How do you react when the engineer doesn't do your set-up as you want?

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='pantherairsoft' post='1046856' date='Dec 3 2010, 09:39 PM']Your choice.. Unless your asking an engineer to help create 'a sound', then trust him.

Out of interest, knowing your local to me, which studio is it (PM me if you prefer)... As I'm recording in Feb and want to make sure I perfect my argument if we're recording at the same place [/quote]

It's not a local studio, it's a bigwig one down in London. Had breakfast with Westlife (well, one of them was behind me in the queue for a bacon baguette) on the 2nd day there.

[51m0n]

[quote name='BassBod' post='1045599' date='Dec 2 2010, 08:26 PM']Just to be clear - I'd never say DI only is the way to go. Micing cabs takes time, can be hit or miss and sometimes causes problems for other instruments. DI only is really as much for control and speed as sound quality or tone. It gets the job done.

One day I'll have five whole tracks to myself...he he he[/quote]

In what way would mic'ing a bass cab cause a problem for other instruments in a decently setup studio in town?

Spill wont be an issue, the amp will be sufficiently isolated, so are you suggesting that the sound of a mic'ed cab is going to be harder to mix?

Oh, and mic'ing a cab is time consuming, it takes about 5 to 10 minutes to nail a massive sound IME, and get it in phase with the DI (important if you are going to tape, less important if you are working in a DAW, as you can time align the tracks at mixdown)...

However two days to get a track recorded and mixed is really getting a move on, especially with backing vocal, I can see why he wanted to minimise the fuss!

I'd want the tracking done in entirety before lunch on day 1, so the lead vox can be done int he afternoon, bv's and overdubs morning day two, mix down afternoon day 2.

If your drummer used his own kit (rather than just his snare and cymbals) then you probably didnt have time to do anything but the path of least resistance on bass IMO. Getting great drum sounds takes serious effort.

[Fullmetal]

[quote name='silddx' post='1051040' date='Dec 7 2010, 09:09 PM'][b]I can't understand why it should sound thin with a BDDI, or why the "producer's" kit didn't like your Ampeg, summat wrong there, mate. [/b]

It really pays to do your homework before recording or live work. I set up my bass sounds to music of a similar nature to the bands I'm in, or to previous band recordings, sometimes with the bass removed. I set up my sounds so they complement the music and still punch through at the right levels. I go for a produced sound anyway and my POD lets me do that. It's surprising how sh*t those sounds can be in isolation but they work really well when the whole band is mixed in. I realise that not everyone has the kit to be able to do that but if you have, there's no excuse to not go through this process. Quite often, people set up their bass sounds in isolation and wonder why they can't hear themselves in a band situation.[/quote]

Both the producer and I were confused about the Ampeg. I assume the problem may have been a faulty XLR as I havn't had a problem DIing the amp since. As for the thin sound, that was more my fault than anything as I hadn't used a BDDI before so I couldn't really find the "sweet spot" settings in such a short time. I just dialled in a tone which sounded good at the time.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Fullmetal' post='1052498' date='Dec 9 2010, 10:21 AM']Both the producer and I were confused about the Ampeg. I assume the problem may have been a faulty XLR as I havn't had a problem DIing the amp since. As for the thin sound, that was more my fault than anything as I hadn't used a BDDI before so I couldn't really find the "sweet spot" settings in such a short time. I just dialled in a tone which sounded good at the time.[/quote]
Oh dear, I imagine this is a very inexperienced producer then. He should have had an engineer taking care of business.

[Noisyjon]

[quote name='silddx' post='1052505' date='Dec 9 2010, 10:24 AM']Oh dear, I imagine this is a very inexperienced producer then. He should have had an engineer taking care of business.[/quote]
+1

[LiamPodmore]

[quote name='51m0n' post='1051202' date='Dec 8 2010, 12:56 AM']However two days to get a track recorded and mixed is really getting a move on, especially with backing vocal, I can see why he wanted to minimise the fuss!

I'd want the tracking done in entirety before lunch on day 1, so the lead vox can be done int he afternoon, bv's and overdubs morning day two, mix down afternoon day 2.

If your drummer used his own kit (rather than just his snare and cymbals) then you probably didnt have time to do anything but the path of least resistance on bass IMO. Getting great drum sounds takes serious effort.[/quote]

You guys take 2 days for 1 track? My band managed to do 3 tracks in one day, using our own drums, bass with DI and Mic, 2 guitar tracks per song, 3 takes per person per song, and backing vocals. Actually turned out pretty good (Its in my sig)

Liam

[51m0n]

[quote name='LiamPodmore' post='1053113' date='Dec 9 2010, 05:44 PM']You guys take 2 days for 1 track? My band managed to do 3 tracks in one day, using our own drums, bass with DI and Mic, 2 guitar tracks per song, 3 takes per person per song, and backing vocals. Actually turned out pretty good (Its in my sig)

Liam[/quote]


I'm not saying its impossible to do more, but I doubt anyone spent anyone time with your drummer trying different mic positions, different mics on different drums, trying different drum heads etc. What about the kit in different parts of the room even?

So what you are saying is you had a guy slap up his general set of mics on the kit, tweak them for a minute and move on, repeat that procedure for the entire instrumentation of the band and the vocalist, then bang out the tracks with limits on takes etc. This includes the vocal (here's the vocal mic, sing into it, wait for me to get a level..... ...ok run through it then we'll record).

And it sounded ok. Well thats fine, and I've achieved similar results when pushed for time too.

But, and this is the thing, to get the [b]best[/b] from a kit for a recording ususally benefits from a bit more time getting really superb sounds tracked from the get go. Sometimes you'll try several positions/mics or whatever and go back to the first. Yes a good engineer can make good first guesses, but most engineers, given the choice, would rather spend some time getting the best sound on to tape.

Same for the guitars, bass, vox, everything. This takes time.

Tracking vox in three takes, well unless your singer is insanely talented (as good as Michael Jackson? Aretha Franklin?) chances are that the end result will be a compromise, rather than perfect. That may in fact be exactly the kind of thing you are after, I dont know, and couldnt say.

If your mentality is "We are doing the demo today, we need to get this all done" you will get a result that is in all probability demonstrably worse than if you go in to the studio saying "We are recording today, we are going to maximise the quality of every part of the process" you will get a different result.

Your "It actually turned out pretty good" speaks volumes to me as to your expectations from the way you went into the process of recording. "Pretty good" is basically not "staggeringly great". Its possible to get great results with the right genre and band with just two mics and a single take, chances are your band isnt playing that genre though. How much time and money you can spend on it will determine how good that result is (that and the studio/engineer/producer/mastering engineer involved).

Tracking in a couple of days seems entirely reasonable to me.

You cannot polish a turd!

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='LiamPodmore' post='1053113' date='Dec 9 2010, 05:44 PM']You guys take 2 days for 1 track? My band managed to do 3 tracks in one day, using our own drums, bass with DI and Mic, 2 guitar tracks per song, 3 takes per person per song, and backing vocals. Actually turned out pretty good (Its in my sig)

Liam[/quote]

That's good if you are satisfied with the results but to me they didn't sound anywhere near what I would expect from a professional recording. If you want a really proper sounding recording you need to put the time and effort in imo.

[Chris2112]

Obviously, communicating with the engineer is a must because he is supposed to be an expert in getting your stuff sounding fantastic. If you've got a complex or distinctive set up, discussing that with him first is surely a good idea. However, if he is set on doing it his way and disregarding your request or at least failing to accomodate you in the way you expect he's not doing what he's being paid to do.

Even if you sound dreadful on record, so be it. I can understand him not wanting to put his name on a pile of sh*te, but customer satisfaction in the first instance is a must!

[51m0n]

If I thought what you forced me to track sounded like garbage, I'd be looking to get my name off the credits!

Not saying the OPs set up would do that at all of course, it wouldnt necessaily, but [i]you task the engineer with capturing the sound of the band as a whole as best he can[/i] [i][b]within the time limits of your budget[/b][/i]. If that means he is not willing to risk a set up he doesnt know inside out, then in your timescale, for your budget, you dont do it your way, you do it his. Throw more time at him, have an up front chat about the requirements in terms of bass gear etc. this may change. Even then, if he gets to hear the band before hand he may know that to get the best sound for the band the rig you bring may not be right for some or all of the songs, in the context of the entire band.

Remember he is there to make the band sound great, not any one individual sound 'like themselves'. That is NOT what he is doing. The smaller the budget, the less your options and time to experiment, the less chance of him deviating from his comfort zone.

If I was tasked with mixing something and the brief was to make it sound fantastic, then ANY part of that mix may get dropped, replaced, tweaked in any way imaginable (including a complete replacement if necessary) to make the mix sound fantastic.

You are all fooling no one but yourselves if you dont think this is how its done for real in the big wide world too. Anyone doubting me needs to read [url="http://www.mixerman.net/diaries1.php"]The Diaries Of Mixerman[/url], a pretty much "straight as it gets" account of the tracking process of a signed band.

Really is a tad eye opening.

If you are really inrterested in the mixing side of the process then buy his Zen and the Art of Mixing too, a thoroughly enlightening read that all you home recordists should have a copy of, and anyone thiking of entering the studio should read in order to get an inkling of what the engineer is up to come mix time (and what should have gone on during tracking to).

Thoroughly recommended reading, the Diaries are very very funny indeed!

[51m0n]

[quote name='LiamPodmore' post='1053113' date='Dec 9 2010, 05:44 PM']You guys take 2 days for 1 track? My band managed to do 3 tracks in one day, using our own drums, bass with DI and Mic, 2 guitar tracks per song, 3 takes per person per song, and backing vocals. Actually turned out pretty good (Its in my sig)

Liam[/quote]


I deliberately didnt listen to your recordings before my response above. Having listened to them now, I stand by everything I said. They sound just like demos to me. Which is fine if that is what you want, but not good enough for a CD (well not to me anyway).

The drums and guitars are particularly rough and ready sounding - IMO - if you guys love it thats fine, but I promise you could do a lot better....

[Mog]

As above, its fine as a reference for what you would want to do in an album situation but as a release for promo it needs a lot more work. I wouldnt release something with less than 6 guitar tracks, excluding solos, per song. Your recorded material is the reference most used by the public and industry, therefore it pays to get the best product possible.Your band has catchy tunes, dont let something you have control over lessen the quality.

The band I'm in at the mo were happy to just record anywhere over 2-3 days and put out rough sounding ep's and demos with some poor quality content on some. As a result they were slated, and that stigma still surrounds the band to a large degree. When I joined I put across the same ideas as above and tried to improve the song structures, and as a result the number of positive remarks and reviews has been staggering.

[url="http://www.myspace.com/casterojaps/blog/532154429"]Bands Debut Album review. (All songs were wrote after I joined)[/url]

Compared to

[url="http://www.metalireland.com/2009/01/05/castero-roi-infiltration-remediation/"]Ep Review (before I joined and as a 4 piece)[/url]

[Pliskin]

Hi folks, I'm new to the board although I have been lurking for a while!

I'm a sound engineer by trade and thought I'd say a bit about this subject. As someone has already mentioned, time/budget is a massive issue when recording and often corners have to be cut to get the job done. I'm not entirely sure why most engineers tend to cut those corners with bass over other instruments but I have a feeling that a lot of it has to do with the fact that a mic'd bass amp isn't always the easiest thing to mix well, and is often the instrument that sounds the least like it does 'in the room' once recorded.

I don't think it's right to ignore the requests of paying clients but I would certainly suggest alternatives if the budget was tight, ranging from recording DIs to sample replacing drums. At the end of the day, it all comes down to: how many songs you want to record, with what budget and at what kind of quality. Bands booking a weekend to record and mix four songs should be prepared for the fact that corners will HAVE to be cut or nothing would get finished.

Bearing this in mind, and on the basis that time isn't as large a factor an engineer should always be listening to the wishes of his/her clients. If time IS an issue, there are a couple of things you can do to make the process less dissapointing. Whatever your thoughts are about Line 6 gear or amp modelling in general, if the option is to either record a DI/sansamp or a decent amp model, the amp model is almost deffinately going to turn out better. This is especially the case if you happen to have one of the amps it models or something close. I'm not saying POD/Vamp/whatever has killer tone so much that you can at least get in the ballpark of your sound and an amp model, even if it's lacking some mojo and feel and isn't EXACTLY like the real thing is still far better than hearing that horrid lifeless straight DI. It also happens to be just as quick to record so grumpy engineers should have nothing to moan about

Another option is one a friend of mine has been pursuing: Book a little time in a decent studio, just a couple of hours with a good engineer. Ask him to try a variety of mics in different possisions and record some test tracks, the goal being to find both a mic you like the sound of and the ideal placement for it. Once you've got the sound you like take lots of photographs, take measurements, write down any eq settings the engineer used. Now go and buy an Amp Clamp and that exact mic you liked the sound of and using your measurements clamp the mic to your amp in this 'perfect' position. The next time you record you can just plug a mic cable straight in and throw the other end at the engineer

Hope that's of some help!

Stu

[ironside1966]

Time constraints and budget are the obvious ones to think about but my main concerns when people are precious about their sound is how well it works as part of the mix often it doesn’t because the players listen to their sound and not the bands.
When you are working with people for a short space of time you can’t hurt their feelings or have a heated debate by saying the sound doesn’t work. Do your home work and go to a studio whose work you like then trust then trust them. What’s worse a bass sound that’s not what you have in rehearsals or a bad recording?

[Lozz196]

I find it a bit annoying, however, simply facing facts, with the time available, I`d prefer the vocals, guitars and drums to be made to sound as good as they can, before the bass.

What I do/did find annoying was that earlier on this year, my band did a simulated "live" recording, where we just played, then mixed it, so when we send cds to venues, we could tell them "that is what we sound like live". None of this 52 over-dubbed guitar tracks that bear no resemblence to the live band, leaving the gig-organisers thinking "when are the band on the cd gonna turn up?".

Anyway, although it was "live" our guitarist, who does the recording, refused to use my bass set-up, wanting to put me through this awful box (don`t know what) where I sounded like Lemmy using added distortion, in order to add amp-simulation later on. Oh, and I wasn`t consulted on the choice of the amp-simulation either, when the mixing was done.

Now as I`ve said above, my aim is to get the whole band sounding good, and am not that precious about "my" sound, but I did think this rather rude. Whilst I can see the benefits of amp simulation, surely if its a simulated "live" recording the bass-amp simulation should sound like my set-up, which is a Fender Precision through, then, a Marshall, and not a Fender Jazz through a Trace Elliot (cos this is how said guitarsist likes the bass to sound).

Fair play to utilising technology, but at least it should start off resembling the bassists original sound, and only change if that original sound is unusable in a recording. At that point, as well as changing the sounds there, the bassist could also take the opportunity to see how the new recorded sound was set-up, and maybe adopt it in future for live. After all, sometimes, studios do throw things like this up.

[ironside1966]

Let me explain further, some players a special with a unique sound that is an important part or the band sound and an engineer can recognise these people so it is worth the time and effort to capture their sound. Some players are just focused on the sound of individual instruments and there sound.

[Lozz196]

I understand that - JJ Burnell from The Stranglers for example, his sound is integral to the sound of the band, so the right amount of time needs to be taken to ensure it is accurately recorded.

My point really was, why, when you have a certain "type" of sound, would someone not try and even come close, but make your recording sound completely different to the sound you regularly use (assuming it isn`t a dreadful sound that is).

Example, if someone uses a Status/Trace Elliot type sound, why deliberately ensure that the recorded sound of the bass sounds nothing like that? Surely, whilst in the time available it may not be possible to replicate it exactly with amp modelling, why should that bassist have to put up with sounding like a Precision through an Ampeg?

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='LiamPodmore' post='1053113' date='Dec 9 2010, 05:44 PM']You guys take 2 days for 1 track? My band managed to do 3 tracks in one day, using our own drums, bass with DI and Mic, 2 guitar tracks per song, 3 takes per person per song, and backing vocals. Actually turned out pretty good (Its in my sig)

Liam[/quote]

With all due respect, I echo what others have said. We have our own studio (not someone's computer in their bedroom with a POD, we actually have our own proper studio, the gear's not as good as the one we've used for our last couple of singles and we find it helpful to have the outside producer's ear too) and we can knock out several tracks in a couple of hours, it's rare that it takes any of us more than 2 takes to nail our parts.

Here's a link to the last single we did with them (same thing happened then, I was tracked through the BDDI as well as my amp, it still sounds brilliant, but it's not quite *my* sound): [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7maqY4G3P1E"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7maqY4G3P1E[/url] , hopefully you can hear the difference in quality between the recordings (ignore our video, that was very rushed).

[ironside1966]

[quote name='Lozz196' post='1056312' date='Dec 12 2010, 06:49 PM']I understand that - JJ Burnell from The Stranglers for example, his sound is integral to the sound of the band, so the right amount of time needs to be taken to ensure it is accurately recorded.

My point really was, why, when you have a certain "type" of sound, would someone not try and even come close, but make your recording sound completely different to the sound you regularly use (assuming it isn`t a dreadful sound that is).

Example, if someone uses a Status/Trace Elliot type sound, why deliberately ensure that the recorded sound of the bass sounds nothing like that? Surely, whilst in the time available it may not be possible to replicate it exactly with amp modelling, why should that bassist have to put up with sounding like a Precision through an Ampeg?[/quote]

I can understand using an amp simulator as the bass in a live recording can bleed on to all the other tracks but why he doesn’t use a sound similar to the one you use i dont know, I can only assume he thinks his sound is better. If the recording sounds good then maybe you could learn from it, why not ask him to do a version with a sound similar to yours then compare.

[Lozz196]

Yeah, its personal preference that`s the issue here. That dreaded word that bassplayers fear, definition, cropped up a lot. In other words, no bass, no low mids, and bucketloads of treble.

The actual recording of the whole don`t sound bad to be honest, tho the bass sounds much more like a Jazz than a Precision to me. It`s just the disregard for what I bring to the band that has annoyed me, tho as the end product sounds good, I`ve not made it an issue in the band, and won`t.

I was just interested, seeing this thread, if other people have had this, where not only was their gear not used, but the finished sound ended up not being like them either.

Maybe a session guy was hiding behind the curtains, and I was only hired for my looks

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' post='1056335' date='Dec 12 2010, 07:09 PM']not someone's computer in their bedroom with a POD, we actually have our own proper studio[/quote]

I'll have you know it's an M-Audio delta 1010 and Guitar Rig 4 actually

[ironside1966]

[quote name='Lozz196' post='1056469' date='Dec 12 2010, 08:28 PM']Yeah, its personal preference that`s the issue here. That dreaded word that bassplayers fear, definition, cropped up a lot. In other words, no bass, no low mids, and bucketloads of treble.

The actual recording of the whole don`t sound bad to be honest, tho the bass sounds much more like a Jazz than a Precision to me. It`s just the disregard for what I bring to the band that has annoyed me, tho as the end product sounds good, I`ve not made it an issue in the band, and won`t.

I was just interested, seeing this thread, if other people have had this, where not only was their gear not used, but the finished sound ended up not being like them either.

Maybe a session guy was hiding behind the curtains, and I was only hired for my looks [/quote]

Sometimes the problem is when you get a player who stands a couple of feet away from a large stack at rehearsals and gigs so they get a great powerful sound but it takes up all the sonic space and doesn’t work within a mix. This is what might have happened to you once the guitarist has got the obligatory large drum sound and of course a big guitar sound there is just no room left for the bass. This is why musicians and engineers clash sometimes you have to thin out sounds to make the whole sound large

[Lozz196]

Yep, at the end of the day its the product that counts. Thing is though, it was meant to be a live recording, just mixed well, and not a studio recording. Our aim was to give out a cd knowing thats what we sounded like live - and now, well although the tracks are real good, they don`t achieve our initial aim. I don`t think anyone would listen to it and think that it was a live recording

[51m0n]

If you want a promoter to know what you sound like live record your set through a great PA in a nice sounding hall (ie xactly like a good live set up) with a Zoom H4n then master it up a bit ( little bit of bass lift, touch of mid mud removal, nice touch of compression, bob's your auntie).

Dont bother multi tracking a thing.

Should sound absolutely spot on....

[Michaelg]

we accept it and play regardless.