Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Slider2]

Hey Steve-

Thanks for being here.
I'm a huge fan of many records you were involved with.

I was curious if you've worked on any projects originating from, or tracked to DAW's.
If you have, do you transfer back to analog before you continue work at some point?

Have you experimented working with DAW's in general?
If so, how painful were they for you to deal with?

I wonder what a digital "bounce to disc" Steve Albini mix ( or recording) would sound like.

Thanks Steve.

-Matt

[cerberus]

i think all of these questions were answered by steve in his mtsu lecture... there is a thread on this forum with a link.   http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/8637/2119/?SQ=5 7a5a5330fc467700d5d36143da5de70

[Slider2]

Thanks!
Giving it a look now.

[Slider2]

The reason I asked is because a certain band I did some work for were talking to Steve about mixing their record.
When I thought of Steve mixing these songs from PT with 50-80 tracks of beat detectived, auto tuned tracks, I seriously laughed out loud at the thought of it.

I told them I was pretty sure he'd bum out if they brought him these overdone tracks on a PTHD rig.
So I was curious if he avoids that situation all together or rolls with it.
I thought that transfering these particular projects to analog would have been nearly impossible.

[electrical]

Slider2 wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 11:41

I was curious if you've worked on any projects originating from, or tracked to DAW's.

Nope. Never done it.

Quote:

Have you experimented working with DAW's in general? If so, how painful were they for you to deal with?

Slow, problem-prone and awkward. I have no interest in this method.

Quote:

I wonder what a digital "bounce to disc" Steve Albini mix ( or recording) would sound like.

Utterly silent.

[Slider2]

Thanks Steve.
Much appreciated.

[electrical]

Slider2 wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 12:25

The reason I asked is because a certain band I did some work for were talking to Steve about mixing their record.

Except in rare and extreme circumstances, I never mix other peoples' recordings. I have never gotten good results that way, and the few times other people have mixed my recordings I've been either baffled by- or unimpressed with the results. I don't think decisions made over a long recording session can be grasped by someone who is hearing the material for the first time, and who wasn't in the room when the important decisions were being made. I think the "remix specialist" is another stupid gimmick that the music business and the recording culture have imposed on bands. I wish the concept of seperating the recording from the mixing had never been explained to record label people, so they would stop thinking of them as seperate tasks. They are intimately and completely integrated in my mind.

[maxim]

hear, hear

the only problem with this is that it's another skillset to acquire, and one of the trickiest, imo

[jetbase]

hi steve,

what would you say were the reasons for the bad results when you mixed other people's recordings, or in what way were they bad?

i mix other people's recordings almost as much as i mix my own recordings these days, but it's always when the client has recorded themselves due to budget constraints, & of course i'm going to get a better mix than they will (& they often have their own mixes to compare). of course, the aim for my part is to build these clients careers up enough for them to afford me to record as well as mix.

there is an viewpoint that someone less attached to the recording process can mix more objectively, but perhaps this is a matter of discipline & focus when mixing your own recordings? i've had cases where i felt the song was defeated by focusing on the wrong things in a mix. sometimes it was my fault (when i was producing), sometimes it was the client's (when the band themselves were producing).

cheers,
glenn

[maxim]

i reckon a mixer can be "too objective"

that's what mastering is for, imo

i mix my own recordings, because only i have access to the vision of the record as i know it

not to say that i couldn't work with someone that could add to that vision, but i'm pretty paranoid even about handing it over to the mastering engineer

[Linear]

maxim wrote on Mon, 19 December 2005 12:46

i reckon a mixer can be "too objective" that's what mastering is for, imo i mix my own recordings, because only i have access to the vision of the record as i know it not to say that i couldn't work with someone that could add to that vision, but i'm pretty paranoid even about handing it over to the mastering engineer

All of the worst self-produced recordings I've ever heard have one thing in common - what is stated above.

For some reason, they believe that nobody else can (or could) possibly recognise ‘their vision’ and they don’t want anyone else to touch their precious recording. Well unfortunately that’s why most of it ends up sounding like shite.

And in my opinion, mastering engineers shouldn’t be making any mix decisions. The greying of the area between mixing and mastering has done nothing to improve the final product - if anything it just makes it worse.

Chris

[maxim]

chris wrote:

"All of the worst self-produced recordings I've ever heard have one thing in common - what is stated above."

all of the best self-produced recordings I've ever heard have one thing in common - what is stated above.

"unfortunately that’s why most of it ends up sounding like shite"

most of it is shite

"And in my opinion, mastering engineers shouldn’t be making any mix decisions"

there we definitely agree

[Straight Eight]

I have attempted to mix someone else's recordings before...it was the worst 3 months of my life, and at the end I was ready to sell all my gear and get a job in a garage fixing cars. I know nothing about fixing cars, but felt i would know more than I did mixing records. I just couldn't do anything with at all....everything sounded completely different, everything was recorded so dry and unprocessed that I had no idea how they wanted it to sound (even though I knew the genre very well, hardcore punk, the recorded sound/tone was not hardcore punk!). In the end I got so frustrated that I went out and bought a synth and spent the next 2 months making stupid noisy sounds just to seperate my ears from anything remotely musical. It proved to be very therapeutic, and once I learned how to love life again, I came back to try and mix the recording...almost instantly the depression set in again.

"Why does the snare sound like the drummer is hitting it with crayons?"
"Why do the guitars sound like they were set at 0.5?"
"What the hell is with the vocals...I've seen this band live and his vocals are as brutal as a Rottweiler, why does he sound like a poodle?"
"Why oh why oh why did they record the bass direct from his Rat distortion pedal?"

I eventually gave up...I had no premises to get the band in to re-record anything and they had no more money for a studio, hence approaching me to mix it for free. 3 months later and nothing to show.

They eventually took it back to the studio after finding more funds and it was mixed very quickly. Suddenly they think I'm an idiot. I heard it...it was far worse than any of my own attempts at mixing...and they loved it!! I couldn't believe it...the band had told me at stages of my mixing that they were happy with how it was sounding, but it just wasn't right.

So yes...I'd certainly never recommend having someone else work on your mix, you might end up with an idiot like me But seriously, I will never try and mix someone else's recordings. Soon after I did a session with the said band as an apology for taking so long...as it was being recorded the sound was coming together and didn't really require mixing. one idiot in the band suggested taking it to the previous to mix it. Great job they would have done, quickly balance the levels and claim the work as their own. Needless to say they were ultimately happier with the recording I did and my faith in myself was slightly restored.

More studios need to take a leaf out of Mr Albini's book...works wonders for me!

[jimmyjazz]

electrical wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 15:03

Nope. Never done it.

Quote:

Slow, problem-prone and awkward.

I'm not sure I follow.  It doesn't sound like you've ever worked on a DAW . . . so how do you know the experience would be "slow, problem-prone, and awkward"?  Tangential experience, i.e., the Chicago PT test, etc.?

[electrical]

jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 18 January 2006 13:26

I'm not sure I follow.  It doesn't sound like you've ever worked on a DAW . . . so how do you know the experience would be "slow, problem-prone, and awkward"?  Tangential experience, i.e., the Chicago PT test, etc.?

I have been the "analog" engineer on sessions that were predominantly digital, with an analog front-end. I didn't do any of the digital part. I have been involved in records where part was digital tacked-on to an otherwise analog session. I have rented out our studio for digital sessions. That's what I mean.

I have no interest in this method.

[jimmyjazz]

electrical wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 05:28

I have rented out our studio for digital sessions.

Man, that just sounds wrong.  I can't imagine the thought of someone carting in a PT rig to Electrical!

Thanks for the clarification . . .

[electrical]

jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 11:11

Man, that just sounds wrong.  I can't imagine the thought of someone carting in a PT rig to Electrical! Thanks for the clarification . . .

Happens all the time. Next week, for a month in fact. Happens all the time.

[RKrizman]

electrical wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 15:12

I don't think decisions made over a long recording session can be grasped by someone who is hearing the material for the first time, and who wasn't in the room when the important decisions were being made. I think the "remix specialist" is another stupid gimmick that the music business and the recording culture have imposed on bands. I wish the concept of seperating the recording from the mixing had never been explained to record label people, so they would stop thinking of them as seperate tasks. They are intimately and completely integrated in my mind.

I totally agree, and in fact this is my favorite thing about working on a DAW.  From the first moment you are assembling the final result and every moment along the way is preserved and recallable.  My ears were opened to this when I recorded and mixed a singer-songwriter a few years ago. For some weird reason on one song we ended up tracking vocals before  we tracked the band--several tracks, panned weirdly at times, with effects.  At the end of the production process we still had not touched or changed anything about those vocal tracks-- they became the production template around which everything else revolved, and  in the final mix that peculiar moment on that peculiar day when we tracked vocals, unsure and unencumbered, was preserved intact.

-R

[Eric Rudd]

electrical wrote on Sun, 18 December 2005 15:12

I think the "remix specialist" is another stupid gimmick that the music business and the recording culture have imposed on bands.

A&R person to the record producer,

"We don't much money left to finish this record. Can we skip the mixing and go straight to the remix?"


Eric

[cdr-1]

Oh God,

This month, for the first time, I had to send tracks off for someone else to mix.

now I'm really nervious.

what of the tracks?

[Adam P]

electrical wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 14:49

jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 11:11 Man, that just sounds wrong.  I can't imagine the thought of someone carting in a PT rig to Electrical! Thanks for the clarification . . . Happens all the time. Next week, for a month in fact. Happens all the time.

Will this be for the new Zao record?  Or has that already been recorded?  Or are you not at liberty to say?

When someone brings in a PT or other digital rig, who runs it?  Does the band hire someone to keep the digital end of things working, or is one of EA's staff guys well versed in that sort of thing?

[electrical]

Adam P wrote on Fri, 20 January 2006 20:12

Will this be for the new Zao record?  Or has that already been recorded?

No, the Zao record is almost finished, and the band were thrilled to discover that tape machines never crash.

Quote:

When someone brings in a PT or other digital rig, who runs it?

Either the outside engineer or an electrical staffer.

Quote:

Does the band hire someone to keep the digital end of things working, or is one of EA's staff guys well versed in that sort of thing?

The staff here are Pro Tools competent. I personally am not, and I don't have any desire to be.

[maxim]

steve a wrote:

" I personally am not, and I don't have any desire to be. "

true luddite

[Adam P]

Thanks for the info, Steve.  

I'm looking forward to hearing that record.

[drumsound]

jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 10:11

electrical wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 05:28 I have rented out our studio for digital sessions. Man, that just sounds wrong.  I can't imagine the thought of someone carting in a PT rig to Electrical! Thanks for the clarification . . .

Why not?  Two cool, great sounding rooms, great consoles nad a mic collection that is to die for.  If you bought into the Digi hype but believe that the space and the front end are important, Electrical makes a lot of sense.  

Granted I wouldn't being a PT rig there (or anywhere for that matter...).  I'd record on the Studers and be very happy.

[jimmyjazz]

drumsound wrote on Sat, 21 January 2006 04:04

jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 10:11 electrical wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 05:28 I have rented out our studio for digital sessions. Man, that just sounds wrong.  I can't imagine the thought of someone carting in a PT rig to Electrical! Thanks for the clarification . . . Why not?

Well, mostly because the owner is adamantly anti-digital.  Just because he's a smart enough businessman to "allow" PT into his facility doesn't mean it doesn't seem a little odd.

Quote:

Two cool, great sounding rooms, great consoles nad a mic collection that is to die for.

Yeah, those are great front ends for ANY recording.  Personally, I'd probably go find them somewhere else if costs and quality were similar, given what I said above about Steve's stance on DAWs and digital recording in general.  That having been said, I certainly understand why others will bring PT into Electical if that's their recording/archival medium of choice.

[electrical]

jimmyjazz wrote on Sat, 21 January 2006 12:41

Personally, I'd probably go find them somewhere else if costs and quality were similar...

Given the way you've qualified that last sentence, I think you've found the reason engineers are bringing their digital sessions here.

If you are afraid I might walk into your session and blow raspberries at your PT rig, and that would ruin your day, then I guess I can see your point. I don't think I've ever done that though. Honestly, why would my unwillingness to use digital recording have any effect on your session?

If the studio were owned by a canned chili millionaire, someone who didn't use any recording equipment at all, would that disqualify his studio for all sessions?

[Les Ismore]

electrical wrote on Sat, 21 January 2006 12:24

If the studio were owned by a canned chili millionaire, someone who didn't use any recording equipment at all, would that disqualify his studio for all sessions?

No, but there'd be a lot of passing of gas.

[jimmyjazz]

electrical wrote on Sat, 21 January 2006 15:24

If you are afraid I might walk into your session and blow raspberries at your PT rig, and that would ruin your day, then I guess I can see your point. I don't think I've ever done that though. Honestly, why would my unwillingness to use digital recording have any effect on your session?

I wouldn't bring a DAW into Electrical for myriad reasons.  First of all, you are one of your studio's biggest assets.  Choosing to work in the digital domain (presumably) rules you out for the project.  It also (presumably) rules you out for assistance in the event something goes wrong or even if the visiting engineer needs a little advice.  I wouldn't expect you to "blow raspberries" at my session, but I sure wouldn't expect you to be gung ho about it, either.

Regardless, why on earth would I pay good money to work at a place where I knew my methods and gear were looked at with disdain by the principal engineer?  You know as much as anyone how important the vibe of a session is.  Why risk it?

It's your bed.  You made it.  Lie in it.

That having been said, you know I admire your work, your skills, your intellect, and the way you stick to your guns.  I'd be happy to bring projects to your studio -- if it were in Austin.  I'd just do things your way.  (Disclaimer:  I've never tracked or mixed with a DAW in my life.)

[pipelineaudio]

[quote title=electrical wrote on Sat, 21 January 2006 20:24]

Quote:

If the studio were owned by a canned chili millionaire, someone who didn't use any recording equipment at all, would that disqualify his studio for all sessions?

Hey, I have to LIVE in phoenix