"brand.smith" wrote in message news:ru6Ma.70497$R73.9826@sccrnsc04...

is it commonplace/advisable to apply lo-cut to cymbal tracks... if so, at
what frequency would the "desired" tonality of the instrument be
compromised?
TIA,
Brand Smith - SonicAlchemyWorkshop Studios




Are you in reference to overhead mics ?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

Are you in reference to overhead mics ?

Seriously... overheads on a full kit is a different story than overdubbing
some extra cymbal crashes.


{FACI-FUKI-NATIN}

Yes, I am referring to overheads... and since i'll be using drumagog to
replace the kick and snare, it's not as desirable to me to let these drums
come through on the overheads.
thanks
Brand Smith - SonicAlchemyWorkshop Studios

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
...

"brand.smith" wrote in message
news:ru6Ma.70497$R73.9826@sccrnsc04...

is it commonplace/advisable to apply lo-cut to cymbal tracks... if so,
at
what frequency would the "desired" tonality of the instrument be
compromised?
TIA,
Brand Smith - SonicAlchemyWorkshop Studios




Are you in reference to overhead mics ?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

brand.smith wrote:
is it commonplace/advisable to apply lo-cut to cymbal tracks... if so, at
what frequency would the "desired" tonality of the instrument be
compromised?

Cymbal tracks?

Hell, I spent most of my life trying to keep the cymbals _out_ of the other
mikes. There's usually PLENTY of cymbal in there without spot miking them.

Your major worry is that if you -do- spot the cymbals, because there is so
much leakage of cymbal into everything else already, when you bring the
cymbal mikes up you're apt to have lots of weird phasing effects.

I don't see any reason not to low-cut if you're worried about leakage from
other things into the cymbal mike. Use the highest Q on your filter, then
just crank the frequency up with the track soloed until you can hear a
difference, then bring it into the mix. Then try cranking it up even
more and see if you can hear anything then.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Brand,

This is pretty dependant upon the mic technique. I will assume for
the moment, that you are miking every drum.

I tend (that's just me) to roll of low frequencies pretty severely in OH
mics when I have a mic on every drum. It still must be looked at as
a whole... the resultant combination of *all* microphones on the kit.

I generally use them for little more than stereo imaging and the
uppermost 'sizzle' in many styles of music. (Jazz would be an
exception to my typical application).

So, for me, I get plenty of the low end of cymbals bleeding through
my tom mics. I often take advantage of the snare mic in some fairly
unorthodox ways to bring out certain cymbals and the hats. Again,
basing the result on the final 'picture' of all the mics combined to
make up the sound of the drum kit's various part to creat a 'whole'.

Most people work the other way 'round... that is, to get the absolute
clearest picture of the entire drum kit within the overheads and use
other mics for imaging and 'filler'. The approaches can be very, very
different among recordists.

I generally cut everything below 350hz or so, and a little in the midrange
depending on the recording environment. I never boost, especially
not in the highs. often, I'll even cut a few of the upper mids to lower
highs, in the range of 1.4 to 2Khz or so.... really depends on a lot
of other factors.

This is not necessarily 'commonplace' as asked in you original post,
and as well, not necessarily even advisable... but I happen to make
a pretty regular habit of it, grew up playing drums and am fairly known
amongst my client referrals as being able to "give good drum".

I hafta' add, there's going to be very little that you can do (I hope there
are some ideas offered up) about the amount of snare that will be in
the overheads... its just a fact of life that such a dynamic and transient
part of the kit is going to be in the overheads to a great degree.

I am sorry that you are having such a problem with kick and snare
sounds that you will have to use total replacement rather than just
an additional layer. You may be faced with a slight loss of imaging
and having to deal with timing issues from the triggered replacement
as it relates to the overheads. Generally, bleed into the snare plays
a large role in my overall drum sound. Although it fits most styles,
I am certainly limited sometimes by the type of effects processing
I can apply to that track.

Although many people get extremely anal about 'timing' issues
between the arrival of the sound from the actual snare mic vs. the
minutely delayed appearance of the snare in the overheads, I often
personally see that shift as playing a large role in the apparent
'space' surrounding the kit. Sometimes this is a 'phase' issue, but
for me, it rarely is one that can't be easily compensated for.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com




"brand.smith" wrote in message news:HafMa.7619$Xm3.1047@sccrnsc02...
Yes, I am referring to overheads... and since i'll be using drumagog to
replace the kick and snare, it's not as desirable to me to let these drums
come through on the overheads.
thanks
Brand Smith - SonicAlchemyWorkshop Studios

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
...

"brand.smith" wrote in message
news:ru6Ma.70497$R73.9826@sccrnsc04...

is it commonplace/advisable to apply lo-cut to cymbal tracks... if so,
at
what frequency would the "desired" tonality of the instrument be
compromised?
TIA,
Brand Smith - SonicAlchemyWorkshop Studios




Are you in reference to overhead mics ?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ...

Cymbal tracks?

Hell, I spent most of my life trying to keep the cymbals _out_ of the other
mikes. There's usually PLENTY of cymbal in there without spot miking them.


Dude, where were you in the 80's, when it seemed like every fru-fru
spiky haired "producer" who came into my studio wanted to track drums
in 3 passes:

1) kick & snare (maybe w/ hihat, if that wasn't already coming off a
DMX or LinnDrum)

2) tom fills

3) cymbals

I cringe at the sheer idiocy of those performances.

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
om...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message
...

Cymbal tracks?

Hell, I spent most of my life trying to keep the cymbals _out_ of the
other
mikes. There's usually PLENTY of cymbal in there without spot miking
them.


Dude, where were you in the 80's, when it seemed like every fru-fru
spiky haired "producer" who came into my studio wanted to track drums
in 3 passes:

1) kick & snare (maybe w/ hihat, if that wasn't already coming off a
DMX or LinnDrum)

2) tom fills

3) cymbals

I cringe at the sheer idiocy of those performances.

In the first half of the 80's I was in a very progressive rock band (
original stuff similar to Yes, Kansas, ELP, Genesis, etc ) and when we first
met with the engineer he suggested that we might record all the drums first
and then do all the cymbals as overdubs. I was shocked but game to try
anything so at our next rehearsal we played through the four songs to be
recorded twice. The first time I only played snare, bass and toms, the
second time only cymbals and other metal percussion. Holly CRAP! It was a
pretty fun challenge but very insane since the stuff I was playing had a
high degree of integration between the drums and cymbals. We told the
engineer it wouldn't work and said ok, no problem.

The way I do it these days is much more sensible. I build my parts up with
a drum machine and cut an audio track for reference. Then I play along with
the drum machine track with my real drums until I get a good performance.
Then I spend a few weeks getting individual samples of each drum and cymbal
being struck many different ways and I find that heavy use of autotune on
the toms is helpful. Then I load up Drumagog and replace everything I
played with the samples I created. Then I'll chop the tracks into one
measure chunks and slide them around to get the right feel. Afterwards I'll
apply a few passes of L2 processing and then record a stereo submix to a
tape machine for warmth. I'll then play back the tape in the other room and
put the phone receiver next to the speakers so I can call myself on my cell
phone and use the earpiece output to record a new stereo mix for funkiness.
I'll mix the 'warm' and 'funky' tracks together and then give it all a
couple more passes through the L2 to make it sound 'fresh'. It's a lot of
work but worth it although I've found most of our songs sound better without
any of my drum tracks at all . . . .I'm not sure why yet.

John L Rice

"brand.smith" wrote:

Yes, I am referring to overheads... and since i'll be using drumagog to
replace the kick and snare, it's not as desirable to me to let these drums
come through on the overheads.

In that case, I'd seriously consider tracking with electronic drums
and real cymbals. I suppose you could spot mic each cymbal, but
you're gionna get plenty of kick and snare in a set of overheads
that can "see" all the cymbals.

I know - you don't have an electronic kit, but you're essentially
emulating one wiht live drums and Drumagog. An electronic kit
seems to me a system with fewer components.

The problems with spot micing each cymbal will include lack
of real image of the drum kit ( to be made up later by
panning ), lack of distance from the cymbal ( resulting
in a skewed picture of the cymbal and a distorted
note envelope ) and managing the sheer nummber
of tracks. Cymbals want some room to stretch out in.

With electronic drums and live cymbals, you can also track the kick,
toms and snare as MIDI, allowing you to bypass Drumagog altogether.

What you're doing sounds much more painful than just tracking
live drums. Besides, wouldn't the output of Drumagog more or
less mask what's coming into the overheads anyway? Don't be
obsessed with isolation, especially with drum recording.


thanks
Brand Smith - SonicAlchemyWorkshop Studios

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
...

"brand.smith" wrote in message
news:ru6Ma.70497$R73.9826@sccrnsc04...

is it commonplace/advisable to apply lo-cut to cymbal tracks... if so,
at
what frequency would the "desired" tonality of the instrument be
compromised?
TIA,
Brand Smith - SonicAlchemyWorkshop Studios




Are you in reference to overhead mics ?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com




--
Les Cargill

You'll never get the snare out of the overheads and if you're replacing the
kick and snare, you may want to not cut anything from the overheads since
you won't have any cymbals bleeding into the snare mic anymore. In a normal
drum micing situation (every drum mic individually), it's commonplace to cut
lows from the overheads. What you can do, though, is line up your replaced
tracks with the sound coming from the overheads, this will tighten the
imaging and "hide" the bleed. Since you're working on a workstation, you can
line up the peaks easily. If I may ask, why are you replacing the tracks?

"brand.smith" wrote in message
news:HafMa.7619$Xm3.1047@sccrnsc02...
Yes, I am referring to overheads... and since i'll be using drumagog to
replace the kick and snare, it's not as desirable to me to let these drums
come through on the overheads.
thanks
Brand Smith - SonicAlchemyWorkshop Studios

"John L Rice" wrote in message
...

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
om...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message
...

Cymbal tracks?

Hell, I spent most of my life trying to keep the cymbals _out_ of the
other
mikes. There's usually PLENTY of cymbal in there without spot miking
them.


Dude, where were you in the 80's, when it seemed like every fru-fru
spiky haired "producer" who came into my studio wanted to track drums
in 3 passes:

1) kick & snare (maybe w/ hihat, if that wasn't already coming off a
DMX or LinnDrum)

2) tom fills

3) cymbals

I cringe at the sheer idiocy of those performances.

In the first half of the 80's I was in a very progressive rock band (
original stuff similar to Yes, Kansas, ELP, Genesis, etc ) and when we
first
met with the engineer he suggested that we might record all the drums
first
and then do all the cymbals as overdubs. I was shocked but game to try
anything so at our next rehearsal we played through the four songs to be
recorded twice. The first time I only played snare, bass and toms, the
second time only cymbals and other metal percussion. Holly CRAP! It was
a
pretty fun challenge but very insane since the stuff I was playing had a
high degree of integration between the drums and cymbals. We told the
engineer it wouldn't work and said ok, no problem.

The way I do it these days is much more sensible. I build my parts up
with
a drum machine and cut an audio track for reference. Then I play along
with
the drum machine track with my real drums until I get a good performance.
Then I spend a few weeks getting individual samples of each drum and
cymbal
being struck many different ways and I find that heavy use of autotune on
the toms is helpful. Then I load up Drumagog and replace everything I
played with the samples I created. Then I'll chop the tracks into one
measure chunks and slide them around to get the right feel. Afterwards
I'll
apply a few passes of L2 processing and then record a stereo submix to a
tape machine for warmth. I'll then play back the tape in the other room
and
put the phone receiver next to the speakers so I can call myself on my
cell
phone and use the earpiece output to record a new stereo mix for
funkiness.
I'll mix the 'warm' and 'funky' tracks together and then give it all a
couple more passes through the L2 to make it sound 'fresh'. It's a lot of
work but worth it although I've found most of our songs sound better
without
any of my drum tracks at all . . . .I'm not sure why yet.

John L Rice


roflmao!
--
John Cafarella
End Of the Road Studio
Melbourne, Australia

"John L Rice" wrote in message ...

The way I do it these days is much more sensible. I build my parts up with
a drum machine and cut an audio track for reference. Then I play along with
the drum machine track with my real drums until I get a good performance.
Then I spend a few weeks getting individual samples of each drum and cymbal
being struck many different ways and I find that heavy use of autotune on
the toms is helpful. Then I load up Drumagog and replace everything I
played with the samples I created. Then I'll chop the tracks into one
measure chunks and slide them around to get the right feel. Afterwards I'll
apply a few passes of L2 processing and then record a stereo submix to a
tape machine for warmth. I'll then play back the tape in the other room and
put the phone receiver next to the speakers so I can call myself on my cell
phone and use the earpiece output to record a new stereo mix for funkiness.
I'll mix the 'warm' and 'funky' tracks together and then give it all a
couple more passes through the L2 to make it sound 'fresh'. It's a lot of
work but worth it although I've found most of our songs sound better without
any of my drum tracks at all . . . .I'm not sure why yet.


What label do you work for ?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
...

"John L Rice" wrote in message ...

The way I do it these days is much more sensible. I build my parts up
with
a drum machine and cut an audio track for reference. Then I play along
with
the drum machine track with my real drums until I get a good
performance.
Then I spend a few weeks getting individual samples of each drum and
cymbal
being struck many different ways and I find that heavy use of autotune
on
the toms is helpful. Then I load up Drumagog and replace everything I
played with the samples I created. Then I'll chop the tracks into one
measure chunks and slide them around to get the right feel. Afterwards
I'll
apply a few passes of L2 processing and then record a stereo submix to a
tape machine for warmth. I'll then play back the tape in the other room
and
put the phone receiver next to the speakers so I can call myself on my
cell
phone and use the earpiece output to record a new stereo mix for
funkiness.
I'll mix the 'warm' and 'funky' tracks together and then give it all a
couple more passes through the L2 to make it sound 'fresh'. It's a lot
of
work but worth it although I've found most of our songs sound better
without
any of my drum tracks at all . . . .I'm not sure why yet.


What label do you work for ?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com


The label that just signed the Grungy Brittney Spice Boys Attack Posse. ;-)

John L Rice

in the 80's, when it seemed like every fru-fru
spiky haired "producer" who came into my studio wanted to track drums
in 3 passes:

1) kick & snare (maybe w/ hihat, if that wasn't already coming off a
DMX or LinnDrum)

2) tom fills

3) cymbals

I cringe at the sheer idiocy of those performances

The closest to this I ever did back in the later 80s (and even the first
couple years (pre-Nirvana) of the 90s) was to use a sequenced drum part
with sampled or drum machine kick and snare but have a drummer come in
and do a live cymbal overdub. It was a way to have that solid backbeat
and processed 80s drum sound the producer or artist was after, but not
be stuck with those awful cymbal samples, and be able to add a little
bit of an organic and musical feel on top of those 80s drums which I
never much liked. It also helped pre-pro along since you had your drum
part locked in early. The cymbal part was icing but didn't change the
basics of the tune. This is kind of like laying one real horn player
over sampled horn parts. It adds some life and minimizes how badly the
samples stick out. I prefer real musicians in most cases, but if the
producer wanted fake drums, I could at least suggest the cymbal overdub
and get a better track. I haven't used this technique in years, though I
don't see why it couldn't still work in some cases. Luckily I never had
a crazy enough producer want to record a live drummer in three passes.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
www.promastering.com

In article ,
"John L Rice" wrote:

The way I do it these days is much more sensible. I build my parts up with
a drum machine and cut an audio track for reference. Then I play along with
the drum machine track with my real drums until I get a good performance.
Then I spend a few weeks getting individual samples of each drum and cymbal
being struck many different ways and I find that heavy use of autotune on
the toms is helpful. Then I load up Drumagog and replace everything I
played with the samples I created. Then I'll chop the tracks into one
measure chunks and slide them around to get the right feel. Afterwards I'll
apply a few passes of L2 processing and then record a stereo submix to a
tape machine for warmth. I'll then play back the tape in the other room and
put the phone receiver next to the speakers so I can call myself on my cell
phone and use the earpiece output to record a new stereo mix for funkiness.
I'll mix the 'warm' and 'funky' tracks together and then give it all a
couple more passes through the L2 to make it sound 'fresh'. It's a lot of
work but worth it although I've found most of our songs sound better without
any of my drum tracks at all . . . .I'm not sure why yet.

John L Rice

I also favour the simple approach.

"brand.smith" wrote:

is it commonplace/advisable to apply lo-cut to cymbal tracks...

Sometimes, depending on the mic setup and the desired tone of the
track.


if so, at
what frequency would the "desired" tonality of the instrument be
compromised?

Ah, whenever the high pass filter starts to make things sound bad.

Mark
http://SoundtechRecording.com

"Putting the lion's share of your attention and investment out in front
of the microphones pays off every time." -- Bob Olhsson

"Mark Plancke" wrote in message
...

if so, at
what frequency would the "desired" tonality of the instrument be
compromised?

Ah, whenever the high pass filter starts to make things sound bad.

Or a slightly different approach:
wherever the high pass filter stops to make things sound better.

Sander

"Sander" wrote:

"Mark Plancke" wrote in message
.. .

if so, at
what frequency would the "desired" tonality of the instrument be
compromised?

Ah, whenever the high pass filter starts to make things sound bad.

Or a slightly different approach:
wherever the high pass filter stops to make things sound better.

Sander

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Mark
http://SoundtechRecording.com

"Putting the lion's share of your attention and investment out in front
of the microphones pays off every time." -- Bob Olhsson