[Herman]

I'm a musician and still a bit green on the studio stuff. I recently
recorded a new CD and did some of the tracking at home on a MBOX2. I
took the files to a proper HD studio and they did the rest of the
tracking, mixing and mastering there. I was a bit disappointed though
with some of the mixes I got back. Two of the tracks are simple guitar
and voice tracks with little additional instruments. What bothered me
on these track was that the little fret and finger noises from the
finger style playing were very audible and distracting, whereas they
were much better on my mixes with only mediocre plugins. The EQ was
also quite bright. I spoke to the engineer and it turns out they used
multiband compression on the individual tracks and the mastering. I
thought mutiband compression was mostly used on mastering. Is this true
and could this be the reason why the little noises were so audible?

H

[Peter Larsen]

Herman wrote:

... What bothered me
on these track was that the little fret and finger noises from the
finger style playing were very audible and distracting [multiband
compression applied by someone] ... and could this be the reason
why the little noises were so audible?

Compression always increases any noise issue. I don't know the musical
style and the context, so it is not for me to comment on whether it
matters, but you should preferably be happy rather than annoyed. They
may have considered it to constitute "increased hifi", ie. "a feature"
rather than a give-away of overproduction, generally I do not think that
listeners will experience it as "a problem", but if they have become
"splatty" then perhaps.

H


Peter Larsen

[Julian]

On 3 Dec 2006 13:53:37 -0800, "Herman" wrote:

I'm a musician and still a bit green on the studio stuff. I recently
recorded a new CD and did some of the tracking at home on a MBOX2. I
took the files to a proper HD studio and they did the rest of the
tracking, mixing and mastering there. I was a bit disappointed though
with some of the mixes I got back. Two of the tracks are simple guitar
and voice tracks with little additional instruments. What bothered me
on these track was that the little fret and finger noises from the
finger style playing were very audible and distracting, whereas they
were much better on my mixes with only mediocre plugins. The EQ was
also quite bright. I spoke to the engineer and it turns out they used
multiband compression on the individual tracks and the mastering. I
thought mutiband compression was mostly used on mastering. Is this true
and could this be the reason why the little noises were so audible?

H

Multiband compression can be used on a master to even out frequency
humps. It can be used on individual tracks, if needed, but I usually
don't go there, so I more or less agree with you on that point. It
doesn't really matter WHY they did anything, the important thing is
WHAT it sounds like and you are very obviously not satisfied with the
job they did. That's the main point. You are less happy with the
product after they did their magic than what you can do on your own.
That's not OK. You can work with them to try to get a mix more to
your own liking or move on somewhere else.

Julian

[Carey Carlan]

"Herman" wrote in news:1165182817.789598.83730
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I spoke to the engineer and it turns out they used
multiband compression on the individual tracks and the mastering. I
thought mutiband compression was mostly used on mastering. Is this true
and could this be the reason why the little noises were so audible?

Compression, multiband or otherwise, can be applied at any point in the
processing. It isn't the type of compression that's the culprit--it's the
degree of compression.

Heavy multiband compression will bring every tiny sound up to the level of
the loudest sound. Your finger noise can be almost as loud as your most
powerful chord.

You have been beaten over the head with "commercial" processing.

[Peter Larsen]

Peter Larsen wrote:

Herman wrote:

... What bothered me
on these track was that the little fret and finger noises from the
finger style playing were very audible and distracting [multiband
compression applied by someone] ... and could this be the reason
why the little noises were so audible?

Compression always increases any noise issue. I don't know the musical
style and the context, so it is not for me to comment on whether it
matters, but you should preferably be happy rather than annoyed.

Oh oh, didn't mean to imply that you should be happy with what you got,
rather that they should give you something that you are happy with. The
difference is non-trivial.

Peter Larsen

They
may have considered it to constitute "increased hifi", ie. "a feature"
rather than a give-away of overproduction, generally I do not think that
listeners will experience it as "a problem", but if they have become
"splatty" then perhaps.

H

Peter Larsen

[Julian]

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 01:50:37 +0100, Peter Larsen
wrote:

Compression always increases any noise issue. I don't know the musical
style and the context, so it is not for me to comment on whether it
matters, but you should preferably be happy rather than annoyed. They
may have considered it to constitute "increased hifi", ie. "a feature"
rather than a give-away of overproduction, generally I do not think that
listeners will experience it as "a problem", but if they have become
"splatty" then perhaps.

I don't think heavily compressing finger style guitar is generally
good engineering.

Julian

[Peter Larsen]

Julian wrote:

I don't think heavily compressing finger style guitar is
generally good engineering.

I personally agree and I consider the use of a multiband device on an
acoustic guitar to be a peculiar choice, but neither you nor I know the
context and musical genre.

Julian


Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen wrote:
I personally agree and I consider the use of a multiband device on an
acoustic guitar to be a peculiar choice, but neither you nor I know the
context and musical genre.

There are two major uses of a multiband compressor:

1. The first use is to just make everything louder and fit a certain
sterotypical spectrum. The classic use here is in mastering, where you
set a crossover point at the highest note of the bass and compress the
top and bottom seperately so you can compress more without the kick drum
and bass modulating everything else. This can be carried to abusive
extremes with dozens of bands by people who don't care about tonality
and just want everything loud, but it can be a powerful mastering tool
if used judiciously.

2. The second use is to deal with individual artifacts. You can think of
it as a swanky sort of de-esser... and you can use it to deal with things
like vocal hisses and guitar squeaks. It's possible to use multiband
compression to help remove fingering noise.

Odds are the use the original poster heard was closer to #1 than #2,
but that's not a reason to discount the multiband compressor entirely.
It's a powerful tool, even if it's a horribly overused and frequently
abused one today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[news to me]

agreed.


"Julian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 01:50:37 +0100, Peter Larsen
wrote:

Compression always increases any noise issue. I don't know the musical
style and the context, so it is not for me to comment on whether it
matters, but you should preferably be happy rather than annoyed. They
may have considered it to constitute "increased hifi", ie. "a feature"
rather than a give-away of overproduction, generally I do not think that
listeners will experience it as "a problem", but if they have become
"splatty" then perhaps.

I don't think heavily compressing finger style guitar is generally
good engineering.

Julian

[news to me]

regardless of the genre - plugins and mixing is a personal choice and of the
original poster is unhappy with waht he got he should make them do it again
or go somewhere else


"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Julian wrote:

I don't think heavily compressing finger style guitar is
generally good engineering.

I personally agree and I consider the use of a multiband device on an
acoustic guitar to be a peculiar choice, but neither you nor I know the
context and musical genre.

Julian


Peter Larsen

[news to me]

not to mention misused, as is i suspect he case here


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Peter Larsen wrote:
I personally agree and I consider the use of a multiband device on an
acoustic guitar to be a peculiar choice, but neither you nor I know the
context and musical genre.

There are two major uses of a multiband compressor:

1. The first use is to just make everything louder and fit a certain
sterotypical spectrum. The classic use here is in mastering, where you
set a crossover point at the highest note of the bass and compress the
top and bottom seperately so you can compress more without the kick drum
and bass modulating everything else. This can be carried to abusive
extremes with dozens of bands by people who don't care about tonality
and just want everything loud, but it can be a powerful mastering tool
if used judiciously.

2. The second use is to deal with individual artifacts. You can think of
it as a swanky sort of de-esser... and you can use it to deal with things
like vocal hisses and guitar squeaks. It's possible to use multiband
compression to help remove fingering noise.

Odds are the use the original poster heard was closer to #1 than #2,
but that's not a reason to discount the multiband compressor entirely.
It's a powerful tool, even if it's a horribly overused and frequently
abused one today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mark]

Carey Carlan wrote:
"Herman" wrote in news:1165182817.789598.83730
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I spoke to the engineer and it turns out they used
multiband compression on the individual tracks and the mastering. I
thought mutiband compression was mostly used on mastering. Is this true
and could this be the reason why the little noises were so audible?

Compression, multiband or otherwise, can be applied at any point in the
processing. It isn't the type of compression that's the culprit--it's the
degree of compression.

Heavy multiband compression will bring every tiny sound up to the level of
the loudest sound. Your finger noise can be almost as loud as your most
powerful chord.

You have been beaten over the head with "commercial" processing.

Yep, everybody that touches it has to put "their touch" on it..

what good would it do for it to sound the same as when the got it...

Mark

[Six String Stu]

This brings out a question I have had for some time.
There are times when the callouses on my finger tips get so thick and hard
that I can hear their contact with the strings. To fix the issue and still
maintain my style of playing I not only clean but lubricate my guitar
strings with WD-40. I slide a towel behind the strings to protect the fret
board and spay some WD on another rag and wipe the strings down real well.
Maybe silicone would work also but I don't have the cash for the good stuff.
So the question is (and this might not be the right place to ask since y'all
work the recording end but.......is there any bad news for doing this to
one's strings? I've not noticed a shortened life span on the strings. I
change them about once a month of heavy playing. I've known some guys that
change strings after every gig.
Point is I've never noticed any degredation on the strings or their
sound/tone, but then again that could be something is cumulative or time
dependant. And I have noticed the thick tips sound is less.
and b4 ya ask ... Yes I wash my hands a lot.

--
remove "spamtrap" in return address for replys.
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
20% of all sales goes to the local food pantry.
Accepting any and all donations of pro audio equipment.
Thanks so much to those who have responded.
"Herman" wrote in message
ps.com...
I'm a musician and still a bit green on the studio stuff. I recently
recorded a new CD and did some of the tracking at home on a MBOX2. I
took the files to a proper HD studio and they did the rest of the
tracking, mixing and mastering there. I was a bit disappointed though
with some of the mixes I got back. Two of the tracks are simple guitar
and voice tracks with little additional instruments. What bothered me
on these track was that the little fret and finger noises from the
finger style playing were very audible and distracting, whereas they
were much better on my mixes with only mediocre plugins. The EQ was
also quite bright. I spoke to the engineer and it turns out they used
multiband compression on the individual tracks and the mastering. I
thought mutiband compression was mostly used on mastering. Is this true
and could this be the reason why the little noises were so audible?

H

[Joseph Ashwood]

"Six String Stu" wrote in message
...
This brings out a question I have had for some time.
There are times when the callouses on my finger tips get so thick and hard
that I can hear their contact with the strings. To fix the issue and still
maintain my style of playing I not only clean but lubricate my guitar
strings with WD-40. I slide a towel behind the strings to protect the fret
board and spay some WD on another rag and wipe the strings down real well.
Maybe silicone would work also but I don't have the cash for the good
stuff.
So the question is (and this might not be the right place to ask since
y'all work the recording end but.......is there any bad news for doing
this to one's strings?

It will certainly change the timbre of the instrument, although probably not
noticably unless you've got an oscilloscope handy. The bigger issue I would
think would be the incidental build up of it the neck. I know you said
you're very careful during application, but it does leave a residue that
will transfer in small amounts onto the neck, eventually I can see this
changing the sound substantially, making the neck look dirty of streaky, or
even causing strange warpage, none of which is any good. Make sure you
thoroughly wipe down your neck every time you change the strings, applying a
good wood cleaning solution might even have a beneficial visual impact. Have
you thought about using one of the more substantial nail sanding pads
available at Walmart (in the cosmetics aisle) to remove some of the callous?
It's certainly going to be less damaging to your guitar.

Guess it depends on how often you want to replace the neck.
Joe

[Peter Larsen]

Six String Stu wrote:

work the recording end but.......is there any bad news for doing
this to one's strings?

The skin is not a barrier to WD 40 and it belongs to a class of chemical
mixes that are highly likely to be long term cancerogenous and are
affiliated with lymph node cancer. Single contacts with the stuff ...
not to worry imo, but too much skin contact is imo to be avoided. I even
think it says so on the can.

and b4 ya ask ... Yes I wash my hands a lot.

Irrelevant, it has penetrated by then, the skin is not a barrier to it.


Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

2. The second use is to deal with individual artifacts. You can think of
it as a swanky sort of de-esser... and you can use it to deal with things
like vocal hisses and guitar squeaks. It's possible to use multiband
compression to help remove fingering noise.

Silly me, of course!

--scott


Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

Six String Stu wrote:

I not only clean but lubricate my guitar
strings with WD-40. I slide a towel behind the strings to protect the fret
board and spay some WD on another rag and wipe the strings down real well.

There was a rumor going around in folk music circles back in the late
'60s that Dr. Bronner's Peppermint Soap (liquid) was the greatest thing
for cleaning guitar strings. Everyone I know who tried it (including
me, of course) found that it made them completely dead, but the guitar
smelled nice.

I don't think having a guitar and fingertips that smell like WD-40
would be very inspiring, but then maybe you're into "metal" music. g

So the question is (and this might not be the right place to ask since y'all
work the recording end but.......is there any bad news for doing this to
one's strings?

I know a couple of people who use Finger-Eze (a silicone spray) wiht
reaosnable success. As an engineer, I wouldn't do it to a client's
strings unless he was prepared to change them if it didn't work. I have
asked musicians to change their strings if they're too dead. Sometimes
the response is "oh, yeah, I guess I should" but I've had some who say
that's how they want the guitar to sound. You give 'em what they want
and remind them that it's what they asked for if they don't like it.

[Scott Dorsey]

"Six String Stu" wrote in message
...
This brings out a question I have had for some time.
There are times when the callouses on my finger tips get so thick and hard
that I can hear their contact with the strings. To fix the issue and still
maintain my style of playing I not only clean but lubricate my guitar
strings with WD-40. I slide a towel behind the strings to protect the fret
board and spay some WD on another rag and wipe the strings down real well.
Maybe silicone would work also but I don't have the cash for the good
stuff.
So the question is (and this might not be the right place to ask since
y'all work the recording end but.......is there any bad news for doing
this to one's strings?

I would think if anything it would tend to preserve your strings, since
the WD-40 is going to keep all your finger oils in solution and keep them
from etching the string surfaces.

It'll probably change the tone of the strings, but maybe that's a good thing
too.

The thing that would worry me is what it's doing to your fingers. That
stuff is not exactly good for you. Mineral oil from the drugstore
would be better, and even that is not so great for your skin.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Six String Stu]

All very valid points.
I haven't noticed any discoloration on the neck (yet) but then again I tell
folks I'm blind, don't I). I'm more concerned about the cancer issue. Guess
that pratice gets relegated to the past from now on.
When I R&R the strings I allways give the entire instrument a good cleaning.
Once on a differnt guitar I had the fretboard replaced due to some wear
caused by bending the srtings, Didn't think at the time that my WD trick had
contributed to it's issues.

--
remove "spamtrap" in return address for replys.
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
20% of all sales goes to the local food pantry.
Accepting any and all donations of pro audio equipment.
Thanks so much to those who have responded.
"Six String Stu" wrote in message
...
This brings out a question I have had for some time.
There are times when the callouses on my finger tips get so thick and hard
that I can hear their contact with the strings. To fix the issue and still
maintain my style of playing I not only clean but lubricate my guitar
strings with WD-40. I slide a towel behind the strings to protect the fret
board and spay some WD on another rag and wipe the strings down real well.
Maybe silicone would work also but I don't have the cash for the good
stuff.
So the question is (and this might not be the right place to ask since
y'all work the recording end but.......is there any bad news for doing
this to one's strings? I've not noticed a shortened life span on the
strings. I change them about once a month of heavy playing. I've known
some guys that change strings after every gig.
Point is I've never noticed any degredation on the strings or their
sound/tone, but then again that could be something is cumulative or time
dependant. And I have noticed the thick tips sound is less.
and b4 ya ask ... Yes I wash my hands a lot.

--
remove "spamtrap" in return address for replys.
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
20% of all sales goes to the local food pantry.
Accepting any and all donations of pro audio equipment.
Thanks so much to those who have responded.
"Herman" wrote in message
ps.com...
I'm a musician and still a bit green on the studio stuff. I recently
recorded a new CD and did some of the tracking at home on a MBOX2. I
took the files to a proper HD studio and they did the rest of the
tracking, mixing and mastering there. I was a bit disappointed though
with some of the mixes I got back. Two of the tracks are simple guitar
and voice tracks with little additional instruments. What bothered me
on these track was that the little fret and finger noises from the
finger style playing were very audible and distracting, whereas they
were much better on my mixes with only mediocre plugins. The EQ was
also quite bright. I spoke to the engineer and it turns out they used
multiband compression on the individual tracks and the mastering. I
thought mutiband compression was mostly used on mastering. Is this true
and could this be the reason why the little noises were so audible?

H

[[email protected]]

On 2006-12-03 said:
I'm a musician and still a bit green on the studio stuff. I
recently recorded a new CD and did some of the tracking at home on
a MBOX2. I took the files to a proper HD studio and they did the
rest of the tracking, mixing and mastering there. I was a bit
disappointed though with some of the mixes I got back. Two of the
tracks are simple guitar and voice tracks with little additional
instruments. What bothered me on these track was that the little
fret and finger noises from the finger style playing were very
audible and distracting, whereas they were much better on my mixes
with only mediocre plugins. The EQ was also quite bright. I spoke
to the engineer and it turns out they used multiband compression
on the individual tracks and the mastering.
Multiband compression can be used on a master to even out frequency
humps. It can be used on individual tracks, if needed, but I
usually don't go there, so I more or less agree with you on that
point. It doesn't really matter WHY they did anything, the
important thing is WHAT it sounds like and you are very obviously
not satisfied with the job they did. That's the main point. You
are less happy with the product after they did their magic than
what you can do on your own. That's not OK. You can work with them
to try to get a mix more to your own liking or move on somewhere
else.
I'd suggest going somewhere else. Obviously these folks
don't have the musical sensibilities to be dealing with your
project, or they would have caught onto this.

Btw, net time remain on the scene for the mixing sessions,
and maybe go to the mastering sessions.



Richard webb,
Electric Spider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

[Bob Cain]

Peter Larsen wrote:

The skin is not a barrier to WD 40 and it belongs to a class of chemical
mixes that are highly likely to be long term cancerogenous and are
affiliated with lymph node cancer.

FWIW, they claim otherwise:

http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds...aerosol.us.pdf


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Scott Dorsey]

Bob Cain wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote:

The skin is not a barrier to WD 40 and it belongs to a class of chemical
mixes that are highly likely to be long term cancerogenous and are
affiliated with lymph node cancer.

FWIW, they claim otherwise:

http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds...aerosol.us.pdf

Yes, but remember the tobacco companies talking about how cigarettes
filled your lungs with carbon monoxide that killed bacteria and prevented
lung disease?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Boris Lau]

Peter Larsen wrote:
You should trust your President considerably more than you should trust
a chemical plant saying their stuff is safe.

Depends on the President, I'd say ;-)

Boris

--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[Peter Larsen]

Bob Cain wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

The skin is not a barrier to WD 40 and it belongs to a class
of chemical mixes that are highly likely to be long term
cancerogenous and are affiliated with lymph node cancer.

FWIW, they claim otherwise:

http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds...aerosol.us.pdf

You should trust your President considerably more than you should trust
a chemical plant saying their stuff is safe.

It was also said that solvents did not cause brain damage and that
painters who had become sick because of turpentine innhalation had been
less intelligent all the way. Organic solvents pass skin because of
their affinitity to fat and they destroy nerve cells by dissolving the
fatty insulation layer. It was also said that half a liter of milk at
lunch every day would protect from solvent damage, I may still have that
magazine somewhere.

Long chain hydrocarbons supplement the risk from solvent(s) in WD40 that
by being carcinogenic and get carried through the skin by the solvent
component of the stuff. There are also a bit of additives in and some
"dry lubricants",. could be graphite, could be molybdenedisulphide,
neither of which are in any way wholesome.

IF the OP wants to lubricate metal strings, then he should use rape seed
oil instead, edible things are releatively safe to put on the skin.

WD40 and similar "looseners" are a very costly way to purchase kerosene
with a bit of SAE30 in it anyway .... a guy who repaired printing press
machinery for M.A.N told me in 1976 that dry lubricants were problematic
as oil additives anyway because they end up as abrasives when worn down.
Spraying the stuff on is generally best avoided and incredibly wasteful.
There are things that I will prefer to spray lube if lubrication on a
running machine is required or because of poor accessiblity, but mostly
with a bit of thought one can get oil to trickle to where it is needed.

Bob


Peter Larsen

[Six String Stu]

Interesting food for thought.
And presented convincingly. Might be best to rethink my pratices.


--
remove "spamtrap" in return address for replys.
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
20% of all sales goes to the local food pantry.
Accepting any and all donations of pro audio equipment.
Thanks so much to those who have responded.
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Bob Cain wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

The skin is not a barrier to WD 40 and it belongs to a class
of chemical mixes that are highly likely to be long term
cancerogenous and are affiliated with lymph node cancer.

FWIW, they claim otherwise:

http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds...aerosol.us.pdf

You should trust your President considerably more than you should trust
a chemical plant saying their stuff is safe.

It was also said that solvents did not cause brain damage and that
painters who had become sick because of turpentine innhalation had been
less intelligent all the way. Organic solvents pass skin because of
their affinitity to fat and they destroy nerve cells by dissolving the
fatty insulation layer. It was also said that half a liter of milk at
lunch every day would protect from solvent damage, I may still have that
magazine somewhere.

Long chain hydrocarbons supplement the risk from solvent(s) in WD40 that
by being carcinogenic and get carried through the skin by the solvent
component of the stuff. There are also a bit of additives in and some
"dry lubricants",. could be graphite, could be molybdenedisulphide,
neither of which are in any way wholesome.

IF the OP wants to lubricate metal strings, then he should use rape seed
oil instead, edible things are releatively safe to put on the skin.

WD40 and similar "looseners" are a very costly way to purchase kerosene
with a bit of SAE30 in it anyway .... a guy who repaired printing press
machinery for M.A.N told me in 1976 that dry lubricants were problematic
as oil additives anyway because they end up as abrasives when worn down.
Spraying the stuff on is generally best avoided and incredibly wasteful.
There are things that I will prefer to spray lube if lubrication on a
running machine is required or because of poor accessiblity, but mostly
with a bit of thought one can get oil to trickle to where it is needed.

Bob


Peter Larsen

[Jay Kadis]

In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

The skin is not a barrier to WD 40 and it belongs to a class
of chemical mixes that are highly likely to be long term
cancerogenous and are affiliated with lymph node cancer.

FWIW, they claim otherwise:

http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds...aerosol.us.pdf

You should trust your President considerably more than you should trust
a chemical plant saying their stuff is safe.

It's not the manufacturer that makes the carcinogenicity assessments for
the material safety data sheets: it's the National Toxicology Program at
the National Institutes of Health, the International Agency for Research
on Cancer, and the Occupational Safety And Health Administration.

I trust these organizations more than the president, but all of this is
a work in progress. And the MSDS is intended more for workers who are
virtually immersed in the stuff, not the casual user. While WD-40 is
most likely safe enough, I would hesitate to use it on my guitar for
other reasons. I just change the strings when they get wanky.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x