|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 31, 2015 12:21:05 GMT -6
I agree with Sir Bob for the most part, what i notice is that as i raise HP filtering on overheads, the kick drum seems to drop in the speakers, and I like that, so i usually CAREFULLY HP the overheads with a linear phase.... even though you can get pre ringing artifacts if you're not careful, can't wait to implement Dandeurloo's harrison ford filters into my console!
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 31, 2015 13:00:00 GMT -6
If anyone uses those Harrison Ford filters make note of my discoveries about them concerning IC's used and gain.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Aug 31, 2015 13:02:51 GMT -6
I thought he was calling me a newb.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 31, 2015 13:09:59 GMT -6
If anyone uses those Harrison Ford filters make note of my discoveries about them concerning IC's used and gain. can you link please? I was considering installing them on my console channel strips, I have a 24+24- power supply pin thats unused, it'd almost be cheating, i could maybe 86 the line drivers if i use them unbalanced as well? i have some figuring to do...
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 31, 2015 13:13:33 GMT -6
I thought he was calling me a newb.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 31, 2015 13:24:01 GMT -6
In the Harrison Ford filter thread at GroupDIY. Among the last pages.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 31, 2015 13:27:48 GMT -6
I hate the sound of high-passed overheads, and of drums built around the close mics, instead of using them for reinforcement where needed.
It's like an orchestra with no basses.
I think aligning the overheads to the snare mic can work, but often doesn't sound any better than simply flipping the phase on the preamp, assuming the overheads are in phase with each other, which isn't hard to get right.
Aligning anything else sounds weird a lot of the time, and using an expander like jazznoise said on the room mic tends to work better anyway to bring punch to the snare without too much mud.
Also the whole point of a FOK mic is to get the bloom and size from the kick and shells, not to impact exactly where an inside kick or beater mic does.
Agree, best to sort out these problems in the tracking stage, or lose mics that are not working with those that sound good with no processing.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 31, 2015 14:03:52 GMT -6
I hate the sound of high-passed overheads, and of drums built around the close mics, instead of using them for reinforcement where needed. It's like an orchestra with no basses. What kind of no control filters are you using? I high pass ever single piece on a kit/and in a mix at some point, including the kick drum, it virtually always yields a much more focused, punchier, and bigger sound than not, i honestly can't think of a single good reason not to do it to some degree? Unless you like tasking your woofs with extra work for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Aug 31, 2015 14:16:03 GMT -6
What kind of no control filters are you using? I high pass ever single piece on a kit/and in a mix at some point, including the kick drum, it virtually always yields a much more focused, punchier, and bigger sound than not, i honestly can't think of a single good reason not to do it to some degree? Unless you like tasking your woofs with extra work for no reason. There usually is no extra work, unless there's trucks outside. If I want less bass, as a mix decision, I probably need to do a cut wherever the buildup is making me feel the mix is too bassy or I need to do some shelving. HPF's are usually where I'm trying to keep out low bass bleed from other instruments. I like it on floor tom for this, make it resonant and it'll give the fundamental a good boost too. If the bottom snare mic has a lot of fundamental from the kick then again using a HPF can be an option too - but since I use an EV635a there quite often I don't usually have much sub buildup down there.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 31, 2015 14:38:55 GMT -6
I come from the school of if it's not necessary to the music get rid of it, and "it's" ALWAYS there at some point... trucks outside or not. I like to use filters when tracking or mixing in one of 2 ways, transparently to just clean up, or color from something like a harrison 32 type filter where you get a resonant shape with a low cut up to a peak at the fundamental, and then a slight dip following it, that makes for drama, space and separation around the sources, high passing overheads can really push a kick drum to the floor leaving a shit ton of space for other things between the speakers, the higher you pass, the lower the kick drops in the speakers(try it and you'll see), of course to each his own, but lets not say things that aren't true("bassless orchestra"), I find you can achieve a larger and more focused low end by high pass filtering ime.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 31, 2015 15:08:09 GMT -6
So am I hearing things right ? Because a mono overhead and kick mic seem to sound much more punchy than a typical multi mic setup ... That's exactly what I've been hearing for 40+ years! It was even worse on tape because of gap-scatter. Each additional mike is also an insult to the drummer. I always set up so I have the choice of mono drums in addition to the usual 1980s approach.
|
|
|
Post by drumrec on Aug 31, 2015 15:14:01 GMT -6
While it sounds like a great idea, I've had very very mixed results from time aligning drums in the computer. I could not agree more. We've had going on 100 years of recording and not stopped to time-align drum tracks. Well, it wasn't possible for most of that time. No one ever complained about the drums not being time aligned. IT's the sound we're used to and it provides depth to the sound. I've found in most instances, when you time align the overheads to either the toms, snare or kick position, you lose 'space'. The same goes for time-aligning room mics. I like that bit of minute delay in there. it adds to the ambience, the space, the tone of the kit. So true! Have tried time aligning drums and never liked it! It feels like the sound image becomes lifeless in an unnatural way. Moving the microphones until it sounds good, and let your ears judge and not a mathematical calculation what is correct. Since it's all about volume levels between the microphones and you're home. I'm not saying that time aligning drums is wrong, but to my ears it was suicide for a fat and big drum sound!
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 31, 2015 15:43:28 GMT -6
I hate the sound of high-passed overheads, and of drums built around the close mics, instead of using them for reinforcement where needed. It's like an orchestra with no basses. What kind of no control filters are you using? I high pass ever single piece on a kit/and in a mix at some point, including the kick drum, it virtually always yields a much more focused, punchier, and bigger sound than not, i honestly can't think of a single good reason not to do it to some degree? Unless you like tasking your woofs with extra work for no reason. I don't like steven slate super punchy drums, or the blown out phasey low end sound that you get with over-eqing really close mics, I like the perception of size and space around the drums for rock, or finesse and mostly mono for other genres. I also don't like the obligatory 1176 20:1 room mic sound and decapitator/sans amp on everything for rock music either, which is boring now. Shock mounts can make a big difference. Actually I do high pass the kick drum around 30hz on occasion, but only to tighten things up and help with any drum bus compression. I just don't high-pass the overheads or snare because then the elements of the kit sound disconnected and not like real drums to me at all. Fuck that. I prefer to use a Glyn Johns style arrangement but with the overhead angled to capture the rack tom, and a FOK to glue everything together in the center and bring the size, and close but not too close mics on kick and snare. Sometimes I add a room mic. Similar to the weedywet approach. The best drummers will sound good most of the time with just the FOK mic. thewombforums.com/showthread.php?23682-The-weedywet-4-5-mic-drum-techniqueI also use thin cymbals, like Zildjian K and Paiste 602. These help a ton. I agree with Bob, it's an insult to the drummer to use lots of mics. And if a drummer can't balance their playing, then sorry they probably need to practice more before they record. They need to understand the difference between playing live and playing in the studio. Even Dave Grohl and Dale Crover, two of the hardest hitting drummers ever, play more lightly on smaller kits in the studio. Likewise, a band with a lot of crashing and ratty guitars, maybe that's part of their sound anyway. Also ever since I read thethrillfactor's posts, I stopped high-passing my vocals too when I can help it. It's a myth that there is no useful info below 100hz on a lot of instruments, and you have to deal with the resonance of the filter which can sound unnatural. I'd rather uses gentle shelves.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Aug 31, 2015 16:10:02 GMT -6
I come from the school of if it's not necessary to the music get rid of it, and "it's" ALWAYS there at some point... trucks outside or not. I like to use filters when tracking or mixing in one of 2 ways, transparently to just clean up, or color from something like a harrison 32 type filter where you get a resonant shape with a low cut up to a peak at the fundamental, and then a slight dip following it, that makes for drama, space and separation around the sources, high passing overheads can really push a kick drum to the floor leaving a shit ton of space for other things between the speakers, the higher you pass, the lower the kick drops in the speakers(try it and you'll see), of course to each his own, but lets not say things that aren't true("bassless orchestra"), I find you can achieve a larger and more focused low end by high pass filtering ime. Fair enough. I come from the school of adding things without getting clearly improved results is a bad idea. It's all about economy of processing, I don't want to spend ages just setting up HPF's, nor aligning drums, nor setting up 5 compressor busses. If the sub-bass in a signal is being masked, then I'm just not going to do it because it's a waste. We can hi-pass the master for extra headroom after. But there shouldn't be information below the music - it's actually not as common as people make out and it's usually extremely low level. Especially with good shockmounting. I might throw a mix of mine back into Reaper and see how much extra headroom I'd get from HPF'ing below the lowest musical frequencies, but I'd be shocked if I got 0.1 of a dB. I've done the HPF thing on the overheads and moved on. Cause the real power in the kit is not the sub, that's easy to add in, it's the midrange. If you listen to a really great kit sound like the In Utero stuff, or even some of the better Beatles stuff. The kick drum is full of prominent 600Hz stuff, it really stands out on any system nicely. Because the midrange is really nicely done, more than anything else. joseph Just a +1 on not hipass'ing vocals as got said earlier. I was actually demo'ing something and I tested my speech and my reasonably nasal voice had its fundamental hovering around 72Hz. I'm not a fan of the super compressed drum thing either. I think it's fine as an effect, but often heavy parallel compression is really just bad compression to me. Interesting technique - I'll agree with him that I'm not big on "Options". The times I end up with options is when an artist is so up in the air I need backups in case they pull the rug on me.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 31, 2015 16:17:10 GMT -6
Also ever since I read thethrillfactor's posts, I stopped high-passing my vocals too when I can help it. It's a myth that there is no useful info below 100hz on a lot of instruments, and you have to deal with the resonance of the filter which can sound unnatural. I'd rather uses gentle shelves. I agree with that...one of the reasons I never track with a HPF.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Aug 31, 2015 16:38:12 GMT -6
I just do the best I can at the time of recording. This is one cool thing about the daw, you can see the polarity and phase difference really easy. I make sure each close mic, is going in the same direction, best I can as the overheads... the overheads are set so the snare is as perfect as I can get it.. I do this by hitting the snare once. Then zooming in, working out how far the mics are from each other and moving one. Then when they are the same.. Its done. This is (or was) part of a process when setting up my over heads... I tried different heights, placement etc till I got the best blend of the kit I could. As my kit and mics stay set up continuously, I don't really do this anymore, unless I move a stand or something... i do however check it at the start of every project. Then each close mics polarity is set against the over heads... not time aligned... I don't ever shift anything in the DAW.. I just get the polarity right on the close mics. About 50 percent of the time, and moving more towards 100% my close tom mics aren't making it into the mix. Just kick, snare and overheads. I do HPF the overheads, I do it on the desk though, the Delta has a HPF and I EQ the overheads .. but then I run my overheads through a pair of STAs as well, and I bet I am probably Robinson Crusoe in that 8) but I like the tone. I think most of these differences in approaches come from the rooms we are recording in. If I just used overhead mics, and didn't HPF anything .. it would sound like shit. I am comfortable with the drum sounds I get and my approach... I am looking forward in a couple of weeks of doing some recording of drums with tonycamphd and I think I will learn a shit load from him, which I will certainly be trying when I get back home. cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 31, 2015 16:54:01 GMT -6
I'll agree there's no value in using a HPF if you don't know how to set it, paying attention to lowest fundamentals of the instruments in question, setting enough below that.
I think fully variable multi-slope HPF's are the single greatest contribution of DAW's to recording, hands down. I rarely set one as high as 100Hz, usually under 80, many under 40. I wish I had one that I could set lower than 20 (I do in hardware).
Cars going by. Talent stomping around, even with a shock mount on the mic. Plosives. Wind, natural or talent generated. DI'd bass guitar; that's almost always full of giant spikes down to near-DC when the instrument is played hard. Some mic techniques exaggerate subsonic mud, and you don't get those sounds without it, and then you high pass. Etc. I'm not at all afraid of using a HPF while tracking, just don't do it while remotely guessing at the outcome.
Take a listen to a bunch of your work on something like a Meyer line array with plenty of their subs, in a nice big room like a 400+ seater. It'd be rare if you didn't find some nasty surprises that are not at all obvious on the average small studio monitor.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 31, 2015 17:12:42 GMT -6
I've done the HPF thing on the overheads and moved on. Cause the real power in the kit is not the sub, that's easy to add in, it's the midrange. If you listen to a really great kit sound like the In Utero stuff, or even some of the better Beatles stuff. The kick drum is full of prominent 600Hz stuff, it really stands out on any system nicely. Because the midrange is really nicely done, more than anything else. I couldn't agree more with this! My favorite Albini production is Pod. And the kick drums are not subby like you said but sound huge because of the all the midrange and the bloom into the soundstage coming from the room mics. Back then, he didn't even really use overheads per se, apparently, but room mics (often M/S) + toms and kick/snare. I like a combination of elements/lessons from this philosophy with a simpler more mono centered sound that you get with fewer mics and less than ideal rooms but with character. And like Bob has said, always having a mono mic as a fallback for the core drum sound. For me, this is usually the FOK mic, 47 type Charlie Watts being the ideal. Or a KM84 overhead. Title TK sounds great too, and that's a more close miked, crisp and refined sound.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Aug 31, 2015 17:14:33 GMT -6
I've done the HPF thing on the overheads and moved on. Cause the real power in the kit is not the sub, that's easy to add in, it's the midrange. If you listen to a really great kit sound like the In Utero stuff, or even some of the better Beatles stuff. The kick drum is full of prominent 600Hz stuff, it really stands out on any system nicely. Because the midrange is really nicely done, more than anything else. I couldn't agree more with this! My favorite Albini production is Pod. And the kick drums are not subby like you said but sound huge because of the all the midrange and the bloom into the soundstage coming from the room mics. Back then, he didn't even really use overheads per se, apparently, but room mics (often M/S) + toms and kick/snare. I like a combination of elements/lessons from this philosophy with a simpler more mono centered sound that you get with fewer mics and less than ideal rooms but with character. And like Bob has said, always having a mono mic as a fallback for the core drum sound. For me, this is usually the FOK mic, 47 type Charlie Watts being the ideal. Or a KM84 overhead. Title TK sounds great too, and that's a more close miked, crisp and refined sound. Fucking love The Breeders. You are now pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 31, 2015 17:20:22 GMT -6
I'll agree there's no value in using a HPF if you don't know how to set it, paying attention to lowest fundamentals of the instruments in question, setting enough below that. I think fully variable multi-slope HPF's are the single greatest contribution of DAW's to recording, hands down. I rarely set one as high as 100Hz, usually under 80, many under 40. I wish I had one that I could set lower than 20 (I do in hardware). Cars going by. Talent stomping around, even with a shock mount on the mic. Plosives. Wind, natural or talent generated. DI'd bass guitar; that's almost always full of giant spikes down to near-DC when the instrument is played hard. Some mic techniques exaggerate subsonic mud, and you don't get those sounds without it, and then you high pass. Etc. I'm not at all afraid of using a HPF while tracking, just don't do it while remotely guessing at the outcome. Take a listen to a bunch of your work on something like a Meyer line array with plenty of their subs, in a nice big room like a 400+ seater. It'd be rare if you didn't find some nasty surprises that are not at all obvious on the average small studio monitor. Right, but a cab paired with the right microphone naturally high-passes bass. And beyond checking on headphones/checking with an analyzer/watching how your bus compression reacts, that's what the mastering engineer is for. Like I said, I do high-pass kick drum on occasion for this reason. But since that's the lowest point of reference usually, then that's okay. Once you add the other instrumentation, high-passing as well as high shelving can separate the body and cohesion in the midrange. And you have to resort to more compression. This is what all the EDM folks do and it sounds like absolute shit. Unfortunately, yeah, it's true that digital recording allows the build up of mud more easily than tape. Plosives are better dealt with mic positioning or a mic that is not over-reactive, like a U87 or one of those Josephson LDCs. Or you can automate high-pass if absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 31, 2015 17:30:33 GMT -6
I couldn't agree more with this! My favorite Albini production is Pod. And the kick drums are not subby like you said but sound huge because of the all the midrange and the bloom into the soundstage coming from the room mics. Back then, he didn't even really use overheads per se, apparently, but room mics (often M/S) + toms and kick/snare. I like a combination of elements/lessons from this philosophy with a simpler more mono centered sound that you get with fewer mics and less than ideal rooms but with character. And like Bob has said, always having a mono mic as a fallback for the core drum sound. For me, this is usually the FOK mic, 47 type Charlie Watts being the ideal. Or a KM84 overhead. Title TK sounds great too, and that's a more close miked, crisp and refined sound. Fucking love The Breeders. You are now pretty cool. Ha, I love them too. Because their songwriting is very broad strokes and not trying too hard. Female in the sense that they are not trying to control the flow at all times and assert their personality. They just let it come out naturally. Also the humor comes across in most likable way, and I hate bands that take themselves too seriously. For this reason, to me in some ways they are better than any other band, including the Beatles. I would kill to be able to write music like them. So every time I work on a new song I try to keep their naturalness in mind. Slowly I am getting better at faking this.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 31, 2015 18:14:09 GMT -6
I never use DI's. But they are thrust upon me. Then you see the junk and you gotta HPF. Big assumption that you'll get proper mastering from a truly full service facility that digs into spectral editing. Usually doesn't happen. If you haven't fixed those problems before sending it to them, you usually hear about it as feedback. Assuming you have honest dialog with a regular mastering engineer. I rarely see bus compression reveal sub-sonic problems, but then I don't use it very heavily, barely a touch. You aren't gonna convince me that a 40Hz hpf on toms will "separate the body and cohesion in the midrange. And you have to resort to more compression". I'm struggling with the idea of getting rid of subsonic junk on the kick, but NOT on anything else. You can open up lots of different ribbon mics to still air in a quiet room, and see all kinds of junk at pretty good level down into single digit Hz. Put any sort of movement in front of it, and said junk goes way up. A lot of it you never hear, but it's happy to mess with your dynamics processing and eat your amplifier power, problems that get bigger the more compression one applies. Well of course, automate the truly egregious plosives that eat up to 250Hz or so. What about the ones under 50Hz your studio and home speakers don't reproduce, but a sub in a club will? Assuming again, that you have any say in the matter. I mean, HELL YES let's all make unwaveringly professional recordings WITH professional studio musicians in ASTONISHING sounding rooms, spending PLENTY OF TIME ferreting out every gremlin of mic placement and type, then we won't have to use all these fix-it tools. I'm all for it. It's usually not reality.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 31, 2015 18:52:28 GMT -6
low level, ultra low freq grunge is a part of life in recorded music, it comes from and happens for a lot of different reasons, the more time your speakers spend trying to reproduce that useless shit, the less time they're spending accurately representing the good stuff, it's really just common sense, and every serious AE in the world totally gets the importance of proper filtering, including Steve Albini. Bruce Swedien stuck with the Harrison 32 console for the entire 2nd half of his career based on the fact that he loved! and couldn't go on without the 32's filtering sections.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 31, 2015 18:58:03 GMT -6
All I know is that as I get better at mic positioning with better mics that are chosen for certain qualities, I find myself doing everything less. Less EQ, less nudging tracks, less everything..
Except compression. Love me some crunchy compression on the drums.
But anyway, once the mix comes together I don't really hear the phase issues that I would hear with the drums solo'd.
Years ago I would agonize over every detail of the sound, but now I just track and go and I gotta admit, things just sound better now, less anemic and castrated.
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Aug 31, 2015 19:04:58 GMT -6
+1 with Tony Bass management.
|
|