Rob Schnapf

[rob S]

do you have a studio of choice?


perhaps i'll run into you around campus sometime.

jd[/QUOTE]

[rob S]

well the short answer is no not 57's.
it was all condensers.
depending on what the part was like, if it was real finger picky it would've been large diaphram
if it was strummie it would've been small diaphram.
sometimes it was vocal and acoustic cut live and then doubled the sameway.
panned off one another.
not hard panned but for example, main voc would be leftish while main gtr would be rightish and vice versa for the dbls.
i can't exactly remember what we used at this point mic wise.
probably some mix of 67's a sounddelux km 84's km 56's.
we were always trying different things.
i remember sonora had an SM2 that sounded great on elliott.
you'd rummage thru the various studios mic locker and see what sounded good.
its been awhile and lots of records so my memory isn't exactly clear.


Big fan of Elliott Smith records. Particulary XO - never tire of it.

The acoustic guitars and vocal on that record sound particulary great. Very unique. I'm sure a lot of that was down to Elliott, but would i be right in thinking a lot of the acoustics and vox were mic'd with 57's?

Bit of a sad question!!![/QUOTE]

[RoundBadge]

Great to have you here Robthumbsup

Concerning mixing ..
Just wondering if your doing any "all in the box" mixing these days..

Or.. all console /outboard?

Or... Hybrid, a mixture of both?

Given some todays recording budgets ..
I know some guys like Matt Hyde,etc are mixing the "No big SSL room" budget type stuff at home on thier PT rigs.. using all plugs.. summing boxes ..maybe some hardware 2 buss processing.. no console..

Whats working for you these days?

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by rob S

not hard panned but for example, main voc would be leftish while main gtr would be rightish and vice versa for the dbls.

How about the double-tracked drumkit on "Basement..."?

[rob S]

well, i'm not opposed to mxing in the box although its not as much fun to me.
its strictly a personal thing, because the convenience(recall) and cost factors of being in your house(garage) all in the box are pretty amazing.
i still like the tactile aspects of consoles and faders and knobs.
touching things with the my analogue hand.
not staring at screens all the time (just most of the time).
with that being said it is definitely a hybrid.
spit out pairs of vocal blends and strings etc.
there are amazing things to do manipulation wise in the box that are quite rewarding.
there are certain plug in delays that i use like crazy.
at the same time, i have a bunch of gear i've gathered over the years that have a function that is not replicated by plug ins.
i'm not at all opposed to using plug compressors but they do not sound the same as the real deal when you are using them to **** shit up.
plugins(to me) can not re create the asymetrical stuff that happens in the real gear when you start slamming it.
also, gotta mix to tape.
so my preferences are, whenever possible, a console is involved.
there is a two track tape machine involved (along with laying it back in the box)
and it is definitely a hybrid event going on using the right tool for the desired effect.
final conclusion, like i said, all this is about fun, but the ultimate fun and reality is, i'd rather make great music for two bucks than spend $35grand mixing a piece of nice sounding crap.

ps SSL's still seem broken to me.



Concerning mixing ..
Just wondering if your doing any "all in the box" mixing these days..

Or.. all console /outboard?

Or... Hybrid, a mixture of both?

Given some todays recording budgets ..
I know some guys like Matt Hyde,etc are mixing the "No big SSL room" budget type stuff at home on thier PT rigs.. using all plugs.. summing boxes ..maybe some hardware 2 buss processing.. no console..

Whats working for you these days?[/QUOTE]

[rob S]

Originally Posted by max cooper

How about the double-tracked drumkit on "Basement..."?

to me that needed to be sort of two mono drum kits to get the effect.
so they are hard left and right although i can't exactly remember if there were room mics but if there were they might have been kit 1 hard right room hard left and visa versa for kit 2.
my brain is mush...

[not_so_new]

It's so cool when people show up out of the blue here at our little home isn't it?



Thanks for hanging out with us Rob (and I second the idea of a week or month log guest mod spot, if you were interested in it I think that would be fantastic).

Anyway…. about gear.

You mentioned the Pealman, that has been on my list for a while now. There has been allot of talk about them for a few months, going on a year or so. What do you dig about them? Is it just that they are "really nice," "good for the $" or is there something special they bring to the table that you don't find in anything else you own / use?

Any other gear that has caught your eye / ear lately that you sing the parses of (all us gearslutz have favorite boxes that we like to harp on…)



Thanks again Rob.

[mindbend]

Hey Rob,

I thought I would drop you a quick line to tell you that the American Minor album you mixed sounds slamming! Those guys said you took everything to the next level, and made it sound like a record. Thanks for taking the time to write all of us on this forum. I am sure we all appreciate it very much.

Cheers
Andy

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by rob S

..and it is definitely a hybrid event going on using the right tool for the desired effect.
final conclusion, like i said, all this is about fun, but the ultimate fun and reality is, i'd rather make great music for two bucks than spend $35grand mixing a piece of nice sounding crap.

thumbsup ..thanks ..

Originally Posted by rob S

ps SSL's still seem broken to me.

[Bobbob]

Originally Posted by rob S

well the short answer is no not 57's.
it was all condensers.
depending on what the part was like, if it was real finger picky it would've been large diaphram
if it was strummie it would've been small diaphram.
sometimes it was vocal and acoustic cut live and then doubled the sameway.
panned off one another.
not hard panned but for example, main voc would be leftish while main gtr would be rightish and vice versa for the dbls.
i can't exactly remember what we used at this point mic wise.
probably some mix of 67's a sounddelux km 84's km 56's.
we were always trying different things.
i remember sonora had an SM2 that sounded great on elliott.
you'd rummage thru the various studios mic locker and see what sounded good.
its been awhile and lots of records so my memory isn't exactly clear.

[/QUOTE]


Thanks Rob. Well whatever you did it sounds fantastic, and its no exaggeration to say that the XO record is one of the reasons i decided to be in a band and make records for a living.

So in some ways i should be kinda pissed at you!!
Only kiddin, thanks for the response.

[rob S]

Originally Posted by mindbend

Hey Rob,

I thought I would drop you a quick line to tell you that the American Minor album you mixed sounds slamming! Those guys said you took everything to the next level, and made it sound like a record. Thanks for taking the time to write all of us on this forum. I am sure we all appreciate it very much.

Cheers
Andy

thanks for the kind words, i thought that it turned out pretty good too.
but you know it was already there on tape or drive or whatever.
and ted jensen did an awesome job masterng it as well.
what are those boys up to these days?

[max cooper]

Great stuff. Thanks, Rob. Again, really great to see you here!

[rob S]

the XO record is one of the reasons i decided to be in a band and make records for a living.

So in some ways i should be kinda pissed at you!!



you have elliott to blame for that.
the first day of recording XO we started in the morning with an empty room and left that nite with a completed version of waltz #1.
strings were added later.
he was on top of his game.

[rob S]

You mentioned the Pealman, that has been on my list for a while now. There has been allot of talk about them for a few months, going on a year or so. What do you dig about them? Is it just that they are "really nice," "good for the $" or is there something special they bring to the table that you don't find in anything else you own / use?

well, doug boehm and i compared it to our usual round if suspects.
and it held up very well.
in fact we picked it to do the last two vocal tracks on the record we are finishing up.
it was forward and in your face.
and not super bright and hypie.
it just seemed like a good mic.
not based on bang for the buck
based on performance.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by rob S

You mentioned the Pealman, that has been on my list for a while now. There has been allot of talk about them for a few months, going on a year or so. What do you dig about them? Is it just that they are "really nice," "good for the $" or is there something special they bring to the table that you don't find in anything else you own / use?

well, doug boehm and i compared it to our usual round if suspects.
and it held up very well.
in fact we picked it to do the last two vocal tracks on the record we are finishing up.
it was forward and in your face.
and not super bright and hypie.
it just seemed like a good mic.
not based on bang for the buck
based on performance.

Thanks Rob, very cool....

So other questions if that is cool?

Are you using much in the way of 2 buss compression on your mixes before you send them off to mastering? If so, what are you using? How about parallel compression on drums or anything else, is that a standard mix set up for you or not?

Thanks.

[rob S]

Are you using much in the way of 2 buss compression on your mixes before you send them off to mastering? If so, what are you using? How about parallel compression on drums or anything else, is that a standard mix set up for you or not?


yes and yes.
we're running thru the smart C1 on the two buss.
we have found that it sounds better to our ears than the C2 for these purposes.
for drums there is usually a fatso on a drum mix and 1176's on kick and snare
that all gets blended togethr with uncompressed drums.
these are the usual suspects sometimes things get changed around depending on what the source is doing.
gees, source sounds so unmusical.
although, sometimes drummers don't qualify as music.
i guess you gotta call it something.
source wil have to do......

[paterno]

Film crews making 'documentaries' of your sessions. How do you deal with them?

I just keep thinking 'Some Kind of Monster'...

JP

[rob S]

Originally Posted by paterno

Film crews making 'documentaries' of your sessions. How do you deal with them?

I just keep thinking 'Some Kind of Monster'...

JP

uh oh i'm scared.
do you know something i don't?

[rob S]

Originally Posted by rob S

uh oh i'm scared.
do you know something i don't?

Originally Posted by paterno

Film crews making 'documentaries' of your sessions. How do you deal with them?

I just keep thinking 'Some Kind of Monster'...

JP

you mean there is a film crew on one of your sessions?
lower your profile and you don't get those gigs.
thats one way.
another way is to start sucking.
but sometimes that just gets you more successful......

[MikeK]

wow, thanks for responding, rob.

question: is the legend true about the slide guitar part on beck's "loser" being recorded by a handheld radio shack mic (or some similarly crappy thing)?

[paterno]

I love the way you replied to your own reply.

I'm doing something in january and was just informed that there are some video guys who want to do a documentary about the band as a 'hard working indy band makes good' blah blah blah kind of thing. Trying to sell the idea to one of the music channels, I think. And they want all access, which to me always reads massive intrusion . This means rehearsals and the whole recording/overdub/mixing process, at least on my end of it. It feels like I'm in a fishbowl anytime someone has a video camera out around me. It's one thing if I'm just off in the corner [i can usually just leave the room], but I'll be front and center during the production of this.

They can't even leave the damn lights alone 99% of the time. how can I expect them to be anything but obtrusive?

I guess I was asking how you have dealt with this kind of nonsense, as the producer of the record. Didn't you go through it with the Vines at Sound Factory? I know it's got to be done to a certain degree, but to have a camera on the entire time I am making the record will drive me crazy.

Cheers,
John

[rob S]

Originally Posted by paterno

I love the way you replied to your own reply.

I'm doing something in january and was just informed that there are some video guys who want to do a documentary about the band as a 'hard working indy band makes good' blah blah blah kind of thing. Trying to sell the idea to one of the music channels, I think. And they want all access, which to me always reads massive intrusion . This means rehearsals and the whole recording/overdub/mixing process, at least on my end of it. It feels like I'm in a fishbowl anytime someone has a video camera out around me. It's one thing if I'm just off in the corner [i can usually just leave the room], but I'll be front and center during the production of this.

They can't even leave the damn lights alone 99% of the time. how can I expect them to be anything but obtrusive?

I guess I was asking how you have dealt with this kind of nonsense, as the producer of the record. Didn't you go through it with the Vines at Sound Factory? I know it's got to be done to a certain degree, but to have a camera on the entire time I am making the record will drive me crazy.

Cheers,
John

yeah right i kind of block all that stuff out.
not to state the obvious but lay some ground rules.
all access has its responsibilities.
being present also means being invisible.
there are people that are real good at it.
could be cool.
just

[rob S]

Originally Posted by rob S

yeah right i kind of block all that stuff out.
not to state the obvious but lay some ground rules.
all access has its responsibilities.
being present also means being invisible.
there are people that are real good at it.
could be cool.
just

oops i hit the button too soon
in conclusion, we just pretend they aren't there and if they're getting
in the way, you shut 'em down.
we got to get some work done guys, sorry.
tomorrow is another day.
but i have to say it usually turns out kinda cool.
and thru the wonders of editing, it can make record making appear fast and exciting......

[paterno]

points taken.

cheers,
JP

[rob S]

Originally Posted by MikeK

wow, thanks for responding, rob.

question: is the legend true about the slide guitar part on beck's "loser" being recorded by a handheld radio shack mic (or some similarly crappy thing)?

the vocal was recored with a radio shack PZM.
first take.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by rob S

the vocal was recored with a radio shack PZM.
first take.

These are good mics. Get a four AA holder and solder it inline and it improves drastically, yet retains the desireable characteristics.

[rob S]

Originally Posted by max cooper

These are good mics. Get a four AA holder and solder it inline and it improves drastically, yet retains the desireable characteristics.

interesting,
i still have mine from back then but i haven't got them out in years.
i remember putting in two smaller camera batteries instead of the single AA
or whatever it was.
that really helped it along.
i guess this four AA method bumps it up to another level still.
i was always curious how different the more expensive PZM's sounded in comparison.
but not curious enough to actually do anything about it.

[max cooper]

Rob, I believe Crown made the Ratshack ones, the square plate ones.

Crown owns the name "PZM" and when Ratshack started having their own made, they had to call them 'Boundary Mics'. They have them today for thirty bucks. Not bad, either, but not as good as the old ones.

Crown makes a $75 version called the Sound Grabber. It looks like a paddle on a defibrilator. I've heard that's the same element as the old Ratshack PZM. You know how that goes, though.

The Crown 30D for about $325 is their 'high end' mic.

Somewhere on this forum, Fletcher talks about making a PZM with any condenser mic by putting it up close to a piece of glass or something to make a pressure zone.

This would probably be the best way, since you'd have your choice of mics. The electret element in those PZMs is not bad by any stretch, but not the best in the world. But there's a place for everything, good and bad.

Back in my Otari 5050 days, I made a wedge out of two one foot square pieces of plexiglass (perspex) and mounted one PZM on each square. Then we'd hang it over a drumkit. Sounded great. More low end from the larger surface.

[rob S]

Originally Posted by max cooper

Rob, I believe Crown made the Ratshack ones, the square plate ones.

Crown owns the name "PZM" and when Ratshack started having their own made, they had to call them 'Boundary Mics'. They have them today for thirty bucks. Not bad, either, but not as good as the old ones.

Crown makes a $75 version called the Sound Grabber. It looks like a paddle on a defibrilator. I've heard that's the same element as the old Ratshack PZM. You know how that goes, though.

The Crown 30D for about $325 is their 'high end' mic.

Somewhere on this forum, Fletcher talks about making a PZM with any condenser mic by putting it up close to a piece of glass or something to make a pressure zone.

This would probably be the best way, since you'd have your choice of mics. The electret element in those PZMs is not bad by any stretch, but not the best in the world. But there's a place for everything, good and bad.

Back in my Otari 5050 days, I made a wedge out of two one foot square pieces of plexiglass (perspex) and mounted one PZM on each square. Then we'd hang it over a drumkit. Sounded great. More low end from the larger surface.

and if you want to really go over the top $$$.
http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/boundary-layer.html

[MikeK]

rob-

like others in the thread, i'm a huge admirer of XO. i think it contains some of the best recordings of acoustic guitar that i've heard. tomorrow tomorrow in particular always stands out to me. it's hard for me to decipher how many guitar tracks there are. elliott was clearly a sicko guitarist....do you remember the setups for that song? did you use the technique you described earlier with two performances panned l/r? also, do you know if elliott used an alternative tuning on that one? song is almost 10 years old and it still baffles me.