So.. has anyone tried this trick?

[VSpaceBoy]

Upon travels through another board (Recording.Com) I came upon this post and thought it seemed like a neat idea and was wondering if anyone has tried it with or without success.


"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a solution to your volume differences. Or at least it worked for me.

-select the track
-go to "detect silence." Or at least that's what it's called in Cubase. This slices the track up into individual bits
-while they're all selected, 'Normalize." Each hit is now normalized to the exact same level, instead of them all just being brought up by the same amount.

Ta Daa, 900 snare shots, EXACTLY the same volume. Now they may sound a tad different, because they were hit differently, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was. Now you can compress in predictable way and not have to worry about automating the track level anyway. One less thing to worrrly about.

Once they're sliced, you can quantise them too, but it's really tricky to make it so you can't tell in the end, with drums anyway. Getting a real drummer is ultimately the way to go. "

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Getting a real drummer is ultimately the way to go.

Yeah, that is one of my favorite tricks and definitely the best advice that guy could give. Guaranteed success.

G.

 

[VSpaceBoy]

Yeah, that is one of my favorite tricks and definitely the best advice that guy could give. Guaranteed success.

G.

= No

Thanks for the reply

 

[dementedchord]

strange

it was suggested to use the normalizing function to smooth out the irregular levels...(admittedly a cool way to do it and may use it myself in different ways) and then suggested to use a real drummer... the worlds easiest way to uneven the response....hmmmnn...
btw i do use real drummers...

 

[Keiffer]

normalizing only sets each peak to the same peak level and does nothing about leveling average level. a compressor properly set is a much, much better tool.

 

[VSpaceBoy]

normalizing only sets each peak to the same level and does nothing about leveling average level. a compressor properly set is a much, much better tool.

Agreed. With the example, each transient was "normalized" seperately to the same setting. Creating an "average" of seperate clips.

 

[Cyrokk]

For fake drums, I would never do this. One of the ways to remove some of the fakeness of programmed drums is to manipulate the velocities of all the pieces of the kit being used.

 

[VSpaceBoy]

I guess I should have posted the whole thread as the "real drummer" statement is throwing ppl off.


It WAS a real drummer, just not a real GOOD drummer. It was a solution to even out (as in compressing) a snare drum from a track where the drummer had no restraint and was all over the board with the dynamics.


edit: can't spell

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It WAS a real drummer, just not a real GOOD drummer. It was a solution to evening out (as in compressing) a snare drum from a track where the drummer had no restraint and was all over the board with the dynamics.

I know you or some troll slammed me in private for my "sarcasm" in my first reply, but you or they didn't seem to notice that I didn't say anything the guy you quoted didn't already say as well.

I wan't being sarcastinc, I was being honest. If the performer being recorded is a kid on a school recital or some family keepsake recording like that, an amateurish performance is not only acceptable, it is to be expected and is quite OK.

However, if someone is a budding musician looking to make a serious recording, the type of normalization trick mentioned in the OP is, in my HONEST opinion, just plain wrong. Before you load up your flamethrowers let me explain.

If someone can't yet play their instrument properly enough to not require post processing to make them sound like a totally different performer, then there is only one reason they should be stepping in front of a microphone. That reason is if they are recording so they can document themselves so that they can hear what they sound like as part of their ongoing musicianship. Machining their performance will disallow that. I'm not talking about altering the sound of the instrument, I'm talking about altering the quality of the performance.

But somebody who can't play the drums - or didgerieedoo, or guitar, or sing or whatever - and then alters their performance in post is not different than the no-talent group of New Mousketeers who everybody complains about as polluting the tops of the pop music charts whith their pitch-corrected, beat-aligned, over-produced crapola that they couldn't reproduce live if they had guns pointed to their heads.

I am a darn good engineer and a pretty nice guy. But I am a pretty lousy musician who plays some bad blues harp and some even worse guitar. I enjoy playing both of those, and on occasion will even sit in with some of my musician friends when wer're just sitting around the fire and having fun. But I am a realist and have my ego in check to the point where I know that I am in no way ready to stick myself in front of the microphone for anything other than to hear myself so I can learn how to play better.

Could I process and edit my current level harp playing and my guitar playing to make myself sound like a Charlie Musselwhite/Willie Nelsion duet? It would take multiple takes and a night's full of editing, but yeah, I could. But that's not what it's about. I have no desire to be the Ashlee Simpson of acoustic blues. And I HONESTLY and seriously don't think the world needs any more Ashlees (or Madonnas, or Britneys) of any instrument or music genre.

If one can't play an instrument or sing to save their lives, they have no business recording themselves other than as part of their musical apprenticeship. But to computer process their performance to make someone who can't even play a single snare drum properly to make them sound like the next Steve Gadd does absolutely nobody, including themselves, any good whatsoever.

Learn to hit the snare drum before you hit the record button for chrissake.

Let the flames begin.

G.

 

[amethyst_fan]

If someone can't yet play their instrument properly enough to not require post processing to make them sound like a totally different performer, then there is only one reason they should be stepping in front of a microphone. That reason is if they are recording so they can document themselves so that they can hear what they sound like as part of their ongoing musicianship. Machining their performance will disallow that. I'm not talking about altering the sound of the instrument, I'm talking about altering the quality of the performance.

G.

Riiiight, and do you tell all your customers this when a client wants to record a CD and you find out they aren't like Paganini on the violin?

I can just imagine it now..."Uh, I know I said I was going to record this for you, but after all the takes we've taken and money I've charged you, I think you better practice more first, and come back after you've mastered the instrument completely."

 

[VSpaceBoy]

I know you or some troll slammed me in private for my "sarcasm" in my first reply, but you or they didn't seem to notice that I didn't say anything the guy you quoted didn't already say as well.

Learn to hit the snare drum before you hit the record button for chrissake.

Let the flames begin.

G.

LOL!

I respect you, your skillz, and your opinion. I have enjoyed and learned from your many posts on this board. It was YOU however trolling by taking the time to NOT answer my question, but to paraphrase sarcastically.

This is homerecording.com, not a homemusician.com.


thank you..

please drive through

 

[chessrock]

I can just imagine it now..."Uh, I know I said I was going to record this for you, but after all the takes we've taken and money I've charged you, I think you better practice more first, and come back after you've mastered the instrument completely."

I've done that on more than one occasion.

Generally, it's singers who have no business being within 10 feet of a microphone.

And it's always after I am point-blank asked; "How do I get my vocals to sound better?" ... and I'll generally recommend singing lessons.
.

 

[scorpio01169]

Riiiight, and do you tell all your customers this when a client wants to record a CD and you find out they aren't like Paganini on the violin?

I can just imagine it now..."Uh, I know I said I was going to record this for you, but after all the takes we've taken and money I've charged you, I think you better practice more first, and come back after you've mastered the instrument completely."

i dont think he's saying that at all.....what he's saying is that too many young musicians have this "fix it later" mentallity and with practice they can get throught the performence with minimal edits later. basically if you really really had the time you could take a five year old tell him to go into the studio and pound on the drums, then chop up hits, cut and paste out a song....yeah it can be done.....but is it right

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Riiiight, and do you tell all your customers this when a client wants to record a CD and you find out they aren't like Paganini on the violin?

It doesn't happen often because I work with people who know how to play. Yeah, there have been occasions where I have had new clients come in who's skills have been marginal. And I have made the recording sound as good as possible, and they haven't come out badly. But I never have used any processing tricks to change the performances.

...well, let me take that back a bit. I'm not advocating direct-to-disc recording or anything like that. Of course there are post-production techniques like using the vocals fro take 3 for verse one and take 2 for vers two and stuff like that.

What I'm talking about is stuff like pitch correction or the normalization trick brought up here where the purpose is to not pick the best performance, but to alter the performer. That I won't do. If the client listens to my product and asks, "How come the snare sounds so uneven?" I simply tell him, "Because that's how he played it. If you want, we can re-track it, or I can play the drums msyelf with my digital beat matchers, pitch correctors, multiband compressors, and so on, but either way it's going to cost you extra money." It's a simple as that. And you know what? When that has happened, they've basically said, "Oh, OK." and they usually figure it will be a lot cheaper to practice some more before they come back into the studio so they actually sound worth recording.

This is homerecording.com, not a homemusician.com.

Then why are you asking how to make your drummer sound like a pro musician on a pro recording? Why don't you accept that the drummer sounds awful and let it go at that?

You want to sound like a pro recording, there's only three realistic ways to do it:

First, practice your ass off on the instruments being recorded before you hit the record button.

Second, practice your ass off on the instruments doing the recording before you hit the red button for keeps.

Third, if you want to sound like a pro recording, stop using "this is homerecording.com" as an excuse.

G.

 

[VSpaceBoy]

ug.. I wish I could just delete this thread.

But I never have used any processing tricks to change the performances.
G.

You haven't used a compressor? Eq? Reverb? Delay? At what point do you start to consider it "altering"?



What I have suggested/read is not much different than using a compressor and/or changing the dynamics/volume. If thats *way* outside the box then I guess we're all screwed.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You haven't used a compressor? Eq? Reverb? Delay? At what point do you start to consider it "altering"?

Let me answer again by quoting myself with what I have alreay said here...

I'm not talking about altering the sound of the instrument, I'm talking about altering the quality of the performance.

I think scorpio understands what I'm saying

you could take a five year old tell him to go into the studio and pound on the drums, then chop up hits, cut and paste out a song....yeah it can be done.....but is it right

Ok, I'll grant you that the technical difference between the technique you're asking about and simply squashing a snare track witha compressor isn't all that different in abstract. You're right. But there is - or at least should be - a difference in intent. When I put the vise on a snare track, it's with the intent of helping the track sound better in the mix or to shape the character of the sound of the snare, not to try and fix performance problems induced by the performer.

But come on, be honest: when the backbone of the backbeat of a song is the beat of the snare, if the drummer cant hit that snare regularly and evenly, you've got serious problems that go way beyond compression or normalization. Those probelms really need to be addressed in the practice hall, not in the studio.

Is that so radical of a proposition? Is it unreasonable of me to ask why everybody is in such a damn hurry to hit that record button? Am I being elitist or sarcastic to ask those questions? I seriously and honestly don't think so.

And I personally am glad this thread came up, because as unpleasant a subject this may be for some, this is stuff that needs to be talked about here in homerecording.com. By the time one gets to prostudios.com, it's too late to find out that the problem is a lack of practice or fundamental musicianship.

G.

 

[VSpaceBoy]

Ok.. lets forget the fact that you are not answering/addressing my thread-starting question.


You are now challenging the difference between musicianship and song. I'll skip all I *could* say about sub-par musicians writing excellent, timeless songs, or about all the studio musicians who could play circles around the people we actually remember.


I am not that great at singing, guitar, or piano. If I want to record a song that I have written, and I want that song to sound as good as I can make it sound, then that is my plan. My plan is NOT to get "better" at playing or singing. (necessarily) My plan is to communicate with people through song while not distracting them with my faults. If I get bitchslapped by the .5% of ppl that can hear my band-aiding techniques while the rest actually can hear my song, then my work here is done.

 

[Dogman]

 

[Gorty]

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Oh, man, if I really wanted to bitch slap you, you'd feel it so hard it would rattle your ancestors . Why the hell are you taking offense at this thread? I'm not even bitch tapping you.

I did answer your question, as did the guy you quoted. He said "Getting a real drummer is ultimately the way to go". In other words he gave you a technical work around for the performance problem, and then followed that up with the opinion that re-tracking with a better performance is the, in his words, "ultimate answer." I was just agreeing with him. Did you give him the same hard time and anonymous private slap that you gave me?

This ultimately boils down to the "Easy Button" mythology. You say you're not interested in performing the song better, you'd rather get to to disc as quickly as possible and then fix the performance problems with electronic wizardry. The implication there is that you think it's faster, easier, and better to fix in the mix than it is to play it right to begin with. It ain't.

And what happens when you have the second song that you want to share with the rest of us? If you're no better of a performer you'll have the same fix-in-the-mix work to have to do all over again. Same with the third and fourth song. Learn to hit a freakin snare now, and you'll have a whole magnitude less work to do now and later down the road.

We can wait. The world is not going to get hit by an asteroid tomorrow.

G.