Warming Digital Tracks - Most Effective?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajgrossman
  • Start date Start date
A

ajgrossman

New member
I want to find out the methods you are using to warm up your digital tracks. I love digital for the power, flexibility, and ease of use. However, for me, it's not giving me that special warming quality that tape has.

95% of the time, I am recording 80's rock style music (Y&T, Whitesnake, Dokken, MSG, AC/DC, etc.). Electric guitars through Marshalls using SM57s and other condenser room mics.

I am using Cubase SX on a PC. I run my mics through a Mackie mixer and into my PC. Not currently using any high-end preamps or tube based preamps. I had a Millenia HV-3, but could not justify the difference in sound for the $$$. I also have a DBX tube preamp, but I am not happy with it either.

Are you bouncing your digital tracks to tape and then importing back into digital?

Are you recording guitars, drums, etc. onto tape and then importing into digital?

Are you using some type of plug-in?

Are your running your mics through a tube preamp?

Help me understand what is working well for you.

Thanks for your help.

A.J.
 
ajgrossman said:
Are you recording guitars, drums, etc. onto tape and then importing into digital?


Are you using some type of plug-in?


Are your running your mics through a tube preamp?


Help me understand what is working well for you.
Click to expand...

No

No

No

A good instrument, a good room, proper mic placement, a good preamp and great convertors.

Warmth has nothing to do with digital or tubes.
 
Re: Re: Warming Digital Tracks - Most Effective?

TexRoadkill said:
No

No

No

A good instrument, a good room, proper mic placement, a good preamp and great convertors.

Warmth has nothing to do with digital or tubes.
Click to expand...
Damned. You mean I can't buy my way outa here...?
:D
Wayne
 
Re: Re: Re: Warming Digital Tracks - Most Effective?

mixsit said:
Damned. You mean I can't buy my way outa here...?
:D
Wayne
Click to expand...

You most certainly can. Just not for $300. :D
 
Not to belittle or try to oversimplify, it's amazing how effective sometimes as little as -1.5 @ 3k is.
Wayne
 
I have to agree. I try to rely on mic choice for color and when you say warm, I associate that with color. If digital has a fault, it's that it is a mirror and imparts no color of its own like tape tape can but that's no hindrance. If you like what you're hearing in the monitors, that's what's recording. Maybe think about ribbon mics or putting some iron (transformers) in the signal path.
 
Hey AJ,

That dragonfly you sold me a while back (ebay) has been just killer. Been getting a lot of use out of it.

My audio professor back in colledge had a great way of defining warm; put very simply warm means less accurate. Dynamic mics, for example, as well as just about any kind of real tube gear, will tend to respond slower to transients. They'll also just all around have a less accurate quality than most condenser mics and solid state gear.

Digital, as a recording format, gets a bad rap because it is so balls-on accurate. If you're looking for ways to temper this, then you need to look for ways down the chain to introduce some minor distortions, phase anomolies (pleasing ones), and/or innacuracies.

Tube gear isn't a bad idea. Just be mindful of the effect it will have on transients (slower, more sluggish), particularly with drums and the like. And beware of the types of tube gear that's out there and the kinds of distortions and innacuracies it imparts -- there's the good kind (even order) and there's the bad kind (odd order).

For an example of the bad kind, look no further than your DBX 386. :D For the good kind, you should start looking at the Peavey VMP2 as a bare-minimum starting point.

In terms of microphones, dynamics and ribbons will tend to be less accurate, aka "warm," and can also sound more aggressive in the right situation. Gear that utilizes transformers in it's design can also be a good thing. And again, look for gear that is made with good transformers and is designed well.

You also might want to scour the market for some good, used compressors. These you can get fairly cheap. Although something like the RNC will generally be of a much higher caliber, it sounds to me like you might like your compression just a tad dirtier. For that, I would scour ebay for some old Ashly compressors, as well as some of the older symetrix and dbx units.

You can also find some vintage Orban EQs for very cheap. The idea is that I think you might benefit from the use of some older, outboard gear on the way in to your recording medium and try that out as an alternative to using plugins and digital effects and the like.
 
Hey, glad to hear that dragonfly is working out for you and getting good use! I picked up a Shure KSM 44 a while back and it's been killer for me.

Thanks for taking the time to put together some great information.

Yes - the DBX 386 sucks, used it once or twice and put it away.

I do have an RNC already, and I have been using it quite often. It is great for what it does, but I would not say it adds warmth.

I'll have to investigate using a ribbon mic. I have not considered one before. I will also try some subtractive EQ in the "brittle" areas.

I think the 24/96 A/D D/A converters in the Midiman Delta 44 are good enough, so I don't know if $$$ invested in an outboard A/D D/A will be justifiable. I am also not a professional studio, so justification falls short there as well. I have had an Echo Layla as well as an Aardvark Direct Pro in the past, and the Midiman Delta 44 is giving me performance on par with both of those units.

Someone mentioned a good pre. Well, I would say a Millenia HV-3 is up there at the top, and I did not notice enough of a difference from my Mackie 1642 VLZ PRO to justify the $$$.

Most everyone has provided some good advice, and you have given me some things to think about and try.

I would like to hear more, so please keep the info. rolling in!

A.J.
 
I'll add my voice to the "proper mic choice and placement" line of thought. I've found I can get just about any sound I need with enough care and experimentation. To me, that's half the fun of the recording process! It pays off, too, because mixing solutions to "warmth" can sometimes add more problems then they solve.

One thing that "warmed" up a drum machine track recently was running it out of Pro Tools, through an analog mixer (alesis studio 24), and back in to PT. They say you aren't supposed to do that with digital signals (i.e. translate them back to analog and redigitize) but it gave me the sound I wanted.

Also, have you tried using the "True Tape" feature in Cubase SX? IMHO, it rocks. It isn't always appropriate, but it adds its own brand of character and warmth. I'll record some things in Cubase SX just to use that feature then transfer it over to Pro Tools. Given that it isn't really tape and never will be, I think it sounds really good. Since you already have it, I'd highly recommend checking it out.

Another program I've used to add what might be called "warmth" is T-RackS. Its not worth the money just for that, and not that great at the other things that it claims to do, but I enjoy the character its gain stage imparts. I bought it ages ago when I was young and weak... :) But since I have it, I use it.

Take care,
Chris
 
You want warmth I'll give Ya warmth!

You want a little distortion and a few minor inaccuracies to warm up the sound of your recordings just have a behringer compressor sitting on the desk beside you! Thats all it takes. he he he he he... I'm sorry I had to. I personally like the accuracy of digital recordings as long as they don't sound too artificial.

Just another opinion......
 
I find a moderately warm oven - maybe 350 degrees for about 20 minutes - warms up "cold and sterile" digital tracks just nicely.......

If you're in a rush nuke them in the microwave for about 3 minutes......

:p :rolleyes: :eek: :D
 
Digital sound used to be described as "hard" or "cold".
It does not have to be like that any more. However, there are different reasons for describing analogue as "warm" compared to digital.
First, you might be comparing old analogue recordings to your, or new, digital recordings. Guess what, those recordings were made in studios with often a good million plus $$ of gear.
Second, you might describe tape compression, which will always be pleasant to the human ear. (and there are plenty good plug-ins available now which cause the same effect.
Now we are at a point where it IS possible for digital to sound at least as good, if not better, than analogue ever was / can. And guess what? We're back at a point where this is made possible only by investing in extremely expensive equipment.

In general, to make a DAW or other digital system sound "warm", you'd have to look at the following issues, in this order:

1. Accurate external clock
2. Accurate D/A and A/D converters
3. Accurate external sample rate conversion
4. High quality dithering
5. Analogue, or multi card / sark summing
And after all that, high end pre's, compressors, limiters, EQ's, microphones etc., etc.

And then pretty soon you realize that to get the sound you hear in the 70's and 80's, you better get your ass into one of those expensive studios.
But in the meantime, #1 and 2 above are the investments which make a HUGE difference to any digital system, a difference you can hear even when you're half deaf.
 
VERY true on the good clock and converters. My system tightened up when I added the GenX6.
 
Clock and converters make a world

Very true indeed.....
I do believe the polished turd anallogy works well in such cases.
But remember boys, we are talking "home studio" level gear so I think it is safe to say that our friend may be reaching a little. Perhaps a plugin solution like T-racks could give him what he wishes......
 
T-racks is a program and not a plug in. I picked it up a few years ago and don't care for it but that's my opinion.
 
Re: Clock and converters make a world

divo said:
I do believe the polished turd anallogy works well in such cases.
But remember boys, we are talking "home studio" level gear
Click to expand...

True enough, from a certain point of view. In which case I invite you to concider our sister bbs:

www.prorecording.com/bbs

Part of the fun of home recording is trying to figure out how to make what you have sound as good as it can for not a whole lot of cash.

Either that or we could consider changing the name of this bbs to:

www.turdpolishing.com

Chris
 
If that's the case, I won't bother writing about reality anymore :D :D
So here is some "real" advise:
Buy something like T-racks - whatever the hell it is
:rolleyes:

However, if you are really interested in improving your system and bring it to a point where your tracks are of a high quality, the best way to get there is a stepped investment in the right equipment, which does NOT have to cost a fortune, combined with lots of practise and skill improvement.
If that advise creates a bee in the bonnet of some of you, simply ignore it, which would be preferable to making dum statements like "this is homerecording"
 
Last edited:
Some good suggestions, points of view, and some, uh, interesting comments.

For those recommending high-end gear purchases (external A/D D/A converters, word clock, preamps, etc.). I understand where you are coming from, and I appreciate the information. I have been down that road before, purchasing new gear (lots 'o $$$ and some not a lot 'o $$$). In most cases, the gear doesn't give me the bang for the buck I am looking for, and maybe, quite frankly, I am looking for something that doesn't exist without spending lots and lots and lots and lots 'o $$$$$$$$$$$. In that case, forget it, and I will learn to live with what I have and make the most of it.

From a quality point of view, having had the Echo Layla 24, Aardvark Dirct Pro, and now the Midiman Delta 44, all of those A/D D/A converters and word clocks seem to work similar to each other and from a quality stand point, work very well with my setup. I don't run multiple digital devices, so I guess I don't either understand or see my need for external A/D D/A converters. Also, as I stated earlier, when I compared the quality of recordings between the preamps in my Mackie 1642 VLZ PRO and the high-end Millenia HV-3, I didn't hear a big enough difference to justify the $1,500.00 price tag of the "used" Millenia. Now that I think about it, the transparent quality of the Millenia was not going to give me what I was looking for in the first place.

So, when it comes down to it, as I think someone pointed out earlier, I don't think I have a "quality" issue here, I think I have a "coloring" issue. It's the tape coloration that I guess I am missing with digital recordings. In that case, would it make more sense to invest time and $$ into EQ, mics, vintage compressors, and maybe preamps which color the sound (the Millenia is transparent like a Great River).

I don't think I am trying to polish a turd in my quest for warm sounding recordings from my digital equipment. I think what I am getting is very very good quality, but it doesn't have the coloration I am trying to achieve.

If I am off-base here, please let me know. I think all of the information from everyone so far has been great, and I think it is all valuable. However, I have been down the "Gear Acquisition Syndrome" path before, and I need to spend my hard earned $$$ on equipment which will give me the results I am looking for.

Let me know your thoughts.

A.J.
 
There are many good plug-ins you can get for all available DAW formats with analogue tape saturation modelling
 
Since I have Cubase SX, I do use the True Tape utility, and I do get hotter signals with some distortion added. I do think it's cool, and I do use it regularly.

Maybe the difference I am hearing and trying to achieve has to do with frequencies captured and reproduced on tape vs. digital. Is there a frequency above which tape does not reproduce? Maybe the fact that digital is capturing so much upper-end detail is what I am not liking.

Does this make sense??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top