Kara-Moon Forum

Again an interesting discusion ....
I personally like to focus on the live aspect of a performance. I never over compress or put to much (in my opinion) reverb on a track.
Actually I like a song recorded as it is played.

So how do you make your mixes ? Following the modern trends and compress it to a max to make it as loud as possible ? A good mid compromise? you don't like to compress ?
Let us know ?

An example of how I mix is this song. Of course a jazz standard played by Miss Kara.
Since Moon told me that my on my last recording the sax (which wasn't a sax but a muted trumpet  ::)  ) sounded as a sick duck, I've paid some attention to recording levels this time  ;D

Actually what is perhaps interesting about this mix, is that it is completely done on a hardware recorder, the Boss BR600. Even the final pre-mastering has been done on that little Boss, using his internal CMOS effects.

Now, my question, do you think
1. It's bad
2. It could be better
3. It's good but could be more 'modern' as a mix
4. It's a great mix  :-[

Feel free to comment, that's why forums are made for  ;D

o something else; if you want to invite your ladies for a dance, now is time... one of the lovely romantic song ever written, and Miss Kara knows how to play it  ;)

I'll use compression occasionally, but mostly just at the track level....like an fx if an instrument needs a little edge. I try to finish the song and the mix completely before I do any mastering, and once at that stage, I try to never go back to the mixing stage. Sometimes you just have to, but its the rare occasion for me. I also use very little compression at the mastering stage. Sometimes I'll use it on the bottom end to tighten stuff up a bit, but never as a volume booster. Then I'll use a volume maximizer as the final tweak and usually cut about 2 percent off the top; just enough to get a little volume without loosing any noticeable dynamics. Honestly, I can't understand why the current trend is to max volume at the expense of dynamics, when IMO, dynamics are an integral and critical element to music  ???  If you can't tell, I hate that trend  ;D

Well, I agree with Fred on blaming the extreme-compression fashion which seems to never ends.
I often use compression on drums, I seldom use it on other instruments. If you use the so-called amp simulators and you record a dry signal you probably will need it, if you record from bass amp or gtr amp with a mic you shouldn't need to compress it.
Of course this is my personal way and could be different for others, anyway I try not to be influenced by the modern trends.

I think reverb was abused in the 80's nowdays we have a different taste and knowledge, and I almost hear it used wisely

Cheers

Yes I do agree on compression on drums. But the reason is IMHO that with drumsamples & vsti you don't get the impact of a drumset micked directly, so you need that extra punch.
The fact of recording with mics is allso a very valid method that a lot of people seems to forget nowaday, but who is very powerfull. Even with electronic instruments it stays important to keep the dynamics and the real sound in a studio. A lot of technofiels (funny word) take the dry signal directly from the output of the VSti or even the hardware, without even considering to let it sound in the studio and mic it.

But I certainly don't like to crunch a max of db in a song to make it as loud as possible and loose all dynamics.
A wise lesson a sound engineer explained to me was, if a track isn't loud enough, lower the volume of the other tracks or use an EQ to give it his proper place in the mix, but making it as loud as possible isn't a solution.

 

How do I record?

Here's my basic set-up

The way I record is determined by the place where I record and that is in the attic of my house. Now this sounds more cramped than it actually is. It's quite a large space because the house has a sliding roof. It does mean I'm not able to record electric guitars through an amp or live drums without upsetting the neighbours. So I don't. Vocals and acoustic guitars are the only two I record with a mic.

For e-guitar and bassguitar I use the Toneport UX1 by Line 6.
I also use it for vocals. I the run a condenser mic through a Presonus Pre-amp (mandatory to give the mic phantom power) and then through one of the vocal amp models of the Toneport. This also means I can cut out noise by using a gate from the Toneport. The Toneport is connected to the computer by USB. So no hassle there. I sold my Behringer mixer a few months ago because I had no use for it anymore. I sometimes still use hardware modules and these I run through the Toneport as well. I think this is a very neat little set-up which takes up a minimum of space and has a maximum of ease of use.

My host is Cubase SX 2.2. I have purchased a fair number of Vst's the last three years and have decided not to buy any more for the time being. My latest purchases were Truepianos, Ueberschall Horn Section and Addictive Drums. With all the vst's I have now I have a large pallette of sounds at my hands that will keep me busy for a while.

That's the recording set up. I have to go now. I'll get back about the mixing.

Martin

I only have regular Micros to record my Voice..
This means that the Sound quality is not the best, I mean if I give you to listen one of my Voice Recordings alone you'll notice a background noise. I edit and mix my Vocals in FL studio,
using a multiband Compressor and of course some Levels of reverb.
In some cases use a special effect
called "RetroDelay" (a special kind of delay) :)

My setup is quite boring compared to some as it's just my computer, a controller keyboard and cakewalk project5. This is ample for my needs and does'nt take up any extra space. I also have a couple of guitars and a zoom G2 amp simulator unit if i ever want to record some guitar.

I, like most here see compression as a nessessary evil rather than a virtue. I like to compress a mix as little as i can get away with, but i do need to have some, especially with some of the sounds i use or it would sound lifeless and flabby.

The trend for going for a super-loud mix is something i fight against. I much prefer the albums recorded in the 60's and 70's as they sound much more alive and dynamic. Some albums recorded during the 80's and after have a production which has totally ruined it for me and i can't enjoy them, even if i like the music.

This is one of the best articles i've seen on this subject. It is very long, but it's a great read if you're interested in this subject:   http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.html

Very good article, Blip. Interesting.
I've just got some new toys
A Studioproject Vtb1 pre-amp and a B3MkII mic  ;D

Yeah, I agree it's really interesting, and it makes me think on using compression as a creative tool...
and the 'user errors' , loudness maximizing and all that...
It's an useful read

Cheers

Well . . . it's probably useful to first mention how I typically compose.

Most of my songs are built on top of a repetitive motif, which is typically inspired by a particular preset, made either by me, or tweaked while preset surfing. So once I have that core (which is often modified by hand in a MIDI editor--adding variations and slight pattern alterations to keep it from sounding too robotic), I build the song by adding new parts tailored to compliment and contrast the core pattern. These could be live, could be arpeggiated parts, so I'm not too concerned about a live performance of sound, I'm more focused on the overall aural experience.

As for mixing, since my songs usually are built up around a core part, I tend to mix individual tracks as I go along, making sure that each sits well as the piece is developed. This almost always involves tweaking presets, adding FX (or removing them if they are part of a preset), track level EQ and track level compression if I deem it necessary to get the track's present in the mix. Drums and bass I always, always EQ and compress, though it's not really to make them loud, but rather to make sure they're loud enough without swamping the song.

On the master track I add nothing typically other than a bit of limiting just to keep random peaks in check.

This generally delivers a very good mix result. After I render to a wav file, I then do a quick multiband compression, EQ, limit and normalize routine in Adobe's Audition.

The compression debate, in my mind, is a classic case of pendulum thinking. In the old days compressors were pretty much strictly studio gear. Musicians didn't understand them and couldn't afford them. Even still, engineers went very soft on them. If you rip wav files off old vinyl LPs (pre-1980s), you'll find that very little compression was used. Commercial music nowadays has swung to the other end of the pendulum. It's totally ridiculous how much it's abused. Compression and digital clipping are rampant in commercial products. It really hurts my ears and sounds horrible.

That being said, in the independent music world--like here and on KVR--there's a trend to swing back the other way yet again, eschewing compression as a knee-jerk reaction to its abuse in commercial music.

I'm completely convinced that judicious compression, especially multiband compression in mastering, does a world of good. It can turn a good sounding mix into a stunning mix without totally wrecking the dynamics (which is really kind of a moot subject unless you're doing certain genres like jazz or prog rock or symphonic music).

That's my philosophy and I'm sticking to it . . . until I decide not to ;D

Kara... glad to gear that the duck got better. No let's hope that the mic recovers soon form it's cold too.  :D

I'm kidding of course.

I would love to hear the version recorded with the new mic though  ;)

Comming soon Moon

I've only been doing this since August of '06, so I'm REALLY in the learner stage.
I have no musicians near me so I have to improvise...I should also add that I'm "keyboard challenged" when it comes to playing in real time.

Everything is done in my laptop.  I have a firewire interface to get my Synthophone (which is playing a VL70m or XV2020) into the recording software.  Sometimes I get a chord progression in my mind & enter it into Band In A Box.  Sometimes it's a melody & I try to hear the chords I want behind it & enter them.  I then look for a style that's close to what I want. (although, to me, it's quite limited)  Then I export that to Power Tracks & record my melody & any backing tracks.

Panning & volume are easy enough for me to understand, but compression etc. is pretty Greek to me.  I'm still trying to figure that out ???  Many years ago I could walk into the studio, someone would say "play this".  I'd play my part & then leave.  I was never a part of the "magic" that occurred after the track was laid down.  I now realize why they (the engineers) were so valuable.

I record & mix out of necessity not desire.  But it is quite interesting.  Trying to learn recording & mixing has taken time away from re-learning how to play, which is pretty necessary for me at this point!!!

I'm glad you're all here!

Mick
www.mickemery.com (http://www.mickemery.com)

Yes it is true that we have to face new challenges...
With all new and affordable technical stuff, now we not only have to play our instrument but allso know how to record, mix, pre-master,....

And sometimes even become a MS windows expert to understand why suddenly this or that doesn't work anymore !

And I'm not even talking about all free and paid Vsti's that come out every week.
For that I have found a solution, I've quit :) I stick to my hardware synths  ::)
I realy don't have the time to learn all those Vsti's

 ;D that's true, there's a new one every day, I don't even the time to try out all the free ones and the commercial demo.
I look for it when I need one  ;)

Cheers

True, but don't you have the impression that developers are doing the same thing over & over again ?
I really didn't see anything really mindblowing revolutionary in the last years...

Yeah, I agree, there are no more new-ideas and the developers are recycling the old ones. If you look at it under technical side, they always use the same sound-synthesis and the difference is in the architecture or how they chain effects, eq, etc.
Sometimes I try new VSTi which have a different GUI or slightly different presets but the sound is the same as other classical ones. I think there's something new in EFFECTS, but same old jam into INSTRUMENTS.
We'll see if something fresh and new will come out of the Developer Contest at KVR this next summer

Cheers

I actually wonder if there could be such a thing as new sound synthesis.
If we see what we have at the moment, between :
- The classical VA
- FM
- Substractif
- Wavetable
- combination

synths, i wonder what a 'new way' of producing sounds could be ???? But then again i'm not a synth builder :-\
And yes, in the FX categorie there are still some new interesting ones.

But, there is a simple way to aviod this problem! Just treat your PC as a hardware synth: you configure it and make it work flawsely like any other hardware. Once it's up, you only have to make sure you're not seduced by a new VSTi. Just stick with what you have and don't use your DAW for anything else than a DAW. Treat your DAW as a hardware synth and you shouldn't be worrying it is a PC.
P.S.: My new DAW is almost complete so I let you know how good it is holding up !  ;)

Yes you have a point there Moon.
But....
1. you must have the time to build a DAW like this
2. you must have the time to select the Vsti's you want and test them to be sure that they are stable.
A setup like this is propably the reason of success of the Receptor from Muse. To be honnest, I would buy a receptor if
1. it wasn't a Linux machine, i don't have anything against Linux, but the choice of vsti's is limited and depends on the good will of developers to port them for the receptor
2. if there was good support for it in France. Which there isn't, if there is a problem with a machine it is send back to Muse.

But it is a good concept. Best thing is propably the different scenes setup and the possibility to use it without screen,mouse and keyboard in a live situation. I'm pretty sure that I would buy it if there was a windows version of it with good support here.

The mix, I mean the Volume of each instrument, is fine to me.
I would only lower that hi hat a little, and add a little reverb to all the song ;)

I tend to overlay several tracks. I will mostly optimise each track after recording it (effects, compressor and equalizer as needed - though mostly only percussive stuff gets the compressor). When I'm happy with this then I'll mix it in that I adjust the volume levels and pan position or mute segments to create variety. I try to mix in a way that instead of pushing one channel to the top I try to lower the other channels. Also, I like to use pan to seperate tracks that are similar in frequency use. I use reverb mostly as a send and I try to hold back on it for percussive stuff in order to avoid cluttering the track. I love to use delays, especially on drums and arpeggios and for this I'll generally use a stereo delay where I seperate the times on both channels. In the final mix, I nearly never use compression to up the master channel.

I prefer to record each analog track separately in my sequencer (Sonar).This allows me to apply pitch correction and effects to each track as required/desired. I use compression on voice recordings and on the finished mix. When all tracks are satisfactory I position them with Sonar's mixer and I go. The one area this does not work as well as I would like it is voice over-dubs/harmony. For that, I find Adobe-Audition to be an excellent producer. I know there are much better systems out there but this is all my day job will support. By the way Kara, Edirol's sampled muted-trumpet sound is one of the best I have heard next to the actual muted trumpet. Your excellent Blue Moon still comes as a sax--which is quite fine too.

Interesting to know, have to check that out !
Thanks for the information

k

I'm a keyboard man and have always relied on touch sensitivity to give the expression I want both from a timing and volume viewpoint. However since I got MIDIfied (my earliest attempts were on a 4 track taperecorder) I now use several different ways to build a piece.

Sometimes, just mooching around on the keyboard with result in an interesting chord pattern, interesting enough for me to get the sequencer going. I'll then develop this and add a melody, harmonies etc.

Other timers a tune or musical phrase will pop into my head and I'll work exactly the opposite way to the above!

Very occasionally I will lay down a bass line step-wise on the sequencer and build up from that. This gives me the most accurate timing overall, but the least expresiveness.

I almost never use compression - most electronic instruments really don't need it - but I do use reverb and echo effects quite a bit.

I end up with a single file on the sequencer that I just set to play the entire work, so only one mixed wav file is produced - hardware synths coming in on the sound card - Being completely repeatable (although some of the effects come out slightly different each time) means I feel more confident about making changes and trying new ideas.

My setup is fairly simple:

Fender Custom Shop Stratocaster ..into a Fender Cyber Deluxe amp ..into a EuroRack 802A mixer..into an EMU-1212m soundcard.My computer has an AMD X2 4200 chip which is good, but runs XP Media Center Edition which is not so good.

 I mostly use Adobe Audition, which I already had for restoration work. I am too familiar with it, even with it's weaknesses, to want to change yet.

I record acoustic guitar sometimes..using a  Shure PG-58 vocal mike..I am surprised at some of the interesting things this versatile little mike can do. I use a Shaker mike for Harmonica.

I also have a Yamaha keyboard, which I use sparingly for a little atmosphere, and have been using HammerHead along with COngas for percussion tracks. I usually record the Strat directly to the mixer and into the soundcard. Occasionally, I will mike the amp on one channel and use the amp signal on the other channel.
'
Except for a couple of special FX, (for an example, see, "Spring"... 'in the shadows' section)..
I have never used EQ until just recently. No compressor for me either, but I do occasionally use a limiter for a quiet mix..try to leave at least 1db of headroom.


Wyatt

Like Folderol,I am a keyboard guy as well.Primarily because with all of the technolgy,advances & features that are available-there is no reason for me to look beyond keyboard workstations.
The biggest reason why I will not venture into pc recording,is due to the fact that there is far too much trouble-shooting involved,when a problem arises on a computer.Also there is far too many compatibility issues as well & I don't want to complicate my creativity.
I do realize that there are advantages to utilizing a pc for recording that can't be found elsewhere,but it seems to me that computer based recording is more for
commercial use-such as movie productions and I am not that serious about recording.
I do however care a great deal about the quality of my recording & mixes,but not to that level.

Currently I am recording,arranging,implementing effects & mixing/mastering all on my Korg Triton Extreme,as bascially-aside from also utiliziing my built in sampler,I am not recording vocals or any external instruments at this time.

Should I decide to venture into singing & collaborating with other musicians to record with me,I will be able to accomplish that,once I get my Alesis Fusion.

For my studio to be complete for what I want to achieve,I am also going to add a professional grade cd burner & analogue mixer-& then that will be it for me,as I will have covered all the bases & I will then be able to put my gear quest to rest.

Once all that is out of the way,I will need to set aside all the money I can get my hands on,as I need to invest in sound isolation materials for my studio,as I live in an apartment & once I apply these materials to the walls,ceiling & floor,I will be able to go completely crazy any time of the day or night and no one will hear a peep from me.
I discovered these fantastic materials on Auralex.com,as they have the most amazingly effective materials I've ever come across and thier audio demos on the effects of there sound isolation materials are utterly fascinating!! ;D

One thing I forgot to mention with regard to studio gear; I may add an external midi sequencer to my Fusion once I get it,as I suspect I'll need one.

I have no experience with external midi recording,but I'll have no choice but to learn once I get the Fusion,most likely. :-\

I tought the fusion had midi-sequencer ?
Anyway if your not satisfied with the sequencer of the fushion you could have a look at e-bay for the yamaha qy700. One of the best hardware midi sequencer ever build.

k

Kara,

Yes,the Fusion has a midi sequencer,but it does not have pattern recording.
Thanks for the tip on the Yamaha,but I don't buy used & I especially don't do Ebay either.
I was thinking about the Korg EMX-1,as I thought it might be easier for me to operate-since I am most familiar with Korg products.

As far has new,entry level external midi sequencers go,they are all priced the same,so I figure on going with the Korg.

Elwood