Recording Process - How Do You Do It?

[Skol303]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1321293838' post='1437449']
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).
[/quote]

^ 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.

[51m0n]

[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....

[Skol303]

^ No worries mate, you've been helpful already!

[BassHertz]

Shameless plug...but take a look here www.recordingbass.co.uk

The site isnt finished yet

[Bilbo]

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.

[Twigman]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1321293838' post='1437449']

If you are using a DAW that is known to have something outrageous like a 64bit internal audio system (Reaper for instance)
[/quote]
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.

[daz]

I have just found out i can plug in to my Zoom B2.1u to the computer via its USB cord and record to hard disc or cd with [url="http://audacity.sourceforge.net/"]Audacity[/url]. Dont even need a dedicated sound card! ! wahooo! Top of the pops here I come.

Hey no hold on...... TOTP isnt on anymore. Oh and you apparently need a modicum of talent too, so thats me out. (dosent seem to stop some buggers though)

Edited November 16, 2011 by daz

[51m0n]

[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.

Edited November 16, 2011 by 51m0n

[Bilbo]

Thanks, Simon. That helps.

[krysh]

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1320880107' post='1432828']
That is remarkably polished for a home recording, personally I think your bass sounds fine.
Good job!
[/quote]

+1

usually I start with some grooves and develop a chord progression and/or melody...

[krysh]

[quote name='gilmour' timestamp='1321030719' post='1434656']...Still want to retract the bass - its just not bassy enough��
[/quote]

maybe because the kick is a little too boomy?

[Prime_BASS]

Ive done it two ways and both have worked for listenable quality. After a mix down anyway.
The drums is always the hardest part, IMO.
For my main band we did a rather large and more proffessional set up. Guitarist and bassist in the same room with a miced up drum kit. the bass amp and guitar amp are in seperate rooms miced up, and the vocalist is in another seperate room. All the tracks are recorded in 1 live take, with overdubbing guitar solos, and doubled up vocals. My preferred way if you have the resources, especially for me as a I prefer the finished product to sound not very "produced"
the vocalist has headphones of everything, while bassist , guitarist and drummer have everything but drums, playing to the feel of drums is better than the sound of drums(feeling the kick drum as an example)

In my other band the drummer and rythem guitarist really know thier timing so we do a "track by track" sort of approach.
The drummer will be micced up alone with just the guitar DI'd into his headphones. Then we all over dub the drum track.
Rythem and lead will DI probably together, then the singer will do his bit, I'll get sent the tracks to record the bass how I want. I usually do this with just a single SM57 that I have about 2" from the grill just off center of the cone. I may also DI to add some better low end.

the first way I very much prefer and it sounds like a unit is playing and worth the extra time and monies of gear for a better quality track IMO. The second way is a lot easyier and rougher fine for demos to send to venues, as they all assume we have home recording studios these days. The second option does sound like the tracks have been cut and pasted together though. I would mix them with everyone present aswell as in the past the vocalist has mixed the tracks and done a crap job, adding way too much reverb and not cutting nearly enough bass on the guitars for the bass to sit in the mix with purpose.