-

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
What outboard do you have? For me I've found digital and ITB to be more satisfying the more time you spend getting the tones right on the way in.

Lots of gear has a sound  just running through it,  when even not EQing or compressing. I've spent a decent amount of time just listening and auditioning gear,  then setup different signal chains for tracking, vocal chain,  guitar chain,  etc.  A way to do this is record dry and then use hardware inserts to audition gear. If it improves the sound then it becomes part of the record chain.

Also consider ribbon mics,  they can give you that warm pleasing mid-range.

On the back end for mixing again having some cool colorful gear can help, both on the mix bus and / or have a colorful sunning box.  The passive summers can be cool since you can use different pres to shape the sound.
 
80hinhiding said:
Other than using a plugin, or the real thing, are there any EQ/compression techniques you guys use to calm your mixes and build an energy in the "midtones"?
Most tracks need some kind of dynamic control; it could be organic, like a singer with professional technique, a good sensitive guitar or bass player, it could be intrinsic, some instruments have actually a limited dynamic range (particularly winds), it could be the result of using a dedicated compressor or plug-in. The nice thing is that a compressor allows controlling the dynamics of a track that does not have this organic/natural control. Don't hesitate to use compression if you feel there's a need.
Same for EQ; many instruments/voices leave something to be desired, like nasality or unwanted resonances or parasitic noise; these need to be addressed soon in the recording process, not necessarily at the time of tracking, but as soon as the mix takes form, i.e. when you set up a monitoring balance. There is nothing more frustrating than listening to an ugly track when doing overdubs; bad for your ears and bad for your rep. Tone-shaping EQ can be refined later. Indeed, good EQ practice stars with boosting and sweeping for identification of the offensive frequencies, then cutting them as needed.
 
We could just argue about Mac vs PC instead?  :)

This is a huge topic but you are off to a great start because you are getting sounds that you like from your tape machine, unlike most people who are chasing some mythical idealized tone.

It's worth spending some time trying to understand some of the mechanisms that are at play in your tape machine path, off the top of my head...

a) Does it have input or output transformers? If yes these will likely be doing what transformers do (coloration, low end distortion and fatness, depending on quality you may be losing some high end)

b) Frequency response - Depending on how you have your machine calibrated or not you may not have a perfectly flat frequency response, and this is not always a bad thing.

c) Head bump - affects the low end response, often in a pleasing way, depends on tape speed too.

d) Dynamic properties - depending on recording levels you will be getting some dynamic compression, that will vary with frequency.

e) High frequency softening / limiting - tape has a way of eating up fast high frequency transients that can be very pleasing and forgiving.

f) Noise - A dirty word in audio but can often be our friend in making things feel good.

g) Harmonic distortion - regardless of level you will have higher levels of distortion in your tape machine than a modern digital recorder, and likely lower order than that which you'll find in your digital world.

h) Tape formulation - can have a significant impact on how the machine sounds.


So, if I wanted to emulate your machine...

a) Does it have transformers?  If so, get a transformer or two into your digital record path.

b) Can you measure the frequency response of your tape machine with a sweep? If so easy to match with a good eq.  Even recording pink noise from your DAW onto tape and back into DAW will give you an approximation with FFT and averaging.

c)  Head Bump - see b)

d) Compression - low ratio compression with fast attack, medium release, barely working on your signal (will not be very accurate but better than nothing).

e) High Frequency Limiting - hard to do well in digital but work with low ratio de-essers and HF limiters (with soft ish knee).  My favorite in the analog world is the Maselec MDS2 but it's not cheap, does a great job of softening things in a pleasing way.

f) Noise - it would be fun to record the noise from your machine and then match it's profile and level using a signal generator and EQ, mix into your digital recordings.

g) Distortion - You'll want a distortion plug in that gives you some control over the harmonic content, I've used SDRR by Klanghelm and it gives good control over odd / even and low / high order distortion (cheap too).

h) Tape formulation - above my pay grade :)


I would be a really interesting exercise to split signals from your mic pre and record to tape and digital at the same time, allowing comparison after the fact.  You are very much on track with the idea that it's not what digital is losing but rather what tape is adding.

Last thought - what converters are you using and are you recording at lower levels?  If not you should be, don't peak above -10 dBFS.


 
abbey road d enfer said:
Indeed, good EQ practice stars with boosting and sweeping for identification of the offensive frequencies, then cutting them as needed.

I'm all for removing the nasty stuff but I don't think this approach is good advice, despite the fact that it is ubiquitous and Sound on Sound seem to built their entire magazine on it!  Boosting any frequency by 6 to 10dB and sweeping around will cause a temporary shift in your hearing that is not at all desirable and IME throws off any ability to make nuanced decisions.  It reminds me of how detrimental in can be spending too much (any?) time with instruments solo'd when mixing.

I suggest that a beginner  should try to identify the frequency by guessing as closely as you can and doing a cut with a low ish Q (say 1), listen for 10 seconds, does it feel/sound better?  If not try dropping your frequency, or raising it some until you get where you need to go.

Now that I work in a room that is essentially perfect with gear that is beyond anything I could need I am by far the biggest variable and weak link.  With that in mind I try to work at consistent levels, take regular breaks, not sweep around EQs, not listen to de-esser side chains etc etc. 
 
Butting in to say thanks for the above advice about not sweeping around in extremes.

For me the analogy is out walking the dog in the dark; the eyes adjust to the low light. Then a jogger comes along with a bright LED strapped to his head and it then takes about 15 minutes or more for the eyes to adjust to the dark again.
 
You are welcome Tony. Of course I still find myself doing it from time to time and these days if I have to hunt a high Q resonance I will turn the speakers down as far as possible.

 
ruairioflaherty said:
I'm all for removing the nasty stuff but I don't think this approach is good advice, despite the fact that it is ubiquitous and Sound on Sound seem to built their entire magazine on it! 
I use this method from the day I experimented with a variable-frequency EQ (actually an attempt at a wah pedal), and nobody told me how to do it; it just made sense to me, and it has worked so far.

Boosting any frequency by 6 to 10dB and sweeping around will cause a temporary shift in your hearing that is not at all desirable and IME throws off any ability to make nuanced decisions. 
I'm not subject to that neuronic effect; if I knew it existed, I wouldn't have suggested this method (or caveat'ed it). 

I suggest that a beginner  should try to identify the frequency by guessing as closely as you can and doing a cut with a low ish Q (say 1), listen for 10 seconds, does it feel/sound better?  If not try dropping your frequency, or raising it some until you get where you need to go.
This is a typical trial/error process, that in fact many beginners adopt because they don't know better. In order to make this method half effective, one has to have a good ear training, at identifying frequencies, which most beginners don't. Actually, I think this method is adequate for tone-shaping, but unsuited at eliminating nasty drum resonances (which is what I need to EQ out the most) or vocal nasalities.

Now that I work in a room that is essentially perfect with gear that is beyond anything I could need I am by far the biggest variable and weak link.
This kind of wisdom comes only with time and experience. Before reaching that stage, one needs to learn; there is not one unique method of learning, but most of the times, a faster way to learn comes from having some kind of tutoring, with techniques, tricks and  rules (that are meant to be broken only after they have proved being too restrictive).

not sweep around EQs, not listen to de-esser side chains etc etc.
I'm glad you have found a methodology that suits you, but I would not recommend to a beginner.
 
abbey road d enfer said:
I use this method from the day I experimented with a variable-frequency EQ (actually an attempt at a wah pedal), and nobody told me how to do it; it just made sense to me, and it has worked so far.
I'm not subject to that neuronic effect; if I knew it existed, I wouldn't have suggested this method (or caveat'ed it). 
This is a typical trial/error process, that in fact many beginners adopt because they don't know better. In order to make this method half effective, one has to have a good ear training, at identifying frequencies, which most beginners don't. Actually, I think this method is adequate for tone-shaping, but unsuited at eliminating nasty drum resonances (which is what I need to EQ out the most) or vocal nasalities.
This kind of wisdom comes only with time and experience. Before reaching that stage, one needs to learn; there is not one unique method of learning, but most of the times, a faster way to learn comes from having some kind of tutoring, with techniques, tricks and  rules (that are meant to be broken only after they have proved being too restrictive).
I'm glad you have found a methodology that suits you, but I would not recommend to a beginner.

All fair points Abbey and I understand that it works for you.  Perhaps there is a third way where beginners can separate their learning (sweeping, side chain listening etc) from their actual mixing work.

As a mastering engineer I get mixes from people at every level.  I can't count the number of times I have seen a musician get into recording and their first completely unschooled efforts are excellent. Then for years, the more they learn the worse things get and the further they get from being musical and into tweaky things like we discussed above.  Some come out the other side and manage to combine musicality with some technical chops, many don't.

Watching the very best working it is very much a feel based exercise, much less beating it into submission and more working with what's good about the audio.  I feel this perspective is missing in online discussions about audio.
 
ruairioflaherty said:
Watching the very best working it is very much a feel based exercise, much less beating it into submission and more working with what's good about the audio.  I feel this perspective is missing in online discussions about audio.

Thanks for sharing!

I actually came across the EQ technique you mentioned of not using seek and destroy and, prior to that, after years of basically learning how to learn more , it resonated with me in a profound way when I happened across it in some obscure article or something.

Echoing abbey somewhat.... I wonder if it would've made as much sense to me foregoing the spinning my wheels for so long . Maybe.... I'll never know . I do know to me it makes total sense now and am appreciative when something is mentioned that feels like putting a name to the face in some aspects.... It just feels right.....If that makes sense.....
All is not lost in my quest for certain knowledge but, if nothing else, it's helped me fine tune my radar to some of the more obscure information that I consider invaluable....

Exciting stuff!
 
it's already been mentioned, but +1 for keeping levels very conservative on the way into the computer. In my experience things start to sound really gross really fast if the levels get too high.
 
Matt C said:
it's already been mentioned, but +1 for keeping levels very conservative on the way into the computer. In my experience things start to sound really gross really fast if the levels get too high.
This subject has been debated to death. Almost inevitably, it turns out the reason is the analog parts of the signal path have not been designed for operation at the elevated levels that make the )digital meters move. -12dBfs (considered as a conservative digital operating level) corresponds to an analog level of +6 to +12 dBu, which is hot for most analog equipment (preamps, EQ's, compressors...). Only a fraction of currently developped analog equipment is ready for operating at such levels.
There is nothing wrong with operating close to 100%fs in the digital domain, on the contrary (numbers do not distort), but the analog path must be ready to handle it.
 
80hinhiding said:
Hopefully this doesn't come across as bragging, but I had more positive reaction from a mix I did myself from a song I did entirely myself, with one crappy mic and a computer soundcard at 16 bit.... a year after being to a big studio with 2 dedicated engineers working on my stuff in great rooms and great equipment.  Does that mean they weren't good engineers.. no.  My songs weren't where I wanted/needed them to be, but I didn't know squat about the gear, or tone, or have the time in the big studio to pan for gold.  When I'm isolated and alone working on stuff I fel more safe to just make something, and experiment... the song/mix I had a good reaction to didn't really have a proper production standard.. which I aimed to figure out.

This is because, I'm guessing, it was tracked with more emotion and the(unaltered) recording came across as more genuine. This will 'always' have a greater impact over what mic into what preamp into what compressor, etc...to elicit a more favorable response from others that are listening. Also, were the songs the same or was the second song a better song? Important variables...

 
Getting away from using a mouse and staring at a computer screen can certainly be a big help. Pushing actual faders is nice.  And there is something very satisfying with a dedicated transport.  Have always thought nice big lighted buttons like on a Studer would be a great DIY project to control the DAW.
 
abbey road d enfer said:
Most tracks need some kind of dynamic control; it could be organic, like a singer with professional technique, a good sensitive guitar or bass player, it could be intrinsic, some instruments have actually a limited dynamic range (particularly winds), it could be the result of using a dedicated compressor or plug-in. The nice thing is that a compressor allows controlling the dynamics of a track that does not have this organic/natural control. Don't hesitate to use compression if you feel there's a need.
Same for EQ; many instruments/voices leave something to be desired, like nasality or unwanted resonances or parasitic noise; these need to be addressed soon in the recording process, not necessarily at the time of tracking, but as soon as the mix takes form, i.e. when you set up a monitoring balance. There is nothing more frustrating than listening to an ugly track when doing overdubs; bad for your ears and bad for your rep. Tone-shaping EQ can be refined later. Indeed, good EQ practice stars with boosting and sweeping for identification of the offensive frequencies, then cutting them as needed.

Right on!
 
This thread is a great collection of thoughts on mixing with technique supporting different ways of going after it.  Should be turned into a chapter in a book.  It all rings true to me.  I love the painting analogy thrown in as well. 
 
80hinhiding said:
As I mentioned it's a concern for me that you can't perform live now and rely on a station to have tape.  I'm actually to the point where I might turn the computer off completely and just do this as a passion project and not release it.  Matching tone and vibe is very important to me and if that can't be done without tape I guess I'm gonna pack it in.

Adam,

I'm going to be straight with you and I say this as someone who has devoted my entire adult life to audio quality.  If the difference between analog and digital capture of music is distressing enough for you to throw in the towel then absolutely you should give up now.  If what you have to say musically can't get over that hump, then it won't be a loss to the world.

The music industry is brutal.  Not challenging, not tough…..brutal.  Getting a record out, and getting anyone to care is a massive undertaking. 

If the difference between and analog and a digital capture is the make or break factor for a hypothetical radio session then you are lost.  Great songs were and are compelling enough for  scratchy 7 " vinyl, AM radio, 128k MP3 and iPhone speakers….surely yours can transcend too?

When I think of bands devoted to exploring new sonic landscapes like Pink Floyd, Radiohead or The Beatles they aimed really really high but in the end they met their audience in the real world and rose to the technical challenge of the time (track limits / tape noise / bad digital … whatever).

From my perspective you are mixing up two things - your music (what you have to say and who you are) and how it is captured. If you care about your music you may want to consider handing over the task of capturing it to someone truly talented in that field. 

It's good to care about the sound, it's bad to care more about the sound than the music.
 
That is Some good advice from ruari albeit a bit brutal..........

I'm certain you misread his intentions and he may have misinterpreted your thought.....but I've been wrong before.....
BTW.....
If you are happy with the tape performance, shouldn't someone be able to get that "digitized" for you that may have what you are after? You really should be able to get very close (not what you are describing) to a transfer of what you have and, if that is what is holding you back, you need to make the decision to learn  more of what it may take to get what you are hearing that you like into the computer without it depressing you too much or let someone else handle it for you. 

I wouldn't look at it as a negative thing that you are hearing some things that really shouldn't affect a great creative process or performance, but they aren't most likely imaginary..  You just have to make the decision where you want your skill set to grow. It's sad to think of the world missing out on some great art because of the want to handle all aspects of the process at one time before any submission but, I get it.

I think you would really appreciate what some guys out there could do for your path to sonic satisfaction if you think you are happy with your performances.

But then what////////// is the  elephant in the room....... sometimes......


Edit/// I guess I misunderstood what your thoughts were..... It sounds like you are happy with your transfer to digital from the tape machine so, this is good. 
 
80hinhiding said:
I have music on the radio, and I'm talented as an engineer too.  What's the deal man? 

I'm talking about something larger than myself and whether or not my music will be a loss to the world.  I find your post insulting.

My intent was not to insult, it was a call to action.  If your music is good, and you really believe it is then statements like...

Matching tone and vibe is very important to me and if that can't be done without tape I guess I'm gonna pack it in.

… are massively self indulgent. 

I'm really glad that you believe that music is the most important thing.  It is.

You have two options as I see it

- Record great music on tape and treat promo and live as a completely different world and set of trade offs

By this I mean that live and on radio promo sessions you will lose pure sonic quality but you will also gain an immediacy, and connection with an audience that you don't have in recorded work.  In each realm you can play to the respective strengths of the format.

- Figure out digital recording

There are incredible sounding records being made on digital formats.  It's possible.  It's not always easy but it is possible.

Good converters do make a real difference for the last few %, how you gain, dithering properly etc etc.  It's a million small things that make the difference.  But it won't be ever be tape, if you want tape you'll need to use tape.


I'm taking the time to write now just like my previous long posts in the thread, to help you, not to discourage you or blow my own horn.  I'm an average tracking and mixing engineer at best.

 
Back
Top