Recording and Mixing Advice

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikey_45
  • Start date Start date
M

mikey_45

New member
Am just finishing up a CD of original songs, and starting a new one. The CD was recorded and mixed by me, using Sonar XL, and mastered at a local studio (following comments here and elsewhere that you should never master your own stuff). As I have limited experience at mixing, was wondering if I could get some recommendations on recording and mixing the new stuff, based on what you hear in the old stuff. The mastering engineer liked it, but, on the other hand, I'm his customer. The URL with mp3 samples is as follows:

http://www.rmnorman.com

All material was recorded at 44.1KHz and 16 bits. Based on what I've heard here, I'll likely record at 44.1KHz and 24 bits next time, and use Sound Forge (or recording studio converters) to down-convert. Thanks for any comments...
 
You have got MAJOR problems with your clips -- they are unlistenable via Windows Media Player or WinAmp... all they do is crackle and spit!!!

You need to remake the clips!


Bruce
 
Thanks for trying Bruce. Am a bit perplexed though. I've opened these mp3 files directly from the web site, and also downloaded them and then run them, both on Windows Media Player and MusicMatch Jukebox (came with my Gateway computer). No problems at this end. I wonder if it's the file specifics - am using MPEG Layer-3 at 128 kbps. Also, other people have been able to listen to these without problem. I would like to solve this though, and figure out why you're having problems - any ideas? Anyone else having problems? Thanks.

Mike
 
Not a single one of my audio tools can open or play the clips -- even AudioActive (professional MP3 encoder/decoder) doesn't know what to do with it............

I'm running Win2k with the latest drivers/service packs.... definitely something about the way you encoded it is an issue.

Bruce
 
Bruce,
Can you download one of the mp3 files and email it to me? That way I can verify what you get at that end. Are you using Netscape, per chance? Thanks for the assistance.

Mike
mikey_45@hotmail.com
 
I have both Netscape and IE.... but I did use Netscape.... that shouldn't matter anyways!

I'll send you what I downloaded...........

Bruce
 
Bruce,
Got the email - and the file is messed up, as you mentioned. Cannot help but wonder if it is a Netscape issue - not that it isn't still a problem....

Will look more closely at the file, and options at the web server. Meanwhile, will email you the correct file. Thanks again...

MIke
 
I listened to your clips.... IE lets them play directly.... the issue must be the way files download from the server, especially via Netscape.....

A quick note - you may have copyright issues with "Waiting For Me"... the intro verse is exactly the same as "Help Me Make It Thru The Night"

OK on to the critique.... not a bad effort, you seemed to capture the guitar(s) reasonably well, but they do seem overcompressed - hopefully, you didn't track with compression and you can re-mix them, if not, well.......... you learn for next time!

On one track you had some sort of percussion panned completely to one side... sometimes that can work but because of your sparse arrangement, in this case it's more distracting than creative. For your material I think you need to balance your mixes more, rather than experimental creative panning.

But the most noticeable issues I hear are with your vocals.

1) tonal consistency - there are times where it's obvious a phrase has been comp'd, since all of a sudden, a phrase's tone changes (brighter, then darker)

2) ambient space - there's too much obvious reverb around the vocal, and I don't think you necessarily picked the correct sounding ambience to properly complement it. You want the vocals to sound like they're in a space, but you don't want that space to be glaringly obvious. Properly set, you'd get the impression of the vocalist sitting in an ambient listening area in front of you. The vocal, especially for this kind of music should sound "airy" and natural.

3) sibilance - I don't know how much EQ you used on your vocal track, but if you used it, you may have been a little exuberant in certain areas since there are signs of exagerrated sssss'ing. If you didn't EQ the vocal track then you probably need to experiment with mic placement a bit more during tracking. In any case, a de-esser can clean that up pretty easily.

Overall, quite a decent job... work on some of the areas I suggested and you will have yourself some nice-sounding tracks!

Good luck,

Bruce
 
Bruce,

Thanks for the well thought out critique, and the time you spent downloading and listening. I see your points, and will consider them carefully for this CD, and definately incorporate them into my technique for the next one. All of the track vocals were recorded dry and flat, so there are abundant re-mix opportunities for this first CD, but I'm just not sure I want to pick up again at Square One on this one year long project, and I have 12 more original songs ready to record for the next one.

Have listened to "Help Me Make it Through the Night" and "Waiting for Me", back to back, and I think the chord progression (and, of course, words) is sufficiently different that it is apparent mine is not a derivative work, but I'll toss that by a few music contacts of mine, as well. The musical thought for "Waiting for Me" was considerably different, in any case.

Will also ask the site hosts why Netscape has a problem reading the files. You're right - it shouldn't make a difference.

Thanks again, and Happy New Year.

Mike
 
mikey -

I like the songs a lot...they are well written in the countryish tradition. My dad has been writing country songs for a long time, and I'm sure he'd be proud to have written these.

My initial responses

1.) Give full names to your mp3 files. It's amazing how many mp3s of independant artists I download with names like "wow.mp3" "waiting.mp3" "search.mp3" etc. Go ahead and stick "Mike Norman - Title.mp3" on there...easier to keep up with, gets your name out there more.

ok, thats just a little pet peave.
as far as the recording

2.) I agree in general with bear. The music sounds pretty good...I think the overall mix is good. (i'd be interested in hearing the non mastered version). But, the vocals could be better. Some of this might have to do with mic placement...or it could be the mic itself to a degree...what setup were you using to record this album (i'd just like to know...the results are good all things considered).

Again, the EQ on the vocals could stand some work...I can't pinpoint exactly what the problem is...but, they sound a bit too muffled to me...maybe a bit heavy. I agree that the reverb used probably wasn't the best choice. In addition to this, did you use a pop filter? There are some bad plosives..that make it seem more amateur than it has to...for example, on "Who knows her name" at 1:01, where it says "and now your life will never BE the same.."...you get a bad plosive sound on the BE, this could be eliminated by using a pop filter.

In general though, I imagine you had a lot of fun recording this album on your own time...and even with all of your recording gear...probably spent a fraction of what you would have at a semi-pro local studio to get about the same results (or better, time pressure etc. taken into account). and that's good for anyone..nice work.

(definately let us know what gear you were working with)

-wes
 
oh, forgot one more thing...some of the tracks have a lot of lead in silence...for instance "waiting for me", doesn't start until about 6 seconds in. Personally, this always causes me frustration as I sit there turning the volume knob/checking settings on the stereo until something finally starts playing. But, if thats the way you wanted the flow of the album, then thats another story. If it were me, I'd trim that leadin silence at least off of the mp3s I was going to put on the web. After reading bears comments about the files not working, and then playing the song, nothing happened, I almost closed it thinking "hmm...yeah...not working". ;)

-wes
 
Wes,

Thanks for the comments. Some excellent points. Am not hearing the plosive as pronounced as you on "Who Knows Her Name" on my system, though I must admit, I only checked the full CD files on alternate sound systems, not the mp3's. I used a windscreen on my SM-58, and de-essed sparingly, but no pop filter. Perhaps a lesson in there. Good point about the lead-in times. The mastering process trimmed them all for the CD, but I've neglected the mp3's. My setup was as follows:

Mics:
Shure SM-58
Audio Technica ATM-73A (not used)
Shure PE-54D (not used)

Mixers:
Mackie 808M (not used)
Mackie 1202

Compressor:
Alesis Nanocompressor

Sound Card:
Delta 44 (capable of 24/96K, used at 16/44.1K)

Synth:
Roland JV-35, VE-JV1E Expansion Card

Computer/Software:
Gateway 700SX (1.8 GHZ P4, 512 MB RAM)
Dedicated 100GB WD EIDE 7200 RPM Hard Drive for audio
Windows XP
Sonar XL
BBE Sonic Maximizer
Cakewalk FX-1 (EQ, compressor, and most of the reverb)
db-audioware Suite (limiter, de-esser, tap delay used)
Sound Forge XP Studio 5

I did enjoy the luxury of doing most of it on my own - not sure I could have afforded a year-long project in a professional setting yet. Perhaps, if I can sell a few of the first CD, I'll be able to afford some studio time for the next one....

Thanks again for the kind words.

Mike
 
2 immediate suggestions - based on seeing your gear list.....

- Lose the NanoCompressor - it really does more harm than good....

- get yourself a decent condenser (I suggest an AT4033) -- you'll probably find you'll get a more natural-sounding vocal requiring far less tweaking.

Also - use the BBE sparingly, and consider getting a good outboard, 2-channel mic pre.

Bruce

PS... regarding the "help me make it..." comparisons. I haven't heard that song lately, so I wasn't doing a direct comparison myself - just from memory, the melody struck me as you were doing a cover of that song, until the chorus kicked in! So you may indeed have a problem with the melody line more than the progression.

Cheers!
 
no problem mikey. Yeah...I think a condensor mic for next time around might give you better results. Certainly nothing wrong with the SM58..great mic...but, i can see how using a dynamic mic like that, with a lot of EQ...and dessing etc (esp when you don't have a lot of experience with professional EQing - i know i dont!) could harm the sound in the end. Lots of plugins etc. to save a sound that wasn't quite there in the first place..does interesting things.

a good condensor mic is often said to "make tracks sit just right in the mix"...to me that means both the space the tracks occupy...how far back or front they are etc. when you get a track recorded like that...you don't need much EQ/effects work. and, using a pop filter with it...I think you would definately get a richer tone...and be happy with the results. Tons of posts about condensors all the time in the microphone forum...but, to name a couple...the Studio Projects C1 can be had for just over 220 dollars...and gives killer results. The Rode NT1000 is a personal fav of mine...costs around 300...and does the same.

I take it you only used the sm58 for this album? shows you how far one mic can go. heh. but, a condensor also works really well on acoustic guitars...anyways, just some thoughts.
 
Thanks, Bruce and Wes, for some well informed advice. I had been considering a good studio conndensor mic (I use the ATM73 in live gigs, and like the sound of that condensor a lot). All of the music income I had this year was from live gigs, and much of it was funneled back into equipment (I do have a day job). I guess, before I went the next step in professional recording equipment investment, I wanted to test the waters a little, to get a feel for my potential for return on that investment. On the other hand, the initial several thousand dollar purchase in equipment for stage use was spent before my first live gig, and quickly recovered - so ya gotta have faith, no? And the original songs do seem to be flowing...perhaps a little beefing up is in order for the songwriting and recording facets. In any case, am ready to move on. Sooo, I suppose I'll give one more hard listen to the pre-mastered CD, swallow hard, and either perform surgery, or give birth. Will definately apply lessons learned regarding technique and hardware to the next one - am putting the recording on hold until I gear up a bit.

Happy New Year...

Mike
 
Great stuff in that thread. Thanks for pointing it out.

P.S. After some price and performance comparison shopping, I now have a C1 on the way - one more tax writeoff for 2001.
 
PPs...

Got a Mackie 1202 VLZ in yesterday, seemed like a good investment, given the fact that I want a mixer for no hassles input monitering, and the VLZ has (I am told on the Sonar web site) a good rep for its pre's. Hooked it up today with the SM58 (C1 not in stock yet, promised by the end of the month). Disconnected the Alesis compressor from the chain and tried some vocals on a partial mix of a new song at 24 bits. Noticeable improvement over the old 1202 with the compressor at 16 bits - and as per my advise so far, much less motivation to mess with EQ. Things are getting better - thanks again.

Resisting the urge to go back to Square One on the CD...
 
Agree with most of the comments so far. I would have bet that the vocal mike was a SM57 or 58. These have that hard cardboard sound in the mid-range which I noticed some of your vocals contained. These also have a natural compression which is hard to EQ after the fact. You will really like the C1, it made a world of difference in my little studio.

"I'm not ready to love you" is your strongest peice. I think you should shop that one in Nashville. Repeating tag line, good storyline works everytime.

The only other comment is to use thick chorus on your guitar only once or twice on a CD. Repeated Chorusing on a 12 string tends to make every song sound the same. A good double or quad delay offers a good alternative to sparkling up the acoustic sound and varies the tonality from song to song.

Good luck and great effort.
 
Middleman said:
These [SM57/58] also have a natural compression which is hard to EQ after the fact.
Click to expand...
What are you babbling about? Natural compression??

Dynamic mics in general have slower transient response than condensers - which give them a characteristic slightly-muffled sound - but they have no "natural compression" in terms of signal dynamics.


Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top