h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 05:20 |
I'm sorry but i don't like to tell you my personal info. This might be because of sexism, racism, agism, or any other "ism" currently popular in US.
|
j.hall seems more tolerant of this than the other moderators on PSW, but it's usual practice around here to have your real name in your profile. The discussions are usual more civil when people have to actually 'own' what they say, rather than being anonymous.
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 05:20 |
While years of experience usually impress western world and this is by far most used argument in discussions (and usually the only one), in the eastern world we still adhering to logic and strength/number of arguments in discussions. I believe IMP results submitted for this imp will give better weight then a number of years of experience which does not correlate usually.
|
Obviously experience alone is no proof of competence, but it is a start. There are very few people working in the industry long term, who aren't good at what they do. I also believe it is foolish not to learn from those that have been making great records for years. I'm interested in what you say about "logic and strength/number of arguments in discussions." You seem to be dismissing the logic and strength of the arguments offered by others members of this forum.
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 05:20 |
Saying that I do compress vocals before tape and use some lowcut eq etc before tape. But my reasonings don't include "it's common in the industry" my reasoning is primarily saving of time and compressing vocal with 1:4 ratio is de-facto standard and you very rarely want different. But I would be very careful to what i choose to compress during recording because you simply lock yourself and your decisions and producing mixes which are awfully the same and not improving.
|
Personally, I think that while the mix is of extreme importance (and my favourite part of recording), the tracking is more critical.
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 08:46 |
grantis wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 15:21 |
Ever consider that there's a reason these practices are standard? If was NOT an ideal way to work, the vast majority of professionals wouldn't be working that way.
|
If there are reasons it might be a good time to mention a couple. Nowdays there are so many myths around and absolutely no gravity you cannot take anything as granted:)
|
Reasons? If you know what you're wanting, why would you wait until the mix to get that sound? Now, I rarely eq while tracking, preferring to get the sound right with mic choice and placement. However if I can hear something that's still not right, I don't hesitate to add eq or compression as needed. The signal chain is part of the sound along with whatever is being recorded. It's all part of the sound, so optimize it along with everything else.
As I said yesterday, I believe as a general rule, that the less that you
have to do in the mix, the better the mix.
I was recently given some songs to mix that had 80 tracks of audio. It was like wading through mud, just getting started. Thinks like multiple guitar parts, each recorded with 3 mics on 3 tracks. If they'd committed to bussing each part to a single track while tracking, it would have made the mix much quicker and taken very little extra time while recording.
Tracking should be about simplifying the mix, not making it more complex.