crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
Whats your preference? Do you try and get the exact sound you want as you go to disk/tape, or do you prefer to record the signal exactly as its reproduced by either a mic or a direct input?
B
Boo Boo Foo
New member
Easily the latter. Your goal is to record your source in as quiet environment as possible. You can always apply the degree of verb, compression, delay, or eq required after the fact - but you can't predict how a 'coloured' sound will mix once everything else is combined too.
Far better to aim for clean, clean, clean. Think of the process as being in search of the mysterious 5th voice in 4 part acapella harmonies - that is, when they get it just right, it's as though a 5th guy is singing.
Well, the same thing with recording musical instruments. Even if they're totally utterly clean and without a speck of colouring - if they are being played totally perfectly in tune and on time it'll sound like there are more musicians in the room than there truly is.
A classic example of this is The Police - only a 3 piece and yet they sounded so BIG. But if you take a really close look, you'll find their recordings were astonishingly sparse - especially in the early days. Very little effects of any sort - just pure quality of performance.
Far better to aim for clean, clean, clean. Think of the process as being in search of the mysterious 5th voice in 4 part acapella harmonies - that is, when they get it just right, it's as though a 5th guy is singing.
Well, the same thing with recording musical instruments. Even if they're totally utterly clean and without a speck of colouring - if they are being played totally perfectly in tune and on time it'll sound like there are more musicians in the room than there truly is.
A classic example of this is The Police - only a 3 piece and yet they sounded so BIG. But if you take a really close look, you'll find their recordings were astonishingly sparse - especially in the early days. Very little effects of any sort - just pure quality of performance.
rushfan33
New member
It depends on what you're going for, what kind of gear you have... mics, outboard gear, desk and instruments. if you have a great sounding room that's bright and airy, and that's what you want in your mix, then make sure you pick the room up in the mics as appossed to trying to add it in later with a "cheap" reverb. I think that getting it right without EQ and compression at first will be a better end result. Especially if your mics are of good quality and they are placed correctly.
Of coarse that's just my opinion... but what the hell, it's worked so far!!
Of coarse that's just my opinion... but what the hell, it's worked so far!!
DigitMus
Member
I try to get the sound I need by proper selection of mics/pre-amps and proper mic positioning for what I need to achieve. Having flexible spaces to record in helps too - live end/dead end large room, live and dead small rooms, absorptive and reflective gobos, etc.
To my ears this always sounds better than getting "close" to what you need and sculpting with EQ, compression, gating, reverbs and other digital tools. Of course it takes a lot longer to do it the "right" way - years to learn, and sometimes days of swapping mics and moving things around.
Scott
To my ears this always sounds better than getting "close" to what you need and sculpting with EQ, compression, gating, reverbs and other digital tools. Of course it takes a lot longer to do it the "right" way - years to learn, and sometimes days of swapping mics and moving things around.
Scott
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
Thanks for the responses so far. The opinions so far are generally what I am thinking too. I usually just go for mic placement and worry about EQ and compression, etc later.
There are two instances where I have varied from this. One is with bass. I have been EQing my bass and using a bit of optical compression while tracking. Direct, my bass sounds like crap, so I try and get a better sound right off the bat.
The other area is with vocals. I don't like to EQ but I do like to use some peak limiting with a leveler. My reason for this is to get a hotter track into the digital realm, since I hear that the hotter track has more information and more fidelity.
My guess is that you guys shy away from channel strips and all in one processors in favor of clean preamps--no Joe Meek compressors or EQ and all of that extra stuff. Am I right?
Am I screwing up by altering the bass or vocal before it gets recorded as I described above?
There are two instances where I have varied from this. One is with bass. I have been EQing my bass and using a bit of optical compression while tracking. Direct, my bass sounds like crap, so I try and get a better sound right off the bat.
The other area is with vocals. I don't like to EQ but I do like to use some peak limiting with a leveler. My reason for this is to get a hotter track into the digital realm, since I hear that the hotter track has more information and more fidelity.
My guess is that you guys shy away from channel strips and all in one processors in favor of clean preamps--no Joe Meek compressors or EQ and all of that extra stuff. Am I right?
Am I screwing up by altering the bass or vocal before it gets recorded as I described above?
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
I don't know if it's screwing anything up, only your ears could tell you that. I try for the most part to track flat & dry as it's easy to put compression or EQ on a track after the fact but it's a motherfucker trying to take it out. About the only thing I have compression on while tracking are kick and snare but I still use mic choice/placement for tone shaping.
Once everything is tracked all bets are off and I'll squash, EQ, delay or whatever I see fit. I do try to use subtractive EQing when I can but whatever sounds right...
Once everything is tracked all bets are off and I'll squash, EQ, delay or whatever I see fit. I do try to use subtractive EQing when I can but whatever sounds right...
Seanmorse79
New member
I (moderately) compress and limit on vocs when recording, for the same reason - to get the hottest, fullest possible signal into the digital realm. It's a bit scary sometimes because I don't want to lose any dynamics, but I've never done a vocal track that didn't end up getting compressed (at least a little) before all was said and done. To me, the benefits outweigh the risks.
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
Seanmorse79--My approach with the vocals is to have the limiter doing basically nothing except light up on the loud peaks. That way, the dynamics are largely retained.
So much of vocal dynamics are perceived dynamics rather than actual dynamics anyway. When you hear a singer get soft and breathy after a section where he/she was giving it full throttle, the levels may not really change--but since we've been listening to records so long, we buy into that illusion that its getting softer. Its like watching film. We know its two dimensional, but we add the third dimension in our own minds.
Theres the whole subject of psycho-acoustics too. Robert Dennis--who's from Detroit too, by the way--showed me this cool thing. Lets say I have a rhythm guitar track. If I begin the song with that guitar 3db or so up in the mix and gradually pull it back 3 or 4db, the ear still hears it as present because we have learned to identify its sonic components at the louder level. Exactly what that has to do with what we were talking about, I have no idea! But its an interesting thing to know and be aware of.
So much of vocal dynamics are perceived dynamics rather than actual dynamics anyway. When you hear a singer get soft and breathy after a section where he/she was giving it full throttle, the levels may not really change--but since we've been listening to records so long, we buy into that illusion that its getting softer. Its like watching film. We know its two dimensional, but we add the third dimension in our own minds.
Theres the whole subject of psycho-acoustics too. Robert Dennis--who's from Detroit too, by the way--showed me this cool thing. Lets say I have a rhythm guitar track. If I begin the song with that guitar 3db or so up in the mix and gradually pull it back 3 or 4db, the ear still hears it as present because we have learned to identify its sonic components at the louder level. Exactly what that has to do with what we were talking about, I have no idea! But its an interesting thing to know and be aware of.
C
chessparov
New member
For someone like myself who's basically a novice the "straight wire"
approach is a good starting point. Then when you mix adjust EQ,
compression, etc. On a 24 bit system it's not as crucial to use "bits" as on a
16 bit due to it's superior headroom.
Once you're a bit more advanced, however, there is value in printing at
least some compression and effects up front as they help establish a
groove for the musicians and the record itself to follow.
An excellent book that talks about this is Howard Massey's "Behind The Glass".
He interviews a bunch of top engineers and producers.
Chris
approach is a good starting point. Then when you mix adjust EQ,
compression, etc. On a 24 bit system it's not as crucial to use "bits" as on a
16 bit due to it's superior headroom.
Once you're a bit more advanced, however, there is value in printing at
least some compression and effects up front as they help establish a
groove for the musicians and the record itself to follow.
An excellent book that talks about this is Howard Massey's "Behind The Glass".
He interviews a bunch of top engineers and producers.
Chris
Seanmorse79
New member
cool. ...not my thread, but I learned something anyway 
crawdad--I've read bits and pieces about percieved dynamics, and it is a very interesting topic. Thinking about that test of pulling the guitar track down ...kinda scary when you think about what it does when I'm in the mixdown process ..Maybe it's just the singers I've been working with lately. There seems to be a lot of bad singing habits like too much head movement and inconsistent singing volume - I suppose the rite way to fix it is to fix the singers - they can be know-it-alls sometimes
chessparov -- I wouldn't even think about EQ'ing on the way in unless I needed to pull some low end out for some reason. I wouldn't worry too much about how it affects the other musicians if you're tracking live - I'd rather blend some outboard reverb to help the mood than to taint the track. And if you're not tracking live, they can be quickly added before laying the next track in. You're probably right about having more "bit" flexibility with 24 bit, though. I just want the recorded track to be all it can be (i.e. this is called obsessive compulsive disorder).
I'll look into that book though - I just started reading "Inside Tracks" - another good read.
crawdad--I've read bits and pieces about percieved dynamics, and it is a very interesting topic. Thinking about that test of pulling the guitar track down ...kinda scary when you think about what it does when I'm in the mixdown process
..Maybe it's just the singers I've been working with lately. There seems to be a lot of bad singing habits like too much head movement and inconsistent singing volume - I suppose the rite way to fix it is to fix the singers - they can be know-it-alls sometimes chessparov -- I wouldn't even think about EQ'ing on the way in unless I needed to pull some low end out for some reason. I wouldn't worry too much about how it affects the other musicians if you're tracking live - I'd rather blend some outboard reverb to help the mood than to taint the track. And if you're not tracking live, they can be quickly added before laying the next track in. You're probably right about having more "bit" flexibility with 24 bit, though. I just want the recorded track to be all it can be
(i.e. this is called obsessive compulsive disorder).I'll look into that book though - I just started reading "Inside Tracks" - another good read.
P
platinumcool
New member
create your own sound
i eq and compress my drums before i record, when i record my piano or organ i like it perfectly clean. i find if i get some "ruff" or raw drum beats w/ a little crisp but darkness, then lay clean jazzy piano over, i get the sound i like. but thats my sound.
my advice is to go where you like your sound. use your mixing and recording, to not only capture your talent, but to use it to accent your talent and create your own sound.
a million people probably own a fender strat, but only jimmy hendrix got it to sound like jimmy hendrix. same thing with recording.
some things would just not be the same without the quality of the recording. hell, people sample old vinyl records just for that old vinyl sound.
as for me, recording is a large percentage of where i create my sound. use your recording tools as musical instruments, not just recording tools.
remember recording is an art form.
peace.
i eq and compress my drums before i record, when i record my piano or organ i like it perfectly clean. i find if i get some "ruff" or raw drum beats w/ a little crisp but darkness, then lay clean jazzy piano over, i get the sound i like. but thats my sound.
my advice is to go where you like your sound. use your mixing and recording, to not only capture your talent, but to use it to accent your talent and create your own sound.
a million people probably own a fender strat, but only jimmy hendrix got it to sound like jimmy hendrix. same thing with recording.
some things would just not be the same without the quality of the recording. hell, people sample old vinyl records just for that old vinyl sound.
as for me, recording is a large percentage of where i create my sound. use your recording tools as musical instruments, not just recording tools.
remember recording is an art form.
peace.
B
blipndub
New member
This is an amazing thread!
Great philosphy and advice.
I've been reading the Tape Op book of compiled interviews from Larry Crane's zine. It's totally inspiring in trying new things and just making it personal and real. It also teaches that the best gear is usually the stuff that's right in front of you so long as you understand it and can bring out its potential.
I fall asleep at night thinking about running vocs through a Rat pedal!
Great philosphy and advice.
I've been reading the Tape Op book of compiled interviews from Larry Crane's zine. It's totally inspiring in trying new things and just making it personal and real. It also teaches that the best gear is usually the stuff that's right in front of you so long as you understand it and can bring out its potential.
I fall asleep at night thinking about running vocs through a Rat pedal!
crosstudio
New member
i don't record anything with compression or EQ. when i'm in the studio i don't even limit. i get a feel for each musician and how they play, then i set my gain accordingly. i had some rough moments initially, but now i've gotten really good at it.
when i'm doing field work with the laptop i'm less comfortable in outside environments i bring along my compressor and do some limiting.
outside of that, i do my eq / compression / limiting during the mix process.
oh yeah, when compressing individual tracks for mixing, i decide how much compression to use by looking at the peak level and comparing it to the RSM level of the individual track. i set the threshold to the average RSM level, and set the ratio so that i get the desired amount of level reduction. i set the attack/release based on the track contents, with the release time being a multiple of the tempo in milliseconds.
when multi-band compressing for mastering, i do the same thing but i never use a ratio more than 2:1, and i seem to always have the threshold for the lows and highs set lower than the low-mids and upper-mids.
when peak limiting for mastering i seem to like it best when the threshold is set to about halfway between 0 and the average RSM level. what i mean is... if the track seems to be centered around -6db, then i'll set the threshold on the limiter to -3db so that the mastered track is 3db louder... of course, this may change because i'm better at tracking and mixing than i am mastering at this point.
when i'm doing field work with the laptop i'm less comfortable in outside environments i bring along my compressor and do some limiting.
outside of that, i do my eq / compression / limiting during the mix process.
oh yeah, when compressing individual tracks for mixing, i decide how much compression to use by looking at the peak level and comparing it to the RSM level of the individual track. i set the threshold to the average RSM level, and set the ratio so that i get the desired amount of level reduction. i set the attack/release based on the track contents, with the release time being a multiple of the tempo in milliseconds.
when multi-band compressing for mastering, i do the same thing but i never use a ratio more than 2:1, and i seem to always have the threshold for the lows and highs set lower than the low-mids and upper-mids.
when peak limiting for mastering i seem to like it best when the threshold is set to about halfway between 0 and the average RSM level. what i mean is... if the track seems to be centered around -6db, then i'll set the threshold on the limiter to -3db so that the mastered track is 3db louder... of course, this may change because i'm better at tracking and mixing than i am mastering at this point.
Last edited: