Recording using a lyric on guitar and Vox one take. EQ lyric questions

[Mischief]

Okay so I'm setting up my system to record Vox and guitar at the same time.

Now I have mikes for guitar etc but I will be running one guitar track as DI using my lyric to blend or to use if required or when it suites but......

On my guitar being a small parlor; using the lyric highlights some problematic frequencies. To deal with this in live play I use my TC helicon Play acoustic effects pedal. I use the built in parametric EQ shelf EQ and the Body Rez.

So my question is. Should I use this when recording or would I be better to record the guitar straight to the interface and post EQ it? If I used the play acoustic I would keep referencing the recordings and adjusting until I have a setting that sounds as perfect as I can get. But would that same setting stay stable enough day to day with aging strings humidity and temp changes that I could Post EQ to get it right or would I shoot myself in the foot by making the permanent changes before recording?

Pre EQ if it works well would be faster to get a usable track. Also the signal un EQ'd would be quite annoying live tracking with headphones which I do use.

I'm quite a novice recording so I appreciate any advice.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Mischief

Now I have mikes for guitar etc but I will be running one guitar track as DI using my lyric to blend or to use if required or when it suites but......

On my guitar being a small parlor; using the lyric highlights some problematic frequencies. To deal with this in live play I use my TC helicon Play acoustic effects pedal. I use the built in parametric EQ shelf EQ and the Body Rez.

So my question is. Should I use this when recording or would I be better to record the guitar straight to the interface and post EQ it? If I used the play acoustic I would keep referencing the recordings and adjusting until I have a setting that sounds as perfect as I can get. But would that same setting stay stable enough day to day with aging strings humidity and temp changes that I could Post EQ to get it right or would I shoot myself in the foot by making the permanent changes before recording?

Pre EQ if it works well would be faster to get a usable track. Also the signal un EQ'd would be quite annoying live tracking with headphones which I do use.

I'm quite a novice recording so I appreciate any advice.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The beauty of recording at home using a digital system means to some extent you can have your cake and eat it too. BUT the reality is, it is a long term process and learning curve. It takes literally hundreds of recordings and years of experience to get a handle as to what will work for your situation and how to get the sound closer to your personal tastes.

By far the best answer to your above question is, try both ways . Try recording dry and try recording with the TC EQ going in. Knock out about ten or twenty recordings both ways, and you will most likely have your answer.

Two very important IMO questions to ask yourself is. Why are you preoccupied with getting a "faster" useable track. And the other question is "useable for what" ?

Also this problem frequency you say that happens with lyric, how bad is it really objectively ? If it's something that is striking and distracting, then the probable best answer for that problem is not really EQing , it is probably either get a different pic up system, or get a different guitar

[Mischief]

Originally Posted by KevWind

The beauty of recording at home using a digital system means to some extent you can have your cake and eat it too. BUT the reality is, it is a long term process and learning curve. It takes literally hundreds of recordings and years of experience to get a handle as to what will work for your situation and how to get the sound closer to your personal tastes.

By far the best answer to your above question is, try both ways . Try recording dry and try recording with the TC EQ going in. Knock out about ten or twenty recordings both ways, and you will most likely have your answer.

Two very important IMO questions to ask yourself is. Why are you preoccupied with getting a "faster" useable track. And the other question is "useable for what" ?

Also this problem frequency you say that happens with lyric, how bad is it really objectively ? If it's something that is striking and distracting, then the probable best answer for that problem is not really EQing , it is probably either get a different pic up system, or get a different guitar

Thanks KevWind,
You clearly have valuable insight for me.
I do realize it will take a long time to get where I need to be and a lifetime of learning to try and get where I'd like to be.

I see your point about trying it both ways to answer my own question.

To answer your questions,
I'm not preoccupied as such with getting a faster usable track but I am interested in an efficient work flow. Let's face it I'm no country star and I don't need or want to spend an absorbent amount of time on each track.

In my mind a workflow that is fast but equally effective is smart. I'm not going to win any Grammies so spending massive amounts of extra time that would have very diminished returns is unneeded for me.

Maybe I'm out of touch but I see I as an entire system. I have X equipment that can only maximally reach a certain quality, same with everything else. So my tracking, mixing, mastering efforts will either be the weak link (recoded performance aside) or my equipment. I guess I'm sort of thinking my recoding mixing etc skills only have to max out where my equipment does. If my equipment ever gets better then hopefully I'm still learning and grow in my recording skills to match. But if my skills supersede my equipment how would I even know or be able to hear or make those decisions as my equipment would limit me?

As far as what I would deem usable. I'd say that's recorded tracks that are clean and usable enough so they may be mixed with minimal efforts, (I'm thinking tracking, mic position etc skills are the first priority and done right should make the rest of the workflow more efficient. ) to a level that it sounds CD ready.

I'm not implying the best recordings or even close but professional. The basic level that if you heard it on he radio etc, you would not assume it was recorded at home. The content may be meh but the sound quality should at least sound like other radio content. If the content was descent it would not stand out when heard compared to other music. On closer listen or to a sound engineer if they pick it's recorded at home fine as long as to the average listener or potential live venue manager it should sound professional.

Problematic frequency with the lyric. It seems the majority of lyric users EQ as well as a lot of other pickups. The lyric has a very realistic quality but seems to need taming on most guitars.

Buying a new guitar and pickup system is off the table for now.

Okay it's 1am so hopefully I didn't sound stupid but likely I rambled on anyway.

Am I thinking about this all wrong?

[KevWind]

'All wrong no " But I think perhaps some misconceptions may be at play .

First understand the ability to record and mix something approaching professional quality entails a lot more then just technology and method. There is also a great deal of craft and art involved. The kind of craft and art that requires a lot of time to develop, there is no escaping this simple truth.


Developing an efficient work flow also takes time and experimenting. There are no simple recipes (do this, don't do that) for fast efficient work flow. There certainly are some very general tips to be had for basic conceptual usefulness, but there are always so many variables that nothing very specific is really going to be of such value as to hop scotch over simply putting in the hours and going through a good deal of trial and error .

A work flow that is fast and efficient is definitely smart. BUT all is said and done workflow is as individual and varied as the people doing it. And that individual variance will also take time to learn.
And spending the time it takes, to learn an efficient work flow and getting good at recording and mixing has nothing to do with being a star or winning Grammies. And the time it takes to so, is not exorbitant IMO , it is simply "the reality of the time required"

Or as a very skilled horse trainer I studied with put it, " Take the time it takes, the faster you want it, the slower you should go"

And for the most part, the people putting out commercial CD/radio quality recordings (subjectively speaking of course ) have been at it for probably a minimum of 15 and probably more like 20 ,30, or 40 years, and usually full time.
To expect that some pointers are going to some how quickly circumvent that amount of learning and experience is not very realistic.

That said..... as far as the average listener, or even a live venue booking person (depending on the gig you are trying to land), I would suggest that is doable even with minimal equipment and a nominal amount of learned skill (but will still likely take a good many months of regular recording and mixing) .
Because I do not think that a promo demo actually has to be up to what I would call commercial CD quality, The recording itself doesn't really have to sound all the professional. It just has to not sound so amateurish, that it distracts from the performance.



So enough of Kev's recording philosophy already....

As far as which might be more efficient ? Recording the with TC EQ or waiting until mixing to apply EQ . It is probably a toss up with perhaps even a slight efficiency edge to doing it in the mix. But the main criteria should which sounds best. And that will only be answered by experimenting.

Work flow wise It will likely take no more time to dial in a good effective cut on a problem frequency in a plugin as it will an FX pedal. AND with the plugin you have the option of bouncing the file out to what ever medium you might be using to put it out to listener, or music manager, and see what it sounds like. And then if your not satisfied with the translation you can go back to the mix and change the EQ . With the TC pedal you can't .

As far as being quickly reproducible again the plug probably has the advantage. Because almost DAW plugin EQ's have user a definable custom preset feature, that can usually be quickly recalled from a dropdown menu.

Here is an efficiency tip: Most DAWs also have a user definable custom session template feature . Where you can have all the tracks your likely to use, all the routing, and the all the FX set up (like the EQ preset for your lyric ) all dialed in ready to go as a Template that you launch instead of a blank session . Just record with the FX bypassed and then while mixing all you have to do is hit the bypass button and you can hear it working.

Also in the interest of efficiency, if your going to continue to ask questions related to recording and mixing (which I encourage you to do)
You might want to consider making a list of your entire system (computer brand and basic spec's....DAW software and version... Digital interface brand and model.... and any mic's and or pre amps etc if other than ones onboard the interface .. Either place that list in your AGF signature line, or put it in a folder on your desk top so you can paste it into your OP

[Mischief]

Thanks Kev so much.
I do really appreciate your time hearing me and letting me know your thoughts.

What you have said makes perfect sense. I have not been using a real DAW yet. I used to use Audacity and my Behringer USB mixer but was unhappy with the results and stopped using it a long one ago. Lately I've just been using Garage band. Part of the issue has been my computer has been dying for years.

My plan is to buy a used MacBook Pro and use Logic Pro.
That's great to know there are presets I can set.

Since that's the case I think I would definitely record dry and perhaps send the post signal to monitor with the play. Or perhaps I can set something like that up in the daw?

I do have a lot to learn but I hope
1. Since I'll be focusing on my own playing and singing I can learn a formula that works to get me close repeatedly.

2. The fact I'll start by focusing on only Vox and 1 guitar it will be
easier to manage at first.

In reality I'll no doubt want to maybe add a few more tracks and maybe even want to work with friends and then who knows. But baby steps for now.

So looks like I will record dry and take it slow. I agree with what your horse trainer said. Although it may seem speed is a priority. I have always been of the mindset that firsts learn to do it right and with quality and then the speed comes after. Here I was just trying to see if there would be a an efficiency benefit to using the pedal (which would be like a preset but permanent.) I see now that by having presets in the DAW that is a better way as I can have the option of change and no doubt can dial in a better sound with the Daw then the pedal.

In the end I'm 43 now. In my younger days I played and sang but my focus was on Alpine climbing, overland exploration, girls then, women then more climbing, diving, canoeing, Ice climbing, skiing, oh yeah dirt biking, camping did I mention women and girls yet? Then when I settled down with one girl the focus was on all the other stuff still, traded some interests for others and still played and sang here and there along the way. Then with a late family start 8 yrs ago I slowed down then 4 years ago my health changed and I've had to shift gears down again. Music has become
my focus as lots of other interest fell away. Even though part of my health issue has effected my voice but I am recovering from that.

So part of me wants to not go too slow that I'm missing opportunities. I don't want to rush either but I may have a tendency to want to go faster then I should. Man I have so much to learn.

People like you Kev are a big help in giving me a reality check and sharing insight.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk