Methods- Marginally Off Topic

  • Thread starter Thread starter SLuiCe
  • Start date Start date
Okay, now regardless of the volume I record individual tracks, when I mix it down, I put the master fader wherever it needs to be to run through the tune without clipping, but trying to keep the average output about -6 db...so the dynamic range is usually no more than 6 db on the first mixdown.

What's Next?

(I just realized I've never checked anywhere for the post mixdown procedural norms...I think I made mine up?).

Here's what I do usually:

____________________
1. 5 Band Parametric EQ that cuts out a couple of the frequent offenders in the lows and low mids (80-100Hz; 220Hz; maybe 315Hz) then a cut in the highs (Q=1.2 centered at 12000); and a wide, but gentle mid cut (Q=.45 @ 1950). - I keep some commercial cuts of similar type music handy while I'm doing this...I listen, and also watch the meters on my ancient BSR Spectrum Analyzer (20 years old?) and keep jacking with the mix in preview mode until it's close.

2. Low Pass Filter/Cut (subsonic issues)

3. Limiting/Compression of the whole mix.

4. Very light overall natural reverb of some sort to glue it all together
__________________

I'm wondering about the processing issue...Am I overprocessing? Underprocessing? lmao. By the time I mixdown, I've already EQ'd the guitars, I've FX'd the guitars, and vocals...I've done almost nothing to the drums (loops) and I've compressed all the individual tracks than need it (that'd be bass, acoustic gits, and vocals).

Lastly, can anybody tell me a good way to get that cool soft "ssss" that is created by plate reverbs without hollowing out the vocal with the rest of that crappy plate sound?

:D
Thanks,
Chris
 
chrisharris said:
Lastly, can anybody tell me a good way to get that cool soft "ssss" that is created by plate reverbs without hollowing out the vocal with the rest of that crappy plate sound?
Click to expand...


Chris,
Are you mixing your reverb vocal with a clean vocal? This may help you. The clean vocal helps maintain the presence while the reverb softens things up.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am doing! :p
 
WATYF said:
Stop relying on effects.
Click to expand...
I'm not blaming you, WATYF, lol..but I think a kind of "snobbery" has developed about the use of FX. Yeah, it's true that a lot of crappy, amateur recordings use a lot of FX, but it's equally true that a lot of commercial recordings use MORE...they're just the RIGHT FX.

It's funny you mentioned this, b/c I recently decided to critically listen to some of my favorite tunes to find out what elements of the recordings I could steal. I was listening to some of my favorite "earthy chick" music last night (Emmy Lou Harris, Kasey Chambers, Allison Kraus - you know, artists not known for their WILD use of FX), and I was listening JUST for effects. The reverbs on some of my favorite recordings are absolutely HUGE...I mean, I'd be scared to use 5 second tails and stuff...and the guitar FX are ridiculous...tremolos, massive verbs, etc. But before I really listened specifically for this, I'd never noticed the FX before...I just knew that the recordings sounded great. I don't think FX are bad at all...they're different colors of paint.

Oh, and for some reason, I pulled out an old vinyl recording of "Homeward Bound" (Simon & Garfunkel)...MY GOD, HAS ANYBODY EVER LISTENED TO THIS??? The drums sound like they were recorded in the Astrodome...in Texas...FROM NEW YORK, lol. And the second word out of Paul's mouth "I'm SSSSSSSSSSittin' in a ...." has perhaps the most offensive sibilance I've ever heard on a commercial recording, lol.
 
TripleM said:
Like crawdad, I'm going to experiment with the -12db technique next time. I think it'll be worth the time and effort (and fun) to find out how things sound.
I've been recording my tracks as close to 0db as possible without clipping.
Just for shits, I'm going to start treating -12db like I used to treat 0db and see what turns up.
If everything peaks at -12db I can begin to see why a minimalist compression strategy is all that's required.
Thanks, not only to SLuiCe, but to everyone who's contributing.
Click to expand...

Ditto on all the above!

I often wondered why my little Fostex had -12db as the main reference point on the meters! hmmmmmmm...

THANKS TO ALL, This is pure fun!
 
Keep it goin', keep it goin'!!!

I'm learning lots here. I tried the same thing with -6db, but it wasn't enough wiggle room. -12db next time.

Daf
 
chrisharris said:
I'm not blaming you, WATYF, lol..but I think a kind of "snobbery" has developed about the use of FX. Yeah, it's true that a lot of crappy, amateur recordings use a lot of FX, but it's equally true that a lot of commercial recordings use MORE...they're just the RIGHT FX.

It's funny you mentioned this, b/c I recently decided to critically listen to some of my favorite tunes to find out what elements of the recordings I could steal. I was listening to some of my favorite "earthy chick" music last night (Emmy Lou Harris, Kasey Chambers, Allison Kraus - you know, artists not known for their WILD use of FX), and I was listening JUST for effects. The reverbs on some of my favorite recordings are absolutely HUGE...I mean, I'd be scared to use 5 second tails and stuff...and the guitar FX are ridiculous...tremolos, massive verbs, etc. But before I really listened specifically for this, I'd never noticed the FX before...I just knew that the recordings sounded great. I don't think FX are bad at all...they're different colors of paint.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you at all here....


I think the whole point of an "amateur recording" is that all the elements are "amateurish"... including the choice of effects that are used. We just grab the first reverb that's in our list of plugins and move the "knobs" around until it sounds "cool". :p (or is that just me? :D)


But I don't think that effects are the issue. What I'm saying is... I was literally shocked at how much better my recordings sounded once I started getting it "right" (for the most part) in the tracking. Sure,... I dig a good 'verb, and I love vocal compression, and I plan to use interesting effects in a lot of my recordings... but that wasn't the point... the point wasn't that I'm "anti-effects", but rather that I'm "pro-get-it-right-in-tracking". :p


P.S. Your stuff still has a very signature "brittle" sound to it (though not nearly as much as it used to). I used to think it was Cool Edit, because that's exactly how my very first stuff sounded (which was recorded on Cool Edit), but maybe it's a particular EQ/Comp that you're using. I'd be very interested to hear a recording of you that's done on somebody else's equipment.


WATYF
 
M.Brane said:
That's another good experiment, monty!

After you record something, make a rough mix with no volume adjustments or effects. Save a copy. Go back and tweak to your hearts content. Wait a couple days, then compare the two.

Which one really sounds better......:eek:
Click to expand...

I second that suggestion. I would seriously rather hear your nasally, slightly (...I said slightly) off-pitch voice with depth and detail then a smeared reflection of it. WATYF said it too, and his music supports the point, that a natural sounding recording just feels so much better when you surrender and stop trying to cover it up with senseless reckless effects. (STOP USING THOSE PRESETS FOR EVERY SONG!!!!!) And not only that, you might even improve your approach and performance by listening back to cleaner mixes too. But I've said that already.

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.
 
Actually, if enough people are interested in doing that we can post another thread with a formal challenge. If not, I see through your effects. You can't hide. I'm on you like a fly on shit.

:eek:

Who was that guy?

:confused:
 
Chris, I forgot to mention that I know what you meant about the commercial CD's. I was recently listening to Mr. Bungle's California album in my truck, and I couldn't believe the verb tails on some of that shit. HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE! It's uncanny what this forum does to your listening. It's like eaiting the apple. I have such a hard time just listening to anything now. :)
 
You... da.. man... :p


That is an excellent idea.


Someone should start a thread to offer the official challenge.



but we need to hammer oat some rules first.


Such as... does EQ count as an "effect"?

I'm assuming that compression does.



WATYF
 
SLuiCe said:
I second that suggestion. I would seriously rather hear your nasally, slightly (...I said slightly) off-pitch voice with depth and detail then a smeared reflection of it.
Click to expand...
I would seriously rather be able to sing first.
 
well screw it...

why don't I just start the thread... I think it's a great idea.


:p


WATYF
 
AWESOME THREAD

When I have time later tonight, I'll be responding to this thread in depth! Great stuff!!!

Cheers,
Phil "Llarion: The Jazzinator" Traynor
www.llarion.com
 
Good stuff

I read this today at work and realized that I have been doing everything all wrong! :)

Great thread, man! It is really cool to hear what others do when they record. As for me, I am still stuck in the analog world, which gives you a little more room for error...

I love reading this stuff...

:)
 
Hey, M Brane - you got me worried with this:

"Headroom is also something I think a lot of homereccers overlook. I always try to track stuff as close to the level I want it to be in the mix as possible to minimize my fader adjustments. Digital summing busses are the bane of most DAWs. By the time you drop all your faders to keep those hot tracks from clipping the mix bus you've added more noise from dither than you've saved by tracking hot to stay so far above the noise floor ( that is if your software faders use dither, and not truncation"

So I took it over to Syntrillium and the response I got there was that with software like Cool Edit that operates in 32-bit floating point, changes in the volume levels don't affect the integrity of the original wav file. Which is what I wanted to hear, of course. :D But are we talking about the same thing?
 
OK, here's my essay, teacher! :)

APPROACH:
I try to approach things from the big picture down. I can, to a large extent, “visualize” the finished product, that is, I can hear he finished arrangement very concretely in my head before I turn the recorder on. So, once I have that "image" in my mind, the sonic palette if you will, it becomes a more linear, methodical approach, which I’ll detail later.

GEAR:
The total cost of my recording-dedicated gear is about $10,000, acquired over several years. My base of operations is a Korg D1600 16 track HD recorder, which is about $1500. I have a Korg Triton 61, which was about $2600 at the time, and a Roland RD-500, which was $1600 at the time. I have 7 guitars, ranging in value from $200-$550 each. About $600 worth of outboard signal processing gear, $1500 worth of drums, and a bunch of miscellaneous mics and a mixer crap.

PROCESS: My process is methodical, and I’m usually “Mr. Take 1”. Or 2. Just lucky.
ACQUISITION/TRACKING
I record through a Behringer board with its own 24 bit DSP, and a Zoom RFX-1000 and a Radius Fat Man 3 compressor as sends. Oddly enough, I print my effects at acquisition time, rather than adding them in after. I know that’s the “wrong” way to do it, but I seem to have an uncanny knack for getting them right… Here are my tracking steps:
1)Either program and record the drums with my DR-660, or record a click track for live drums, then record those. (2 channels)
2)Record the primary chordal instrument, be it piano or guitar (2 or 1 channels)
3)Record the bass part (1 channel)
4)Record the secondary chordal instruments, if any
5)Record any ambient sounds (strings, synth pads, etc)
6)Record the melody (sometimes more than a few takes)
7)Record the solos (usually a zillion takes here, I’m a crappo soloist)
8)Record any open mic extra percussion (cymbal swells, bar chimes, triangle, etc)

I try to record at somewhere between -12dB and -6dB peaks. It’s not super critical at this stage, it gets a LOT more important at mixdown.

MIXDOWN
To get the track to the PC for mastering, I have to do a stereo submix on the D1600. So, before I do that, I set final channel EQ levels, and do a practice run or two because I’ll ride faders for some stuff. I track the mixdown to stereo at about -6db peaks. Here are my normal placement schemes:

Drums – if drum computer or V-drums, I record into 2 channels, panned hard left and right so the drums can pan themselves as needed across the spectrum. Acoustic drums are submixed to a full stereo palette from 5 mics panned at varying places.

Bass – a few degrees, just a smidge right of center. (I never go exactly down the middle)

Guitars - I’ll pan these usually 25-35 degrees to one side or another

Keys – Full stereo palette, 2 channel recording on pianos and pads. Sometimes, if I want to “place” a keyboard in the field, I’ll still do a 2 channel acquisition, and narrow the field by panning one side 45 degrees left and the other channel 5 degrees right, giving an “average” placement of 25 degrees left.

Leads – 5 degrees left of center.

Solos - 15-20 degrees right or left of center.

Once I have the stereo mix, I dump it to WAV (YES!!! The D1600 exports to Wav, no Redbook conversion pass, no dithering!!!) and move it on CD to the computer for mastering

MASTERING
I master in Cool Edit Pro 1.1 with Waves and Steinberg plugins. Here are the steps:
1) Trim the lead in and set my fadeout envelope, if needed, “trim the fat”
2) Normalize to 95% max level
3) Zoom in and hand-envelope any harsh single transients down about 30% (this is actually hand compressing, I guess, it’s for signals of .001sec or less)
4) Run through Waves C4 multiband compressor to even off some stuff. Not a harsh application, a VERY gentle one.
5) Run through Waves 10 band paragraphic EQ to spot any weird variables in the master EQ curve
6) Run through Waves L1 Ultra Maxximizer (limiter), the Bit Final Master, Highest Resolution preset, but changing the threshold to a -1.0db engage, and a -0.3db rolloff, It’s running the edger on the lawn, giving everything a crispy, punchy, even finish.

And that’s it! Any questions? I’m sure I left a lot out in my haste to type this!


Cheers!
Phil "Llarion: The Jazzinator" Traynor
www.llarion.com
Listen to "a dichotomy of silence" - the brand new debut Smooth Jazz release on Llarion's Lair Records
 
Okay, I've read this a couple of times, and what strikes me is this: there's more than one way to skin a cat. Although Sluice and I have an identical approach in some ways (get it right when you're tracking, use a click track, lay down the guitars first then the vocals) there are big differences too.

For example, he says he knows where's he's going before he starts tracking. I never do. I don't even know if I'm going to play or sing what I think I'm going to play or sing when I click 'record'. I make stuff up as I go along sometimes. Also, I almost never know how a song's going to be arranged before I start recording. I'll finish the guitar and the vocal, and then it'll occur to me that it needs a bass part, but I didn't know that when I started out. I discover my songs, rather than execute a plan. It's less like crafting an artifact than opening a present. Two completely different approaches, but each gets the job done. (As for how well each gets the job done, well, that's your call.)

Another example: Sluice tracks at -12 dB. His stuff sounds great, right? I track as hot as I can without clipping. People here tell me that I get a clean sound on my stuff. So, the conclusion I'm drawing is that there's more than one way to get the skin off the cat, right?

Another example: Sluice talks about using only very gentle compression when tracking. Well, I used to use gentle compression when tracking, but I don't any more. Now I use vicious hard limiting when tracking - I've got a better idea these days of where to set my levels and how to work the mic and how to play and sing without clipping, but I put that hard limiter on everything just in case the occasional stray note thinks about distorting. That way, I only apply compression to a track ONCE (in the mix). And then there's Lt Bob who doesn't use any compression in any form whatsoever (it's true - he sent me some sax tracks once - serious peaks and spikes all over the waveform, but it sounded just fine). One cat, one skin - various skinning techniques.

I think there are loads of paths up the same mountain. The really important thing is to listen to your stuff, actually listen to it. It's often an unflattering, disappointing experience, but it's the only way to keep tweaking the sound in a useful direction.

Having said all that (okay, rant's over), that bit about reverb was really useful for me, Sluice - good one!
 
Thanks Dobro...

I hope I made it clear that I'm not trying to impose any rules for anyone else to go by. I have no idea how to use your gear. Just telling a few people that asked, in one sweeping response, how I use mine. I'm really digging the self restrained discussions that are happening though. Details that have been lacking around here. And so far in 59 responses there hasn't been any flaming. That's why I like the clinic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top