|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 21, 2015 23:21:11 GMT -6
Those are the kinds of results I got in a quite lopsided ambience situation.
I was recording a group vocal and one side of the Side mic was about 10 feet from a direct reflection. The other was 20-some feet from a direct reflection.
Lopsided stereo image. I mean, it would make sense.
Basically I just bussed the M/S tracks together and used a little panning to "center" it better. They didn't need to be 100% mono compatible, I more wanted control over the end width.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 21, 2015 20:37:24 GMT -6
I think the snare sound here is more of a problem than the kick--to me the boxiness of the snare is adding to the "muddiness" as you put it. But if I can be completely honest the performance is no where near as tightly executed as the reference track, and there are many spots where the guitars and drums are unglued. To me THAT more than anything creates a lack of clarity in the mix. Thanks for the feedback! The performances are all over the place, you're right... ...and that's after an extensive bit of drum editing. I saw them play a couple weeks before and the tempos on these two songs were all over the place in a bad way. We decided to go with a click so they'd at least keep from dragging. Tracking came around and we had one day for both songs. The drums were in front, behind...ugh. I eventually had to turn the drums off and overdub the guitars and bass to the click for some sections. Not ideal. I'll address that snare and see if I can tighten some of the performances more as a favor to those guys. Thanks again for the feedback. Honestly, I dig it. I live in a flyover state and the one studio in the area isn't interested in a dialog. I have to query the internet for opinions. Hopefully you guys will continue to humor me and tell me I'm not very good. Any other thoughts, all?
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 21, 2015 18:09:39 GMT -6
I is how I handle it...(these sorts of things) when I am charging money for it.. I give them what they want. I would always present the alternative , and explain why I think it should be like it is... demo both to them.. and what they decide they like, they like. would have two or three examples of the recall to play them, takes 10 mins, one with the kick dropped a dB, one with it like how you want it, and one with the click taken care of cheers Wiz That's what I had resolved to do. Give them what they want and give them the thing I think is better.. Is this a common thing for you guys? Also: thoughts on the mix? Anything you're hearing that's a big problem for you?
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 21, 2015 14:46:29 GMT -6
Did i fire 5 shots or 6 in all the excitement I forgot so go ahead punk change my mix again... Just saying. I think we're talkin' different kinds of "punk." This isn't the punk of the "Harry Callahan" days. We're talking modern unshaven "Harry Face" punk. That's what I feel like saying: "I WANTED to use this for my portfolio but you're screwin' it up for me!"
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 21, 2015 13:59:11 GMT -6
Question for you guys since this is a fantastic resource of professionals (like yourselves) and hacks (like me) for all things recording/mixing related. How do I tell an artist to stop making the mix (in my opinion) worse? Here's the background: I've got a couple songs I'm working on - some modern punk stuff (one guitar double-tracked left and right with a gravelly vocal and a steady bass) I feel like the mix is pretty close to where it needs to be. The drummer is insisting, over and over, that I reduce the click in his kick drum. Here's the rub: it's already too low. It's barely snappy. The kick is a balance of thump and attack at this point. Also, the track is 190bpm and has some eighth notes and a few sixteenth notes in the kick drum. Then he referred me back to a record ("I like this sound") in which the kick is super clicky. I'll post the video below I feel like taking even more of the 1.5k through 5K out of that kick is going to just bury it...making it practically non-existent to headphone-users and small-speaker listeners. This all comes after a request to add some thickness and low mids back into the guitar and bass guitar. That frequency range feels pretty muddy to me right now so I'm not sure I could make anyone happy by trying to place the kick in that area as well. The mix feels muddy (I think that's mostly because the guitars and bass have too much in that area) so I don't think adding to the problem is a good solution. Anyway, after all that, I figured I'd let you hear the song in its MixV2 form - they're asking for less click/snap in the kick drum for V3. I'd like you all to know that the MixV1 was less muddy and had more prominent kick and snare - because that's what I'm hearing in the reference. This MixV2 is "mastered in place" (soft clipper and limiter tossed on the 2-buss) for the client but will eventually be mastered by me anyway. My mix: Attachment DeletedTheir reference: The guitars aren't up to the reference wall of distorted guitars...but the band I'm working with wants to hear more rhythm in their guitars so that was never a real concern. Sorry (again) for the long post. Any thoughts from anyone?
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 16, 2015 15:28:30 GMT -6
schmalzy - samples will be cool, and are no doubt coming, but the real telling thing is using the SB not only on your mix bus, but in your production workflow from start to finish, and THAT is hard to do as an A/B comparison - as it basically means tracking your song twice, etc.. That's where the real magic starts to happen, but no doubt there will be clips coming soon. The hard part is probably your wife. LOL!!! Best of luck with that one! At this point, my wife has pretty much given up. She knows music pays the bills, and that I'm never going to quit buying stuff. So as long as I can keep the flow going.....I'm more or less OK. heh heh That's kind of what I figured. I just thought it would be cool to hear the A/B on a couple sources and extrapolate to the rest of the track from there. I wonder if the proprieters/designers (you wouldn't happen to know them, would you drbill?) could track something pretty quicklike - even just a simple 3-mic drums with bass and guitar sort of thing. I'm always most blown away by stacked up examples of usage. I'm sure those guys have plenty of time just sitting around doing nothing but waiting for the buckets of gold to show up after releasing Silver Bullet. I'm sure it's a killer piece of kit...it just helps to have proof when trying to sway the lady's opinion. For now, I'll just observe from afar and look into making some rack space for it!
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 15, 2015 15:36:18 GMT -6
Stoked for you!
Waiting, wallet-in-hand, for samples (and the ability to talk my wife into letting this purchase fly)!
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 15, 2015 9:26:01 GMT -6
I'm using the Valhalla Vintage Verb. I dig it, for sure.
I don't feel like I'm great with ambience effects, but the best sounds I've gotten are from VVV.
I've tried a few different plugins. I get better results for the things I'm trying to do using Vintage Verb than I do using anything else..
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 15, 2015 8:46:51 GMT -6
Here's my 'Frankenstand', 3 ribbon mic, mid/side setup... Vocal mic is an AEA R84, guitar mics are AEA N22's. Isolation between guitar mics and vocal mic is excellent. N22's are set as a Mid/Side pair which allows me to widen the stereo image of the guitar a little in post. The stand is a Century Stand (lighting) fitted with a mic boom arm. Once adjusted the entire shebang can be moved without affecting the relationship between all three mics. C-Stands are a wonderful, wonderful thing. I use 'em on video shoots all the time - there really is no other way to work that's not just handicapping your situation. I've been scheming on finding a way to get a few and make 'em work for mic stands. Which attachment are you using to make it all mic-friendly? Are you just putting a mic stand's threaded-on-the-end arm through the grip head or do they make something specific?
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 11, 2015 14:48:28 GMT -6
How's it sound without the tom mics, just overs? Exactly what I was going to say. Maybe, if you can get enough of the stick attack for the toms from the overheads but the tone and/or weight just isn't there, you could aggressively low-pass the toms - 200hz-ish - and use the close mics for just the tone/ring of the drums. It'll cut out a lot of the cymbal stuff. If that's still not right, maybe mult those tom mics and throw a transient designer at them. Really emphasize the attack and gate it pretty tightly after the transient designer attempting to allow just the attack through. Maybe try an expander instead of a hard gate for this to keep it from getting too obviously off-and-on. You'll just have to see how the transient designer does at emphasizing just the attack. You might be able to get away with some Now you've got a fader you can mix in a little for extra attack, a fader you can push up for body and tone, and hopefully much of the tom sound from the overheads. Check your phase if you start processing this much - something might get wonky and need to have the polarity flipped. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 11, 2015 14:36:38 GMT -6
One man may hear a ringy snare, another hears a way to add ring to a dead snare and gate off what isn't needed! That is exactly what I was thinking for one of my current projects. A group sent me a set of tracks for their full-length. The drums had four - sometimes five - mics (kick, snare, two overheads, and sometimes a "room") and everything else was fairly simply tracked, too. The snare sound is choked. Their drummer likes a high-pitched snare but I think he tuned most of the ring and life right out of it on a couple songs. The snare sound is thumpy and boxy with little upper mids and top. A sample with "too much" high frequency and some ring would probably really help fill it out. I'll be investigating! Thanks for the heads-up!
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 10, 2015 9:26:54 GMT -6
nothing more than slightly more complex greenday arrangements Just a couple quick thoughts: Green Day arrangements were nothing more than slightly tweaked Michael Jackson arrangements....and those were nothing more than slightly more complex Hollies, Turtles, Elvis, and (some) Beatles arrangements. I 100% understand the sentiment you have about the music speaking to you. If something doesn't speak to you then you definitely can't really be moved by it and it seems very boring. You mention you'd like to see more dynamics and you're missing the "swagtastic, ballistic overconfident competence" of yesteryear's artists. Most rock bands today are operating in the backlash of the era of the "clean verse/distorted chorus" thing that was overdone for much too long. I hear stuff with large dynamic swings and it feels contrived to me. It sounds like an announcer saying: "from the audio hook that brought you Nirvana, Weezer, Blur, and Soundgarden: These Guys!" It feels like they couldn't put together something cohesive. Many newer artists are also operating in exactly the opposite headspace and life experience from the people who did the "swagtastic, ballistic overconfident competence" of yesteryear. Of course you won't hear it. It's hard to be honest about your experience as a confident, fully-realized human if people are taking your music for free and club owners are making you to pay to play. The most important part of art is honesty. Their experience isn't the same experience the previous generations had so of course their attitude is not going to be the same. I hear "Pinball Wizard" and I can't relate (I don't think Townsend likes it either. He calls it "the most clumsy piece of writing [he'd] ever done."). I hear "Black Dog" and the riff and structure is cool but I can't related to "Hey, hey, baby, when you walk that way / Watch your honey drip, cant keep away." I hear "I'm not catering to anyone anymore. This is it; you've got me" and I can relate 100%. There is a crop of newer artists who ARE doing "swagtastic, ballistic overconfident competence" thing. Many are hip hop guys - some of which are very good but they still don't move me.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 9, 2015 20:55:23 GMT -6
Maybe what you're missing is the guitar player stepping on the light box and soloing over fogs and strobe lights. I guess I'm just more interested in the song as a whole than the guitar parts. If you'd like, I can find some more interesting guitar-related songs. In fact, here's two quick songs with the singer/guitarist from Into It. Over It. playing bass. One was recorded on to tape with two other songs over the course of a weekend and the other is a live track so you can see another song like it happening live: If you dig even slightly into the indie rock world you'll find a lot of guitar trickery, fingerpickery, and drum slickery. Many bands are just not motivated to put it out front and center these days. I'm sorry schmalzy. I don't usually post about people's music, because it's subjective and I don't like internet arguments, but it was the rock and roll history that made me want to post. So, since you didn't like my post I regret posting, but hopefully we can make something good of it. If you listen to any of the arrangements of the guitar players I mentioned in their recorded work, they are hardly soloing over fog and strobe light types of arrangements. They are carefully thought out and executed. The good thing though is that in the history of rock and roll we've graduated from Green Day back into the 80's hair bands. So, perhaps we can acknowledge that the players I listened were most definitely not hair band players and deserve more respect for their accomplishments. I hope there's no hard feeling? Frank No worries, man! I think I came off as a little more harsh than I intended - bonkers days at work might do that to me some times. Apologies from my end. I think our momentary impasse comes from the dismissal of the "younger" stuff as lesser-than. You've discounted a whole generation of musicians by suggesting there's a very firm congruence between anything uptempo and rocky made by people under 40 and Green Day - a pointed insult that I think we can all agree you intended as such. I'd say all of these specific artists are much more influence by Nirvana, Pearl Jam, REM, Smashing Pumpkins and Failure than Green Day. I don't for a second disparage what the people you've suggested have done. I only dismissed them as hacky strobes-and-fog players to thrust a similar barb as your Green Day quip. I worshipped and endlessly studied that now-deemed "classic rock" stuff for quite a while. I poured over Page, Townsend, et al. I credit them with my move away from drums and into guitar playing. I think the point I'm making is this: Perhaps we can acknowledge that the players I listed were most definitely not uneducated, absent-minded, talentless nothing players. They are musicians who carefully think through their arrangements, execute their parts well, and deserve more respect for their accomplishments. They're not selling millions of records but they also get no cash advance, no tour support, little to no promotion, pay for their own recordings, are making a living in a musical economic climate that doesn't want to pay them for their work, and are doing it with as much love and skill as the guys you mentioned. Just because their taste in what they like to do doesn't line up with your taste doesn't mean they aren't as legitimate as the people who musically rub you the right way. Side note: No hard feelings from my side. I don't do that stuff. I also don't think I'm capable right now of not sounding aggressive (annoying day at work and now I'm editing some actual less-talented musicians' takes into useable tracks). Sorry if I'm coming off as a pushy jerk. I certainly don't mean to and I think these discussions are super interesting and helpful.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 9, 2015 16:42:22 GMT -6
Cool songs from people who care and are as practiced as anyone in popular rock music history. Less "party" and more introspection in the lyrics than in the past but that's the generation that grew up watching "Behind The Music." I don't mind the music you posted, but being "practiced" and being talented are two different things. I don't hear anything musically in these tracks from the guitar players that comes close to what Jimmy Page, Pete Townshend, Richards/Taylor, Walsh/Felder, The Edge, etc. did. I guess if "rock history" started with Green Day you'd have an argument. Thankfully, it didn't. I didn't realize the measurement of talent was the amount of soloing done in the songs. I used to drill my guitar a legit 8 hours a day and could nail Jimmy Page, Angus Young, Kirk Hammet, John Petrucci, some Joe Satriani, and a bit of Steve Vai stuff. Then I tried to write songs. Writing a good song was way harder. Maybe what you're missing is the guitar player stepping on the light box and soloing over fogs and strobe lights. I guess I'm just more interested in the song as a whole than the guitar parts. If you'd like, I can find some more interesting guitar-related songs. In fact, here's two quick songs with the singer/guitarist from Into It. Over It. playing bass. One was recorded on to tape with two other songs over the course of a weekend and the other is a live track so you can see another song like it happening live: Way more interesting, imaginative, and original than minor pentatonic guitar solos. If you dig even slightly into the indie rock world you'll find a lot of guitar trickery, fingerpickery, and drum slickery. Many bands are just not motivated to put it out front and center these days.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 8, 2015 16:52:07 GMT -6
If you're complaining about the sound and feel of modern music, it's because you're not looking in the right places.
There are so many really, truly talented bands out doing it with as much love and hard work as ever in history. They're just further buried by "the industry" than they ever were.
Just in the independent rock category:
Luther:
Hop Along:
Into It. Over It.:
Cool songs from people who care and are as practiced as anyone in popular rock music history. Less "party" and more introspection in the lyrics than in the past but that's the generation that grew up watching "Behind The Music."
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 8, 2015 15:57:47 GMT -6
A large portion of my approach is trying to translate the awesome musicians, rooms, and gear Warren has at his disposal into my situation (with less awesome musicians, seriously less-ideal rooms, and gear that most studios wouldn't let in the door for testing.
Warren's videos are inspiring and a great look into the Pro version of what I love doing.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 8, 2015 15:53:55 GMT -6
Smart people make the stupidest mistakes! Also, the stupidest people make the stupidest mistakes. Need proof? Me.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 8, 2015 15:40:23 GMT -6
I wasn't a fan of computers. Unfortunately, much of my life has been spent on computers because of my career (video production and audio for post-production) and hopefully future career (audio production).
Video is SUPER processor and resource hungry. I worked in video on a PC for a period of time. In 2009 I made a switch to a different company. They only used Mac.
The neural pathways opened up when I was forced to switch to (and learn from the ground up) Mac and their OS. It thinks like I do. I have a thing to do. I need to do it. Did you think of the thing you need to do? Great! Execute it in the most efficient way possible. A Mac does it the same way my brain wants to do it.
...and that doesn't speak to the machine's MILES BETTER performance. The PC was a custom-built video editing monster. The Mac was an off the shelf Mac Pro. The Mac Pro, using similar drives and inferior software, was better in every single way.
Now, not all brains are wired like mine, I don't pretend there's only one way to think through stuff, and the companies haven't continued in identically the same path since 2009. But the Mac was just...better. I still remember how to use a PC. I had to track a band on a new PC tower running the same software I currently run on my 2012 MacBook. Mind-meltingly awful. My brains didn't like the ways I had to work and go back-and-forth between programs, etc. The Mac has always just been easy-to-navigate and use. It frees my brain up to concentrate on creative stuff rather than negotiating with the OS.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 2, 2015 11:51:11 GMT -6
I'm compressing for a few basic reasons.
Control levels/dynamics: my small studio (in my house) sees a lot of acts that are more attitude than finesse. If I have a singer screaming his face off and nailing the performance, I'm not about to say "lets conjure all of that magic again but this time more consistently and with better mic technique." Low ratio compression on the way in with automation on the track and more compression on the buss it feeds into. Also, I'm compressing a lot of busses for an overall level squeeze as stuff adds to (or drops out of) the arrangement. It's not the most glamorous way of using a compressor but the increase in usability of good performances is fantastic.
Transient manipulation: Do I want to pull the transients out further above the body of the sound? Do I want to push the transients down into the body of the sound? The answer to both is yes. When? Well, that's for the music and the sources to decide.
Sustain manipulation: A lot of times I think about 2-buss compression and background vocals this way. Vocals need to be thick and sustaining so I'm knocking down the front and timing the release to maximize the sustain. 2-buss compression is typically a combination of transient accentuation plus sustain maximization.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Oct 29, 2015 14:07:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Toft
Oct 29, 2015 14:04:40 GMT -6
Post by schmalzy on Oct 29, 2015 14:04:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Toft
Oct 27, 2015 11:23:49 GMT -6
Post by schmalzy on Oct 27, 2015 11:23:49 GMT -6
That console measures -48 db stereo crosstalk, .4% THD at higher levels and a pretty good amount of hiss thrown in. It's tough enough battling musicians, but to fight the console? Without the Toft 'brand' it would have been considered another Mackie. So I have two questions when I see your post. 1) If I'm looking for a console primarily for preamps with useable EQ plus summing - which is exactly the situation I'm finding myself in: What's a good, affordable console that's going to be a step up over the Toft in a similar price range? I'd love to have 32 channels (16 for tracking and 16 "locked" and untouched for consistency in summing) but really, a 16 channel board with selectable mic/line and bypassable EQ would also be useable. 2) What's your price to mod a 16-channel Toft to at least get the crosstalk and THD to a more useable spec? That's maybe the "REAL" cost of the board - the purchase plus the mod.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Oct 26, 2015 8:26:36 GMT -6
For my previous rooms, I used GIK acoustics.... their lead acoustic designer Bryan Pape helped me a lot with getting things set up. They do a pretty thorough free consultation if you're planning on using their products (which are great btw). I also dig GIK's stuff and Bryan was SUPER helpful for me. I was basically in the middle of trying to improve my room. I called those guys on the phone and wanted to ask some details on a product of theirs. The details were a little outside what would be on the spec sheet so they asked if I wanted to talk to their head designer. Of course I wanted to talk to him. They forwarded me to Bryan and he gave me a bunch of ideas to help my room (including suggesting a non-conventional-wisdom sort of solution for one of my problems) and told me how to best rearrange some of my existing pieces to get better performance out of them. Then I bought a couple GIK 244 bass traps - a product Bryan suggested after I said I didn't want to DIY my clouds and we determined some more bass trapping was in order. Those 2'X4' panels seem to be so damn effective. It makes me annoyed that I even spent a bunch of time and money building something like 60 sq ft. of bass trapping (plus a bunch of broadband absorption) for my room in the first place rather than just getting their stuff. The panels seem to work really well, are reasonably priced, and look great. www.gikacoustics.com/product/gik-acoustics-244-bass-trap-flexrange-technology/I know I'm just sounding like a GIK employee now, but they REALLY helped me before I even mentioned buying one of their products. I'd recommend that company to anyone in a small-to-medium-sized (only because I don't know what they would do for a large studio) looking for good acoustics solutions.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Oct 19, 2015 9:03:44 GMT -6
Interesting perspectives, all! I'm kind of thinking I'll track through a designated set of channels then (to start out with) sum through a different set of channels that should never really change - kind of "solving" some of the recall issue on the board. Of course, I'd still need to do recalls on any of the other outboard gear but that's probably just going to be a few compressors at most. I'll tell you my experience. I use an old modded SC Ghost. Got less than 2k in it all in. I've tried mixing ITB without it and go right back to it every time. What this console does for me is indispensable. Ymmv, of coarse. I've got a local opportunity for a SC Spirit. I've heard they're pretty similar, any real knowledge on the differences between the two? I did some looking around and opinions range from "nothing alike" to "very similar." Which mods did you do to your Ghost? I saw one of those pop up online recently and was trying to convince myself not to drive to Wisconsin (I think that's where it was...now I can't remember) to pick it up. Thanks again for the help, guys! Like my thread title implies, I kind of almost wanted you all to say "That's soooooo dumb. Don't do dumb stuff, dummy" but it appears my thought process was right and that I'd see some "improvement" ("enforced sonic changes that I wouldn't have made otherwise" is more accurate maybe?). Now...to make a decision on which one...
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Oct 19, 2015 7:52:01 GMT -6
I've never seen one before. Do you have one or are you looking to pick one up? I do have an original PE45 - it's 57-like in nature. They're both from the "Professional Entertainer" series. It's done a LOT of work for me over the years - I've probably had it for 16 years now and bought it used from my dad's old bandmate. The foam has crumbled but the mic still sounds good. It's definitely not my most hi-fidelity mic but it's useable or better on stuff like guitars and snare (though I've moved to brighter stuff on snare bottoms and more ideal mics for snare top). Here's what resulted from a quick bang on googs shure pe66: cdn.shure.com/user_guide/upload/1224/us_pro_pe66l_ug.pdf...and just for fun here's the user guide for my pe45: cdn.shure.com/user_guide/upload/1192/us_pro_pe45_ug.pdf
|
|