blue2blue

In some cases it's also because they were DI'd in and never went through a mic or amp. DI'ing a single coil pickup (especially those technological wonders Fender ships their axes with) can definitely pick up plenty of hum, depending on the p/u and other factors. 60 Hz notch filters can go part of the way -- but it's typically the harmonic overtone content most folks hear and you can't very well notch the whole harmonic series all the way up (well you can, maybe but...) Real time gating was one way folks deal with the issue in the past -- but as we all know there's no such thing as an instantaneous gate. A lot of folks don't like them because they chop off the beginning of the wave forms. In the latter years of the analog era a number of solutions were toyed with -- from riding faders around solos to so-called lookahead gating applied to previously recorded tracks. Now we have non-realtime lookahead gating in the digital domain and that can go a long way to eliminating hum in quiet parts. But your typical Fender single coil pickup is such a hum antenna that you can easily end up with hum -- particularly if you're trying to use one of those sweet-sounding but ultimately absurdly noisy Fender reverbs at a low amp level -- that is so loud that it's audible over and during playing. I guess that's why so many people use aftermarket pickups -- or just switch to humbuckers. (I, myself, do not like the sound of 'buckers.)

Yes, I am a n00b, but I still wonder about this. You're just not listening to the right stuff. Real rockers have amp hum.

uhhhh . . . OK . . . prolly gonna offend someone here but I have to say; If anyone believes the above mumbo-jumbo et al. including the chatter about soft-knee compression emulation, even-order harmonic distortion as somehow a pleasant sound or, um Huxley's theory of Utopia, I've got a really nice bridge to sell you . . . It IS pretty straightforward Dean; differences of +/- 2db are audible. Anything beneath that isn't math at all (OP was asking about science/math). Differences less than 2db are speculation and (IMHO) nothing but kool-aid peace, E The 1 dB figure was an early attempt to quantify the smallest difference that could be perceived by an average person. It's kind of like an English/American foot (the 12 inch variety) being based on the foot of some forgotten (to me) English king... there's a certain amount of arbitrariness there based not just on the difficulty of relative measurement but on the initial reference pool. Studies have shown that trained listeners can definitely discern smaller differences in level than a single dB. And -- as I look above, I realize I'm not the first person to bring this up...

Can anyone define "warmth" scientifically/mathematically? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

It can go either way, of course... If a "prepackaged" source (a synth, a sample, etc) is stereo, I'll almost always record it onto a stereo track -- UNLESS I put it on TWO mono tracks. Why? Because in the past my DAW used to have no way of panning the "sides" in a little (actually, in its early days, ALL tracks were mono and it wasn't a problem)... but I generally don't like drum sounds that stretch from extreme left to extreme right -- though, for flexibility's sake, that's the best way to record/sample them. But then I may, indeed, "narrowize" the stereo or even sum the tracks to mono (or pick one), depending on how it's supposed to fit into the mix. With real world instruments, it's a similar decision path, though I often decide before recording, elimnating the hassle of stereo mic set up and allowing me to tinker my miking for the best mono capture. If you've got "unlimited" tracks (as most of us do, subject to the horsepower of our computing platforms, anyhow) why NOT record everything in stereo? Because if you have a complex mix, having a more than a few stereo-miked instruments can really muddy up/confuse the mix. There can be phase issues, as well. But the primary prob I run into is finding a place for everything in a complicated mix. You don't want instruments fighting it out for a spot, vis a vis location side-to-side and front-to-back, as well as tonally. ANd it's often easier to seat an instrument in a good spot if it's a nice, tightly focused mono sound. It's really a judgment call.

I like the CAD M179 with it's variable pattern. It seems to sound exactly like whatever I put it in front of. That's always looke like an interesting mic to me, too, though I've never used one. I have one of CAD's older (and then-considerably more expensive) mics, an Equitek II -- also a dual diaphragm multi-pattern and, indeed, it is a very flat, accurate seeming mic. I used to use it on everything from classical guitar to voiceovers. (I had a radio journalist client who loved it.)

It's all a matter of taste and application, of course, but if you don't at least consider the Rode NT1A, I think you're missing a real bet.

If there's one singer and one guitar and the singer is the guitar player, I'll just pan them pretty much into the middle. Since I don't tend to use wide spreads on my drum mixes, that's not an ish, but if I did, I'd probably pull them in just a bit, so as to not make the stereo aspect too much of an issue. But sometimes I just break all the rules. In a trip hop piece (not at all naturalistic, mind you, '808 style drums, some synths, etc) where I was having a problem with busy electric guitar part and a vocal fighting each other I tried all the standard things, mixing the guitar down -- then out completely, when that didn't work -- around the vocals... but it wrecked a certain vibe that I thought I heard... Finally, I put the guitar hard right and the vocal hard left (or the other way around -- it's one of my favorite tracks but I can't remember, how sad is that? ) and let 'em both fly... and, for some reason, somehow, that worked for me. (And the tune was one of my more well-liked songs over the years.)

You can still find XP on specialty and small shop computers -- at least through part of 2008, when MS has mandated that all XP sales must stop. Dell announced a few weeks back that the would bow to customer requests (number two request after dedicated Linux boxes, which they are now already doing). I don't know if those are on Dell's virtual shelves yet -- but an economical option you might consider would be the refurbished outlets of Dell, HP, or other semi-trusted entities. (Understood that there are those who don't trust one or more of the big guys at all. Caveat emptor, as always.) I just checked Dell's outlet online store and saw a bunch with XP Pro and you'll also see them for Home and Media Center as well. Media Center requires a very small amount of extra tinkering (remove the media center services and apps from your boot profile) but more importantly may well not be covered/supported by some third party warranties. MC was simply a niche release, it's expensive to test and certify for an OS -- also, it can be argued that since the Media Center components run by default that certifying operability of a DAW for MC might constitute a claim of compatability or interoperability with the MC application components which would be a real can of worms. But anyhow, if you had a killer deal on a machine that only came with Media Center, you might consider it. I use MC with three different audio interfaces, two of them "pro," and, once tinkered, WMC is fine -- in my experience.

This really is the thread that keeps on giving. But -- sadly -- I think I'm coming around to the position that Htaed really IS just a Walters-wannabe. I mean, really, NO ONE is as willfully stupid as this guy, I don't think. (Current political leadership notwithstanding.) [And... just so we can keep the comings and goings straight, here: I'm a believer in DIY mastering when it's appropriate to the project -- as it often is on no-budget projects. But Htaed is almost single-handedly making that look like a fool's position, which is kind of a shame. Maybe he's an agent provocateur, an undercover ME trying to discredit the DIY camp. ]

I'm glad they didn't have the internet when I was 17 or 18 'cause I probably would have been just like Htaed. And I'm SURE AS HELL GLAD there's not a cybertrail of all the dumb-ass things I said back then. Hell... my memories are embarrassing enough...

I think Htaed is really Marissa Marchant.

He's like... you know... the unifier guy...

And the ignorant schmuck likes to slag little kids with his schoolyard insults, too: http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21687715#post21687715

It's no sin to be ignorant or incompetent. But it's a real problem when the ignorant and incompetent set themselves up as gurus and experts -- one doesn't have to look far to see the disastrous consequences, they're all around us, these days. Anyhow, topping off ignorance and apparent incompetence with arrogance and vulgar insults... that's a sign of someone who is going to have some serious problems getting along with those he might like to consider his peers and colleagues. Maybe we should have some compassion for this guy. It seems likely he's going to have a very lonely professional life.

OK. But if I were you, I'd come back here under a different name. If at all. This snippy and woefully ignorant little ass has pretty well burned his bridges...

Much truth. I think a lot of the controversy in this thread seems to resolve down to the fact that many folks seem to think that recording audio should be "easy" -- and that there must be "golden rules" that, when followed, will make recording, mixing, mastering a matter of just following the rules. And, babies... it just ain't that simple. Back in the pre-digital days when things were a LOT simpler, we figured it took many years to properly learn recording -- and most of us assumed that if you weren't continually learning that you would fall behind and never catch back up. That is truer than ever -- but the availablility of simple cut-n-paste/drag-n-drop "production tools" like ACID, GarageBand, Fruity, etc, etc, have made some people think that ALL of recording is -- or at least should be as easy as whipping up a frothy little concoction out of pre-recorded, pre-EQ'd, pre-compressed, pre-manicured, pre-fab loops... But if you want to really record original music and do it consistently well, there ARE no easy shortcuts or quickie roads to expertise.

I think a lot of us go through the "manifesto stage" when we're young. It's a great thing to do. It's just that in the old days it was hard to publish it so a lot of times the manifesto or philosophical treatise or summation of all important human knowledge would stay in your drawer 'til you were cleaning up one day when you were thirty and found it and thought, Holy crap! Did I write this? But, yeah, it's part of society's job to occasionally kick budding philosopher/poet/teacher-types in the pants and tell them to go do their homework. But it's a mostly benign impulse I think, this sharing of knowledge, right or wrong, and I applaud the generosity of spirit of both our DIY ME and those who took the time to set the record a little straighter. ___________ I certainly agree with what I think is at least part of his message: I think the place to get the mix sounding good is in the mix phase. But a judicious use of EQ and compression on the output bus can sometimes provide the cohesion and correction we often turn to outside ME's for. That said, I think there's much to be said for the potential benefits of someone with A)fresh ears B) lots of experience C) great gear and D) a great monitoring environment -- as long as they share your musical and aesthetic values. I think with a budgeted commercial project that will be mass-replicated and marketed, it makes sense to budget for professional mastering. On the other hand, I think a lot of people have wasted a lot of money spit-polishing material that will be heard by few and cost its producers much money -- rather than making it. (Perhaps you've seen the latest indie and major sales stats. They are beyond sobering.) Anyhow, I think it's important to keep perspective.

Where are you weak? Conversational restraint.

Being a little too aggressive with the payment/time side of the studio. Probably too ruthless with the clock--and payments due at the end of each days tracking...Or maybe that how we stayed in business for 20+ years;) One of the best engineer/studio owners I worked with asked for payment at the end of every session (at least with us ). I'd say he was more firm than ruthless with regard to the clock. If the band kept him waiting (arriving late, being unprepared), they had to pay. That said, he often cut a "discount" at the end of the session for any of a number of reasons... sometimes it was just because we'd all spent ten or fifteen minutes joking around and talking... so I'd say the band's banker seemed to feel that the studio was firm but fair.

There is not enough room at Harmony Central for me to answer this question fully. Some basics could use a good going over certainly. Mr. Knobs recently explained to me that a TS plug will work in a TRS jack for instance. And I have some XLRs around here that are phase reversed. What does that mean? Pin 2 hot? Guessing? I have never sidechained. It's frequency based compression right? Got the hang of the dynamic EQ in my Finalyzer to a fair degree, but sidechain? Wo....that's a plunge. Maybe mostly I've not recognized a sitch where it was needed? Still have yet to make my Adats slave to my sequencers with any benefit. So instead of running the sequencers straight into the board and saving all my tracks for real instruments I put all my stuff thru the whole AD/DA wash. Studying a MOTU miditimepiece AV manual and stressing my Adats currently. Finally, you do NOT want to see me *wield* a soldering iron. My hands tremble, and always have. Just a bit. Got it from my Dad. (Ironic when one considers the delicacy of being a classical violinist. But that's another story) Hmmm... you might want to put some work in to the ADAT-sequencer slaving thing. (OTOH, if you're simply playing the instrumetns in real time and recording them with no external MIDI, you're probably avoiding a passel of timing steadiness/latency issues.) But one of the reasons I don't feel too bad about my old late 90s work was that the synths and drum module never went onto ADAT -- I synched the ADATs (via my BRC) to MTC (MIDI Time Clock) and folded them in at mixtime on my analog board. So mostly only vocals and guitars went onto ADAT. (Actually, the synths mostly didn't benefit all that noticeably -- but I always felt the drums from my 20 bit DM5 module sounded a lot fresher going straight into the mix.) But on the OTHER other hand... putting them all on tape at the front means you don't have to panic if a module dies or you can't get your MIDI rig working right for some reason. (I would, on occasion, on very critical stuff, run each instrument onto its own ADAT track and put that cassette away for safe keeping.)

I suck at getting paid. I was never stiffed by any artists or musicians. But labels on the other hand... don't start me. (I even got burned by the same people a couple times. You know, first time around it was, well, yeah, the record DID sell 30,000 copies and it IS going into its fourth printing -- but there was just no profit. But somehow I got sucked into doing another project for the same then-well known OC label [NOT Dr. Dream ]... I submitted my bill -- they were poormouthing me so I submitted the bill at FIVE BUCKS AN HOUR -- and I'm STILL waiting to get paid... that was 1985. (And while the label owner said the project -- a compilation of hot [and notso] area bands -- never came out, I later saw a number of the tracks we cut on at least one of their records. [Are you sleeping at night, Ron? Yeah, I figured you were, you freakin' sociopath.])

Nice post Blue. Multiple playlists have eased this concern a bit for me. Meaning, I can get the singer to give me 5 or 6 passes at it. Take stock quickly, then determine if I need to address it or not. When I need to address, I better have a good rapport with the performer. Once again... nice post. Thanks, Lee. And it's probably even better since I put the sentences in the right order just now. (I'm an inveterate post-editor, sometimes I'll still be editing one post when there are five or six posts after mine... anyhow, earlier today I must have somehow typed an edited addendum into the right place. But I think you got the idea, anyhow... and, YEAH... being able to keep ALL the possible keepers and compare them is a heavensent... back in the day, I'd try to get the lead vocals in while we still had enough tracks open to keep a couple takes and possibly comp thing together if necessary (you know, when I wasn't stuck in som EIGHT TRACK studio -- the lot of a punk rock purist in the 80s ).

If you had to pick one specific aspect of studio production / engineering that you feel is your weakest area, what would it be? It can be anything - scoring strings, EQ'ing, use of dynamics processors, getting parts to blend, mic technique, drawing out the best possible performances from talent, etc. Now, what are you going to do about it? Seriously, list what you've been doing or are considering doing to attempt to improve in that specific area. Feel free to quote someone else's post and offer suggestions on how you dealt with / overcame your own problems with that issue if you have a suggestion. I don't take clients anymore but when I did I think the thing that was hardest for me was gauging how critical to be when wearing the producer hat... Someone would ask, "What do you think of that vocal?" (for example) and a range of posssible answers would race through my head from "It's the best you've done, today" to "I think we should pack it in and you should go live with the song a while." Those responses sound reasonable, enough, I suppose, but it was knowing when to say what that was difficult. Because, of course, few things are actually perfect or anywhere close, there are always timing and pitch problems (and that's what makes a singer a singer in a lot of ways)... If you set the "levels" of criticism too low, someone who's apparently counting on you for feedback is going to get the impression that there are no problems when there are... if you set the level too high, it wrecks their confidence and inhibits them. I tried to pick up the "moves" of other engineers and producers I worked around who were better with that stuff but it was really the ability to calibrate the level of critical comment. You know, stuff like, "That was great... but I think you can get just a little more out if you just really feel it." But, a lot of times, it seemed like the next take was worse anyway.

Just take a look at the "graphic EQs" in most folks home and car stereos... if you find one in 20 that isn't a "smile curve" I think they've got a gig for you looking for WMD's in a certain developing democracy. Sad thing is, should you take a "lesson" from their settings and crank your mix the same way, anticipating their heavy hand on the EQ, they're just gonna leave that smile curve up, anyhow... My favorite coffeehouse has a little sidewalk cafe thing going on and some folks driving by or stopped at the light seem compelled to make sure they share their genius taste in music with the nice folks sipping latte's and reading the NY Times. You NEVER hear any midrange... just trunk-thumping bass and eyeball-itching 8-10K jacked until you can't see straight. Half the time you can't tell if it's hip hop or stoner rock if no one's singing -- and sometimes when they are... the mids are just gone. I'm thinking it may reflect an ever-downward tugging FROWN curve in the driver's hearing... It might serve them right, but unfortunately they seem either oblivious or utterly intent on taking the rest of us with them.