Compression/Limiting when recording?

[Wooden]

Do you use compressor or limiters when recording? both? in wich circunstances?

 

Is an analog comp a must for digital recording?

Because if you have, lets say, a digital comp entering via spdif to your interface, but if you enter a clipped signal to the digital comp then it will clip the ADC and a distorted signal would reach the digital comp, right?

 

When you use a comp to avoid peaks you have to use really fast attacks right?

 

Theres is something that i dont get about compression, sorry, how is that a comp used with an attack setting other than 0 can reduce the dinamyc range, i mean if there is a transient untouch by the comp the peak level will be the same thus the dynamic range would be the same. I know i am wrong, but i am trying to explain my confusion.

 

I know i have been making "stupid" questions around here, but i am trying to pass to the next level, and thank you all for being so kind.

[halljams]

Originally posted by Wooden:

Do you use compressor or limiters when recording? both? in wich circunstances?

 

Is an analog comp a must for digital recording?

Because if you have, lets say, a digital comp entering via spdif to your interface, but if you enter a clipped signal to the digital comp then it will clip the ADC and a distorted signal would reach the digital comp, right?

 

When you use a comp to avoid peaks you have to use really fast attacks right?

 

Theres is something that i dont get about compression, sorry, how is that a comp used with an attack setting other than 0 can reduce the dinamyc range, i mean if there is a transient untouch by the comp the peak level will be the same thus the dynamic range would be the same. I know i am wrong, but i am trying to explain my confusion.

 

I know i have been making "stupid" questions around here, but i am trying to pass to the next level, and thank you all for being so kind.

The theory of it is such that if you want to tame peaks and transients you use a fast attack. The release setting is dependant on the material.

You can think of it this way, the lower sounds like bass and kik have larger wave forms and therefore require longer attacks and release settings and the opposite for higher frequencies.

 

But you want to avoid using compression unless you have a specific reason for it, then you will have a clearer focus as to what you are doing and it will be easier to set the compressor up appropriately.

For example, lets say you have some compressors sitting around while tracking a drum kit and you want to emulate tapeish sort of compression. Set them up with low ratios, 1.5:1 or 2:1 and listen to what they do.

Crank the threshold or input so you can really hear the compression working, while its pumping away, play with your attacks and releases and get them sounding as natural as you can.

Maby you wanna leave a little bit of the front on the sound of the drums for some extra punch, so you set the atack a little longer etc etc.

Then lower your threshold or input way back down to where you can just barely hear the compression working, switch the compressor on and off and get the output the same volume when the compressor is on and off and switch between the two sounds

Is the compressor making your signal better?

If not don't use it.

If yes, fine tune your threshold(be conservative here) and off you go.

 

Compression can be used in tracking to accent attacks or dynamics as well as tame them, and yes this is dependent on how you use your attacks.

You can extend the length of sounds with your ratio/release settings.

 

Some compessors sound like shit if you kill the transients with them, some don't, so don't base all your conclusions about compression on the results of one compressor, experiment with your soft compressors and see which ones do what well.

 

It's a big topic that never seems to get boring, i love compressors.

[ryst]

Originally posted by Wooden:

 

I know i have been making "stupid" questions around here, but i am trying to pass to the next level, and thank you all for being so kind.

NO! Don't ever feel that you ask stupid questions around here. We are all here to help if we can.

[Franknputer]

The basic theory of compression is this: it's an automatic volume control, that gets turned down whenever a signal hits a predetermined level. Threshold sets how loud that level is; if you set a -3 dB threshold, then start bringing up a signal, the compressor will start to turn it down when it reaches -3 dB & above. Below -3 dB it will do basically nothing.

 

Ratio is how much does the volume get turned down, relative to how much over the Threshold the signal is. If we send +3 dB with a -3 dB threshold, and set the Ratio at 2:1, it will give us an output of 0 dB. (Because an increase in power 2x yields a 3 db gain; +6 dB reduced by 2:1 = +3 dB. Added to the -3 dB threshold point, we get 0.)

 

Attack is how fast does it get turned down. Sometimes you want to preserve that initial transient, because it defines the sonic character. So, you can tell the unit "wait (x) milliseconds before you turn the volume down" to preserver that initial 'hit'.

 

Since, by compressing, you are turning the level of a signal down, it's going to be quieter than before. So, you make up for that difference by boosting the Output of the compressor - which, of course, boosts the quieter bits along with everything else, effectively raising the strength of the entire signal.

 

Now, about using it to record (short answer) - because transient peaks can overload an A/D converter & cause nasty clipping, you might wish to use an analog compressor when recording to digital, if you want to maximze the strength of the signal getting recorded.

 

And BTW - these are not stupid questions.

[halljams]

Good points CR.

I have issues with this...

Originally posted by Christopher Robin:

 

Now, about using it to record (short answer) - because transient peaks can overload an A/D converter & cause nasty clipping, you might wish to use an analog compressor when recording to digital, if you want to maximze the strength of the signal getting recorded.

If you are recording in 16 bit maby.

But in 24 bit this is not required, just send the converters a signal low enough that the peaks will never hit 0. You do not need to use compression in this instance so it should be avoided as it will hurt more than help.

There is no reason to get as close to 0 as you can when tracking in 24 bit.

 

 

I wanted to also add that in listening to alot of stuff people post around these and other forums i notice alot of people are not hearing the distortion and pumping etc that their limiting is adding.

When you throw an L3 or something across the mix bus How do you know how to set it? It looks simple but there is more to it than using a preset.

 

Same principle as setting compression.

Turn down the output on the limiter, way down, then crank the limiting way up till it is a distorted mess, get it to a listenable spot and play with the release and listen to how it works with the program material, if there are different modes like on Voxengo elephant(which is an excellent limiter btw) play with them.

Get the limiter working with the music and listen to the distortion and get familiar with the sound of it, then lower your threshold back down to 6 or 8 db gain and put your max out level to -0.3 and fine tune it to where the distortion or pumping isn't a problem. If there is negative effects at the volume you want, you need to get a different/better limiter or TURN IT DOWN. Or go back and remix with some stems and bus compression etc. What is it that is making the limiter pump?

[Bruce Swedien]

Wooden asks-------->Do you use compressor or limiters when recording? both? in wich circunstances?

I know i have been making "stupid" questions around here, but i am trying to pass to the next level, and thank you all for being so kind.

 

Brucie Answers-------->Don't ever feel that you ask stupid questions around here. We want to help if we can!

 

As far as your question - do you use compressors or limiters when recording? both? in wich circunstances?

 

My answer will be short, to the point and very personal! No.... No... No... Learn to record without them. Once you have done that, if you have any left, throw them all away.....

 

I hope I didn't frighten you with that. If you want more explanation, let me know, please....

 

Bruce Swedien

[Is there bass in the caR-R]

I'd like to hear more Bruce- I like the short answer, but I always thought some automatic gain management was an important part of recording. Not necessarily compression, but a peak limiter with the threshold set high enough just to catch the odd transient? Also, how about gates? I would love to have just a little more insight on this- thx

[Wooden]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

Wooden asks-------->Do you use compressor or limiters when recording? both? in wich circunstances?

I know i have been making "stupid" questions around here, but i am trying to pass to the next level, and thank you all for being so kind.

 

Brucie Answers-------->Don't ever feel that you ask stupid questions around here. We want to help if we can!

 

As far as your question - do you use compressors or limiters when recording? both? in wich circunstances?

 

My answer will be short, to the point and very personal! No.... No... No... Learn to record without them. Once you have done that, if you have any left, throw them all away.....

 

I hope I didn't frighten you with that. If you want more explanation, let me know, please....

 

Bruce Swedien

Of course... explain more. Thanks for answer

[Wooden]

Originally posted by halljams:

Originally posted by Wooden:

Do you use compressor or limiters when recording? both? in wich circunstances?

 

Is an analog comp a must for digital recording?

Because if you have, lets say, a digital comp entering via spdif to your interface, but if you enter a clipped signal to the digital comp then it will clip the ADC and a distorted signal would reach the digital comp, right?

 

When you use a comp to avoid peaks you have to use really fast attacks right?

 

Theres is something that i dont get about compression, sorry, how is that a comp used with an attack setting other than 0 can reduce the dinamyc range, i mean if there is a transient untouch by the comp the peak level will be the same thus the dynamic range would be the same. I know i am wrong, but i am trying to explain my confusion.

 

I know i have been making "stupid" questions around here, but i am trying to pass to the next level, and thank you all for being so kind.

The theory of it is such that if you want to tame peaks and transients you use a fast attack. The release setting is dependant on the material.

You can think of it this way, the lower sounds like bass and kik have larger wave forms and therefore require longer attacks and release settings and the opposite for higher frequencies.

 

But you want to avoid using compression unless you have a specific reason for it, then you will have a clearer focus as to what you are doing and it will be easier to set the compressor up appropriately.

For example, lets say you have some compressors sitting around while tracking a drum kit and you want to emulate tapeish sort of compression. Set them up with low ratios, 1.5:1 or 2:1 and listen to what they do.

Crank the threshold or input so you can really hear the compression working, while its pumping away, play with your attacks and releases and get them sounding as natural as you can.

Maby you wanna leave a little bit of the front on the sound of the drums for some extra punch, so you set the atack a little longer etc etc.

Then lower your threshold or input way back down to where you can just barely hear the compression working, switch the compressor on and off and get the output the same volume when the compressor is on and off and switch between the two sounds

Is the compressor making your signal better?

If not don't use it.

If yes, fine tune your threshold(be conservative here) and off you go.

 

Compression can be used in tracking to accent attacks or dynamics as well as tame them, and yes this is dependent on how you use your attacks.

You can extend the length of sounds with your ratio/release settings.

 

Some compessors sound like shit if you kill the transients with them, some don't, so don't base all your conclusions about compression on the results of one compressor, experiment with your soft compressors and see which ones do what well.

 

It's a big topic that never seems to get boring, i love compressors.

Thanks, your "how to setup a compressor" explanation is the one that makes more sense to me. And with EQ working with extreme setting and then lowering them is the only way i found to be productive.

[Franknputer]

Originally posted by halljams:

Good points CR.

I have issues with this...

Originally posted by Christopher Robin:

 

Now, about using it to record (short answer) - because transient peaks can overload an A/D converter & cause nasty clipping, you might wish to use an analog compressor when recording to digital, if you want to maximze the strength of the signal getting recorded.

If you are recording in 16 bit maby.

But in 24 bit this is not required, just send the converters a signal low enough that the peaks will never hit 0. You do not need to use compression in this instance so it should be avoided as it will hurt more than help.

There is no reason to get as close to 0 as you can when tracking in 24 bit.

Well yeah - I said it was a short answer. I mainly meant it as addressing the limitations of the hardware. Better to have a safety valve at 0 than to have to ditch a great take because of clipping. (Of course, this really requires a hard limiter, but most compressors can do that.) But yeah, generally you can cut at lower levels & not have an issue, assuming that the dynamic range of what you're recording does not exceed what your converters can handle.

[Bruce Swedien]

Is there bass in the caR-R-R-R-R? sez-------->I'd like to hear more Bruce- I like the short answer, but I always thought some automatic gain management was an important part of recording. Not necessarily compression, but a peak limiter with the threshold set high enough just to catch the odd transient? Also, how about gates? I would love to have just a little more insight on this

 

Brucie sez------>Sit back, relax, get a cup of coffee. I'm going to get a bit wordy here. The subject matter is worth it!

 

Compression and limiting, as a subject, is very poorly understood. The basic issue is, of course, the control of transients in music recording.

 

We first have to define and understand the basics of transient response in music recording....

 

I am frequently asked to define transient response, as it applies to music recording. Here are some of my thoughts on this very important subject.

 

First lets try to define the basic issue.

 

A- Transient response in electronic recording equipment, is the ability of a device or electronic component, to handle and faithfully reproduce sudden waveforms called transients. A transient is a short duration, high level sonic energy peak, such as a hand- clap or snare drum hit. Any sound source in the percussion family requires excellent transient response in the recording equipment to sound real.

 

B- To me, a sound transient is the steep wave-front of the sound. In other words, the transient of the sound is the first impact of the sound before the sound falls and begins to decay, or die.

 

Good transient response is especially important when recording acoustic instruments. This is one case where its extremely important for one to have equipment that is able to capture as much of the initial transient as possible, and all its accompanying delicate details.

 

Now at this point is where it gets really interesting. This is where our basic music recording philosophy is conceived.

 

In the music that I am normally involved in, I have always felt that good transient content is one of the very most important components of the recorded image. I would even go so far as to say that transient response has at its core a direct relationship to the emotional impact of a recording. Particularily in the main genres of music that I record.... namely R & B and Pop recordings.

 

The faithful recording and reproduction of sound source transients makes the strong rhythmic elements in R & B and Pop recordings much more dramatic.

 

These are the elements that are so important, such as the Kick or bass drum, the Snare drum, hand-claps, percussion...etc.

 

I think that well recorded transients give R & B and Pop recordings a feeling of tremendous energy.

 

To me, the excessive use of compression and limiting diminish the drama of sound source transients in recorded music. Along that same line of thinking, I should also point out that I have never been(and probably never will be) a big fan of dynamics compression anywhere during the recording process.

 

To me, when R & B and Pop recordings are over-compressed and over-limited, they lack the extemely fundamental qualities of both primitive energy and smooth high-frequencies.

 

The reason that over-compressed and over-limited recordings lose high end energy, is that much of the sound energy in a recording is concentrated in the lower frequencies. These low-end signals will negatively influence a wide-band compressors operation, causing higher frequencies to be attenuated during peaks in level, making the music sound dull and lifeless.

 

Personally, I love transients and what they do to dramatize music. Let them live! If a recording is over-compressed, it will always be over-compressed. In other words, it will sound dull and lifeless forever!

 

Bruce Swedien

[Is there bass in the caR-R]

wow. I think we struck gold on that one Bruce. You not only changed the way I will approach recording from now on, I think you have altered the way I will listen to music as well... Thanks a bunch man.

[Bruce Swedien]

Is there bass in the caR-R-R-R-R? sez--------->wow. I think we struck gold on that one Bruce. You not only changed the way I will approach recording from now on, I think you have altered the way I will listen to music as well... Thanks a bunch man.

 

Brucie sez---------->You made my day! You sound really genuine. I hope I'm right! If I'm right, it's young folks like you that are going to save the ass of our wonderful calling!

 

Bruce Swedien

[Is there bass in the caR-R]

Thanks Bruce. I'm not young, but I AM genuine. Thanks for opening my eyes. Now I will open my ears, too.

 

by the way, I GET it. I've listened to music all my life- live, recorded or otherwise. There was always this one "thing" in some recorded music that really makes it stand out from other recordings. I listened, I evaluated, but I just couldn't put my finger on what made it sound different... and so much better. Now that I've had it explained to me by somebody who knows, the little light bulb just went on over my head...

[Lee Flier]

Another thing to remember about compression (as opposed to limiting) is that it's not just an "automatic volume control," it also changes the relationship of the source material to the ambience. That is... there will be more ambience. If you have a great sounding room and you really want to bring out its character, compression can be a cool effect. But if you have a crappy room, compression will only bring out more of the acoustical problems in the room. If you have nasty comb filtering or bass buildup in your room, you'll just get more of it if you compress.

[Gus Lozada]

Just let me add: Don't try to fix it at the mix.

 

IF compression is an integral part of your sound, then record it compressed.

 

IF NOT... leave it as it is and control the recording volume. Further processing could kill -or enhance- the original performance, depending on your taste and expertise.

[Wooden]

Yeah Bruce, and what about what gus says. What do you think about using compressors to actually enhance the transient perception?

[Bruce Swedien]

Brucie sez-------->About compression as an integral part of your sound, then record it compressed.... That is a very personal statement. For me, it would never work!

 

As I said earlier...... To me, the excessive use of compression and limiting diminish the drama of sound source transients in recorded music. Along that same line of thinking, I should also point out that I have never been(and probably never will be) a big fan of dynamics compression anywhere during the recording process. That's how I feel about the subject.....

 

Try experimenting with both techniques... Compressed or not compressed.... See which moves you.

 

Gus gives you good advice below.

Gus Lozada sez-------->Just let me add: Don't try to fix it at the mix.

 

Bruce Swedien

[Bill Roberts]

Here is something Bruce I have been curious of...

 

Your "'Acousonic Engineering' technique"

 

Was this the process of using 2 channels for each sound or was any other factors involved?

 

I have to admit, I like the name and it is all yours.

[John Sayers]

I suspect the concept of compressing when recording came from the analogue days where noise was your greatest enemy. Adding any compression after increased noise significantly. That factor no longer applies.

 

cheers

john

[Lee Flier]

It does if you're still recording analog.

 

Tape can also itself provide a bit of natural compression/peak limiting if you set up the machine that way.

[Wooden]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

Brucie sez-------->About compression as an integral part of your sound, then record it compressed.... That is a very personal statement. For me, it would never work!

 

As I said earlier...... To me, the excessive use of compression and limiting diminish the drama of sound source transients in recorded music. Along that same line of thinking, I should also point out that I have never been(and probably never will be) a big fan of dynamics compression anywhere during the recording process. That's how I feel about the subject.....

 

Try experimenting with both techniques... Compressed or not compressed.... See which moves you.

 

Gus gives you good advice below.

Gus Lozada sez-------->Just let me add: Don't try to fix it at the mix.

 

Bruce Swedien

So you dont use compression at all? wow interesting! I'll try both technics... good advices, thanks.

[halljams]

Originally posted by John Sayers:

I suspect the concept of compressing when recording came from the analogue days where noise was your greatest enemy. Adding any compression after increased noise significantly. That factor no longer applies.

 

cheers

john

No, but the fact remains that a little compression is a very attractive style to some.

It can be used as a tension by using it to make parts or sounds more or less cohesive with each other, or contrast each other in dynamics and size... thus one more dimension.

Although, i can see the wisdom in trying to do without as well, cause damn.

[Bill Roberts]

Bottom line, Capture. If the capture is authentic, all you need is a strait wire with gain. Making up for a dynamically imbalanced capture with limiting and compression will always yield a form of distortion, artistic or not..it is still distortion.

[John Sayers]

Yeah Bill - but pop music isn't reality - it's a cartoon - and we use all the techniques available just like the cartoonist.

 

cheers

john

[Bruce Swedien]

Bill Roberts asks the musical question--------->Here is something Bruce I have been curious of...

Your "'Acousonic Engineering' technique"

Was this the process of using 2 channels for each sound or was any other factors involved?

I have to admit, I like the name and it is all yours.

--------------------

Bill Roberts Precision Mastering

-----------Since 1975-----------

 

Brucie answers--------->OK brother Bill, you asked for it! Here is the real deal! Find a comfortable chair.....

 

When Quincy Jones, and I were recording a major project in 1976, we wanted to coin a catchword phrase to represent my recording technique with multiple multitrack tape machines. So we came up with the phrase The Acusonic Recording Process. To my continued amazement, I am frequently asked to explain.

 

In fact on several occasions I have been offered impressive sums of money by recording studios, and companies that wanted to purchase The Acusonic Recording Process, thinking that it was a Black Box that recorded sound could be processed through.

 

I recollect one awkward circumstance, several years ago, when I got a phone call in the studio, from someones secretary, saying that a photographers team from a very respected, very important, foreign trade journal, was in an airplane on the way from somewhere overseas, to shoot a cover photo of The Acusonic Recording Process machine! I dont remember exactly what I did, but I do recall mumbling something to the highly confused photographer about the machine being away for repairs indefinitely, and wed have to reschedule the photo shoot! On my last lecture trip to Japan and Europe, I did admit to the press what the real deal with The Acusonic Recording Process was!

 

I had no idea when Quincy and I came up with the name that there would be so much interest in it.

 

The year is 1977. Quincy called me one night and said "Want to go to New York and do a musical movie?". I said "Sure!". So off we went to do "The Wiz" for Universal Pictures. While we were working on The Wiz, we met this young, 18 year-old kid by the name of Michael Jackson.(Michael played the 'scarecrow' in the 'Wiz', the movie)

 

It was on the 'Wiz' that I began seriously using two or more multi-track tape machines together to realize the production values that Quincy and I were interested in.

 

It was during the recording of the score for the 'Wiz' that I came up with the basic system of organizing the tracks, the master tapes and the slave tapes that I still use. I call it "Multi-Track Multiplexing". This is the basic concept that spawned the catchword phrase the "ACUSONIC RECORDING PROCESS".

 

The "ACUSONIC RECORDING PROCESS" is, in reality, merely a name that Quincy and I came up with to describe my recording technique with multi-track recording machines.

 

The phrase is essentially a combination of the words Accurate and Sonic. I figured the Accurate part of it referred to the accuracy of true stereophonic sound imagery. The Sonic part of it refered to the fact that it is sound that we are trying to characterize.

 

More specifically, the name "ACUSONIC RECORDING PROCESS" describes the way that I work with digitial and analogue multi-track tapes machines and SMPTE time-code to generate a virtually unlimited number of recording tracks. Initially I designed the system specifically for the projects that Quincy and I have done together.

 

I think the most important feature of this technique, and my method of implementing it, is that I am able to use pairs of tracks, in abundance, to record true stereophonic images, and then retain them in discrete pairs until the final mix. This method also allows me(when I use analogue recording in my work) to play the master tape only a few times during the initial stage of the project, and then put it away until the final mix. This feature retains much of the transient response of the analogue master tape, by not diminishing those fragile transients due to repeated playing during overdubbing and sweetening.

 

I frequently mix recording formats with my system of multiplexing multitrack tape machines. Now, of course, I use digital recording machines, in abundance, alongside my analogue machines. I think that what the basic digital recording medium does, it does dramatically well. Once I have the character of the sound to my liking, I will use a digital recording device to preserve it. As a storage medium, digital recording is unparalleled.

 

Often I will use 16 track 2 inch Analogue tape(without noise reduction), because the additional track width on the tape gives less self-generated tape noise, thereby eliminating the need for noise reduction. Also, the sonic quality of 16 track, as a music recording medium, is to my ear, the most convincing. Using 16 track analogue, as compared to 24 track analogue, also gives slightly improved transient response. In addition, by not using noise reduction, there is less unwelcome coloration of the sound quality.

 

Most frequently, my initial recording medium is analogue 24 track 2 inch tape, at a tape speed of 30 inches per second. I normally use a record level of approximately 6 db over 185 nano/Webers, or what is commonly referred to in the industry, as a record level of plus three. A few years ago I almost always used Dolby SR noise reduction. Now, with the new high-output recording tape formulations, I rarely use noise reduction when I am working in the 24 track format.

 

To synchonize two or more tapes machines I use SMPTE time-code, 30 frame, non-drop frame, and record this on the tape at a level of about minus 15 VU.

 

I allow 60 seconds of pre-roll sync time at the beginning of each song. This is sometimes referred to as off-set. I always start the SMPTE time-code at zero time base for each song. This gives me a handy time position reference throughout the song.

 

When I am working in the analogue format, I make several of what I call 'Work Tapes' using the original master SMPTE track and regenerating it through a code restorer so that the time-code is always first generation quality. I will then mix the rhythm tracks and make a stereo cue mix on the work tapes using as few tracks as possible.

 

Usually just bass, drums and percussion on a pair of tracks. Then I will make a stereo mix of the keyboards and guitars on a separate pair of tracks. If there is a scratch vocal track, I will transfer a copy of that track across to the work tapes by itself.

 

Using this technique, in this manner, give me a virtually unlimited number of tracks to work with. It was not obvious at first, but it soon became apparent to me that with this method, it is possible to do much more than merely obtain additional tracks for overdubbing.

 

Probably the most important advantage of this system is that I can record many more genuine stereophonic images by using pairs of tracks, instead of merely single monophonic tracks. These stereo sound source tracks, can be kept in discreet pairs untill the final mix.

 

These true stereo images add much to the depth and clarity of the final production. I have a feeling that this one facet of my production technique, contributes more to the over-all sonic character of my work, than any other single factor.

 

THERES MORE TO THE STORY...

 

My career actually began before stereophonic sound was of any interest to the industry, let alone the general public. This gave me the opportunity to do a great deal of experimentation, in stereo microphone technique, at my own pace. Consequently, I was able learn about what true stereophonic sound reproduction really is, before the commercial pressures came to bear. This also gave me a chane to learn what the emotional value of stereo imagery in music can do to increase the emotional impact of recorded music.

 

When we first started to record in stereo, our goal was to create a natural sound field, that had as its basis a real support of the music that we were trying to preserve. The big problem in modern music comes when we begin to overdub parts and layer the orchestrations.

 

The number of tracks necessary to realize the music can become astronomical in quantity, and thus becomes psychologically intimidating. This definitely need not be the case. I soon realized that this system makes it easily possible to have all the tracks I wanted to acomplish my musical objectives.

 

An additional and equally important value of this system, is that I can also add a great deal more emotional impact to the final product, by not having to make any balance decisions, early in the production of a piece of music, that are wrong, simply because I couldn't make a good value judgement because I wasn't hearing all the parts of the music. In other words, I never finalize any pre-mixes, or balances in a piece of music untill I have heard all its' musical elements, and how those elements relate to each other, to form the whole emotion of the music.

 

When overdubbing vocals for instance, I can record all backgroud vocals in stereo, and not combine or pre-mix anything permanently, untill all the parts in the song are complete, and I can hear how all the musical values relate. I guess I could say that, with this method, I never have to erase a track!

 

THAT BASICALLY IS THE ACUSONIC RECORDING PROCESS...

 

Note:

The correct spelling of the process is:

THE ACUSONIC RECORDING PROCESS

 

Bruce Swedien

10-12-84

 

The preceeding is the text of a talk I gave in October, 1984 at a NARAS Los Angeles chapter luncheon. It is an effort to answer a subject that I am often asked to define. I had no idea when Quincy and I came up with the name that there would be so much interest in it.

 

Of course all this was done when I was recording almost entirely in the analgue fomat.

 

Bruce Swedien

[Bruce Swedien]

Everyone.......

 

After that last post of mine, you can see that I mean it when I say "I have no secrets!"

 

I've always felt that secrets are for kids, not grown-ups!

 

Brucie the Viking!!!!!

[where02190]

I rarely use compressionwhen tracking. Unlike analog, where it is possible and osmetimes even desireable to hammer the signal in, digital recording needs to target the nominal 0dbu levels of the specific converters which is typically in the -12 to -18dbfs range. targeting these levels for your nominal(average) input levels, you have mucho headroom for dynamic peaks and will capture a quality signal. compressing or limiting to achieve an higher nominal level results typically either in a) track faders at low levels to prevent buss overload when mixing or b) buss overload, and a resultant crappy sounding mix.

 

Yes there is the unruly drummer, or inexperienced singer that just cannot be ridden by hand that forces the engineer to use a compressor, but for most applications, proper gain staging and nominal level set for the particular converter specs you are using will result in superior audio and accurately capture the dynamics of the performance. This then allows you to use compression at your discression and with varying control during mixdown if warranted.

[Lee Flier]

Bruce, that is some awesome stuff! I'll be taking awhile to digest this when I have some more time... bout to start a session myself.

 

Just out of curiosity... do you stick with 6/185nW even with the higher output tape? And do you ever record at 15ips for its different sonic character? I'm still a tape geek and it's tough these days to find people to geek out with.

[Bruce Swedien]

Lee Flier sez-------->Just out of curiosity... do you stick with 6/185nW even with the higher output tape? And do you ever record at 15ips for its different sonic character?

 

Brucie sez-------->Ooooh Wow! A huge subject. Especially when it comes to analogue tape recording level.....

 

We have to talk! 15 ips is totaly different from 30 ips in sonic character. It's fat and warm, but a squirt noisey! 30 ips is clean and quiet but a squirt cold!

 

Brucie the Viking!!!