…through an analog console before nTra
Hello - my recording partner and I are having a bit of a philosophical disagreement about whether or not to equalize signals through a Mackie console before record in N.
A little background: We’re just getting started on a home studio project. I have a Delta1010LT card in a 2.8GHz Pentium, 1GB RAM, nTrack 5.?. We have the basic bass, drums, guitar, vox - type band. We’re using SM57s, 58s and a couple other mics going into a Mackie console. Bass is direct into the Mackie. All that’s being EQ’d, then eight channels are sent to the Delta1010LT card and into nTrack. The results have been good so this may even be a moot point.
We’re trying to decide if we should “pre-condition” the sound before the DAW. My partner’s position (his background is analog recording / live sound) is “try to get the best sounds before the ‘tape’”, so he would EQ and compress on the Mackie. My position (since I’m more a computer geek) is compress if you need to, but don’t otherwise color the sound before recording it, since we can do all that stuff afterwards and we have undo capabilities, versioning etc. In other words, if you EQ before the recording, you’re committed to that EQ forever. Of course, we have to run the mics through the Mackie anyway so we can get them up to line level. But should we be setting the EQs flat on the console?
What do others do? I suspect there are a variety of ways.
You can’t undo what’s already done.
In tape days it made sense to compress and limit before tape because you were up against the limitation imposed by tape hiss, much less dynamic range capabilities, and tape saturation and coloration (head bump). Some of those tape things sounded good. Some sounded great. Some sounded horrible and we’d do all kinds of stuff to avoid and mask the issues. (dbx, dolby, hard limiters, recording at +3 or more db, intentionally going into tape saturation for the natural soft knee compression)
Digital recording is a different animal. Headroom is so high we don’t usually need to worry about it (don’t record over 0 db). Hiss (not counting analog stuff introduced pre and post A/D-D/A) is non existent (the noise floor is dead silence). Dynamic range and resolution is determined by bit depth (we can easily get over 100db of usable range and in many case way way more). All of these add up to the non-need of recording near 0 db, and the not usually having to worry in the least about under recording.
That means we can record low enough to actually record those strong peaks that that tape hacks off, just because of the way we do things when going to tape. The bottom line, is those methods won’t work when going to digital. We’ll get glitches unless something is done to prevent going over 0db.
As I said, different animal. We also don’t get that nice sounding tape saturation, that is a natural part of tape. We have to do something to simulate it.
I suggest recording unaltered. Record low enough that you will NEVER hit 0 db. I record my drums so they are in the -15db to -20 range (24 bits). (I actually have the trim on the preamp as far down as it will go and the close mics have the -10db switch on.)
Don’t use EQ when recording. It’s easy to get it wrong then you could be fighting to undo when mixing. Exceptions are when you ALWAYS eq the same way with the same EQ.
It’s easy (with a sound card that supports multichannel out) to record totally dry, then mix through the Mackie later. That will give you the same analog EQ and effects you were thinking of using up front. Then if you want you can mix to tape to get “that sound”, then rerecord that mix back to digital. Lots of folks do this as a regular part of the mixing/mastering process. There are plug-ins that attempt to give the same effect.
You’re right, two diametrically opposed philosophies there. The less you have to fix in the mix, the better the recordings generally turn out, and the easier they are to mix. Me, being prone to doing things the difficult way instead of the smart way, I tend to record everything as dry as possible-no pre-eq, no pre-compression, etc. With the digital workstation, all those things can be done so much more easily post-production style, non-destructively, with almost limitless possibilities. If it were still analog, however, much more difficult to do effects post recording, with hardware loops set up and having to be rerouted and all if the ideas change at all. In summation, digitally i prefer to record dry, and with analog, the converse.
hope i didn’t confuse you too much. good luck!
jdet
www.soundclick.com/bands/johndoeseviltwin
I agree with all the above and throw in the obvious use of ‘exceptions’ to the rule.
You will come across times when it will be obvious that you need to ‘tweek’ something going in.
My consistent one is my acoustic guitar’s boominess, and as phoo said I have an eq saved that I always use on it.
I would think any exceptions would be obvious to both you and your partner.
My view… use both.
When I record I have an idea of what, say, a guitar should sound like in my mix. I choose a suitable guitar (let’s day electric for now), and then I decide what pickup to use; then which amp, or amp sim, or footpedal, or stomp box will give me the distortion I want. I might tweak the controls on the amp a bit. I then select a mic that will help to translate the sound I want; I then move it around in front of the speaker to find the sound I want.
So, before it hits the tape I’ve made loads of decisions that affect the sound and if one of those happens to be eq on the desk then so be it. I expect if most of us stop and think then you all do the same at one level or another.
The same applies to other instruments - mic placement on my acoustic, which mic to use for my vocals, which pre-amp etc.
Then, in the box, when mixing I can use eq to tidyup the sound, work on any masking issues or sticky-out bits to get the sound to work in the mix.
So… both… 
oh… yeah…
it’s not a religion. Use whatever works at time; don’t get too hung up on “right” and “wrong”.
Good topic!
Great replies! Thanks everyone. To me the benefit of being able to try something and undo it is huge. It adds to the artform in a way.
Mark A - I get your gist that when you’re placing a mic, selecting a guitar or pickup that you’re making decisions that can’t be undone when you record the track. I was trying to stick to the “commit to something only when you must.” Pickups are obviously necessary as is a mic. But to me there is no benefit to equalizing before the recording, considering that you can do exactly the same thing after the recording.
The point about of sending the digital output back to an analog console agrees with something our singer said last night. He likes the sound of analog processing so that’s doable at the end too.
Thanks for the info!!
I totally disagree with all of those other guys, except the parts where they are right.
Get a good sound down, don’t think digital will ever do for your sound what good outboard stuff will.
Run those signals through everything.
Even if it doesn’t sound all that great, it will be infinitely more interesting sonically than, say, the digital flanger or compression you put on.
Not that I don’t use boatloads of plugins, but things sound more dimensional when those electrons get to pass through resistors and such.
Mess up those signals.
E.g., John Doe’s Evil Twin just posted a song where he recorded through a pignose. Sure it’s a crappy amp, but the sound is excellent, and so much more complex than one would get using only digital tools.
Of course, getting it right going in requires a better sense of how things fit together in the song, requires the kind of engineering and producing skills that went into, say, Sgt. Pepper’s, but we all know waht everyone involved with that project has said when asked if they woudl have been able to do what they did without the limitations.
So I say, mess things up going in.
Harder to get right, but all that means is either you will have a crappy recording or a sonically interesting one; without doing this, at best you’ll end up with an above average one, but still “flat.”
I will now duck to avoid the blunt objects hurled my way.
Tom - Little help? I threw the first thing I could at you.
My tambourine with an old Dean Markley pickup and a dynacomp duct taped to it.
Ahhh just keep it!
if that dean markley comes my way i’m gonna wing it as hard as i can - my 40mph fastball is about all i can muster though. head’s up.
Hey, a Dynacomp!
I have always wanted one!
thanks, man!
Admit it guys, you know I’m right!
You are right… but only 'cause I said so.
It does bring a sense of creative freedom when you throw out all the standard cookie cutter ways.
Magic does often happen at that place.
Yes, Poppa, although I am making a stronger claim. Plug ins don’t replace hardware. There are cheap compressors, e.g., a DBX 163A (50 usa dollars on Ebay) that sound better than plug in compressors, I think. And I have or have tried expensive plug in compressors, although I recognize that I don’t have the greatest ears ever. Still, to me it seems that the same goes for EQ, flangers, choruses, although not, perhaps, reverbs - I think that the free SIR with the right impulses sounds better than the two hardware reverbs I have (an older Yamaha and a Lexicon MX200 - I recognize that these are digital - and none of these sound better than a big plate reverb, IMHO, or a dedicate reverb room, but neither of those are possibilities for most of us here).
Well…getting the sound you want is, after all, the first step. If you want a bluesy semi-clean with a touch of spring reverb Fender and Start sound you wouldn’t record the clean guitar straight off the pickup with a DI. You plug the Strat into a Fender Amp, twiddle the knobs, and mic it.
Now, what you do after the mic is a different story. Do you compress/limit and/or EQ that before or after recording? Maybe. Very Maybe.
I’m bumping this thread so that a different thread can start its way to oblivion.
I have a old Dyna-Comp somewhere. That's one of the best little stomp box compressers out there for guitar. It's also got a nice distortion when a higher signal is into to it. Nope, can't do that kind of stuff with a plug-in.
Quote: (TomS @ Apr. 05 2008, 8:39 PM)
I will now duck to avoid the blunt objects hurled my way.
Chunking Sir digital reverb plug at Tom!
Hey Yaz, why’d ya have to load it up with one of those heavy impulses, anyway? What was that, the Taj Mahal?
While I agree there may be something to the “warmth” of analog, I wouldn’t trade the analog noise floor for the digital one. EVER! I hate hiss, wow, flutter and all that crap. When you have a pristine, clean recording, you can color it all you want. You can’t remove the color that’s already there.
Are there plugins that sound as good as hardware? Maybe, but us mere mortals can’t afford them…
D