Pre- v. Post recording processing? Thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnalogueMan
  • Start date Start date
A

AnalogueMan

New member
Forgive me if this is under the wrong forum. I looked elsewhere but had trouble finding anything helpful.

It seems to me the majority of engineers (especially for recording as opposed to live sound) utilize software to process, i.e. compress, equalize, gate; their tracks. I realize that this is superbly more economic, and simple, particularly when tracking drums or when the recording room is in the control room as many home studios are set up. What I'm asking is: What are everyone's thoughts on using out-board processors to record? I've heard of major record companies doing it both ways? Does anyone have any experience with this?

Thanks everybody!

Eric
 
In my opinion, unless someone has a piece of out-board gear he swears by....Why would I want to be stuck with an effect on a track and not be able to change it later? For example, you record your vocals with compression and reverb. Then, as you're mixing the song, you realize they're too compressed and you wish you could take the reverb off during the bridge. Too late.
 
^^ that.

Also, it is possible to record a track to the computer, then send it out to an outboard effects unit then route it back into the computer. Thats a bit of a hassle and I know I don't have any outboard gear that makes it worth the effort... but it is possible
 
Jeff_D said:
^^ that.

Also, it is possible to record a track to the computer, then send it out to an outboard effects unit then route it back into the computer. Thats a bit of a hassle and I know I don't have any outboard gear that makes it worth the effort... but it is possible
Click to expand...

How would you do that? In my experience with other technical equipment unrelated to recording I have always found it best to edit materials after the fact as little as possible and that has always been a bit of a mantra to me. I am new to recording and engineering music so this perspective may be inaccurate for this field, I don't know yet.

And I am also planning on using this info for drumset tracking.
 
I'm also more concerned with preserving natural sound straight from what I'm micing. I'm merely concerned with the overal tone loss that would come from digitally compressing a track rather than doing it with analogue components which have colors I enjoy.
 
I'll record stuff with processing...I just don't always actually "print" the processing. ;)

What I mean is...I'll use FX and EQ and whatever, but it's only applied to the cue mix, just so I can better create the right vibe while tracking. But the stuff actually going to tape or DAW...is the dry, unprocessed signal.

This is done by taking the output/foldback from the recording device or creating a split before going to it...and then using that for your cue mix and applying whatever processing you want, safely.
It's nice doing this, as it lets you start working out some possible mixing ideas and getting a feel for how the things will lay out as you build the song.

That said...there are times when a touch of EQ or compression is applied to the recorded track...but it's usually done very lightly, so that you have some room for later decisions. I've tracks some guitar parts using the reverb from the amp...but again, I keep it light so I can then fine-tune it during the mixing.

If you have some strong ideas about some tracks and/or you have clearly defined plans of what you will do with the mix even as you're tracking the very first takes...you CAN be a little more daring with processing...but like RAMI said...you then limit yourself to what you can do later on...so be real sure about what you want to permanently add during tracking.
Of course...you can also take that signal split, and leave one dry, process the other one as you think you would like...record both...then during mixing, see what works...get rid of the other one. :)
 
AnalogueMan said:
I'm also more concerned with preserving natural sound straight from what I'm micing. I'm merely concerned with the overal tone loss that would come from digitally compressing a track rather than doing it with analogue components which have colors I enjoy.
Click to expand...

Oh...if that's your concern, do what I do...mix OTB with an analog console and all outboard processing. :cool:
I primarily use my DAW for edits/comps...but not for mixing or overall processing.
 
Unless you have some REALLY nice (expensive) outboard gear I'd say you'll have more and better sounding options in the digital domain.

As for how to send a track back out of the box for processing, you could assign a track (or group of tracks) to an output on your soundcard or interface, send it through the processor(s) then arm another track on the computer to re-record the now-processed track. You may have to adjust for some latency, but not that big of a deal I don't think. Or you could send ALL of your digital tracks out of the box to a mixer then record the mixdown on a mixdown deck of some sorts. Like I said I don't have anything outboard that would even justify me trying this, but I'm sure some one around here has done it...

I'd agree that editing after the fact as little as possible is a noble goal. I'd also say that preserving the natural sound you're recording is also a worthwhile goal. So, the idea is to get the best sounding instruments and focus on placing the right mic in the right spot to capture what you want to hear. To me, especially in the home-recorder's price range, there is little to no audible benefit to analog over digital until you start spending A LOT of $$. The biggest advantage of digital to me is the unmatched flexibility to be able to apply and undo any step I make. If you're processesing on the way in (which I might add, presents the added complication of actually monitoring and hearing the result of the processing you're doing), you're STUCK with it.

Its easy to overdo the effects- especially for someone starting out, and especially for someone with a less than stellar monitoring chain and listening environment, which makes actually *hearing* what you're doing a challenge. A little knob turn can go a LONG way. :D
 
If you *KNOW* what the track needs because of experience and you have the outboard gear to do it, by all means record with it and don't waste time waiting until mixing. I/we regularly track lead vocals through our outboard compressor (Pro VLA, which sounds far better for that purpose than any software I have ever tried) and don't look back.

The key is, you gotta know you're not going to get "stuck with" something you don't like/want once all the tracks are there and it comes time to mix them together. If you know what you want/need then there's nothing to get "stuck with" because you will already have what you need. If you wait until you mix to figure out what you want or need, or just aren't sure of how to get exactly what you want or need until then, then it's best to wait.

Which is why tracking clean and waiting until post is the "conventional wisdom" recommendation here in the home recording forum, because the experience level is usually more on the unsure side for much of that stuff. But the more pros you talk to in person or in forums, or read about in printed articles and interviews, the more likely you are to find them using the gear during tracking, because already having done something a thousand times - and more likely having the outboard gear - they don't really need to worry so much about getting stuck with something that isn't what they'll need.

If you're not sure, wait until post. Otherwise, if you are sure, then there's no need to wait. Then again if one is sure, there's probably no need to ask to begin with ;).

G.
 
AnalogueMan said:
I'm also more concerned with preserving natural sound straight from what I'm micing.
Click to expand...
How does adding effects while recording preserve that???:confused:
I'm merely concerned with the overal tone loss that would come from digitally compressing a track rather than doing it with analogue components which have colors I enjoy.
Click to expand...

What makes you think digitally compressing is any worse than compress with analogue gear. Like I said, if you have a piece of analogue gear you absolutely want to use, that's one thing. But to say that you're degrading the sound by compressing digitally as opposed to analogue is a blanket statment that's pretty much false.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
If you *KNOW* what the track needs because of experience and you have the outboard gear to do it, by all means record with it and don't waste time waiting until mixing. I/we regularly track lead vocals through our outboard compressor (Pro VLA, which sounds far better for that purpose than any software I have ever tried) and don't look back.

The key is, you gotta know you're not going to get "stuck with" something you don't like/want once all the tracks are there and it comes time to mix them together. If you know what you want/need then there's nothing to get "stuck with" because you will already have what you need. If you wait until you mix to figure out what you want or need, or just aren't sure of how to get exactly what you want or need until then, then it's best to wait.

Which is why tracking clean and waiting until post is the "conventional wisdom" recommendation here in the home recording forum, because the experience level is usually more on the unsure side for much of that stuff. But the more pros you talk to in person or in forums, or read about in printed articles and interviews, the more likely you are to find them using the gear during tracking, because already having done something a thousand times - and more likely having the outboard gear - they don't really need to worry so much about getting stuck with something that isn't what they'll need.

If you're not sure, wait until post. Otherwise, if you are sure, then there's no need to wait. Then again if one is sure, there's probably no need to ask to begin with ;).

G.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Glen does it again! :)







:cool:
 
I would say that we're not to the point of having plug-ins that can do as well as the hardware processors they imitate, but we're close, eh?

I have a question regarding the use of outboard processing on the way in vs. in post. When waiting until after tracking to use outboard gear, would the loss in audio quality from doing the D-A and then the A-D conversion again be anything to worry about? Or would the convenience and safety of it greatly outweigh a bit of quality loss?

I'm just wondering if the loss in quality is anything of real significance or not. I imagine a complex waveform turned into 1s and 0s, then turned back into a jagged waveform, which is processed by outboard gear, then the jagged+processed waveform returns and gets translated into 1s and 0s again. We need a numbering system where the intervals are all blurred.. in order to create a continuous wave like analog.. :D

Meh. I'm sure it's not a huge deal.
 
The effect on the sound by the converters in most cases will probably be minimal. It *can* and sometimes does have a detrimental effect, especially if one is using converters of inferior grade or with defective clocking, but in most instances - and for most ears - well, the best way I can think of stating it is, most of us have more important and influential things to worry about that will affect our sound much greater than the conversion question.

That said, if one plans to be moving their signal back and forth between analog and digital often enough in the studio for purposes of using a lot of analog gear in digital post, it certainly make sense to pay more attention to having some quality conversion and clocking. And the better the gear - I mean when one starts to really get into "the good stuff" in analog gear and starts going "golden ear", the more the difference really nice conversion and clocking can potentially be heard.

But for most of us at the "home recording" level, just stay away from the Soundblaster cards and obviously defective stuff, and you should be able to sleep OK at night.

G.
 
RAMI said:
...Why would I want to be stuck with an effect on a track and not be able to change it later?
Click to expand...
For the very reason to be stuck with it and not change it later. Sounds, effects, and dynamics of earlier tracks can be very important to the performance and sound selection of later tracks. If I have a clear vision in my head and I know exactly where I'm headed with the production, I will frequently handcuff my future "mixing self" by taking away as many options as possible early on. That includes printing effects and compressors, intentionally tracking drums with limited mics that will really only work one way for one sound, tracking with one instrument heavily bleeding into another, etc.

For my style of production, I like the focus. I like the lack of creative decisions to fret over after tracking when the song should be done. I like tracking overdubs and knowing the bed tracks will not change later and conflict with the sound I am making now.

Some people love to work that way. Others hate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top