes, musicians play different during soundcheck than when they are doing the real performance.
You also have to remember your audience when giving advice. You'll see posts from someone chaining preamp after preamp and then wondering why they are getting distortion. The skill and experience level here varies from seasoned pros to absolute beginners. That's one of the cool aspects of this site, but also a consideration when giving advice.
So when saying that applying gobs of eq and compression is fine, whatever, experiment, you need to remember that there are those with *no* experience who may take that as gospel and pile it on without really understanding the intent behind how you would do it.
That's why I think specific examples are always good. Like "I used heavy compression on this track with this instrument and it worked out great". I personally always love to see specific examples or even settings to try out.
There is another factor, and that is that people learn to mix differently than they used to. Before plugins what you did with your home studio was buy a recorder, then buy a mixer, then buy a compressor. Buy *a* compressor. Then buy a reverb box. Then maybe another compressor or an eq. Of course, build up the mic collection bit by bit.
In other words you bought gear a piece at a time and learned the skills bit by bit, adding complexity as you went along. Now what happens is you buy Sonar or Logic, or whatever you use, and it comes with a staggering array of plugins right out of the box. A complete, complex studio with fully featured fx boxes that have tons of parameters, routing out the wazoo, etc., etc., etc. A virtual studio of the likes that it would have taken lots of money and years to build up in hardware. But during those years of studio buildup also comes years of learning.
This is why I think saying "just experiment" is a little idealistic, at least in the setting of newbies. Sure, experimentation is great and really the lifeblood of what we do. And yet, handing people a fully configured studio right out of the box, filled with tools they probably really don't know how to use yet, and saying "go for it" isn't necessarily going to get them to the best sounding end result. It could lead to some great discoveries but probably as many errors that make those discoveries moot.
That's why specific examples with suggested settings are really great in my view.
You also have to remember your audience when giving advice. You'll see posts from someone chaining preamp after preamp and then wondering why they are getting distortion. The skill and experience level here varies from seasoned pros to absolute beginners. That's one of the cool aspects of this site, but also a consideration when giving advice.
So when saying that applying gobs of eq and compression is fine, whatever, experiment, you need to remember that there are those with *no* experience who may take that as gospel and pile it on without really understanding the intent behind how you would do it.
That's why I think specific examples are always good. Like "I used heavy compression on this track with this instrument and it worked out great". I personally always love to see specific examples or even settings to try out.
There is another factor, and that is that people learn to mix differently than they used to. Before plugins what you did with your home studio was buy a recorder, then buy a mixer, then buy a compressor. Buy *a* compressor. Then buy a reverb box. Then maybe another compressor or an eq. Of course, build up the mic collection bit by bit.
In other words you bought gear a piece at a time and learned the skills bit by bit, adding complexity as you went along. Now what happens is you buy Sonar or Logic, or whatever you use, and it comes with a staggering array of plugins right out of the box. A complete, complex studio with fully featured fx boxes that have tons of parameters, routing out the wazoo, etc., etc., etc. A virtual studio of the likes that it would have taken lots of money and years to build up in hardware. But during those years of studio buildup also comes years of learning.
This is why I think saying "just experiment" is a little idealistic, at least in the setting of newbies. Sure, experimentation is great and really the lifeblood of what we do. And yet, handing people a fully configured studio right out of the box, filled with tools they probably really don't know how to use yet, and saying "go for it" isn't necessarily going to get them to the best sounding end result. It could lead to some great discoveries but probably as many errors that make those discoveries moot.
That's why specific examples with suggested settings are really great in my view.
Ford Van
Banned
But all those plugin's have presets!
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Yes, and that's part of the problem! Depending on the plugin, some presets are good but some are really awful. And a preset can be a good preset but used incorrectly it can really be bad. Back to the judgement thing.
I've found the presets on EQ plugins to be more useful than presets on plugin compressors or limiters. In fact, I think part of the problem with a lot of home brew tracks now is that they were mastered through brickwall limiters using a "mastering" preset.
Most plugin brickwall limiters have as their default a maximum volume of digital 0db. That's almost guaranteed to produce distortion on the playback system, and is one reason why I think so many tracks I listen to (for film licensing purposes) are distorted. The maximum should be somewhere between -.5 and -.1 for the absolute top in my opinion. I use -.3 myself.
I've found the presets on EQ plugins to be more useful than presets on plugin compressors or limiters. In fact, I think part of the problem with a lot of home brew tracks now is that they were mastered through brickwall limiters using a "mastering" preset.
Most plugin brickwall limiters have as their default a maximum volume of digital 0db. That's almost guaranteed to produce distortion on the playback system, and is one reason why I think so many tracks I listen to (for film licensing purposes) are distorted. The maximum should be somewhere between -.5 and -.1 for the absolute top in my opinion. I use -.3 myself.
Ford Van
Banned
But the company put those presets in there. They MUST be good!
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
I generally like the presets on PSP plugins. At the least they provide good starting points.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
So much for the stopping of the name calling. Can't say I didn't try.Ford Van said:
If words and ideas mean nothing to you because you can't reason like a homo sapien, there's nothing I can do about it.
The guy was asking how to liven up his modern dance and country pop music that he was tracking himself, and how to seperate his bass from his kick, and your response was to EQ the fuck out of it and make it a heavy metal mix.
I've never heard any of your work either. But I have brains. I can read and comprehend what I'm reading, and respond to it in kind, which I did. And I know enough about this racket to understand that no matter how friggin good your mixes are, your advice for the question was about as wrong as wrong can be. This is true REGARDLESS of what your mixes sound like or how much experience you have.
I have nothing in my posession that's done on A-list gear that I have the rights or permission from the artist to release to the public. The only stuff I have in my posession that I could probably get permission to release is a mix job of a CDs-worth of instrumentals performed by a local musician which he tracked himself direct via DI and Pod and I mixed and pre-mastered in Cubase and Sound Forge. Stuff that while I am proud of what I did with the mix, I'm sure you would rip apart from your throne up there in the Great Wet North.
Not that you wouldn't rip it apart anyway. At this point I could give you some stuff recorded at the Sony Studios by Nickelback and engineered by Rick Rubin, but if I put my name on it, you'd discount it as shit anyway. Besides, none of what I have is metal that has been squished to a 3dB dynamic range, so you'd not only hate it, but you would be the very definition of underqualified to judge it.
And if you bothered to read past the video part of my earlier post you'd see some of my musical credits. But then again you didn't bother to read Donny's original question all the way through, why would you bother reading my crap, right? Not that you'd think about it even if you did read it.
OK, now it's time for your adolescent response something along the lines that I'm a chicken shit for not posting, or that I'm a fake, or something like that. The first would just highlight your stupidity and the second your hypocracy. But please, don't let that stop you. You go right ahead and rip into me, sparky.
G.