I challenge thee to... uh.... a CHALLENGE!!! (Updated: Please read)

crawdad said:
Oh God, Chris! Haven't you figured out by now that talented guys like you don't need that crutch?:D
Click to expand...

Amen to that one. Chris, tell me you didn't use tuning on that version of Levon. I've had that on a compilation CD in my car for about a month and I still dig it.

Tel me you didn't...

Don't tell me the truth, just tell me you didn't...

Okay, getting off topic a bit here....

Chris
 
groucho said:
Amen to that one. Chris, tell me you didn't use tuning on that version of Levon. I've had that on a compilation CD in my car for about a month and I still dig it.

Tel me you didn't...

Don't tell me the truth, just tell me you didn't...

Okay, getting off topic a bit here....

Chris
Click to expand...
LOL...well, I can state with the utmost certainty that I did not use it on that one, b/c the vocal was tracked live with a guitar...antares can only handle one note at a time, lol.

And I don't think I've read anything that's made me feel that good in a long time, so thanks!

(little secret...shhh...I've used it before on some stuff, hehehee)
 
jake-owa said:
If you can use the effects pre-mix what's the challenge?

I'm losing sight of this goal here.
Click to expand...

From my Methods thread..

SLuiCe said:
I think we should do a new challenge. Submit a dry recording. It was suggested as part of the last challenge, but how valuable that might be has me wondering now. I mean, half the time I critique somebody's mix here in the clinic I want to start telling them to get a better mic, or better place the one they have, or stop recording live effects, or whatever. It seems to almost always be a problem with tracking! So maybe with a challenge that has us submitting an unprocessed mix, we could see everyone naked, and poke fun at them. No, I mean we could better spot potential troubles with tracking. It will also force you most people here to pay attention to their tracking technique knowing that the rest of us will hear it before processing.
Click to expand...


The phrase I used was "unprocessed mix." WATYF took my thoughts slightly off course, but the exercise is just to get some people focused on tracking, not for you to prove how truly great you are as a natural musician.
Click to expand...
 
I think this is a great idea.

Iv'e been thinking along the same lines lately.
Every time I get to mixing the master tracks,I wind up cutting the crap out of the lows on everything just to make it work.
Definitly need to start doing a better job when tracking.

To really make it a learning experience,everyone could keep track of how we recorded the tracks and post it with the song.
Mike placement,eq,dynamics,effects etc.

Good one WATYF!

Pete
 
This thread reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Bart and Nelson and a couple others become pop stars like the back streets boys. They're singing away in the middle of a concert (sounding strangely like real singers) and somebody unplugs some big piece of audio equipment labelled "Studio Magic", ouch!

Funny as hell

A couple things

- Soft clipping, some of us don't mix down on analog boards, so can this be allowed? Some software may already be doing a bit of this anyhow by default.

- So i can record my electric guitar through my compressor and delay pedals (I'm going to run out and buy lol) and crank the spring reverb on my amp? I guess this makes sense, since it's about limiting mix processing and mastering, not making a sterile recording.

- Not using any effects will create a delta between thos that have an arsenal of hardware effects and those that use software ones (i.e. chorus, flange, delay etc...). I guess this is ok, if you don't own the gear it's probably not part of your sound anyway.

I think this is a great idea! I expect to hear a whole series of punchy beefy recordings with lots of clarity and headroom.

Doug
 
Abbott: Yes!
Costello: I mean the fellow's name!
Abbott: Who!
Costello: The guy on first!
Abbott: Who!
Costello: The first baseman!
Abbott: Who!
Costello: The guy playing first!
Abbott: Who is on first!
Costello: Now whaddya askin' me for?
Abbott: I'm telling you Who is on first.
Costello: Well, I'm asking YOU who's on first!
Abbott: That's the man's name.
Costello: That's who's name?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy on first.
Abbott: Who!
Costello: The first baseman.
Abbott: Who is on first!
 
I guess I should make another update. :p


Just to make it clear. I tried to stay as close to SLuiCe's initial suggestion as I could. Basically it got taken off-track by a lot of confusion and ended up as something it didn't start out to be, so I had to re-post the whole thread.


The main reason I prohibited all acoustic signal chain effects is because it puts those without out-board effects at a disadvantage. So, if I rely on plugins for my reverb, and Joe Schmoe relies on his Alesis Quadraverb for his reverb, then I would be screwed and he would have all the verb he needed.


Therefore, to even the playing field, I made it so that there will be NO signal chain effects at ALL... except those that are inherent to the instrument (i.e. keyboard, electric guitar, etc.)

This INCLUDES AUTOTUNE.... (not that I'm talking to anyone in particular... *cough*chris*cough*... :D) You should have no processing of any kind on your voice or acoustic guitar or drums (or anything else that gets captured in it's natural state by a microphone.)


That means if we hear a recording, and it has reverb on the vocal... at all... then YOU BROKE THE RULES!! (and will be forever shamed. :p) unless you got that reverb by standing in the bathroom or something.


Yes... this is a little different than what SLuiCe had originally envisioned, but I wanted to take away the ability of the individual to use a bunch of effects on their voice... so that they would have to work harder on getting a good performance out, and finding a way to get their voice to sit better in the mix by using proper mic placement/proximity/mixing techiniques.


As for the deadline... I agree with Chris... the last wait was a little too long and I could tell that people started to lose interest. So I can make it two weeks if everyone agrees?



How about May 30th???


What say ye?



WATYF



(Chris.. it's not a rip.. seriously.. there is a signature "digital" sound to your stuff, and I'm really trying to figure out what's causing it, cause I think your stuff would sound all that much better if it didn't have that "edge" on it. It's not something you need to get "better" at... there's literaly a part of your signal/recording chain that is making everything "harsh"... maybe this exercise will bring the culprit to light. :p)
 
WATYF - Naw, I know exactly what you're talking about with the digital thing. It sounds like I recorded it on a computer. I know there are plugins and stuff some people use to take that digital edge off, I just keep thinking that it's something else, b/c a LOT of stuff is recorded digitally these days, and I don't hear it on everything. Part of it may actually be my limiting...I'm trying some new stuff right now with a mix (not for this game)...we'll see. I'll get it someday.

TOTALLY on board with May 30th, btw. Whoever doesn't can straggle in when they're ready.

Oh, PETE, I hear you on the lows...you record a lot of acoustic instruments too, and with me, it's a tradeoff between getting the "PUNCH" of a close proximate mic'ing and ditching the lows that come with it. I recorded an acoustic track last night, and I had to contort my body so much to cut the lows...and I was about 10 feet away, lol...sounds like crap, too...but it doesn't have too many lows, lol.

Also, I just noticed the part about the amp chains...I wish I'd seen that before I took apart my amp to turn it's chorus into a tremolo, lol.
 
OK... new Deadline is May 30th... I had Slack change the original post so nobody got cornfused. :p



WATYF
 
"NO signal chain effects at ALL"

I close mic all my singing. I JUST figured out that I need to severely cut the bottom of of it to get it to sit in a mix, and I was going to be smart on the next one use the mixer 's eq while tracking (hey, it's crappy but it's analog)...

<sigh>

:)
This should be an adventure.
 
Doug H said:
"NO signal chain effects at ALL"

I close mic all my singing. I JUST figured out that I need to severely cut the bottom of of it to get it to sit in a mix, and I was going to be smart on the next one use the mixer 's eq while tracking (hey, it's crappy but it's analog)...

<sigh>

:)
This should be an adventure.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think that's fine. I mean, if you're just going to shave the low end off with EQ, then that's no different than a low pass filter, to me, anyway. It's about getting a good sound on the track the first time, right? I say use it. My guitar is different, b/c I know that there are ways to mic it to dampen the lows a lot, plus, I AM using a low cut filter, lol...with a vocal, I usually don't have a problem with lows, but if I did, I don't think it makes sense to track a vocal from across the room just to cut out lows that you could kill on the way in. All you're doing is creating a low pass filter. Rock on.
 
By the way, while I'm not on the rules committee or anything, lol...for me, this whole deal is about trying to isolate where in the process I'm committing errors, so all you have to do is just tell what you used and at what stage. Like if you recorded a vocal using EQ as a low cut filter, and then came into the clinic with a kickass vocal sound and said you used X mic and no EQ (i.e., you lie) then that doesn't help the clinic much. Conversely, if you do use a low cut, and the vocal sounds thin and crappy, and you say you didn't use any EQ, then that doesn't help YOU...

I'm not saying anybody would lie or anything to rack up clinic brownie points, but for me, the whole purpose is to see where the warts are. Ideally, you'd come in with a big boomy vocal that had too many lows b/c you didn't filter it, the clinic would tell you the same (confirming that what you're thinking about doing is right) and then you filter it and see if it's better, right?

I'm tracking a tune that I intend to keep, I'm just going to do all the processing block by block, after May 30th, until I hit a step where somebody says..."Okay, now THAT sounds worse than it did before you did whatever you just did."

:D

I am DIEING to hear what Triple M's stuff sounds like before all the low cuts happen. ;)
 
Where are they gonna be??

You should make like a special dedicated thread that should not be for any comments but solely for the link to each participant's song.

Then when the inevitable happens we can all chant "JAAAAACK-AASSSS JAAAAAAAACK-ASS You posted in the contest thread!"
 
Well I'm gonna hunt around for a decent mic position. Truly, i get way too close to the mic, partly to cut out background noise and partly to try and sound like the guy from Pearl Jam...er I mean, remove the early reflections from the cieling drywall.

This is gonna be cool, I've already got a few ideas :).
 
I just want to make sure I have it right.

You can use eq,dynamics when tracking,but that's it.

How about vocal/acoustic doubling,and slipping tracks to get a delay?
I usually do both.


Pete
 
muzeman said:
I just want to make sure I have it right.

You can use eq,dynamics when tracking,but that's it.

How about vocal/acoustic doubling,and slipping tracks to get a delay?
I usually do both.


Pete
Click to expand...
Dang, I'm gonna' have to re-read this. I personally am going to record everything totally naked. That means, I mic everything, and the mic runs through my preamp only before it's recorded. Now, the preamp has a low cut filter on it, but I think that's fine. Also, for my electric guitar tracks, I'm using the FX on my amp, but I'm mic'ing it. For the acoustics, nothing but the mic through the preamp.

It's not a rule, it's to help me figure out where the sound goes bad, lol. It may suck right off the bat, and that'd be helpful to know.

As far as doubling and offsetting, heck yeah. That won't effect the sound of the tracks themselves. But hitting the "chorus" button would be a no no for me, because that involves the processing of the track, and it may be in the dithering that I'm picking up digital weirdness.

BTW - Doug H - If you want that E.V. sound, make a copy of the vocal track and offset the two vocal tracks by 30ms, panning them pretty hard left and right...that'll give you a PearlJamesque stereo spread.
 
"BTW - Doug H - If you want that E.V. sound, make a copy of the vocal track and offset the two vocal tracks by 30ms, panning them pretty hard left and right...that'll give you a PearlJamesque stereo spread."

heh, I was joking around (which you probably guessed) acting like a media victem. All the same it's a neat idea. I tried something similar with my current project but it kind of overshadowed the rest of the mix. Maybe it'd work better now that I've chopped most of the ass off of the vocals.

I have a thin and piercing voice so I just go with it as best I can or do the soft close miced thing.

I'm a little fuzzy on the bass cut issue too, but the way I see it not every pre or pre setup has eq on it, so it's out.

Now I'm off to buy some extension chords so I can lay down the vocals in the back yard.

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