|
This is mostly for WanderingKid, but anyone who knows can also answer; I'm just asking him because it seems like he has a lot of compressor knowledge. I'm still a little confused about compressors. I read your post in the last thread, and from that, I gather that a compressor just pretty much reduces the dynamic range of a waveform. So how exactly does that help make a recording sound better? For example, if I record vocals and guitar, how would I use a compressor to make them sound better, and why exactly would it sound better with compression?
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2007 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Lumi posted:I'm still a little confused about compressors. I read your post in the last thread, and from that, I gather that a compressor just pretty much reduces the dynamic range of a waveform. So how exactly does that help make a recording sound better?  ).Compressors can be very useful to make things fit in the mix easier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2007 16:58
|
|
|
Yeah. When you think about it there are no post processing effects that necessarily make a sound better. Thats subjective and it depends on context. You can't for instance cut, compress and EQ a lead guitar track the same way in 2 different mixes and neither would be 'better' - its not a question of being better but more a question of appropriateness. As for dynamic range. Dynamic range is really important for harmonically rich instruments. A violin for instance when bowed is very rich in harmonics and the arrangement of them is really very complicated. If you run a spectrum of a violin (realtime graph of amplitude on the y axis, frequency on the x axis) then you can actually see where the harmonics are. They look like a series of very tall sharp hills and valleys. To hear what effect they have on a sound, open up a .wav of a violin or a cello or something. Now using a paragraphic EQ make a very sharp notch or load a notch preset. Turn the volume on your speakers down alot before you do this. Turn the notch upside down by bumping the gain fader up to maximum. This will accentuate a very narrow band of frequency and you will hear this above anything else. Now sweep this notch across the entire audible range. Do it slowly and you can hear the harmonics being picked out - Do not do this with your speakers on full blast because you will DIE. Also, if you have trouble with identifying harmonics in instruments, this trick is a really good way to pick out harmonics and other interfering frequency ranges. Once you identify them just turn that notch upside down again and adjust Q to taste. Compressors are just tools that reduce dynamic range. But the point isnt to absolutely squash as much level out of a sound as possible. I mean you cant really perceive depth very well based on sound if everything you hear is constant and all of it is about the same loudness. Extreme compression will tend towards that. You also lose a sense of the complex harmonics of an isntrument beyond a certain point and all you will hear is mush. So why would you ever want to use a compressor? Seems like more trouble than its worth? One reason is as Yoozer says - to get a sound to 'fit' in with other parts of a mix a little better. The human ear is really quite good at detecting 'loudness' and especially sudden changes in the loudness of a sound. So if you have a mix and there are parts of it where the amplitude spikes suddenly you tend to pick up on it as being discontinuous and its annoying. Compressors can be used to manage sudden spikes in volume (In some situations these are called limiters). Compressors are often used for this purpose in Mastering Studios where the aim is to make slight discontinuous elements in a mix work together better. Secondly, some compressors 'colour' the sound that they process. I mentioned that UAD Fairchild compressor. Well thats an emulation of the real Fairchild which provides its post gain from a tube amp. It costs a bomb to buy a real one now. Tubes distort when you overdrive them and alot of people find this distortion quite pleasant sounding. So another reason for using a compressor is the combination of gain reduction and a coloured output signal. I think this is where some people describe the effect of a good tube compressor as having a 'warm' pleasant sound. Thirdly, you can use compressors to shape transient sounds. Whats a transient sound? Its a very sudden sound with a very sharp attack phase. A quick snare hit would be a transient sound because theres a massive, almost immediate spike in amplitudeas the stick contacts the drum and then the amplitude diminishes rapidly as the membrane of the drum vibrates. The whole sound lasts for a fraction of a second. Dance music particularly has alot of stacatto, transient type sounds - large bassdrums, snares, closed hihats, claps etc etc. Well with a compressor you have a tool that can reduce amplitude selectively. You also have an envelope on your compressor which determines when the effect starts and stops. So if you have a bass drum and for some particular reason theres a huge horrible clicking sound at the start of the drum, you could use a compressor with a high threshold, massive ratio, zero attack and very short release (say 10ms). Lets say the drum itself lasts for 0.6 seconds. What this would do is squash down that initial *click* but the compressor will release before the drum has finished playing. So this will make the initial click seem quieter. In this situation lets say you want a tiny bit of the click to come through, but not all of it. No problem, you could increase the attack time ever so slightly to 2 or 3 ms. Short enough to let a tiny amount of click through before the compressor slams in and starts applying gain reduction. If you have a wave editor you can see a compressor literally changeing the shape of a wave when you fiddle around with these settings. Fourth. You can use compressors with an extremely high ratio (i.e. 30:1) and a very high threshold (i.e. -0.5dB) to prevent clipping distortion where it would otherwise occur. A compressor with these kinds of settings is more often referred to as a limiter. Club soundsystems often have a limiter at the end of the signal chain to prevent sudden spikes in amplitude from destroying their amps. Fifth. Simply, loudness. If you have a transient sound like mentioned above then the first part of the sound is very loud but the rest of it is necessarily quiet in comparison. The loudest part of a 909 bass drum is nearly always the initial click, then it gets much quieter before fading out quickly. This means that when you normalise it to 0dB, the loudest part, the initial click will be scaled up to 0dB and the rest of the waveform retains its proportion in relation to the initial transient - i.e. the rest of it is louder but still way quieter than the peak. Now if this sound was massively compressed by reducing the dynamic range of the initial click, you will actually end up with a much much quieter sound. I mean you have just squashed the amplitude of that click right down. But you can increase the post gain knob on your compressor and apply poo poo loads more gain than you could ever get without compressing and not clip. Uncompressed, applying this much gain would just cause the initial click to soar past 0dB and distort. So you can use a compressor to make a sound unnaturally loud. Depending on the compressor the amount of post gain can also change the output signal, sometimes noticeably. Those Blockfish compressors do this dramatically (they are free so check em out) and I think this is the big reason for why they are popular. Conclusion: There should never be a situation where you 100% should compress a sound. However you can get a variety of different effects out of them depending on how you use them. The key to using comps well is to know what effect is appropriate, where and to what extent. If you take a recording of Ralph Vaughan Williams' The Lark Ascending, import it into Cubase and slam a bloody great compressor on the master bus with a 2:1 ratio, -60dB threshold, 0 attack, 0 decay, Hard Knee I guarantee you that you will make the original recording sound shitter in every possible way. Even if you had one of those amazing Neve compressors. Because its just not appropriate, and compressing everything indescriminately rarely works well. Yoozer is right on the ball when he says you completely could screw up the most beautiful singing voice on the planet with inappropriate use of a compressor. Even a good one. compressors won't necessarily make your guitar sound flat out 'better' all the time - hell some poor choices can make it sound alot worse. In the right place at the right time though they can accent a sound subtley or make it sound like it blends in better with a mix. And those tiny little details can make the difference between an OK song and something really great. WanderingKid fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Feb 6, 2007 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2007 18:23
|
|
|
Another great explanation. I hereby nominate WanderingKid as ML God of Compression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2007 22:29
|
|
|
Keefaz posted:Another great explanation. I hereby nominate WanderingKid as ML God of Compression. Second. Thanks for the explanation, that was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2007 23:41
|
|
|
It's a decent explanation of the typical uses of a compressor, but honestly he didn't touch the main use of compressors on rock records. Compressors are a tool to not only regulate the dynamics of a recorded sound and to make it fit in a mix better, but they're also creative tools used to bring life and variation into what may otherwise sound flat and boring. Our ears are used to hearing rock records where guitars jump out at us in certain parts and pull back in others, we like it when volumes vary and pump. Guitars in particular can sound dull, boring, or even harsh when they are just a wall of sound at a single dynamic. Distorted guitars tend to have almost 0 dynamic range which is why they're a great example of compression being used to CREATE dynamics and life. Often when mixing guitars at my studio we'll run an 1176 on an insert with a all the buttons pushed in. This produces a result that is far more extreme than the 20:1 ratio button, which is supposed to be the highest setting. We then use the attack and release knobs in extreme settings to make the compressor react to minute dynamics quickly, while holding the results for up to half a second. This will take a bland guitar and CRUNCH it right in your face, and make it pump in and out of the mix. This may not be appropriate 100% of the time, but it often gives life where there once was none. Another great place to use compressors to CREATE dynamics and life is with synthetic drums. Often programmed drums have terribly boring dynamics, because the sample isn't really manipulated even with velocity changes, it's merely triggered at different volumes. Using extreme ratios and low thresholds with slow attacks and medium releases, you can make a hi-hat bounce in and out of it's own dynamic, surging when it's not supposed to in a way that makes it much more real. An often forgotten and unused, yet highly important feature of compression is the key input. You can actually trigger the threshold of your compressor with another instrument. Let's say you have a part in a song where the bass is playing long, deep and sustained notes that eat up a lot of low end. Often these type of lines make the kick drum dissapear, especially if your drummer is playing softer during these parts, as he may be naturally inclined to do. If you put a compressor on the bass and send the kick to the key input of the bass compressor, you will compress the bass ONLY when the kick drum hits. If you play around with the settings you can make this subtle, so that it doesn't sound wierd but instead naturally allows the kick to poke out only when it needs to. This technique can also work well to let a vocal sit on top of guitars that may be a little too muddy or thick, eating up the vocal range. By using key inputs and pumping and breathing you can inject life into a static mix and make the instruments interact with each other. This is the "higher level" of mixing that goes beyond "I'm limiting the dynamic range so the levels don't get into the red". This is where you make decisions about orchestration and which instruments need to be accented where, in ways that go beyond simple volume envelopes and fader automation. This is the subtle art of using the tools to their extremes. It should also be noted that software compressors do not give anywhere near the results that hardware compressors do when used in these ways. Software presets often hamper our creativity by giving us a starting point that's too close to something that doesn't really work and too far from something we'd have to actually play around with to find. Knobs, tactile feel, and of course actual analog circutry give personality and character to an instrument that mathematics in the land of ones and zeros simply does not offer. Not only that, but our ears were trained on records made with analog equipment. Part of the reason some recordings sound amatureish is that they are missing some of the fundamental tones and tricks that have been done for 40 years now with tape playing through a console with outboard gear at the insert points. RivensBitch fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Feb 7, 2007 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2007 02:10
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:An often forgotten and unused, yet highly important feature of compression is the key input. You can actually trigger the threshold of your compressor with another instrument. Let's say you have a part in a song where the bass is playing long, deep and sustained notes that eat up a lot of low end. Often these type of lines make the kick drum dissapear, especially if your drummer is playing softer during these parts, as he may be naturally inclined to do. If you put a compressor on the bass and send the kick to the key input of the bass compressor, you will compress the bass ONLY when the kick drum hits. If you play around with the settings you can make this subtle, so that it doesn't sound wierd but instead naturally allows the kick to poke out only when it needs to. This technique can also work well to let a vocal sit on top of guitars that may be a little too muddy or thick, eating up the vocal range. What you are describing is a mixer routing trick or the use of a side chain input (if you mixer has them). You can side chain all kinds of things - like delay plugins when you want a singer's voice to echo when the vocals duck out but you don't want the slap back delay to make the words unintelligible. You probably already know that though. I use FL Studio which has a pretty basic mixer - not alot of routing and no side chain inputs  So I can only simulate this side chain effect with a gate and automating effect sends.But I guess alot of people use it with compressors - 'side chain compressor' must be one of the most popular search terms on the TA production forum so theres a big deal about it. That pumping effect you describe is also used in EDM with a side chained compressor. Benni Benassi really rinses this trick and the gain reduction is so dramatic that you can hear it fade in and out rapidly. Some people love this effect. Others hate it. Side chaining comps is used all the time when a bass note strikes at the same time as a bass drum, normally in 4 to the floor dance music. I should have included it really but I just sort of forgot about it. And I would agree that a number of drum machine sounds have really boring dynamics. Most synthesized bass drums are sine waves run through an LFO set to trigger in an envelope. LFO modulates pitch of sine wave using a sine wave at 180 degrees phase. Thats the basis of a very crude 909 type kick drum anyway. You could look at this in a wave editor and its basically just an exponentially diminishing squiggle. Its so uniform that in dance music, it is often common to layer several different types of sounds (including hihats and snares as well as other kick drums) with this boring 909 type drum then bounce the whole thing as a composite sound. Its more interesting dynamically and harmonically that way. I think this has given birth to the 'Alphazone' bass drum which for lack of a better description sounds a bit like a gunshot going off. But with more bass. These turn up alot in hard house and the like, where they are compressed even further. Christ... WanderingKid fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Feb 7, 2007 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2007 10:31
|
|
|
Nice one, guys. This is the kind of competitive teaching I'd like to see more often in schools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2007 13:29
|
|
|
Just a quick note, Logic's sidechaining is pretty easy, though I've never tried it with compression. RivensBitch's explanation of compression is very interesting - I've never even thought about using it on distorted guitars to generate dynamics artificially. Also, for anyone on a Mac who wants some compression with a bit of character, there's a free plugin suite called Fish Fillets which includes a compressor called Blockfish. It's pretty cool, though I haven't used it enough to get a real handle on its sound. There's also the SSL talkback mic compressor, which is fun to use but has a very specific sound that you can't control a whole lot. That's free on SSL's web site.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2007 18:45
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:Many sage words. I've been reading through this forum and trying to find something that already covers my question, and this is as close as I've come to finding an answer. Even so, I still don't think it answers everything for me, so if what I'm about to ask has already been covered somewhere, I do apologize (I did look!). I get the impression that having a compressor might help me with my issue on some level, but I'm not sure if it would be the solution to the whole thing. Right now, I'm just using Acid coupled with SoundForge to write techno (on a PC). I use some live samples (mostly guitar) from a friend of mine, but most of what I use are professionally created samples and loops, etc. (I am hoping to move up from this some day, but right now it's not financially or spacially possible). The problem I'm having is that, once I save the final song, using Acid's native mp3 converter, the overall volume goes waaaay down. It basically ends up sounding like recordings that came out prior to about '97 and I have to turn my volume up much higher to hear it. Of course, each song is different. I've done a couple that converted to mp3 without losing much in the way of volume and some that were shot to hell. It's confusing as hell because when I'm mixing the song in Acid, I get all of the levels to where I want them, but as soon as I try to save it to mp3 it's just destroyed. This is probably a result of my relative ignorance of anything beyond the programs I'm already using. The solution may be really simple or it could involve me getting off my arse and learning more complex techniques, I don't know. Whatever the case, I'd be much obliged if anyone had any idea what might be going on and how I could combat it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2007 19:14
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:Most synthesized bass drums are sine waves run through an LFO set to trigger in an envelope. LFO modulates pitch of sine wave using a sine wave at 180 degrees phase. Thats the basis of a very crude 909 type kick drum anyway. You could look at this in a wave editor and its basically just an exponentially diminishing squiggle. Its so uniform that in dance music, it is often common to layer several different types of sounds (including hihats and snares as well as other kick drums) with this boring 909 type drum then bounce the whole thing as a composite sound. Its more interesting dynamically and harmonically that way. I think this has given birth to the 'Alphazone' bass drum which for lack of a better description sounds a bit like a gunshot going off. But with more bass. These turn up alot in hard house and the like, where they are compressed even further. Christ... Are you 100% sure of this? Most analog kick drums are usually a sine wave (actually usually a filtered or shaped triangle wave) who's frequency is modulated by an exponentially decaying envelope and some noise running through a very low filter. Some times a resonant filter jacked up to the point of self oscillation is used instead of the oscillator. Sometimes two oscilators are used with slightly different modulation amounds and decay times (808 right here).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2007 22:19
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:What you are describing is a mixer routing trick or the use of a side chain input (if you mixer has them). You can side chain all kinds of things - like delay plugins when you want a singer's voice to echo when the vocals duck out but you don't want the slap back delay to make the words unintelligible. You probably already know that though. I'm not sure what you mean by this. The AMEK console at my studio does not have "side chain" connections anywhere. The technique I'm referring to uses the buses on the console to send a signal from another instrument (such as the kick drum) to the side chain or "key" input on the compressor thats being used on the affected signal (the bass). The sine wave kick drum technique you mentioned uses a gate, not a compressor. It's still an excellent technique, but not compression. In this instance a sine wave is sent to a gate, and then a send from the kick drum is connected to the side chain input on that gate. This opens the gate only when the kick drum is hit, in effect "triggering" the sine wave with the drum. A gate reduces volume when the signal falls BELOW the threshold A compressor reduces volume when the signal pushes ABOVE the threshold While a side chain (aka "key") input can be used to trigger the threshold on either, these are still two very important distinctions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2007 23:22
|
|
|
Yeah thats what I am getting at. The thing is certain mixers won't be able to do this. Im thinking mostly in software. For instance I have FL Studio and Voxengo Crunchessor which has a sidechain input. However it is greyed out when you run it in FL Studio's mixer so you can't use it. The sine wave kick drum thing was just how to synthesize a simple bass drum. Theres no compression involved in the process. It was just to demonstrate how boring they are dynamically. Thats just the basic process of building one in, for instance soundforge. Another example would be the basics for synthesizing analogue string sections. Basically its 2 (or more) saw wave oscillators, LFO modulates pitch of both saws in opposite phase along a triangle wave. Modulation amount is low and fairly slow (to simulate the natural vibrato that a violinist would perform). Output is rectified. Beyond that you can do anything to make it more convincing or less as the case may be. The TR-909 I believe doesn't add any noise source. It does have a ROM bank of samples which Roland have never disclosed. Thats one reason why you rarely see TR-909 clones - without those ROM samples it is very difficult to emulate 909 sounds - the bass drum and snare are the most difficult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 16:34
|
|
|
ParthenoNemesis posted:Of course, each song is different. I've done a couple that converted to mp3 without losing much in the way of volume and some that were shot to hell. It's confusing as hell because when I'm mixing the song in Acid, I get all of the levels to where I want them, but as soon as I try to save it to mp3 it's just destroyed. I believe you're looking for mastering plugins, which operate very differently than a regular compressor or limiter. My advice would be to not try to get the volume up in Acid at all - just mix so it's at a comfortable volume and not clipping. Export it, then bring it into a DAW of some sort. Then look into whatever mastering-style plugins you can use. Examples would be Logic's Adaptive Limiter, and stuff with names like "Maximizer," etc. This is something to be VERY CAREFUL about, because these plugins can make something loud AND/OR completely distort/flatten/destroy the sound. Then again, if you try to get that same loudness with a regular compressor and/or regular limiter, it will sound even worse 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 18:54
|
|
|
ParthenoNemesis posted:I've been reading through this forum and trying to find something that already covers my question, and this is as close as I've come to finding an answer. Even so, I still don't think it answers everything for me, so if what I'm about to ask has already been covered somewhere, I do apologize (I did look!). Thats not a compressor issue. I have no idea what would cause that. I use soundforge though and I know it outputs about 6 decibels louder than bouncing wavs and mp3s out of FL Studio's mixer. But then FL Studio outputs pretty cold so I would expect that. Also, what are you playing the mp3 in? Winamp? Because winamp not only has its own gain control but it is affected by Windows Sound and Audio devices volume. You can check this in control panel. for instance, I have my internal soundcard set to play back windows system sounds and things because these blow my head off if I use my Delta 1010 on +4dB. So everything in windows (winamp, windows media player etc) always outputs way quieter than in FL Studio and Soundforge which use my 1010 instead. Try checking in control panel and seeing what the gain faders are set to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 18:58
|
|
|
Swivel Master posted:I believe you're looking for mastering plugins... Hah, OK, thanks for the advice, I will definitely look into this. WanderingKid posted:Thats not a compressor issue. I have no idea what would cause that. I use soundforge though and I know it outputs about 6 decibels louder than bouncing wavs and mp3s out of FL Studio's mixer. But then FL Studio outputs pretty cold so I would expect that. The volume thing is universal. I've listened to the mp3s in Winamp, iTunes, through MySpace, etc., and I've also listened to them on both Macs and PCs (I've also had third parties do this). The problem persists! I've checked all the controls and that doesn't seem to be the issue, but I'll give her another once over just to make sure, especially based on what you mentioned. I have a feeling, though, that it's more to do with what Swivel Master mentioned above. We'll see. Either I'll come back triumphant or whining for further advice. Thanks to both of you!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 19:34
|
|
|
What's a good setup for recording drums? Is it best to actually have each individual drum/cymbal mic'ed, or can I get away with say, micing the kick drum and having one or two other mics for the snares/toms/cymbals?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 21:16
|
|
|
Pablo Gigante posted:What's a good setup for recording drums? Is it best to actually have each individual drum/cymbal mic'ed, or can I get away with say, micing the kick drum and having one or two other mics for the snares/toms/cymbals? This really depends on the kind of sound you are looking for. Some drum kits get by with only a kick drum mic and two overheads (mic's positioned above the drum kit on either side pointing down.) In fact Earthworks sells a set of mics for just this purpose. In my experience this tends to sound allright except with the snare and toms. You tend to get more of the snap of the snare drum and less tone from it, and it is very hard to balance the snare drum against the cymbals. The toms tend to sound short and thuddy. A slightly more involved setup is to do the same as above but add a microphone to the top of the snare. This way it is easier to control the level of the snare in the mix. Also because the snare has a microphone right on it's head you get more of the tone of the snare drum recorded. Sometimes beyond that another mic is added to the bottom of the snare, and it's signal is inverted to minimise phase issues with it and the top of the snare mic. I like this trick because it allows you to control the level of tone of the snare relative to the level of it's snap. The next level up is to mic all the toms. Really you can keep going almost forever. At my first big studio recording session. They had every drum with it's own mic, two overheads, two mics behind the drummer, one mic on the floor under his throne and two in the room at various distances. It seemed a little like overkill to me, but I guess if you have the resources you might as well go nuts, you can allways just kill off some of the mics later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 21:38
|
|
|
Pablo Gigante posted:What's a good setup for recording drums? Is it best to actually have each individual drum/cymbal mic'ed, or can I get away with say, micing the kick drum and having one or two other mics for the snares/toms/cymbals? Unless you really spend all your time recording bands and being a huge engineering nerd, keep it simple. D112 on kick, 57 on snare, and have a mono overhead pointing down at the whole kit from a centered position. Recording drums well is possibly the hugest pain in the rear end ever. The more mics you add the harder it gets. Let someone else have that headache when you're ready to head into the studio.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 21:51
|
|
|
Thanks guys  I have a limited mic supply, but your suggestions definitely help a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 21:54
|
|
|
Pablo Gigante posted:What's a good setup for recording drums? Is it best to actually have each individual drum/cymbal mic'ed, or can I get away with say, micing the kick drum and having one or two other mics for the snares/toms/cymbals? honestly you should be concerned much more with the room than the mics, as a poor room will ruin your sound no matter what mic techniques are used. Treat your room with equal parts of the following: 33% reflection - flat surfaces such as drywall or windows 33% absorption - acoustic foam, carpets, pillows, mineral fiber etc 33% diffusion - Multi-faceted surfaces. This is harder to make on your own, but think multi-stepped pyramids, wood panels with gaps and different levels/layers. Objects that have many different small surfaces that will "diffuse" sound in many directions. (one for each corner) Bass traps - Large/thick baffles place in the corners of your room. These break up standing waves and make your low end tight and solid instead of boomy and muddy. Dont forget your floor! Is it carpeted, wooden or tiled? Believe it or not the ideal setup is to have a mix of all three ! This is a decent way to start from with room treatment. Obviously over time you will want to modify your placement and ratio of reflection/absorption/diffusion to fit the needs of your room. Something to keep in mind is that when treated equally this way, the bigger the room is the better it will sound. If you had access to a high school gym with 50 foot ceilings and you could treat it properly, it would sound amazing - however doing so would be incredibly costly and would render it useless as a gym. In general the best rooms have high ceilings (20 feet or more is nice) and are at least 30-40 feet long in both width and depth. Once you have a room that sounds good, start micing your drums with a simple three mic setup. Put one mic in the kick and two condensers in a stereo configuration. I actually prefer to put them just below ear level, 3 feet behind the drummer, forming an equilateral triangle with his drum throne. This gives a better balance of drums vs cymbals. Other people mic in front of the kit or above in an "overhead" fashion. Experiment and see what gives you the best results. As you work with different mixes you should try experimenting with more microphones on the drums themselves, I would start with the snare and toms. I wouldn't worry about spot cymbal mics, in general you will have too much cymbal in your stereo pair of microphones. An important note on adding microphones to individual drums and mixing their signals in with a stereo pair. The key here is to get "more" of the drum than the surrounding drums and cymbals. If you're micing a tom and there is a cymbal above it, make sure to use a microphone with an EVEN cardioid pickup pattern. (By "EVEN" I mean that the pattern is actually cardioid at all frequencies. Many cheap mics have cardioid patterns at 1k but are omni by the time they get to 100hz.). When positioning a drum mic it is most important to aim it's rear axis at the nearest and/or loudest cymbal. Your mic picks up EVERYTHING in the room, not just what you point it at. A drum's sound will be blended with every other sound in the room, the angle of your off-axis rejection will determine what that other stuff sounds like and how it fits into your mix. This is the end-game of mic-technique, as when you mix later on and start applying EQ and compression to your individually mic'd drums, you have to live with HOW your mic affects the sound of everything that you didn't point it at. =============== The point to take from all this is that microphone technique and room acoustics go hand in hand. The way your room reflects and deals with sound will greatly affect the tone and mix of what your mics pick up. When you start spot-micing drums and mixing those signals with overheads or room mics, the sound reflected within your room is going to affect your mics much more than the placement of those mics. If you do not take your room into consideration and attempt to control the way it handles sound, it wont matter what mics you use or where you place them. RivensBitch fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Feb 8, 2007 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 21:59
|
|
|
RivensBitch is, unsurprisingly, right on the money. You can get a better drum sound with two mics and some hard work than you can with twenty mics just thrown around haphazardly. I personally start with two mics on the whole kit, adjust them ad nauseum, and only add from there if I really feel like I need it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 22:20
|
|
|
I'd like to throw in on micing drums and say that mono overhead will probably not sound particularly good. If you're gonna go overhead, go stereo. Same with room mics. In my experience, mono room mics have been fairly useless, while stereo room mics can fill out the sound and provide a great natural reverb (if the room is big enough). Keep in mind that aside from the room, the kit and the player are the most important aspects. Keeping the heads tuned and the player... uhh... good... is also a good method of getting a good drum recording.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2007 23:57
|
|
|
Swivel Master posted:Keep in mind that aside from the room, the kit and the player are the most important aspects. Keeping the heads tuned and the player... uhh... good... is also a good method of getting a good drum recording. One of my chief duties at my studio is preparing drums. I get paid $10 a drum to remove the old heads, clean the shells and bearing edges, seat new heads (either overnight or with a heat gun), and then tune the drum based on the resonant pitch of the shell (resonant head at the pitch, batter head a 4th or 5th below it). It's actually pretty cheap considering the results and time saved (I might spend 2-3 hours working with the drums. If the drums don't sound good an engineer can spend days trying to fix them and it still wont sound as good as if I'd been allowed to prep them). I know many studio owners that spend thousands of dollars on microphones and preamps when they could just buy a nice kit for less money and it would sound a million times better. There is nothing more important for an engineer to learn than how to tune instruments and make them sound good before a microphone is ever even plugged in. as for the player and their skill level, back in the 80s if your drummer couldn't hack it in the studio they'd hire a session player. Now they use protools and beat detective and sound replacer, and it sounds awful. Give me the session player any day, PLEASE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 00:07
|
|
|
I was wondering what exactly is the proper care and procedure for using condenser mics. As far as I know: 1) don't drop the mic/expose it to sudden shock 2) put the mic back when not in use 3) turn off phantom power and turn down gain/sensitivity before plugging in mic, then turn the phantom power on and turn the gain up after 4) what else? I know this seems like an amateur and silly question, but I think I fudged up my last condenser mic by not doing 3 all the time. There's a sale tomorrow for an AT2020 so I think I'm gonna pick one of those up, but I don't want to screw it up again, so I'm hoping you guys can tell me in thorough detail what I should and should not do. Edit: Also, the dudes at Long and McQuade told me when I asked for a SM57 that the SM58 would be much better for vocals, and a condenser mic would be much better for recording, which is how I got here since I was actually looking for a SM57 in the first place, but what do you guys think about that? I'm sure this question is asked a lot but I just need to know. Lumi fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Feb 9, 2007 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 00:53
|
|
|
Swivel Master posted:mono overhead will probably not sound particularly good. *koff* beatles *koff* stones *koffkoff* ACDC *HAUGHKOF* Zepplin excuse me, I have a cold  Lumi posted:Edit: Also, the dudes at Long and McQuade told me You could've just stopped there.... Those dickheads dont know their arse from a Tuschel connector. The only knowledgeable person there quit about 6 months ago. First of all, an SM58 IS an SM57. Just with a spitguard over the top. Same body for the most part, and exactly the same internals. It sounds a *little* different, but is 95% the same microphone. Secondly: A some condensers are better for recording *some* things, not all. The L+M guy is just trying to get you to spend money you might not need to. Of course though, if you went and dropped $800 on a nice mid-level condenser, it would be a great tool to add to your box. If you want another 57 though, get one, they are great utility mics, and super cheap. You can't really have enough of them IMO. Thirdly: You're in Vancouver apparently, pm me. I've got lots of tricks to get good deals from L+M people. Plus I build custom cables and gear for hella less than retail. Crystal Pepsi fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Feb 9, 2007 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 03:57
|
|
|
Crystal Pepsi posted:*koff* beatles *koff* stones *koffkoff* ACDC *HAUGHKOF* Zepplin
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 04:06
|
|
|
Crystal Pepsi posted:First of all, an SM58 IS an SM57. Just with a spitguard over the top. Same body for the most part, and exactly the same internals. It sounds a *little* different, but is 95% the same microphone. Well, actually, he did tell me that SM58 is an SM57, but he said that the filter would be better for vocals. And he did tell me that he could possibly get a condenser mic for less price than a SM57 if I'm not really looking for really high quality stuff, so I don't really think he was trying to get me to spend more money. Of course, I'm still not sure if he's right about everything, which is why I'm asking. I'm definitely recording on a budget, so a ~$800 isn't really for consideration. He did tell me that SM57 sounds kinda weird for recording vocals though, which I was kinda ehh about because I remember that SM57 was labelled as a instrument/vocal mic, so there's probably not much merit in his words. I'd love to talk to you about stuff, but unfortunately I don't have platinum. Edit: I'd be mainly using it to record vocals and acoustic guitar. Perhaps not even acoustic guitar, because I just may use its internal pickups, but a mic option would also be nice. So the focus is really vocals. With that in mind, which mic would be best?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 04:15
|
|
|
Lumi posted:stuff Ok maybe he wasnt trying to upsell you... but he still doesnt know what he's talking about. Any condenser you can get for sub $100 is going to be a piece of crap, and that spitguard thing doesnt really make much of a difference, unless you're a rapper. And then only because it looks more 'hiphop'. my msn is antiguru ATNOSPAMMY hotmail DOTTT com fyi
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 04:19
|
|
|
fun fact: chinese mics cost less to make than an SM57 (which are made in mexico btw), yet cost the same to an end user. Why is this? Because 57s have been selling in bulk since 1966, and have actually come down in price from what they used to be, which was (taking inflation into account) more than what you pay today. Bottom line, the SM57 is a better value and the cost to produce it is proof of that. Someone trying to move you from an SM57 to a cheap chinese condesner is doing so because they make $50 profit on the condenser and $15 profit on the SM57. Also contrary to popular belief the SM57 and SM58 are simmilar but not identical. The SM57 and SM56 use the R57 cartridge, the SM58 uses the R59. The beta57 and beta56 use the R174 cartridge, while the Beta58 uses the R176. While the cartridges may use the same diaphragm, the housing and transformers are usually very different, and this affects the sound.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 05:49
|
|
|
Just to be clear, I was talking about this mic: http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/AudioTechnica-AT2020-Large-Diaphragm-Cardioid-Condenser-Microphone?sku=270620 I'm not sure if that's a cheap Chinese condenser because I don't know poo poo, so is it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 06:00
|
|
|
yes, in fact AT does all their manufacturing in asia. Their higher end stuff is decent, but that is the same mass produced chinese capsule that everyone else sells, it's just in a different body.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 06:50
|
|
|
Well, is it worth getting? The way I know it is that condenser mics are more sensitive and therefore better for recording acoustic sources, but is it worth getting this? I'm going to get a SM57 eventually, but right now I can only afford one mic at a time. I guess my question is that would SM57 actually sound better with what I want to record (vocals, generally) over the condenser mic, even if it's a cheap Chinese one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 07:21
|
|
|
Alright I'm new to the whole recording thing, right now my recording rig is super super ghetto. I basically use a Digitech Jam-man Looping pedal and extract the recorded loop off the SD card onto my PC. However I'm interested into getting into a little bigger production, the question is, where do I start? All I've got is that Jam-man, and a Warez'D FL studio and Cool Edit Pro v2.1(?) I would like to start recording just guitar parts, but eventually getting into the whole production of music thing. Where do I go from here? I like Punk, Rock, Metal and Ska, though recently some electronic music has been interesting me. The biggest problem is that I'm trying to save for a car (I'm about 1,500 off my goal for a downpayment (6k) and I bring in around 1 thousand a month, or around 700 once I pay all my bills and poo poo), so I'd prefer not to spend more than 2-3 hundred dollars a month on this. However after the initial purchase of the car I'll have around $500 to spend a month, maybe a bit more, maybe less. Basically my ideas for the first round of purchases comes down to: A Bass Guitar (This will probably wait, as I might be able to get it cheap somewhere) + A Practice amp A Decent Accoustic Guitar (2-3 hundred dollar range) 2 Microphones, I've seen a thread around here on Mics, I'll probably grab the best one for Vocals, and the Best one for Guitar Amp/Accoustic Guitar. + Whatever I need to put the Mics into the PC A PC Upgrade, some more RAM and a Second External HDD A Synth/MIDI Controller (Looking at the Microkorg) Which of the above is the best place to start with the initial start up of say 400-500 dollars? Or is there something else I should look for to begin? Common sense says that Microphones or The PC Upgrade should be the most logical purchase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 09:08
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:All I've got is that Jam-man, and a Warez'D FL studio and Cool Edit Pro v2.1(?) I would like to start recording just guitar parts, but eventually getting into the whole production of music thing. Where do I go from here? Eh...Well you could start by actually buying the programs you are using. Then you get an instruction manual amongst other percs (such as access to Imagelines technical help forum).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 12:57
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:Eh...Well you could start by actually buying the programs you are using. Then you get an instruction manual amongst other percs (such as access to Imagelines technical help forum). I've been fortunate enough to find both Video guides and E-books for FL studios, plus I'd rather not have my first round of purchases blown on something I already have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 18:20
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:A PC Upgrade, some more RAM and a Second External HDD - monitor speakers - a proper audio interface (aka fancy word for soundcard that's not a cheap gaming 7.1 piece of crap). If you invest a bit in the latter and don't skimp on it you may even save yourself buying a mixer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 18:48
|
|
|
Crystal Pepsi posted:*koff* beatles *koff* stones *koffkoff* ACDC *HAUGHKOF* Zepplin I'm sorry, but that's not a valid point. Those are bands with access to the absolute BEST in every other category. I'm sure you could have recorded John Bonham with one of those tiny mics built into old all-in-one Macs and it would have sounded relatively good. Record in a decent room with a decent kit and a good player into a mid-price condensor through decent preamps and onto digital using good converters, and I challenge you to come up with something that sounds 1/10th as good anything Zeppelin ever recorded. And, as much as I love the Beatles, they didn't focus on recording drums. Some of the best sounding drum parts on their albums have elements recorded separately (double-tracked snare drum, fills recorded separately and panned separately, drum set on one side and tamborine on the other, etc.).. nobody does that anymore anyway. edit: Not as familiar with Stones and ACDC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 19:36
|
|
|
Lumi posted:
There's no point in buying a shittier mic that you're going to need to replace pretty soon if you get serious. If you get an SM57, you will be happy with it for the rest of your recording life. Plus, it's really durable, so you can drop it 100 times and it probably won't break. Not the best for vocals, but nothing under $500 is gonna be too good for vocals anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 19:39
|
|
about SM57
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Swivel Master posted:use stereo overheads arr arr arr Aside from that, the megaproducers/engineers in charge of these albums thought it would be just fine to use a mono overhead, and it was! Thirdly, stereo overheads cause phase issues and accentuate the sound of the room, and aside from 3 or 4 people here with access to good drum rooms, that's probably not a good thing. Crystal Pepsi fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Feb 9, 2007 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2007 21:33
|
|