BrianAltenhofel wrote: .Hey McCheese, do you have this topic in its own windows and hitting the refresh button every few minutes like me?

Yeah, it's too much fun to let go.

BrianAltenhofel wrote: And you did as walters did and cut off quotes. You should be a politician. Your quote from me talking about distortion and tube amps was cut off early, leaving out the context that shows the relationship between distortion and compression.

Thats because the rest of your statement was irrelevant rhetoric and I don't own a tube amp! Get it? What more needs to be said? I hate politics!! Furthermore, it still has nothing to do with my topic!!! Arrrrrrrgghhh....

So you have a compressor/limiter combo? What kind? Just wondering if it's above the Alesis/Behringer level.

Again, irrelevant!!! Go back and read my first two posts.

Oh yeah, and there's no water to your statement of "I created this topic". That means jack here.

Listen, again i'm not here to debate. If you read my first few posts you'll understand what i'm here for. Comprende? If that still "holds no water" then you too need to see a psychologist.

And... you started the insulting, by asking a question and then coming up with your own "correct" answers because the salesmen at Syntrillium told you so.

Blah blah blah.... i'm not going to argue with you.

Also, you want my creds? Read the forum roll call and look for my post. My background is there, but I need to add 4 more records, including a possibility of working with two major label bands in the near future (I've been called, asked my price since my name was dropped by the bands as someone they enjoy working with, and am waiting to hear back with a definite answer).

Well, so far you ain't shown me "jack", so regardless what *your* credentials may be I still haven't seen anything near to answers regarding my main topic inquiries.

Bah, now you're just recycling. Where's Kurt or ITGA when you need them.

McCheese wrote: Bah, now you're just recycling. Where's Kurt or ITGA when you need them.

I've read that "Kurt Foster's" posts on the NS-10 monitors in these forums (if thats who your talking about). He made himself sound like a complete idiot whining endlessly about those stupid Yahmahoto tree sap cones for sap sucking market whores.... and my woman says his picture is really doofy looking also, how thick are those glasses anyways?

BrianAltenhofel wrote: Distortion on a tube amp is overloading the tube, thus bringing up the floor to a higher level while keeping the peaks at the same level, resulting in a natural compression. Solid state distortion circuts try to achieve this effect by essentially re-amplifing the already amplified signal in the preamplification stage. This is why tube amps produce odd order harmonics with distortion and solid state amps produce even order harmonics with distortion.

There's the entire quote that you misquoted. It states that no matter what guitar distortion you are getting (tube or solid-state) it is naturally being compressed. That's basic audiophysics.

By the way, your third post starts the argument. It shows your ignorance and arrogance and how you ask a question and then already seem to have to answer. It first shows up in your second post, but is very apparent in your third.

By the way, you've been recycling for a while now, and now your just taking yourself to a whole new low.

Yamaha NS-10's are a standard because of how accurate they are. And then you're making personal remarks towards a respected member who hasn't even been in this topic.

By the way, you still haven't asked a question you didn't already answer wrongly and in your egotistical manner tried to slap everyone else in the face with as being right.

BrianAltenhofel wrote: [quote=Jp22]I could easily give back any minimal dynamics lost compressing with a bit more eq on my mixer

That says it all. That was the first sign you didn't know what you were talking about.

Oh yeah? Meaning, I can easily bring up the highs (HF's or MF's) on my mixer's eq and once again bring back or hear what I lost dynamically, its simple, if I take a little out at the beginning of the chain with compression I can cerntainly just as easily put it back towards the end of the chain. Shows how much you know!

Jp22 wrote: [quote=BrianAltenhofel][quote=Jp22]I could easily give back any minimal dynamics lost compressing with a bit more eq on my mixer

That says it all. That was the first sign you didn't know what you were talking about.

Oh yeah? Meaning, I can easily bring up the highs (HF's or MF's) on my mixer's eq and once again bring back or hear what I lost dynamically, its simple, if I take a little out at the beginning of the chain with compression I can cerntainly just as easily put it back towards the end of the chain. Shows how much you know!

Oh yeah that clears it up. You're an idiot.

Why not use gain? EQ introduces phase shifts.

Back atcha!

BrianAltenhofel wrote: Why not use gain? EQ introduces phase shifts.

Back atcha!

Or an expander!

That reminds me of the time I cleared up the vocal track by running the drums through a harmonizer. or something.

McCheese wrote: That reminds me of the time I cleared up the vocal track by running the drums through a harmonizer. or something.

Sarcasm?

Here's a good explanation on EQ:

Ethan Winer wrote: In the beginning all equalizers were analog electronic circuits using capacitors and inductors. These components shift the phase of AC signals passing through them. If you combine a signal with a phase shifted version of itself (after passing through the capacitor or inductor), the frequency response is altered. As one cycle of the wave is rising, the shifted version is falling, or perhaps it hasn't yet risen as high. So when the two are combined they partially cancel at some frequencies only thus creating a non-flat frequency response. Therefore analog equalizers work by intentionally shifting phase, and then combining the original signal with the shifted version. In fact, without phase shift they would not work at all!

Most digital equalizers mimic the behavior of analog equalizers, but with a completely different circuit design. Instead of using capacitors and inductors to shift phase, they use taps on a digital delay line. A digital delay line is a series of memory locations that the numbers representing digitized audio pass through. The first number that arrives is stored in Address 0. Then, at the next clock cycle (44,100 times per second for a 44.1 KHz. sample rate) the number in Address 0 is shifted into Address 1, and the next incoming sample is stored at Address 0. As more numbers enter the input they are shifted through each memory location in turn, until they eventually arrive at the output. This is the basis for a digital delay, and you can alter the delay time by changing the total number of addresses each number passes through or the sample rate or both. (A series of memory addresses used for this purpose is sometimes called a shift register because of the way the numbers are shifted through them.)

To create an equalizer from a digital delay line you tap into one of the intermediary memory addresses and feed a varying amount back to the input. Just like the feedback control on a tape recorder-based delay like an old EchoPlex. Except without all the wow and flutter. You can also reverse the polarity of the tapped signal before sending it back to the input to get either cut or boost. The bottom line is the delayed sound combines with the input - just like a flanger effect - to create peaks and dips in the frequency response. By controlling which addresses along the delay route you tap into, and how much of the tapped signal is fed back into the input and with which polarity, you create an equalizer.

BrianAltenhofel wrote:
There's the entire quote that you misquoted. It states that no matter what guitar distortion you are getting (tube or solid-state) it is naturally being compressed. That's basic audiophysics.

READ AND UNDERSTAND: I DON'T CARE and thats NOT what i'm here for, are you that hard headed or what? jeeeeezus....

By the way, your third post starts the argument.

WHAT ARGUMENT?!?! Who the hell is arguing!?! You guys are all arguing with yourselves!!!!

It shows your ignorance and arrogance and how you ask a question and then already seem to have to answer. It first shows up in your second post, but is very apparent in your third.

*yawn* My ignorance and arrogance.... great. Did you even bother to read my first few posts at the beginning of this topic yet?

By the way, you've been recycling for a while now, and now your just taking yourself to a whole new low.

Actually, you are! THIS IS MY TOPIC! So get out unless you have something to contribute!

Yamaha NS-10's are a standard because of how accurate they are. And then you're making personal remarks towards a respected member who hasn't even been in this topic.

Same old rhetoric. Duh... jeee George, I use monitors I built out of tree sap and the special Japanese bark from a tree I imported from Japan to my backyard, the tree is the same used to make the unwise wise in listening grasshopper for the market kung fu hoes wizard monitors know the best way Danielsson.

Jp22 wrote: *yawn* My ignorance and arrogance.... great. Did you even bother to read my first few posts at the beginning of this topic yet?

So you agree with me? How could I make those comments without reading first?

BrianAltenhofel wrote: Why not use gain? EQ introduces phase shifts.
Back atcha!

Gain introduces more distortion.

This has to be the best thread ever.

"WOW!!!" That's all I can say at this point. :shock:

Well, i've had enough. Thanks for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to everyone who has posted in my topic. You've all been ABSOLUTELY ZERO help. I'll check back one final time tomorrow to read some more of your typical insults and rhetorical ramblings from the confused bowels of insanity itself. Hopefully i'll find a post from someone wise enough to understand my situation.... but I doubt it. Have a nice life AND MAY THE GODS CURSE YOU ALL IF YOU DON'T FORK SOMETHING OVER!!! READ MY FIRST TWO POSTS, THIS IS MY TOPIC!

[DELETED]

It's my topic now bitch. :twisted:

my god......

Mc Cheese...you are a very bad man. I laughed so hard my @$$ fell off, It will take forever to grow a new one, and now I blame my discomfort all on you.

You have to admit that JP22's ability to work a thread is nothing short of genius. As you read you can see him do his thing. Walters has been reincarnated. If not, he'd be proud

You know, it's times like these that we need to hear the sound of the mighty ITGA blowing lightning and thunder up the buttpipe of..er...certain individuals. ITGA WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!? We need you dude!

Anyway, I'll play, at great personal risk to life and limb...

I'd input three tracks and noodle with it after. That's safest.

If I didn't have three inputs, I'd mix the two close mics together on one track, and use the second track for the room mic.

If I only had one track in the whole world I'd put a bullet in my head to end the pain.

I'd compress after in the mixing stage, just 'caus that's the kinda guy I am.

Nobody of any authority told me to do it that way, but that's what I'd do. I usually do exactly what the voices in my head tell me to, and this is no exception.

There.

Yo...Jp22...you still there?

Cheers mates
Keith

This has turned into an unexpected golden nugget. For all of his shortcomings, at least walters is apparently bright enough to clone himself.

My question is would I be better off running more than one stereo pair to my converters (separate for each mic) into my software, recording more than one track simultaniously?

Don't worry about stereo pairs for each mic. Each mic sends a mono signal, so record each mic on its own mono channel. Then you can pan them however you want in the software. If you have a fancy compressor that you really like, then you can do your busing thing down to a stereo track into your converters, but this will be less flexible if you want to change the sound later.
No, EQ will NOT bring back dynamics that were taken away by your compressor. And next time you record, do a track of strumming clean guitar (no compression) and a track of distorted guitar (no compression). Look at the graphic representation in your software. The clean signal will have a lot of peaks and valleys (aka: dynamics), the distorted guitar will look more like a solid brick of sound (aka: compressed). And that's about all the time I wanna spend on this for now. If you come up with more questions, just do the opposite of what you think is right.

Reggie wrote:
Don't worry about stereo pairs for each mic. Each mic sends a mono signal, so record each mic on its own mono channel. Then you can pan them however you want in the software.

Your missing the point of why I asked about stereo pairs. My converter requires two inputs (a pair, Left & Right).

No, EQ will NOT bring back dynamics that were taken away by your compressor.

Amazing. Yet another misinterpretation. Do you people only think about what your thinking and not what anybody else is? When I said I can use my mixer's eq to bring back dynamics taken away by my compressor I meant *as i'm standing there* physically eq'ing *before* recording. Understand? jeeeez.... you should be one to talk about being the brightest "golden nugget" in Mr. McCheese's happy meal, Reggie.

NOOOOOOOO! Don't end!

I've stayed up way past my bedtime to read through all 5 pages of this thread and it must continue! I demand that it continue.

Jp22 wrote: Hi, i'm looking for a few expert recording engineer sugguestions on how to possibly improve a guitar sound a bit.

You asked for suggestions, you were given suggestions. Accept them as such...don't debate them.

Here are mine.

You want to improve a guitar sound a bit? Add some high end. Add some low end. Change the mic you are using. Change the guitar you are using. Change the amp or cabinet you are using. All of those suggestions could improve the sound.

I don't know what kind of sound you have, nor do I know how you might want to "improve a guitar sound a bit". So I (as the rest of the posters here) am flying blind.

Personally I spend most of my time in front of the amp/cabinet getting the exact guitar sound I want. Then I use 1 mic and put it where I here that perfect sound. Then I go into the control room and do whatever I can to reproduce the sound that I heard out in the studio. I may need to change mics, move it around a bit, possibly add some EQ.

Instead of using 3 mics, use one mic and record two takes. Or record one take and double it. Sometimes I'll pan the second take or delay it by a few ms.

For distorted guitars, I've never found much need for an ambience mic. One...sometimes two up front do the job nicely.

And finally, here's a little story you can read during your downtime working the McDonald's drive through window...

When I was an intern I worked with lots of different engineers. Each one had their own way of doing things. If one engineer told me to do something in a way that was contrary to what another engineer told me, I didn't tell him he was wrong. I did it his way. Both engineers were seasoned professionals and each had their own style. Neither way was right or wrong. They were just different.

Re: Expert sugguestions on an advanced guitar recording setu

Jp22 wrote: Hi, i'm looking for a few expert recording engineer sugguestions on how to possibly improve a guitar sound a bit. Firstly, i'll give a little background on my setup. I'm running three mics: One cardioid to isolate the sound, one condenser for a little bit of crispness and a tube in the room. I am happy with the initial sound i'm getting running two of these mics (one compressed) from a processor into two separate analog mixer channels and one mic directly(condenser) to a mixer channel. I then send all three of these mics out together bused (one line) as a stereo pair (L&R), compress again, then to an external converter and go optical into a single track into my multi-track software. My question is would I be better off running more than one stereo pair to my converters (separate for each mic) into my software, recording more than one track simultaniously? I'm wondering if i'll achieve a slight bit better edge on my sound somehow that way.. or perhaps I should also compress the other two mics and stick to running them all together as one line into a single track. Thx for any helpful sugguestions, opinions or info from any knowlegable engineers. ~Jp, "The Box", Minnesota, US

Actually, the way you are already doing it is clearly the best way. You are amazing.

pr0gr4m wrote:
You asked for suggestions, you were given suggestions. Accept them as such...don't debate them.

Sorry if i'm coming off as a bit arrogant but I have a difficult time accepting nonsensical rhetoric that has nothing to do with what i'm inquiring about or what i'm trying to achieve. Some people are just clearly confused and they twist things out of context into their own little self-centered interpretation.

You want to improve a guitar sound a bit? Add some high end. Add some low end. Change the mic you are using. Change the guitar you are using. Change the amp or cabinet you are using. All of those suggestions could improve the sound.

No thanks. I'm happy with my sound. Again, if your read my first two posts in this entire topic you'll see i've stated as least twice that i'm happy with my sound.

I don't know what kind of sound you have, nor do I know how you might want to "improve a guitar sound a bit". So I (as the rest of the posters here) am flying blind.

Ain't that the truth! We have a winner!!!

Then I go into the control room and do whatever I can to reproduce the sound that I heard out in the studio. I may need to change mics, move it around a bit, possibly add some EQ.

Sounds too artificial to me. Thanks again, but no thanks.

Instead of using 3 mics, use one mic and record two takes. Or record one take and double it. Sometimes I'll pan the second take or delay it by a few ms.

Recording two takes is too time consuming and can produce somewhat undefined results. Doubling tracks and delaying is too sloppy. Sorry, but personally I would never use either of those methods.

For distorted guitars, I've never found much need for an ambience mic. One...sometimes two up front do the job nicely.

Maybe true, however as you probably are aware the type of mics being used, placement, and what type of room your recording in, equipment setup, etc etc.... all always have a bearing.

And finally, here's a little story you can read during your downtime working the McDonald's drive through window...

I'm not a fan of McDonald's, except for maybe their coffee. The rest of their food makes me sick. I got a piece of a feather in one of their chicken sandwiches once!! aaahhhhhh It was nasty!!!

When I was an intern I worked with lots of different engineers. Each one had their own way of doing things. If one engineer told me to do something in a way that was contrary to what another engineer told me, I didn't tell him he was wrong. I did it his way. Both engineers were seasoned professionals and each had their own style. Neither way was right or wrong. They were just different.

Now let me give you a little moral to your little story my friend, think of it as something they may have never taught you because they never cared enough for you to learn it.... Next to you record a musician's music, don't record it how YOU want it to sound, record it how the musician wants it to sound. Don't let your 'skills' give you an overblown ego that gets the best of you or soon you'll have no more clients. A recording engineer's job is to give the musicians what they want, not what the engineer wants.

Jp22 wrote: Hi, i'm looking for a few expert recording engineer sugguestions on how to possibly improve a guitar sound a bit.

Jp22 wrote: No thanks. I'm happy with my sound. Again, if your read my first two posts in this entire topic you'll see i've stated as least twice that i'm happy with my sound.

...

Re: Expert sugguestions on an advanced guitar recording setu

Jp22R0CKS wrote: [quote=Jp22]Hi, i'm looking for a few expert recording engineer sugguestions on how to possibly improve a guitar sound a bit. Firstly, i'll give a little background on my setup. I'm running three mics: One cardioid to isolate the sound, one condenser for a little bit of crispness and a tube in the room. I am happy with the initial sound i'm getting running two of these mics (one compressed) from a processor into two separate analog mixer channels and one mic directly(condenser) to a mixer channel. I then send all three of these mics out together bused (one line) as a stereo pair (L&R), compress again, then to an external converter and go optical into a single track into my multi-track software. My question is would I be better off running more than one stereo pair to my converters (separate for each mic) into my software, recording more than one track simultaniously? I'm wondering if i'll achieve a slight bit better edge on my sound somehow that way.. or perhaps I should also compress the other two mics and stick to running them all together as one line into a single track. Thx for any helpful sugguestions, opinions or info from any knowlegable engineers. ~Jp, "The Box", Minnesota, US

Actually, the way you are already doing it is clearly the best way. You are amazing.

You think so? Well, as i've stated many times, i'm very happy with my sound but for some reason these 'so-called' engineers (market whores in reality) come in and try to tell you how 'it should be done', just like these idiots who say if you don't own a pair of magic tree sap NS-10 monitors you'll never be able to make a recording that sounds good enough to be played on everyone else's stereo. What a load of shit! I've said all along my compression/limiting method produces a decent result for me but they're trying to convince me its wrong! Such idiots! I've tried it 'their way' and it completely SUCKS.

McCheese wrote: Hi, i'm looking for a few expert recording engineer sugguestions on how to possibly improve a guitar sound a bit.

Jp22 wrote: No thanks. I'm happy with my sound. Again, if your read my first two posts in this entire topic you'll see i've stated as least twice that i'm happy with my sound.

Once again you've taken that top part out of context. I explained thoroughly what I meant by that. It had to do with micing towards the bottom of that post. Stop causing confusion man, its not cool.

Re: Expert sugguestions on an advanced guitar recording setu

Jp22 wrote: [quote=Jp22R0CKS][quote=Jp22]Hi, i'm looking for...blah blah blah...knowlegable engineers. ~Jp, "The Box", Minnesota, US

Actually, the way you are already doing it is clearly the best way. You are amazing.

You think so? Well, as i've stated many times, i'm very happy with my sound but for some reason these 'so-called' engineers (market whores in reality) come in and try to tell you how 'it should be done', just like these idiots who say if you don't own a pair of magic tree sap NS-10 monitors you'll never be able to make a recording that sounds good enough to be played on everyone else's stereo. What a load of shit! I've said all along my compression/limiting method produces a decent result for me but they're trying to convince me its wrong! Such idiots! I've tried it 'their way' and it completely SUCKS.

No, I lied, you're a fucking retard.

Re: Expert sugguestions on an advanced guitar recording setu

Jp22R0CKS wrote:
No, I lied, you're a fucking retard.

BIG *YAWN* (in your face). Yet another insult ignored....

Jp22 wrote: [quote=pr0gr4m]
I don't know what kind of sound you have, nor do I know how you might want to "improve a guitar sound a bit". So I (as the rest of the posters here) am flying blind.

Ain't that the truth! We have a winner!!!

If my statement was the truth, then you should realize that the advice/suggestions are the best that can be given under the circumstances. There's no need for you to try to discredit the suggestions other people are giving you.

If you had provided an audio clip, list of mics used and their positions, complete signal path and list of equipment used, then we would have a more information to work with and you would have likely recieved more specific responses.

BTW, you missed the meaning of my story completely.

What it meant was, just because someone experienced at sound engineering says "do it like this", that doesn't mean their word is law.

You say that some engineers are telling you that the way you are recording the guitar is wrong. That's just their opinion. For every engineer saying one thing, there are 100 others that would say the opposite.

That said, there are some standard practices in recording, techniques that are commonly used and well know. But you don't have to do them.

As you said, you like your sound. If you like it, that's all that really matters. Music or sound appreciation is subjective. What one person thinks sounds great another says sounds like crap.

-
One thing that really bugs me is your seemingly closed mindedness towards alternative recording methods.
You said that other people are influencing you to change your technique. If you like the sound you have, I don't understand why would you even bother trying something else? BUT, if you are willing to try something else, why not try all sorts of different things?

Keep an open mind. The fun in recording is ALL about experimenting, trying to find that magical sound.

You say that recording two takes is too time consuming. But if it gives you the sound you want, then that extra time is well worth it. That method has been used quite often and is very effective.

You say that you would never double and delay a track because it is sloppy. You might want to try it. It's not sloppy and it too is something done quite often.

You also said that you wouldn't do things in the control room to replicate a sound because it sounds too artificial. If done right, it should be completely transparent. Having the knowledge to do that is what makes the difference between a professional engineer and a non-pro.

Re: Expert sugguestions on an advanced guitar recording setu

Jp22 wrote: [quote=Jp22R0CKS]
No, I lied, you're a fucking retard.

BIG *YAWN* (in your face). Yet another insult ignored....

Actually, you replied to it which is not ignoring it but actually acknowledging it.

Jp22 wrote:

3)A lot of of people use the phrase "to tape" when referring to recording. They just don't record in your bedroom

"3)" Correction: I ain't "alot of people".

hahaha :) this is the best!

Jp22, the corrected sentence would be:

3)You use the phrase "to tape" when referring to recording. They just don't record in your bedroom

so you're saing that you use the phrase "to tape" when referring to recording :lol:

But seriously, you should try to listen to the people here.

Crap... we have walters when he's drunk... and he's a schizophrenic now...

[quote=Jp22]
Your missing the point of why I asked about stereo pairs. My converter requires two inputs (a pair, Left & Right).

If your converters require two inputs, then maybe you should think about upgrading to one that can accept at least 3 mono signals. If a soundcard has 4 inputs, you can assign them in your software as 2 stereo pairs, or 4 mono channels. Until you do this it sounds like you don't have much choice as to how you record the guitars anyway. Read this when you are sober.

Reggie wrote:

If your converters require two inputs, then maybe you should think about upgrading to one that can accept at least 3 mono signals.

Upgrade? I'm using a top of the line converter with 8 inputs (4 stereo pairs, L&R). Uhh.... 3 mono signals.... what's the friggin difference? What the hell are you talking about??

If a soundcard has 4 inputs, you can assign them in your software as 2 stereo pairs, or 4 mono channels. Until you do this it sounds like you don't have much choice as to how you record the guitars anyway.

yeah so big deal, basically your saying record two tracks in stereo? yah.... so what??

Read this when you are sober.

I don't drink, nigga. 8-)

Upgrade? I'm using a top of the line converter with 8 inputs (4 stereo pairs, L&R).

What converters/interface are you using?

Oh dear.

What I'm trying to say regarding your original post is that there is no need to do a separate stereo pair for each mic. Each mic is not putting out a stereo signal, so all you need is a mono channel for each mic. Recording a mic into a mono channel and panning it down the center will sound the same as recording the same mic onto a stereo channel. But if you are tied to using all your mics through the same processor at the same time, outputting only a stereo signal, then I don't really see the point of your question.

Re: Expert sugguestions on an advanced guitar recording setu

Jp22 wrote: My question is would I be better off running more than one stereo pair to my converters (separate for each mic) into my software, recording more than one track simultaniously?

I think you would be better off having each mic recorded separately on their own track instead of having them all mixed together prior to recording them. Having each mic on it's own track rather than having all three mixed together gives you more contol of the sound after it's been recorded. You may find that at some point during mixdown that you want more of one of the mic's sounds. If you have each mics signal recorded on to a separate track, then all you need to do is bring up the volume of the track you want.

However, I don't understand why you need to record each mic as stereo. Each mic should go to it's own mono track. You should be able to use your "top of the line" converter to pass in one mic on channel 1, the next on channel 2 and the third on channel three. If for some reason you're converter is not 8 individual channels but 4 stereo channels record mics 1 and 2 on the first stereo channel panning mic 1 to the left and mic 2 to the right. Record the third mic on the second stereo channel panning it to the left. This should give you 3 mono channels of guitar to work with.

okayokayokay

JP22 is really Eric Cartman from South Park. If you read all his posts in Cartman's voice it all fits perfectly.

Anyway JP, at the risk of being a recipient of your wrath....Let me get this straight. According to you:

You really like your guitar sound. You are happy with it and wouldn't change it for the world. A minor miracle since you don't own a tube amp

You are confident that you understand recording, compression, dynamics, gain, limiting the difference between tape and digital, and miriad other related topics.

You have a top of the line input device that will accept many more inputs than what is required to do that which you are trying to achieve.

You have access to at least three mics.

You obviously are privy to the game the 'market whores' here are playing with you.

You are an expert on Yamaha NS-10's. All those that have mixed and mastered almost every record we have heard in the last 25 years are tone deaf morons who couldn't master their way out of a paper bag

You know the magic secret to restoring dynamics with EQ that has eluded other lesser engineers for decades

You are also attuned into the little known secrets of the 'Syntrillium Engineers,' and their unquestioned prowess

Your compressor has a gain AND a limiter/reducer

You have a very important life and wouldn't waste precious minutes double tracking a guitar part. The time you have taken here stooping to talk to the minions is nowhere near the time required for the tedium of double tracking

You picked up on the 'sloppiness' of delay that all those other loser engineers have missed.

I bow to your prowess. The guys are just fools. How can they possibly hold their stack of records and years of experience to your vast storehouse of knowledge and superior equipment.

I hang my head in shame and leave now. I only hope the others can see the sin of their errant ways and repent.

We are in the presence of greatness, gentlemen.

P.S.
When referring to posessions, it is spelled like this: "your"
When saying "you are" it is spelled like this: "you're"
Just thought I'd clear that up.

Cheers mates
Keith