Login / Register
 
Getting that wide stereo mic'd sound
New Reply
Subscribe
toppart
Thread Starter
#1
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #1
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 25

Thread Starter
toppart is offline
Getting that wide stereo mic'd sound

How is it usually done ITB? Listening to orchestral recordings and some more ambient stuff, it sounds very wide; for orchestral recordings I believe it's due to stereo micing being able to capture the natural reverberation of the room. If you check out the Mid and Side signal of the song, it's almost the same.

So having said that, is it all down to setting a proper convolution reverb on your instruments? I can't seem to get that effect of Mid equaling Side with the reverb settings I've tried. Any tips?
MASSIVE Master
Verified Member
#2
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #2
Lives for gear
 
MASSIVE Master's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago (Schaumburg / Hoffman Est.) IL

Verified Member
Send a message via AIM to MASSIVE Master
MASSIVE Master is offline
You get "that wide mic'd sound" from using wide mics.

"Space" and "distance" and "depth" are achieved by using (yep, he's gonna say it...) space and distance and depth.
__________________
John Scrip - Massive Mastering, LLC - www.massivemastering.com

Spoon-feed a newb some answer and he'll mix for a day -
Get him to *think* about it and figure it out for himself and he'll mix for a lifetime --- JS
#3
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #3
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: austria
Posts: 432

AUDIOBOMBER is offline
for classical music stereo mic-ing plus plenty of additional mics in the orchester is common .
the wideness mostly comes from the stereopair or a triple omnidirectionals ,catching the room while the close mic`s just there to fill up and bring it closer - at least here at the salzburger opera / austria

aditional reverb are used in some cases but rarely talked about.

ITB widening with d.i. instruments can hardly sound similar

but if you try hard enough , maybe...

sorry , no concret tips , i`m not into convultion reverbs
__________________
audiobomber
CASTLE MASTERING
toppart
Thread Starter
#4
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #4
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 25

Thread Starter
toppart is offline
I'm a purely synths and samples guy, so no mic recording.

It's definitely a reverb thing, not sure if it necessarily has to be convolution verbs though.

For example, taking dry VSL string samples and making it sound like live.. what's a good starting point?
#5
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #5
Lives for gear
 
NorseHorse's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 2,255
My Recordings/Credits

NorseHorse is offline
If you rearrange the letters in your handle, it's

poptart
#6
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #6
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,741

wado1942 is offline
Quote:
I'm a purely synths and samples guy, so no mic recording.
Sorry but to get that big spacious sound, you need a big space. No steryl digital samples with fake reverb on it can take the place of real people playing wooden instruments that the hundreds of cubic meters of air around them.


Quote:
It's definitely a reverb thing, not sure if it necessarily has to be convolution verbs though.
Reverb is only a small part of it. The instruments, mic technique and the human element are 95% of it.



Quote:
For example, taking dry VSL string samples and making it sound like live.. what's a good starting point?
Well, it will never sound live because it's not live. That said, you CAN make it sound better.

Step 1, record each "section" in your DAW to separate tracks.
Step 2, find an excellent sounding performance hall.
Step 3, bring your DAW and a large, acurate speaker system to the performance hall.
Step 4, draw a map of where each instrument "section" should sit in the room and put the speakers in the area of the first section.
Step 5, put a spaced pair of omni-directional mics some distance away, placed to taste.
Step 6, solo one "section" of your virtual orchestra while re-recording the stereo sound from your spaced pair to the DAW.
Step 7, solo a different "section" of your orchestra and move your speakers to where that section sits in the performance hall.
Step 8, play back that "section" of your virtual orchestra while recording the stereo sound from your spaced pair.
Step 9, repeat 7-8 until all "sections" have been re-recorded in a real space.

I haven't used a DI by itself at my studio literally in over 10 years. Even guys with digital synths get plugged into some kind of amp with a speaker on it and a mic somewhere nearby. Once, and only once over that 10+ period have I used a DI and that was blended with a miced full range speaker.

On another note, I was hired to mix the background music for a movie last year. Piano, violin, viola, cello and bass made up the whole composition of 4 minutes or so. It was all done on a computer and no matter what the record engineer/computer did, it didn't sound lively or remotely emotional. I toyed with all sorts of ideas until I finally just got a violist & violinist to track each part 4-6 times in my studio while I did the cello & bass parts. The whole process took about 2 hours. By that time, the composer decided the music just wasn't going to work and that he needed to go a different direction. Then I gave him a copy of the newly performed music he wrote. It was EXACTLY what he wanted it to sound like. The only thing I used of his original recordings was the digital piano, which suffered from digititis but careful blending mixed with real acoustics tamed it enough to sit within the real instruments. So, I suppose the best thing I can suggest you do is make friends with some musicians and use your computer only to print notation for them to read.

Hope that helps.
Adam Dempsey
Verified Member
#7
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne - Australia's music capital.
Posts: 2,107
My Recordings/Credits

Verified Member
Adam Dempsey is offline
Wide stereo or distance isn't worth too much if not also retaining detail and realism.
And a sense of distance or size comes also from depth, not just width. This issue is one of technique, not gear. And that's a Good Thing. If you're not using mics to capture sound traveling through air, you just wont get there.
See the Decca Tree technique.
__________________
Adam Dempsey
Jack the Bear's Deluxe Mastering
twitter | facebook
Is adding presence the same as subtracting absence?
#8
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #8
Gear addict
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 424

ninjaneer is offline
mini tutorial from altiverb

#9
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #9
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: austria
Posts: 432

AUDIOBOMBER is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by wado1942 View Post

Step 1, record each "section" in your DAW to separate tracks.
Step 2, find an excellent sounding performance hall.
Step 3, bring your DAW and a large, acurate speaker system to the performance hall.
Step 4, draw a map of where each instrument "section" should sit in the room and put the speakers in the area of the first section.
Step 5, put a spaced pair of omni-directional mics some distance away, placed to taste.
Step 6, solo one "section" of your virtual orchestra while re-recording the stereo sound from your spaced pair to the DAW.
Step 7, solo a different "section" of your orchestra and move your speakers to where that section sits in the performance hall.
Step 8, play back that "section" of your virtual orchestra while recording the stereo sound from your spaced pair.
Step 9, repeat 7-8 until all "sections" have been re-recorded in a real space.
s.
,-) well i didnt dare to suggest this olthough i was thinking bout something simmilar - doing the sections by seperate solorecordings will summ up the room/concerthall information
the right way to do this would be to playback each section with at least 3 speakers and
record them all together with an stereopair.... would love to hear how this sounds..;-)

but what to do with the close micing... hmmmmmm#?
#10
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #10
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,741

wado1942 is offline
Quote:
but what to do with the close micing... hmmmmmm#?
It seems to me, the consistently best orchestral recordings are done with 2 or 3 mics. I generally like to use 2 cardioids in ORTF configuration myself. I've had good success with choral recordings that way too. Close mics may give more control but they sacrifice realism and how does that benefit anybody?
#11
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #11
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: austria
Posts: 432

AUDIOBOMBER is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by wado1942 View Post
It seems to me, the consistently best orchestral recordings are done with 2 or 3 mics. I generally like to use 2 cardioids in ORTF configuration myself. I've had good success with choral recordings that way too. Close mics may give more control but they sacrifice realism and how does that benefit anybody?
a small to midsized choral - yes
a big orchester - no - will sound too far away and too indifferent
at least i havent seen or heard bout that within 10 years of working at an big famous opera house..
cardioits will mess up depth and width - at least a little
#12
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #12
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,741

wado1942 is offline
True, I've only recorded chamber orchestras and < 80-piece choirs. If I want a dryer sound, I move the mics closer. But if you have 120 people all spread across the ground, it could get tricky if you have a really reverberant hall. Still, just a couple of mics overhead should help bring the back of the group forward, but you have to use a delay to match the timing with the front mics. I really think engineers have gone WAY overboard with close mics. Really, 90+ microphones on many recordings. If you record the whole orchestra together, it's a phase coherance nightmare. If you record one section at a time, it sounds too clostrophobic. I guess it's no wonder all my favorite classical recordings are from 1956-1989.
#13
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #13
Gear addict
 
jordanstoner's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 400

jordanstoner is offline
my fingers hurt...

Quote:
For example, taking dry VSL string samples and making it sound like live...
IMO, this is more a function of micro / macro dynamics. You can emulate an orchestra with samples, and if you're really, really picky with velocity and arrangement, you can get good results. However, samples simply can't achieve the inner-dynamics of trained musicians playing with each other in real time (reacting to each other and to the conductor). That's not even mentioning the minute details that vary every single moment that they are playing (as opposed to the same sonic signatures that have been captured in the files and are simply being recycled on a sample level). So that's one (and perhaps the most important) element of the "live" sound/feel that's missing from samplers.

The second is sound stage. If a sample library was captured in an actual orchestral hall, then the reflections of that hall are captured as well. However, reflections at one loudness are different than another, and as you arrange with different sections at different volumes and velocities (controlled via MIDI or DAW), you are hearing a misrepresentation of the original recorded audio, especially when more than one instrument are present.

As stated above, you can try moving instruments around on the sound stage separately, but you would not be able to position them in the original location that they were captured at. In essence, the early reflections from different surfaces of the hall would change if you physically moved the violin section - your samples have the same reflections, as captured by the mic, no matter where you place them on the sound stage. You can't consciously analyze these reflections, but your mind can decode them and that ability breaks the suspension of disbelief.

If it were a completely dry recording of one instrument at a time, you could place them at velocities and sound stage locations and apply the same convolution reverb to all, and that might achieve better results - but even that is not perfect.

So, you're kind of fighting against the tide. All this is not to say that you can't achieve a level of realism if you keep the above in mind. Adding yet another reverb (I say "another" because the original reverb of the original hall where the instruments were recorded is still present in the recording, remember) that's convolution-based can help glue things up a bit and mask these detrimental attributes.

_____

It is also possible to add an enhanced stereo field of dry DI recordings and sample-based instruments with different mixing techniques, as well. For a nice exaggeration in the S channel(s) (S=side, as in everything outside of the very center of the sound stage), I really enjoy using the following in (very!) small amounts:

Console (or DAW without M/S plug-in) version (for all DAW users out there with M/S matrix encode/decode plug-ins, this process is much easier - I'll elaborate on that in a later post) :

- Send the stereo mix of your instrument(s) to a common buss and return to two grouped faders. Send the faders to the 2 Buss.

- Patch a stereo Aux (best if pre-fader) off the two-fader group we just created and return it on 2 more sets of faders: M1 and M2, and S1 and S2.

- Keep both M's panned right up the middle (this is now your mono-summed Mid channel). You can group these, or assign them to a mono buss and return to a single fader for easier control (again, keep panned to center).

- Just as above, pan both S faders up the middle, but this time invert the polarity (phase) of one of the faders (typically the right channel, though it doesn't matter). This is going to be your Side channel, but it's not quite there yet. This is where it gets kinda tricky:

- Buss both summed S faders to two mono busses, and return each buss on its own fader. Hard-pan these faders left and right, and again invert the polarity of the right fader. Group these together (don't buss just yet).

At this point, if you've bussed the Mid channel to a single fader, you'll now have 3 faders to control your M/S mix - the M channel will be completely mono, the two S faders will be your stereo field (these will completely disappear when monitoring in mono - but don't worry just yet). The more S you add, the wider your mix will be.

- Now, send all three M/S faders to a stereo buss (maintaining left and right for the two S faders) and return on two more grouped faders (panned hard left / right). Send this two-fader group to the 2 Buss (if your aux was pre-fader in step 2, then you can now monitor the L/R mix and the M/S mix separately).

- Patch another stereo aux on the M/S stereo fader group we just created to send to yet another set of faders. Group the new faders, but this time pan them opposite of the previous M/S group (right / left), and invert polarity on BOTH channels. Keep the faders all the way down on this group, because we're about to create a feedback loop...

- Set the output of this "inverted phase / pan" group back to the buss that's feeding the previous "non-inverted" M/S stereo group.

At this point, you should monitor your M/S mix ONLY at low levels and slowly feed the "inverted" M/S back through - you'll hear when the feedback is too much, because it will start to ring. Back it off a bit. You'll also notice your stereo image can be thrown extremely wide by using this technique. Remember also that any level changes before this point will affect the signal, so use caution when increasing levels in the rest of the chain.

All that's left now is to adjust to taste (don't forget the three M/S faders being fed by the original stereo mix*). Mix back in with the original signal, and you can get some pretty spacious results. A little goes a long way, so don't overdo it.

* = You can go even further with this by patching in a graphic EQ on the mono M and S channels created in steps 3-5. Whatever EQ additions or subtractions you make on the M channel, you should make the opposite changes on the S channel (in our scenario, you'd need 3 mono EQ's total). Best results if used sparringly and not past 600 Hz. This is a stereo-shuffling technique, sometimes used to make true mono recordings sound stereo.
__________________

http://www.twistedsessions.com/Jordan_Stoner/

__________________
I don’t care if they died in puddles of their own vomit, I want someone who plays from his f***ing HEART! -Bill Hicks

Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. -Tom Robbins
#14
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #14
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,741

wado1942 is offline
In short, spend hours and hours and hours making a sequence that could be performed by people in minutes.

Then, spend hours and hours layering a ton of processing on top of the sequence to try and make it sound like there was no processing.

I SHOULD state there's wavetables out there that sound pretty realistic. Not perfect, but reasonably good. They generally cost thousands though.
#15
12th March 2009
Old 12th March 2009
  #15
Gear addict
 
jordanstoner's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 400

jordanstoner is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by wado1942 View Post
In short, ...
Sorry, brevity is not my strong suit.

Besides, in most cases it's not exactly feasible for a musician to rent an entire orchestra. And reading that the OP is a "synths and samples guy," I'd assume that sound design is right up his alley. I'm pretty sure the aim is not to dress up a sampler and pass it off as a purist orchestral recording...
#16
13th March 2009
Old 13th March 2009
  #16
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,741

wado1942 is offline
Quote:
in most cases it's not exactly feasible for a musician to rent an entire orchestra.
No, but in my example, it took 3 people to SIMULATE an orchestra with multitrack techniques and didn't take much time either.
#17
13th March 2009
Old 13th March 2009
  #17
Gear addict
 
jordanstoner's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 400

jordanstoner is offline
Quote:
No, but in my example, it took 3 people to SIMULATE an orchestra with multitrack techniques and didn't take much time either.
Why make samplers, then? Why bother with emulation software? Why even write music if your recordings are not going to be performed in a live space? Are you saying that the entire home market is pointless? Or advice from experience wasted?

Expecting everyone to create music in a purist fashion with real instruments is simply not realistic, and not really a point to make for the OP. He's specifically asking how to make emulations / samples have a more lively feel and sound. Fundamentally, that means he understands that live recordings from real instruments are something to aim for, but unachievable at this time - so until then, let's get back on topic and try and give meaningful pointers.

Back to the OP: What OS / DAW are you using? What sampler? Have you checked out any plug-ins for achieving this?
#18
14th March 2009
Old 14th March 2009
  #18
Mastering
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,099

bob katz is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by toppart View Post
How is it usually done ITB? Listening to orchestral recordings and some more ambient stuff, it sounds very wide; for orchestral recordings I believe it's due to stereo micing being able to capture the natural reverberation of the room. If you check out the Mid and Side signal of the song, it's almost the same.

So having said that, is it all down to setting a proper convolution reverb on your instruments? I can't seem to get that effect of Mid equaling Side with the reverb settings I've tried. Any tips?
Achieving natural sounding depth and reverberation with a synthesized source is definitely the last frontier. There is no shortcut. It's not easy to accomplish even with the best of live orchestras and Decca Tree techniques, though with the right room, knowledge, skill and experience, that is the best way. It's more difficult to accomplish with the wrong room, especially a dead room, and live instruments.

I suggest you start at the beginning. Educate your ears by recording a real live, small chamber group in a great room with minimalist miking technique. Learn how the early reflections and reverberation in that room sound and contribute to the depth, space and imaging. Lock that sound in your mind, and set that as your magical goal.

Then take the same musicians, multimike them in a dead studio, and work your ass off with delays, reverberations, early reflections, EQ and mike placement until you have learned to emulate as much as possible what you were able to achieve much easier in the real, live hall. With luck, skill and experience and the best early-reflection generators made today I feel you can now get up to 90-95% of the Decca Tree/Hall experience. That's a pretty good mark considering the obstacles!

Now (20 years later) you're educated enough and ready to tackle your synthesizers. With luck, skill, experience, the right sample libraries, and the best early-reflection generators made today I feel you can get up to 80-90% of the sound quality of the Decca Tree/hall experience. Consider yourself at the pinnacle of your synthesized career, you are now ready to produce film scores and fool 90% of the people 90% of the time!

I am producing an instructional DVD on how to accomplish the "impossible" from a dead-room or studio session and I'll look forward to all of your reactions. Educating your ears on how to use the artificial reverberation and early reflections and having that "sound in your head" before you begin is an important part of this process. You have to learn when you are adding too much early and contributing to a "vagueness" in the image, or too little early and leaving the sound sterile and without dimension.
__________________
Bob Katz DIGITAL DOMAIN http://www.digido.com
"There are two kinds of fools. One says-this is old and therefore good. The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
#19
14th March 2009
Old 14th March 2009
  #19
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,088

lerone is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by wado1942 View Post
It seems to me, the consistently best orchestral recordings are done with 2 or 3 mics. I generally like to use 2 cardioids in ORTF configuration myself. I've had good success with choral recordings that way too. Close mics may give more control but they sacrifice realism and how does that benefit anybody?
Decca trees sound amazing, very very solid technique, and it was named because it apparently looked like a xmas tree! Not too sure that it does though, I think the mid omni would need to be about 5 or 6 feet out for it to look like the old Abies alba....sorry in a silly mood today



Toby
#20
15th March 2009
Old 15th March 2009
  #20
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,741

wado1942 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordanstoner View Post
Why make samplers, then? Why bother with emulation software? Why even write music if your recordings are not going to be performed in a live space? Are you saying that the entire home market is pointless? Or advice from experience wasted?
They're perfect for some people, but not for people trying to sound like they're NOT using samplers. Also, the home maket doesn't HAVE to use samples and that was the whole point I was making. In my example, it took me less time to replace samples with real musicians than the original sample-based sequence required by a long shot. Working with instruments is not nearly as out-of-reach as many home recordists think.



Quote:
Expecting everyone to create music in a purist fashion with real instruments is simply not realistic, and not really a point to make for the OP. He's specifically asking how to make emulations / samples have a more lively feel and sound.
Well the way I did it certainly wasn't purist, 3 people in an 800 square foot room simulating a 14 piece chamber orchestra. Also, I went into great detail about making sampled sources sound more realistic in my previous posts. I don't know why some people are so heavily against microphones that it doesn't even occur to them as an option. I was just suggesting that there's other ways to make orchestral style music without an orchestra. I spent 3 or 4 hours trying to mix the sample based direct-recorded tracks. It wasn't just about reverb or panning as our man expects it to be. To get the sampled piece remotely natural sounding, it required a lot of EQ, lots of level automation (even though the sources were fairly dynamic). Once I got the tracks to sit together in a somewhat natural sounding soundscape, they still sounded robotic because they were performed by a machine.



Quote:
Fundamentally, that means he understands that live recordings from real instruments are something to aim for, but unachievable at this time - so until then, let's get back on topic and try and give meaningful pointers.
Sorry, that's what I thought I was doing. I'll stay out of the way and let him keep trying all the things he's unsuccessfully tried. He knows the sound he wants comes from microphones. I'm just stating the obvious in that no piece of gear or ITB mixing technique will do what he wants.



Bob K, I spent about 3-4 hours one day trying to get my Lexicon to sound similar to my favorite recital hall in town (not huge but nice, not a single parallel wall in the place either). I made a series of sample recordings in both in the hall and in a dry situation to use as a comparison. I eventually gave up the idea. Not even my convolution reverb could remotely emulate it. I still have the patches saved and use them but I try not to take them too seriously. Truly realistic acoustic emulators are probably a good 5 years away IMHO. I was talking to the guy who pretty much INVENTED digital reverb (remember the EMT-250?) and he said he's designed something that's comming down the line that'll blow everything we've heard away.
#21
15th March 2009
Old 15th March 2009
  #21
Mastering
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,099

bob katz is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by wado1942 View Post

I was talking to the guy who pretty much INVENTED digital reverb (remember the EMT-250?) and he said he's designed something that's comming down the line that'll blow everything we've heard away.
Is that Barry Blesser? The EMT is classic for good reasons. Another excellent candidate is the TC Electronic VSS4. One key is a reverb design with genuine stereophonic and rationally-calculated early reflections.

BK
#22
15th March 2009
Old 15th March 2009
  #22
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,741

wado1942 is offline
Quote:
Is that Barry Blesser?
The very one.
toppart
Thread Starter
#23
15th March 2009
Old 15th March 2009
  #23
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 25

Thread Starter
toppart is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordanstoner View Post
Back to the OP: What OS / DAW are you using? What sampler? Have you checked out any plug-ins for achieving this?
I'm running Logic 5.51 on XP, and I have Waves IR-1, Rverb and Magix Variverb Pro for reverbs (which I find pretty decent at producing artifically long reverbs). I'm looking into good impulses at the moment. Just figuring it all out in the last few months really, but I'll be happy with being able to emulate a decent sound stage like in some of my favorite recordings which I know are synthesized and sample based anyways. But to my ears they do a decent job. Supreme accuracy would be nice and doing film score type music is something I'm interested in the future though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz
Now (20 years later) you're educated enough and ready to tackle your synthesizers.
Well after wasting the first 10 years I have another 10 to catch up I suppose I've been trying to pay more attention to ER, delays, predelays, and etc whenever composition and the rest of production isn't giving me a headache.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wado1942
Sorry, that's what I thought I was doing. I'll stay out of the way and let him keep trying all the things he's unsuccessfully tried. He knows the sound he wants comes from microphones. I'm just stating the obvious in that no piece of gear or ITB mixing technique will do what he wants.
I spent a long time struggling composing a song with synthesized orchestra and I agree that recording live musicians would've been much more efficient and sound better in the end, which is probably what I'd do when I re-record it sometime. I'm only chasing after good approximations at the moment for the most part though, for my smaller projects. Hopefully I can do this full time one day and get to that 90% quicker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjaneer
Yes articles like this interest me, thanks.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
GrantsV / So much gear, so little time!
10
toolstudio / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
1
panmarek / Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production
22
Barznbeats1 / Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production
56
SLy_drums / So much gear, so little time!
3

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.