Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: MDV on March 28, 2010, 12:06:15 AM
-
Always a new trick round the corner and something else to learn to make you positively embarrassed of the last thing you did.
So annoying
That will be all.
-
does this new trick give more br00tal tone than the mic and goldfish bowl trick?
-
Depends if the goldfish is in the bowl or not.
-
if you replace the goldfish with a different kind of fish does it colour the tone in a good way?
-
Every fish has a different tone, and you really have to just choose the right one for the song.
-
I'd avoid catfish, swordfish, shark and king mackerel, they are high in mercury and probably result in a harsh top end
-
Skate and puffer fish are where its at for a smooth top end, but sometimes you do need something with more bite.
-
i'd suggest tuna. it's well balanced, on the warm side... just a bit too big for the goldfish bowl, i fear.
-
Perhaps a tuna steak, or a genetically modified mini-tuna?
If warm is what youre after then maybe river cobbler could stand in?
-
Is this a private party?
-
Most certainly not. I think its just that the tonal properties of fish is a somewhat esoteric subject. Do you have any experience on the matter?
-
No, I was going to make a "tuner" gag, but I think the moment has been lost...
Not really my plaice to comment, anyway.
-
Nicely done :lol:
You could school us in a thing or two, come right in.
-
Always a new trick round the corner and something else to learn to make you positively embarrassed of the last thing you did.
So annoying
That will be all.
What was it that superseded your previous knowledge?
-
This one was the benefit of EQing by
wait for it
actual notes/keys.
Seems so stupidly obvious now. Kind of realised by accident in a recent mix - yeah, instruments have natural ranges that they resonate in and occupy in the mix which one can emphasise or de-emphasise to give them their own space while being mutally supportive, but there are bloody notes as well! If things are murky/phasey/gay sounding them maybe its because the frequency ranges increased or decreased arent working with the frequencies of the fundamentals of the bloody keys being used!??! Turns out it works (in a you-should-track-it-right-to-begin-with sort of a way and so never have to do this, but it helped out with this project and I can see where not doing it probably caused problems in previous ones).
-
This one was the benefit of EQing by
wait for it
actual notes/keys.
Seems so stupidly obvious now. Kind of realised by accident in a recent mix - yeah, instruments have natural ranges that they resonate in and occupy in the mix which one can emphasise or de-emphasise to give them their own space while being mutally supportive, but there are bloody notes as well! If things are murky/phasey/gay sounding them maybe its because the frequency ranges increased or decreased arent working with the frequencies of the fundamentals of the bloody keys being used!??! Turns out it works (in a you-should-track-it-right-to-begin-with sort of a way and so never have to do this, but it helped out with this project and I can see where not doing it probably caused problems in previous ones).
I know what you mean, you can get so involved with tricks and techniques that some of the more basic things (for want of a better phrase) can get over looked.
The book I bought last year, (I think I may of posted a link to it before) Mastering Audio The Art And The Science. It has a very well designed open out chart in the leaf dealing with instruments, the frequency of fundamentals at each musical pitch, all laid out using a keyboard as a reference. Its like its all there at a glance.
Mind you when your recording guitars and other things at home perhaps some kind of frequency analyser could help? So you get it bang on as your a scientist and don't like leaving things to, 'that'll do!'
Just checked iTunes and you can get one for the iPhone! :lol:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0240805453/ref=sib_rdr_dp
-
I have that book!
Maybe I should bloody well read it! *facepalms self*
Reaper has an FFT EQ and multiband compressor that I abuse from time to time - I rarely take much notice of the frequency distribution though, cos I reckon you can lead yourself up the garden path if you trust the analysis over your ears.
Hmmmmm where physics and music collide - dont mind the blood and charred wreckage :lol:
-
I have that book!
Maybe I should bloody well read it! *facepalms self*
Reaper has an FFT EQ and multiband compressor that I abuse from time to time - I rarely take much notice of the frequency distribution though, cos I reckon you can lead yourself up the garden path if you trust the analysis over your ears.
Hmmmmm where physics and music collide - dont mind the blood and charred wreckage :lol:
Its a good book isn't it. It gives me brain ache!
Ears are good way of doing things. I tend to do it all by ear really. That's how all the decent producers years ago would have done things.
-
Ears are good way of doing things. I tend to do it all by ear really. That's how all the decent producers years ago would have done things.
Possibly - but "years ago" (I'd say "until the mid/late 80s"), decent producers usually worked with decent sound engineers - I mean, guys that were quite knowledgeable about acoustic, analog signal processing, AND music, and were able to properly record any acoustic instrument. Oh, and that could tell a good sounding preamp / EQ / mixing board / whatever from a lemon.
Looks like quite a lot of this knowledge has been lost during the late 80s / early 90s. Tape-op may not be such a fancy job, but you can learn a lot, at least if you use your ears and brain cells and have the opportunity to work at least once with a _real_ sound engineer.
One thing that amazed me was that so many so-called "engineers" didn't have a clue about acoustic and sound "physics" (sorry, lacking vocabulary here - pardon my French), never ever seemed to think about what they were doing and why, and just applied (often badly and/or inappropriatly) some "receipes" they didn't understand. Oh and yes - these guys constantly failed to notice that, however great it's automation was, the SSL boards were just plain lemons when it comes to tone (heck, even an old PA soundcraft 200B sounds better).
Not to claim I'm a good (nor even half decent) sound engineer myself BTW - was not my goal anyway...
Back on topic : ears are indeed a great tool. Still sometimes an external monitoring tool - frequency analyser, phase checker etc - can greatly help. Strange enough, the only guys I ever saw using these tools were the (very few) competent ones.
-
Ears are good way of doing things. I tend to do it all by ear really. That's how all the decent producers years ago would have done things.
Possibly - but "years ago" (I'd say "until the mid/late 80s"), decent producers usually worked with decent sound engineers - I mean, guys that were quite knowledgeable about acoustic, analog signal processing, AND music, and were able to properly record any acoustic instrument. Oh, and that could tell a good sounding preamp / EQ / mixing board / whatever from a lemon.
Looks like quite a lot of this knowledge has been lost during the late 80s / early 90s. Tape-op may not be such a fancy job, but you can learn a lot, at least if you use your ears and brain cells and have the opportunity to work at least once with a _real_ sound engineer.
One thing that amazed me was that so many so-called "engineers" didn't have a clue about acoustic and sound "physics" (sorry, lacking vocabulary here - pardon my French), never ever seemed to think about what they were doing and why, and just applied (often badly and/or inappropriatly) some "receipes" they didn't understand. Oh and yes - these guys constantly failed to notice that, however great it's automation was, the SSL boards were just plain lemons when it comes to tone (heck, even an old PA soundcraft 200B sounds better).
Not to claim I'm a good (nor even half decent) sound engineer myself BTW - was not my goal anyway...
Back on topic : ears are indeed a great tool. Still sometimes an external monitoring tool - frequency analyser, phase checker etc - can greatly help. Strange enough, the only guys I ever saw using these tools were the (very few) competent ones.
Good points BigB.
I sat in on a Q&A with the contributors from Sound On Sound Magazine at the LGS last year. They made some of your points. They made an example of some guy they know who had a 3 grand mic and bought a 5 grand one cos he thought it would make his vocals sound better. Rather than learn how to use the 3 grand one properly. For me this subject is like a lot of other things I've learnt over the years. Get a good foundation to build on because once it all starts coming together, everything interacts with everything else.
I've had my head stuck in books and web pages for a few years with sound. Its fascinating stuff :D I'm going to drop some cash on a mac pro very soon.
-
Ears are good way of doing things. I tend to do it all by ear really. That's how all the decent producers years ago would have done things.
Possibly - but "years ago" (I'd say "until the mid/late 80s"), decent producers usually worked with decent sound engineers - I mean, guys that were quite knowledgeable about acoustic, analog signal processing, AND music, and were able to properly record any acoustic instrument. Oh, and that could tell a good sounding preamp / EQ / mixing board / whatever from a lemon.
Looks like quite a lot of this knowledge has been lost during the late 80s / early 90s. Tape-op may not be such a fancy job, but you can learn a lot, at least if you use your ears and brain cells and have the opportunity to work at least once with a _real_ sound engineer.
One thing that amazed me was that so many so-called "engineers" didn't have a clue about acoustic and sound "physics" (sorry, lacking vocabulary here - pardon my French), never ever seemed to think about what they were doing and why, and just applied (often badly and/or inappropriatly) some "receipes" they didn't understand. Oh and yes - these guys constantly failed to notice that, however great it's automation was, the SSL boards were just plain lemons when it comes to tone (heck, even an old PA soundcraft 200B sounds better).
Not to claim I'm a good (nor even half decent) sound engineer myself BTW - was not my goal anyway...
Back on topic : ears are indeed a great tool. Still sometimes an external monitoring tool - frequency analyser, phase checker etc - can greatly help. Strange enough, the only guys I ever saw using these tools were the (very few) competent ones.
Well, I'm a physicist by training and trade, and understand acoustics pretty well, and like I say do use the analysis tools from time to time
Those times however are when I'm having trouble hearing whats going on and fall back on my day job - figure out whats going on with all the tools available to me.
The way I see it, though, they are secondary. Music is to be heard, not be fourier transformed, notes are to be enjoyed for their timbre and place in a composition, not have their attack and decay measured. Ears are what its intended for, ears are the judge, jury, and sometimes they can kill a mix as well :lol:
So, yeah, I do do the sciency bit on music, but mostly when I'm a bit lost :lol: