BBB
Member
Btw,
Yeah, now that you mention it, I'm familiar with the Hammond and the Leslie, thanks.
Yeah, now that you mention it, I'm familiar with the Hammond and the Leslie, thanks.
R
Rev E
New member
BBB,
I think that the main point of sonusman, Shailat and others who give the stock answer of "send it to the mastering house" is because many novices haven't arrived at a level of skill to mix or record correctly. Providing a direct answer without a warning (that they will probably mess up more than they fix) will just feed into a false perception that they actually know what their doing.
I think that it was vox vendor who said in a previous post that when you learn how to master, you realize how important mixing is. When you learn how to mix, you realize how importing recording is. When you learn how to record, you realize how important your signal path is and how important good songwriting is, good musicianship.... etc Many novices want to learn how to master when they haven't learned proper mixing, recording or signal path design.
If you hang around the site long enough, you'll start to see a pattern of the sort of question that opened this post. If we were to answer it as-is, without telling the real story there would be a lot of folks who will think that they know what their doing, only to find out (when comparing their mixes to pro mixes) they they just don't measure up. "You shall know that truth, and the truth shall make you free."
Rev E
sonusman
Banned
Errrrr....I will take credit for saying that Rev E. By that way, where the hell you been man? This place went to shit without you.....
Good to see you are still around.
The crystal deal in SCSI burners has to do with how the burn to CDR is clocked, digitally. IDE burners rely on the clock I believe ont he mobo, while a SCSI burner has it's on crystal internally for clocking. Many top notch mastering engineers believe SCSI burned disks just sound better. Yup, I believe them. Don't want to start a big arguement over it. If any of you feel that you IDE burner sounds just as good, have at it.
Ed
Good to see you are still around.The crystal deal in SCSI burners has to do with how the burn to CDR is clocked, digitally. IDE burners rely on the clock I believe ont he mobo, while a SCSI burner has it's on crystal internally for clocking. Many top notch mastering engineers believe SCSI burned disks just sound better. Yup, I believe them. Don't want to start a big arguement over it. If any of you feel that you IDE burner sounds just as good, have at it.
Ed
Shailat
New member
BBB said:
I suggest your read Rev E's post he said it better then I can.
If I give a answer that simplifies it then what service am I doing
to the asker?
Do you actully think I'm losing sleep over somebody trying to master at home? Knock yourselfs out and master away.
There is a fine line between mixing and mastering IMO.
The mastering level is one beyond the mixing.
Most mixing enginners will not master. How is that?
Whats the big deal ?!?!? just strap a compressor over the mix.
I dont master my mix's unless there is a severe budget problem.
I will even make the effort to prove my point. Any body that wants to send me a mix done by himself and then a mastering job (again by himself) that he claims is a improvment will be given the outmost respect and serious listen by me and another enginneer who is not biased.
If there is a improvment then I will tell him so and contribute to this site a donation of $5 per improvment.
If there is a degration then the mixer- masterer will donate $25.
Email me for details
"The plug in era" .......... I await the final plug in - "Mastero"
Last edited:
sonusman
Banned
Shailat said:
How about:"UltraMastermizer"
Ed
Shailat
New member
If only god had a plug in called "Create - amizer"
it wouldnt have taken him 6 days ...........
(Although I heard he did on the first three days a sonic maximizer and then procedeed to fix up the mess 3 more days)
After Noahs Ark, he clicked on "Waves" - vinal restoration
Now look how fucked up the human race is..............
it wouldnt have taken him 6 days ...........
(Although I heard he did on the first three days a sonic maximizer and then procedeed to fix up the mess 3 more days)
After Noahs Ark, he clicked on "Waves" - vinal restoration
Now look how fucked up the human race is..............
sonusman
Banned
I heard all that too Moshe....
If you follow the logic, we are probably a dithered 16 bit version of a 24 bit god. Possibly sample rate convertered too....Of course, Canadians are just mp3 versions....
I keep waiting for Slackmaster to change that Suck knob into the now rather vaporware Volume knob. I am sure I could master really well with his Volume knob.
It is hard I think for most to really know what the big deal about effective mastering is because few have heard the before and after mixes. Usually, you just hear the after, or, you have hired an unskilled person to do it, or you sent mixes that NO amount of mastering is going to help, or didn't give the mastering engineer a budget big enough to really dig in and work on it.
Please folks, feel free to master yourself. Hell, I do it for demo's all the time. I even have a few "released" products that I mastered.
I think though that it is really important to remember that mastering is NOT going to fix all your woes. If it is a bad mix, mastering isn't going to somehow make it into a great mix. If you have levels that are all over the place, mastering isn't going to fix that without some serious alteration in the sound. If you have mixes that are sonically very inconsistent, any eq you apply is going to effect all things in the mix equally. Meaning, if you are say doing a cut at 8KHz to rid harshness off of the vocals, your cymbals are going to be effected by that. Maybe the cymbals sounded just fine before that cut. Now they are quieter eh?
Sometimes some outside skilled ears are very helpful in determining what is going to go over better for your songs. If anything, I would say that involvement from many set's of good ears COULD be beneficial in making a better product. People who are not tied in to the production that was done before they get a hold of it tend to have a much fresher perspective. Not always, but if they know their stuff, they can probably better acertain what will really make you mix rock more!
Okay, a sonusman mastering tip. Concerns approach.
EQ first. Lightly compress second (if needed, or the effect is desired. Truthfully, I don't tend to like the effects of compression on mixes too much...but to each there own....), then limit last. If you have to sample rate convert, it may be best to do that first. I have been finding too many sample rate converters lately that create digital overs if used after limiting.
Also, USE YOUR EARS!!! I am willing to bet that I have a whole slew of mixes right off the console that are louder than many songs you hear on the radio. I am finding that limiting the hell out of them to bring them up to that volume level tends to make them sound very harsh and unfriendly to listen to overall. I did a mastering job for a sort of funk band, and we intentionally left dynamics in it. Music is SUPPOSED to have dynamics. I still find myself able to listen to this whole CD without getting annoyed. That is something that I cannot do with many modern recordings. The all "in your face" production in many modern recordings are just tiring to listen to after a few songs. So, don't think you HAVE to be as loud as the next guy. As Bob Katz likes to recommend, master for it to sound good. Strive to make the mix sound BETTER, not just LOUDER. Follow that "rule" and you will find that people really enjoy listening to your product. The one CD I mastered that I mentioned above, I have a lot of people who say that the CD is very relaxing to listen to and that they tend to play it all the way through sometimes more than once.
I don't know what else to recommend to people who haven't done a lot of mixing/mastering. Both are very hard to do and get right. Most of us are dealing with very low end equipment, thus, a lot of that advice you hear the big boys give just does not apply because we don't possess equipment with all balanced internal paths, and +9 operating levels, and true Class A circuitry. If you don't think those things make a huge difference in final outcome, well, then I believe you will ALWAYS be asking the age old question around here "Why don't my finished product sound like the big boys". Spend a day mixing on a nice console, using top end compressors, and big dollar reverbs, with fabulous monitors, in a decently tuned room. You will KNOW then why you spent at least $600-3000 a day just for the studio.
My last thought on mastering. If you really need to boost a lot of level, or do some pretty significant cut/boost in eq, like more than 2 or 3 dB MAX in any of it, your mix sucked! Get it right at mix and some of your plug in toys are going to work much better. Of course, it is going to be hard to mix it well if your didn't track it well because again, if you are finding yourself doing a lot of eqing at mix, your tracking sucked. Get it right while tracking. Of course, it is going to be hard to track well if the source sounds are not all that hot, or you are trying to use a SM 57 on everything. If you find that you cannot for the life of you move the mic to the right spot to get the sound you are after, well, the sound is not right in the first place. Change/tune etc...the amp, drums, voice, etc....to get it right as it is. Of course, it is going to be hard to get those sounds on there own if you don't have good control on your playing. It is not enough that you can play through the song without having timing mistakes. Timing is only one part of good musicianship. The techniques you use on your instrument make a big difference. If you are a drummer, playing rock, and cannot hit the damn snare just about the same EVERYTIME, there is little that can be done after to fact that will sound natural to make it seem like you hit it the same hardness everytime.
All in all though, if you don't have a clue about good musicianship, you are going to have a pretty tough time with recording. I would be that if you are having a tough time with recording that your live sound probably sucks too because essentially, it all starts with the player playing well and getting a sound that is appropriate for their song. Hell, I can go on and on about this but that would be wasting words. I have wasted far too many on this BBS explaining to people that you may just not have it in your to sound good. Hey, no problem. Music is fun to do. But let's get real here. Most of you are NEVER going to achieve great results because you are not GOOD ENOUGH overall in music to achieve great results, and don't have the money to get there. Sure, a great musician, in the hands of a competant engineer can get really good results with low end gear. No, not as good as they can get with high end gear, but still pleasing results. But, again, let's face it, I am sure most of your are NOT great musicians (while the hell you hanging at home all the time recording..... Don't get me started, I can rip apart most musicians in some way or another. I see VERY few that "have it" in the talent department, and they are usually what you are hearing on those CD's....). Most of you are so grossly inexperienced in engineering that it is scary! Most of you will NEVER spend the time in either to get that great at it, nor will be willing to make to financially sacrifice to purchase the gear that will pull your sound over the top.
So what am I saying? I have said it MANY times on this BBS, if you care to go back through my many posts and read where I have said this same exact thing many times. EXPECT A LITTLE LESS FROM YOURSELF UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE FOR WHAT GREAT SOUND COST!!! You will find that doing this recording thing as a hobby is much more fullfilling if you just do a LOT of it. In time, if you have even half a clue as to what actually sounds good, you will find that your playing and engineering are improving on a monthly basis. But to expect that you can just hop into recording, purchase a few thousand dollars worth of gear, and get killer results like the big boys in a month, well, that is totally and utterly rediculous. Think of what I am saying as a wake up call. You can list "exceptions" to what I am talking about, but anyone with even a shred of common sense will KNOW that in 99.9% of the cases, I am telling you exactly how it is.
On a personal level, I HATE seeing these questions where someone is comparing what they are doing as a hobbiest with a cheap setup to productions done by professional, top of the field engineers, in multi million dollar studios and they can't quite figure out why there product don't sound as good. Maybe if you spent more time asking about the basics, and spend a LOT of time experimenting, your results would drastically improve. If ANY of you think you are going to get great results without a whole lot of experience, and at least some DECENT gear, well, you are dillusional. I have friends with racks full of $300 "wonder boxes" that they would gladly sell you in their nieve past approach to recording. In time, some of you will learn enough to start getting results that are "close" just on your talent alone. You will KNOW then that you will need much better geat to make the jump in quality. The rest of you will be the ones that are always listing the "exceptions" in the "better gear= better results" when you are arguing with the voices of reason (few of those "exceptions" many list actually sound all that great on a professional level...mostly they just sound better than what the person listing the exception is achieving, and they like that persons song.....).
Anyway, end of yet ANOTHER rant on this. Go back and read the many I have posted in the past two years. At least I am consistent eh?
Ed
If you follow the logic, we are probably a dithered 16 bit version of a 24 bit god. Possibly sample rate convertered too....Of course, Canadians are just mp3 versions....
I keep waiting for Slackmaster to change that Suck knob into the now rather vaporware Volume knob. I am sure I could master really well with his Volume knob.
It is hard I think for most to really know what the big deal about effective mastering is because few have heard the before and after mixes. Usually, you just hear the after, or, you have hired an unskilled person to do it, or you sent mixes that NO amount of mastering is going to help, or didn't give the mastering engineer a budget big enough to really dig in and work on it.
Please folks, feel free to master yourself. Hell, I do it for demo's all the time. I even have a few "released" products that I mastered.
I think though that it is really important to remember that mastering is NOT going to fix all your woes. If it is a bad mix, mastering isn't going to somehow make it into a great mix. If you have levels that are all over the place, mastering isn't going to fix that without some serious alteration in the sound. If you have mixes that are sonically very inconsistent, any eq you apply is going to effect all things in the mix equally. Meaning, if you are say doing a cut at 8KHz to rid harshness off of the vocals, your cymbals are going to be effected by that. Maybe the cymbals sounded just fine before that cut. Now they are quieter eh?
Sometimes some outside skilled ears are very helpful in determining what is going to go over better for your songs. If anything, I would say that involvement from many set's of good ears COULD be beneficial in making a better product. People who are not tied in to the production that was done before they get a hold of it tend to have a much fresher perspective. Not always, but if they know their stuff, they can probably better acertain what will really make you mix rock more!
Okay, a sonusman mastering tip. Concerns approach.
EQ first. Lightly compress second (if needed, or the effect is desired. Truthfully, I don't tend to like the effects of compression on mixes too much...but to each there own....), then limit last. If you have to sample rate convert, it may be best to do that first. I have been finding too many sample rate converters lately that create digital overs if used after limiting.
Also, USE YOUR EARS!!! I am willing to bet that I have a whole slew of mixes right off the console that are louder than many songs you hear on the radio. I am finding that limiting the hell out of them to bring them up to that volume level tends to make them sound very harsh and unfriendly to listen to overall. I did a mastering job for a sort of funk band, and we intentionally left dynamics in it. Music is SUPPOSED to have dynamics. I still find myself able to listen to this whole CD without getting annoyed. That is something that I cannot do with many modern recordings. The all "in your face" production in many modern recordings are just tiring to listen to after a few songs. So, don't think you HAVE to be as loud as the next guy. As Bob Katz likes to recommend, master for it to sound good. Strive to make the mix sound BETTER, not just LOUDER. Follow that "rule" and you will find that people really enjoy listening to your product. The one CD I mastered that I mentioned above, I have a lot of people who say that the CD is very relaxing to listen to and that they tend to play it all the way through sometimes more than once.
I don't know what else to recommend to people who haven't done a lot of mixing/mastering. Both are very hard to do and get right. Most of us are dealing with very low end equipment, thus, a lot of that advice you hear the big boys give just does not apply because we don't possess equipment with all balanced internal paths, and +9 operating levels, and true Class A circuitry. If you don't think those things make a huge difference in final outcome, well, then I believe you will ALWAYS be asking the age old question around here "Why don't my finished product sound like the big boys". Spend a day mixing on a nice console, using top end compressors, and big dollar reverbs, with fabulous monitors, in a decently tuned room. You will KNOW then why you spent at least $600-3000 a day just for the studio.
My last thought on mastering. If you really need to boost a lot of level, or do some pretty significant cut/boost in eq, like more than 2 or 3 dB MAX in any of it, your mix sucked! Get it right at mix and some of your plug in toys are going to work much better. Of course, it is going to be hard to mix it well if your didn't track it well because again, if you are finding yourself doing a lot of eqing at mix, your tracking sucked. Get it right while tracking. Of course, it is going to be hard to track well if the source sounds are not all that hot, or you are trying to use a SM 57 on everything. If you find that you cannot for the life of you move the mic to the right spot to get the sound you are after, well, the sound is not right in the first place. Change/tune etc...the amp, drums, voice, etc....to get it right as it is. Of course, it is going to be hard to get those sounds on there own if you don't have good control on your playing. It is not enough that you can play through the song without having timing mistakes. Timing is only one part of good musicianship. The techniques you use on your instrument make a big difference. If you are a drummer, playing rock, and cannot hit the damn snare just about the same EVERYTIME, there is little that can be done after to fact that will sound natural to make it seem like you hit it the same hardness everytime.
All in all though, if you don't have a clue about good musicianship, you are going to have a pretty tough time with recording. I would be that if you are having a tough time with recording that your live sound probably sucks too because essentially, it all starts with the player playing well and getting a sound that is appropriate for their song. Hell, I can go on and on about this but that would be wasting words. I have wasted far too many on this BBS explaining to people that you may just not have it in your to sound good. Hey, no problem. Music is fun to do. But let's get real here. Most of you are NEVER going to achieve great results because you are not GOOD ENOUGH overall in music to achieve great results, and don't have the money to get there. Sure, a great musician, in the hands of a competant engineer can get really good results with low end gear. No, not as good as they can get with high end gear, but still pleasing results. But, again, let's face it, I am sure most of your are NOT great musicians (while the hell you hanging at home all the time recording....
. Don't get me started, I can rip apart most musicians in some way or another. I see VERY few that "have it" in the talent department, and they are usually what you are hearing on those CD's....). Most of you are so grossly inexperienced in engineering that it is scary! Most of you will NEVER spend the time in either to get that great at it, nor will be willing to make to financially sacrifice to purchase the gear that will pull your sound over the top.So what am I saying? I have said it MANY times on this BBS, if you care to go back through my many posts and read where I have said this same exact thing many times. EXPECT A LITTLE LESS FROM YOURSELF UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE FOR WHAT GREAT SOUND COST!!! You will find that doing this recording thing as a hobby is much more fullfilling if you just do a LOT of it. In time, if you have even half a clue as to what actually sounds good, you will find that your playing and engineering are improving on a monthly basis. But to expect that you can just hop into recording, purchase a few thousand dollars worth of gear, and get killer results like the big boys in a month, well, that is totally and utterly rediculous. Think of what I am saying as a wake up call. You can list "exceptions" to what I am talking about, but anyone with even a shred of common sense will KNOW that in 99.9% of the cases, I am telling you exactly how it is.
On a personal level, I HATE seeing these questions where someone is comparing what they are doing as a hobbiest with a cheap setup to productions done by professional, top of the field engineers, in multi million dollar studios and they can't quite figure out why there product don't sound as good. Maybe if you spent more time asking about the basics, and spend a LOT of time experimenting, your results would drastically improve. If ANY of you think you are going to get great results without a whole lot of experience, and at least some DECENT gear, well, you are dillusional. I have friends with racks full of $300 "wonder boxes" that they would gladly sell you in their nieve past approach to recording. In time, some of you will learn enough to start getting results that are "close" just on your talent alone. You will KNOW then that you will need much better geat to make the jump in quality. The rest of you will be the ones that are always listing the "exceptions" in the "better gear= better results" when you are arguing with the voices of reason (few of those "exceptions" many list actually sound all that great on a professional level...mostly they just sound better than what the person listing the exception is achieving, and they like that persons song.....).
Anyway, end of yet ANOTHER rant on this. Go back and read the many I have posted in the past two years. At least I am consistent eh?
Ed
Shailat
New member
I dont want to come across from my posts as a pro snob.
I spend so much time in the studio that there are days It makes we want to puke. Some days its plain pure work and It is not always as glamorious or "Romantic" as it may look to others.
Try paying bills and make a good living in this field......
More then once I have been told that this is a Amatuer board
(and I like it that way) and I should phrase my replies in that context.
Yet It seems to me that every now and then, there are people that ask questions that are aimed towards the pro aspect wanting the pro results or expect to walk the pro path (or is it me
thinking that?). Hence I reply with the pro outlook set in my mind.
If i was clear to me that they only want to do this for fun and fun only then I guess I would reply differently.
But many times I seem to think that the poster is looking for
the real answer and not some band aid compression.
I spend so much time in the studio that there are days It makes we want to puke. Some days its plain pure work and It is not always as glamorious or "Romantic" as it may look to others.
Try paying bills and make a good living in this field......
More then once I have been told that this is a Amatuer board
(and I like it that way) and I should phrase my replies in that context.
Yet It seems to me that every now and then, there are people that ask questions that are aimed towards the pro aspect wanting the pro results or expect to walk the pro path (or is it me
thinking that?). Hence I reply with the pro outlook set in my mind.
If i was clear to me that they only want to do this for fun and fun only then I guess I would reply differently.
But many times I seem to think that the poster is looking for
the real answer and not some band aid compression.
sjoko2
New member
I'm not gonna type anything about mastering again. I'm not I'm not I'm not Goddammit I'm not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shailat - I think if you are asked a question you are right to answer it as a professional (whatever that means).
Sonus? Who the fuck has got you hooked on typing????
Shailat - I think if you are asked a question you are right to answer it as a professional (whatever that means).
Sonus? Who the fuck has got you hooked on typing????
R
Rev E
New member
Couldn't have said it better myself, Ed About my absence, I've been on the site a bit less, work has been catching up with me. I've been on here and there. Good to here your constant voice of reason.
Rev E
Rev E
VOXVENDOR
New member
sonusman said:
Ed...I have been told to limit before compressing... By 1 pro mastering guy?...... he never elaborated on why...
Is there a difference between the two different orders of operations, or is it just personal preference?.......
(Im not questioning what your saying, In fact, Im sure yours has a better reason, than the guy who told me (he was sort of new to mastering, at this pro facility).........
Joe
sonusman
Banned
Shailat, I agree. Too often, people are asking to do what is out of their reach with what skills and equipment they have. Few preface otherwise, so I have to assume they want the straight skinny.
sjoko2. I am just making this site my free storage for my memoirs.
Good to see you back again Rev E.
VOXVENDER. I have never seen or heard of a mastering engineer limiting before compression. The reason I like to compress before limiting is because usually in compression, I may have a longer attack time then what will catch stray transients and also have very low ratio. Mostly, compresssion is a very subtle effect on a mix if done right. I use the limiter to catch the stray transients that got through before compression started and the high ratio of it to "brick wall" the volume of the mix. So in effect, you have a gentle ratio sort of mellowing the mix with compression, then a device that is stopping it from causing digital overs, the limiter. To what degree to do either is up to your ears. Like I said, I don't tend to use much compression while mastering, if at all. If the song is well mixed, I find that I seldom have more than 3 dB of limiting every happening. Any more than that and you can really hear is flattening out the transient is a major way. That is why good mixing is so important to mastering. Wild volume changes are going to make that limiter do wild things to the sound.
Ed
sjoko2.
I am just making this site my free storage for my memoirs. Good to see you back again Rev E.
VOXVENDER. I have never seen or heard of a mastering engineer limiting before compression. The reason I like to compress before limiting is because usually in compression, I may have a longer attack time then what will catch stray transients and also have very low ratio. Mostly, compresssion is a very subtle effect on a mix if done right. I use the limiter to catch the stray transients that got through before compression started and the high ratio of it to "brick wall" the volume of the mix. So in effect, you have a gentle ratio sort of mellowing the mix with compression, then a device that is stopping it from causing digital overs, the limiter. To what degree to do either is up to your ears. Like I said, I don't tend to use much compression while mastering, if at all. If the song is well mixed, I find that I seldom have more than 3 dB of limiting every happening. Any more than that and you can really hear is flattening out the transient is a major way. That is why good mixing is so important to mastering. Wild volume changes are going to make that limiter do wild things to the sound.
Ed
VOXVENDOR
New member
Makes sense Ed......
Thanks.
I guess, the guy was just trying to be a bit guru-ish to me, which is funny since he was a newbie to mastering himself......
Joe
Thanks.
I guess, the guy was just trying to be a bit guru-ish to me, which is funny since he was a newbie to mastering himself......
Joe
sjoko2
New member
I don't understand, I don't I don't. Went into another studio last night to have a quick look. They were tracking. EVERYTHING in the signal path through limiter/compressors, and they were struggling to get a decent drum sound.
I went... why? "we always do it like that - you need that on drums and stuff".
Aaaargggggg!!! Limiter - a tool to fix tracking or player errors. Compressors - mainly the same, but can be used as an effect, or to 'smooth' a track level (to the cost of sound quality and dynamics).
I went to have a coffee with the band's guitarplayer, came back 45 minutes later - and they thought the drums now sounded cool, they had obviously been doing it to long, it sucked.
After the "what would you do" thing - I pulled all the gear out of the path, swapped the tube pre's they were using for kick and snare for solid state ones, spend 10 minutes listening to the kit in the tracking room, positioned some mikes, used a bit of tape and felt here-and-there, tuned the toms a bit different.......bingo, killer drum sound.
Then the studio engineer said - "yeah right, and if he hits his snare to hard once the track's fucked"
I told him he was a ............., when he was on his own.
LEARN TO TRACK PROPERLY WITHOUT ALL THAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!
I know that in my case, it took me years before I got the hang of using a compressor properly, where I really needed it.
If you don't - you sound quality suffers and, most important, you'll never learn about what should be an engineers prime skills, microphone placement, tuning and instrument ambience.
Amen, hallefriggerdylujah
I went... why? "we always do it like that - you need that on drums and stuff".
Aaaargggggg!!! Limiter - a tool to fix tracking or player errors. Compressors - mainly the same, but can be used as an effect, or to 'smooth' a track level (to the cost of sound quality and dynamics).
I went to have a coffee with the band's guitarplayer, came back 45 minutes later - and they thought the drums now sounded cool, they had obviously been doing it to long, it sucked.
After the "what would you do" thing - I pulled all the gear out of the path, swapped the tube pre's they were using for kick and snare for solid state ones, spend 10 minutes listening to the kit in the tracking room, positioned some mikes, used a bit of tape and felt here-and-there, tuned the toms a bit different.......bingo, killer drum sound.
Then the studio engineer said - "yeah right, and if he hits his snare to hard once the track's fucked"
I told him he was a ............., when he was on his own.
LEARN TO TRACK PROPERLY WITHOUT ALL THAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!
I know that in my case, it took me years before I got the hang of using a compressor properly, where I really needed it.
If you don't - you sound quality suffers and, most important, you'll never learn about what should be an engineers prime skills, microphone placement, tuning and instrument ambience.
Amen, hallefriggerdylujah
zer0sig
headpiece full of straw
a little info from a rank amateur
what my little experience in recording (just some little home recordings in a lousy room with a pair of audix om-3's, a behringer, and a soundblaster live piped into lots of silly toy software) tells me is that everything i've found even remotely valuable has come from experience-not from a book, not from advice, from experience. all these tips from everyone in the forum with varying levels of experience are great places to start-but if you're expecting more than a start, herein lies your real quandry. try anything suggested here. then try the opposite of what's suggested here. read whatever interests you, try it out, and then defy it. try every little tweak you want-try every possible sequence of effects-try all kinds of different freqs to boost or cut-try intuitive and even counterintuitive changes. see what the tracks sound like together. burn a cd. make a tape. listen to it on everything you can possibly play your mixes/masters on. see what you like and what you don't like. ask others for their input. post mp3's here and let others listen. dedicate your time shamelessly, and without knowing whether you're going to ever come up with a decent mix. if it's too much for you, take a break, or set it aside and work on something else. anything to experience the process. it's time and dedication that creates good mixes (and occasionally, plain old dumb luck). in the end, it's experience that will get you where you want to be. after buying a million dollars' worth of equipment, if you haven't played with the music for many, many, many, many, many, many arbitrary units of time, you'll never KNOW whether what you have has even the slightest correlation of what you COULD have.
that said, i've learned quite a bit just reading the forum here-but not about freqs and effects and toys, but that i haven't spent nearly enough time to pretend that anything other than my own advice in this post is going to really help me capture what i'm hoping to capture.
create, and enjoy. hope this is useful to you.
what my little experience in recording (just some little home recordings in a lousy room with a pair of audix om-3's, a behringer, and a soundblaster live piped into lots of silly toy software) tells me is that everything i've found even remotely valuable has come from experience-not from a book, not from advice, from experience. all these tips from everyone in the forum with varying levels of experience are great places to start-but if you're expecting more than a start, herein lies your real quandry. try anything suggested here. then try the opposite of what's suggested here. read whatever interests you, try it out, and then defy it. try every little tweak you want-try every possible sequence of effects-try all kinds of different freqs to boost or cut-try intuitive and even counterintuitive changes. see what the tracks sound like together. burn a cd. make a tape. listen to it on everything you can possibly play your mixes/masters on. see what you like and what you don't like. ask others for their input. post mp3's here and let others listen. dedicate your time shamelessly, and without knowing whether you're going to ever come up with a decent mix. if it's too much for you, take a break, or set it aside and work on something else. anything to experience the process. it's time and dedication that creates good mixes (and occasionally, plain old dumb luck). in the end, it's experience that will get you where you want to be. after buying a million dollars' worth of equipment, if you haven't played with the music for many, many, many, many, many, many arbitrary units of time, you'll never KNOW whether what you have has even the slightest correlation of what you COULD have.
that said, i've learned quite a bit just reading the forum here-but not about freqs and effects and toys, but that i haven't spent nearly enough time to pretend that anything other than my own advice in this post is going to really help me capture what i'm hoping to capture.
create, and enjoy. hope this is useful to you.
sonusman
Banned
zer0sig, indeed, you are correct.
Experience really is the key. I like your line:
in the end, it's experience that will get you where you want to be. after buying a million dollars' worth of equipment, if you haven't played with the music for many, many, many, many, many, many arbitrary units of time, you'll never KNOW whether what you have has even the slightest correlation of what you COULD have.
I am not sure I could have said it any better myself.
Ed
Experience really is the key. I like your line:
in the end, it's experience that will get you where you want to be. after buying a million dollars' worth of equipment, if you haven't played with the music for many, many, many, many, many, many arbitrary units of time, you'll never KNOW whether what you have has even the slightest correlation of what you COULD have.
I am not sure I could have said it any better myself.
Ed
A
atomictoyz
New member
Experimentation = Experience. This is true for alot of things
Most of the big pro guyz will tell you they started learning on lesser equipment that they are currently using and in most cases learned more from getting around the "I don't own that piece of gear"
Peace,
Dennis
Most of the big pro guyz will tell you they started learning on lesser equipment that they are currently using and in most cases learned more from getting around the "I don't own that piece of gear"
Peace,
Dennis
E
entenow
New member
as a complete recording-dumbass i say sonusman is right.
on new year's day i made the decision to do recording and management stuff for the band of my friend. it was alot of fun.
we recorded the the first album in february when i had no clue of anything. i just plugged the mics into a borrowed mixer and said lets go. results were a little bit demoralizing. but then i thought about it and my first idea was to get better equipment. but before i could get trhe money i joined this bbs and there were such postings like that of sonusman. and then i thought again and i realized first to get some knowledge of what this is all about and i went to the university's library and got all those old books about acoustics and waves, harmonys and psychoacoustic effects. I just finished the second one, that one was a little boring. altough those books don't show me how to master perfectly, i think it's a great help.
so, i think, it's important for "newbies" like me, is to get the right balance between analytical(the books) and hit-or-miss(the knobs on my desk). result--> knowledge and experience
this winter we're gonna record the second album and if you want you check out the difference. maybe in some years you'll buy our 20th.
greetings
entenow
on new year's day i made the decision to do recording and management stuff for the band of my friend. it was alot of fun.
we recorded the the first album in february when i had no clue of anything. i just plugged the mics into a borrowed mixer and said lets go. results were a little bit demoralizing. but then i thought about it and my first idea was to get better equipment. but before i could get trhe money i joined this bbs and there were such postings like that of sonusman. and then i thought again and i realized first to get some knowledge of what this is all about and i went to the university's library and got all those old books about acoustics and waves, harmonys and psychoacoustic effects. I just finished the second one, that one was a little boring. altough those books don't show me how to master perfectly, i think it's a great help.
so, i think, it's important for "newbies" like me, is to get the right balance between analytical(the books) and hit-or-miss(the knobs on my desk). result--> knowledge and experience
this winter we're gonna record the second album and if you want you check out the difference. maybe in some years you'll buy our 20th.
greetings
entenow