Old 09-04-2009, 05:42 PM   #801
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djgizmo View Post
I figured I'd due the OP justice by reading all of his posts throughout this thread...
Thanks for the thoughtful and constructive replies. I have a feeling this would be a better thread if there were more critical or at least skeptical posts. A couple of responses:
Quote:
-Mentions that song production is important.
----However, song production has little to do with "recordings sound like ass?". Even though a producer may be able to pick out a bad note or misplaced extra snare hit, this doesn't make the recording terrible by nature, it may make the composition bad by nature, but not the recording.
This is 100% true, and I eventually created a spinoff to discuss production more specifically. That said, there is so much overlap between engineering and production issues, especially with the sort of self-recorded musicians who I suspect comprise a majority of the readers of this thread, that it's hard not at least touch on in places. A lot of home demos *do* sound like ass for reasons that have less to do with overall sound quality and more to do with amateurish arrangement and poor production decisions. And COMPOSITION as we have come to think of it in relation to popular music (lyrics+vocal melody+chord chart) is often a very different topic from arrangement and production. And studio engineering is something else altogether.

I think it is helpful to at least touch on that fact for the benefit of people who have never worked with or seen a producer/engineer team in process, and who may not realize that an awful lot of the musical material and arrangement decisions on their favorite records were not sorted out in rehearsal or in the pure "writing" process, but as part of the production process, in the studio.

Quote:
-Monitoring has a direct relation to "recordings sound like ass?"
---- Not always true either. A 1 man show who tracks himself playing DI Bass, doesn't need hi end monitoring (if at all since he may be playing out with his amp). If he's worried about the performance (which is common for most rock bands / artists), monitoring is the least important part of the chain.
I could not disagree more strongly. To use a real-world example, my own favorite fretted bass, which has active pickups, sounds very different depending on whether it is plugged into the "line in" or "instrument in." Being active, it could "correctly" be plugged into either. Moreover, on a typical home recording box such as a Presonus Firepod or MOTU 828, it sounds a lot better when recorded at low signal level, say peaking at around -12dB than it does when recorded close to zero. Even though the "clip" LED doesn't come on, these smaller boxes don't deliver enough power to the preamps (which are actually quite good, especially the Presonus ones) to handle full-scale bass notes. Gain-staging still matters, even going "straight to digital." If I ever put this all into a book I'll do some audio examples.

Monitoring through my Sony living room system or my Yamaha PA (both at least as expensive as entry-level studio monitors) would not reveal these differences clearly. I would be getting worse bass recordings, even I were just recording solo DI electric bass, which I don't think anyone actually does. And never mind if I wanted to actually "mix" or process those recordings.

Quote:
-Brings up monitoring is important, but then says buy good monitors first.
----As he knows (and maybe he made a mistake) that you need know be able to hear properly in your room first before buying monitors. Typically (as mentioned already) that means calculator room modes and treating such monitoring environment to requirements. Without being able to hear what space you have, the best monitors won't do you or the mix any justice.
Apologies if I didn't make this clear enough, but whenever I talk about "monitoring," I'm talking about room+gear. Neither can ever be better than the other. Weakest link and all that. I refer all room acoustics stuff to the sticky at the top of this forum, where I and others have posted at length.

Quote:
-It's also been mentioned that one should not make records/recordings as loud as commercial recordings
----I'm split on this because I know that being loud kills dynamics, but that's the way commercial music has been put out for the past decade to get & keep people's attention span. As a mixer, I'm usually required to mix to a reference. If I don't mix to a reference, a client is typically dis-satisfied.
I hope I have been sufficiently clear on separating technical information from personal opinion/philosophy. My only absolute advice on this topic is to make comparisons at matched average sound pressure level, so that you actually hear the more dynamic version at the same average volume as the compressed version, to make sure that you hear how much damage (if any) you are doing to the sound quality to get the track "louder." Then you can make fair choices intelligently and honestly.

I.e. my point is not "don't make loud recordings," my point is: make sure you compare the before and after at the SAME AVERAGE VOLUME LEVEL so that you can fairly assess the difference. I would also strongly encourage anyone who gets paid to make records to take the extra ten minutes to give the client a level-matched comparison so they can fairly hear for themselves the degradation that is being done to their music and decide how much is "worth it."

Quote:
-NS-10s are not high quality monitors and shouldn't be used for monitoring.
----I agree that NS10s aren't high quality monitors, however they have been the studio industry standard for near fields for over 2 decades for a reason. If you can make your mixes sound good on those, more than likely they will translate (very) well on other systems. I have a pair of HS50s and I've experienced that when I make a mix sound decent on those, and I check them on other systems, they sound really good.
If I ever said NS10s shouldn't be used for monitoring, I was probably drunk and I take it back. If you can link to the post, I'll correct it. I used NS10s primarily for about 13 years and sold them only recently, mostly because people were willing to pay such ridiculous prices for them.

Thanks again. Criticism is good.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 05:45 PM   #802
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurf View Post
...There is some things I also disagree with, but over all it is a very informational thread!
Honestly, this thread could do with a bit more disagreement. Not because I'm wrong about anything (that is impossible), but because spirited debate produces more robust information.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 09:55 AM   #803
blue4u
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
Honestly, this thread could do with a bit more disagreement.
I strongly disagree with this statement
blue4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 12:01 PM   #804
blue4u
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 58
Default Cloudy Mixes

Ok, we've covered the topics of "mud" and the lower mid-range, mixes that are too brittle from excessive build up of higher frequencies, mixes that are over-compressed from brickwall limiting (i.e. missing dynamics in the attempt to make things "louder) and mixes that are self-produced by bedroom musicians who try to throw in everything but the kitchen sink by way of layering too many parts. Here's my question...

What do you do with a mix that is "cloudy"? So, to describe what I mean here (in case I'm using the wrong term) I am referring to a mix that has parts which can all be heard, a healthy amount of dynamics, is plenty loud and is sans mud. But, compared to a commercial example of a similar mix it is not as bright or forward sounding. To use a photo analogy, it's a sound that is like a semi-opaque film covering the stereo image keeping the overall mix from being as sharp and as crisp as it could be. Not for a lack of higher frequency information though. It may be from "masking"? In general, how can we watch out for and treat this situation?

If the question doesn't make sense I'll attempt to re-describe it.

Thanks!
Rich
blue4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 03:24 PM   #805
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

As a kind of general swipe at the question above... more often than not when that happens it seems to be the effects, verbs, chorus, etc.

I'd say mute all of the FX busses and have another listen and see if it's still there.

I don't know your particular experience level but overuse of effects is a pretty common problem in the early stages of learning to mix, or to use spatial effects in a beneficial way. It's also a problem at times for more experienced mixers in long sessions, you tend to become "accustomed" to certain effects rather quickly and push them up.

Occasionally turning them off for a few seconds and then back on can "reset" your perspective of what they're actually doing. You also should get in the habit of treating FX returns like any other signal, if it needs eq, it needs eq.

"Cloudy" is one of those words that can mean a few different things. If you post an audio example people could hear what you mean and be more on point with suggestions.

Hope that helps. I'm sure Yep will get into much more detail than what I did here.

P.S. This is one of the reasons why I sometimes group my verb returns to a common bus. Once you build a "space" across various signals with various verbs (I always use sends, never inserts), if you have them all on a group channel, you can eq them all together or reduce them all together or widen/narrow their stereo images all at the same time. Sometimes an eq dip out of all of the verbs at once, or hi/low passing the bus, clears things right up.

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-07-2009 at 03:47 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 03:53 PM   #806
Kainz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blue4u View Post
Here's my question...

What do you do with a mix that is "cloudy"? So, to describe what I mean here (in case I'm using the wrong term) I am referring to a mix that has parts which can all be heard, a healthy amount of dynamics, is plenty loud and is sans mud. But, compared to a commercial example of a similar mix it is not as bright or forward sounding. To use a photo analogy, it's a sound that is like a semi-opaque film covering the stereo image keeping the overall mix from being as sharp and as crisp as it could be. Not for a lack of higher frequency information though. It may be from "masking"? In general, how can we watch out for and treat this situation?
In my opininon the perceived clarity, spaciousness and punch is a sum of many things, and the lack of it can be caused as well by many things. You won't find a holy grail type of solution wich would somehow open your mind (or ears) and cause a some sort of enlightnement (not suggesting that you would seek something like that, but anyways =P).

One thing wich can cause "cloudiness" is the source material and especially the unwanted spatial information in it. If you have tracks wich have excess amount of reverb from the space where they were recorded in, it will be nearly impossible to achieve a super clean and sharper-than-life mix from them. The excess reverb means early reflections, room modes, "transient mush" and other unwanted artifacts caused by the space where the track was recorded in. This is one of the obvious reasons for general "cloudiness" and it is really hard (impossible) to correct afterward. If your tracks are cloudy to begin with, so will your mix be.

If you're aiming for a quality, always(!) start from the beginning. It is THE most important thing if you want really good sounding results. By good sounding I mean "sonically good" as opposed to musically good with soul/vibe etc. It is, however, important to remember that this is in no means a requirement for a great recording! At the end it is all about the music! Who wants to listen the song if the recording sounds (technically) phenomenal but it lacks the soul and vibe? Well maby some audiophile, but oh well... =)

So.. back to the subject. The quality comes mainly from spaces you're recording in (if we exclude the basic things like quality instruments, musicians and so on). It is completely possible to achieve a superb sounding recordings with "prosumer" gear if you pay attentiont to spaces and recording techniques. In pro studios it isn't neccesarely always the gear wich delivers but the spaces/rooms! That is (imho) the most important reason for booking a professional studio nowadays - spaces matter! You are always more or less recording the spaces. It does matter a lot, even if close micing things.

Also make sure you record well. Do not hurry, instead take your time and listen and listen some more. Tweak around with mics/placement, change the recording location in the room, try to spot possible problems and try to figure out a solution for them. It is better to record 3 months and mix 1 month than record 1 month and mix 3 months. Never "fix in the mix". Make it sound like a record already in the beginning!

Now, lets move on the mixing stage shall we;

Mixing is basically this (excluding artistic side of it):

1) Identify a problem
2) Figure out the best solution for it
3) Apply the solution

The interesting part in this is that most of the time there is more than one "corret" solution for any given problem. You can possibly solve the same problem with reverb, EQ, compressor, modulation effect or some combination of these. The real question is: Wich is the best application for any given song? Wich does support the whole song and the mood of it?

That said, lets move again back to the "cloudiness". First of all, you have to be able to identify where the cloudiness comes from. This is a must if you are ever going to get rid of it. Below are some general ideas to check out/be aware of:

In my opinion these are the things wich will cause the most "cloudiness" in mixes (apart from the above mentioned source/recording problems). I'd say they are, roughly in this order: Frequency masking, too "big" reverbs and lack of delicate layering of "depth stages", insufficient volume automation and lastly non-optimal compressor usage. That said ALL of these do contribute to the general cloudiness of a mix (or lack of it). It is the very very very delicate balance of all of the above wich will create the larger than life sharpness and depth.

So the masking/colliding of frequencies is (imho) the cause number one of "cloudiness" (shortly followed by bad reverbation either from DSP or in raw tracks). The fix is basically simple and most of the time it is nothing but this: Use EQ to carve some more room and thats it. Sounds simple? Uhm, it is and it is not. The hard part is that you HAVE to be able to hear the problem first! Remember from above: first identify the problem, after that fix it. You can't fix the frequency clashes if you can't hear them. Simple as that.

Frankly, I have no idea how I would even begin to teach this to someone. I have tried it few times (IRL of course) but according to my experiences this is something you just have to learn with experience. You have to "train" your ears to listen things differently than what they are used to and that will take some time. Eventually you can spot even very small clashes in magnitude of +/- 0.5db (or smaller) and can then fix them. This is a skill and it will develope in time - frustrating but true. However, the postive side of this is that it really is a SKILL and that means pretty much anyone can learn it with practise and experience. Cheers, we all have hope! =)

As I said, you have to be able to spot the problems before you can start EQ:ing them. One of the dumbest thing is to EQ before you listen. There are no "presets" for EQ. Always listen first, then EQ with purpose! Of course you have to fiddle around and try things in order to develope your skills, but I think you know what I mean. Naturally, you won't get good with EQ unless you EQ =)

I think I wrote something from this in some other thread but my example was somewhat like this: If I should run a marathon tomorrow I wouldn't make it. I couldn't do it no matter how hard my pal (who is capable of running it) would tell me that "Dude it is simple! Just move your feet until you're at the finishline and thats it!". I would have to train myself in order to be able to run a marathon succesfully. EQ needs some training too and it is to some degree similar with the above marathon example. Instead of training your stamina and muscles you have to train your ears; and it does take time!

So, the second "cloudiness generator" is the lack of a proper reverb usage and the lack of skills to create the illusion of depth and space. This is again one of those things wich is quite hard to teach (sorry!), or then I just lack the skills to teach it. Nevertheless, the trick is to build a believeable illusion of depth for the brain to interpret. Ask yourself how would something sound if it was right next to your ear, how about 10 meters away or maby as far as 50 meters away. How does the "EQ of the sound" (frequency balance) change in relation to the distance? What happens to low frequenciens or high frequencies? How does the dynamics behave? What about the reverb? You need to know the answer to all of these questions in order to build an illusion for the brain. Basically you just fool the brain to interpret the stereo audio as a real "sonic image".
Again, teach your ears to listen differently! Pay attentiont to your surroundings when you walk around your house or city streets. How does the reverb behave? Can you hear the early reflections? How does your girlfriend sound when she yells from another room to turn your monitors down when you're mixing the same vocal phrase for 100th time? There might be some books from (psycho)acoustics wich might help too!

Reverb is also very "clouding" device (or a phenomenon in general). Try to talk with someone in a highly reverbant chamber and you'll soon see what I mean. Lets say you are standing back to back with your friend and the distance between you two is around 30 meters. The space where you are is highly reverbant. In these conditions it is relatively difficult to even comprehend what the another person is speaking to you. The reverb/space smears the transients, it smears the clarity, infact smears pretty much everything! Talk about cloudy audio! This same thing happens in your mixes if you use reverbs imprudently.

Generally speaking I never use a reverb without EQ:ing it to fit into the mix. The reverb will start to mask things by itself and I'd suggest you treat the reverb as a instrument of it own. Carve some space into it or some space for it. Yet again, you have to be able to hear wether the reverb actually masks something or not. Where and with what is it colliding - if it even is colliding at all. Identify a problem and fix it then some way!
Another possible fix (besides EQ) associated with reverbs is the pre-delay. Learn to use it! It does affect to masking as well as to the perceived stereo image/depth.
Third possible fix could be a stereo spreader on a reverb channel. Why? Because it does move the reverb out of the dry signals way (on left/right axis) and thus it isn't masking the dry signal anymore. Are you starting to see the pattern already? Identify the problem, figure out a fix, apply the fix. (bored of it already =P)

Continues...

Last edited by Kainz; 09-07-2009 at 06:50 PM.
Kainz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 03:53 PM   #807
Kainz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 344
Default

... continue:

So lets take a small example. We have a snare and we want to have a big reverb on it. However.. as soon as we start to push our reverb up the snare looses its definition and/or gets pushed back into the mix; the snare turns distant and mushy, it has no power nor punch. So we definitely have a problem here. Identify the problem: The reverb is masking the snare!
Ok, lets figure out a solution shall we. In fact all of the above mentioned reverb tweaks/fixes can do the trick! (EQ, pre-delay, stereo widener). All of these will kind of produce the same result: they will help to prevent the masking between dry snare and the reverbed snare.
So we can EQ the reverb so that it won't mask the dry signal, yeah works. We can apply a pre-delay to the reverb so that the reverb is delayed and thus isn't masking the dry signal anymore, yup works again (just differently!). Finally, lets spread the reverb with stereo widener so that it isn't sitting at the same place with the dry signal, whee works again! (again different result!).
Oh and by the way, simply panning the dry signal, for example, right and reverb to left does the trick too. Who said the reverb has to be at the same spot as the dry signal? Infact this is very rarely a case in the natural world either. You're in a church with your pal and you're standing next to a wall. Your pal talks and you listen to where does the reverb come from? Definitely not from the "behind" of your pal. Of course this technique might not be the best for the snare (for obvious reasons), but it does wonders on other instruments! =)

So here we had one problem and 3 solutions for it: One using frequency manipulation (EQ), one using time manipulation (pre-delay) and one using panorama manipulation (stereo widener or separate dry/wet panning). Each does the job but the real question is: Wich does it the most pleasing way for the current song and the mood of it? How about other stuff in the mix, wich solution is the most optimal if we think the mix as a whole?

I don't have the time to write about volume automation or compressor here, but they are (imho) the least common "cloud machines" out there. However they DO contribute heavily into the whole image. Without a good compressing and ESPECIALLY without a skillful volume automation your mixes will always fall short to the "pro mixes". Maby I'll add some more text later, we'll see heh. Yep might also have something to say on the subject!

Yours,
Kainz

P.S.

Sorry if my text isn't always the clearest and/or easiest to read. I'm not a native english speaker. If something is unclear, don't hesitate to ask! I'm sure I or someone else is able to elaborate and clarify it for you =)

Last edited by Kainz; 09-07-2009 at 04:26 PM.
Kainz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 04:45 PM   #808
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Thanks Kainz. For a non-english speaker I think that was quite concise. You touched on all the things that probably matter in those situations and quite well I must say.

Although mixing is partly a musical/creative process it's also largely an analytical/logical process as Kainz said. Identify the problem and fix it.

When it comes to the illusion of space, most "formally schooled" engineers have studied rooms and the predictive behaviors of sound before they ever got around to studying effects used to emulate those things, which gives them an advantage of sorts, a conceptual understanding of how sound behaves as it travels around.

Effects sound like effects unless you tweak them to behave more like real sound behaves in real rooms. Convos help a lot with that but DSP verbs tend to just be "effect", you have to kinda make it behave more like what a real room might sound like. Often that means dampening the highs and otherwise shaping the frequency response to be more like what the human ear knows to be real space. Reverb waves splattering around at 13k isn't typically that.

Having a verb that defines a space with a reverberant response that all but dies at 6 or 7k, and then hearing delays from another signal that bounce around with 10k information is not consistent with reality, it won't sound natural.

Obviously pop songs are pop songs and reality has little to do with that at times, and "good" often has very little to do with "natural" but knowing how all that works and how ears interpret that can help you shape your spaces. I tend to go through my spatial effects and make sure they're consistent in that regard. Do you want a bright space or a dark space? A hard space or a soft absorptive space? A dead space or a live space?

Whatever it is all the spatial effects reverbs/delays will/should behave that way. They all work together to form the overall illusion, instead of being individual effects.

Intentionally staging various pre-delay times as Kainz mentioned also helps with the illusion of placement. So instead of sending two signals to the same reverb instance, duplicate it (same verb sound/length) but change the pre-delay time or insert a delay into the send to get a different/longer pre-delay effect.

Finally, you can drop really subtle spatial cues with delays that you can barely even hear. The ear picks up on those and uses them to stage things in 3d space in your brain.

I forgot to close with the actual point. When someone tells me "Nice reverb sound..." they mean it as a compliment but in reality it's not because they heard it, which usually means it's too much. If you do it right nobody should even notice it (genre exclusions where it's way up front), they just hear/feel/perceive depth, not reverb. The only effects they should hear are those you intend for them to hear (easily distinguish) amongst the music. It's a fine line sometimes.

Even being aware of those things it often still takes work, patience and time to make it all come together though.

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-07-2009 at 05:24 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 05:27 PM   #809
Kainz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 344
Default

Ah, good that my text can be at least comprehended - thanks mr. Lawrence. =)

And yeap, I did leave the artistic/creative section aside intentionally although it is unquestionably the most important aspect in mixing. However I didn't think it was relevant when trying to get rid of the mystical "cloudiness" in a mix =)

I'm not by any means a formally schooled engineer and I can only talk from my own experiences. I have basically figured out everything I wrote by myself. I don't know if they're "proper" ways to do things or not - though who cares heh? - but that is how I learned it. I just started to listen to my enviroment and everything around me; started to pay attention to the way how sound behaves.

Fun aspect in modern sound/mixing is indeed the fact that most of the time you're trying to bend the physics. You need to make things larger than life. For example my little snare reverb example is a great example of this. In reality you actually couldn't have a snare wich infact has more reverb than dry sound heh. The "natural" way of things would be the phenomenon wich happens when you push the reverb up: snare looses its definition and becomes distant and mushy. All of the solutions I proposed to this problem are actually physic bending. =)

Oh and when talking about space and spatial information I have one "tip". Use delays instead of reverbs! Sometimes they do way better/cleaner job at creating the spacial information than reverb(s) do. Generally speaking delays do not mask things or cause the mix to cloud up or became fuzzy. Basically you're just imitating some rough early reflections with delays. Most of the times it is the early reflections and the time between dry signal and early reflections wich will define the sonical space/depth of an "item" in a mix (paired with corresponding dynamic control and EQ obviously). Only a few delays might be enough for your ears to interpret them as a spatial information (reverb).

EDIT: Oh and don't forget reverberated delays or delayed reverbs, key elements in some type of vocal sounds!

Yours,
Kainz

Last edited by Kainz; 09-07-2009 at 05:44 PM.
Kainz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 05:42 PM   #810
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

I suppose I could have summed up that point in a one sentence by saying that recordings in big studio rooms or concert halls don't sound so much better (spatially) because your reverb plugin sucks or only because it's a great room... though that certainly helps. It sounds better partly because the ear instantly recognizes it - the real space - as being "real"... being "right".

Everything fits.

Thanks Kainz.

Last edited by Lawrence; 09-07-2009 at 05:46 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 07:20 PM   #811
blue4u
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 58
Default

Great feedback guys! You hit the nail smack on the head with overuse of effects as the culprit But maaaaaaaaaan, I just love delays and verbs! I can hardly help myself (novice that I am)
blue4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 09:34 AM   #812
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blue4u View Post
Great feedback guys! You hit the nail smack on the head with overuse of effects as the culprit But maaaaaaaaaan, I just love delays and verbs! I can hardly help myself (novice that I am)
That is the cause much of the time (in my experience) when people say "mask" and "Cloudy" or "smeared".

Good luck to you.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 04:29 PM   #813
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blue4u View Post
...What do you do with a mix that is "cloudy"?...
The replies you got above were dead-on. To expand/re-state a little bit:

Less is more. Fewer tracks, fewer effects, fewer gain stages, drier initial recordings, shorter-duration notes, less frequency wash, simpler panning, etc all lead to improved clarity.

So getting the sound as close as you can at the mic, using the fewest number of tracks, subtracting unneeded frequencies with eq, using a small number of short-duration reverb or delay busses instead of long reverbs on every track, and careful use of gating/expansion to improve the sense of audio "black space" between notes will add up to a big improvement in clarity.

This is also one of those areas where better gear tends to prove its worth. Not that you need super-expensive gear to get good, clean, un-clouded recordings (you don't). Rather, tiny quantities of hiss, saturation, distortion, "veiled sound," indistinct midrange, and other such stuff that might be almost inaudible one track at a time tend to become exponentially worse when you pile up 40 tracks. Primo gear tends to fare better the more you pile it up.

Also, stuff like hashy cymbals, airy synth pads, "vintage" tube-ifiers and tape-ifiers and so on can be trouble if you aren't careful. And once again, layered high-gain guitars are prime culprits for home-studio problems. Lower gain, punchier sound, clearly articulated notes with actual silence between them...
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2009, 04:47 PM   #814
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

To expand on this a bit more, and possibly to re-iterate stuff I've said earlier (i'm losing track), if you look at the mix console and effects rack after an experienced engineer is finished mixing, you will probably see a million tiny little overlapping adjustments.

Professionals work methodically, in layers, like house-painters. Amateurs make big sloppy, gloppy furious passes trying to cover everything at once.

An amateur paint job on a car looks sloppy, flat, and wrong, with poorly-treated imperfections, too-heavy coats of paint, over-spray and drips, ripples and textures from improper drying or failure to clean every speck of dust between coats, and so on. The sad part is that the professional's job doesn't actually take that much more time, if you work methodically, because it always easier to get it right at every stage than to try and fix your mistakes later.

If you want to get professional results, focus obsessively on the little things every step of the way. Suss out your mic positions and gain staging, experiment with the mics, preamps, and settings that are available to you, set up your instruments correctly and get obsessive about keeping them in good repair, pre-mix your individual tracks as necessary to get them sounding the way you wanted them to sound during tracking, fix wrong notes or poor performances by re-tracking or editing BEFORE you sit down to mix, and so on. Mixing becomes a breeze when you take care of the basics.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2009, 12:52 AM   #815
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
... pre-mix your individual tracks as necessary to get them sounding the way you wanted them to sound during tracking, fix wrong notes or poor performances by re-tracking or editing BEFORE you sit down to mix, and so on. Mixing becomes a breeze when you take care of the basics.
You explained this in more detail some time ago and I thought: oh, OK, could be another "slight" improvement to my workflow, I should give it a try... and being lazy, I never did (needs discipline to do so).

Now the other day I had to transfer an old cubase song to reaper because my singer wanted to sing it again. So I did my stem renders in cubase and of course they came out cleaned, edited, proper, just as you described, but in the original mix I didn't do it before, did it while mixing, here and there...

Then I started to prepare the monitor mix in reaper from these "cleaned" tracks.. After 3 minutes of rough mixing it sounded so clear, so transparent, so "uncloudy" compared to the old final mix which grew while tracking and took soooo long to sound so mediocre! Now I finally understand the true meaning of that advice.

Now how could I FORCE myself to go that way on every project?

My basic mistake seems to be that I only compose the melody and the base chord progression upfront. All the rest and the arrangement is growing while tracking. And this seems to lead to that unfortunate unsystematic tracking/mixing/editing interchange...

Any more tips to keep it systematic?
__________________
------------------------------------------
Don't read this sentence to it's end, please.
stupeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2009, 01:17 AM   #816
rfoxperko
Human being with feelings
 
rfoxperko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
At the listening position, like Lawrence said.

Thanks to all for the kind words, I have never written any books and have no immediate plans to do so, but I do plan to get back to this thread when I have time. There are an awful lot of basic principles that hardly ever get talked about with this stuff. The people who know them tend to take them for granted, and the people who don't know them don't know enough to ask.

Cheers.
I'm pretty sure I've read your book, it's called Guerrilla Recording......
rfoxperko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 08:14 AM   #817
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
...My basic mistake seems to be that I only compose the melody and the base chord progression upfront. All the rest and the arrangement is growing while tracking. And this seems to lead to that unfortunate unsystematic tracking/mixing/editing interchange...

Any more tips to keep it systematic?
There is nothing wrong with your approach, it's probably the most usual one.

I spun off another thread specifically related to producing yourself, which a bit different from the mechanics of engineering. But the short version is, whatever you do and however you work, plan on setting aside a final session for actual "mixing" at the end of every project. And before you START that session, or as the very first step of that session, clean up your tracks.

The best time to do this is when you perform your edits. Before you start mixing, I presume you will at least want to clean up intro noise, breath sounds, check phase relationships in the drum mics, comp your punch-ins and slip edits and so on...

That is the ideal time to listen to the track carefully and bang it into shape, and generally get the whole track to sound the way it would have sounded if you had recorded a perfect take perfectly with perfect gear (or at least as close as you can get). There are almost always one or two obvious eq rips that need to be made (too brittle or too woofy or whatever), commonly some light compression/limiting/gating just to stabilize the levels or fatten or punch up the track a bit, very often some gating, de-essing, noise reduction, pop/click/clip removal or whatever. This is also the time for anything like pitch-correction. It might also be the time to apply certain aesthetic effects that are obviously needed, such as some harmonic exciter or severe eq on a dull-sounding acoustic track, or high-quality track reverb on a sampled piano track that doesn't sound "real."

Also, if you are using virtual instruments or effects such as guitar processors or whatever, this is the time to make decisions and render them as audio tracks. Save this "pre-mixed" project with all the tracks rendered as audio under a new name, so you can go back if you have to (I bet you won't).

NOW, take the rendered project audio tracks and start actually "mixing" from a clean slate.

The benefit of working this way is multi-fold: it obviously makes mixing about a million times easier and more productive, but it also saves you from wasting time during tracking, writing, and arranging, because you know your rough mixes don't count for anything. It allows your creative time to bee just that-- sloppy, experimental, instead of discouragingly results-focused.

Last but not least, it forces you to make the right decisions at the right time. Instead of wasting time trying to comp, edit, and clean up a sloppy piano track during the heat of inspiration, you can set it aside for later and keep right on creating. Similarly, it protects you from your own laziness when it comes time to mix-- you can't just half-assed try to "cover up" the bad track with reverb or bury it in the mix. If you can't hammer it into listenable shape during the "pre-mix" then you are confronted with the choice of either getting rid of it or replacing it in a systematic way, with loops or samples or re-tracking.

You have the freedom to mess around with the computer and the effects all you want, because it's not actually "recorded" until you "print" the pre-mixed track as audio.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 08:15 AM   #818
celfyn
Human being with feelings
 
celfyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cymru
Posts: 262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
(needs discipline to do so).

And

My basic mistake seems to be that I only compose the melody and the base chord progression upfront. All the rest and the arrangement is growing while tracking. And this seems to lead to that unfortunate unsystematic tracking/mixing/editing interchange...
Couldn't agree more, also, how to control your enthusiasm (Too eager to move onto the next bit)?
I love recording music so much, I just can't seem to pay proper attention to the less exciting stuff!
celfyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 08:25 AM   #819
celfyn
Human being with feelings
 
celfyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cymru
Posts: 262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post

Also, if you are using virtual instruments or effects such as guitar processors or whatever, this is the time to make decisions and render them as audio tracks. Save this "pre-mixed" project with all the tracks rendered as audio under a new name, so you can go back if you have to (I bet you won't).

This is something I haven't done before. Do you always do this, so no MIDI tracks at all when mixing?
I'm not quite sure I understand the benefits (other than saving CPU), could you explain a bit more?
Sorry for being a bit slow on this.
celfyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 10:00 AM   #820
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by celfyn View Post
This is something I haven't done before. Do you always do this, so no MIDI tracks at all when mixing?
I'm not quite sure I understand the benefits (other than saving CPU), could you explain a bit more?
Sorry for being a bit slow on this.
There is no benefit, in the sense that there is never any benefit to ever committing to anything now that you could decide later. But it makes it very difficult to accomplish anything complicated if you don't break it up into smaller tasks.

If you can't decide now what guitar patch to use, then when will you decide?

Rendering the project as stems forces you to commit to those tracks, which in turn forces you to actually get those tracks right, and to go through the detailed technical stuff of cleaning up noise and edits and old effects that you can't remember why you put them there and so on.

If you've got the track right, why not free up the CPU, simply your effects rack, and eliminate the possibility of accidentally changing something? If the track is wrong, shouldn't you fix it BEFORE you start mixing?

The only reason not to render the track is fear of commitment. Which is fine, except for the fact that come mix-down, you will HAVE to commit. And if you have 24 tracks, and each track has an average of say, 4 effects, 3 edit points, and 3 noise/sound/mistake issues, then during mixing you are trying to keep track of 240 initial variables instead of 24. Is it any wonder that someone mixing from 24-track tape will make better mixes, especially when you consider the additional edits, arrangement decisions, and effects that you will add again while mixing?

Again, the point of the "pre-mixing" is to get the tracks sounding the way they would have sounded if they were recorded perfectly, or as close as you can. If you don't see any advantage to mixing with perfectly-recorded tracks, then there is no need to do it. If your tracks are already perfect, then there is no need to do it.

But if, like most of us, you are starting with tracks that are imperfect, AND you find it easier to get better results by mixing more perfect tracks in project that has fewer "moving parts," then it can be a big help.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 10:10 AM   #821
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

I can think of at least one benefit. If you're running synth or fX with free running LOF's for example, then it will sound different at every pass of the playhead. Don't know how you could make mix decision under condition like this without at least freezing/rendering those tracks, especially if there's a few of those in a project.
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 11:08 AM   #822
celfyn
Human being with feelings
 
celfyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cymru
Posts: 262
Default

Yep,

I get it now, that would help with my discipline problem, sort of make me make the descisions i know I should but too scared to, brilliant!
(If I can discipline myself to do it that is :-)

bullshark,

Hadn't thought of that, good point!
celfyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 11:11 AM   #823
spikemullings
Human being with feelings
 
spikemullings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East London
Posts: 1,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
Criticism is good.
May I, then, stage if not a criticism then a qualification? In fact of course I very much doubt there is any disagreement at all and I'm just playing around for the sake of further discussion.

Your mantra to "use your ears" or "trust your ears" is clearly, indubitably and self-evidently excellent advice. But it can't stand, without some serious qualification along the following lines, can it?

1. Use your ears - but make sure you are periodically comparing with commercial reference material

2. Trust your ears - but remember if you are relatively new to this your ears are likely at times to prefer a little more reverb than is good for you

3. Use your ears - but remember to give them a rest every now and then

4. Trust your ears - oh but psycho-acoustics . . .

5. Use your ears - but you'll probably want to make your tracks sound a little thin on their own so they fit into the mix nicely

6. Trust your ears - but make sure you are level matching when you apply e.g. a compressor

7. Use your ears - but remember they get used to things very quickly - see point 1 above.

etc.

So it's right isn't it that some successful mixing decisions that get made in recording, editing and mixing are in fact made regardless of and sometimes even in spite of our ears?
__________________
Cloth-Eared Hobbyist
http://www.reverbnation.com/spikemullings
spikemullings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 11:21 AM   #824
Chris_P_Critter
Human being with feelings
 
Chris_P_Critter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a van, down by the river
Posts: 3,574
Default

[OT]

HOLY CRAP! This thread has 109,000+ views.

[/OT]
__________________
The Freeze Tag Assassins
Chris_P_Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 12:36 PM   #825
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spikemullings View Post
...
4. Trust your ears - oh but psycho-acoustics . . .

5. Use your ears - but you'll probably want to make your tracks sound a little thin on their own so they fit into the mix nicely...
RE: the two above...

4- psycho-acoustics is not a "but," it is exactly the reason to trust your ears above any kind of measurement device. If what you care about is how the record sounds to human beings, instead of how it looks on a spectrum analyzer, then your own hearing is really the only measurement device that matters.

5. This is, again, not a "but," it is exactly the reason to let your ears guide your decisions. Changes that make the end result sound better to your own ears (during level-matched listening) are good, period.

All the complexities, variables, technicalities, and everything else are *exactly* the reason to rely on what you are actually hearing, instead of what the meter says, or the book says, or what common sense would dictate, and especially instead of trying to "think through" what *should* sound best.

It is basically impossible to think through all the details and variables and ifs, ands, or buts. It is like trying to hit a baseball-- a computer that knew all the effects of spin, release angle, wind, humidity, air density, etc for every pitch might be able to calculate the exact spot at which the bat should make contact and at what speed and trajectory, but even that would not be useful information to a batter who has approximately 0.4 seconds to put the bat in motion, unless that hitter were able to consciously perform all the mental calculations necessary to control their muscles to deliver the bat to that exact spot at the right angle at the right instant.

More experienced hitters will follow better practices vis-a-vis stance, grip on the bat, observation of the pitcher, mental and physical preparation, adjustments due to game situation, and so on. But ultimately, the judgement of whether and when to swing is a holistic decision, made on a more primitive level of cognition than rational "consciousness." Saying as much does not negate the value of training, preparation, and experience, nor does it negate the importance of reason and conscious decision-making when it comes to giving yourself the best opportunities for success. But the ultimate decision is still a sub-rational one. In fact, "over-thinking" is a classic cause of bad hitting decisions.

That's what I mean by "trust your ears." Do all the prep work, use the best practices, study the theory, read the manuals, practice critical thinking and listening. Those things will make it easier for you to make better decisions and achieve better results. But the decisions must still ultimately come from a more primitive or at least less reasoning part of the psyche, if the results are to be successful.

I don't want to get too philisophical about music and art and all that here, because that way lies a bottomless mire of debate without resolution, but I think it is safe to say that the merits of music are not purely rational ones, and that at least some important aspects of music enjoyment bypass the rational mind and communicate more directly with the spirit, the hips, the hairs on the back of your neck, etc. Good music effects a general kind of physiological/emotional "whole self" communion. And I don't think that can be reduced to rules or formulas or purely quantitative analysis, at least not using current technology.

Assuming that the job of the recordist is to convey or present that musical experience to the listener most effectively, the ultimate metric of whether the "musical awesomeness" quotient is increasing or decreasing with any change can only be the intensity of that effect on the listener. And that can only be measured subjectively, as far as I know. So that's what you should go by, in my opinion.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 02:28 PM   #826
VortexOfShit
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 23
Default Top takeways

There is so much good advice in this thread, a few lifetimes worth it seems.

I've been applying a lot of the advice here and my top takeaways are:

First, make sure you CAN TRUST what you hear
-- decent monitors, room treatment, etc.

Second, ACTUALLY TRUST what you hear
-- your ears are a better judge than tools, meters, etc.
-- if it sounds good it is good

Third, you REALLY CAN'T TRUST what you hear unless you:
-- Compare changes before/after using level-matched A/B listening
-- Compare to commercial material using level-matched A/B listening
-- Avoid fatigue (rest periods, low level monitoring, etc.)

Fourth, TAKE THE TIME to do it right as early as possible, for example,
-- A good performance tracked on a $100 mic is better than a bad performance tracked on a $500 mic
-- Good tracking is better than trying to fix later with track EQ
-- Good track EQ is better than trying to fix later with mixdown EQ
-- Good sounding mixes are better than trying to fix with mastering EQ

Fifth, AVOID CLUTTER, create some room, leave some space, and avoid build-up
-- Give each track it's own place in the mix using EQ, pan, delay, effects, etc.
-- Don't let tracks crowd, stomp on, or pile on top of each other
-- Don't be afraid to cut a track. If it sounds better muted, cut it.

I know, it's impossible to distill all this great stuff to a few rules, but I can try

..ant
VortexOfShit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 02:40 PM   #827
blue4u
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 58
Default

Well, at the risk of venturing into philosophical roundabouts...

How certain can we be that our "ears" are synonymous with what the so-called "average listener" is hearing? I know that my listening habits, the way I hear things and my overall attentiveness to frequencies have changed SUBSTANTIALLY since I started recording. And there was a big shift from being a musician as well. I hear things that my wife doesn't, sometimes even after I point them out. What's odd though is that she can almost always point out a good recording and I'll agree. There's some mystery here. I'm convinced that we as musicians and recordists don't hear in quite the same way as the average iPod listener. Please correct me if I'm missing something?

Rich
blue4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 03:57 PM   #828
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blue4u View Post
...I hear things that my wife doesn't, sometimes even after I point them out. What's odd though is that she can almost always point out a good recording and I'll agree..
That's the nut of it!

Everyone (well, almost anyone) can tell the difference between good tomato sauce and bad tomato sauce. There might be differences of opinion in borderline cases, but pretty much anyone can distinguish between significantly better and significantly worse.

Last edited by yep; 09-14-2009 at 04:44 PM. Reason: edited to remove long and pointless rambling ;)
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 03:58 PM   #829
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VortexOfShit View Post
There is so much good advice in this thread, a few lifetimes worth it seems.

I've been applying a lot of the advice here and my top takeaways are:

First, make sure you CAN TRUST what you hear
-- decent monitors, room treatment, etc.

Second, ACTUALLY TRUST what you hear
-- your ears are a better judge than tools, meters, etc.
-- if it sounds good it is good

Third, you REALLY CAN'T TRUST what you hear unless you:
-- Compare changes before/after using level-matched A/B listening
-- Compare to commercial material using level-matched A/B listening
-- Avoid fatigue (rest periods, low level monitoring, etc.)

Fourth, TAKE THE TIME to do it right as early as possible, for example,
-- A good performance tracked on a $100 mic is better than a bad performance tracked on a $500 mic
-- Good tracking is better than trying to fix later with track EQ
-- Good track EQ is better than trying to fix later with mixdown EQ
-- Good sounding mixes are better than trying to fix with mastering EQ

Fifth, AVOID CLUTTER, create some room, leave some space, and avoid build-up
-- Give each track it's own place in the mix using EQ, pan, delay, effects, etc.
-- Don't let tracks crowd, stomp on, or pile on top of each other
-- Don't be afraid to cut a track. If it sounds better muted, cut it.

I know, it's impossible to distill all this great stuff to a few rules, but I can try

..ant
This should be the first post in this thread.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 12:37 PM   #830
blue4u
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
This should be the first post in this thread.
And...

Don't be afraid to apply steep high-pass and low-pass filtering (EQ). Try these filters on a track UNTIL they sound unacceptable and then back off a touch.

Organize your physical space BEFORE you record so that everything is labeled, in its place and easily accessible.

blue4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 03:43 PM   #831
Captain Damage
Human being with feelings
 
Captain Damage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lowell, MA, USA
Posts: 271
Default

From some of the comments/questions here and on some other threads I've been party to, it seems that some people interpret "trust your ears" to mean or imply "don't think analytically," or "forget what you've learned." That's not what it means at all. It means "use your ears as your primary measuring tool." Apply your analysis and experience to what you hear.

To hijack Yep's cooking analogy, even with my best and most time tested recipes I'm going to taste the sauce at some point.
Captain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 01:36 AM   #832
rodabt
Human being with feelings
 
rodabt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
In fact, "over-thinking" is a classic cause of bad hitting decisions.
Great one yep. Sometimes I find myself more into over-thinking than actually playing or listening, and when that happens you've just lost the spot. It happens a lot with distortions for example. Current modellers like PODs offer a wide selection of distortions, even ones that you've never heard off. This poses a problem when you need to record "that" perfect sound for a track. You start by auditioning a huge amount of amps, cabs and mic positions just to find out that it's really a time consuming process and it will definitely cause mental fatigue. By the time you think you've got one "decent" tone (based more on what you THINK it should be there rather than what you actually HEAR), you tend to pick an overprocessed or wimpy one (fact that you discover after listening to your mix the next day). I think you should pick amps and cabs among the ones you've played off a little and move fast. Just make a rough preset and go on into record quickly or you will lost the vibe. You can almost always re-record a new take with a better amp+cab+mic preset later on.
rodabt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 11:05 AM   #833
blue4u
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodabt View Post
Current modellers like PODs offer a wide selection of distortions, even ones that you've never heard off. This poses a problem when you need to record "that" perfect sound for a track. You start by auditioning a huge amount of amps, cabs and mic positions just to find out that it's really a time consuming process and it will definitely cause mental fatigue. By the time you think you've got one "decent" tone (based more on what you THINK it should be there rather than what you actually HEAR), you tend to pick an overprocessed or wimpy one (fact that you discover after listening to your mix the next day).
Oh yeah, BIG issue here! The monstrous problem of having waaaaaaaaay too many sounds to pick from. This is VST hell and I don't know the way out of it. Arrrrrrrg!! Anyone else want to comment on/give tips for dealing with too many plug-ins? And yes, it's a total vibe killer!!

Anyway, how many amp sounds should we settle on amongst the thousands we have available to us? Is a "clean, crunch, and lead" trio enough? What about all of those famous studios we've read and heard about keeping tons of amps available? How much do they really scrutinize over guitar tone? I've read stories that say many hours and even days are spent finding the right guitar sound. I guess it's different when you don't have to focus on being a songwriter, musician, engineer, and producer all at the same time <sigh>.

So...how many plug-ins, presets and sound variations do we REALLY need? That's the million dollar question for me. Right now, I'm overwhelmed with all the choices!

Last edited by blue4u; 09-14-2009 at 11:11 AM.
blue4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 11:17 AM   #834
VortexOfShit
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 23
Default Monitor auditioning

So, I've sold my old crappy low-budget monitors and I'm getting ready to audition something better. My budget is still modest. I'm looking at things in the $500 (pair) active monitor area, e.g., M-Audio BX8a, Yamaha HS50M, Alesis M1 Active MkII, Mackie MR8. I would also consider passive + amp but I know less about that, or how much difference it will make.

I don't want to flood this forum with monitor recommendations. Feel free to PM me separately if you have those.

What I'm interested in is any good tips on how to audition monitors. I'm afraid of being distracted by monitors that sound good for entertainment purposes, and not for critical listening.

I assume listening with high-quality reference material on CD is important, not MP3s .

Do I just bring songs that I'm familiar with? Should I bring some familiar tracks into my DAW and "add mistakes" like cutting or boosting EQ in certain ranges, to see if I can spot the changes?

Do I listen to commercial tracks and go with the ones that sound best? Or do I listen to my own tracks and go with the ones that sound worst (i.e., which is most revealing of errors)?

If I'm not looking for monitors that "sound best" what is the key thing I am listening for? Clarity/separation of each instrument? Overall balance between lows and highs? Ability to sound good no matter what style of song I throw at it? Lack of any apparent "pumping up" of the sound in different frequency ranges?

How do I separate monitors that will really help me make better mixes, from those that just "sound best" in the store? Or is it the same thing?

..ant
VortexOfShit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 11:27 AM   #835
VortexOfShit
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blue4u View Post
Oh yeah, BIG issue here! The monstrous problem of having waaaaaaaaay too many sounds to pick from. This is VST hell and I don't know the way out of it. Arrrrrrrg!! Anyone else want to comment on/give tips for dealing with too many plug-ins? And yes, it's a total vibe killer!!
If possible with your setup, record a dry track alongside your effect'd track. Have one or two effects ready that you can jam on when the inspiration strikes and don't spend time going through plugins when you're "in the moment". Later you can fine-tune by sampling other effects on the dry track.

..ant
VortexOfShit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 05:05 PM   #836
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blue4u View Post
Oh yeah, BIG issue here! The monstrous problem of having waaaaaaaaay too many sounds to pick from...

So...how many plug-ins, presets and sound variations do we REALLY need? That's the million dollar question for me. Right now, I'm overwhelmed with all the choices!
This is one area where spending money could traditionally help.

Whether waves or UAD plugins are, for example, unequivicollay "better" than any other cheaper plugins, or whether they are sonically "worth" the price premium are hard questions to answer. But the more your time is worth, the easier it is to decide to simply buy one comprehensive bundle of top-notch plugins and be able to trust your gear.

When it comes to guitar processors, though, some of the biggest names and expensive packages are sometimes the most over-burdened with a thousand miniscule variations. They are also, unfortunately, among the most hotly-contested. And a million amp models doesn't always translate to useful "versatility" when they are all based on the same tube emulation technology, and therefore prone to similar sonic characteristics across the particular bundle.

Pretty much any real live studio has evolved over time, organically and personally. The producer or studio operator has likely developed this particular collection of guitar amps or snare drums over years or decades, and each one has a purpose, a history, a favorite application, and unique characteristics that are known to the person who acquired them.

When he first started out, the studio operator probably just had whatever hi-hats he had been using with his band. After a while, he upgraded to a good recording set. At some point, someone brings in a different set that has a pingier or trashier sound, or that fits better with folky acoustic music, or whatever. Not necessarily "better," just better for some applications. And that's how the collection starts.

By the time your band arrives in the studio to record, the studio operator has a pretty good handle on what each piece is for, how they sound, what kinds of mixes they work with, and so on.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 05:47 PM   #837
nerdfactormax
Human being with feelings
 
nerdfactormax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A-town, Australia
Posts: 633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VortexOfShit View Post
If I'm not looking for monitors that "sound best" what is the key thing I am listening for? Clarity/separation of each instrument? Overall balance between lows and highs? Ability to sound good no matter what style of song I throw at it? Lack of any apparent "pumping up" of the sound in different frequency ranges?

How do I separate monitors that will really help me make better mixes, from those that just "sound best" in the store? Or is it the same thing?

..ant
Assuming you have already spent quite some time in a 'mixing-frame-of-mind', the definitions of clarity/separation/balance and 'sounds better' have probably become closer together over time.
Still, a very tough decision.
At the end of the day, you need to turn the monitors up loud enough to hear them over the sales guys and price tags.
nerdfactormax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 05:50 PM   #838
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

With regards to developing your own sound, you have one very big advantage over a full-service studio-- you only need to record one band. And that usually means basically one or two guitar sounds, maybe five at most, plus a couple of "floor effects." Similar principles apply to other instruments, but we'll continue with the guitar example.

Most guitar players tend to settle into one primary rig/sound, and then maybe supplement it with a lower- or higher-gain alternative, plus maybe an additional stompbox to drive leads, and a smattering of "special effect" configurations for particular songs that were written with the effects in mind (e.g. wah or special delays or whatever).

So the best place to start is with finding/developing your own mid-gain "stock" sound with your own favorite guitar. This should be a sound that works with a variety of the kinds of riffs you like to play, a sound that is manageable and expressive with your primary playing style. A sound that you could play an entire set through, if you had to. And it should be pretty easy to draw up a short list.

From there, there is a very good chance that you can achieve your basic cleaner or dirtier sounds simply by adjusting the gain and maybe eq.

Pretty much every brand-name guitarist has one primary "go-to" rig/sound. Some of them evolve over time, but a great many guitar players have been playing the exact same rig for decades, and the ones that change are often minor variations of the same basic sound. They might also occasionally incorporate "special" rigs for ballads or heavy leads or whatever, but most players tend to develop a primary style and sound that revolves around a specific rig.

Keep in mind as you experiment that "presets" are often notoriously bad with guitar processors, in large part because input gain-staging is such a critical component of any guitar sound. The software has know way of knowing what kind of pickups you are using, how close to the strings they are, what pickup position or string gauge you have, etc. Also, infuriatingly, the presets and amps are often very poorly level-matched (this is a really annoying aspect of line 6 presets in particular-- some are way louder or quieter than others).

Last but by no means least, don't get too hung up on trying to find empirically "perfect" guitar sounds. Find the sound that kicks *your* ass, as the player. We could spend forever trying to find the best sauce for grilled shrimp, but the answer is ultimately that there are a lot of them. So when you find one that kicks ass, cook it up and serve it. There will be other cookouts.

Every recording engineer worth his salt makes getting the *player's* sound the first priority, and then focuses on finding the best way to capture it and to fit it into the mix. A good engineer/producer will take steps to reduce rattles, hum, bad speakers, and so on, and will often make suggestions vis-a-vis gain levels and amp settings, but always with the idea of focusing and improving the player's experience. I recommend taking a similar approach, and "printing" the sound you use while tracking, and setting aside mixing for the mixing process. If you are obsessive about keeping your options open, keep a clean "clone" of the guitar track to second-guess later.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 06:18 PM   #839
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VortexOfShit View Post
...I don't want to flood this forum with monitor recommendations. Feel free to PM me separately if you have those...
Far better, start or contribute to a "best monitors" thread, so that everyone can benefit from the collective wisdom.

Quote:
What I'm interested in is any good tips on how to audition monitors. I'm afraid of being distracted by monitors that sound good for entertainment purposes, and not for critical listening.
...
You don't need to be *too* afraid of that. The difference in a side-by-side comparison is pretty obvious between a good pair of monitors and a "dramatic" set of good-sounding home speakers. Simply being cognizant of the fact that you are looking for reference speakers will help a great deal.

I honestly think a lot of the things that beginners worry about start to dissolve once you actually start just doing it. E.g., if you take a few favorite CDs and play them as best you can through some different sets of speakers with an eye (ear) towards figuring out which sounds most accurate and precise, you're not going to go *that* far wrong with an in-store listening.

The best way, of course, is to take home a bunch of speakers, try them all out in your studio and then return the less-good ones. A lot of good pro audio dealers are perfectly okay with this, but be sure to read the fine print before attempting this through a return policy that was not really designed for in-home auditions.

Perhaps most importantly, everyone on a budget should keep track of resale values. If you buy a set of used, well-regarded monitors on ebay that can be easily re-sold for the purchase price, then you can upgrade a set of $500 monitors to a set of $700 monitors in a year or two, if you feel like it. Or you can go back to mixing on headphones or whatever if you don't like them and get your money back. If, on the other hand, you buy the latest and greatest set of whiz-bang cheapo NX10s with a bunch of trivial features, then next year there will be an NX12 model with more features for less money and you'll be stuck paying full price or close to if you want to upgrade.

This is *the* rule when upgrading gear-- if you need to buy the cheapest gear to get started, then do what you gotta do and get recording. But avoid at all costs the path of buying upgrades that lose value. Top-quality stuff tends to hold value, or even appreciate in value. Owning a vintage mic is like having a free permanent rental-- the purchase price is more like a security deposit.

So my first advice would be to hunt for deals on speakers that typically sell for at least $500 used (or close to). This not only allows you to change your mind at a later date, it also offers a sort of "wisdom of crowds" verification of the value of your purchase.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2009, 07:19 PM   #840
Marah Mag
Human being with feelings
 
Marah Mag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 3,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
This is *the* rule when upgrading gear-- if you need to buy the cheapest gear to get started, then do what you gotta do and get recording. But avoid at all costs the path of buying upgrades that lose value. Top-quality stuff tends to hold value, or even appreciate in value. Owning a vintage mic is like having a free permanent rental-- the purchase price is more like a security deposit.

So my first advice would be to hunt for deals on speakers that typically sell for at least $500 used (or close to). This not only allows you to change your mind at a later date, it also offers a sort of "wisdom of crowds" verification of the value of your purchase.
That's what I try to do when I buy hardware (though I also try to keep my hardware ownership to a minimum, or less.)
After all, it's not as if people weren't able to make great records before the lastest equipment came out. And it's not as if the difference between this year's stuff and last year's stuff, or even stuff ffrom 2 or more years ago, is greater than all the other variables when it comes to making noise.

Which brings me to this post from earlier in the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
If I ever said NS10s shouldn't be used for monitoring, I was probably drunk and I take it back. If you can link to the post, I'll correct it. I used NS10s primarily for about 13 years and sold them only recently, mostly because people were willing to pay such ridiculous prices for them.
I have to ask: What did you replace your NS10s with? (Can I also ask roughly how much you sold them for? And where?)

I have a pair of NS-10M Studios in super-minty condition. I like them and know them and have no immediate interest in changing. But given the "ridiculous prices" people seem willing to pay for them, the thought crosses my mind.

tks
Marah Mag 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 10:05 AM.


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