That's an excellent video Danny- very interesting.

I was wondering when you record a project do you use this technique track by track or just over the finished wave?


Totally agree Sonar should have this sort of capability! Cubendo sort of does but I am one of the dopey guys you mention at the start who just grabs a big chunk and lowers it indiscriminately.  now I know better!

Thanks again for the cool video.

backwoods


That's an excellent video Danny- very interesting.

I was wondering when you record a project do you use this technique track by track or just over the finished wave?


Totally agree Sonar should have this sort of capability! Cubendo sort of does but I am one of the dopey guys you mention at the start who just grabs a big chunk and lowers it indiscriminately.  now I know better!

Thanks again for the cool video.

Thanks backwoods! I would have been better if I would have edited it. I so swear I do not say "you know" as much as that when I talk in real life! Ugggh, how annoying! Something about these videos makes me say that 10,000 times. LOL!! Half my editing when I create them, is removing "you know's" Sorry for that part being so annoying. I'm cringing over here. :(
 
Anyway, to answer your question, no I don't ever do this track by track when *I* record something because I don't need to. I never allow this stuff to be on my tracks. Of course there will be times where something may peak a bit...I'm far from perfect. But, it's so minmal for me, if I DO have to fix a few peaks at the mastering stage for myself or things I've recorded for clients, this process may take me 3-5 minutes or less. I may have to fix 5 peaks or maybe 2-3 peaks. It's never anything like what you saw in that file when *I* do the tracking.
 
I wouldn't condone doing it track by track because for one, you'd be even more anal than me...and the time it would take would make you not even want to record anymore. LOL! Not only that, but not every peak needs to be adjusted extensively. Sometimes the impact it gives for a particular part is just what the Dr. ordered for it. So you have to be careful. This is why you send the stuff to me and let me worry about it. LOL! :) Glad you enjoyed the video, thanks brother.
 
-Danny

I must say that was very informative and I agree with your "hand-written" approach. Not saying it's the best - most certainly not the worst, however, Mastering is an intricate art and details definitely matter and the hand-written approach to me seems the safest method.

I'm sad to say that upon watching you've garnered a new nickname. But I'll leave to you: Inmate or Warden? :)

I do have a question:

When you mentioned in the vid about the snare causing the pop (once you isolated it), generally, how do you get mixes to be mastered because if there's alot going on in the song (despite your trained ears), how do you isolate a particular sound/instrument - especially if you don't get the mix ready to be mastered as individual tracks?

I ask because I've seen videos where the ME will just have a unmastered track comparing it to after s/he is done with it.

This isn't like where something is obvious (too much low/high end, etc). I do understand about the clarity of the mix, but how do you deal with a cake that's already baked and go about adding the sprinkles? Or would you prefer getting the layers "store-bought" if you know what I mean? (No pun intended with said analogy) Or would you want both as to have a reference with all the individual tracks included? This isn't me asking for the ME to mix or remix (production) the track, but I do want him/her to see everything that is going on. Would you agree or disagree with this?

I hope this question(s) isn't confusing. My apologies if it is.

PS: I'm sad to say that upon watching you've garnered a new nickname. But I'll leave to you: Inmate or Warden? :)

loved the vid! Thanks!

"Anyway, to answer your question, no I don't ever do this track by track when *I* record something because I don't need to. I never allow this stuff to be on my tracks."


When you are tracking, what do you do to keep these things from happening?

PS. I wouldn't have noticed the "you know" in your vid if you hadn't said so.   

Rus W


I must say that was very informative and I agree with your "hand-written" approach. Not saying it's the best - most certainly not the worst, however, Mastering is an intricate art and details definitely matter and the hand-written approach to me seems the safest method.

I'm sad to say that upon watching you've garnered a new nickname. But I'll leave to you: Inmate or Warden? :)

I do have a question:

When you mentioned in the vid about the snare causing the pop (once you isolated it), generally, how do you get mixes to be mastered because if there's alot going on in the song (despite your trained ears), how do you isolate a particular sound/instrument - especially if you don't get the mix ready to be mastered as individual tracks?

I ask because I've seen videos where the ME will just have a unmastered track comparing it to after s/he is done with it.

This isn't like where something is obvious (too much low/high end, etc). I do understand about the clarity of the mix, but how do you deal with a cake that's already baked and go about adding the sprinkles? Or would you prefer getting the layers "store-bought" if you know what I mean? (No pun intended with said analogy) Or would you want both as to have a reference with all the individual tracks included? This isn't me asking for the ME to mix or remix (production) the track, but I do want him/her to see everything that is going on. Would you agree or disagree with this?

I hope this question(s) isn't confusing. My apologies if it is.

PS: I'm sad to say that upon watching you've garnered a new nickname. But I'll leave to you: Inmate or Warden? :)

Everyone will sort of pick up their own ways of doing things. As long as they work for a person, it's all good no matter how goofy. :)
 
As for your question, the answer is...you're limited. However, each frequency you deal with, represents a syllable. Upon isolating these syllables or exeperimenting with them, if you will, they reveal instruments in how they are heard....or in some cases, sort of covered up if they lash out too much.
 
As for the cake that may be too baked, this is what listening sessions are for and why I give advice before I master a thing. I simply won't master something that is so baked it may sound bad, may be too compressed, may be way too colored to where nothing I do can make it better.
 
See Rus, the thing with me is I don't NEED the money as much as I WANT to make a difference. If someone sends me something that I cannot make a difference on, I tell them straight up that I don't feel I can make what they've sent better. And if I tried, I'd be taking their money for the sake of a pay check. Can I make it better? Sure I can! But...does the price I charge justify the RIGHT amount of better? Here's a scenario to explain it better.
 
You and I do a shoot-out with the same guitar. You record it on your end with a $4000 mic pre, I run my mic into some little DI box gizmo that cost $150. We post our results and it turns out the people that voted, liked your guitar sound better. It was close though and I got quite a few votes, but you won over the majority. When everyone seriously analyzes what we presented with our test, we find that it's also subjective no matter who won. We also come to the conclusion that the difference in your recording is about 3% for the better. One has to question: "can we justify paying $4k for a 3% difference?" To some, yeah...to others...no one will know as far as common listeners go.
 
My point? I can't live with making a 3% or less difference on someone's song and charge what I charge....and trust me, I'm more than fair price wise. I know sometimes I come off like a hot head that may seem heartless at times...but that's only when someone makes me mad. I'd never be heartless or that desperate to take on a job for the sake of money even if I was ready to lose my house. So the client either takes my advice and tries to fix the mix, they send me stems (which makes the procedure cost a little more) and I fix them that way, or I kindly walk from the job. So I never get to the "too baked" stage. :)
 
I'd like to share something else with you to further illustrate some of the stuff we've been talking about if you don't mind? A few years ago, Michael Wagener (famous rock producer from the 80's) shared a piece of an un-mastered song on Gear Slutz that he worked on for Ozzy called "Perry Mason". He of course didn't get the gig, but what he shared had more value to me than "wow Michael, that was great....you should have gotten the gig!" I was one of the one's that praised him and jumped on that train as well because it was great to see him there and I am a fan of his work.
 
However, I kept that file he shared and years later, a lightbulb went off as I got deeper and deeper into recording and mastering. When I say all the time that "major label guys do not share mixes that sound like mastered material" this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. When you hear this, listen to what it DOESN'T have.
 
Every piece that I have heard from a major that was un-mastered, has these flat qualities. Flat qualities in a GOOD way though because they leave room for the ME do perform his magic. There are no low end nasties, no excessive mids, no harsh highs, no compressors pumping and breathing, the file doesn't look like a square box and it doesn't have loads of spikes all over the place.
 
It's balanced the way a mix should be. Now mind you, what he shared might have been doctored up a bit by him as most guys don't really expose themselves completely naked...especially on that forum. But this is definitely a good representation of what a mix should sound like in my opinion because of what it DOESN'T have in it YET.
 
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/pmfade.mp3
 
See how open it is to be sculpted into something really killer? Try it yourself. Throw it in Sonar or the DAW of your choice and eq it to your specs, add a limiter or some compression and then turn them all off and hear the differences. A mix like this is an ME's dream come true. Of course this mix is a little hotter than we'd like to have delivered to us, but you'll notice if you run some numbers on it, it's neither perfect nor is it stretching anything other than in 192kb mp3 format, the numbers are exaggerated. In wave form, they'd look a lot better.
 
But you'll notice...this doesn't rattle with low end...you can hear it and feel it a bit, but it's not making your bile ducts quake. It's got a nice mid range sound to it that is not congested or trying to over-emphasize "warmth" which can create "boxy sounding" mixes that are lifeless. It has a bit of sparkle in the high end...part of that due to Zakk's pinch harmonics needing to lash out and cut you like a knife as a part of his guitar style.
 
Anyway, this has made for some really great discussion. Thanks to sharpdion for letting us talk in depth without yelling at us for thread hi-jacking. :) Hope this answers your question, Rus. :) Hmmm....Warden sounds a bit better than inmate...though Phil Z dubbed me "The Daniac" a few years back. LOL! Ah I'm easy...call me whatever ya want as long as ya like me when ya say it. :)
 
-Danny

sharpdion23


loved the vid! Thanks!

"Anyway, to answer your question, no I don't ever do this track by track when *I* record something because I don't need to. I never allow this stuff to be on my tracks."


When you are tracking, what do you do to keep these things from happening?

PS. I wouldn't have noticed the "you know" in your vid if you hadn't said so.   

You're welcome. :) When tracking, I like to track through a compressor lightly so it conditions my signal. It gives me less peaks though a few may sneak in as I do not want to over-compress and ruin the track. The key is to watch how you play too. If you're playing an acoustic guitar, you may want to use a lighter pick if you are going to smash a section and play really loud. Or if you're singing, you may want to back off on the mic a little bit if there is a part where you will be yelling or singing something super forceful.
 
Here's another useful tip for you. When you are setting up your levels to record, always play what you will be recording so you can set your meters the right way. For example, if I was setting up my levels for a high-gain rock guitar sound, I'd not play lead guitar riffs to set my levels. The reason being, when I play chords or rhythm, the meters will ramp up. So chances are I'd clip the track. If I were singing a love ballad while getting my levels ready, I'd not sing a Rage Against the Machine song to set my levels, understand? How you set the levels as well as what you perform and how you observe how you record, will stop these peaks from entering in the first place.
 
From there, track automation and a little compression done the right way should have you in great shape. :)
 
You know (pun intended lol) I shouldn't have mentioed that I went off on a "you know" frenzy....but it bothered me sooooo bad, I just had to. I just hope it doesn't bother anyone else...but it probably will now that I mentioned it. Again...sorry about that. This is why I edit my videos before I post them. LOL! :) Glad you enjoyed it though, thanks.
 
-Danny

I think I will just call you Danny... I like that the best.

Dude, you are unreal, I did n't expect a video, but this was great.  I learned a lot from that video. Mostly, that I am not ready for that kind of mastering.  What I learned is that I need to still work on the tracking part of recording; working to keep the spikes that you have illustrated in check.  I know Bat started chiming in on the use of light compression early in this thread and I was n't really getting it until I saw the illustration.

So, point learned... I need to invest in a hardware compressor to know a little edge off on the way in.  Get the tracks to be as good as possible, before I even worry about mastering, or having some one like yourself, do some real mastering for me. 

I need to take a listen to this second file as well.  I am sure that is going to bring a whole new set of revelations to me.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate you sharing your wisdom, Danny.

Oh, I can spend a fortune on a hardware compressor.  Any lower end alterntives out there that do a descent job.  I better start saving my nickles.

No problem Mike, my pleasure man. As for the hardware comp...no, don't dare spend a bundle. I'll share a little secret with you...but shhhh...don't tell anyone. :) Since we're really (at leas I'm not) not using this particular compressor as a coloration comp, you can buy anything really. At my house, I use a Behringer Multi-Com which is 4 comps in one rack space and super cheap.

Of course we all know that though Behringer puts out decent stuff (ok, some of it sucks) it's perfect for what we want to do here...which is just lightly condition the signal going in, that's all. Now, other guys like to use the pricey hardware comps due to how they literally color the sound as well as condition it going in. That decision is up to you if you want to go that route, and there will still be a few cheaper comps out there that can do that too. Heck you can get away with an Alesis or an ART or a Samson....anything that compresses lightly, doesn't give you noise or hiss and just gives you a decent signal going to disc.

There are some really cool options out there without spending loads of cash. I DO have some really nice hardware comps that I use at my studio, but even there....I never smash them enough to where it matters if I used something pricey or something cheap. As long as my signal is nice going in without spikes and there is no noise or hiss, it will work. Now keep in mind...like I said before, you also want to pay attention to your performance. The reason being, it's all too easy to play or sing a certain way, and then keep jumping on your hardware compressor more and more to stop peaks.

That is NOT what you want to do. Peaks are ok to a small extent, we just don't want them looking like nasty spikes. If you pay attention to your performance and "work" your mic on a vocal or alter a picking style on an acoustic or change picks etc...you stop working the compressor as hard. See, we don't want to hear the effects of the compressor so this is why your performance, mic position, execution, proper leveling and all that goes with it is important.

Here's a quick way to think about it. Say I'm going to play a guitar track. I want my levels going in to be -6dB because that's just what works for me the best. So I'll play the part I'm going to record while watching my meters. I try to get it so that the hardest thing I play hits -6dB. From there, I'll compress just a little taking out maybe -1 to -2dB of gain tops to where the comp kicks in on its meter showing me that on the hardest/loudest part I play. Same with vocals. Never more than -2dB of gain taken out with the compressor and I use a ratio of like 1.5:1 on my guitars...-5 to -8 on the threshold...maybe a 3:1 on a vocal or a bass guitar...it all depends what I'm going for as far as the conditioning part of the compressor goes as well as the person performing. But whatever you do, you don't want to use this to the extreme because it's destructive. If you find out later that the track seems to sound restricted sounding or you hear a pump in the track, you'll need to recut it. So that's why you want to be extra careful here and use the comp to condition more than to actually compress. Make more sense now? :)

-Danny