Have you ever recorded anything that sounded brilliant?

PaulBrewer

If so give us a listen ....

Any I'm refering to the recording, not some 'incredible peformance' captured to cassette.

Something that's sonically great.


If not why not?

(p.s. I never have!)

sei046

No I havent. Not anything brilliant. Plenty to do the job but nothing I am massively proud of. That sounds harsh and sounds like I am ****e but nothing worth sharing anyway.

Interesting thread.

Sham Squire

I think it's a bit hard for most of us to claim something we did ourselves as 'brilliant' but I am very proud of the acoustic guitar and bass sound on one of my newest tracks. It's called Button Moon and it's the first track that plays on my myspace.
www.myspace.com/conanbrophy
Bearing in mind that most of you will be listening on computer speakers that may not do the low end any favours I am very pleased as it's a sound I've been after for quite some time.

studiorat

Done one or two that I thought I really nailed. Don't have the tracks though.
Usually one on an each album I'm really happy with. "comin' home' on Gavin Glass' last album, I did some stuff for the army band a few years back that turned out really well but that was mainly using 5 microphones and only on the really slow stuff!!

It's usually when you come back to it a few months later that you can really tell...

Neurojazz

I spent about the last 8 years fighting with Bass & Bassdrum in dance music and getting them right... I think the intro to 'egg of death' on my sig link was my best yet... nice sweet humming bass and a real deep bass drum that sounded very dynamic...

I come from a mainly 'rock/metal' pub music background so have found it hard to cross over into electronic - but lots of fun...

Also strangly, Dav nagles guitar sound on the mastering thread was very nice... i think he heard the difference in that also - was a stunning difference in tone if you focus on the lead line when the FX are punched in and out.

dav nagle

No. Being in the position I have been over the last few years I have not reached sonic perfection. Why I here thee call? Well because I have been spending much time on guitar and vocal elements more than any other. However I am sure that my guitar and vocals have improved because of my situation. When I get more bands and I got my first band to record this week I will focus on the other elements, drums and bass being my next port of call. I need to buy a ribbon microphone to catch high pitched instruments that have allot of high frequency and punch. A ribbon mic will warm the sound of stringed instruments like the cello or violin. So I think I will be spending my money on some microphones over the next while. I really want that blue bottle for up close vocals too. Sorry.

af_thefragile

Well, i spent 3hrs mixing a track once and i was pretty pleased with the results!
But no, i wasn't fully satisfied with anything i've ever recorded.

ogy

Well, i spent 3hrs mixing a track once and i was pretty pleased with the results!

3 hours! good lord:)

af_thefragile

ogy wrote: »

3 hours! good lord:)

Well... i made sure every track was in the right place at the right level and it all sounded perfect. Was a 24 track mix. And i didn't really do much... Just mixed the levels n panning. But it sounded pretty good after me spending 3hrs on what were a bunch of not so well recorded wave files. Actually it took me an hour just to remove all the spill from the drum tracks so they sounded more clear...

But yeah, i'm very amateur at all of this. Got a long way to go...

Someone on here before posted up their version of Skater Boi, think the band was "humplifunker".

Really thought that was excellent!

believe the original post had something like
"we got really stoned, and messed around, and this came out"

ogy

But yeah, i'm very amateur at all of this. Got a long way to go...

sorry didnt mean to be all smarmy, i guess though 3-4 hours would be a normal/minimum amount of time to spend on a mix!

af_thefragile

ogy wrote: »

sorry didnt mean to be all smarmy, i guess though 3-4 hours would be a normal/minimum amount of time to spend on a mix!

Yeah, i didn't want to spend too much time on it cuz it wasn't something important. Just some half assed online competition thing.
I was just pretty pleased with the results i got after my half assed 3 hr mixing on it.

But i hadn't recorded it so i won't count it.
Don't usually record stuff cuz i just don't have decent equipment. So i just end up using virtual amps like guitar rig, plug-in instruments, effects and Battery drum programmer.

Haven't come up with anything much brilliant yet...

studiorat

It takes me around 6 to 8 hours to mix a track, three hours and I'm only starting. I might spend 3 hours on the vocals by the time I automate it try a few things out etc...

Mixing in the box usually takes longer to!

TelePaul

No.........

Niall - Dahlia

A no from me too. I'm happy with recent recordings and mixes I've done, but I know in a few months (or even weeks) I'll be less happy, and nothing I'm particularly proud of. But that's a good thing too, feel I'm always improving, and getting there. I think I'm a long way off holding up something and saying it's "brilliant" though!

There's a few tracks I've mixed that I'd love to have spent more time on, but not being the owner of the studio I work in if the band doesn't pay for the mix time there's not much I can do. Bands want the most amount of time for the least amount of buck. I like to mix 1, 2 songs a day max, but it usually ends up being 3 or 4.

Niall - Dahlia

studiorat wrote: »

Mixing in the box usually takes longer to!

How so? I find it quicker but results ****ter!

dav nagle

Niall - Dahlia wrote: »

A no from me too. I'm happy with recent recordings and mixes I've done, but I know in a few months (or even weeks) I'll be less happy, and nothing I'm particularly proud of. But that's a good thing too, feel I'm always improving, and getting there. I think I'm a long way off holding up something and saying it's "brilliant" though!

There's a few tracks I've mixed that I'd love to have spent more time on, but not being the owner of the studio I work in if the band doesn't pay for the mix time there's not much I can do. Bands want the most amount of time for the least amount of buck. I like to mix 1, 2 songs a day max, but it usually ends up being 3 or 4.

Exactly, I have done some nice mixes and good recordings but God knows how good things may sound in 10 years if I keep my ears open

PaulBrewer

ogy wrote: »

sorry didnt mean to be all smarmy, i guess though 3-4 hours would be a normal/minimum amount of time to spend on a mix!

I heard StudioRat spends that on the Hi - Hat .................................................................... the count in Hi Hat.

PaulBrewer

Niall - Dahlia wrote: »

I'm happy with recent recordings and mixes I've done, but I know in a few months (or even weeks) I'll be less happy, and nothing I'm particularly proud of. But that's a good thing too, feel I'm always improving, and getting there.

That's how I feel too..

PaulBrewer

studiorat wrote: »

Mixing in the box usually takes longer to!

I find 'Mixing' is usually trying to get the track into Mixable Shape for the first 3 hours ....

I've never just opened up the Faders and Mixed. There's usually a whole pile o Band Aids to be applied first.

Also 48 faders in front of you is a much quicker (and I feel musical) way to mix than even the fastest Mouse Jockey.

teamdresch

Mixing on a desk is much quicker, especially with getting initial balances.
It's also a hell of a lot more fun (for me).

PaulBrewer

teamdresch wrote: »

Mixing on a desk is much quicker, especially with getting initial balances.
It's also a hell of a lot more fun (for me).

+100

af_thefragile

teamdresch wrote: »

Mixing on a desk is much quicker, especially with getting initial balances.
It's also a hell of a lot more fun (for me).

Yeah nothing can beat the hands on feel of mixing on a desk. It is more fun and faster too.
I personally hate the mouse... but there's only so much you can do when you're a broke student!

Anyway, check this out...
Its a bit pricey and i don't know how practical its gonna be but anyway looks fun!
http://www.jazzmutant.com/dexter_introduction.php

dav nagle

af_thefragile wrote: »

Yeah nothing can beat the hands on feel of mixing on a desk. It is more fun and faster too.
I personally hate the mouse... but there's only so much you can do when you're a broke student!

Anyway, check this out...
Its a bit pricey and i don't know how practical its gonna be but anyway looks fun!
http://www.jazzmutant.com/dexter_introduction.php

Future sounds are selling these, they are nice but one day are computer monitors will have this function built in. They are outrageously over priced too.

af_thefragile

dav nagle wrote: »

Future sounds are selling these, they are nice but one day are computer monitors will have this function built in. They are outrageously over priced too.

Thats what i thought. Its like €2500 for what's basically just a touch screen monitor! i could buy a brand new Macbook pro for that price!

sei046

I have a tascam 2400 and it completely changed the way i do things

dav nagle

sei046 wrote: »

I have a tascam 2400 and it completely changed the way i do things

Holy **** I want one of those, I hear they are releasing an add on for this, a scribble screen or something?

sei046

That would be great. I thought they discontinoud them though?!

dav nagle

sei046 wrote: »

That would be great. I thought they discontinoud them though?!

Ah well need me money for some new mics and a couch anyway!

tweeky

Ikea for the couch will give you more money for mics.

dav nagle

tweeky wrote: »

Ikea for the couch will give you more money for mics.

Because my studio is in an attic I have to get the couch custom built in a workshop and brought upstairs piece by piece and assembled!! LOL