R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => j. hall => Topic started by: h2o2 on March 07, 2010, 07:12:49 pm

Title: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 07, 2010, 07:12:49 pm
just mixed mine.
Very nice song and tracking.
I wonder if it was pre-mixed already?
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: mcsnare on March 07, 2010, 07:59:44 pm
What do you mean by pre-mixed?

Dave
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 07, 2010, 09:29:47 pm
any processing during recording EQ, Compressors, etc.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 08, 2010, 09:26:50 am
perhaps it is just very poor snare with no springs?
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: mcsnare on March 08, 2010, 12:55:46 pm
Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: 2pulse on March 08, 2010, 01:00:05 pm
Finally! I've been wanting to do this for at least two years, but I alway manage to bumble into the forum and discover the latest IMP a week after the submission deadline.  Still, I've had fun mixing some of the past projects after the fact and contrasting them to the other public mixes.  Keep the IMP alive!!

After listening to 24's bundle, I definitely hear a lot of very un-subtle compression and gating on just about everything.  I'm guessing that some of the tracks have EQ printed as well, but I'm curious to find out for sure... I've never heard a raw kick with such a marked absence of 120Hz mung.

Thanks to everyone who makes this possible, I'm really looking forward to joining the submission discussion!
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 08, 2010, 03:10:24 pm
mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: grantis on March 08, 2010, 03:18:00 pm
h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:10

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.


Common to EQ to tape over here.  

And I'm struggling with the idea that cutting EQ to tape is detrimental to this exercise.  Please explain.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 08, 2010, 04:34:45 pm
grantis wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:18

h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:10

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.


Common to EQ to tape over here.  

And I'm struggling with the idea that cutting EQ to tape is detrimental to this exercise.  Please explain.

In case of struggle it is good to ask yourself questions and develop logical thinking.
For example: why it is not allowed to submit early? which reason?

I believe non-destructive editing did bet destructive one?
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 08, 2010, 05:55:20 pm
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:34

grantis wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:18

h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:10

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.


Common to EQ to tape over here.  

And I'm struggling with the idea that cutting EQ to tape is detrimental to this exercise.  Please explain.

In case of struggle it is good to ask yourself questions and develop logical thinking.
For example: why it is not allowed to submit early? which reason?

I believe non-destructive editing did bet destructive one?


One reason for not submitting mixes early is so that people aren't copying each others mixes.

Getting the sounds 'right' while recording, is definitely the ideal. Leaving decisions until the mix, is something to be avoided in general. Yes, it has become common practice to not eq and compress until the mix, but that's a recent trend and just makes it harder to get a great mix.

Having the sounds close to the way they'll be in the final mix, makes adding overdubs much easier, as you know right away if the new sound is working in the track.

I'm very grateful that I started recording on 4 and 8 tracks and spent the first 8 years professionally recording to 16 tracks.

I started with a fairly small number of quality mics, great monitors, decent desk, a pair of reverbs and delays and one dual channel compressor. You have to learn to get things right as you go. Lots of decisions to make like, which tracks get the compressors while tracking and which ones in the mix.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: southboundloco on March 08, 2010, 07:13:09 pm
anybody knows the tempo of this song? ...

regarding using EQ and compression to tape, am pretty much all for it. i mean why wouldn't you use what's available to you at your disposal in the studio especially if the band pays top $$$ to track in that studio? i'd definitely take advantage of all those high end outboard gears they have( EQ, compressors, Tape-mcahines etc.). i reckon if you do it right it will make mixing easier not to mention faster.  

Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: grantis on March 08, 2010, 08:23:42 pm
h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 15:34

grantis wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:18

h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:10

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.


Common to EQ to tape over here.  

And I'm struggling with the idea that cutting EQ to tape is detrimental to this exercise.  Please explain.

In case of struggle it is good to ask yourself questions and develop logical thinking.
For example: why it is not allowed to submit early? which reason?

I believe non-destructive editing did bet destructive one?


You're right.  I'll develop logical thinking next time I struggle.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Gio on March 08, 2010, 09:45:59 pm
I'm in this time around too. Missed the last one......

And pardon me for butting in, but i think the point of this is to mix what we are given, processed or not, and make the best of it, much as happens in the real world. We don't always get to track everything we mix, do we?

I'll have fun with it, at least.....
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: grantis on March 09, 2010, 12:24:22 am
Gio wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 20:45

I'm in this time around too. Missed the last one......

And pardon me for butting in, but i think the point of this is to mix what we are given, processed or not, and make the best of it, much as happens in the real world. We don't always get to track everything we mix, do we?

I'll have fun with it, at least.....



Bingo!
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: NelsonL on March 09, 2010, 01:37:47 am
h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 12:10

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.


Actually, IMP has historically provided a range of projects of fairly disparate recording quality, and that blend is instructive in of itself.

Being able to identify a track that needs something, is just as important as identifying a track that needs nothing.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 02:14:25 am
Greg Dixon wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 16:55

h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:34

grantis wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:18

h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:10

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.


Common to EQ to tape over here.  

And I'm struggling with the idea that cutting EQ to tape is detrimental to this exercise.  Please explain.

In case of struggle it is good to ask yourself questions and develop logical thinking.
For example: why it is not allowed to submit early? which reason?

I believe non-destructive editing did bet destructive one?


One reason for not submitting mixes early is so that people aren't copying each others mixes.

Getting the sounds 'right' while recording, is definitely the ideal. Leaving decisions until the mix, is something to be avoided in general. Yes, it has become common practice to not eq and compress until the mix, but that's a recent trend and just makes it harder to get a great mix.

Having the sounds close to the way they'll be in the final mix, makes adding overdubs much easier, as you know right away if the new sound is working in the track.

I'm very grateful that I started recording on 4 and 8 tracks and spent the first 8 years professionally recording to 16 tracks.

I started with a fairly small number of quality mics, great monitors, decent desk, a pair of reverbs and delays and one dual channel compressor. You have to learn to get things right as you go. Lots of decisions to make like, which tracks get the compressors while tracking and which ones in the mix.

Unfortunately mixing is much more complicated matter since there are more then a single mixing strategy and sweet spot in each track. You certainly would like to make that decision during mixing and not in a hurry during recording.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Seb Riou on March 09, 2010, 06:32:28 am
I'm not in a hurry while recording. I'm concentrated, focused, fully listening , ready to rec. Are you ?
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: NelsonL on March 09, 2010, 06:58:20 am
h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 23:14

Greg Dixon wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 16:55

h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:34

grantis wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:18

h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:10

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.


Common to EQ to tape over here.  

And I'm struggling with the idea that cutting EQ to tape is detrimental to this exercise.  Please explain.

In case of struggle it is good to ask yourself questions and develop logical thinking.
For example: why it is not allowed to submit early? which reason?

I believe non-destructive editing did bet destructive one?


One reason for not submitting mixes early is so that people aren't copying each others mixes.

Getting the sounds 'right' while recording, is definitely the ideal. Leaving decisions until the mix, is something to be avoided in general. Yes, it has become common practice to not eq and compress until the mix, but that's a recent trend and just makes it harder to get a great mix.

Having the sounds close to the way they'll be in the final mix, makes adding overdubs much easier, as you know right away if the new sound is working in the track.

I'm very grateful that I started recording on 4 and 8 tracks and spent the first 8 years professionally recording to 16 tracks.

I started with a fairly small number of quality mics, great monitors, decent desk, a pair of reverbs and delays and one dual channel compressor. You have to learn to get things right as you go. Lots of decisions to make like, which tracks get the compressors while tracking and which ones in the mix.

Unfortunately mixing is much more complicated matter since there are more then a single mixing strategy and sweet spot in each track. You certainly would like to make that decision during mixing and not in a hurry during recording.




Sure, one must be judicious. But you're talking in absolutes, and I know for a fact that there are professionals who do not adhere to your tenets.

EQ, compression, gating, etc. are all fair game during tracking. Experienced engineers know when and how to use these tools without tying their hands at mix time. There are wildly differing philosophies on how much is too much etc, but your philosophy of abstinence is not the professional norm. In a sense, there really is no 'norm' so go ahead and knock yourself out. But I'd be wary of any single, proscribed way of working.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Daniel Farris on March 09, 2010, 09:29:03 am
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 03:58

EQ, compression, gating, etc. are all fair game during tracking. Experienced engineers know when and how to use these tools without tying their hands at mix time. There are wildly differing philosophies on how much is too much etc, but your philosophy of abstinence is not the professional norm. In a sense, there really is no 'norm' so go ahead and knock yourself out. But I'd be wary of any single, proscribed way of working.


I agree.

I use compression and EQ (less so with gating) on the way to tape all the time, as does nearly every engineer I know.

I'll also add that, if I know (or suspect) that another engineer may end up mixing the project, sometimes I *want* to tie their hands. Not only will I use EQ and compression during recording, I'll print plug-ins and outboard effects used during overdubbing.

My job is not to provide the mix engineer with a blank canvas upon which to express himself.

(That said, mixing almost never gets away from me, thankfully. It's probably been five years since any of my tracks found their way to an outside mix engineer.)

DF
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 11:23:54 am
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 05:58

h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 23:14

Greg Dixon wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 16:55

h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:34

grantis wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:18

h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:10

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.


Common to EQ to tape over here.  

And I'm struggling with the idea that cutting EQ to tape is detrimental to this exercise.  Please explain.

In case of struggle it is good to ask yourself questions and develop logical thinking.
For example: why it is not allowed to submit early? which reason?

I believe non-destructive editing did bet destructive one?


One reason for not submitting mixes early is so that people aren't copying each others mixes.

Getting the sounds 'right' while recording, is definitely the ideal. Leaving decisions until the mix, is something to be avoided in general. Yes, it has become common practice to not eq and compress until the mix, but that's a recent trend and just makes it harder to get a great mix.

Having the sounds close to the way they'll be in the final mix, makes adding overdubs much easier, as you know right away if the new sound is working in the track.

I'm very grateful that I started recording on 4 and 8 tracks and spent the first 8 years professionally recording to 16 tracks.

I started with a fairly small number of quality mics, great monitors, decent desk, a pair of reverbs and delays and one dual channel compressor. You have to learn to get things right as you go. Lots of decisions to make like, which tracks get the compressors while tracking and which ones in the mix.

Unfortunately mixing is much more complicated matter since there are more then a single mixing strategy and sweet spot in each track. You certainly would like to make that decision during mixing and not in a hurry during recording.




Sure, one must be judicious. But you're talking in absolutes, and I know for a fact that there are professionals who do not adhere to your tenets.

EQ, compression, gating, etc. are all fair game during tracking. Experienced engineers know when and how to use these tools without tying their hands at mix time. There are wildly differing philosophies on how much is too much etc, but your philosophy of abstinence is not the professional norm. In a sense, there really is no 'norm' so go ahead and knock yourself out. But I'd be wary of any single, proscribed way of working.

And you are talking .. you are just talking, since this is not backed by any single argument or even thought. Just to express variety of approaches is costing nothing.
You shouldn't be wary of proscribed ways if they are backed by good reasoning and you understand what you are doing and what you are trying to achieve.

Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Daniel Farris on March 09, 2010, 11:35:20 am
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:23

And you are talking .. you are just talking, since this is not backed by any single argument or even thought.


Actually it is.

Committing EQ and compression to tape is pretty much the accepted way of doing things and goes back to engineers trying to maximize levels while minimizing saturation and noise on tape. It isn't an arbitrary decision. It's been done that way for decades for a very good reason.

DF
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: mafigi on March 09, 2010, 11:50:46 am
I agree, optimize the sound recording, just enough, without distorting the choices made by the sounds of instruments and microphones, is a normal operation, is certainly not a premix.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: dconstruction on March 09, 2010, 11:51:17 am
[removed by author]
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 11:54:39 am
Daniel Farris wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 10:35

h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:23

And you are talking .. you are just talking, since this is not backed by any single argument or even thought.


Actually it is.

Committing EQ and compression to tape is pretty much the accepted way of doing things and goes back to engineers trying to maximize levels while minimizing saturation and noise on tape. It isn't an arbitrary decision. It's been done that way for decades for a very good reason.

DF

now it is, but before it was not.
Lets have a look at your argument. I think statement about traditions is very true and makes a lot of sense to EQ before going to tape machiene. However not always a statement which is taken out of context preserve its truthiness. Also EQ to compensate tape frequency response is not the same as artistic/tonal EQ we are talking about here.
At the time of tape machines, destructive editing (i mentioned early) was perfectly ok (as were all problems it creates) in modern times shift towards non-destructive editing occured for a good reasons.

I strongly believe that engineer which doesn't take religios decisions produces better results since he totally understands what he is doing.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Daniel Farris on March 09, 2010, 11:58:51 am
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:54

Also EQ to compensate tape frequency response is not the same as artistic/tonal EQ we are talking about here.


Actually, it is.

Boost highs = boost noise. The tape doesn't care what your artistic intentions are.

DF
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 12:01:09 pm
mafigi wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 10:50

I agree, optimize the sound recording, just enough, without distorting the choices made by the sounds of instruments and microphones, is a normal operation, is certainly not a premix.

I'm sorry since you enter the discussion, could you please define " optimize the sound recording"?
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: j.hall on March 09, 2010, 12:32:51 pm
this is a good discussion, but let's keep it to that......a discussion.

i refrained from comment as this topic was WRECKING my IMP thread, so i split it out.

here goes.

i will speak strictly from my own personal experience here, and and a few details that i simply know to be true.

h2o2.....
first off, i'd certainly like to know (in a non threatening way), how long you have been recording?  are you doing it full time, or as a hobby?

i legitimately want the answer to those questions.  they will add much insight to the conversation.

secondly, i've been doing this for 12 years, 7.5 of which have been full time, day in day out......

speaking from my own personal experience i can assure you that EQ compression, FX, etc... get printed "to tape" on a daily basis.  this would be by myself, and while i'm engineering for producers.  

perhaps experience is a huge difference in your mindset vs. mine.  perhaps not.  but i will say that this practice happens widely, daily, and i'm a willing participant in doing it.

further more, i'm not interested in convincing anyone to change their work habits, especially if, A. what they are doing works for them, and B. if i have nothing personal involved.

i can tell you this, a number of the people discussing this with you are "vets", have significant credits (which only adds legitimacy) and years of experience doing this at a pro level.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: KB_S1 on March 09, 2010, 01:09:09 pm
I can remember this sort of discussion when I was first at college learning about audio engineering.
There was some weight to the argument that if working to digital it was not necessary to eq/compress whilst recording anymore as it was always a workaround of tape limitation.
There was also the counter argument of doing what was necessary at the time to get the best sound when recording.

Now, I don't usually add eq when recording but I will spend time working on mic choice and placement, instrument/room placement and many other things to achieve the tonal balance that I or the client is looking for. This imparts as much of  signature on the sound as any eq'ing would, within reason of course. If need be I haave no problem using a little eq whilst recording.
I do compress as I record when I have access to a good enough piece of hardware.
Particularly on vocals, bass and ambient mic's.


Very rarely do I record reverb or other effects as part of the main recording. Not  against it but being PT based it doesn't feel a normal way to work for me.

Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 01:20:36 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 11:32


h2o2.....
first off, i'd certainly like to know (in a non threatening way), how long you have been recording?  are you doing it full time, or as a hobby?

i legitimately want the answer to those questions.  they will add much insight to the conversation.

secondly, i've been doing this for 12 years, 7.5 of which have been full time, day in day out......

speaking from my own personal experience i can assure you that EQ compression, FX, etc... get printed "to tape" on a daily basis.  this would be by myself, and while i'm engineering for producers.  

perhaps experience is a huge difference in your mindset vs. mine.  perhaps not.  but i will say that this practice happens widely, daily, and i'm a willing participant in doing it.

further more, i'm not interested in convincing anyone to change their work habits, especially if, A. what they are doing works for them, and B. if i have nothing personal involved.

i can tell you this, a number of the people discussing this with you are "vets", have significant credits (which only adds legitimacy) and years of experience doing this at a pro level.

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. 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.

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.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 01:27:33 pm
KB_S1 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:09

I can
Now, I don't usually add eq when recording but I will spend time working on mic choice and placement, instrument/room placement and many other things to achieve the tonal balance that I or the client is looking for.


EXACTLY
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: NelsonL on March 09, 2010, 01:35:20 pm
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:23

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 05:58

h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 23:14

Greg Dixon wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 16:55

h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:34

grantis wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:18

h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:10

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55

Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing.

Dave


Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time.
I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however.
Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea.


Common to EQ to tape over here.  

And I'm struggling with the idea that cutting EQ to tape is detrimental to this exercise.  Please explain.

In case of struggle it is good to ask yourself questions and develop logical thinking.
For example: why it is not allowed to submit early? which reason?

I believe non-destructive editing did bet destructive one?


One reason for not submitting mixes early is so that people aren't copying each others mixes.

Getting the sounds 'right' while recording, is definitely the ideal. Leaving decisions until the mix, is something to be avoided in general. Yes, it has become common practice to not eq and compress until the mix, but that's a recent trend and just makes it harder to get a great mix.

Having the sounds close to the way they'll be in the final mix, makes adding overdubs much easier, as you know right away if the new sound is working in the track.

I'm very grateful that I started recording on 4 and 8 tracks and spent the first 8 years professionally recording to 16 tracks.

I started with a fairly small number of quality mics, great monitors, decent desk, a pair of reverbs and delays and one dual channel compressor. You have to learn to get things right as you go. Lots of decisions to make like, which tracks get the compressors while tracking and which ones in the mix.

Unfortunately mixing is much more complicated matter since there are more then a single mixing strategy and sweet spot in each track. You certainly would like to make that decision during mixing and not in a hurry during recording.




Sure, one must be judicious. But you're talking in absolutes, and I know for a fact that there are professionals who do not adhere to your tenets.

EQ, compression, gating, etc. are all fair game during tracking. Experienced engineers know when and how to use these tools without tying their hands at mix time. There are wildly differing philosophies on how much is too much etc, but your philosophy of abstinence is not the professional norm. In a sense, there really is no 'norm' so go ahead and knock yourself out. But I'd be wary of any single, proscribed way of working.

And you are talking .. you are just talking, since this is not backed by any single argument or even thought. Just to express variety of approaches is costing nothing.
You shouldn't be wary of proscribed ways if they are backed by good reasoning and you understand what you are doing and what you are trying to achieve.




You seem to think we're having a debate.

Rather than trying to prove anything to you, I'm simply suggesting that what you accept to be "the right way to do things," might be a minority opinion. Majority opinions, I realize, are not necessarily more valid. However, I've improved my craft tremendously by learning who to filter out here, who to listen to, and how to benefit from seemingly contradictory information: trying things for myself.

To be blunt, my thoughts and reasoning were more focused on not getting into heated arguments with possibly unstable internet cranks. Not that you're necessarily that person, but 'they' are certainly out there, aren't they?

Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of meeting an Abbey Road trained engineer (now a producer) at Cello one time, as he was producing my friend's band. Unlike you, that producer uses EQ and compression during tracking. If we presume for a moment, that you and this producer/engineer have the exact same skill level and experience, then you've cancelled each other's 'vote' out in the grand debate over great audio.

I guess that makes me the tie breaker.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Daniel Farris on March 09, 2010, 01:48:42 pm
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 10:20

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.


http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/30735/3686/

Quote:

I believe IMP results submitted for this imp will give better weight


Agreed.

DF
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: dconstruction on March 09, 2010, 02:11:25 pm
I am not a vet or a pro, but I've worked with J. and some others on this board, and had the distinct pleasure of providing three songs for previous IMP sessions.

I'm not going to comment on dogma, which I find uninteresting.  Also, I don't own many outboard compressors or EQs, so don't regularly process to "tape" anyway.  However, if I did own them, I would CERTAINLY use them.  Here's why:

1.) Monitoring the sounds with effects applied helps the performers, and helps the engineer (me) to get a feel for what's really being done.  Those sounds are part of the emotion, and that emotion is part of the performance.  It's good, immediate feedback.
2.) I hate choices.  Limits and constraints make me more creative, not less.  I have a studio partner who feels the exact opposite and regularly uses as many mics and channels as possible.  I hate opening up one of his projects - too much f'ing stuff.  I just mute tracks indiscriminately and move forward, applying my own brand of oblique strategies, I suppose, which are all limits and constrictions, anyway.

L
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 02:59:35 pm
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


seem to think we're having a debate.

Rather than trying to prove anything to you, I'm simply suggesting that what you accept to be "the right way to do things," might be a minority opinion. Majority opinions, I realize, are not necessarily more valid. However, I've improved my craft tremendously by learning who to filter out here, who to listen to, and how to benefit from seemingly contradictory information: trying things for myself.

To be blunt, my thoughts and reasoning were more focused on not getting into heated arguments with possibly unstable internet cranks. Not that you're necessarily that person, but 'they' are certainly out there, aren't they?

Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of meeting an Abbey Road trained engineer (now a producer) at Cello one time, as he was producing my friend's band. Unlike you, that producer uses EQ and compression during tracking. If we presume for a moment, that you and this producer/engineer have the exact same skill level and experience, then you've cancelled each other's 'vote' out in the grand debate over great audio.

I guess that makes me the tie breaker.



NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


seem to think we're having a debate.


I think is just a matter of professionalism to provide good argumentation in comment in professional community.

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


Rather than trying to prove anything to you, I'm simply suggesting that what you accept to be "the right way to do things," might be a minority opinion.


I can accept however is difficult to check representatively and more or less objectively.

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


To be blunt, my thoughts and reasoning were more focused on not getting into heated arguments with possibly unstable internet cranks.


What harm can this make? While not entering discussion you are not doing any impact and effectiveness of the discussion is close to zero. While everybody is happy this is purely "false safety" thing and a big deal of hypocrisy.

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of meeting an Abbey Road trained engineer (now a producer) at Cello one time, as he was producing my friend's band. Unlike you, that producer uses EQ and compression during tracking. If we presume for a moment, that you and this producer/engineer have the exact same skill level and experience, then you've cancelled each other's 'vote' out in the grand debate over great audio.


Here comes the catch...
You make decisions without listening to argumentation from both sides. Constructive discussions are usually made by exchanging series of arguments by both parties. You are absolutely right that at the end it is personal decision of everyone to take whichever party they want. But it is important not to forget that doing this without listening to argumentation is a very narrow decision.

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


you've cancelled each other's 'vote'


Cancelling may occur only in case we will have a dilema, this is in a case when number of arguments is more or less equal and they have the same strength. But the guy could just have told you: I never really thought why I am doing it like this, maybe it might be a good idea to try the other way around.
in case of dilema, if you dont find argument which is closer to you you might consider using weight.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 03:17:16 pm
dconstruction wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 13:11

I am not a vet or a pro, but I've worked with J. and some others on this board, and had the distinct pleasure of providing three songs for previous IMP sessions.

I'm not going to comment on dogma, which I find uninteresting.  Also, I don't own many outboard compressors or EQs, so don't regularly process to "tape" anyway.  However, if I did own them, I would CERTAINLY use them.  Here's why:

1.) Monitoring the sounds with effects applied helps the performers, and helps the engineer (me) to get a feel for what's really being done.  Those sounds are part of the emotion, and that emotion is part of the performance.  It's good, immediate feedback.
2.) I hate choices.  Limits and constraints make me more creative, not less.  I have a studio partner who feels the exact opposite and regularly uses as many mics and channels as possible.  I hate opening up one of his projects - too much f'ing stuff.  I just mute tracks indiscriminately and move forward, applying my own brand of oblique strategies, I suppose, which are all limits and constrictions, anyway.

L

a)Which dogma you are referring to? b)Do you understand what is dogma? Smile

1) This is good argument but you don't need to print to tape for that.
2) Limits and constraints are different things, it is true that constrining yourself is helping to achieve better results because you have a vector where to move. But limiting a space of movements is detremental to creativity.
Why not trying to contrain yourself to just mic selection placement during recording? Does involvement of mixing part in recording process produce too much possibilities?
In ideal world you would try to capture musicians which play carefully selected notes and well written arrangements... would it not be a good thing to concentrate on during recording? to make extra takes or different versions which work without eq? while not trying to fix things with EQ straight away.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: dconstruction on March 09, 2010, 03:20:04 pm
a)Which condescension you are referring to? b)Do you understand what is condescension?  Smile
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 03:57:09 pm
Daniel Farris wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:48

h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 10:20

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.


http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/30735/3686/


Thanks for giving me the insight of what us ppl are reading. It was interesting for me.
But i'm afraid that we just don't share the same values to say the least...

Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: grantis on March 09, 2010, 04:21:38 pm
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:20


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. 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.




Sounds like you just hate America.

h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:20


I believe IMP results submitted for this imp will give better weight then a number of years of experience which does not correlate usually.




It's not a competition, although I welcome your submission to hear how you dealt with the "pre-mixing"



h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:20


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.




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.



Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Podgorny on March 09, 2010, 04:26:46 pm
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:20


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. 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.





Well for all of their logic, I would contend that for the most part, the eastern world makes miserable recordings.

Oops.  There I go feeding trolls again.




Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 04:46:43 pm
grantis wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 15:21


Sounds like you just hate America.


In fact I don't hate it as such, at a times i get bored out of it because  of that pressure of "majority" in almost everything. But i don't hate it as a such and I see good things even in it's average narrow-mindness. For example there would be no way to concur such a big continent in such a short time while having reasonable discussions and deep philosophy.

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:)
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 04:52:45 pm
Podgorny wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 15:26

h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:20


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. 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.





Well for all of their logic, I would contend that for the most part, the eastern world makes miserable recordings.

Oops.  There I go feeding trolls again.






This is true, because sound quality is not a primary concern for us. We have very strong Literature/Philosophy background traditionally. And since there is no demand there is not that many good recordings.                                        
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 05:02:54 pm
This movie depicts problems in USA (and what we have faced here) very well:
12 Angry Men (1957)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: DarinK on March 09, 2010, 05:05:06 pm
Reasons & logic are great for some things.  For creating art (which is what we are doing), they can be helpful but are certainly not necessary.
Reasons have been given, and rejected.
The best reason (already given repeatedly) is that committing to sounds early on makes it easier to know what is working & what isn't.  It is easier to know if more overdubs would help or hurt.  It is easier to decide which overdubs could help, and what they should sound like.  The recording artists absolutely respond to what they are hearing.  If these sounds are not committed to tape, there can be a disconnect in the mix between the performance and the final sound.  (For example, singers will sing differently depending on the reverb they're hearing.)
The second best reason is that quick decisions are very often the best decisions, especially in creative work.  I believe many more recordings have been damaged by over-thinking than by making quick decisions.
Ultimately of course it's not about philosophy or logic, it's about using the techniques that yield the results which you desire.  It is logical to seek out the techniques used by those that have results which one finds favorable.  For me, the vast majority of my favorite recordings have been done by people working quickly and committing to sounds early on.  My personality is more one of nitpicking & taking my time & avoiding commitment, but working for years in a low-budget studio forced me to learn how to work & commit quickly.  In my own work, my favorite recordings are those where I've committed early to sounds.  So that's the way I do it.
-Darin
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 05:22:34 pm
DarinK wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:05

Reasons & logic are great for some things.  For creating art (which is what we are doing), they can be helpful but are certainly not necessary.
Reasons have been given, and rejected.
The best reason (already given repeatedly) is that committing to sounds early on makes it easier to know what is working & what isn't.  It is easier to know if more overdubs would help or hurt.  It is easier to decide which overdubs could help, and what they should sound like.  The recording artists absolutely respond to what they are hearing.  If these sounds are not committed to tape, there can be a disconnect in the mix between the performance and the final sound.  (For example, singers will sing differently depending on the reverb they're hearing.)
The second best reason is that quick decisions are very often the best decisions, especially in creative work.  I believe many more recordings have been damaged by over-thinking than by making quick decisions.
Ultimately of course it's not about philosophy or logic, it's about using the techniques that yield the results which you desire.  It is logical to seek out the techniques used by those that have results which one finds favorable.  For me, the vast majority of my favorite recordings have been done by people working quickly and committing to sounds early on.  My personality is more one of nitpicking & taking my time & avoiding commitment, but working for years in a low-budget studio forced me to learn how to work & commit quickly.  In my own work, my favorite recordings are those where I've committed early to sounds.  So that's the way I do it.
-Darin


About first part is answered above (it is not necessary to print to tape your monitoring) in fact most consoles are build non-destructively. Destructive recodring might be more common while using low cost DAW with audio interface.
The second argument is quite personal. With my personality i need quiet and calm atmosphere to achieve the best results. It's intuition for the most part sometimes it "clicks" fast sometimes not so fast. But for the most part those are just ideas in the head you don't try every single combination in the arts, because it will take forever.

I would be skeptical about relation of modern mixing to the art. Because there is not much variety left in it. And constant repetition is killing any art. "mastering" is killing the "mixing art" for the big part. Producing awfully similar recordings.


Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 09, 2010, 05:24:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: KB_S1 on March 09, 2010, 05:33:42 pm
I should further qualify my previous point about not using much eq when recording.

I don't tend to use much when mixing things I have recorded either.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 05:53:17 pm
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24


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.


Define "great records"? This is purely personal concept, if you want to achieve constructive discussion you need to dismiss personal and subjective from arguments.

Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24


ou seem to be dismissing the logic and strength of the arguments offered by others members of this forum


There is no dismissal since every single argument is recorded and you still can read it, can you ?
After you have arguments expressed it is perfectly ok to challenge them and see what is left.


Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24


However if I can hear something that's still not right, I don't hesitate to add eq or compression as needed.


Can you please give any examples of things what can be not right?
Just to understand your point a bit more? low-mids issues are fixed with mic placement for example.

Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24


If you know what you're wanting, why would you wait until the mix to get that sound?


maybe because I want to listen all tracks carefully for example?
mixing is complicated interdependent process. not only the track you are recording matters the rest of tracks affect decisions you will make on certain track.

Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24


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.


I agree on this one. But this is not the same problem we are discussing here. Pre-select tracks which more or less work are perfectly fine prior mixing time.
UPD: i dont agree on bussing idea obviously. because this is a good example of crucial decision made too early. Yes it is difficult to decide strategy and proportions of the mics to use during mixing. But doing that in recording is completely blind call!

Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 09, 2010, 06:11:44 pm
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 09:53


UPD: i dont agree on bussing idea obviously. because this is a good example of crucial decision made too early. Yes it is difficult to decide strategy and proportions of the mics to use during mixing. But doing that in recording is completely blind call!




Why is it a blind call? If you know what you're trying to achieve, it isn't a blind call, it's an educated decision.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 09, 2010, 06:52:28 pm
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 17:11

h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 09:53


UPD: i dont agree on bussing idea obviously. because this is a good example of crucial decision made too early. Yes it is difficult to decide strategy and proportions of the mics to use during mixing. But doing that in recording is completely blind call!




Why is it a blind call? If you know what you're trying to achieve, it isn't a blind call, it's an educated decision.

Guitar layering is very complicated thing it might involve experementation alot. I doubt if there is the quick and best strategy here. It often  a matter of difficult compromises.
For example bussing 3 mics together without EQ-ing low-mids and selecting bites would be no go decision for me. And if you will start to EQ them during tracking it would be very time consuming.
And you also have other tracks which might affect your decision. What if your bite frequency will compet with vocal?
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: mcsnare on March 09, 2010, 08:53:30 pm
Reasoning and logic doesn't have a lot to do with why experienced engineers record processed tracks. It goes like this:

In the old days when most recordings were done with an ensemble of musicians playing together in a studio, engineers learned very quickly the way to be in demand was to make everything sound amazing and almost finished as early on as possible. This impresses the producer and the musicians. Win win. It also clarifies what might be needed in the way of overdubs in a much better way than working with basically flat tracks. Myself and everybody else I knew used to practically use every resource available when doing a 'rough mix' at the end of the tracking session in hopes of making an impression that could turn into a mixing gig.
I guess the scenario is different these days. Now, with so many folks recording in a simplified non traditional studio environment, one may not have lots of preamps and compressors or even a big enough space to record a whole group. This situation is probably part of what makes it less common in some circles to hype everything to tape. I'd guess not having a producer and maybe not very high expectations of the band is part of it too. Not having the pressure of the clock rolling in a high priced studio, blah blah blah. Y'all get the picture.
I think it's a bit telling of the times that so many, including myself, have remarked at how well the tracking was done on this IMP 24 tune. Back in the day I would have considered it a workable but not particularly impressive recording.
Just my perspective.


Dave

Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: grantis on March 09, 2010, 10:40:10 pm
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 15:52


This is true, because sound quality is not a primary concern for us.                                      



I think you may have hit your own nail on its head.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: meverylame on March 09, 2010, 11:55:34 pm
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 18:52



Guitar layering is very complicated thing it might involve experementation alot. I doubt if there is the quick and best strategy here. It often  a matter of difficult compromises.
For example bussing 3 mics together without EQ-ing low-mids and selecting bites would be no go decision for me. And if you will start to EQ them during tracking it would be very time consuming.
And you also have other tracks which might affect your decision. What if your bite frequency will compet with vocal?



Hmm... on the other end of the spectrum.... Why not just turn 2 mics off? If I have 3 mics on an amp AND I'm worried about EQ, I'm not doing something right.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: dconstruction on March 10, 2010, 12:16:25 am
mcsnare wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 19:53

Reasoning and logic doesn't have a lot to do with why experienced engineers record processed tracks. It goes like this:

In the old days ...
I guess the scenario is different these days. ...
Y'all get the picture....
I think it's a bit telling of the times that so many, including myself, have remarked at how well the tracking was done on this IMP 24 tune. Back in the day I would have considered it a workable but not particularly impressive recording.
Just my perspective.


Dave





I appreciate and resemble these remarks.  I work in a room that's  16' by 17' with 8' ceilings.  I built it out myself, and I made errors.  I put in $13k worth of finish and gear (that amount scarily grows each quarter), and I'm nowhere close to what I want, but worried about the ROI every month.  I have clients who cannot afford my extraordinarily reasonable $35/hour rate.  I lose gigs to more experienced engineers and others that charge far less (how?).  My passion for this gig can't pay the rent, but consumes my spare time.  I have lost girlfriends over the studio (seriously).  I would KILL for the ability to time-machine back into my twenties, before the mortgage and the "career", and call one of you guys up and beg for work.

Here's what I feel:

Daniel Farris engineered and (co?)produced a best-of album with Annie Clark, a work of stunning creative richness and (dare I say it) gender-expectation-defying shredder brilliance.  He's chimed in.

Dave McNair's second most recent Tweet is "Did some test mastering today and the most excellent and ever so rockin' new album from Slash."  Slash?  Seriously?  Even if it sucks - and I probably will think it does - that man defined guitar for a decade.  A personally important decade, for anyone born in the mid-Seventies like me.  He's chimed in.

Kyle Mann seems to have a burgeoning career.  Grant is trusted by  J. Hall, and I trust J. - having shared a meal in his kitchen with his family, and an album or two.  J., by the way, is a freaking genius - who unfortunately knows he is a genius.  But get him drinking and he's not so bad.  They've all chimed in.

This might seem like a tangent.  Good Lord, our Eastern philosophy logician won't know what to make of it - emotion! language! subjectivity! - but it's really not.  This forum is full of such wondrous experience and amazing humility.  I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you all.  For being awesome, and reasonable, and careful, and passionate.  And teachers.

L
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: NelsonL on March 10, 2010, 01:27:21 am
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 11:59

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


seem to think we're having a debate.

Rather than trying to prove anything to you, I'm simply suggesting that what you accept to be "the right way to do things," might be a minority opinion. Majority opinions, I realize, are not necessarily more valid. However, I've improved my craft tremendously by learning who to filter out here, who to listen to, and how to benefit from seemingly contradictory information: trying things for myself.

To be blunt, my thoughts and reasoning were more focused on not getting into heated arguments with possibly unstable internet cranks. Not that you're necessarily that person, but 'they' are certainly out there, aren't they?

Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of meeting an Abbey Road trained engineer (now a producer) at Cello one time, as he was producing my friend's band. Unlike you, that producer uses EQ and compression during tracking. If we presume for a moment, that you and this producer/engineer have the exact same skill level and experience, then you've cancelled each other's 'vote' out in the grand debate over great audio.

I guess that makes me the tie breaker.



NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


seem to think we're having a debate.


I think is just a matter of professionalism to provide good argumentation in comment in professional community.

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


Rather than trying to prove anything to you, I'm simply suggesting that what you accept to be "the right way to do things," might be a minority opinion.


I can accept however is difficult to check representatively and more or less objectively.

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


To be blunt, my thoughts and reasoning were more focused on not getting into heated arguments with possibly unstable internet cranks.


What harm can this make? While not entering discussion you are not doing any impact and effectiveness of the discussion is close to zero. While everybody is happy this is purely "false safety" thing and a big deal of hypocrisy.

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of meeting an Abbey Road trained engineer (now a producer) at Cello one time, as he was producing my friend's band. Unlike you, that producer uses EQ and compression during tracking. If we presume for a moment, that you and this producer/engineer have the exact same skill level and experience, then you've cancelled each other's 'vote' out in the grand debate over great audio.


Here comes the catch...
You make decisions without listening to argumentation from both sides. Constructive discussions are usually made by exchanging series of arguments by both parties. You are absolutely right that at the end it is personal decision of everyone to take whichever party they want. But it is important not to forget that doing this without listening to argumentation is a very narrow decision.

NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35


you've cancelled each other's 'vote'


Cancelling may occur only in case we will have a dilema, this is in a case when number of arguments is more or less equal and they have the same strength. But the guy could just have told you: I never really thought why I am doing it like this, maybe it might be a good idea to try the other way around.
in case of dilema, if you dont find argument which is closer to you you might consider using weight.



My point is that the quality of the "argumentation" has no actual relationship to the quality of the methodology or the results. Ergo, it is pointless to have the sort of debate that you clearly think is so vital.

I simply do not "make decisions without listening to argumentation from both sides." This is an illogical assumption, it is in fact, the exact mistake that I was suggesting you might wish to avoid in your ignorance. I specifically mentioned that the best course upon receiving contradictory advice from multiple respected sources, is to try things for yourself.

I don't think anyone owes you any professional courtesy as you have either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted not only the spirit,  but the substance of the responses you've received here.

One of the first things you're taught in constructing a discourse is that broad, sweeping generalizations like  "because of sexism, racism, agism, or any other "ism" currently popular in US," weaken your argument and demean the venue.

Additionally, every time you refer to the East, you're again making broad, grandiose generalizations and reinforcing  Orientalist stereotypes. This too weakens your rhetorical stance as there is no singular "East" nor is there one "West." These are outdated constructs, and not particularly useful or relevant to the discussion here.

When you begin statements with "we" you weaken your argument by presuming to speak for an incredibly large segment of the population. Alternatively, if you meant to define "we" less broadly, then you failed to do so.

Furthermore, while I commend your multilingualism, I suspect that your reading comprehension needs improvement as you continue to misrepresent my views as promoting a certain technique.

I would never tell anyone that they must use X during tracking.

It is intellectually irresponsible to tell people you don't know, and who's work you've never knowingly heard, that they should never use Y during tracking based on a theoretical argument.

Results trump theory in this discipline, and yet I agree with you when you say that we should not discount minority opinions.

In fact, I said that first and you ignored it, then you told me that I had offered no thoughts or ideas, and then you co-opted that idea as if it were  your own, when clearly it's just common sense.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Gabriel F on March 10, 2010, 02:37:33 am
h202 wrote:
Define "great records"? This is purely personal concept, if you want to achieve constructive discussion you need to dismiss personal and subjective from arguments.



Lots of decisions about tracking and mixing are based on highly subjetive apreciations, so you cant try to discuss audio production as an exact science.

Some people have a vision about what sound they are after, and have the experience to make most of that sound at the tracking stage. If you have that vision and experience or talent, i believe its the best way to make a record. Like you said some tracks affects the  way other tracks sounds and that can be said about the performances being recorded too, its not the same for the artist to track overdubs hearing a mix with no direction than tracking to a good rough mix with the core of the overall sound already decided. And for me performnances are way more important than getting the perfect blend between a multimiked guitar amp.

You talk like mixing is sacred in the recording process and tracking having less importance.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Devin Knutson on March 10, 2010, 03:01:01 am
Hammers, planes, saws...   These are all tools.

Compression, Gating, EQ...   These are also tools.

Would you begin building a house before deciding what you wanted it to look like?  Would you delay nailing the floor down until the roof was on in order to preserve your possibilities?  Would you wait until the walls were up before cutting your studs to the proper length?

Of course not.  These things would be exceedingly stupid.

If I am building a house, and I can get lumber that is perfectly straight, I will use it.  Otherwise I will reach for a plane.   If I can get lumber that is exactly the right length, I'll use it.  Otherwise I'll reach for a saw.

When tracking music, if I can capture sounds that fit perfectly  into my vision of the recording using just the room, a microphone and a preamp, that's what I'll use.

Otherwise, I'll reach for my tools.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 10, 2010, 03:13:54 am
meverylame wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:55

h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 18:52



Guitar layering is very complicated thing it might involve experementation alot. I doubt if there is the quick and best strategy here. It often  a matter of difficult compromises.
For example bussing 3 mics together without EQ-ing low-mids and selecting bites would be no go decision for me. And if you will start to EQ them during tracking it would be very time consuming.
And you also have other tracks which might affect your decision. What if your bite frequency will compet with vocal?



Hmm... on the other end of the spectrum.... Why not just turn 2 mics off? If I have 3 mics on an amp AND I'm worried about EQ, I'm not doing something right.

Exactly. I might add that the tracks I was referring to earlier, were very well recorded, so there was absolutely no reason to print them separately.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: j.hall on March 10, 2010, 01:31:13 pm
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24

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.




look man, the bottom line here, is that you have no leg to stand on.  blowing off a few simple questions, actually answers them.  i couldn't care any less where you are from, how old you are, and what you do for a living.  i couldn't care any less about this "debate" from the stand point of changing your mind (which i've said before), or even from the stand point of puffing my chest up to say, "look what i've done......"

experience matters, period!

you can not possibly think that a person just starting out making records is worthy of considering themselves a "peer" with 20+ year vet.....

i wasn't trying to "size you up", i was actually trying to help.......

this is pointless, i'm done

have a great day!
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: j.hall on March 10, 2010, 02:25:05 pm
mcsnare wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 19:53


I think it's a bit telling of the times that so many, including myself, have remarked at how well the tracking was done on this IMP 24 tune. Back in the day I would have considered it a workable but not particularly impressive recording.
Just my perspective.


Dave




the engineer that tracked this project is a friend of mine and a solid engineer.  that being said, and not knowing ANY of the details of this particular session (heck, he might not have worked on it at all.....) i would say that these tracks are barely passable.  especially knowing what his typical output is, these tracks are pretty bad to be honest.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 03:18:56 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 12:31


you can not possibly think that a person just starting out making records is worthy of considering themselves a "peer" with 20+ year vet.....


Just like i mentioned before all this experience very loosely correlates with records quality. Of cause there are limits, but lets say even 3+ years of experience is enough to re-qualify from related area for a talented inidividual.

Having 10+ 20+ 30+ 40+ 50+ does not mean anything.
Majority of the ppl could have bean 10 or 20 years in the business this is not something you should be granted a medal for.

That could just mean:
1) Local market don't have enough competition and there is a room for everyone who wants.
2) You are successful marketer and found your target segment (while producing for example cheap and bad recordings)
3) You are a nepotist (like you don't hesitate to show here regularly) and you are part of certain friend community which is off basis and considers themselves pro and competent while could be in fact non-pro and incompetent and producing very average records.

Should I even mention that profits and ROI are not the best measurment unit for the talant?

Personally I saw so many sound engineers who just DO NOT GROW after certain point. Or it can simply depend on personality: some ppl are just ignorant while others are curios, some got absolute hearing and other didn't.
Music is a very complicated art and you cannot simplify all this and measure primarily with a number of years.

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: grantis on March 10, 2010, 03:30:30 pm
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 14:18

j.hall wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 12:31


you can not possibly think that a person just starting out making records is worthy of considering themselves a "peer" with 20+ year vet.....


Just like i mentioned before all this experience very loosely correlates with records quality. Of cause there are limits, but lets say even 3+ years of experience is enough to re-qualify from related area for a talented inidividual.

Having 10+ 20+ 30+ 40+ 50+ does not mean anything.
Majority of the ppl could have bean 10 or 20 years in the business this is not something you should be granted a medal for.

That could just mean:
1) Local market don't have enough competition and there is a room for everyone who wants.
2) You are successful marketer and found your target segment (while producing for example cheap and bad recordings)
3) You are a nepotist (like you don't hesitate to show here regularly) and you are part of certain friend community which is off basis and considers themselves pro and competent while could be in fact non-pro and incompetent and producing very average records.

Should I even mention that profits and ROI are not the best measurment unit for the talant?

Personally I saw so many sound engineers who just DO NOT GROW after certain point. Or it can simply depend on personality: some ppl are just ignorant while others are curios, some got absolute hearing and other didn't.
Music is a very complicated art and you cannot simplify all this and measure primarily with a number of years.

Have a nice day.




There is no amount of help available to someone as naive as you are sir (or ma'am, we still don't know).  

That was possibly the dumbest thing i've ever read on these forums.  

Go troll at gearslutz and leave the good people here alone.  
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Gabriel F on March 10, 2010, 03:48:13 pm
Maybe you belong to that group of persons believing that they are more talented or experienced than they really are.

Dont take it as an attack, but you said that the tracking was good and you sounded surprised because the tracks sounds almost finished for you? because they are processed. Reading you i assume your threshold of quality is pretty high, so its confusing that you said the tracking was good while for others is just above average. So maybe you aint that good or experienced to discern a good tracking from an average one.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 03:54:02 pm
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 14:48

Maybe you belong to that group of persons believing that they are more talented or experienced than they really are.


It is pretty possible, the problem is there is really no way to know this for sure. it's a personal call of everyone...

Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 14:48


Dont take it as an attack, but you said that the tracking was good and you sounded surprised because the tracks sounds almost finished for you? because they are processed. Reading you i assume your threshold of quality is pretty high, so its confusing that you said the tracking was good while for others is just above average. So maybe you aint that good or experienced to discern a good tracking from an average one.

I lied. I tried to be "anglosaxon friendly", honestly.Smile
I didn't like snare (i mentioned separately)
UPD: I also dismissed toms completely. Apart from that i was not very impressed with a bass. Had to work a lot on it.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Gabriel F on March 10, 2010, 04:08:35 pm
"I didnt like the snare" sounds like a highly subjective opinion and without any fundaments about why you dont like it. While you were arguing the whole time trying to make music production an objective science, and asking for fundaments about our opinions.

You didnt like the snare because is badly tracked? Or because you believe other snare sound may fit better? Do you believe the problem is at the source (the snare), do you believe that processsing to tape, or summing 2 snare microphones to tape would have made a significant change for worse?. Would you have make a better mix if the snare wasnt processed? What if the bass would have been processed to sound the way you like, would you have complained about having to work less to make sound right?


Saying that we cant know for shure if anyone is a good enginner because is a personal obsevation, is admitting that this businness isnt as objective and exact like you said before. But i believe we can tell a good enginner from a bad one no matter how subjective our opinions may be. if we could not then there is no point in doing this IMP, there is no point in trying to get better and imporve because we could not apreciate what differences makes a good enginner.
Title: Re: IMP 24 BEGINS
Post by: johnR on March 10, 2010, 04:15:37 pm
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 20:18



Having 10+ 20+ 30+ 40+ 50+ does not mean anything.
Majority of the ppl could have bean 10 or 20 years in the business this is not something you should be granted a medal for.

That could just mean:
1) Local market don't have enough competition and there is a room for everyone who wants.
2) You are successful marketer and found your target segment (while producing for example cheap and bad recordings)
3) You are a nepotist (like you don't hesitate to show here regularly) and you are part of certain friend community which is off basis and considers themselves pro and competent while could be in fact non-pro and incompetent and producing very average records.


And you, sir/madam, are a troll.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 04:27:38 pm
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:08

"I didnt like the snare" sounds like a highly subjective opinion and without any fundaments about why you dont like it. While you were arguing the whole time trying to make music production an objective science, and asking for fundaments about our opinions.

You didnt like the snare because is badly tracked? Or because you believe other snare sound may fit better? Do you believe the problem is at the source (the snare), do you believe that processsing to tape, or summing 2 snare microphones to tape would have made a significant change for worse?. Would you have make a better mix if the snare wasnt processed? What if the bass would have been processed to sound the way you like, would you have complained about having to work less to make sound right?


Saying that we cant know for shure if anyone is a good enginner because is a personal obsevation, is admitting that this businness isnt as objective and exact like you said before. But i believe we can tell a good enginner from a bad one no matter how subjective our opinions may be. if we could not then there is no point in doing this IMP, there is no point in trying to get better and imporve because we could not apreciate what differences makes a good enginner.


You are trying (just like many others here) to throw everything in the same basket, which creates a mess...
So please be careful and separate the questions of art from purely practical questions (like taping with effects)...

In fact it might sound surprising but art can be analyzed.
I'm curious (really) Do such profession exist in USA?: "Musical critic", so those ppl usually do is to analyze art and also dictating trends in art.

Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 04:48:25 pm
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:08

"
You didnt like the snare because is badly tracked? Or because you believe other snare sound may fit better? Do you believe the problem is at the source (the snare), do you believe that processsing to tape, or summing 2 snare microphones to tape would have made a significant change for worse?. Would you have make a better mix if the snare wasnt processed? What if the bass would have been processed to sound the way you like, would you have complained about having to work less to make sound right?


Could wee just postpone this discussion or do this in another thread later?
I can give some answers regarding snare:
Artistic comment (feel free to discard or go in your own way):
It was just too high pitched, was short and didn't have enough springs.

Now technical part:
Blending two snare mics in recording is very bad idea, because there will be no nudging and no phase reverse.

>Would you have make a better mix if the snare wasnt processed?
No doubt, if transients smeared you cannot undo this. This is very clinical case of snare, there is practically nothing you can do apart from replacing it  (with blend)

>would you have complained about having to work less to make >sound right?
We are not motivated by money here and don't hesitate to work more, we are nation of principals and ideals:)

Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: grantis on March 10, 2010, 05:00:37 pm
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:48


Blending two snare mics in recording is very bad idea, because there will be no nudging and no phase reverse.


Check the phase before printing.  That's a FUNDAMENTAL skill of recording.

h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:48


We are not motivated by money here and don't hesitate to work more, we are nation of principals and ideals:)


Boy i tell ya, if strict principles and ideals made good records, a lot of (legendary) rock bands wouldn't exist.

Money drives progress in all facets of life.  Period.  Science, Medicine, Recording, Technology.  EVERYTHING.  Enjoy your nation of mediocrity.  Wherever it is, I hope you have good beer there.  Doesn't seem like there's much else to do. (Well and troll on the internet I suppose).

Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Gabriel F on March 10, 2010, 05:03:44 pm
Blending 2 mics is not a bad idea if you know what you are doing. You dont need to nudge anything if you know what you are doing, you can flip polarity at the console and choose wich position works best. That is just basic engineering skills.

You are the one complicating things and talking things wich doesnt make sense at all. You somehow mixed stereotypes of country idiosyncracies and pseudo philosophy with enginnering skills.

Its a fact that if you know what you are doing its a good thing to get the sounds you want to tape. Its a pretty standard way of working and has been for decades. There is no discussion, people have worked that way for decades and will continue to do it if they get the desired results, no matter if you think its bad practice.

Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 05:25:49 pm
grantis wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:00

h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:48


Blending two snare mics in recording is very bad idea, because there will be no nudging and no phase reverse.


Check the phase before printing.  That's a FUNDAMENTAL skill of recording.

h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:48


We are not motivated by money here and don't hesitate to work more, we are nation of principals and ideals:)


Boy i tell ya, if strict principles and ideals made good records, a lot of (legendary) rock bands wouldn't exist.

Money drives progress in all facets of life.  Period.  Science, Medicine, Recording, Technology.  EVERYTHING.  Enjoy your nation of mediocrity.  Wherever it is, I hope you have good beer there.  Doesn't seem like there's much else to do. (Well and troll on the internet I suppose).



Ouch you are so dogmatic... You don't even see besic possibilities and logic.

1) Nudging of tracks is not done for phase only. You may want to add pre-delay to bottom snare mic to separate attack of top mic from sustain of bottom.
2) I just wonder how many reasonable ppl are checking phase of botton vs top snare mic before recording? Smile they are using phazoscope for that? maybe cancellation test or the ropes?


Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: grantis on March 10, 2010, 05:36:23 pm
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:25


Ouch you are so dogmatic... You don't even see besic possibilities and logic.


Nope, I see Pro Tools.

h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:25


1) Nudging of tracks is not done for phase only. You may want to add pre-delay to bottom snare mic to separate attack of top mic from sustain of bottom.



Are you implying that when you place snare samples to supplement the original track, you don't sample align them?  

h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:25


2) I just wonder how many reasonable ppl are checking phase of botton vs top snare mic before recording? Smile they are using phazoscope for that? maybe cancellation test or the ropes?



I would guess...all moderately experienced engineers check phase every single time.

Personally...I use ears.  Saves me loads of money on scopes and such.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Gabriel F on March 10, 2010, 05:44:48 pm
Are you being serious or just joking with us?.

It seems that you are a)too insecure to make any artistic decision at tracking or b)You dont understand the process of record production.

You can use nudging or eq or compression,etc to solve any problem you like. But if the enginner has a sound in his mind he can print that to tape, because he knows he wont need to nudge the bottom mic, for example, to get that sound (by the way i never heard anyone delaying the bottom mic). If i mix i like to get the tracks sorted, and not lose time and perspective by deciding wich of the x number of microphones tracks of the same take its the sound the band its after.

Do you record guitar direct and them reamp? Do you record drums with vdrums and then use samples? do you take bass direct and then reamp? Do you record vocals with 4 microphones and then choose at mix time wich one works best? That insecure are you to commit to tape?
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 05:47:18 pm
grantis wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:36


Are you implying that when you place snare samples to supplement the original track, you don't sample align them?  


I sample align them on the first wave positive peak.
If i use multiple sample i can pre-delay couple of them to achieve richer sustain and less cluttering. I try to make them still aligned more or less on the consequent peaks.

Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 06:02:05 pm
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:47

grantis wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:36


Are you implying that when you place snare samples to supplement the original track, you don't sample align them?  


I sample align them on the first wave positive peak.
If i use multiple sample i can pre-delay couple of them to achieve richer sustain and less cluttering. I try to make them still aligned more or less on the consequent peaks.



oh yes and i do pitch shift as well, usually downwards.
with the simplest algoritm which changes duration as a bonus. So you will get longer sustains. And you will get really densier snares because of richer spectrum. Can you do that in recording?
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Gabriel F on March 10, 2010, 06:14:36 pm
No, but you cant do it if you dont use samples. Unless you gate every drum hit and them pitch shift, and creating a phase mess. Not to mention the ugly artifacts of pitch shifting and streching algorithms. And its not a common practice among good enginners. They usually get good sounds at tracking so they dont need to do complicated and unnecesary processing wich creates weird artifacts at mix time.

one thing i like is to record all the songs at 120 bmp, and then choose the righ tempo streching the audio at mix time. Its way too complicated to decide wich tempo the song workd best at tracking time. Razz.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 06:20:17 pm
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:14

No, but you cant do it if you dont use samples. Unless you gate every drum hit and them pitch shift, and creating a phase mess. Not to mention the ugly artifacts of pitch shifting and streching algorithms. And its not a common practice among good enginners. They usually get good sounds at tracking so they dont need to do complicated and unnecesary processing wich creates weird artifacts at mix time.

one thing i like is to record all the songs at 120 bmp, and then choose the righ tempo streching the audio at mix time. Its way too complicated to decide wich tempo the song workd best at tracking time. Razz.

Yes we can!Smile)))
gating/expanding bottom snare is usually a good idea by the way.
UPD: and you was not careful again i prescribed certain type of algorithm for that.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Gabriel F on March 10, 2010, 06:42:22 pm
No mmater what algoritm you use you will  get phase problems if you strech drums tracks with bleed.

Fuck it i am out you are either an idiot or having fun with us.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: iCombs on March 10, 2010, 06:42:40 pm
http://homepage.mac.com/aurich/ars/locks/feed_trolls.gif

Not sayin'...just sayin'.

There's a lotta strife on the interweb forums as of late...all the big ones have some sorta BS going on...

*shakes head*

Kids these days...
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: DarinK on March 10, 2010, 06:46:31 pm
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 13:27


You are trying (just like many others here) to throw everything in the same basket, which creates a mess...
So please be careful and separate the questions of art from purely practical questions (like taping with effects)...



Taping with effects IS a question of art, not a "purely practical question."

Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 06:51:15 pm
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:42

No mmater what algoritm you use you will  get phase problems if you strech drums tracks with bleed.

Fuck it i am out you are either an idiot or having fun with us.

the fact that you could just make an insult at the end point out that you are certainly someone not very clever, you may consider removing yourself from the internet alltogether.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Gabriel F on March 10, 2010, 06:56:25 pm
Maybe i should give up on this thing called the internet, but you should give audio production, you dont understand basic concepts.

Fuck you, you get mad because i said a bad word. But you are insulting us, disrespecting us. You even are insulting your country or the whole eastern culture by making stupid stereotipycal comments. So fuck you once again.


Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: DarinK on March 10, 2010, 06:56:42 pm
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:51

Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:42

No mmater what algoritm you use you will  get phase problems if you strech drums tracks with bleed.

Fuck it i am out you are either an idiot or having fun with us.

the fact that you could just make an insult at the end point out that you are certainly someone not very clever, you may consider removing yourself from the internet alltogether.


The fact that you could just make an insult at the end points out that you are certainly someone not very clever.  You may consider removing yourself from the internet altogether, too.
Smile

Okay, I'm done too.  That "ignore" button is a very handy feature.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 06:59:10 pm
DarinK wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:46

h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 13:27


You are trying (just like many others here) to throw everything in the same basket, which creates a mess...
So please be careful and separate the questions of art from purely practical questions (like taping with effects)...



Taping with effects IS a question of art, not a "purely practical question."




Very very remotely...
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 07:07:35 pm
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:56

Maybe i should give up on this thing called the internet, but you should give audio production, you dont understand basic concepts.

Fuck you, you get mad because i said a bad word. But you are insulting us, disrespecting us. You even are insulting your country or the whole eastern culture by making stupid stereotipycal comments. So fuck you once again.




Yes, respect is something which is not granted out of the box.
Someone should earn the respect and a the end of the day it's a personal choise to respect or not to respect. In the internet nobody owes anything to anyone.

But insults is just an indication of cultural level to me.
And being realistic is not an insult, you should be thankful in fact for me bringing you to the reality...

Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Gabriel F on March 10, 2010, 07:13:01 pm
Hahaha. Keep talking like somekind of Buddha.

Wich reality did you bring me to?


You just insulted your country (by the way you can see wich country i am from, And you can see my name too) But you keep talking shit hidding your glorious, pacifist, highly inteleectual country you are proud of and your name too).
And you are so smart that insulted the whole eastern culture making stupid steretypical comments. That shows cultural level for me.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 10, 2010, 07:28:12 pm
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 18:13


You just insulted your country (by the way you can see wich country i am from, And you can see my name too) But you keep talking shit hidding your glorious, pacifist, highly inteleectual country you are proud of and your name too).


Just let me tell you something, the last thing for you.
Sane ppl are not proud of their culture or their country name.
Sane ppl are proud of their achievements and their intellectual assets. There is no need to specify a country there are you from before you start to talk with someone or to list your friends or everyone you know in the beginning of the post it just is irrelevant and in eastern Europe is usually viewed as a sign of bad form.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: rsquared on March 10, 2010, 08:27:14 pm
perhaps then, you should limit your posting to eastern european forums.

Everybody wins!
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Podgorny on March 10, 2010, 08:39:14 pm
J,

Would you mind consolidating all of hydrogen peroxide's posts into one thread and making it a sticky?  It would brighten my day... Every day.


Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 10, 2010, 09:11:32 pm
h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 10:51

Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:42

No mmater what algoritm you use you will  get phase problems if you strech drums tracks with bleed.

Fuck it i am out you are either an idiot or having fun with us.

the fact that you could just make an insult at the end point out that you are certainly someone not very clever, you may consider removing yourself from the internet alltogether.

Wow, you think that's bad and yet you openly and very deliberately insulted the moderator of this forum.

I hope misunderstanding due to the language barrier or difference in culture is to be blamed for a lot of your comments. Otherwise.......
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: j.hall on March 10, 2010, 10:31:12 pm
Podgorny wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 19:39

J,

Would you mind consolidating all of hydrogen peroxide's posts into one thread and making it a sticky?  It would brighten my day... Every day.





i just can't take my eyes off this...............

greg, don't worry about it man.  tomorrow is submission day.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: grantis on March 10, 2010, 10:54:40 pm
Podgorny wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 19:39

J,

Would you mind consolidating all of hydrogen peroxide's posts into one thread and making it a sticky?  It would brighten my day... Every day.






Laughing
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: grantis on March 10, 2010, 10:56:51 pm
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 18:28


Sane ppl are not proud of their culture or their country name.
t and in eastern Europe is usually viewed as a sign of bad form.



That's why the Germans lost the war.  Not enough INSANE people who were PROUD OF THEIR COUNTRY.

This has to be a joke.  Either way, I'm laughing.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 10, 2010, 11:38:05 pm
j.hall wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 14:31

Podgorny wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 19:39

J,

Would you mind consolidating all of hydrogen peroxide's posts into one thread and making it a sticky?  It would brighten my day... Every day.





i just can't take my eyes off this...............

greg, don't worry about it man.  tomorrow is submission day.


No not worried. More like bemused. I wonder why IMP brings out the worst in some people?
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: j.hall on March 10, 2010, 11:52:16 pm
Greg Dixon wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 22:38



No not worried. More like bemused. I wonder why IMP brings out the worst in some people?


yeah, well, here i thought it was an educational tool......i guess i'm the idiot...

at least Lloyd isn't my avatar......
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 11, 2010, 12:22:32 am
j.hall wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 15:52

Greg Dixon wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 22:38



No not worried. More like bemused. I wonder why IMP brings out the worst in some people?


yeah, well, here i thought it was an educational tool......i guess i'm the idiot...

at least Lloyd isn't my avatar......


Well obviously we're all idiots, who've been recording the wrong way for years. We need to start by learning not to commit to anything until the mix. I think that's the main lesson we're being taught. Also that experience doesn't count for anything. I thought I kept getting better, even after 18 years of engineering professionally, but I guess not. I wonder if I'm actually getting worse? Maybe we all are.

I'll be very disappointed if H2o2 doesn't submit a mix after all this.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: NelsonL on March 11, 2010, 12:28:09 am
j.hall wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 20:52

Greg Dixon wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 22:38



No not worried. More like bemused. I wonder why IMP brings out the worst in some people?


yeah, well, here i thought it was an educational tool......i guess i'm the idiot...

at least Lloyd isn't my avatar......


Come on J, be cool man. Don't pick on Grant in public... save it for the studio.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Hallams on March 11, 2010, 12:29:32 am
Maybe a  wikipedia definition might help?....

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a very pale blue liquid, slightly more viscous than water, that appears colorless in dilute solution. It is a weak acid, has strong oxidizing properties, and is a powerful bleaching agent. It is used as a disinfectant, antiseptic, oxidizer, and in rocketry as a propellant.[2] The oxidizing capacity of hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.

Hydrogen peroxide is naturally produced in organisms as a byproduct of oxygen metabolism. Nearly all living things (specifically, all obligate and facultative aerobes) possess enzymes known as peroxidases, which harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Gio on March 11, 2010, 12:59:18 am
Greg Dixon wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 00:22


I'll be very disappointed if H2o2 doesn't submit a mix after all this.


10 to 1 he/she/it doesn't.




Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 11, 2010, 03:42:18 am
rsquared wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 19:27

perhaps then, you should limit your posting to eastern european forums.

Everybody wins!

Oh yeah sure.
And you just take out all your toilet paper (dollars) and your "values" and  military contingents OUT of Europe.

Everybody wins!
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 11, 2010, 05:57:16 am
DarinK wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:56


Okay, I'm done too.  That "ignore" button is a very handy feature.

Oh I'm sure it is. I wonder if there is no other button called "Ignorance" just beside of it?
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 11, 2010, 06:01:06 am
Hallams wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 23:29

Maybe a  wikipedia definition might help?....

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a very pale blue liquid, slightly more viscous than water, that appears colorless in dilute solution. It is a weak acid, has strong oxidizing properties, and is a powerful bleaching agent. It is used as a disinfectant, antiseptic, oxidizer, and in rocketry as a propellant.[2] The oxidizing capacity of hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.

Hydrogen peroxide is naturally produced in organisms as a byproduct of oxygen metabolism. Nearly all living things (specifically, all obligate and facultative aerobes) possess enzymes known as peroxidases, which harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.

I believe more or less educated ppl dont need pediwiki for this kind of thing? do they? everybody knows Hydrogen peroxide?
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Hallams on March 11, 2010, 08:20:18 am
h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 22:01

Hallams wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 23:29

Maybe a  wikipedia definition might help?....

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a very pale blue liquid, slightly more viscous than water, that appears colorless in dilute solution. It is a weak acid, has strong oxidizing properties, and is a powerful bleaching agent. It is used as a disinfectant, antiseptic, oxidizer, and in rocketry as a propellant.[2] The oxidizing capacity of hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.

Hydrogen peroxide is naturally produced in organisms as a byproduct of oxygen metabolism. Nearly all living things (specifically, all obligate and facultative aerobes) possess enzymes known as peroxidases, which harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.

I believe more or less educated ppl dont need pediwiki for this kind of thing? do they? everybody knows Hydrogen peroxide?

Posting this for a bit of a laugh.... i'll point out the funny
bits as i see them just in case you don't get my obscure humour:

hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.
...you know the highly reactive bit...sort of applicable?

and...
enzymes known as peroxidases,  harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.
.....living in hope Smile

Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: h2o2 on March 11, 2010, 09:51:11 am
Hallams wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 07:20

h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 22:01

Hallams wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 23:29

Maybe a  wikipedia definition might help?....

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a very pale blue liquid, slightly more viscous than water, that appears colorless in dilute solution. It is a weak acid, has strong oxidizing properties, and is a powerful bleaching agent. It is used as a disinfectant, antiseptic, oxidizer, and in rocketry as a propellant.[2] The oxidizing capacity of hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.

Hydrogen peroxide is naturally produced in organisms as a byproduct of oxygen metabolism. Nearly all living things (specifically, all obligate and facultative aerobes) possess enzymes known as peroxidases, which harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.

I believe more or less educated ppl dont need pediwiki for this kind of thing? do they? everybody knows Hydrogen peroxide?

Posting this for a bit of a laugh.... i'll point out the funny
bits as i see them just in case you don't get my obscure humour:

hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.
...you know the highly reactive bit...sort of applicable?

and...
enzymes known as peroxidases,  harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.
.....living in hope Smile



I understood your banal humor even without any pediwiki and this is my point - you don't need pediwiki for this...
And if you want some humor, here it goes..
This is how ausies make fun of usa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISB6Cs8aqlE
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: NelsonL on March 11, 2010, 10:03:26 am
h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 06:51

Hallams wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 07:20

h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 22:01

Hallams wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 23:29

Maybe a  wikipedia definition might help?....

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a very pale blue liquid, slightly more viscous than water, that appears colorless in dilute solution. It is a weak acid, has strong oxidizing properties, and is a powerful bleaching agent. It is used as a disinfectant, antiseptic, oxidizer, and in rocketry as a propellant.[2] The oxidizing capacity of hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.

Hydrogen peroxide is naturally produced in organisms as a byproduct of oxygen metabolism. Nearly all living things (specifically, all obligate and facultative aerobes) possess enzymes known as peroxidases, which harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.

I believe more or less educated ppl dont need pediwiki for this kind of thing? do they? everybody knows Hydrogen peroxide?

Posting this for a bit of a laugh.... i'll point out the funny
bits as i see them just in case you don't get my obscure humour:

hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.
...you know the highly reactive bit...sort of applicable?

and...
enzymes known as peroxidases,  harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.
.....living in hope Smile



I understood your banal humor even without any pediwiki and this is my point - you don't need pediwiki for this...
And if you want some humor, here it goes..
This is how ausies make fun of usa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISB6Cs8aqlE


By knocking off a fairly standard American late night TV bit.

Yawn.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: johnR on March 11, 2010, 10:05:11 am
The trouble with allowing anonymous idiots to lower the signal-to-noise ratio is that it reduces the credibility of the forum as a source of professional advice.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: grantis on March 11, 2010, 10:58:30 am
Blast you H202.  Why you gotta go taking my avatar?  Now everyone will assume I'M AN IDIOT as well by association.  

I prefer to think of it as...Harry is my avatar.  Lloyd is just driving.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: grantis on March 11, 2010, 11:00:43 am
h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 02:42


Oh yeah sure.
And you just take out all your toilet paper (dollars) and your "values" and  military contingents OUT of Europe.


Another European bigot.  I knew you hated America.  At least we know he's not British.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: rsquared on March 11, 2010, 12:41:29 pm
While I'll readily admit that there's some "ugly Americans" out there, at least we're not ashamed to admit that we live here. It must really suck to live in a country that you're afraid to even mention.

I'll be out gleefully spending some "toilet paper" today, so I'll be unable to enjoy the rest of your verbal bukkake, but I'm sure curious as to how you're going to back up all this talk.

In America, money talks, and bullshit walks. Enjoy your stroll, my "eastern" friend.

R
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: j.hall on March 11, 2010, 10:36:48 pm
johnR wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 09:05

The trouble with allowing anonymous idiots to lower the signal-to-noise ratio is that it reduces the credibility of the forum as a source of professional advice.


TOTALLY correct.  i've just been too entertained.  this won't go much longer, i promise.
Title: Re: Do you process to tape or not....
Post by: Hallams on March 11, 2010, 10:55:47 pm
h2o2 wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 01:51

Hallams wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 07:20

h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 22:01

Hallams wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 23:29

Maybe a  wikipedia definition might help?....

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a very pale blue liquid, slightly more viscous than water, that appears colorless in dilute solution. It is a weak acid, has strong oxidizing properties, and is a powerful bleaching agent. It is used as a disinfectant, antiseptic, oxidizer, and in rocketry as a propellant.[2] The oxidizing capacity of hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.

Hydrogen peroxide is naturally produced in organisms as a byproduct of oxygen metabolism. Nearly all living things (specifically, all obligate and facultative aerobes) possess enzymes known as peroxidases, which harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.

I believe more or less educated ppl dont need pediwiki for this kind of thing? do they? everybody knows Hydrogen peroxide?

Posting this for a bit of a laugh.... i'll point out the funny
bits as i see them just in case you don't get my obscure humour:

hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species.
...you know the highly reactive bit...sort of applicable?

and...
enzymes known as peroxidases,  harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.
.....living in hope Smile



I understood your banal humor even without any pediwiki and this is my point - you don't need pediwiki for this...
And if you want some humor, here it goes..
This is how ausies make fun of usa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISB6Cs8aqlE


Thanks H202, i just love the chasers classic oz humour/social comentary.... Ok they might step over the line from time to time but without risk there is little reward...their moment of sublime glory was the APEC pranks, well worth further investigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chaser_APEC_pranks

also not to be forgotten is hanging a good natured insult on our mate is our paradoxical way of saying the friendship is strong enough to take it.
peace brothers and sisters.