T
The Arkitekt
Guest
Does it really just boil down to the sound of hardware or plug-ins you use, or is there methods and certain ways of giving your tracks transparency?
-
warzone (nov 5-9) signup begins in...
T
The Arkitekt
Guest
I aint really talking about cutting freq's on one track for another track, I mean without cutting freq's and making a sound clear while it's playing with another sound
But that is still acheived through equing & panning. you have to filter freqeuncies to stop the phased sounds cancelling each other out. Having two sounds playing at the same frequency at the same time can cause havok with the way the final sound comes out of the speakers.
The definition of all the sounds "A place for every sound, and every sound in its place" is acheived entirely through eqing/panning with maybe some compression. But compression takes away from dynamic range.
T
The Arkitekt
Guest
you know how someone might say a pre or mic sounds very transparent? I mean like that. I aint tryin to cut to much
God
Creator of the Universe
ill o.g.
a pre that doesn't color the sound is "transparent". any microphone that is not a Neumann U-whatever is said to "color" sound b/c everyone's ears is trained to a f---ing Neumann (this is arguable). coloring comes from cheap hardware not intended to color sound or hardware specifically designed to color sound.
for example. using different digital converters can color the sound. they're not transparent.
transparency in mixing is being able to eq out "clashes" between different tones from different instruments so everything "sounds in its place" or "plays through" correctly.
for example. using different digital converters can color the sound. they're not transparent.
transparency in mixing is being able to eq out "clashes" between different tones from different instruments so everything "sounds in its place" or "plays through" correctly.
T
The Arkitekt
Guest
Ohhhh ight. Thanks for clearing that up for me God.
God
Creator of the Universe
ill o.g.
Not to beat a dead horse here... but if I were you, I'd worry more about transparency in the EQ-realm. People rely too much on gear these days and forget about expertise. True outboard processing is great-- but a lot of the greatest producers and engineers in the 70's and 80's worked in the analog realm and really knew how to use gear we'd call "paleolithic" today. They really knew how to use EQ and "hand automate" stuff before the era of DAWs. Listen to how polished late seventies and eighties mixes were. This was done without ProTools. You have more today on your DAW than cats did back then (except for awesome outboard FX/hardware processors, comps, etc.) But some of them sucked too.
Sometimes we have too many options.
I'd rather have the best audio-engineer working with me on low-budget DAWs doing an album rather than a newbie working on the best technology out there. You feel me?
Yeah but were talking about 2 different things here - 1. Optimal Gear to help produce the best possible source files to work with, 2. The use of EQ on those files (which is an editing choice mind you and not required at all times) to help remedy what your gear/technique didn't faithfully produce in the recording stage.
It doesn't make any sense to argue that its the Engineer not the Equipment in this case since there really is no debate there. And I agree, the engineer certainly makes the track, not the equipment.
But to dismiss the fact that through correct mic placement, the use of good gain structure, and having top-notch mic pre's, etc. at your disposal will help remedy a lot of issues that you would simply have to EQ out later doesn't make any sense...and I think thats what Ark was getting at in his question.
Looking at this solely from an engineer/producer's perspective, I dont see why you wouldn't want to have the best tools possible in your studio to help create the sound your going for from the start of your project? - Not later once the files are already created and now its up to you to fix things via mixing tricks and processing.
That stuff is all good and handy and certainly needed many times during the mixing stage but Im a firm advocate of trying to produce the closest results possible to what your going for through the use of correct technique, mic choice, preamps, blablabla, first. That way when you finally get to the mixing stage your not engaged in cleaning up your tracks due to poor choices so much as just having fun and creatively getting to mix your track to your taste.
Granted, no matter what gear you have there will be times that it doesn't make a difference since what your going for in the first place may only be produced via processing, etc., but Ive found most of the time you really can get pretty dam close or spot on to what your going for through a little patience and the use of the correct tools.
It doesn't make any sense to argue that its the Engineer not the Equipment in this case since there really is no debate there. And I agree, the engineer certainly makes the track, not the equipment.
But to dismiss the fact that through correct mic placement, the use of good gain structure, and having top-notch mic pre's, etc. at your disposal will help remedy a lot of issues that you would simply have to EQ out later doesn't make any sense...and I think thats what Ark was getting at in his question.
Looking at this solely from an engineer/producer's perspective, I dont see why you wouldn't want to have the best tools possible in your studio to help create the sound your going for from the start of your project? - Not later once the files are already created and now its up to you to fix things via mixing tricks and processing.
That stuff is all good and handy and certainly needed many times during the mixing stage but Im a firm advocate of trying to produce the closest results possible to what your going for through the use of correct technique, mic choice, preamps, blablabla, first. That way when you finally get to the mixing stage your not engaged in cleaning up your tracks due to poor choices so much as just having fun and creatively getting to mix your track to your taste.
Granted, no matter what gear you have there will be times that it doesn't make a difference since what your going for in the first place may only be produced via processing, etc., but Ive found most of the time you really can get pretty dam close or spot on to what your going for through a little patience and the use of the correct tools.
Formant024
Digital Smokerings
ill o.g.
^^^ well said, some of these discrete mics, pre-amps provide so much air/headroom that they blend almost automatically in the mix. It's not really transpareny but if there's less headroom available then a signal will lose its shape, any signal for that matter(whether that be mic/line chain or summing). In the end though, its always an engineering skill to use his tools to find the right balance between loudness and detail for all signalpath to sum the perfect mix. From an ITB point of view (or bedroomtechie), learn to eq/mix with low volume on the nearfields.
T
The Arkitekt
Guest
In a way...
was really trying to get my sounds to be what I thought "transparent" meant without killin freq's. I tweak my samples and re-record them in DAW, thought maybe I could add "transparency" into that.
7thangel
7th Angel of Armageddon
ill o.g.
not to dismiss all the points here but i'm still trying to clarify what the op is for,
is it transparency via a lack of colour such as many linear phase eq's, certain compressors (hard and soft), etc often used by mastering engineers, as well as, mixers?
or is it 'transparency' via clean and clear which would include the techniques along with using the tools, (eq, comp., expander, reverb, etc,) regardless if they're transparent or coloured, in order for all the elements of the song to be heard without phase, 'beating', freq., and masking issues?
it's a matter of semantics and intent
is it transparency via a lack of colour such as many linear phase eq's, certain compressors (hard and soft), etc often used by mastering engineers, as well as, mixers?
or is it 'transparency' via clean and clear which would include the techniques along with using the tools, (eq, comp., expander, reverb, etc,) regardless if they're transparent or coloured, in order for all the elements of the song to be heard without phase, 'beating', freq., and masking issues?
it's a matter of semantics and intent
T
The Arkitekt
Guest
Transparency is the first thing you said, just meaning no color/no altered sound on the output. I thought it was a little like the second thing you said
word, too many possibilities are a real creativity killer.
as for transparency, since i rarely give away stuff for mixing or mastering, i sometimes use izotope ozone for my master tracks. this tool can make a good mix sound brilliant. well, not mtv-brilliant brilliant, but underground brilliant
God
Creator of the Universe
ill o.g.
I believe most people on this forum do not have the sufficient top-level gear to even warrant an argument on "gear." Many people can't afford the top-level gear you speak of. They can only afford modest or budget improvements to a Mac-based DAW.
My idea of top level gear is something along these lines:
http://www.recordplant.com/facilities/SSL-1-specs.html
Perhaps your standard may be different.
But I have seen cats make some great recordings on budget DAWs because they knew how to use tools already at their disposal. Granted, budget gear does provide some issues, but a great engineer knows how to sidestep a lot of problems.
I'm all for better gear. But to have a discussion about REAL top-level gear when many people reading this don't have an extra $50,000 to spend on gear is not helpful to the conversation.
My opinion.
7thangel
7th Angel of Armageddon
ill o.g.
there's enough top level itb tools i.e. plugins, that will do the job and you would be surprised how many pros, well known pros, are using them with regularity, and some are tipping the ratio towards plugs like 60/40 or more. shit, some, due to pt, are used to using the very average bomb factory and the default plugs to achieve results,...
so don't sweat the tools you can't afford (won't make a significant improvement if you don't know how to properly use them) and instead find the ones that you can use that still offer high quality, which doesn't necessarily mean expensive (like ddmf eq's, a great opp to get a respected lin. phase eq for a price you dictate)
so don't sweat the tools you can't afford (won't make a significant improvement if you don't know how to properly use them) and instead find the ones that you can use that still offer high quality, which doesn't necessarily mean expensive (like ddmf eq's, a great opp to get a respected lin. phase eq for a price you dictate)