Recording Tech

http://therecordingrevolution.com/5minutes/

And just in case you wonder who writes the lyrics for the Amazing Superteam - it's the same app that wrote Rebecca Black's Friday. Here's this unearthly odious creation of someone's sneaky mind:

http://www.song-lyrics-generator.org.uk/

If you missed another audio-revolution, let me fill you in. A new music format has been born - or, as developers themselves put it, "a new non-interactive music format in which recorded material is transformed in real time, generating a unique and constantly evolving interpretation of a song on each listen". Please welcome Bronze.

Now let the dust settle and read between the lines.

A multitrack recording with a randomizer for a mixing engineer. Doesn't sound quite as fancy, eh?

What actually makes it a big deal - if you look at it from the right perspective - is the fact that Bronze is what we needed all these years to wrap up out Amazing Superteam of Virtual Music Production. We already had an amazing virtual composer Emily Howell (google her up, she's worth your time), quite a selection of vocaloids (some of them even in 3D), and more loops and auto-arrangers than a human being would be able to listen through. Now with super-powers of Bronze we can finally put the evil magic of co-creation and uniqueness of musical performance to its end.

Just imagine a reality in which Andy Wallace never mixed "Smells like a teen spirit". The band picked Vig's mix and it never became a youth anthem. Take a listen to it:

And here's Wallace's mix, the one that got printed on the final CD:

I had to bring Butch Vig's mix 4db down to match the levels - this guy has won the loudness war hands down right where it started! To beat his version of the track today we'd have to mix +2 RMS - now that makes me paranoid.

Although, being this loud, it's nowhere near as polished and "mainstream"-sounding as Wallace's mix. Who knows what could have happened to the song without Andy's final touch.

Ok, let's take this story for another spin. What if two years later Nirvana would have insisted on keeping Albini's mix for the final print?

Now that's Steve Albini in all his glory, an outworldish producer from outer-space, where rock songs have dynamics of a symphonic orchestra and "raw" equals "awesome".

Instead, the label printed this remix made by Scott Litt:

This time I had to bring Albini's mix 4db up to make them sound somewhere near. DGC Records thought his sound was "unlistenable", and as much as I love raw-sounding records myself, I have to agree with them to some extent. On the same token, Cobain loved the original version, and who knows where Albini's "In Utero" would have taken him in a long run. In some alternative reality the album became a commercial disaster, Cobain is still alive, Grohl is just a drummer for Nirvana, and Foo Fighters and QOTSA never existed.

TAKE THE BLIND TEST HERE!

Another great (and worthy) debate--hardware compression vs. software compression. Clearly, everyone has an opinion and/or perception that leans one way or the other, but most engineers agree that choosing the right compressor, the right settings, and when to use it (or not) is more important than this debate. Perhaps a combination of both hardware and software is the best? Or none at all? Well...for all intents and purposes I set up this little test to enlighten those who do not know of the difference intimately.

One 2-bus drum loop was sent through 4 different compressors--2 of them were plugins (Stillwell Rocket or Duende SSL Bus) in my DAW and two were sent out through apogee converters into hardware units (Distressors or ISA430 compressors) and recorded back into the DAW. Intentions were to have all 4 examples sound as close to each other as possibly, even if each device had unique settings.

TAKE THE BLIND TEST HERE! 

_____________________________________

Answers:

A--Software (Stillwell Rocket)

B--Hardware (Distressors)

C--Software (SSL Buss Comp)

http://recordingtech.polldaddy.com/s/new-survey results are below.

One of the great audio debates for the last decade is Analog mixing vs. Digital mixing. Most ‘analog minds’ will argue that mixing in the box, with all of it’s tweaking benefits, is still not providing the depth, stereo image and character that mixing on analog consoles provides. The ‘digital minds’ say the audible differences between the two are negligible, arguing that mixing in the box can yield great results.

In the advent of this debate, we have the invention of the summing mixer. The summing mixer gives the in-the-box engineer an analog back end, thus providing a way of enhancing the result of their hard work by running their stems or tracks into analog mixing components (i.e. copper wire, passive or active amps, transformers, etc). More recently, software developers have even created analog console emulation plug-ins to replicate this analog back-end or in some cases the front-end as well.

So…what do these summing mixers and plug-ins sound like and are they worthy investments in today’s convenient digital world? Below is the first blind test--You be the judge!

There are four files to listen to, A B C D respectively. One mix is purely the box. One mix is in the box with a console emulation plug-in on every channel and the master bus (Sonimus’ Satson plug). One mix is ran out of the box into a Dangerous 2-bus summing mixer. And just for fun, one mix is ran through both the Satson consoles and the summing box. All sounds are from software-synths and samples in an effort to eliminate any pre-coloration from recording into the computer. 

  ----------------------

thanks for all the responses! Here are the Answers:

A:Summing Mixer

B:Console Emulation and Summing Mixer

C:Console Emulation Only

The fewer instruments in a mix or section of a mix, the bigger each one should sound. You might achieve this by adding short/long delays, reverbs, boosting EQ's or harmonic saturation.

If you are reading this post, chances are you love music--even more than you love mixing or engineering or mastering music. You have listened to music for years, tried to learn the songs you love, maybe (over)analyzed the mix quite a bit. Every engineer I know has pondered and discussed what technique might have been used on their favorite mix. This is all valid, yet achieving a great tone and balance in music is not about the tricks and fancy gear. It's about using your musical instinct.

There are so many ways to approach a mix nowadays, especially since plug-ins are a' plentiful--any home producer has so many tools at their disposal. When I first started mixing, almost 15 years ago, I 1)had no plug-ins 2)had no idea what I was doing, technically speaking. I didn't know what effects were necessary when, what instruments clashed frequency-wise, what depth was needed and contrast was needed to make a mix successful.Or did I? I had been listening to music and playing music for years and years already. Essentially, my ear was already trained in the art of listening.

So how does this apply to mixing?

When you start a mix, react to the music you have in front of you. Don't sit there trying to recreate all the latest tricks you've read about or hear about. Whatever you do, DON'T think about mixing! Instead, just listen carefully to what's in front of you. Perhaps just listen through the entire song and take notes on the potential balancing issues, annoying tonalities, things that stick out like a sore thumb. Then...use your listening experience to react and do it quickly (think hot potato). Try and get a good balance in the first 15min-30min. By moving quickly you are avoiding the over-thinking phase most people go through and you are focusing on a more musical result. You will feel your way through the mix as opposed to think your way through it. When you only think of the technicalities and frequencies and fx settings, you are forgetting about what's most important--the music, the feel, the energy.

The more you subscribe to this practice on new mixes, the easier it will become. You will start developing better sounding mixes in less time and become more comfortable with the results you achieve in your short session. There will be times where you don't get that great balance in the first half hour, but keep trudging through or come back later with a fresh perspective.

So now you've reached a half hour of work and you like the balance so far. Do a....File>Save As. Version your track, mix it down and import it into your newly-versioned session. This way you can check in and reference what you felt to be good music and a good balance. A/B'ing the first mix will help you stay on the right path as your sound develops more.

http://www.box.net/shared/npn8une6lf

http://www.box.net/shared/qsvkf34f4p

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

http://www.digitalprosound.com/2002/03_mar/tutorials/mixing_excerpt1.htm

I am not one to live by EQ charts, however they are a perfect way to get started and become acclimated with EQ terminology and generally acceptable EQ practices.

The absolute best thing you can do is listen to your audio source, pinpoint any trouble frequencies using the sweep effect, rid of them. If you are looking for character on the track, boosting eq is the way to go. In this case, I do a reverse sweep (turn down one EQ band 10db or so and sweep the spectrum) and find that point where I start to miss what was once there. Then boost to taste.

How many times you dreamt of having your favorite Windows VST plug-in or VSTi synth on Mac! Why should it take developers so long (if ever) to port one simple dll and let us finally unleash a tsunami of creativity stopped by not having that exact äwesomerizer on the 2-buss?

Well, as much as I hate doing geeky street magic, there is a way to use almost any Windows VST inside your Mac DAW. It's tricky and may probably take you a day or two to get your head around it, but once you figure out how to pull this rabbit out of a hat - there won't be any platform boundaries for plugs you're using.

Check out this thoroughly written step-by-step guide here: http://diaphone.blogspot.com/2010/12/11.html

Modern mixing techniques make me bipolar. Seriously, they do! Listen to any recent Green Day's track, or better (God forbid me) Nickelback's track. First it makes you want to jump around smashing things, throw some energy out, than the depression stage comes - your ears are hurt and you don't want these crispy highs and mad phat bass anymore.

So how big is big enough? We all want our tracks to sound modern and loud and exciting, but without passing this borderline between "punchy-in-your-face" and "fatiguing-in-your-bin".

Although there's no straight answer to that, here's an example of two different approaches to the same mix. For you to decide if one of them has passed the line.

The first one has been mixed by Andy Wallace (Nirvana, Jeff Buckley, Foo Fighters, Puddle of Mudd, A Perfect Circle):

The second one is Chris Lord Alge (Green Day, Slipknot, Paramore, My Chemical Romance, P.O.D.):

   Quarter note delay time = "60000/BPM (Beat Per Minute)"

A few things to use that equations or this website for:

http://web.forret.com/tools/bpm_tempo.asp

Delay or predelay calculations, even when adding very short echoes-calculate it to the tempo equivalent of a 1/64th note or 1/128th note, for example. Sometimes rushing or dragging the delay slightly will prevent other transients from completely masking the delay effect.

Compression times--attack and release setting. Having overheads or pads compression release anywhere between a 1/4note to whole note depending, can enhance the rhythmic intensity of a section of music and add movement to the sounds. More often then not, I will subtract a small amount of time from the release setting so the compressor is off before the next beat or rhythmic pulse.

Quite a nice toy I've stumbled upon: http://labs.echonest.com/click/

As you might notice from the previous post, drum replacement became a huge part of nowadays "producing" technique. 

And, as you might notice, Steven Slate Drums library became a huge and inevitable part of engineer's toolkit. In fact, these sounds have been used and abused so many times in modern pop/rock production, every time I hear them they make me wanna cut my ear out. And start painting instead of mixing.

But being an utterly shitty painter, I came up with an easier way out. If you absolutely have to sound-replace your drums to make then sound good - create your own library to do that.

Don't have an exceptional instrument to record and a good drummer to hit it? Grab someone else's record and learn to make a good poker face when people ask you about your chops. For instance, here's what a good rock snare sounds like:

From jazz to prog metal, it's hard to find a better drummer than Gavin Harrison. His library could make Toontrack some serious buck, but for now there's an easy way out. Porcupine Tree's Deadwing in 5.1, being ripped into pieces, can give you some good starters:

Mute the bass, chop the drum track, convert it for your favorite drum replacement software - and here you go, you just got yourself an amazing drummer inside your DAW. He's a bit crippled as 5.1 albums ain't supposed to be used in such perverted ways, but works fine for any four-on-the-floor track.

Here's what you can do in 2 minutes for any random rockish band with your newly created library:

-before

-after