The Songwriter Forum - songwriting reviews, tips and chat
Songwriter Forum => Recording => Topic started by: Skub on December 04, 2016, 09:51:29 PM
-
And by proxy perhaps others too will benefit from the well trodden path to enlightenment. :)
I have many questions to ask of the knowledgeable and instead of polluting my thread in finished songs,I thought it may be best to relocate the nerdery to these hallowed walls.
Using the song 'Listen' as an example and following advice given on the thread I have made some changes within my capability.
1. I necked the double vocal with added chorus,but I cheated a little by using another track with duplicate settings and panned 10 right and left. :D It does sound more natural,but a little fuller.
2. The drums are up a bit in volume and on separate tracks + panned slightly.
3. I've left out Vicki's 'but'. :D
The other stuff is beyond my ken at the moment. I had a little play with the compressor last night and honestly,my ears just went and I had to walk away.
I could hear the threshold making it lighter or darker sounding.
The ratio thing I'm not sure of.
Attack,I get as when the compressor kicks in. This is familiar from my guitar pedal usage.
Gain turns the overall volume up or down.
So should I be twitting about with a compressor at this stage,or are there other areas I'd be best working on first?
Here's the altered track...prolly little bloody difference! :D
Edited once again,as the learning continues.
https://soundcloud.com/skub1955/listen-1/s-f26hr
-
1. I necked the double vocal with added chorus,but I cheated a little by using another track with duplicate settings and panned 10 right and left. Cheesy It does sound more natural,but a little fuller.
Is this simply recording a vocal track, copying it then panning one left and the other right? Sounds like something even I could try!
Sounds good btw, subtle difference on the vocals but I believe that it's an array of subtleties that take it up a level, rather than one big trick?
-
1. I necked the double vocal with added chorus,but I cheated a little by using another track with duplicate settings and panned 10 right and left. Cheesy It does sound more natural,but a little fuller.
Is this simply recording a vocal track, copying it then panning one left and the other right? Sounds like something even I could try!
Sounds good btw, subtle difference on the vocals but I believe that it's an array of subtleties that take it up a level, rather than one big trick?
Yeah,just a duplicate track with the same settings,Scott.
-
I think your first steps should be to concentrate on balancing volumes (faders), panning and EQ
Then play around with reverb to add space and this will give you plenty of tools to create a great mix
COMPRESSORS
As part of my "tutorial" plans I have been thinking through how best to explain compressors as they are nothing scary (or special)
The best way I can think of explaining it is to treat a compressor as an assistant that is moving a fader to smooth out the volume variations in a track (i.e. make the really loud bits a bit quieter and turn up the quiet bits)
If you think this through you can work out what the controls on the compressor do by thinking about what you would need to tell your assistant:
I.e.
How loud the volume needs to get before it needs turning down - which is the "threshold" in "compressor speak"
How much to turn it down when the volume goes over this level - which is the "ratio"
How quickly to turn it down when the volume goes over the level - which is the "attack" time - e.g. You may want to wait until just after the first bit of the loud part to allow it to make an impact before reducing the level - such as a kick drum or snare hit
How long to turn it down for before returning the volume to normal - which is the "release" time
When you have been turning the loud bits down you may want to increase the overall level level of the track (especially as the loud bits are now quieter so you can turn it up a bit louder) - this is the "make up gain" or "output" level
Many compressors now have a DRY/WET control, which allows you to have "parallel compression" (often referred to as "New York Compression"
This is nothing fancy - it just mixes the original (DRY) signal with the compressed (WET) signal
This allows you to heavily compress (make everything the same volume so it is really "in yer face") and then mix it with the original signal to put some dynamics back in. This is a trick that works really well on drums
I will go into more detail when I get around to writing some proper content but this should give you a taste of how a compressor works
-
Ta Paul,I'll digest all that for a while before hitting you with another raft of daft queries.
Panning and EQ first then. I've been doing the panning bit,but maybe I lack a definite method. If I have two guitar tracks,fer instance I will pan one left and one right. I do this until it sounds about right to my old ears..usually around + or - 10/15 per side. More than that tends to make my ears go funny.
That may work for those two instruments,but balancing everything in the whole track is less straightforward. What do you keep in the middle,are there times when panning is a no-no?
EQ. I know nothing. :)
-
I would actually suggest getting your head around EQ before panning
I will go in to a lot more detail when I start writing content but to start you off here is a quick guide...
Record all of your tracks and make sure they are all panned dead centre
Decide on the priority of elements - the vocals usually have top priority
As a general guide ALWAYS use a High Pass Filter (HPF) to take the low frequencies away from non-bass instruments (vocals, guitars, pianos, keyboards etc.) - this will start clearing space in your mix, without really affecting the sound of your instruments
Then experiment with making cuts in the guitar frequencies by using an EQ to "notch out" frequencies to make space for the vocal and other instruments - e.g. You may want to cut a different range of frequencies from each guitar - this will not only make space for the lead vocal but it will also make the guitars sound slightly different and let them make space for each other
This would be best demonstrated in a video so I may start with this one...
-
Boydie, every time I read one of your posts I feel like I come away with a wealth of new knowledge. I've only ever put a high pass filter on vocals before now. Your posts are pretty invaluable so thank you.
-
Thanks JACK
I spent a lot of time learning this stuff - but it struck me that most books/videos assumed that you already had a good bit of knowledge
I plan on devising a tutorial from absolute beginner (someone who has never used a DAW or done any recording) right through to producing radio ready demos - covering both the production and songwriting/music theory sides
-
The only thing I can find in G/B is a High cut filter in the automation drop down,I take it that's the same as a high pass filter Paul? It appears to take the vocal from 'squeaky telephone' to muffled and bassy.
Seems to help the vocal sit in the mix better,by hoofing the low end a little.
-
A high cut filter is the opposite to a high pass filter
A "high cut filter" cuts the higher frequencies and lets the lower frequencies pass through (so it is also referred to as a low pass filter or LPF)
A "high pass filter" or HPF (also referred to as a "low cut filter") cuts the lower frequencies and lets the higher frequencies pass through - often cutting the low frequencies that are not always audible but contribute to pushing the meters up
-
A high cut filter is the opposite to a high pass filter
A "high cut filter" cuts the higher frequencies and lets the lower frequencies pass through (so it is also referred to as a low pass filter or LPF)
A "high pass filter" or HPF (also referred to as a "low cut filter") cuts the lower frequencies and lets the higher frequencies pass through - often cutting the low frequencies that are not always audible but contribute to pushing the meters up
Ah.
Yer a gem Paul. That may explain when I tried the high cut filter on a bass track I could hear no difference! At least I'll give you all a laugh during my apprenticeship! :D
Edit..now that's funny. I could have sworn I'd used a high cut filter on a vocal track last night,but I used a low cut filter instead,so my ears were right even if I didn't know what the hell I was doing! ;D
-
Would I be correct in assuming all the eq work should be done before any effects,such as reverb/delay are laid on? Or is it usual to need more eq tweaks after applying effects?
-
Sorry still tagging along, super helpful stuff aha.
Am I right High pass filter low pass filter sounds like it's just preset EQ? I know in audacity you can drag the EQ to cut out high/low frequency so is this the same thing?
-
Would I be correct in assuming all the eq work should be done before any effects,such as reverb/delay are laid on? Or is it usual to need more eq tweaks after applying effects?
I would answer this with a "yes, but..."
Within a DAW there are basically 2 ways to apply an effect such a reverb and delay
1 - An "INSERT" effect
2 - A "SEND" or "FX BUS"
The second option is the correct more accepted way of approaching fx such as reverb and delay
This involves setting up BUSSES and SENDS, which can get a little confusing so I would actually say to not worry about this until you want to take your mixing to the next level (which at your rate won't be long!)
The main advantage of this approach is that you send your tracks to a common fx (such as reverb) which serves a number of purposes:
1 - sharing the same reverb across all tracks puts everything in the same space - which helps glue things together
2 - as you are only loading one effect on the fx bus you can send all tracks to this bus, which saves on CPU
3 - you can process the actual effect - eg applying EQ to the FX BUS - such as adding a High Pass Filter to a reverb to stop the reverb making the mix muddy (eg the "Abbey Road" techniques discussed here: http://www.songwriterforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=11926.0
From your description I am assuming that you are using an "INSERT" effect, where you are putting the effect on the track you want to process - so if you have 4 tracks that you want to add reverb to, you are adding 4 separate reverbs (or the same reverb 4 times)
This has a similar end result but this approach uses more CPU resources
If you are using this approach (which is fine for now) then I would say you are correct to do the EQ before the reverb - however, there are no rules so if it sounds better doing after - do it!
Am I right High pass filter low pass filter sounds like it's just preset EQ? I know in audacity you can drag the EQ to cut out high/low frequency so is this the same thing?
A High Pass Filter is generally a function within the EQ that takes out the low frequencies as you drag it across the frequencies from low to high - if you drag it all the way to the high frequencies you will here just the very high frequencies
When I get around to creating the videos it will be really easy to demonstrate
-
I will read this many times in the coming days.......I'll have to,if it's ever to go in my overloaded processor. :D
Ta Paul.
-
Garageband doesn't appear to have the bus thing. It does have the means to open a new track with duplicate settings, perhaps as good as you get.
-
Hmmm - if only someone had suggested you may quickly outgrow GarageBand :D ;D :P ;)
If you have got the DAW / Production bug (and it certainly looks like you have) then it may already be time to consider some of the "proper" DAW options (Logic, Reaper, ProTools etc.)
-
Enablers,that's what y'all are. Cold hearted,cynical,sarcastic and manipulative enablers. :P
:D
-
Mwahahahahahaha
GarageBand has given you a good grounding in using "multiple tracks", which are skills that will still be relevant in a "proper" DAW so you haven't wasted your learning curve
Using "busses" is a natural next step as it will allow you to play with "send" fx, fx busses (and applying "insert" fx to an fx bus - such as the abbey road reverb technique)
The other power of busses is that you can group your instruments - e.g. You can route your rhythm guitars to a "Rhythm Git Group" bus, your lead guitars to a "Lead Git Group" bus, you can then route both of these busses to a "All Guitars" bus
When you get your head around busses and routing it actually makes you mixing easier (especially when you get more adventurous and your track count goes up) because if you like the balance of you guitars with each other when it comes to mixing you can change the level of all the guitars with one fader (the "All Guitars" bus fader) - rather than changing the levels on multiple tracks, whiclst trying to keep the relative balances
I think I am starting to get me head around how to approach my video tutorial series....
... what do you think about me doing a video of creating a song "from scratch" and dealing with everything from the very start to the end product? From setting the tracks and inputs up on the DAW and setting the input level on the audio interface to record the first notes right through to mastering and exporting in various formats?
It would be many, many, many hours of video but I would intend to do it in subject specific chunks
I could then also run a parallel video series on how the song used in the video was actually written so people wanting to learn song writing AND production could watch both or either - I think that could be really fun to see an idea go from initial thoughts to a fully produced track!!!!
-
I think I am starting to get me head around how to approach my video tutorial series....
... what do you think about me doing a video of creating a song "from scratch" and dealing with everything from the very start to the end product? From setting the tracks and inputs up on the DAW and setting the input level on the audio interface to record the first notes right through to mastering and exporting in various formats?
It would be many, many, many hours of video but I would intend to do it in subject specific chunks
I could then also run a parallel video series on how the song used in the video was actually written so people wanting to learn song writing AND production could watch both or either - I think that could be really fun to see an idea go from initial thoughts to a fully produced track!!!!
Sounds like a plan,Paul. :)
It would be very helpful for anyone completely new to using a daw,if the actual terms used in the tutorial were themselves explained in full. Quite often I found when reading an article on something specific,I had to break off and google individual phrases that were part of the explanation. When someone is proficient in the use of a daw and has been for many years,they often use terms and phrases automatically that will confuse the uninitiated.
It's the communication/empathy thing. Not every really smart person can be a good teacher,not every sportsperson makes a good trainer,it takes a different way of thinking.
It would very definitely be a shed load of work for you,a real time eater.
-
Ooo that does sound very interesting.
You're very good at explaining things Paul so I can imagine your videos being most useful. A series of videos each addressing a single aspect but building on top of each other as a journey sounds like a great idea.
You speak of 'proper' DAW's but I think you should be careful doing your videos based on paid software if you are aiming at beginners.
An odd idea, but would be potentially cool if you did is as a forum series which we could follow along in real-time. (I.e. "Week 1- Introduction and Pre-Requisits", "Week 2 - Recording your First Instrument", "Week 3 - Using a High-Pass Filter") - exporting your music at the end of each week so we can all compare progress. This way at least you'll have us all asking focused questions between the each entry rather than on onslaught about different areas if releasing at once. At the end of each week (or whatever the period is) someone could volunteer to put those questions and answers into a formatted Q&A to accompany the video
Edit: Here's me talking 'sprints', minimum viable product and feedback loops again ;)
-
You speak of 'proper' DAW's but I think you should be careful doing your videos based on paid software if you are aiming at beginners.
The videos will be done on Cakewalk SONAR - but they will not be "how to use SONAR" videos (although if you use sonar it will obviously be easier to blindly follow along
I will be focussing on the various PRINCIPLES that apply to most DAWs - even the free / cheap ones
I love the idea of having a "follow along" forum thread for questions and discussions
-
Hi guys, loving the sound of this, there are many areas of the recording process that I don't understand at all, or only have a trial and error knowledge of. Excepting of course the tips Boydie frequently gives!
This sounds like a massive task Boydie, good luck!
Cheers
Jamie
-
In my quest to understand and manipulate EQ,I found this article to be useful.
Some crucial EQ bands and what they sound like
50-60 Hz
Thump in a kick drum
Boom in a bassline
Essential in dub, dubstep and reggae !
Too much and you’ll have flapping speakers and a flabby mix
Too little, and the mix will never have enough weight or depth
100-200 Hz
This EQ band adds punch in a snare
Gives richness or “bloom” to almost anything
Too much makes things boomy or woolly
Too little sounds thin and cold
200-500 Hz
Crucial for warmth and weight in guitars, piano and vocals
Too much makes things sound muddy or congested
Too little makes them thin and weak
500-1000 Hz
One of the trickiest areas
Gives body and tone to many instruments
Too much sounds hollow, nasal or honky
Too little sounds thin and harsh
2 kHz
Gives edge and bite to guitars and vocals
Adds aggression and clarity
Too much is painful!
Too little will sound soft or muted
5-10 kHz
Adds clarity, open-ness and life
Important for the top end of drums, especially snare
Too much sounds gritty or scratchy
Too little will lack presence and energy
16 kHz
Can add air, space or sparkle
Almost too high to hear
Too much will sound artificial, hyped or fizzy
Too little will sound dull and stifled
-
Good stuff Davy, and in my limited experience it all depends on what all the other instruments are Eqd at. I guess you want to achieve separation but everything needs to be in the mix. Vocals are the most difficult I find especially in an instrument laden song. Boydie and Shadowfax are masters on this subject and I am so grateful for their advice. I'm getting there slowly. You've done amazing well mate
-
This is a great starting point guide - I have produced my own that has a little more detail (i.e. areas for male v female vocals), which I will tidy up and share with the videos
However, please only use these as a rough "map" for areas to tackle - your EARS must remain the most important aspect
If you try to follow this guide "to the letter" there is a good chance that you will inadvertently make some "ugly" frequencies stand out
The other thing guides like this do not really take in to account (which JOHN has rightly pointed out) is how to use EQ to make each instrument sound good "in the mix"
This is a "trap" many fall in to where the individual instruments sound great - a really "woody" sounding acoustic guitar, warm vocal, great big kick drum hit, a full sounding natural snare, a big fat bass sound etc.
However, when put together they may all be sharing the same frequencies so there is no "separation" and the mix sounds "muddy"
EQ within mixing therefore becomes a compromise where you decide how to share out the frequencies for the overall mix you want
A good example is acoustic guitar - even a guitar and vocal recording may mean sacrificing some acoustic guitar frequencies to let the vocal really shine - and in a really dense mix you may need to really attack an acoustic guitar hard with EQ and notch out a lot of the low and low mids to get the signature acoustic "jangle" - which would sound AWFUL (really thin) on its own
This is the joy of mixing as everyone has a different mix in their head so would approach the same material differently
I wonder if sharing some of my actual track files for the videos would be a good idea so people can "play along" at home with their own DAW and work on exactly the same raw tracks that I am using in the videos?
-
Ta John and Paul.
What I've been doing with the different frequencies in EQ is to whack up the various settings full and pull them down to a minimum while I have the track set on a loop and it's the same phrase every time,but with a different EQ. That way I hear the difference and hopefully learn from it. The posted EQ bands was good for me because it gave a definite direction to the totally uninitiated. I had no idea what hertz hurt and what hertz didn't. :D
When I make changes to an individual track,I go back to listening to the song in it's entirety.
At this stage I often find I have ear fatigue and need to walk away for a while,as i stop being objective in what I hear.
This is a major league time eater.
-
I'm aware of making demands on people's time here and I apologise,but sometimes the quest for enlightenment overrules manners! :D
This is the original track 'Listen' as I posted.
https://soundcloud.com/skub1955/listen
This is my latest attempt at addressing noted issues.
https://soundcloud.com/skub1955/listen-1/s-e1Oe5
Is there an improvement,or are the two tracks just...different?
-
Hey Paul,
To my untrained ears, the main thing I notice is how you've cut some of the bass out of the guitar. I think for the intro it is just a little different as opposed to better, but when the rest of the music comes in then I believe it fits nicer into the mix and comes across a lot cleaner.
That said the changes made the guitar a little harsher at the same time, so think it might need turning down a tad in the mix to counteract and achieve your overall improvement.
Hope this helps.
Scott.
-
Hey Paul,
To my untrained ears, the main thing I notice is how you've cut some of the bass out of the guitar. I think for the intro it is just a little different as opposed to better, but when the rest of the music comes in then I believe it fits nicer into the mix and comes across a lot cleaner.
That said the changes made the guitar a little harsher at the same time, so think it might need turning down a tad in the mix to counteract and achieve your overall improvement.
Hope this helps.
Scott.
Ta Scott.
I'm Davy,btw. ;) :D
-
Hey Skub
For what it's worth.....
I went digital about two years ago. Logic ProX.
I love it......I treat it as learning another instrument.
Practice, practice, practice.
Be careful though....it's very 'obsessive'. I sometimes
wonder who's playing who. It's so easy to go off on
musical journeys.......before you know it four hours
have gone by, and you were supposed to pick the kids
up two hours ago........got to be disciplined ;D ;D
Welcome to the modern age ;D
MERRY CHRISTMAS
-
Hey Skub
For what it's worth.....
I went digital about two years ago. Logic ProX.
I love it......I treat it as learning another instrument.
Practice, practice, practice.
Be careful though....it's very 'obsessive'. I sometimes
wonder who's playing who. It's so easy to go off on
musical journeys.......before you know it four hours
have gone by, and you were supposed to pick the kids
up two hours ago........got to be disciplined ;D ;D
Welcome to the modern age ;D
MERRY CHRISTMAS
You are so right Bin,in my case it isn't merely hours,on occasion I've went down a rabbit hole for a day and forgot to eat... :o I've recently started to separate the drum parts,what a time eater that is... :(
I'm overly impatient to get past the stage of learning the tool and get to a place of reasonable competence where I can use the tool for the prime reason of getting what's in my head into recorded song form. I'm currently spending way too much time tinkering,but I suppose that's part of the learning process and hopefully I'll regain some perspective when I'm better versed in all things DAW.
-
Given that recent announcements dictate that this is now a song producer's forum,I thought I'd get ahead of the game and git me sum Logic Pro X.
Oooh ma heid... :(
-
Did I send for this bus? ???
-
Awesome!
Welcome to the future ;D
-
A lot of the posted advice on this thread has become a lot clearer and more relevant to me since moving over. I've managed to get all my garageband songs into logic,so further tweaks can be made. :)
One of the most recent lightbulb moments has been on levels. Back in the day of tape recording you always tried to get the signal as hot as possible,otherwise you suffered tape hiss when playing back.
Digital doesn't need that hot signal for recording and I found myself in the situation where everything was too loud and I had nothing to play with for the mix.It also sounded horrible and boxy,not the clean,dynamic sound I was after. I had to go over songs and bring everything way down. I'd got frisky with automation on lots of the tracks,so you can imagine the fun and time wasted tweaking all that... ::)
Such a simple thing,yet makes such a difference.Lesson learned. A bit of care at the start saves a lot of work later on.
-
Skub,
Great to hear progress. When are going to hear the outputs of your labour?
Have you got yourself a workflow yet, from tracking a new dong with a template through to mixing and mastering? What I love about digital is when you've got a song tracked and you want to alert the arrangement, cutting and pasting is so easy.
:)
Neil
-
from tracking a new dong
:D ;D :D ;D
-
Well really Neil. :o
This is a family show, yanno. :D
-
Skub,
Great to hear progress. When are going to hear the outputs of your labour?
Have you got yourself a workflow yet, from tracking a new dong with a template through to mixing and mastering? What I love about digital is when you've got a song tracked and you want to alert the arrangement, cutting and pasting is so easy.
:)
Neil
Whut's a workflow mister? ???
I've posted a couple of songs in 'finished' recently Neil,ya probably missed them. I've made some changes to these versions and there are some still to be implemented. Both were done in Garageband..I think. I'm losing track,since everything has now been imported into Logic.
http://www.songwriterforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=12399.0
http://www.songwriterforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=12201.0
-
Good post Boydie,
And dont forget the order in which the insert fx are placed makes a massive difference.
The old EQ before Compression debate. I always EQ first then compress, (Shape then Tame)
But have heard of lots that dont do it this way, Transient material I would Compress then EQ, for more flatter constant sounds then EQ first.
Vocals, I always try to level out first using a La 2a (leveling amp plugin) then do as Boydie has said makes cuts or boosts to sweeten up.
Good monitoring and room acoustics helps......oh lets not start on that world of pain.