The Evolution of an Acoustic Recording

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Doug hey what is the Video software your using ? Kev

I used a package called ScreenFlow to capture the screen and the voice over, then did some final editing in Final Cut. Probably could have done it all in ScreenFlow, it's pretty slick.

[zenpicker]

Doug, very interesting to those of us who have admired your pristine sound for so long. Thanks for taking time to do this.

[redmond007]

This was really great information, thanks. Why do you apply reverb and compression as send tracks instead of directly to the individual tracks? Why eq the master track (assuming you are going to put more tracks on the song for additional instrumentation and vocals - I know you make instrumental music, just wondering what you will say - and the eq would also affect those tracks)?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by redmond007

This was really great information, thanks. Why do you apply reverb and compression as send tracks instead of directly to the individual tracks? Why eq the master track (assuming you are going to put more tracks on the song for additional instrumentation and vocals - I know you make instrumental music, just wondering what you will say - and the eq would also affect those tracks)?

There's no right or wrong way, you could do most of this many different ways. I don't apply any compression via sends, tho there is a technique that does do that - it allows you to heavily compress a signal while letting the transients of the original remain untouched. Doesn't work all that well on acoustic guitar, and the amount of compression I used here was almost non-existant. I'd rather leave that for the mastering engineer. In any case, compression is one of those effects that you pretty much have to apply inline, other than the technique I just mentioned.

Reverb, I prefer to apply via a send partly to allow the original signal to come through untouched, partly because the user interface is just easier - I can vary the amount of the reverb with a fader instead of with some mix knob buried on a reverb panel - and also because it makes it easier to control what's being sent. If you had multiple instruments (in this case I had one instrument, but 2 tracks), you can choose what instruments get sent to reverb and how much. If you put individual reverbs on each track, it gets harder to adjust, and may not sound as natural. Having the reverb on a send also lets you manipulate the reverb - I could EQ it, pan it, add other effects to it, without affecting the dry signal. Also, notice that I used 2 reverbs, which effectively end up being in parallel - the short room reverb doesn't go thru the 2nd reverb at all. If I put them each track, I'd have to run them sequentially, with the mix of the 1st reverb going into the 2nd. That would sound different (who knows, it might sound better?) and be harder to adjust.

The only EQ I used on this entire track was a little low pass filter to cut out any low end junk that's way below the sounds the guitar can produce. I could have done that on each track, and sometimes you might want that, if you have lots of instruments with different frequency ranges. Here, I didn't see any reason to use 2 instances of an EQ plugin when one would do. (Tho I suppose if I'd put it on each track, the low end would have gotten cleaned up before the reverb send, so if the track did have an issue, that might have been a good idea!) I probably could have skipped that entirely, it's not like there was much to cut out, and the mastering engineer probably would have done it as well. I do sometimes put EQ on individual tracks, if it seems like they need it. For example, the ribbon tends to be too bassy, so sometimes I cut more low end there, on just that track. Didn't need it on this track, tho.

By the way, the general idea of EQing across the master bus is quite common. The mastering engineer generally has no other choice, he has the final mix and can only EQ the whole thing, yet they can accomplish a lot. But even when mixing, you can EQ the whole mix, and it's different than eqing one individual track, because, as you say, it affects the whole mix. So you use that when you want to affect the entire mix, and use individual channel EQs when you only want to affect a single track. Just depends on what you're trying to do.

Hope that clears it up, glad to try to answer any questions. The main thing to realize is that there are dozens of ways to approach any recording. This isn't the "right" way to do it, it's just what I did... If I mixed this again from scratch, I might do it differently and get a somewhat different sound. As I mentioned, in my first mix, I killed the schoeps entirely, and used 100% ribbon. That was nice, too.

[Cocobolo Kid]

Thanks for posting this Doug. It was very informative. I look forward to listening to the hi-rez samples once I get home.

I wish I had the microphone funds that you do

By the way, how would you compare the sound of your Brauner VM1 microphone to your Schoeps? Which do you use more often? I'm asking becasue "While She Sleeps" is my favorite song on your new album, and I was wondering why you chose not to use the Brauner on this piece. I prefer this type of slower, melodic song and I'm want to upgrade microphones down the road.

Thanks,
John

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Cocobolo Kid

By the way, how would you compare the sound of your Brauner VM1 microphone to your Schoeps? Which do you use more often? I'm asking becasue "While She Sleeps" is my favorite song on your new album, and I was wondering why you chose not to use the Brauner on this piece. I prefer this type of slower, melodic song and I'm want to upgrade microphones down the road.

I recorded while she sleeps before I got the brauners, it's the oldest recording on the cd. The difference between the schoeps and brauners is pretty subtle and my preference probably would vary from day to day. But once I got the brauners set up, I just recorded most tunes with them. They're a little bulky and heavy - I have sand bags in the stands to stabilize them, I just kept using them. I've used the schoeps for most of my you tube videos, set up in a different room. But I'd happily use the schoeps for anything.

[Doug Young]

Just remembered that I did this side-by-side recording of brauners vs schoeps. Mics are side by side, spaced pairs, identical signal chains, capturing the same performance, hopefully level-matched

http://www.dougyoungguitar.com/mp3/m...er_Schoeps.wav

Same guitar as used on while she sleeps

[Scott Whigham]

Loving this thread - thanks for taking the time to detail all of this, Doug!

[DarkestDreaming]

The most important thing that I learned from this vid is how the sound's essence is already captured at recording phase. Regardless of EQ, compression, mixing and mastering, the initial essence of what makes the guitar sound great is already captured at the recording phase. Makes me think and work doubly hard to make sure i get the recording right.
Thanks, Doug.

[Rvl]

Thank you this was very helpful
It was concise and very easy to understand
I especially liked the final step by step recording evolution

Thanks

Robert VanLane

[oneartist]

That was so valuable. Many of us have been searching for help during recording, but it is seldom given in such a clear, concise way. What software and computer are you using for recording?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by oneartist

What software and computer are you using for recording?

This video, or the actual recording?

I have a Mac Pro which I use for everything. This demo video was created with
ScreenFlow, which captures the screen and voice over, then I did a little editing in Final Cut. I could have done everything in ScreenFlow, but I'm more comfortable editing in Final Cut.

I use Logic for recording, along with various plugins and extra software like Izotope RX.

[moon]

Thanks for the vids. I've mentioned it to several people who are looking at how to record acoustic guitar and it's been very helpful.

[oneartist]

[QUOTE=Doug Young;2889305]This video, or the actual recording?

I was thinking of the recording software. In the early 90's I attempted to start digital recording with an AMD computer, Creamware Pulsar, and Emagic (PC version). AMD was not compatible with Pulsar, Even after changing computers, Pulsar would seldom sync, and Emagic remained a mystery since there was no customer support.
I'm from over at the RME and Samplitude forums. Many of the people over there who, like me, used to build their own audio computers, are now buying Mac Pro's. I've heard that the Mac version of Emagic is the king of midi editing. Many people at the Samplitude forum say that Samplitude is great for object editing and mastering. You have first class equipment as well as music skills. But mostly, you are unpretentious and you enjoy helping others. Well
done.
I've heard that many Mac users were disappointed when Final Cut was drastically price reduced and stripped down. Have they recovered what was lost?.

[Doug Young]

[QUOTE=oneartist;2889619]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I'm from over at the RME and Samplitude forums. Many of the people over there who, like me, used to build their own audio computers, are now buying Mac Pro's.

Any Mac should be fine, but I like the Mac Pro for the PCI slots, since I use UAD and TC Electronic plugins. They do make firewire versions, of course, and these days even the new Mac laptops might give my old Mac Pro a run for the money.

I used to use a PC, and liked Adobe Audition for recording. Not the greatest multi-track system, but fantastic for stereo guitar tracks, with some features I haven't found anywhere else. I still keep it around under Parallels for the ocassional editing task. But most stuff is in Logic now. I haven't tried Samplitude. Mostly all these DAWs are more or less the same, it's just a matter of learning the workflow.

I've heard that many Mac users were disappointed when Final Cut was drastically price reduced and stripped down. Have they recovered what was lost?.

As far as I know, that's still an issue. My Mac Pro is old enough that the video card isn't powerful enough for Final Cut X, so I haven't even checked it out. I just finally got semi-comfortable with the old version, and have my workflow mostly worked out, so I'm in no rush to switch anyway.