Good vs bad tracking?

I was reading the "The three most important elements of mixing - Compression, EQ and Reverb. Yes?" thread. There was something about "good" tracks not needing much if any compression, EQ or reverb. Did I also read that a "good" track required very good equipment?

So what are the elements of a "good" track? What does one aim for when tracking?

Thanks         

I knew this one was coming up next ;)

I was actually planning to start the same thread up also, as we appear to be all reaching a consensus on the mixing side of things over on the other thread.

Will post some opinions when I have some free time!

And I think the third thread in the series should be "appropriate composition and arranging techniques". That pretty much covers everything, albeit in the wrong order...


To start things off, I think there are two main considerations - getting a nice SOUND of the instrument and getting it to fit appropriately in the mix. The order of importance varies as to which instruments take precedence over one or the other in this regard. Eg, normally a vocal part you want to get the sound right, and fit the other instruments around it, maintaining as much of the sound you want as possible, but the vocal is the key. Other music, a guitar sound might be the important one and you fit everything else around it.

trimph1


Matt...don't look now but .... it is already up

Maybe the first one was supposed to be this one...or is that the third one.

D'oh...

However I went about I'd rather end up with this....

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2581851

Than the beautifully recorded sound of me trying to extract my fingers from between the strings and pickguard....

I'm going to elucidate a little on the performance aspect as it may have sounded glib but if I do have an area of expertise then this is it, far more than mixing which is a fairly recent departure that I've taken up since I haven't been able to play for the last few years.

Playing in a recording environment for the last 35 years if nothing else has brought me into close contact with many legends of the British recording scene, and there is a reason that certain studio musicians become legendary and yet often remain relatively unknown as far as being 'out there' public performers, basically it is because playing live and recording are two completely different animals.  It's the main reason why you'll have seen an acts album liner notes over the years showing different personnel to the ones they tour with.

So how and why do these same people get called in for session after session and appear on hit record after hit record with careers often spanning several decades?  These then are a few of my thoughts on the reasons why that is.

Economy, is a really big factor, these people will get the work because it makes financial sense to get something in the can in a matter of hours rather than days.  They don't confuse a recording studio with a rehearsal room.  If you are thinking of recording something don't even think about it unless you can play your part, in the bath, hanging upside down from the ceiling backwards or whatever, this isn't such a key thing for the self-recordist as you can hit record and rehearse and you may pick up something good along the way but I still think it is a good idea to 'work up' for a 'proper' take, just imagining you are paying $500 an hour for the priviledge of being recorded should sharpen you up.  If it is a band scenario then everyone has to take it to the extreme, make sure everyone can play their part without needing the rest of the band present (they might have to do just that).

Just as a studio isn't a rehearsal room it isn't a stage either, while your drummer may sound fantastic on stage demonstrating all his best fills in EVERY song, when recording very often less is more, make sure everything that's played NEEDS to be there.   Repeated breaks throughout a song that is recorded for posterity often sound boring after one or two plays so be strategic with any fills and frills and save them for where a set-peice bit of virtuosity actually does something for the structure of the peice as a whole.  It's true for all players not just the drummer anything that isn't supporting the structure is usually better left out, then if you do want to feature an impressive solo everyone will notice.

Another thing to remember if you have the slightest feeling you've fluffed a take, YOU HAVE!  I used to waste hours going back and forth from kit to control room to listen to the last take to see if I'd 'got away with it'.  The good take is the one you had 100% confidence in when you laid it down.  Accept no substitute!  Remember if there is a flub, a hesitation, a slight deviation it's been captured forever, just do it again and get it right this time.  If you can't get it right it's either because, going back to the other points, you didn't rehearse it enough or you are trying to pull off something that maybe not required.

So a few things there from the FWIW dept.  for anyone interested.

but good tracks, means one thing to an artist, another to an engineer.

Yeah, and if he didn't get it when you gave it, give him something else as well...

well, the op asks the question: "does it take good gear?"


and that's a loaded question....

there are tons of anecdotal stories out there, of pros using 'less than stellar' gear to get their signature sounds.

but typically, the albums you enjoy listening to, were recorded in professional studios, with professional gear.

so, just because bono sang a tune in a hand held sm58......

or van halen bangs away on a guitar that cost him about $150......

doesn't mean they didn't use an extremely high end board and outboard gear to run all that stuff thru to mix it...


and i think guys that are just getting into recording, i mean really diving into it for the first time, aren't really sure about the limitations of 'pro-sumer' gear, and don't realize that for the most part, they really don't pass muster, compared to pro gear.


i'm lucky enough to have worked in, recorded in, a few pro-level studios, to get to hear the difference first hand.

and i've been engineering and recording myself and others, for almost 27 years now, and where i'm at right now, is that i use what i have, as good as i can, and i'm ok with that.
i can't afford pro gear, probably never will, but i still learn techniques from pros, and develop my ear, and all that.....


the point about 'good tracks' i was trying to make...


is that if you have a very nice mic.....
and a nice preamp......

and a nice convertor, either sound card, interface, or other....


you can learn to capture 'good tracks' in terms of sonic quality...

but as you said before, the performance will always trump the sound quality, unless it's just dirt poor recordings.

I think for alot of hobbyist, it's easy to fall into the "good enough" trap after a take. Then it's on to the next element of the arrangement. I'm speaking more along the performance lines here. Unless there is another set of objective ears involved, the shortcomings of a take won't become apparent until the song is listened to by someone else who is a critical listener.

I got smacked around in Songs forum a couple of times when I started posting here, and it was well deserved. IMO, getting critical with ones self will go a long ways towards spending the time necessary to get the right take.

Mixing becomes so much easier when you're satisfied with all the tracks involved in a mix, instead of trying to hide something, or just flat out hoping no one will notice that guitar clam, or the bass pushing and pulling the beat in the wrong spots, or that vocal line that's off on the phrasing or flat.

Randy

rsp@odyssey.net


Mixing becomes so much easier when you're satisfied with all the tracks involved in a mix, instead of trying to hide something, or just flat out hoping no one will notice that guitar clam, or the bass pushing and pulling the beat in the wrong spots, or that vocal line that's off on the phrasing or flat.

+1
 
In this 'interesting-but-difficult' discussion: 3 tracks (or critical stems) come to (my) mind after 30-40 posted songs (and their countless mutations) that I've struggled with:
 
1) Lead Vox
2) Bass
3) Kick Drum
 
These tracks seem to require solid "performance, performance, performance" (per Jon).  And they require a lot of artistic and scientific fx (pre and post fader), IMHO. 
 
When these 3 layers are solid, my heart and mind join as one -- hahahahaha!  The rest of the layers will follow.
 
Note:  Did any of you find it curious that I left out guitar, piano, and keys? 
 
Though I perform these instruments regularly (3 time/week) in jam sessions and gigs ...
 
... for good tracking purposes, I'm learning to place guitar, piano, and keys ... on the back-burner.  I may be wrong.

Jonbouy


The 3 important things.  More important than gear.

Performance.

Performance.

Performance.



You may be able to redeem a good performance made on average gear, but no amount of gear will make a duff performance sound good.

+1000000
 
Think of so many great songs that truly sound like crap, engineering-wise. Most Motown has no low end. But the performances are captured in such a special way that those songs will still be playing at our great grandkids' weddings.
Great energetic performances wipe away all technical deficiencies.
"Johnny B Goode"
"Woolly Bully"
"Louie Louie"
"I Wanna Hold Your Hand"
Any Ramones tune
early The Who
 

I'll take a shot explaining this on vocals. 

A good quality large condenser microphone capable of capturing the voice accurately and cleanly. A decent preamp that works well with the mic. (This can turn into a deeply technical topic). If the levels on the preamp are set properly to capture the voice, then it becomes about the room. Have reflections, flutter, bad echoes, background noises (fans, dogs barking, hum from devices) been eliminated? A decent pop filter properly spaced from the mic for the singer and style isn't a must, but it's highly desireable. 

Assuming these issues have been addressed, its now about mic technique, and knowledge of material. If the singer has the song down pat, and knows proper mic technique, getting a good take is about nailing the emotions of the song topic and the message the lyrics are meant to deliver. If the singer delivers the right performance with the proper technique, there shouldn't be a need to do much to the track other than perhaps a bit of appropriate reverb and a little eq adjustments for balance with the other elements of the song. 

This is something beginners seem to struggle with. It seems they think their voice needs alot of reverb. It doesn't. In most cases, you can use a plate reverb and dial it up til you can hear it working. Then back it off a bit, and your set. If they have to use alot of compression, it's due to improper mic technique in most cases. Compression is misused way too often for making a vocal louder across the board. That's NOT what it's for.

Randy 

I'm not an expert on the vocal thing, but having read and watched a lot of people who are, I have the impression that vocal technique is very much done in the studio and desirable. It may not be moving away always, it may be turning to the side a bit a well. Some of the 'toniest' singers like Sinatr were, AFAIK, well known for excellent mic technique in the studio. I would think that the extra air output would compensate for the slight change in proximity since it's to do with the amount of air pressure on the diaphragm, right?
Of course those folks were not recording in a bedroom with sheetrock walls either.

In my case it is recording in a room that has horse hair plaster on lath walls...real fun that...

I've been wondering about this...two SM57 mics being used in tandem for singing..I've seen it being done but is that useful?

Also, when recording an instrument..say a sax in this case...what procedure to use? 

Yep, you're 100% right, Randy. I just read your post wrong and jumped to conclusions!