An interesting recording realization

[Australian]

There is so much information in this field of recording, but if you get it right in the first place, at source, all this other technology becomes redundant because a lot of it is just CORRECTIVE TECHNOLOGY.

This is my new view on it. There are so many plugins out there, most of them are corrective for the lack of good solid know-how. Take the Beatles for example. Their camp didnt need corrective devices, because their team had good solid knowledge and skill.

So the moral of the story is: correct your skill and you will not be so eager to have a billion plug-ins or the latest computer.

 

[TonalEuphoria]

I'm content with just a million plugins. I don't want to get too fancy.

Get too fancy and the next thing you know you're doing covers of old Wham songs and buying pink shorts.

 

[playloud]

If only it were that simple...

Even if the goal of recorded music was to faithfully capture the aural experience of live performance, there's no way to do that in a way that translates on every (or indeed any) available playback system. So recorded music is, by necessity, a different art form.

Picking the Beatles is very funny, to the point that I wonder if you're trolling. They were one of the most (if not the most) influential proponents of "the studio as an instrument". They did a lot of stuff - like finetuning the pitch of the final recording by adjusting tape speed - that most artists today would not be comfortable with. John Lennon was famously self-conscious about his voice, and insisted on a bunch of specific processing/gear when recording vocals (varispeed, Pultec, U67 etc.) As a workman, a good trick to avoid "blaming your tools" is to ensure access to the best/most expensive ones at all times!

Another is to eschew live performance so you can tinker more in the studio...

 

[Maxbrothman]

I have access to recording studios but haven't used any because it wouldn't do anything for me until I nail the song and start focusing on a good take.

An album recording should be an in-and-out job for musicians, and production mixing should be the most time-consuming.

IMO, the clearest difference between a recording studio and home recording is the room it is done in and the microphones available. Studios can afford microphones that cost the same price as a half stack and more. Also, they tend to have more cab options.

I bet a lot of album productions won't admit it, but the guitar tones may be entirely modeled. Fx, amp, cab, mic, the lot.

 

[Australian]

If only it were that simple...

Even if the goal of recorded music was to faithfully capture the aural experience of live performance, there's no way to do that in a way that translates on every (or indeed any) available playback system. So recorded music is, by necessity, a different art form.

Picking the Beatles is very funny, to the point that I wonder if you're trolling. They were one of the most (if not the most) influential proponents of "the studio as an instrument". They did a lot of stuff - like finetuning the pitch of the final recording by adjusting tape speed - that most artists today would not be comfortable with. John Lennon was famously self-conscious about his voice, and insisted on a bunch of specific processing/gear when recording vocals (varispeed, Pultec, U67 etc.) As a workman, a good trick to avoid "blaming your tools" is to ensure access to the best/most expensive ones at all times!

Another is to eschew live performance so you can tinker more in the studio...

So youre implying that John used Auto-Teeoon? 👻

 

[Australian]

If only it were that simple...

Even if the goal of recorded music was to faithfully capture the aural experience of live performance, there's no way to do that in a way that translates on every (or indeed any) available playback system. So recorded music is, by necessity, a different art form.

Picking the Beatles is very funny, to the point that I wonder if you're trolling. They were one of the most (if not the most) influential proponents of "the studio as an instrument". They did a lot of stuff - like finetuning the pitch of the final recording by adjusting tape speed - that most artists today would not be comfortable with. John Lennon was famously self-conscious about his voice, and insisted on a bunch of specific processing/gear when recording vocals (varispeed, Pultec, U67 etc.) As a workman, a good trick to avoid "blaming your tools" is to ensure access to the best/most expensive ones at all times!

Another is to eschew live performance so you can tinker more in the studio...

So youre implying that John used Auto-Teeoon? 👻

 

[playloud]

So youre implying that John used Auto-Teeoon? 👻

Not Autotune per se, but a precursor of sorts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_double_tracking

There were obviously also examples of tape speed being manipulated for creative effect (e.g. Strawberry Fields) but the Beatles primarily used ADT to make their voices sound more bold and polished.

Modern technology is cheap/convenient etc. but, given the choice, I'd take the gear and experienced engineers the Beatles had access to any time!

 

[Frank52387]

I’ve been recording lately and I feel like I realized the opposite.

Yes, get good source recordings but a competent engineer/producer can take it to the next level. Especially with vocals. Someone who knows what they are doing makes the instruments all sit well. I think that is the true art of recorded music.


For our songs, We did drums Glynn johns method in my shed with 3 mics. Our producer made it feel live and huge.

My guitar I used my Marshall’s cabless into impulse responses. They really are amazing and consistent.

 

[aikiguy]

GITAS…. You hear it from many seasoned recordists in the internet.

I’ve been recording for a number of years now, and although it seems that there is always something for me to learn, my current approach is a ‘less is more’ approach. There was a time when I loaded my recordings up with every available plugin. These days, the only third party plug in I use consistently is R-Bass, and aside from that, I use the native compressors and EQ’s in my Cubase software,along with some native reverbs and delays for space.

At the end of the day, I try to to get it right at the source.

 

[Australian]

GITAS…. You hear it from many seasoned recordists in the internet.

I’ve been recording for a number of years now, and although it seems that there is always something for me to learn, my current approach is a ‘less is more’ approach. There was a time when I loaded my recordings up with every available plugin. These days, the only third party plug in I use consistently is R-Bass, and aside from that, I use the native compressors and EQ’s in my Cubase software,along with some native reverbs and delays for space.

At the end of the day, I try to to get it right at the source.

Thats the reason I started this thread. The past mixing and mastering I’ve done could have been simpler. Its sort of like TAB versus a good ear.
When you have a lot of highly respected plugins and use the presets made by top studio peeps, then do we shut down aurally to some extent?

 

[Australian]

Not Autotune per se, but a precursor of sorts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_double_tracking

There were obviously also examples of tape speed being manipulated for creative effect (e.g. Strawberry Fields) but the Beatles primarily used ADT to make their voices sound more bold and polished.

Modern technology is cheap/convenient etc. but, given the choice, I'd take the gear and experienced engineers the Beatles had access to any time!

I didnt know that-and I’m one of the more intelligent ones.

 

[10kDA]

I'm lucky to have a couple of friends who are extremely skilled professional recording engineers, so if I have something I can't resolve I can send them a file and they will tell me what to do to improve what's going on. It's usually something that can be addressed w ith EQ or compression. These guys have monitors and monitor systems that are way, way better than my own so they can really hear what's going on. Thankfully they don't try to scold me into getting better gear, because both of them are afflicted with GAS and nothing comes close to Recording GAS when it comes to $$$ spent.

 

[Derek S]

I've always tried my best to be satisfied with my recorded tracks right up front, where they'd need as little attention as possible to refine them in post (plugins or otherwise), minimal eq, compression, etc. Early on with this hobby I got carried away with trying to make my tracks sound like others/pro and I noticed I always ended up tweaking the life out of them, would kill all the original vibe, etc...so at some point I focused on trying to get the sounds as good as possible in the first place (together, in a mix, not necessarily individual tracks). The only place I really use 3rd party plugin's is in my mastering buss, everything else is raw into the DAW and already tweaked for "mix ready" sound.

The real struggle for me has always been getting a cohesive feel while not really playing live or in a band, trying to avoid that "build a tune/mix in parts" thing (working on drums one day, recording bass another, mixing rhythm guitars another, etc). I refuse to copy and paste lol. It's impossible for a hack to compete with real engineers and what they can bring to your work, but heh, I don't personally know any pro engineers...not to mention they wouldn't work as cheaply as me lol. At the end of the day that is is why I simply do this shit for me and just accept what I churn out over the years as "that was the best I could do at that time" and be content.

 

[ToneWitch]

I had the whole studio set up. Ran an analog board into the digital board for my drum mics. I never used a lot of plugins and still don’t. I usually throw a 57 in front of my plexi and that’s the tone. Although I majorly downsized so now I have to program drums (until I get an electric set where I can play and it lays the midi down for me) still programmed though. For bass I run direct and usually throw it on clean with compression and Eq that’s it. Sold my big boards and got a 2i2 focusrite interface. And it works great. I’m way to cheap to buy plugins. Why would I want to cover up the tone of the amp I spent hours building and tweaking the tone on anyways?

On the flip side plug ins are great if you can’t be loud though. I’ve never used autotune and never will. I’d rather be pitchy than have to subscribe to some Bs pluggin because “everyone does it” nah I’m good. This is what raw vocals sound like.

Recording to me has always been the struggle of getting the volume of the track loud enough without destroying the quality of it. I’ve got it down pretty good now. I have no idea if it’s the “correct” way but I get damn close to commercial volume.

 

[TonalEuphoria]

nothing comes close to Recording GAS when it comes to $$$ spent.

Ain't that the truth. I have a small personal studio for my own creative and production needs and I could have some more very nice guitars and amps with that money, if I spent it on them. But a recording studio is an investment in musical creation. And there are only so many corner to cut in it's making.

 

[Australian]

nothing comes close to Recording GAS when it comes to $$$ spent.

I went through that. UAD plugins from here to Keokuk as well as Waves, Izotope etc. and other items that depreciate over the months.
I over-produced things just cos I could to justify having this plugin arsenal bursting at the seams.

Its a new era for me. Back to basics and skill rather than window dressing.

 

[BluesForDan]

I used the emulated line out of my recently acquired JCM 2000 DSL 201 last night, it was my first time ever using an amp's feature of that nature. In lieu of putting my pedals before the audio interface as I would when going direct, i put them in front of the amp.

I was floored by how well it worked. Zero tweaking. Just automated a fade in and outro. Bounced to Music so I could listen on my phone with Bluetooth. Sounded as good or even better than tracks I've spent 60-90 minutes tweaking after the fact.

Makes me wonder what I may have missed with that old DSL 401 and Tascam 424 I was using back in the day.

 

[BluesForDan]

listened to it again this morning with the volume turned up higher than I usually keep it (after some low-volume video made me turn the sound up) and i heard a pretty good buzzing sound. Single coil type buzz and I believe I wasn't in an in-between position and not facing the optimum direction and I was using an OD pedal. Need to try again and follow hum reduction protocol, and also try with humbuckers. At least I can have my monitors loud enough to hear the drums this time.

 

[Marshall Stack]

listened to it again this morning with the volume turned up higher than I usually keep it (after some low-volume video made me turn the sound up) and i heard a pretty good buzzing sound. Single coil type buzz and I believe I wasn't in an in-between position and not facing the optimum direction and I was using an OD pedal. Need to try again and follow hum reduction protocol, and also try with humbuckers. At least I can have my monitors loud enough to hear the drums this time.

I have a bass amp with a direct out. It works really well. The amp has an effects loop so with compression and a Boss GE-7 it works well.

 

[BluesForDan]

I just tried the direct out on my fender combo, it's labeled '-3dB'. I had to turn the amp up pretty loud and really crank the audio interface's gain. Extremely noisy, way more so than the Marshall. I think it's going to need a preamp before it goes to the audio interface. I have one, somewhere in the basement, packed in a box.

If that's how it works, the Fender might not be a viable candidate for late night recording.