Getting the Gloss.......

[powderfinger]

As we are most all aware, there is a fairly significant difference between something like a garage band demo and a major label production. One being overly present and sounding like your listening directly to the band.......the second being much glossier and sounding like you are listening to a song......not necissarily the band playing the song.......if that makes sense.

Getting this produced sound is my ultimate aim, but right now, my mixes sound like the garage band (not that that is a terrible thing, but even bands like nirvana have decently polished sounding albums).........i don't aspire to sounding like a huge, major studio (they have the experience and $ that i can't exactly recreate); however, i do think i can eventually get a middle of the road studio sound with the equipment i've got. the reason i know this, is that there are people on this board who can get that decently polished studio sound.

my equipment:
-a few decent condensor mics (marshall mxl 93v, a couple audio technicas)
-some shures (sm58s and 57s)
-marshall amps for the guits
-i rent good drum mics when needed
-cakewalk sonar
-some pretty good plugins (magneto, waves bundle pack that includes the L1 ultramaximizer, various eq's, reverbs, etc.)


Are there any pointers that you can give me towards achieving a more budget studio sound, rather than a hack home-recorder (which i currently am) sound?

I would prefer mix and mastering ideas because.....

.......i realize i could have some better equipment, but i've seen some great sounding stuff with a lot less

.......many say that the most important thing is capturing the source sound, i'm very comfortable with all the sounds i get, not just the finished products

So.......any tips on final mixing methods........ie. wide stereo pan vs narrow pan, what things you reverb with how much, general eq insights, etc.............anything that can help me over the hump................

if you need to listen to some of my stuff for a better idea, my nowhwere radio site is below.....that being said, i'm not looking for mix comments on levels and such.........just tips on how to find a less hack sounding final mix.........................any and all ideas welcome



http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1642&alid=154

 

[dobro]

Yeah, it's fairly easy. Loads of compression on every track, run 'em all right up the middle, and throw the whole thing through a good software reverb.

Also, I'd concentrate on the mixing and mastering stages rather than the writing, performing or recording stages. Overall, I think the general approach here is to pay less attention to details and aim for that final, polished glossy sound. I mean, attention to detail takes way too much time and effort, right?

 

[participant]

Heh... seems dobro's had his happy pill today

powder I've heard your stuff; the writing is good.

your comment:

many say that the most important thing is capturing the source sound, i'm very comfortable with all the sounds i get, not just the finished products

is an interesting one. It may not sound like you're getting any new info here, but basically the key for you is to become less satisfied with your raw tracks.

Crude as it sounds, you can't throw two turds in a blender and get a chocolate shake. Nor can you mix one poor track with 6 perfect tracks and get a perfect result.

Taking what dobro said (in reverse): detail is important. For instance, mute the vocal track when you're not singing... the low-level noise just adds noise to the mix. Also, performance is key.

Recently, on a track I've been working on WAAAAY too long... I noticed that the entire first verse was sung flat, and out of rhythm a lot of times... and this is several days later -- after comping together that track from about 20 others.

Best advice is to stick around the mp3 mixing clinic, and learn as much as possible there. Listen to other people's mixes, and read the replies people make. My stuff sounds LOADS better in the short time I've been hanging around there, and I have yet to upload any of it! (it's because the place teaches you to be paranoid/fanatical about details!)

That said, chessrock or someone will probably come along and sell you some magic beans that will make everything easy (either that, or some more, better advice)

Just keep working at it! The effort alone is worth all the advice you could get!


Chad

 

[powderfinger]

Also, I'd concentrate on the mixing and mastering stages rather than the writing, performing or recording stages. Overall, I think the general approach here is to pay less attention to details and aim for that final, polished glossy sound. I mean, attention to detail takes way too much time and effort, right?

Dobro,
while i'm sure your trite response was meant to ganrner a laugh as to give yourself a proverbial pat on the back and to self-assure yourself that you are indeed a clever and quick-witted fellow, i'm sure you realize that it was less than helpful. if you noticed, i said "i'm very comfortable with all the sounds i get" (IE. WRITING, PERFORMING, AND RECORDING SOUNDS), thus i feel i have a VERY solid "attention to detail", i DO "take the time and effort for this", and i feel that this is a solid base for a polished recording................so, if you have a real comment, i would appreciate it..........if you're going to write back with a smart ass response as to 'get in the last punch', feel free, however, let it be known that, i have no intention in replying to it as to start some sort of verbal joust..............at least thanks for the response, it keeps the thread alive


Chad,
that is the kind of answer i was looking for. i appreciate the insight. i've been hanging out in the mp3 clinic too. it has helped me a ton, and will hopefully continue to.

Keep the ideas coming.............

 

[flatrockrecordin]

I know the old saying "it's the magician, not the wand" but the UAD-1 is a God-send for PC based mixing.

 

[volltreffer]

High!

IMO, a lot of the 'glossy' sound is made by:
good recording
using lots of compression (but not too strong)
careful eqing (I never manage to get it done, as my recordings suck already )
planning what tracks shall shine in the song and taking the other a little back
good panning (which I seem to be impossible to create )
using the right ambient setting. Often people use too much verbs and underestimate the importance of delays. You might even think of using ducking verbs/delays for the audible verb tails and a separate early refl program for the ambience feeling. The delays if used VERY slightly, give some of the 'air' or 'gloss' (don't know how to describe) that many major productions have on the voice... You might try a two-tap delay without feedback fitting to 1/8 of the song tempo and 1/16 shift between L and R. Turn its volume down until you only her it when you concentrate on it. Since I first tried this 'trick', I'm astonished on how many major productions it is used...

Hope my answer was of any help for you

aXel

 

[powderfinger]

aXel.....great tip on the delay stuff..........i need to try that out and read a little more into it

 

[TexRoadkill]

Make your drums sound like a million bucks and the rest is gravy.

 

[Tom Hicks]

Try a 6 dB/octave rolloff starting about 1200 Hz.

 

[littledog]

Crude as it sounds, you can't throw two turds in a blender and get a chocolate shake. Nor can you mix one poor track with 6 perfect tracks and get a perfect result.

Well, it LOOKED a lot like a chocolate shake...

 

[chessrock]

Powder,

I think the source of Dobro's comments come from the fact that your question is something that really can't be addressed in one thread. There are no real secrets or shortcuts, either, so you're going to have to be willing to put in some time using the search function as well as some time outside of this board.

That said, here are some concepts, ideas, terms, etc. you should be focusing on :

Phase

What tends to separate the home recording from the pro job? A lot of factors. But what a lot of these factors seem to have in common is phase. It's a word you should become comfortable with and understand intimately. If you already do, then great . . . you're ahead in the learning curve. If not, do your homework.

What I tend to think of as a more professional sound, or "sheen" as you put it, has a lot to do with how detailed the high end sounds. And what this mostly boils down to is the accoustic guitar and the drums, since the cymbal / hi-hat combo, coupled with the guitar strings (not to mention the annunciation of the vocalist) are what carry the lion's share of it.

If everything is recorded and processed properly, with careful attention to being in phase, then details like cymbals, hi-hat, vocal annunciation, tamborine, shaker, etc. will sound "crisp" instead of "washy." Bass sounds tight instead of muddy. And phase is something that must be addressed during each step, starting with the space you are recording (and listening back) in . . .

Accoustics

The accoustics of the bigger studios is probably the major difference-maker in this whole equation. If you can't afford to spend several thousand on an accoustic design, then you need to know and understand accoustics and how they interact with what you record in order to find more economical ways around these issues, and it takes some creativity (and basic carpentry/handyman skills).

How does this relate to phase? Do a search on nodes and standing waves, and you might start to understand.

Other phase issues you need to look at are: phase cancellation and comb filtering . These are issues that arise mostly from poor (or good) stereo micing techniques, and careful attention to this can account for a great deal of that professional sheen you seek.

3-dimensional Sound

Once you get the whole accoustics and phase issues down, you'll be about half-way there. Now comes the real tricky part. Because another thing that separates our mixes from the Abbey Roads is the sense of "three-dimensionality." Stereo micing can bring a track to life by giving a lattitude/longitude in 3-D space.

Micing Technique

There's lots of different stereo techniques out there, so do your research. But keep in mind that you're not going to be able to fully take advantage of stereo micing unless you've a) got a pair of mics that match well, b) have a good, well-treated accoustic space to record in (or just a flattering space).

Without a flattering accoustic space, you will have to rely on good reverbs and room models. Unfortunately, as useful as a lot of the plugins are out there, you really aren't going to find much in the way of a truly good reverb plugin. This will eventually change, but for the time being, you have to be careful in selecting a verb setting that won't add that extra "cheapness" to the sound that so many home recordings are already noted for.

Waves Rverb is the only one I can think of that won't do too much harm. And that's only after you carefully audition the presets and tweak their parameters untill they sound acceptable.

Yet another way around all of this is to just record bucu tracks ala Phil Specter. Which brings us to . . .

Wall of Sound

Think of Macle's contributions to the mp3 forum. Sheen galore, yet he tends to prefer micing mostly in mono, and uses mostly plugin verbs. In his case, he gets around all of this by simply layering a ton of tracks. When you go this route, you don't necessarily have to give everything it's 3-D space in order for it to sound big and lush. You give it it's space by adding so many unique textures so as to make it sound "large" and "complex."

Oh, and I almost forgot, Macle also happens to be brilliantly talented, which brings us to . . .

No Substitute for Superior Talent and Instruments

The real key to getting a professional sound is to use professional-sounding instruments. The best way to learn all of this is to work with various musicians with different levels of talent and quality of gear. Note the change in audio fidelity and detail you get in the sound from the way one person hits a snare from the way you might hit the snare or the way the other guy hits the snare.

(Listen to how drastically the fidelity of your guitar tracks change after you swap out the strings, or after you take it to the shop for a setup.)

The drummers you are recording may/may not tune their drums or change their heads regularly. Their cymbals may be a few years old, and might not have the sound to them you want. No amount of EQ, micing technique, etc. can account for this.

If you read the daily mixerman diaries (see the mic forum), you will notice that the engineer (mixerman) regularly listens to see if the heads need changing on almost a daily basis. If he doesn't like the sound, he'll even call in a drum technician to tune or change them, or both. He even goes on to mention that most notable drummers he's worked with have their own dedicated drum technician. I read an article about a Bon Jovi recording session where the engineer mentioned that they would change the snare head after every take.

No matter how much advancement we experience in the quality of our tools and our knowlege, this is where we'll have a hard time competing.

 

[powderfinger]

chessrock- this was very informative........i will get to researching the things you mentioned.....very helpful

tom- i will definitely try the roll-off you mentioned.........what exactly will that do?

 

[dvincent]

powder, I read your response to dobro's response and it was snotty. I think you misread his message and possibly hurt his feelings. He is correct to a point and I think he made a valid comment.

 

[scottr]

Make your drums sound like a million bucks and the rest is gravy.

Ahh these are words of a genius.. If you drums sound like shit, your whole mix is going to sound like shit.. Drums and vocals are the hardest..

Scott

 

[Tom Hicks]

Get a frequency analyzer like this free one...
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/downloads.nsf/filename/9D5FF38808567DC9862565F70062B014
rip a few tracks from your favorite CDs and check out the typical patterns that you see using the analyzer.This technique will help you learn by emulating the sounds of pro recordings that you admire.How does the bass on your tracks compare to the CDs?Mids?etc...Nothing wrong with going to school on the big boys this way.And no need to reinvent the wheel every time either.Not that I mean to discourage creativity,rather this kind of musical analysis will give you a bigger picture.

 

[dobro]

powderfinger - it was a joke - you know... one of those things that starts with 'j' and makes you laugh sometimes.

I joke a lot, usually just for the sake of it, but sometimes to see what the response will be.

 

[littledog]

Chessrock gets an A+ for a fabulous post. And he didn't even mention Alan Hyatt once! I can only think of a couple of things to add:

Very often the high end sheen is not achieved by emphasizing the high end, but by "uncovering" it by rolling off some of the very low end. Getting rid of the subsonics can make a whole mix suddenly open way up. I routinely put a steep filter at 40Hz just to get rid of some of the low end sludge. Like magic, sometimes the high end will appear.

The other consideration is the actual orchestration or arrangement. Very often those mixes you admire with wonderful "sheen" have help from the way the song is orchestrated. Use of shakers, tambourines, triangles, and other small percussion, for instance, can add a bouquet of extra hi frequencies to the mix that otherwise wouldn't exist. You may want to consider "sweetening" some of your songs with some overdubbed high percussion.

As for Dobro, I agree that he should not be making pathetic attempts at humor that result only in offending the membership. I thought that was MY job around here!

 

[tubedude]

Heres my opinion, and its my opinion because it is totally correct...
take your excellent sounding source in its excellent acoustic space, and go --> excellent mic --> excellent cable --> excellent preamp --> excellent cable --> excellent conversion and pow...
I've heard it done, I;ve heard the difference, I am a beleiver. That gloss you are hearing is excellent tracking and lots of detail that is lost through crappy equipment and cables. Like it or not, people, I am spot on.
I've done it, heard it, no argument.
Peace!

 

[dobro]

Tubedude, what kind of excellent conversion are you availing yourself of these days? Soundcard converters, or a dedicated unit?

 

[chessrock]

Use of shakers, tambourines, triangles, and other small percussion, for instance, can add a bouquet of extra hi frequencies to the mix that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Ah yes. A good way of putting that is to say "Don't try to boost what isn't there." If your mix doesn't have any accoustic guitar, tamborine, shaker, etc., and the cymbals aren't prominent or sound dull, then it won't help anything to boost the high-end, as there really isn't any there to begin with. That will only make it sound irritating. As Little Dog suggests, add it before you try to boost it.

Originally posted by littledog
Chessrock gets an A+ for a fabulous post. And he didn't even mention Alan Hyatt once!

Thanks, LD! Oh, and one more thing I forgot to mention . . . mic selection is very important. There's a guy named Harvey in the mic forum who has what we call the "big thread" where he goes in to all things microphone related. Do a keyword search for the words "Harvey, you rock!" or "Bump."

And there are lots of good condenser mics available at reasonable prices. Many of them were made by a dude named Alan Hyatt and/or Brent Casey (or both). And they are good. Just ask Alan, and I'm sure he'll be more than happy to tell you ALL ABOUT THEM.