jamesf

Happy birthday by the way Cris, consider the above pearls of wisdom a present from me! James.

[quote name='Gazm' post='313279' date='Oct 23 2008, 08:19 PM']Thanks again for your help James.[/quote] No problems whatsoever, glad to help! I just posted the following into another recording thread, and thought a couple of points might be of interest to you. You seem to have the basics nailed, but there might be something you can use in the following garbled rant: Here goes my £0.02... Getting a really big sound from a band is quite subjective - I define a 'big sound' as HSAS-style reverb-filled mixes which sound as if they're played in a huge acoustic space. The wall-of-sound you describe, using an extreme example, I liken to the Rammstein ethos of production. To get this effect, it's really quite simple. To start with, double track (record twice) each guitar part. Pan one hard right, and the other hard left - your guitard will have to be super in-time for this not to sound messy though. This will instantly give you a 'bigger' sound. Rammstein used 96 guitar tracks, double tracked with variant panning on Sonne - listen to it if you have it available, and notice the wall-of-sound effect. This can be scaled down, and using two tracks is often enough to create a usable 'big' sound. I've used the technique extensively in my production of metal bands, and also in the production of bluesy stuff with great results which offer great stereophony and a feeling of being 'in' the mix. Be aware that these techniques don't often translate to headphones without a gimmicky-stereo effect, so be prepared to do some extra mixing. Secondly, the term 'volume' is never used in recording or mixing (I know, I'm a big pedant), the term 'level' should be used instead. This is a veritable maze of subjectivity, and whatever sounds good on your monitors, on your ipod and in your car should sound good pretty much anywhere. Without the actual mix in front of them, nobody can comment on this; if they say they can, they're lying to you! To stop multiple bass layers sounding muddy, and I know this may sound counter-intuitive, turn down the bass! Pick you fave which gives the solid foundation for the track; the others will likely just be icing on the proverbial cake. As has been said before in this thread, separation through EQ should be used to create a 'pocket' for each instrument part, although I disagree with the heavy use of EQ suggested - heavy EQ is to be avoided at all costs in the mix unless you're running something from Massenburg or Manley. As for must-use-effects, just because you have a piece of gear doesn't mean you have to use it. Just like when your guitarist buys a flanger pedal and it's 1975 for the next three weeks of band practice, overuse of effects will become wearing ver very quickly. Listen to the music of who you like the sound of, and analyse their effects - do they actually use any? Are they noticeable, or very very subtle? I'd wager the latter. If you must use effects, make them subtle. If you can hear a compressor working, it's working wrong. If any other effects are used, make sure they are for the sake of the music, and not for the sake of using them. Less is more, trust me! Making LEVEL!!!!!! dry.gif high whilst making the vox soar - use a well-matched-to-the-singer mic an an excellent preamp, through an even better compressor. To get 'that' vocal sound that you hear all over the radio etc, you'll have to spend at least £20,000 so stay realistic. If you're recording metal, 90% of the time the humble SM57 will sound better than any condenser you have in your mic locker, so be prepared to experiment with mics, pres and creative eq and effects to get the vox to sit in the mix. Overall, if your vocal sticks out, it's wrong. You should aim for the vox to 'sit' in the mix, perfectly complemented by the other parts. It should be given it's own pocket as previously discussed, and this alone will make or break the vocal track in a mix, especially a home mix. In mimicking any commercial mix, listen to it first. I know it sounds simple, but seriously, listen to it, make notes on EVERYTHING, write it all down and absorb it. Listen to it on your monitors. Buy better monitors, learn them (listen for about 200 hours to you reference material) and listen at the correct listening levels; this will make a HUGE difference to your mixing potential. In making notes on your desired mixing goals, and monitoring correctly, you'll be able to do it. Someone made those mixes and so can you - it's all down to experience and practice, so get mixing, have a rest, remix it and remix it until it's perfect. BTW, where did you do a GCSE in music tech, and which exam board accredited it? I taught the Edexcel GCE A Level in Music Technology last year so I'm intrigued as I didn't know such a course existed. Hope this helps, and if the mods want to add this to any kind of recording sticky, feel free - glad to be of service. If any of this is confusing or semantically retarded, I've consumed a large quantity of vintage australian tonight, so do please excuse me! James.

[quote name='Matty' post='311557' date='Oct 21 2008, 08:25 PM']We are using this place in about 2 weeks. As soon as the track is ready, i'll stick it up to hear.[/quote] I'd love to hear the output from this, it looks like a quality setup they've got there!

[quote name='CHRISDABASS' post='312895' date='Oct 23 2008, 12:25 PM']hey! Garage band is fine for that! it should be dead easy too! [/quote] There's nothing easier than garageband, provided you have an audio interface which you can record your bass into.

[quote name='cris the man' post='312864' date='Oct 23 2008, 11:52 AM']despite taking a so called 'GCSE' in music tech i have recorded one track taking matters into my own hands , ive decided to try and record at home can anyone offer me some advice for getting a really big sound from a band ie- the amount of volume used on certain instruments? how to stop multiple bass layers from sounding muddy any must use effects? how to keep the volume high but make VOX soar over the top? (all of my recordings seem to have the band very quiet) im trying to 'mimic' a sound like the foo fighters, where everything is balanced, giving a 'wall of sound' many thanks cris the man[/quote] Here goes my £0.02... Getting a really big sound from a band is quite subjective - I define a 'big sound' as HSAS-style reverb-filled mixes which sound as if they're played in a huge acoustic space. The wall-of-sound you describe, using an extreme example, I liken to the Rammstein ethos of production. To get this effect, it's really quite simple. To start with, double track (record twice) each guitar part. Pan one hard right, and the other hard left - your guitard will have to be super in-time for this not to sound messy though. This will instantly give you a 'bigger' sound. Rammstein used 96 guitar tracks, double tracked with variant panning on Sonne - listen to it if you have it available, and notice the wall-of-sound effect. This can be scaled down, and using two tracks is often enough to create a usable 'big' sound. I've used the technique extensively in my production of metal bands, and also in the production of bluesy stuff with great results which offer great stereophony and a feeling of being 'in' the mix. Be aware that these techniques don't often translate to headphones without a gimmicky-stereo effect, so be prepared to do some extra mixing. Secondly, the term 'volume' is never used in recording or mixing (I know, I'm a big pedant), the term 'level' should be used instead. This is a veritable maze of subjectivity, and whatever sounds good on your monitors, on your ipod and in your car should sound good pretty much anywhere. Without the actual mix in front of them, nobody can comment on this; if they say they can, they're lying to you! To stop multiple bass layers sounding muddy, and I know this may sound counter-intuitive, turn down the bass! Pick you fave which gives the solid foundation for the track; the others will likely just be icing on the proverbial cake. As has been said before in this thread, separation through EQ should be used to create a 'pocket' for each instrument part, although I disagree with the heavy use of EQ suggested - heavy EQ is to be avoided at all costs in the mix unless you're running something from Massenburg or Manley. As for must-use-effects, just because you have a piece of gear doesn't mean you have to use it. Just like when your guitarist buys a flanger pedal and it's 1975 for the next three weeks of band practice, overuse of effects will become wearing ver very quickly. Listen to the music of who you like the sound of, and analyse their effects - do they actually use any? Are they noticeable, or very very subtle? I'd wager the latter. If you must use effects, make them subtle. If you can hear a compressor working, it's working wrong. If any other effects are used, make sure they are for the sake of the music, and not for the sake of using them. Less is more, trust me! Making LEVEL!!!!!! high whilst making the vox soar - use a well-matched-to-the-singer mic an an excellent preamp, through an even better compressor. To get 'that' vocal sound that you hear all over the radio etc, you'll have to spend at least £20,000 so stay realistic. If you're recording metal, 90% of the time the humble SM57 will sound better than any condenser you have in your mic locker, so be prepared to experiment with mics, pres and creative eq and effects to get the vox to sit in the mix. Overall, if your vocal sticks out, it's wrong. You should aim for the vox to 'sit' in the mix, perfectly complemented by the other parts. It should be given it's own pocket as previously discussed, and this alone will make or break the vocal track in a mix, especially a home mix. In mimicking any commercial mix, listen to it first. I know it sounds simple, but seriously, listen to it, make notes on EVERYTHING, write it all down and absorb it. Listen to it on your monitors. Buy better monitors, learn them (listen for about 200 hours to you reference material) and listen at the correct listening levels; this will make a HUGE difference to your mixing potential. In making notes on your desired mixing goals, and monitoring correctly, you'll be able to do it. Someone made those mixes and so can you - it's all down to experience and practice, so get mixing, have a rest, remix it and remix it until it's perfect. BTW, where did you do a GCSE in music tech, and which exam board accredited it? I taught the Edexcel GCE A Level in Music Technology last year so I'm intrigued as I didn't know such a course existed. Hope this helps, and if the mods want to add this to any kind of recording sticky, feel free - glad to be of service. If any of this is confusing or semantically retarded, I've consumed a large quantity of vintage australian tonight, so do please excuse me! James.

[quote name='Gazm' post='311523' date='Oct 21 2008, 07:30 PM']You mention having one of them in a far detached acoustic space. any advice on how to achieve this?[/quote] I have one word for you: REVERRRRRBBBBBBBBBB!!!!!! and so on. Reverb is used in a mix to achieve contiguity of acoustic space (making all the instrument parts sound like they're all playing in the same room - or acoustic space - as each other). It can also be used to effect changes to acoustic space and special effects which I feel would benefit the 'ghosting' part, although only experimentation will tell if I'm right or not!! I always suggest using as little reverb as possible to achieve the desired musical enhancement - too much reverb can make a mix stereophonically ill-defined. I'd suggest using a reverb patch with a large room setting, highish damping, and lowish RT60 (or reverb time, decay time, etc etc dependent on unit) as a good starting point, mixed at 20% into 80% dry signal. This will hopefully create a more 'ghostly' but not gimmicky sound to the mix, and may really tie the two vocal parts together if you nail the reverb parameters. Of course, this is all speculation without the mix in front of me, but I'd say experiment around that if you want to work on it; I don't think there's anything wrong with the way it sounds now, just that it could be enhanced and integrated a bit more contiguously. I think the issue with the toms is the sound of the drums themselves. Unfortunately you can't really fix this in the mix - but I'd suggest looking into features of your DAW such as drum replacement - this is a superb tool which can be used to replace drum parts with synthesized or sampled, for instance, toms. If you use Protools or Logic, I think there's a couple of programs which integrate, but can't remember off the top of my head. Once again, hope this has been useful, and don't hesitate to ask if there's anything else I can help with or advise on - I'm far from the world's best producer, but I like to think I know a thing or two!! J

[quote name='~tl' post='309872' date='Oct 19 2008, 03:44 PM']I would spend a little extra and get a FireWire interface over a USB 2 one. In my experience they tend to be more stable and less prone to problems, though you do end up paying slightly more for the same number of inputs and outputs.[/quote] +1, and I'll second the option for a Mackie Satellite - been using one as my main converter for ages and sounds stunning, as it should, as the converters are the same AKM chips used in the digidesign I/O boxes - not prism or apogee quality but certainly blows most things out of the water. MOTU make excellent products, but their drivers can be a bit unpredictable. The Traveler is one of the best all-in-one solutions I've used, and the preamps are very usable with good gain range, and most of the recent MOTU family share parts of this architecture. The Ultralite (IIRC?) is very good but some of the knobs are a bit fiddly unless you get some bits of small rubber hose and attach them as knob-extenders (no jokes, please!) so it'd be worth saving for one of these if you want something which offers a bit more functionality than the (very) basic but excellent features on the Mackie - i chose the Mackie simply because it had all the features I needed, and nothing more, but YMMV naturally. It worked ok with windows, but nowhere near as stably as with OSX. If you're hell bent on saving money, go for the mackie as you can get one dirt cheap off the bay, and you'll always sell it on. Personally I'd look at the Apogee Duet as it's one of the best interfaces on the market today, and comparatively not expensive once you factor in the Apogee converters and pair of pres you get - these have made themselves a name in commercial recording already, with some Phantom Planet releases being recorded using these and a macbook. They're over your budget for sure, but if you want stellar performance at a reasonable price, that's the one I recommend. Not sure about Vista compatibility with any of these, I've only ever used it once. There's an M-Audio FW410 on the sale board for £140, and that's a bit of a bargain, they're good interfaces, particularly with surround work. The preamps are focusrite, and I've got some ok recordings out of one using AKG Se300B's straight in, so that may be a good option to investigate - again, you'll always sell a FW410 on if you don't like it! Hope this helps, J

Hi Pete, Just had a listen, and thought I'd be the first to say, well done! For your first attempt I'm blown away, most people overcompensate on the low end to start off with, but your bass parts retain intelligibility and separation from the kick drum well; this also has to do with the kick drum miking - was it done with an AKG D112? It has all the hallmarks of one anyway! I like the stereophony of the vocal parts, and think it works well in the context of the song, but I can't help but feel the 'spoken part' is a little over-compressed (the breathing is a little harsh in the top end) and the two vocals could do with being at the same level, or have one of them in a far detached acoustic space if you are going for a ghosting effect. To my ears, the toms sound dead as a can of spam, but this probably has more to do with the miking and the sound of the actual kit than the mixing; they could possibly be given a little oomph with a parametric EQ if you take it really carefully and use it subtly, but be careful they don't interfere with the nice 'click' of the kick drum you have going which gives nice definition. A little low-mix reverb on the toms may open them up a bit also, because the cymbals sound so lively it makes the dryness of the toms stick out. Overall, it's a great effort and I thoroughly enjoyed listening to it, but there's a couple of, very subjective, pointers in there as well if you decide to take it back into the studio. I think you've got a nice clear mix that you should be proud of, and far better than most achieve with a first mix - I certainly remember my utterly useless first attempts!!! James.

Warning - very nerdy techie joke approaching Now that's what I call mixing in the box! Nice setup, now I'm going to spend the rest of the night looking for vans on ebay, although the Neve summing mixers are worth a fair bit more...