rasputin7095 wrote: A friend of mine got to work in a studio with a Neve console, and it sounded incredible. I work in a studio with an SSL, so what can I do to get a more Neve-like sound?

uhh, not to state the obvious, but have you tried out a neve preamp to see if that makes it sound more "Neve-like"

thats like saying "my buddy has a ferrari, and i have a porsche, his goes faster, what kind of car should i buy so it drives like a ferrari?"

the answer is in the question my friend.

sorry, I guess I'll rephrase my question: what's a cheap (as in $100) way to warm up the sound? I was looking at some ART preamps, and they seem good. I can't get the studio to buy anything new, and if I buy it myself, I'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on it.

so.. tube mic, tube preamp, or analog tape for mastering?

what would you do to warm up your sound, if you wanted to spend no more than a few hundred bucks?

I'd get an Avalon preamp, but I also need to eat. What cheap tube preamp is similar in sound and quality? ART?

there are no cheap preamps that sound like neve, if there were, then they would never hold their value. i know we all like to use the term "warm" cause it makes us feel fuzzy and good when we think about the 70's and whatnot, but i think that you need to give a more detailed explanation of what you are recording, and what mics you already have, etc.

putting a $100 preamp into a SSL board and expecting it to sound better is a little strange. ART preamps are cheap and sound cheap. just cause it says "tube" on it doesn't mean its good. a neve preamp is not a tube preamp.

a good tube mic is going to cost you at least $1000 or more. i think your best bet is to learn about the gear you have available to you and how you can make that sound good. start at the source, and get a good sound to begin with, and then capture it the best you can and learn to use the tools available to you and i think you will be much closer to what you are trying to capture.

you should be able to make great sounding recordings with a SSL board.

if you are looking for some quality preamps, do a search on this site and you will turn up about 5000 threads asking the same question.

mmkay, thx.

also, one more thought. look into the empirical labs fatso.

http://www.empiricallabs.com/fatdes.html

i have not used this equipment, so i cannot say what it can/cannot do, but i have talked to a few people who swear by them and their "warmth".

i have also used the sony oxford inflator on the mix bus to give some character to my mixes, and it seems to help get a good sound out of digital sounding tracks.

rasputin7095 wrote: sorry, I guess I'll rephrase my question: what's a cheap (as in $100) way to warm up the sound?

...

what would you do to warm up your sound, if you wanted to spend no more than a few hundred bucks?

Yes, there is a $100 way to warm up your sounds. Send me $100 and mic a warm sound source.

No, seriously.

"Tube" and "tape" don't automatically provide "warm", nor do "solid state" and "digital" automatically cause lack of warm. When people begin the "tube/tape/digital/warm/cold" conversation they seem to automatically throw out the fact that the single most important step in the signal chain is the source. And if you're unhappy with your sounds the first place to look is there.

Another sticky point is the fact that different folks got different definitions of warmth. Although usually we're talking about some lack of high end and/or some enhanced mid or low-end.

One good way to achieve warm is wood. Wooden instruments, wooden recording spaces with nice high ceilings or traps to kill flutter echoes, wooden platforms for floor-coupled instruments (drums, cello, etc.), wooden baffles near wind instruments...the list goes on.

This studio that refuses to buy any more preamps, do you ONLY have access to a rack full of Focusrite Red pres? There's a problem too. Is there a mixer you can use some preamps on? Using the same pre over and over is going to cause you to get a little smear action going on by applying the same character to the tracks over and over. Switching mics will help, of course. You didn't mention WHICH mics you had access to, only that they were Shure and AKG condensor mics. Have you no dynamic mics? Are there anything besides Shure and AKG? Are the AKG's C1000's or C12's? Big difference there. So better mic choice even among what you currently have might net you a benefit as well.

None of this, I'm sure, is what you hoped to hear. I imagine you rather hoped to hear this:

"Why SURE the Art TPS is a great pre! I've got a rack of 12 channels of 'em and I use 'em with an LMNOP G-77 LDC and get GREAT warmth on Nykleharpa tracks!"

So, if that's all you really wanted, then, by all means buy one of 'em. I actually own an Art TPS and I have no complaints, at least insofar as I feel like I'm getting $200 worth of value out of it. Which really means that it provides phantom power in certain situations when I need it to, because that's why I bought it. If you expect it to sound like a Neve console just because it's got a tube in it, you're going to be fairly disappointed.

~S

Actually your choices are:
Either your tracking and micing skills are exactly as good as your friend and all you need are some Neve-style pres to attain the same warmth; or your tracking and micing skills are less than your friend's and you are giving the Neve pres too much credit.
Kinda like, I ate Wheaties for breakfast today and later I was able to fend off a ninja attack. Therefore: Wheaties = ninja skills. Not neccessarily....It was probably my years of ninja training in the far east that attributed to my ability to fend off the ninja attack. See?

Reggie wrote: Actually your choices are:
Either your tracking and micing skills are exactly as good as your friend and all you need are some Neve-style pres to attain the same warmth; or your tracking and micing skills are less than your friend's and you are giving the Neve pres too much credit.
Kinda like, I ate Wheaties for breakfast today and later I was able to fend off a ninja attack. Therefore: Wheaties = ninja skills. Not neccessarily....It was probably my years of ninja training in the far east that attributed to my ability to fend off the ninja attack. See?

Simply put, correlation does not prove causation.

~S

TheRealShotgun wrote:
Simply put, correlation does not prove causation.

~S

I thought I would put it in terms we all can relate to: ninjas. :lol:

Reggie wrote: [quote=TheRealShotgun]
Simply put, correlation does not prove causation.

~S

I thought I would put it in terms we all can relate to: ninjas. :lol:

Which brings up a question more divisive than "tube/solid state":

Which rock more, pirates or ninjas?

~S

TheRealShotgun wrote:

Which rock more, pirates or ninjas?

~S

Chuck Norris.

ok, I'll get really really specific now:

My friend recorded a vocal with a Manley tube mic, through a Neve pre, into pro tools.

The vocal sounded really "thick" and he didn't double it or anything. Just one track. It was also really bright, but the high frequencies didn't "burn" my ears. It sounded like the highs had a hint of tube distortion, which softened them up.

I could get the same effect as him, but I had to put 3 vocals together to achieve the same "thickness" and the highs weren't as smooth.

I used a Shure KSM32 into Focusrite Reds, into pro tools, EQd with Waves eq.

I want my vocal to sound "thick" and with great highs, without having to double it.

His mixes usually sound much worse than that one, and he admits that the equipment helped a lot.

So.. should I get a tube compressor? Tube mic? Tube pre?

I just want my vocal to sound fat.

The KSM32 is my "perfect" vocal mic for pretty much anyone I record. What is the perfect tube pre?

TheRealShotgun wrote:

This studio that refuses to buy any more preamps, do you ONLY have access to a rack full of Focusrite Red pres? There's a problem too. Is there a mixer you can use some preamps on? Using the same pre over and over is going to cause you to get a little smear action going on by applying the same character to the tracks over and over. Switching mics will help, of course. You didn't mention WHICH mics you had access to, only that they were Shure and AKG condensor mics. Have you no dynamic mics? Are there anything besides Shure and AKG? Are the AKG's C1000's or C12's? Big difference there. So better mic choice even among what you currently have might net you a benefit as well.

We have an SSL G+ and a couple of Focusrite Reds. The good mics we have are: AKG 414 (which I hate for vocals), U87, KSM32, bunch of dynamics (which I wouldn't use for vocals either), and a bunch that are broken, and won't be fixed any time soon.

rasputin7095 wrote: ok, I'll get really really specific now:

My friend recorded a vocal with a Manley tube mic, through a Neve pre, into pro tools.

The vocal sounded really "thick" and he didn't double it or anything. Just one track. It was also really bright, but the high frequencies didn't "burn" my ears. It sounded like the highs had a hint of tube distortion, which softened them up.

I could get the same effect as him, but I had to put 3 vocals together to achieve the same "thickness" and the highs weren't as smooth.

I used a Shure KSM32 into Focusrite Reds, into pro tools, EQd with Waves eq.

I want my vocal to sound "thick" and with great highs, without having to double it.

His mixes usually sound much worse than that one, and he admits that the equipment helped a lot.

So.. should I get a tube compressor? Tube mic? Tube pre?

I just want my vocal to sound fat.

Well, I'm sure the $6,000 mic didn't hurt things. And probably had alot to do with the sound you're describing. That KSM32 just isn't in the same arena as the Manley. That said, as we all know, vocal chain A on voice B may not sound a damn thing like it did on voice A.

So can we answer your question? Eh, not really. You also didn't mention WHICH mic and WHICH pre those were, because that makes a difference as well. In fact, depending on the model, that Neve pre might have served to darken the sound more than brighten it.

Anyway, of the three choices you list, I'd say I'd flip a coin between a mic and a pre. I mean, what other pres do you have access to? If you're working in an SSL room I can't believe the only pres at your disposal are the stock SSLs and a focusrite red. One would think you'd have all the pre's you need at your disposal. And really, what's it cost to rent a Neve pre of one ilk or another and try it out with your existing mic locker: a hunnert bux or so? That's probably your answer.

However, remember what I said earlier about the source being the most important point in the chain, and assuming that the performer is constant, the next thing in line is the mic. You'll get more mileage out of a great mic into an average preamp than you will out of an average mic into a great preamp. The pre can't amplify what ain't there in the first place.

~S

rasputin7095 wrote: [quote=TheRealShotgun]

This studio that refuses to buy any more preamps, do you ONLY have access to a rack full of Focusrite Red pres? There's a problem too. Is there a mixer you can use some preamps on? Using the same pre over and over is going to cause you to get a little smear action going on by applying the same character to the tracks over and over. Switching mics will help, of course. You didn't mention WHICH mics you had access to, only that they were Shure and AKG condensor mics. Have you no dynamic mics? Are there anything besides Shure and AKG? Are the AKG's C1000's or C12's? Big difference there. So better mic choice even among what you currently have might net you a benefit as well.

We have an SSL G+ and a couple of Focusrite Reds. The good mics we have are: AKG 414 (which I hate for vocals), U87, KSM32, bunch of dynamics (which I wouldn't use for vocals either), and a bunch that are broken, and won't be fixed any time soon.

You must've posted at the same time I did.

Here's what I'd do. What'cha think you could get for that SSL on eBay? Enough to maybe buy a used MCI 6xx and some decent preamps?

~S

In my experience, theres a 'bunch of dynamics' that sound really 'fat' and generally are much simpler to attain a great sound on than ANY condenser. Ruling these out makes me wonder what youre doing.....

And I'm having a really hard time imagining an SSL room with 'a couple of Focusrite Reds and a bunch of broken stuff' as well as having only a 414,a KSM32, and an 87 as the 'big mics'.....

Is this SSL room in a trailer park?

rasputin7095 wrote: sorry, I guess I'll rephrase my question: what's a cheap (as in $100) way to warm up the sound?

I would go out and buy a duvet and hang it up to modify the acoustics of the room. Unless you have already taken care of your acoustic space, it is the single most important thing you can do as an engineer.

(The single most important thing the producer can do is probably to select the right talent).

Gunnar

the SSL and the studio are owned by the university which I attend, so I can't really sell it.

The whole deal is like this: I mix at home, because my home setup is much better acoustically than our studio. I record in the studio though.

I can get a great sound out of the SSL, but I can't really mix in there, because it's a square room with very bad speakers/acoustics.

I can mix very well at home, because I have amazing speakers and absorbers/bass traps, but everything sounds harsh and flat, because everything is digital and mixed using plugins.

Recently I got some PreSonus EQs, which do a good job at fattening up the whole mix in the end, I run it through, and record back into pro tools.

I'd like to be able to do the same "fattening" just with the vocal, at the point when I originally record, and since I'm a student, I have like -1000 dollars to spend on a piece of equipment.

Davedog wrote:
Is this SSL room in a trailer park?

haha, it's at NYU.. they bought the SSL, and that was pretty much all they had money for. They neglected everything else :?

in terms of dynamics, we have a bunch of 57s, 58s, and that mic that everyone on radio uses.

rasputin7095 wrote: [quote=Davedog]
Is this SSL room in a trailer park?

haha, it's at NYU.. they bought the SSL, and that was pretty much all they had money for. They neglected everything else :?

in terms of dynamics, we have a bunch of 57s, 58s, and that mic that everyone on radio uses.

a EV RE-20? that mic sounds great on certain voices. have you even tried it on yours? also it is next to impossible to make something sound great when you can't hear it while tracking.

i guess what everyone is trying to tell you, is that there is no _one way_ to get the sound your looking for. there is no magic sauce that makes voices sound PHAT and TIGHT. it is usually great sources, good equipment and great engineers that make that happen. just keep practicing. try different things out, turn the gain down and get closer to the mic. learn how to work a mic as a singer. learn how to use compression coming into protools to get more fatness to tape.

rasputin7095 wrote:
I can get a great sound out of the SSL, but I can't really mix in there, because it's a square room with very bad speakers/acoustics.

I can mix very well at home, because I have amazing speakers and absorbers/bass traps, but everything sounds harsh and flat, because everything is digital and mixed using plugins.

Anybody else see anything mildly disturbing about these two statements?

TheRealShotgun wrote: [quote=rasputin7095]
I can get a great sound out of the SSL, but I can't really mix in there, because it's a square room with very bad speakers/acoustics.

I can mix very well at home, because I have amazing speakers and absorbers/bass traps, but everything sounds harsh and flat, because everything is digital and mixed using plugins.

Anybody else see anything mildly disturbing about these two statements?

When I mix in the SSL studio, it sounds good in there, but doesn't translate at all, due to the fact that there are pretty major standing waves in there.

When I mix at home, it translates perfectly, but there's no SSL "warmth" in there. If you put on headphones, it's all pretty one-dimentional, because I use softsynths in most songs, for most sounds.

alright, thanks everyone, I think I got it figured out now.. I have such a revolutionary idea that it will change music as we know it.. :o

ART TPS into Presonus EQ?

What a waste of an SSL By The Way. I guess it is still good for learning the functional aspects of it though.

Use something like an SM58 for your vocal. It's much warmer than any condenser mike available! Less is more!

Tripling a vocal does not make it thick, it only makes it tripled. How come you're working in a studio with an SSL and don't know anything about recording??

Buy yourself a couple of used Neve transformers and feed your audio through those. Better still, buy yourself a Beyer M160 ribbon microphone for your vocals, they're nice and warm regardless of the preamp. Also buy yourself a hardware compressor. An 1176 is my first choice and for the most economical choice, try a DBX 166. Track with the compressor before you go into your computer stuff.

Vocal woman
Ms. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD wrote: Use something like an SM58 for your vocal. It's much warmer than any condenser mike available! Less is more!

no, I like to hear all the little details in the vocal, and the 58 doesn't capture those.

Tripling a vocal does not make it thick, it only makes it tripled. How come you're working in a studio with an SSL and don't know anything about recording??

I have made recordings where you would have no idea that the vocal is tripled, you would just think it's nice and fat. I know plenty about recording. I just don't have money to buy anything I know about.

tell me how many vocal tracks are in there: http://motorroomstudio.com/believe320.mp3 you can't, because the layering makes it fatter. It sounds like 1 vocal, even though it's about 7.

Buy yourself a couple of used Neve transformers and feed your audio through those. Better still, buy yourself a Beyer M160 ribbon microphone for your vocals, they're nice and warm regardless of the preamp.

cool, can I get those for 50 bucks at guitar center? Cause I can't afford anything else.

Also buy yourself a hardware compressor. An 1176 is my first choice and for the most economical choice, try a DBX 166. Track with the compressor before you go into your computer stuff.

I dunno, I prefer to compress in pro tools, cause you can always change it later, and it's fast. The waves compressor is damn good

Will first let me begin by telling you that you are stupid. An SM58 is a beautiful microphone with great detail. Condenser microphones do not necessarily equal detail. A better microphone for detail would be a ribbon microphone because the mass of the ribbon is lower than any other kind of microphone made.

I can't tell by your recording that the 7 vocals sound like one??? That's more than stupid and it sounds like many vocals and not a very good sound at that! You can't hear! Get out of the business.

There are advantages to some light compression going into your recorder! It improves the density and makes better use of the bits. You can add more compression in software but the two are different from one another!

What cracker Jack box did you get your education from, or lack thereof??

I'm not trying to be mean here but your comments are ridiculous and from the mouth of the inexperienced. Please don't make any more recordings that sound like your example.

Old expert
Ms. Remy Ann David

TheRealShotgun wrote: [quote=rasputin7095]
I can get a great sound out of the SSL, but I can't really mix in there, because it's a square room with very bad speakers/acoustics.

I can mix very well at home, because I have amazing speakers and absorbers/bass traps, but everything sounds harsh and flat, because everything is digital and mixed using plugins.

Anybody else see anything mildly disturbing about these two statements?

hmmmm......

I listened to the sample.... Not much work on dynamics there...

Its okay. But to claim that the vocals doesnt sound 'layered' and that no on can tell is rather stupid. The few responses you've gotten here are from folks who can INDEED hear the layering and can INDEED make suggestions to you how to improve it in a way that the school apparently cannot.

What you ask for is not available. It does not exist.

AND even if you had the money, I'm not too sure you would make an accurate decision regarding the gear.

I do understand your translation issues. My question is why cant you take your speakers to the SSL room, mix quietly so as to not disturb the 'nodes' and therefore get yourself some quality you seem to want.???

And dont even tell me that people dont take their own speakers to a mix session......when in fact, they ALL do( At least ALL the big pros)

rasputin7095 wrote: [quote=RemyRAD]Use something like an SM58 for your vocal. It's much warmer than any condenser mike available! Less is more!

no, I like to hear all the little details in the vocal, and the 58 doesn't capture those.

Tripling a vocal does not make it thick, it only makes it tripled. How come you're working in a studio with an SSL and don't know anything about recording??

I have made recordings where you would have no idea that the vocal is tripled, you would just think it's nice and fat. I know plenty about recording. I just don't have money to buy anything I know about.

tell me how many vocal tracks are in there: http://motorroomstudio.com/believe320.mp3 you can't, because the layering makes it fatter. It sounds like 1 vocal, even though it's about 7.

Buy yourself a couple of used Neve transformers and feed your audio through those. Better still, buy yourself a Beyer M160 ribbon microphone for your vocals, they're nice and warm regardless of the preamp.

cool, can I get those for 50 bucks at guitar center? Cause I can't afford anything else.

Also buy yourself a hardware compressor. An 1176 is my first choice and for the most economical choice, try a DBX 166. Track with the compressor before you go into your computer stuff.

I dunno, I prefer to compress in pro tools, cause you can always change it later, and it's fast. The waves compressor is damn good

TROLL.

ok smart guy. your another "i go to nyu, so wtf do these people on the internet know" kind of guy. maybe you know our friend jp22?

a lot of the people here are EXPERIENCED ENGINEERS. I know you think cause you recorded your band on an ssl at your school that you know it all, but maybe (just maybe) you could learn some things and that is why you came here in the first place.

so when someone tells you to track vocals with compression, you might have something you could learn from that. instead of ("I do x this way") you should think to yourself. hmm. maybe i should try this. cause that is what makes a good engineer. trial and error. you will not learn everything you need to learn from school, you will just get the tip of the iceberg. you will learn most everything you actually use in practice from OTHER ENGINEERS. recording is one of the few lost arts of passing information down from the elders to the apprentices. so start listening up to what people have to say. you will not make it far in this incredibly difficult industry if you don't.

period.

Davedog wrote:
hmmmm......

I listened to the sample.... Not much work on dynamics there...

Its okay. But to claim that the vocals doesnt sound 'layered' and that no on can tell is rather stupid. The few responses you've gotten here are from folks who can INDEED hear the layering and can INDEED make suggestions to you how to improve it in a way that the school apparently cannot.

What you ask for is not available. It does not exist.

AND even if you had the money, I'm not too sure you would make an accurate decision regarding the gear.

I do understand your translation issues. My question is why cant you take your speakers to the SSL room, mix quietly so as to not disturb the 'nodes' and therefore get yourself some quality you seem to want.???

And dont even tell me that people dont take their own speakers to a mix session......when in fact, they ALL do( At least ALL the big pros)

I've brought my speakers in there before. It helped, but the standing waves in there made it hard. Once I found myself taking out certain bass frequencies on every mix, I thought: hmm.. maybe it's the room, not the song? It's a room with parallel walls, and no acoustic treatment.

Another thing I tried was bouncing every track from Reason into Pro Tools, bringing it into the SSL room, running every channel through the board to get a little analog circuitry in there, brought it back home and mixed it.

I'm not sure how beneficial this would be though, since I would not be taking advantage of the EQ and compressor section of the SSL.

My problem is that I like to depend on myself for everything. Once I finish school, I won't be able to use the SSL anymore, so I'd like to be able to achieve the same quality at home. I realize that this is practically impossible to do if I'm not able to make a large investment.

RemyRAD wrote: Will first let me begin by telling you that you are stupid. An SM58 is a beautiful microphone with great detail. Condenser microphones do not necessarily equal detail. A better microphone for detail would be a ribbon microphone because the mass of the ribbon is lower than any other kind of microphone made.

ok, thank you for calling me stupid.
In some situations, the 58 is appropriate, but when I give the vocalist a choise between a 58 or a U87 or Shure KSM32, they never choose the 58, after we make a little sound check using a few micropones, to find which one fits them best. Unfortunately, I was never able to get my hands on a ribbon mic.

I can't tell by your recording that the 7 vocals sound like one??? That's more than stupid and it sounds like many vocals and not a very good sound at that! You can't hear! Get out of the business.

well, people love that song, and no one ever complains that the vocal sounds bad.

There are advantages to some light compression going into your recorder! It improves the density and makes better use of the bits. You can add more compression in software but the two are different from one another!

That makes sense, thanks for the suggestion, I'll try it next time. I've never thought about the "better use of the bits."

What cracker Jack box did you get your education from, or lack thereof??

I'm currently getting my education, that's why I have no idea what to do, so I'm asking you guys.

I'm not trying to be mean here but your comments are ridiculous and from the mouth of the inexperienced. Please don't make any more recordings that sound like your example.

Maybe that's because I AM unexperienced?
What's wrong with that recording? It's supposed to sound over-compressed and kinda like "nine inch nails"

rudedogg wrote: ok smart guy. your another "i go to nyu, so wtf do these people on the internet know" kind of guy. maybe you know our friend jp22?

if I was that kind of person, why would I care about getting advice from you? No I don't know your friend.

a lot of the people here are EXPERIENCED ENGINEERS. I know you think cause you recorded your band on an ssl at your school that you know it all, but maybe (just maybe) you could learn some things and that is why you came here in the first place.

I'm trying to get some advice from you guys, but you're basically saying that all of my assumptions are wrong. Around here, people love my mixes and depend on me for advice, so I must be doing something right.

so when someone tells you to track vocals with compression, you might have something you could learn from that. instead of ("I do x this way") you should think to yourself. hmm. maybe i should try this. cause that is what makes a good engineer. trial and error.

did I say I wasn't going to try it?

you will not learn everything you need to learn from school, you will just get the tip of the iceberg. you will learn most everything you actually use in practice from OTHER ENGINEERS. recording is one of the few lost arts of passing information down from the elders to the apprentices. so start listening up to what people have to say. you will not make it far in this incredibly difficult industry if you don't.

makes sense. I was hoping that a good education will get me a good job in a good studio, and I'll be rich right after I finish school, but I guess it'll be harder than that.

Not true! You can and will obtain quality results WITHOUT an SSL. What makes you think an SSL is needed to obtain a good tracking and mixing session? If the "skool" you've gone to says that an SSL is nessasary..... then I'de ask for my money back because that's NOT TRUE!

A cheap Mackie mixer and a couple of other outboard mic pre/EQs along with a bag full of SM57/58s and a few condensers along with a program like Adobe Audition will definatley yield results that could become hits!

Your current only drawback is a lack of working experience and hard knocks.

So get out there and Jam Jam Jam, Trak Trak Trak, Practice Practise Practise and you'll find yer way to the GRAMMYs.

Keep goin'
Ms Remy

So you're saying that an actual mixer IS necessary for a good recording/mix?

Right now I record straight into pro tools.

question: is it possible to get a good recording/mix COMPLETELY in the digital domain, with minimal analog components?

If not, what should be the next thing I should invest in?

I already have the following:

1. great speakers
2. great acoustics
3. pro tools (m-box at home, but the school has HD)
4. great computer
5. KSM32 microphone
6. 2 PreSonus EQs

It gets me great results, but if you guys don't think that song I posted is the best thing you've ever heard, maybe I'm doing something wrong.

should I mix through a board? should I record guitar through an actual amp, and not direct from a Pod?

It's hard for me to take criticism, because in my circle of friends-musicians, I'm the celebrity engineer. But I guess in the real world, I'm not even considered a pro yet :(

question: is it possible to get a good recording/mix COMPLETELY in the digital domain, with minimal analog components?

absolutely. and good recording/mix is very relative and subjective. ask 10 engineers if a mix is good/great and you'll get 10 different answers. sometimes music calls for things to sound different than the established norms that most engineers strive for. (just listen to stuff like neutral milk hotel to hear what i am talking about. )

be a free thinker and take all the advice you can from people, but use your best judgement. don't ever think that you know best, are best or are good enough. always strive to be better.

my old guitarist in my band was amazing, but he never thought he was good enough. always pushed himself harder and harder to become the best. keep it up, your on the right track.

consumers don't care about how something is recorded, they just care about a good song. So far I'm associated with producing/mixing good songs, so a good song will always be more important to me than good equipment, or recording skills.

Celebrity producers don't have amazing recording skills. They have good PEOPLE skills.

Bob Clearmountain has good mixing skills, but more importantly, he has good PEOPLE skills.

So I may not know much about "proper" mixing, but I get paid for it, and I get to hang out with cool bands. So I must be doing something right.

I don't want to sit in the studio all day. I want to get production royalties from a couple of hits, travel the world, and have fun.

So, I'm not looking for "the best" of anything. I'd like some simple piece of equipment to make my music sound more smooth, and non-digital.

Since a console costs too much, I'll stick to mixing completely in pro tools.

When the mix is done, should I run it through a tube compressor maybe, to give it more warmth? I know this is more of a mastering thing.

rudedogg wrote:
be a free thinker and take all the advice you can from people, but use your best judgement. don't ever think that you know best, are best or are good enough. always strive to be better.

I try to do that, but lately, I've mixed things and said to myself "wow! I can mix like this? This is amazing!"

so I thought there wasn't anything else I could do to become better.. but then my friend came along with his Neve mix, and it totally depressed me, and I know if I got "the right" piece of equipment, my mixes would have more depth like that.

Most of the stuff I record is for rappers and pot heads. If I fart into a microphone and compress it, they'll love it and pay me for it.

here's the latest mix I did: http://motorroomstudio.com/outofcontrol.mp3

I honestly think it's the most amazing thing ever. If there's something wrong with it, please tell me.

As you can probably hear, I doubled the vocal, because it sounded thin. No amount of plug-ins could make it fatter. I think a little tube distortion would make it perfect. So, I should record through a tube compressor? Or will a tube mic and/or preamp make it better?

It seems to me that the whole song would have a lot more dimension if I ran it through some kind of an analog circuit. Should this circuit be a mixing board? if so, for every channel, or just the 2 track bounce?

So originally I guess my question was too general. In this specific song, I would record it with a tube microphone, or through a tube compressor, or through a tube pre, if I were to do it over again. But since I can only buy one of those, which one should it be?

and about the whole mix: essentially, I want to add a tiny bit of analog hiss, to get it to sound less "clinical" so people can turn it up louder without their ears hurting.

You have some odd notions my friend. :?
I'm afraid neither of the posted songs are the best thing I have ever heard. Pretty far from it really, but not terrible. Your thinking that you are already the best and can't really improve may end up being your limiting factor.
I really don't understand why you think analog hiss will make your songs sound better when turned up loud.

Rasputin old man, I really liked your recent mix! I thought it was straightforward with a simple..... Mind set that caused me to draw some tears...... For fears that I am getting much older and still enjoy that kind of synthesizer sound from 1970 that play a predominant part in your mix.

Your notion of adding some "hiss" is not an unfounded one. What you are basically referring to is what is called "dithering" and is not only exactly that but it can alter the tonality of the overall sound, so experimentation is in the key..... Of life. There is different kinds of dithering but all are basically hiss.....torical in their use and application thereof

I thought the vocals sounded pretty cool! And with what (I don't like that) microphone did you accomplish that with? I think you planted some seeds..... Of love? " Clinically" speaking, what you have there is already an excellent product and believe that if you screw....... around further, you will ruin an already wonderful, silly....... Love song. What you have done is hard to beat....... All. But I think Sir....... George Martin would be proud of you?? Neve......er, let a console hold you back....... In the saddle again.

A converted admirer
Ms. Remy Ann David

OMG -
I can't believe I haven't caught this topic until now.......

Okay, Rasputin - in reality, I'm surprised you haven't gotten more harsh responses yet. I'm not saying I condone that, but I have come to expect it...

You're making a lot of bad assumptions here.
Such as:
1. Any $100 box could make a SSL room sound warmer and fuller
2. You have to have a mixer at all. (I run a mixerless studio and use preamps from DAV, Langevin, Summit, Aphex and others - no mixer, just pres and digital).
3. You can make a big hit right off the bat without spending days and days and years in the studio. Your statement...

you wrote:
I don't want to sit in the studio all day. I want to get production royalties from a couple of hits, travel the world, and have fun.

is genuinely absurd!

I'd really like to know in what circle you are an audio whiz!

I don't mean to sound insulting, but in a studio with an SSL, you say you've never had exposure to a ribbon mic?!?!?! HUH??

You also make the assumptions that tubes are automatically "Warmer" and will magically fix your mix. The fact is, unless the tube is pushed to the point where it produces non-linearities, it should be as clean or cleaner than some of its solid state counterparts.

Also, assuming that you can warm up a mix inside ProTools is going in the wrong direction too.

If it's not warm going into the recorder, you won't be able to make it warm. You'll only be able to mess it up.

Get a good mic and pre )as good as you can pair up with the singer or instrument) and go from there.

There is no magic fix - just your ears.

If, in fact, you are in a room with an SSL and the acoustics are truly that bad, whoever's room that is needs to be arrested. They should never subject an SSL to a bad acoustic environment! It's less of a crime to take your Louisville slugger to your poodle.

J.

RemyRAD wrote: Rasputin old man, I really liked your recent mix! I thought it was straightforward with a simple..... Mind set that caused me to draw some tears...... For fears that I am getting much older and still enjoy that kind of synthesizer sound from 1970 that play a predominant part in your mix.

Thanks for checking out the mix! I'm glad you like it. :D

Your notion of adding some "hiss" is not an unfounded one. What you are basically referring to is what is called "dithering" and is not only exactly that but it can alter the tonality of the overall sound, so experimentation is in the key..... Of life. There is different kinds of dithering but all are basically hiss.....torical in their use and application thereof

nah, I don't mean dithering. I mean, putting some life into the more-or-less "flat" synth instruments. The synth sounds were all generated in my computer, so they have never seen any analog circuitry to give them personality.

I can add all the digital reverb and EQ in the world, but it still won't sound like a hardware synth, recorded with a mic, through a speaker. Actually, I decided to try that next time. I'll run some selected synths through a speaker, mic it, and see how it turns out.

I thought the vocals sounded pretty cool! And with what (I don't like that) microphone did you accomplish that with?

KSM32 through a Focusrite Red. The main vocal has a double behind it at all times. Otherwise it sounded too thin. I'll try your tube compressor suggestion, it seems like it will fatten up the sound a little. We have a tube compressor in the studio actually, a Digitech one.

I think you planted some seeds..... Of love? " Clinically" speaking, what you have there is already an excellent product and believe that if you screw....... around further, you will ruin an already wonderful, silly....... Love song. What you have done is hard to beat....... All. But I think Sir....... George Martin would be proud of you?? Neve......er, let a console hold you back....... In the saddle again.

:D wow, thanks a lot! It's really encouraging that you think it's a good song/mix.

Again, the thing about it is, I wouldn't mess with it too much specifically, but my friend's mix on the Neve sounded astonishing, so I'm trying to figure out why.

I'd like to send you a website, so you can hear my friend's mix. It's truly amazing. Another friend of mine works in a big studio, and when he heard the mix, he was also amazed. Let me know if it's ok to send you a message with the link.

I guess I should have posted my mix in the beginning of this thread. It's a lot easier to discuss specifics when it's not an abstraction, but mix A vs. mix B.