I've just finished a 4th song which I'll put on my website later this weekend ...these will eventually go onto a cd which I'll give away at gigs and stuff. This last song was completed, though not started, on Cubase 5. I havn't done anything much different from the other tracks..but the first thing I've noticed, even from a rough mix, is that I seem to have a lot more headroom with C5. Which has turned my thoughts to the job of remixing and mastering my current project...and possibly some of my older stuff too. In the past I've simply let the process roll...mix itself as I've gone along if you know what I mean...probably why my last 4 song cd of a couple of years back suffered from what I call one-man-band syndrome. It was all there but it always sounded a bit home-grown. I even wondered about letting someone else have a stab at mastering my stuff, but then I'd be getting away from the whole idea...besides, I can't really afford it...Steinberg had all my recent pocket-money!! I guess I just have to be patient...open each song up again from scratch and build the mixes up gradually. I do have a reasonable collection of plugins to do the job...its all a bit daunting though. I think I've come up with some decent songs this time so I want to get it right. Suggestions??.....LL
"lancelightning" <> wrote in message news:... > I've just finished a 4th song which I'll put on my website later this > weekend ...these will eventually go onto a cd which I'll give away at > gigs and stuff. > > This last song was completed, though not started, on Cubase 5. I > havn't done anything much different from the other tracks..but the > first thing I've noticed, even from a rough mix, is that I seem to > have a lot more headroom with C5. Which has turned my thoughts to the > job of remixing and mastering my current project...and possibly some > of my older stuff too. > > In the past I've simply let the process roll...mix itself as I've gone > along if you know what I mean...probably why my last 4 song cd of a > couple of years back suffered from what I call one-man-band syndrome. > It was all there but it always sounded a bit home-grown. > > I even wondered about letting someone else have a stab at mastering my > stuff, but then I'd be getting away from the whole idea...besides, I > can't really afford it...Steinberg had all my recent pocket-money!! > > I guess I just have to be patient...open each song up again from > scratch and build the mixes up gradually. I do have a reasonable > collection of plugins to do the job...its all a bit daunting though. I > think I've come up with some decent songs this time so I want to get > it right. > > Suggestions??.....LL I've been coming to the conclusion that channel EQ is my best mixing weapon.
>I guess I just have to be patient...open each song up again from >scratch and build the mixes up gradually. I do have a reasonable >collection of plugins to do the job...its all a bit daunting though. I >think I've come up with some decent songs this time so I want to get >it right. > >Suggestions??.....LL The big problem with building up songs as a one-man-band is making the parts "listen" to each other - something that you hope will happen naturally when live musicians play together. Maybe your present tracks should be seen as the completion of the composing process. Now you know how the song goes, re-record playing each part using sounds, dynamics (and notes) that fit in with what you now know to be the whole. If all these are chosen well you'll have very little mixing to do. This doesn't take as long as you might imagine. CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:12:45 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> wrote: >I've been coming to the conclusion that channel EQ is my best mixing weapon. A thought. For hundreds of years live, unamplified ensembles have balanced perfectly without e.q. Why do we see it as standard practice to record tracks that require correction? CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:10:13 +0100, Laurence Payne <> wrote: >On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:12:45 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> >wrote: > >>I've been coming to the conclusion that channel EQ is my best mixing weapon. > >A thought. > >For hundreds of years live, unamplified ensembles have balanced >perfectly without e.q. > >Why do we see it as standard practice to record tracks that require >correction? I think it's because we can 'improve' upon the natural sounds. Each sound has in it something very beautiful and very ugly. By enhancing beauty and/or diminishing ugliness we can position it better in the whole, thereby creating room for other sounds, or making the sum sound more 'open'. Take a female voice, for example. By cutting everything under, say, 125 hZ, you eliminate nothing but noise, which allows you to make it more legible and thus creating a better mix.
Laurence Payne wrote: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:12:45 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> > wrote: > >> I've been coming to the conclusion that channel EQ is my best mixing weapon. > > A thought. > > For hundreds of years live, unamplified ensembles have balanced > perfectly without e.q. > > Why do we see it as standard practice to record tracks that require > correction? > CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm Because microphones and ears are not the same.
Laurence Payne schreef: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:12:45 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> > wrote: > >> I've been coming to the conclusion that channel EQ is my best mixing weapon. > > A thought. > > For hundreds of years live, unamplified ensembles have balanced > perfectly without e.q. > > Why do we see it as standard practice to record tracks that require > correction? Classical orchestras have been around for long enough to adjust and fine-tune their playing, to the point that it most often sounds good. Rock bands have only been around for a few decades, have known vastly different instruments and a much wider range of dynamics. Would it be fair to say we're still only learning how they should sound? Regards, Jos. -- www.ardispark.nl
"Laurence Payne" <> wrote in message news... > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:12:45 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> > wrote: > >>I've been coming to the conclusion that channel EQ is my best mixing >>weapon. > > A thought. > > For hundreds of years live, unamplified ensembles have balanced > perfectly without e.q. > > Why do we see it as standard practice to record tracks that require > correction? > CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm > Because of digital. I rarely use heavy EQ on any synth stuff coming out of my analog mixer, but at this point I work almost exclusively in the VST realm. I know that the VST synth tracks, samples and cut n pastes that I use tend to individually soak up a lot of the audio spectrum - or everything-all-at-once. Great solo'ed - mushy in the mix. It's simply the nature of the beast. I don't so much correct them as beat them into submission. With EQ. For instance, I have hundreds of cymbal samples that I can use in Directwave. I have found that many of them (most of them) tend to sound shrill and brittle if I don't cut the high end. Even my kick drum samples seem to have a lot of high end. And the resonant peak of a VST synth bass may occupy the exact frequency spectrum that those cymbal samples occupy. The bass sounds less punchy. Pull down the highs, punch up the bass. If I generate a complex loop out of a lot of elements in another program and bring it into Cubase, I will need to make the decision where I want it to sit in the mix. The everything-all-at-once rule really applies here because many of the loops consist of multiple disparate elements. VST distortion plug-ins tend to add a lot of high frequency grzzz to the track. In the end, it all depends on how I think it sounds. My ears are pretty good - better than my equipment. I want space and air in my mixes now. I consider EQ to be the very last part of the the synthesis chain. But I am a barbarian and I am using Cubase exactly wrong - sometimes on purpose.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:35:33 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> wrote: >I know that the VST synth tracks, samples and cut n pastes that I use tend >to individually soak up a lot of the audio spectrum - or >everything-all-at-once. Great solo'ed - mushy in the mix. It's simply the >nature of the beast. Could you be choosing the wrong sounds? Along with the "impressive" solo voices, many sampled instruments have sounds designed for ensemble use too. Though they ALL need the reverb turned off CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Laurence Payne" <> wrote in message news:... > On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:35:33 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> > wrote: > >>I know that the VST synth tracks, samples and cut n pastes that I use tend >>to individually soak up a lot of the audio spectrum - or >>everything-all-at-once. Great solo'ed - mushy in the mix. It's simply the >>nature of the beast. > > Could you be choosing the wrong sounds? Along with the "impressive" > solo voices, many sampled instruments have sounds designed for > ensemble use too. Though they ALL need the reverb turned off > CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm > Aside from "hard" sampled drums and the occasional bass line, I program everything. And nothing gets put down untweaked, I like programming, it's part of my process. My best VST instruments are those with lots and lots of tweakable parameters. Yours is a very good tip. I will think ahead when programming. You know what's another ubiquitous effect that needs to be turned off? Chorus.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:54:13 +0100, Laurence Payne <> wrote: > >>I guess I just have to be patient...open each song up again from >>scratch and build the mixes up gradually. I do have a reasonable >>collection of plugins to do the job...its all a bit daunting though. I >>think I've come up with some decent songs this time so I want to get >>it right. >> >>Suggestions??.....LL > > >The big problem with building up songs as a one-man-band is making the >parts "listen" to each other - something that you hope will happen >naturally when live musicians play together. > >Maybe your present tracks should be seen as the completion of the >composing process. Now you know how the song goes, re-record playing >each part using sounds, dynamics (and notes) that fit in with what you >now know to be the whole. If all these are chosen well you'll have >very little mixing to do. > >This doesn't take as long as you might imagine. >CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm Laurence, I do know what you mean about 'parts listening to each other' and yes, 'completion of the composing process' sums it all up very well at this stage. In some ways, it might be better to get the guys in our live band to go into a studio to get some real interaction. However I can't justify the time or the money to go down that route...and, to be honest, I am rather enjoying the process as it is. I reckon I can make a decent enough job of it with a bit of patience. I don't know that re-recording the songs again from the ground up is the right way to go. After all, it would still be one man performing all the parts. I am generally quite happy with the overall feel and, given that it is rock orientated, I don't want my songs to sound too perfect if you know what I mean. There is an element of spontaneity in there which I definitely want to keep. To my ears its more about polishing the whole thing up - eq'ing and balancing the songs so that they sound right one after the other. Hindsight being what it is though, I do intend to revisit some of the parts and rework/enhance them before attempting any kind of final mix. Its just a matter of how far to take it I guess...There is always the danger of working the songs to death.........LL
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:32:36 +0100, lancelightning <> wrote: > >I don't know that re-recording the songs again from the ground up is >the right way to go. After all, it would still be one man performing >all the parts. I am generally quite happy with the overall feel and, >given that it is rock orientated, I don't want my songs to sound too >perfect if you know what I mean. There is an element of spontaneity in >there which I definitely want to keep. To my ears its more about >polishing the whole thing up - eq'ing and balancing the songs so that >they sound right one after the other. > >Hindsight being what it is though, I do intend to revisit some of the >parts and rework/enhance them before attempting any kind of final mix. >Its just a matter of how far to take it I guess...There is always the >danger of working the songs to death.........LL What I was suggesting was that you leave the notes and feel alone, just replay the parts with more attention to dynamics (softer-played notes have different transients and tone, they aren't just loud ones with the fader down) . And maybe modify some sounds so that remedial eq isn't necessary. CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:31:18 +0100, Laurence Payne <> wrote: >On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:32:36 +0100, lancelightning <> wrote: > >> >>I don't know that re-recording the songs again from the ground up is >>the right way to go. After all, it would still be one man performing >>all the parts. I am generally quite happy with the overall feel and, >>given that it is rock orientated, I don't want my songs to sound too >>perfect if you know what I mean. There is an element of spontaneity in >>there which I definitely want to keep. To my ears its more about >>polishing the whole thing up - eq'ing and balancing the songs so that >>they sound right one after the other. >> >>Hindsight being what it is though, I do intend to revisit some of the >>parts and rework/enhance them before attempting any kind of final mix. >>Its just a matter of how far to take it I guess...There is always the >>danger of working the songs to death.........LL > >What I was suggesting was that you leave the notes and feel alone, >just replay the parts with more attention to dynamics (softer-played >notes have different transients and tone, they aren't just loud ones >with the fader down) . And maybe modify some sounds so that remedial >eq isn't necessary. > >CubaseFAQ page: http://www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm What you say makes good sense...a more relaxed approach to some of the guitar parts in particular would probably help. Some of the solos happen by accident and are a bit frantic! So, yes, I'll keep working at it. I could probably enhance and sweeten up some of the vocals too. Its very hard to hear things objectively when you're working alone so I do appreciate your suggestions. At the end of the day my project is a fun thing...my quest for record deals and the likes ended 25 years ago...but the creative juices are still flowing. Its great going out playing covers as I do...give em what they want and all that...but I really do enjoy putting a few original songs together now and then. Cheers..........LL
"when you are working alone" Actually that is a big problem these days for all of us. In BC (before computers) you had a composer, arranger, producer , engineers, musicians, copyist.... there were lots of ears and eyes and suggestions. These days usually one person wears all the hats. For me, I keep a few people around that I hire to work on projects and also use as a sounding board from time to time. I'm always amazed and sometimes embarassed when I hear "Gee I'm surprised you missed the Guitar out of tune...or did you hear that "click..sounds like a bad edit" Here in LA every working composer/producer I know has several people they relie on. Later Terry
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:44:23 -0700, "Terry Cano" <> wrote: > "when you are working alone" >Actually that is a big problem these days for all of us. >In BC (before computers) you had a composer, arranger, producer , engineers, >musicians, copyist.... >there were lots of ears and eyes and suggestions. These days usually one >person wears all the hats. >For me, I keep a few people around that I hire to work on projects and also >use as a sounding board >from time to time. I'm always amazed and sometimes embarassed when I hear >"Gee I'm surprised you missed >the Guitar out of tune...or did you hear that "click..sounds like a bad >edit" >Here in LA every working composer/producer I know has several people they >relie on. >Later >Terry Terry...That is indeed the problem. I do have a couple of people I can run things by...trouble is they aren't alaways around when I need them. I thinks its a matter of being patient and maybe leaving things a while to rest my ears. Like you say, when working alone, its so easy to miss something really stupid. When I listen back to my older stuff I think..yep its all there, its ok, but why the hell did I do this or that...or not change the sound of that guitar or whatever!!...All part of the fun I guess..........LL
The "rest my ears" is important also. I try to put two days between the first rough mix and coming back to finish it. I like what you said "all part of the fun" it is still fun to me and you also. That is why we do it. Musically Terry > > Terry...That is indeed the problem. I do have a couple of people I can > run things by...trouble is they aren't alaways around when I need > them. I thinks its a matter of being patient and maybe leaving things > a while to rest my ears. Like you say, when working alone, its so easy > to miss something really stupid. When I listen back to my older stuff > I think..yep its all there, its ok, but why the hell did I do this or > that...or not change the sound of that guitar or whatever!!...All part > of the fun I guess..........LL
"lancelightning" <> wrote in message news... > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:44:23 -0700, "Terry Cano" <> > wrote: > >> "when you are working alone" >>Actually that is a big problem these days for all of us. >>In BC (before computers) you had a composer, arranger, producer , >>engineers, >>musicians, copyist.... >>there were lots of ears and eyes and suggestions. These days usually one >>person wears all the hats. >>For me, I keep a few people around that I hire to work on projects and >>also >>use as a sounding board >>from time to time. I'm always amazed and sometimes embarassed when I hear >>"Gee I'm surprised you missed >>the Guitar out of tune...or did you hear that "click..sounds like a bad >>edit" >>Here in LA every working composer/producer I know has several people they >>relie on. >>Later >>Terry > > Terry...That is indeed the problem. I do have a couple of people I can > run things by...trouble is they aren't alaways around when I need > them. I thinks its a matter of being patient and maybe leaving things > a while to rest my ears. Like you say, when working alone, its so easy > to miss something really stupid. When I listen back to my older stuff > I think..yep its all there, its ok, but why the hell did I do this or > that...or not change the sound of that guitar or whatever!!...All part > of the fun I guess..........LL "Honor your mistakes as hidden intentions." An Oblique Strategies card.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:50:00 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> wrote: > >"lancelightning" <> wrote in message >news... >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:44:23 -0700, "Terry Cano" <> >> wrote: >> >>> "when you are working alone" >>>Actually that is a big problem these days for all of us. >>>In BC (before computers) you had a composer, arranger, producer , >>>engineers, >>>musicians, copyist.... >>>there were lots of ears and eyes and suggestions. These days usually one >>>person wears all the hats. >>>For me, I keep a few people around that I hire to work on projects and >>>also >>>use as a sounding board >>>from time to time. I'm always amazed and sometimes embarassed when I hear >>>"Gee I'm surprised you missed >>>the Guitar out of tune...or did you hear that "click..sounds like a bad >>>edit" >>>Here in LA every working composer/producer I know has several people they >>>relie on. >>>Later >>>Terry >> >> Terry...That is indeed the problem. I do have a couple of people I can >> run things by...trouble is they aren't alaways around when I need >> them. I thinks its a matter of being patient and maybe leaving things >> a while to rest my ears. Like you say, when working alone, its so easy >> to miss something really stupid. When I listen back to my older stuff >> I think..yep its all there, its ok, but why the hell did I do this or >> that...or not change the sound of that guitar or whatever!!...All part >> of the fun I guess..........LL > >"Honor your mistakes as hidden intentions." An Oblique Strategies card. Ah yes, but to quote an old chestnut..'you can coat it in gold, but a turd is still a turd' I think I'll go with your OS card!! LL >
It is fun. We all moan sometimes, but Cubase has, for me, been the best thing ever. Back in the days when I was writing and recording with an ambitious band, it would have cost a small fortune to be able to achieve what we all take for granted now. After the band broke up at the end of the 80's, I'd more or less given up on doing any more recording and was getting by playing covers. A friend got me clued up with pc's around '99 and then I discovered Cubase. These days its just for fun, but its still really satisfying when something comes together as it should......LL >The "rest my ears" is important also. I try to put two days between the >first rough mix and coming back to finish it. >I like what you said "all part of the fun" it is still fun to me and you >also. >That is why we do it. >Musically >Terry >> >> Terry...That is indeed the problem. I do have a couple of people I can >> run things by...trouble is they aren't alaways around when I need >> them. I thinks its a matter of being patient and maybe leaving things >> a while to rest my ears. Like you say, when working alone, its so easy >> to miss something really stupid. When I listen back to my older stuff >> I think..yep its all there, its ok, but why the hell did I do this or >> that...or not change the sound of that guitar or whatever!!...All part >> of the fun I guess..........LL >
