Old 01-22-2009, 02:02 PM   #201
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
Given my "real world poor man's studio"...Shall I print in 24 bit or is 16 bit enough and I will have no lose what so ever, but better performance of my DAW?

Cheers
stupeT
I think it is unlikely that an otherwise reasonably capable DAW computer would bottleneck due to recording at 24-bit instead of 16-bit. Reaper and all modern DAWs use high-precision audio engines over 24-bit, so your samples are being processed at high bit depths even if they are low-resolution samples. A second fast hard drive is pretty cheap in the scheme of things and almost a requirement for high-track-count audio, it seems to me.

Moreover, 24-bit is stupidly cheap and easy insurance against the single biggest headache of digital recording, namely trying to set the record levels high enough without clipping. With 16 bit, if you need to leave 24dB headroom above the average level for a singer with no mic technique, then you're really only recording at about 12 bits resolution on average. The whole point of 24 bit is that you no longer have to record close to zero, you could record with peak levels of like -50 and still have CD-quality resolution. So you can leave plenty of headroom and just turn down the input gain as low as you want-- no fear of clipping, and no worries of lost resolution, no matter how "wild" the singer.

Sample rate is a whole different thing, OTOH. Working at higher sample rates definitely affects performance.

Last edited by yep; 01-22-2009 at 02:41 PM. Reason: thanks to stupeT for pointing out errors.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 02:17 PM   #202
BoxOfSnoo
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
Given my "real world poor man's studio"...
First of all, I love this thread... but a reminder to please keep this phrase in mind, or elevate it (in this context) to supreme importance! We want to know if it's possible to get fabulous results from our "real world poor man's studio"!

Some of the tips at the beginning (uh, furniture?) are a bit "blue sky" for most home recordists...
__________________
Get Dropbox! (Bonus space for both of us with that link)
BoxOfSnoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 02:32 PM   #203
stupeT
Human being with feelings
 
stupeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: frankonia
Posts: 1,996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
There is no performance advantage to recording at 16 bit. Reaper and all modern DAWs use high-precision audio engines over 24-bit, so your samples are being processed at high bit depths even if they are low-resolution samples. All it costs is hard disk space, which is an awfully cheap thing to worry about, it seems to me.
Yep,

not to be missunderstood: I benefitted SO MUCH from the way you explained things and gave tips so far. So its unfortunate for me to step in and slightly have to disagree in just that minor point:

Loading 24 bit per sample instead of 16 bit does give just 50% more load to the part of the operating subsystem which is loading takes from hard drive. Either USB driver or PCI or whatever.

(Yes, you might guess it, I am a poor producer still, but making my money as a freelance software guy for more than 20 years )

And still I will switch to 24 bit now, benefitting from your advice about relaxing about a "hot" singer and never fear overload while printing. My singer is a female truck driver, the big ones, you know... and she can be really loud

Cheers
stupeT
stupeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 02:33 PM   #204
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxOfSnoo View Post
First of all, I love this thread... but a reminder to please keep this phrase in mind, or elevate it (in this context) to supreme importance! We want to know if it's possible to get fabulous results from our "real world poor man's studio"!

Some of the tips at the beginning (uh, furniture?) are a bit "blue sky" for most home recordists...
If you can be more specific, I'll try and revise/advise.

Even if you have to shop at junk shops or thrift stores I imagine you must put your computer on something?

(Now that i think about it I once had a four-track, a reverb box, and a little 8-channel mixer sitting on top of an old door suspended between two folding chairs in the basement of a house I rented with like 9 other people. That was a long time ago. The arrangement was suboptimal.)
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 02:37 PM   #205
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
Yep,

not to be missunderstood: I benefitted SO MUCH from the way you explained things and gave tips so far. So its unfortunate for me to step in and slightly have to disagree in just that minor point:

Loading 24 bit per sample instead of 16 bit does give just 50% more load to the part of the operating subsystem which is loading takes from hard drive. Either USB driver or PCI or whatever. ...
stupeT
I stand corrected.

I should say obviously it does affect hard disk performance, assuming that is even a meaningful issue (and I suppose it might well be for people who use a laptop with only a single 5400rpm or slower drive).

I'll amend the error, thanks for pointing out.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 02:55 PM   #206
stupeT
Human being with feelings
 
stupeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: frankonia
Posts: 1,996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxOfSnoo View Post
First of all, I love this thread... but a reminder to please keep this phrase in mind, or elevate it (in this context) to supreme importance! We want to know if it's possible to get fabulous results from our "real world poor man's studio"!
For me that one is answered by yep's explanations already with a plain: YES. The question is more: how? *ggg*

I state: a today's poor man DAW studio with some OK but not great mics and converters is way superior in everything - but studio acoustics - to what the top producers had in the 60s. And still they made great recordings the old days and most of us do not. So it must be us. Our skills, our experience, the way we do it.

That's why I am keenly waiting for more input, pleeeeez...
stupeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:42 PM   #207
Marah Mag
Human being with feelings
 
Marah Mag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 3,000
Default

Re: recording to analog

Seems to me that tape compression and harmonic distortion were initially technical artifacts, that came to be appreciated as intentional effects, which eventually became part of an aesthetic.

But that's true of so much of modern recording. Engineering errors become production aesthetics.

Parallel compression was probably "invented" by accident when a signal was routed incorrectly and someone said wait! leave that alone! it sounds great!

It's like how they must've discovered popcorn. A corn warehouse burned down, and when going through the rubble they found this light fluffy stuff that tasted good, and tasted even better with salt and melted butter.
Marah Mag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:53 PM   #208
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
For me that one is answered by yep's explanations already with a plain: YES. The question is more: how? *ggg*

I state: a today's poor man DAW studio with some OK but not great mics and converters is way superior in everything - but studio acoustics - to what the top producers had in the 60s. And still they made great recordings the old days and most of us do not. So it must be us. Our skills, our experience, the way we do it.

That's why I am keenly waiting for more input, pleeeeez...
Before this gets too far out of hand...

This is not and never was intended to be a "how to sound like a million-dollar studio for $100 and a computer" thread. I do not personally subscribe to the theory that an inexpensive computer-based studio is equal to an expensive analog studio.

But my intent IS to describe some of the experience and knowledge that slips "between the cracks" of a lot of how-to guides, and to focus on basic techniques and approaches that work on ANY budget. And in keeping with that, a little PS to BoxOfSnoo's comment above about some of this being a little "blue sky"...

the reason I started with a lot of boring stuff about organization is because it is really important, and it is exactly the kind of stuff that many musos ignore for years and years. When I said that organization is more important than preamps I wasn't kidding.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been to some home studio or another where nothing is ready to record, nothing can be found, there are four name-brand guitars and not one of them has fresh strings or a good setup (and there are no complete sets of strings, just random-gauge loose ones), the only mic cable the guy can find crackles and hums when touched, the desk rattles and buzzes whenever anyone makes a sound, and one of the guitar amp tubes is blown. It takes the guy 45 minutes to turn on the computer, find "his pick" ("I think I left it in the kitchen..."), shut down all the junkware, stick a mic randomly in front of the amp with the blown speaker that sits under the buzzing desk next to the wheezing computer because that was an easy place to put it, and start playing some chords on a guitar with bad intonation, fret buzz and completely inappropriate gain settings. Then he realizes it's not tuned to standard pitch.

While he's tuning, he turns to me and says, "I've been thinking I should really just bite the bullet and get one of those Avalon preamps, because yours sounds really good and it seems like you can just set up and record with it." Or he asks if I can email him the settings I used to mix his songs when he recorded at my studio because they sounded "really professional."

And you know what? My Avalon DID sound better than his preamps. You know what else? A properly set-up el cheapo guitar with fresh strings in a quiet room with a well-placed amp and mic that were set up and ready to go would make a vastly bigger difference than a $2,500 class-A tube preamp. In fact, at his gain settings, you might not even be able to tell much difference at all between a $3,000 preamp and a $30 ART Tube MP.

What he is attributing to the preamp or to the effects settings was actually just basic good practice and an organized, sane approach to recording that was based on the SOUND instead of based on BRAND NAMES and "HOT TIPS."

If you are that guy, then you need to sell one of the guitars and use the proceeds to buy a dozen sets of strings, some good-quality cables, a huge fistful of picks, new tubes for the amp, a thrift-store desk to replace the buzz machine, and a setup and re-fret on the other three guitars. If one guitar won't cover it, then sell two.

even if your desk is a door on top of two folding chairs, put some cushions on the chairs if the door is rattling (I've been there). If you can't afford drawers and shelves, then save up coffee cans and shoeboxes to put stuff in. If you have an office chair that squeaks and rattles, then replace it with a $5 plastic lawn chair.

Instead of spending time on the internet reading gear reviews and plugins and hot tips, learn how to properly set up a guitar. Make test recordings in different parts of your house to figure out which rooms and corners sound better than others (this is probably the single best investment of time you can make). Keep your instruments set up and ready to record at all times. Pick up your cables and hang them on hooks so that they don't develop crackly humming partial shorts from stepping on them. And for the love of all that is holy, put some bass traps in your monitoring room. It's easy.

Apologies to BoxOfSnoo, it just occurred to me that there might be people out there who were thinking I wasn't serious with all that organizational stuff, or that it was for rich people or some kind of perihperal thing before we got into rolling off the lows.

edit
In any case, if I have said anything in this thread that seems out of anyone's league expense-wise or skill-wise or anything else, please do raise your hand. Obviously some of the stuff on gain-staging or whatever will have less immediate applicability to someone recording straight into an onboard soundcard, but I'm trying to stick to principles that are relevant at any (and I mean ANY) budget and skill level.

Last edited by yep; 01-22-2009 at 05:10 PM.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 04:18 PM   #209
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marah Mag View Post
Re: recording to analog

Seems to me that tape compression and harmonic distortion were initially technical artifacts, that came to be appreciated as intentional effects, which eventually became part of an aesthetic...
Partly, and partly also that dedicated "boutique" analog designers have long since given up the idea of trying to design perfect equipment "on paper," and have tended to focus on real-world trial-and-error tests of various components and designs to create circuits that are forgiving, intuitive, and "just so" in terms of response curves and slew rates and frequency-dependent variations in dynamics and so on.

The controls on something like a Fairchild or LA-2A are not what we would design a technically ideal compressor around. They are very specifically designed to "sound good," much like a typical guitar amplifier is not made for fidelity but for tone.

A perfectly accurate recording of an electric guitar would be a reference mic in front of the strings, and it would not be a very satisfying sound for most guitar players. The shortcomings of the magnetic pickup system and primitive amplification technology of the early days of guitar have been harnessed, exploited, and carefully refined by obsessive tone addicts over the decades to produce an offshoot of audio that cannot be judged on normal scales of "quality."

The best and most "analog" of analog gear has a similar quality, maybe like impressionist painting, if you'll forgive a crude analogy. It exploits and exaggerates the inadequacies and idiosyncrasies of the medium for deliberate effect, and at its best produces results that sound realer than real, and better than perfect.

The current analog fetish is almost certainly overblown and over-romanticized in many respects, but that doesn't mean that there is not a kernel of truth in it.

that said, a lot of plugin makers have been creating digital processors that do a very good job of either trying to emulate the salient characteristics of the best analog gear, or of coming up with entirely new ways to create processors that are "musical" and creative in their approach to sound-sculpting, and that aim for something different from the rigid technical goals that gave early digital effects a reputation for being sterile, cold, and "too perfect."

Good and bad are subjective judgments, and ears can be easy things to fool in strange ways. We can measure accuracy pretty well, but measuring "good" can be a bit trickier.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 04:48 PM   #210
stupeT
Human being with feelings
 
stupeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: frankonia
Posts: 1,996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marah Mag View Post
But that's true of so much of modern recording. Engineering errors become production aesthetics.
Yes! And its still going on, but now evolving in the digital domain...

I can well imagine this producers face, that day when Cher sang "sub optimal" again and he tried to get the settings for autotune "just seemlessly" right but couldn't. And angryly turned all the knobs to extreme and "invented" a fantastic new effect for vocals...

Older styles of music "benefitted" from analog error-born or inaccuracy "tricks". Newer styles start to do that with digital stuff.

One analog-digital "problem" could be:

Some of us try to sound like in the 70s or 80s (analog) so we have to simulate or emulate some of the old inaccuracies (tape compression a.s.o.) with computers which is NOT real but could be close - but obviousley never close enough for many...

Remember: from one analog multi track to the next generation multi-track the manufactureres tried to increase SNR or usable dynamic range (less tape compression necessary for the same low amount of hiss), more linear freuency response (less warmth?)... more tracks in parralel. And what for?

They tried to make the recording gear sound neutral! Actually they wanted to sound as neutral as great converters and hard drives do. And they wanted to have "infinite" number of tracks. And now, that we DO HAVE it we want to have the old days back. (I am not talking about the intended character sound of compressors or mics or guitar amps here, of course).

This is NOT my game. I am happy with my digital stuff Not a single "real" tube anymore in my studio... I do not miss my Hiwatt nor the Marshall. I call this my 21st century guitar sound

My problems in my mixes are way more what I made wrong about using EQs (and hopefully now will make better...) and the other stuff mentioned above by Yep.

Last edited by stupeT; 01-22-2009 at 04:52 PM.
stupeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 12:51 AM   #211
Colin_D
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 49
Default Back to the EQ "breakthrough"

Now I have a question. And if starting a new thread would be more appropriate please let me know, but I'll post it here for now since this thread has played a major role in my recent awakening... or whatever you wanna call it.
I just started the practice of using a parametric EQ to sweep a bandpass around on all of my tracks to help identify the frequencies that I want to bring attention to, or cut as the case usually turns out to be. I'm doing it all by ear as I have no idea what the pleasing frequency ranges are for different instruments are. Anyway this has GREATLY improved the overall sound of my mixes, but now I'm noticing something that sounds like a flanger from time to time. There's nothing but EQ on any given track and I can't ever hear it on any solo'd track so I think it's several tracks interacting in a goofy way. Is this an indication that everything's still fighting for the same space? How do I go about discovering which tracks are causing the problem?

Colin
Colin_D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 01:45 AM   #212
stupeT
Human being with feelings
 
stupeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: frankonia
Posts: 1,996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
Before this gets too far out of hand...

This is not and never was intended to be a "how to sound like a million-dollar studio for $100 and a computer" thread. I do not personally subscribe to the theory that an inexpensive computer-based studio is equal to an expensive analog studio.
So do I. Didnt intend that.

I talked about the stuff they had in the 60s and before. I mean, the on-board soundchip of an average laptop is sounding slightly more accurate than a wax-roll but it might not beat the shellac disk with a gramophone and iron needle.

My statement in a more precise way:

Spend $ 2000 in the mid 60s for a second hand gear: mixing desk, an analog multitrack and a mic. Use your bathroom + mic as a reverb and delay. Slow down the tape reel to create flanging/chorus like FX (And they DID!)

And now compare this to $ 2000 for PC + good converters + decent mic + Reaper (all brand new!).
stupeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 02:25 AM   #213
stupeT
Human being with feelings
 
stupeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: frankonia
Posts: 1,996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin_D View Post
Anyway this has GREATLY improved the overall sound of my mixes, but now I'm noticing something that sounds like a flanger from time to time. There's nothing but EQ on any given track and I can't ever hear it on any solo'd track so I think it's several tracks interacting in a goofy way. Is this an indication that everything's still fighting for the same space? How do I go about discovering which tracks are causing the problem?

Colin
Hi Colin,

any unintended EQ sweeps by automation?

Cheers
stupeT
stupeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 09:16 AM   #214
mamm7215
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
For me that one is answered by yep's explanations already with a plain: YES. The question is more: how? *ggg*

I state: a today's poor man DAW studio with some OK but not great mics and converters is way superior in everything - but studio acoustics - to what the top producers had in the 60s. And still they made great recordings the old days and most of us do not. So it must be us. Our skills, our experience, the way we do it.

That's why I am keenly waiting for more input, pleeeeez...
Just a quick comment here, I really don't want to digress into another "Gear" thread but big 60's studios (think EMI) actually had EXCELLENT gear. It was all proper tube (pentode type) not the 12ax7 type you see even in high-end gear nowadays. Feel free to delete this post if it's too off topic. No more gear talk unless relevent to technique!
mamm7215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 09:20 AM   #215
mamm7215
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin_D View Post
Now I have a question. And if starting a new thread would be more appropriate please let me know, but I'll post it here for now since this thread has played a major role in my recent awakening... or whatever you wanna call it.
I just started the practice of using a parametric EQ to sweep a bandpass around on all of my tracks to help identify the frequencies that I want to bring attention to, or cut as the case usually turns out to be. I'm doing it all by ear as I have no idea what the pleasing frequency ranges are for different instruments are. Anyway this has GREATLY improved the overall sound of my mixes, but now I'm noticing something that sounds like a flanger from time to time. There's nothing but EQ on any given track and I can't ever hear it on any solo'd track so I think it's several tracks interacting in a goofy way. Is this an indication that everything's still fighting for the same space? How do I go about discovering which tracks are causing the problem?

Colin
Using EQ causes phase shifts in the waveforms, it's likely that's what you're hearing. Literally giving you a phazer/flanger type effect. You need to try to use linear phase EQ plugins if you can. Almost all hardware EQ's generate "some" phase shift I think...
mamm7215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 09:54 AM   #216
BoxOfSnoo
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
Apologies to BoxOfSnoo, it just occurred to me that there might be people out there who were thinking I wasn't serious with all that organizational stuff, or that it was for rich people or some kind of perihperal thing before we got into rolling off the lows.
No apologies necessary! The other stuff was great, but including this stuff is even better! You can talk about special chairs as long as you also include lawn chairs with cushions

A quiet room may also be a luxury; so guys like me need to consider sampled instruments or really good shielding on electric guitars & basses, balanced cables etc... and amp sims may be the only feasible choice.

Anyway, as long as the "ghetto" studio is included all's well. Carry on!
__________________
Get Dropbox! (Bonus space for both of us with that link)
BoxOfSnoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 12:00 PM   #217
routine
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post

So without over-stating the case, it's generally desirable to keep the input levels to the AD converters reasonably close to 0dB on the digital peak meter, within the parameters of careful gain-staging above. and generally speaking, that's about all there is to it as far as the modern recordist is concerned. Easy as cake.
I didn't really get that. i've read here and elsewhere that "hot" is not the best way to track and that we should check the meters to peak around -12.
So i sillyly check the meters in my DAW assuming they are my converters meter but i'm beggining to think i was assuming wrong. So my question is how do you keep the input close to 0???
routine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 02:36 PM   #218
Black Shadow
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9
Default

Based on what comes before, I'm guessing this is a relative statement, meaning you're better off recording closer to 0 dB than to -50 dB (let alone -100 dB). As you probably know though, to leave yourself enough headroom it's common practice to let your input signal peak at about -6 dB.

I just registered to thank yep for his efforts and to say that I've been immensely enjoying this read. If you should ever decide to publish this in extended form, you've already sold at least one copy.
Black Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 02:45 PM   #219
mamm7215
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
Default

If you record several tracks at 0dbfs (or close) your master mix buss will have clipping and no headroom to mix in. That's why you track with peaks at -12 to -10 (meaning your average level is about -18) in 24 bit. You need to give yourself room to mix and dynamics.
mamm7215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 03:53 PM   #220
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin_D View Post
....I'm noticing something that sounds like a flanger from time to time. There's nothing but EQ on any given track and I can't ever hear it on any solo'd track so I think it's several tracks interacting in a goofy way. Is this an indication that everything's still fighting for the same space? How do I go about discovering which tracks are causing the problem?

Colin
The cause is almost certainly nothing other than the most common. "phaser" and "flanger" effects are created by having two identical (or almost identical) signals playing simultaneously, where one of them is delayed ever so slightly. This creates the "whooshing" or phasey sound.

So... it is extremely likely that you have the same sound being slightly delayed somewhere. This could be from a routing issue, or from a duplicated track, or from some kind of signal that is somehow being re-routed back into the project, or it could very easily be from some situation where you have two mics picking up the same source, or from two midi tracks or duplicated midi notes feeding the same plugin instrument, or from a bounced version of the whole mix playing along with the individual tracks.

It almost certainly has nothing to do with eq. When you happened to first notice it might have nothing to do with the cause.

I would encourage you to break off a new thread and post a copy of the project on stashbox or some such if you need more info.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 04:13 PM   #221
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by routine View Post
I didn't really get that. i've read here and elsewhere that "hot" is not the best way to track and that we should check the meters to peak around -12.
So i sillyly check the meters in my DAW assuming they are my converters meter but i'm beggining to think i was assuming wrong. So my question is how do you keep the input close to 0???
First of all, during tracking (and pretty much all the time, for that matter), the only purpose of digital meters is to tell you when you're clipping the signal.

So the first rule is don't clip. Which is very easy to do, just turn the input gain down so that the signal is not clipping, then turn it down some more in case you hit a loud note or some such. 10-12dB below full-scale is a pretty safe target for most kinds of material. Lower if your source is prone to big spikes.

The second rule has nothing to do with the meters. It is to figure out where your signal sounds best (using level-matched listening). All the gain-staging stuff above. Sometimes, with a very linear and quiet preamp, it doesn't make any difference. Sometimes it makes a big difference. If you have a crappy preamp or even some very good preamps, it is possible that the best-sounding gain setting might be well below or above the ideal "no clipping" target. Your meters cannot tell you what sounds good, they only tell you what is clipping. So stop trying to use them to decide what sounds good, and start using your ears. Make sense?

AFAIK, Asio sound cards should report accurate input level at the converters to your recording software, i.e. REAPER. So Reaper's meters should tell you accurately whether the signal is clipping. If you are using non-asio sound or an onboard soundcard, it might be possible that the soundcard itself has some sort of gain or volume control that happens in between the converters and the software. I'm not really sure about that-- maybe someone smart can jump in?

But in any case it IS really important to make sure that you have a reliable clip indicator of some sort, since it is sometimes easy to miss clipping in the heat of battle and then discover a bunch of ruined tracks the next day.

Hope that helps.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 04:24 PM   #222
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

PS-- I am trying to cover this stuff in more less sequential order of most basic to most complex. So if something from an early post doesn't compute, please don't just skip over it. Ask questions. This stuff is going to get more complicated and will involve more synthesis of the early concepts as we progress, and runs the risk of turning into just another thread of meaningless, de-contextualized "tips n' tricks" if we are skipping over the basics.

So please, please ask questions if something doesn't add up or make sense. And feel free to criticize or disagree, too. I'm amazed that I've been able to rant this long without much real disagreement, but I am sure that will change once we get into signal processing and mixing and treatment of particular instruments.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 04:45 PM   #223
LCipher
Human being with feelings
 
LCipher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,036
Default busted

Quote:
makeprofessionalrecordingsonyourcomputer.com

-Mbox sucks and you can't make good recordings on an Mbox
-I make recordings on Mbox and they sound pretty good
-You need a tube amp to record guitar
-You need a POD to record guitar
-You need an API preamp to record guitar
-You need two mikes to record guitar
-You need to get waves plugins to make good recordings
-Waves suck, you need UAD plugins to make good recordings
-I like Peavy amps
-I used a firepod and it sounds good
-What kind of speaker cables are you using?
-I use an all-analog boutique amp emulator pedal and it sounds just like Slash
-Strats suck, you need a vintage Gretsch guitar
-Pros use mastering to get good sound
-I also have an MBox but it doesn't play MIDI, please help
-Copy protection is evil.
Otherwise known as www.cakewalk.com

(sorry couldnt resist )
LCipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 04:52 PM   #224
mamm7215
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
Default

I'm eagerly awaiting the posts on how to get a decent guitar sound to disk. I've got a Blues Jr. and can make is sound great while playing but it's lacking once recorded. I've got 57's, ribbons, LDC's etc. Is it just that it sounds better while I'm playing because it's LOUDER? No need to jump to it right now but it's a question I've got...
mamm7215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 05:33 PM   #225
FarBeyondMetal
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 390
Default

Mamm: I don't know if you are trying to record a distorted guitar or not, but reguardless i think you should check out this thread. http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/p...man-sound.html
FarBeyondMetal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 06:42 PM   #226
mamm7215
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
Default

Sweet, great thread, I'm reading it now...
mamm7215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 08:31 PM   #227
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Okay, just ditched my dinner companions in a fit of inspiration (God, this thread is consuming more of my psyche than I ever meant...). Let's see if I can get this done in enough time to get back out tonight!

Compression part 1 (starting to get to juicy parts...)

Okay, so I am going to do this completely backwards from how most guides would do it. I'm going to explain how compression works later. The first thing I want to do is to demonstrate what compression SOUNDS LIKE, because this is very often difficult for beginners to hear.

In practice, with strictly technical compression, the whole idea is that it's not SUPPOSED to sound like anything. Theoretically "perfect" mastering compression simply reduces the dynamic range in imperceptible ways. In other words, if you can HEAR it, then you're doing it wrong.

This is very different from effects like reverb or eq, which may be subtle, but which are still audible as changes in the sound.

However, theoretically perfect mastering compression (aka "technical compression") is often a vastly different thing from the kind of compression that recording engineers get all wet in the pants about. Where compression really makes recordings come alive is in its ability to create a sense of power, fatness, size, and dynamic impact. Compression can change the whole vibe of a recording and make the performance dynamics come alive.

Attached to this post is a zip file of a reaper project consisting of two measures of a generic bassline. The exact same bass line is duplicated across two tracks, each with very different compressor settings and nothing else. Go ahead and download and open it. (pay no mind to the recording quality-- this is just a bass plugged right into my internet laptop).

Now, forget about the compressor settings, and just alternate between the two tracks, toggling the FX button on and off (everything should be approximately the same output level, volume-wise).

Both of these tracks are set with fairly extreme but not completely improbable compression settings, and no other processing. Either, with some eq and gating could conceivably be close to a real-world application. My point with the examples is not offer "recipes" but to illustrate the ways in which compression alone can vastly alter the way a track "feels."

As you listen to the different tracks, pay attention to the following:

-Changes in the way the track breathes and pulses-- not how it sounds, but how it "feels"

-Differences in how one version or another might fit in with either a very tight, snappy drum sound, or with a more "vintage" boomy, rickety, drum sound

-The fact that the post-compression versions are not less dynamic than the pre-compression version, they're just dynamic in different ways

-How the different compression settings alter the sense of timing in the track-- how the bass pushes and pulls the beat differently

-How the frequency profile changes quite a bit, even without eq

-How inconsistencies evolve and change organically, and musically, and affect the performance dynamics

-Each measure of the bass line is played slightly differently. On one, there is a slight "flam" as my fingernail hits the string right after the pad of my finger, and on the other, my fingernails don't touch the string. There are also differences in the way grace notes are voiced. The difference between the performance dynamic of the first measure and the second measure is pretty pronounced on the unprocessed track and could make for a track that would be hard to "seat" in a mix, because of the difference in attack from the fingernail vs non-fingernail versions. But BOTH flavors of compression even out the sound and lend a greater consistency.

Don't mess with or even think about the settings yet, just AB the tracks against each other and with the compressor bypassed, and try and vibe on how the compression affects the whole feel and visceral impact of the track.

(apologies if the material is sub-par)
Attached Files
File Type: zip bass compression.zip (109.4 KB, 2747 views)

Last edited by yep; 01-24-2009 at 12:49 AM.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2009, 08:46 PM   #228
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

In the above example I used ReaComp, partly because it's included in reaper, and partly because it is probably the most versatile compressor ever made.

But it also a very difficult one to start out with.

One of the tricky things about compression is that every single setting affects every other setting, and subtle adjustments to any setting can have completely different, even opposite effects depending on how the other settings are adjusted. You can see why this is harder than reverb or distortion, and why two-knob compressors like blockfish or the LA-2A are popular.

I will get in to the settings later and in more detail, but if you want to play around, start by really getting in tune with the vibe and the pulse of the music, and see how compression subtly but significantly affects it.

My example above is not meant to be anything like "ideal" compressor settings, it's just meant to illustrate how compression can almost make it sound like there's a completely different player on bass or whatever. It actually interacts with the music and can actually make the sound MORE dynamic.

More later.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 12:23 AM   #229
benpnixon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Shadow View Post

I just registered to thank yep for his efforts and to say that I've been immensely enjoying this read. If you should ever decide to publish this in extended form, you've already sold at least one copy.

Make that two.
benpnixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 08:14 AM   #230
rodabt
Human being with feelings
 
rodabt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 26
Default

make it three
rodabt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 12:20 PM   #231
shemp
Human being with feelings
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,157
Default

Interesting. Thanks yep. BTW, I love the disclaimers in the Project settings
shemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 05:54 PM   #232
DerMetzgermeister
Human being with feelings
 
DerMetzgermeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,467
Default

Great, great thread.
I have one question, please. No need to answer it now, I don't want to derail anything.

How can you get that palm-muted heavy distorted guitar right?
I mean that sound that seems like the cabinet is about to explode and you almost feel the air shaking your unmentionables.
Examples: The first chords of Meshuggah's "Soul Burn", the first chords of Prong's "Snap your fingers", the final palm-muted riffs of Metallica's "One".

What are the elements of that sound and how the engineers manage to register them in a recording? It is possible to achieve that with amp sims?

I'm ready to be surprised with something totally counter-intuitive
DerMetzgermeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 08:55 PM   #233
psyleid
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodabt View Post
make it three
Four, this guy is great.
psyleid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 12:16 AM   #234
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

New Yep PDF is up! This one also includes the Bass example file.

http://www.filesavr.com/whydoyourrec...thread2281file

Enjoy!
__________________
Yep's First 3 Years in PDF's
HP Z600 w/3GHz 12 Core, 48GB Memory, nVidia Quadro 5800, 240GB SSD OS drive, 3 480GB SSD Sample/Storage drives, 18TB External Storage, Dual 27" Monitors
Smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 02:04 AM   #235
ringing phone
Human being with feelings
 
ringing phone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 169
Default

The thread is pretty good. But if it doesn't have a happy ending I'll be peeved
__________________
nothing to see here
ringing phone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 02:05 AM   #236
pixeltarian
Human being with feelings
 
pixeltarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Minneaplis
Posts: 3,317
Default Time.

I think the answer is time. if you never give up on your song and keep adjusting and listening to the mix on all different speakers you're eventually going to end up with a mix you love. Guitar sounds are always going to be one of the hardest things to get, but If you just keep trying until you start to find what works well.. it will work. Other things matter too, but the amount of time you put into learning technique is waaaay out in front of gear.

Gear wise I think good monitors make the most sense. Also, I think having one good mic, preamp and A/D converter is a great start. If you can afford one nice channel you can use is as a reference for your other channels. you can even figure out what other channels lack and compensate for them really quickly.

if I ever have a decent cash flow again I'm going to look into checking out mics so I can sample a bunch of them and see what I like the best. selecting the right mics to own seems like a pretty tough job...
pixeltarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 02:07 AM   #237
pixeltarian
Human being with feelings
 
pixeltarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Minneaplis
Posts: 3,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
In the above example I used ReaComp, partly because it's included in reaper, and partly because it is probably the most versatile compressor ever made.

But it also a very difficult one to start out with.

One of the tricky things about compression is that every single setting affects every other setting, and subtle adjustments to any setting can have completely different, even opposite effects depending on how the other settings are adjusted. You can see why this is harder than reverb or distortion, and why two-knob compressors like blockfish or the LA-2A are popular.

I will get in to the settings later and in more detail, but if you want to play around, start by really getting in tune with the vibe and the pulse of the music, and see how compression subtly but significantly affects it.

My example above is not meant to be anything like "ideal" compressor settings, it's just meant to illustrate how compression can almost make it sound like there's a completely different player on bass or whatever. It actually interacts with the music and can actually make the sound MORE dynamic.

More later.

I like this - a compressor tutorial. Someone needs to make a tutorial video. I wonder if there's a video hosting site that does a good job with not wrecking the audio track too much...

Last edited by pixeltarian; 01-25-2009 at 02:11 AM.
pixeltarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 02:29 AM   #238
FarBeyondMetal
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerMetzgermeister View Post
Great, great thread.
I have one question, please. No need to answer it now, I don't want to derail anything.

How can you get that palm-muted heavy distorted guitar right?
I mean that sound that seems like the cabinet is about to explode and you almost feel the air shaking your unmentionables.
Examples: The first chords of Meshuggah's "Soul Burn", the first chords of Prong's "Snap your fingers", the final palm-muted riffs of Metallica's "One".

What are the elements of that sound and how the engineers manage to register them in a recording? It is possible to achieve that with amp sims?

I'm ready to be surprised with something totally counter-intuitive

I also recommend you this thread buddy. http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/p...man-sound.html . It is very informative but there are a lot of useless posts to scroll through. I'll give you a hint, the cheese of that thread is the pics of mic placement, especially the "arrow" dual 57 set up with one 57 on axis and the other at 45 degrees off axis. People have experimented with all types of mics and placements in that thread and I found it to be a very good resource, so don't count it out just because there's nothing on the first page.

Edit: Have you checked out Slipperman's guide to distorted guitars ? It's extremely hilarious if nothing else, but I found lots of information in there helpful. http://www.badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html

Edit 2: I guess I'll go over some things that help me since it's 1:30 in the morning and my insomnia is in full force. First thing is that the amp should sound how you want it to sound in the mix before you ever even think about putting a microphone next to it. Next up you should experiment with mic placement. Even though I just referred you to a thread that is primarily about using two microphones, you might want to focus on using one at first, especially since you want that super aggressive palm mute sound. Using two mics is a hole can of wormies that I am just starting to scratch the surface on, but let's just say Andy Sneap, the guy who owns the forums to the threads I've been posting, uses one mic exclusively. Anyway, to start out I think you should point the mic straight at where the dustcap and the cone meet, about an inch away from the grill of the cabinet to start. Move the mic around and use your ears, but keep in mind the farther away and the more off axis you go, the less in your face those palm mutes are going to be. I'm pretty sure that for the sound you want you are going to end up with the mic pointed straight at somewhere with the mic pretty damn close to, if not touching the grill. Also, I'm about to backtrack to the very beginning, but what kind of guitar are you recording with what type of pickups through what type of amp? All those things matter. String gauge matters, playing technique really matters, shit even the pick matters. If you wanna know my "secret" I use a 1.5mm gator grip, but that's just purely personal taste and is not even a popular thing among metal guitarists.

Try running an overdrive box before your amp (ibanez ts7's are only 40 bux) with the drive on 0 and the tone and volume adjusted to what sounds good to you. It will tighten up and compress your sound a bit, and also boost the mid range some. Here's a tube screamer guide http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/p...rsion-1-a.html

You would be amazed at the metal tones that come from amp simulators now a days. I'm not the greatest at getting a good sound this way but I know that most people getting awesome tones are using Revalver and impulses, but you can get a good tone from any of the amp sim programs if you tweak enough and like yep says, use your ears. And here's a guide to using Impulses, only instead of using Sir like the thread says I would actually recommend voxengo boogex. http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/p...pulse-faq.html .

Sorry for all the aimless ranting and outside website posting, and sorry to hijack your question yep.

Last edited by FarBeyondMetal; 01-26-2009 at 04:20 PM. Reason: cleanup
FarBeyondMetal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 08:04 AM   #239
Heartfelt
Human being with feelings
 
Heartfelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixeltarian View Post
I think the answer is time. if you never give up on your song and keep adjusting and listening to the mix on all different speakers you're eventually going to end up with a mix you love. Guitar sounds are always going to be one of the hardest things to get, but If you just keep trying until you start to find what works well.. it will work. Other things matter too, but the amount of time you put into learning technique is waaaay out in front of gear.
Or you could end up with Tom Scholtz Syndrome and never release anything. :O)
__________________
Rob Smith

www.RobertSmithMusic.com
Heartfelt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2009, 01:07 PM   #240
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Okay, so I just happened to plug my laptop into some real speakers and wow do I need to learn my own lessons!

The compression in the second track is terrible-- the detection filter was set too high for the A note and there are these monster notes every so often... Goes to show why you need decent monitors! The laptop speakers wouldn't reproduce lows accurately, so I couldn't tell what was happening until I plugged the laptop into real speakers three days later. But the example still works for the purpose intended, to show how compression can alter the sonic quality of the music.

In any case, this also illustrates another lesson-- don't go using these settings as presets!

I will get back to this and talk through some of the settings.

PS quick addition to the great answer from FarBeyondMetal: palm-muted chugs usually require lower gain (less distortion) than you might think. past a certain point, more distorted no longer sounds tougher, only fizzier. Also, how you hold the pick makes a difference. The guitar-teacher-hated "pencil" grip/wrist picking combination often sounds considerably chunkier than the more technically correct flat grip/elbow picking. keep in mind that almost 100% of all fast-picked metal riffs have the guitars doubled by kick drum, bass, and more tracks of guitars, so it is not necessarily realistic to expect a single track of guitar have the same effect.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.