tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36852114743575558932024-02-07T16:26:57.971-08:00RECORDING LOUNGENo nonsense audio engineering.
Brought to you by the Closet Studios K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-50105492904934363282017-03-14T14:58:00.001-07:002017-03-14T14:58:33.080-07:00How To Apply for Studio Internships<a href="http://www.recordingloungepodcast.com/blog/how-to-apply-for-studio-internships">http://www.recordingloungepodcast.com/blog/how-to-apply-for-studio-internships</a>K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-56399731003610312032016-09-02T03:56:00.004-07:002016-09-02T03:56:34.403-07:00RECORDINGLOUNGEPODCAST.COM - New Website!Hello friends - it has been so long since I have updated this blog, and I apologize. I have been in the process of moving everything over to the all new, squeaky clean, super-fly:<br /><br /><b><a href="http://recordingloungepodcast.com/">RECORDINGLOUNGEPODCAST.COM</a></b><br /><br />Go there for future blog posts, updates, videos, podcast episodes, and all things Recording Lounge. Sorry Blogger...ya got beat.K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-53924398173044865842015-11-25T00:50:00.002-08:002015-11-25T00:53:45.790-08:00Behringer X-Touch Compact Review<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;">BEHRINGER
X-TOUCH COMPACT REVIEW</span></u></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3685211474357555893" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><i><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;">As always, check out the podcast
"Recording Lounge" on iTunes and check out our all-new Youtube
channel, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/recordinglounge">www.youtube.com/recordinglounge</a></span></i><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;">============================<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.sweetwater.com/images/items/750/XTouchC-large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.sweetwater.com/images/items/750/XTouchC-large.jpg" height="235" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;">Hey
friends, today I'm reviewing the new (ish) Behringer XTouch Compact USB Control
Surface. I have been a long-time CC121 User, which is a very simple and
straightforward single-fader control surface from Steinberg. Since I'm a Nuendo
user, it has done right by my side, but I needed an upgrade. To my surprise,
the X Touch Compact released...finally...and was a very fair price - a mere
$399 for a 9-fader, 16-pot, 39 button interface. So let's get down to business.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;"><br />
FIRST IMPRESSIONS</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;">First impressions on this unit were very good. The build quality
is quite decent, it feels sturdy and not like it's a cheap piece of plastic.
Nice rubber feet on the bottom and metal vents in the back. Faders feel pretty
solid and the pots aren't too shabby. Nice! The unit is a little bigger than I
thought it would be - I'd say it's about maybe 15x11" and maybe
3"-ish tall in the rear...I don't know what I was expecting, I guess I
just thought it would be smaller/shorter for some reason - no matter, it is by
no means "big." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
<b>INSTALL / SETUP<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
What install? You literally just plug it in and it works fine...with the Mackie Control Protocol. If you're into the Mackie protocol/MIDI mapping, then it
should literally work right out of the box. Just enable it in your DAW and make
sure it can support Mackie Control and that's pretty much it. I, on the other
hand, despise the Mackie protocol - it doesn't make sense to my brain, so I
have to use the Standard Mode<i style="font-size: small;"> </i>and create my own "generic midi remote" in Nuendo and
map every button, knob, fader, etc., myself. Which is going to be a very time
consuming task, however</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>, </i></span><span style="font-size: 15pt;">it
will be customized to how I want it. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
<b>IN USE<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
The fader action is smooth and it feels natural, as do the V Pots. It's a bit
of a shame that all the buttons are the same color - yellow - and they are
unlabeled. There is a nice space on the unit for some labeling tape (I use
1/4" patchbay tape to label mine, or 3/8" labels for a label maker).
On the next step up (the "X Touch") there are multi-colored lights,
which would be a nice feature, but hey, it's more expensive. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
Unit seems to be pretty response and sensitive, it reacts basically as I expect
it to. It's not quite as smooth as a Euphonix or Avid interface, but it's
pretty darn smooth. It doesn't feel jerky or glitchy when playing back
automation, and I have't noticed any major issues. Every now and then I feel
like it will get confused on which fader is selected, but that very well could
be just a miscommunication with the DAW - like I had a fader selected in the
DAW but my hand was touching a different fader and it got confused. Who knows.
I haven't been able to repeat it, but I don't think it was an issue with the X
Touch. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
It's a very simple, effective device. In short, it just works! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
<b>COOL STUFF</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><b><br /></b>
It's literally one of the only devices of its kind in that price range. $400
for this many faders, knobs and buttons? That's crazy. Good on you,
Behringer for coming out with something we've been wanting for a long time. I'm
impressed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
Every V Pot is also a switch, so you can route it to be a pan pot, but when you
click it, it can do something else, like mute the channel, or disable the
panner, or record enable. If you're mapping it yourself, you can do whatever
you want. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
Every fader is touch sensitive - which is a <i>really nice feature. </i>You
can do separate CC commands for the touch, which means for example <i>touching </i>the
fader will put the channel into write mode, and when it's touched again, it
will go out of write mode. So you could automate without having to enable
"write" and instead just immediately grab a fader and you're writing
automation. Neat! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
There are 8 buttons below the primary 8 faders, which I assume most people
would make a "select" function, however, you could easily put the
select button above the fader and make these 8 "function" keys for
whatever you want - changing workspaces, changing fader banks, edit modes, or
opening various windows/devices in your DAW. The X Touch (full size) has
Function keys and a few other nifty features.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
The unit has a powered USB hub in the back with two ports - you could use this
for your mouse and keyboard, or a MIDI keyboard, or anything that works just
fine with USB 2 power. You can also use it to chain multiple X-Touch units
together! I wish it was USB3, after all it's almost 2016 now and USB2 is on its
way out, but hey, it's still a <i>very </i>nice <b>touch</b>...like
X touch....get it? ahem....sorry<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
You can download the Behringer Editor app and any firmware updates from their
website and remap your controller to almost anything you can imagine, and save
various settings as .bin files on your computer. <b>NOTE: </b>I have
read that they've already released a firmware update for the X-TOUCH (full size
version) but <i style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">not </i>the
X Touch Compact (yet). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
There is a footswitch input, expression pedal input, and MIDI in/out on the
back of the unit. I haven't really had a need for these yet, but it's a very
nice feature that could come in handy. For example, you could plug in a
footswitch and set it to be "record" so you can sit in your chair
with your instrument, ready to go, and not have to hit record and run over to
it. You could also run a long TS (instrument cable) line into another room and
set it by a drumkit, a guitar amp rig, or by your vocal booth and hit record
from a footswitch in there. If you think outside the box a little, there are
some really cool options for this. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
<b>LAME STUFF</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;">The faders make a little bit of noise as they move. It's sort of
like one of those old printers from the 90s (you know, with the holes on the
sides of the paper) except quiet.<i style="font-size: small;"> </i>It's there,
though. Kinda like this little buzz...but it's not too bad. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
The manual / documentation is virtually useless. It's really just a
"quickstart guide" to help you install it. But remember what I said
before - there's literally nothing to it, you just plug it in. In the back of
the manual it shows the default MIDI mapping, which is nice, but there's no
help regarding re-assigning your own CCs, or using the Editor program, or
integrating it with Generic Remote editors. I think it assumes you're just
going to use the Mackie Protocol. Lame!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
The unit seems to get a little warm - not hot - but warm. It is
ventilated well, but I hope it's not the Achilles heel of the unit; I really
hope they don't start failing after 6 months of use or something. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
The unit uses a full size IEC cable in the back, which is kinda difficult to
position on your desk, and it's kinda bulky. In my situation, the cable sticks
out a little too far, and isn't sitting nicely near my widescreen monitor...but
I think I can make it work. This is one of the few situations where I actually <i style="font-size: small;">wish </i>there was a
wall-wart instead of a full IEC. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
You can't edit the CCs of the unit while In-program. It's understandable, but
it makes it a real pain experimenting with routing CCs. You have to close out of your DAW, reroute,
dump the info to the hardware, reopen, test, etc. Keep in mind, this is only an
issue if you're making your own CC mapping, not using the Mackie Protocol aka
"MC Mode" aka "Mackie Control Mode" <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
<b>SUMMARY</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;">Overall, I must admit, I'm really impressed with this unit. I like
things that are simple, effective, and affordable. It solves a problem, and
does so for the guy that doesn't really want or need to spend $4k on a
control surface. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
Is it as versatile, stylish, and high quality as an Avid S3? No, but it's also
$400, and for that price, it's got my vote as a really cool control surface,
which will allow you to get out of clicking/mousing around and start grabbing
faders and automating more often. When I got my CC121 years ago, I suddenly
realized much more I enjoyed automating and how much more <i style="font-size: small;">often </i>I did it! With
this, I feel confident I'll automate even more. It's a really fun piece to work
with and definitely a step UP from the CC121, even though it's <i>cheaper than the CC121. </i>This
is my honest opinion, coming from me, a huge Steinberg fanboy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
I never really thought I'd say this, but WAY TO GO BEHRINGER! </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br />
<br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Recording Loungehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15163137170359269792noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-15240956234145913592015-08-07T19:54:00.002-07:002015-08-07T19:54:37.163-07:00Compression TutorialHey everyone! The latest episode of the Recording Lounge Podcast has posted, Episode 78. In this episode we explore all the ins and outs of COMPRESSION. Things we discuss:<br /><br />1. The attack and release controls<br />
2. The threshold and ratio controls<br />3. Wet/Dry mix (parallel compression)<br />4. Sidechain highpass<br />
5. Using the compressor to get more attack or punch<br />
6. Using the compressor to get attack evenness<br />
7. Using compression to get distortion/color<br />
8. Using the compressor to get "glue" or "fullness"<br />
9. Drum bus compression<br />
10. Groove and compression<br />
<br />
And much more! This is a 100% free podcast episode packed with 1 hour and 38 minutes of awesome information to help you better understand compression.<br /><br />Check it out!<br /><br />https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/recording-lounge/id342091435?mt=2<br />
<br />K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-42812616548955505412015-07-23T02:14:00.003-07:002015-07-23T05:09:24.180-07:00"BIG TO SMALL" Mixing"Big To Small" mixing is a technique that I talk about in my book, Three Dimensional Mixing, and it's also something I utilize every single day. I don't give advice that I wouldn't give to myself, in fact, I think big to small mixing is a great technique for anyone to try.<br />
<br />
So What is it?<br />
<br />
Below is a segment taken from the SECOND EDITION of my book, where I talk about Big to Small mixing. This is the first section from the new book shared anywhere on the net!<br />
<br />
<b><u>BIG TO SMALL MIXING: IN A NUTSHELL</u></b><br />
<br />
This technique centers around the idea that mixes are NOT a creation of random sounds. They are songs. They are instruments playing a song. It doesn't matter how many mics you used to create that sound, all that matters is that it's an <i>instrument</i>. I see way too many mixers diving into a mix with guns blazing, filtering this and that, compressing this and that, soloing up channels, doing all kinds of ridiculous <i>small </i>picture stuff. We don't want that. We want BIG PICTURE. We want the song to sound like a song.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Pros of Mixing Big to Small:</i></b><br />
1) Your mixes come together quicker.<br />
2) You use less CPU.<br />
3) You use fewer plugins and processors in general.<br />
4) You retain context of the song constantly.<br />
5) You are organized and can make easy changes to your mixes.<br />
6) You will likely have tighter phase relationships due to fewer individual channel processors<br />
7) You will likely worry about the <i>right </i>things and ignore the <i>irrelevant things. </i><br />
<br />
<b><i>Here are your guidelines:</i></b><br />
<br />
1) Work quickly, and try to mix at a normal to quiet level.<br />
<br />
2) Act on instinct. Act musically. React to your feelings. Don't read numbers or meters.<br />
<br />
3) Avoid the solo button (for now).<br />
<br />
4) Be organized. Name your tracks appropriately, color code, organize, group, etc!<br />
<br />
5) Group things into as many groups as you need. Guitar group, Drum group, percussion group, BGVs, etc. If there are 3 mics on a bass cab, group them into a bus. If there's a "dry" and "compressed" chain on a vocal, bus them. If there's a kick "in" and "out," bus them.<br />
<br />
6) Commit to working chronologically. Try not to jump around too much while mixing. Mix in passes. Start at the beginning and go to the end, tweaking as you go, without stopping, without soloing, without changing your monitoring level. Work on it like it's <i>music</i>, not like it's a photoshop project.<br />
<br />
7) This technique is best suited for sessions that are <i>clear</i>. Meaning, if you were mixing along the way, this technique might not work as well for you. If you want to try it on an existing mix or one that has already been started, save that as a copy, and open the session up and clear it. Take off all the inserts, sends, panning, filters, EQs, trims, compressors, automation, everything. The only exception to this is if the insert is integral to the sound, for example, an amp simulator on a DI guitar track.<br />
<br />
8) Make priorities. Who's the most important character in this song? Who is supporting actor? Who needs to be featured and who is simply an extra in the background? Every song has a different story, and so every mix has different priorities. Never lose focus on the most important things. (I'll give you a hint, the most important are probably going to be vocals, the main instrument, bass, and drums).<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Now let's get mixing. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Step 1:</b> Start with a basic balance of the song. We're talking 15 minutes tops, or about 3 listens through. Really it should only take you one or two listens through the song. Work those faders and pans. I like to start with my faders at -10dBFS, which gives me a good amount of room to go up and down. The first things I will push up (as you might expect) are vocal, kick, snare, bass. They usually get bumped a little bit right out of the gate. If you gain staged your session well, they should be sitting pretty happy together.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2:</b> Once you've got a balance that seems to be pretty nice, check out your master bus. How does the song sound overall? Is it going to need to be brighter overall? Is it too fat? There are two options here. If it needs to be brighter, feel free to add that to the mix bus. If it needs to be thinned out, save that for individual channels. In general I don't try to do much bus EQ, just a dB here and there if needed. Keep it light, keep it simple, and use a good EQ. Your entire mix is going through it. Don't use EQ if it doesn't need it. Next move on to compression. Does the mix need a bus compressor? Audition a few if you need to, and try to set it to where the song starts to gel a little bit. Sometimes 1-2dB is enough. Use your ears. What about saturation? Are you into tape emulations and the like? Add it if you feel like the song needs it, not just because you want to! Listen to the <i>song </i>as a <i>song </i>and the mix as a whole. Big picture.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 3:</b> Once you've got the master bus situated, take a look at your groups. Drum group, guitar group, bass group, BGV group. etc. Basically everything should have a group. Listen to them as big picture elements. Do the drums need compression as a whole? Do they need some EQ? Do the guitars need some EQ or some widening? Do the keys need some filtering or compression? If so, apply these things to the groups as needed. You can be a little more liberal this time (as opposed to our conservative bus processing). If you want to group things further or use parallel processing, do so now. An example of this might be sending drums and bass to a parallel buss to compress them together as one unit and blending them in with the originals. <br />
<br />
<b>Step 4: </b>Take a moment to pause. Are there any glaring issues that still exist? Anything you can't get over? Hopefully the dry sounds you got to mix were tracked well, but if there are any glaring issues, this is your chance to use your get-out-of-jail-free card here: you may now use the solo button, BUT...it's only to fix issues. Things like using de-essers on a vocal, filtering out unneeded sub information or room rumble or 60 cycle hum, filtering out hiss, severe boominess, pops, etc., removing noise, ringing, humming, etc., noise reduction or gating, etc. This is <i>not </i>a time for shaping things. It's only a check up. If there are any <i>problems </i>with the audio, fix them now. They should have been fixed in the tracking stage, but I digress.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 5: </b>Once you've fixed any glaring issues (hopefully there weren't too many), give the song a listen from start to finish again and check your balances and bans. Again, when balancing try to work big to small. Need more drums? Turn up the drum bus. Still need more snare? Turn up the snare.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 6: </b>Now that you've got a pretty good balance of the mix, you've worked with the master bus as a whole, the group channels, and fixed any glaring issues, then rebalanced, you're ready to start shaping the tracks. Again, commit to working big to small. Instead of reaching for a bell EQ, try a gentle shelf first. Use <i>wide Qs. </i>I can't tell you how to process your tracks in this stage. This stage is all about getting them to blend well together, and admittedly, it's a hard step, and it will be the longest part of your journey. A lot of novices start here and immediately try to shape the tracks together without getting a frame for the mix as a whole. You have to start with your foundation, build a frame, add the walls, put up the drywall, and <i>THEN </i>paint them. So go ahead, EQ, compress, add effects, do what you need to do. But always try to <i>avoid the solo button, </i>try to<i> mix chronologically, </i>and try to<i> remember that you are mixing a song and not a collection of sounds. </i><br />
<br />
<b>Step 7:</b> Once you've got a nice blend that you're digging, Automate your mix from good to great. Too many novice engineers avoid automation. It's possibly the most important tool we have for making mixes <i>direct the listener's attention. </i>We can manipulate what they're focusing on at what moment, who is important, who needs to take a backseat. We can jump out at them and grab their attention by automating up a vocal phrase or a drum fill or a guitar riff. We can suck out the low end on something only to bring it back later. We can add effects to a certain part. Truly automation is one of our best friends in the mix and you should use it. If you're not using it, you're probably wrong. Not everything needs to be full spectrum all the time, and not everything needs to be full loudness all the time. You need to give things little moments to be featured - they won't necessarily do it on their own. Not everything can <i>shine </i>the entire song - you need to give everything it's <i>moment </i>to shine so that it creates the <i>illusion that everything is shining. </i><br />
<br />
I hope this mixing theory helps you make better mixes. I know it may seem crazy to some of you, but this is exactly how I mix. Like I said, I wouldn't just make this up and throw it out there. Mixing big to small helps me mix quickly, effectively, and not lose sight of what's important. It helps me minimize my "tweaking" phase down to half of what it used to be, and it helps me use a lot less processing on my mixes in general. Nobody wants their stuff to sound overmixed, overprocessed, overtweaked to oblivion - it just sounds terrible.<br />
<br />
For more mixing tips, helpful hints, and rants about audio, check out my book, <i><a href="http://www.threedimensionalmixing.com/" target="_blank">Three Dimensional Mixing</a>, </i>and of course, the podcast, <i>Recording Lounge Podcast. </i>3DM, The Second Edition, will be releasing later this year in digital and print form (finally), and if I may plug myself, I highly recommend it! ;)<br />
<br />K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-27272299426761714472014-09-02T11:22:00.004-07:002014-09-02T11:23:42.130-07:00New Mailing ListHey friends - I've just created a new mailing list for the Recording Lounge Podcast. It's 100% free to sign up, and if you know me at all, you know that I'm all about no-nonsense, no fluff information. I won't spam your email account, I am primarily using this as a way to send you updates about shows and also great companion information about shows as they come out. Like I said, it's free to sign up and you can unsubscribe at any time. Just need a few pieces of information and you're good to go!<br />
<br />
Check it out!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://eepurl.com/2fBlX">http://eepurl.com/2fBlX</a><br />
<br />
alternate link (in case the first doesn't work - I think only the second link works on mobile)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://recordingloungepodcast.us9.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=233c19f3238fe13a5666bd3b6&id=a617af6d5b">http://recordingloungepodcast.us9.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=233c19f3238fe13a5666bd3b6&id=a617af6d5b</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-56999297686210057422014-06-20T23:10:00.000-07:002014-06-20T23:16:42.222-07:00Days of the Week = Opportunities for GrowthHey all. Perhaps this is a bit formulaic of me (or even downright stupid) but I've come up with a bit of a business practice that I've found helpful to me in the studio environment. The idea is basically that I have a one hour thought experiment every day of the week targeted to a specific area of the studio. Working 70 hours a week as an audio engineer, having a studio, teaching classes, and trying to grow my business can be very daunting, and hard to find time to really focus on what's important, and focus on <i>what </i>needs improvement and <i>when. </i>If you just look at everything in one huge sum, it seems very overwhelming, but if you have a specific task every day of the week on which to dote, you can really accomplish much greater things. Think of it like a 1hr workout, but for your business, every day. I'll give you an example of what I mean.<br />
<br />
<b>Mondays</b> - Marketing. I spend an hour thinking about ways to get the word out about the studio. Could be something simple, could be something complex. I try to brainstorm ideas and come up with new ways to not only attract new business, but stay in touch with current clients and continue to bring value to their lives as they have brought value to mine.<br />
<br />
<b>Tuesdays</b> - Talkback. On Tuesdays I try to send an email, text, FB message, or make a phonecall to a client, just to say hey, see what's up, ask how they are doing. Could be a simple hashtag on Facebook or Instagram - just to let people know they matter to me as clients.<br />
<br />
<b>Wednesdays</b> - Wash day. On Wednesdays I clean the studio. Sweep, vacuum, mop, clean the glass, dust, etc. Not exactly a thought experiment, but certainly good practice.<br />
<br />
<b>Thursdays</b> - Throwback - but not how Instagram does it. I try to listen to old mixes and see things I liked, things I didn't like, how I could have done them better. I just listen to a few and think about them a bit, maybe make some notes on cool things I did that I haven't done in a while, or open up the session to take a peek under the hood.<br />
<br />
<b>Fridays</b> - Finance. On Fridays I take a look at my finances, make some predictions and calculations, and try to plan ahead as much as possible. You may find it hard to believe, but I actually went to school for business management and accounting - and if it says something about how nerdy I am, I particularly LOVED accounting...but I digress. Anyway, so in addition to looking at data, I May do some gear shopping or pricing out, making plans for the future, trying to figure out what I need, what I don't need, and what's most important. Sessions will often tell you the gear you need - when you run into situations where you say "man, if I had X, we would have accomplished a LOT more in the studio today" - those are usually high priority. Things that you say "oooh...pretty..." those are usually low priority. ;) Because the studio is often an unsteady income varying vastly week to week, month to month, I have to make a game plan to keep the lights on while still improving the studio.<br />
<br />
<b>Saturday</b> - Seven Improvement Ideas. I spend an hour trying to come up with 7 things that could improve my studio, and I do mean the physical building. Maybe building some shelves for more storage, reorienting a room for better usage of space, adding on, consolidating, re-routing things on the patchbay, reworking the headphone system, need some new XLR cables --- ANYTHING. Whatever seems to need improvement, or anything I can do that will make my job easier and make the experience more enjoyable for clients.<br />
<br />
<b>Sunday</b> - On Sundays I try to take an hour to listen to my favorite music coming through the Barefoot speakers at a low volume, drink a glass or two of whiskey, and just chill out. Making time to relax is very important to me. Sometimes the best thing you can do for your business is to step away from it a little while and recall why you got into it in the first place; in my case, it's because I love music.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
As simpleminded or cheesy at it sounds, I've found it to be very helpful. I once watched a seminar about "removing everything in your life that causes you anxiety," and how people should strive to do so. It's very interesting to me, the idea that you CAN conquer all of the problems in your life either by fixing them, or removing them, and that anything you dislike, you have the power to change. Although this isn't <i>always </i>true, it's a positive message. The studio is a very stressful job, and doing this is almost like a meditation for me - just to take an hour of my day to really sit and think about something, with nobody around, no phone, no distractions. Just quality time. Give it a shot, whether you're a business owner, a musician, an engineer - you may find it very rewarding.Recording Loungehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15163137170359269792noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-68403089676197818302014-05-09T00:35:00.000-07:002014-05-09T01:23:46.801-07:00Recording Acoustic Guitar and Vocal At the Same TimeHey guys - this is a post with info and pictures from episode 60 of the podcast entitled "Recording Acoustic and Vocals Together." Check it out on iTunes. This post will help you visualize the mic positions and understand some of the thought processes that go into this. To hear sound clips of all of these positions, please check out the podcast.<br />
<br />
<br />
Considerations - <br />
<br />
1. When using one mic, having the performer sit, or raise their guitar close to their face usually works best. When using two mics, it's usually best to have them stand, and separate their guitar as far away from them as comfortable.<br />
<br />
2. All of these methods have compromises. Compromises in tone, in isolation, etc. At the end of the day you need to make a decision about what you really need, and just go with it! This however does <b>not mean </b>you can't get a good sound! You <b>absolutely can get a great sound recording a singer and an instrument at the same time. </b>Stop being obsessive about the details that don't matter - what matters in the end is a good performance, and sometimes that is best accomplished with having the person play it live.<br />
<br />
3. The more mics you start adding, the more phase problems will arise, especially in close proximity, so be careful. If you can get away with just one mic, go for it. If you're doing two and you want the least phase problems, I'd go for method 5, which seems to have the best phase coherency (to my ear).<br />
<br />
4. Small diaphragm condensers will generally have less off-axis coloration, which is great in some cases, but bad in the case of isolation. That means it will make the bleed sound more clear / audible. Large diaphragm mics tend to have a colored off axis sound, even in cardioid, which works to our advantage when recording acoustic and vocals at the same time by rejecting the higher frequencies easier off axis. <br />
<br />5. If you're recording a paying client, be aware (and make them aware) that you can't do too much trickery later on in the mix. If they hit a wrong note, it can't be easily tuned without artifacts. If they miss a chord, or miss a word, they can't just punch in that on the vocal or the guitar - they have to do both. You, and they, need to be aware of this compromise. If they say later "can we add some reverb to my voice?" you will get a little bit of reverb on the guitar as well, just because of bleed. If they want you to cut out the vocal, or turn up the acoustic a lot, you may not be able to deliver. HOWEVER - the performance is everything. It's more important to get that right than it is to have a "perfect balance."<br /><br />
6. USE YOUR EARS!<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>METHOD 1: SINGLE MIC - CHARTEROAK 538</u></b><br />
Clips 1 / 2 (Fingers and Pick) - A Single microphone, positioned around the player. This method is great if you only have one microphone, and the player is good. In the example on the podcast, there was quite a bit of room sound in this example, but that of course would vary depending on the room in which we record, and the position is something that depends on how he's playing in the exact take, on that exact song. The closer the mic is to the guitar, the louder the guitar gets; the closer it gets to his mouth, the louder his voice gets. It's as simple as that - you put one mic around a player and balance it by moving the mic. One pro of this method is that is stays out of the way of the singer, and they don't have to worry so much about moving.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihxfccw3tpOdH3xEAnWPO7wo_y2GenDC1s7OUKtg9vFa3l04i4Mb-MUh5o9yy5kT9mkjr0lWQeAasnQPWtfBklvOD-Lpzf45O1NC5Fe4x1aL8iE2n0JAo07JrcVIwt1mznLkayA9ScLhOl/s1600/image+(3).jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihxfccw3tpOdH3xEAnWPO7wo_y2GenDC1s7OUKtg9vFa3l04i4Mb-MUh5o9yy5kT9mkjr0lWQeAasnQPWtfBklvOD-Lpzf45O1NC5Fe4x1aL8iE2n0JAo07JrcVIwt1mznLkayA9ScLhOl/s1600/image+(3).jpeg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><u>METHOD 2: SINGLE MIC CLOSE IN, SITTING - CHARTEROAK E700</u></b><br />
This is my favorite one-mic method, which involves an omni microphone, very close to the player, with them sitting. The mic is positioned sort of in between the guitar and the mouth, and in this case, we used a DI to help support the sound. There's a trade off - the mic is in omni, so it's not super sensitive to movements, however, it's sort of up in the singer's space, which can be distracting. It's easy to knock with their guitar, and it's easy to be a distraction while they're trying to play. BUT - it sounds great.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB8EudulpnIYCSXsrCWi52t2NDohanZYycCOUsIWVGZ-cXkYKcfNpvt7I9pO9_eVHkZ2m5zdWlFRhj09faDNLQ3o3O-TAG3L_ZalHEkPa2Da2gFZsbcM9Is-Z3kMFBKHRDMZ1BhUa-nMDu/s1600/photo+(2).JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB8EudulpnIYCSXsrCWi52t2NDohanZYycCOUsIWVGZ-cXkYKcfNpvt7I9pO9_eVHkZ2m5zdWlFRhj09faDNLQ3o3O-TAG3L_ZalHEkPa2Da2gFZsbcM9Is-Z3kMFBKHRDMZ1BhUa-nMDu/s1600/photo+(2).JPG" height="320" width="240" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="text-decoration: underline;">METHOD 3: TWO FIGURE 8 LDCs - E700 AND 538</b><br />
<br />
This is my favorite method for recording acoustic guitar and vocals. It involves two large diaphragm mics in figure 8 pattern, placed around the singer. Notice how, the null of each mic is facing exactly what we want to reject: the null of the vocal mic is facing the guitar, and the null of the guitar mic is facing his mouth. The downside - the acoustic guitar mic ends up being fairly awkward to position, and sometimes can sound a bit boomy, however, the isolation between the mics is great.<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk1L2Q9XPlNber639ndJMCOf5Due-ySCiQnXQoW7ZYRaa7CgbfAYhyphenhyphenbgd6PEZLv0q8rYINHkF-90aSkhutUbWAsur-VX9MGz9fOecMKLb7XL-PXbORLe6oRWOYUdLvJdgPCA5B45creuAG/s1600/image+(1).jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk1L2Q9XPlNber639ndJMCOf5Due-ySCiQnXQoW7ZYRaa7CgbfAYhyphenhyphenbgd6PEZLv0q8rYINHkF-90aSkhutUbWAsur-VX9MGz9fOecMKLb7XL-PXbORLe6oRWOYUdLvJdgPCA5B45creuAG/s1600/image+(1).jpeg" height="320" width="240" /></a><br />
<br />
<b><u>METHOD 4: LDC AND SDC IN CARDIOID - 538 AND AKG 451</u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I see this method a lot, and I'm honestly not a big fan of it. The bleed is too strong, and it sounds kinda funky if you try to pan the SDC mic. The sound of the guitar and vocal seems to be the most upfront, but the bleed is annoying, and it seems a bit more phasey sounding than the others. Again, we're dealing with a compromise. Notice that the cardioid SDC is facing downward to try and reject as much as possible from the mouth, however, the null point on a cardioid mic is the rear, so it's not doing a ton. The bleed is very clear - it's not a dull bleed, which makes things harder. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWdimuWasbgvJB4Pzwmzq-vIVO6vEZWJZK1kaBJBGpj5_hMEzHOdC9n9J48lPvk7urxrBsZUk0EFDEVw5DyfVxkdmI1LGtK7ceKn9Wnn1_4JHCKsDcxiViQrC2m4YHCzi6LXM5Ae4ytJbC/s1600/image.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWdimuWasbgvJB4Pzwmzq-vIVO6vEZWJZK1kaBJBGpj5_hMEzHOdC9n9J48lPvk7urxrBsZUk0EFDEVw5DyfVxkdmI1LGtK7ceKn9Wnn1_4JHCKsDcxiViQrC2m4YHCzi6LXM5Ae4ytJbC/s1600/image.jpeg" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><u>METHODS 5 & 6: DYNAMIC VOCAL MIC + FIG8 ACOUSTIC MIC - SM7 + E700</u></b><br />
<br />
These two methods were really great sounding. The isolation from the SM7 is great, as is the isolation from the E700. The TONE of the vocal mic is not as good as from the LDC, but the pros outweigh the cons. In Method 6, we did basically the same thing, except we added the DI, which helps to support some low end, and of course, has no bleed.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmMVXa-PXxa04_UmQxH5leSUQn1LDvK5CnKTOpxRe_9B4eb4NmY-4Ko5XyCI3lShHP-2keIlUwTTJhZhd_na4Ctvpv5BS11xRXbYuPAuJuEU_u-f6KqVuX9ttSEVEq8DBGoi3I4m4XXtE_/s1600/image+(4).jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmMVXa-PXxa04_UmQxH5leSUQn1LDvK5CnKTOpxRe_9B4eb4NmY-4Ko5XyCI3lShHP-2keIlUwTTJhZhd_na4Ctvpv5BS11xRXbYuPAuJuEU_u-f6KqVuX9ttSEVEq8DBGoi3I4m4XXtE_/s1600/image+(4).jpeg" height="240" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-18802714872329131192014-03-16T23:01:00.000-07:002014-03-16T23:01:16.371-07:00Feel, Passion, and DeliveryHey friends -<br /><br />One thing has been plaguing my mind recently in regards to studio work. I truly believe that music is a life changing thing, and some people just don't seem to take it very seriously. Allow me to explain.<br /><br />Perhaps the most impressive thing to me in regards to producing music is when a producer has the foresight and knowledge to hear the song as it will be <i>completed, </i>not as it is in the moment. My question is this -- why is this the producer's job? Shouldn't bands be trying to do this more often?<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, it does give the producer a certain importance and influence - a certain voice above the band that helps him deliver his best work, and really showcase the band in such a way that brings out the good, no, the best, and makes a record shine. But at the same time, I love it when bands come in and have a cohesive direction for what they're trying to accomplish. Not a whimsical, vague, "storybook" image of what their record is going to be, but instead an honest, thought out, carefully arranged set of songs that truly showcase the best that they can do.<br /><br />THAT is talent to me.<br /><br />It's so easy in the digital age to lay down the drums, lay down some guitars, lay down some vocals, do some overdubs, and call it a record. I once read an article about a well known producer and his methods for producing a band; it was very inspiring. His method was as follows: the band comes into the studio, they set up, and they begin to warm up. They set up a few mics in the room and have the band play. They spend the next few hours working out the best arrangement for the song, moving some parts, altering some dynamics, altering some parts, maybe even changing a few lyrics, and then they play it again. And again. And again...with tiny bits shaved off or added on each time. They would add a mic here or there, casually, while the band would continue to work out the song and really LISTEN to the feel, the passion, and the delivery of what they were doing. Not only were they listening to their parts, they were really listening for everyone else. Listening for things to pop out and inspire the band and the producer. Listening for tightness, groove, dynamics. Moving together, breathing together. They became a single unit.<br /><br />The producer then says "okay - that's it. That's the arrangement. Do it JUST like that." He presses record, they play it just like that, and the producer says, "alright, that's a wrap. Next song."<br /><br />What an inspiration this was to read - that records are being made like this today. After all, anyone that has been doing this a while will tell you that it's ALL about the performance. Such a small part is the equipment, the actual mics or the gear specifically. Sure, that's important, but compared to the delivery, feel, passion, performance, and arrangement of the music itself - it's nothing.<br /><br />I once had a similar experience. I was working on a track with a band that just wasn't sounding right. The tones were fine, we worked really hard getting these great drum sounds and a beautiful haunting vocal sound, even the guitar sounds were "perfect" to everyone in the room, but the whole thing just felt weird. Not really "sounded" weird, but we really asked ourselves, how does this FEEL when we listen to it.<br /><br />I said to the band, you know what, maybe we should try this another way. We set up the band live in the room, tried to recreate some of the mic techniques that we did while tracking the original version (although we forgot some of the chains, didn't have enough mics to do some of the things we wanted to do) and we just found a good spot, and recorded a take. We then listened to it raw, unmixed, and said, "okay, when you're playing it together - what do we like, what do we not like?" We sat and talked about music. Not about mics, not about tones or compressors or EQs, about MUSIC. We talked about a few things, and I had the band go out into the studio again to try it.<br /><br />I hit record, they played it, and boom - that was it. We then compared back to back the previous take, which had the same mics, the same setup identically, to the new one, with a couple of changes, and the band being more aware of each other, and the difference was so astonishing it would make you sick. EVERYTHING sounded different.<br /><br />It's so hard sometimes to differentiate between what we're really hearing. We might hear something and think that it simply "doesn't sound right" but it's something subtle, elusive, and or, a combination of a few things, that are sort of clouding up our judgement of what is truly wrong with the sound we're hearing. Is it the way we recorded it? Was it the performance? Is it a tonal issue? Is it an engineering issue? How's the song working?<br /><br />So I challenge you guys - next time you're working on a song, take an extra hour before you hit record to record a quick demo, and listen to it as a music listener would. Listen to it from the ears of a consumer. What would they think? Would they like it? Some musicians say they are their own worst critic, and that's very true for many creatives, but the truth is, that doesn't mean you simply criticize and pass it off as "me being overly critical." It means you constantly improve, adjust, alter your own methods to be better than they were a few moments ago. It means you are always learning, improving. It means you care.<br /><br />Some things to think about - see you next podcast!<br /><br />K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-91777589949879502982013-10-31T16:23:00.002-07:002013-11-06T01:49:13.448-08:00How To Overmix a Song<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i><a href="http://andihammer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/6a00d834525fff69e20133ecf35c3d970b-800wi.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></i></div>
<i>I thought I would make a funny post today, but with an underlying lesson. This is "how to overmix a song." </i><br />
<br />
<b><u>HOW TO OVERMIX A SONG IN 10 SIMPLE STEPS</u>:</b><br />
<br />
1. Start by mixing the song. Then mix it again, then clear your faders and go on to step 2. <br />
<br />
2. Spend the next three hours going through each track, obsessing over tiny resonances and things that need to be fixed. <br />
<br />
3. Fix the tuning and timing on every single track, make it all perfect. So perfect, it actually becomes wrong again. THAT is how perfect. <br />
<br />
4. Duplicate every track and process them all differently. That makes it more interesting.<br />
<br />
5. Make sure to use up every single pan spot between 100L and 100R. You should have about 200 tracks in your mix so that's about right. <br />
<br />
6. If there are not 10 effects on every track, your mix will be boring.<br />
<br />
7. EQ, Compress, and Gate every single track, even if it doesn't need it. All the pros do that. <br />
<br />
8. Spend at least an hour messing with the master bus compressor, or add up to 15 compressors in series, each compressing 0.2dB, it sounds better that way. <br />
<br />
9. Automate every measure of every track - get those dynamics going....<br />
<br />
10. ...then crush all the dynamics with an L2 on the master, cutting off anywhere from 2 - 25dB of reduction.<br />
<br />
<br />
There you have it. That's how to overmix a song. I hope you've learned something! <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<i><b>The lesson here is this: </b></i>it is REALLY easy to overmix a song. Obsessing over details, feeling the need to do things to every track, feeling the need for tons of effects, feeling the need to add a master bus compressor, honestly feeling the need to do <i>anything </i>arbitrarily -- it's not a good thing. We are mixing MUSIC, we're not splitting atoms. There is usually no need to obsess over these things. Sure, some mixes need a lot of work, and there is no denying that. But really, the longer you spend with a mix, the worse it will get. It's like a bell curve -<br />
<br />
<a href="http://andihammer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/6a00d834525fff69e20133ecf35c3d970b-800wi.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="148" src="http://andihammer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/6a00d834525fff69e20133ecf35c3d970b-800wi.gif" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
Imagine the X axis as "time" and the Y axis as "how good is your mix." There WILL BE some time required to get your mix good. As you move up this curve, the mix improves, stuff becomes clearer, the song really starts to take shape. The problem is, the longer you tweak, almost 100% of the time, the mix just gets worse. I have done some mixes in a few hours that were more exciting and focused that mixes I spent days on. Why? A few reasons:<br />
<br />
1. In the short mix, I wasn't worried or stressed. I was just thinking "no big deal, just a quick mix."<br />
2. In the short mix, I wasn't worried about details. I didn't have the time to stress over them.<br />
3. In the short mix, I didn't have time to fix everything. <br />
4. In the short mix, I had to make quick decisions and condense things down. <br />
5. In the short mix, I really listened. <br />
<br />
<br />
In general, it takes me about 8-12 hours to mix a song start to finish. If you add in the extra time making corrections and fixes from the artist, on average a total of 10-14 hrs for a single mix. This stuff takes time, and I've been doing it every day for the last 7 years. I'm no expert, and I'm no legend. I'm just a guy like you trying to do the best I can with my skills and my setup. <br />
<br />
Back in the day, mixing wasn't nearly as complicated. Now, a LOT of work is done in the mix. People back then weren't recording much in homes, they were recording in professional facilities, almost EXCLUSIVELY. In retrospect, they were some of the best musicians of all time, and they were using some of the best instruments and recording equipment ever made, and they were doing it all on tape. Decisions had to be made. Things had to be worked out before ever setting foot into the studio. It was a cutthroat world. Now it's different - people can make stuff in their untreated bedrooms and work on cheap equipment. <br />
<br />
The point is, what you put in is what you're going to get out of it. The room matters. The instruments matter. The playing and emotion matters. When you really grasp that, when you really understand that the source -- meaning the song / instrument / performance --- is the most important thing in the chain, you will worry a lot less. The MIX is a function of making these elements have emotion. It's not about "how much 3khz does this have." It's never been about that. The specifics don't matter.<br />
<br />
When you're EQ'ing something, try to think less about "this needs less 5k" or "this needs some compression" and instead try to look at a mix more creatively, saying things like "this needs to be warmer" or "this needs more punch." You wouldn't think this would make a difference but it does - when you think in generalities, you don't sweat the details, and you often will come up with a better mix. It's quicker, it's more focused. You're worrying less about frequencies and attack times and more about "does it sound good or not?" Because that is what matters. <br />
<br />And for Pete's sake, don't spend days or weeks mixing a single song! Set yourself a time limit, let's say two days, and give yourself HOURS. So if you only have a few hours each night to mix, then say "okay I'm going to mix for 3 hours tonight, 3 hours tomorrow, and it should be pretty close." Don't just mix for 30 minutes and then stop, then come back to it in a week, then reset everything...don't do that! You will lose all emotion and creativity for your mix. Mixing a song is like playing a gig. You can't just play a song and then take a break. You have to put in the hours and really PERFORM. That's what mixing is. It's a performance just as much as a song is a performance. Doing it in a single block of time often yields much better results than spending days upon end, or even doing little by little for a week...<br /><br /><br />
<br />K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-44165510334664956672013-06-28T23:27:00.003-07:002013-06-28T23:27:33.357-07:00Getting the Right Drum SoundsToday's blog post is inspired by a reply I made on Gearslutz. The question was basically about "what preamps should I use on my drums?" Very common question, but I sort of...well...ranted on for a while. I thought maybe this would help some of you understand the planning and process of a drum sound -<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"One of my biggest fascinations in my job is the planning that can, will,
and should be involved with each project. The idea of "we want drums to
sound huge" is not enough. Everybody wants rockin drums, rockin
guitars, huge vocal, huge bass...as we know music in the production side
is all an illusion. It's about recreating some sort of musical event,
either realistic or imaginary, honest or impossible, and putting it
between two speakers to somehow create this representation in our mind's
eye...or really, our ear's mind. <br />
<br />
So if the drums are sitting in a very dense mix, you will probably need
to prioritize the close mics. As much as I hate to say that, it's true.
The denser the music, the less "roomy" stuff you can often get away
with. Track counts of 120 don't lend themselves to tons of room mic. I
often find myself riding the room mics and overheads CONSTANTLY in these
types of songs to push them in and out of focus when there is room.
Instead, the kick, snare, and tom mics poke through, while the rooms and
overheads provide the "overall kit" sound, but in a production this
massive, you cannot have tons of cymbal wash anyway, because this
usually involves a wall of other midrange instruments like pianos,
strings, and guitars. My point there is that the denser the project, the
simpler each part can and probably should be. <br />
<br />
If the drums CAN have a large palette of space, and they have more room
to breathe and fill out the music, I would prioritize the room mics and
or overheads. Get those to sound as good as possible - and again, <b>not just "good" but RIGHT. </b> <i>It
is my contention that 9 times out of 10, getting drum sounds that are
RIGHT for the production is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than getting drum sounds
that are GOOD</i>. Now I'm not saying "you have to make dirty lofi drum
sounds" and "distort all the mics and run through amps." No, no, no. I'm
saying that if you go for a typical setup of 2 OH, kick/snare/tom/tom
close mics, a room mic or two, and outside/bottom mics on certain drums,
you're going to get that typical sound. In the right context it can
work great, no question! In the wrong context, it sounds "bad" to our
ear because it's wrong for the production. Make careful note of what
your ear is hearing as "wrong" versus "sounding bad." Believe it or not,
your gut is right most of the time. If something sounds "bad" it's
probably not because of the mic pre, I can guaran-damn-tee that. <br />
<br />
When you're sound checking the drums, it's so easy to say "man that kick
sounds huge" or "man those toms sound good." This is a slippery slope
that will lead you to add way too much everything to everything. Too
much low end, too much attack, too much compression, too much gating,
too many mics. One of the things I learned that helped me a lot was,
when getting drum sounds, don't get them to a scratch track. Get them to
the whole band. It's impossible to really understand how the drums
should sound unless you hear the whole band. The range of the vocalist,
the key, the other instruments, the midrange content, will determine how
much space the drums take up, how big the snare sound can/should be,
how massive or small the kick can/should be, how long the cymbals can
decay. Don't get them in solo or you will be enamored with wow factor. A
great cymbal can sound great in solo, and terrible in a song. No
question.<br />
<br />
What is the <i>span </i>of the drumkit? Is it wide? Is it narrow? Is it big bass and bright treble? Is it more midrangey and woody? Again, this will also depend on your production. If the drums are supposed to be wide, you will probably want two overheads. If they're supposed to be narrow, you might want a mono overhead. There is NOTHING wrong about narrow drums - Led Zeppelin, Tom Petty, Van Halen, Train, Queens of the Stone Age, Michael Jackson, almost any artist you can think of has had major hits with narrow if not mono drums. The same goes for VERY wide drums. Both work - but again, don't necessarily think that it worked because the mixer just happened to be very good at making it work. Now sure, most of the mixers and engineers who worked on these records are some of the best in the world, but the production side of the music determined what sound was RIGHT for the production. <br />
<br />
Don't get caught up in this romantic idea of "drums sounding amazing and huge" and instead focus on "what can I get away with in this production" or worded differently, "what's surrounding the drums that will define the drum sound?" Does the drum sound define the sound? Without that drum sound would it sound like a different genre? Is there going to be a wall of guitars? Is is an acoustic-based production? Is it a piano-based song? What IS the piano playing? How much distortion is on the guitars? Are there a lot of vocals? How loud is the lead vocal going to be? All of these factors can determine the drum sound. I cannot stress enough the importance of understanding the song as a while before putting up a single mic. <br />
<br />
<br />
If you're wanting the drums to sound as though there is a drumkit 5-20
feet in FRONT of you, it doesn't make much sense to worry about the
close mics as much. They are the fill-ins to the rooms/overheads. If you
want it to sound as though you're sitting AT the kit, surrounded by
drums, the close mics seem to be a viable way to get that sound. <br />
<br />
The point is, if you view your overheads as cymbal mics, then that would
drastically change what mics you use, what position you place them in,
and what preamp you choose. If you go for the same drum sound every
time, or if you specifically work in one genre that demands a certain
sound, then you can probably get away with using set-and-forget type
methods of placement that "work" for you in your space (metal for
example seems to demand a specific sound that EVERYONE uses and without
these norms it doesn't sound like metal drums to us). Granted, I said
it would work, I didn't say it would be interesting. <br />
<br />
I used to "experiment" a lot more and say things like "let's just try to
get a weird drum sound, something totally different!" When in fact,
what I learned is that only certain productions lend themselves to a lot
of experimentation. That sounds very anti-hero of me, but it's true.
Sometimes the typical setup is what the production NEEDS. Sometimes you
need that multi-mic'ed hyper-real drum sound, not only because that's
what the band likes, but because that's what fits the song and serves
the song best. It's no mistake that those types of drum sounds are
generally associated with dense rock - it works very well in that style
of production. It's not selling out, it's logic. Now sure, if you have a
production with a lot of space and subjectivity for the drum sounds,
something that not only has a nice hole for the drums, but something
that also lends itself to be a more "arty" sound, there's no reason not
to experiment . One of my favorite drum sounds of all time is the 4-mic
drums on Fiona Apple's song "Criminal." Brilliant! Fits the production
so well. Speaks for itself. Serves the song. Serves the mood. Makes you
feel a cohesive feeling from every instrument. <br />
<br />
<br />
So. In summary, just figure out:<br />
<br />
a) what do I want the drums to sound like<br />
b) where do I want the drums to sound in the production<br />
c) where am I placing the listener in relation to the drums<br />
d) how big / important are the drums in this production <br />
e) what sound best serves the song<br />
f) what is logical for my setup<br />
K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-64181924150069658242013-05-03T12:14:00.001-07:002013-05-03T12:14:35.898-07:00Transients - Analog and Digital This is my reply to a post on Gearslutz about "Transients" and how they are "they Enemy." The original argument was that transients make music sound peaky, harsh, and should be compressed to get a "pro" sound. By TRANSIENT, we mean the initial spike of a waveform. The attack of a snare, the pluck of a bass, the attack of a kick, etc. That INITIAL part is called the transient. <br />
<br />
I think a lot of people forget that when
the tonality of an instrument changes, the wave shape changes. Something
that has more low end (or, less spikey transients) will generally have a
fatter looking (and of course, sounding) waveform. <br /> <br />
It's my contention that transients are essential. I think what is being
confused by some is "transients = bad" when really, you mean "spikey ice
pick transients are bad," which I agree. Tape takes care of the spikey
stuff. Digital picks it up. <br /> <br />
One of the reasons I feel like digital is pretty acceptable on things
like modern Jazz, film scoring, orchestral music, and other (what I
would call) "hifi" type genres is because the transients are well
preserved. Also keep in mind, however, none of these genres tend to have
instruments that create super spikey transients, and even when they do
(like drums on a jazz song) they aren't mic'ed or processed in such a
way where they need a hard attack or a close mic'ed snare half the time.
Plus, lots more room mics are used, mics have distance, and as we
(should) know, air is a great compressor. Putting a mic close on
something is a sure fire way to have a hard edged transient. The genres
themselves soften the blows of the attacks because when they are well
recorded, the dynamics of the band take care of that. Digital (in my
opinion) sounds great on these genres.<br /> <br />
Now when it comes to rock, pop, etc., we seem to like everything
"slamming," as if it were played as hard as possible. I feel like the
reason a lot of us like the sound of compression is because it has an
energy. It makes things more exciting. It helps us try to capture,
enhance, or harness that "live energy." Thus, drummers are hitting
harder, guitarists are strumming harder, and bassists are plucking
harder. One of the best interviews I ever heard was with T Bone Burnett -
they asked "how do you get your records so loud, so competitive with
the market, but without sounding compressed hardly at all?" He simply
said "I had everyone play quietly and evenly." or something like that.
Sorta blew my mind. The less hard the attacks are, the louder the
sustain/body can seem by comparison. Not always, but in general.<br /> <br />
So does that mean we should play soft in rock? No, not necessarily. Let's talk about my memorable experience with transients. <br /> <br />
In my experience, there are few things that can solve spikey transients better than tape and good analog front end. I've had <i>some</i>
success with saturation plugins, but when I'm recording the project
myself, I'd much prefer to do it myself with a good front end, tube
mics, nice pres, analog compressors, tube equipment., etc.<br /> <br />
One of the biggest issues with compression ITB is not that the
compressors suck, or that they don't "sound like the analog versions," I
think it's that they're given a much higher transient to look at. For
example - my friend Michael and I did a test regarding this phenomenon.
We recorded a snare drum with a Radial mic splitter, split each to a
1073, one to tape, and one to the DAW. We then brought in the tape snare
into the DAW just to compare the waveforms, and it was pretty obvious.
We weren't even slamming the tape or anything. To the ear, they sounded
about the same volume, the tape snare was a bit fatter and a little
darker. The really interesting thing was when we tried compressing both.<br /> <br />
You see, the initial transient hit of the digital snare was much higher
in level than the "meat" of the snare. On the tape snare, the transient
was the same level, but the "meat" was much higher. (Obviously, it's not
that the meat was "really" higher, it was that the tape compressed that
very initial part, which made the decay part of the ADSR envelope
louder). <br /> <br />
Okay, I know this is super rough haha---even a little exaggerated for
demonstration purposes, I just did this drawing on the computer in like
10 seconds! I attached a simple drawing of "something" like the
waveforms we saw. When we compressed each, the peaky transient of
digital registered above the threshold, but the compressor was much less
effective (because when it reached full gain reduction, it had very
little to actually compress -- The sustain and body were so much lower
in comparison to the transient. When we compressed the tape snare, it
got squishy, fat, and still had a nice smooth attack. It actually was
compressing the body of that snare. We HEARD it easier. It was very
obvious, even with just a few dB of reduction. The digital snare
compression seemed to not really do anything until we cranked it to -10,
when it was really affecting the body of the instrument, but then, the
transient sounded super spikey. See the issue? <br /> <br />
This is just my rationalization of this argument. Others might have very
different experiences, but maybe this makes sense to some of you. I've
been writing a book (no masterpiece by any means) about mixing, and I
show some of these tests in the chapter on compression because it's so
important. A compressor is a machine. It takes a skilled engineer to
understand what you're feeding the machine and how to manipulate it to
the song's advantage. Constantly evaluate statements like : "X
compressor (or Y compressor settings) will always work on snare." Tape
snare? Digital snare? Loop snare? Deep snare? Piccolo snare? Sample
snare? Wood? Steel? Brass? Fast song? Slow song? You get the point. End
rant. <br /> <br />
Slut note: having nice monitors is a big help to hearing transient in
detail. I feel like a lot of low-end monitoring systems compress them or
something - I don't know the details of technical monitor design, but
they just don't have the detail on tap to allow you to really hear
whether or not a transient is spikey, an "ess" is harsh, or a snare is
spikey. Getting "flat" monitors is not the only factor - you need
monitors that can actually let you HEAR how you modify the transients.
My personal set, Barefoot MM35s...well they're just dandy at that. <img alt="" border="0" class="inlineimg" src="http://static.gearslutz.com/board/images/smilies/wink.gif" title="Wink" /> <br />
<div style="padding: 6px;">
<fieldset class="fieldset">
<legend>Attached Thumbnails</legend> <div style="padding: 3px;">
<a href="http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/so-much-gear-so-little-time/343176d1367548796-transients-your-worst-enemy-snare.jpg" id="attachment343176" rel="Lightbox_9006107" target="_blank"><img alt="Transients are your worst enemy!-snare.jpg" border="0" class="thumbnail" src="http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/so-much-gear-so-little-time/343176d1367548796t-transients-your-worst-enemy-snare.jpg" title="Transients are your worst enemy!-snare.jpg" /></a>
</div>
</fieldset>
</div>
K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-75153867592457616522013-03-27T22:35:00.000-07:002013-03-27T22:43:57.136-07:00Layering GuitarsOkay, so I'm going to talk a little bit about layering guitars. It's something I'm very familiar with; I record a lot of rock music with lots of guitar layers. Sometimes the easiest way to get a big wall of guitars is to just play a track on the left, then double it as tightly as possible on the right. Sure, that's the old standby and that almost always works. But what about three layers? Or Four? Or Sixteen (which I have totally done before - not recommended). What about when you don't want the guitar on the left to sound like the guitar on the right? <br />
<br />
Sometimes all you need is these two parts. It's often "bigger sounding"
to have two parts and nothing else. My favorite "goto" is to have two
well written parts, one left, one right, and any leads in the center. Various parts in the song may contain other little guitar riffs or whole note chords on the chorus or last note of the song, but nothing drastic--the frame is built around the two main guitars.<br />
<br />
So, here are some tips when it comes to layering guitars. The best guitar tones Ive ever gotten as far as "layers" go ha<span class="searchBubble" id="searchBubble"></span>ve come from:<br />
<br />
a) carefully selected guitars<br />
b) carefully selected amps/pedals<br />
c) carefully written parts<br />
d) vision<br />
<br />
I'll tackle these one at a time.<br />
<br />
<b>a) Carefully selected guitars. </b> My favorite guitar layering
sounds come when the tones match. So for example, if you're going for
"big rhythm" a lot of times that means two guitars, left and right,
probably humbucker but sometimes single coil. IF you're going for more
chimey guitars (think 90s rock, Country, Pop) you might be better off
using a single coil, or something like single coil left, P90 on the
right. <br />
<br />
The tones you choose don't have to match exactly, it depends on the role
they're playing. Big chorus guitars that create a wall? Probably big
humbucker sounds as aforementioned. If your goal is to make it sound
"doubled," then DOUBLE IT. If the goal is to make it sound more like a
BAND, then you may be better off playing two separate guitars. <br />
<br />
I generally try to match the LOW end on the guitars. Like, You generally don't want a really thin guitar on the left and a really thick one on the right. It's generally something like, slightly warmer on the right, slightly edgier on the left. Sure, you can clean up the low end in the mix with filters, but it's generally best to think of this during tracking. So like, two Les Pauls make sense together. A Les Paul and a Tele will be a little harder to match in terms of low end, but there are a few tricks:<br /><br />-Have the Les Paul Play Higher Up / Tele Play Lower<br />-Use a "bigger sounding" amp for the tele and a "smaller sounding" amp for the LP. <br />-Try neck pickup on the Tele and Bridge on the LP. <br />-Try a ribbon for the tele and a 57 for the LP. <br /><br />You really just want them to sound like they belong together in the context of the band. Their midranges will differ, which is good, that's what gets you separation. The low end will define its size. So just be cautious when you're matching up guitars.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>b) Carefully selected amps/pedals.</b> Though I find that most of the
time guitars sound best going straight to the amp, but sometimes pedals
can provide a special sound that's not achievable by any amp - like a
Tubescreamer does "a thing" that amps don't really do. Pedals often have
a sort of compression in them that can help sometimes depending on the
part. I generally find that MUCH LESS GAIN is needed when adding guitar
layers. I like to think of it this way:<br />
<br />
-The more notes being played in each chord, the less grit you can get
away with. Solos can sound great with tons of distortion. Big chimey G/C
chords? No way. Power chords? Decent amount, but not as much as lead
(generally). <br />
<br />
-The more layers of guitars you plan to have, the less distortion each
one needs. Distortion adds up and starts to sound like "one fizz" coming
from the speakers. Heavy rock guitars aren't really that distorted -
it's that they need to be played evenly and tightly. It's usually "just
enough gain to sound chunky." <br />
<br />
-Distortion is essentially clipping. Part of what we "like" about
distortion is how it controls the level, not just how it sounds.
However, you don't really get "PUNCH" always - it starts to sound well,
clipped. Thus, I find that recording mildly driven guitars and
compressing them to heck sometimes sounds a LOT better than recording
super dirty guitars and not touching them with a compressor. I find that
the compressor helps it have the evenness of a distorted guitar sound
(which makes the player happy) but it doesn't sound like buzz buzz buzz
(which makes you happy). <br />
<br />
<b>c) Carefully written parts.</b> I think this is rule #1 (even though
it's letter C...) IF the part conflicts with the vocal's range, it will
always conflict with the vocal. Think about that. If you're playing the
exact same notes that the vocalist is singing, no matter how you EQ it,
those notes will be in there. Then you'll be upset and say "aw man I
hate making my tone sound like crap in the mix - it sounded sooo good
before!" Well, the tone can be perfect, but if the part is wrong, you
can't EQ it out. <br />
<br />
Beware of where the VOCAL sits. Generally speaking, power chords are
easy to fit in a mix (provided the tone is right) because that rarely
clashes with a vocal. It's when you start getting into the E-B and G
strings that you really start to conflict. In that case, try to avoid
playing the exact same notes the singer is singing (unless you're
doubling the vocal melody on purpose, which can sound really cool).
Another tip that can help here is doing what...oh...LAYERS. Record the
"big guitars" down on the low three strings with your meaty drive, but
then record cleaner, even lightly driven guitar parts on the higher
strings. On both parts, avoid crossing over to each others territory,
ie., try to stick to the low 3 or 4 strings on the power chords, and try
to stick to the high 3 or 4 strings for the cleaner parts (mostly). <br />
<br />
<b>d) Vision.</b> Before you lay down a single guitar, you NEED to have
vision of the picture you're about to create. I always like to make a
"roadmap" so to speak of the guitar arrangement, because it's so easy to
just add and add and add. If you know where you want to end up, you can
carefully select tones. Remember before when I said basically that the
more guitar parts you have, the less big each one needs to be? Well, if
you start by thinking "this song just needs two guitar parts" and then
you even up adding 5, they may NEVER fit together because you didn't
consider all five in the process. <br />
<br />
So. Listen to the song, the rough, the demo, whatever, and try to map out what's needed. Here's an example. <br />
<br />
Intro - 5 guitar parts, two power chord Les Pauls, fairly gritty. Then,
two chimey Teles with LIGHT grit. LPs Hard left and right, Teles 50/50,
lead guitar, creamy distortion, panned center. <br />
<br />
Verse 1 - Les pauls drop out leaving the Teles. Probably need a little
more grit, but not necesarilly low end or body. This less the low end of
the verse drop out a little so it feels smaller but not wimpy. Both
teles playing carefully written parts <br />
<br />
Prechorus - lead part comes in in the background, not super full, don't step on vocal. <br />
<br />
Chorus - Les Pauls come back in, which creates the illusion of the song
exploding (as the other guitars are just 50/50, these are 100L/100R.) <br />
<br />
Etc. <br />
<br />
With this type of vision, you can plan out the tones for each section,
each part, and try to envision how it will all come together before you
even put up a single mic. TRUST ME, it will save you a lot of pain and
suffering later down the road. In the digital world, you can fix a LOT
of things. One of the only things you can't hardly fix is over distorted
guitars. When in doubt, less gain can work just fine. When in a LOT of
doubt, always record a DI. <br />
<br />
Another side tip - a lot of n00bs will pull the whole "mic up an amp
with two mics and pan one left and one right." As someone said before,
that will do nothing by take up a bunch of useless space. It will NOT
sound big. Come on, just play it again, is it that hard? It sounds SO
much better that way!!! Nevertheless, there are a few times when I will
play with out of phase sounds on purpose. I once did a track that needed
"something" in the verses with the drums, bass, vocal, and main guitar.
But we didn't want an organ or pad, because they wanted a pretty close
representation of their sound live, which is just 3 guitars, bass,
drums. In that verse, the middle guitar was the only one playing, while
the other two sat out. What we ended up doing was using a half-cocked
Wah pedal filtering out all the top end of a guitar, and mic'ing up a
cab with two 414s in a weird stereo placement. I then flipped one side
out of phase and panned them hard left and right. This created the
typical "behind my head" sound that out of phase stuff creates, but with
the part SUPPOSED to be almost more felt than heard, it worked out
beautifully. In the track it sounded so cool because you couldn't really
pinpoint what it was...or where it was coming from. It was VERY low in
the mix. <br />
<br />
<br />
I hope these thoughts have been helpful to someone out there!
K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-50328121535732453172012-11-15T10:39:00.001-08:002012-11-15T10:39:49.150-08:00How Many Mics?There has been a question I get a lot from students and some interns that is simple and yet a very great question: how many mics do you use per source? <br /><br />It seems like a stupid question whose answer is just "it depends."<br />
<br />
But truthfully there are a lot of thoughts that go into the decision of how many mics to use on something. There are some obvious ones and some less obvious. Let's take a look and break it down a bit. Some of these are reasons to mic, others are issues you will encounter. <br />
<br />
1. Phase issues. - This seems to be the primary issue with using multiple mics. As you add more mics on a single source, the sound arrives to both mics at different times. The mics also have different characteristics that can lead to more phase issues between the two. Put up two mics on something and invariably you WILL have some sort of phasing, it's just a matter of how well it works for you. Sometimes the EQ differences you get from two different mics can be amazing when combined. Sometimes it's terrible.<br />
<br />
2. Stereo width. - This is an obvious one. We use multiple mics to capture a stereo picture.<br />
<br />
3. Ambience. - We may use a close mic and a room mic to get a direct signal and one less direct. This can be nice on just about any instrument and usually has a fairly nice phase coherency if you place the mics far enough apart. You can use the early reflections to your advantage.<br />
<br />
4. Dual processing. - You may use two of the same mic but process them differently. One may go through THIS preamp with THAT EQ and with THAT compressor, etc.<br />
<br />
5. Mix Options. - Also a very popular reason to use multiple mics. You may record a guitar cab or drumset with multiple mics, but only use a few come mix time. This is a fine reason, but sometimes can lead you into the habit of "safe mic'ing."<br />
<br />
6. Safe Mic'ing. So what is this? This is a very common pitfall with lots of engineers out there. It is basically using a ton of mics to capture "all the parts of the sound" without actually taking the time to make each mic sound good. That type of engineering is a gamble - you put up 4 mics and hope one sounds good. That's bad news in my book. What you usually get is one that sounds okay and three that sound mediocre and are unusable with the first. There are phase problems, tonal incoherency, and the like.<br />
<br />
7. Bright Mic, Dark Mic. - This is very common on lots of sources. A good example would be like an inside mic and an outside mic on a kick drum. One is for the bright attack of the beater, and the other is for the low thump. You also see it on guitar cabs - a 57 and a Ribbon combined can get a really great sound. The 57 is present and bright while the ribbon is dark and has a big low end. They compliment each other nicely. <br />
<br />
8. Hifi Mic, Lofi Mic. - Also very common for vocals and drums. You'll have a condenser mic on a vocal to get the nice "pretty" vocal sound, but then another mic may be like a 57 or something running through an amp to get distortion. There are lots of applications of this. Guitar amps could even have like a 57 for a classic lofi sound and then a condenser for a hifi sound. <br />
<br />
<br />
So with all of these considerations, how do you even start to pick? Here are some tips.<br />
<br />
1. Figure out how big the source is in the song. If the source is an acoustic guitar and it's a solo instrument track, you will probably want a fairly large sounding acoustic guitar to take up a lot of space. If it's a vocal and an acoustic, it may need to be a bit smaller. If it's an acoustic with a band, it will need to be a lot smaller. The more tracks you have, the less space each can occupy. I'm talking stereo width wise AND frequency wise. Things will a big full low end may not fit in a dense track. You'd be better off recording it with a less bassy mic than trying to EQ it later. Or moving the mic backward to give it some more depth and also less low end.<br />
<br />
2. Figure out what tonal role the source plays in the song. If the source plays by itself a lot, it may need to be bigger sounding. If it's in the track barely audible it doesn't need a super full frequency range.<br />
<br />
3. Figure out how upfront the source needs to be, or it's spatial role. If something needs to be right upfront and in your face, mic it that way. Close. Under a foot usually. If something needs to sound farther away, mic it farther away. You should realize that not everything can be upfront and not everything can be far away. If everything is upfront, your mix will resemble a straight line of performers on stage with no front to rear depth.<br />
<br />
4. Start with one mic. Always. On every Try to get the sound as good as possible with one mic and as close to the sound that you want with just one mic. This helps keep phase issues to a minimum and helps you focus. Then if you need to add more to a sound that you can't get by just one mic, then add another mic. Take a drumkit for example. You may start with one overhead. If you want more width, make it a stereo pair for overheads. If you need more kick (which you probably will), then maybe add an outside kick mic. Need more click? Add an inside kick mic. Need more snare? Add a snare mic on top. Need more floor tom? Need more room ambience? Add one by one. You get the picture. You may find that a drumkit sounds good and better with 4 or 5 mics than it would with 15 mics. It surely will sound more phase coherent, which will make it sound more solid and more well recorded.<br />
<br />
5. Try listening for exactly what part of the tone you're missing. If you are recording an acoustic guitar with one mic and you feel like you need more midrange, try adding a dynamic mic someplace. Just because you add another mic doesn't mean you have to pan it. You can pan it straight underneath the other mic. To take the previous drumkit example, You likely will need more kick in your overheads just because OH mics generally don't contain a lot of kick. But, do you need more CLICK sound or more LOW END? It's likely low end. If you're recording electric guitar, try working with a handful of mics before you find the right one. If it's picking up everything really well but you just need a little more bottom end, consider adding another mic. Maybe just barely bring it up underneath. <br />
<br />
6. Try Mid Side Mic'ing. Google it and learn about it. It's a phase coherent way to add depth and width to tracks like acoustic guitar and drums and room mics. It's a brilliant technique that works well in any genre. <br />
<br />
7. The fewer mics you use, be less afraid of EQ. Obviously it would be best to get the sound right from the start, but if phase starts getting in the way, it'd probably best just to use a single mic with loads of EQ. It will sound much better to EQ a singular mic on a source rather than get phase between two mics. So, if you're doing drums with multiple mics, really try to get it as close as possible with the mics. Try not to EQ like crazy. The only thing you can really get away with EQ'ing crazy are the close mics, because they're so close. On a guitar, it may be best to use one mic and EQ it. Same with a vocal. It really does depend. When in doubt, use the BEST eq you can. That probably means analog EQ. Sorry plugins, I still have yet to find any plugin that really sounds quite like the hardware. My favorite plugin for EQ is DMG EQuality. That can really make me happy.<br />
<br />
8. Sometimes I'll record an acoustic guitar with something like 4 mics. I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous, but I'll explain. I'll probably start with a mono SDC maybe 15" away at the neck joint. I like about that far away on acoustic guitar. I'll get that to sound as good as possible. If I need some more size and width, I'll throw up a figure 8 mic underneath for a Mid-Side setup. Then I may put up a room mic 6-10' back to get some ambience that I may or may not use. If I need a bit more midrange (sometimes acoustics can sound brittle and boomy, but not a lot of woodiness, which I really like on acoustic), I may add a mic down by the bridge, which has a characteristically midrangey tone. I may use a dynamic. I may use a condenser. How many of these mics will I use? Likely just one or two, but I may use different mics at different sections rather than having to EQ. For example, if the song starts with acoustic but then the band kicks in later, I will probably start with the SDC with the fig8 mic to get a big full sound. As the band comes in I may just use the mid mic. When the electric guitars kick in, I may just use the room mic to push the acoustic backward. And, if need be, I can try the midrangey mic to help it cut if it needs to. That's just an example. <br />
<br />
<br />
I hope this has given you some things to think about! I've done some sessions with 15 mics on drums and others with 3 and been happy with both. Ive done some with ridiculous mic'ing setups for acoustic guitar for the purpose of picking a few in the mix later. Sometimes just one mic works. The more you engineer you will find good starting places of your own. Don't follow the books. Don't! Find your own starting places and build from there. <br />
<br />
Inspired by my weird three mic vocal setup today:<br /><br />Neumann KM184 > API Pre > Distressor<br />RE20 > Vintech X73 > Distressor > Tube Tech CL1B<br />SM57 (with a glass slide taped on to it) > Yamaha Mixer > Musket Fuzz Pedal > Reason Amp > 112 Cabinet > Fathead > Vintech X73 > Distressor > Dbx160. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNSGI3fKnPN5IyaG4iKYAHv1OwvaaSTMO5Kcf_p5ubwtoXPrUaXX-iCn1Qe6DbZR4q18pUtRdQk1fd8HYg0mdph6fPEs1A4Aek_xCkFrZz7TbGeDI5icIHfLuedAP7DE0pH5mk1aqOfDeT/s1600/photo.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNSGI3fKnPN5IyaG4iKYAHv1OwvaaSTMO5Kcf_p5ubwtoXPrUaXX-iCn1Qe6DbZR4q18pUtRdQk1fd8HYg0mdph6fPEs1A4Aek_xCkFrZz7TbGeDI5icIHfLuedAP7DE0pH5mk1aqOfDeT/s320/photo.JPG" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-15019303295716690782012-09-14T12:29:00.003-07:002012-09-14T12:29:47.524-07:00Empirical Labs Distressor ReviewAlright so here I am reviewing the wonderful Empirical Labs Distressor.<br />
<br />
If you're wondering about my credibility, you can rest easy - I have two of them and use them daily, and have for years. Just finally getting around to writing a review for this blog. They are very versatile units that have lots of different capabilities. If you look through the manual you can learn plenty of what this baby can do and how. I'll talk a little bit about what it does and why I love it and why you should get one. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/normal/empirical-labs-distressor-mono-el8-x-170303.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="102" src="http://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/normal/empirical-labs-distressor-mono-el8-x-170303.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>The General Idea</b><br />
<br />
I think the Distressor is the BEST compressor under $1500 that money can buy. If you were to just buy one compressor for all of your tracking duties, I believe the Distressor would be it. It can be mellow, it can be ridiculously <i>over the top. </i>You can lightly tap a signal or crush it to all oblivion. You can emulate tape saturation, emulate tube optical compressors, emulate an 1176, or do super clean high fidelity transparent limiting. Really a surprising piece of gear. I wish I had five more. <br />
<br />
<b>The Sound</b><br />
<br />
The Distressor is a very hi-fi piece of equipment, boasting a frequency response of something like 20hz-300khz accuracy with all of the "Distortion" modes turned off. It can sound quite transparent, which is something a lot of people are worried about before buying - they think "eh, it may be too aggressive for me." The 2:1 ratio has something like a 30dB knee! Very wide! Very mellow. The attack and release times are quite variable, so you have lots of options for super mellow compression. However, if you want to get a little bit dirty, Distortion mode 2 emulates second order harmonics, which is generally associated with tube like saturation. Distortion mode 3 emulates second and third order harmonics, which can closely emulate the sound of magnetic tape saturation. Keep in mind these Dist modes are emulating <i>saturation, </i>not any specific pieces of gear.<br />
<br />
The Distressor, however, CAN be used to emulate certain pieces of gear like the LA2A, 1176, etc. The different attack, release, and knee curves of the various ratios provide different compression sounds, and the different attack and release times can provide that classic sound. The Dist modes may be used in conjunction to further accentuate the warmth of the source. I find that while tracking, it's an absolute go-to. I like it on 4:1 or 6:1, fast attack and fast release, Dist modes off, just tapping 1 - 3dB on kicks, snares, etc. This helps prevent any clipping, and also keeps the source a little more consistent in level. You know how drummers always play quieter while checking the mics...<br />
<br />
Set with a low ratio, fast attack and fast release, with Dist 3 mode on, the sound somewhat resembles analog take saturation, which can nicely warm up guitars and give them some edge. I know "giving them edge" and "warming them up" may sound contradictory, but that's really what it does...it's like turning up the sharpen control on a photo - looks better, more defined, but quickly can look bad if overused.<br />
<br />
The Distressor can in general is a very pleasing soft knee compressor that is quite transparent at lower ratios. Once you get into 10:1 and higher, it becomes more obvious compression. For tracking or mixing, you'll be amazed what it can do to a vocal, a bass, kick, or snare, or a drum bus. Throw it on "Nuke" and destroy your drum room mics - it really sounds quite special on that setting.<br />
<br />
<b>WHY YOU NEED ONE</b><br />
<br />
Okay, so the truth is, you don't really "need" any single piece of gear, but I will say, this is a GREAT compressor for you. It's very intuitive to work with and really helps you understand compression. You turn the knobs, you watch the lights, and you hear the difference. You can really learn a lot from using this device, and if you already know quite a bit, you'll surely have a good time exploring all that you can do. I use it while tracking, I use it while mixing, Ive even used it live! Bass, vocals, drums, guitars, percussion, it REALLY does it all, and not in the way that it "does 20 things okay as opposed to one thing great." It really sounds good most of the time. May not be the best, but it always works. I love pieces of gear that always work. <b> </b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b>SUMMARY</b><br />
<br />
What can be said about the Distressor? It's a modern classic with good reason. It rocks. I've NEVER said to myself "man that sucks." The Distressor seems to find its way onto every project that I record, whether that's jazz, rock, metal, or funk. It's got a lot of attitude, a LOT of settings, and it's a lot of fun to work with. Very easy to learn, lots of great info in the startup manual they include, and tons of great info about it online. <br />
<br />K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-26000123437265881802012-09-03T14:17:00.000-07:002013-03-27T22:55:37.882-07:00Low and Low Mid Buildup in MixingOne trend we all seem to notice in mixes is that to get things to sound
the way we hear them in our minds, we often end up adding top end, and
or taking out low end, carving spots in the low mids, finding things to
accentuate in the high mids, getting instruments focused to their
midrange, etc particularly in dense mixes. Not necessarily a "lot," but
regardless it seems we always have to do it. Very rarely can you just
put up a session flat and have it sound almost finished. <br />
<br />
So WHY do things cloud up in the low
end? I mean obviously a bit part of it starts with arrangement, how
things are played, instrument and amp choices, particular settings on
these, etc. Is it related to the fact that while recording we often make
everything sound big and full? You know "hit the kick drum" and we get
levels and say "yeah, sounds like a kick," but in the mix it's not
bright enough, and so on? <br />
<br />
Is it that a lot of "homebrew" recording engineers are using gear that
is often muddy and unclear in the mids and highs? I remember the first
time I heard an A/B between a rack of real 1272s and a rack of newer API
512s. The vintage 1272s were SO much brighter and clearer than the
APIs. Not that this is a bad thing whatsoever, just a different flavor. <br />
<br />
Is it that many inexperienced engineers are recording in quite muddy
sounding rooms in the first place? Even in mixes I get that are done by
talented engineers, I still have to carve space. <br />
<br />
Is it that electronics and recording technology in <i>general</i> can't
process sound the same way that our ears do? Our ears seem to have the
amazing ability to "make stuff sound better" when we can see it,
experience it, etc. McGurk Effect, Coctail Party effect, any other
scientific explanations will tell you that we are highly influenced by
our eyes, when, if we were actually close our eyes while listening to a
band at a concert (and I never do this!), it may not sound that great in
comparison to the record or whatever.<br />
<br />
The only real justifications for tracking things with big full low ends that I can find are:<br />
<br />
1. Isolation. Micing things close with cardioid mics unfortunately gives us proximity effect<br />
<br />
2. Getting what the client wants out of their sound - they hear it
through the monitors and want it to sound huge. Make them happy, then it sucks in the mix. <br />
<br />
3. Being able to bring certain instruments more full range at some
sections than at others (for example, acoustic guitar intro, full band
starting at the chorus - acoustic can easily be filtered for the rest of
the song). <br />
<br />
Other than those three though, it absolutely drives me up the walls. I
feel like on the next project that I record , I'm going to double mic
every close mic'ed source with a far mic. Let them hear the close mic so
they can say : "dood yeah that is my TONE so fat and analog and huge and warm...but also super clean and digital and detailed and crisp" but then...secretly...my other mic is actually picking up the real sound. <br />
<br />
I am quite convinced that since the beginning, every instrument is
designed to function as a full range solo instrument. This is why a mix
of acoustic guitar and vocal needs much less mixing work provided that
the stuff is recorded well. When you get a typical rock track it's like
trying to fit twenty solo instruments on sixty tracks down to a left and
right. No wonder people have such a hard time learning to mix... It's
totally counter intuitive to the way we listen to our instruments in real
space. Live situations often have FAR more low end than recorded
material. And it's totally valid for that application. <br />
<br />
This brings up another interesting thought...<br />
<br />
If you track something with low end and then roll it off, you may be
reaping some of the benefits of the harmonic content naturally
associated with a "big sounding" source. We can potentially all agree
that in general a fender Bass through an ampeg sounds pretty great.
Sounds great in the room, everyone's happy, so theoretically the mic
choice and placement (eg. Brighter mic than we may usually use on a bass
cab) might more effectively capture the source rather than recording
with a big sounding mic and then rolling it off...<br />
<br />
I'm no acoustician but I assume the result would be much different if
you recorded a thin sounding bass through a thin sounding cab with a mic
like a fet 47. The harmonics created in the mids may not be there since
we've neutered our bottom end. It would probably actually sound worse.
Plus the client would be completely in the dark in terms of getting
"their tone." I'm a musician too like many of you, so I totally would
hate a recording engineer making me completely falsify "MY SOUND" in the
live room. In the mix, it obviously has to fit, but I'd be put off
(even knowing what i know) if he was like "hey screw your 2x12 let's use
this 1x6 cab to fit in the mix"<br />
<br />
Plus, tiny sound is interpreted as tiny in a room mic, even if the close mic fits in the mix... Room mic would sound terrible. <br />
<br />
Mic placement vs mic choice vs tweaking the source...<br />
<br />
I guess it's my assumption that the source should be tweaked until it
sounds good in the room, not neutered so to fit in the track as I
previously joked... I think in practice having a big sounding source in
the room is not always a bad thing... Makes the client happy and is of
course the sound they are used to hearing in their own spaces. Now to
capture it.<br />
<br />
This is where the real art or engineering comes into play I guess. The
right mic and placement is much more important than EQ obviously but the
low end is a great example of why. It's proof. It's probably the same
reason why we often start with overheads or rooms and just fill in...
The overheads rarely have an overpowering low end which helps us out in
the long run.<br />
<br />
As far as mixing goes, checking on reference monitors and checking reference mixes when level matched is a GREAT way to see if you're in the ballpark. Low end and low mids WILL make or break your mix. Period.<br />
<br />
A sidebar about low end -<br />
<br />
I generally find that there's not much going on below 100hz that is anything but kick and bass. Maybe a little floor tom ,but that's it. Reverbs have HPFs, vocals and guitars and pianos have HPFs, everything gets a highpass. Most things can stand a filter pretty high - some things up to 300 or 400hz! I generally find myself putting a HPF on kick and bass at 30-50hz, depending. Usually just to get rid of sub clutter. Guitars are generally around 100, vocals are generally 120, keys really vary depending on the role they play in the track. Pads can sometimes stand a filter up to 300 if they're supposed to be airy. Backing vocals usually get up to 150 or so, again, depending on their role.<br />
<br />
Remember that mic distance also will affect the low end of a source, as well as mic polar pattern. Using a mic just 1" away from an amp sounds a lot different than 5" away from the amp. Proximity effect can really add up in the mix and can start to sound bad.<br />
<br />
THE most common recording mistake I hear in tracks I get from novice engineers is low end mud. Everything is muddy. Too much lows and low mids on everything. I attribute that to the things above - proximity effect (placing cardioid mics too close to the source), sub-par acoustic environments (causing buildup of muddy frequencies), and cheap gear that is unclear in the midrange and top end. <br />
<br />
<br />
Think about it! K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-50175949593220413092012-07-12T13:17:00.000-07:002012-07-12T13:42:25.919-07:00Review of Slate VCC Virtual Console Collection<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.slatedigital.com/assets/images/content/products/vcc_pro.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="http://www.slatedigital.com/assets/images/content/products/vcc_pro.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Hey friends - so I decided to pick this plugin up this week to see what it could do. In the grand scheme of things Slate has a great reputation in the audio world, but I must admit I was skeptical when this $250 plugin claimed to help get the sound of $250,000 consoles. The idea is based around the unique saturation and summing features of various consoles like the Neve 8048, SSL E (with G upgrades), a Trident 80B, an API, and on the new version, a Tube Console, my guess is a Universal Audio.<br />
<br />
I'll start with my conclusion and work backward. I LOVE the plugin! It sounds great, it makes my mixes better. Period. I think it's a great buy, and if you're on the fence, just get it and you won't regret it. As of now I'm in the same boat as many other customers, saying things like "I want to go back and put it on all of my old mixes..."<br />
<br />
Alright. Quick back story. Initially my main reason for getting this plugin was because I love to make use of all kinds of saturation in my mixes. It doesn't matter if it's rock, folk, pop, hip hop, or jazz, I use tape, tube, and transformer type saturation plugs all over my mixes. I am constantly trying to get my DAW to sound closer and closer to a desk all the time. This type of plugin had me hooked when it talked about summing and crosstalk, the two elements I felt I was missing from the DAW. Now sure I've heard about some hype in the summing world, but I've honestly HEARD analog summing and to ME it sounds better. Is it night and day? IMHO No. Is it better in the end? Yes. I feel like if you spend $250 to make every mix you do 5% better, it's worth it. With that in mind the idea of spending $250,000 to make my mixes better sounds sort of ridiculous on my budget...<br />
<br />
Anyway. Let's talk about the plug.<br />
<br />
You've got your console STRIP and your BUS. The BUS I believe is designed to be for the stereo bus, but I've been using it on individual busses as well. On almost every mix I do I have six busses: lead vocals, rhythm guitars, lead guitars, drums, bass, keys/synths. Almost everything in the mix will go to one of these busses. I don't usually even have any plugins on these busses, I just do it for ease of turning down entire instrument sections, but now I've been putting the mix bus plugin on all of these.<br />
<br />
So how does it SOUND? In my opinion it sounds great. It's noticeable on nice monitors, and VERY noticeable on headphones and in the car (probably because on bother of these systems the speakers face inward). Not super noticeable on crappy speakers, but that's expected. To me it sounds like your ears get pushed back a bit when the plugin comes on - like the stereo image widens and it goes from sounding like the sides of the mix are less in front of you and more on the SIDES of your head. It's VERY cool sounding, and like I said, it's subtle enough where it won't ruin your mix, and though you will have to mess with things if you're doing it on a mix that's already been done, you'll absolutely miss it if you bypass it.<br />
<br />
The trend in practice is that the guitars seem to "lift" out of the mix a bit, the kick and snare are clearer, the bass is tighter, and the vocals seem a bit more upfront. That all to me sounds like a fancy way of saying it gives the mix more width and depth, and a bit more attitude. <br />
<br />
So <b>WHY </b>does it sound better? There are two main reasons. First, each of the consoles has a slight EQ curve that varies as you drive into it. The more you drive it, the more top end or low end you get, etc. Things vary a bit in that regard. Second, as you add distortion, your peaks are smoothed out a bit, meaning the RMS level (the average level) of the music is brought up a bit BUT without the use of a a limiter. This brings out the details of the elements. Saturation and distortion also tighten up low end, so that allows a more unified center image and a stronger punch to the music. Elements on the sides are often elements that can stand to be driven a bit more, thus they get a bit brighter and tighter, so they sound wider as well. The mixer crosstalk is the same thing - changes up the left right balance a bit and (according to some) can even alter the phase a little, causing the mix to seemingly have more depth front to back. SATURATION is your friend!<br />
<br />
Granted, ALL of this is my opinion, and I'll be the one that admits it is somewhat subtle! It's not going to SAVE a bad mix. Most people are searching for a magic mix plugin that makes their mixes "sound analog" when in reality, they just don't know a thing about analog desks, tape, tubes, how they work, what they sound like, why they make sounds better or worse, and how to use the DAW properly. These same people rarely understand the differences in DAW processing, clocking, summing, etc. Many of these people also just haven't developed their ears in such a way that they understand HOW to get a mix to sound good. This plugin will NOT save poor mixing skills! If your mixes are getting good and you feel like "man they are SO CLOSE to sounding how I want them," then this plugin might help inch you closer to the door. <br />
<br />
<br />
The COOLEST feature of the plugin has got to be the grouping function. You can group every single track together in 1 group (up to 8) and have them all controllable from a single instance (and ANY instance for that matter) of the plugin. This is primarily useful for switching the console type, testing bypassed/in, and adjusting the drive on all the channels at once. Very cool, definitely useful.<br />
<br />
I say leave it grouped all the time. Then, Put the plugin on every channel as the first insert. In Nuendo this is easy because on each channel there is a TRIM control, so I can find the sweetspot for drive on each channel (e.g., I may drive the snare and kick more but the guitars less) and also can compensate for the fact that I may have recorded the two rhythm guitars at slightly different levels but I want them to drive the same amount. In PT or other daws without a trim control, I suggest putting the plugin SECOND in the chain, and first putting a trim plugin or an EQ or something where you can adjust the input. <br />
<br />
Contrary to popular opinion it's not that heavy on the CPU. On my entire mix right now (I have it on 40 tracks, 6 busses, Master bus) it adds about 20% CPU when engaged. Without the plugin my CPU is hitting about 40% and with it's 60%. But...my mix is done. So 60% CPU for a finished mix that sounds great? That's no problem to me at all. Runs great. I'm using a Quad core i7 processor, so those of you with 8-core Macs will have NO problem. Dual core MAY be a problem, so I suggest putting the channel strips on things like kick, snare, toms, bass, lead vocal, and main guitars, and then the master. <br />
<br />
It is fairly taxing when you do oversampling, which yes, sounds better. How much better? I don't know. I just hear it a little more obviously when the oversampling is on. I suggest turning the oversampling to high for offline render, and as high as you can go for online (real time). On more dense projects this may not be an option, but on smaller projects try to put the oversampling high.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So like I said - if you're on the fence, get it. It's sure as heck a lot cheaper than going out and paying for an external summing box with all the breakout cables and whatnot, and to my ear it does the same thing that those boxes do. <br />
<br />
<br />K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-74971667861398586712012-04-28T11:20:00.002-07:002012-04-28T11:20:52.144-07:00Take Out the Bad StuffOn Episode 31 of the Recording Lounge, we talked a lot about EQ and how to use it to our best advantage. The big moral of the story that I said about ten times was "take out what's bad, don't add more of what's good." This is SO SO TRUE and I practice this every day of my job. The more you add EQ, the worse things tend to sound. By worse I mean unnatural, digital, and all other sorts of things. Our ears are much less sensitive to cuts than they are to boosts, so that causes us to naturally boost more than we need to, while a cut of maybe half that would do the trick.<br />
<br />
Some of my favorite plugins for the "corrective EQ" plugin that I put as the first plugin in the chain are:<br /><br />Oxford EQ - Sonnox<br />Neve 1084 EQ - URS<br />
Channel Strip Pro - URS<br />Linear Phase EQ - Waves<br />
Q10 - Waves<br />
<br />
None of these are super fancy plugins by any means. They are very basic, very clean sounding EQs that do what I need them to. I like the sound out of all of them and they are all within purchase of most of you, especially the Waves Q10, which comes with some of the cheapest Waves bundles, and it's amazing! Very clean, you can get very surgical with it and take out tiny single frequency resonances (like snare drum ring) or you can get very wide and make subtle shelves. I prefer the Oxford a little bit on some things, but in general the Q10 never fails as a corrective EQ. If I have to EQ something a LOT, for example something that was really recorded poorly and was sent to me, I will use the Linear Phase EQ from Waves. This is an ultra clean EQ that adds no phase shift during the EQ process. All other EQs add a little bit of phase shift to each band you add, actually making it sound a little less like the natural sound. Some argue that this is essential to some sounds and absolutely detrimental to others. In general, you want to EQ as little as possible; things just always sound better without it.<br />
<br />
After my initial EQ to remove any "problems" or unneeded information, I'd reach for a compressor before I'd reach for another EQ. My favorite compressors in the box are:<br />
<br />
C1 / Audiotracks - Waves<br />
Punch - MSI (cheap plugin!)<br />
1176 - Waves<br />
LA3 - Waves <br />
API 2500 - Waves<br />
L1 - Waves<br />
CL1B - Softube<br />
<br />
If I have those plugins I can pretty much complete an entire mix. I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the Waves compressors, but in so many cases, the most basic C1 comp that comes with the cheaper Waves bundles will beat out some of the nicest plugins I've purchased. We did an A/B test with the C1 and my Distressor (hardware piece from Empirical Labs) and we matched them to where neither of us could tell which was which on acoustic, vocal, and snare. It was amazing!<br />
<br />
<br />
In the end, if you can make each track just 5% better, you can really improve the quality of a 50 track mix. Every little bit counts. Mixing is not a singular skill - it is a collection of hundreds of tiny little decisions that all work together symphonically. Trust your ears and never stop learning! <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-64658836957843420422012-03-12T23:43:00.016-07:002012-03-13T00:58:58.964-07:00Volume Pedals and GuitaristsMy little spiel about volume pedals -<br /><br />In my opinion, the best overdriven guitar tones possible come from running a guitar straight into a good tube amp. Many of us can agree with this. One thing that really bothers me - and it happens more than I ever realized - I don't understand why players looking for this "holy grail amp" tone out of their pedals put a volume pedal after their drives.<br /><br />I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but it doesn't sound right. I don't want to offend anyone here, I just want you to TRY this out. Give it a spin, give it some real thought. I know it's really hard to take the volume pedal off the board because of all the freaking velcro...but try it, haha.<br /><br />First of all, the human ear is pretty good at noticing when things sound unreal. In technical terms, putting a volume pedal post distortion and expecting it to sound like a cranked amp is illogical. That'd be the equivalent of consistently turning up and down the master on your amp for different sections of the song. Which sounds terrible. You don't need to have that sort of automation. It doesn't sound real - when you get quieter, your guitar should have less distortion, not the same amount! That's how tube amps work!<br /><br />Second, some guitarists say "well I want it for swells." Okay, so why can't you do that pregain? In my experience, not only does it sound much more exciting and grabbing when the swell slowly increases in drive as it increases in volume, it also allows for more subtle swelling. If you have distortion on and your volume pedal is post distortion, even pushing up the pedal a little bit will have that much distortion, which sounds really lame. It's impossible for you to have that much gain at that low of a volume....unless it's a pedal. Generally speaking we don't want our pedals to sound like pedals, we want them to sound like different varieties of amp-like drive. Try putting the pedal pregain and listening to how much cooler and how much more exciting swells sound, and how much more control you have over the swell intensity.<br /><br />Similarly, guitarists say "I use it for fade outs!" Well, if you want the actual sound of a fade out, why not just let the guitar ring out? Do you really have that much distortion on or that much guitar sustain where it's not going to fade naturally? I find that the true nature of the "fade out" is that of ringing out the chord. That means the gain decreases as the volume decreases. Not "gain stays full blast" and volume decreases. That doesn't sound natural at all. If you put your volume pedal pre gain, you can slowly back down the gain until your tone is silent.<br /><br />To me, it makes much more sense to use the volume pedal like the volume pot on your guitar, adding more gain as you dig in and less as you back it off. It's my contention that the only reason you need a volume pedal post distortion is to silence your rig, which can be done with a $15 mute pedal (easy to make).<br /><br />Then guitarists say "what about when I need to kick on a higher volume for lead and lower for rhythm?" First, I could make the argument that a good arrangement and a good band will let you have plenty of room to solo without boosting your volume by double. HOWEVER, If you need separate volumes for rhythm and lead, here are a few solutions.<br /><br />1. Use two different drives, set your amp to lead volume (let's say pedal B), and then set the other pedal to rhythm volume (pedal A). This is a good solution because unless you have a super high headroom amp, boost pedals don't add volume, they just add gain. Anything under about 30 watts (depending on the circuit) will just drive more as you push more into it, and rightfully so, that's how they are designed! However, for leads, we don't usually want this. So, set your amp to your lead tone, (if you must, leave your boost on while doing this) and then turn the boost off for rhythm.<br /><br />2. If you don't have two drives, or if you like the sound of your drives individually and don't want to have one for lead and one for rhythm, it makes much more sense to build or buy a passive attenuator pedal. I started making these for guitarists and friends I knew for about $50. Basically the idea is that it's a single pedal with a volume knob on it. When you flip the pedal on, it turns you down. That way, you have the exact same tone for rhythm that you have for lead, just quieter. No difference in gain. No difference in tone, totally passive and true bypass, and it's in a small ZVEX size box that fits on any board at the last of the chain.<br /><br />Sure, if you have the patience to use your volume pedal as post gain and your volume knob on the guitar is pregain, go for it. This is fine! I'm not saying that this is bad, I am saying that when you leave your guitar knob full blast and never touch it, and use the volume pedal for section by section dynamics, or swells, or whatever, it doesn't sound right. I've recorded hundreds of guitar players and tried it all different ways. It always sounds better pregain.<br /><br />I challenge you to TRY it with the volume pedal pregain. You might hate it, but if you don't, what you may realize is<span style="font-weight: bold;"> how much more natural it sounds, how much more freeing it is, and how much more you have to focus on your playing, that is, play quieter for quieter sections, don't just turn down the volume--that's lazy! It really helps train your ear to start dynamic playing at the strings, not at the feet. </span><br /><br />Don't just take it from me - take it from the greatest guitarists of our time, who didn't need pedals, they just needed good playing, good guitars, and good amps. More gain? Turn up your volume knob. Less gain? You get the picture. Most of the best guitarists I've ever heard use two amps, one clean, one distorted, with an ABY box to use clean, dirty, or both.<br /><br />Like I said, this is just my opinion.<br /><br />Just one more day in the pursuit of tone.K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-44476402884949422912012-03-03T14:38:00.002-08:002012-03-03T14:38:49.206-08:00Josh's ListThis is a list made by my session drummer Josh for great studio playing:<br /><br /><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":1}"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span class="messageBody" ft="{"type":3}"><br />1. Honest Servitude (No Ego)<br />2. Taste Before Show (Always)<br />3. Power By Finesse (Less is More!)<br /><span class="text_exposed_hide"></span><span class="text_exposed_show">4. Space with Grace (Play only when Needed!)<br />5. Sustained Dynamics (Play Evenly!)<br />6. Hasten Your Listen (LISTEN to the Band!)<br /><br />100% agree</span></span></span></h6>K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-3406236271282655372012-02-14T06:45:00.000-08:002012-02-14T06:54:01.668-08:00Session DevelopmentDoing some teaching at a local recording program at a tech school today. One thing I notice about the students is that they have a hard time using their time wisely - they debate things, stand around, spend forever setting up. There's not a sense of urgency. Now it's one thing to be a student trying to waste time during courses like physics, European history, or Tax Law II....but recording? Hmm...<br /><br />Moral of the story is simply this - one of the things books never teach you is how to conduct a session. It's generally a fast paced experience, and rightfully so - most of the time bands are paying by the hour. And like anything, practice makes perfect. The faster you are at running around your studio solving problems, finding solutions, making things happen, the faster you will be to solve problems when they arise...because they invariably will. Most bands appreciate it when they see the engineer zipping around getting things ready. It really helps if the engineer has an intern or assistant for the session - that makes things run even smoother and faster.<br /><br />I did a session recently where one of my interns was working with the drummer while the guitarist and I were laying down a scratch track. We walk into the other room and we start setting up drum stuff. With two guys it takes a fraction of the time. After the drums are recorded, I go into the CR to work with the bassist. Bassist does three or four takes and we move on to guitars. By this time, my intern had torn down the drum mics, the cables, packed everything away and hung up all the cables and headphones. We walk into the other room and start experimenting with guitar amps, free to move them about and use whatever mics and cables we need. We go back into the other room to do some backing vocals, and by the time the song is done, my intern comes in the room and says it's all clean. The band leaves, me and my intern leave, and the studio has already been cleaned. Now THAT is a smooth, professional workflow.<br /><br />It's impressive to bands! They want their session to run smoothly, efficiently, and effortlessly. The more elements that you can eliminate that inhibit the creative process...the better.K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-46354511730117679022012-02-01T01:50:00.000-08:002012-02-01T02:40:03.915-08:00Compression 101 - In Plain Words<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNR_9hN-OuGASkBuXMGBaMbZU3Iv0Fnpn_G_Xjj1xr26DDaF_VzH7ojm3trelN2gFeciEqjo9kEkeL2CcgNWhtP_n7VKoPNcFyxzCgXiMZh9wS9DnI6YyEQW4vAgRmv0SjeUzok8i1fNwo/s1600/ratios.png"><br /></a>Hey friends. I recently got the chance to do some compression tests. I really wanted to see what the compressor was doing to the digital waveform in order to explain it better to others and just to reinforce my understanding of compression. You can never really say you know it all - you're always going to learn new things.<br /><br />Compression is sort of a mystical topic for many people. They don't really know what it does, or they kind of hear it, or they don't really know how to <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>abuse it. It's a delicate tool but it's certainly our most important tool for manipulating dynamics, feel, and punch. So let's break it down into simple terms so we can see what compressors actually do.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ratio -</span> A ratio of X:1 - for every X decibels that comes in, only 1 decibel will come out. Increasing the ratio is like strengthening the compressor's clamping power. If you imagine a compressor as being a bungee cord - a lower ratio will be a looser cord, and a higher ratio would be a tighter cord that stretches less.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Attack time - </span>When the audio passes BELOW the set threshold, this is the time it takes the compressor to reduce the sound to its calculated amount (based on the ratio). Adjusting this fast or slow changes the sound of the "attacks" of the notes - but almost in reverse. A fast attack comp setting will chop off the front of a snare hit. A slow attack comp setting will let the hit pass, and compress what's after the hit.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Release Time</span> - once the audio passes ABOVE the threshold, this is the time it takes the compressor to return to original (unprocessed) volume. The release really affects the sound of the sustain of the notes. A fast release will <span style="font-style: italic;">stop </span>compressing, thereby returning the signal to normal volume, thereby raising the level of the sustain. A slow release will slowly release the gain reduction, meaning it stays quieter longer, meaning the sustain will be quieter.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Limiting / Saturation </span>- These two types of compression are delicate matters. You can use them to your advantage to control dynamics without sounding like a compressor. If overused, both can seriously damage the sound. Look at the chart below for more info.<br /><br />Aside from all other aspects these are the basic parts of a compressor, and you should learn to hear what they do. Let's put this information in two separate charts so you can really understand how these pieces of the puzzle interact.<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">CLICK THE PHOTOS TO ENLARGE. Use them, read them, enjoy them!</span></span><br /><br />Compression - Attack / Release Times<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiStUhF-mNgXopW6CspquXyf6whd3JcOx_Ri7aZURFOffkup-h7zvgeggg0Vfj8MATX8ShO_EpJfaqZQcp5GeNJX2RWfh_HYWhuGkRY-vWonyQh43odOew1XSRWmVbM6r9bt9AlvRbulbXT/s1600/compression+chart.png"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOOLALYxoQTR7lhDv0m9dh_Xf4XeuxQMFahC7dmdytNJgiKdYjpe7guW9E52VyVgcl2Z0b2nZmcxE44cIVVi6lwM37y0u6WdUdcczOAKmBdcGXg50baioOKT1kMcXH6If7myrfOQnCFLEa/s1600/compression+chart.png"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 236px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOOLALYxoQTR7lhDv0m9dh_Xf4XeuxQMFahC7dmdytNJgiKdYjpe7guW9E52VyVgcl2Z0b2nZmcxE44cIVVi6lwM37y0u6WdUdcczOAKmBdcGXg50baioOKT1kMcXH6If7myrfOQnCFLEa/s320/compression+chart.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5704114051044147762" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Compression - Ratio / Compression Types<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNR_9hN-OuGASkBuXMGBaMbZU3Iv0Fnpn_G_Xjj1xr26DDaF_VzH7ojm3trelN2gFeciEqjo9kEkeL2CcgNWhtP_n7VKoPNcFyxzCgXiMZh9wS9DnI6YyEQW4vAgRmv0SjeUzok8i1fNwo/s1600/ratios.png"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 243px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNR_9hN-OuGASkBuXMGBaMbZU3Iv0Fnpn_G_Xjj1xr26DDaF_VzH7ojm3trelN2gFeciEqjo9kEkeL2CcgNWhtP_n7VKoPNcFyxzCgXiMZh9wS9DnI6YyEQW4vAgRmv0SjeUzok8i1fNwo/s320/ratios.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5704115122154443106" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQGp4JIF6FKKjeJlETf6vMPnb9XSD2eJBfZvJmUaS3o7oe6kXj9B-gZC7W5-QAPd0qLg1FsUg3oV20aOkEVh2De3Odofh-pOCNaQn4zfYtulCGTdcDutoWmrieS1pRoZTBu7IpKAC24ZoG/s1600/Types+of+compression.png"><br /></a>K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-79317198513152708332012-01-27T23:48:00.000-08:002012-01-28T00:18:18.702-08:00Yamaha NS-10 / NS10M Review<span style="font-size:100%;">So, I made a post a long time ago about NS10s and how mixing on computer speakers was very similar. The truth is, it really is. I finally got the chance to purchase my OWN pair of NS-10M speakers. I was very pleased.<br /><br />To my ears, they are not harsh. They are not "brittle" or "bright" like some people say. I guess if your mixes are terrible, maybe they would sound that way. To me, if I had to describe the NS10s in one word, it would be "boring." I'll give you a few reasons as to<span style="font-weight: bold;"> why these monitors work for me:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. They are not punchy. </span>This is primarily because the woofer is folded paper that is very stiff and doesn't have much give to it. By having this stiff cone, the frequency response suffers (which is the point) but they are very quick in terms of fall time, and they don't push a lot of air. This helps because you can really just focus on tones and carving holes in the mix rather than being distracted by things popping out of the speakers.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. They cannot take much power. </span>This causes you to mix quietly -- if you weren't already. I mix VERY quietly already so this was an easy transition. Mixing quietly not only trains your ears to listen more carefully, it causes much less fatigue over long mixing sessions, and it allows you to really get in the zone with the mix.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. They have a limited frequency response. </span>They are not very effective below about 100hz and above maybe 5k. Bass guitars, kicks, and body from acoustic instruments won't show up too much in these. This is good because in most consumer systems, the frequency response isn't that fantastic, so you need to make sure the kick and bass can be reproduced in a 1" MacBook speaker, you know? If there's not enough midrange information in these instruments then they disappear in smaller speakers completely. It also helps with focus because you're not really being excited by a big bottom or sparkly top.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">So you might be saying, "THOSE ARE THE GOOD THINGS?" </span></span><span><span>Ye</span></span><span><span>s</span></span><span><span>. There comes a time when you have to be honest about your process and just realize that putting these restrictions on yourself actually HELPS you mix better. Go figure!<br /> </span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span>Like I've said before, the NS10s are not magic speakers. They aren't going</span> to all of a sudden make your mixes perfect. However, there is something to be said about the fact that many of our favorite records have been mixed on them. With this logic, we could infer that by mixing on the NS10s, we are setting ourselves up to make similar EQ cuts and boosts that our mixing heros would have made on guitars, basses, drums, vocals, etc. in order to get them to fit in a mix and sound good on these monitors. That is my theory, at least. <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span>There are a few downsides to the NS10s.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. They are ugly</span>. Okay, obviously nothing I can really complain about. Don't get me wrong, they're just sort of an eye sore when it comes to modern studio equipment. Since they're not made anymore you are invariably going to get a pair that is used and somewhat beat up. They look very "old" and the cones are sort of dirty and off white. Vibe? I don't know. Sitting next to my Focals they look like a joke, haha.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. They are much bigger than I realized</span>. Their dimensions are 15" x 8.5 " x 7.5 " (HWD) and they take up a lot of space, especially when sitting sideways. It's sort of a pain to get any other nearfields to share space with them.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. They are passive</span>, which is a two edged sword. On one hand, you can customize the amp and get a very nice one and use it for other passive monitors in the future. On the other hand, when you buy them, you have to make sure and have all the appropriate impedence outs on the amp, make sure they are balanced, make sure they are wired correctly, etc. Sort of like setting up a home stereo, really. I am spoiled by plugging in a Passive monitor and starting right away. You can't really take NS10s to another studio easily because you have to bring an amp, speaker wire, and also, these huge ugly monitors. <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span></span>My overall review? I love them. I don't find them annoying to mix on. After ten minutes, you're used to their response and you don't even think about it. You really can focus on the midrange and making sure everything has a spot and nothing is stepping on anything else. I could mix on them for hours and flip back and forth between a nice set of Focals and be totally content.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A DAY IN THE LIFE OF STUDIO MONITORS:</span><br /><br />This is becoming my standard mixing practice:<br /><br />Hours 1 - 2 : Discovery of the mix. Listening to parts, all together, then individually, thinking of the song's intent, making rough balances, pans, etc. This is done on the Focals (or any high quality full range speaker). Starting to get some feel for the song, do my groupings and gain staging, set up the mix for the real stuff.<br /><br />Hours 3 - 4 <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span></span>: <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span></span>Processing phases. Starting to get compression, delay, and other effects on the tracks. Not much EQing here other than high pass filters and low pass filters. Maybe some obvious things like "problems" that I hear, but nothing drastic. Not really trying to shape things yet, just filtering out unwanted lows, compressing, and giving things a space to sit. Still working on the full range speakers because of the HPF and Compression work - needs a detailed speaker. At the end of this time frame I'll add my master bus processing and tweak that for a while. After this is done (even though it's 50% through the mix's lifetime) it's actually sounding more like 70% done. There are still fine tweak to make but the base of the song is there.<br /><br />Hours 5 - 6 : Carving and shaping phase with the NS10s. Spending a few hours getting tracks fitting together tonally with the NS10s. Fine tuning levels and balances, getting everything tight frequency wise and not worrying too much about frequencies below maybe 150 and above maybe 4k. Primarily working focusing on the 200 - 4k region, and even more specifically, really looking at the 400-2.5k region. That's where most instruments build up.<br /><br />Hours 7 - 8+ : Finalizing phase. From this point I am switching between the Focals, the NS10s, a boombox, an Ipod Dock, and computer speakers to make sure I'm maintaining perspective on the mix. It's sounding good even on the lowest quality system. My biggest test lately has been the laptop speaker. These are probably the worst sounding speakers on the market right now - virtually no low end, and about 1" in diameter. Very bright. Very harsh. If the mix still sounds good and you can still hear chord changes and kick hits in these speakers, your mix is probably shaped REALLY well.<br /><br /><br /><br />When I send the mixes to clients, I'll have them listen to them, and depending on what the changes are, I usually am mixing almost exclusively on NS10s for making corrections. They are usually things like "kick needs to be punchier" or "kick too punchy," or "toms need more power" or "guitar is too bright" or "....too loud" or "too soft". These changes are very simply and often only take 30 minutes to an hour per mix to completely solve. After this mix, I'll send them another copy and if there are no final debates, it goes on to mastering.<br /><br />If I am the one mastering it, I master it exclusively with the Focals / full range monitors. This is to get the big picture perspective back together and hear it full range. I will also switch between systems and check it in the car at this phase.<br /><br />So that's a day in the life of my NS10s.<br /><br /><br />K<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span>K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-13364580836403654882011-12-30T19:58:00.001-08:002011-12-31T11:41:40.856-08:00New Ears EveAlright folks - time to learn something about your ears and analog stuff.<br /><br />In a previous blog post I talked about loudness and how our ears perceive loudness from primarily average levels rather than peak levels. It's pretty interesting how that happens. We hear a certain frequency balance, a certain punch, a certain width (hmm...all words we use when describing analog gear) and it sounds LOUDER to us. More ALIVE.<br /><br />Part of this is because of a little thing called saturation. Sure, compression helps aide in the squashing of dynamic range in order to bring up RMS level. You compress something 4dB and then bring up the makeup gain 4dB, the "apparent loudness" of the track easily went up 4dB because your peaks stayed the same (thanks to the makeup gain) but your average went up. But what about those times we DON'T want to use a compressor? When it sounds too obvious? When it pumps? What then!??!<br /><br />Analog desks have multiple benefits. One of which is saturation. Another of which is routing possibilities. Another still is analog summing. A Big trend these days is to use analog summing mixers like the Dangerous 2Bus. This product allows mixers to send out of their DAW into an analog box that sums using components, all analog, like an analog console does. However, these boxes are usually 16 channels. An analog console is usually much larger. 24, 48, 64, 96 input boards are common. This means that you have to do digital summing in the box to get the mix down to 8 stereo groups (i.e., 16 mono outs) anyway. On a real analog console, it's easily one track per fader.<br /><br />So what makes analog summing better? I used to think it was some mythical thing about width and depth and blah blah. What I've learned (at least what I THINK is happening) is the subtle saturation characteristics from each channel adds what I call a "tightening and heightening" effect. It tightens up the low end thanks to its saturation (i.e., saturation from transformers / circuitry) and it sort of livens it up due to the harmonic content added by the saturation circuitry. It's subtle. You may not notice it on a track by track basis. However, when added up together, it's sort of like the Lombard effect - people in the pub talk louder and louder as they slowly can't hear themselves over each other, and soon enough the loudness of the room is extremely obvious. Little bits add up quick.<br /><br />To prove my point, take a listen to these two drum clips.<br /><br />DRUM CLIP A:<br /><a href="http://www.theclosetstudios.com/Drumtest-A.wav">http://www.theclosetstudios.com/Drumtest-A.wav</a><br /><br />DRUM CLIP B:<br /><a href="http://www.thecloststudios.com/Drumtest-B.wav">http://www.thecloststudios.com/Drumtest-B.wav</a><br /><br />Which one of these sounds more like the "analog characteristics" we talked about? More punch, apparent loudness, and width?<br /><br />If you put them side by side in a DAW and play them, you will notice a few things. First, Clip A sounds a bit louder, wider, and has more depth. Listen to the room sound on clip A - it's more apparent! You hear more of the snare in the room. Now look at the meters - Clip A is 4dB QUIETER than clip B. On my meters, Clip A is -9.4 dBFS and Clip B is -6.0 dBFS.<br /><br />Why does Clip A sound bigger, wider, and deeper, but it's over 3dB quieter?<br /><br />Answer: ANALOG SATURATION.<br /><br />Clip B was the original drum bus render. I ran it through some analog preamps and drove the transformers fairly hot. No EQ or compression, just natural saturation from analog preamps. This decreases the peaks, bringing up the harmonics and saturation, and allows for the natural compression (without pumping) to take place. This in turn yields a fuller, more balanced drum sound.<br /><br />So, then after you do that, turn up Clip A 3.4dB to match the peak levels of clip B. Now guess which one is still louder? Haha...much more obvious that time.<br /><br />Crest Factor is a term that means "the different between the highest peak level and the RMS level." So if your mix peaks at -1.0dB and your RMS level is -11dB, you have a crest factor of 10. Most modern standards suggest that anything more than 20dB is a super dynamic mix. Many modern rock mixes have crest factors of around 5-8dB. It is very likely that if you did a mix on an analog console and tracked to tape, your mix (DRY) would have a natural crest factor of maybe 10-12dB BEFORE compression, and a digital one may have 20+dB before compression. It is in this way that digital mixers often have to add more compression than analog mixers to compensate for this.<br /><br />The solution: If you're wanting the Analog sound (like many of us are), use a healthy balance of saturation and compression. If you only use saturation, your mix will likely be out of control and probably gritty and overdriven. If you use only compression, your mix may have no edge, and instead pump and breathe in weird ways - it will sound smaller and wimpy rather than in your face.<br /><br />Find a balance between saturation and compression and you will surely improve your mixes.<br /><br /><br />So the verdict on analog's depth? I don't think it's some magical "stereo widening" effect or some crazy "depth creator" even though we use the terms like "more width" and "more depth" from analog. Why is that though? I truly believe it's because of the aforementioned "tightening and heightening" effect of analog. Single tracks, entire mixes, it was obvious in the drum clip I send you above.<br /><br />Another thing to think about - these days we are often using smaller rooms for recording (as many large studios have gone out) and then having to create ambience later. By running through analog gear post mix and driving it, we are essentially compressing it via saturation. When you compress something with ambience, the ambience is brought up. Note the drum example! Those were done in a big room with lots of compressed room mics. When you run it through analog, the room sound gets compressed too, making it much more obvious. This I believe is what makes a lot of "analog" mixes better. We used to record more room mics, more "real space" and now we don't, we use it on FX sends.<br /><br />Another one of my solutions for this? Don't do aux sends for your room sounds. Plates, chambers, delays, sure --those have very often been aux sends. But for room sound - if you want the recording to sound REAL like it was REAL ambience recorded on those drum tracks, put the reverb ON THE TRACK. Come on, your computer is powerful enough to do that. That way when you compress them, it will react like it really would have in the analog days. Real room sound to a compressor. Sending a compressed drumkit to a room is nowhere close to compressing a big drum room stereo pair and blending it in. TRY IT.<br /><br />In my opinion, the inserted reverb sounds more ALIVE. More REAL. I've been working on a book / DVD about recording and mixing for ITB and this is one of the biggest chapters in there - understanding ambience! It's not just "reverb," it's supposed to be PART of the sound. Sending the mics to an aux does very little for us. It doesn't make the room part of the recording. It makes it an effect. It doesn't make the sound quality of a space apart of what affects our EQ and compression decisions, which I 100% believe it SHOULD.<br /><br />Doing it this way also allows you to be more tactile with mix. You need more verb? Turn up the ROOM MICS. Not "reach for an aux." It's more natural. Easier to remember, also.<br /><br /><br /><br />Take these things into consideration, and have a safe new year.K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3685211474357555893.post-34401731523294160232011-12-27T13:19:00.000-08:002012-01-02T18:38:14.870-08:00Mixerman QuoteLOVE these tidbits from Mixerman.<span class="messageBody" ft="{"type":3}"><br /><br />"Don't feel obligated to use a part everywhere it's been recorded</span><span jsid="text" class="commentBody">...it could be pure genius at a momentary break in the song, and pure crap everywhere else."<br /><br />"So if you bring up a part and it does nothing good for the track, provides no worthwhile counter-melody, serves only to distract the listener's focus from what's important, or offers no valuable rhythmic support, it's a stranded part, one that should have long ago been removed from the session. Underdub it</span>."<br /><br />"Since the vocal (or melody) is the most important part in a mix, you should make the preponderance of your tough decisions based on how a part affects the vocal"<br /><br />"Remember, at all times, you're attempting to push the listener forward, manipulate their focus, and cause them to have an involuntary physical reaction to the music this will cause the listener to sing the song, which consequently will lead them to want to hear the track again."<br /><br />-Mixerman<br />from Zen and the Art of Mixing<br /><br />Seriously, buy this book:<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Mixing-Mixerman/dp/1423491505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325558225&sr=8-1">http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Mixing-Mixerman/dp/1423491505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325558225&sr=8-1<br /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><span class="messageBody" ft="{"type":3}"></span>K. Osbornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369582831268611915noreply@blogger.com1