Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 14:56:05 GMT -6
I commit to plugins on input. Not the norm but it does speed things up.
For drums I will get the kit tuned up, make cymbal and snare selections, and bust out mics and get a flat kit sound that sounds as good as I can make it. I'll record the drummer playing the setup as is and add some processing and print through that. I'm not using the EQ or compression to make something bad sound good, or fit in a mix, I'm just using the tools I have to further my goal of capturing a finished drum sound. Everything goes through VCC, VTM and some other stuff and when I'm done tracking a song because I've done this, I'm not looking at a daunting task of shaping sounds and fitting them in the mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 19, 2014 15:53:55 GMT -6
Of course there isn't one correct answer here.
m57 said."As the plugins emulate better and better, is there a good reason to even bother with outboard compression/EQ/channelstrips on the way in?
Today, the answer is yes, tomorrow, who knows. There might be a tipping point where the benefits of in the box work outweighs using hardware, but I don't feel we've crossed that line just yet. Obviously, we're heading that way. I have UAD's 1176 plugs, and a real 76, and they sound different. If the plug is the sound I want, I'll use it. I think we're losing sight of what the real gear sounds like. I think spending $3,000 on plugs instead of $30,000 on hardware may be clouding our judgment, or at least mine ;-)
I was at a studio last week where they had many of our favorite plugs in hardware, as well as an SSL board. But, we used an Apollo Twin and their Unison technology 1073 plug, and it sounded absolutely great. If there was time, it would have been fun to see what a real Neve sounded like side by side. I also think that the effect of hardware is cumulative. Put twenty tracks with plugs next to the same twenty tracks with their hardware counterparts, level matched, and I'd bet most of us would choose the hardware.
The thing is, I liked the sound of the 1073 plug enough to do an album with it if I had to, so it's certainly good enough. But, will the music created by building tracks ever equal great classic analogue recordings, that remains to be seen.
Everyone's workflow and choices are different. I like getting the sounds I like going in, using some hardware, preamps, compression, but love having the option to add some effects later. So, for me, it's a hybrid thing, I guess.
Still, I dream of a room of my own, with enough space and gear to track five or six musicians playing live in it.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,099 
|
Post by ericn on Nov 19, 2014 17:38:49 GMT -6
Well....here's the bottom line. In regards to committing......Sometimes I LIKE having barriers. It makes me think different and be creative. I often enjoy getting backed up against the wall and having to find a solution that's not what I envisioned. It's uncomfortable at first, but almost always yields something special for me when I find a solution. But almost always, I can hear stuff "finished" before the first note is played, and if I know what I want, recording it the way I want to hear it is best for me. One caveat though - delays. Sometimes I'll record the delay to a separate track so that the "depth" can change in the mix. I don't ALWAYS work this way (committing out of the gate), but if I can, it's the best way to work IMO. I was talking with CLA's assistant at AES and I believe he said he "average" number of tracks coming in was 120. But lots of times approaching 180+. Come mix time, that's a nightmare, and kills the creative instinct. If all your tracks sound the way they should, creativity takes front seat. Maybe Bruce did't have control over what HE wanted the tracks to sound like. Maybe someone else is pushing him their direction and that's why he didn't want to commit. I understand that. But it doesn't change my perception - I'M the producer and I KNOW what I want it to sound like. Why not commit. It's more exciting, yields more unexpected results, and is more FUN. My $0.02. -- And I would expect you to leave it if you don't know what you want your track to sound like from the outset or if someone else is in control that doesn't know what THEY want it to sound like. IMO there's nothing like pushing all the faders up to unity and hearing your mix as it should sound. I don't dissagree my freind, BUT you and I both started doing this when we had no choice but to develop the talent / skill to make those choices. We also spent time learning how to use what we had, today my client base , at least those who fall in the large pool of pop send me projects to save. The biggest problem I see is people throwing everything they have on a except able track, trying to make it "better" , they latter discover I spend more time turning things off rather than on. The heart of the matter is not everybody has the ability to make the choice of what is a great performance that will fit the vision of what they want it to sound like. Everybody wants to be a producer engineer, not everybody can do the job. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Nov 19, 2014 18:15:21 GMT -6
Well....here's the bottom line. In regards to committing......Sometimes I LIKE having barriers. It makes me think different and be creative. I often enjoy getting backed up against the wall and having to find a solution that's not what I envisioned. It's uncomfortable at first, but almost always yields something special for me when I find a solution. But almost always, I can hear stuff "finished" before the first note is played, and if I know what I want, recording it the way I want to hear it is best for me. One caveat though - delays. Sometimes I'll record the delay to a separate track so that the "depth" can change in the mix. I don't ALWAYS work this way (committing out of the gate), but if I can, it's the best way to work IMO. I was talking with CLA's assistant at AES and I believe he said he "average" number of tracks coming in was 120. But lots of times approaching 180+. Come mix time, that's a nightmare, and kills the creative instinct. If all your tracks sound the way they should, creativity takes front seat. Maybe Bruce did't have control over what HE wanted the tracks to sound like. Maybe someone else is pushing him their direction and that's why he didn't want to commit. I understand that. But it doesn't change my perception - I'M the producer and I KNOW what I want it to sound like. Why not commit. It's more exciting, yields more unexpected results, and is more FUN. My $0.02. -- And I would expect you to leave it if you don't know what you want your track to sound like from the outset or if someone else is in control that doesn't know what THEY want it to sound like. IMO there's nothing like pushing all the faders up to unity and hearing your mix as it should sound. I don't dissagree my freind, BUT you and I both started doing this when we had no choice but to develop the talent / skill to make those choices. We also spent time learning how to use what we had, today my client base , at least those who fall in the large pool of pop send me projects to save. The biggest problem I see is people throwing everything they have on a except able track, trying to make it "better" , they latter discover I spend more time turning things off rather than on. The heart of the matter is not everybody has the ability to make the choice of what is a great performance that will fit the vision of what they want it to sound like. Everybody wants to be a producer engineer, not everybody can do the job. Yup. That pretty much nails it. I'm generally not recording whomever walks in the door anymore, so my perspective has turned back in a more musical (at least IMO) direction. If I was recording bands coming thru the door, no doubt my perspective would change, but I'd STILL try to convince them..... :-) I hear ya on the "saving" of projects though. Sometimes it takes more time to save em than it would to recut em right. A very popular EMO band comes to mind, but that story is sealed at the NSA.... |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 19, 2014 18:26:46 GMT -6
Of all the people involved in the recording projects I've done over the years, it was the engineers I trusted to do their job. I remained on the "artist" side of the fence, even when I was the producer, I relied on the engineer to translate my ideas into sound. That's how much respect I had for a good engineer. Along the way, when I was writing and producing commercials, ( a long time ago), I engineered lots of small jobs myself, all broadcast, so I had to learn enough to do it right. I mainly used the same tool kit on everything. A DBX compressor, Lexicon reverb, lexicon delay, (very expensive at the time), sometimes an Aural Exciter, and Yamaha reverb, in the send of my soundboard. My main secret was I used what is now a vintage U87, and that high end workhorse made all the difference in the world.
Today, I still try to use a similar simple signal path, and use the DAW mainly as my automated multitrack with editing features. Being able to add more effects than I can afford with plug ins is cool, but if I don't print something well in the first place, there's not that much you can do later.
Every track of mine runs through my Warm Audio ToneBeast preamp, and more often than not, a small dose of WA76, and on vocals I print a pinch of LA2 at that time. In mixes, I can still add much more to the tracks, but I like to get it as close to what I want as possible.
I don't quite get the" I don't print with anything" concept, unless you have a monster budget and a lot of time. The idea of getting sounds from scratch in a mix seems weird, when I can get those sounds dialed in all along the way of tracking. So that by the time I'm ready to mix, I'm 85% of the way there.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Nov 20, 2014 10:08:03 GMT -6
Much will have to do with the level of talent you are recording. Take an average kid pounding on drums or a Les Paul and you do whatever you have to do to make them 'acceptable'.
I found the higher the level of talent, the more you need to get out of their way. Recording equipment is a filter to great talents.
If you had a session recording Stevie Wonder and told him "I have a black box that will make you sound better than you really are" you would find yourself out the door pronto.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 20, 2014 10:14:09 GMT -6
Much will have to do with the level of talent you are recording. Take an average kid pounding on drums or a Les Paul and you do whatever you have to do to make them 'acceptable'. I found the higher the level of talent, the more you need to get out of their way. Recording equipment is a filter to great talents. If you had a session recording Stevie Wonder and told him "I have a black box that will make you sound better than you really are" you would find yourself out the door pronto. So how does this apply to my question? With a talented musician, is it better to get things sounding as good as possible on the way in (with perhaps a touch of processing) so next to nothing needs to be done in the box? ..or go in raw? Frankly, (and assuming you're right) I'm not sure if the level of talent makes much of a difference where this issue is concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Nov 20, 2014 11:04:17 GMT -6
Certainlly great musicians make things easier, but the bottom line is......what should it sound like. If it doesn't sound like what I want it to sound like, I ask the musician to change it - or modify it - or I do what I think it needs so that it fits the needs of the song better. My experience is that most great musicians are totally into that, and often, strangely enough, many bedroom wannabe rockstars are the ones who don't want you to touch anything in their perfected tone....
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 20, 2014 11:29:23 GMT -6
Here's my basic technique, choose a great mic. The rest will sort itself out. Oh, and Jim's right, it always a good idea to work with people who can play their asses off if you can ;-)
|
|
