Too many FX and plug-ins?

I do almost all my dynamics with the clip gain envelope so I don't have to use compressors, limiters, or de-essers on the tracks. Or if I do I can use a more conservative setting after fixing the big stuff with the clip gain.

Reverb as needed on the tracks (no busses, just use the dry mix control).

Master compressor limiter on the main bus just to get the level up a little. If I export (24bit) and check the wav in Sound Forge and it's too much or too little I go back, adjust the master compressor and re-export till I get it right. What I hear is what I get mode.

Last step trim and fade the ends in Sound Forge, resample to 44.1 and bit reduce with dither to 16bit, save, done.

Yeah, Im beginning to head more and more in that direction as well. Maxed out on FXs and plugs and appreciating the more simple, clear sounds. But then tomorrow, who knows?.

zumba

My approach is doing and/or using whatever it takes to get the job done. I always like a less is more approach, but sometimes you have to do more with less in order to end up with a big sound in the overall mix.

When tracking..... Getting the best possible sound/signal inside the box that I can is of the utmost importance to me. So, using the best hardware I can afford is important in that process as well.

Once things are inside the DAW, I rely on using the best plugins for the job. Some of those plugins cost a lot of money, while others came bundled with software. And some are free..... like digitalfishphones; which btw, are great plugins!

Anyway.....

I think Donny said it best.....

just because you have 4 thousand plugs (or rack mount units) doesn't mean you have to use them.

The end result is very important and how one gets there is secondary, but important as well. If the job calls for no plugins, then that is what you go with. And if it calls for many plugins, you go with that as well.

BTW..... Welcome back, Donny. Hope you had an enjoyable and safe vacation.

Yes, very often, less is more.

But some times too much is just right.

There's a famous LA-style engineer that had quote something like, I like things to sound natural, and I don't care how extreme the processing it takes to make it sound like that.

There's a famous LA-style engineer that had quote something like, I like things to sound natural, and I don't care how extreme the processing it takes to make it sound like that.

Whatever it takes to get the best end result, right?!

i talked with laurie anderson backstage when i was 10, i thought she was hot..

i don't have a small list like that, glazfolk, but i have a couple of ideals

1. the unprocessed tracks have to sound good before i processes
2. the selection and layout of effects is decided during the song-composition phase, before recording; the processing is essential element, not an afterthought

ORIGINAL: glazfolk

Many of the fancy gizmos and whatnots that are packaged as plug-ins really just use these tools in some combination, tucked in behind a sexy interface. If you understand the science, and know how to use correctly and in combination the basic tools of the craft, not only do you not need the "bells and whistles" - you're actually better off without them.

I agree some user interface is distracting junk, but I do think interface-interface can add power to a plug in, making it easier or even possible to tune (tuning some multiband compressors is beyond my capability; interface is key for something as complex as that imho); for example the Waves EQ's let you move multiple sliders at the same time, which makes possible tuning methods impossible on other EQ's.

Also, not all plug-in implementations are created equal.. they have the potential to add noise, distortion, and other forms of signal corruption. Phaser algorithms vary greatly, more of an art than a science. Various EQ's may generate different shaped curves (the 'Q' parameter is ambiguous). Compressors all sound very different to me, I can't get any two to sound the same.. Reverbs might use any number of EQ filter-types and -shapes, and non-convolution reverbs vary in sound. It all makes a difference, but takes time to compare them

It seems to me that the techniques wqe use to shape sound consist of four basic tools:

1. Volume Control (faders, compressors, limiters, noise gates)
2. Equalization
3. Panning
4. Time Based Manipulation (such as Delay, Chorus, Reverb)

Many of the fancy gizmos and whatnots that are packaged as plug-ins really just use these tools in some combination, tucked in behind a sexy interface. If you understand the science, and know how to use correctly and in combination the basic tools of the carft, not only do you not need the "bells and whistles" - you're actually better off without them.

I don't know that I would go so far as to say that we're "better off without them" Glaz,
if I'm understanding your statement correctly, this would imply that all these parameters are "fix its" or "tools to repair", and I don't think that this is necessarily so.

I think that these tools are often used for "repair", but I don't think that's what they're main function has to be.

Keeping in mind that they are enhancers as well, and that they don't have to be tools used to "heal" imperfections; with the time based effects, it could simply be that you'd like to hear what that performance sounded like in different acoustical environments (and it's easier than recording the same performance in 10 different rooms real time..LOL).

With dynamic control and EQ, we could use the human element, say, a vocalist for the sake of example, and no 2 human voices sound alike, and to take that one further, the same human voice doesn't sound the same from note to note either. Any instrument that oscillates in both tone and amplitude will most likely require an "enhancement". Add the human factor in and you've now got variables that you don't really have with a snare note on a drum machine, etc.

With Equalisation, we might have 10 tracks that sound great solo'd up, all on their own, but when mixed with the other tracks, tonal characteristics change on the entire mix.

And, there's the environments we are working in. I've worked in really bad sounding rooms and really good sounding rooms, but I've yet to work in a room, no matter how good, that was acoustically "perfect" from top to bottom.

I guess it's my feeling that while these are tools, they aren't necessarily tools used to "fix" 100% of the time, but used for enhancement as well. Perhaps I'm looking at this as the glass being half full vs half empty here, and perhaps we're thinking the same things but just saying them differently.

I would also present, for the sake of consideration, that there were two parameters left out of your list, Glaz, and those would be mic technique (which I suppose would largely cover all the others you mentioned), and perhaps the most important one: Performance.

And finally, I'll state my position one more time: Just because I have these at my fingertips doesn't mean I'm going to use all or any of them just for the sake of using them. Each piece of music is entirely different, and even the same exact piece of music can be interpreted differently by different people as to what it needs or doesn't.

I generally let the song "drive the car", and if I find myself relying on these tools and enhancers alone to make a song better, then I know that I probably have a bad song to begin with...LOL.. but if I have a good song to begin with, a little bit of this, a little of that, etc., can enhance it. That being said, no amount of production or processing can turn a really bad song into a really good one, IMHO.



FWIW

D.

ORIGINAL: glazfolk
I'd be very interested in feedback here especially from anybody who records mostly acoustic music.

I have reached the conclusion that very many of the wide range of plug-ins and toys available are little more than distractions and gimmicks. ...

I sometimes think that all those FXs are to compensate for poor musicianship and miking.

Rent the DVD, Tom Dowd & the Language of Music, and look at how he recorded Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Otis Redding, John Coltrane, Dizzy Gillespie, and Thelonius Monk, and listen to the old vinyl; great musicianship and great miking.

Donny,

So much depends as well, I think, on the style of music being recorded. I do a lot of recording of bluegrass and similar styles - sort of country meets bluegrass meets folk.

I've found that for me, the aspects of the recording which really contribute to getting the "right" sound are, in descending order of importance as follows. I'm ignoring "Performance" as an issue, which sounds weird, but my reasons will become obvious:

1. Microphone selection and placement (including a room mike or two to catch natural warmth and natural reverb)
2. Panning
3. Use of EQ (largely to create space, forward or backward in mix)
4. Compression (to smooth out peaks and add body and space to the mix).
5. Perhaps a touch of reverb.

I would be very interested to pick your brains for anything you think I might be missing out on at this stage of post production - keping in mind of course the style od music.

For the kind of work I'm talking about, only if Performance becomes an issue (ie is less good than desired or expected) do the following then come into their own:

1. Wave Editing (esp Cut/Paste)
2. Pitch correction software
3. Time based FX such as Digital Delay, Chorus, Reverb

Then after mixing it comes to mastering, which ususally follows my standard mastering chain.

Best
Geoff