Rookie Recording Mistakes

[Anderton]

I just wrote an article for inSync called "Top 10 Rookie Mistakes." I wonder what your choices are? I'll give you two...

 

* Using a preset called "Guitar" on a guitar track, "Female Vocal" on a female vocal track, "Drums" on a drum track, etc.

* Not mixing your voice high enough because you're self-conscious about it. Own your vocals!! If you don't think you can, I have two words for you: "Bob Dylan"

[Mighty Motif Max]

I tend to mix my voice/any melodic lead instrument too high lol. It usually takes two or three tries of adjusting and testing on different playback systems before it sounds good. Way too easy in headphones to have the melody too loud.

[KuruPrionz]

I'll see your 2 and take 3!

 

1. Recording with digital and setting input levels so peaks are nearly zero. A bad habit I learned during the tape days. I am adjusting lower now, it is much easier to mix!!!

2. Adding umpty bajillion tracks because you can. Less truly is more and less less is even more more.

3. Over-processing at the recording stage. If you end up not wanting that EQ setting or compression setting when you are mixing, you've set yourself up for a redo.

[Strays Dave]

I'm one of those common animals - a rookie recorder. I'm looking to avoid some of those common errors and possibly implement some recommended tips. I've been working on doing some songwriting for a few months. Now, the next step. I puttered with doing some recording on my MBP and Focusrite yesterday.

 

I searched for Craig's inSync article but didn't find it. I'll start my own thread soon with some specific questions. It's nice to have the expertise in this forum available for the asking.

 

Cheers

[Anderton]

I searched for Craig's inSync article but didn't find it. I'll start my own thread soon with some specific questions. It's nice to have the expertise in this forum available for the asking.

 

Sorry, it hasn't been posted yet. I just submitted it last week. Knowing Sweetwater, it should be up soon.

[Anderton]

Over-processing at the recording stage. If you end up not wanting that EQ setting or compression setting when you are mixing, you've set yourself up for a redo.

 

Some people know exactly what they want, and work well with processing while recording. I never use it myself, because monitoring through plug-ins is so easy. I guess my most common "pre-processing" is the low pass filter switch on a mic, a pop filter, and my Transient Control circuit

[KuruPrionz]

Over-processing at the recording stage. If you end up not wanting that EQ setting or compression setting when you are mixing, you've set yourself up for a redo.

 

Some people know exactly what they want, and work well with processing while recording. I never use it myself, because monitoring through plug-ins is so easy. I guess my most common "pre-processing" is the low pass filter switch on a mic, a pop filter, and my Transient Control circuit

 

I agree with this, the quandary created by "commiting vs not-commiting" is pretty fluid.

I always commited when I was starting out, I had tape to record on and my only effects were guitar pedals, amps with reverb, and one Effectron at a certain point.

If you didn't commit going in, there was no practical way to get those sounds later.

 

For beginners the path now offers more options with far fewer restrictions. Everything and anything can be done after you have a good take.

I think it's a good idea for beginners to learn how to get good unaffected sounds from their chosen instruments. The outlier there is syths, they make the sound you dial in unless you just surf the presets.

 

I think you meant a HPF on a mic? I agree with using one when appropriate - which is probably more often than not. Pop filters are essential too. Low frequencies will push your meter higher and removing them after the fact may mean you end up with a track that could have sounded better if the meters had not deceived you into keeping your levels lower.

 

All that said, I've spent some time recently using both EQ and compression to tweak the tone of a bass guitar going DI. I've even used the tone control on one of my basses and will be putting one in on the other bass soon because the results were good. But, I don't consider myself a beginner any more - which does not mean I am not constantly learning new things.

 

It never hurts to get a decent foundation in the basics. Flip side of that coin is we all learn more from our mistakes, pre-setting everything could teach some good lessons.

 

Conclusion? Maybe, maybe not... Hmmm... Cheers Kuru

[Anderton]

Yes, I meant low-cut, not lowpass

 

Of course, there are situations where you HAVE to record processed, like if you're miking a guitar amp.

[KuruPrionz]

Yes, I meant low-cut, not lowpass

 

Of course, there are situations where you HAVE to record processed, like if you're miking a guitar amp.

 

Exactly. Using a room because it sounds good is another example - I should be so lucky!

 

Of course, good is subjective. I love acoustic guitar, there are infinite variables. Which mics, positioning, in what room, what strings ( a friend gets great results using flatwounds), which pick, or just use fingers, go direct too, go direct only, etc.

[geeteethree]

There are exceptions to this, but :

 

Not having a song that stands on its own before you start recording.

 

If you have a song that has something to it, you can do almost endless interpretations and there will usually still be something entertaining there.

 

There certainly are great songs that had substantial parts written during recording, or songs that came about from the "studio as an instrument" approach and sonic experimentation. Yet much of that is from people who are already very adept at the more traditional approach of hashing out the song via acoustic guitar and voice, or piano and voice.

 

__

 

I think another is just not working at it enough, or rushing to get it out there. If you are working on your own music, and it is pretty good, it is easy to almost hypnotize yourself into overlooking things that could make it better, especially after you have heard your recording a thousand times. Letting the song be at its best might even involve recording the whole thing again!

 

Nowdays there is a tendency for the demo stage to blend into the final production of the final product, which is not always the most constructive process for arriving at the best presentation of the song.

[Anderton]

There are exceptions to this, but :

 

Not having a song that stands on its own before you start recording.

 

If you have a song that has something to it, you can do almost endless interpretations and there will usually still be something entertaining there.

 

There certainly are great songs that had substantial parts written during recording, or songs that came about from the "studio as an instrument" approach and sonic experimentation. Yet much of that is from people who are already very adept at the more traditional approach of hashing out the song via acoustic guitar and voice, or piano and voice.

 

Excellent point. A song that stands up with minimal instrumentation will sound even better when turned into a full-fledged recording.

[KuruPrionz]

There are exceptions to this, but :

 

Not having a song that stands on its own before you start recording.

 

If you have a song that has something to it, you can do almost endless interpretations and there will usually still be something entertaining there.

 

There certainly are great songs that had substantial parts written during recording, or songs that came about from the "studio as an instrument" approach and sonic experimentation. Yet much of that is from people who are already very adept at the more traditional approach of hashing out the song via acoustic guitar and voice, or piano and voice.

 

Excellent point. A song that stands up with minimal instrumentation will sound even better when turned into a full-fledged recording.

 

 

Excellent point. A song that stands up with minimal instrumentation MAY sound even better when turned into a full-fledged recording.

JIMHO, cheers Kuru

[harmonizer]

My first rookie mistake was not pressing "Save" on my Korg D3200 after Sets 1 and 2 ended, during our first covers band gig I tried to record. I had plenty of opportunity to press Save, but did not. Then with 3 songs left in set 3, someone kicked out the power plug. The Korg D3200 has no autosave. Nothing. Zip. Nada. So we only got 3 songs recorded.

 

My second rookie mistake was using a pair of dynamic mics (instead of condensers) for the drum kit overheads. I used them because they were in the box of mic gear our band had. Pretty sophisticated mic selection method, yes? (that was sarcasm). When I turned up their volume enough in the mix to get the snare heard, it sucked in sound from our vocalists, with a harsh coloring added to it. Took me a few gigs to figure out what was going on.

 

My third rookie mistake was not understanding where to place the mic to capture the sound from our rhythm guitarist's amp (I am talking about a rhythm guitarist who really knew what he was doing). Took me several gigs to get the capture right so that it sounded like what we heard on stage.

 

I started using the Korg D3200 to record our covers band back in 2007. I knew nothing. Fortunately there were a bunch of nice people on Studiotrax.net who were extremely helpful and helped me get to the point where my mixes did not suck.

 

Count me as another person who often mixes himself too low in the mix. The only thing worse than hearing yourself be imperfect in a final mix is hearing it dozens of times as you prepare the mix.

[Anderton]

My first rookie mistake was not pressing "Save" on my Korg D3200 after Sets 1 and 2 ended

Some of the best advice I ever got was when I asked Bill Godbout how often I should back up. His answer was "any time you don't want to lose something."

 

My third rookie mistake was not understanding where to place the mic to capture the sound from our rhythm guitarist's amp (I am talking about a rhythm guitarist who really knew what he was doing). Took me several gigs to get the capture right so that it sounded like what we heard on stage.

 

So unless it was some proprietary technique - what mic placement worked for you?

[3rdAct]

1. Recording with digital and setting input levels so peaks are nearly zero. A bad habit I learned during the tape days. I am adjusting lower now, it is much easier to mix!!!

I rookie mistake I make that I didn't know I was making! I also learned in the analogue days. Why doesn't this work right in the digital domain?

[KuruPrionz]

1. Recording with digital and setting input levels so peaks are nearly zero. A bad habit I learned during the tape days. I am adjusting lower now, it is much easier to mix!!!

I rookie mistake I make that I didn't know I was making! I also learned in the analogue days. Why doesn't this work right in the digital domain?

 

 

Tape sounded pretty good sometimes if you overloaded it a bit, went "into the red". Lots of producers/engineers etc. intentionally overloaded tape for the compression and harmonic content. The Dave Clark Five singles from the 60's are a great example of pushing both tape and the cutting heads when mastering to vinyl. Those songs pop out on the radio, they are louder. The Rolling Stones did it to a certain extent, they intentionally kept the length each side of their vinyl releases shorter so the grooves could be deeper and playback louder. Pushing the limits in analog can be a good effect.

 

Digital does NOT sound good when you do that. It is not a pretty distortion.

 

If your recording has one track, it's probably fine. If you multi-track, the sum of the tracks is more than enough output volume to take the mix well into the red, maybe just on peaks but those peaks no longer sound good.

 

Watch your output meter when you play a full mix of tracks that are recorded hot, you'll end up turning everything down trying to stay below zero. I did this often when I was learning my DAW doing remixes on Metapop and one day the lighbulb went off. The provided tracks were recorded too hot, often.

 

I'm still getting used to doing it, it just seems wrong. So far, the results indicate that it is NOT wrong. It is a common complaint if you read Tape Op magazine (recommended for many reasons), I've learned a TON of great stuff.

 

This thread in Ronan C Murphy's forum has good information, as my post (second) indicates, I am still adjusting to this reality. https://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/3033864/why-on-earth-is-anyone-still-recording-with-hot-levels#Post3033864

[3rdAct]

OK, thanks. So if you record such that each channel has peaks near zero, when mixing you would have to bring down the individual channel levels so the overall peaks don't get too hot. Is there a downside to doing it this way?

[KuruPrionz]

OK, thanks. So if you record such that each channel has peaks near zero, when mixing you would have to bring down the individual channel levels so the overall peaks don't get too hot. Is there a downside to doing it this way?

 

 

Provided that none of your tracks go into the red, primarily that you've created more work for yourself. If you are working with multiple tracks (my record is 66), turning all of them down to the best spot can be a real PITA.

 

Edited to add, yes I do group tracks and can then turn down a single master fader. But I also use automation for individual tracks and if you don't turn those tracks down enough before you start creating your automation, that becomes a nightmare (don't ask me how I know this!!!).

 

Be aware that some instruments, like snare drum, crash cymbal or vigorously strummed acoustic guitar, may have transients that are too brief to be measured accurately. Leave some headroom for those sources, once you go "over" you cannot repair that problem. Putting a touch of compression with a fast attack on going in may seem to help but the attack isn't fast enough to catch some of these transients, the other workaround could be having a long release so the compresser stays on.

 

In my "new world" I would just turn it down to a safe spot and tweak it ITB.

[3rdAct]

Thanks, very helpful! (Fortunately, in my non-professional setting, i don"t go anywhere near 66 tracks! )

[KuruPrionz]

Thanks, very helpful! (Fortunately, in my non-professional setting, i don"t go anywhere near 66 tracks! )

 

 

I am far from a professional myself. I am thrilled to have finally put a decent home studio together and am still tweaking some important bits and dabs.

 

The 66 tracks was for a remix on Metapop, I was learning about using parallel processing so I would make several identical instances of a vocal track (just for example), add various reverb, delay, pitch shifting (including de-tuning) and modulation plugins and then automate those tracks to bring a touch of something different into the mix here and there. I was pleased with the results, they were subtle and allowed the clarity of the orignal track to be forward while shifting the side to side and front to back sense of "space." Very effective way to keep a mix interesting without cluttering the arrangement with more "parts."

 

I learned some valuable techniques that way, I highly recommend diving in on some remixes - it's very freeing to muck about with other people's music!

[Nowarezman]

My main rookie mistake was simply impatience. I wanted to record parts of the song before I had practiced enough. Then I wanted to start adding effects before I'd done basic balancing. Then I wanted to use some newly purchased effect before I had a good reason to use it. Then I wanted to peek ahead at what the mastering might do before I had the mix ready. Then I tried to master before I'd cleaned up the tracks sufficiently in the mix (e.g. deleting empty recorded spaces, not gain-staging everything properly, going back and forth between mastering and mixing, etc etc.) So yeah, I'm impatient in the studio.

 

The other mistake that I started practicing right off and stupidly continue to this day, is to keep trying to use plugins to make the tracks sound like the preconceived idea in my head - when the recording itself should be the embodiment of my preconceived ideas. This is worse than the common "we'll just fix it in the mix" - this is more like "plugins will make all my dreams come true."

 

nat

[harmonizer]

My third rookie mistake was not understanding where to place the mic to capture the sound from our rhythm guitarist's amp (I am talking about a rhythm guitarist who really knew what he was doing). Took me several gigs to get the capture right so that it sounded like what we heard on stage.

 

So unless it was some proprietary technique - what mic placement worked for you?

 

I put the e609 aimed about 2/3 of the way out from dead center of the guitar amp's speaker cone to its edge, and set it to be aimed at about 10:30am, so that if it was knocked in any horizontal direction, will still not be aimed at dead center. I also set it to be about 3 inches away from the fabric screen on the front of the guitar amp. The rhythm guitarist was using a Fender Princeton amp.

[J. Dan]

I still struggle with digital compression....it never turns out they way it would using its hardware counterpart, it would seem. It seems like a mS is a mS, an compression ratio is a compression ratio, a threshold in dB is a threshold in dB....but the same settings on a hardware compressor vs the DAW channel strip compressor don't have the same result, and I have a harder time getting things to sound right "by ear" in the DAW than I do turning knobs on hardware. Maybe it's because I'm using the dynamics processing that came with the DAW rather than buying a higher quality plug-in.

[Mike Rivers]

All compressors are different, and the action of controls of the same name on different units - hardware or software - is, in general, the same, the dynamic action can be very different from one to another. For instance, what, exactly, happens, when your input signal crosses the threshold that you've set. On one unit, you might find that it does nothing until the level exceeds the threshold. On another it might give 1 dB of gain reduction, and another might give 3 dB of gain reduction but only if the signal remains at that level for a certain amount of time (which is determined by the dynamic response of the Attack Time control) and it entirely misses that rim shot.

 

I have an article (rather old) on my web page Technical Articles section that explains the meaning and variations of the parameters that you might find useful, or at least a little bit calming.

 

There are two things you can do about this. One is to go crazy trying multiple compressors until you find the one that does just what you want it to do when you make the settings that you think you want. The other is to work with whatever compressor you happen to have and adjust it to do what you want it to do, not caring what the numbers on the controls read.

 

I suggest the latter. You'll get the job done faster and be ready for the next challenge.

[KuruPrionz]

I still struggle with digital compression....it never turns out they way it would using its hardware counterpart, it would seem. It seems like a mS is a mS, an compression ratio is a compression ratio, a threshold in dB is a threshold in dB....but the same settings on a hardware compressor vs the DAW channel strip compressor don't have the same result, and I have a harder time getting things to sound right "by ear" in the DAW than I do turning knobs on hardware. Maybe it's because I'm using the dynamics processing that came with the DAW rather than buying a higher quality plug-in.

 

 

I've noticed this as well, it can be frustrating trying to get the compression to sound like what I am used to hearing.

I have a few plugins I haven't gotten around to trying yet, quite a few. Ugh.

 

One major potential difference is that hardware compressors are all "reacitve", the sounds hit them and they respond. Digital compressors added to existing tracks have the potential to "read forward" and anticipate the dynamic event. I don't know if any of them do that or which ones if some do. That could be a game changer.

 

I am getting compression, that much I know. As Mike Rivers says above, there are lots of different types and sounds of compression so maybe I just haven't found the ones I am used to yet. Cheers, Kuru

 

Edited to add, I've started a Compressor Plugin thread in Ronan C Murphy's forum. Chime in, let's all learn something!!!

[harmonizer]

Regarding compression: I am one of those dinosaurs who mixes on a multitrack recorder which is on dedicated hardware - a Korg D3200 (part of the reason is its ability to capture 12 separate tracks at once for recording our 7-person covers band). The D3200 has a "Final Effect" on it called "Mastering Comp". It works for our rock-and-roll covers band pieces, and works when I have recorded a jazz combo at our church. I just use its default settings. It has the complexity of using a toaster oven.

 

If I ever start mixing on a computer, I might still take the unmastered WAV down to my D3200 and use its "Mastering Comp" to do its thing.

[Anderton]

I still struggle with digital compression....it never turns out they way it would using its hardware counterpart, it would seem. It seems like a mS is a mS, an compression ratio is a compression ratio, a threshold in dB is a threshold in dB....but the same settings on a hardware compressor vs the DAW channel strip compressor don't have the same result, and I have a harder time getting things to sound right "by ear" in the DAW than I do turning knobs on hardware. Maybe it's because I'm using the dynamics processing that came with the DAW rather than buying a higher quality plug-in.

 

First off, input levels make a huge difference with any compressor. People often run signals into hardware that are "hotter" than the tracks in a DAW, so that might be the first place to check for differences. I have my compressor and limiter presets calibrated to my vocals, which are always normalized so that the presets sound as intended.

 

But, also note that hardware compressors use different gain control technologies. The LA-2A is probably the most famous example, with its optical-based control. Of course an emulated LA-2A should sound the same as the real deal, but there are many other gain control options that aren't as famous as the LA-2A. Odds are a software compressor, unless it's a strict emulation of a compressor you have, is using a different gain control model than your hardware compressor. That could be an issue as well.

[Sundown]

This is a great thread... Here are my contributions:

 

Thinking you can do it all (especially as a hobbyist)

 

It takes an enormous amount of learning, practice, failure, and perseverance to write, record, mix, and master your material. Software and instrument manufacturers market their products to make you believe you can do it all yourself and get professional results. For 99% of us, I don't think you can. And you lose the advantage of objectivity from other experts (for example, a mastering engineer). The antidote to this is to set realistic expectations.

 

Downplaying or ignoring the role of the room

 

There's a reason professional studios have remarkable rooms with high ceilings, splayed walls, and carefully tuned acoustics. You can buy the best speakers and microphones, but if you're using a walk-in closet for a studio it's not going to produce great results. I would encourage a newbie to find or build the best room he can and invest a good portion of his budget in acoustic treatment (or make his own which is still pretty expensive). You can't make good recording/mixing/mastering decisions if you can't hear what's going on.

 

Looking outward for inward problems

 

The software and instrument manufacturers are great at making rookies believe that if they just get Product ABC their mixes will come together. There is no doubt a certain level of equipment you need to do the job, but let's face it, most major DAW packages have bundled plug-ins that rival what was sold separately many years ago. Buying the latest recreation of a vintage processor (that Johnny Rockstar endorses as "better than the original") is almost never going to make the difference. If a mix or a song isn't coming together, it's not likely the gear that is lacking. It's an inward problem that can only be resolved with learning, practice, and trial and error.

 

Gain staging

 

Kuru made the same point but there is a lot of misinformation around proper levels and it took me 12-15 years to figure that out. I consider myself intermediate and I still have a lot to learn about gain staging. You can open the manual of many top-flight DAW packages and the manufacturer recommendation will still be to record as hot as possible. There are a lot more articles about gain staging and level setting now, but the old 16-bit adage of pegging the meters unfortunately still persists.

 

Never finishing

 

This is still my Achilles Heel. Someone mentioned the tendency to push material out and not give it a thorough overview. The other challenge is the inability to say "good enough" or "this is the best I can do right now" and call it a day. Brian Transeau (a.k.a. BT) gave this advice in an interview and he said you have to finish. You have to get in the habit of closing projects and eventually your projects will get better. I have hundreds (thousands?) of Gigabytes of unfinished projects and while it's easy to say I'm time-constrained, it's more accurate to say I'm insecure and afraid of judgment. I never share anything.

 

If I think of others, I'll post again.

[Anderton]

All excellent points! I'd add another one:

 

Obsessing about the sound itself. I needed an arpeggiated phrase to churn along in the background of a chorus. At this point in my life, I believe that as long as you fit some basic parameters (percussive, bright, not bright, with attack, no attack, etc.), pretty much any sound fitting those parameters will do. Really. I probably had 50 sounds that would have worked fine, and I could have spent hours evaluating each one to figure out which was "best." But I just chose the first one that worked, and moved on.

 

At a seminar someone once said he'd bought a piece of software with 600 kick drums, and how could he figure out which one to use? I said "Try sound 1. If that doesn't work, try sound 2. If that doesn't work, try sound 3. As soon as you find a sound that works, STOP! Otherwise you'll lose hours trying to find one that sounds 'better,' only to realize that your listeners won't care."

[KuruPrionz]

All excellent points! I'd add another one:

 

Obsessing about the sound itself. I needed an arpeggiated phrase to churn along in the background of a chorus. At this point in my life, I believe that as long as you fit some basic parameters (percussive, bright, not bright, with attack, no attack, etc.), pretty much any sound fitting those parameters will do. Really. I probably had 50 sounds that would have worked fine, and I could have spent hours evaluating each one to figure out which was "best." But I just chose the first one that worked, and moved on.

 

At a seminar someone once said he'd bought a piece of software with 600 kick drums, and how could he figure out which one to use? I said "Try sound 1. If that doesn't work, try sound 2. If that doesn't work, try sound 3. As soon as you find a sound that works, STOP! Otherwise you'll lose hours trying to find one that sounds 'better,' only to realize that your listeners won't care."

 

So much this!!!

I'll plug my electric guitar in direct with no effects and no amp sims, not because I am a "purist" but because it's fast and simple. If I play a part that works the hard part is done. I tend to just surf a couple of presets, tweak one and call it good.

Neil Young has used the same guitar and amp for so many songs it's ridiculous. 3 knobs on an old Fender Tweed Deluxe, pretty easy to get a sound.