Print

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

[Michael Durovic]

probably off topic and much too large for one single post, for sure discussed a million times before too...
j., just move it if I once again set my feet ankle deep into the obvious dogsh... everyone describes a huge cycle just to don't do the same...

Even if there are different materials to work on from, we often use the same tools to reach a certain sound for certain instruments.

For vocals:
I specialized in using following chain (I don't like mud and emphasize mostly on breath and fragility/airy)

waves renDe-esser, LinLoEQ (lo cut @ 120 or up to 160), c4 (hard comp for all bands, 20-120/160, 120/160-300, 300-3k, 3k-20k),
RenEQ6, LA-2A, Magneto (Steinberg plug, tape sim), L2(as output plug to be tweaked with the vol.fader)  


For guitar:
2 settings, 1st clean (lo cut 120, 6k hi shelv up to 9/12db)
2nd heavy (lo cut 160, less 500, 6k hi shelv down to 9db)

in general:
LinLoEQ (lo cut @ 120/160), Fairchild, RenEQ4 (cleaning 500, emph. 2k, hi shelv 6k), c4 (mid crunch @ 260/300-3k), L2 (tweaking out 3-6db @ 0,3ms release)


for bass:
splitting up in 2:

1st: linloEq (lo cut @120/160), LA-2A, C4, RenEQ6 (hi shelv @ 3k), L2

2nd: LinloEQ (lo cut @60/80, hi cut@ 120/160), , Rencomp,Renbass (@120/160), RenEQ2, L2


So probably I'm a bad Producer 'cause I'm pushing "my" sound on every musician I work with (clarity and frequency separation), but in most cases I do work arrangements out, get the lyrics with them, and sometimes teach them how to play
so I get a pretty wide overview of what the band/artist wants to express, and if she/he/they do play certain instruments AND a certain music genre then they have(?, yes I'm a dictator) to accept that it needs certain kind of treatments to achieve certain emotions.

if they want extra low guitars, they should get a bass or a baritone guitar, that's what they're made for...

[j.hall]

interesting.  you EQ before you compress.  i do the exact opposite.

anyway.  i don't really have a spcific thing i do every time.

i do find myself boosting 60Hz on kick drums most every time.

i also find myself digging into the bass tone a lot.  i try to avoid compression, but that doesn't always work.

guitars are tricky.  every one seems to have a different opinion about what makes a great guitar tone.  as a mixer, you have to try to figure out if the tone printed is the sound they like, or if you need to mess with it at all.

i also think that EQ and compression on guitars only gets you so far.  if you need a totally different tone, you have to either re-amp it, or re-cut it.

[pg666]

hmmmmm..

i think if you're making the same EQ adjustments on certain instruments every single time, you might wanna play with your mic choices/positioning (and possibly the tones coming out of people's instruments, if they'll let you).

i used to cut significant mid-range out of bass drums by default until i tried not putting the mic inside the bass drum for once. the low/mid range sounded way better to me (without having to cut much at all) and i just compensated for the lack of attack by pointing the 'overheads' more towards the bassdrum and using a plastic beater. (and yes, there's less sub-y low end this way, but i find that anything below 80hz or so has little to do with 'bigness'..)

i used to roll off the high end on distorted guitars consistently until i tried not using a dynamic mic 2" away for once. using ribbon mics also helped in this regard.

i dunno; there's a thread in Brad's forum about minimal processing during the mastering stage that's pretty interesting. the consensus over there seems to be that processing of any kind is always a compromise to some extent; i think it's an interesting idea to think about when recording..

[j.hall]

pg666 wrote on Wed, 08 February 2006 11:13

i dunno; there's a thread in Brad's forum about minimal processing during the mastering stage that's pretty interesting. the consensus over there seems to be that processing of any kind is always a compromise to some extent; i think it's an interesting idea to think about when recording..

i don't know, i typically stop at nothing to get what i need.  i'll boost 60Hz 15dB on a floor tom if i need to.

my goal is to always get a song sounding it's best, so in mastering they have to do very little.  keep in mind that's a goal......

but i do agree that if you find yourself doing the exact same things repeatedly, you should look into acoustics, mic placement, mic selection....etc...

while tracking i try to get the best picture of the source from the mic first.  if that won't happen, i'll change the source, if that won't happen, i'll apply EQ and/or compression to tape.

[pg666]

Quote:

i don't know, i typically stop at nothing to get what i need. i'll boost 60Hz 15dB on a floor tom if i need to.

..d112s are underrated for floor toms   i know, i know, you're a mixer...

a lot of my 'philosophy' stems from working in crappy studios (or my folk's basement), so EQ (usually a mackie or something) to me is a dead-last resort option. the irony of eventually getting to record in fancy places is even though they do have amazing EQs, the accoustics, mics, and monitors are better so i don't end up using them much there either.

[1gibsonMO]

I don't have any set ideas with anything over about 250 hz other than knowing I may fiddle with the kick and bass to find their slots.  If I did not track it, then I may give two or 3 listens to  the basic tracks while taking notes before cracking into the mix.  If I tracked the stuff..... right off the front I am trying to mitigate any aggressive mix actions (lots of knob twisting and needle jumping).  There are so many frequency variables involved in a recording that HUMANS played, mic'ed instruments, and tracked!  Taking that into consideration, I cannot tell you before mixing what freq I will cut or boost until i hear the material.  I don't even know if I will mult/compress??  Then again, I don't have A sound, I would rather leave that to the band.

My personal dream is for the day when I track AND mix everything flat and cannot make anything better!..... yeah right.... find me a robot band!!!!

Best of luck,

JA

[j.hall]

1gibsonMO wrote on Wed, 08 February 2006 16:19

find me a robot band!!!!

ask and ye shall receive!

http://www.capturedbyrobots.com/

[1gibsonMO]

Awesome!!!!

I am definitely using GTRBOT666's photo for my profile pic!

ja

[scott volthause]

I suppose I do have things that I reach for when first framing a mix, but those first decisions don't usually last. They just help to move the mix along.

For instance, I am usually going to suck some of the midrange out of a kick drum, just to hear what it's doing. And ususally I am going to poke the ass of the bass guitar out, so I can find it's spot where it's nesstled in with the kick.

But I think now that's more methodology and knowing the centers of power of certain instruments, in general.

I dunno. Interesting topic.

[Michael Durovic]

yes,
it wouldn't be possible to eq anything prior you heard it, but...

as you can see I use compression (esp. C4) excessive, that's where eq'ing gets predictable (if you use the c4s band gain too)

yes,
I do experiment much with mic placement and mic decision.
Right now I'm experimenting with pseudo-binaural.
no head or stuff, just 2 c414 head-wide for one source.

yes,
I do experiment much with instruments.
tuning, taping, muting, eqing, compressing, hitting, whatever.


as I try to achieve a balance between larger than live and the guy sitting next to playing on old strings I do think it's necessary to suppose that much plugs/fx.

as with psycho-acoustics (uh, did I really say that?): the more subtle effects you use the longer it takes to get your ears bored.

as with natural sounding: as the lowest guitarstring (norm tune) is around 300HZ, I would think that one octave down is enough for fatness and psycho-acoustics in the rock/pop genre where everything has to be nearly the same stage (speaking of stereo-picturing) +/- 1 to 5 meters behind/front.

I don't think that someone (except the guitarplayer himself) hears 60HZ of an acoustic guitar if he/she is one of 150 people in a small theater. they will probably be lo-shelved-out by nature.
to go further with that example: as we do (or am I the only one? close micing to avoid room/feedback we have to remove that subs (not just lo shelv) and lo shelv the now attenuated freq around 150HZ.

(with a sm58 the proximity(close the metal) is around 14db @ 100 or so... don't have the freq. specs with me right now, sorry)

freq. separation gets really necessary if you use (pseudo)binaural.
e.g. as I really like pearl jam, and I admire the techniques of the engineer, I truly feel like that could have been treated better with guitar-eq'ing at the amps themselve or at least at mixing stage with lo cut / lo shelv.
of course it's their "sound", but I do think they could do better if they would use at least pre-channels (before the power amp of the guitar stack) with real eq'decisions possible...

[Ryan Leigh Patterson]

In terms of EQ and Compression and the order in which I place them, it all depends on what I want the compresser to do and what I want the eq to do.  

On room mics where I'm cutting out alot of the bottom end, I always eq first so that the compresser is getting hit with the right frequencies.  Overheads are another place where I might eq pre compresser.  It's really just a matter of what you want the comp to do...

[scottoliphant]

Michael Durovic, maybe post some mp3's of your examples maybe? would love to hear the vocals before and after the 6 plug chain

[cerberus]

as an engineer... i do not approach music with templates in mind before i hear it. yeah, i think you are cutting corners because as a producer it's your job to move things along at a certain pace.. so, imo... the best for you would be to hire an engineer whose only job is listening and making these specific mixing decisions to your satisfaction.

jeff dinces

[Michael Durovic]

cerberus,
a man, a word. that's what I do (for my own music).

scottoliphant,
of course. here it is.

the first one wo fx

[Michael Durovic]

with fx, roughly.