Print

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

[Andy Simpson]

Dissent welcome!

The argument is whether using a different pre/line on each channel adds up to an incoherent/indifferent mix, as opposed to using the same signal path on each channel for consistent space/tone colouration/distortion.

Did the engineers who carried their pre's with them use the same pre on _every_ channel while recording the tracks and mix them together in one console?

Even if you used a different pre for every channel, you still have the consistent colouring of the tape machine and the line/eq/summing in the desk.

With DAW you lose this consistent colouring (hopefully?), so the only thing you can tie your track together with in DAW is consistent pre and mic use.

Also, I'd say that you need much less eq to balance a consisent signal-path mix, than a free-for-all type mix!

Andy

[Erik]

andy_simpson wrote on Wed, 04 August 2004 18:55

The argument is whether using a different pre/line on each channel adds up to an incoherent/indifferent mix, as opposed to using the same signal path on each channel for consistent space/tone colouration/distortion.

Neither... it's a faulty premise.

Analog gear doesn't behave the same.  24 channels of the same thing made the same week the same year doesn't sound the same.  Even if you wanted perfect analog homogeneity you couldn't achieve it.  So constant 'space/tone/distortion' (is that like 'space, time & dimension?') is impossible.  Likewise one individual channel will behave differently at different levels and will behave differently when you plug different things into it and play different things through it.

Before there was 'Pro Tools sound' there was 'SSL sound' and before that there was 'Neve sound.'  People always had their superstitions ("I only mix on a Neve" ... "I only mix on my modified SSL") and people always had their superstitions and workarounds.

Tracking on an API then mixing on a Neve, or tracking on a Neve then mixing on an SSL, or tracking into Pro Tools and mixing on anything but Pro Tools... anyone see a pattern here?

--Erik

[Touchwood Studios]

Good Point!
I remember back in the 1980's all the talk about the "Noise" in SSL's from the data paths interfering with the audio path.

[Andy Simpson]

Erik, I meant the colouration/distortion of space&tone (and by space I mean depth).

Even if each of the 24 channels in a desk sounds marginally different, the fact that the spec is the same (ie. components and circuit) will mean that it's in the same ballpark as far as colouration is concerned.

You surely don't believe that using 20 different outboard pre's sounds as tonally consistent as using 20 channel pre's from the same desk (even if there are some tolerances between the channel strips)?
Scientifically, the premise stands on solid ground.

As far as I'm concerned the 'Pro Tools sound' is the sound of soul-less (distortion-less), character-less (colour-less) nothing, which is what SSL was going for (and pretty much achieved).

This whole 'mix and match - all the flavours' thing just comes out as disunified and bland to my ears.

I want identifiable, individual, water-marked tone.

Andy

Every VW Beetle was made to less than strict tolerances, by different people in different countries, at different times, using parts of different origins......but they all drive and sound like VW Beetles.

[Kris]

Then we can only hope that the 'soul' and 'character' come from the musicians/music...   Better there than the 'medium'...

[Andy Simpson]

It's all very well having the soul and character coming from the musicians, but we're talking about _recordings_ of musicians.
Electrical accuracy from a diaphram to speaker does not equal translation of soul or character.

Anyway, I want MORE than the sum of the parts. Ie. if it _only_ sounds like the damn musicians sounded, I'm very disapointed.


Andy

[ted nightshade]

andy_simpson wrote on Wed, 04 August 2004 12:04

Ted - what do you record that you use same pre's for? (I agree completely about the space issue too, I think it's closely related to presence/depth). Andy

Well these days it's one or two main mics on complete live ensemble and one or two distance mics. For the distance mics to work dimensionally with the main mics, the pres have to be really similar if not the same. So, until I can get 4 like great pres together, no distance mics.

I got used to using all Manley Dual Monos, and took for granted the way they all worked together- got a SLAM!, way better pres for what I'm doing, and found that to have things work the way I am used to with SLAM! quality, they will have to be SLAM! pres. Could be, this whole dimensional business is not the same with solid state stuff. If I try the Dual Mono's for distance with the SLAM! for main mics, the whole thing implodes when I add the distance mics. If I use 1 close mic thru SLAM! and 1 distance mic thru SLAM!, I get the kind of interaction and expanded dimension I had using same pres with the Dual Mono's, but SLAM! quality. This true even when the mics are different but compatible. The different mic on distance has a rather radical effect on the tone even when mixed in almost subliminally, but not on the dimensionality and space. For instance, and omni fills things out with the fat bass response- a hypercardioid thins it all with the diminished bass response. But spacially, it seems to be more about pres.

Back when I was doin' overdubs, I had great success just tracking it all with the same mics and pres and summing it together with no EQ or processing of any kind. It just all went together like a charm, and listening back, I'm not thinking about pres or mics. A lot of stuff I hear these days, I get really distracted thinking about pres and mics. Then again, I get pretty distracted by all the limiting and compression and all that too...

So this is a pretty limited experience, and the application is pretty limited too. But I do find that when I listen to the Beatles, I don't think about pres or mics either- I know the mics varied and the pres stayed the same.

Of course there are many ways to work and many visions to strive for. "Console sound" (all same pres) is one style that appeals to me a lot. Mixing and matching all kindsa pres and EQing and processing a lot might appeal to me a great deal if I had all the stuff at, say, Fletcher's disposal!

FWIW, doing naturalistic recording with great musicians (at least at their own music) and great instruments, you'll never get it as good as it was in the room. Making it "better" is a whole different approach. I don't know if I ever hear anything that's better than listening to good musicians in the room. Never had the chance, but as much as I adore Electric Ladyland, I think being there while Jimi played Belly Button Window on an unplugged Strat would take me a lot further.

[Andy Simpson]

Thanks for the posting Ted, that's pretty much exactly what I had in mind.

I do think that the depth is either removed or preserved/translated/enhanced in the pre, which is why solidstate pre's seem to lose it there and never get it back later (even with tube processors) - and this is borne of my 24/96 A/D/A experience.

On the subject of the magic of recording being better than the musicians in the room, I like the 'definative take' mentality among other things about recorded sound, and I tend to record stuff that is never played (will never be) by the band in the room (ala beatles - overdub-crazy) - which is to say I like it to sound somewhat larger than life.

Btw are you using much/any limiting for classical recording?
I tend to find that a bit of solidstate limiting seems not to kill depth, but the compression (solidstate or software) sucks it out pretty bad.

Andy

[ted nightshade]

andy_simpson wrote on Thu, 05 August 2004 16:35

Thanks for the posting Ted, that's pretty much exactly what I had in mind. I do think that the depth is either removed or preserved/translated/enhanced in the pre, which is why solidstate pre's seem to lose it there and never get it back later (even with tube processors) - and this is borne of my 24/96 A/D/A experience.

[/B]
I haven't used any really fine solid state pres myself, but I recognize the sound and Lynn's 3D Pre CD seemed to really confirm this- with the exception of the Amek 9098 pre which had a definite "tube sound" for me, although there are no tubes in there! SLAM! seems like it might really be the best of all possible worlds with it's hybrid design. The best solid state pre I've worked with was an atrocity from Pendulum- (part of the SPS-1 acoustic instrument does-it-all)- broken glass bigtime... just a lousy sounding box, nothing to make judgements about solid state with. I just have "my thing" that tubes have a lot to do with.

Quote:

On the subject of the magic of recording being better than the musicians in the room, I like the 'definative take' mentality among other things about recorded sound, and I tend to record stuff that is never played (will never be) by the band in the room (ala beatles - overdub-crazy) - which is to say I like it to sound somewhat larger than life.

Yes, I do appreciate the "definitive take", when such a thing is possible. Amazing to me how some performances really are so very much better than others, especially as recordings- certain performances just seem to be meant to be album cuts. That's magic when it happens, and it does. It's curious to record 5 great takes of a tune, all thrilling in person, and one of them just seems to be meant to be mounted under glass, just so suitable for use as a recording somehow. And yes, they can be the result of overdubs- but the Anthology really blew my mind as far as what the Beatles could and did accomplish all at once in the room- all time great keeper vox on the rhythm tracks and all that. (!) Changed my whole paradigm. Completely lost any desire to do vocal overdubs.

I'd like to get a multitrack thing together, for a kiss here and there to a real live performance, which seems to be the Beatles m.o., overdub the bass or whatever but the basic tracks are a band in a room for real. But what a mess all that is...

Quote:

Btw are you using much/any limiting for classical recording? I tend to find that a bit of solidstate limiting seems not to kill depth, but the compression (solidstate or software) sucks it out pretty bad. Andy

I'm not doing classical recording per se although most of the instruments are from the orchestra pit. Just putting the limiting circuitry in the way with the SLAM!, does enough damage to the sound that I haven't been using it. The limiting is quite transparent really, at least in small doses, it's having the limiter in the chain that's objectionable to me. I'll be curious to see what a great mastering place can accomplish with the totally dynamic tracks I end up with... Have to think they can do it better than I can. I just can't get interested in loudness- no way you can compete these days without such radical measures. It'll require a twist of the old volume knob in any case, without severe limiting.

[Andy Simpson]

No, I can't say I've used any good solid state pre's either. But I tend to base my broader judgements about solid state on other peoples records anyway, and I always find that the ones I love are tube (I like to think I can always pick a tube recording pretty quickly).

I'm interested to know whether you conciously drive the tubes or keep it as clean as possible?

I always find that I get the best depth and life when I drive the tubes to the limit (just before audible distortion), which I have come to realise is a major function of the response of the mic used. Which is to say that I have found that the thinner sounding mics I can drive harder and get more life (presence and depth) out of. But I struggle to get 'enough' drive when close mic'ing, because the promiximity effect gives me too much bottom in the signal and causes the audible overload earlier.

Also, the obvious problem with driving the tubes that hard is that it gives me about 10-15dB more bottom than I need, so I find I have to shelf everything off at the bottom (which I'd rather not need to do, obviously).

I heard that the old u47 had a high-pass at 50hz, which would go some way to explaining how easily they got 'drive'.

Also, with regard to the limiting, my ears get fatigued much quicker listenning to (over) compressed, (over) limitted stuff, but alot of that seems to do with master-limiting, and possibly the fact that if a CD stays at -3dB the whole time, it's not giving my amp any headroom. I never get fatigued by beatles recordings (usually mastered conservatively), except perhaps the white album (could it be that using all those fairchild and UA limiters on solid state desks resulted in a sound that was a tad harsh, flat and thin by any chance?!).


Andy

[steve parker]

Quote:

You surely don't believe that using 20 different outboard pre's sounds as tonally consistent as using 20 channel pre's from the same desk

you SURELY don't believe using all those different violins and trumpets and flutes sounds as tonally consistent as using 70 clarinets of the same make?

of course it don't!

that's why you use 'em.

steve.

[steve parker]

Quote:

if it _only_ sounds like the damn musicians sounded, I'm very disapointed.

as a player more than anything else, i've always suspected this of engineers....



steve.

[Level]

I'll have a shot of what he is Drinking....

[Andy Simpson]

"....better than the musician sounded in the room...."

I knew that would be contentious, but it's the truth for me, although maybe 'better' should be replaced with 'different'.

Why do we (I) close-mic all these instruments, if we want them to sound like they sound in the room?

Re. 70 same-make clarinets, let me make a less subtle example;
if I record a clarinet duet and on the first clarinet I use a pre that gives a 10dB peak at 300hz, and the other clarinet with a different pre that gives an -8dB dip at 400hz, that is not consistent.
The harmony would not balance at all.
However, if I use the first pre on both clarinets, the recording will be 10dB heavy at 300hz, but will be relatively and harmonically consistent.

The ear can live with a 300hz heavy recording, but it can't live with an unbalanced harmony.
This is the principle (although very exagerated).

And the principle follows for a duet between flute and clarinet, or piano and flute etc. And follows for pre-amps, mics and other colouring stages in the process.

If you scale the 10dB at 300hz down by 1000% you get into the realms of 'feel', which are no less real.
Not to mention that frequency response is only half the picture. We have to take saturation/compression/phase/etc characteristics into account too (among other things).

We know that hearing is a relative adaptive sense, and for the suspension of disbelief, relative continuity must be maintained.
We can be engaged by a black and white film from the 50's with very distorted sound, because we accept that the world (for the duration of the story) has no colour and is crackly sounding. But it must be maintained consistently throughout the film.

To sum up. The suspension of disbelief is of paramount importance, in my opinion. I can enjoy cartoons.
Maybe my recordings are cartoon, in their way.

I do appreciate that from an early age we are told that one mic does not do well on every source, and that the same is true of pre's, compressors, reverbs, etc. Fight it baby!

Also, Level - I'm not sure I quite understand the subtleties of your reply?
I'm drinking tea, with milk and sugar, of course, like all good englishmen do.


Andy

[Mixerman]

i dig music wrote on Mon, 02 August 2004 08:23

With all the discussion regarding analog vs. digital summimg in the past, I've come up with a loose theory on this topic. There is camp A that feels breaking out stems to a console improves the sound, while the camp B feels this may not be a factor. Consider this: Camp A is usually tracking on a console.They may use a handful of outboard pre's for OD's, but the main sonic imprint comes from the main tracking console and mixing console. These consoles obviously have here own sonic stamp regardless if it is good or bad, and regardless of the recording format. Camp B records into a DAW, using many different mic pre's and channel strips. In essence this is like using many different consoles that project various sonic signatures. The sound never leaves the box or the digital summing buss. Could the fact that all these sonic signatures stuffed into one box confuse the output of the DAW? Versus, outputting stems to a console which then in theory creates a homogenized sonic signature? Any thoughts or opinions?

Considering the fact that Camp A and Camp B in your hypothesis above, both likely use a plethora of microphones which "project various sonic signatures" (to borrow a phrase), then the logical, and even to some extent the illogical, person would have to conclude your theory to be irrefutably disproven.

Enjoy,

Mixerman