Rookie Recording Mistakes

[harmonizer]

The thing that matters the most is having a sound that gets heard, but then gets out of the way when needed. This becomes more important as you deal with more busy song arrangements, which occurs in our 7 person band where we play with horns and vocal harmonies.

[Strays Dave]

I hope I didn't overload this post. It grew as went along. It has my specific questions - as best I can think at this time:

 

Comment: Being a piano player and having a Yamaha digital living room piano that sounds authentic, I'm set. But listening to all those sonic colors the Beatles came up with does make my musical mouth water a little .

 

1) Kuru mentioned having parallel mixes (if I understand correctly). I was wondering , do you flip back and forth between specific of your multiple mixes ? I always enjoyed hearing what John Lennon has going on in "Revolution" where they seem to flip between alternating "allright(s)".

 

2) A guy in another thread mentioned that he's learned not to load up too many stereo tracks (if I have the right term). I'm pondering my situation. If I'm recording myself and piano and vocal (with a Rode NT4 XY) I'll obviously be a stereo track. I read some discussion about transients and levels and it sounds like a good rule of thumb is around -6 db. I don't have a lot of vocabulary here. Anyway for other tracks, I want to assemble percussion - trial and error. I'm guessing maybe 4 or 5 percussion tracks max and maybe only 3 sometimes. I've come up with a few 3 part vocal harmony things - little sections in a song - and hope to enlist a couple of female singing friends. I also had the idea to try doing some guitar punches (like some Steve Cropper punches in a Stax record for you old guys). I'm not a guitar player but I can come up with little parts - thinking of little 3rds and 6ths - maybe played on two guitars separately one line at at time. Trial and error and listening to and pondering some models is how I hope to proceed.

 

So let's say my old fashioned scheme is 10-12 tracks. My guiding principle is to "do no harm" . So I want to be sure and set the levels appropriately so I'm not screwed later on.

 

3) When I pan tracks while I'm recording - are they "printed" (term?) from then on ? Any settings I need to worry about at this point , or just leave things flat. Should I maybe put percussion on the left side or maybe distributed over both sides ? Put something like vocal harmony (I might try playing the vocal harmony on guitars) or guitar punches on the right side ?

 

4) I have 2 AKG 414ULS mics to record other things. Any particular settings for them ? - the switches on them I mean .

 

5) I'm using a Focusrite 2i4. It has 2 preamps. I can add 2. Is the Presonus BlueTube DP Version 2 a good way to go ? Something better within a lowish ($300ish) price ?

 

 

I'm not concerned with trying to replicate a rock and roll band. And I'm not going to achieve perfection. I'd like to achieve "very goodhood". I'm gong to be playing and singing with my hands, feet and voice. I'm going to learn as I proceed. But reading these threads helps.

[KuruPrionz]

 

1) Kuru mentioned having parallel mixes (if I understand correctly). I was wondering , do you flip back and forth between specific of your multiple mixes ? I always enjoyed hearing what John Lennon has going on in "Revolution" where they seem to flip between alternating "allright(s)".

 

I am using parallel processing in a variety of ways and the possibilities are endless. I'll mention a couple of fun things I did and let you take it whereever your imagination leads you. Your DAW and available plugins will probably lead you into a different workflow than the one I figured out.

 

These are experiments, sometimes what matters to me is to learn how to use something and I am not as concerned with final results. Remixing provides a certain freedom since the sounds are not yours or a part of a project. Very freeing, you can try anything you want and not worry in the slightest. It has been a great way for me to get better at using my DAW.

 

A while back I was competing in remix competitions on Metapop.com. One of the pieces I chose to work on had a "telephone ring" sound that was included as something you could mix with. It was just one note but the piece was in a key. I copied that sound and pasted it into 4 new tracks. I repositioned those manually on the timeline to create a sequenced sound. Then used AU NuPitch plugin (included in the Mac OS) to shift the pitches of those sounds to make a chord that worked with the piece. I panned the sounds to different spaces in the left/right field, selected those tracks and exported them as a stereo track. I imported that track back into the mix on it's own stereo track, trimmed it down to just the sound and then copied and pasted it into a few spots in the mix. It sounded pretty cool.

 

On another piece I recorded a single electric guitar track, straight into the DI on my interface - no effects or amp tones. I copied and pasted multple instances (8 I think for a total of 9) into their own tracks. These were all aligned correctly and I left them aligned.

 

Using plugins I made a couple different tracks using amp sims with different levels of distortion and different tones. I made a couple of tracks that were 100% reverb using different reverbs and settings, I used the NuPitch plugin to create 2 tracks that were de-tuned, one just a bit flat and the other just a bit sharp. Finally, I made 2 tracks that were just delays, in different timings but in sync with the tempo of the mix.

 

Then I added Automation Tracks (I'm using Waveform) to automate changes in volume and panning, simple stuff. The result was a guitar track that moved both in the left to right plane but also from front to back and with variable stereo distortions. I mixed it to add tension and release to the piece but there are tons of variations in something like that. You could "chop" it so totally different sounds abruptly came and went, you could just add a tiny almost inaudible bit of each effect to create a huge guitar sound and just leave it, etc.

 

It's fun, opens up a world of possibilities and can reduce the number of instruments you need in your arrangement. Hope my explanation makes sense, feel free to ask questions. Cheers, Kuru

[J. Dan]

 

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.

 

This is RIGHT IN LINE with the conversations we've been having about how to run gain levels into a DAW regarding headroom and analog vs digital recording best practices. Beyond the issues regarding having sufficient bit depth while avoiding hard clipping, it seems it also has a direct impact on the response of dynamics processing in the digital domain. This is a very interesting topic to me.

 

Furthermore, linearity is of interest. There is discussion of what happens around the inflection point, but it seems to me that it would depend on if your setting is "Hard Knee" vs "Soft Knee". Hard Knee should be just that, right? But maybe digitally it is actually what is defined as Hard Knee, while in the analog domain, maybe truly hard knee is technically impossible. Soft Knee offers a whole lot of variation into what that inflection point looks like and over what range. Even in the gain reduction range, is it truly linear or more like the response of an optical compressor? In fact Craig I don't recall if it was your book or somebody else, but there were schematics on a CLM6000 based compressor that was very non-linear.

[Anderton]

In fact Craig I don't recall if it was your book or somebody else, but there were schematics on a CLM6000 based compressor that was very non-linear.

 

If it was a CLM6000, it was probably me I choose it because it excelled as a sustainer type of compressor, not so much a "compressor" compressor.

 

You're on the money about soft knee, hard knee, and inflection points. For example, I almost always use soft knee on vocals because the transitions in and out of compression are far less noticeable. But, there are considerable variations among compressors about how that knee is handled.

[Anderton]

Here's another rookie mistake: Too many reverbs! Originally, reverb was about giving dry recordings a sense of space, like a concert hall. You had one physical reverb, and bused audio to it.

 

I pretty much still follow that paradigm, because whether consciously or not, I think people can get confused if there are too many acoustic environments. One exception is I usually put a different reverb on the lead vocal, because I made a bunch of impulse responses specifically for this purpose. I think they let the voice blend in well with the overall reverb sound, yet still add a distinctive element.

[Anderton]

I searched for Craig's inSync article but didn't find it.

 

It just got posted, check it out. Fun stuff

[Strays Dave]

OK. I'm actually writing a silly bluesy song with a back beat (what's new) to motivate myself to start some trial and error recording. It has an Everly Brothers style 2 part hamony melody. I'm , of course playing left hand bass and rhythm piano right hand. This simple song will allow me to play the instrumental part to a click track and then do the vocals later. So I'm wondering - piano obviously XY and panned R&L (maybe 3 oclock and 9 oclock?). Should the 2 voices be on the same channel ? Then put percussion on the other ?

 

My silly project song is called "Blue Betty".

 

Kuru ?

[KuruPrionz]

OK. I'm actually writing a silly bluesy song with a back beat (what's new) to motivate myself to start some trial and error recording. It has an Everly Brothers style 2 part hamony melody. I'm , of course playing left hand bass and rhythm piano right hand. This simple song will allow me to play the instrumental part to a click track and then do the vocals later. So I'm wondering - piano obviously XY and panned R&L (maybe 3 oclock and 9 oclock?). Should the 2 voices be on the same channel ? Then put percussion on the other ?

 

My silly project song is called "Blue Betty".

 

Kuru ?

 

Try doing it more or less just as you described and then give it a day or two, listen to it a few times and see how you feel about it.

If you want to try something else, do a Save As and give the new version a slightly different name or use a scheme like Craig mentions above.

That way you'll have your first version untouched and can freely experiement.

 

Playing around to get started is a great way to learn, and get things done. Allow yourself to be pleased if you think it turns out pretty well. Give it a chance to live.

[Strays Dave]

I want to try doing some percussion comping. I have a bodhran Irish drum and some other hand drums. Maybe I'll play 8 or 12 bars with some fundamental lower frequency drums and try editing - copying and pasting. Then drop different things on them.

 

I have a couple of Latin Playboy CD's. Mitchell Froom , David Hidalgo , Louis Perez. They seem to play with sonics. I'll dig them up and listen to them.

[Nathanael_I]

Here's another rookie mistake: Too many reverbs! Originally, reverb was about giving dry recordings a sense of space, like a concert hall. You had one physical reverb, and bused audio to it.

 

I pretty much still follow that paradigm, because whether consciously or not, I think people can get confused if there are too many acoustic environments. One exception is I usually put a different reverb on the lead vocal, because I made a bunch of impulse responses specifically for this purpose. I think they let the voice blend in well with the overall reverb sound, yet still add a distinctive element.

 

Especially on voices. Reverb always pushes things back in the mix. A spot of delay, followed by a tiny bit of a short reverb can make a very present, clear vocal that doesn't recede under a big hall/chamber reverb. A lot of people reach for reverb on VOX when they would be better served with the right subtle delay.

[Anderton]

Especially on voices. Reverb always pushes things back in the mix. A spot of delay, followed by a tiny bit of a short reverb can make a very present, clear vocal that doesn't recede under a big hall/chamber reverb. A lot of people reach for reverb on VOX when they would be better served with the right subtle delay.

 

Excellent tip, and something I do as a matter of course with vocals.

 

In a similar vein, many engineers reach for a compressor with voice. After doing the phrase-by-phrase gain changes, I find that a little bit of limiting is more effective than compression.

[KuruPrionz]

Since tastes vary, styles vary and creativity often leads us into unknown places, I feel compelled to toss my 2 cents in on what might or might not be a "rookie mistake" from a different angle.

Often enough, I would say try it and see. In particular, with effects - while often less is more - sometimes more is more. If you have a client and they need "something that sounds like.." then most likely you will be conservative with reverb and delay - unless...

 

Dave Clark Five - Glad All Over. A big hit for them. Many might say too much echo and reverb on the vocals. Sold a pile of records and still gets radio play.

 

 

Sally Go Round The Roses - The Jaynettes. Still gets radio play. Would not have nearly the creepy feel to it without the overly ambient backup vocals.

 

 

Cotton Avenue - Joni Mitchell. Joni is using her backup vocals as an orchestral accompaniement to set a mood, too much reverb and delay?

 

 

Last and least by far, a remix I did on Metapop of a song called Fly Away. The provided tracks were pretty wet, there was one sort of dryish vocal track. I decided to make the ending sound like the singer was flying away.

Sometimes when there is too much reverb and you can't get rid of it, all you think about is adding more.

 

https://metapop.com/opossum-apocalypse/tracks/fly-away-opossumapocalypseremix/91822

 

Not saying anything or anybody is right or wrong, I feel lucky to be on here and learning so much from more experienced recordists.

I am not exactly a rookie, guidance is useful but some concepts are either opinions or useful only in context. Cheers, Kuru

[Anderton]

In the article, the context of too much reverb was self-conscious vocalists using it to cover up perceived deficiencies in their voices. To my way of thinking, that's different from a creative effect.

 

Re "Sally Go Round the Roses," I worked with Abner Spector, who was the producer and a Chess Records alumnus. There was different reverb added on almost every take, which was intended as an effect to underline the ill-defined nature of the lyrics. Interestingly that effect was later employed by groups like Jefferson Airplane in the 60s, and if you listen to early Airplane stuff, it's washed in reverb - not to cover up the vocal, but to create a vibe. A lot of 60s material was drenched in reverb, and that record has been cited as an influence.

 

But also remember, sonic effects are a fashion. We've gone through periods of lots of reverb and dry sounds. If you listen to pre-Who drums, the levels were often barely audible but now we have drums up front and center. Everything goes through changes and cycles. I sometimes add a lot of reverb on vocals, but primarily on background ones to place them further in the back. If I was trying to nail a 60s sound, I'd use a lot more reverb than if I was trying for a SoCal punk sound.

 

Bottom line is that to my way of thinking, if an effect is there to cover up something, you need to re-think what you're doing. If it's used in a creative way to further purpose of the song, that's a whole different matter.

[KuruPrionz]

Anderton said:

In the article, the context of too much reverb was self-conscious vocalists using it to cover up perceived deficiencies in their voices. To my way of thinking, that's different from a creative effect.

 

Re "Sally Go Round the Roses," I worked with Abner Spector, who was the producer and a Chess Records alumnus. There was different reverb added on almost every take, which was intended as an effect to underline the ill-defined nature of the lyrics. Interestingly that effect was later employed by groups like Jefferson Airplane in the 60s, and if you listen to early Airplane stuff, it's washed in reverb - not to cover up the vocal, but to create a vibe. A lot of 60s material was drenched in reverb, and that record has been cited as an influence.

 

But also remember, sonic effects are a fashion. We've gone through periods of lots of reverb and dry sounds. If you listen to pre-Who drums, the levels were often barely audible but now we have drums up front and center. Everything goes through changes and cycles. I sometimes add a lot of reverb on vocals, but primarily on background ones to place them further in the back. If I was trying to nail a 60s sound, I'd use a lot more reverb than if I was trying for a SoCal punk sound.

 

Bottom line is that to my way of thinking, if an effect is there to cover up something, you need to re-think what you're doing. If it's used in a creative way to further purpose of the song, that's a whole different matter.

 

See, I start talking crazy and I get a cool story!!!

 

Sally Go Round The Roses is a "skip rope song", no? That's how I've always heard it.

 

I get what you are saying, a good friend went to a local studio that does very good work and got final results he was happy with for the most part.

The songs do sound really good, the productions are nice and "shiny", which is what my friend wanted.

 

Except for one song, it is down and dirty country. The other studio made it shiny and flawless and my friend does not like it. Just ain't right. Flawless 3 and 4 part harmonies, everything was just smooth... Wrong!!!!

 

He wanted the Bakersfield Sound, Merle and Buck. He's hired me to help make that happen, I was born and raised 100 miles north of Bakersfield, have heard that music all my life, played a bunch of it (still can knock out Act Naturally or Lonesome Fugitive any time) and I get it. Not real wet but you do need spring reverb on the guitar and (if we can find one up here!) the pedal steel. Vocals aren't dry but pretty in your face and not wet either. I helped him find a great drummer, this wil be fun. I think we'll have to settle for a Steinway baby grand since there is one in the room we want to use but I do have another friend who has a short upright that was gone through completely last year by an excellent technician so it's in tune and we know the keyboardist - she can bang out that honky tonk for days.

 

I got my Tele, the bridge pickup spanks. I know the tune and the style. I might play bass too, gotta borrow a P-bass with flat wounds or buy a set just for those special times. Chunk of foam under the bridge won't hurt.

 

I won't be getting all crazy with ambience for that one.

 

Some of my own tunes, probably... Cheers, Kuru

[Mike Rivers]

I recall the brouhaha going around the audio forums when the album Trio with Linda Ronstadt, Dolly Parton, and Emmy Lou Harris came out (1987). It was recorded and produced by George Massenburg, and the amateur audio sleuths detected a tiny bit of clipping. Asking how George, with those gorgeous vocalists could have possibly let that go through, his response was that the most important thing about the record was the singing, and this take was so good that the performance far overshadowed a tiny technical difficulty.

 

Surely not a rookie mistake, but a judgment call by a producer who made a great record.

[KuruPrionz]

I recall the brouhaha going around the audio forums when the album Trio with Linda Ronstadt, Dolly Parton, and Emmy Lou Harris came out (1987). It was recorded and produced by George Massenburg, and the amateur audio sleuths detected a tiny bit of clipping. Asking how George, with those gorgeous vocalists could have possibly let that go through, his response was that the most important thing about the record was the singing, and this take was so good that the performance far overshadowed a tiny technical difficulty.

 

Surely not a rookie mistake, but a judgment call by a producer who made a great record.

 

OT but I just listened to Trio II yesterday. If I get to go to Heaven (unlikely), I hope the angels sing like that!!!

[murphybridget]

On 6/5/2020 at 7:51 AM, Strays Dave said:

I want to try doing some percussion comping. I have a bodhran Irish drum and some other hand drums. Maybe I'll play 8 or 12 bars with some fundamental lower frequency drums and try editing - copying and pasting. Then drop different things on them.

 

I have a couple of Latin Playboy CD's. Mitchell Froom , David Hidalgo , Louis Perez. They seem to play with sonics. I'll dig them up and listen to them.

That sounds like a fantastic idea! Percussion comping can add a lot of groove and excitement to your music. Using different hand drums like the bodhran and experimenting with fundamental lower frequency drums is a great starting point. The idea of recording 8 or 12 bars and then editing, copying, and pasting to create variations is a common and effective technique in music production.

[bill5]

On 6/6/2020 at 1:15 AM, Anderton said:

Bottom line is that to my way of thinking, if an effect is there to cover up something, you need to re-think what you're doing. 

Maybe, maybe not IMO. If you're working with something or someone and don't have the option to do otherwise, some creative use of tools to improve/hide it can be useful. Definitely not optimal though

[KenElevenShadows]

On 6/5/2020 at 10:15 PM, Anderton said:

 

 

Bottom line is that to my way of thinking, if an effect is there to cover up something, you need to re-think what you're doing. If it's used in a creative way to further purpose of the song, that's a whole different matter.

 

^^ This. Every day, this.

[Anderton]

Layering for layering's sake, not as a strategic part of an arrangement. If a part doesn't sound good by itself, doing two of them won't help much 

[o0Ampy0o]

A bit of a different angle on the thread topic, I have observed singers who front Bands making the same mistake. By Bands I mean the band is more or less an equal presentation front and center. The singer has an opportunity to do a solo album. The mistake is having their vocals significantly louder than than usual.
 

The result makes the backing band sound small, weak and muddy.  The album as a whole sounds weak. In contrast, the Band which everyone is used to hearing this singer sounds big and full and the band as a whole sounds strong. I have seen it with rock bands so I can only list examples from that genre: Lou Gramm of Foreigner, Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones, Sammy Hagar when he left Montrose, Ronnie James Dio when he left Black Sabbath. 
 

Singers who did not make this mistake: Ozzy Osbourne when he left Black Sabbath. Randy Rhodes sounded larger than he ever did in previous bands. David Coverdale in Whitesnake (not exactly his solo effort but it became his solo band?) when he left Deep Purple. Steve Perry’s backing band was equal in strength to Perry on his solo album Street Talk released while Journey was more popular than ever at that time. IMO that was a factor in its success, especially on Foolish Heart. It wasn’t anything Journey-like and the band sounded great presenting a different style of music. Stevie Nicks. John Waite after leaving The Babys. Peter Gabriel’s solo band presence has been as interesting as he is, dare I say. Phil Collins has had both a strong and weaker backing band presence on different songs during his solo career. Generally, many of his songs are strikingly simple and have had that composed on a Prophet-5 with a DAW alone in a room characteristic to them. But the keyboard and drums have been big even if the songs have been relatively simple.

 

Sorry back to your regular program.
 

 

[Anderton]

16 hours ago, o0Ampy0o said:

The mistake is having their vocals significantly louder than than usual.

 

Part of that has to do with recording philosophy. In the 50s and most of the 60s, the lead vocal was mixed high. Drums would often be more of an afterthought. I think this may have been a legacy from the crooners and such of the 40s - when they sang, the band behind them got real quiet.

 

Over time the rhythm section became more important. So, what you identify as the singer being strong may actually be that the vocal is being propelled by the band. If the vocal is too out front, it doesn't have that propulsive energy behind it.

 

I do think sometimes, vocals are mixed too low. I want the vocals prominent, but not at the expense of overshadowing everything else.

[o0Ampy0o]

I see what you mean historically. This may only apply to Zeppelin influenced rock where the band needs to be strong behind a lead singer. It has seemed to me to be one of three or a combo of objectives: 1. The producer or record company wants the effort to be perceived as a solo but not so good it breaks up the band. 2. The singer wants to stand out perhaps coming from a band  dominated by another musician. 3. The singer, now on their own, doesn't comprehend the effect and is too focused on themselves.

 

Ronnie James Dio was accused of sneaking in and lowering the band settings after they had finished mastering the 2nd BS album featuring Dio. They restored it before its release. Maybe even lowering Dio's vocals compared with the original settings. At least what I could find on YT Dio sounds swallowed up by the band on The Mob Rules. I never thought that when it was released. I liked the big sound. But listening recently it might be a case where YT compression had a role. Or it was just some inferior remix. Sammy Hagar didn't have an ear or knack for getting the fat powerful sound Ronnie Montrose achieved in recordings and starting with his raw tone.  Sammy wrote some of the most memorable songs in Montrose yet he did some amateurish things on his solo records. He seems to be one who needs someone involved in presenting himself at his best. 

[murphybridget]

On 6/5/2020 at 7:51 AM, Strays Dave said:

I want to try doing some percussion comping. I have a bodhran Irish drum and some other hand drums. Maybe I'll play 8 or 12 bars with some fundamental lower frequency drums and try editing - copying and pasting. Then drop different things on them.

 

I have a couple of Latin Playboy CD's. Mitchell Froom , David Hidalgo , Louis Perez. They seem to play with sonics. I'll dig them up and listen to them.

Love to hear that Bodhran sometime.

[bill5]

On 5/27/2020 at 4:29 PM, KuruPrionz said:

Less truly is more and less less is even more more.

In a nutshell that was what immediately came to mind. Overdoing effects and mixing especially. People think they "have to" or are "supposed to" do all kinds of EQing, add a compressor, a limiter, reverbs out the yazoo, etc. 

 

Quote

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.

This also. I would never record anything other than bone dry. You can add effects later. It's hard if not impossible to take them out.

 

[bill5]

On 5/31/2020 at 11:27 PM, Sundown said:

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. 

I do. But as you said, it takes a lot of work. 

 

Quote

Downplaying or ignoring the role of the room

aw you beat me to it on this one   But I figured someone would. Room treatment it seems to me remains undervalued. That fancy Neumann is going to sound like a Behringer 8500 if you have a lousy room. 

[bill5]

On 6/2/2020 at 5:08 PM, Strays Dave said:

5) I'm using a Focusrite 2i4. It has 2 preamps. I can add 2. Is the Presonus BlueTube DP Version 2 a good way to go ? Something better within a lowish ($300ish) price ?

I'm not saying you're doing this, but it's possible and a point to bring up anyway IMO...don't buy extra hardware thinking you'll get a good return on investment in terms of sound quality. Gear, even low-end gear, is so good now, you'd likely be wasting money. 

[murphybridget]

4 hours ago, bill5 said:

I do. But as you said, it takes a lot of work. 

 

aw you beat me to it on this one   But I figured someone would. Room treatment it seems to me remains undervalued. That fancy Neumann is going to sound like a Behringer 8500 if you have a lousy room. 

The cheapest way you can do it is line your room with egg carton hahaha.

[MathOfInsects]

13 minutes ago, murphybridget said:

The cheapest way you can do it is line your room with egg carton hahaha.

Or just record vocals in the clothes closet.