Print

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

[Keith Smith]

I just turned 54 last month. I've been a gigging musician much of the time since I was 13 and I'm full time at it these days (although the vast bulk of my time is now spent with Cubase).

I've been a half decent photographer, owned/operated a machine shop for ten years, been a draftsman for part of it too, but all that said, learning to get a decent audio mix is the hardest thing I've ever tried to do, and I'm dead serious about learning to do it well. As they say, "Life is too short to suck!"

So I'm wondering if I could get a little guidance here:

I imagine all of you who have acheived anything in this business have spent your share of time turd-polishing as a way of learning your craft. I spend so many hours at it that I am beginning to wonder if there's a  recognizable point where it makes sense to say "This is done", and move on to the next project.

I'm doing a bit of commercial work, and have some happy clients, so I guess I'm getting the occasional thing right but I am obsessive enough that a job is never done until someone comes and takes it away. -just wondering if one learns more from grinding some bad tracks to powder, trying to get something out of them, or if it's better to move quicker from project to project, doing the best you can.

Maybe it's kind of a stupid question, but I'd be very appreciative of the benefit of some 'real' experience.

Thanks,
Keith

[weihfool]

Hey Keith,  

    I'm with you, man.  It ain't easy working with the cards that are sometimes dealt our way. However, there's always a way around the problem, and rather than try to impart some magical trick or formula, because we all know there's hardly anything formulaic about getting a great sound to tape/disc, I'd rather give you a link to one of our great philosophical brethren here with us.  

He's actually on the MARSH forum more often than not and he pays for his food by making records, so he would qualify as a pro.  Listen to the soundbites and take it all in.  It's VEEERRRRYYYYY informative and it's not just about recording distorted guitars.  It's all about making the whole damn thing work. Check it out here:  http://marsh.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/287/0/96/

Download all of the soundclips and listen to what the man has to say.  It's a hell of a listen and damn entertaining.  However, beyond all of the jokes, it will teach you something!  Enjoy and Happy Holidays to all here and their loved ones!!!

[Level]

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!


Can't wait to read this one and respond.....

[Level]

Ok...I read the post.

Second guessing something that is "already there" can get you in deep trouble. How do YOU know it is ready to go? Well, you can polish a car until you wear the paint off and then you are left with a eventual rust bucket.

One of the hardest things to learn in this business is that you can't beat anyone. All you can hope to do is provide a level of quality that at least is very acceptable and try to push the envelope some..but if you push it too much, you will find yourself "outside of the calibration of averages" and when you are dealing with the audio arts, you must find a place to be and stick to it, with incremental precision along the way.

This creation we work with called "audio engineering" DICTATES you stay within the norms of your finest peers because you must be able to spread the word through Millions of ears and millions of systems to relay the same emotional vibe as the artist intended. It is not impossible but highly probable because their is not One standard.

Once you start 2nd guessing too much, this is the time to come back to the project another day. Like machine design and drafting, a different day make for a whole different experience and it allows you to move forward and see things in a way, yesterday they were hidden.

You just have to "keep on keeping on"

Damn the torpedoes.

[J.J. Blair]

Keith, when you say 'commercial work', do you mean advertising or stuff intended for commercial release?

[Curve Dominant]

Quote:

posted by Keith Smith: ...on the polishing of turds I am obsessive enough that a job is never done until someone comes and takes it away. -just wondering if one learns more from grinding some bad tracks to powder, trying to get something out of them, or if it's better to move quicker from project to project, doing the best you can.

Whenever you find yourself in "turd-polishing" mode, that means there was a failure in the pre-production stage.

If you use your obsessive nature to make sure every single aspect is covered in pre-production, the rest should be a breeze, a pleasure.

Otherwise, the turd you find yourself polishing will be your own. You cannot blame the talent. They only did what you allowed yourself to record.

Right?

[Phil]

[J.J. Blair]

Since Phil went there, I'll chime in about commercials.  I've found that when working on commercials, the only thing that counts is speed and efficiency.  It's amazing too, because commercials are where the real money is is music, yet quality standards are so far below what most of us are used to while making albums.  I'm not saying that you can do something that sounds like shit, but I've found for commercials that as long as it sounds professional, nobody gives a shit about it being the best drum sound ever or the most original piece of music on the face of the Earth.  Throw up a couple of mics, get it sounding tight, don't waste the clients time.  They're happy with how it sounds? Good.  Take that big fat paycheck and buy another piece of gear from Fletcher with it.    

As far as the "When is it done?" question goes, I always ask myself this: Am I willing to put my name on this?  For somebody as obsessive/compulsive as I am, you don't have to convince me to not overproduce stuff or to not overmix.  It's like how you can get children to do great works of art, if you know when to take away their paint brush.  Nick Launay told me that when he did Semi Sonic, they did all kinds of production, and then when they brought the tracks to Bob Clearmountain, he decided the record would sound better with just guitar, bass and drums, and that's basically how he mixed it.  Exploring every possibilty, on the other hand, can get you in trouble.  One of the complaints that I've heard about somebody, whose name starts with "Jon Brion", is that he can't stop deciding to try different things, which always brings his projects in past the deadline and over budget.  I for one feel you serve the artist better by making sure the material is as strong as possible in its simplest form, rather than trying to make every track sound like an outtake from Sgt. Pepper.  Who cares if the new Fiona Apple record has the greatest bass tone you've ever heard and the coolest string arrangements ever recorded at Abbey Road?  The thing is never getting released.  

I also find that one has to have different standards for different projects, too.  Otherwise, you can drive yourself insane.  I mentioned that Iranian princess with the reality show, in another forum.  This girl could not sing her way out of a parking ticket, and I did three vocal sessions with her just to get a decent comp on one song.  In the end, it sounded a million times better than she does in real life, yet I would still have worked more on it were this going to be a commercially released album.  However, since it was a "demo" (even if it is being played on national TV and maybe the radio) and since I was being paid demo rate, I made sure that the music was absolutely excellent and that the vocal was listenable.  If I had to make sure that people would want to choose to buy it over some Shania record or something, I'd probably still be working on on the vocals tracks with her to this day.  

My basic rule for non-advertising music is this: Do the mix and the production serve the song appropriately?   Is there a sufficient pay-off?  (Meaning, will adding the Jimmy Miller kind of 12 string string in the chorus actually take it to another place that it isn't quite at yet, or is it there already without it?)  Is the artist satisfied that it reasonably represents their artistic vision?  Can you put your name on it and not feel like nobody will ever hire you if they hear this piece of shit?  If I can answer all of these satisfactorily, then I'm done.  Move on to the next piece of shit and get that over with, so that when somebody brings you something that is really great, you are free to work with them, and not still busy trying to get blood from a stone.

[Fletcher]

Keith Smith wrote on Wed, 22 December 2004 19:23

I am beginning to wonder if there's a  recognizable point where it makes sense to say "This is done", and move on to the next project.

Absolutely.

That point is either: A) When the client runs out of money, or B)when the record is in the stores.

Turd polishing... well if you're in turd polishing mode that means your creative energy is focused on clearing up bad arranging, poor performance, shitty recording and not on being creative [or as creative as you might have been able to be had those other aspects not sucked] with the tonal/textural relationships that can comprise a great mix... then again, there are few to no "great mixes" on the radio anymore, so who the fuck cares.

If this is any comfort... it generally takes a good 5 years before I can listen to something I've worked on and not stress about something I wish I had done either in production or mixing.

[Eric Rudd]

I liked Fletcher's post. I too have difficulty listening to past work.

One thing to bear in mind is to disconnect the ego from the work. This assumes that you were hired strictly as the engineer with little or no production input. We all love it when the musicianship is awesome, the sounds are great, the vibe is fun, and we're all sitting around thinking how great we all are. But that's not always the case. When you're working on those turds as an engineer, try to remember that you weren't the sucky guitar player, you weren't the sucky songwriter, you weren't the sucky vocalist. No need to apologize for things you have no control over.

Do the best you can and move on. There are a few "by the numbers" decisions you can make as the engineer....is the vocal loud enough/in the correct perspective....have you done your best with bass/low end management....have you developed the feel of the song (if there is any) as best you can?

They can't all be home-runs. I wish they were. Life has a funny way of throwing stuff our way that humbles us when we've become full of ourselves.

If it makes you feel any better...your perfectionist attitude is what will help you strive to be a better engineer, parent, photographer, co-worker, and human. It unfortunately goes hand in hand with creativity.

Eric

[Level]

This all reminds me of 'many a session'. A good analogy is the barber, that is so maticulous with a haircut that the client ends up bald.

[Phil]

[Johnny B]

Much of what was said above is right on, however, there is something to be said for taking all the time necessary to produce a great, and lasting, piece of art. Sometimes you just can't move on, and by some accounts, I'm glad the people involved in some things taking up an entire year, stuck it out until it was right.

Brian Wilson and Jimi Hendrix are but a few exmples of things taking up to year to get out the door...sometimes you move on, and sometimes you just keep doing it until it's right....setting aside all considerations of time, money, schedules and whatnot...

And would not the world benefit if the "art" part were the most important factor in all the decisions, too bad we have to live in the real world sometimes...a world of compromises and so-so product....

If I had a vote, which I don't, because I lack any form of talent, I'd vote for making "good art."  

YMMV

[J.J. Blair]

Quick anecdote about when shit becomes shinola:

One of my favorite things I've ever done was a hip-hop type project that was brought in, and they thought it just needed to be mixed.  Well, when I was transferring this one tune in particular from DA88 to PT, I called my best friend to let him hear this cacaphony over the phone.  He couldn't believe what he was hearing and started expressing his condolences.   I could not fathom what an unlistenable piece of shit this thing was.  Out of tune acoustic, lame ass violin with bad intonation, really poor choice of drum loops that stepped all over everything and a out of tune bass (my personal favorite).  The  only thing that I kept was the Rhodes.  I made the guitarist and bass redo their tracks.  I tweaked the vocal heavily.  I made the artist totally reprogram the drums, and even tweaked them a little more in PT to make the setup fills and turn arounds sound like what  drummer would really play, threw out the violin and put Mellotron and Mini Moog on it, complete with a full on Keith Emerson solo.  When it was done, it sounded like one of the lost Innervisions tracks, it was so cool.  

The artist's manager stole the money that I was supposed to get paid, so I only mixed half the tunes, shut down production and I've simply held on to the masters to this day.  The label folded before it all got sorted out, so nothing ever happened with it.  It's a shame, because it's one of the first things that I play people and I still put it on my reel.  Everybody always flips out about it.  I've always considered following it on my reel with a mix of what it sounded like before I transformed that piece of shit into the final product.  Maybe when VH1 does "Extreme Make Over: The Hip Hop Edition".

[Keith Smith]

Wow! Thanks for all the responses.

Sean: I've started downdloading this stuff and had a listen to some of it. Damn, I wish I wasn't heading out to the mountains for Christmas gigs! I want to spend a day or two working this stuff through. Hell, with 19 pages it'll probably take a month. Thanks, man. It sounds like it might be a full up audio course. And back at'cha on the Christmas greetings!

Bill, thanks for the sage words. Second guessing is surely the name of my game at this point, and that seems especially true when mixing my own guitar tracks. Maybe it's part and parcel of being a 'jobbing guitar player'. I can't figure out who I am half the time or what I want to sound like.

Quote:

One of the hardest things to learn in this business is that you can't beat anyone. All you can hope to do is provide a level of quality that at least is very acceptable and try to push the envelope some..but if you push it too much, you will find yourself "outside of the calibration of averages" and when you are dealing with the audio arts, you must find a place to be and stick to it, with incremental precision along the way.

 

I think I'll get this tattooed on my forhead!

Quote:

Once you start 2nd guessing too much, this is the time to come back to the project another day. Like machine design and drafting, a different day make for a whole different experience and it allows you to move forward and see things in a way, yesterday they were hidden.

Hmm. Can I count the times I've said "I should put this away and read a few more pages of Bob Katz"?;  but instead, I climb back on and continue to beat the thing to death, chasing myself down the rabbit hole until I can't stay awake anymore. The next day, as you say, brings a whole new, but very familiar experience -like WTF was I hearing last night! It's crazy. I learned very early in this game not to play with reverb (especially)  late at night, but I can't resist it sometimes -and I always regret it.

J.J.: I really just mean stuff I can write a bill for. I am the lowest of the low. Been at this just over couple of years( probably about 4000 hours of knob twiddling and second guessing) ; spent the first six or seven months reading and knob twiddling and a couple of billed projects after about 15 months. I tripled that that this year with a few meditation CD's for several clients, and a locally released vocal Christmas CD which has had some airplay, and have a half a dozen projects lined up for early next year.

I'm trying to be really cautious and stay away from stuff that I can't do to some kind of professional standard. I want to do this full time as my playing career slowly falls off, and I'm in a position where I need to finance the studio with paid work (no rich relations in my family!). This is a small pond I'm in, so I know I can't afford to do a dis-service to any client, or to the industry.

Eric: All the turds are mine. I can assure you! Either I let the artist get away with something (listening with my eyes!), or I was trying to be efficient (too fast) and hit the red button without taking the pains to get the right mic in the right place and into the right signal chain (or else it's plain ignorance!). Right!


Phil: No sweat re OT. Actually for me that was very OnT. The Xmas CD was tracked in about 6 hours and gone for reproduction a week later (why can't people plan ahead?), so I did get one out without a lot of polishing -but it sure could have used a little more! Having met the deadline, I know this lady will supply me with turds again.


J.J.: With your permission, I'm going to print and frame the last three paragraphs for the studio wall! In truth, though, most of my studio projects are quite small (one voice and one or two intruments) and this seems to be where I run into the most trouble. I work with a local keyboard wizard, and we're starting to play with Garritan and Reason a bit, so I know some of the temptations you mention are going to rear their heads in the next few months, but for the present most of my polishing (with some 17 piece swing band exceptions) is just sweating to get good vocal and instrumental sounds from tracks I should have recorded better.


Fetcher: I guess I'm inhabiting the lower, and steeper part of the learning curve right now. What I mixed yesterday sounds, well, OK, and the stuff I did a month or two ago is unbearable. I guess that's good -shows I'm improving quickly. But it is a comfort to hear those words from someone like you.

Eric Rudd: My significant other is a singer who just can't believe the lengths I will go to to make a track the best I can. She accuses me of perfectionism, which I deny, though I am constantly aspiring to earn the title honestly. I tell her "This is a business of and for perfectionists; If you can't stand that, get out of the way before you get run over!"


Bill: Maybe I should switch to barbering? I hear you meet the nicest people...

Phil: Done by 3:30. (my fav)  LOL


Johhny B: Well said. I guess my problem is finding something (a track) which I believe in enough to deserve that kind of attention. Perhaps I've skewed the definition of turd polishing a bit too. Much of what I do in this is aimed at learning everything I can from each project. Sometimes I'm still working on it long after the gig is done, trying to figure out what I SHOULD have done. Good thing I'm not on somebody elses payroll!!!

JJ: Hmm. We could swap a few machine shop stories...


Thanks all for these responses. It makes me feel I'm on the right track. I'm still at the point where I see every project as a chance to learn another few lessons, hopefully at no great expense to the client. And I'm constantly in fear that my shingle went up too soon; that my product is not a credit to 'the business'. Although I know there really are some bad actors out there, theirs is not the standard I wish to be judged by. Time will tell. It always does.


I do find that the short in, out, and done projects seem to be the most productive from a learning point of view. I guess the decisions and the results stand closer together in time and therefore yield the most clarity as lessons. I just wish there were 48 hours in a day, and my ears were useful for more than the first 20 minutes!

I've been trying to implement as much of Bob Katz' K-system as I can with the gear available, and I think it's really making a difference in the shine of my turds! I'll have a few questions about that to post soon if I may.


Thanks again, and a very wonderful holiday season to everyone here. I am very humbled to use this forum along with some very big fish. It's the finest resource I've seen and gets my first attention -even before my email!
Keith Smith

[Leo]

Can't polish a terd, but you can serve it on a golden platter.

[Brendo]

You can't polish a turd, but you can disguise it as, say, a chocolate bunny...

[Bob Olhsson]

Just for the record, we owe the whole concept to Jerry Lewis who was heard screaming "You can't polish a turd!" at the top of his lungs as he walked out of a film editing room at a major Hollywood studio. It spread like wildfire throughout the entertainment industry.

[Level]

Who said the one, "who put the turd in the punchbowl" ?

[dcollins]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Fri, 24 December 2004 07:33

Just for the record, we owe the whole concept to Jerry Lewis who was heard screaming "You can't polish a turd!" at the top of his lungs as he walked out of a film editing room at a major Hollywood studio. It spread like wildfire throughout the entertainment industry.

Like clowns in a concentration camp?

http://www.filmthreat.com/Features.asp?File=FeaturesOne.inc& amp;Id=258
DC

[Bill Mueller]

Ken,

It seems to me that your question may have a few layers to it. The answer may be:

Simple is good. Simple may be best. Fast is not bad. Spontaneity can be golden. Trust yourself.

About thirty years ago, George M made an offhand remark to me during a session, that I have relied on ever since. He said, "It's not what you put in, it's what you leave out." He was talking about using both cut and boost with an EQ. At the time, most engineers I had met, only knew how to boost the high frequencies with an EQ and George knew about subtractive equalization and just how powerful it was. Since he was the one who designed and build the best EQ I had ever heard I took this to heart. Kind of like a mantra. I am sure I have used it for a dozen things that he did not intend for it to affect, but it does.

Mixing: I have had many clients bring back the rough mix I whipped together after the last vocal session and complain that their final mix did not sound as good. I then explain that I can get back to that mix quickly, but they might have to refrain from overmixing it themselves. I am never heavy handed with a client, but many times they are their own worst enemy. Especially bands that end up mixing songs politically. Simple is good.

Musical arrangements: Busy is bad. Over production is bad. Leave space for the audience to sing along. The essence of the song is found in it's simplest form. If it is not there, there is no song. Move on.

Making music quickly, commercial or otherwise, can be a result of confidence in one's ability and the knowledge of what sounds good. IMHO, the very hardest thing to learn in the industry is what sounds good.

Second guessing yourself is NOT being a perfectionist! Get it right. Once it's right, leave it alone.

Friends: Give me a few good ones.

Life: You can add things, goals, pressure, clutter to your life until the essence of what makes you happy is lost among the chrome doo dads. If you haven't opened a box for a year, you probably don't need it unless it is pictures of your kids, or tapes of your wife's old band. Yes, I married the singer and were still together 25 years later.

Merry Christmas all.

Best Regards,

Bill

[bobkatz]

Bill Mueller wrote on Fri, 24 December 2004 22:08

Second guessing yourself is NOT being a perfectionist! Get it right. Once it's right, leave it alone.

and other wonderful comments!

Let me add: the more "clients" there are in the control room, the more watered down, hyped, totally "in your face" the mix becomes. BK's law of diminishing returns.

Can you say, "More Me, please"?  

And I also say, "Making good sound is like preparing good food. If you overcook, it loses its taste."

Merry Christmas to all,


Bob

[PP]

[bobkatz]

Poyser wrote on Sat, 25 December 2004 12:15

Merry Christmas Bob! God bless Mary and yourself, Your sister, and all your family and loved ones... I hope you have a really Happy Holiday! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Best Wishes Peter

Same to you, Peter, whoever your "Mary" is over there. At the time I write this, Christmas day has turned into Christmas night for you.

BK

[PP]

[RMoore]

<I've always considered following it on my reel with a mix of what it sounded like before I transformed that piece of shit into the final product.  Maybe when VH1 does "Extreme Make Over: The Hip Hop Edition". >


Would love to hear MP3s of before and after!
RM

[Keith Smith]

Hello all, I hope your Christmas was at least half as nice as mine.

My little sojourn in the Rockies bought me about 5 hours of reading Bob Katz' Mastering Audio beside the fire, with my notebook at hand on Dec. 24. Bob, was it as good for you as it was for me?

It was also nice to get far enough away from the turds to see the, er, bog? I haven't turned this system on for almost a week and now I'm afraid to hear what I was working on.

I'd like to thank everyone for the additional posts, particularly Bill Mueller and Bob Katz.

Bill, your reference to GM's comments remind me of Ansel Adams very excellent series on photography (one of my greatest treasures). Mr. Adams best tool was his ability to previsualize the print long before he exposed the film. The whole process, after that defining moment,  was designed to bring the original (and usually fully developed), concept to the finished print. His discipline to this principle was unwavering and was always evident in the stunning artistic clarity of his finished works -It even shows in the few examples of his commercial work, I've seen.

This makes me wonder how very often tyros like me are tempted to approach the recording part of the process as mere data gathering. It's quite shameful, isn't it? And then we expect to be able to mine this pile of rabble and use a bunch of sexy plugins to extract gold from a slag heap!

More often than not, for my own work, where no invoice is written, it doesn't really start that way. It's often just recording to document the form or concept of a tune, and then something nice happens, which leads to many hours of trying to get a guitar sound that just isn't there because the recording preceded the concept development. The net result is volumes of stuff that's 'almost' there.

So I guess the real turd is the one that's recorded by a client for a price, and the price of rerecording precludes the completion of concept development (by both artist and recordist) and so you get out the files, and the 600 grit paper to produce something that pleases no one.




Bob, if you're keeping an eye on this thread, I do have one question (of many which need to be properly formulated), and I'm not at all sure this is the best place to post it, but here goes:

In implementing the K-system you make several references to calibrating monitors to 83dB, sometimes with pink noise and other times with a 1kHz sine wave. This has left me a bit confused. What I've ended up doing is marking my Firepod interface monitor control with K-20, 14 and 12 positions, and marking my reference amp output controls with Sine and Pink noise positions. I do expect there are non-linearities where the two pieces interact but this does seem to be better than what I was doing before (nothing consistently). My RMS meter is a plugin in the last slot of Cubase's output buss, and my SPL meter is (you guessed it), Radio Shack.

From simply looking at the knobs, it seems that the gain structure makes more sense with the amp set at sine (about 75% of the setting scale). For the sine wave calibration the amp is at 100%.

Does this make sense? I'd really appreciate a few words on when to use sine/pink. I'm also just bit suspicious about the quality of pink noise noise generators in general. I've beeen using my Roland VS-2480 for this purpose. The sine wave output seems to be rock solid, as one should expect, but the pink noise seems to have the peak meters jumping around quite a bit, which makes me wonder how well 'integtrated' (?) the pink noise is.

Thanks to everyone,

Keith

[PP]

[Keith Smith]

Thank you Peter!

The only thing I might add to that, in (unfortunately) far less prosaic a style, is that Adams in his writing, is always acutely aware of the utter abstraction that is monochromatic photography. I'm not sure he would agree with:

"The medium does not colour or re-interpret the translation of the subject…..

But merely provides a trustworthy faithful rendering......

Even in humble black and white…"

Although I am sure he liked
"To stun….. And amaze us……"

It is, I think, particulary in this realm of abstraction in a seemingly realistic medium, that Adams would have excelled in audio and found himself arm in arm with GM! (He did abandon a promising future as a concert pianist to pursue photography.)
And perhaps it is in this artistic existential warp between the real and the un... that most of us live and never find our way out of; never being able to discern with confidence which way is North, South, up, down, or simply correct. Those who find the map, as did Adams, seem to be those who can consistently tame the science without losing the artistic sense of wonder. It seems to me there are lots of places in Audio where the zone system might be directly imported -assuming the goal was a full scale print!

Oh, my! A full scale print. Everything from full black to brilliant white. What a novel concept to bring to audio in the 21st century!

I don't suppose I'd be the first on this forum to raise such a spectre. Ah! It'll never sell...

Keith

PS: I find myself imagining my trying to appreciate and Adams in the visual equivalent of a car, with at least a 0.3 density of fog over all the highlights... Kind of like visiting an art gallery while the city is burning.

[Jeff Gazdacko]

Keith Smith wrote on Wed, 29 December 2004 16:55

Does this make sense? I'd really appreciate a few words on when to use sine/pink. I'm also just bit suspicious about the quality of pink noise noise generators in general. I've beeen using my Roland VS-2480 for this purpose. The sine wave output seems to be rock solid, as one should expect, but the pink noise seems to have the peak meters jumping around quite a bit, which makes me wonder how well 'integtrated' (?) the pink noise is. Thanks to everyone, Keith

Without getting into the specifics I'll just say that sine waves are great for calibrating equipment and pink noise is great for calibrating rooms/spaces.  They are drastically different signals and they cause equipment/rooms (acoustics) to react in different ways.

If you need more explanation just say so, I'll chime in if no one else does.

-Jeff Gazdacko

[PP]

[wwittman]

Apparently, someone once said to Stanley Kubrick. "you can't polish a turd".
He thought for a few minutes and then replied, "you can if you freeze it first."

Now THAT is a creative mind.


The aphorism is really only valid if you're CERTAIN you can actually recognise said "turd".

More than a few widely perceived turds go on to sell millions of units or tickets or tee shirts or whatever.
Making them, at least econmomically if not artistically, worth polishing.

Kubrick had a MUCH better attitude.

[Fig]

Hi Keith,

Excellent thread.

I love it when Peter gets stirred up about something important,


such as turds.

Keith Smith wrote on Wed, 29 December 2004 10:55

It was also nice to get far enough away from the turds to see the, er, bog? I haven't turned this system on for almost a week and now I'm afraid to hear what I was working on.

Fear not thy passion.  Your quest is noble.

Retreating to fight another day, as it were.  Encouraged.

Quote:

More often than not, for my own work, where no invoice is written, it doesn't really start that way.

Agreeing with Eric (?!?), invoice or not, herein is where polishing benefits most.

Preproduction.

Starting "that way" will allow for better finishes (or in your case, perhaps finishing it at all?).

Quote:

It's often just recording to document the form or concept of a tune, and then something nice happens, which leads to many hours of trying to get a guitar sound that just isn't there because the recording preceded the concept development.

Understand, some of the best recordings in history started out as "merely" documentation.

A difference, I think, between those and what you might be experiencing, Keith, is the application of will or rigor to ensure that EVERY document sounds good on the way to tape (or HD or what-have-you).

Miles said something like, "every time the horn touches my lips... you press that red button."

A challenge with a spacebar, to be sure, but I digress.

Quote:

The net result is volumes of stuff that's 'almost' there.

A clear indication to move on, while meticulously applying lessons learned to each new attempt.

These lessons include things like:

I'll never do THAT again (to the guitar or the snare, etc.)
or, that's a good clean vocal sound

but hopefully will NOT include:

we'll fix it in the mix
or, its just a scratch track.

Treat every track equal whether it be your own instrument or someone's you have never met.  Each sound deserves our personal best, don't you think?

This is a behavior -- not a matter of equipment, or clientele, musical style, etc.  Do not settle for "garbage in" and you will experience less "garbage out".  This includes performances as much (if not twice as much) as tone colors, mix balances, etc.

Adopting such perspective will empower you to simply not record poorly, even if it is "just" recording to document.  No one in the room minds waiting a moment for sound quality's sake:

move that mic one more time
use that other mic pre
add this, subtract that
try, try, try.

Try everything you can think of, you'll remember what does NOT work.

You'll be surprised how easy it is to mix, when tracks go in sounding good  

But it is the attitude of it being "just a demo" or what-not that erodes the plumbing in your particular septic, perhaps.

Quote:

So I guess the real turd is the one that's recorded by a client for a price, and the price of rerecording precludes the completion of concept development (by both artist and recordist) and so you get out the files, and the 600 grit paper to produce something that pleases no one.

Insightful, and sad.  Yes.

<< Flush. >>

Someone said the artists are their own worst enemy.

I do not envy the performer that is also the recordist.

One man, two enemies.

Besides, its hard to do-nothing-but-listen, when you are playing an instrument.

Photographers rarley take pictures of themselves, who would mind the F-Stop and focus?  

Quote:

I'd really appreciate a few words on when to use sine/pink.

In the control room?  Never.

Ummmm.... No, that's not right.

No expert here, but, sines have a lot of focussed energy, specifically at its frequency.

Noise-like signals have a "spreading factor" -- could be the same amount of energy but spread out over the entire spectrum.

Might I suggest some crital listening in addition to your measurements?  Listen to records you think sound great, as often as possible, on as many different systems as possible.

It keeps the goal fresh in the mind.

Very best of luck, Keith, and thanks to the thoughts from this forum.

Osci-later,


Thom "Fig" Fiegle

[Keith Smith]

Jeff: Thanks for the post. I was obviously fishing for a reply from BK, but he does seem to be quite properly preoccupied with another, and I'm sure, more interesting thread right now. No matter. I'll take all the help I can get with full gratitude!

As I understand it, the 1 kHz sine wave as a calibration signal has been around for a long time as a method of calibrating tape heads esp.. I'm not clear as to its usefulness in the digital world, so if anyone including you wants to chime in on that I'd be interested to read their responses. Is it one of those magic frequencies? Would something lower, higher or noisier be more appropriate for digital? Just wondering out loud, if you will...

Peter. Oh, Peter: I do especially appreciate those who love language, and realize it must be fed to be sustained. Every time you send one of us off to his dictionary, you do a service to the English-speaking world, and I thank you for it.

When I read "You appear to have grasped the ‘Dynamics’ of my point…… Undoubtedly it arrived as an 'entirely complete Wave'….." I had a chuckle. "Hey, wait a minute", said I. "That was MY point!" But, in reading back, I realize it was something I was thinking while wrting to Bill, but never stated, or hadn't formulated quite properly in this little head of mine. You've helped me immensely in thinking about this analogous relationship between photographic and audio art and Mr. Adams' role in shaping my approach to both.

A little history:
I slipped from music into photography in the late 60's. It seemed a natural thing for me to do at the time, as I enjoyed the science, the optics, and began to finally grasp the completeness of the inter-relationships between everything we do in this physical world. For example, how the harmonic overtone series applies to everything from music, to radio, to light and right down to balancing the wheels on the car. For someone thrown out of school in his mid teens, these things were a revelation.

Still, no matter how one works on the explanations, the technique, and the mechanics, the Art can remain so elusive.
You can imagine my joy when I found myself in a machine shop; a place where the output is tangible and measurable; where junk is junk, and specification relieves you of the nagging doubts about merit. A veritable holiday for someone struggling with art. Anyway...

"I’m sure Mr. Adams, was excruciatingly sensitive to this issue, precisely as you have stated....

But whether Mr. Adams would agree with it, or not……

The words….. Remain objectively true…..

And effervesce with verisimilitude…"

I recant my position, (having run off to my dictionary). You nailed it. It's the struggle with a medium that appears, on the surface, to give you a free ride.

When I differed with you, I was thinking about his methods and not following through to his objectives. Yours was a more holistic analysis.

If I might dare to summarize Mr. Adams photographic mission, I'll try with this: To deliver the emotional impact of the original scene to a remote visual experience, despite the necessary reduction of scale (in size, colour, tone, contrast, and dimensionality) that the new medium imposes. If you'll accept this in principle, then just substitute audio for visual and it still holds.

In order to do this (for the benefit of those with less exposure to Adams than we), he started with calibration. He looked at input vs output, and considered the variables in the process. These consisted primarily of exposure levels, development, chemistry,  and the reflectances of the various print materials at his disposal. He devised a system of setting out the entire process so that even before he 'pushed the button' he knew with absolute clarity, what would be necessary to deliver his vision of the scene before him to a piece of paper as a finished and compelling work of art.

So in short;
Exposure levels = recording level: So, where on the audio characteristic curve shall we place this sound, such that every detail is faithfully recorded and falls on a part of the CURVE, where the contrast between adjacent levels suits our purpose. In photography this relates to placement of the shadows, ensuring that the darker details are not lost in the opacities of the filmbase plus fog (noise floor).

Development = Playback fader levels/compression settings: Here he controls the density (level) of the highlights such that the brightest highlights fall on the maximum reflectance of the paper and there are no large areas of  blank white which are devoid of any detail or texture. (No lack of dynamics even in the loudest passages.)

Choice of paper = selecting an overall dynamic range: I suppose this as being akin to mastering, but certainly not unaffected by mixing.

Choice of Chemistry: This would be related to limiting and compression, carefully used to preserve or augment the most subtle dynamics. and EQ, of course!

Burning and dodging = heavier use of EQ and multiband compression: Definitely coarser mix techniques

This is fine as far as it goes (and please do embelish where you see fit, i.e. preamp selection, tape or digital, etc.) in a mechanistic way, but the crucial thing is still the previsualized image.

It seems to me the real task is to (sometimes very quickly) assess the sonic situation and make some very critical decisions at the beginning about what the end product needs to sound like, assuiming one has learned the skills to manipulate it all in a sensible and predictable way (hmm, that's a big one!).

Mr Adams did have the luxury of living in a time when technological developments in his medium were occuring at a much slower pace than they are in audio today. For any project, he had 2 characteristic curves (negative and print) which he learned to manipulate with chemistry, time and temperature.

How we would aggregate the huge variety of I/O curves from the gear available to even the most humble studio today is quite beyond me. But somehow, I feel that in this analogy must lie some simple premises that would help folks like me 'tame the science' and get back to finding the Art.

wwittman: Walt, well said. Kubrick was a very good lateral thinker as evidenced....

Thom: Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. It has been good to observe the bog from afar. This takes us back to where we started, in a way.

I was really struggling with whether it's better to beat your head against the wall for 18 hours a day, or just stop and listen to someone else's work. And of the 18 hours, how much time is spent farting about, vs the time in which a lesson is really learned. I am frequently guilty of 'trying to hard' and 'working hard -not smart'.

I observed (but, it seems, failed to learn from) how different musicians experienced and dealt with 'plateau's' through their early years of development. I was always a bulldozer and just plowed through them relentlessly, yet I saw others who would practice a bit less, and emerge a month or two later, none the worse for having taken a break. Maybe I can learn that now -but I am a bit of an old dog.

Thanks for the heads-up!

Ciao,
Keith

[PP]

[ted nightshade]

Well, there's polishing the turd, and then there's gilding the lily.

My eye-opener was a session on an ADAT and a Mackie board, back in the grunge days, not that we were playing grunge- tracked it all live to 7 tracks and left one for vox to be overdubbed. Did a little ultraquick mixdown at the end of the session with no EQ and everything at unity.

Then flailed about for weeks and weeks doing whatever this "mixing" thing is- at the time, it seemed to involve great greasy globs of Mackie EQ and Lexicon reverbs- <shudder!>

Then by random happenstance someone put on the "quickie rough mix", which sounded WAY! better.

I can take a hint.

[Bill Mueller]

Keith Smith wrote on Wed, 29 December 2004 11:55

Does this make sense? I'd really appreciate a few words on when to use sine/pink. I'm also just bit suspicious about the quality of pink noise noise generators in general. I've beeen using my Roland VS-2480 for this purpose. The sine wave output seems to be rock solid, as one should expect, but the pink noise seems to have the peak meters jumping around quite a bit, which makes me wonder how well 'integtrated' (?) the pink noise is. Thanks to everyone, Keith

Keith,

I won't attempt to answer your question to Bob. However I can contribute to the  Sine wave/Pink noise question. Actually the question is Sine wave, White noise/Pink noise.

Forgive me if I am going over ground you already have covered.

An ideal Sine wave is a single frequency waveform. That means that it contains NO harmonic overtones. Such a wave is inherently stable and so it is convenient for calibrating tape machines and amplifiers.

An ideal white noise SIGNAL is comprised of all frequencies at equal amplitude, within the (typical) bandwidth of 20khz. Because all the frequencies are not in phase with all the other frequencies in a white noise signal, some cancel while others reinforce. This internal interactivity causes the inherent "drift" or instability that you refer to in your Roland. This is unavoidable. There is nothing wrong with your Roland in this regard.

Equal amplitude at all frequencies does not mean equal POWER at all frequencies however. With every doubling of frequency, the power doubles, because the wave peaks are pushing on the medium twice as many times in the same interval. Therefore, in order to measure equal power, (the way we hear) we need a source of equal power at all frequencies.

Pink noise is filtered -3db per octave from it's fundamental frequency on up, and so delivers equal power at all frequencies. The random phase relationship within a Pink noise signal makes it somewhat superior to a sine wave for testing speaker/room response. This is because it does not excite room resonances the same as a sine wave. There are so many frequencies next to each other that they sort of smooth out each other.

However Pink noise is not ideal for measuring speaker/room response either, because it can hide those deep anomalies that will be excited by the in-phase characteristics of low frequency music. There are other, more expensive methods that render more accurate real world results.

I hope this is helpful.

Best regards,

Bill

[PP]

[Keith Smith]

Ted: I get the hint too. Here's where audio is quite analogous to machining and welding, as well as photography. The more you mess with anything -the worse it gets. The best successes I've had in the past year have been distant mid/side mic'd recordings in a church with the absolute minimum of plugins -just a bit of EQ and dither to 16bit. These made me feel like a genius. But sometimes it's a devil of a job to keep your fingers out of the pot!

Bill: Thank you for posting again on this thread. You've cleared up much of the question I was asking, and of course generated a few more. In this regard, I am thinking along the lines of my conversation with Peter about the analogous properties of photography, and much of that has to do with calibration. It seems somewhat easier to set up a print viewing station where the colour balance and intensity of light are controlled, and then you can A/B two prints quite conveniently -you can even cut them up and juxtapose the areas in question. Getting this kind of quality control in audio seems to be another matter, and those of us who start with digital (as referred to in John Hardy's thread) find ourselves in a real quagmire of uncalibrated goop where understanding the output for a given input gets very difficult indeed.

If I'm grasping the essence of my recent reading properly, the best approach to audio seems to be to start from the back end (something almost none of us do). What I mean is that if we started from day one with a good room (which begs the questions; how do you know it's good, and when are you finished treating it?) at least there would be one 'known' in the system. then a means of calibrating output for input -just for the monitor system by itself -2 'knowns'. You see where I'm going. I've seen very little in the way of methods to approach it this way. Can you (or anyone) suggest some reading?

I guess it boils down to: How do we really know what we're listening to? Adams had no doubts about what he was seeing.  

Perhaps I'm guilty of wanting to methodize this too much, which would be anathema to some folks. I believe there were some who might have criticized Adams for this, but his results were beyond arguement.

Peter (to both posts): Ah, yes. The analogy continues, and I have bags of unused plugins to show for it!

Alas, my situation has usually precluded the sustenance of more than one activity at a time. Much of my photo gear was sold to finance the beginning of the machine shop, and the proceeds from that were lost in the mayhem caused by a lengthy illness suffered by my dear departed wife. (I am aware of your recent losses and you do have my condolences.)

At this time, the photo gear consists of an 8x10 (quarter plate to you) Burke and James, and a Mamiya C220 nicely kitted out with three lenses and a few other odds and sods. I have an earlier model of your Manfrotto -same max height but not so good for the low stuff. When it comes to tripods my big favourite has always been the Benbo, which I still have, with a Manfrotto Ball & Socket head (same camera shoe as the big one). The Benbo is often not loved by those who were not blessed with three hands, but it is IMHO the best thing for those of us who like to put cameras in nasty places (esp. small architectural interiors, and low-down nature shots).

And speaking of systems, the best camera I ever had, and the one I may replace some day, was a Linhof Technika 70 with 5 6x7 roll backs. With the anatomical grip, it was a wonderful hand camera, and with all the roll backs it was very easy to implement the Zone System without the nasties of sheet film (dust, mainly).

Most of my photography was done when I lived near Toronto, and I dreamed of being able to tour the mountains to emulate my dearest Mr. Adams, whose portrait adorns the wall of my studio. Now I find myself living in Calgary, shut in a room with the window closed and speakers endlessly vibrating, staring at Cubase, with scarcely a thought of dragging the 8x10 1 1/2 hours into the Rockies. That's irony, for you.

I thoroughly agree with you on the good sense of a systematic approach wherever it can be implemented; and this is one area where I really struggle with audio. As I alluded to above, in my message to Bill, the idea of being able to calibrate all the I/O's, and thus get a real understanding of what I'm hearing is very attractive. I've got lots of plugins with FFT's available, but without one between the speaker and my head it all seems very suspect. I thinks there's a flat mic and an RTA in my near future!

Happy New Year to you and Ted and Bill ... and everyone else too!

Keith

Oh! PS: Your pal's lighting gear reminded me of a machining project I was involved in with a photographer friend of mine in the early 80's. We built a mobile camera crane on a Mercedes sports car. The crane could rotate 720 degrees and raise the camera from 14" to 14' above the ground, with a 16mm cine camera or similar sized video -I think the biggest camera we had on it at that time was a Hitachi SK-91. The camera operator sat in the passenger seat with a video monitor with full pan, tilt, focus controls and the crane man stood behind the driver in a cage.

We shot video up to  90mph. The crane was counter balanced for wind and weight and could be rotated comfortably up to about 50mph. I got to be the driver. It was a great deal of fun. Too bad for us that Steadycam was well into the market by then, or we might have made some money!

[Keith Smith]

My apologies, Peter.
It just dawned on me I had said 'Quarter plate to you'.
I just checked my aging 1961 BJ Almanac (do they still print those?). I guess 8x10 would have been something a bit smaller than full plate, but then, I would assume some of those sizes would have lost currency by now, anyway.

Ciao,
k

[ted nightshade]

I'm thinking good old Ansel Adams had to learn to see all over again.

And as far as I have been able to ascertain, there are not so much good rooms as there are good places in rooms. The better the places, and the more of them, the better the room. I count myself very lucky if I can find a good place for the instrument and a good place for the mic- or, a good place for the speaker and a good place for my ears.

[PP]

[PP]

[ted nightshade]

Happy New Year to you too Peter!

God Bless Us Every One!