Bands Read This!

[Scorge]

sticking up 2 fingers to the tangible, accepted and well understood science of audio engineering is doing you no favours.

Posting pretentious poppycock at stupid o' clock in the morning because you haven't got a life isn't doing you any either.

[Stripey]

Posting pretentious poppycock at stupid o' clock in the morning because you haven't got a life isn't doing you any either.

There's nothing pretentious about what I said there, it's just stupid to shrug off processes that will clarify and enhance the reproduction of your audio because you think some shitty noisy tape is more underground.

[Old Gold]

1am on a Saturday morning is 'stupid o'clock'?

[britheguy]

It's surprising that so many people who supposedly care about their music have such an apparent disregard for how it is actually presented and reproduced. Producing a good mix is not about "day upon day of mixing", infact I'd argue that if it's taking that long there is some kind of problem with the engineer.

Anyway, I don't see how you can record AND mix 5 tracks in the space of 3 hours and produce satisfactory results, unless you have incredibly low standards or superhuman hearing. Why skimp on this when it has such a profound effect on how your material is perceived?

I can see what you're getting at there. However, I think the tunes are more important that the mix in regards enjoying a tune. I remember getting into HI-FI and buying lp's that 'sounded' good through the system, rather than listening to the tune.

I think must people who go to gigs would admit that the mix is usually not as good as the cd version, but they still think it's great to be hearing the tunes regardless.

Another thing, when someone records a cd, do they really think that the listener will be breaking down every aspect of the mix rather than listening and enjoying the track (apart from hi fi buffs etc) Geez, Bat out of Hell had a crap mix - I'm sure the big meat said as much as well - but sold millions.

Our band has been twice to Toms do those 3 hour deals. Yes there could have been tweaking to improve the sound some what, but the general band sound and style or lack of, is there for people to hear. Hence a demo. we were not trying to get a mix on par with 'Bridge over troubled waters'

Each to their own really. If you have the time and money etc to do a 3-4 day mix, then do it, if not, don't worry about it, your songs will still be heard and hopefully enjoyed by the listener.

cheers

[Paulscoconutass]

It's surprising that so many people who supposedly care about their music have such an apparent disregard for how it is actually presented and reproduced. Producing a good mix is not about "day upon day of mixing", infact I'd argue that if it's taking that long there is some kind of problem with the engineer.

For someone who appears to be quite smart you've don't seem to be quite good at accepting other peoples' opinions. I had already stated that, for me, a satisfactory mix is one that makes every track audible. Nothing more, nothing less. Personally, that's an acceptable presentation and reproduction of your track.

Anyway, I don't see how you can record AND mix 5 tracks in the space of 3 hours and produce satisfactory results, unless you have incredibly low standards or superhuman hearing. Why skimp on this when it has such a profound effect on how your material is perceived?

Again, this is down to opinion. Nothing to do with my low standards, just that yours are miles higher. We try and give our recordings some authenticity by recoring all the instruments live together, then we stick the vocals over that, before finally sorting out the levels for each song. This is cool for us because it sounds like a really good mix of what you'll hear us play live.

Obviously, since you write songs in a genre that tends to use and abuse computers more often than not, you're probably not going to be able to record in this way. Also, since you're a 'professional musician' you've got the instant advantage of having much more time than most people to record and produce music. Because of this, it's only natural that you'd have higher expectations of your tracks, which you clearly impose on everyone elses.

[Stripey]

this is down to opinion. Nothing to do with my low standards, just that yours are miles higher. We try and give our recordings some authenticity by recoring all the instruments live together, then we stick the vocals over that, before finally sorting out the levels for each song. This is cool for us because it sounds like a really good mix of what you'll hear us play live.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

This thread is revealing quite a lot about why there are so many horrible recordings around.

[Alex]

shocking truth revealed: local bands care not for sparkling sounding mastered demos to be sent to local venues.

[Hugh_Jazz]

Ignorance is bliss eh?

This thread is revealing quite a lot about why there are so many horrible recordings around.

....and sadly, a fair bit about your personality too. By all means, give us your opinions, but there's no need to be a cunt about it....again.

[Stripey]

....and sadly, a fair bit about your personality too. By all means, give us your opinions, but there's no need to be a cunt about it....again.

Whatever, no need to chime in with comments like that, and there's no need for people to get defensive either. Only in a place like aberdeen would an argument as insane as "it's not my low standards it's you and your high standards!" carry any sway. Don't start having a go at me just because you don't know what you're talking about and don't give a shit what your recordings sound like.

Anyway I'm not having a go at anyone, people can do what they like.

[Paulscoconutass]

Only in a place like aberdeen would an argument as insane as "it's not my low standards it's you and your high standards!" carry any sway. Don't start having a go at me just because you don't know what you're talking about and don't give a shit what your recordings sound like.

How's that an insane argument? You're implying that local bands should put more their time, money and resources into recording DEMO tracks, simply because the majority of current output of Aberdonian bands isn't fit by YOUR high standards.

Out of interest, Onion Terror are recording some songs at Captain Toms next week and I was going to save all of the raw tracks before the sound engineer mixed them. I could give you one song to mix, to your hearts content, then we (me and you, or the whole website; I'm indifferent) can see what the difference is between your mix, and the mix we left the studio with on that day? I think that's a very reasonable chance to prove that your argument is indeed correct, and of course, it would all be a bit of fun.

[scottyboy]

i think its simply that most bands would have a hard time affording professional mixing and that to have it done for a demo track isn't really money well spent

[Stripey]

Why wouldn't you want your DEMO to sound as good as possible, to help it stand out from the rest and show that you actually take what you're doing seriously? It's even more important in terms of things like myspace, where the audio quality is going to be degraded anyway and there are millions of other recordings to compete against for the listeners attention.

[Marsh]

Anyway I'm not having a go at anyone, people can do what they like.

I mean, you couldn't make this sort of thing up.

Not having a go?

This thread is revealing quite a lot about why there are so many horrible recordings around.

Not even a hint of having a go there, is there?

Don't start having a go at me just because you don't know what you're talking about.

Nope. Definitely not having a go at anyone.

Only in a place like aberdeen

Time and time again you moan about Aberdeen and the groups / artists from Aberdeen, yet you spend all your spare time on this forum (when you're not creating symphonies down in the underground super - studio.)

Is it just me or is this sort of trash underming all the groups who actually get off their arse and produce music totally out of the spirit of the forum? I mean, why should Onion Terror or Spike Piledriver spend hundreds of pounds and hours and hours (over)producing their music when a live take in the studio and some fiddling with levels gives a fair and honest representation of what they are all about?

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Exactly - Leave the underground bunker and get your arse to a gig and take in some proper live music - I'm pretty sure most of the bands on the forum would agree they're best appreciated live and not on their demo tapes / recordings.

[HairyScaryMark]

It is true that the better the source/band performance/sound of instruments etc. is, the less the sound engineer has to do to get it to sound up to scratch.

I do however agree than doing both the recording and mixing in 5 hours is going to push things. I suspect if you had a couple more hours for the mixing, you may have noticed the difference. Either way, you got results you are happy with and I remember them sounding fairly good when I heard them.

On another note.....

Anyone moved to Glasgow and found studios there are better or worse? I remember in a thread about rehearsal rooms, people said that you generally get less for your money in Aberdeen as there is less competiion etc. Suspect it might be the same for recording studios.

[Stripey]

Is it just me or is this sort of trash underming all the groups who actually get off their arse and produce music totally out of the spirit of the forum? I mean, why should Onion Terror or Spike Piledriver spend hundreds of pounds and hours and hours (over)producing their music when a live take in the studio and some fiddling with levels gives a fair and honest representation of what they are all about?

What, talking about mixing techniques and peoples approach is somehow a bad thing? There is next to no technical discussion of this sort of thing on here, and it's far more informative and useful than chatting about paris hilton or how awesome pink floyd were for example.

I'm pretty sure most of the bands on the forum would agree they're best appreciated live and not on their demo tapes / recordings.

Wonder why that could be...

[scottyboy]

@ stripey

sorry i meant professional mastering not mixing.

as to the general mix/recording of a (demo) track, i would agree with that you want it to sound as good as possible, again for the reasons you mentioned i.e. having it stand out on myspace from the thousand of other bands on myspace.

most of the bands i've heard that i like, have good recordings. however they may have been properly mastered; a lot of them definitely have... i'm not sure about all of them.

in addition to bands not knowing what they're doing (which i guess you're implying here) i think money will still come into it. much as if you see a band live, they're going to sound a fair bit better playing through high end guitars and good valve amps than korean ones through solid states (in general). i doubt it's through choice, but needs must.

[scottyboy]

argh, and the tracks i've heard that i like on myspace, are often not demo tracks at all but actually going to be on 'albums' or 'eps' (again, probably not exclusively so)

very helpful contribution to the discussion there o_O

[Sam 45]

I could give you one song to mix, to your hearts content, then we (me and you, or the whole website; I'm indifferent) can see what the difference is between your mix, and the mix we left the studio with on that day? I think that's a very reasonable chance to prove that your argument is indeed correct, and of course, it would all be a bit of fun.

Have you listened to his stuff before? The stuff is very, very well produced.

[Stupot]

mastering

We provide a mastering service in our studio.

In fact, if anyone wants to try us, send a track on a CD (24 bit 48Khz WAV preferable but 16 bit will do) and we'll master it for free so you can see the results. Can't say fairer than that.

PM for address.

[FatHand]

We provide a mastering service in our studio.

In fact, if anyone wants to try us, send a track on a CD (24 bit 48Khz WAV preferable but 16 bit will do) and we'll master it for free so you can see the results. Can't say fairer than that.

PM for address.

The price is right! In lay person's terms, how do you process the tracks?

[Stupot]

The price is right! In lay person's terms, how do you process the tracks?

A well mixed track often doesn't need much doing to it.

Basically, you give the track a critical listen and note any problems, such as too much bass, a dull high end ect.

You correct these with careful EQ, and multiband compression. You remove any pops and clicks as these bring down the overall volume of the track. You top and tail (check fade ins and outs). You bring up the overall volume of the track, while bearing in mind the dynamics of the song. (There seems to be a competiton about who can get a track the loudest!!! We don't play!) If you're mastering an album, you take into consideration all the other tracks and master as a whole. You don't want to be reaching for the volume on the CD player between tracks.

Once you're happy with result, if the track is going to be a 16 bit master you add dither. Dither is low level noise added to randomise quantisation errors in the audio file. (It makes a 16 bit file sound better!!)

Bear in mind you often can't correct mixing errors once the audio is a stereo file.

This is a very simplistic explanation of the process.

[FatHand]

Thanks, that is very useful.

I've had my fair share of run ins with Stripey regarding some of his attitudes to music, especially toward the music that I'm involved in, but in this case I think he makes a good point. There is nothing wrong with spending either a little time or money to get more from recording.

There are a lot of enhancements that can be done to a track, especially those that are not done in the 30 minute studio mix that really could make huge differences to the quality. You don't have to compromise the sound that you're aiming for but you can make subtle differences to give more professional sound (or at least make the best of what you have). There are huge amounts you can do to a track yourself if you have the patience.

I've done the whole recording 8 tracks in 12 hours thing which is great fun and good for having songs recorded for posterity but there must come a time when you want a little bit more from recording. I have pretty much every song that our band wrote, recorded in some fashion. Many of these were reasonably good recordings in terms of time spent to get great tones for guitars etc. but always lacking in certain elements (like a perfect drum sound). This is great in terms of a memento but I wish we'd moved fast enough to evolve up a stage when the opportunity was there. Once you have songs rehearsed well enough and sounding fresh, splashing out on a having a couple of tracks recorded in a quality studio then mastered would be, in my opinion, worth the money spent. Even if you don't make it beyond local level, you can't take away the quality or experience of having done it.

[Stupot]

Thanks, that is very useful.

I've had my fair share of run ins with Stripey regarding some of his attitudes to music, especially toward the music that I'm involved in, but in this case I think he makes a good point. There is nothing wrong with spending either a little time or money to get more from recording.

There are a lot of enhancements that can be done to a track, especially those that are not done in the 30 minute studio mix that really could make huge differences to the quality. You don't have to compromise the sound that you're aiming for but you can make subtle differences to give more professional sound (or at least make the best of what you have). There are huge amounts you can do to a track yourself if you have the patience.

I've done the whole recording 8 tracks in 12 hours thing which is great fun and good for having songs recorded for posterity but there must come a time when you want a little bit more from recording. I have pretty much every song that our band wrote, recorded in some fashion. Many of these were reasonably good recordings in terms of time spent to get great tones for guitars etc. but always lacking in certain elements (like a perfect drum sound). This is great in terms of a memento but I wish we'd moved fast enough to evolve up a stage when the opportunity was there. Once you have songs rehearsed well enough and sounding fresh, splashing out on a having a couple of tracks recorded in a quality studio then mastered would be, in my opinion, worth the money spent. Even if you don't make it beyond local level, you can't take away the quality or experience of having done it.

Even very quickly recorded demo tracks will benefit from the mastering process. I get sent a lot of CDs, most of which are straight mixes with no mastering and this is fine. Occasionally, a mastered one will appear and blast out of the speakers which have been turned up to listen to quieter tracks!

Of course, a very badly recorded track will simply be a very loud badly recorded track if mastered. You can't really fix a dreadful hash of a track.

[Stripey]

You bring up the overall volume of the track, while bearing in mind the dynamics of the song. (There seems to be a competiton about who can get a track the loudest!!! We don't play!)

IMO some material is suited to being pushed a bit further in the "very-heavily-limited/compressed-at-the-expense-of-dynamic-range" sense, i.e dance music like techno and drumnbass

[soundian]

IMO some material is suited to being pushed a bit further in the "very-heavily-limited/compressed-at-the-expense-of-dynamic-range" sense, i.e dance music like techno and drumnbass

I don't think he would dispute that, he's only saying he's not going to play the game for the sake of playing the game.