In case you missed it, check out Tips for Tracking/Mixing Rap Vocals, Part 1.
The other day, Shane from http://www.platinumgoldstudios.com/ and I got to sharing some techniques we use when tracking and mixing rap vocals/ad libs, and we thought we should make them public so you all could benefit as well. We’re not trying to be comprehensive here. We just want our share of the theoretical millions available for bloggers :-)
Okay, so you’ve tracked clean leads, now what do you do with them? In this post we’re going to addressed mixing techniques for standard leads only. We’ll talk about the doubles, ad libs, and special effects in later posts.
EQ
Slap on a High Pass filter to get rid of any low end rumble that may have been captured during tracking and/or to make room for the kick/bass. Just don’t kill the warmth and natural bottom end of the voice. Try somewhere between 75-120Hz. If the voice is too “thick” or “boomy,” a dip with a peak filter around the 150-300 Hz zone will probably be more effective than rolling off a bunch of low end. If there’s competition with a double, try pulling out around 300Hz to eliminate some of the thump. You’ll probably want to slap on a high shelf at about 8kHz or higher to bring out some clarity and presence (“air”). Sometimes you’ll need to dip as low as 4kHz. This can also make sibilance worse, however, so apply carefully and use a de-esser as needed. EQ other areas as needed to cut out junk and/or boost goodness. Be careful boosting around 2-4kHz. It’ll add presence, but at the expense of being harsh over time.
New York
Parallel processing the lead is a great way to make it fatter while also preserving the dynamics that contribute to emotional impact. Try pulling out the lows on the squashed version so it doesn’t accentuate any mud or boom. Also try boosting the highs after the compressor on the squashed copy to bring back the clarity you might have lost after compression. If that’s not “in your face” enough, try out this “Vocal Exciter” trick courtesy Ill Will from http://www.phatassmixes.com/ (@IWStudios): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYPdJjDg7UA
Reverb/Delay
Spit is usually dry, but try adding a tiny bit of short plate or medium-room reverb to help make the voice sound fuller. We’re talking percentages under 15%. A little goes a long way. Roll off the lows up to 700Hz if needed, and trim the highs down to as much as 8kHz. Long stereo delay (1/8,1/4, 1/2) has found its way into many current rap/pop hits and can be affective at times. To add interest, make the right side delay different from the left side (for example, an 1/8th note on one side and a 1/2 note on the other). Don’t overdo it, or it will sound comical or just confusing. Roll off highs if the delays compete with the lead. Go as low as 1kHz if needed. Roll off the low end of the delay if it’s muddying things up. Sending the delays to the reverb helps soften their impact as well. Adding a short delay (under 40ms) can also add some more weight to a voice. Just mix in the delay lower than the lead and try rolling off the highs so it doesn’t fight the lead in the clarity zone. Longer delay times (between 40-200ms) can also imitate a doubled sound as well, but is pretty static sounding after a while. Hard panning a delay or reverb in mono can be fun but isn’t very common. Whatever you do with delay, play with feedback time and adjust to the needs of the track. One repeat can work, but several are sometimes needed.
Heavy Metal
Blending in (parallel processing) some mild distortion can also liven up a voice and make it more interesting. Exciters can also work wonders. Limit the bandwidth of the hyped processing, however, so it doesn’t dominate. The goal is to add subtle texture, not deep-fry it into oblivion. Avoid adding too much crispiness or your listeners will unconsciously recoil halfway into the verse. Re-amping the original signal to a distorted amp can produce cool results as well, especially if you feel like you need some more "air" (in the mic sense, not in the EQ sense) around the distortion part.
Panning
Keep the lead panned dead center. There are times when you want the hard left/right doubled sound, but we’ll talk more about that when we get to hooks and doubles.
Style
Work with the producer and artist to determine what their vocal processing style should be. Your work may determine the sound of every other recording they make in the future. Many artists think there is something wrong with the mix when they just aren’t confident hearing the sound of their own voice. If they sound solid, supportively argue for less “cover-up” processing. If they really do suck, some kind of signature processing might be what they need to feel less embarrassed about their abilities. However, don’t process just for the sake of processing. A single dry line might be all that is needed (“Toot it and Boot it” anyone?)
The tips offered here are just possibilities. The strength of these tips depend on what’s currently in style and how “pop” the artist wants to be. Apply them only if needed, but don’t be afraid to experiment.
Happy Mixing!
Cory & Shane
Check out Cory on Twitter @CreateMusicPro or online at http://www.createmusicproductions.com/
Check out Shane on Twitter @Gilligan204 or online at http://www.platinumgoldstudios.com/
Showing posts with label mixing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mixing. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
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 series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck
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
For daily tips and links on songwriting, production, and recording, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck
ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
----------------------------------------------
Let's face it, your monitors probably suck, and sucky monitors can keep you from making broadcast quality recordings. But I wish upgrading to an expensive pair of monitors would elevate you to recordist extraordinaire. Unfortunately, the problem is bigger than that. I should have titled this post "Your Monitoring Situation Sucks" because there are several things to consider when addressing the monitoring issue.
You Get What You Pay For
I don't think I've ever met an owner of an inexpensive compact car who complains that their vehicle can't compete with a Ferrari on the race track. So why do we complain when we can't get our mixes to sound right with our 4" entry-level monitors? In Mixerman's book Zen and the Art of Mixing he recommends that people pay $1,500+ for a pair of 6"-8" nearfields. Out of your budget? Yup. So, how can you compete? Your $300 monitors sound...well...like $300 monitors. They're probably misrepresenting the audio coming out of them. And if you're making bass-heavy music, they aren't capable of reproducing that 30-50Hz low end that you crave. If you can't hear it, how are you supposed to carry out mix decisions confidently? Both major roadblocks to achieving broadcast quality recordings.
Your Room Is As Important as Your Monitors
If your room sucks, you're still gonna have issues working with even the best pair of monitors. Your monitors are only as good as your room, so the room must sound great before a quality monitor can start helping you. See REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks.
Knowing Your Monitors Is Essential
In Zen and the Art of Mixing Mixerman says, "All you need to understand is how your monitors respond in your room and how that translates outside of your room" (p. 167). Now, he's not advocating mixing with junk monitors, but this is where people with mid-level monitors can actually make decent recordings. If you can "learn" your monitors and your room, you can actually work around some of the deficits of both. It can be a pain in the butt, but it is possible. However, the major roadblock to attaining this level of knowledge and understanding is...well...YOU. Remember my first post: "You Suck"? Many of us self-taught home recordists don't know what it means to learn a pair of monitors. Even if we did, it can take years to finally achieve this ninja ability. And let's say you win the lottery today and the first thing you buy is a pair of Gold-Mach 500 Pro-Mixer Series 8" diamond studded monitors. There still is a learning curve that needs to be addressed. If you can't, you're screwed.
Multiple References Are Needed
Let's take a peak at a pro studio for a moment. They have at least 3 pairs of quality monitoring options: "bigs," midfields, and nearfields. (I'm not gonna explain what each of those are because I really think you should read the section on monitoring from Mixerman's Zen and the Art of Mixing.) For a home studio this is overkill, but my point is that one reference is usually not enough. A second pair of monitors will offer another perspective on your mix, which will increase the chances of that mix translating on a variety of playback systems outside the studio. Mixerman talks about switching between top quality 6"-8" nearfields and 10"-15" midfields to reach a compromise on certain mix decisions. Many of us have two sets of monitors, but switching between a $300 pair of 5" CoolBrands and a $50 pair of computer speakers won't provide the same results. It can be done, but it's gonna take a lot more work.
In summary, bad monitors, bad room, inexperience/inability, and no secondary reference monitors all combine to make a quadruple whammy in our ability to crank out broadcast quality recordings. The good news is that it's not impossible...just really annoying.
So, what can you do? If you haven't already figured it out, this series is about either coming to terms with your situation and celebrating where you're at, or taking baby steps toward improving your situation. I recommend doing both. The advice for improving your monitoring situation isn't unlike the advice I gave for dealing with a bad room. Check your mixes on as many references as you can. When your mix "translates" well on a boombox, over earbuds, in your car, and in the living room, you've probably got it dialed in. If not, make adjustments until you do.
The best thing you can do is "learn" how your monitors sound in your room. Import a bunch of your favorite CD-quality files into your DAW and have a listening party from the mix position. Just observe. Listen to all the frequency ranges to see how they react. Is the low end boomy or does it disappear? Is the high end shrill or does it sound like it's being rolled off? Take notes. Play a wide variety of genres. If you do this enough, you should be able to recognize what sticks out in your track that shouldn't.
Another great technique for learning your room/monitors is to keep a few broadcast quality reference songs in your session while you're mixing. If you're unsure just how much midrange to boost, for example, flip over to the genre-similar track and see what it's doing. Ignore loudness (if you can) and focus on balance and blend. Ask specific questions about your mix and find specific answers from the reference mixes. Tweak your mix until it has similar characteristics to the pro mix. Just remember that the pro mix you're comparing with has been mastered. Try to discern what mastering has done and ignore those aspects of the pro mix. Then try to anticipate how mastering will change your mix and pretend it has those characteristics. Good luck with that! :-)
I haven't mentioned proper placement of the monitors in your room, the equilateral triangle of listening bliss, decoupling the monitors from your desk, avoiding desk reflections, working with subs, or anything like that. There's lots of info on the interwebs about the proper care and feeding of monitors. Do the research. Every minor adjustment that improves your monitoring will payback in the mix arena. A fun place to start is Overdub
vol. 1: A Guide to Studio Monitors put out by M-Audio.
Finally, if anyone has experience with the room analysis kits like the KRK Ergo or IK Multimedia ARC, please leave a comment. Love? Hate? Indifferent? What's the verdict?
And as always, enjoy the ride!
REALITY CHECK #4: Your Gear Sucks
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
----------------------------------------------
Let's face it, your monitors probably suck, and sucky monitors can keep you from making broadcast quality recordings. But I wish upgrading to an expensive pair of monitors would elevate you to recordist extraordinaire. Unfortunately, the problem is bigger than that. I should have titled this post "Your Monitoring Situation Sucks" because there are several things to consider when addressing the monitoring issue.
You Get What You Pay For
I don't think I've ever met an owner of an inexpensive compact car who complains that their vehicle can't compete with a Ferrari on the race track. So why do we complain when we can't get our mixes to sound right with our 4" entry-level monitors? In Mixerman's book Zen and the Art of Mixing he recommends that people pay $1,500+ for a pair of 6"-8" nearfields. Out of your budget? Yup. So, how can you compete? Your $300 monitors sound...well...like $300 monitors. They're probably misrepresenting the audio coming out of them. And if you're making bass-heavy music, they aren't capable of reproducing that 30-50Hz low end that you crave. If you can't hear it, how are you supposed to carry out mix decisions confidently? Both major roadblocks to achieving broadcast quality recordings.
Your Room Is As Important as Your Monitors
If your room sucks, you're still gonna have issues working with even the best pair of monitors. Your monitors are only as good as your room, so the room must sound great before a quality monitor can start helping you. See REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks.
Knowing Your Monitors Is Essential
In Zen and the Art of Mixing Mixerman says, "All you need to understand is how your monitors respond in your room and how that translates outside of your room" (p. 167). Now, he's not advocating mixing with junk monitors, but this is where people with mid-level monitors can actually make decent recordings. If you can "learn" your monitors and your room, you can actually work around some of the deficits of both. It can be a pain in the butt, but it is possible. However, the major roadblock to attaining this level of knowledge and understanding is...well...YOU. Remember my first post: "You Suck"? Many of us self-taught home recordists don't know what it means to learn a pair of monitors. Even if we did, it can take years to finally achieve this ninja ability. And let's say you win the lottery today and the first thing you buy is a pair of Gold-Mach 500 Pro-Mixer Series 8" diamond studded monitors. There still is a learning curve that needs to be addressed. If you can't, you're screwed.
Multiple References Are Needed
Let's take a peak at a pro studio for a moment. They have at least 3 pairs of quality monitoring options: "bigs," midfields, and nearfields. (I'm not gonna explain what each of those are because I really think you should read the section on monitoring from Mixerman's Zen and the Art of Mixing.) For a home studio this is overkill, but my point is that one reference is usually not enough. A second pair of monitors will offer another perspective on your mix, which will increase the chances of that mix translating on a variety of playback systems outside the studio. Mixerman talks about switching between top quality 6"-8" nearfields and 10"-15" midfields to reach a compromise on certain mix decisions. Many of us have two sets of monitors, but switching between a $300 pair of 5" CoolBrands and a $50 pair of computer speakers won't provide the same results. It can be done, but it's gonna take a lot more work.
In summary, bad monitors, bad room, inexperience/inability, and no secondary reference monitors all combine to make a quadruple whammy in our ability to crank out broadcast quality recordings. The good news is that it's not impossible...just really annoying.
So, what can you do? If you haven't already figured it out, this series is about either coming to terms with your situation and celebrating where you're at, or taking baby steps toward improving your situation. I recommend doing both. The advice for improving your monitoring situation isn't unlike the advice I gave for dealing with a bad room. Check your mixes on as many references as you can. When your mix "translates" well on a boombox, over earbuds, in your car, and in the living room, you've probably got it dialed in. If not, make adjustments until you do.
The best thing you can do is "learn" how your monitors sound in your room. Import a bunch of your favorite CD-quality files into your DAW and have a listening party from the mix position. Just observe. Listen to all the frequency ranges to see how they react. Is the low end boomy or does it disappear? Is the high end shrill or does it sound like it's being rolled off? Take notes. Play a wide variety of genres. If you do this enough, you should be able to recognize what sticks out in your track that shouldn't.
Another great technique for learning your room/monitors is to keep a few broadcast quality reference songs in your session while you're mixing. If you're unsure just how much midrange to boost, for example, flip over to the genre-similar track and see what it's doing. Ignore loudness (if you can) and focus on balance and blend. Ask specific questions about your mix and find specific answers from the reference mixes. Tweak your mix until it has similar characteristics to the pro mix. Just remember that the pro mix you're comparing with has been mastered. Try to discern what mastering has done and ignore those aspects of the pro mix. Then try to anticipate how mastering will change your mix and pretend it has those characteristics. Good luck with that! :-)
I haven't mentioned proper placement of the monitors in your room, the equilateral triangle of listening bliss, decoupling the monitors from your desk, avoiding desk reflections, working with subs, or anything like that. There's lots of info on the interwebs about the proper care and feeding of monitors. Do the research. Every minor adjustment that improves your monitoring will payback in the mix arena. A fun place to start is Overdub
vol. 1: A Guide to Studio Monitors put out by M-Audio.
Finally, if anyone has experience with the room analysis kits like the KRK Ergo or IK Multimedia ARC, please leave a comment. Love? Hate? Indifferent? What's the verdict?
And as always, enjoy the ride!
REALITY CHECK #4: Your Gear Sucks
Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links on songwriting, recording, music production:@CreateMusicPro
Monday, March 7, 2011
REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
(ATTENTION: This post may seem a little out of context if you haven't already read the REALITY CHECK series Introduction or the first entry, REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck. I recommend reading both before continuing.)
Your room sucks for two reasons: 1) Space, and 2) Acoustics.
1) Space.
Have you ever been to a real recording studio? The big ones have multiple tracking rooms with matching control rooms, both of which have been designed by acousticians or at least people who know their stuff. The goal of a great tracking room is to sound amazing while offering maximum flexibility in the kind of imprint you want to add to whatever sound source you're capturing. They usually have an open, somewhat reflective "live" room for tracking performances, with portable absorption options (gobos, baffling, acoustic treatment) to help control just how live it sounds. This room is usually flanked by several isolation booths or rooms designed to capture much drier performances and to offer...well...isolation from whatever's going down in the live room.
Your room is probably 10' x 12' (if you're lucky), was designed by an architect for humans to sleep in, offers little or no options as to how dry or wet you want it to sound, and sucks acoustically. Maybe you've slapped up some Auralex foam, have a packing blanket or two, and perhaps even an isolation box. Big whoop. My point is that your room probably sounds bad and gives you zero options as to the kind or amount of room tone you'd like to capture. I bet you can produce a few radio-quality recordings from your room if it sounds halfway decent, but your hands are tied if you need a different sound than what your room is capable of producing.
2) Acoustics.
If you're an electronica or MIDI composer, you probably don't care too much about my first point. But if you're playing back your songs through speakers into a room, then no one is immune to this fact: a room "colors" your sound for good or for evil. If you're playing back into an evil room, how are you supposed to produce radio-quality sounds?
Back to the pro studio for a moment. A sweet control room has been designed or treated by an expert to offer a fairly neutral playback environment. This means that when a song comes out of the speakers, the sounds aren't bouncing around the room in an adverse way. Poor, untreated spaces cause all sorts of frequency dips and peaks at the listening position. This makes the receiver think they're hearing something they're not. If your room misrepresents the audio coming out of the monitors, you're going to have a heck of a time trying to mix a radio-quality track, especially when it comes to getting the low end you desire.
Your room is probably too small, too evenly shaped, and probably has no proper sound absorption. Haphazardly throwing up foam, "egg crates," or -gasp- carpeting the entire space will NOT transform your room into a listening paradise. Think about all the money, thought, and expertise that goes into a major-label control room. Frankly, you just don't have the time, cash, expertise, or space necessary to create an ideal listening environment.
So, what is the outcome of the sucky room double whammy?:
With a crappy tracking and playback environment, it's going to be really difficult to capture, process, and mix radio-quality audio.
Notice I didn't say impossible. Most of us will discover workarounds for our room limitations...really annoying workarounds. With the advent of fairly decent portable recording devices, it's theoretically possible to capture any sound source in any environment. (In fact, @RonanCMurphy just spoke on this subject at the HRBC Recording Fest, 2011.) And, actually, you can improve a bad playback environment somewhat with a little knowledge and some cash. Resources like the monthly "Studio S.O.S" series in Sound on Sound magazine can help you get a grasp on some of the most common issues and how to address them. There are tons of book-type reference materials on studio acoustics. I'm excited about @BobbyOwsinski's newly released Studio Builder's Handbook. The bummer is that no amount of DIY knowledge is going to trump expert knowledge. It's not uncommon for the Sound on Sound team to pull out old acoustic treatment because it was doing more harm than good.
For those of us who cannot afford a roam overhaul, the most common workaround for a bad tracking environment is to...well...make the best of a bad situation. Realistically, though, accepting that a bad tracking room could keep you from contending with radio tracks may be the only "solution" until you can change/improve your room situation.
Your room sucks, but I'm sure you've already raised your fists in the air over this frustrating realization. If you're recording with mics, or playing back through speakers (duh), your room puts its sonic imprint on everything you do. If your room doesn't sound good, it's gonna be really hard to make radio-quality recordings.
Your room sucks for two reasons: 1) Space, and 2) Acoustics.
1) Space.
Have you ever been to a real recording studio? The big ones have multiple tracking rooms with matching control rooms, both of which have been designed by acousticians or at least people who know their stuff. The goal of a great tracking room is to sound amazing while offering maximum flexibility in the kind of imprint you want to add to whatever sound source you're capturing. They usually have an open, somewhat reflective "live" room for tracking performances, with portable absorption options (gobos, baffling, acoustic treatment) to help control just how live it sounds. This room is usually flanked by several isolation booths or rooms designed to capture much drier performances and to offer...well...isolation from whatever's going down in the live room.
Your room is probably 10' x 12' (if you're lucky), was designed by an architect for humans to sleep in, offers little or no options as to how dry or wet you want it to sound, and sucks acoustically. Maybe you've slapped up some Auralex foam, have a packing blanket or two, and perhaps even an isolation box. Big whoop. My point is that your room probably sounds bad and gives you zero options as to the kind or amount of room tone you'd like to capture. I bet you can produce a few radio-quality recordings from your room if it sounds halfway decent, but your hands are tied if you need a different sound than what your room is capable of producing.
2) Acoustics.
If you're an electronica or MIDI composer, you probably don't care too much about my first point. But if you're playing back your songs through speakers into a room, then no one is immune to this fact: a room "colors" your sound for good or for evil. If you're playing back into an evil room, how are you supposed to produce radio-quality sounds?
Back to the pro studio for a moment. A sweet control room has been designed or treated by an expert to offer a fairly neutral playback environment. This means that when a song comes out of the speakers, the sounds aren't bouncing around the room in an adverse way. Poor, untreated spaces cause all sorts of frequency dips and peaks at the listening position. This makes the receiver think they're hearing something they're not. If your room misrepresents the audio coming out of the monitors, you're going to have a heck of a time trying to mix a radio-quality track, especially when it comes to getting the low end you desire.
Your room is probably too small, too evenly shaped, and probably has no proper sound absorption. Haphazardly throwing up foam, "egg crates," or -gasp- carpeting the entire space will NOT transform your room into a listening paradise. Think about all the money, thought, and expertise that goes into a major-label control room. Frankly, you just don't have the time, cash, expertise, or space necessary to create an ideal listening environment.
So, what is the outcome of the sucky room double whammy?:
With a crappy tracking and playback environment, it's going to be really difficult to capture, process, and mix radio-quality audio.
Notice I didn't say impossible. Most of us will discover workarounds for our room limitations...really annoying workarounds. With the advent of fairly decent portable recording devices, it's theoretically possible to capture any sound source in any environment. (In fact, @RonanCMurphy just spoke on this subject at the HRBC Recording Fest, 2011.) And, actually, you can improve a bad playback environment somewhat with a little knowledge and some cash. Resources like the monthly "Studio S.O.S" series in Sound on Sound magazine can help you get a grasp on some of the most common issues and how to address them. There are tons of book-type reference materials on studio acoustics. I'm excited about @BobbyOwsinski's newly released Studio Builder's Handbook. The bummer is that no amount of DIY knowledge is going to trump expert knowledge. It's not uncommon for the Sound on Sound team to pull out old acoustic treatment because it was doing more harm than good.
For those of us who cannot afford a roam overhaul, the most common workaround for a bad tracking environment is to...well...make the best of a bad situation. Realistically, though, accepting that a bad tracking room could keep you from contending with radio tracks may be the only "solution" until you can change/improve your room situation.
The poor man's workaround for a bad playback environment is to check mixes on multiple systems: iPods, computer speakers, car systems, home entertainment systems, boom boxes, etc. Make notes on your impressions from each environment and then go back and try to implement the needed changes into your mix. Repeat until you have a decent mix. The problem is that by Mix #11 you're ready to set fire to your studio. Can you imagine being in a room that you could trust? Well, that's the advantage that the hit makers have over you.
If you're frustrated about working in a crappy room, you have one of four options: 1) Violent takeover a major label studio, 2) Expensive overhaul of your existing space, 3) Quit recording forever, or 4) Accept that the less-than-stellar room you're working in is a contributing factor to you not being able to produce radio-quality music.
Choosing 4) is not as bad as you think. You're probably doing a decent job of recording/mixing despite a bad room situation. Yes, the drums you captured in a 10' x 10' carpeted space are gonna sound lifeless compared to the sweet ambiance of a professional live room. No, adding reverb will never compare the authentic vibe of a great-sounding natural space. Yes, getting an accurate image of your low end is going to be darn near impossible in a walk-in-closet. But option 1) is illegal, option 2) is expensive, and option 3) is stupid. My advice: choose 4), deal with it, and enjoy the ride!
Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links to all things recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro
Thursday, March 3, 2011
REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
(ATTENTION: If you haven't already read the introduction to the REALITY CHECK series, this post may feel a little out of context. Get the backstory here: http://createmusictips.blogspot.com/2011/03/reality-check-series-intro.html)
You suck, and I mean that in the most loving way possible. :-) Of course you don't suck. You're actually probably half way decent at recording. But that's not my point. My point is that the audio engineers who make hit records have WAY more knowledge and experience than you. Ask yourself the following questions:
-Have you been recording since you were 14?
-Did you go to school for recording?
-Did you endure a 1-2 year internship in a recording studio?
-Do you record daily for 60+ hours a week?
-Have you been recording professionally for the last 25 years?
People! these are the guys that make platinum selling recordings. Then why, oh, why do we become frustrated when we can't produce broadcast-quality recordings from our home studios with only 2-3 years experience under our belts? Do you see how insane that expectation is?
My point: Many of you who have been recording for only a short time ARE capable of producing tracks that are pretty fricken close to being radio-quality. That's awesome! So, stop beating yourself up about falling 10-15% short of your goal. You will keep getting better and better with persistent effort over time.
Now, if you're ready to upgrade your recording skills, it's time to get more experience and knowledge. We all read books and magazines on recording. We all watch tutorials and read blogs. We all experiment with techniques that we're unfamiliar with. We all attend conference-type events. Great! Keep doing that DAILY for the rest of your life.
But, if you want to improve exponentially, you must realize that experience trumps book smarts any day. Increase the amount of time you spend recording. Sign up for intimate recording workshops like @RonanCMurphy's Home-Recording Boot Camp. Take courses at a nearby college. Pay a local engineer their regular rate to help you through a mix. Get one-to-one assistance on the things that stump you the most from someone who has more experience than you.
The most effective way to gain experience is through a long-term apprentice-type opportunity with veterans of the industry. This may not be realistic given your job/school/family commitments, so think local. Offer to assist at your friend's studio on larger projects. Look into internships at a local studio. Do whatever you can to regularly bump elbows with those better than you. Get out of your studio and into the trenches!
If that's not realistic for you, well…I hate to say it…but don't whine when your track sounds like a gramophone recording compared to the singles on the radio. It's no secret: you don't have the experience or knowledge necessary to produce a radio-quality recording. However, if you accept that that's where you're at despite your lack of knowledge and experience, then maybe you can pat yourself on the back for the progress you've made thus far. Heck, your recordings probably sound better than many indie records made in the '90s. That's pretty cool.
Enjoy the ride!
REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links on all things songwriting, recording, and music production: @CreateMusicPro
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Adventures of One-Upping Yourself
Yesterday I spent all day in the studio trying to re-do a previous session that I thought sucked. I ended up spinning my wheels all day trying to one-up the last session and finally threw my hands up in despair, abandoning the new session completely. I took the rest of the day off and tried to forget that I just wasted another 6 hours with still nothing to show for my efforts. In my despair, the next day (today) I opened up the first session and re-listened to the files I captured initially. I was hoping to gain insight on what I needed to do to get what I wanted to get. Turns out, I loved everything I captured in that very first session. This means I can start tracking vocals and adding overdubs. Yea for me!
I learned two things from this experience:
1) My "perfectionism" hates anything I do initially, be it songwriting or recording. I usually have to get some time-distance between what I've done and listen with a fresh perspective at a later date, which could be the next day, several months, or even a year. Any create-music activity is myopic, and I've found that I need to frequently back away from the tree so I can glance at the forest. Many times the forest-view makes the individual tree look less odd.
2) Sometimes I have to try to one-up my last attempt in order to discover that that attempt was actually pretty good in the first place. This applies to every aspect of songwriting and recording. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to replace what I thought were crappy lyrics, only to flail in trial-and-error land for way too long. But somehow through the process I came to discover that my initial inspiration worked just fine. Same thing applies to tracking and mixing. Go ahead and experiment or try to one-up yourself. But don't be afraid to accept the original idea when nothing's turning out the way you hoped it would.
Now, sometimes I do come up with something better. In fact, that's usually why I attempt to one-up in the first place. Whether you fail or succeed, I actually recommend the one-up attempt because it's great education and practice all the way around. Sometimes it produces great results. But sometimes it's the only thing that can help you realize that you had something good before you started one-upping. And through the process you learn yourself.
I love the saying that an expert is someone who has made all the mistakes that can be made. The implication in this statement is that experts became experts by making mistakes, learning from them, and then applying that knowledge to their betterment. In the process, the expert-in-training eventually learns to trust their own judgements. However, this can take years and years of making mistakes to discover. Don't be frustrated about making mistakes; they're part of the joyride toward success.
Happy Creating!
For daily tips on songwriting, music production, recording, including a daily ProTools tip, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Top Ten Mistakes of Newbie Pro Tools Users
During the day I work at a school where I teach teens music creation using Pro Tools. I also meet with people privately (in their homes) and online (via video chat) doing the same thing. In my instructional journeys, I’ve noticed that complete newbies to both recording and Pro Tools have the same kinds of problems. Fortunately for you, their pain is your gain. In the following post, I list the top 10 mistakes that Pro Tools newbies usually make either before or after purchasing Pro Tools…then I tell you how to remedy those problems. Simple as that.
1) No External Hard-Drive
People…use an external hard drive! When you save your session to your host computer’s hard drive, it has to work twice as hard to simultaneously run ProTools, access/capture audio files, AND run instrument and/or effects plug-ins. So, here’s what you do: save your session files to an external drive. Put your audio loops and samples on that drive. Love that drive. Back-up that drive. Whatever you do, just use one. Just make sure it's an AVID-approved drive spinning at least 7,200 rpm. Evil things can happen if it's too slow (like most of the "tiny 'n' cute" drives running at 5,200 rpm) or is running an incompatible chipset.
(@ObediaTutor correctly pointed out that AVID actually recommends using an internal drive that's separate from your host drive (partitioned drives don't count). My advice is geared toward laptop users, people who can't add an internal drive, or users who plan on transferring projects between studios.)
2) No Filing System
Unless “cluttered-mess” qualifies as a filing system, most newbies scatter their saved session folders all over the place. Or worse, they just save sessions to whatever black hole the default save-to window suggests. Both bad news when you need to find a session you were working on last month. My advice: Come up with a filing system and stick to it. That way you’ll always know where to locate your sessions.
3) No Mouse (For Laptop Users)
Using the trackpad on your laptop is a recipe for frustration and insanity. Using that confounded device will drastically hinder your ability to navigate your session quickly and efficiently. Just get a fricken mouse and stop saying, “Ooops…ooops…ooops.”
4) Crappy Headphones
Ear buds or $20 headphones won’t let you hear what you need to hear. Invest $100 or more on a decent pair of closed-back headphones and you’ll actually be able to hear what you’re doing. A good place to start is with the Sennheiser HD-280 Professional Headphones .
5) Template Fear
If you click “Create blank session” every time you create a new session, it will take you 10+ minutes to set it up the way you like it. There’s nothing that will kill an inspirational burst of creative energy more than setting up your session or creating tracks. The solution?: Make a simple template with all your favorite track types and settings so you don’t have to pull a Sisyphus and start from scratch every time you open a new session. It’s not hard, and there are tons of video tutorials on how to set up and create a template on youtube. In an upcoming screencast, I also intend on showing you all my favorite session settings.
6) Keyboard Shortcut Fear
Even with a mouse, you can waste a lot of valuable time clicking around everywhere in the middle of your session. For example, why would you drag your mouse over to the transport and click the play button if you could just hit the spacebar to start/stop playback? Exactly. I’m not talking about memorizing all 40 pages of shortcuts. But learning a few time-saving shortcuts could really make your Pro Tools experience more enjoyable. Here are a few common ones to get you started:
• Start/stop playback: spacebar
• Turn click track on/off: 7 on numeric keypad
• Arm transport and start recording: F12 or 3 on the numeric keypad
• Create new track: Shift + cmd + N (Mac); Shift + cntrl + N (PC)
• Activate the smart tool: cmd + 7 (Mac) or cntrl + 7 (PC) on the qwerty
keyboard
• Bypass a plug-in: cmd + click (Mac) or cntrl + click (PC) on plug-in
name in the insert section
• Undo: cmd + Z (Mac); cntrl + Z (PC)
(@CreateMusicPro posts daily tips about using Pro Tools, and many of those tips include useful keyboard shortcuts)
7) Using Too Much Reverb/Delay
I know it’s exciting…look at all the cool plug-ins you can use now! Yea! But here’s the thing: just because Pro Tools allows you to easily work with plug-ins doesn’t mean you have to drench your tracks in reverb, delay, and/or distortion. “But I’m embarrassed of my voice,” you say, “I have to use a lot of reverb.” I know, I’ve heard all the reasons. If you want to continue sounding like you’re making amateur home recordings in your bedroom then keep drowning your vocals in large cathedral reverberations. If you’re trying to out-fuzz all the stoner rock that’s ever been made, go ahead. But if you’d like to up the commercial viability of your music and improve the quality of your tracks, add reverb, delay, and distortion like you would add pepper to food. A little bit goes a long way.
In a related note, I’ve seen a lot of people use reverb as an insert. If you do this, skip to 9) really quick and read it…I’ll wait. Okay, thanks, I can now let you in on standard operating procedure for time-based effects: Learn to set up a send and put your reverbs and delays on aux tracks instead of inserts. Learn why from my book recommendation in 9).
8) Magic Bullet Mindset
Many excited musicians buy Pro Tools with the expectation that it’s gonna be the audio equivalent of a robot vacuum. New users soon discover that Pro Tools won’t do a damn thing on your behalf. There is no “set-it-and-forget-it” button. It’s a tool, and like most tools, it’s as only good as its operator. In a similar vein, many folks buy amazing plug-ins with a parallel mindset. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve helped that have Pro Tools M-Powered, a M-Audio Fast Track interface, AND have also somehow acquired the Waves Mercury Bundle (I’m assuming through “alternatively-legal” means). What’s the point of having the best plug-ins if you don’t know how to use them? Yes, their presets will sound better than your stock Pro Tools plug-ins, but presets generally suck. There is no “magic” setting that will work for every recording/mixing situation. Pro Tools and plug-ins are tools, not dust-sprinkling fairies. Sorry, but you’re gonna have to study daily and work hard to record/mix great music…just like every other mortal out there.
9) Clueless About Recording
Many people I work with haven’t a clue about basic recording principals. I know this isn’t directly Pro Tools related, but it definitely affects your ability to accomplish what you’d like to do. You bought ProTools so you could record, right? Then you need to become educated about how recording works. For example, it’s not uncommon for beginners to invest a decent amount of money on a great mic. Good move, if you ask me. But then they take that great mic and place it on a table (no mic stand or pop filter) in the middle of a large, tile-floored room. No joke. If you read Jeff Strong’s “Home Recording for Musicians for Dummies” then you would know that capturing vocals is best done with a mic on a mic stand with a pop filter that’s sitting in some kind of “dead” space. A walk-in closet with lots of clothes works way better as a tracking booth than in the middle of your tiled kitchen. But, I digress. My point is that you’re gonna need to acquire a basic understanding of how the recording process works before you can best use your software to produce the kind of results you expected when you first purchased Pro Tools in the first place. If we were all living in the Matrix, then I’d recommend the “Comprehensive Recording Skills” mental download, but we’re not, so I guess I just have to recommend a lot of book reading, online tutorial study (AudioTuts+ is good), and youtube searching (try WinkSound for ProTools specific recording tricks). I also suggest subscribing to Recording Magazine . Even if you can’t decipher what you’re reading initially, it’s a great way to gradually become acclimated to the weird world of recording. (In fact, I highly recommend reading through their "Beginners' Series." If you're brand new to all of this, most of the content might go over your head. But it's chock full of newbie goodness.)
10) Manual? What Manual?
Whenever I ask my Dad for help with a complex electronic device his reply is always the same: “Read the Damn Manual!” Let’s face it, to figure out how-the-hell Pro Tools works, at some point you’re going to have to read portions of that 1,000+ page document Avid calls the “Reference Guide.” Ignoring it like it doesn’t exist will just cause you pain in the long run. So, let me walk you through the “creative person’s way” to use any manual. First of all, always at least read through the quick start guide. That should get you up and running as well as introduce you to the terminology of the program. From there, treat the Reference Guide like any other reference: read it when you need it. If you can remember the correct terminology for what it is you’d like to do, then just enter that term into the “Find” box of Adobe Reader or look it up in the index. Search this way until you find the correct portion of the Reference Guide and then only read the applicable information in that section. Solve one problem at a time. You’ll be tempted to follow the many labyrinthine paths that lead off into the nether regions of the document, but beware… before you know it you’ll forget the original reason you turned to the Reference Guide in the first place. I’m assuming you’d rather be creating music, no? If so, then troubleshoot one issue at a time. Or, just hire me to solve your problems for you. Which method sounds cheaper?
11) Unrealistic Expectations
Hey, if Spinal Tap’s amps went up to eleven, then I’m allowed to make an eleventh point in a top ten list! Unrealistic expectations, while not Pro Tools specific, can hamper your progress toward recording enlightenment. Recording with Pro Tools will seem like a magic voodoo art for a while, especially if you took 9) and 10) seriously. I’ll be frank: at first you will not be able to hear the effects of some basic but crucial recording procedures. For example, when I teach clients about leveling out a vocal recording with a compressor, many cannot hear the difference when I toggle the bypass. Same with EQ. Subtle EQ moves are hard to hear. I’ve even had people struggle to hear a high-pass filter totally eliminating everything below 300Hz on a mid-range instrument. When this happens to you, you might find yourself saying, “Well, if X effect makes a barely audible difference, I don’t see why I have to use it…no one’s gonna notice.” Ooooooooo…bad idea. Subtle effects build up. Compare your dry vocal to a vocal that’s been processed with tasteful amounts of EQ, compression, reverb, and delay, and then you’ll hear the difference. Even when you can hear subtle effects at work, you may question whether it’s really worth all the effort it takes to add ‘em. Trust me on this one: processing audio with effects will take your recordings to the next level, just like basic “developing” and sharpening techniques in Photoshop will turn a cool picture into an amazing photograph. The hard truth is that it’s gonna take a while to hear like mix engineers hear. Then it takes double that time to be able to apply effects judiciously. Be patient. That dog-eared kind of hearing and knowhow will come through study and experimentation. Again, Pro Tools won’t do it for you. But once you get the skills, Pro Tools will allow you to execute most of your recording tasks quickly and easily.
Happy ProTooling!
For daily tips and links on recording, songwriting, music production, and Pro Tools, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter @CreateMusicPro
1) No External Hard-Drive
People…use an external hard drive! When you save your session to your host computer’s hard drive, it has to work twice as hard to simultaneously run ProTools, access/capture audio files, AND run instrument and/or effects plug-ins. So, here’s what you do: save your session files to an external drive. Put your audio loops and samples on that drive. Love that drive. Back-up that drive. Whatever you do, just use one. Just make sure it's an AVID-approved drive spinning at least 7,200 rpm. Evil things can happen if it's too slow (like most of the "tiny 'n' cute" drives running at 5,200 rpm) or is running an incompatible chipset.
(@ObediaTutor correctly pointed out that AVID actually recommends using an internal drive that's separate from your host drive (partitioned drives don't count). My advice is geared toward laptop users, people who can't add an internal drive, or users who plan on transferring projects between studios.)
2) No Filing System
Unless “cluttered-mess” qualifies as a filing system, most newbies scatter their saved session folders all over the place. Or worse, they just save sessions to whatever black hole the default save-to window suggests. Both bad news when you need to find a session you were working on last month. My advice: Come up with a filing system and stick to it. That way you’ll always know where to locate your sessions.
3) No Mouse (For Laptop Users)
Using the trackpad on your laptop is a recipe for frustration and insanity. Using that confounded device will drastically hinder your ability to navigate your session quickly and efficiently. Just get a fricken mouse and stop saying, “Ooops…ooops…ooops.”
4) Crappy Headphones
Ear buds or $20 headphones won’t let you hear what you need to hear. Invest $100 or more on a decent pair of closed-back headphones and you’ll actually be able to hear what you’re doing. A good place to start is with the Sennheiser HD-280 Professional Headphones .
5) Template Fear
If you click “Create blank session” every time you create a new session, it will take you 10+ minutes to set it up the way you like it. There’s nothing that will kill an inspirational burst of creative energy more than setting up your session or creating tracks. The solution?: Make a simple template with all your favorite track types and settings so you don’t have to pull a Sisyphus and start from scratch every time you open a new session. It’s not hard, and there are tons of video tutorials on how to set up and create a template on youtube. In an upcoming screencast, I also intend on showing you all my favorite session settings.
6) Keyboard Shortcut Fear
Even with a mouse, you can waste a lot of valuable time clicking around everywhere in the middle of your session. For example, why would you drag your mouse over to the transport and click the play button if you could just hit the spacebar to start/stop playback? Exactly. I’m not talking about memorizing all 40 pages of shortcuts. But learning a few time-saving shortcuts could really make your Pro Tools experience more enjoyable. Here are a few common ones to get you started:
• Start/stop playback: spacebar
• Turn click track on/off: 7 on numeric keypad
• Arm transport and start recording: F12 or 3 on the numeric keypad
• Create new track: Shift + cmd + N (Mac); Shift + cntrl + N (PC)
• Activate the smart tool: cmd + 7 (Mac) or cntrl + 7 (PC) on the qwerty
keyboard
• Bypass a plug-in: cmd + click (Mac) or cntrl + click (PC) on plug-in
name in the insert section
• Undo: cmd + Z (Mac); cntrl + Z (PC)
(@CreateMusicPro posts daily tips about using Pro Tools, and many of those tips include useful keyboard shortcuts)
7) Using Too Much Reverb/Delay
I know it’s exciting…look at all the cool plug-ins you can use now! Yea! But here’s the thing: just because Pro Tools allows you to easily work with plug-ins doesn’t mean you have to drench your tracks in reverb, delay, and/or distortion. “But I’m embarrassed of my voice,” you say, “I have to use a lot of reverb.” I know, I’ve heard all the reasons. If you want to continue sounding like you’re making amateur home recordings in your bedroom then keep drowning your vocals in large cathedral reverberations. If you’re trying to out-fuzz all the stoner rock that’s ever been made, go ahead. But if you’d like to up the commercial viability of your music and improve the quality of your tracks, add reverb, delay, and distortion like you would add pepper to food. A little bit goes a long way.
In a related note, I’ve seen a lot of people use reverb as an insert. If you do this, skip to 9) really quick and read it…I’ll wait. Okay, thanks, I can now let you in on standard operating procedure for time-based effects: Learn to set up a send and put your reverbs and delays on aux tracks instead of inserts. Learn why from my book recommendation in 9).
8) Magic Bullet Mindset
Many excited musicians buy Pro Tools with the expectation that it’s gonna be the audio equivalent of a robot vacuum. New users soon discover that Pro Tools won’t do a damn thing on your behalf. There is no “set-it-and-forget-it” button. It’s a tool, and like most tools, it’s as only good as its operator. In a similar vein, many folks buy amazing plug-ins with a parallel mindset. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve helped that have Pro Tools M-Powered, a M-Audio Fast Track interface, AND have also somehow acquired the Waves Mercury Bundle (I’m assuming through “alternatively-legal” means). What’s the point of having the best plug-ins if you don’t know how to use them? Yes, their presets will sound better than your stock Pro Tools plug-ins, but presets generally suck. There is no “magic” setting that will work for every recording/mixing situation. Pro Tools and plug-ins are tools, not dust-sprinkling fairies. Sorry, but you’re gonna have to study daily and work hard to record/mix great music…just like every other mortal out there.
9) Clueless About Recording
Many people I work with haven’t a clue about basic recording principals. I know this isn’t directly Pro Tools related, but it definitely affects your ability to accomplish what you’d like to do. You bought ProTools so you could record, right? Then you need to become educated about how recording works. For example, it’s not uncommon for beginners to invest a decent amount of money on a great mic. Good move, if you ask me. But then they take that great mic and place it on a table (no mic stand or pop filter) in the middle of a large, tile-floored room. No joke. If you read Jeff Strong’s “Home Recording for Musicians for Dummies” then you would know that capturing vocals is best done with a mic on a mic stand with a pop filter that’s sitting in some kind of “dead” space. A walk-in closet with lots of clothes works way better as a tracking booth than in the middle of your tiled kitchen. But, I digress. My point is that you’re gonna need to acquire a basic understanding of how the recording process works before you can best use your software to produce the kind of results you expected when you first purchased Pro Tools in the first place. If we were all living in the Matrix, then I’d recommend the “Comprehensive Recording Skills” mental download, but we’re not, so I guess I just have to recommend a lot of book reading, online tutorial study (AudioTuts+ is good), and youtube searching (try WinkSound for ProTools specific recording tricks). I also suggest subscribing to Recording Magazine . Even if you can’t decipher what you’re reading initially, it’s a great way to gradually become acclimated to the weird world of recording. (In fact, I highly recommend reading through their "Beginners' Series." If you're brand new to all of this, most of the content might go over your head. But it's chock full of newbie goodness.)
10) Manual? What Manual?
Whenever I ask my Dad for help with a complex electronic device his reply is always the same: “Read the Damn Manual!” Let’s face it, to figure out how-the-hell Pro Tools works, at some point you’re going to have to read portions of that 1,000+ page document Avid calls the “Reference Guide.” Ignoring it like it doesn’t exist will just cause you pain in the long run. So, let me walk you through the “creative person’s way” to use any manual. First of all, always at least read through the quick start guide. That should get you up and running as well as introduce you to the terminology of the program. From there, treat the Reference Guide like any other reference: read it when you need it. If you can remember the correct terminology for what it is you’d like to do, then just enter that term into the “Find” box of Adobe Reader or look it up in the index. Search this way until you find the correct portion of the Reference Guide and then only read the applicable information in that section. Solve one problem at a time. You’ll be tempted to follow the many labyrinthine paths that lead off into the nether regions of the document, but beware… before you know it you’ll forget the original reason you turned to the Reference Guide in the first place. I’m assuming you’d rather be creating music, no? If so, then troubleshoot one issue at a time. Or, just hire me to solve your problems for you. Which method sounds cheaper?
11) Unrealistic Expectations
Hey, if Spinal Tap’s amps went up to eleven, then I’m allowed to make an eleventh point in a top ten list! Unrealistic expectations, while not Pro Tools specific, can hamper your progress toward recording enlightenment. Recording with Pro Tools will seem like a magic voodoo art for a while, especially if you took 9) and 10) seriously. I’ll be frank: at first you will not be able to hear the effects of some basic but crucial recording procedures. For example, when I teach clients about leveling out a vocal recording with a compressor, many cannot hear the difference when I toggle the bypass. Same with EQ. Subtle EQ moves are hard to hear. I’ve even had people struggle to hear a high-pass filter totally eliminating everything below 300Hz on a mid-range instrument. When this happens to you, you might find yourself saying, “Well, if X effect makes a barely audible difference, I don’t see why I have to use it…no one’s gonna notice.” Ooooooooo…bad idea. Subtle effects build up. Compare your dry vocal to a vocal that’s been processed with tasteful amounts of EQ, compression, reverb, and delay, and then you’ll hear the difference. Even when you can hear subtle effects at work, you may question whether it’s really worth all the effort it takes to add ‘em. Trust me on this one: processing audio with effects will take your recordings to the next level, just like basic “developing” and sharpening techniques in Photoshop will turn a cool picture into an amazing photograph. The hard truth is that it’s gonna take a while to hear like mix engineers hear. Then it takes double that time to be able to apply effects judiciously. Be patient. That dog-eared kind of hearing and knowhow will come through study and experimentation. Again, Pro Tools won’t do it for you. But once you get the skills, Pro Tools will allow you to execute most of your recording tasks quickly and easily.
Happy ProTooling!
For daily tips and links on recording, songwriting, music production, and Pro Tools, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter @CreateMusicPro
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Bad Mixing/Mastering Advice Rant: "If It Sounds Right, It Is Right"
I read a lot on music, so I've come across my share of interviews with pros in the field of recording. When asked about the specifics of a particular mixing/mastering technique, I've noticed that many guys will respond something like this: "Man, if it sounds right, it is right." Then they talk about how one time they had to boost the snare by 16dB at 5.38kHz and it really made it pop. The album made platinum and the mixer was presented with the “Best Snare Sound Award” from the Canadian Council of Superior Recordings.
That’s a great story and all, but in my opinion “If it sounds right, it is right” is the worst piece of advice you could ever give someone learning about mixing/mastering. Why? Because most newbies to recording have neither the experience nor the training to be able to hear the way a mixing/mastering engineer has learned to hear. What sounds right to a newbie could sound right for all the wrong reasons. Amateur recordists should actually dedicate a fair amount of time trying to learn what it is exactly that the pros are hearing.
Once I was...eh-hmm…"mastering" a track and trying to give it some sparkly top end clarity like a radio cut. Over the course of the session, I thought I was making all the right moves. In my mind I was a mastering badass. The next morning I almost wet myself when I heard how absolutely horrible I made the track sound. Instead of making it sound radio-ready, I made it sound like a straight pin was used as a stylus on a record player.
My point? Newbies don't know what "right" sounds like. Heck, it took me a good year before I was able to hear how each of the parameters on a compressor changed the sound of the effect. Do you remember your first experiments with EQ? At that early point in our development as mixers, how were we supposed to know what a tasteful amount of EQ sounded like? I know I‘ve made my share of bad mix moves over time. But through these mistakes—and hopefully through critique as well—we slowly start to understand how a pro hears.
Anyhoo…now that I’ve been around the block a few years, I know what the pros really mean when they say "If it sounds right, it is right." So, let me translate for you, because I think it’s instructive. Here’s the translation:
“In my 25 years experience working in the recording industry on hundreds of major-label projects, where I've become extremely familiar with the best gear money can buy, I have learned through countless opportunities of trial and error that occasionally it's okay to violate a general recording guideline in order to achieve the sound I think will benefit the song as a whole. And even though I will sometimes push a principal beyond what is typically acceptable, I make sure that my decision will not jeopardize the sonic integrity and fidelity of neither the individual part nor its relation to the whole."
This is what they mean. Not as easy to toss off as a zen-like maxim, I know. But, until you're in their same situation, which won't be for a while, you may think twice when the violation of a generally-accepted recording axiom sounds "right."
My advice: if you're new to mixing/mastering or recording in general, just stick to the general guidelines you read about in trusted books and blogs. You might not create stellar mixes but they're also not going to suck really bad because you decided that boosting all the tracks 12dB at 2kHz sounded “awesome.”
So, what can you do right now to start hearing like a pro? Continue making and learning from your mistakes. Try out the suggestions given in books and magazines. Get advice and critique from someone who’s ahead of you. Train your ears with products like David Moulton’s Golden Ears, or take the quizzes at sites like Easy Ear Training or Dan Comerchero's QUIZTONES. Watch mixing/mastering tutorials with your headphones on. Take mixing lessons from a local mix engineer. Read Bobby Owsinski's isolated track analyses and listen for what he hears. Look for tutorial sites that include audio examples, like AudioTuts+. Study those examples until you can hear what they're hearing. It won’t happen overnight, but you’ll slowly improve your ear over time. Until then, appreciate the level you’re at right now and have fun.
Happy Mixing!
FOr daily tips on music production, recording, songwriting, and Pro Tools, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter @CreateMusicPro
That’s a great story and all, but in my opinion “If it sounds right, it is right” is the worst piece of advice you could ever give someone learning about mixing/mastering. Why? Because most newbies to recording have neither the experience nor the training to be able to hear the way a mixing/mastering engineer has learned to hear. What sounds right to a newbie could sound right for all the wrong reasons. Amateur recordists should actually dedicate a fair amount of time trying to learn what it is exactly that the pros are hearing.
Once I was...eh-hmm…"mastering" a track and trying to give it some sparkly top end clarity like a radio cut. Over the course of the session, I thought I was making all the right moves. In my mind I was a mastering badass. The next morning I almost wet myself when I heard how absolutely horrible I made the track sound. Instead of making it sound radio-ready, I made it sound like a straight pin was used as a stylus on a record player.
My point? Newbies don't know what "right" sounds like. Heck, it took me a good year before I was able to hear how each of the parameters on a compressor changed the sound of the effect. Do you remember your first experiments with EQ? At that early point in our development as mixers, how were we supposed to know what a tasteful amount of EQ sounded like? I know I‘ve made my share of bad mix moves over time. But through these mistakes—and hopefully through critique as well—we slowly start to understand how a pro hears.
Anyhoo…now that I’ve been around the block a few years, I know what the pros really mean when they say "If it sounds right, it is right." So, let me translate for you, because I think it’s instructive. Here’s the translation:
“In my 25 years experience working in the recording industry on hundreds of major-label projects, where I've become extremely familiar with the best gear money can buy, I have learned through countless opportunities of trial and error that occasionally it's okay to violate a general recording guideline in order to achieve the sound I think will benefit the song as a whole. And even though I will sometimes push a principal beyond what is typically acceptable, I make sure that my decision will not jeopardize the sonic integrity and fidelity of neither the individual part nor its relation to the whole."
This is what they mean. Not as easy to toss off as a zen-like maxim, I know. But, until you're in their same situation, which won't be for a while, you may think twice when the violation of a generally-accepted recording axiom sounds "right."
My advice: if you're new to mixing/mastering or recording in general, just stick to the general guidelines you read about in trusted books and blogs. You might not create stellar mixes but they're also not going to suck really bad because you decided that boosting all the tracks 12dB at 2kHz sounded “awesome.”
So, what can you do right now to start hearing like a pro? Continue making and learning from your mistakes. Try out the suggestions given in books and magazines. Get advice and critique from someone who’s ahead of you. Train your ears with products like David Moulton’s Golden Ears, or take the quizzes at sites like Easy Ear Training or Dan Comerchero's QUIZTONES. Watch mixing/mastering tutorials with your headphones on. Take mixing lessons from a local mix engineer. Read Bobby Owsinski's isolated track analyses and listen for what he hears. Look for tutorial sites that include audio examples, like AudioTuts+. Study those examples until you can hear what they're hearing. It won’t happen overnight, but you’ll slowly improve your ear over time. Until then, appreciate the level you’re at right now and have fun.
Happy Mixing!
FOr daily tips on music production, recording, songwriting, and Pro Tools, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter @CreateMusicPro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)