I've tried to find what albums Bobby Owsinski is credited on and I don't seem to come up with anything.  I always hesitate when I see someone who is considered an expert and I don't have concrete results to judge them by.  It's kind of like a clairvoyant that can't hit the Lotto.


It's like the guys who are putting the hits on the charts aren't talking and the guys who are the "also ran" types have all kinds of advice to teach how to get the results they get.  Is that what I want?

Not to degrade this guy's instruction - just an observation.  I welcome any enlightenment I can get.

"I've tried to find what albums Bobby Owsinski is credited on and I don't seem to come up with anything.  I always hesitate when I see someone who is considered an expert and I don't have concrete results to judge them by."

I sort of do the exact opposite... I simply consider the validity of the actual information.

I can't see how reputation or credits has anything to do with validity of information.

I feel that the very best information is anonymous.


all the very best,
mike

mike_mccue


"I've tried to find what albums Bobby Owsinski is credited on and I don't seem to come up with anything.  I always hesitate when I see someone who is considered an expert and I don't have concrete results to judge them by."

I sort of do the exact opposite... I simply consider the validity of the actual information.

I can't see how reputation or credits has anything to do with validity of information.

I feel that the very best information is anonymous.


all the very best,
mike

How do you evaluate the validity of the information (unless you know the answer) if there hasn't been a track record of success that shows that someone can do the job?

That said, there are different levels of good information.


When I was trying learn how to be a motocross racer, I bought a bike that matched the requirements I needed.  I hung out with guys that had the same sort of bike.  If they told me to crank the bike up in order to win the race, well, I could evaluate that technique pretty quickly and judge it as gospel.  If they told me to go as fast I can around the track until I fall off and then ease off the gas a fraction, that would help me at my current experience level.  But they couldn't tell me how to get to Roger Decoster's level because they couldn't keep up with him if they were pushed out the backside of a cargo plane with him.

Once again, I don't mean to cast doubt on the author's instruction.  I would guess that he would base his information on his contact with top notch engineers and their information or his observation of their techniques.  Very valid, IMHO.  And more than likely, he's making a boatload of money doing instructional videos, books and teaching so why go into the jungle and battle it out with the others for a limited number of good paying projects? 


EDIT: ( I never did get anywhere with that Motocross thing.  I couldn't get past that falling off bit.)  

Mod Bod


I've tried to find what albums Bobby Owsinski is credited on and I don't seem to come up with anything.  I always hesitate when I see someone who is considered an expert and I don't have concrete results to judge them by.  It's kind of like a clairvoyant that can't hit the Lotto.


It's like the guys who are putting the hits on the charts aren't talking and the guys who are the "also ran" types have all kinds of advice to teach how to get the results they get.  Is that what I want?

Not to degrade this guy's instruction - just an observation.  I welcome any enlightenment I can get.

I did manage to find a list of credits.


http://albumcredits.com/Profile/227439


I'm sitting on a fence there. If I listen to someone working on a mix and achieving good results, I'll try and grab whatever bits of knowledge I can. That was the case w/ those videos - what he did seemed to work as far as I'm concerned.


BUT I'll never take any of that too seriously because my own tastes in terms of production usually differ quite a bit from anything conventional or mainstream (like, I probably dig room mics on a drum kit way too much for Owsinski's taste - but then, I'll take Jimmy Page's advice anyday before Owsinski's). 

"How do you evaluate the validity of the information (unless you know the answer)"

My approach is to slowly try to get first hand experience while continuing to seek out more information. I endeavor to actually understand the information by making opportunities to have first hand experience specific to the the application of the information.

People that have shared experiences may think some infomation is contextual while people who haven't shared the experience may think any number of things.

So, just as arts and sciences are practiced all over the world.. I try to replicate the results of some procedure and then go from there.

I have found that I learn in stepping stones... one realization eventually leads to another... so I am generally eager to consider information at its face value.


best regards,
mike

Mod Bod


I've tried to find what albums Bobby Owsinski is credited on and I don't seem to come up with anything.  I always hesitate when I see someone who is considered an expert and I don't have concrete results to judge them by.  It's kind of like a clairvoyant that can't hit the Lotto.


It's like the guys who are putting the hits on the charts aren't talking and the guys who are the "also ran" types have all kinds of advice to teach how to get the results they get.  Is that what I want?

Not to degrade this guy's instruction - just an observation.  I welcome any enlightenment I can get.

It's a grey area for sure and I feel the same way as you but with a twist. I wouldn't care how many awards or albums he had if they existed....if I hated his work and the sounds he's gotten. Quite a few engineers and producers fit this bill to me that have quite a few albums under their belts. I can't stomach their sounds though and feel it wouldn't have mattered who worked with the bands they worked with....if you or me would have gotten those jobs, we would be stars too. The band has a lot to do with how something sounds. Producers and engineers matter...but could someone really make The Doobies, Van Halen or Brett Garsed sound bad? Only if the performances sucked and the songs sucked.
 
The other side of the coin...though I feel as you do and like to listen to credible people that lead by example, I think there has to be a few exceptions there. If we went by "albums" or "credibility" as far as popularity goes, we'd miss out on a lot of good information shared by our forum members....whom (to my knowledge) don't have any awards or album credits anyone would know of.
 
Do listen: If you like the sounds someone gets and they explain themselves well. That's all the credibility *I* need.
 
Do listen: If the explanation is good without audio, makes sense, is thorough and delivered like a brother helping a brother. If I try it and it works...more credibility. If it doesn't work....maybe that technique isn't for me.
 
DON'T listen: If they can't lead by example and you hate all the production work they have shared thus far. There's no sense listening to a person that talks the talk yet falls on their face in the production and sound category. 
 
Just my take though.
 
-Danny

"When I was trying learn how to be a motocross racer, I bought a bike that matched the requirements I needed.  I hung out with guys that had the same sort of bike.  If they told me to crank the bike up in order to win the race, well, I could evaluate that technique pretty quickly and judge it as gospel.  If they told me to go as fast I can around the track until I fall off and then ease off the gas a fraction, that would help me at my current experience level.  But they couldn't tell me how to get to Roger Decoster's level because they couldn't keep up with him if they were pushed out the backside of a cargo plane with him.

Once again, I don't mean to cast doubt on the author's instruction.  I would guess that he would base his information on his contact with top notch engineers and their information or his observation of their techniques.  Very valid, IMHO.  And more than likely, he's making a boatload of money doing instructional videos, books and teaching so why go into the jungle and battle it out with the others for a limited number of good paying projects? 


EDIT: ( I never did get anywhere with that Motocross thing.  I couldn't get past that falling off bit.)  "


:-)

I am an acquaintance of Ricky Charmichael. He lives up here since he moved up from your area. You may remember him from Croom.

He learned to race Moto X from his Dad, a guy who looks way more comfortable on a John Deer than a moto bike. His coach from the G.O.A.T. days is a runner and fitness expert who is into bicycling.

They didn't have no credits or resume in Moto X.

Some stuff just is.

:-)

mike_mccue





Consider that a 1176 has a 20-800 microsecond attack range and it's easy to see that it is really a limiter that just happens to also be a favorite *compressor*. 

From what I understand - and as Owsinski points out - to function as a limiter, a compressor has to be used w/ a drastic ratio, say 20:1 and beyond. That is effectively "limiting" since nothing passes through. 


A compressor w/ the attack set at the very minimum value but w/ a ratio of 2:1 or such isn't really limiting (well, depending on where you set the threshold, of course) because it will potentially let the signal go a few db over threshold if you hit it hard enough. (and yes, they exist, I have a DBX right in front of me which I use to prime my guitars which doesn't even reach 2:1 until you turn the knob mid-way through. ;) 


Of course, if you're want to limit something, you probably want to use the shortest attack time also.


In other words, it's not only how fast it reacts but how much it lets through. I guess that's what you meant when you mentioned the threshold and ratio.


BUT - I may be mistaken.

I can't get past Mr. O's EQ technique of boosting a 200hz shelf EQ 5db on an acoustic guit in a dense mix. 
I don't know. Maybe that's why I'm not rich and famous:)

Guys, 

I never do this, but I see a whole bunch of misinformation being thrown about so I have to jump in.

1) As far as the boosting 200Hz thing, I never said anything like that at all. What I said is that you can clean up your mixes substantially if you use a hi-pass filter on some of the instruments to get the low end out of the way of other instruments where you really want to hear that low end. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Use your ears. There are times when it works well on an acoustic, especially if it's being used more to push the song than anything, and other times when it's not appropriate.

2) Wow, the compressor thing really got blown out of proportion. Forget the numbers on the things and use your ears. It doesn't matter if you start with the attack time all the way short or all the way long. What counts is that it's set so you can hear some of the attack getting through so the sound isn't too dull. As for the release time, you set it to where you don't hear it breathe, which usually works best if it's timed to the track. As far as the ratio, it's great if you can set it low and it works for you, but another way is the more dynamics, the higher you set the ratio. Again, use your ears. If you can hear it working, maybe that's perfect for the song and maybe it's not. 


Guys, 

I never do this, but I see a whole bunch of misinformation being thrown about so I have to jump in.

1) As far as the boosting 200Hz thing, I never said anything like that at all. What I said is that you can clean up your mixes substantially if you use a hi-pass filter on some of the instruments to get the low end out of the way of other instruments where you really want to hear that low end. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Use your ears. There are times when it works well on an acoustic, especially if it's being used more to push the song than anything, and other times when it's not appropriate.

2) Wow, the compressor thing really got blown out of proportion. Forget the numbers on the things and use your ears. It doesn't matter if you start with the attack time all the way short or all the way long. What counts is that it's set so you can hear some of the attack getting through so the sound isn't too dull. As for the release time, you set it to where you don't hear it breathe, which usually works best if it's timed to the track. As far as the ratio, it's great if you can set it low and it works for you, but another way is the more dynamics, the higher you set the ratio. Again, use your ears. If you can hear it working, maybe that's perfect for the song and maybe it's not. 

3) My books and the Internet. All of my books feature interviews with people who are a lot smarter than I am. I'm trying to capture their industrial knowledge before it fades away, since we no longer have the master/apprentice way of learning anymore. When I first wrote The Mixing Engineer's Handbook, it was the only book on the market on mixing. Now there's plenty of great info everywhere and I encourage you to seek it out. For what it's worth, I'm doing an updated version of the Mixing Handbook at this moment, and it will have a number of topics that aren't touched or are overlooked by other mixing courses or books, as well as many of the interviews being updated and a few new ones with Ken Scott, Andrew Scheps, Bob Brockman, Bob Bullock, among others. It's the wisdom of people who have sold hundreds of millions of records.

4) Every great mixer knows that there are a lot of ways to get the same place. One of the things that Dave Pensado and I always joke about is that two guys can approach a mix totally differently and get more or less the same result. One guy will push things one way and the other will do just the opposite. Neither is right or wrong. Take what you read or hear, keep what works and discard the rest.

5) Regarding my credits, frankly I never bothered to look until this morning. I was amused at some of the omissions and things they got flat out wrong. No big deal because I don't really care and probably won't ever bother to look at them again. For those of you interested though, I don't see any of the more than 100 DVDs that I did surround music mixes for (some of which include The Who, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, The Ramones, etc.), or the records I did with blues legends Joe Houston, Willie Dixon, Gerry Groom and a couple of great ones with the not-so-lblues-legend Mick Taylor.

OK, I hope this clears some things up. Be careful when you sling those examples. They're easy to take out of context.

Bobby

Thanks for chiming in, Bobby!

Bobby
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to this post ---
I was probably the one that started the debate about compression settings - it was never a criticism, 
I was just confused over the slow attack settings you had set for the guitar, and was curious to know if I was missing a trick
 
 I really enjoyed the video - very informative and well put together.
 
Keep up the good work

Rain


As Bobby pointed out to clarify, though his method may differ from what someone else would do, obviously, whether you start w/ short or long attack, what matters is where it ends.

Same for EQ I guess. Also, to be fair - he specifies on many occasions that the settings he uses in the video are exaggerated for demonstration purpose and that he wouldn't use such extreme cuts and boosts in a real-world situation.

Well said Rain, and also this part: "As for the release time, you set it to where you don't hear it breathe, which usually works best if it's timed to the track."
 
This makes a world of difference and something I do my best to always achieve whenever possible...or as close to possible. Timing a compressor to the music is something many don't do and they should. Even a 2 buss comp or a compressor on a drum track can benefit greatly from this as well as individual instruments. 
 
I'm one that doesn't usually look at my settings once I start working on something. I have starting points that are good with particular compressors on certain instruments, but once I start turning knobs, I usually don't pay much attention to where I end up. :)
 
Yeah the eq thing is always going to be hard to get a handle on unless you can show exaggerated situations. For example, I think most of the UAD videos demoing their stuff are horrible examples of what their plugs can do. They either go to the extremes and create sounds that aren't very good or it's so subtle it makes you go "huh...is it really doing anything?" Yet their plugs rock.
 
I think the best way to explain eq situations is to show the instrument with nothing on it and then with something on it. That said, when you record something and know what you're doing, you wouldn't print the sound anyway if it needed loads of eq other than when you may be sculpting or trying to create a sound out of something. Or, when you have a magical performance that you know you may not capture again if you tried it with another sound, so you tweak it until it's right.
 
But most times, you won't spend loads of time trying to get a sound to work....at least I don't and neither do the other people I consider great engineers. I mean granted, sometimes you have to work an instrument...but even then, the sound and performance usually stands on its own with little to no processing. Our artistic minds are what can make it a challenge. :)
 
-Danny

I agree this is a great thread, thanks 'Rain' for starting it!

And thank you Mr. Owsinski for clarifing; the confusing points. 

I'm sure you would be welcomed back here anytime