Kind of a basic thing thats baffling me

  • Thread starter Thread starter presto5
  • Start date Start date
presto5

presto5

New member
When I`m recording tracks in my DAW...AA3 ...i record with one pass from beginning to end and if I screw up I delete the whole thing and start over. I have seen screenshots of peoples work thats all broken up in blocks. Is this the result of fixing mistakes one small part at a time? If so how is this achieved without the levels and effects sounding different and is it common to use a whole track for 1 small part?:o
 
Some artists prefer to record a section at a time, for example, a singer doing a verse till it's to their liking, then moving on to the next.
I record myself a lot, so I just play, or sing a part, then go back and fix the warts by overdubbing, rarely, do I ever have a problem with levels, or effects, unless I change something.
It's fine to use a track for a small part, as long as it doesn't restrict you, I don't do it but that doesn't mean it's bad.
Practice overdubbing, it's great!
I use Sonar btw.

Hope that helps.
 
If you want to overdub sections later, keep a notebook of your recording parameters - control settings, levels, etc, so you can duplicate them.
 
presto5 said:
When I`m recording tracks in my DAW...AA3 ...i record with one pass from beginning to end and if I screw up I delete the whole thing and start over. I have seen screenshots of peoples work thats all broken up in blocks. Is this the result of fixing mistakes one small part at a time? If so how is this achieved without the levels and effects sounding different and is it common to use a whole track for 1 small part?:o
Click to expand...
They either recorded in sections, or recorded all the way through and then punched in parts they weren't happy with. Or what you're seeing is how they edited the part after. For example, they might have liked something they did in verse 3, so they took that section and moved it into verse 1, etc....
 
They either recorded in sections, or recorded all the way through and then punched in parts they weren't happy with. Or what you're seeing is how they edited the part after. For example, they might have liked something they did in verse 3, so they took that section and moved it into verse 1, etc....
Yeah this is what I mean...so if I like my 1st chorus but not my 2nd one I can just copy the 1st one? When Mewsician2 is talking about overdubbing...do you mean just recording over the original track for the part you messed up on?
 
You can copy -given reasonably good tempo. It could make it a little more sterile that way.
In a DAW can punch into the track but there's no need to. Just use a new track and blend the 'best of.
 
Or they comped the track, playing multiple passes in the same session with the same mic/pre setup, and then cut and pasted the final track using the best sections of all the different takes. I don't know about AA3 but in Sonar you can do multiple takes and they are saved in layers. Be sure to cut at the zero crossing of the wave when editing the takes together.
 
c7sus said:
Or they comped the track, playing multiple passes in the same session with the same mic/pre setup, and then cut and pasted the final track using the best sections of all the different takes. I don't know about AA3 but in Sonar you can do multiple takes and they are saved in layers. Be sure to cut at the zero crossing of the wave when editing the takes together.
Click to expand...


This is how I ususally do it...I rarely "punch-in".
It's more "fluid" to just record 3-5 passes back-to-back...that way the tones, vibe and your playing touch doesn't change much. Then just comp from the passes into one final track. It always sounds like one take.
Very often I'll have one take that really shines, but only needs some sections comped...so I use it as my main track and comp from the other passes "into it".
 
+1 on comping tracks. Also, if a track repeats enough I may snag something from one part of the song to fix a note or two in another part. In more extreme cases I'll copy the best chorus and paste it in the other ones (if the song was recorded to a click track or looped drums).
 
I like to comp them too. I punch in on rare occassion.

The other thing that you may be seeing is someone recorded an entire vocal track beginning to end, then chopped out the silent parts and faded in/out the vocal parts. Same could go for anything. when I record electric guitar I'll do the whole track and cut out the silent parts to remove the amp hiss. Could be a million things you're seeing.
 
As long as the tempo is good, the levels the same, the same gear chain, it should all blend fairly nicely. Unless the performer is inconsistent, shouts on one take, whispers on the next. Beyond that with consistent levels, the noise floor stays the same, so just slide and dice. As long as there's no overlap, or gap, good to go. And even if there is, you can blend it with fade ins and outs. Back in college the concert band recorded an entire CD running rehearsal letter to rehearsal letter ONLY. No full run throughs. A very annoying session and it took a good long while to compile the CD. But I guess it worked. It wasn't that great of a concert band and I may have only listened to it once out of curiosity.
 
Your ability to do all this depends to some extent on your music and timing - if there are obvious comp points then it's easier, but if there aren't, then the joins can be problematic....

I'll comp and punch in things like bass, but prefer to get single takes on main guitars. Singing's easy as there are always breaks whilst the poor bugger breathes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top