Sonar 4- sounds too bright and thin.

B

bryank

New member
is it just me, or does this software make the recorded audio sound very bright, and alot highs, almost too clear.....makeing it sound thin. I have just made a recording, and mixed and mastered it myself, but it sounds so digital......theres no "fat, warmth, and depth" at all! I start by recording at 24/96k, and dither down to 16/44 at the mastering end, but it still sounds sterile. take a listen.......its called "you light my life". its a guitar/rock instrumental.

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=465137

i use compresion( very lightly), panned all the instruments accordingly, used some EQ (very little, only cut, never boosted) and thought i did a good job overall, but its lacking the warmth/depth/and separation that makes a good track, sound good. what am i missing? or doing wrong?
 
It's not the software. However, there are many people who believe "digitized" music does have a sterile sound.

I would take a look at your upstream equipment first. Maybe try different mics or a different pre-amp. The software is ultimately just storing the digits. It shouldn't really be coloring anything - at least not any more than any other digital form of storage would.
 
i see. im running my mics into a cheap "behringer eurorack" mic mixer, and from there into my "Soundblaster audigy 2" soundcard, which then feeds into Sonar 4. maybe i should use "vintage" compressors or tube compressors to add warmth.

who knows........................ :(
 
There are those that would tell you "poo-poo" on both the Eurodesk AND the SB Audigy. I don't really have any practical experience with either, but I will say that I don't believe your recording sounds "thin" or "shrill" I absolutely love the digital absence of tape bias "hiss", but other than that I haven't ever noticed anything but better clarity from most digital recordings.

I actually messed around with the EQ on the Mackie board that I'm using to monitor the sound coming from my computer via the Echo Gina interface while listening to your song. I actually think it sounds a bit better when some more top end is added. It's all preference I guess.

To answer your question, I don't think your recording sounds bad at all. Your guitar playing isn't bad at all either...
 
try using the tape sim effect

I like medium saturation, 15 or 30 ips, unclick the low boost, and keep the output gain low or you will clip

makes it sound alot fatter - more real


This is essentially a combination of EQ and Comp, but tailored in a nice way
 
bryank said:
i see. im running my mics into a cheap "behringer eurorack" mic mixer, and from there into my "Soundblaster audigy 2" soundcard, which then feeds into Sonar 4. maybe i should use "vintage" compressors or tube compressors to add warmth.

who knows........................ :(
Click to expand...

I bet if you got an 'audio recording' card (like an entry level m-audio) you would notice an immediate difference in the clarity and balance of your recordings. The problem with the audigy cards for recording is in the convertors. They work great and have all kinds of bells and whistles for gamers and pc dvd watchers, but for audio engineering, they just don't cut it. You can pick up an entry level recording card for $100 new, so I would do some research on that side.
 
Hey bryank

Yes your tone is a little thin, I don't think sonar has anything to do with it, it sounds like you are using a modeling amp or processor, the distortion itself sounds "digital". I used to get a fat guitar tone using just a sound blaster live card @ 16/48. direct lined through a digitech 21 processor.

Try different distortion settings, record something, then...

Try setting up an EQ preset (plug-in in sonar) to match the EQ settings (frequency, q) on your Amp/pedal/processor...etc. as close as possible, work with the recorded file to get the desired setting, then adjust your Amp/pedal/processor...etc. in the areas you need on the recorded file.

the sound going in should be closer to the mixed sound you want.

Hope this helps!
 
I have been very satisfied with the results I've gotten out of this program. I upgraded from Sonar 1.0 to Sonar 4.0 PE. Believe me, I have sh!t for equipment. www.myspace.com/TroyHutson Listen to wayfaring stranger. I got *almost* the tone I wanted from the software. Could've used a little clarity (condensers and pre amp should fix that) but other than that, the software is about 10x anything that I've used in the past.
 
It's ironic this was mentioned. I recently upgraded from Sonar 1 to Sonar 4 and also think that the tones I'm getting are noticably thinner. I have a pro-quality card (WaMi Rack 24), so that's not an issue on my end. Is it possible there's something with the software?

J
 
The majority of your problem is your soundcard. Those type of things may be great for putting out sound for regular PC tasks, but they bite the big one when it comes to recording sound. The converters are not up to the task. Do yourself a favor and pick up a decent soundcard. That will improve your recordings very noticably. Just because the sample rate is 96k does not mean it is as good as a better card that does 96k. In fact a better card at 44.1k would probably sound worlds better than a Soundblaster card at 96k.

The mic pre's in a Behringer mixer aren't helping anything either, but a cheapie soundcard will be alot worse.
 
what sound card should i get? looking around the $100 range..........

plus, should i keep the soundblaster in there, and just get an external soundcard? or replace the soundbalster with ANOTHER internal soundcard?
 
The m-audio audiophile 2496 is a great card for the cost, 99 on musicians friends, 69 if you buy it refurbed.I tried to use some of the more expensive soundblasters to record with....lots of bad results, they make good playback cards but bad.Also I have used berhinger boards on occasion and everytime I noticed the preamps they use are thin and tinny, that could verly likely be the problem but i dont think the sound card is helping, you could try to get a nicer preamp if you dont need a board, or if you need a board maybe try looking into makie, i havent used any of their smaller boards but they dont appear to differnt from there others and they have very nice preamps. or maybe kill two birds with one stone and get something like a usb or firewire interface that will have preamps already in it, and for around 400 you could probably find a good interface with nice preamps, then again you may be able to find something that will work for cheaper... it might seem excessive to bring a guitar and amp into a music store and have the salesmen help you try some out with your guitar but I would be lieing if i said i have done worse
 
you could keep the soundblaster, it might have some issues with certain cards that you put in, but if it doesnt and you use the computer for things like gaming i would keep the card in cause its good for things like movies and games
 
what im going to do is.....

replace the SB Audigy 2 soundcard with a M-audio 2496 card.

replace Behringer eurorack mic mixer with Mackie 1202-VLZ mic mixer

then i should be alright!
 
sounds like a great start, im not sure if those are the same preamps on that mackie board as the higher end ones, if they are they will help alot. But also anothing thing is is that how the guitar sounds to your ears in your room then you need to fix the sound at the source, but considering that its probably alot warmer to your ears before recording what mic are you using to record it or are you going recording out on the amp and also how do you mic it and what is the room like (i put the mic right at the pointed at the middle of the cone at about 4 feet in a small bedroom, and so on you get the idea) there are alot of different things to take into account. but i can definately say the soundcard will help and i have the feeling the board will too but i would go to a music store and a/b it with the berhinger to be sure.
 
well, i upgraded to a m-audio delta 66 soundcard. I have not recorded with it yet, so im not sure how this is going to be. but i noticed my latency went from 1.5 ms(SB audigy 2) to 2.7 ms ( delta 66). i actually was running the SB card at a 1.5 ms latency with no problems. but on playbacks on this new sound card even with a latency of 1.5ms, i was gettnig pops and clicks all over the place.

i think my old soundblaster card handled better lower latencys. but ill test this new card out by recording to see if any actuall "sound quality" improves.

so far, i have mixed feelings about this delta 66 card.
 
Ultimately, what is more important -- sound quality or latency?

If you accept the general premise that 1msec = 1ft distance, it's like instead of standing about 1.5 foot from the amp, you are 3 feet away. Most folks don't start hearing echo until after the 10msec mark.

Have you updated to the latest WDM drivers? If so and you still get clicks and pops then try ASIO drivers.

Ciao,

Q.
 
yeah im useing ASIO, and the lowest latency i can get with no pops or clicks is about 2.7 ms.

which to some people is fine, i was hoping for a lower latency, but hey......who gives a rats ass!!

will the sound quality of the recordings really improve that much though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top