REALITY CHECK #6: Your Gear Sucks, part II

ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck

-REALITY CHECK # 4: Your Gear Sucks

-REALITY CHECK # 5: You Suck, part II

To be honest, I'm on the verge of beating a dead horse with this post since I've pretty much covered most of the main points in REALITY CHECK numbers 1, 4, and 5; But, in REALITY CHECK #4: Your Gear Sucks, I limited my discussion of gear to the front end (capture). For this post, I'm only going to talk about the tools you use after the audio has entered the computer (processing). This includes plug-ins, outboard hardware, virtual instruments, sample libraries, loops, etc. The first was about recording, this one is about programming, mixing and mastering. For these subjects, I need to address a few issues.

Despite the differences between capture and processing, my point is the same:

You don't have enough varieties of quality equipment to produce radio-ready recordings.

Before I go any further, though, I need to make one point clear: having a limited amount of "okay" gear is only a crippling hindrance in some genres. For example, I believe it's possible to produce a radio-ready instrumental electronica track by working strictly with Logic's stock plug-ins and virtual instruments. In contrast, I think it would be very difficult to produce a really authentic rock song using programmed drums and synth bass...no matter how awesome the sample libraries are. Another example: programming a "realistic" sounding brass quintet piece with sub-par sounds and/or bad technique may be next to impossible, but competently programmed string samples can fool the best of us in a pop context (Sandy Vee used string samples in Katy Perry's "Firework." See Sound on Sound April 2011, p. 133). Examples abound, so take only what may apply to your situation.

Let's jump in.

In a recent Inside Track I noticed that mix engineer Ruadhri Cushnan used the Bomb Factory 1176, the D-verb, and the EQ-III (all stock plug-ins for ProTools) in several instances on "Little Lion Man" by Mumford and Sons (See Sound on Sound March 2011, pp. 142-3). Many folks will point to instances like this and proclaim: "If such-and-such stock plug-in is good enough for so-and-so pro engineer, then it must be high quality enough for me to use in my projects." My response is the dreaded... ...wait for it... ...it depends.

First off, some stock plug-ins don't completely suck. I can usually find a few things that a stock plug-in does great. But if you got the point of the first "Your Gear Sucks" post, you now understand that we're dealing with an issue of quality and quantity (of course, the pros have both, darn it). Stock compressor X may work great on a few sources but suck on others. This is where you'll need access to a cornucopia of compressors so you can appropriately match the compressor to the source. AND, they better be nice compressors. Quality does matter after all. What the stock-plug-ins-are-cool folks failed to mention in their rant was that Mr. Cushnan only used stock plug-ins 20% of the time. 80% of the processing that went into the "Lion Man" mix were were quality plugs from Joe Meek, Oxford, and Audio Ease (in addition to outboard gear by Neve, Summit, and Smart Research). The point is that you need a variety of great gear in order to processes a track in the way it's asking to be processed (assuming that you know what you're doing). Stock plug-ins may do the job, but you better have quality options on hand for when they don't.

Now, to throw an even bigger wrench in the home recording machine, many established mixers have deemed plug-ins unsuitable for important processing tasks. Mixerman recommends quality hardware compressors for the mix bus, hardware effects units for things like reverb, and a summing box for the final mixdown. He'll even print to tape if necessary (see Zen and the Art of Mixing, pp. 170-196). To him, DAWs are a necessary evil and he claims that getting an authentic sound is only possible by moving the signal out-of-the-box and into some analog gear. If this seems excessive, he's not the only one doing it. Notice that Cushnan did it for "Little Lion Man"? For Taylor Swift's Latest album, producer/mixer Justin Niebank used plug-ins from Waves, Sound Toys, Universal Audio, and AVID, but then sent the mix through a Dangerous 2-Bus (analog summing), a quality outboard compressor and EQ, an then onto 1/2-inch tape (see Sound on Sound, February 2011, pp.155-56).

But, that's just for rock, right? Not so. At the recent HRBC Fest in March, 2011, pop mixer Tony Shepperd laid out his hybrid setup, which included outboard reverbs and a summing box. He's not alone. In fact, many pros these days insist that working entirely in-the-box cannot give us the sound we crave. But, before you jump off a cliff (which I almost did after reading the "Gear" portion of Zen and the Art of Mixing), not everyone makes the same claim. Many pop productions are mixed entirely in the box. (Just remember that any "live" signals captured with a mic were probably routed through several pieces of yummy analog gear. See REALITY CHECK #4: Your gear Sucks). I predict that digital technology will eventually satisfy our analog craving and we'll all laugh at the idea of a patch cord. But until that day, many current mixing pros have already gone hybrid because some plug-ins just can't compete with the real deal.

So...depending on the genre you work in, your small selection of cheap gear could be keeping you from producing radio-quality recordings. Here are a list of things that could make your recording sound lame if used inappropriately:

-plug-in guitar tone
-virtual instruments that imitate acoustic instruments through synthesis
-bad sample libraries or great sampled instruments programmed poorly
-plug-in reverb (instead of a cool space, hardware unit, chamber, or re-amp setup)
-plug-in effects (instead of their analog counterparts)
-plug-in processors (EQ, compression, etc.)
-crappy analog gear

Please understand that I don't represent the analog-is-always-better-than-digital camp. There is a lot of crappy analog gear out there, too (make sure to check out David Schober's post: Just Because Something is Analog Doesn't Mean it's Better). I'm just saying that getting the right sound for some genres involves expensive outboard gear. For example, if your indie-rock track needs a Roland Space Echo, the plug-in version might not sound as authentic as the real deal. Even worse, if you need the Space Echo, but only have access to a digital delay and EQ, you're gonna be disappointed when you try to "fake it."

The take away from each REALITY CHECK series is that you should both accept your situation and take baby steps to remedy it. Hoping that you can produce radio-quality tracks with your 5 stock plug-ins is just going to result in tears.

So here's what I recommend, in order of importance:

1) Learn to use the plug-ins you have
Great gear is only as good as the person using it. Go as far as you can with what you have and you'll be justified in upgrading. This involves not just mastery of parameters, but also successful application of a plug-in to a task. If you don't know which of your two compressors works better over the 2-bus, you have homework to do. If you can't program somewhat realistic sounding drums with EZDrummer, then carve out 3 hours and edit velocities and articulations like the rest of us. Upgrading to Superior Drummer won't help you.

2) Decipher which gear is appropriate for each genre
Read, read, read and find out what the mixers/beatmakers/composers/programmers in your genre are using to get their sounds. Then read about what other genres use. Note which processors/instruments are universal and which ones apply to specific genres. Of course, don't limit yourself. By all means experiment. Just be mindful. That melt-your-face guitar distortion might not do well in a jazz context. :-)

3) Get a variety of mid-range plug-ins (processors, virtual instruments, etc.)
Quality is important, but if you still consider yourself a beginner, just recognizing the benefits, drawbacks, and character of a wide variety of plug-ins is more important. Figure out which ones work best for specific tasks. Find excuses to try them out in a variety of situations. This is part of your plug-in education. Really learn their sound. This will help you recognize and appreciate the good stuff once you upgrade. (Hint: besides searching for the plethora of free plug-ins available, I keep my eye on www.audiomidi.com for their "No Brainer" deals.)

4) Get some quality plug-ins (processors, virtual instruments, etc.)

I would get the UAD Satellite or a Waves bundle before I would buy analog gear. Why? A) You get a heck of a lot of great plug-ins for a 1/2 the price of one worthy hardware unit; variety is key; B) Because you'll immediately be amazed how much a great plug-in can sound awesome and make life easier; and C) You'll start to get an idea of the how some of the coveted gear works and sounds. (Just realize that plug-ins modeled after real analog gear may not sound or behave the same!)

Same thing applies to virtual instruments. Once you've gone as far as you can go programming orchestral sounds with Garritan, graduate to Vienna and be amazed. It's also much cheaper than hiring an orchestra. Trust me, I've done the math :-)

5) Get some quality outboard gear
Once you know your stuff, have confidently used the good plug-ins to transform your mixes, and have inherited $50,000 from your rich aunt Sally, then you can decide if getting some analog gear is worth it for you. Try renting a piece of gear first and do some A/B-ing. If your world is rocked, go for it!

The equivalent of "outboard gear" for those who use virtual instruments exclusively is actually hiring a studio to record real musicians. As of today, a talented human trumpet player will always sound better than a programmed part, especially if it's a solo. This means you'll want to consider spending Aunt Sally's inheritance money on hiring pros to play and capture your music. Can't afford an entire string section? Just hire a single violinist to play a layer or two of your string parts. Blend those real performances over the top of your virtual string section to make it sound way more authentic. Not easy, or convenient, or cheap...but hey, you just inherited $50,000 :-)

My Dad always says, "Money can't buy happiness, but it does make life a heck of a lot easier." With music production, the same principal applies. Newer, better, and in many cases, vintage gear won't suddenly transform your work into gold, but it will sound better and it will reduce the amount of time/energy you spend tweaking. Once you have a zebra, you won't have to paint black stripes on that white donkey anymore.

A few more minor points, and then I'll wrap it up...

About Virtual Instruments

Customize your patches! It's cool to start with a patch, but no patch fits perfectly with your song. You need to edit that patch to meet the needs of the track! This can include tweaking parameters in your synth, dialing back the room sound of your drums, and adding effects like distortion, delay, reverb, chorus, etc. Add something original to put your stamp on it. (This advice also applies to processing plug-ins as well.)

Also, avoid cheesy or dated sounding patches at all cost, unless that's the intent. "Cheesy" and "dated" are both relative terms, but you know what I mean. There are a lot of really bad sounding virtual instruments, especially the ones that try to emulate acoustic instruments through synthesis. Yuck! If your song starts sounding like a MIDI karaoke backing track, put on the breaks and start over. Unless, of course, you enjoy hearing the word "amateur" being associated with your creations.

About Loops
You have to be really carefully about using loops in your compositions. First, they better be quality (expertly performed and recorded). Second, you better use as many tricks as possible to hide the fact that they're loops. No contemporary track on the radio just repeats a few bars of drum loop throughout the entire track. Even sample-based rap tracks contain cut up measures, re-arranged sequences, re-organized slices, fills, sudden stops/starts, varieties of groove, etc. A great pop producer is a master at adding as much subtle variety to his loops as possible. Third, you better not use easily recognizable loops. This means GarageBand loops are out, unless it's low-profile ones (percussion, etc.). Fourth, don't even think about using loops for some genres. Looped drums for a traditional blues piece? No way.

In conclusion, this post does not justify your G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome) lust. Many of us who run into production roadblocks wrongly assume that it's the tools instead of the user (see my post RANT: "Due to Human Error"). So, before you run out and buy your coveted piece of gear, I would seriously consider spending that cash on education. But if the competent use of the tools you have is still keeping you from producing radio-quality recordings, a gear upgrade may just be the leg up that you need. My friend considers his questionably-legal acquisition of the Waves Mercury Bundle to be a "game changer." What will be your game changer?


And as always, Enjoy the Ride!

REALITY CHECK #7: You Can't Do It Alone, Unless...


For daily tips and links on songwriting, production, and recording, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro