51m0n

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1321461879' post='1439457'] This is a lecturer who told a judge (during the lecture over his mobile on loudspeaker) "No I won't be coming to court today, I've still got the taste of toothpaste in my mouth and I'm teaching at the moment" then hung up... [/quote] Class!

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1321461556' post='1439452'] Multiple mics was covered but never mic and DI. Although my lecturer was a little bit.. different [/quote] Maybe he never tried it - cant believe that, how odd...

[quote name='BassHertz' timestamp='1321450569' post='1439263'] Wow thanks guys, I really appreciate the feedback @ Charic - very good points i will definitely add them and you are right about the pbass..especially as I recorded the samples with a P-Bass lol @ 51mon - I think i will have to do some reading on phase alignment and regarding compression, I agree with you that its a bit thin. I was aiming this site at beginners but I think think I will add an "advanced compression" page - cheers mate. (any more info could you PM me - sorry a bit cheeky ) I will add your info on recording levels. [/quote] The search function on this site is your friend here, I've spouted off about setting up a compressor and how one works so many times its beyond daft

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1321449841' post='1439252'] You know, the whole time I was at uni not once did someone mention that. It makes perfect sense as soon as I read it but I'm just shocked it never came up. [/quote] Dear god, really? Thats tragic, hold on, were you studying Chemistry? That might explain it.... Phase issues with multiple mics or multiple any sources in any recording situation is just a huge thing to take into account. Its made way simpler with the use of plugins like Phasebug at mix time now, but nothing beats getting it right there and then. There are hardware solutions to phase alignment too, other than moving the mic, which are super useful if you dont hit a DAW.

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1321449719' post='1439246'] You should know unfortunately I missed the famous speech though. I was too busy A/B'ing in the other room [/quote] Shame on you

More accurate level setting guide would be to say that if they are recording at 24bit they really want to be hitting no higher than -12dB (and possibly -18dB) on the way in. If they are recording at 16bit then they have less headroom to play with - so avoid 16bit....

To be honest the compression explaination is a tad, well, limited..... And a cookie cutter 'use these sounds to get a decent sound' approach isnt going to work (you dont know at what level they recorded the bass at for one thing, or what technique they used) Its a website's worth of info on its own unfortunately!

You could really do with explaining phase alignment between the mic and the DI, otherwise its pot luck as to whether your two signals are in phase or not. Not in phase == no bass....

Its perfectly possible that the 7 on stage are not actually doing anything other than looking great to secure a nice endorsement deal of course, what with the inner ear monitoring that is quite probably being used. If they mic the drums then not running any stage volume makes that aspect somewhat easier.... Which leadss to the question of why mic one on stage where there may be an issue. Until someone running the show pipes up and tells us its all supposition, which is all perfectly good fun though

The point of mixing a mic and a DI live is not to capture the entire sound of the cab, but to use the interesting things that happen to the sound having been filtereds by the power amp and a nice sounding flappy transducer (the speaker) in the sound that you pump out of FOH. As soon as you are close micing you cant get much more thats useful than that, but it is nevertheless useful. The ear does its best work in the mid range, the speaker close mic'ed (very close and you get proximity effect with a dynamic that will enhance low end) will give you masses of info in the mid range that is different from the DI sound there, and presumably preferential (or else why do it) for the bass sound in question. He may well have changed his rig/tech guy/sound guy/requirements, but he's the star he gets what he wants. There are many ways to skin a cat after all. For all we know theres another cab off stage dedicated to being mic'ed up (it happens), or he doesnt use a mic any more but a software emulator of an amp cab. Or he doesnt use a mic'ed cab sound as a part of his FOH at all now. Any of which are possible.... Interesting stuff though, well spotted!

Yeah kind of, but check out the frequency plot on them, a gentle rise between 40 and 1000Hz of about 3dB, then a further rise upto 10000Hz of about 4dB, no huge mid scoop eq built into those babies I'd love some f those for micing toms....

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1321404376' post='1438861'] Just come home from rhcp at the Manchester men arena, flea had no cabs mic'd up [/quote] [url="http://www.elevation-music.com/redhotchpeba.html"]Well thats certainly changed[/url], he used to use a DI before his effects, one after his effects and a mic on one of the 10" cones.... He used to use[url="http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=shure%20sm98&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CGwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shure.com%2Fidc%2Fgroups%2Fpublic%2Fdocuments%2Fwebcontent%2Fus_pro_sm98_ug.pdf&ei=NRDDTp6EPIuT8gPaveCGCw&usg=AFQjCNGaFeiPpWmLVZDxF5INu6orDcM-Uw&cad=rja"] Shure SM98 mics [/url]on the cones, which are ickly tiny capsules, so its certainly possible that you could miss one.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1321373859' post='1438390'] This mastering malarky.... I have heard it said many times that good mastering can make or break etc and ha ve see the difference but what I am not clear on is what do you need to provide to the mastering studio? Is is a cd of a digital copy of the final stereo mix, an MP3, a CUbase/Pro Tools file or the full 120 tracks with all of the plug ins and what not? I have done an audio course and know what the principles of mastering are but just don't get what it is that you actually present to the people who are going to master your stuff. [/quote] Its a collection of wavs of the final mixes that make up the release. Preferrably 24bit, and the same sample rate as the individual tracks that made up the mix were recorded at, rendered without any sort of dithering or noise shaping. The mix level should be peaking with at least 12dBfs of headroom for the mastering engineer to work his magic with. By all means a little bit of stereo 2 buss compression for glue is fine, but no limiting or anything about attaining level should be on the master buss of that mix, that is absolutely the domain of the mastering engineer (amongst other things. [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1321381756' post='1438537'] Outrageous? Don't they all have a 64bit mix engine these days? I have run Sonar 5 / 6 / 7 / 8.5 and X1 and they've had 64bit mix engine since v6 I think all a 64bit mix engine does is not truncate tha data when summing until the final sum is achieved ( thus getting fewer rounding errors when adding all those 16bit or 24bit numbers together ( being the original bit depth of the recorded audio)) There's nothing outrageous about 64bit mix engines. [/quote] They certainly do not all have a 64 bit internal mix engine, I think Pro Tools 9 has a 32 bit floating point mix engine (which ought to be enough for any sane level situation to be fair) { EDIT according to Wikipedia - [i]The Pro Tools mix engine has traditionally employed 48-bit fixed point arithmetic, but floating point is also used in some cases, such as with Pro Tools HD Native.[/i]} and yes all that does is allow the DAW to cope without any truncation or rounding errors with levels way beyond what is sensible. Thats still a significant advantage over older DAWs that dont even get to 32bit fp - I think Cubase sx3 was 32 bit fp. Alledgedly 32bit fp has a tendency to have a noticeably changing noise floor as the floating point gets moved around, but I've never heard that.

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1321361954' post='1438176'] ^ Cheers 51m0n, that's useful to know. I use mainly Reason as my DAW (and increasingly Reaper too for collaborative projects), which as you know is a self-contained package that doesn't allow use of 3rd party VSTs - a limitation, for sure, but also I think a benefit in some ways... but that's another discussion Hence, from what you're saying, it seems fairly safe for me to push the levels a wee bit, providing the master isn't peaking, given that Reason is a closed environment. As a side-note, I've read on other forums that people suggest it doesn't matter if individual channels of a mix are peaking, providing the master isn't - but that doesn't make sense to me and I always make sure each channel/instrument is at a safe level (usually -4db or less for me) throughout the mix. [/quote] That entirely depends upon the internal audio system within Reason - I dont know enough about that particular piece of software to be able to offer specific advice I'm afraid....

I admit to loving the best of the BoneyM stuff, the basslines were superb, but then again so was all the rest of it. Its definitely a guilty pleasure though!

Haha, good question! If you are using a DAW that is known to have something outrageous like a 64bit internal audio system (Reaper for instance) and stick to its built in fx then whatever you do is irrelevant assuming the master is set low enough that the final output never peaks (and gives room for your cack handed mastering). But who wants to do that? So many lovely vsts exist that have a good sound to them, you would be mad to not use them. In which case there is a strong argument to really take care that your levels stay well in the safe area at all times, since those vsts are unlikely to have such a ridiculously wonderfully over engineered internal audio system, and you could therefore end up with some nasty stuff happening. For my own part I really try and keep the levels at very sensible place all the way through the DAW. Peaks at -12dB are perfectly sane for me. Whether or not the above is 100% accurate (and I think it probably has at least some basis in truth) I dont see any reason to risk it. I use a lot of groups and groups within groups when mixing, it helps me organise things and achieve the results I want to achieve, and I use a lot of fx, and only a few of them are internal to the DAW. Be that as it may, I dont want to get to the master buss and have to pull that fader way down to get a sensible output level, that seems daft. Turn the monitor amp up higher and mix at the same volume.....

Massive fan on Flea's early stuff up to BSSM. Saw them at Hyde Park, Plux was with us (he was only ickle) and our youngest was in mums tum, brilliant gig, seeing JB before he left us was a huge highlight for me. Cant really imagine RHCP live without John though, he was just the most incredible guitarist when he was on form, and the last album left me so cold I actually never bought it, which is unheard of in our house.....

[url="http://www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-mtk.htm"]The '[/url][url="http://www.cambridge-mt.com/MixingSecrets.htm"]Mixing Secrets[/url][url="http://www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-mtk.htm"]' Free Multitrack Download Library[/url] is a library of multitrack stems in a wide variety of styles that you can freely download and practice on. Enjoy!

As long as you keep your gain structure good - ie like Rimskidog suggests, although I am guilty of peaks that hit -12dB on the drums quite alot (irons hands) - then you are good. If you haven't got excellent kit, and plenty of experience then you dont want to be driving anything analogue too hard, better safe than sorry. Caveate is you need to be recording at 24bits, not 16. Yes it does make a difference! Workflow is completely dependant on what you have available to you though. If you have access to a good (no make that great ) sounding live room (big barns can be superb IME - hay bale walls make great iso booths too! ) then you can do wonders with getting everything together for a blast through. You of course need enough inputs to track everything, the minimum is one. Really you can record a band with one mic in a phenominal sounding space, and it will sound fab, then overdub the vox and anything else (even the drums again). You'd better have great sounding instruments perfectly set up and maintained and played superbly though. Other end of the stick is loads of overdubs, multiple mics on the kit, full on mix down yada yada. Depends what you are after, what you need it for, and what kit you have available etc. I've had perfectly reasonable resutls tracking drums with a Zoom H4n, just needed to be really careful to get the kit sounding fantastic in the room (its worth wandering around the room listening to the reverb to try and find a sweet spot for the kit - move it a few times if you arent sure, all assuming you ahve the time to do so) and then was very very careful with the placement of the kick and snare mic. Trade off was that the floor tom was always going to be a bit weak, but then the drummer never played it . Did it sound better than a really good studio, well no, unless the guy in the studio didnt know his beans. Did it sound as good? Well close enough to fool almost anyone to be honest, especially after it had been mixed down. When tracking really really think about and listen to mic position. If you dont have many mics, then its crucial to get the very best sound at the source that you can. Very few people doing home recording realise what a huge difference in timbre moving a mic just a few inches in relation to the source can have. If you are micing at distance from the source move around listening to it through your favoured ear (we all have one, I listen better with my left ear) and when you find the spot put the mic there, then make sure the angle is best, turning a mic through 45 degrees completely changes its frequency response, and when close micing can be the difference between overloading the diaphragm and not. Lots to try and experiment with, so make the time to do so. The better your tracked sounds work the easier it is to mix! Try and think of your recording process as the following set of tasks:- [b]Pre production[/b] - getting the parts for the recording worked out, thats writing every part, arranging them, rehearsing them, and practicing recording them. Yup, practice recording the tracks, rough as you like, in reheasal, but aiming for performance always. The on ething you dont want to be worrying about when recording is how the bridge goes, what tempo, "[b]OH MY GOD THE RED LIGHT IS ON, WHICH END DO I BLOW THROUGH!?!?!?!"[/b], or writing the thrird BV harmony for the outro. Get it all worked out so all you are doing is making a recording of it. Can not emphasise how much better it will go for you if you really get this stage right, particularly if you want a live and spontaneous feel to the traqck. As soon as someone is fixing bits that are wrong they are not making music in a spontaneous fashion, and as has been noted above, when you record something if it isnt absolutely bang on you have to live with it forever, and everyone else will hear it. So get everyone used to tracking. Its a real discipline, and is the absolute essence of recording. [b]Tracking[/b] - the act of recording parts. Break this down into:- [b]Getting the sound[/b] - kit set up, mic positions, amp settings, test runs, gain structure - all of it should be kept seperate from.... [b]Getting the performance[/b] - the musical bit, ideally 3 takes for a part if you want a 'live' sound, anymore and people reign in the performance to minimise the chance of an error (hey we're bored we want to 'take a break| take a dump| go for a beer| eat lunch| have sex| be anywhere but here') in order to get out of there. If you are after absolutel perfection then comping parts, multiple takes, multiple overdubs, using any and every trick at your disposal is perfectly fine, and if you are truly skillful no one but you will know how much you cheated - caveate, you need to ensure that the spill is always there or you will find overdubs change the feel of the track substantially and this can become obvious, and then we know you cheated. So overdub individually, and watch that you minimise spill in your initial altogether tracking. Obviously you cant fix anything in the orginal all playing together part so you have to get it right, live with it, or overdub everything. Remember the vocal is the 'money shot', it must be perfect - ie it must be the perfect take, when comped, not it must be perfectly in tune - if you are a punk band then that is an oxymoron anyway, but it must evoke the perfect emotional response. You can do massive amounts to a vocal in the mix, you can not make it raise the hairs on the back of someones neck - that has to be in there from the moment its tracked IME. Allow as long for bvs as you did for the lead vocal. They are as important, especially in modern poppier stuff. A really top engineer will often ride the gain into any outboard compressors throughout a take, will set up different settings based upon the song section. For now just track it as clean as you can! There are two schools of thought wrt processing whilst getting a take. On the one hand you can take big mix decisions at the time of making a take, this forces you in a direcion sonically takes away guess work at mix down and can really speed the process of getting a recording finished along. On the other hand a poorly set up gate, eq, compressor or some other effect can paint you into a corner or worse ruin your otherwise perfect take, If you arent sure what you are doing, then get takes as great sounding as possible using nothing but mic position and gain structure, that way you lose nothing, and do all the processing at mix down. [b]Getting the mix[/b] - this is probably the hardest bit to get right. You have to learn what sounds are texture, what are up front, how to blend it all into one cohesive whole, in a virtual space. The more tracks the harder it is, dont be afraid to make things almost inaudible, learn how to eq, and use a compressor, learn about reverb vs delay for ambience. Learn a bit about what effects do what, and how to set them up. Above all experiment - there are no hard and fast rules, just what sounds good, for the song in question, and what doesn't. It gets subjective very quickly, and your taste is called into question very soon after you start. The issue is that there are so many variables to play with, so many ways to skin this particular cat, and you need to find one that brings the best out of the song. Every single song is different, every single one needs different levels different balancing acts, a different approach almost. I recommend you read [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/ZEN-Art-Mixing-Mixerman/dp/1423491505/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321007273&sr=1-1"]Zen and the Art of Mixing[/url] for an insight in how to mix stuff down, its not technical, its about how to approach mixing for the song. There are other technical tomes out there, but very few better descriptions of how to approach making a mix work IMO. Get reference material to a/b against and compare all the way through the mix. This is not cheating, its keeping your perspective accurate, mix to a goal, always, or you will almost never ever nail the mix. After you have been mixing for ten years, you need refer to a previous mix less, but dont think thepros arent referring to other mixes all the time, they are! IME mixing with the band present is a recipe for disaster. Everyone thinks that having their instrument heard is the most important thing. It isnt, the song is the most important thing, and all of them are just a little part of that. You are best off getting the reference material right and bouncing mixes off one representative (singers are good at this, their perspective is closest to the publics usually) and after they are happy deal with the hurt that is the guitarist and bassist (drummers are usually happy, they are more often than not loud enough, keyboard players are happy if you can tell they are on the record at all). At some point (pick your battles carefully) you have to tell someone they are wrong. They wont like you for it, they will argue. Be prepared to show them what happens if they get their way. Thats when you find out who the team players really are! [b]Mastering[/b] - the art of compiling an album/ep from the mixed tracks. This is tricky stuff, if you arent sure then there are very reasonably priced mastering studios out there with good/great gear and engineers. By all means have a go itb with plugins, I do it all the time and get pretty darned reasonable results IMO, but you will nearly always be beaten by the guy with the 25 years of experience and £25000 monitors and all the rest of the kit in a specially constructed mastering room. There would be something very wrong if that weeren't the case! Above all enjoy it, make something you can be proud of and do it again next week Oh and sorry for the essay, I was trying to be succinct, but I think I failed ......

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1320839790' post='1432037'] Cheers..but at work so will have to pick my moments. [/quote] LOL!

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1320838886' post='1432016'] I missed it so will hope to catch a repeat on Sky Arts...but I did just catch the play-out of Bridge over troubled water at the end. Piano by that much missed genius, Richard Tee. [/quote] Its up on iPlayer right now:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0171r6x/Imagine_Winter_2011_Simon_and_Garfunkel_The_Harmony_Game/

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1320837840' post='1431995'] That's pretty much what I was thinking as a layman - nice to hear that someone with your reputation agrees Simon! [/quote] Well I love getting the inside gen on how records were made, there are some great insights into the Abba stuff out there (have a search on youtube for Michael Tretow) and Bruce Swedien has been amazingly forthcoming about his work recording Michael Jackson on Gearslutz. Too often though docs about recordings just miss the actual process of the tracking, someone sits behind a desk and raises faders and says, "And here's the bit where JomBob played his guitar" but you never learn about the thought process behind that part, and the way/place/thinking behind the actual tracking of that part, I'm not really too bothered about the mic/pre blah blah blah, but the acoustic space choices, the reasoning behind them, that fascinated me. It is the core of each individual track, which must be blended to make the final recording. You cant polish a turd (although you can chuck so much glitter on it that some people wont even noticce the smell), and that basically means the tracking on great records is so good that listeing to the people who made those records and their thinking can be incredibly illuminating, and just give you more ideas for your own work. On top of that its a fascinating insight into who they thought they were at the time (from the flashbacks) and who they think they were now (or whenever it was made), which is really interesting....

Absolutely golden. Loved it, love all the references to use of room acoustics and unconventional places to find interesting acoustic phenomena to use as the sound of the album. Especially the use of them actually singin in the echo chamber rather than piping a send from a aspeaker to it - the resultant bvs are completely ethereal. Fascinating insight into the use of double tracking and the essence of the sound requiring them to perform together into a single mic to get the blend then double tracking them each once alone (note the 'perfectly in synch' comment - pretty spot on for sure!). Fovourite quote from it:- [i]"There's more than just the song going on"[/i] Absolutely! Amazing and informative, one of the best doc on a recordiong I've seen I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj4_K1Bp-kg Just how funky is that - immense!

Beginning of Bachs Cello Suite No 1 usually does the trick.... Or something Clutterbuck-esque, because I'm worth it....