Old 04-12-2011, 09:44 PM   #1761
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

I have been happy to do it!
__________________
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 04-13-2011, 10:58 PM   #1762
DamianZ
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1
Default

I was referred to this thread...I'm Damian, yes, my real name..I have printed out this entire thread to read and make notes on...It is amazing..
Yep, you are amazing....Anyways, carry on, I'm reading........
DamianZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 08:07 AM   #1763
soundchaser59
Human being with feelings
 
soundchaser59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lincoln/Omaha, USA
Posts: 451
Default

Quote:
Boycott Monster Cable
Trademark Office list of companies being sued by Monster Cable
Example of Monster's despicable business practices

No wonder their cables are so disgustingly expensive....to pay for those disgusting attorneys. Haven't bought any yet, never will.

Side track......good thread....carry on.....
__________________
I'm not a real expert, I only play one on the internet.
My Little Music Corner!
soundchaser59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 05:44 PM   #1764
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundchaser59 View Post
No wonder their cables are so disgustingly expensive....to pay for those disgusting attorneys. Haven't bought any yet, never will.

Side track......good thread....carry on.....
In fairness, Monster actually makes good cable, for the most part, although often over-priced and with shockingly-dishonest marketing (esp. different guitar cables for "rock", "jazz", etc)

But they are not that far out of line with "legit" premium audio cables, and their bread-and-butter is not the stupid-expensive audiophile stuff. $30+ for mic or guitar cables is not actually outlandish. It's a specialized application and the proliferation of crackly, noisy, hum-collecting cheapo cables is pretty good evidence that *is* worth paying extra to have a cable that's going to last the next 10 or 20 years of gigging/recording, especially if you are spending good money on the rest of your signal chain.

My complaint with Monster is 100% their business practices, not the quality of the cable. I'm not opposed to premium cables, in fact I avoid cheap cables like the plague. I just hate people who are evil.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 06:01 PM   #1765
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundchaser59 View Post
No wonder their cables are so disgustingly expensive....to pay for those disgusting attorneys. Haven't bought any yet, never will.

Side track......good thread....carry on.....
I have one, which quit working, and can't be fixed using it's own plugs. It was given to me, so I guess that I can't complain, but I would never buy a Monster cable.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 07:34 PM   #1766
Sigilus
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,763
Default

I have two, both gifts. One died, I took it in to be replaced (per their policy). It later (much later) broke again, and that time I just clipped the connectors off both ends and soldered in my own. Worked great ever since. The other cable has been okay.
Sigilus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 04:01 PM   #1767
SteveAdleman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 46
Default love this thread

Yep and everyone else that contributed:
this thread is incredible! Ive read it twice now beginning to end, and I still have more to work on understanding about compression, eq. etc.
I just finished mixing a recording for a tango group, and there were definitely a few "vortex of shit" moments along the way, but in general I monitored at low levels and tried to take a systematic approach and things came out okay, there were some decisions made that I didn't agree with but the final product is good, I think. I will post a link later.

Hit Bass- lee sklar, abe laboriel, whoever plays on james taylor's records...yes? clean, huge, fat, transparent, simple, perfect time, great voice leading...sublime
SteveAdleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 10:34 PM   #1768
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

New yep PDF is up!

Tho the thread has been a little slow this year, I figured I would at least post a mid-point PDF for folks.

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 06-01-2011, 03:05 AM   #1769
Simon J.
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 47
Default

Thanks for the PFD, Smurf!

What a great read this thread has been.

One thing that has not been said in this thread is this: Nobody will never know.

Let me explain.

I think it is important to stop worrying at some point. I'm kind of re-stating "finished is better than perfect" in a way. If a certain sound is not 100% what you intended, pretend that it is. Why? Because nobody will never know it's not what you intended, unless you state it.

Same goes for, say, mic selections. Let's say you record vocals. You pick a [insert brand here] large diaphragm microphone, record the vocals, make them sound good, mix them together with the rest, master the song and play it to the audience. Now, when you compare a Neumann TLM103 and a tBone CS450 (I have never) or whatever cheap vs. expensive mic combination, the difference is probably obvious. But when the finished product is playing, nobody will never know what mic you were using, unless you tell them.

A friend of mine bought some UAD plugins and tried to sell me his waves SSL channel strip plugins, since he now had the UAD equivalent. I couldn't figure out what I would do with a SSL channel strip plugin, since I already had ReaEQ (d'uh). Nobody will never know if I EQ'ed my tracks with ReaEQ or the Waves stuff.

Your guitar sound might not be exactly what you have been hunting for years (like flmason). Guess what? Nobody will never know it's not exactly the sound you intended. You can pretend it is!

To me this makes a lot of sense. It's about priorities. What's really important? Please comment if this makes/does not make sense to you.
Simon J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 05:47 PM   #1770
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

Your Very Welcome Simon J.!!!

"Nobody will never know."

I have lived by a version of this for almost 2 years now....at least over sounds! Now writing tunes....THAT is a different story! LOL
__________________
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 06-03-2011, 12:39 AM   #1771
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

Thought I'd say a big thanks, I have been going through this of late and up to about page 20, and much to my surprise still active. Yep and all the people who have asked questions or added their own ideas and perspectives have made this thread a real boon.

..

Some things I did by chance just before finding this thread as it happened was to GET ORGANISED. Cleared the 'desk' ensured all the cables were good and out of the way, monitor at an appropriate height, decent chair without arms so I can play the guitar properly...all of those things sorted and much better than wasting time looking for things or tracing leads and such.

Make templates for typical creative sessions, basic VSTi's ready to play with a few clicks and getting into the habit of pressing record to capture ideas as they happen instead of losing them later or have them lost in the ether.

Time management could always be a little better, keeping things simple and ready to go though helps.

I have a notebook and pencil ready, but taken to having an 'open office' file at the ready to take project notes or tap out ideas.

Listen...for a while i was neglecting this, but spending time to really savour some recordings, hear them through the system you record on, reflect on some of the production qualities that you like it for, try to isolate tracks in your mind and see how they all fit together and have their place in the whole...and to enjoy the music. Also variety, get inspiration from as many places as you can and see how other music works even if it is not 'your thing'.

...

I've always been a big motown fan, and until recently was jamming every week with a bass player who's absolute hero was James Jamerson and his transcription book his bible by his side. He was still taking lessons from a well known session player and really had an amazing sound...a joy to play guitar with. Work commitments and real life got a little in the way for the moment on his side (plus distance). You hardly ere that style so much these days, yet JJ is universally admired by those who can hear him within the motown sound and layers.

I kind of come at this though from a kind of composer's angle though.

I came up from an era of bouncing cassettes between decks and you just had to work with the limits of that format (ever increasing treble loss and hiss) and play that into things...and to accept and work with what had gone before. Bit spoilt for all the flexibility and distractions of the modern DAW.

If not already covered (not even half way through) ideas people might have about working on ones own on material and arranging perhaps for the studio might be helpful. Working with virtual instruments, many that come 'preprocessed' and Midi (I'm still finding midi unless played in, to be a little frustrating and leaning on other tools) and I suppose cutting back on 'distractions' like sampling impressive sounding presets and giant sounds, and getting down to making some ideas and getting them down 'fast'...plus using the DAW as a composing tool and sketch pad for ideas and avoiding being too 'precious'...will take a while before I have caught up with the current thread, I still seem to be lost back in 2008 LOL.

...

As being new to this and on a budget, I am monitoring through a small hi-fi but which has the ability to defeat the 'hyped' sounds and appears pretty neutral and at proper volumes adequate.

I was wondering though, is there not an advantage to mixing in relation to the kind of systems and formats people generally are going to hear ones music. For instance, iTunes is apparently the biggest 'retailer' of music, it's format a compressed MP3 and consumed often with tiny earbuds and hyped processing and often volume. A mix through super accurate monitoring surely will not necessarily sound great under such conditions. Should one be mixing to the end use and the monitoring reflect that...or am I barking up the wrong tree there?

Personally, I don't like the sound...but studies have shown that many people prefer the hyped sound and even don't 'get' the warm sound mixed for vinyl and the day, no matter how good the material...they expect those tinselly highs and such.

...

Great thread, keep it up...most appreciated
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 04:09 PM   #1772
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

I use to think the same way, but to get clinical with your audio you NEED accurate monitors & headphones. You need to hear WHAT is really going on to be able to adjust it & fix problems.

I still use cheap Ms16 monitors, and track & mix thru ATH-M40fs & AKG240 headphones (GASP!) due to finances, but even these were a huge step up from the computer speakers & everyday headphones - ear buds I used, and my mixes show it. It is such a pleasure to go to a well treated room with proper monitors & hear how bad my mixes sound, but after working on the tracks there & bringing them home I can definitely see a 1000% improvement on my system.

Since my system colors what I hear, it sounds bad on what everyone uses, but when I can really hear what I am working on it comes a lot closer to being "acceptable".....whatever that is!!

Just an IMHO type of post......
__________________
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 06-03-2011, 05:03 PM   #1773
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
I use to think the same way, but to get clinical with your audio you NEED accurate monitors & headphones. You need to hear WHAT is really going on to be able to adjust it & fix problems.
I am kind of seeing the point of course, playing a guitar through your hi-fi or tv's surround (that I have heard people still attempt) or even a computers speakers (which people effectively do fit hey are running a guitar through a plugin) is not designed to take let alone reproduce such sounds on their own...regardless of the sound quality.

But besides my own budgetary restrictions on monitors (what I am using is surprisingly good), people are consuming the final mix and gauging yours by what they are hearing. For instance my present GF drives me nuts listening to incredibly loud music at home though a giant surround system, big sub woofer and speakers in the roof that use the roof space as an enclosure (I presume)...LOL...or in a small car with incredibly limited speakers in the plastic door covers...to an iPhone, often without the earbuds through those tiny little speakers with the volume on full (I can't even recognise it as music, let alone any particular artist). Almost everything in the compressed MP3 format.

I don't think many of these behaviours are that unusual...so while good monitors can make the mixing and production easier and more clinical and change the way we hear things (as I say, I find this kind of thing to be difficult to painful to listen to at times) how does the end result translate to those kinds of formats so that we know what it will sound like to the end consumer?

I am sure that audio engineering and music was changed by the restrictions of the vinyl format and AM radio for instance...should we not be making similar adjustments for these newer formats and taking into account the preferences of average modern users in similar ways?

Perhaps one should release MP3 and other mixes for instance as options.

Just a few thoughts, proper monitors are on my wish list though will be modest though as I say, what I am using now is pretty good (reasonably flat, good at a reasonable volume, fair distance apart and height for mixing purposes...also has the option of changing the EQ from "Flat" to a range of 'hyped' versions).

I'm certainly not advocating anything, just a little uncertain about some of these things and how the music will really be heard...it's no good telling someone "really, it sounds amazing at home through my audiophile system or reference monitors"...just some thoughts that might change not even production values but the arrangement protocols that I am working on at the moment.
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2011, 05:41 PM   #1774
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

Leaving aside the monitor thing...as I really need a bit more experience perhaps to get a handle on this aspect (unless someone has thoughts)...

How much does being so involved in the recording process influences your writing, playing and arranging practices?
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2011, 03:09 AM   #1775
danielg
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warmingtone View Post
How much does being so involved in the recording process influences your writing, playing and arranging practices?
I've been thinking about this lately. The more I work on my own material, the more the recording/mixing/performance/writing phases merge. I find myself tracking and writing all the way through the mix now.

If I can't get a something to work mix-wise, I might re-write or re-track parts with a different intensity/feel, to solve a mix difficulty!

Mixing sometimes highlights opportunities I had not considered in the tracking, some happy accident that calls for a new part or feel.

When I'm just focused on writing, I try to hear parts in the context of how I might mix them, where they might fit in the final track, and this helps a lot with arrangements decisions.

I could not do this initially because learning to mix is so consuming. Learning is of course never complete, but I'm starting to feel like everything could be part of a single creative process. It feels liberating in a way.

Does anyone else work like this, or do things tend to stay within discrete phases?

I imagine there would be pros and cons with both approaches.

Daniel
danielg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 12:18 PM   #1776
never_mind
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 221
Default

This thread is still alive???
never_mind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 02:25 PM   #1777
Tinderwet
Human being with feelings
 
Tinderwet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon J. View Post
Thanks for the PFD, Smurf!

What a great read this thread has been.

One thing that has not been said in this thread is this: Nobody will never know.

Let me explain.

I think it is important to stop worrying at some point. I'm kind of re-stating "finished is better than perfect" in a way. If a certain sound is not 100% what you intended, pretend that it is. Why? Because nobody will never know it's not what you intended, unless you state it.

Same goes for, say, mic selections. Let's say you record vocals. You pick a [insert brand here] large diaphragm microphone, record the vocals, make them sound good, mix them together with the rest, master the song and play it to the audience. Now, when you compare a Neumann TLM103 and a tBone CS450 (I have never) or whatever cheap vs. expensive mic combination, the difference is probably obvious. But when the finished product is playing, nobody will never know what mic you were using, unless you tell them.

A friend of mine bought some UAD plugins and tried to sell me his waves SSL channel strip plugins, since he now had the UAD equivalent. I couldn't figure out what I would do with a SSL channel strip plugin, since I already had ReaEQ (d'uh). Nobody will never know if I EQ'ed my tracks with ReaEQ or the Waves stuff.

Your guitar sound might not be exactly what you have been hunting for years (like flmason). Guess what? Nobody will never know it's not exactly the sound you intended. You can pretend it is!

To me this makes a lot of sense. It's about priorities. What's really important? Please comment if this makes/does not make sense to you.
Great post Simon, please keep the wisdom coming!
Tinderwet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 06:36 AM   #1778
Small Stone
Human being with feelings
 
Small Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: QC, Canada
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielg View Post
If I can't get a something to work mix-wise, I might re-write or re-track parts with a different intensity/feel, to solve a mix difficulty!

Mixing sometimes highlights opportunities I had not considered in the tracking, some happy accident that calls for a new part or feel.
I recorded a bass track three times in the last couple of weeks, not because the performance wasn't good, but because I wasn't satisfied at all with the way it sounded in the mix. I could've go with the fix-it-in-the-mix philosophy, but I didn't. Again: good tracking makes for a good mix!

Also, I have come to learn with experience that when you record a performance, it gets better at the end of the track. For exemple: you start getting a better groove on that bassline in the last 30 seconds of the song. Why not apply that good groove all over the song? Do it again! That second take is going to be way better.
Small Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 09:35 PM   #1779
Hardrock69
Human being with feelings
 
Hardrock69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 133
Default

As I write all my own stuff, I am usually doing all the engineering while writing, using my Roland VS-1680 or Reaper as a writing tool.

First lay down the rough tracks, and keep refining them, seeing what works, what does not, until I know what I want the bass or guitar parts to be, then I will sort of begin again, programming and recording the final drum track.

Once I get the final drum track programmed, then I get the best sound I can on 4 tracks(kick, snare, toms, cymbals/hi-hat) and record the keeper drums.

Then it is just a matter of doing however many takes to get bass and guitars done right. Then vox, mixdown, etc.

As I am a perfectionist, sometimes it might take me a week or so to get a take I am satisfied with. That of course is a whole other area of discussion. I might have a take that is technically perfect, but the vibe might be laboratory sterile and I will hate it. So I just do it until I like the playback.
Hardrock69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 09:37 PM   #1780
Hardrock69
Human being with feelings
 
Hardrock69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 133
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warmingtone View Post
decent chair without arms so I can play the guitar properly...
Ha....I got that by accident. $100 office chair....arms made of plastic, which supported the back. Over time, and hundreds of "leaning back" instances, both arms cracked and broke, leaving the seat on it's base.

Cannot afford to splurge on another office chair, and heck, I am totally satisfied with this as it is!
Hardrock69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 06:41 AM   #1781
danielg
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Small Stone View Post
For exemple: you start getting a better groove on that bassline in the last 30 seconds of the song. Why not apply that good groove all over the song? Do it again! That second take is going to be way better.
Indeed! Bass is *so* important, keep doing it till it makes whimper you with delight I say.

I've tracked numerous guitarists *trying* to play bass (including myself), and it seems like the default approach is to play with the same feel as guitar. It is a completely different beast of course, requiring more sensitivity in general. The guitar can oftentimes thrash about like an angry fish at the end of the line - maybe the bass needs to act more like the tip of the rod in how it bends to the energy, measured and sure.

It's not really obvious at first what a great bass player is doing to create feel, hence the guitarist thinking bass is easy and boring. Maybe it's all the ghost lead-ins and pull-outs, the implied glissandi that makes all the difference. It's not something that can be measured by exact note length, sometimes it's so subtle. I think that good bass players intuitively use slides and stops to control slight delays and rushes. They instinctively allow some notes to develop slightly after the beat by coming in perfectly-late (extending the kick energy or pulse of the track), or they lead the beat in by starting in anticipation.

Finding the right pocket for a bass part (by playing or with mixing tricks) is immensely satisfying because suddenly the whole track feels good again, cohesive. I love that moment.

I seem to remember Yep had some very useful insights on bass sometime earlier in the thread (about five years ago or something ).

Someone told me once that Paul McCartney did much of The Beatles bass after everything else was tracked, so he could make his fills fit perfectly the song. Can anyone verify this?
danielg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 02:25 PM   #1782
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

In my studies of late getting a handle on things, I have been really enjoying hearing the isolated tracks that are about.

Earlier Yep and others were admiring the motown 'funk brothers' and in particular bassist James Jamerson. Perhaps one of the most famous classic virtuoso playing in pop bass was the song 'what's going on' by Marvin Gaye...

Here's the isolated bass track...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqtELR5GyfI

Famously improvised lying exhausted on his back in the studio with his characteristic one finger 'hook' style and with no bar the same for the entire song. (unlike another J Jamerson who made quite a career from lying on her back, and other positions too! LOL)

here's another, ain't no mountain high enough...isolated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07wC5...eature=related

For about a year and a half I had a weekly jam with a JJ disciple who would read this and there are some parts that I couldn't help but smile about or even stop playing it was so much fun hearing and seeing it played. It certainly changed the way I played guitar for the better!

The bass can be a harmonic, melodic and percussive instrument all at the same time, but many look at it (and to be fair many genres) relegate it to primarily holding down the root notes.


The movie discussed earlier "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" should be required watching for people interested in recording and arranging...as the promo says, they had more #1 hits than the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Elvis and the Beach Boys combined.

...

Even if improvised, it has the sensibility of being 'composed' working with the groove and the melody line and the harmony and providing constant points of interest. Of course not going to suit a lot of styles to be playing this kind of thing, and the whole band new the value of arrangements and fitting parts together. The song in particular is adventurous in many ways and well worth an analysis...many guitar players are not going to 'get' those harmonies for instance.

But JJ could also pluck out some incredibly rock solid lines that made a lot of these tunes. Much of the beauty of them were perhaps lost in the 'mix' enforced buy the limitations of vinyl and the huge arrangements, but you certainly felt them.

...

There is certainly a lot to learn from these isolated tracks and I think worthy of considering when we have so much power and unlimited tracking in modern DAW's and general production. After all, man of us are after after the old 'sound' with tube pre's and 'classic analogue' gear.

I really suspect a lot of it was in part because things were not able to be so 'surgical' and a lot of 'mistakes' and weird tones and noise were made use of and 'fit'...plus these guys had to work quick, churning stuff out at an incredible pace.

I was listening this morning again to the isolated tracks of Stevie Wonder's 'superstition' again today...

http://media.libsyn.com/media/slau/S...Multitrack.mp3

Isolates all the parts all played by SW other than the horns and really instructive...

In part, because here is a musician who as on this track (and like many of us) creates music on their own and with the studio. Prince is another that comes to mind but there are many others who take into account the entire arrangement of a song.

As a guitar player myself, it is easy to get carried away (especially when you can add any number of layers and effects) and when a song was perhaps originally conceived on that instrument. Guitar tends to 'shine' and seem more impressive when it plays an integral part of an arrangement and keeps out of the way of other instruments, yet this seems often lost and you get this 'wall of sound' effect from the guitars IMHO.

Working on one's own is tricky though. I have seen quite a few 'mixing video's' of late and I think one interesting idea is to mute out everything but the bass, drums and vocals and see how things hold up with these essential elements. Is the melodic line good enough, are the lyrics being expressed well and stand to muster, is the bass holding expressing the harmony and working with the groove. Many times I've noticed that in some listening environments, the bass, kick/snare and vocal lines are what one hears and the guitars are just 'filler'

...

On other matters, due to some things in this thread I'm going to be supplementing my basic set up with a better pair of headphones (ATH-M50s) as I get way to much bleed through in the ones I have and to supplement the generally good but domestic monitoring I'm using.

Also, a DI box as I've often thought that a guitar part should be able to stand up as a clean tone (plus it makes editing easier) regardless of the amount of 'hair' that's added later.

...

The McCartney stories...I've heard a few, certainly some 'sound like' they were conceived later in the mix though they were pretty darn good earlier when that was not possible. Again, a melodic, groove and percussive player of the bass and music that was conceived as a whole.

Many of us perhaps come from our instrument (guitar) and hang the beat, bass and even vocals as something of an afterthought perhaps. It may well be an idea to track the bass after a lot of tracks are down, but one needs to leave the space there for it to work. A lot of guitars are played well into the bass register with a lot of music and there perhaps just isn't the space for it to move around much.
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 05:13 PM   #1783
danielg
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warmingtone View Post
...I think one interesting idea is to mute out everything but the bass, drums and vocals and see how things hold up with these essential elements.
I think this is probably the most sound advice there is for good arrangements. If the drums/bass/vocal are telling a story, everything else can enhance that. Otherwise the focus can be easily blurred. This is especially true now that the average project studio artist has access to so many sounds and tools - who's playing lead there? Which bit is the melody? Why are there 4 separate guitar parts...and an oboe?!

When I first started playing electric guitar, I of course fell in love with how expressive and powerful the instrument is. My rhythm style, for a long time was far too busy. I semi-consciously felt like I needed to double along with the rhythm section. I guess I equated the guitar's power with how powerful the band was as a whole. Strumming along without any pause was the default, and what nonsense that was! Real power with guitar comes from how much one does not play.

I hear a lot of young bands where the guitars are trying to play drums and bass, without realising how that tends to rob overall power. Grunge kind of encouraged that for me. Of course it might be difficult telling the young members of New-Metallica that they should all play a little less.

For rhythm parts I often approach the guitar as a single percussion instrument, that is where it lives in the orchestra after all. Guitar can converse and hold it's own with the rhythm section much better if it listens first before speaking. Guitar is so good at breaking out percussively, it can be the ultimate tuned drum!

This kind of highlights some perennial arrangements approaches, which to me is what makes Motown so worthy of study. It makes a difference if I write a song with just chords on a guitar. It can be difficult to spread the notes out among instruments because psychologically, the performance is tied to particular chords/rhythms/voicing.

Sometime ago I discovered that I could listen to a Mozart piece, and imagine that each part was quantized to something like a whole note. The piece then became just a bunch of chords. Mentally un-quantizing again was an a-ha moment for what can be done with arrangements. Mozart is especially good for this because his work is so harmonically perfect, he's the king of pop for the old masters.

Arrangement is usually genre specific, but in principle I don't think it needs to be. Genre is to music what lobby groups are to politics!

BTW, the Joan Osborne performance in that film gave me shivers. She really got inside the song there.
danielg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 06:28 PM   #1784
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

The guitar is for sure a versatile instrument...speaking as a guitarist LOL

But I think that we need to put aside the mantle of guitarist (read, bassist, keyboardist, drum-er-ist, vocalist, etc) for that of 'musician'...in many ways that is the attraction to the music technology that the home/project studio allows.

The Motown movie is great of course and I think there were some others mentioned from the 'classic albums' series that are also great (AJA by steely dan, Jimi hendrix, Elton John and others) and the isolated tracks floating around are all instructive.

Some things are kind of genre specific I guess, but there are lessons to be learned for sure and I think a lot of 'problems' with mixing could well be addressed by composing and arrangement. I wouldn't want people to think that there are a better class of music, it's all good but the principles are still there.

Quote:
Sometime ago I discovered that I could listen to a Mozart piece, and imagine that each part was quantized to something like a whole note. The piece then became just a bunch of chords. Mentally un-quantizing again was an a-ha moment for what can be done with arrangements. Mozart is especially good for this because his work is so harmonically perfect, he's the king of pop for the old masters.
I remember doing exactly this at Uni with shenkarian analysis...reducing entire sonata's down to three notes and a cadence, a lot of fun and to run such things in reverse.

It is a marvel to me how music of such complexity is composed with the whole in mind. Perhaps the conductor more like the mixer, the musicians fantastically technically but requiring the vision of the composer. Much music today is arrived at with a simple chord chart and fitting that to a template for a genre or style or the limitations of the musicians involved.

Perhaps a little OT though...again, classical music is not necessarily the pinnacle of musical creation, but there are some lessons to be learned there too.

...

For sure, if you want a guitar part to be memorable and really stand out in the mix, a lot of it will come from a great part that cuts through and makes some melodic sense (not just a widdle bit in the centre of a song)...something like 'wicked game's guitar hook, 'sultans of swing' and such rely on a clean tone from a single guitar in the right place that really pops out of the mix and the radio. In classic rock, something like free's 'all right now' from kossoff is a classic (also a fantastic bass line through the solo section) or 'layla' by EC and many more to mention. In the more modern vein, perhaps satriani's 'always with me/you' really cut through and was a rare instrumental guitar hit. AC/DC leave a lot of space too in that classic rock kind thing and cleaner than most guitarist would think.

Sorry, the whole metal era kind of passed me by, but EVH's solos were very short and his mastery was as much to do with his rhythm playing there too.

...

It's easy to think like a guitar player and want to feature that instrument but it's very easy to get it lost in itself musically and it typically has a range that tramples all over vocalists and even bassists, obscures the beat.

Motown had three guitar players in there but they all had a role. One shouldn't forget Cropper's work with the MG's and all those great soul hits and guitar oriented material too...more than one way to have soul.

With bass, flea with the chilli peppers is worth looking at the way that works with the guitar and overall arrangement...or sting's control of the bass and melody in the police and later material.

But a lot simply comes down to transforming from a guitar player to a musician and seeing the whole and giving space for everything to 'speak'. I try and look for interplay and the function of an instrument in a tune as much as I can, and when listening to music too.

So, there is generally a groove, a foundation and a melody...as a guitar player, what are you adding to this 'mix' and not detracting from the whole.

The guitar can function in any or all of those roles of course...then perhaps you need to ask what is the role of the other instruments if you choose to go that route. You might consider dropping out the drums or the bass so when they do hit, you feel it.

'All right now' is a classic like that with only guitar during the verses and a distinctive groove on the solo. It also uses some great alternatives to the 'powerchord' thing with inversions that you don't typically see people reach for in the guitar world.

With the power of DAW's and the hands on the wheel, we all have a tendency to add 'more guitar' than perhaps we should and the average listener is rarely impressed (or guitar player I suspect)
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 10:27 PM   #1785
Hardrock69
Human being with feelings
 
Hardrock69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 133
Default

As soon as I discovered Standing In The Shadows Of Motown, I knew I had to get it.

And something not mentioned about James Jamerson's tracking of "What's Going On"....he was not lying on his back out of exhaustion, he was fucking drunk off his ass, lol. Came time for him to track his part and he was nowhere to be found.....they ran down the street and found him smashed in a bar, I think the story goes.

I am a guitarist who can play bass. Well aware of the dictates of a good bass part....should be inventive, should be the glue between the kick drum and the guitars, should hold down the foundation of the song (for the most part), and should SERVE the song without overpowering it.

I would be a fool to consider myself a bassist, but I am able to come up with good bass parts, and am satisfied with that. Much like I consider myself to be a guitarist who can sing, but don't think of myself as a real singer.

Some of the examples mentioned above are spot on. I call it "allowing room so a song can breathe". The song has to have breathing space. That gives it some dynamics (even if it is balls to the wall from start to finish). Cramming every possible note into a song, or striving to take up every possible second of space is only going to make an arrangement worse and will not serve the song, making the listener experience not as good as it could be.

A lot of it comes down to the general Human Listening Experience. The old dictate that a pop song should be less than three minutes is simply because your average listener is likely to get bored beyond that, unless the song is an incredibly astonishing and addictive piece of work.

Of course one of the reasons most popular songs gain mass acceptance is due to keeping it within a certain tempo range, and the usual stuff about being catchy with lotsa hooks, etc. Vocal parts are pretty important for popular music. In the Country Music world here in Nashville, clear, concise vocals with great harmony are paramount. Out of all "styles" of music, I say Country Music songwriters focus more on serving the song than any writers in any other format, though I don't care for Country Music in general, and I HATE what passes for Country these days (little more than pop music with the occasional steel guitar). Country music has a focus on acoustic instruments, and as a result, I feel that style was based on "serving the song".

Keeping the arrangements as basic as possible is a good thing in my opinion.
Too many ingredients make for a less than satisfying cake.
Hardrock69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 11:24 PM   #1786
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardrock69 View Post
As soon as I discovered Standing In The Shadows Of Motown, I knew I had to get it.

And something not mentioned about James Jamerson's tracking of "What's Going On"....he was not lying on his back out of exhaustion, he was fucking drunk off his ass, lol. Came time for him to track his part and he was nowhere to be found.....they ran down the street and found him smashed in a bar, I think the story goes.
LoL...I was being polite for JJ there... hahaha

All genres have lessons and although out here country music is kind of rare (we tend to ship 'em over there with our actors) there is some great country music songs that are very clever with the wordplay at the very least.

Quote:
Country music has a focus on acoustic instruments, and as a result, I feel that style was based on "serving the song".
Not sure that being 'acoustic based' has a lot to do with it's value or aesthetic and electric instruments featured from the time they were available.

I admire jazz too, but the fact that it was originally 'acoustic based' does not make for more authenticity, although it might appear that way. Much bad jazz has come from unhappy couplings with other genres, primarily pop and rock it would seem...taming the time and dynamics and locking it to a 4x4 kick snare beat and such.

...

I must say, this is something I have been struggling with lately...how free to allow the time...or must everything be locked to the metronome?

(a vain attempt to steer things more towards why my recordings also sound like ass! Though a lot I suspect is to do with the music and arrangements and trying to combine the creative inspiration with the 'art' of recording it)
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 11:34 AM   #1787
Guitardedmark
Human being with feelings
 
Guitardedmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
I'm going to push this, because I think it's an important distinction, and maybe I phrased the question badly the first time around-- are you seriously arguing that you (or anyone) can reliably hear the material used in transistors, to the point where if I posted 20 guitar clips you could tell which had germanium and which had silicon transistors, and which had something else entirely?

Note that I am emphatically NOT talking about taking a fuzz-face and clipping out and replacing the diode (which anyone could hear), I'm talking about the difference between circuits designed from the ground up to sound good using whatever kind of components.

Saying that a fuzzface sounds different with different transistors is a categorically different thing from saying that the presence of a silicon transistor automatically imparts a specific sound to any circuit. If you were to design a circuit using silicon transistors that deliberately introduced reverse leakage comparable to a germanium transistor I bet you'd have a hard time telling the sonic output apart. I mean, you might be able to to tell one from the other in a straight A/B test, but I doubt that you'd be able to do much better than guess which had the germanium transistor.


We haven't nailed down anything. Older equipment sounds different, but so does one piece of newer equipment to the next. Two Stratocasters that came off the same factory line on the same day will sound different.

My argument is emphatically NOT that the difference between one piece of kit and another is illusory. In fact I stipulated pretty early in this thread that EVERYTHING matters. That COULD be read as a reason to pursue every picayune detail down to the Nth technical degree, or it could be reason to just leave it up to the amp and instrument manufactures to figure that stuff and just find stuff that matters to one's own sound. Either approach is entirely valid.

There is a bit of dialog in the film Time Bandits that goes something like this:

"So now you're the leader of this group?"
"No, we agreed not to have a leader."
"Right, so shut up and do as I say."

Wherever there is controversy or uncertainty, interested parties will rush in and use the UNCERTAINTY ITSELF as proof that they are right. This can be seen everywhere, in a lot of political debates for example. The line is that if you can't prove X, therefore the truth must be Y. Which is patently false as a logical test.

Please note that I am not accusing Boxofsnoo of anything like this. But when some people are saying the issue is black, and some white, it is very hard to make a sincere case for the answer being "unknown" without being pushed into one camp or the other, or without having people therefore read you as saying it is some shade of gray. Gray is not the same as unknown. And you don't have to espouse one side to doubt the conclusions of the other.


I have no disagreement at all with people whose favorite piece of gear is "vintage."

If anyone is certain that loose tubes or germanium diodes or old speakers are the key to great sound, then I have no argument with their personal preferences, but I do expect a technical defense if they expect their assessment to be treated as empirical fact.
Thanks for posting this! I agree completely.
Guitardedmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 11:49 AM   #1788
Guitardedmark
Human being with feelings
 
Guitardedmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxOfSnoo View Post
Well I'm not gonna fight you, yep. You clearly have more experience than I do. But I can hear it, so I think most anyone can.

I think you especially need to go back and read my first thread more carefully. Especially the first line.

Here: http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...&postcount=411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8...x=4&playnext=4

This video is a good example of what I call the "vintage effect". Some people just have an overwhelming belief that vintage gear is better simply because it is vintage. Some vintage gear is better than newer gear but it is NOT because it is "vintage". It is because of the technical differences in the equipment. If you are absolutely convinced that vintage gear is better than new gear than you will all but convince yourself of this whether it is better or not. I've always thought the greatest enemy in creating music (and life for that matter) is "contempt prior to investigation". When someone listens to your music they are going to pay more attention to the sound quality than whether your gear is vintage or not. It amazes me how few of these vintage enthusiasts refuse to account for their own unconscious mind and pivot their argument of vintage superiority on their supreme listening skills.
Guitardedmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 01:50 PM   #1789
Jorgen
Human being with feelings
 
Jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 5,465
Default

@ warmington and danielg: great posts!
Jorgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 02:34 PM   #1790
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guitardedmark View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8...x=4&playnext=4

This video is a good example of what I call the "vintage effect". Some people just have an overwhelming belief that vintage gear is better simply because it is vintage.
Thanks for posting this vid, a whole range of wide implications. Certainly you see a lot of it in the look of VST's and the perception of worth. There is also the idea that if something costs more or is 'exclusive' that it is perceived to be more valuable.

There are a huge range of 'illusions' with things like that beyond the example given, such as how we perceive music when associated with the personalities or images of the performance of music through the media through to how we might choose to decorate Reaper with certain themes.

Lately I have been appreciating some of the Reaper Plugins for the no nonsense consistent layouts...they may not have graphic images of glowing tubes and vintage knobs like many I have in my system, or cost anything much, but there are some very powerful great sounding useful tools in that bag of tricks and I am finding I am using them more and more and easier for not having the 'distraction'.

There may even be something in the visual representation of sound in the DAW that affects mixing and such with the actual sound when we don't see those wave forms and tracks streaming by. Incredibly useful in lots of ways, but I think I had an experience in the last few days of this effect when I played a mix the next day through the same system but away from the DAW for someone else. Time to do over there, perhaps mix with one's eyes closed!


Cheers Jorgen, sorry about the long posts, I can type as fast as talk...but editing, clearly not my strong point some times...LOL
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 05:19 PM   #1791
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

Ever since I bought the Real World Recording with Reaper DVD I have been exploring the JS/LOSER plugins& finding a lot of gems. The Limiters are especially nice IMHO, and have replaced my old standby Tim Brooke Tales Pocket Limiter that I have used for years.

Once you get past the naming there are some good ones there, but it took the DVD to get me to really explore them....
__________________
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 06-13-2011, 06:06 PM   #1792
Tedwood
Human being with feelings
 
Tedwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast UK
Posts: 14,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurf View Post
Ever since I bought the Real World Recording with Reaper DVD I have been exploring the JS/LOSER plugins& finding a lot of gems. The Limiters are especially nice IMHO, and have replaced my old standby Tim Brooke Tales Pocket Limiter that I have used for years.

Once you get past the naming there are some good ones there, but it took the DVD to get me to really explore them....
Smurf, I am wondering for myself, but also for others. Does this offer more than REAPER Power? It doesn't seem to from what I can see.

Both seem to assume you know some basics of digital recording, and both seem to cover the most widely used concepts

..or would you say the difference in format makes it better for some?
__________________
The grass is greener where it rains
Tedwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 07:26 PM   #1793
Dynsdale
Human being with feelings
 
Dynsdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 168
Default

Thanks for a great thread all. Lots of good contributions on everything from highly technical stuff to nuts and bolts. My 2c in the not so sophisticated end of the spectrum:

On listening: Use ReaXComp’s feature “solo current band” to isolate areas of trouble in muddy mixes. Also great for getting a concrete idea of what your favorite mixes sound like across the spectrum on your monitors.

On background vocals: I do not have Shoyoninja’s insight into vocal recordings, but if your backing vocals sounds skinny or indifferent, try to overdub the harmonies at slightly different speeds. This gives you a different timbre on each harmony part, which fills in and adds a little interest to the overall sound.

On distorted guitars ( I know – we’ve been around that block a few times): It has been much easier for me to obtain a smooth distortion sound without “fizz” when I roll of some of the highs on the guitar itself before hitting an amp, pod or DI.
And Smurf, thanks for the PDF.
Dynsdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 09:54 PM   #1794
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedwood View Post
..or would you say the difference in format makes it better for some?
I would say that the video format is THE huge selling point. It takes you thru a complete song, from idea to completion, showing how he uses the included Reaper effects to create a mix, punching in, using editing & comping to create the best take, tuning vocals etc.

The Reaper Power book has a LOT more details, but it is hard to put them into perspective at times IMHO....and to tell the truth I was not that impressed with the RP book after going thru the ReaMix & supplied Manual for Reaper. I still bought it and DON'T consider it a waste of $$ by a LONG shot!! Just FOR ME, I found it sort of an overlap of the manual & ReaMix books...and let the flaming begin!

I have been telling folks that if they want a quick crash course in Reaper & mixing, grab the Real World video & the ReaMix book. After that you will be good to go!
__________________
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 06-14-2011, 06:28 AM   #1795
johng
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post

- This might sound obvious, but use fresh strings and a good instrument. Bass strings sadly wear out quickly, and unless you're James Jamerson (the greatest bass player who ever lived, but not someone most people are equipped to emulate), old strings are even worse for bass than guitar, while also being more expensive. You can boil old strings in water with a little white vinegar to restore some life if cash is tight. A decent bass doesn't have to be all that expensive, but the pickup configuration and general sound of the instrument should complement the kind of music you do. A fat, funky, burpy-sounding P-bass is not going to sound appropriate in a nu-metal band, and a deep, clackety, growly, heavy-body bass with EMGs might have a hard time fitting into mellow blues-rock ballads.
I read this thread over and over almost every day. It has changed my life and, just when I thought I couldn't do it, got me started meaningfully on the path of completing a home-recording project.

So it is with great trepidation that I have to disagree with you here about fresh bass strings............

I have spent a LOT of time studying bassists like Duck Dunn, Jamerson, Family Man, George Porter, Wilbur Ware, etc. I pay special attention to how they control the attack and decay of each note, and have worked hard at learning to emulate them with my right and left hand techniques.

The most meaningful content for bass function, as I see it, occupies the sonic terrain below about 800 hz or so. And as far as bass as an instrument, is concerned, I prefer to keep with the natural order of things and let the guitars be twangy, the drums tuned significantly higher than 80's rock, and the bass low and mean.

What I'm getting at is that my roundwound bass strings (strung on a USA G&L) are about a year old right now (I have used these live, on tour, in the studio...lots of sweat!), and I LOVE the way they sound. I will admit that they require a special sensitivity to play correctly. But so do fresh roundwounds.

Honestly, I hate the sound of new strings. They do nothing to my ear but add a horrible mess of fizz and pop that has nothing to do with how a BASS is supposed to sound.

BTW, yes, I have thought of using flats. I still prefer old rounds.

Could you elaborate a bit on why I'm wrong here? Clearly, I am nowhere near being the player the Jamerson was. And you are not the only one who I've heard say that only he could really work with old strings.

Actually, as a sidenote, I read in that Shadows of Motown book that towards the end of his career, he was getting more and more complaints about questionable intonation on his old strings.

Any feedback is more than greatly appreciated. Thanks for so much good information.
johng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 12:38 PM   #1796
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurf View Post
Ever since I bought the Real World Recording with Reaper
Big +1 on the TFR DVD. You can get a sense of 'style' from the many TFR You Tube Vids which are also priceless (aka free...plus see pipeline audio-s series as well and others on YT)...

https://www.youtube.com/results?searc...forreaper&aq=0

As Smurf describes, Jon takes you through an entire recording session from before the scratch vocal and acoustic tracks (as in setting up reaper, installing themes and such) through the whole 'session' including hundreds of 'slip edits' that goes for a few hours.

What you get to see is different and adds to the free YT vids, over 4 hours of being able to look over the shoulder of a recording session and mix.

Reaper Power is also a great reference to have by your side, but only one thing beats seeing someone putting things to use...having a go and making a lot of mistakes.
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 01:07 PM   #1797
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johng View Post
Honestly, I hate the sound of new strings. They do nothing to my ear but add a horrible mess of fizz and pop that has nothing to do with how a BASS is supposed to sound.

BTW, yes, I have thought of using flats. I still prefer old rounds.

Could you elaborate a bit on why I'm wrong here? Clearly, I am nowhere near being the player the Jamerson was. And you are not the only one who I've heard say that only he could really work with old strings.

Actually, as a sidenote, I read in that Shadows of Motown book that towards the end of his career, he was getting more and more complaints about questionable intonation on his old strings.

Any feedback is more than greatly appreciated. Thanks for so much good information.
I know what you mean, as a guitar player, my bass with new strings is squeaky and bright. I can see some reason though for newer strings, certainly you need your intonation on and some higher defining harmonics.

On guitar, major players used to have an 'old string' mojo mentality (in the 70's) as I recall, but really the intonation and sound deteriorates badly with old strings. At the very least, cleaning and wiping them down with a light oil is a good idea to protect them, but in time they will stretch out the brightness.

For bass, I am thinking of going flat wound, I don't play so hard that they are wearing on the frets or playing bass enough to wear them in. Things can be very different depending on the style you play as well. Some deep bass sounds can be very indistinct and come across as a background thump more than a melodic line and loses musical power as was also discussed by Yep back there.
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 01:35 PM   #1798
warmingtone
Human being with feelings
 
warmingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Phillip Island, Australia
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynsdale View Post
On listening: Use ReaXComp’s feature “solo current band” to isolate areas of trouble in muddy mixes. Also great for getting a concrete idea of what your favorite mixes sound like across the spectrum on your monitors.
I will have to explore this, I have been exploring ReaFIR in the various modes and playing with these things in weird ways teaches a lot about sound.

...

As a learning exercise, I have found a bunch of old tapes of some bands recorded in super basic style with two mics at the back of a bad room.

This has been good to work with some of these tools and really listen to what is going on. All kinds of odd things with phase seem to be going on for instance, but I have to work with what I have got.

I have noticed that I am getting some strange 'tinkling' robotic type artefacts, especially on cymbals and noise some times.

It's also very easy to loose other sounds going on in there when you mess with others.

On the other hand, you can use something like ReaFIR's multiband comp and EQ's to dial out pretty precisely some boomy bass resonances on particular notes in the recording. I'll have a look at ReaXcomp as well, haven't used that one yet...thanks for the tip...will look at the 'solo current band' as this sounds like something I was trying to do with reaFIR with a lot of line drawing, cheers Dynsdale.
__________________
i7;Win7-64;12GB ram;UA-25;AT2035 Mixcraft>Reaper
Newbie, be gentle!!
warmingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2011, 06:33 PM   #1799
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johng View Post
I read this thread over and over almost every day. It has changed my life and, just when I thought I couldn't do it, got me started meaningfully on the path of completing a home-recording project.

So it is with great trepidation that I have to disagree with you here about fresh bass strings............

I have spent a LOT of time studying bassists like Duck Dunn, Jamerson, Family Man, George Porter, Wilbur Ware, etc. I pay special attention to how they control the attack and decay of each note, and have worked hard at learning to emulate them with my right and left hand techniques.

The most meaningful content for bass function, as I see it, occupies the sonic terrain below about 800 hz or so. And as far as bass as an instrument, is concerned, I prefer to keep with the natural order of things and let the guitars be twangy, the drums tuned significantly higher than 80's rock, and the bass low and mean.

What I'm getting at is that my roundwound bass strings (strung on a USA G&L) are about a year old right now (I have used these live, on tour, in the studio...lots of sweat!), and I LOVE the way they sound. I will admit that they require a special sensitivity to play correctly. But so do fresh roundwounds.

Honestly, I hate the sound of new strings. They do nothing to my ear but add a horrible mess of fizz and pop that has nothing to do with how a BASS is supposed to sound.

BTW, yes, I have thought of using flats. I still prefer old rounds.

Could you elaborate a bit on why I'm wrong here? Clearly, I am nowhere near being the player the Jamerson was. And you are not the only one who I've heard say that only he could really work with old strings.

Actually, as a sidenote, I read in that Shadows of Motown book that towards the end of his career, he was getting more and more complaints about questionable intonation on his old strings.

Any feedback is more than greatly appreciated. Thanks for so much good information.
No need for trepidation on any count. I am thrilled to hear that a discussion I started changed your life, and I would be just as thrilled if input from different perspectives were to change MY life, or that of someone else. If you take something away from gleaning insights from unexpected places, have it be that you never know where inspiration will come from, not that the most recent insight you heard is the definitive voice of God...

Onto the topic of bass strings:

Rules are meant to be broken, but as rules go, strings generally sound their best when they are just broken in. Which is somewhat after "brand-new", and somewhat before "well-played". When I say "generally sound their best", I mean with the best clarity of tone, the best accuracy of pitch, and generally sounding the way the string is meant to sound.

Brand-new strings often require multiple re-tunings to "settle in". This can be accelerated by snapping the strings while tuning, or through good hardware (graphite or roller nuts and bridges, good tuners, etc). Brand-new strings are also often too clicky/clacky/stringy-sounding, and a few hours of play often "settles" them into clear and pingy but still "note-y" sound, like a piano string.

Old bass strings gradually become flabbier and more "note-y" still, with less "growl" and more "hoom", less "grind" and more "thump". This is a mostly tonal/subjective question, and there is a lot to be said for the thunky, unobtrusive sound of dead bass strings.

A more serious problem is with intonation. Contrary to the marketing of "coated" strings, the biggest problem with string age is not corrosion but metal fatigue: Anyone who has ever changed a set of strings knows that old strings have "flat spots" where the frets are. The metal stretches and bends with age and use-- instead of being a straight piece of metal with even windings, it becomes a wobbly and bent piece of metal with flat spots and separated windings.

The net result of this is partly a flabby and indistinct sound, which is not always a bad thing, per se, but it is also partly an inconsistent tonality and weird, uneven harmonics or overtones that can make the instrument sound constantly out-of-tune.

If you're playing a bass with old strings, and you love the bass sound, then don't change a thing. But if the bass sounds uneven, inconsistent, and pitchy, then it's time to begin at the beginning. As I said in the very first line of the very first post: if your recordings don't sound like ass, please ignore.

FWIW, I own three electric basses. One of them (my favorite) is an old Danelectro shorthorn that I pulled the frets out of and filled the slots with shims and wood putty, and treated the fretboard with tung oil (I have probably ruined the value of the vintage bass but I have no regrets). I have this bass strung with LaBella flatwounds that I have not changed for probably a decade. It sounds thunky and fat and vague, halfway between Motown and a string bass, and it blips and blurps like nobody's business for a 60's-type sound.

But my other two basses (a P-bass and a maple-neck frankenstein cobbled together from parts with EMGs) I keep strung with fresh DR strings at all times. The P-bass gets the fat, growly, big-bottom sound of typical pop/rock bass guitar, while the frankenstein/EMG bass is there for the piano-string "ping", cut, depth, and clarity for dense, heavy-rock/punk mixes.

To my dismay, the dead-string, flatwound, fretless, hollow-body Danelectro is the least-picked bass. Most clients love to play it, but prefer the recorded sound of the P-bass or the homemade "Frankenstien". And they are usually right. It depends a lot on the style of music and the other instruments, but the job of the bass is ultimately not to sound good on its own, but to complement the other instruments. And most modern music leaves little room for fat, flabby, thunky-sounding bass.

Getting back to the original point, with most recordings, the sonic qualities of the bass are usually less about how the bass sounds on its own, and more about how the bass locks together the more tonally prominent instruments, like drums and guitar. And a pitchy, flabby-sounding bassline is apt to make everything sound problematic.

James Jamerson was a special case in a lot of ways. He routinely played notes that were way "out" but that sounded perfect. He controlled note duration to create harmonic movement within changes in ways that often completely altered the sense of harmonic progression, always for the better.

The most important thing for any bass player to be aware of is that the bass defines the tonal movement of the song. For good or for ill, if the bass makes a fast run up to the seventh, the whole band makes a fast run up to the seventh, whether they meant to or not. Playing good bass is not just about hitting notes that comprise a good melody, it's about making the whole band sound better. In a sense, it's the bass-player's job to make the band sound good, even if the bass sounds bad. IOW, the quality of the bass is always dependent on how it relates to the overall sound of the band. Unless it's a solo, how the bass sounds by itself is irrelevant.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2011, 10:56 PM   #1800
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon J. View Post

...

Your guitar sound might not be exactly what you have been hunting for years (like flmason). Guess what? Nobody will never know it's not exactly the sound you intended. You can pretend it is!
At this point I tend to believe what I *thought* all those classic guitar tracks sounded like... and what they *really* sounded like are two different things.

Take Free's Alright Now, sounds like 2 maybe even 3 or 4 guitar/takes layered up... with different inversions going.

In short, I believe a lot of what I thought those sounds were, was an illusion of the mix. (Perhaps one of the greatest examples I can think of is Brian May's sound. Scan Youtube, he's out there showing how to play his lead riffs on some vids.)

As a result, I'm a little less critcal of the guitar amp plugins these days, as I've probably been trying to sound like 2 or 3 layered guitars. (Always holding out EVH as the exception, most of his stuff seems to be non-double tracked, that I've listened to.)

Granted, still don't seem to find the combination of sound and playing response in them my old analog rig had. Probably need to explore the idea that the plugs are *more* sensitive to guitar quality than real amps too.

(Which was the real issue I was hitting on back then... are the amp sims actually "there" yet for guitar-centric classic and hard rock? Why or why not?)

In any event, not really in a position to continue on the witch hunt with any dedication these days. But do keep learning.

I can say this, chasing tones can definitely take you away from working on your playing, which can be bad.

The hope had been, that by learning the studio methods, the question of tone would resolve itself. You know, that mysterious, "Somehow in the studio they make it sound great" conundrum.

On some level I'm going to tentatively state I believe that orchestration is a huge part of the puzzle. Or perhaps it should be called "sound architecting" or some such. I.e. the comcept of what sounds work well together. (Sounds seems more appropriate, as there are genres that have nothing to do with the traditional rock guitar band lineup.)

Latest experiment was to try and recreate Johnny Cash's, I Walk the Line. Amp sims and a cheap Strat seemed good enough for the guitar vibe, but the stickler was getting the bump-chica sound of the percussion kit without some drums and brushes around, LOL! But even so, seems like that was a crucial part of the overall sound, apart from Johnny, of course.

In any event, I've conceded that until I'm in a position to go ahead and get set up some guitars in the classic 80's metal fashion... and learn how to layer up those sorts of sound, won't ever get there, because in the end, it's the whole mix that made that sound.

Leastwise seems to me.

Well, over and out.
flmason 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 01:05 AM.


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