| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing, Any additional suggestions?
MIXING
Most good mixers these days can start their mix process at any desired point because of their years of experience and their relationship with their monitors. When starting out as a mixer you do not have this experience and need to start at a reference point that will produce desired results for your mix. I have designed this mixing segment for those with little experience or are new to the mixing process. Before starting a mix you need to have a vision of how you want your mix to sound. Refer to CDs with examples of what you are trying to achieve, for creative and tactical purposes this will give you guidance on where you would like to take your mix sonically and musically. Near Field Monitors Good near field monitors play an essential role in consistent referencing. The monitors should be capable of reproducing frequencies from 60hz to 17Khz and be able to handle high SPL, and set up in a triangular fashion 3-4 feet apart. Make sure the monitors are not too close to the plane of the console so to minimize high frequency reflections that will corrupt proper imaging. If you're using monitors that are not true in frequency response, equalize the monitors in the monitor stage (post fade) to allow for discrepancies. This will alleviate you from incorrectly EQing your mix to compensate for inaccurate monitors. Also the distance from your ears to the monitors should be set up so the room acoustics do not play a significant role in the sound of your mix. For example, if the monitors are too far away and the room is reflective your mix will sound too dry. Outboard Gear I like to start off my mixing sessions with at least three different reverbs, three DDL's, a stereo chorus effect and two extra stereo effects processors with many assorted stereo effects like phasing, flanging, etc. as well as enough analog comp/limit for processing acoustic audio. One good stereo EQ and stereo compressor are necessary for mastering my final mix. Two audio storage mediums, one for master and one for safety purposes for your final mix, such as a hard drive, DAT machine, analog 2-track etc. Storing audio to digital should be done in the best sounding formats e.g. 24Bit/96Khz. Setting up the console 1) Grouping - assign all tracks of similar instruments close to each other. For instance put all drum and percussion channels side by side. All guitars side-by-side etc. Mark all different instruments with different colors on the console strip. This will make it easy to recognize and locate certain instruments easily. Try to group all hard drive returns to the center part of console. Things like solos and lead vocals that require a lot of fader moves should be placed in the center of the console for optimum monitoring purposes. Patch all outboard gear to the outside channels, e.g. 1-8 and 29-36 for they only need to be set to one optimum level. If you have the time and will be mixing for more than a couple of days, insert 1Khz tone at 0VU into each input strip placing the fader at 0VU position to check line cleanliness and continuity. 2) Setting up Line Amps - First bring up all channels to a basic rough balance with the priority music tracks such as lead vocal to a position where the lead vocal sounds cleanly audible with another 10dB of fader headroom. Now fine tune all line level amps (-5dB to -20dB) so all faders are in maximum working range. It is very hard to make detailed level changes when the fader is close to the bottom. Allow 10dB of headroom on all faders. 3) With a priority track such as a lead vocal, bring the lead vocal up on one channel and buss it to another input. This will allow you to control the level of the vocal before any processing. In the first vocal channel you can roll off low frequencies such as rumble (60hz), proximity effect, etc. In the second vocal channel insert limiting, equalization and compression and any de-essing, if necessary. If a vocal needs to be compressed whereby the choruses are recorded significantly louder than the verses, what will happen is that the vocal in the verses will not be compressed at all. Or, if you set compression on the verse vocal, the chorus vocal will be overly compressed and very thin sounding. Remember the more you compress the signal's quality tends to be reduced. If all verses are similar in level and all choruses similar in level but a lot louder designate one channel for verse and other channel for choruses. This same approach can be used for solo instruments or anything that will be a priority in the mix. Starting the mix At this stage you should have a basic idea of where the focus of the mix resides. If it's Norah Jones, it will be the lead vocal and the piano, for hip-hop it will be the groove, the bass and vocal, for rock it will be guitars and vocal. Whatever the focus is, it should get the best treatment such as good analog equalization and compression. I have yet to hear any digital equalization and compression that sounds as good as analog. If dealing with someone like Norah Jones, listen to similar sounding albums in that genre of music. Try to approximate the equalization, compression and reverb of the sound that you desire. Remember that you will most likely be processing it further and the object here is not to emulate totally, but to start you in the right direction. Next, you would bring in the piano, respecting the fact that the vocal will take precedence in the high frequency range (presence). The piano should sound clear but not override the high frequency of the vocal. A good way to test this is to listen to the piano without the lead vocal and if you feel it is a little dull you are on the right track. As soon as you start to make the piano sound like the focus you will have to EQ more high frequencies into the lead vocal. This will obviously make the vocal sound too bright and thin where you're actually separating the sonic qualities from the musical qualities of the vocal. From there you can then turn the lead vocal off and build the sound of your rhythm section. Also in this stage you need to assign your instrument breakdowns to group to fader masters. This will allow you to make level changes and mutes on groups of instruments as a whole. If using a moving fader system, assign your lead vocal channel to a group master even though it is only one channel. If you have made a lot of fader moves with the vocal channel in a verse and now realize you need to bring up the lead vocal for the entire verse, having a group master will make it easy for you. Drums You need to decide where the drums should fit into your mix. Should the bass drum be tight with the bass by introducing the rhythmic or attack part of the bottom end. This will allow the bass guitar to be warm and full in the bottom end that tends to work for a lot of pop tracks. A common mistake is to EQ too much low end on the bass drum and not enough on the bass guitar. This will give you the illusion that your mix is bottom light for what you are doing is shortening the duration of the low frequency envelope in your mix. Also, the bass drum tends to be more transitory than the bass guitar, giving you the idea that the low frequency content of your mix is inconsistent. Should the bass drum need more resonance and depth to it, adding in ambient mics or short reverb programs will suffice. One thing to make sure in your mix is "do you want the bass drum to be felt or heard"? EQing in the 30-60hz range will produce a "feel" bass drum but will sound very thin on smaller speakers. If you EQ the bass drum between 60-120hz it will allow the bass drum to be heard on smaller speakers. With it you want to get a lot of "hear" low end and attack sound between 2-4khz and also dipping between 300-600hz range which contains a lot of unnecessary overtones. If the track has enough space in it, you can factor in a tight verb or a tight ambient room for you will be able to hear it. If the track is dense, don't bother to try and create one for it will just take up space and clutter the bottom end of the track. What sound should the snare drum have? Should the snare have a lot of reverb to make the backbeat sound longer in duration or short and percussive? Do you want to mix in a lot of room ambience that is triggered by the snare to make the snare drum sound bigger? (see Gating). Do you want to compress the snare drum to get more sustain? If you desire this effect you will need to bring up the snare on 2 tracks, one for the attack sound and another channel to first gate the snare and then compress the snare with a fast attack and fast release time. You might want to gate the snare and compress the overhead mics (keyed by the snare) to remove snare leakage from the overheads without making the hi-hat sound too ambient. You might also want to gate the toms for cymbal leakage especially if you use condenser microphones on the toms. Also, gating the snare reverb send will minimize the hi-hat from washing out the reverb. If the transients of the drums are random and excessive you might try to buss comp/limit the drums to control the transient excursions and minimize the dynamics in the performance to maintain a consistent level from the drums. Adding rhythmic delays to the snare might make the groove more interesting. Bass Once you have finished the drums, you can add in the bass. For pop music it is best to have the bass drum provide the percussive nature of the bottom while the bass fills out the sustain and musical parts. With the bass you will want to find a balance between the amp and the direct sound. The amp sound will give you an edgier quality where the direct sound will give you a fuller sound. With EQing the bass for low end should be between 80-120hz for you will want to hear the bass on smaller monitors. Remember to check phasing between the DI and the amp signal. Compression is a good idea with the ratio of 2:1 - 4:1 with a medium attack time and medium-slow release. With a medium attack time you will allow the percussive nature of the bass to be heard. With the slow release time you will have the low end sustain. The release time should be long enough to avoid half cycle distortion. If you need the bass to sound more musical you will need to EQ in the 400-800hz range, and for getting an edgier sound EQ between the 2-3Khz range should suffice. Remember to EQ before you compress. With hip-hop music, the bass tends to be a feel bass with a lot of information in the 30-60hz range. Also minimizing sonic information in the musical range and the mid range will remove any actual music information and the attack of the bass. Synth bass is very popular because you can create an even balance between 30-60hz and elongate the duration of the note to create the illusion that you have more bottom end. On some of the better hip-hop records they will raise the low frequency target area slightly higher to the 70-100hz range and elongate the duration to create the illusion that there is a lot of bass information so that it can sound full on smaller monitors. Be careful not to over-EQ the bottom end so it will sound good in clubs or in cars with huge bass drivers. These kind of audio systems already hype the feel frequency range of the bottom end. In compressing hip-hop bass do not be afraid to use a lot with even higher ratios. The goal is to have the bass loud and as even as possible. With rock bass the idea is to create an aggressive in your face bass sound. For this you will focus mainly on the amp sound. Trying to mix in the DI sound with the amp sound might cause phasing problems in the mid range that will be detrimental to what you want for your bass sound. With your sound you need to get a consistent bottom end and a lot of mid range. Boost anywhere between 50-100hz for the bottom end, dip between 400-800hz (this will allow the guitars and vocal to have more room to speak musically) and boost between 1.5-2.5Khz for mid range. Be aware if the bass player is using a pick instead of his fingers for it can create uncontrollable audio transients in the mid range. With compression, you need to use a lot (4:1 - 8:1). If the player is using a pick you might need to limit the transients before you compress. The attack release times will have to be fast (listen for half cycle distortion) in limiting and medium to slow for compression. Sometimes it's a good idea to put in multi band compressor over the bass to target specific frequency areas. If you also recorded the bass direct and you needed a more aggressive sound for your mix, try sending the direct signal out to an amplifier in the studio that can be miked. This will allow you to modify on the spot your bass guitar sound to your needs. Piano In a situation like Norah Jones, the piano will be second in priority behind the lead vocal. The piano will be spread fully across the stereo image. When getting the piano to be present you will need to EQ the mid range and high end. When starting the mix you will have already ball parked the lead vocal EQ and have approximately EQed the piano in relation to the lead vocal. So when you add in the piano to the bass and drums and if it sounds dull, EQ the piano slightly brighter and you will most likely be okay, for when you started out, you allowed yourself a certain amount of head room in the mid and high frequency range for the lead vocal. If you find that the piano needs a lot of high frequencies you have obviously over EQed the bass and drums in the mid range and high frequency. If this has occurred pull back the boosts in mid range and high frequencies on the bass and drums. The problem will most likely be with the overheads and snare. Remember, in dealing with the snare your dealing with a lot of high frequency information over short time duration. So instead of adding more high end EQ over the snare's transient, try limiting the snare which will allow you to elongate the high frequency content of the snare drum's duration and create the illusion that it is brighter. Here's another solution, if the snare is sounding the way you would like in the high end and you do not want to reduce the level of the snare try compressing the snare with a medium attack time. This will shorten the duration of the snare but will not sacrifice the rhythmic transient of the snare drum that is integral to the overall drum performance. This gives the illusion that the performance has not been sacrificed rhythmically or musically in the mix but the snare drum still sounds bright. Guitar In a situation like Norah Jones the guitar performance on the bed track was tailored to support the piano and vocal in a musical and rhythmic fashion. Just bringing the guitar track up to balance it in the track should be easy to do. For the guitar player has designed his performance rhythmically and harmonically around the vocal and piano phrasing. The only potential problems that might occur is if the guitar is not present enough and/or loud enough throughout the performance. A solution is to add presence in the 3-5khz area factoring in the fact that you do not want to have a build in the frequency range between the guitar and the piano. If you notice the guitar is getting lost in places, try compressing in the 2:1 - 4:1 range with a medium attack and release times. This will allow the rhythmic transients to go through unobstructed while raising the sustain resonance of the guitar. If the guitar is soloing in an expressive manner you might require a bit of limiting first. Also add in processing to create depth perception of the guitar remembering that the piano should be forefront to the guitar. A quick solution is to add a stereo delay with setting of 40ms hard left and 60ms hard right with a short reverb. Remember to roll off some of the high frequency content on your delay returns. This will create the illusion that the guitar will be sitting further back in the mix than the piano without creating noticeable level discrepancies between the piano and the guitar. With a pop track where the guitar is not the main focus, but is there to add rhythm and harmony, EQ it in a range that is not as wide as the main instrument. Avoid EQing in the very low and very high frequency ranges. Balance its level against the piano so it sits comfortably. If you feel it needs to sound further back in the mix and you do not want to lower its level, try an assortment of these effects: add in short delays (15-100ms), unnoticeable rhythmic delays (eighth note or quarter note), chorusing and reverbs with little pre-delays. Mixing the Bed Track (Norah Jones) Once you have EQ'd the drums, bass and guitar and have placed them in their proper perspective get a balance on the drums, bass, piano, guitar and lead vocal. Start factoring in processing such as reverb, chorusing and delays to create depth perception in your mix, allowing yourself a little more headroom for further enhancement. Remember mixing is a building process that requires constant sonic evaluation throughout the process. It is important that you incorporate mutes or level changes at this stage though automation. Once finished this basic mix of all bed track components with the lead vocal you should have a mix that should be able to stand out on its own for these are the basic elements of the song. If you have not achieved a satisfactory product by then keep working on it and do not expect that adding in any additional musical elements will make it better, it won't! All you will do is create a confusing and unprofessional mix. A good idea is to refer back to the monitor mix you did on the date you recorded for in a lot of cases there are certain things about the monitor mix which will sound better then where you are at now with your mix. You will easily discover if you have over EQed or over processed any elements that might separate the sonic components from the musical components of the song. Remember that you might need to continually reference your lead vocal sound against other outstanding albums. Then prioritize what is important to the lead vocal. In a case like John Mayer it will be the guitar and the vocal. In hip-hop music it will be the drums, bass and vocal. If you maintain this philosophy mixing will always have a creative rather than a redundant approach. One critical component of creative mixing is remaining in a creative headspace. If you get your bed track balanced with your vocal, automate it to sound like a final mix. This will remove repetitive redundant moves that the brain should not be focusing on. It is hard to be creative when you are preoccupied with making level changes that you know could be automated. The strategy here and until the end of the mix is to keep the creative process alive. Backup Vocals Recording backup vocals is fairly easy if the vocalist understands their objective how to work with the lead vocal performance. In the case of the lead vocalist adding a double track in unison, you should record with the identical set up that was used for the lead vocal. When adding in the double track, mix it at a level below the lead vocal and be prepared to not make it as present as the lead vocal. The goal here is to add more musical body to the vocal performance. If both vocals have the same presence it might confuse the listener to which vocal is the lead. When adding in the vocal double you will lose presence to the lead vocal but will achieve a vocal performance that will be more forgiving in pitch. If the lead vocalist is adding a harmony to their lead vocal melody it will usually be the 3rd and or the 5th and sometimes the 7th. Record the vocalist with the same set up used for recording the lead vocal. When adding in the harmony it will always be at a slightly lower level to the lead vocal. With two or more singers singing harmony to the lead vocal they can perform in two ways. One is for the backup singers to sing the same harmony part at one time. The other method is for the singers to split the harmonies amongst themselves at the same time. Double or even triple tracking harmony parts is very popular and can best be heard by groups like The Bee Gees and The Eagles. If the backup vocals are singing counter point to the lead vocal you will want to have them as present as the lead vocal. When recording three or more tracks of backup vocals it is best to submix the parts to a stereo bus and bring up the stereo bus into two additional channels. This will allow you to put exactly the right amount of processing on all backup vocal parts rather than guessing at sends and EQ levels on each individual track. Remember to clean your backup vocal tracks before mixing for backup vocalists like to sing a pitch reference before they sing their part. Solos When an instrumentalist is soloing they should have the same perspective as the lead vocalist. In other words, when they are performing their solo they should stand forefront in the mix. The only exception to this is when you want the soloist to sound like they are soloing in a band performance. This usually happens when their bed track performance is replaced by soloing. This can be heard in punk and rock music. If the soloist is a lead guitar, saxophone or another instrument make sure all parts of their performance can be heard. This usually requires a bit of limiting, EQ and compression. For effects, I usually will use delays, reverbs with pre delays and other forms of processing. If the soloist is performing in a call and answer style you will need to make sure that they are slightly less present than the lead vocalist but more present than the rest of the instruments. Adding-in additional instruments Before embarking on the next step, review the status of your mix and make sure it sounds finished. If for example you have made the decision that the vocal performance in the second verse needs to be louder than the first verse and you don't make that level adjustment then, how will you know what levels to set for any additional instruments coming in at the beginning of the second verse? For example, if you added congas in at the second verse and you have not made the lead vocal level change you will most likely mix the congas in at a level relating to the drums and the lead vocal. When you start automating the mix and increase the vocal level in the second verse what happens is that the congas will be lower in level than where they should be and in most cases you won't even notice. By the end of the mix, the conga performance will be at a level where they are just taking up space instead of lifting the rhythm at the second verse. Automate all moves and mutes when ready. This will make it easier to place additional instruments in the proper perspective. When adding in strings be careful not to put too much reverb on them. This will prevent their performance from creating harmonic confusion and keep them articulate sounding. If you need to recess the perspective of the strings use a short reverb or even a DDL. You will most likely need to ride the level of the strings especially with the violas and cellos due to their harmonic placement in lower registers. If you need to compress use 2:1 to 3:1 ratio with slow attack and release times. If you're adding in horn sections be careful to watch for transients especially from trumpets. Due to the complex frequencies of horns it is best as with all additional instruments to try and ride the levels before using any dynamic processing. In the case of horns where transients are very fast you will often have to use fast limiting. If adding reverb use short reverbs (1-2 seconds) that are bright sounding. With percussion the idea is to make sure that the attack part of their performance comes through cleanly and relatively even. With parts like congas percussionists will perform with a dynamic range that often cannot be translated in a mix. If the performance is 16th note in nature and perform on 2 or more congas you will most likely have level discrepancies between the congas. If you solo the congas on their own they will sound fine but hearing them in the mix you will not hear an even balance between the two. To solve this, use compression with fast attack and fast release times to even out the dynamics. Woodwinds such as flutes, oboes and clarinets are very warm sounding in nature. They often don't need any dynamic processing and if they do it is very subtle. When a flute plays in a high register you might need to compress. Piccolos on the other hand should be burned at first sight. With perspective medium to long reverbs with pre delay work quite well in keeping woodwinds sounding warm and natural. Finalizing the mix When you have finished your mix make copies of the mix and audition them on other monitoring systems like a ghetto blaster, a car stereo and home speakers. If you have the time, give your ears a rest. I like to leave the mix set up over night and come in the next morning with fresh ears to do final adjustments, which I tend to always do. Do not belabor your mix, which means no endeavors to seek perfection. Believe me, you'll most likely be the only one to notice. Early in my career I would present a mix to the client for their comments which would often be "sounds great" and then inform them I only have a couple of minor adjustments to make. After spending four hours on the mix I would spend another eight hours making my minor adjustments and present the updated mix to the client who would comment, "we can't tell the difference". Perfection, I have learned, is the ability to present something in its simplest form that can be appreciated to its fullest extent. Listening to some of my favorite recordings I have noticed mistakes but who am I to remix Sgt. Pepper's. I might mix Sgt. Pepper's perfectly but I know for certain it will sound nowhere near as good as the original mix. Try to play your mix to normal people who buy CDs because they like the music, which means avoid your techy friends who might steer you in a direction of technical merit that might not make any musical sense. If you are having problems with your mix by all means reach out for advice to your trusted peers for their subjective and constructive feedback. This is not the time to be a sensitive new age drama queen worrying about your feelings getting hurt. This is a time to be honest and open minded and welcome suggestions that you're willing to put into action. Rock mixing With rock mixing the goal is to get your song sounding big and powerful, by incorporating the full frequency range and limiting the dynamic range. To achieve this you will need to dynamically process each element on it's own. Try using the limit-EQ-compress process, which will allow you to basically just set levels and keep them there. With drums, subgroup into 2 stereo pairs including all original and perspective elements. On one stereo subgroup limit all the transients and do not be afraid to do a lot of limiting. You will need to incorporate a very fast attack time and a release time that will allow the signal to return to unity gain before the onset of the next transient. This process should sound as transparent as possible. On the other stereo subgroup use massive limiting with a very fast attack time and very fast release time with the goal of elongating the duration of the drum sound. The goal here is to limit so you can master as much level on a CD and create a bigger drum sound by sustaining the sound of the drums that do not add any more level to the transient. When you're adding the sustain limiting to the transparent limiting, you will notice that the overall peak level of the drums does not get any higher but the drum sounds gets bigger. With rock guitars, the idea is to have them big and "in-your-face". This is accomplished by first limiting the transients out of the signal especially if it has been recorded to a hard drive. Recording to analog tape solves this problem through tape compression. Try limiting with ratios 10:1 or higher and use a lot. Be careful to make sure that the sustain parts of the signal return to unity gain. Next, EQ the guitar in the 3-5khz range for presence, for the low end 80-120hz. With EQing the low end, listen for out-of-control bass levels of the guitar, which are caused by turning up the bass control on the amp to 11. When this happens certain low frequencies jump out at loud levels while others remain unaffected. If you notice this occurring you need to roll off the low bottom end first before any other processing, which will allow you to manage the dynamics of the guitar. If you do not do this before compression you will most likely corrupt the harmonic content of the guitars performance. If the guitar player goes from a G6 (an open E on top) chord to an open E chord the low end might increase due to the fact that you are playing open low E string. When striking the open low E chord you are also playing an open E and an open B remember that when you played the G6 chord you also had an open B and an open E that were harmonically balanced against the low G. Due to the fact that the low open E is much louder than the low G the compression will bring down the open E and the open B. So what is occurring is that even though there is an even balance change between the G and E low notes, the open E and open B notes of the chords are much different in levels. Rock guitars tend to not require a lot of perspective processing, if any processing is desired it will be effects like chorusing, phasing, etc. These days some of the actual distortion processing found in effects boxes sound pretty decent. Mixing in this type of processing with an amp sound on a performance can produce huge guitar sounds. What the processing can bring is that "in-your-face" component to the sound with the amp adding the resonance of the sound. A major problem with this is phasing. The return of the processed signal and the amp sound are not exactly in phase over the entire frequency spectrum. A solution for this is to double track your guitars, have the processing tracks panned hard left and hard right, while the amps sounds reversed in panning. This will allow the processed sound of the performance to be panned to one side and the amp sound from the performance to be panned to the other side, ultimately removing any phase discrepancies. This is great if you are working at home recording processed guitar sounds and taking a direct signal at the same time allowing you to record your performance through various amps while mixing. With leads you might need to limit the transients first. With processing subtle stereo chorus, rhythmic delays and reverbs (with pre-delays) will enhance the sound significantly. With guitars and bass the limit-EQ-comp works quite effectively even with guitar sounds that sound very compressed from amps like Marshalls. With solos you will tend to limit a lot due to their transient nature. If you stand in front of a Fender Twin Reverb while a guitar player is soloing on a Strat you will hear what I mean. With lead vocals processing with the limit-EQ-comp works quite effectively when used extensively especially if the singer has recorded with a dynamic mic. When rock singers sing out, their throat tightens and when recorded with a dynamic mic it can produce transients between 1.2 - 2K. What might help here is to use a multi band dynamic processor. This will allow you to turn your mix up to a level that will rival a 747 without the vocal tearing your head off. When processing for perspective in rock music, reverbs should be short if used at all. A common effect for lead vocal is a rhythmic digital delay that enhances the rhythm of the performance and adds depth to the vocal so it can sit further back in the mix. With bass and drums subtle use of DDL and short reverbs will aid in placing them in the right perspective. Be careful of over EQing the mid range and the high end especially if there is a lack of 3rds played on the guitars. At some point you will start to separate the sonic elements from the musical elements. A good example of this is to compare a song by Billy Talent, Tea Party, and Green Day with a song from Led Zeppelin, Tool and Dredg. When you're finished remember to compare your mix with successful mixes. Hip-hop mixing Hip-hop music is comprised basically of grooves, bass, vocals and little harmonic content. The goal in hip-hop is to get the rhythm to be the focus point, a good working relationship between the groove and the vocals. With the groove a lot of the EQ is spread over the entire frequency spectrum, from 30Hz to 17K. The bass and bass drum are designed more as feel than to be heard, with little presence on the bass drum and the bass. The duration of the bass drum is quite long in comparison to other genres of music creating the illusion that the track has a lot of bottom end. There is a lot of dynamic processing on the bass and the groove to keep it at one consistent level throughout the song. When starting a hip-hop mix begin with the bass, drums and vocal. You should achieve a balance between these elements that can make the mix stand out on it's own. Next mix in the harmonic elements of the song as in the case of Destiny's Child's new song "Lose My Breath" there is an orchestra pad that plays only two chords and is used periodically throughout the mix. I believe if you add in a lot of harmonic information it will require the vocalist to sing in tune. A lot of hip-hop music these days is sung with one note in a rhythmic pattern based on the bpm of the song. It seems fortunate that anyone with a sense of rhythm but tone deaf can be a hip-hop singer. With the vocalist there is no perspective processing and if any EQing is used it is in the mid range and high end. A lot of hip-hop singers like to hand hold dynamic mics while rapping which slots the sonic nature of their vocal in the mid range area because of the frequency response of a hand held dynamic mic. In the mastering of hip-hop a lot of dynamic processing and EQing is done. If you follow this basic formula you will not be surprised to discover that you can mix hip-hop as well as any body out there. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
In the past I've been mixing down the multichannels from my Cakewalk program, and saving it as a wave file right on the computer. No problem. Or, in the event that I wanted to use my external mixer and it's mixer, I ran my PC thru my MOTU soundcard, and mixed it all down to my external DAT recorder. That was simple too. However, the DAT recorder has died, and I can't afford to to get another one at this time. Although I've never tried it, it seems logical to me that I should be able to send the outputs of channels 1-6 from Cakewalk Sonar on my PC, thru my external mixer, and then bring it back to channels 7 and 8 in the same CakewalkSonar program. Is it possible? Of course, I realise I would have to set it up so as to avoid feedback loops, although I've never had to do that in the past.. In the event that it's not possible to bring it back into Cakewalk, would I be able to bring it all back from my external mixer into the input on WavLab, or another sound editor, while I'm also running Cakewalk as my output?. The only other option I could see at this point would be to bring my other computer from upstairs to use as the "mixdown recorder", but I would like to avoid doing that, unless there's no other way around this. Any other suggestions that I haven't thought of to solve the problem would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. The answer may be quite obvious, but I've never tired to do this before. Rave On, Alan Cassaro |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alan Cassaro" wrote in message
... Although I've never tried it, it seems logical to me that I should be able to send the outputs of channels 1-6 from Cakewalk Sonar on my PC, thru my external mixer, and then bring it back to channels 7 and 8 in the same CakewalkSonar program. Is it possible? Sure. Just capture it to another track and avoid feedback loops like you mentioned. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why would you want to do this? Why not just mix down to two track using
Sonar? It must have a bounce down, or mix down function, or maybe just exporting from the master fader does it... I dunno, I don't use Sonar, but it HAS to have the functionality to mix down internally to a two track file. If it's not obvious how, use the help files. R. "Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... In the past I've been mixing down the multichannels from my Cakewalk program, and saving it as a wave file right on the computer. No problem. Or, in the event that I wanted to use my external mixer and it's mixer, I ran my PC thru my MOTU soundcard, and mixed it all down to my external DAT recorder. That was simple too. However, the DAT recorder has died, and I can't afford to to get another one at this time. Although I've never tried it, it seems logical to me that I should be able to send the outputs of channels 1-6 from Cakewalk Sonar on my PC, thru my external mixer, and then bring it back to channels 7 and 8 in the same CakewalkSonar program. Is it possible? Of course, I realise I would have to set it up so as to avoid feedback loops, although I've never had to do that in the past.. In the event that it's not possible to bring it back into Cakewalk, would I be able to bring it all back from my external mixer into the input on WavLab, or another sound editor, while I'm also running Cakewalk as my output?. The only other option I could see at this point would be to bring my other computer from upstairs to use as the "mixdown recorder", but I would like to avoid doing that, unless there's no other way around this. Any other suggestions that I haven't thought of to solve the problem would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. The answer may be quite obvious, but I've never tired to do this before. Rave On, Alan Cassaro |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think we're getting a feedback loop going right here. As I stated, and which
you referred to in your response, "In the past I've been mixing down the multichannels from my Cakewalk program, and saving it as a wave file right on the computer". Of course, this would INCLUDE bouncing to other channels in either Sonar or Cakewalk. That's also an internal mixdown. The primary reason I want to send my digitally recorded signals through my outboard mixer is to add some actual analog warmth, as I feel some of the tracks feel a little bit brittle right now. I have a couple of old echo chambers I used for many years prior to recording on a PC, some Ashley Compressors, etc. I've got a couple of old tape recorders with that old fashioned cheap "sound on sound" echo too, that I want to put into the mix. We're doing vintage fifties music, and I want to get more of a true fifties sound, although I'm getting a pretty nice sound on the PC too. Although I have automated most of the mixing on the individual channels of my multitrack, I would still like the opportunity to do some real "On the fly" mixes via the external mixer. I know there are outboard devices I could buy that would allow me to do this "on the fly" mixing on the PC, but that still wouldn't give me an analog mix. I have various plugins I use on the PC that "simulate" analog mixes, such as the PSP Vinage Warmer, which I love, but in my quest for personal satisfaction, I want the opportunity to compare my final INTERNAL digital mixdowns with some final analog EXTERNAL mixdowns. They each have a different quality (digital versus analog) that are capable of emiting different kinds of emotion in the listener. After I run some "blind" listener tests among my friends and fellow musicians, I'll decide whether to go with the internal or external mixes. Alan Rich wrote: Why would you want to do this? Why not just mix down to two track using Sonar? It must have a bounce down, or mix down function, or maybe just exporting from the master fader does it... I dunno, I don't use Sonar, but it HAS to have the functionality to mix down internally to a two track file. If it's not obvious how, use the help files. R. "Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... In the past I've been mixing down the multichannels from my Cakewalk program, and saving it as a wave file right on the computer. No problem. Or, in the event that I wanted to use my external mixer and it's mixer, I ran my PC thru my MOTU soundcard, and mixed it all down to my external DAT recorder. That was simple too. However, the DAT recorder has died, and I can't afford to to get another one at this time. Although I've never tried it, it seems logical to me that I should be able to send the outputs of channels 1-6 from Cakewalk Sonar on my PC, thru my external mixer, and then bring it back to channels 7 and 8 in the same CakewalkSonar program. Is it possible? Of course, I realise I would have to set it up so as to avoid feedback loops, although I've never had to do that in the past.. In the event that it's not possible to bring it back into Cakewalk, would I be able to bring it all back from my external mixer into the input on WavLab, or another sound editor, while I'm also running Cakewalk as my output?. The only other option I could see at this point would be to bring my other computer from upstairs to use as the "mixdown recorder", but I would like to avoid doing that, unless there's no other way around this. Any other suggestions that I haven't thought of to solve the problem would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. The answer may be quite obvious, but I've never tired to do this before. Rave On, Alan Cassaro |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Rick, I'll give it a shot. I thought it was probably possible to do,
but I thought I'd ask before I went to the trouble of setting up all of my channels via that deadly old MOTU sound card console I have. It can be very time consuming, and confusing. A friend of mine with a PC recording studio told me that it wasn't possible, but I suspected that he doesn't know what he's talking about. There's a lot of trial and error involved creating the proper routing setup, particularly since the good folks at MOTU aren't very helpful in helping to establish various templates for routing my signal to various configurations. Al Ricky Hunt wrote: "Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... Although I've never tried it, it seems logical to me that I should be able to send the outputs of channels 1-6 from Cakewalk Sonar on my PC, thru my external mixer, and then bring it back to channels 7 and 8 in the same CakewalkSonar program. Is it possible? Sure. Just capture it to another track and avoid feedback loops like you mentioned. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ah. I see. I'll be very interested in the results. Would you be so kind as
to post them once you have some opinions on A/B comparisons? My initial opinion is that it won't add anything meaningful at all. If it was recorded in digital and will end up digital, I don't see how routing it through an analogue stage somewhere in the middle will help. But I'm very interested in opinions to the contrary and certainly don't have a closed mind to it. Oh, and would you let us know what monitors you are using too (or what everyone will listen to those comparisons on). In terms of outboard effects/signal processors, I think most things have been tried. There are VSTi plug-ins for pretty much everything. Check out www.kvraudio.com if you're ever looking for something. Rich "Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... I think we're getting a feedback loop going right here. As I stated, and which you referred to in your response, "In the past I've been mixing down the multichannels from my Cakewalk program, and saving it as a wave file right on the computer". Of course, this would INCLUDE bouncing to other channels in either Sonar or Cakewalk. That's also an internal mixdown. The primary reason I want to send my digitally recorded signals through my outboard mixer is to add some actual analog warmth, as I feel some of the tracks feel a little bit brittle right now. I have a couple of old echo chambers I used for many years prior to recording on a PC, some Ashley Compressors, etc. I've got a couple of old tape recorders with that old fashioned cheap "sound on sound" echo too, that I want to put into the mix. We're doing vintage fifties music, and I want to get more of a true fifties sound, although I'm getting a pretty nice sound on the PC too. Although I have automated most of the mixing on the individual channels of my multitrack, I would still like the opportunity to do some real "On the fly" mixes via the external mixer. I know there are outboard devices I could buy that would allow me to do this "on the fly" mixing on the PC, but that still wouldn't give me an analog mix. I have various plugins I use on the PC that "simulate" analog mixes, such as the PSP Vinage Warmer, which I love, but in my quest for personal satisfaction, I want the opportunity to compare my final INTERNAL digital mixdowns with some final analog EXTERNAL mixdowns. They each have a different quality (digital versus analog) that are capable of emiting different kinds of emotion in the listener. After I run some "blind" listener tests among my friends and fellow musicians, I'll decide whether to go with the internal or external mixes. Alan Rich wrote: Why would you want to do this? Why not just mix down to two track using Sonar? It must have a bounce down, or mix down function, or maybe just exporting from the master fader does it... I dunno, I don't use Sonar, but it HAS to have the functionality to mix down internally to a two track file. If it's not obvious how, use the help files. R. "Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... In the past I've been mixing down the multichannels from my Cakewalk program, and saving it as a wave file right on the computer. No problem. Or, in the event that I wanted to use my external mixer and it's mixer, I ran my PC thru my MOTU soundcard, and mixed it all down to my external DAT recorder. That was simple too. However, the DAT recorder has died, and I can't afford to to get another one at this time. Although I've never tried it, it seems logical to me that I should be able to send the outputs of channels 1-6 from Cakewalk Sonar on my PC, thru my external mixer, and then bring it back to channels 7 and 8 in the same CakewalkSonar program. Is it possible? Of course, I realise I would have to set it up so as to avoid feedback loops, although I've never had to do that in the past.. In the event that it's not possible to bring it back into Cakewalk, would I be able to bring it all back from my external mixer into the input on WavLab, or another sound editor, while I'm also running Cakewalk as my output?. The only other option I could see at this point would be to bring my other computer from upstairs to use as the "mixdown recorder", but I would like to avoid doing that, unless there's no other way around this. Any other suggestions that I haven't thought of to solve the problem would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. The answer may be quite obvious, but I've never tired to do this before. Rave On, Alan Cassaro |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alan Cassaro" wrote in message
... Thanks Rick, I'll give it a shot. I thought it was probably possible to do, but I thought I'd ask before I went to the trouble of setting up all of my channels via that deadly old MOTU sound card console I have. It's no different than regular multi-tracking. The computer doesn't know (or care) that the signal is coming back from your mixer anymore than it knows or cares you're overdubbing a guitar track for example. It's entirely valid to do so. Many people use outboard stuff and bring it back into the computer. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... I think we're getting a feedback loop going right here. As I stated, and which you referred to in your response, "In the past I've been mixing down the multichannels from my Cakewalk program, and saving it as a wave file right on the computer". Of course, this would INCLUDE bouncing to other channels in either Sonar or Cakewalk. That's also an internal mixdown. The primary reason I want to send my digitally recorded signals through my outboard mixer is to add some actual analog warmth, as I feel some of the tracks feel a little bit brittle right now. I have a couple of old echo chambers I used for many years prior to recording on a PC, some Ashley Compressors, etc. I've got a couple of old tape recorders with that old fashioned cheap "sound on sound" echo too, that I want to put into the mix. We're doing vintage fifties music, and I want to get more of a true fifties sound, although I'm getting a pretty nice sound on the PC too. Although I have automated most of the mixing on the individual channels of my multitrack, I would still like the opportunity to do some real "On the fly" mixes via the external mixer. I know there are outboard devices I could buy that would allow me to do this "on the fly" mixing on the PC, but that still wouldn't give me an analog mix. I have various plugins I use on the PC that "simulate" analog mixes, such as the PSP Vinage Warmer, which I love, but in my quest for personal satisfaction, I want the opportunity to compare my final INTERNAL digital mixdowns with some final analog EXTERNAL mixdowns. They each have a different quality (digital versus analog) that are capable of emiting different kinds of emotion in the listener. After I run some "blind" listener tests among my friends and fellow musicians, I'll decide whether to go with the internal or external mixes. Alan Alan: I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to do this from Cakewalk (or is it Sonar?). You will have to make certain that the input channels on the sound card are not being echoed onto your output channels on said card. If you have your sound card set up correctly, this won't be an issue and you will not have a feedback problem. I can certainly understand your rationale in moving your mix out to the analog domain to sweeten it up with some good ol' analog gear. I sometimes do the same, but typically take the final mix from the mixer into a DAT (mine is still working!). Then I feed this back into my computer for mastering work via an AES/EBU link to minimize further AD/DA conversions. But, I have done some work taking the mains from my old analog mixer back into my soundcard as you plan to do with little trouble. Recently, I moved to a digital mixer, but there are the same issues of feedback if I'm not careful in routing the signals on the sound card. Good luck.. Craig |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alan,
The primary reason I want to send my digitally recorded signals through my outboard mixer is to add some actual analog warmth I agree with Rich that this is a misguided notion. If you like the sound of small amounts of distortion and a gently rolled off high end, you can do that easily enough inside Sonar. The advantages of staying in Sonar and using its Bounce feature (File .. Export Audio) are numerous: All settings are recalled and independent of the knobs on external gear, the bounce usually happens at much faster than real time, there's less chance of ground loops and other sources of hum and noise, and so forth. --Ethan |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message Alan, The primary reason I want to send my digitally recorded signals through my outboard mixer is to add some actual analog warmth I agree with Rich that this is a misguided notion. If you like the sound of small amounts of distortion and a gently rolled off high end, you can do that easily enough inside Sonar. Case in point is the following article: http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index5.html "I consistently identified the VTL as being slightly more forward in the upper midrange, though less "fizzy" in the extreme highs than the Adcom, for example, which does appear to correlate with the measured response differences. The deep bass on the Adcom also had noticeably more energy, though it was also tighter, being better controlled than the tube amplifier." The corresponding frequency response curve (figure 3) shows a broad rise at about 2.5 KHz ("slightly more forward in the upper midrange") The broad dip at about 15 Khz probably explains the "less "fizzy" in the extreme highs". If that's what you want, all you need is an equalizer that is easy to set for just a few dB of shaping. IME it takes so much nonlinear distortion to be audible that its effect on the perceptions of "analog warmth" are probably minimal. OTOH, the Cranesong "Analog Dither" approach which adds broadband shaped pink or red noise with a bit of 60 Hz hum probably helps build up the perception of warmth. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
CeeDub wrote: " I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to do this from Cakewalk (or is it Sonar?). Both, actually. I've had SONAR for about a year now, but I'm still getting used to it. I'm still more comfortable with Cakewalk 9, having worked with it for the past 5 years or so. I'm dyslexic, and the SONAR screens are a little too busy and cluttered for me, which confuse me, so I tend to gravitate back to the simple plain interface screen of the Pro 9. Problem is, now that I've got an XP, my old MOTU card won't allow me to record on PRO 9 anymore, so I HAVE to record my new tracks on to Sonar. It gets tedius importing everything back into Cakewalk 9. But I find it easier to do my edits, cuts and pastes, in Pro 9. But the features on the SONAR are really killer, I'm getting more used to it all the time, in spite of my visual problems scanning the screen shot. I can certainly understand your rationale in moving your mix out to the analog domain to sweeten it up with some good ol' analog gear. I sometimes do the same, but typically take the final mix from the mixer into a DAT (mine is still working!). Then I feed this back into my computer for mastering work via an AES/EBU link to minimize further AD/DA conversions. I don't know what an AES/EBU link is, but unfortunately, I still have to go thru the AD/DA conversions back and forth at this point. I suppose my ears are fried after all these years of playing loud music, (I'm 61), because I can't tell too much difference, even after I go back and forth a few times. I ran a series of personal listening tests through my EV SENTRY 500s, while I was mixing down to 3 different sources at the same time, the old DAT recorder, the old stand alone CD burner (which has also died), as well as to my minidisc recorder. I managed to sync them all up together during the playback, so I could instantly go back and forth between all three of them. They all sounded about the same to me, with slight differences in all of them, but none of them that bothered me much.While the minidisc recorder sounded a tad lighter on the bottom responses, I personally didn't hear any degradation of sound, or distortion chatter, in spite of the much maligned compression system. Therefore, I would probably tend to mix down to the minidisc recorder at this point, if it weren't for the fact that virtually every pro engineer I know tells me that the compression on the minidisc sucks big time and really screws up the sound, big time. So, I'll assume that they're right, since I've been hearing that for years now. I'll try to avoid doing my mixdowns to the minidisc, although I really love the format, and simple editing and juggling features on a minidisc.. I ran another listening test by mixing down to the minidisc recorder and my old TASCAM 4 track (with built in DBX), at the same time. Personally, I thought that the minidisc sounded much cleaner and truer to my source material than the old Tascam did. But, it's only a 4 track. Also, mixing down to a FOSTEX half track and minidisc at the same time showed what a piece of crap the Fostex really was . I did read that a Mickey Newberry Box set was mixed down from the old analog tapes and mastered on to a minidisc recorder, and having heard it, I think it sounds fine.Of course, the liner notes don't indicate that the mastering was done on a minidisc recorder, but I tend to think that most of the recording specs on a lot of commercial product isn't really ADD, as most often purported. Thanks for the input, it's appreciated. Alan |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ethan Winer wrote: Alan, The primary reason I want to send my digitally recorded signals through my outboard mixer is to add some actual analog warmth I agree with Rich that this is a misguided notion. If you like the sound of small amounts of distortion and a gently rolled off high end, you can do that easily enough inside Sonar. While I'm not saying that I will definitely wind up using any final mixes that I do through my outboard mixer, I do want the opportunity to try adding some of those old echo chambers I have to to some of my tracks, just to see how they sound against my plugin echoes. Having worked for months on a new project entirely on the PC, I think I'm suffering from digital burnout at this point, and I kind of would like to get my hand on some real knobs again. I do love the automated mixing features in SONAR, and for the most part my indivdual track levels and mixes are finished, and I wouldn't be doing too much in the way of moving faders from the external mixer up and down too much. But, the point is, I might be able to do some nice final detailed tweaking ON THE FLY of my mixes, as well as being able to hear any changes I make in the EQ instantly, versus the delayed time that it takes working on the PC. So it breaks down to playing with real knobs, versus these fake cartoon knobs I move with a mouse. Or to put it another way, if Pamela Anderson is digital, then I suppose Anita Ekberg (in her prime) would be analog. I just want to get off in the best way I can. Thanks for the ideas. Alan |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:51:56 GMT, Alan Cassaro
wrote: Or to put it another way, if Pamela Anderson is digital, then I suppose Anita Ekberg (in her prime) would be analog. La Dolce vita. I just want to get off in the best way I can. Eeuugh. Thanks for the TMI, but we know what you mean. Chris Hornbeck |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: The primary reason I want to send my digitally recorded signals through my outboard mixer is to add some actual analog warmth I agree with Rich that this is a misguided notion. If you like the sound of small amounts of distortion and a gently rolled off high end, you can do that easily enough inside Sonar. Thanks for the link Arny, I'll read it and try to learn something from it. It's an endless and enjoyable process learning how to make the music sound better, while also trying to keep some of the old analog warmth. I'm sure a lot of it can be done with the EQ, as you suggest. The old analog tape added it's own color and warmth, and it had a natural curve the way it handled the listening frequencies, which are pretty similar to the way we actually hear with our ears. Not so, with digital, the ranges are much broader, hence a tendency to sound "brittle" if we're not careful. I think I've done a pretty good job in finding and selecting plugins to give me a warmer analog sound. I use the Antares Michrophone Modeler a little bit, and the PSP Vintage Warmer, quite a bit. I processed my last CD entirely through the Vintage Warmer, and for the most part I used the preset FINALIZE 3. I've got the Waves plugins, but after months of processing my final mixes with them, I decided to use the Vintage Warmer over the C4, L1, L2, or L3, because of the extra coloration that the VW provides. Prior to using the Vintage Warmer, my friends and fellow audiophiles thought my mixes were missing some color in the lower ranges. Maybe it's just the way I hear music in my mind, having grown up on bass light 45s from the Fifties and Sixties. But, after fiddling around for a few years with countless plugins, I have settled in on the PSP Vintage Warmer. A shortcut perhaps, but the presets are wonderful, and the album I did has a pretty consistent sound, not too bass or bottom light, as my own raw mixes tend to be. Unfortunately, the "star" performer on most modern mixes on CDs is the KICK drum, to the detrement of all of the other instruments, and most importantly, the vocalist. Ten years of vocal training, and you can barely hear the singer. But, what the heck, not too many of the new acts can carry a tune anyhow, although they don't need to, thanks to Auto tune. I suppose that's why it's nice to hear someone's music as uncluttered and pure as Norah Jones, a real throw back to a more musical era. Norah tends to put me to sleep after two or three songs, but I do love the overall quality of her mixes. But, most records are all about "Punch" now, and maximum volume. We're heading for the flatline on the scope, dynamically speaking. In a hospital, a flatline means you're dead, but on a CD, it means you're figured out how to get a hotter overall signal than the CDs that were out 3 months ago. So, I certainly do try take modern requirements of contemporary recording and mastering techniques into consideration, although I'm working with some earlier rock forms (rockabilly mostly). It's a challenge to make it punchy, but sound warm at the same time. I do use Autotune sparingly, just to fix some occasional vocal clams, I don't go for the total effect, as does virtually every country record you hear on the radio these days. Autotune has become the primary player on most of the vocals I hear, even from people like Allison Krauss and others who can actually sing. That car commercial Celine Dion does with "DROVE ALL NIGHT" is more autotune than voice, and that woman actually knows how to sing. And Shania Twain is Autotune on top of autotune. She almost sounds like a virtual robot, but a warm sounding robot. Twenty years from now, they'll be able to spot recordings made in this era because of the autotune. I can't wait for them to remix Elvis's vocal tracks with Autotune. I think they did with some of Johnny Cash's last sessions, but his voice was so fried on "Hurt" that it probably didn't matter much. I've also got the HAR BAL program, and although I don't use it to shape final mixes, as they suggest, I do use it to help me morph the drum sounds from one set of drums, into the same EQ from another set of drums, just for consistency. I took the drum opening of PRETTY WOMAN by Roy Orbison, and I use the EQ from that as a reference grid to help me morph some of my own drum sounds into that. Actually, the entire song, "Pretty Woman" has such a nice warmth to it, that I've morphed a few of my own performances into that eq setup. Very interesting program, which I really need to explore in more depth. There's lots of toys and tools to play with in the way of Plug ins, and I have about 300 of them, or more. And that's part of the problem. When do you stop fiddling, and settle for one thing? There are too many damn options now. Going back to the outboard mixer forces me to use less.It forces me to go back to some of my primal techniques that I learned over the years, beginning with my first Webcor Tape Recorder in 1956. Back then the players all got in the room, I pushed one button, and said, "Go". Wow, instant music. Never again. Even the musicians won't get it in one take anymore. Why? Because they know they don't have to. They know I'll put it all together for them later on when I start cutting and pasting all that crap together. Hell, we even played better on drugs back in the Sixties.Or at least we thought we did at the time. But the audience was just as stoned as we were, so it all balanced out. Thanks again. Alan Case in point is the following article: http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index5.html "I consistently identified the VTL as being slightly more forward in the upper midrange, though less "fizzy" in the extreme highs than the Adcom, for example, which does appear to correlate with the measured response differences. The deep bass on the Adcom also had noticeably more energy, though it was also tighter, being better controlled than the tube amplifier." The corresponding frequency response curve (figure 3) shows a broad rise at about 2.5 KHz ("slightly more forward in the upper midrange") The broad dip at about 15 Khz probably explains the "less "fizzy" in the extreme highs". If that's what you want, all you need is an equalizer that is easy to set for just a few dB of shaping. IME it takes so much nonlinear distortion to be audible that its effect on the perceptions of "analog warmth" are probably minimal. OTOH, the Cranesong "Analog Dither" approach which adds broadband shaped pink or red noise with a bit of 60 Hz hum probably helps build up the perception of warmth. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... CeeDub wrote: " I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to do this from Cakewalk (or is it Sonar?). Both, actually. I've had SONAR for about a year now, but I'm still getting used to it. I'm still more comfortable with Cakewalk 9, having worked with it for the past 5 years or so. I'm dyslexic, and the SONAR screens are a little too busy and cluttered for me, which confuse me, so I tend to gravitate back to the simple plain interface screen of the Pro 9. Problem is, now that I've got an XP, my old MOTU card won't allow me to record on PRO 9 anymore, so I HAVE to record my new tracks on to Sonar. It gets tedius importing everything back into Cakewalk 9. But I find it easier to do my edits, cuts and pastes, in Pro 9. But the features on the SONAR are really killer, I'm getting more used to it all the time, in spite of my visual problems scanning the screen shot. I can certainly understand your rationale in moving your mix out to the analog domain to sweeten it up with some good ol' analog gear. I sometimes do the same, but typically take the final mix from the mixer into a DAT (mine is still working!). Then I feed this back into my computer for mastering work via an AES/EBU link to minimize further AD/DA conversions. I don't know what an AES/EBU link is, but unfortunately, I still have to go thru the AD/DA conversions back and forth at this point. I suppose my ears are fried after all these years of playing loud music, (I'm 61), because I can't tell too much difference, even after I go back and forth a few times. I ran a series of personal listening tests through my EV SENTRY 500s, while I was mixing down to 3 different sources at the same time, the old DAT recorder, the old stand alone CD burner (which has also died), as well as to my minidisc recorder. I managed to sync them all up together during the playback, so I could instantly go back and forth between all three of them. They all sounded about the same to me, with slight differences in all of them, but none of them that bothered me much.While the minidisc recorder sounded a tad lighter on the bottom responses, I personally didn't hear any degradation of sound, or distortion chatter, in spite of the much maligned compression system. Therefore, I would probably tend to mix down to the minidisc recorder at this point, if it weren't for the fact that virtually every pro engineer I know tells me that the compression on the minidisc sucks big time and really screws up the sound, big time. So, I'll assume that they're right, since I've been hearing that for years now. I'll try to avoid doing my mixdowns to the minidisc, although I really love the format, and simple editing and juggling features on a minidisc.. I ran another listening test by mixing down to the minidisc recorder and my old TASCAM 4 track (with built in DBX), at the same time. Personally, I thought that the minidisc sounded much cleaner and truer to my source material than the old Tascam did. But, it's only a 4 track. Also, mixing down to a FOSTEX half track and minidisc at the same time showed what a piece of crap the Fostex really was . I did read that a Mickey Newberry Box set was mixed down from the old analog tapes and mastered on to a minidisc recorder, and having heard it, I think it sounds fine.Of course, the liner notes don't indicate that the mastering was done on a minidisc recorder, but I tend to think that most of the recording specs on a lot of commercial product isn't really ADD, as most often purported. Thanks for the input, it's appreciated. Alan Alan: Only reason I kept Proaudio 9 on my computer for as long as I did was because Sonar dropped support for Studioware in Sonar, and completely removed editing of Studioware panels in Sonar 3.0. But, once I found I could still do edits in 2.0, I kept that and ditched Proaudio. I've been using Cakewalk from the beginning days... well, almost. I think we started with v.3 starting in about 1990. I've appreciated two things about Cakewalk/Proaudio/Sonar. First, I think they always provide nice upgrades and second, they honor considerably their existing user base by providing steep discounts for these upgrades. But, I tend to sit out every other upgrade unless there is something really monumentally cool in a newer version. Right now, I'm still tracking with Sonar 3.0 XL Producer and really dig it. I'll probably wait until Sonar 5.0 comes out since it will probably have support for 64 bit processors like I have in my new box. In any event, I fully understand the issue of having to relearn things, especially for an upgrade from Proaudio to Sonar. Things are a bit different. It was like when I upgraded from Cakewalk to Proaudio; completely different ball of wax! Actually though, I tend to do mastering outside of Sonar, even if I use the same VST and DXi plugins. There are some very nice packages out there for this and I find them to be much easier to master 2 track audio than in Sonar.You might consider this option for yourself. As for mastering to a minidisc, I'd avoid it if possible. Taking the audio back into the digital domain after you've sweetened it in your analog gear should be fine, as I've mentioned above. Once back on your hard disk, you have the opportunity to really fine-tune things like EQ, compression and levels. You can make several versions of a particular song, burn these onto a CD and check them out on various playback systems. I never just trust studio monitors to accurately predict what those tracks will sound like in the "real world." Once I find a mix that is a suitable compromise, that's the one that is selected for the final cut. Once I've assembled various the various final tracks, I can orient them and burn them to CD. This is really much more feasible in the realm of a decent mastering program on a DAW than using a DAT or minidisc recorder. That's my general process. Good luck! Glad to hear you are still making music at such an advanced age  Craig |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alan,
I do want the opportunity to try adding some of those old echo chambers I have to to some of my tracks, just to see how they sound against my plugin echoes. I don't even have to ask what type of old echo boxes you have to know how they differ from a plug-in! Again, add some grit and roll off the highs, and you'll have the same basic effect. And you'll never have to change a lubricated tape loop. I'm not saying you shouldn't experiment! That's the best way to find out for yourself. In the end I presume you'll agree that the vintage stuff really wasn't so good after all. I might be able to do some nice final detailed tweaking ON THE FLY of my mixes, as well as being able to hear any changes I make in the EQ instantly, versus the delayed time that it takes working on the PC. Wow, you shouldn't have any noticeable time delay. My PC isn't even very new (2.24 GHZ) and I can get the latency down to 1.5 milliseconds with my Delta 66 sound card. I usually have it set in Sonar to 10 to 20 ms, depending on the song complexity. But even 50 ms isn't long enough lag to make a big difference to me when mixing. Not to editorialize here :-) but I could never go back to the old method of riding faders manually. I've been using DAW automation since SAW Plus was the hot DAW, and I find it infinitely better than riding faders. You stop the music, adjust the volume envelope, check it and adjust if needed, and never deal with it again. When I used to do this professionally 20+ years ago it was always a huge hassle to make all the level changes needed on multiple tracks while a song played. I even built my own console with two faders per channel, and a toggle switch to select one or the other, to make it easier to bring up a guitar solo or whatever on the fly. Even with the extra fader the process was a nuisance compared to what we have now. IMO of course. --Ethan |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
CeeDub wrote: "Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... CeeDub wrote: " Actually though, I tend to do mastering outside of Sonar, even if I use the same VST and DXi plugins. There are some very nice packages out there for this and I find them to be much easier to master 2 track audio than in Sonar.You might consider this option for yourself. I always do my final processing internally via Wavelab, I feel pretty comfortable with it, plus I can use all the VST plugins. As for mastering to a minidisc, I'd avoid it if possible. As I said earlier, I can't hear any real degradation of sound when I mix down to the minidisc. HOWEVER, that would only be on the FIRST mixdown. I did try a recording test from a CD to minidisc, digitally, and then back from the minidisc to the CD, again. And so forth. I heard the audio start breaking down after only a few swaps, and by 14 times, back and forth, it was pretty awful sounding. I guess that comes from the "protection" features built into the minidisc techology, which is basically a consumer device. Hence, I avoid using that for mixdowns for that reason alone. I KNOW the audio breaks down, but I just don't percieve it during the first mixdown stage. Good luck! Glad to hear you are still making music at such an advanced age LOL! I take no offense at that remark, I'm amazed that I'm even still alive. It really is still a blast to go out to a rock and roll bar on jam night and still have enough of the old ability to kick the butts off most of the 20 to 40 year olds olds in there, judging by the audience response. Fortunately, even my diminishing vocal skills don't seem to be an issue these days, because having good vocal chops in contemporary music is no longer required. Performers just have to present themselves as being truly dysfunctional, and I've always been that, if nothing else. If music still went by the original standards that were set up during the Fifties and Sixties, there would probably be more competition from the younger players. But having been raised on souless crap, most of these younger performers are clueless about what is expected. It's more about some form of "primal energy" and "anger" now. Having cut my teeth the records issued by SUN, SPECIALTY, CHESS and ATLANTIC, I've never had a problem with any of THAT, the energy. When you listen to source material, it eventually becomes part of your nervous system, and stays there, regardless of your age. But I've alway found it a funny and odd that nobody seemed to notice the "advanced age" of folks like Ray Charles, Joe Turner, Sam Moore, all black artists, of course,but can still find the time to make "age" jokes about the Rolling Stones, The Moody Blues, Paul McCartney, etc. I suppose white performers are just EXPECTED to lose their musical sensibility as they grow older, and for the most part, the critics are probably correct. I see these old white rockers on tv, and they're usually a pretty big disappointment, as compared to the older R&B artiists. Even now, I would prefer to listen to the final recordings by Pops Staples, over anything that the Rolling Stones ever did. Source material is always so much better than the counterfeit, as Mick Jaggar has always been, albeit his backup band has always been as great as any roots band in the industry. I still love Doc Watson's music, and I don't notice any breakdown in his skills at this point. And Paul McCartney does sound like an over the hill old fart much of the time, particularly when he tries to do the old Little Richard songs..You think he'd take the hint, and drop the keys a little bit. But, even Little Richard himself is pretty sloppy these days,due more to indifference and bitterness, I suspect, than to any real lost skills. I've heard him turn it on for a song or two, even during the sloppiest performances. And how about that Perry Como guy? He gave the best rendering of all of the recorded performances of "Wind Beneath my Wings" at 90 years old. Bette Midler simply bludgened the song to death, and got a Grammy for it. She even said that she didn't like the song, and she didn't want to do it, but was forced to do it by her producer. When I heard it, I thought it sounded just like someone who didn't like the song. What is it that the general public thinks they are hearing, versus what the musician really hears. But aging John Fograrty still seems able to cut the mustard as a good screamer, albeit, where he used to sound like the Hulk, he sounds more like Hulk "Light" at this stage of his twilight years. But Hulk light can still outrock just about anything out there these days. ..On the "oldies" shows that they run on PBS, it's pretty obvious that more of the older white performers sound a little long in the tooth, even those from the Sixties, while many of the earliest black performers from Fifties R&B hold up much better, guys like as Llyod Price, Carl Gardner of the Coasters, Little Anthony, and that guy who did "Hearts Made of Stone", I forget his name. etc. I never expected to live this long, let alone still be making music, but thanks to the features in programs like Sonar, I AM able to compensate for many of my diminishing abilities, via the "magic" of multitrack recording. Damn, when you've got 20 different vocals to work from the same song, it IS possible to cut and paste together a really good performance. In hindsight, I wish I could have been doing that all along, even in my younger years, the same way that guys like Bruce Springsteen have always done it (for example: he spent six months overdubbing his performance of one song, "Born to Run", at a cost of two hundred grand (!)). But, I usually did my performances "live" with the band in my younger days, which probably appealed more to my ego than anything else. And my Wallet!! Lower level performers couldn't afford the studio time that it takes to get a "perfect" record. But we can all make more "perfect" records on the cheap now, thanks to cheap multitrack desktop studios. If Rappers didn't have multitrack capabilities, that music would disappear overnight, no doubt about it. But talk is cheap, and rap is talk. I wouldn't even mention that artless form at all, but it does seem to be where most of the younger audience's disposible income is going these days. I believe that in these contemporary times, the younger consumer audience feels most comfortable with performers who are perceived to be as dysfunctional and helpless as they themselves probably feel.. This is the ultimate arnachy and protest against the system, to support the truly non talented artist. But regardless of modern mores in the industry, technology has always allowed performers to fine tune their own performances..Many great rock and roll records were from overdubbed performances, going as far back as Bill Haley's "vocal on "Rock around the Clock", Chuck Berry's guitar solo on "Johnny B Goode", some Buddy Holly vocals, and most of the Motown Records. Warron Zevon and Dusty Springfield, who both died of cancer, were doing quite a bit of overdubbing and punching in, line by line, on their very last recordings, and for the most part, I thought those efforts sounded pretty good.I imagine that even Frank Sinatra and Ray Charles were doing some serious overdubbing towards the end, but nevertheless, they both got Grammy's for their final projects, both duet collections. Ray Charles even got album of the year! That vote of confidence was probably part of the ongoing protest vote against most of the crap that's taken over the industry this past twenty years, with no end in sight, although if anyone ever deserved a final acknowlegement, it would certainly be artists like Sinatra, Ray Charles, and Johnny Cash. Elvis should have been so lucky, but the "aging" rockers hadn't taken over the Naras voting block at the time of his death in 1972. So Elvis, the man who started the rock and roll industry, never got a grammy for that work. (one Grammy for gospel music. Just as James Burton, greatest rock guitarist, got one grammy for his dobro work on a Merle Haggard record. There is no true justice.) .. And although I do feel kind of old these days, at least I still have all my hair. I'll stop playing when I start losing my hair. But even THEN, IF I did lose all my hair, even THAT wouldn't matter. Half of the performers actually shave their heads these days. Just about everybody looks like a refugee from a POW camp now. And young girls want to get hammered by these pathetic looking clowns? I really don't get it. And I suppose that's what makes me old. I just don't get it anymore. My digressions here cause me to raise an important question: If cheap modern recording technology is so great, why does the music suck so bad? Who killed Rock and Roll? Thanks for the input, Alan |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote: Bing Crosby put a lot of money into Ampex (pretty much got them into the recorder business) because he wanted to be able to record his early radio show so he didn't have to repeat it for the west coast broadcast, and wanted to be able to edit it if necessary. Saving labor and simultaneoudly improving the product is always a good thing, but recording 100 passes of a vocal just because you can doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If one feels that's necessary, either he hasn't learned the song well enough to sing yet, he's hoping for some magic he hasn't yet discovered, or he'd just too pikcy. I'm glad I'm still holding my two thousand shares of AMPX, now that they're relisted on the big board. Of course, the only thing they've got working for them these days is their thumbnail patent in all of the digital cameras, probably a by product of their other invention, picture within a picture. This year alone, Ampex's stock ran up from 50 cents to 56 dollars in a two week period, because the camera manufactures are paying them millions in back royalties. Kodak is the only one to hold out, and a court case is pending on that one.But, of course, Ampex got stuck paying off the retirement benefits for the Quantigy employees, so that's the last major drag on their stock right now. Art Garfunkle spent a couple of weeks in the studio just doing his vocal for "BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS". Not a bad end result. I think it was take 52 of HOUND DOG that finally satisfied Elvis. And Didn't they make a movie of the Stones recording just one song, "SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL", I think that was the song, maybe it was something else. Not sure. but, day in and day out, they'd come in and just work on that one song. They finallly got it. Who killed Rock and Roll? The pilot of the plane that took Buddy Holly out. Amen to that. But Dick Clark was still around long after Buddy died, and I think he probably helped it along too. Rave On, Al Cassaro -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... CeeDub wrote: "Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... CeeDub wrote: " Actually though, I tend to do mastering outside of Sonar, even if I use the same VST and DXi plugins. There are some very nice packages out there for this and I find them to be much easier to master 2 track audio than in Sonar.You might consider this option for yourself. I always do my final processing internally via Wavelab, I feel pretty comfortable with it, plus I can use all the VST plugins. As for mastering to a minidisc, I'd avoid it if possible. As I said earlier, I can't hear any real degradation of sound when I mix down to the minidisc. HOWEVER, that would only be on the FIRST mixdown. I did try a recording test from a CD to minidisc, digitally, and then back from the minidisc to the CD, again. And so forth. I heard the audio start breaking down after only a few swaps, and by 14 times, back and forth, it was pretty awful sounding. I guess that comes from the "protection" features built into the minidisc techology, which is basically a consumer device. Hence, I avoid using that for mixdowns for that reason alone. I KNOW the audio breaks down, but I just don't percieve it during the first mixdown stage. Good luck! Glad to hear you are still making music at such an advanced age LOL! I take no offense at that remark, I'm amazed that I'm even still alive. It really is still a blast to go out to a rock and roll bar on jam night and still have enough of the old ability to kick the butts off most of the 20 to 40 year olds olds in there, judging by the audience response. Fortunately, even my diminishing vocal skills don't seem to be an issue these days, because having good vocal chops in contemporary music is no longer required. Performers just have to present themselves as being truly dysfunctional, and I've always been that, if nothing else. If music still went by the original standards that were set up during the Fifties and Sixties, there would probably be more competition from the younger players. But having been raised on souless crap, most of these younger performers are clueless about what is expected. It's more about some form of "primal energy" and "anger" now. Having cut my teeth the records issued by SUN, SPECIALTY, CHESS and ATLANTIC, I've never had a problem with any of THAT, the energy. When you listen to source material, it eventually becomes part of your nervous system, and stays there, regardless of your age. But I've alway found it a funny and odd that nobody seemed to notice the "advanced age" of folks like Ray Charles, Joe Turner, Sam Moore, all black artists, of course,but can still find the time to make "age" jokes about the Rolling Stones, The Moody Blues, Paul McCartney, etc. I suppose white performers are just EXPECTED to lose their musical sensibility as they grow older, and for the most part, the critics are probably correct. I see these old white rockers on tv, and they're usually a pretty big disappointment, as compared to the older R&B artiists. Even now, I would prefer to listen to the final recordings by Pops Staples, over anything that the Rolling Stones ever did. Source material is always so much better than the counterfeit, as Mick Jaggar has always been, albeit his backup band has always been as great as any roots band in the industry. I still love Doc Watson's music, and I don't notice any breakdown in his skills at this point. And Paul McCartney does sound like an over the hill old fart much of the time, particularly when he tries to do the old Little Richard songs..You think he'd take the hint, and drop the keys a little bit. But, even Little Richard himself is pretty sloppy these days,due more to indifference and bitterness, I suspect, than to any real lost skills. I've heard him turn it on for a song or two, even during the sloppiest performances. And how about that Perry Como guy? He gave the best rendering of all of the recorded performances of "Wind Beneath my Wings" at 90 years old. Bette Midler simply bludgened the song to death, and got a Grammy for it. She even said that she didn't like the song, and she didn't want to do it, but was forced to do it by her producer. When I heard it, I thought it sounded just like someone who didn't like the song. What is it that the general public thinks they are hearing, versus what the musician really hears. But aging John Fograrty still seems able to cut the mustard as a good screamer, albeit, where he used to sound like the Hulk, he sounds more like Hulk "Light" at this stage of his twilight years. But Hulk light can still outrock just about anything out there these days. .On the "oldies" shows that they run on PBS, it's pretty obvious that more of the older white performers sound a little long in the tooth, even those from the Sixties, while many of the earliest black performers from Fifties R&B hold up much better, guys like as Llyod Price, Carl Gardner of the Coasters, Little Anthony, and that guy who did "Hearts Made of Stone", I forget his name. etc. I never expected to live this long, let alone still be making music, but thanks to the features in programs like Sonar, I AM able to compensate for many of my diminishing abilities, via the "magic" of multitrack recording. Damn, when you've got 20 different vocals to work from the same song, it IS possible to cut and paste together a really good performance. In hindsight, I wish I could have been doing that all along, even in my younger years, the same way that guys like Bruce Springsteen have always done it (for example: he spent six months overdubbing his performance of one song, "Born to Run", at a cost of two hundred grand (!)). But, I usually did my performances "live" with the band in my younger days, which probably appealed more to my ego than anything else. And my Wallet!! Lower level performers couldn't afford the studio time that it takes to get a "perfect" record. But we can all make more "perfect" records on the cheap now, thanks to cheap multitrack desktop studios. If Rappers didn't have multitrack capabilities, that music would disappear overnight, no doubt about it. But talk is cheap, and rap is talk. I wouldn't even mention that artless form at all, but it does seem to be where most of the younger audience's disposible income is going these days. I believe that in these contemporary times, the younger consumer audience feels most comfortable with performers who are perceived to be as dysfunctional and helpless as they themselves probably feel.. This is the ultimate arnachy and protest against the system, to support the truly non talented artist. But regardless of modern mores in the industry, technology has always allowed performers to fine tune their own performances..Many great rock and roll records were from overdubbed performances, going as far back as Bill Haley's "vocal on "Rock around the Clock", Chuck Berry's guitar solo on "Johnny B Goode", some Buddy Holly vocals, and most of the Motown Records. Warron Zevon and Dusty Springfield, who both died of cancer, were doing quite a bit of overdubbing and punching in, line by line, on their very last recordings, and for the most part, I thought those efforts sounded pretty good.I imagine that even Frank Sinatra and Ray Charles were doing some serious overdubbing towards the end, but nevertheless, they both got Grammy's for their final projects, both duet collections. Ray Charles even got album of the year! That vote of confidence was probably part of the ongoing protest vote against most of the crap that's taken over the industry this past twenty years, with no end in sight, although if anyone ever deserved a final acknowlegement, it would certainly be artists like Sinatra, Ray Charles, and Johnny Cash. Elvis should have been so lucky, but the "aging" rockers hadn't taken over the Naras voting block at the time of his death in 1972. So Elvis, the man who started the rock and roll industry, never got a grammy for that work. (one Grammy for gospel music. Just as James Burton, greatest rock guitarist, got one grammy for his dobro work on a Merle Haggard record. There is no true justice.) . And although I do feel kind of old these days, at least I still have all my hair. I'll stop playing when I start losing my hair. But even THEN, IF I did lose all my hair, even THAT wouldn't matter. Half of the performers actually shave their heads these days. Just about everybody looks like a refugee from a POW camp now. And young girls want to get hammered by these pathetic looking clowns? I really don't get it. And I suppose that's what makes me old. I just don't get it anymore. My digressions here cause me to raise an important question: If cheap modern recording technology is so great, why does the music suck so bad? Who killed Rock and Roll? Thanks for the input, Alan Looks like I opened a can of worms on that! I don't know why some performers seem to prevail, even getting better with age, while some just rot into oblivion. I don't think it's so much a black/white thing as an issue of artistic choices. With the Strolling Bones, I can't get no satisfaction! As for who killed Rock and Roll... I think we're at a transition point with some rare highlights. The transition seems to be partly driven by the availability of cheap modern recording. To a certain extent, I think this is great as it democratizes the whole process. The move away from pop radio to MP3s means folks don't need to be spoon-fed the latest and greatest. Which means that more of your local garage bands are getting listened to. Which means that fewer people are familiar with the latest and greatest. Which means that there just isn't as much of the latest and greatest. Plus, all of the 30 plus crowd is too interested in reliving their youths and have their iPods loaded up with Duran-Duran, Nirvana, the Beatles and Nine Inch Nails to have space to listen to anything really new and cool. The 20 year olds are the remaining crowd to be exploited, but even they are "tuning out" with their iPods. I think it'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out in the end. But, I highly doubt it means the end of Rock and Roll, just maybe fewer Strolling Bones/Gargantuan touring groups down the road. And I don't think that's such a bad thing, unless you happen to work for Claire Bros or ShowCo. Craig |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alan Cassaro" wrote in message ... Although I've never tried it, it seems logical to me that I should be able to send the outputs of channels 1-6 from Cakewalk Sonar on my PC, thru my external mixer, and then bring it back to channels 7 and 8 in the same CakewalkSonar program. Is it possible? I can tell you that Cubasis VST will let you mix down a multitrack recording to stereo right within Cubasis itself. So you can set up each track's level, EQ and effects within Cubasis, and have it generate the resulting stereo. I don't use Cakewalk, but it's a widely-respected program, and I'd have guessed it could do the same thing. Still, as Cubasis VST is pretty cheap - and bundled with many products - this might be a useful option, if it turns out Cakewalk can't do the same thing. Tim |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:27:29 GMT, "Tim Martin"
wrote: Although I've never tried it, it seems logical to me that I should be able to send the outputs of channels 1-6 from Cakewalk Sonar on my PC, thru my external mixer, and then bring it back to channels 7 and 8 in the same CakewalkSonar program. Is it possible? I can tell you that Cubasis VST will let you mix down a multitrack recording to stereo right within Cubasis itself. So you can set up each track's level, EQ and effects within Cubasis, and have it generate the resulting stereo. I don't use Cakewalk, but it's a widely-respected program, and I'd have guessed it could do the same thing. Still, as Cubasis VST is pretty cheap - and bundled with many products - this might be a useful option, if it turns out Cakewalk can't do the same thing. I can't imagine any multi-track audio program that DOESN'T have an internal mix-down facility. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Mixing, Any additional suggestions? | Pro Audio | |||
| Matching analog and digital signals while mixing live | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Mixing Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| mixing drums | Pro Audio | |||
| DAW-based Mixing: come up or down? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
