Loosing Headroom?

  • Thread starter Thread starter moelar2
  • Start date Start date
M

moelar2

New member
I've been trying to figure out a way to describe what I think is the biggest problem with my recordings and I think I finally came to my conclusion - I'm loosing headroom.

The recordings sound like they do not breathe. They lack depth. I recorded my friend's band, mainly to get acquainted with my newly acquired Cubase SX; part of the problem is that they recorded 10-14 guitar parts, all of which are drowned in reverb/delay. That aside, the mixes still sound like they are too stressed.

I listened to the new Chevelle CD, in particular the "Suffocated" song; thats more or less the type of "depth" I'm looking for. I want it to sound like there's "room" (not in the acoustical sense though, but more in the "space" sense of it) in mix. My mix sounds like everything is competing with everything else and if i turn any one instrument down a bit, it immediately gets burried.

Finally, when tracking, should I attempt to track everything as "loud" as possible w/o overloading? Or, is it ok to avoid unity gain on certain parts to spare headroom? Doesn't recording everything at unity gain actually maximize headroom?

Thanks!!!
 
if you're recording at 16-bit, then yes, try to record things pretty hot, otherwise you won't have much of a noise floor. at 20-24 bits, it doesn't matter as much.

that's a lot of guitars! try adding one at a time and see if you can get the sound you want. i'd say track the guitars with NO reverb, you can always add it later. if the delay is integral to the guitar line, then track with it, but if it's an ambience kind of thing, leave it until the mixing stage, too.

are you tracking the guitars in mono? if so, you might get some of the sound you want with some stereo miking ... room mics, etc.
 
Part of the reason by I ended up with so many guitars is because I was recording many of them in stereo. It seems like the more stereo guitars I was recording, the less "stereo" it was sounding. This is probably because since everything was in stereo, there was no sound to contrast it with.

Consistency has been difficult for me. Sometimes I will track very well, but sometimes it will sound merely mediocre. In that particular session (the one with the many guitar parts) I was also relatively unhappy with the way the drums turned out. I think I'm going to start micing the hi-hat, something I've always belived is unnecessary.

One thing I have not been doing much of is compressing. I use to compress a lot, but now, maybe due to lazyness, I seldomly do it. I use VST plugins for dynamics, but as far as compressing in the recording chain with my outboard comps, that hasn't been happening.
 
I had this problem before, noticing that my mixes tend to be quiet, as i was lacking headroom, main reason was the snare was just to loud.

Biggest improvement in my mixes are EQ! I love EQ. I can make my mix sound the way i want them with EQ, i can cut off certian freq, and boost the same feq in another guitar to still have good headroom.

example, last mix i was doing the heavy metal guitar riff was over bearing the lead part which had a dirty tube screamer sound. bearly heard it. All i did was work on EQ with the guitar riff which was cut about 250k and 4000k, and boost the lows up some. then on the lead part i boost the 250k and 4000k. at the same level before the eq i couldn't hear the lead, now after I EQed it the lead came out really well, and still had head room to play with.

EQ, its your best friend, learn it well but don't abuse it.

Some of yall might say that you don't need to EQ alot if you track well. yea well. i let the band put it on the setting they use live and then i work on it in protools. Reason is i never heard the songs before, so its hard to say what EQ setting to use when recording on the amps and such.
 
another idea is don't creat so many stereo fields, I would use just 1 stereo field of the main guitar rythem player. then the rest just fit in the space, just mono. pan left or right, uselly lead i pan left or right 20-30% depends on the music and how the band purfers it.
 
Dude, that's just way too many guitar tracks ! ! ! :D

Keep in mind that as guitar tracks start piling up, each one brings some nasty things along with them that sort of accumulate as the tracks start stacking up -- kind of like dirt or soap scum that you don't notice as much on each track when soloed -- but will build up as the tracks mulitiply.

One of those is distortion. A good rule of thumb is to get the distorion level exactly the way you want it . . . then back it up at least two notches to where it just barely sounds like there's not enough.

As the tracks add up, distortion turns to mush as it builds up and accumulates over several tracks. But when kept in check, it will build power and intensity over several tracks -- that's what you want.

Same with reverb; although with verb it just kind of starts washing everything out as it builds up. Keep it to a minimum untill mixdown.

Also, in regards to EQ on the guitar tracks, try cutting a little at 100 hz and 400 hz and see if that helps clear up some mud. 100 hz can compete with the bass guitar to make mud soup . . . and 400 hz can accumulate over several layers and create bathtub residue.
 
I completely agree with you (toadie) on not creating so many stereo guitars. But, using your own logic, the problem sometimes is that I dont' know where they are going with the music. This particular project that I was recording was a shoegazer reverb drenched type of band. Now I know though - I have to stand my ground and rely on what i have learned here and at school.

Its funny how sometimes I feel I've learned much more on this forum than I did with my minor in recording at USC. To their credit, I think it has made it much easier for me to understand exactly what some of the more learned folks around here are talking about, which in turn helps me fix my problems sooner!

The EQ is something I use frequently, but I think I need to develop my skill in that area. I always use it on the main mix to drop the lows in order to compensate for my room characteristics. I will definitely try to re-apportion EQ settings across instruments touching the same frequencies, as you have suggested.
 
chessrock

Again, sometimes the players will refuse to understand that recording is different from playing live. Typical remark:

"I used this setting at that one club last week and it sounded bad-ass! I want it to sound like that so don't move my knobs."

I'm just cautious there because if for whatever reason the recording doesn't end up as hoped, I want to minimize the amount of "I told you so" directed my way.

I will certainly be more firm with these basic concepts - otherwise it'll sound shitty anyway!
 
Re: chessrock

moelar2 said:
Again, sometimes the players will refuse to understand that recording is different from playing live. Typical remark:

"I used this setting at that one club last week and it sounded bad-ass! I want it to sound like that so don't move my knobs."

I'm just cautious there because if for whatever reason the recording doesn't end up as hoped, I want to minimize the amount of "I told you so" directed my way.

I will certainly be more firm with these basic concepts - otherwise it'll sound shitty anyway!
Click to expand...

LOL i had the same problem, with a recent band.
 
Re: chessrock

moelar2 said:
Again, sometimes the players will refuse to understand that recording is different from playing live. Typical remark:

"I used this setting at that one club last week and it sounded bad-ass! I want it to sound like that so don't move my knobs."
Click to expand...

You nailed it right there on the head. That's exactly what people are going to say. We're dealing with people who are used to practicing with a particular tone that sounds really gnarly and ballsy when they play out, or in their practice space. Somehow, I doubt that they actually play all 14 tracks of it, :D but like you said, they're used to hearing it in a completely different context.

And honestly, being firm with them is the only viable strategy I've been even remotely successful with. Before we even start tracking, I start out by telling them that, no matter how much it hurts or pains us, we absolutely must abide by the rule of "get it exactly how you want it, then back it up 2-3 notches."

Last week, I even had the guy look at me with a sad, sad, face -- like I was taking an ice cream cone away from 10-year old. :D And he said, "Are you sure? I don't want to do this -- this is how we like it." And I said, "Then you have to back it off in order to get it, as strange as it sounds. Remember our rule?"

You can go hear and listen to the results (any of the three songs listed). When all was said and done, the band thanked me for being firm :

http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1298&alid=475

Another analogy is to explain that the recording process automatically adds 2-3 notches of distortion; kind of the way they say a camera adds 5-10 pounds of weight or whatever when filming.

When all is said and done, the Big Muff Pie is our biggest enemy. If they have one, love it, and insist on using it, then we're fucked. :D :D :D My next investment is going to be "the muff killer." :D Something that automatically introduces a lethal burst of electric current that automatically destroys the box the moment it's plugged in.
 
Chess, Doi you not like the guitar tones on the Pumkins Siamese Dream? Big Muff stuff there. I luv the sustain from that peadal.

I second the, back off the distortion, approach.

Kirk
 
Even Butch had to come up with a creative work-around.

I remember reading an interview in Sound-on-Sound where he was talking about how he used this "ingenius technique" where he ran the guitar through a splitter with one channel going clean to a guitar amp, and the other direct to the big muff pie.

Then he apparently mixed the clean track with the big muff track (what he said was basically like a "white noise track" :D ) . . . untill he got a proper balance.

At the time I thought it was some wild new sonic technique . . . but the more I work with these indie kids and their damn big muff pies, the more I realize it was merely a clever workaround that allows one to track the way the band likes it (by cranking the big muff track in their headphones) . . . while still being able to back off on the big muff later on during mixing (since you still have a clean track to dilute the muff if you need it).

Very clever that man is. :D
 
Such a basic, yet ingeniuos, idea! I'm gonna grab a pair spliters.

We just started tracking reference tracks last night for my band. There was a bit of an altercated discussion regarding how we should track. We all agreed on one thing: metronome. What we didn't agree on was the tracking process.

The guitarist wanted us to play along with the drummer while we tracked the drums. He argued that this will allow the drummer to "feed off" of the players.

I have several objections to that. Mainly, the only thing I want the drummer "feeding" off of is the metronome! Thats why its there. They brought up this wholly spiritual/psychological analysis on the effects of watching your guitarist strum a guitar and how that makes you magically play better. Essentially, I think that by recording descent guide tracks to a click prior to recording drums several things are accomplished: (1) variables are reduced since my attention will not be divided among those recording for reference and those actually tracking, (2) input load/stress is reduced on my computer (3) the drummer is listening to clean takes, not takes that are prone to screw ups or different with each run through, and (4) you have 1 person, as opposed to 3-5 trying to play along to a click.

The reason why I'm advocating this process so zealously is because in past there have been too many instances where the drums sound great alongside guide tracks that are not well recorded. Once I start layering better recorded tracks, the previously recorded drum tracks become less attractive. With my suggested approach, I'm able to hear the drums within the context of relatively well recorded guide tracks.

What do you guys think?

BTW - I'll listen to those clips as soon as I get home.
 
I think you should re-think your stance.

If the band feels more comfortable doing it a particular way, then do your best to accomodate them, or they'll go to someone else next time around.

It's important to be able to put your foot down here and there, when you think it is going to seriously effect the quality of the product.

But I highly encourage bands to track in a manner in which they feel comfortable. Especially when it involves playing off one another and communicating -- that's all about getting in to a groove with one another. Otherwise, if everyone just follows a click, it could be missing an important element when all is said and done.

The only time I would insist on a click is if the drummer has no sense of timing . . . or if you know ahead of time the project is going to require a lot of editing -- or if they want a lot of editing. It's not realistic to expect to do a lot of cut, copy & pastes unless there's a steady click.
 
I wasn't being clear..

The band I'm talking about now is actually MY band. I wouldn't be so vigilant with a "customer."

The guitarist who had a difference of opinion said he was willing to do it my way, but was merely protesting for arguments sake, since he had been doing it his way [he has his own digi002 setup].

I honestly belive that if we elect to go the click way, we're eliminating much of the "groove" that can realistically be fed. Besides, the drummer has great meter; he was in drum corp and has some pretty good traiing. The drummer agreed with me on this issue.

this is not to say that click = no groove. Many argue that playing to a click is lifeless but I am not convinced. Its more of a stigma thats been attached to it. I can play to a click and feel as much groove and emotion.

I'm real curious to see what any of you might be able to make out the previous band I recorded [the one with the 12-14 guitar tracks]. If you'd be interested I'd love to mail you guys a cd with tracks. It was done on Cubase SX.
 
I would take a disk of .wav files. nwsoundman@earthlink.net

I have yet to hear many drum tracks recorded without another main instrument that had the proper life, groove, dynamics whatever. At my place I ALWAYS have to retrack drums after I let a band track drums alone to a click. I don't argue much, that really screws up the groove more than anything, so I have to retrack. At least they pay for it and learn something about each others influence on the song.

Give it a shot both ways since this is your bands stuff and see (hear) what works best. Try recording drums and bass gtr together at a minimum.

Kirk
 
We started recording this last weekend. So far so good. The guitar player [and I] mellowed out insofar as a contentious debate is concerned. In the end, we had to do it my way regardless since I only have 8 simultenous ins. Recorded moderately well recorded scratch tracks, and it sounds great.

Whenever I record the other way, I usually endup up wanting to re-record drums! I totally know what you mean nwsoundman!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top