| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 282.1 | PART ONE | CANYON::MOELLER | | Thu Mar 27 1986 16:15 | 109 |
| LOW - TECH STEREO HOME PRODUCTIONS
COPYRIGHT 1985
Karl Moeller
1450 E. Prospect
Tucson, AZ 85719
INTRODUCTION
I'm a keyboard player. I love to record. However, my new-
equipment budget is nonexistent. In fact, I've only bought 2 new
pieces of gear in five years. Yet I'm able to produce good, demo-
quality STEREO mixes from my outdated four-track home studio.
Whether your recordings are for personal enjoyment or demos
for submission to record companies, stereo production will make your
music more appealing. This article assumes you have some familiarity
with multitrack recording methods. By using some ingenuity and
homemade cables, you can utilize your four-track, those old rock&roll
effects units, a small mixer, and good stereo cassette recorder to
produce some fairly spectacular stereo productions with a lot of
depth.
Like you, I read this NOTESFILE and dream of MIDI-ing the
world together. While no amount of high-tech gear can create musicality,
owning low-tech gear need not be a barrier to effective recording and
stereo production.
THE PROBLEM :
Mixdowns from a multitrack, even to stereo using the channel pan controls,
often sound flat. Most rock/synth instruments are either close-miked or
run directly into the mixer. In EITHER case, there are NO ROOM ACOUSTICS
in any signal. Drums are typically recorded in as dry an acoustic
environment as possible. And, with digital drums, the story is the
same as synths.
Here's a typical mixdown gambit :
CHAN 1 CHAN 2 CHAN 3 CHAN 4
bass drums rhythm guit. lead guitar
^ ^ <-- -->
| |
pan pan pan pan
Now let's look at the listening environment from above, showing the
apparent sound source for each instrument :
__________ ___________
| | | |
left | | | |right
spkr | rhythm | .......drums........ | lead |spkr.
| guitar | .......bass......... | guitar |
| | | |
. .
. .
. .
^----( listener )----^
Notice how all the instruments seem to be lined up across the stereo
spectrum ? This article is about how to use effects units to create
a pseudo-acoustic environment. Let's think just about the rhythm
guitar track. How would it sound if it was recorded in a large, very
reverberant room, but was still at the left side ?
__________________apparent recording environment_____________________
| . |
| . v |
| . . |
| . v |
| . . |
| . v |
| . . |
| . v |
| . . |
| . v |
| . . |
| . v |
| __________. ___________ |
| | .| | . | |
| left| . | | . |right |
| spkr| rhythm | | . |spkr |
| | guitar | | . | |
| | . | | . | |
. .
. .
. .
V V
^----( listener )----^
Note the literal time delay between the left and right signals.
Yes, the magic word. Reverberant delay.
THE BASIC EQUIPMENT
Instruments aside, my recorders are a TEAC A3340S four-track
and a Nakamichi 1000 stereo cassette with Dolby 'b', both hooked into
my home playback system. one of the new four-track cassette recorders
would work as well as the 3340 in this situation. Speakers with a
relatively flat frequency response are very important. Get them up
about ear height. What good is your recording if it only sounds
good at home ?
|
| 282.2 | PART 2 | CANYON::MOELLER | | Thu Mar 27 1986 16:17 | 103 |
| OUTBOARD EFFECTS
Remember cream-colored Fender equipment ? I've got an old
Fender spring reverb that is extremely hiss-free, due to new pots
and tubes. I also have a Roland Boss stereo chorus (with vibrato)
and an Ibanez UE-405 stereo multieffects unit, which includes
analog delay,compressor/limiter (interesting on acoustic piano),
a parametric EQ, and another stereo chorus. that's it except
for a stereo ten-band graphic equalizer. My point is that most of
your mic-level, rock-style effects WILL be usable during mixdowns.
Decisions : to effect a signal on its way to the 4-track, or
during mixdown to the stereo cassette recorder. Plan ahead. A central
concept for me is 'signal splitting' : during mixdown to stereo, take
an already-recorded 'dry' track signal and split it using a Y-cord.
One side goes directly to one channel of the destination recorder,
or one input of a multichannel mixer, panned left, for example.
The other side is run thru an effect such as a delay line or reverb unit,
panned right. Psychoacoustically, this enlarges the field of sound,
as the delayed or reverbed signal, at a slightly lower volume than
the 'dry' signal, will sound like it is bouncing off a distant wall.
See Figure B. The 'dry' signal in the left channel sounds like it's
playing into a large space to the right, caused by the quieter,
diffused, delayed signal in the opposite channel. If this is done
several times to several tracks during intermixing, the stereo effect
will be more pronounced and the mix will sound larger-than-life.
__________________apparent recording environment_____________________
| ^ ^ . ^ |
| |\ . v / \ |
| | \ / \ . . / \ |
| | \ . v \ |
| | \ / . \ / . \ |
| | \ . / v V |
| | / \ . / \ . |
| | .\ / v |
| | / . \ / \ . |
| | . DRUMS v |
| | / . BASS \ . |
| V/ . : v |
| __________. : \__________ |
| | / .| : | \ . | |
| left| / . | : | \. |right |
| spkr| rhythm | : | lead |spkr |
| | guitar | : | ; . | |
| | ; . | : | ; . | |
; . V ; .
; . ; .
V . v .
V V
^----( listener )----^
Stereo chorus also moves and enlarges a signal. Except for
bass and drums, almost any instrument sounds good thru a stereo
chorus. some will 'pump hiss' when fed a signal. Close attention
to input volume (or use of an equalizer) will clean up the output
signal(s). Be aware that some stereo choruses are wighted toward the
'main' or 'mono' output, so watch the meters and listen closely.
There may be some pedal-type effects that are just too hissy or have
too limited a frequency range for a recording environment. For
battery powered effects, keep a fresh supply of batteries or get a
battery replacement unit. Experiment with your effects. You may be
pleasantly surprised.
Custom Cabling
'Wait a second', you say. 'All my effects use 1/4" phone
jacks while my recorder line outputs use those small RCA plugs.'
That's right. Plus, line-level volumes are TEN TIMES what your
mic-level effects are looking for ! Here there is a choice. the
output controls on a 4-track can be turned down (to '1') to effectively
limit the volume, and an RCA-to-phone-jack adapter used. However,
it's easy to forget to turn the output volume down and fry your
effect unit or your headphones.
The solution, if you can use wirecutters and a soldering
gun, is to construct several line-to-mic level 'attenuator' cords.
These have a normal RCA male plug at the recorder end and a 1/4"
phone jack at the other. The phone jack end also contains 2 tiny
resistors in series, one 10K ohm and one 100K ohm, which absorb the
difference in voltage between line and mic level. Make several cables
because you will want to effect more than one of the channels
coming from the 4-track.
This picture will be tough to implement on a VT102 !!!
--------shield---------- } phone jack 'ground' tang
\ Phone jack ->
\
<--RCA plug --- 10K res. also soldered to
\
V
-----hot center lead -} 100K res.--} phone jack 'hot' tang
Once the line-level signal is reduced to mic level, an
assortment of 'Y' phone jack cords can be very useful. These
phone jacks are MONO only. I have several one-female to two-males,
and vice-versa. No snickering. These are used in signal splitting
for stereo effects. Also, short 2' to 3' mic cords (or guitar
cords) are useful to bring the signal from effects back to the
mixer.
|
| 282.3 | PART 3 | CANYON::MOELLER | | Thu Mar 27 1986 16:20 | 119 |
|
THE MIXER
I tried to get by without a mixer for a long time, but my
production options were limited without one. I determined the features
my 'minimum mixer' needed :
- at least 6 channels in, switchable between line and mic
(Try and get at least 2 more mixing channels as you have tracks
on your recorder.)
- a stereo 'panpot' for each channel
- stereo line output (to cassette deck)
- stereo headphone jack and separate volume
There are lots of mixers on the market which meet these specs.
While it is true that a more expensive mixer with 'effects send' busses
would more easily accomplish most of the production tricks explained in
this article, it is also true that not everyone can afford such a
mixer. The methods and concepts of 'stereoizing' tracks are no less
valid when more sophisticated equipment is available. Even a very
basic mixer can help you open up your music.
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER - A SAMPLE MIX
We start our mixdown session with 4 tracks of music already
recorded: Piano, percussion (congas or shakers), and two separately
recorded tracks of massed synthesized strings. As we hope to
'stereoize' two of these tracks, with each of those taking two
channels on the mixer, one can see that a mixer with six channels
has none too many.
| 4-channel playback |
| PIANO PERC. STRINGA STRINGB |
|___ ______ _______ ______ ____|
V V V V
attenuator cord - : att. : |___ |____
.......: cord- : 'Y'cord | |
: +........ | |
: : : | |
__________ : _________ : : | line |
|STEREO | : |(delay | : : | cords |
|CHORUS | : | only) | : : | <-> | +------------+
| in - <...: |DELAY | : : | | | STEREO |
|R out - >...... | in - <.: : | | | CASSETTE |
|L out - >... : | out - >... : |_ | | R in - <...
|________| : : |_______| : : | | | L in - <. :
: : : : | | +------------+: :
: : +-------+ : : | | : :
: : |REVERB | : : | | : :
: : | in - <..: : | | : :
: : | out - >... : | | : :
: : +-------+ : : | | : :
: :....... : : | | : :
:... : : : | | ......: :
_______:______:______:______:______|______|_________ : .....:
| V | V | V | V | V | V | | : :
| pan | pan | pan | pan | pan | pan | | : :
| <- | -> | <- | -> | <- | -> |line | : :
| | | | | | |outs:| : :
| | | | | | |left >. :
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |right >...:
+----------------------------------------------------+
PHASED PIANO | | | | |STRINGS B
LEFT,MIC LEVEL | | | | |RIGHT,LINE LEVEL
-------------| | | | |--------------
PHASED PIANO | | |STRINGS A
RIGHT,MIC LEVEL | | |LEFT,LINE LEVEL
----------------| | |---------------
DELAYED OR REVERBED PERC. | DRY PERCUSSION
LEFT,MIC LEVEL | RIGHT,MIC LEVEL
------------------------+-----------------------
A note on recording synthesized orchestration : on a
polyphonic synth, there is a temptation to play huge chords
with as much bass and as many fingers as possible. Assuming you
can budget two or more tracks, record one orchestral section
at a time. A bit of mono chorus may help smooth out glitchy
string patches. In our sample mix, the two tracks of strings
are run into the mixer line inputs for channels 5 and 6. When
panned left and right (10 & 2 o'clock), the 'cellos' on the left
and 'violins' on the right give a spacious image in stereo.
The piano track line output is plugged into a line-to-mic
level attenuator cord. This cord terminates in a 1/4" phone jack,
which is plugged into a stereo chorus unit, whose left and right
output (mic) cables are connected to the mic inputs of mixer
channels 1 and 2, panned left and right. A slow chorus sweep works
much better than a fast Leslie spin. Experiment with the panpot
settings for the most effective signal movement with the chorus.
The plan for the percussion is a bit more complex. The
goal is to simulate a large recording environment - percussion
bouncing off a distant wall. We begin again with an attenuator
cord. This is then plugged into a mic-level 'Y'cord female jack.
One of the males is connected directly to mixer channel 3's mic
input, panned left. This is the unaltered, 'dry' signal.
The other 'Y' cord male is plugged into an analog or digital delay
unit. The delay settings are important; set it on ONE repeat only,
with NO mix of the original signal - that is, the signal coming
out is delay only.
The delayed percussion output is connected to the input
for the reverb unit. Reverb out is plugged into mixer channel 4
mic input, panned right. As we're only interested in the percussion
channels right now, mute or drop the other faders on the mixer.
Start the multitrack recorder. Get a good level on the 'dry'
percussion channel. Make certain the delayed/reverbed 'wet' channel
is getting a signal. Adjust the delay time, NOT the number of
repeats, until there is a very obvious time lag between the left and
right channels. Then bring it back slightly. You are adjusting the
apparent size of the room - moving that reflective far wall back and
forth. Sending the delayed signal thru the reverb unit further
diffuses the sound. Generally, the 'wet' channel should be somewhat
quieter than the 'dry'.
Rewind the 4-track, start it and bring the faders back up on
the other channels. Experiment with the mix; when happy, preserve
it on cassette. There is a lot one can do in this environment with
a little ingenuity.
|
| 282.4 | PART 4 | CANYON::MOELLER | | Thu Mar 27 1986 16:25 | 94 |
|
TRACK - STACKING
So. This system is as low-tech as can be. However, by doing
only TWO intermixes to cassette, I can get TWELVE tracks in STEREO.
Don't believe me ? (deep breath) Okay. record 4 tracks. Mix in stereo,
while adding one more part into the mixer, down to cassette. That's
5 parts in stereo on cassette. While dubbing the cassette to 2 tracks
on the 4-track, add another part; up to 6 parts. Add 2 more channels
on the 4-track; add another signal while mixing in stereo back to
cassette. That's 9 tracks/parts in stereo on the cassette. Again,
dub back to the 4-track while adding one more part. Record 2 more
tracks on the 4-track. That's 12 tracks in all, waiting for final
mixdown to cassette. Of course, one more part could be added while
mixing, for a total of 13. Oops.
A note here: tape is cheap compared to my time involvement.
I don't record over already-used stretches of tape. This keeps the
residual hiss level down and allows me to go back to a previous-
generation intermix if I'm unhappy with what came later.
And what ABOUT hiss? 'Too much noise' is the usual objection
to this type of intermixing. I have found that hiss generally comes
from poorly recorded original tracks, or from leaky electronic
instruments when direct connected. I keep solid levels, short of
distortion. Any noise problems that do crop up can usually be
cleaned up during mixdown using a graphic equalizer on a single track
or on the entire stereo image with a stereo graphic equalizer. I had
a lovely but hissy track of choruses Rhodes that I cleaned up by
running it through BOTH channels (in series) of my EQ, getting
24db of reduction in the noise frequencies. This wouldn't work well
on an acoustic piano track, as the upper harmonics would get trimmed.
...But YOU have a brand new digital stereo reverb unit and
don't think this article will help you. Plus, you have a larger
mixer with an effects send buss. During mixdown, how many tracks
would you like to effect ? Probably more than one. Try this. the
signals from the multitrack come in as normal, panned as you wish.
The effects send outputs are ganged into a mono signal, using
either a small mixer or a patchbay setup, and then fed into the
line input on the digital reverb. The reverb should be set 'wet'
output only, all reverb. The stereo output should go to two
channels on the mixer, panned hard port and starboard. Mute all
the channels which feed the reverb, except for the effects sends.
Adjust the effects output until the reverb signals sound good.
You might try, if your mixer has a parametric tone control per
channel, rolling off the top frequencies (over 8k hz) to better
emulate a reverberant environment. Some digital reverbs have their
own rolloff control. Then 'unmute' the same channels. Your mix now
includes balancing the 2 reverb-only channels against all the
dry signals.
OTHER STEREO EFFECTS
- Assume the percussion track in our sample is actually a
drum machine track. Remove the reverb from the circuit if
you wish. Play the drum track and adjust the delay time to
where the delayed signal hits the 1/2 beat of the 'dry'
channel. Using EQ, the top (cymbals) and bottom (kick/toms)
can be trimmed off, leaving just the snare sound. Experiment
with multiple echoes of this delayed snare sound. When mixed
opposite the 'dry' signal, this can add quite sophisticated
cross-rhythms as well as widening the stereo image.
- Any synth drum unit sound will benefit from a 3-5db boost
at the 10K HZ range. This adds a crispness missing from
even sampled drum sounds.
- Send a synth bass or bass guitar track thru a vibrato unit.
This gives a very fluid, moving bass sound.
- Running a track into a reverb unit, then into a stereo chorus,
will, due to the signal's 'trail' added by reverb, enhance the
moving-signal effect imparted by the stereo chorusing.
- Echo can be used on an original single-track recording of any
drum input to give a 'thunderdrums' ambience. The echo, obvious
when heard alone, will blend nicely into the mix.
- Stereo miking of an acoustic grand piano: one mic over the
treble strings, near the top prop; the other mic down at the
end of the bass strings. Played back in stereo, you can hear
arpeggios move from one speaker to the other.
CONCLUSION
Listen to everything. Monitor your mixdowns thru speakers if
possible, fairly loud, as headphones have a lot of detail which is lost
through speakers. Analyze your favorite recordings - placement of
instruments and vocals in the stereo field. How do they get that spacious
feel ? Beleive me - lots of effects and signal splitting. Good luck
and happy mixing.
Karl Moeller 1985
|
| 282.5 | | CANYON::MOELLER | | Thu Apr 03 1986 16:11 | 2 |
| Thanks for all your interest and support.
|
| 282.6 | Red-Faced Reply | MENTOR::COTE | Sue me if I play too long... | Thu Apr 03 1986 16:35 | 13 |
| I'll be the first to apologize...
Thanks for the BIG effort. I have attempted to incorporate
what I could into my set-up, but I'm using a 4 to 2 mixer and a
cassette deck so...
The hint on using speakers during mixdown REALLY helped. I
got into the nasty habit of mixing on headphones and then getting
disappointed during playback.
Please post more hints. They are appreciated.
Edd
|
| 282.7 | Don't Take It Personally | ERLANG::FEHSKENS | | Thu Apr 03 1986 17:15 | 12 |
| Hey - no news is good news. I had the same "am I wasting my time
doing this" doubts back when I started my series on drumming in
V1 (yes, an updated version is coming soon). People were apparently
eating it up.
I'll put it this way - there aren't many things that show up in
this conference that I bother to print and take home and savor.
Yours was one of them. Sorry we've been so reticent about thanking
you. It WAS appreciated.
len.
|
| 282.8 | Me too | DSSDEV::SAUTER | John Sauter | Thu Apr 03 1986 17:54 | 6 |
| I too took it home and savored it, but I didn't have a chance to
read it until last weekend, and when I got back to this notes file
I kept forgetting about it. One of the problems with NOTES is
that it doesn't automatically remind you about a topic you read
unless a reply is added to it.
John Sauter
|
| 282.9 | I like this. | MADMAC::MULELID | | Fri Apr 04 1986 07:04 | 9 |
| Karl
I can asure you that your note have been read and is very welcome.
I have a setup that you refere to in your article, so to me it is
just the kind of input I'm looking for.
So a BIG thanks from me.
Svein.
|
| 282.10 | Gosh...... | BAXTA::BOTTOM_DAVID | | Fri Apr 04 1986 13:15 | 5 |
| Humbly I abase myself, thank you for a very informative article,
if you have more ideas please post them...I think we need all
the interaction we can get.
dave
|
| 282.11 | | CANYON::MOELLER | | Fri Apr 04 1986 15:11 | 3 |
| re #.10
........... OUCH ...............
|
| 282.12 | I guess I'm not alone... | BARNUM::RHODES | | Fri Apr 04 1986 20:27 | 13 |
| I too apreciate it! Reading the article makes me realize that I'm not
the only one using white knuckle techniques to make a good sounding
demo. My studio consists only of two 2-track reel-to-reel decks
that allow me to employ a stereo bounce-and-add technique using my
mixer and rack-mount analog delay. This "mix-on-the-fly" method
makes it very tempting to use headphones as I have to adjust the mix
at the same time as I am adding an instrument. Does anyone else
have similar problems??? Anybody out there using a setup with less than
four tracks too?
--Todd
|
| 282.14 | its two tracks or no tracks | BARNUM::RHODES | | Mon Apr 07 1986 13:12 | 13 |
| Sounds familiar. I don't think I will ever move to more than 2 tracks
for budget reasons. The next thing I get will be a digital reverb
when they come down in price (The alesis midiverb looks like a
good choice at $395 list, or I may wait...). This will keep me amused
until I get some sort of poly synth (CZ-101?). Right now I have
just a mono guitar synth. It'd be nice to have some mic's too,
so that I could introduce some natural room ambience into my
recordings.
The only way I would move to more than two tracks is if
this "hobby" were to turn into a part-time business.
Todd.
|
| 282.15 | ..maybe you CAN.. | CANYON::MOELLER | plink.....plink... | Tue Apr 08 1986 15:14 | 2 |
| '..turn my hobby into a part-time business.' Stay tuned for another
article, 'Produce Your Own Album on Cassette'.
|
| 282.16 | CHEAPISH REVERB | MINDER::KENT | | Thu Apr 10 1986 09:24 | 16 |
| Couldn't help noticing the remark on the Alessis Midi-Verb. I have
just purchased one of these little beasties and am truly knocked
out by the sound and it's capabilites. To a non-technician like
myself it really is the end. I suggest you forget about mikes for
creating room ambience this machine will do it all for you.
I do have one question for the forum however. The sequencer
I use is based around the multi-tymbral voices of the YAMAHA CX5
and is therefore useless for patch changing although it does play
out over midi. Consequently I don't use MIDI into the MIDIVERB.
How do sequencers like the QX's or MSQ's record patch changes.
Do you just record in realtime and select the new patch and the
machine remembers it and is this the way I should be using the
MIDIVERB.
Paul Kent.
|
| 282.17 | Step OR Real | MENTOR::COTE | Sue me if I play too long... | Thu Apr 10 1986 11:56 | 6 |
| re .16
My QX-21 sequencer records patch changes in either
real time or step mode. I'm not familiar with the MIDI-Verb
so I don't know how this relates. Hope it helped.
Edd
|
| 282.18 | Sequencer Patch Changes | MINDER::KENT | | Thu Apr 10 1986 12:40 | 16 |
|
RE .17
Edd
Thanks for the reply. I think what you are saying is that if you
are recording a sequence and change a patch whilst playing then
the QX21 remembers this and changes accordigly and at the same time
on play back.
To change the reverb program on the MIDIVERB you simply select
the patch number you require just like on a synth
e.g. patch 45 is a large warm room with 8 sec decay.
I assume I would just set the QX21 to the MIDIVERB
MIDI chanel number and program the patche changes in step time.
PK.
|
| 282.19 | MSQs and Patch Changes | ERLANG::FEHSKENS | | Thu Apr 10 1986 13:33 | 19 |
| The Roland MSQs won't record patch changes in step mode, only in
real time. This can be a minor annoyance (I don't know why they
did this), but it's (relatively) easily gotten around by overdubbing
the program changes. I.e., you load the sequence note data using
either realtime or step mode, then overdub just the program selections
in the right places. Any program changes sent to the MSQ while
it is counting down the 8 beats before it starts end up at the
beginning of the first bar you're overdubbing, which is a convenient
way of avoiding split second timing requirements. Of course, you
could always do the overdub at an arbitrarily low tempo. One
problem is changing your mind - you can't delete just the program
change, you have to delete the whole bar that it occurs in and reload
the bar's note data with the new program change. This can be a problem
if you have ties that cross bar lines. I think the new Roland MC-500
handles all of these things somewhat more nicely, and allows editing
of MIDI message components.
len.
|
| 282.20 | Do 'em last... | MENTOR::COTE | Sue me if I play too long... | Thu Apr 10 1986 13:53 | 9 |
| I find the most convenient way to handle the patch changeing is
to program them last and on a seperate track. (This is necessary
for me as I only have 2 sequencer tracks.) This allows me to
change them without re-entering full measures. Doing them in
step mode allows you the luxury of split-second timing.
Edd
|
| 282.21 | Still in Sequence | MINDER::KENT | | Fri Apr 11 1986 09:10 | 24 |
| Thanks very much for the help in .-1 and .-2
I think it's probably about time that this appeared in a seperate
note but I think we might clear it up here so here goes.
The CX5 sequencer I use only allows you to select a voice/patch
in the track editor at the beginning. This has obvious drawbacks
however it makes it very easy to play around with different voicings
for the whole piece once you have entered the whole sequence. It
sounds like this would be quite complex on the MSQ but not so bad
on the QX. Presumably I could by the QX21 and drive it VIA the midi
timing info from the CX5 and use it to control all the (both)
NON CX5 synths and also the MIDIVERB. Does this sound a reasonable
approach ? If so I would be interested in the following data about
the QX21.
Is the memory size a limiting factor.
How long does it take to dump sequences to tape.
Thanks again for the help.
PK.
|
| 282.22 | QX-21 (7) Memory Limits | MENTOR::COTE | Sue me if I play too long... | Fri Apr 11 1986 12:27 | 19 |
| The QX21 (QX-7 now, same price and features) has an 8000 note capacity
(5000 with velocity). I have sequenced songs like "Heartbreak City"
by the Cars, "Dress You Up" by Mad Donna and "Take On Me" by A-ha
with out running out of zoobs. (Use for comparison only, your actual
mileage may vary.) Remember, my drums aren't suckin' up memory.
See my config under "Hooking it all up...".
You'll probably need the switch/mix box someone (John Sauter?)
mentioned earlier in order to drive your synths from multiple
sequencers.
The QX does have MIDI through. (That should be a law!)
I can't comment on dump speed. Never did it. Once I've got my
sequence down I (audio) record it and kiss it good-bye.
Edd
|
| 282.23 | | CANYON::MOELLER | PLANKALKUL Language Support Group | Tue May 27 1986 20:08 | 8 |
| Now that some time has passed, I'm asking if anyone out there has
tried any of the production methods laid out in the original article.
Specifically, has anyone made a line-to-mic level attenuator cord
and/or 'y' cords and tried any of those hookups ?
Are there any comments about mixdown tricks in general?
KM
|
| 282.24 | I have to confess | MINDER::KENT | | Wed May 28 1986 15:33 | 12 |
| Yes I have used some of the techniques and found them really usefull
thanks. The most usefull has been the Y plug splitter. Rather than
make myself one I have used A stereo headphones Y plug and have
split signals for use with a midiverb into a 144 portastudio.
This technique however has now become redundant as I have aquired
a mixing desk with 2 auxiliaries. But the basci chorusing sounds
I am trying to create are the same as the ones you suggested.
Whens the next Chapter (Me and My Emu) due.
Paul
|
| 282.25 | Me and my Emu | CANYON::MOELLER | PLANKALKUL Language Support Group | Wed May 28 1986 16:17 | 7 |
| It's hell trying to housetrain this thing... looks like a midget
ostrich...
Seriously, when I get delivery and learn some, I'll probably post
some 'living in a medium-tech studio' stuff.
KM
|
| 282.26 | How much for your Emu? | DYO780::SCHAFER | Brad (aka Dr. Fingers) | Wed May 28 1986 16:31 | 8 |
| Re: Emu ...
I don't know what you paid for yours, but if you haven't paid anything
yet, I know where you can get 'em new for between $5.7k and $6.3k.
Never rush into anything!
8^)
|
| 282.28 | | 16514::MOELLER | I said a na | Wed Mar 11 1987 21:12 | 9 |
| In the latest issue of Keyboard there's an article on low-bux
musicmaking.
Thanks for the Three-track primer.. you're right, I had to read
it four times to get it.
Now, for the REAL question: WHAT IS YOUR FIRST NAME ?
karl (no, that's mine)
|
| 282.29 | It's so exciting ! | MINDER::KENT | | Thu Mar 12 1987 05:55 | 23 |
|
Welcome Monsieur Rost ! Looking forward to hearing you on COMMUSIC
3. Who's going to organise and collate the next one? I would do
it but the European post and logistics would be silly.
While we are on the subject of low tech set ups you chaps might
be interested in the following.
My bank manager's worst enemy lent me an aphex aural exciter to
play with for the last couple of weeks. This device is a psycho
accoustic enhancer ( whatever that is ). As with most of these things
I took it on the basis that I would give it back after having got
rid of the desire to own everything I see.
Well the device adds a certain sound to the final mix which is pretty
much addictive. I.E. every time I turn it off I think how flat the
whole thing sounds ( It used to sound O.K. before ). And every time
I turn it on the whole sound jumps back into life and 3D.
Has anybody else tried one of these. Do I need a therapist ?
Paul.
|
| 282.30 | Ooooh, Oh, Excitable Boy... | JAWS::COTE | Not me Baby, I'm too precious... | Thu Mar 12 1987 11:40 | 11 |
| Therapist? No. (But I'd keep on friendly terms with that bank manager.
At the rate your going, he'll be your best friend....:^))
Dave Dreher has the Aphex unit on full time in his studio. I don't
know what it does, but it does it well.
... and if you think the Aphex is 'exciting', try hooking one of
the 'Sonic Holograph' units made by Carver or Sound Concepts into
your system. Regular stereo sounds like 2 speakers in comparison.
Edd
|
| 282.31 | recording a nylon string | COPCLU::SANDGREN | Walking Tall | Thu Sep 20 1990 14:22 | 34 |
|
Karl,
Thanks for your very informative note. I wonder if you have any suggestions
for recording a classic guitar. My recording equipment is:
1. Fostex X15 4-track
2. Fostex 4-channel mono mixer
3. Yamaha FX500 multieffect
4. 2 AKG mikes.
If I use two mikes, how do I place them at best? So far, I've just been u-
sing one mike very close to the sound hole on the guitar, then leading the
signal to the FX500 and using the stereo output from this one as input sig-
nal for the 4-track. However, using this method, I'll lose my 'dry' signal
at once, then having no possibility to change the effects when mixing down
to a stereo deck.
If I just record ONE track with the 'dry' signal from one mike, I think the
noise level will increase?
Another problem is, when going up and down the frets, I get SWISH - SWISH
noise from the winded strings. When listening to a prof recording, there's
almost nothing to hear. Do they filter it away, or is it just my bad play-
ing technique (don't hesitate to tell the truth :-))...
The effects I use are compressor - equalizer - chorus - reverb hall. How
would you adjust the equalizer for a classic guitar? Any other comments
on this?
I appreciate everybody's comments on this!
Poul
|
| 282.32 | Mic placement.. | DNEAST::COMBAR_CURT | Ayuh! I'm from Maine... | Thu Sep 20 1990 14:47 | 4 |
| FWIW, I think one of the recent Home and Studio Recording rags had an article on
microphone placement and signal processing for guitar and piano.....
Curt
|
| 282.33 | | KEYS::MOELLER | DEC-rewarding successful risk takers | Thu Sep 20 1990 18:03 | 37 |
| <<< Note 282.31 by COPCLU::SANDGREN "Walking Tall" >>>
>If I use two mikes, how do I place them at best?
In the pro sessions I've been involved with, usually one near the sound
hole, as you do now, and one at the end of the guitar, pointed at the
bridge. The bridge mic will give a fairly bright, brittle sound, while
the one pointed at the sound hole will be very big and warm. When the
two are mixed together, either in mono or in a stereo spread, you get a
good guitar sound with both brightness and fullness.
>If I just record ONE track with the 'dry' signal from one mike, I think the
>noise level will increase?
No, it won't. And you can then decide later what kind and how much
effects to apply to the track.
>Another problem is, when going up and down the frets, I get SWISH - SWISH
>noise from the winded strings.
>How would you adjust the equalizer for a classic guitar?
Notice that using the technique I talked about above, WHERE does the
high-frequency content come from ? Right - the end of the guitar AWAY
from the fretboard. So if you soften the high frequencies (using your
EQ unit) on the signal from the sound hole mic, you'll still have the
crispness you want without as much 'swishing' sound. Now, you know
that you can't really EQ mic signals, because they're so quiet ! So go
ahead and record in stereo as we've discussed, and then later use the
EQ and your effects on the already-recorded tracks. Maintaining a
stereo image while using a chorus with a mono input will be a trick.
>The effects I use are compressor - equalizer - chorus - reverb hall.
A thought - the compressor might be exaggerating the 'swish' string
sound. The great thing is, having your own setup, you can experiment
endlessly.
karl
|
| 282.34 | | STROKR::DEHAHN | Sept 18 '90 - Hack Holocaust | Fri Sep 21 1990 13:11 | 15 |
|
Karl,
The same thought came to me...maybe the swishing sound is the
compressor. Unless the guitar player is Jose Feliciano, why compress it
at all.
Re: .31
Try taking the compressor out of the loop when recording the guitar.
The gate in the compressor may be pumping. If you want to compress
the mix, do it with the final mixdown to even things out.
CdH
|
| 282.35 | just compress it all... | COPCLU::SANDGREN | Walking Tall | Fri Sep 21 1990 14:01 | 16 |
|
Thanks so far.
Why use the compressor? I believe, it is used (more or less) generally,
when recording many different instruments, including vocals. I think it
gives a more 'professional' sound...however, it has its drawbacks, and
I think you're right the swish sounds will get worse, when using it.
Another reason for using it, is when listening with headphones on the
output from the FX, *inspires* me to play somewhat better - like when
you achive a better sound, your playing get affected...
I'll give it a try with a 'dry' recording!
Poul
|
| 282.36 | What??? | CSC32::MOLLER | Give me Portability, not excuses | Fri Sep 21 1990 20:01 | 12 |
| > <<< Note 282.35 by COPCLU::SANDGREN "Walking Tall" >>>
> -< just compress it all... >-
The compressor in my REX-50 doesn't make the music levels breath
(ie major volume shifts that are detectable), but the one for my
guitar (a BOSS stomp box) sure does.
I compress the track as I'm recording it. Compressing all of tracks
together should give an interesting, but probably very unwanted
effect.
Jens
|