How do I do it? Print with eq and dynamics or???

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetbeats
  • Start date Start date
sweetbeats said:
..

Have a listen folks.
Click to expand...

Cory, sorry for the delay as I was only able to download the two songs now.:o .

Critique? I don't think there's anything to critique here as both are well recorded and performed. Everything is tight and I feel your sense of perfectionism on these cuts. Well done and nothing else to say... Great stuff all around. :)

Cory, to switch subject for a bit, lemme recommend a superb book:
http://www.amazon.com/Musicians-Gui...d_bbs_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210150559&sr=8-7

I picked it up some months back and there's nothing else like it out-there. Why do I recommend it, you ask? Well, because it's probably the best all-in-one source of info on the subject of how it was to record prior to when the 'wizardry' of digital came on to the scene. ;) Amazing and easy to understand content, with tips and 'tricks' galore. :)

----
 
Last edited:
Hey!

sweetbeats said:
...I have two Tascam PE-40 parametric eq's. I don't get the sense that these are really sought after units for their sound, but in my humble studio they are pretty slick for front-end analog eq. !!!:D:D:D
Click to expand...

Dude, for what you describe as "not sought after", I call "sleeper gear" or a "sleeper deal".

The PE-40 is a premium and fine piece of gear from end to end, including sound and build quality. People today just don't know it, because this line of gear was only produced and marketed for a short time in the 80's. Not only that, but the marketing presence of TASCAM at the time was pretty much nil, as their marketing ploy always seemed like a "pros should know" type of attitude, and forget the rest. Now that home recording is being marketed to every high school kid and his grandmother, Behri, Mackie, Focusrite and all those newer guys have the aggressive marketing strategy on their gear. Tascam never marketed gear well, IMO, but back OT...

The PE-40 is a premium piece of gear for HR, & despite it's vintage was ahead of it's time & holds up well today. In it's day it wasn't the highest of esoteric gear you could find, but it was solidly high-end-midline gear,... if that makes any sense at all. By today's standards it competes well with most and stomps some gear technically, depending on what you compare it to.

In short, this gear is loaded! I don't know if "pros should know" the PE-40, but I know and now you do too!:eek:;)
 

Attachments

  • 1-Tascam PE-40.webp
    1-Tascam PE-40.webp
    39.6 KB · Views: 88
  • 1-Tascam PE-40a.webp
    1-Tascam PE-40a.webp
    36.3 KB · Views: 87
Yeah, I'm totally pleased with the feature set, and they sound pretty good too! I paid about $200USD for both of mine in total. One had a busted gain knob on one of the channels...it was supposedly functional, but I got a replacement from Tascam and put that on. No complaints here!!! :p
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6980_1_1_1.webp
    IMG_6980_1_1_1.webp
    19.8 KB · Views: 79
Daniel,

Cory, to switch subject for a bit, lemme recommend a superb book:
http://www.amazon.com/Musicians-Guid...0150559&sr=8-7

I picked it up some months back and there's nothing else like it out-there. Why do I recommend it, you ask? Well, because it's probably the best all-in-one source of info on the subject of how it was to record prior to when the 'wizardry' of digital came on to the scene. Amazing and easy to understand content, with tips and 'tricks' galore.
Click to expand...
I haven't picked that book up yet, but I intend to.

I've read Modern Recording Techniques by Huber and Runstein several times. Its a pretty rich resource. I recommend it.
 
Daniel et al,

I did get that book that you recommended...only part way into it so far, but it is really a great resource. It'll have a permanent spot on the bookshelf, and one of the co-authors, Larry Wichman, produced and engineered one of my favorite albums of all time, Men At Work's "Business As Usual".

I got to the first page and the picture told me the book was a keeper...that's an M-520 he's leaning on. ;)
 

Attachments

  • scan_1_4_1_1_4_1.webp
    scan_1_4_1_1_4_1.webp
    47.7 KB · Views: 50
cjacek said:
Cory, sorry for the delay as I was only able to download the two songs now.:o .

Critique? I don't think there's anything to critique here as both are well recorded and performed. Everything is tight and I feel your sense of perfectionism on these cuts. Well done and nothing else to say... Great stuff all around. :)

Cory, to switch subject for a bit, lemme recommend a superb book:
http://www.amazon.com/Musicians-Gui...d_bbs_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210150559&sr=8-7

I picked it up some months back and there's nothing else like it out-there. Why do I recommend it, you ask? Well, because it's probably the best all-in-one source of info on the subject of how it was to record prior to when the 'wizardry' of digital came on to the scene. ;) Amazing and easy to understand content, with tips and 'tricks' galore. :)

----
Click to expand...

Hey Cjacek, I have that book as well, but I bought it years ago---probably around 1990 or maybe late 80s. In my version, there's a page at the beginning that talks about cassettes that you can order for audio demonstrations of the examples in the book. It instructs you to send a check or money order to an address.

I never did this back then, but have since wanted to get my hands on the audio. However, I'm assuming that newer versions of the book must have some updated info regarding this---i.e., if still avaliable, I'm sure they're CDs now, and I imagine there may be another way to order.

Does your version have any updated info like this, or do you have the same older edition that I do?

Thanks!
 
Here is the trick for guitar recording..... if it is rock, metal or a fusion kind of sound, Mic the amp. Reverb and effects should be added later, but the raw sound of a Marshall or JC120 is hard to replicate later. Having said that, if the guitar is going to be light or acoustic, record it as clean as possible and effect later.
As for EQ..... that is always the question! If you can get the sounds you want without fiddling the EQ, I think it's better, but the main trick is the same recording digital or analog: get the cleanest tracks you can at the beginning.

ANother book to have I have recommended before, but GET IT!:


The Recording Studio Handbook byJohn M. Woram - I recommend the 1982 edition, should be able to get it cheap on Amazon.




AK
 
Setting levels when using noise reduction...

So in a related question to the original post, what is the ideaology behind setting levels when using noise reduction?

Scenario:

Recording e-bass to the 58; the deck is being calibrated to 250nWb/m and that's what it was deigned for so 0VU is 0dB...I have my clip LED's set to light at +9. Do I set levels with the n/r bypassed? That's what I'm doing right now and setting the input level of the bass to tickle the peak LED's when the n/r is bypassed, and then switch it in when tracking.
 
I've found I set my levels with nr IN. I have a TSR-8 though so I'm not sure how the NR's compare. DBX1 on the TSR and on mine set up for +6 operation when my meters are just tickling the 1st orange led which is 0, the occasional peak lighting up a couple of oranges, this is the best level for my deck. Bear in mind that hitting the 0 led is actually being hit hotter due to my setup.
 
You set your levels with NR In if you are going to use it, set your levels just like you would normally - if you run hotter levels on the meters you will over-saturate the tape, which will give you distortion. Remember the 'extra headroom' comes from the expansion AFTER recording.

AK
 
I've found I set my levels with nr IN. I have a TSR-8 though so I'm not sure how the NR's compare. DBX1 on the TSR and on mine set up for +6 operation when my meters are just tickling the 1st orange led which is 0, the occasional peak lighting up a couple of oranges, this is the best level for my deck. Bear in mind that hitting the 0 led is actually being hit hotter due to my setup.
Click to expand...

mamm7215, We're both using dbx Type I. Both our decks are setup the same, both for 250nWb/m (i.e. the deck is calibrated to 0VU with a -10du 1kHz tone). If I'm understanding your post right, your deck is not setup to print hotter than how Tascam intended, but you are printing hotter on average if you are hitting 0VU with dbx IN. So am I understanding right, that when you are calibrating your deck you are using a 250nWb/m or had the deck calibrated for 0VU at 250nWb/m, but you are averaging 0VU or just over during tracking of program material with dbx IN (which I understand is going to come out expanded and therefore over that 0 level)?

AK, so are you reinforcing what mamm7215 is stating, to set record levels with dbx IN, but shoot for peaks of around 0VU if I set my deck up for 0VU at 250nWb/m? I realize MMMV (I will need to experiment to get a feel for where to set things to get the sound I'm looking for) :D, but just as a starting point shoot for 0VU peaks with dbx IN?
 
Cool...Thanks. It'll be interesting to see how it comes out as I was (as I think I said earlier) setting levels with nr out, averaging 0VU but tickling the clip LED's which are set to +9. Then when I'd record the average peak level on the VU would be around -6 or so.

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top