I'm very much in favor of the discussion.

It just discourages me that nobody wants to take the time to experiment anymore. Getting there is half the fun. Those are all good instrument mics, now get busy and do the best you can with what you've got.

It doesn't answer the OP's question, but my personal preference lately for tracking a bass guitar (subject to change at any time) is to not use a mic or a bass amp in most cases for the kind of music I usually do.

But I'm in favor of whatever best serves the song;

Mic it, don't mic.
Mic the bass amp in a vocal booth, mic it in a bigger room, mic it outdoors
Reverb, no reverb
Re-amp and give yourself some options at mixdown, or not.

Just don't be afraid to try something different and do it again, and again, and again until you're happy with it. Then try 12 more methods for good measure, you might find something you like even better. Experiment, especially in a home studio where you're not paying by the hour. Anyone who has done this very long knows moving the mic, or the cabinet, a little bit can make a world of difference.

i have almost always used both di and a mic on cab method for recording bass. my preference is a 421 for that app but as dvdhawk said, those are all good mics. and he's also right; just start recording and if you have the time and energy, do experiment.

but..... a good chef cleans up as they go.
the concept of absolute isolation of flat dry direct injected tracks / putting off decisions while tracking to make them at mix, is; (to put it kindly) a mistake (not so kind) amateurish (worst) the territory of a control freak!

and sometimes moving the mic or cab a little bit does make a huge difference. other times it doesn't. sometimes true and sometimes not. it all depends on what else is happening in the room. a lot of the charm of the old Chess recordings comes not from what was miked but what wasn't.

if the recording is going to live or die due to one instrument having the best tone ever, then perhaps there's something else wrong?

producers / recordists should learn to make a decision and stick with it. i think that's called skill. after 40 + years of recording i pretty much know what sounds good to me and to be quite frank i am not that willing to change my ways just because it's the method du jour.

the idea of recording an instrument flat into a line input of a digital recorder and then running it through some plug ins or amp farm and digital reverb to make it sound like it was played in a room is an approach that i hope will be abandoned once people realize how crappy that sounds.

soul.

mics & pre amps / discreet electronics and iron or nickel transformers ... these things have soul.

digital converters and amp simulators in computers are void of soul. sterile as a mule.

it's the difference between moms home fried chicken or McD's nuggets.

i don't like nuggets. just my two cents.

mmmmmph! arrrghhhhh! suicide ahhhhsh*zt!

Kurt Foster, post: 395131 wrote: ...(SNIP) the idea of recording an instrument flat into a line input of a digital recorder and then running it through some plug ins or amp farm and digital reverb to make it sound like it was played in a room is an approach that i hope will be abandoned once people realize how crappy that sounds. no soul

mics & pre amps / discreet electronics and iron or nickel transformers ... these things have soul. digital converters and amp simulators in computers don't.
it's the difference between moms home fried chicken or McD's nuggets.

James Jamerson recorded his bass direct just about all the time. Seems to me he had just a little bit of soul. In fact, even many of the guitar parts in Motown were recorded direct. Of course, they are going through iron and nickel and (in the early days) tubes - just no paper speaker. That's why I said at the beginning - if you WORK at your direct sound, it can provide a really solid foundation for recorded bass. Right now, I'm liking the UA 4-710d, but of course, I'm playing with flats and don't need a lot of pop and sizzle. But a lot of people who want that sound go for things like the Avalon U5 and the REDDI.

Bob
i'm in no position to comment on that. i wouldn't know. Ohlson would be the one to ask. i had always heard that Jamerson used an Ampeg Porta Flex ... and on many songs like "My Guy" he played stand up.

i would also point out that there were lots of open mics in a small confined space at Hitsville. whole lot 'o spill goin' on.

also they used 2/3/4 or 8 tracks for many of those recordings... lots of sub mixing and decisions being made.

actually Hitsville is the perfect example. as i said before if the recording lives or dies due to the sound of one instument then there's somthing else wrong.

Attached files

It must be true. I [="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jamerson#Jamerson.27s_equipment"]read it on the internet.[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"]read it on the internet.[/] I think that one source of this "fact" is [[url=http://="http://www.amazon.c…"]Slutsky's book[/]="http://www.amazon.c…"]Slutsky's book[/] on Jamerson. There are several pictures of him playing live with the B-15, but I don't recall ever seeing one in the studio. Though, as you say, lots of bleed...but since they were mixing direct to one or two tracks, who cared.

I think the general point of making a decision and committing to it (as opposed to endless tinkering) is a good one. But part of that is a matter of experience - with a particular room, particular instruments, particular pieces of equipment, and, of course, with recording in general.

I have no doubt that you're ALL very good at what you do. People that do this well are usually very passionate about doing it, and always learning. However, I doubt you got to the level you're at by reading a book, or trying to assimilate content from the internet. What's wrong with encouraging a home-recording hobbyist to put in the time developing their own judgement? Personal opinions and preferences on the internet aside, there's a fundamental difference between knowledge and information. Kurt has learned what works for him. Chris has learned what works for him. Bob has learned what works for him. I've learned what works for me. All different, but equally valid approaches. And I think we all know when to alter our default approach based on the circumstances. We've all paid our dues, and had to learn that by doing it somewhere along the way. That's all I want for the OP.

And I'm not suggesting recording a shitty sound bass and fixing it later. I've said "once he's got a good PreAmp / DI track recorded bass track - he can always use a relatively inexpensive re-amp box to add a mic track without worrying about bleeding into the other tracks". I stand by that and encourage him to try some different things to learn on his own, and find what works for him.

The fact my personal personal direct bass chain includes a winding or two - Avalon U5 / TL Audio tube compressor / Klark parametric / dbx 160x doesn't do the OP in the "Microphones Forum" any good. But to my point, I have a several high-endish hardware pre-amps and compressors that cost a helluva lot more than the U5, I've tried them all with bass guitar. I learned that the U5 sounds better to my ears, with my bass, in my given style of music. But along the way I learned what character the other pres gave the bass and now have that knowledge cataloged in my brain rather than on my computer. So next time I know, 'let's skip that one and go to this one'. I am as efficient as anyone with mic-placement and getting the tone I want before I hit Record. I learned how to do that.

Nothing but respect for you all. I'm tagging out.

i love the enthusiasm everyone here exhibits and i'm all for discussion too. all approaches are valid. just some are better ...lol.

but really if something works then i'm all in favor of doing it. along the way, i have recorded bass with and without mics ... live in the room with other amps blasting away and direct into a console. i really prefer live tracks recorded in one room with a lot of players at the same time. there really is a ju ju magic that occurs when it's done live bleed and all. what do think they meant when they said "Let it Bleed" ??

something about the time it takes for one player to hear another player in the room along with the live interactions between fine musicians. there just no substitution for that. bleed / spill should be a minor consideration not something that winds up compromising a performance. talent, song and performance always outweigh recording technique. a good recordist should know how to stay out of the way.

these guys have the right idea.
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.sonicsco…"]Daptone, Home Grown: Gabe Roth’s Cottage Industry of Soul : SonicScoop – Creative, Technical & Business Connections For NYC[/]="http://www.sonicsco…"]Daptone, Home Grown: Gabe Roth’s Cottage Industry of Soul : SonicScoop – Creative, Technical & Business Connections For NYC[/]

check the cramped conditions and close proximity of the players in the live room there.

i just love the idea they have about recording to 8 tracks. perhaps that's part of the problem. too much tech available to people who don't understand the approach of just recording / performing piece correctly in the first place ... too much i'll fix it later / i like to have my options blah blah blah blah ...

just read what Shel Talmy had to say.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep09/articles/classictracks_0909.htm

"Today, when engineers have unlimited tracks to work with, what a lot of them don’t get is that decisions do have to be made at some point. We had to figure out how to balance things then and there, and if something worked out fine it was, apparently, because we had an ear for it. Certainly, with all of those extra mics the sound was infinitely better controlled than it would have been without them, and we were always breaking new ground because no one had done what we were doing back then. Anything went, and while a lot of things didn’t work, a lot of things did. Of course, the equipment was primitive by today’s standards, but we pushed it, and doing that was a hell of a lot more fun, quite frankly, than having everything at your fingertips.”

i have never had a problem with mixing tracks that were recorded live. spill on a bass track or other tracks that were recorded at the same time has never been an issue for me. while i still think spill is a good thing i have always gotten plenty of separation / isolation. i line the amps all up in a row and stick some type of gobo between them. i also always take a decent di signal from the bass to capture the extreme low end and i have been known to use the direct to re amp the bass or even repace the original amp track by re amping and re miking through a different amp or cab. or with a different tone. but i always do both di and mic the amp when tracking the live rhythm tracks.

of course i have never been a room mic freak either.

mmmmph! arrghhhhh! suicideahhhhhh!

Attached files

One man's apple pie is another man's cheesecake. Or sumthin....

I think its a very good thing to experiment during the 40 year apprenticeship we are all still going through, its this sort of training that gets us the "go-to" technique that never fails. At least it provides us with a starting place for any style or type of recording that we might undertake.

One thing I have found as far as an important and valid point of reference, ALWAYS have a dedicated and thoroughly tested recording path for , A: Vocals, especially lead vocals, and B: Bass instruments.

I say "bass instruments" simply because the micing technique for a Tuba or an Upright Doghouse is vastly different than an Electric Bass Guitar. Electric Bass Guitar played by the Neanderthal of the Rock Band is an EVEN DIFFERENT animal altogether. So it goes too, with vocalists in general.

But the STARTING POINT of the recording can be something you can rely on when the meter is running and developing and honing this skill is something that will last for your career.....whatever that is.....

For me, and this may seem funny, but when I am Meester Eng-gin-ear, I always record the bass with a DI of some sort and a mic if I have the time. Now some players come in and have a preference and if they are relatively skilled and seasoned players, I will always take their direction on this. Some even bring their own amplification devices and that suits me just fine. It enables me to assess many more options than the ones I can afford to pay the electricity for. However, and this is the other side of the coin, when I am Bassist Lord of the Underworld (which I am) I ALWAYS use just a DI. Mostly because I'm lazy. I will mic my amp but never both for my own useage. I have three or four go-tos that have served me for a lot of years. It wasnt long ago that I had a bass preamp in the rack for just such things. Those are pretty darned handy when you want a bass to sound like a bass on short notice. The SWR Interstellar Overdrive or the Alembic F-1X or F-2B as well as the Demeter are fine examples of great bass preamps to have in a rack. Having a dedicated use pre certainly cuts down on the indecisive searching for that elusive bass sound. I dont have one now, I primarily use the DI feature on my ADK AP-2 pre, or the DI off of my TC Electronics B500 bass head. Which has become the go-to around here. First, you can run it without a load. Nice. Second, it has a very comprehensive set of EQ controls as well as special features stuff like tube-tone, tweeter-tone, and a damn good compressor. It is TC after all...they should know by now how to build this kinda stuff. This has another benefit in that you can run a cabinet and the DI out of one unit....I did mention the lazy factor didnt I??? Plus it sounds good if a Neanderthal shows up with an SVT cabinet.

I agree 123.7% about the plethora of choices actually being a detriment to the quality of the recording. I dont care how much DSP processing power you have or how many tracks you can generate, one perfectly performed, perfectly mic'd, perfectly tonal within the context of the song, and perfectly placed in the mix will always trump something that needs 29 tracks to stand on its own. I made a lot of 16 track records. Some of them still sound good sonically. Most of the songs sound like "what were you thinkin????" (actually 'what were we drinkin.....or smokin...'.). Dont get me wrong it takes a tremendous talent to deal with a bunch of tracks. Long hours editing and comping....and maybe its worth it in some cases.....When I start approaching 35 tracks I know I have some deleting to do.

There's one thing I've learned, and interestingly enough I continue to learn and have it affirmed nearly every time the red light goes on.....The minute I think I know what works, and works without a doubt, it doesnt.

tech 21 sans amp serves me quite well at the studio. we'll mic it up w/ a d112 or 421 sometimes as well. i think maybe ive used artificial receive on a bass once in 10 years.

I agree building/owning a studio is a money pit, and an extremely challenging way to turn a profit, after all it's record labels that are rich, not musicians. But, i would personally way rather drop 10k of some drywall and 2x6's, than on the latest platuim, tdm bundle. that bundle is now obselete for the state of the art pluggin format rewrite. But yet a nice sounding room, would still be standing strong, and be just as relevant 30 years into the future.

like i told my boss before i built the studio, it's alot eiser to upgrade a computer, or add new rack toys, than is is to re-do construction. haven't rewached for a verb for anything but vocals in 2 years. there's something satisfying about just pushing up the faders for room sound, instead of mousing around a pluggin window. i love plugins, i'm no purist to anything, analog digital, replaced drums, whatever, this is art. it'd be like a painter saying oh, i don't use red...it's not as good as the other colors. and even if he did, that's their prerogative.

The problem isn't what people have, dead tiny closet, mixng on headphones, it's people being use to hearing shoddy recordings, and people now knowing how to use what they have got. I;f you live on a second floor one room apartment next to some railroad tracks, well your gonna need to probably use samples. If your lucky enough like me to have open access to a six room studio, w/ a house drum kit, amps, and mics. well i'm not gonna be step sequencing drum beats unless the project needs that. There's no excuses. i can mic some pillows and get a pro drum sound w/ drummagogg, provided i'm tastefull w/ the mixing.

The problem is people seem unwilling to want to learn the fundementals. even at schools, it's all about software manipulation. i talked to a kid who took like a 6mo. recording program and they spent 1 week on micing a kit. one week. Maybe it's just cuz of the work that's been available, but i make as much money problem solving, and the like, than i do recording music.

adversity and limitations lead to invention. have to figure out which cable is busted in the middle of the bands set. make a good mix sub becuase you have only a few tracks. here's a new one, have the vocalist sing in pitch. Recordists are doing musicians a diservice by comping 30 takes and every syllable. You don't have to be a hardass about it, but isn't it part of our job to get the best possible performace tracked, then tweak it? People feel real good when they do something they didn't know they were capable of (after they get over being angry at you for making them do it :). i know it's all relative, but modern rock and roll sucks big time for the most part, becuase people can't leave the comtuer stuff alone. it has no sack, no firey emotion, no flavor ya know? i mean how many times is nickleback gonna release the same sound song, w/ the same samples? Electronic music is a different animal, it's supposed to be 'perfect' but that is what fans connect w/ that pulse, the layering of sounds woven in and out (w/ is a facsinating part in itself.

I think new people just are overwhelmed w/ toys, and think cuz t.pain did it, well they need to. well it's the innovators who always have the most success in art. Maybe it's because i got into right at the very end of when 4 tracks casesste machines were being sold in stores, so i was forced to use mics/sub mixing, 1 effect. maybe i'd feel differently if most of my work wasn't w/ live mucisians. But all i know is when i finally got a cpu powerful enough to run 20 plugins, i did, and my mixes sucked for w while, till someone pointed out to me, the question of if i was just using the effx cuz i could. turns out i like the sound of the raw tracks, w/ a splash of stuff on couple buses, much better. it sounded more real. So i agree w/ keep it simple, especially at first. you gotta know how to swing a hammer before you go building a house.

i see live recording making a huge comeback. evrything i read, is oh we wanted to do it live, and w/ limitied tracks. people are sick of one up at a time i think. which is why i encouraged a studio design that catered to that. the 'oh crap' when they hear their drums never gets old. and while we generally keep the instruments isolated, so we have the option of overdubbing, the energy from a good band wailing on the other side of the glass is not the same any other way, it's more interesting for me as an engineer and music fan, and i think it's much more comfortable for a lot of bands who are used to playing together every weekend. the studio becomes a really nice sounding practice space w/ mics, as opposed to this laboratory, where each player goes under the microscope individually. depends on the situation, i think its the knowledge of knowing what approach would be best, and the best way to execute that approach. that's where experience is unrivaled, and most of you have lots more than i do, i'm always learning.

i think people any age need to have an open mind. if someone comes in and wants to sound like cher yodeling thru antares, you either do it, or you don't, but i don't know too many average engineers in the position to turn down work cuz of taste preferences. and i'm also getting a little sick of dudes like phil who i work w/, always saying how good everything he 'use to have' was. well ya know what we don't have 4 la3's, and a u47 serial number 59, so get over it and make music w/ what ya got. ya know life does go on after the ssl e series and 50 thousand dollar tape machines. if it really was that good, it wouldn't have gotten sold. i wish it didn't get sold lol, but still, it's like get over it, and get to making music.

interesting stuff everyone. cheers!
-kyle

Nice points and a fun topic. So here I go with an observation and some brassy edge to rial up the crowd lol, intended to just make us think.

There is a lot hypocrisy in this business. More evident from people out of touch. And more in the recording business than I ever imagined. How do you guys even keep busy I ask?
I read posts from so many expressing how plug-ins are replacing hardware in the same topic about room acoustic from purest. So I have to ask which plug-ins and why, or even better, compared to what and how did you come to this conclusion? Is your opinion hearsay from another person similar to your tastes and recording methods or did you actually compare this with the real deal and in what contexts. I mean, what gear did you use? What kind of song? Maybe a song that was poorly produced. or not your idea of talent? Maybe you don't know the difference when its done well? After all, we notice mistakes.

Kurt, just recently said, "The cat is out of the bag" I am selling my hardware because a $500 bundle, laptop and some software is good enough.
And once 64bit hits, OTB may be obsolete.
http://recording.org/studio-lounge/53339-recording-gear-off-shore-manufacturing-like.html

I know you're half fun but, full earnest and truthfully I kind of believe you are finally realizing something that I've known was 34 years coming. Thus, why and how I learned what I know too.
Yet, all of sudden a processor like a Bricasti (something I doubt many here have even heard), is lame. And if you used it kurt, I'd have to ask, for what song? Show me and prove to me that you actually used it on the appropriate kind of song. And don't give me the old school is the best way. Your music is better than what? . Lets leave it at that, I really don't need proof or an explanation. I just want us to know there are more ways to finish a song and its not always about acoustics. This business is about sounds. Sounds rule. Sounds attract youth. Sound is what attracted me to music. The sound and effects are what inspired me to learn. Sounds date you like clothes do. Maybe we don't care how we look, maybe we do.

To me "right" is what works, pays the bills and keep more of "what ever you are doing "right" , coming day after day. This business is about trends and sounds. But that's my take on it. So does this make me right? Who's right?

And even though live music may be returning ( please please please), computer generated music and technology isn't slowing down. I guarantee the music that makes the most profit and what attracts the new generation will always be including cutting edge technology. Its been like this since the electric guitar and definitely since I started making money in the business 34 years ago.

Did you all know that a DAW (Pro Tools) is really just a multitrack sampler?
This all started a least 34 years ago.
When did Pro Tools start up?

I'm not trying to pick a fight or act like I know it all. I merely bringing up a really evident point.
Being the devils advocate:
How can one plug-in be good to you but a digital reverb all of a sudden is lame? Lame as in, lame compared to ? and for what type of music are we talking about and for what engineering style or production? Maybe just the kind of music you only are able to produce, within your skill or tools or that you like, think is the best?
I really don't follow how we make the rules up as we go.

This reminds me of Mitt Romney lol.

fire away!

And on a side note, look at this dated gem soon to be another part of history.

There is something to say about real or the basic but there are other things that just aren't worth holding on to because times are changing. You'd be crazy to buy something like this IMO.
http://recording.org/buy-sell-used-recording-equipment/53541-euphonix-system-5-for-sale.html#post395243

the question is what's good and what's good enough. is the latest 3700 dollar reverb good enough? i'd bet YES! (and kudos to you for getting one i am super envious!)

is a real room better? i'd venture always. even without hearing what a Bricasti does (i admit i am a bit out of the loop) i can equivocally say there's going to be some new super duper box or plug in or update come along in the near future that will blow it out of the water. the manufacturers always have to have the next big thing, waiting in the wings. it's how it is.

there have been life changing moments for me in my career in audio. one of them was when i built my first big room to record in and i heard what could be done in a real acoustic space. no only as a space for musicians to play in but used as an effect. Bill Putnam had it right all those years ago. i wonder what he would say today?

i love great reverbs . the variety of sounds and effects they can offer can be very liberating.i invested bucket load in some. at one time i had lexi's up the tuchass. pcm 60/70/80/90 and that was when 90's were the latest. had an eventide hd3000 too. none of them sounded as good as a pair of pa speakers in the live room miked up with a Neumann or my C24. "one mans cheesecake" as some one just said.

i especially liked what kmetal had to say about a room lasting forever while the latest reverb box will be next weeks door stop. i seen 'em come, i seen 'em go. nothing beats real imho.

hey,

I agree with all you said and I am actually planning on building an acoustic room at the lake. But you miss the point over and over. There is more to recording than a mic and one room sound, or a room sound, especially when it comes to the pop and electronic culture. But I'm getting the feeling this isn't considered music or "recording" to some so its going right over our heads. There is a sound that a live room has that can sound dated. I don't care how great your room is, it doesn't mean it fits the mold for every song, sound, voice or instrument on the planet.
The open sound of Bruce Springsteen comes to mind. Pretty hard to get bottom end punch on that bleed. But to some, that's the most glorious sound, yet to me, it would kill me if that's all I could ever get or if that was my sound all the time. In fact, that real sound is about as bad as it gets. You are talking about bring in the band, set up and record. I'm not. I'm talking about fixing or avoiding that. But if you really need that sound or facility, there is always a good church available, a StudioLive 24.4.2 and a laptop. So simple and so 70's sounding. And feasible.

I'm just trying to make a point that not everyone here is shooting for the sound of the 70's or vinyl as an entire mix. Generally speaking, Talk about studios going broke. Who can compete these days. I know there is a place for that (more like samples or recording demo's for broke musician or the old timers band), but it isn't my kids bag or their friends music. And its never been mine and I am in my 50's. However, I love sitting back and playing my old albums but its not where my head is at when it comes to the music business and putting my kids through college.
I think we get performance confused with electronics in topics like this as well. And I don't think anyone here thinks of their DAW as a sampler.

howdy

The Pop and electronically based and generated music is simply one style of production out of many. Is it better than the Zac Brown Band and their obviously Roots oriented sound and their throwback nod to Southern Rock with a big dose of Austin Country in it? It is feeding the families of their team and probably setting up their kids to go to college without a problem. If the bottom line of work for hire and making money is the point of a persons participation in this business, and is the underlying motivation AND they are successful at it, then kudos and regards! I'm not a person who thinks one way is better than another, but these days there are SO MANY WAYS, it would be a long day in hell to try and attempt to conquer them all. It would seem that the best course of action would be to perfect what you like and what you know works for you and then perhaps bring elements of other techniques to the table. Its like the Jazz guys playing the Blues, or the 70's Rock God guitarists all playing Modern Country mostly because it pays the bills.

Hey, its ALL good. We get to geek out on gear and listen to music traveling through the air into our capture devices and then manipulate it to our sense of taste brought about by our individual experiences and expertise. And all it costs us is an arm and a leg to do it well. My education in this business is well over a million at this point. And I have no idea what I'm doing, but I sure love it.

That being said, as a comparative exercise, especially referring to being "out of touch", there's a HUGE movement in artists to reattain that big studio room sound. It IS moving towards live recording in many cases, though not so much with the pure 'Pop" and electronica.....I mean why bother with that format, its unneeded...the 70's sound is still alive and well and its a good thing that the marvelous reverbs and production devices all include algorhythms that encompass rooms of all sizes and shapes. Room emulations are included in these devices for a reason.

arrrrgh! how can i make a connection, get you to understand what i am trying to communicate. ???

when you have an acoustic environment you are NOT stuck with one sound. if the room(s) is (are) decent, you can modify it in all sorts of ways. you can make a live room dead but you can't make a dead room live. you can make a large room sound small but you can't make a small room sound large. it's just another tool. i look forward to the day you do build a live room at the lake ... i can hear it already; "i never realized what a live room could do for my recordings. i have to reconsider a lot of what i have thought before." i've seen you do this many times before.

there are lots of recordings recorded live that have plenty of punch. i have seen 'em come and go and the live room approach is returning with a vengeance. Green Day, just recorded a 3 cd set in there studio in Oakland CA using live rooms. it would take me 10 minutes to come up with 10 more bands doing the same. it's what's happinin' baby!

you are correct in assuming that i have difficulty in viewing a lot of the modern electronic stuff these days as real music. i have a significant distaste for rap / hip hop. i can't even keep up with all the sub genres' it all pretty much sounds like the same stuff to me. btw it's not cutting edge. it's already here. don't think you are hip doing the kind of music your kids listen to. you are just jumping on the band wagon. in ten years no one and i mean no one will be listening to it. they will still be playing tom petty, elo, roy orbison, elvis, springsteen records. and i don't think anyone would say the records from STAX in the 60's and 70's lacked punch.

the stuff from today that will live on will be the records that were recorded by real songwriters like [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.google.c…"]L.P.[/]="http://www.google.c…"]L.P.[/] with real bands in real rooms. the common thread is REAL. Springsteen still sells records and tickets. Skrillix is a flash in the pan in comparison. more of a fashion icon who makes organized noises than a musician. a button pushing monkey. in 20 years people will still be listening to and buying Beatles records (that which by the way were recorded in live rooms with spill etc and still have plenty of punch).

and let's not forget the largest selling / radio play genre' out there country music is all mostly exclusively recorded with live musicians in large live room studios.

all meant with love and affection;

Do you really think im so stupid and disputing a real acoustic room isnt of value?

I'm trying to educate you on a product and area of music where it serves well lol.

I agree with all you've said, my point from the very beginning here was disagreeing that your way is better and simply pointing out that something like a Bricasti is close enough and in some ways better for certain styles of music.

Sent from my iPhone

audiokid, post: 395264 wrote: Do you really think im so stupid and disputing a real acoustic room isnt of value?

I'm trying to educate you on a product and area of music where it serves well lol.

I agree with all you've said, my point from the very beginning here was disagreeing that your way is better and simply pointing out that something like a Bricasti is close enough and in some ways better for certain styles of music.

Sent from my iPhone

no chris i do not think you are stupid. i apologize if you think what i wrote was insulting. i didn't mean it to sound that way.

as far as educating me or others, that's great but i guarantee you that the bricasti will be outdated some day. it's just another box. something "better" will coming along. there's more to music and recording than the latest piece of equipment. the same things you say / tout / brag on about the bricasti was said years ago about the Lexicon 224. same song, different tune. second verse, same as the first. i'm takling about method, not product promotion /placment. sometimes you make it sound like all that matters is the equipment.

i guess i could have been insulted when you wrote this;

I'm just trying to make a point that not everyone here is shooting for the sound of the 70's or vinyl as an entire mix. Generally speaking, Talk about studios going broke. Who can compete these days. I know there is a place for that (more like samples or recording demo's for broke musician or the old timers band), but it isn't my kids bag or their friends music. And its never been mine and I am in my 50's. However, I love sitting back and playing my old albums but its not where my head is at when it comes to the music business and putting my kids through college.

the "broke musicians and old timers" crack is kind of pejorative don't you think?

for me this recording thing is more than making money and you could do worse than to pay a little attention to what us old geezers have to offer. much of it is just as relevant today as it was in the '70's.

Topic is getting way too sensitive. Do what you need to do to get the sound you want. Ideally using the acoustic environment to get the sound you need would be awesome. There's empty silos, warehouses, barns that I would love to record in. I think that's part of being an audio engineer in the traditional sense. There was a science involved at one time. Now that there are machines and plugins, not so much science except at the developers lab. At any rate, I thought I'd add this wrench for the conversation:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.pro-tool…"]Top Producer Puts A Spanner In Most Of Our Acoustic Posturing - Pro Tools Tips, Tricks & More... - Pro Tools Expert Blog[/]="http://www.pro-tool…"]Top Producer Puts A Spanner In Most Of Our Acoustic Posturing - Pro Tools Tips, Tricks & More... - Pro Tools Expert Blog[/]

You don't have to agree with it necessarily. I'm not particularly a fan of Jeff Lynne but it's interesting at least.

A person's choice as to their particular business model doesn't necessarily dictate that this is whats best for anyone else.

As I have stated over and over, kudos to anyone who can make a decent living at this business and I personally dont care one bit whether they record in a basement, on a converted barge on a river ( ! ), or in a dedicated control room with just a vocal booth, or at Abbey Road. The location, the gear used, the techniques employed, and the style and type of music being produced is only relative to that person at that moment in time.

Capturing a source is all about the moment.

Electronic based music including the highly stylized and formulaic pop that we hear on the pop radio and video TV doesnt require a dedicated sound room other than a quality mixing environment and a couple of booths with decent acoustics for possible live drums and definately vocals. In my research of this, they are STILL generally producing this kind of music in very very good rooms even though its doubtful that they are using the live rooms as was done in the past. BUT they are still having to "capture the moment" at some point in the process.

Great tools will obviously enable an editor to fashion whatever level of quality is necessary for the project to become a professional release with the ability to fill the bottom line for the producer, artist, and the record company. These days we see the business of this style of music also including to a LARGE degree, fashion and media blitz on a level that makes it seem to be a part of everyones everyday lives. Whether we like it or not. Media exposure is rampant and more likely to break an artist, even one of questionable talent level, than any one piece of gear or even the environment which it was produced in. But lets be honest....your Justins, and Gagas and all of these mainstream pop artists ARE recording in great rooms with highly skilled staffs, wonderful gear, and very savvy producers at the wheel.

These producers know how to use a room, much as Kurt has described, and aren't going to base their decisions on types reverbs in the racks or emulations of rooms available to them through high-end software. Of COURSE they use these tools, but they use them in the context of the studio they choose to make their products in. And I guarantee they choose great live rooms to start with.

hueseph, post: 395271 wrote: Topic is getting way too sensitive. Do what you need to do to get the sound you want. Ideally using the acoustic environment to get the sound you need would be awesome. There's empty silos, warehouses, barns that I would love to record in. I think that's part of being an audio engineer in the traditional sense. There was a science involved at one time. Now that there are machines and plugins, not so much science except at the developers lab. At any rate, I thought I'd add this wrench for the conversation:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.pro-tool…"]Top Producer Puts A Spanner In Most Of Our Acoustic*Posturing - Pro Tools Tips, Tricks & More... - Pro Tools Expert Blog[/]="http://www.pro-tool…"]Top Producer Puts A Spanner In Most Of Our Acoustic*Posturing - Pro Tools Tips, Tricks & More... - Pro Tools Expert Blog[/]

You don't have to agree with it necessarily. I'm not particularly a fan of Jeff Lynne but it's interesting at least.

I watched that and it was awesome. I agree with him on so many levels.Its kinda where I like to go with production.

i love Jeff Lynne.

stuck in the past

Kurt,

I am.an old geezer and I'm in my 50's. :) I don't think we are going to change each other. Too old yes?
I'm sorry I'm coming at you hard. But I don't buy the real room thing as mentioned for all styles. Especially in this economy and especially for certain styles of music or engineering or levels. Thats what I keep saying here. And to clarify a bit more, I'm speaking (mixing). Send it to me and I will get it Pop sounding or clean up the mess. Lets leave it at that.

You do sound pretty old /dated to me, sorry, just being honest. You're the one who is stuck, not me. You go on about the old days, but on the other hand, talk about how plug-ins are going to take out analog and then attack a proven world class processor like the Bricasti, something you've never even used. Whats that all about? Kind of confusing and surprising, and so I ask how do you know this? For what style of music are we talking about and I get Green Day or Tom Petty and more smear.

I know many here don't have appreciation for electronic music and Pop, that's cool. I usually don't even go there. But since we're on the topic, I've been into Pop my entire life so I get it. Its a lot more involved that some may think. Some people here may appreciate pop and want to learn some tricks so I speak my mind as always, and share my information for them. I speak from experience. There is no guess work going on over this debate. I'm not here to convince or convert you or anyone. Take it or leave it..

I'm proud to defend alternative ways to make music. In fact, that's what I want to hear. Give me attitude over perfection any day. There is no right way to me. We use what we have and if all ya got is a small studio, and your acoustics aren't ideal, well the next best thing might be a dead room with a Bricasti. I'll say it again. Dead bass is the way I like it. No paper for me. And replacing it with a sample or synth even better.

I don't know about the USA but I don't see the big studio business growing in the direction like you talk about here. And the economy is booming where I live. The only potential clients that would pay for what you are talking about are record companies or the old time bands including starving musicians that want a deal as usual. It would take a lot of them to pay for a large acoustic room like you are planning on or describing. So again, a Bricasti fits that bill!
If the economy picks up and the "70's sound returns, well I'll be the first guy here to open up a full size studio. I've got 70 microphones just waiting. That would be a dream come true for me.

Its my nature to razz a bit. Especially on subjects I'm really confident about. After all, I'm not only perfect, I'm Canadian.

All in fun.

BTW. Gaga's and several others success is directly tied to Nadir Kayat or RedOne as he's called. Check out his setting. It certainly lends credence to some of Chris' take on types of production, but theres still a very good room involved.

As far as Jeff Lynnes' room....ie: his house....lots of surfaces and really REALLY great outboard and mics. Not a reverb person nor a compression person.

What I see growing for a lot of us. Bands or solo artists recording in small studios ( home studios) that send their rough mixes to professional studios with guys like me able to add some mojo to their mixes, including remixes and sound replacement.

Dave, Reverb isn't big on vocals right now , delay and layering is. Dead sounding lead vocals is what I'm hearing, with a touch of space like a Bricasti or plug-in. Reverb in huge in VSTi where I sit.

The Bricasti is awesome as a 2-bus finishing tool, especially rough mixes. Its the last piece of gear in my chain, I wish I had a few actually.
An H8000 is on my 2013 wish list. Maybe should have bought that first, erk money..

As much as you all despise this, this is one way I have been working with people for 30 years. An MPC, Keyboards and the artist. Wonderful way to write.
Its not the only way I work, but its how you do it.

really interesting to see the twists and turns this thread has taken. i could see this being split into at least 3 different topics.
chris i would love to hear some of the dub step you are doing. would you post a link or two?

as far as gaga not my cuppa but she is cutting edge controversial and making a lot more money than i am. i still think gaga / dubsteps and the like is more fashion and dance oriented. more for the clubs than for kickin back and smokin' a bowl or having a beer. i shuder to think about somone listeing to it while driving.

went to the ewe-toobe and did a search on dubstep ... listened. disturbing.

hey! hey! ....get off my lawn ...

Okay after a nights sleep and an EarthQuake I'm still up for this chat,

Once again, right over your head. You are missing the forest for the tree's. I'm not into Gaga either (her marketing thing) but I am into Pop that stems back to the beginning of time, The gear her team uses is of most interest to me . Hooks oh ya! But again, I get it and think progressively and pay attention to sound and what the vision is, what the music is tells me. I don't get personal issues get in the way. smoke But you don't care right? Not your bag of weed here.

The video shows one of the most famous standing writing tools. I am making note of it for the interested and moving towards my point in due time.

Its a challenge to keep this progressive on any level but a challenge is fun and I'm sure we are up to it yes? Easy enough to opt out of the discussion.

Where did dubstep come from now? If you want to hear more about that, see Indaba.Very cool stuff happening over there! Also look at Ableton Live and Fruity Loops. They are ideal DAW's for remixing.

Rock, Pop and Blues are my thing. But I love all types of music, even Maroon 5 and Usher ( wow) is growing on me lately. Great bass and vocals.
It would be fun to mess with some of your tracks, Kurt. Something you are really proud of. Are you up for a contest? Do you have anything we could play with?

We should split this topic. I think its going in the right direction and will be interesting over time ( future members included). Any suggestions where to spit it and some title suggestions?

the stuff i have recorded that i am most proud of would be sessions produced by cult following guitarist Kenny Blue Ray or Jackie Payne. and as such we would need to obtain his permission first and to be honest i don't think he would be willing. i would have to go out to the shop in back and wade through all my crap to find the cds.

i am a marginal musician but a very good producer. my best stuff has always been collaborations i have recorded with other musicians / producers. now that i think of it, there may be one piece i did 20+ years ago in a 1/2" 16 room i built for a guy ... can i upload it here? i don't really try to promote myself very much. the only place any of my stuff is on the web is on waldos site. search kurt foster. you're welcome to any of it.

when i had my best studio i was very busy recording other artists and in the whole 10+ years i think i had time to make one demo. a lot of the stuff i did by myself out at Cedar Flats was 1) limited by my abilities to sing (marginal) 2) and play (also marginal). plus the acoustics of that room were dismal and i was just learning how to record on a DAW ... latency issues and recording the inital tracks waaaaay too hot (hangover from 16 adat / analog days). not my best moments. most of it was intended only as songwriting demos.

Chris look,i am sorry i called dub step ugly sounding sh*t. that was NOT aimed at you personally. it is unsettling to me. i get it that what one person loves others might not. i am probably one of the only Merle Haggard fans who posts here.

can i have the suicide smiley's back? :biggrin:

Cool,

I don't care for dubstep either, but so many people do. I don't get the appeal but , its part of our culture indeed.

I'd love to get some mixing topics going more here. They would serve us all so much better than a lot of the redundant stuff. Not to do better than the next guy, but to learn how to improve our mixes through examples.

Sorry, I took that suicide smiley out. Its getting annoying. I get your humor though, but...

One on Phil Tan. 3/4 in, some discussion on vocals ( reverb/delay chorus)

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.pensados…"]Episode 16: Phil Tan and Charles Dye - Pensado's Place[/]="http://www.pensados…"]Episode 16: Phil Tan and Charles Dye - Pensado's Place[/]

i think i have seen the light as why we are having so much trouble seeing eye to eye on this. you probably don't mic bass instruments often. i'll bet you use samples or keyboard bass mostly. so of course if you want to create a bass sound that has a room sound to it your options are to re amp and mic re record or to slap a room sim on it.

in the early 90's i worked for a guy who's main thrust was midi programing / arranging. one room studio with a dead vx box and exclusivly midi sound modules, samplers, drum machines and keyboards. of course what you describe is completely appropriate. i did a lot of that myself.

later i learned i had a preference for recording live musicians playing a variety of instruments. a live decent environment is essential for that. what i describe is completely appropriate also. i don't think either of is wrong. just different apps / toolsets for different tasks.

naturally, if i have a great sounding live room i'm going to use it for vocals too.

just heard another big earthquake in So Cal this am. the west coast is going crazy! hang on to your coconuts!

Exactly what I do . You are lucky to have a great room but most people don't so,,, I share my tech background for those wanting solid solution proven in the pop and mix culture.

We had a 7,7 last night. I felt dizzy from it. I fear the worst is coming, this a big one

Sent from my iPhone

We had a 7,7 last night. I felt dizzy from it.

i was in the Bay Area for the '89 Loma Prieta EQ. palm trees were waving back and forth ... 35 degrees each way. sidewalks looked like a wave, like a fun house floor that moves up and down.

upset tummy for days after. very upsetting.

2 small EQs off the Oregon Coast two days ago. then the 7.7 in Canada last night. now another 2.2 / 2.3 eq in So Cal ... 2012?

no matter what it's pretty essential for an accurate listening area. the difference in styles makes recording fun. The money-pit difference, is that a multi room studio has what it may not needed area, and a single room type studio can't, accommodate certain preferences. Better to have it and not need it, or need it and not have it? depends on whacha want to be capable of doing. it's all about the song anyway, ya it's oversaid, but, still true.

notice gaga in a pro CR? nirvana's 'polly' cut on a 50 dollar guitar, livevox in CR. Zep drums, in a mansion. lot's of variab;es of success, i just wann make sure i can deliver as an engineer. just an expanding field of needs. gotta know what's current to be actively pursing, and gotta know how it was done, yesterday, or 40 yrs ago. there is very little choice other than to be aware, love it or not, it's satisfying, to 'nail' the song a client wants.
i've noticed that even in articles about eminem, they make extensive use of mixing plugins, which, their doing on a high powred cpu, and state of the art pulggins. this to me creayes the need for a nice sounding room.

i leave most samples pretty much alone in a compromised space, cuz they already sound good. messing w/ alot of sampled stuff creates alot of errors from people using them in compromised monitoring.

So true but depressing. Lady Gaga in that room with all that gear when they could have done the same thing in her bedroom. There's no need for that console when everything it pretty well in the box. It's depressing that people who can afford it need it least. And the talent...no....skill.....no.....geek it requires to program a song. There's no performance value there. Turn off the power and where does it all go? Do you think Deadmau5 will ever do an acoustic set?

dunno bout deadmau5, but i saw the roots, and tribe called quest (hip hop acts) live in pretty large outdoor stadium, and they had musicians backing them up. they sounded nice. it was a party atmophere, but still. vibe is it, i think. metal and hip hop have more in common than they know. i mean, it's like the same tempos... alot of metal is sampled right now. dunno just go roll w/ it ithink. (ithink--- a new app for the brain)

"reamp guitars, reamp bass, reamp reverb, reamp a session and where it was recorded is just another process of the mixing and mastering game " It stops where your learning curve ends.

An example before its removed:
http://recording.org/track-talk/53568-feedback-wanted-here.html

it's FREE!

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.samplici…"]Samplicity's Bricasti M7 Impulse Response Library v1.1 - Samplicity[/]="http://www.samplici…"]Samplicity's Bricasti M7 Impulse Response Library v1.1 - Samplicity[/]

...and here's a nice review of the M7

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/articles/bricastim7.htm

Hi Kurt,

Cool.

I'm on M7 ver 2, its stellar.

Did you listen to the comparison I just made? Took 20 min to retrack it, run it through , master , save and post it. I didn't even spend time working on it.

Its just one example in regards to the Mix stage.

tried to but i can't get soundcloud to work on my computer.

No wonder hehe. Kidding.

Well that sucks. You need flash installed. No, Quicktime I think and it needs to be set so it will play all win media.

try this:

https://getsatisfaction.com/soundcloud/topics/my_computer_wont_let_me_play_sounscloud_tracks_why

dead link:

Try this

http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/?promoid=JZEFT