Recording with effects question

G

gypsyblues73

New member
Another stupid newb question: it always seems that most people record dry or raw tracks, then add effects later, but I've always wondered why this is the case. What is the disadvantage of using, say, an external flanger or overdrive pedal and plugging into a multi-track and recording it that way vs. adding the effects later?
 
The main disadvantage is that you're "printing" your effects to the track. So, if later on you decide you don't want that effect, or that you want less (or more), you're stuck with it. Adding effects later allows you to experiment with different effects right up to the time you make your final mix.
 
Exactly.

In any mix you need to judge how the effects sound in the context of the whole mix, not just on the single track. If you added the effect at the time of recording, you can't go back and change it even if you decide you want something different when mixing.

There's little to be gained by adding the effect at the time of recording and a lot of potential downside--so I record dry and add effects later.
 
Also, and maybe less important but still something to consider.....

It's a lot harder to punch in a vocal track (or guitar, etc....) if you have an effect like delay or reverb on it because you'll be stepping on the tail of the delay or reverb from the part right before where you're punching in.
 
Great point! I've never thought of that--probably cause, not recording effects, I've never had the problem!
 
But then again, some effects also depend upon the interaction between guitar, player and amplifier - particularly electric guitar distortion - yes, you can re-amp but you'll probably find most record the distortion, if they know what they want.

There's also the argument of having less variables to play with when mixing... sometimes a good thing. I often record supporting electric guitar bits with effects as I know the sound I want and I don't want to be spending hours deciding whether setting A or setting B fits better..

But generally, apply them later.
 
gypsyblues73 said:
Another stupid newb question:
Click to expand...
Believe me, if any question can be considered a 'stupid newb question' it certainly is not this one. It's an excellent question and will elicit important replies from both sides of the fence.
gypsyblues73 said:
it always seems that most people record dry or raw tracks, then add effects later, but I've always wondered why this is the case. What is the disadvantage of using, say, an external flanger or overdrive pedal and plugging into a multi-track and recording it that way vs. adding the effects later?
Click to expand...
RAMI, Bobbsy and Armistice have concisely and effectively {:facepalm: no pun intended !} pointed out the two main sides. And I'm on both sides.
I remember in the past recording with excessive reverb on vocals or other instruments for that matter. And the take would be just right, just how I'd want it. And then time would elapse {often years} and when I came to mix, I'd find I had a cavernous mess that was nigh on impossible to fix because I and my tastes maybe altered somewhat and my ear would have developed/progressed. And I'd be stuck. So it turned out that alot of my early stuff was making the best of a right mess because I couldn't change anything and re-recording was rarely an option, with people having emigrated and stuff. So most of the time I'll record dry and add after.
On the other hand, there are some instruments like guitar and mandolin {the electric variety} where I'll record with the effect because the effect is crucial in the making of the particular sound I want. It encourages me to make decisions very early on and stick with them and indeed, tune all that is added to the song thereafter to the range of effected sounds that exist up to that point.
I find it interesting that many vocalists like a certain amount of reverb in their headphones while they record even though the 'verb isn't being recorded. I find it odd.
One other thing about recording the effect - it's a great way of learning how to avoid overkill. Far better to have too little permanently on in case you do change your mind than too much.
 
For electric guitar, I tend to think of the amp (and any effects being generated in the amp) as being part of the instrument's sound. I then record that overall sound dry....if that makes any sense!
 
I record any electric guitar parts how I want them to sound in the mix - minus reverb. I can certainly see the advantage of recording them dry, and have found a few times that I wished I had not used so much distortion, or flange, or whatever, but usually not to the extent of retracking. It's hard to judge sometimes until you get down to that final mix stage.
 
I encourage guitarists to make their guitar and amp combination to sound as they like it, then mic the cabinet and record that without adding anything else external to the guitar in the recording process. I actually dislike most amp modellers and artificial distortion.

So, in my own warped mind, I'm even recording guitar flat--or at least how it sounds live!
 
I always record a direct signal, as well as the actual amp tone with whatever effects the player wants. Rarely is it needed, but just recently I had a situation where the guitar tones just did not work at all for a mix. I ran them through a different amp and was able to save face.
 
That sounds like a very good back up plan...I don't record huge amounts of guitar but I may try that next time.
 
Bobbsy said:
That sounds like a very good back up plan...I don't record huge amounts of guitar but I may try that next time.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I have never had to use it before, but this was a necessity on this project. One passive direct box, and one channel per guitar track, probably saved myself, and the band 20 hours of re-recording. By the way, the band that I used the direct signal to re-amp, is the one that came back in to rewrite the song for my son. Those guys were really there for me and my family. Oh, and they actually paid for their time too. Not for the redo, the money they owed previously. :)
 
Tracking with FX in place forces you to get it right in tracking since as mentioned punch ins and fiixing in the mix becomes a much less viable option
it also puts the onus on getting the song structure down at the front end and then recording what you want to hear rather than recording a bunch of tracks and then trying decide how they should sound

It's a different way of working that I prefer personally and tend to record guitars, vox and most other things with FX in place as I want them to sound in the end. Certainly as a one man operation it means a lot of scratch/sketch versions to see how things will fit together and really getting the arrangement and sounds figured out ahead of time

I've found:
recording dry = fast recording, slow mixing and analysis paralysis as I'm always distracted by what if I tried....
Recording with FX = much more time in pre production prep, slower recording process and much faster mixing as the decisions were mostly made before recording even started

however there is no right way and YMMV
 
Last edited:
Oooh, Henry, I love it when you get all macho and decisive!

Me, all too often I start off with one idea then end up going a totally different direction (but I suppose recording other people all the time rather than my own projects is part of this too).
 
I agree with all that's been said here about having a dry track to work with in case you decide you need to go a different direction with your effects. The only time I will record effects directly is sometimes with my vocals because I generally know how much I need for reverb at the end. But my process is that When i record it, I still have the dry vocals recorded on one track and I bus the signal to the reverb box and have it print on another track at the same time. So when I'm done I have two tracks, one wet and one dry. That saves me time at the end if I get it right I'll just use the wet track. But if it doesn't sit in the mix I can always take the dry track and fool around with different settings.
 
I'm currently reading the engineer Geoff Emerick's autobiography and though it was the subject of much controversy four and five years back and though it has many fanciful notions, not to mention innaccuracies, there are still some fascinating insights into the recording process as it evolved through the 1960s from turgid standard practices to experimental ones that became standard {and in turn, became turgid ones ! }. When discussing the mixing of "Revolver", Emerick says that it didn't take long to mix {he reckons the stereo mixes were done in a day as mono was the main medium in 1966} because, as he puts it
we were mixing as we went along and the mixes were going quickly because all the sounds were there. It was mostly down to balancing instruments and vocals; we didn't have to fix many parts or add much in the way of reverb or echo, because most things were recorded right along with their effects.
Click to expand...
I thought that was interesting as it shows that even then, both options were seen as valid and were used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top