Two philosophical questions about recording

[jim1960]

When I was younger I knew none of that and assumed none of that stuff went on.

[min7b5]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

So...

The Eagles...

Yup. And the forty five minute Miles Davis album *****es Brew was edited down from what was later released as The Complete *****es Brew Sessions. Which if I remember right was four seventy minute CDs... Killer record -both of them

[Reeperbahn]

Originally Posted by neofolk

Maybe some of you will find this boring and just philosophical rambling, so if you don't like that stuff, please ignore this and don't waste your time

Not at all. Valid ideas and questions. But just imagine:
A band is rehearsing in a room. Full drum-kit. A keyboard. A singer. An acoustic guitar.

Put a microphone in the middle - what do you think will be on your recording?

An awfully-roomy-sounding drumkit and some background noise.


The sound of pop-music is artificial in its essence. A singer is never louder than a rock-drumkit and nevertheless we find it more pleasing if it is recorded and presented to us that way. Live and on recordings, by the way

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by jim1960

When I was younger I knew none of that and assumed none of that stuff went on.

I was a studio engineer in NYC and heard quite a few stories during the, ahem, "mixing" of Simon & Garfunkel's live Central Park record. It took months.

Around that time I also did some work with the producer of Frampton Comes Alive, who had some interesting things to say about that record that I signed an NDA about.

And if you have a chance to see the '94 director's cut of "Woodstock," CSN's vocals seem to have remarkably improved.

I was pretty surprised, also, when I learned that in the recording of Live at Leeds, Townshend's and Entwistle's vocals didn't make it onto the tape for some reason. They were added later.

For that matter, the overall vibe of that record is pretty remarkable, considering that the room it was recorded in is basically a big college cafeteria.

[Mr. Jelly]

Good stuff here. Thanks for sharing.

Some things have come together for me lately. I fully retired. I watched some discussions by the recording techs from Sgt. Peppers and started playing around with my recording gear again. I took the point from the Pepper discussions where they made their choices and moved on. They trusted or didn't question their choices. To many choices has been a problem for me. I can see clearly now.

[Andy Howell]

I don't think it is rocket science but when recording at home it is best to train and rely on your ears. For example, this is how I do most sessions.

I do all the track recording first off with no processing (well perhaps a little on the guitar). Never record using reverb on the voice; it may sound exciting but it encourages people to sing off pitch. There is no short cut for getting to the point where you can accept your own voice!

Before mixing I do think about backing vocals, doubling tracks or simply double tracking the vocals to emphasise key words or phrases — an old technique that can male a big difference. I also record vocals separately to the guitar which tends to be better for quality control purposes (but it takes some practice)

I only start mixing when I have finished recording. In mixing watch carefully for clipping.

I master/finish in a different session using the final stereo file print. I tend to give myself a day or two space to come back to it and fine tune.

In all of this getting to know your room is pretty critical. My room was very resonant when I moved in and I treated it with acoustic treatment. Experience has shown be two things. Firstly, I now know the sweet spot for recording guitar — in some places the rooms now too dead. Secondly, I know that my system tends to suck out a little of the high frequencies and I can compensate for that now,

I always try and print my files to a sensible LUFS value 9of you don't have a LUFS meter you should have).

I then listen to them on various playback media. I'll use my stereo hifi and streamer which can stream 24 bit files, but I rarely use this to listen to music on a regular basis. I'll import into iTunes to listen on my computer and on my phone. Most reliable is exporting to the SONOS system I use and ensure that this sounds OK — it's a mon system and probably the one I actually listen to most. Car stereos are another obvious one. What does the file sound like on the systems you actually listen to your music on?

Finally, if you want to play back more than one song (say as an EP or album) spend some time setting consisted volume. This is how I do it.

I start a new project and important each song to a separate stereo track — a 4 song EP means 4 stereo tracks. Each of these songs will have bene mixed and mastered to satisfaction and now I just want a consistent volume. I'll sol the first track and get this to a decent LUFS level. Then I'll solo track 2 and take it to the same level and then I'll toggle between the two to ensure that the volumes are consistent — meters can be different to perceptions of volume. And I'll go through the other tracks according. You can then listen to all four in sequence paying attention to the finish and start of songs.

And finally, finally. You are learning all the time. Feel free to re-record songs. I find myself quite often putting new vocals down after time.

As Bob says the more you do this the more confident you will be, not least as you understand your geat and your room better!

And remember — it is supposed to be fun!

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Andy Howell

Never record using reverb on the voice; it may sound exciting but it encourages people to sing off pitch.

I'm curious if the other folks who are recording in a professional capacity agree with this. I've always felt I got a more inspired vocal from people if I put a bit of verb in the cans (not committing to it, just having a bit in the headphones).

[Gordon Currie]

I've never been in a music session where vocalists did not have some reverb in their monitor mix.

I've seen a couple sessions where an engineer forgot to setup any reverb and the vocalist had a tough time getting a take, until reverb was added in the headphones - bingo, problem solved.

[Bob Womack]

My vocal overdub preset for the console at the studio includes reverb in the cans. Most of my clients want it... but tastes vary, thou knowest.
Bob

[KevWind]

As far as reverb for myself I record dry. I guess I just got in the habit from when PT LE had no delay compensation.
But I think I may give it a try.

[Joseph Hanna]

From my own personal experience the very, very best vocalist I’ve ever recorded (and I’ve had 2 or 3 in my career) do not want reverb in their send. I think they’re so enormously focused on pitch and tone they don’t want a reverb “wash” to give them a false sense of security. I can’t think of a single time in my former life in Nashville where anyone wanted verb.

But there are clearly those that need it (or think they need it) and if that’s the case so be it. I can’t do much to change those scenarios albeit I don’t deal with that type of recording environment much these days I’m with others here. Totally depends.

[russchapman]

John Cuniberti's 'One Mic Series:'

San Geronimo (at 25th Street Recording, Oakland):


Cedric Burnside (at Sun Studio, Memphis):

[jim1960]

Interesting. It seems like there really is a split on the reverb thing. I do it because the pro who taught me most of what I know does it unless the talent wants it gone. And he does it because that's how he was taught.

I think this, like so many other things we do, has no right nor wrong. We just do what we do.

[Brent Hahn]

When I'm tracking my own vocals I usually do it with speakers, not headphones. I keep it dry to avoid bleed, not because I don't like reverb.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

When I'm tracking my own vocals I usually do it with speakers, not headphones. I keep it dry to avoid bleed, not because I don't like reverb.

How do you do that? Do you keep the volume really low and only use cardioid or tighter mics?