|
.
|
Q) If I want a particular sound,
say a lot of bass, should I do this recording the track or
should I just let the adjustment be made in mastering?
-Ron
A) I prefer to get everything sounding as good as
possible at every step, so yes I would eq the sound to your
multitrack master. Yes, tone quality will be enhanced or
corrected in mastering, but when tracking, I add eq and
compression to bass, drums, vocals, you name it. My goal was
always to be able to play the tape with monitor faders only
and have excellent sound. (Not to mention that if the tapes
went to another studio for overdubs or mixing, the quality
of my work would consistently show up.) This saves time,
too, when bringing up the tape for your next session because
you don't spend time eq'ing the tracks and patching in
compressors before starting overdubs. I know. You've got a
total recall board. That's cool! But read on...
Often I would set up stereo pairs of tracks, like piano in
stereo, synths in stereo, two sets of stereo guitars, etc. I
would almost always triple track backup vocals, left,
center, right. I would usually have a stereo pair available
for solos, and when the solo wasn't playing, those tracks
were available for stereo percussion or other occasional
overdubs.
So, you say, how did I ever have enough tracks? Well when
doing 48 tracks it was never an issue, but most of the 24
track sessions weren't a problem. My production technique
kept stuff layered so every track wasn't always going at
once. Since I started with 4 and 8 track, I *had* to learn
how to manage the tracks, and since I've always been a
stereo-audiophile-great sound freak, I always figured out
ways to get stuff in stereo no matter how many tracks I had.
Even if I had to mix to a cassette and then bounce it back
to the multitrack tape.
Key: Don't waste tracks
on drums. I rarely *ever* used a separate hi hat mic or hi
hat track. There was always plenty in the snare. While some
engineers like to gate down the leakage in the snare mic, I
always preferred to get the drummer to play the hat softer,
or if need be, I'd put duct tape on the hat. I know. You
spent a zillion dollars to get that loud hat that you can
hear all the way over at the neighbors house. What can I
say... hi hats don't have to be blazing in the mix. Yes,
there are times when a very precise hat is needed for jazz,
or needed for real open and effecty songs. Some of today's
drum loop vibes have lots of softer incidental snare notes
that a gate would cut out too. Many of those cool drum loops
on new records are from the days of old and recorded without
gating. So whenever possible, I say have the drummer be in
charge of the dynamic mix right from the get-go. (More about
that on my Secrets of
Miking page.)
I've always combined the toms into a stereo pair, never
separating them individually unless there was special
circumstances, like doing a 3 piece live jazz thing to 16
track. Then yes, I'd separate the toms and hi hat and maybe
add an extra track for ride cymbal. But even then, a great
stereo overhead mic set-up really diminishes the need for
all those extra tracks! In the early days the goal was to
get the drums with mics on the kick, the snare, and two
overheads.... and make it sound great! "Less is more." is a
very valuable idea.
Typically I am a little conservative with compression
recording to tape, so that I'm not locked into something
that I'd regret not being able to "back off" a bit at mix
time. But if I need something with a lot of compression, I
don't hesitate to use it. Often it's not a good idea to add
reverb or effects to the multitrack because then you are
locked into that sound and it can't be altered much in
mixdown. However, there are exceptions! Remember those
stereo pairs? Sometimes I would add stereo ambience or
delays right then and there because I knew ahead of time
what I wanted and that it would stay till the very end.
Sometimes even adding a long verb on a mono percussion track
has a nice effect.
Plus, there were early times when I only had so many
effects, and so to have them all available at mixdown time,
I'd blend them in during tracking. Sometimes, our
limitations are a gift. It invites us (not forces us) to be
more creative with the resources at hand. Usually, all the
resources we need are closeby... sometimes being open to
that truth in all areas of life makes a positive difference
in what we're experiencing moment to
moment.
One last reminder, I don't recommend compressing the
stereo buss when mixing. It hampers the mastering process -
where compression and limiting is an art.
Q) I use a program called Nuendo. Do
you think you can get a good master with using software
plug-ins? -Richard
If you mean doing good "mastering", I think it depends on
the mixes. If they need relatively little in terms of
processing and really good gear was used going into the
system, then a "good" master is certainly possible, if the
listening is done by talented ears that know how to get real
world results. Software mastering recalculates the numbers
(samples) and if used too aggressively, causes some
shrinkage of the sound stage and makes it sound more
sterile, when compared to analog mastering.
If the tracking or mixing engineer is doing software
mastering on the same system as it was tracked or mixed on,
then basically you may get a "good" master suitable for many
uses, but not necessarily something that's neck-and-neck
with product by Bob Ludwig, Bernie Grundman or John Vestman.
$75,000+ of processing gear and 26+ years plus of experience
just gets you to another level that software can't offer.
One thing is for sure - using the best is always sonically a
good decision.
The real question is how appropriate high-end
mastering is for you or your client's needs. A $5,000
mastering job won't make an album sell more. It will make it
sound terrific, but the material has to be there even before
the mastering session is even booked. That's why I share so
much info on my site - so that the core recording has a
better shot at succeeding. Everyone wins from every level of
improvement. However, if lower-cost software makes more
sense in the over-all picture (type of clients, who's going
to hear/buy the music, when is enough enough) then
I'd go for it.
You can only make the best decision you can - who should be
picked for tracking, mixing, mastering? What scale of
spending vs. saving is appropriate? How well thought out are
the next steps (artwork, pressing, distribution, promotion,
legal fees, merchandising, touring, etc.)? That's why I've
included my links page, which is
an incredible way to see more of what's possible for
launching that next Grammy-winning album.
I start with the slogan "I AM IT." That way I will never
ever blame anyone else for my results. Don't
misunderstand... I don't even begin to think that I'm going
to do everything all by myself... I intend to ask for
support, I intend to delegate, I intend to follow though and
be a team player all the way. I know that my goals are just
targets that support my direction - and I know that my
intentions are what I am going to MAKE happen - without
question. We can all take responsibility for being "ok" at
every level of our evolution - we can keep in mind that life
is a process, not a destination... and we should enjoy the
ride along the way!
Q) When you are mastering do you
master 2 track or multi track?
Mostly I'm taking a 2 track mix source and enhancing it, but
there are times when I use up to 8 tracks when layering
additional material is required... but that's pretty
seldom.
and if multi track how does it usually
come?
Real multitrack stuff usually belongs in the mixing room. If
I'm adding reverb, or mixing vocals with stereo instrumental
tracks, it's because of a special circumstance. More common
is where I might extend a too-short reverb tail at the end
of a song by cloning the ending and carefully adding it into
the original tail.
|
