The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
That Sheen Condenser Microphones
Old 23rd July 2014
  #241
Lives for gear
 
imloggedin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
I wonder if its possible to get that sheen recording into an original black face ADAT?

Im guessing there are some great records out there recorded through those converters.

Does my FF really sound worse than those? Doubt it.
Sheen has VERY little to do with conversion. Think about how many records were, and still are being made with Digi 192's... or the ****ty 80s 3348 converters the CLA was using for decades? It doesn't come from Mastering either. I have had songs mastered by Brian Gardner and while they do come back sounding BETTER... with some sort of *magic sprinkles*... it might be a 10% improvement over the mix. But that's expected. The sheen you hear comes from... ANALOG EQs; COMPRESSION; AND DESKS + SKILL... *GASP*. A good analog master bus chain goes a long way.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #242
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Let's hear all those gold albums done with firefaces with no drum triggers, no VI sampling, no compression, no pitch correction, no fatso plugins. Let's hear them?

A 4 or 5 piece rock band tracked on a fireface with NO samples, No compressors, no autotune, no fatso plugins. Juts a pristine recording. Let's hear it.

[Seriously let's go. No samples , no compressors, no plugins, no effects. Just a live rock band in the studio through a FF.
Uh...so now we are talking about not using compressors, pitch correction, drum triggers, VI sampling? Pretty sure we will find those on pretty much any hit record these days. Other than flaming the FF, I dont see your point here.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #243
Lives for gear
 
code green's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by code green View Post
Listening to the mixes in post #31, what I'm hearing right off the bat are instrumental and vocal elements fighting for frequency space. That, to me, is the biggest consideration. One could debate some of the instrumentation choices or whether the mic is suited to your voice, but...even with those things sorted, I feel some judicious subtractive EQ--to cut harsh frequencies and to give each element its own space in the sonic spectrum--would get you a lot closer to the "sheen" you're going for.

Once you do that, you may find that there's some separation and space that needs filling--that's where creative use of ambience and some degree of bus compression can be your friends.

But first thing I wanted to do on listening (and I like the tunes and their vibe) was reach for the EQ.
I had a chance to go back and listen to the tunes in their entirety, and while I still think they would benefit from "some judicious subtractive EQ," I also feel it should be stressed that these recordings/mixes are pretty darn good as they are. What you may be dealing with, most of all, is being too close to the projects to hear them as they are. I think everyone--perhaps especially more accomplished artists--listens to their own work and hears only the mistakes and missed opportunities.

That said, here is what I noted when listening with the critical ear you requested:

-EQ issues, as noted: for example, "Communion's" conga has a resonance that, when placed alongside the strings, guitar, and vox, seems to have all these elements struggling within the same midrange-y place.

-The vocal is quite pleasing to me--nice voice, solid performance. I wonder--as some have mentioned--if another mic (or EQ) wouldn't perhaps help to give it a little more air, while taming sibilance...but that's the kind of quibble on tracking/mixing vox that one might have about all but the very best recordings--meaning it's something we all wrestle with and only seasoned pros seem to tackle successfully with consistency. One thing you MIGHT try is high-shelving at 15-20k and then cutting a bit at 8-10k until you hear some of the sibilance drop out. If it ends up sounding a bit hard-edged, back off the shelf until it doesn't. But I don't think it's something to tear one's hair out over.

-I hear a bit of unflattering room in "Communion" in particular. Not horrible, but it's there. EQ may help.

-"Communion," in particular, starts to sound a bit static to me as the song unfolds. In both songs, I would seek ways to vary the arrangement and, along with this, perhaps the orchestration as the song progresses, to keep the listener's ears excited and interested. This can be as simple as dropping out static elements here and there (for example, I think I'd drop out the shaker at the end of the first chorus, to start the second verse...bringing it back when it feels right) and can also involve handing off various rhythmic and harmonic duties to different instruments. Perhaps adding another element to the second chorus, for example. Perhaps adding a touch of delay (maybe some Lennon-style slapback?) to the voice here and there, at the end of lines or verses, or just where it sounds right. I think you manage this nicely, btw, with the backing vocals.

-The ROMpler strings in "Lullaby" don't do it for me at all--they sound fine in the sustain and I think the part they are meant to play is OK, but the attacks sound very artificial and distracting, suffering a great deal in comparison to what at least sound to me like real strings in "Communion." I don't have as much problem with the piano as some have stated here, but it would be nice to find one (or another element) that imparts a bit more dimension to the recording, particularly in the low end.

-In both songs, I think some small tweaks in balance (is that conga a *touch* too loud in "Communion"? Are those strings too forward in "Lullaby") might go a long way, achievable with faders, rolling off highs with EQ, or setting elements in a three-dimensional soundstage with reverb.

I don't know if addressing these areas will get you closer to the "sheen" you envision, but I tend to think that sheen is bit of a moving target. "Behind glass" and "shrinkwrapped" are both evocative, and my initial post simply worked with these metaphors--I thought, as others seem to have also done, that I knew what it meant. But it's interesting to me that, after the first couple of posts, there was little effort to tease out what you might mean by it in more sonically useful terms (I am as guilty as anyone on this score). It seems to me that the first and most useful step you could take towards achieving what *you* mean by sheen is to force yourself to identify it--really nail it down--through close, critical listening to references you feel possess it.

Like I say, I *thought* I had a sense of what you and some of the first folks who replied meant by it, but I soon realized, as various (and fairly diverse) examples were given, that it might just be as broad a term as "sounds like a record." I immediately thought of modern pop productions (since you referenced "pop" in your post, and before you posted your examples) by the likes of CLA. But then "Brothers In Arms" came up and, sure, I certainly hear where that recording has "sheen" too. With the Bon Iver example, it's not what I would have come up with but I can see what the poster was driving at--in that clip, what I hear most of all are a good voice put to smart use, a well-chosen counterpoint in the sonics of the synth figure, and a great room and mic.

[A quick interjection of my best guess before finally getting to the point: a recording that has sheen somehow balances a rounding off of harshness/sonic imperfections at the high end with maintaining a pleasing amount of high-end air (why, incidentally--obligatory slutty moment here--I remain fascinated with the Maag EQs, or at least what they seem to promise).]

But I also think of the Stones' "Monkey Man" (and any number of their other recordings, from the "Lady Jane" era through Exile on Main Street) as possessing sheen, and those productions seem miles away from mid-80s rock sheen ("Brothers In Arms") *and* modern pop. Which means I'm either way off the mark or, I'd like to think, that there are any number of ways to skin that cat, as some have alluded to, e.g., with advice that comes at things from another direction that sees saturation as the key--those Stones records have saturation in spades...just picture in your minds' ear those four notes of electric piano in the intro to "Monkey Man" and savor their sonic greatness.

But those four notes work so well not only because of their intrinsic sound but also, and most importantly, because of their place in the song's arrangement. Those messy recordings on "Exile" don't sound like some of my own sonically messy recordings because the real-life ambiences that shout out their presence are well-chosen for the sonic interest they impart, the arrangements are smart, and the players are top-notch.

I think that, in the end, we tend to impart as slippery a quality as "sheen" to recordings that excite our ears ("Lady Is A Tramp" on Songs for Swingin' Lovers...does that have sheen? If it doesn't--and it may not--"sheen" is ultimately not something one needs to shoot for as an end in itself)...and the very, very good news is that there are many ways to get that excitement, and not all of those paths will excite everyone (for someone who gets off on reverb, Animal Collective's recordings might seem to have a certain sheen). A good song and performance(s) will get you most of the way there. Arrangement will take you further still. Good/interesting spaces for acoustic performances?--closer yet. Mixing that polishes by subtracting unnecessary and harsh frequencies while accentuating pleasing ones, imparts dimension, fine tunes the arrangement, and uses effects to add dimension and interest...ever closer to the elusive goal.

You may not be able to bring every tool in the bag to bear on every recording, and you may not be able to be at the top of your game in every way every time, but that, IMO, is how one begins to scale the elusive mountain we call "sheen."

And yes, good gear can certainly help. It is nice to have, mostly because it makes all of the above easier--enabling one to work quickly, while inspiration and ears are fresh--not because IT is the thing, alone, that imparts sheen. If you had a better piano sample to work with, e.g., or a high-end mic (that, caveat, ALSO happened to suit your voice best), you might have heard that sheen you're seeking and might not have posted here. But note well that I have a few friends--among them, a couple of very talented amateur musicians (amateur in the sense that it's not how they make their living, not in terms of skill) and a professional producer/engineer--all of whom know (or care) a good deal less about gear than I do, and who, for the most part, have gear inferior to mine (the pro producer mixes entirely ITB, and tracks with the TLM 103 and UA 1176 that so many here turn up their noses at. Those "warm," "analog" sounds he gets are from a Nord Lead or a VST. He monitors through a pair of old Fostex in the untreated basement where he tracks and mixes....the other friends have recording gear light years down the food chain from him in terms of perceived "quality." ) Damned if their recordings don't "outsheen" mine every time.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #244
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Uh...so now we are talking about not using compressors, pitch correction, drum triggers, VI sampling? Pretty sure we will find those on pretty much any hit record these days. Other than flaming the FF, I dont see your point here.
I was just curious if anyone had actually used the FF dry with no studio trickery, just the sources like they sound in the room.

my point is "covering up" to get a good product. People are talking about EQing and arrangement. That's all part of it, but the greatest arrangement is not necessarily going to equate to a great mix. Do all you favorite songs sound as good live at a band rehearsal as they do on record? So all this arrangement talk is moot. Effects and studio trickery and Class A consoles give you sheen. End of story really. Anyone who thinks a great arrangement is all you need to get a good mix, is not being practical.

The worse your recording chain is the more you have to compensate with effects and trickery,
Old 23rd July 2014
  #245
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
I wonder if its possible to get that sheen recording into an original black face ADAT?
Alanis

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Im guessing there are some great records out there recorded through those converters.
not sure , but they were also recorded and mixed on consoles and not ITB. Recently a friend of mine gave me a CD of his band that he did sometime in the 90s. I was amazed at the production. Then he told me it was ADAT.... I was like no way, then he told me it was mixed on an old broadcast Neve desk. So on it's own adat is garbage but with the right surrounding equipment who knows? anything is possible

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Does my FF really sound worse than those? Doubt it.
I would hope not, but instead of comparing your interface with a 25 year old obsolete unit like an adat, compare it to what is out there for modern converters. All your other gears is fine to great, your FF is you weakest link. It doesn't mean it's bad necessarily, it just means it's not up to par with your other stuff.

According to the experts fireface is not your problem, so no worries there. Personally I think it is your problem and your mixes are suffering from it since its not giving you an accurate picture for which to build upon. It seems everyone here is telling you your arrangements need work or you should eq and add effects. The fact of the matter is the arrangement has absolute nothing to do whether or not a song can sound good. Adding effects and eq without a clear objective is for amateurs. Get good sounds at the source, make sure these sounds get into the DAW accurately without alteration. Then you don't have to second guess yourself. The music should sound great with no effects and no plugins. That stuff should only be used sparingly and only for slight complementary color.

Modern production is filled with crutches like fatsos, autotunes, virtual consoles, compressor emulations, virtual this emulation that. A talented engineer does not need any of this stuff. A talented engineer does not need a good arrangements or a good song or a great band to get a great mix, what you need is good gear and the know how to maximize upon it. Telling someone to change the arrangement is misguided. Telling them to add eq or effects is not the answer.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #246
007
Lives for gear
 
007's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Im sure my non treated room and mediocre monitoring arent helping things.
Probably not, and I think as soon as you can sort that out, you'll better hear what's going on with your mixes and address the issues at hand.
I would also look into mixing tutorials, for practice if anything, read more about the fundamentals.
They're good to know, then you can toss them and mix as you please but certain key things/concepts to grasp off the bat will take you a long way.
Loads - I mean...fvcking loads - of tutorials on the matter, Youtube, Groove3, SoundonSound site, books (Mike Senior's book is fantastic), etc.

Another thing is to take more time in finding better sounds from the start.
This is rather subjective I know, but things like very synthy sounding strings and what not, well, it's just not that appealing, it wasn't in the late 80s/90s, and it's certainly not any more pleasant to listen to now.

A good sample library with more realisltic orchestral/organic sounds could be a purchase worth considering.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Honestly, the problem is 100% your converters. They have a "hard" quality to them.
Again, no.

He just needs a better sounding room and refine his mixing skills.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
I'm by no means saying they are the first thing to upgrade, however in the OPs case (besides his rooms)
His other gear is solid it seems like the only thing left is his A/D D/A
M'k.
So going with a high-end interface + AD/DA will give him that pro sheen he's looking for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
An interface is a BIG deal, it's the heart of your DAW. The Interface is responsible for the sound that goes to DAW and the sound that goes to near-fields. What is more important than that in the gear world?
Knowing how to use all this stuff together.
Knowing all your tools, your plugins, where and when to use which, and how.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Sure acoustics are MORE important but after that, interface all the way at least in this case.
No, again no.

He has more than decent gear, Daking and UA pres, etc.
He has fantastic UAD and Waves plugins.
I can give you sheen on a mix using my Macbook's headphone output and decent monitors with those plugs.
I'd venture to say that most anybody with a few years experience can as well.
I don't disagree with you that good gear helps in getting that 'pro' sound, of course it does.
And now, while in software form, they are accessible to many, and they sound good.

Put the above in the right hands with a good song and performance and you have a great mix.
Put that great mix in the hands of a great mastering engineer and you'll have all the fvcking adjectives we love to hate and hate to love.
Warmth, glue, openness, big, sheen, pro, commercial, loud, etc.

And dammit it's not always about 'try recording a 4-5 piece rock band on a FF interface ho ho ho...."
You keep referring to that same rhetoric, "You realize big bands don't get big sounds on a FF interface, imagine the first Rage Against the Machine done on one of those, haha, hoho..."
No ****, really?

The OP is NOT a 4-5 piece rock band, just like many other composers/producers/artists out there, making KILLER music in their bedrooms or apartments.
And even if he was, again, with some practice and better mixing skills, he can make those tracks shine.

He can do a lot with what he has, just needs more practice and learn from mistakes, it's not that hard a concept to grasp.
FF is a fine interface for what he's doing.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #247
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Recently a friend of mine gave me a CD of his band that he did sometime in the 90s. I was amazed at the production. Then he told me it was ADAT.... I was like no way, then he told me it was mixed on an old broadcast Neve desk. So on it's own adat is garbage but with the right surrounding equipment who knows?


You do realize that you're totally refuting, debunking, invalidating a preponderance of your blathering on this thread...
Old 23rd July 2014
  #248
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
I wonder if its possible to get that sheen recording into an original black face ADAT?
Alanis

not sure , but they were also recorded and mixed on consoles and not ITB. Recently a friend of mine gave me a CD of his band that he did sometime in the 90s. I was amazed at the production. Then he told me it was ADAT.... I was like no way, then he told me it was mixed on an old broadcast Neve desk. So on it's own adat is garbage but with the right surrounding equipment who knows? anything is possible

So now what you are saying is that the Fireface would be a acceptable converter as long as you use quality outboard gear? Or if your not then what you are saying is the old ADATS have better conversion than the Fireface? Sorry, trying to keep this straight as you are a moving target and it gets confusing.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #249
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post


You do realize that you're totally refuting, debunking, invalidating a preponderance of your blathering on this thread...

anytime you mix through a nice console it definitely helps make up for some shortcomings in the interface. So no I'm not at all refuting, debunking, invalidating a preponderance of blathering.

Can you guys just calm down, you are way over the top
Old 23rd July 2014
  #250
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

There have been several comments on the cheesy sounding strings. Im wondering if these are directed at all the strings, or just the fake ones?

Just to clarify, on "Lullaby", the main strings are actually real. A violin and a cello, sitting side by side, recorded w a pair of 57s.

How do the real ones sound?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #251
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 007 View Post
FF is a fine interface for what he's doing.

it's really not
Old 23rd July 2014
  #252
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
So now what you are saying is that the Fireface would be a acceptable converter as long as you use quality outboard gear? Or if your not then what you are saying is the old ADATS have better conversion than the Fireface? Sorry, trying to keep this straight as you are a moving target and it gets confusing.
no I'm not saying that I think it would sound better mixing OTB with it for sure. Better does not mean it's good....it's a relative thing.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #253
Lives for gear
 
code green's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
There have been several comments on the cheesy sounding strings. Im wondering if these are directed at all the strings, or just the fake ones?

Just to clarify, on "Lullaby", the main strings are actually real. A violin and a cello, sitting side by side, recorded w a pair of 57s.

How do the real ones sound?
No kidding, huh? Well slap my hind with a melon rind--just goes to show. That would explain why, other than the attack at the start of legato phrases, they sound fine. For whatever reason, the bow attacks "read" like ROMpler strings. You may want to ride the faders a bit at those points.

And I suppose the strings I liked in "Communion" are fake? Go ahead and break it to me--I can take it.

EDIT: Just saw you wrote "main" strings...are there sampled strings under them? Could that be what I'm hearing in the attack?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #254
Lives for gear
 
Vintageidiot's Avatar
Why are we arguing about Chainrule's opinion of a product for days? I don't care what he owns, what he uses, why he prefers this or that. Does his work sound fantastic? Do I give him the power to rule over what I think sounds great? Nope. Couldn't care less. What I do care about is running around slighting this gear when there are obviously users enjoying it. Those users are reluctant to share works, as most all gear owners are who don't have the best gear sometimes. This is absurd. Who is this person and why does his opinion matter? It doesn't matter enough to validate all of this bickering....

A skilled person can use almost anything to achieve his goals once he understands gainstaging, the room, use of effects etc etc.

The original argument was that crappy gear couldn't do it, then Chainrule morphed it into no gear, just plain vanilla can't do it. What next to lean this in his favor? More absurdity.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #255
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintageidiot View Post
A skilled person can use almost anything to achieve his goals once he understands gainstaging, the room, use of effects etc etc.
so you need effects to achieve your goals? skill is when you use are able to get great result without effects or other funny business. Just the raw materials.

So let me get this straight, a smooth sounding converter is not the solution to obtaining a smooth sounding mix, but using plugin are?
why? is this because plugins are free?

Fact of the matter is, the better the converters you use, the less effects you need.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #256
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
so you need effects to achieve your goals?
When you drop an EQ plugin, saturation simulator, or compressor plugin on a track in the DAW is it an effect?

If you mix on an SSL board that has channel EQ's, compressors, etc. built into it is it an effect?

In this manner of thinking, the answer has to either be yes or no to both.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #257
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by blAh View Post
When you drop an EQ plugin, saturation simulator, or compressor plugin on a track in the DAW is it an effect?
IMO yes it is an effect

Quote:
Originally Posted by blAh View Post
If you mix on an SSL board that has channel EQ's, compressors, etc. built into it is it an effect?
yes it is an effect

Quote:
Originally Posted by blAh View Post
In this manner of thinking, the answer has to either be yes or no to both.
yes my answer is yes to both
Old 23rd July 2014
  #258
Gear Addict
 

Fair enough, then yes I have to use effects to mix.

I cannot mix without using effects.

If I am not using effects, I am balancing. And I will never achieve the same end product as if I mixed.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #259
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
There have been several comments on the cheesy sounding strings. Im wondering if these are directed at all the strings, or just the fake ones?

Just to clarify, on "Lullaby", the main strings are actually real. A violin and a cello, sitting side by side, recorded w a pair of 57s.

How do the real ones sound?
The fake ones. And especially how the real strings "transform" into the fake ones rather obviously. If you are going to do the vsti strings thing, it's important to automate the volume/vibratos on each string line in this kind of situation. Also they should not start exactly on beat (don't remember if that's what you did). Finally, if you are going to have 10 different notes at the low mids, EQ those down or high shelf/boost radically. Also, that sample is very synthy sounding... Maybe you would be better off just using the real violin.


Having a real piano (and pianist) is even more important if the whole track is based on it, that is some very fake (and bad) sounding vsti right there that you got. Not gonna lie about it...


For sheen, high shelf boosts and some saturation on the upper range works well, also cut the mud at 200-1000hz when necessary. But most likely that piano won't sound shimmery even with 20db boosts and cuts. Too much "cling"... The real violin sounds like real violin so that's good, just apply the above especially on the first track. Lots of stuff around the C4, maybe you could also try to move things upwards from that area.

Don't be afraid to experiment with radical filtering on the verb sends as well. The suggested track above seems quite dry and upfront though. Maybe that's just the style. Plenty of LCR panning going on there as well, certainly nostalgic...

Keep going at it!
Old 23rd July 2014
  #260
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by code green View Post
No kidding, huh? Well slap my hind with a melon rind--just goes to show. That would explain why, other than the attack at the start of legato phrases, they sound fine. For whatever reason, the bow attacks "read" like ROMpler strings. You may want to ride the faders a bit at those points.

And I suppose the strings I liked in "Communion" are fake? Go ahead and break it to me--I can take it.

EDIT: Just saw you wrote "main" strings...are there sampled strings under them? Could that be what I'm hearing in the attack?
Cello on "Communion" is real. No fake ones on that tune.

Fake strings added to real strings here and there on "Lullaby".
Old 23rd July 2014
  #261
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintageidiot View Post
Chainrule morphed it into no gear, just plain vanilla can't do it. What next to lean this in his favor? More absurdity.
I never morphed this, all I have said from day one is maybe he should update his interface and that it was his problem, Off the cuff I recommend a burl , but just because I like them and know the sound of them and I know how accurate the DA is.


Anyway I'm going to take my afternoon nap, when I get up I hope someone will have posted some super star quality FF mixes.


Old 23rd July 2014
  #262
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by blAh View Post
Fair enough, then yes I have to use effects to mix.

I cannot mix without using effects.

If I am not using effects, I am balancing. And I will never achieve the same end product as if I mixed.
heh yeah. Even if I was using 10,000 dollar a channel converters I would still be using effects. Unless they add reverb, chorus, delay, eq, compression. IS that what a good converter does chain rule?

I am pretty convinced now chainrule is just trolling.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #263
Lives for gear
 
code green's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Cello on "Communion" is real. No fake ones on that tune.

Fake strings added to real strings here and there on "Lullaby".
Even putting my issues with the attack to the side (IF, in fact, the fake strings are contributing to the issues I have), my instinct would be to pull the fake strings out. Seems to me that song (*as* a lullaby) wants intimacy rather than grandeur.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #264
Lives for gear
 
Vintageidiot's Avatar
Anyway I'm going to take my afternoon nap, when I get up I hope someone will have posted some super star quality FF mixes.


[/QUOTE]

That mix obviously won't be coming from you....
Old 23rd July 2014
  #265
Lives for gear
 
Vintageidiot's Avatar
I just set up in a new composing room. Learning the acoustics and dealing with new cheaper monitors since my better ones are in use in someone else's rig is quite challenging. If you don't spend considerable time learning what you are using you can expect months of reworking until things are sussed out.....
Old 23rd July 2014
  #266
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

The piano in "Lullaby" is a Roland RD 700. Decent piano imho. I must have jacked with it too much or something. I agree it dosent sound great.

I was surprised how well the real strings came out though. I literally threw those 57s up in front with no reguard to phase or anything. This was tracked for rehearsal purposes, so I think it came out ok.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #267
Lives for gear
 
archfrenemy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
so you need effects to achieve your goals? skill is when you use are able to get great result without effects or other funny business. Just the raw materials.
Now you are re-defining mixing skills to mean the ability to mix well without using basic mixing tools? Chefs need both ingredients and seasoning to show their true skills. They don't necessarily need top shelf stuff to do great work, but they prefer it because they are striving for absolute perfection. Put a top notch pro on my modest setup and he could still mix circles around an average guy who is on a Neve board with $250k in outboard gear. You need to have the skills and other pieces of the puzzle in place before high end gear becomes a real factor. There are too many guys are out there doing great work on plugins to take this stuff too seriously.

A studio is only as strong as it's weakest link. No single premium piece of gear like a converter, preamp, mic, console or compressor will make much of an impact unless the rest of the studio / room / monitoring is at a similar or better quality level.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #268
Lives for gear
 
code green's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
The piano in "Lullaby" is a Roland RD 700. Decent piano imho. I must have jacked with it too much or something. I agree it dosent sound great.

I was surprised how well the real strings came out though. I literally threw those 57s up in front with no regard to phase or anything. This was tracked for rehearsal purposes, so I think it came out ok.
It's all a matter of degree, in my ears, anyway. Throw those songs in a shuffle, and I can't say I'd really have quibbles...but post them in the context of "what's missing" and ask for a critical listen, and I'll listen and hear things I might not have picked up on otherwise. In my mind, at least, it's less a question of "what's wrong here?" than one of "what might be done to make it better?" I would say the disparate opinions you're getting on what might be done and the opinion of some that gear upgrades may be the answer reflects very well on the overall quality of your mixes (and the performances/tracking behind them).

EDIT: It's actually kind of an interesting piano sound, btw--has a bit of chewiness in the attack that sounds like an electric piano...my main issues with it *in this context* are its lack of apparent depth and my sense that something that sounded closer to a real piano might better suit the song.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #269
Lives for gear
Chainrule is a spoiled brat. thread hijacked, glad OP is making the best of it.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #270
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

It is all good. I appreciate and respect all the replies here.

Even the strong opinions of Chainrule cause me to stop and think, so thats a good thing.

Besides, this thread would have died long before now w o the controversy. Now its approaching 10 pages...luv it.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump