recording,mixing and mastering equally important? help appreciated

micko4

sound engineer,studio,mixing,mastering,price,cost,How's things everyone,I am currently playing with a 4 piece band ready to record an ep.
Moneys tight though and it doesn't seem to be getting much better.I've been looking around and our drummer knows a sound engineer who has a small studio and can record drums for 125 euro a day for us.but not mastering and mixing for us.

Now although were tight on cash we want the recording to be half decent.

My question is,if we get this guy to record us and pay someone else to mix and master it do you think it would effect the sound quality.the guy is a qualified sound engineer but the equipment mightn't be as good as some of the bigger studios.

Or do you think its really going to make a big difference holding on another few months to save up for a bigger studio?

Actually I have a sample I could send of the guys work but would prefer to do over a pm as I don't want to advertise or discredit the guy here..I don't know him well myself either.

DamagedTrax

simple answer: all parts are equally important to a professional sounding product.



longer answer: as a predominantly mixing engineer i'd put importance on all parts. without a good recording, my part can be very hard to get right but without a good master i may aswell not bother in the first place.

having said that, a good recording engineer will get useable sounds out of cheap gear. remember an sm57 mic is still less than 100 euro to buy and is used on a lot of professional releases to this day.

rather than have a bunch of engineers critique this guy, why not listen to his previous work and contact previous clients about him? that will tell you a lot more about him and his work than we can.

micko4

DamagedTrax wrote: »

simple answer: all parts are equally important to a professional sounding product.



longer answer: as a predominantly mixing engineer i'd put importance on all parts. without a good recording, my part can be very hard to get right but without a good master i may aswell not bother in the first place.

having said that, a good recording engineer will get useable sounds out of cheap gear. remember an sm57 mic is still less than 100 euro to buy and is used on a lot of professional releases to this day.

rather than have a bunch of engineers critique this guy, why not listen to his previous work and contact previous clients about him? that will tell you a lot more about him and his work than we can.

Thanks this is good advice

b318isp

You can often get a clean recording from reasonable gear - so I'd agree with DamagedTrax, but it needs good mixing to avoid cluttering the sound (especially if a lot effects are being added or there are many tracks). Have good recordings to start with; you can always remix again later.

PaulBrewer

The earlier the process is done 'right' the better the possibilities in the following processes.

Good Tracking means possibly better mixing, better mixing gives Mastering more scope.

I used to be of the opinion that if it was recorded bad it stayed bad.

Tools are such that even mediocre recordings can be 'up cycled' with creative processing to give a good result.

Tools like Cranesong Phoenix, Slate's VCC can add life to passable recordings.

I see Brainworx have introduced a 'de-harsher' plugin which looks interesting.

However, a lad will never go wrong getting stuff right at the source.

It will inspire all processes after that.

I'd love to open a Mix session and have all ready to mix .... but it very rarely happens.

Labarbapostiza

What's your sound?......Example of what you're going for.


What are you going to do with this EP?

micko4

Thanks for the good advice everyone some genuine replies there which can be hard to come by on forums.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

What's your sound?......Example of what you're going for.


What are you going to do with this EP?

It's just our first ep so we will put one of the songs on facebook,YouTube,send it off to record companies maybe,sell it at our gigs,put it on iTunes and try promote it and that kind of stuff..

I'm really confident in the songs and we play them really tight,also I think we would be looking at recording live rather that drums first to a click etc. What is your opinions on this?

micko4

Also our sound is kind of folky acoustic rock,I play guitar harmonica and ukulele and sing,there is another guitarist singer,bass player and singer and drummer,may involve a violinist for one or two of the recordings.

peter05

Paul hit them nail on the head, if the recording engineer doesn't capture what you guys want or need it pretty much screws with the following process.

You want to start with A grade and stay at A grade. With regards to everything.
Including yourself as musicians.

micko4

peter05 wrote: »

Paul hit them nail on the head, if the recording engineer doesn't capture what you guys want or need it pretty much screws with the following process.

You want to start with A grade and stay at A grade. With regards to everything.
Including yourself as musicians.

I understand that but the money just isn't there mate.we are great musicians,I am trained classically myself through trinity and completed my grade 8 at 16 I'm 28 now.I would love to have the money to go somewhere expensive and great if you get what I'm saying.

So your opinion is that cheap recording will have a huge effect on the mix and mastering?

micko4

peter05 wrote: »

Paul hit them nail on the head, if the recording engineer doesn't capture what you guys want or need it pretty much screws with the following process.

You want to start with A grade and stay at A grade. With regards to everything.
Including yourself as musicians.

I understand that but the money just isn't there mate.we are great musicians,I am trained classically myself through trinity and completed my grade 8 at 16 I'm 28 now.I would love to have the money to go somewhere expensive and great if you get what I'm saying.

So your opinion is that cheap recording will have a huge effect on the mix and mastering?

peter05

I've heard some amazing recordings done cheap. I've heard some expensive recordings done poor.

It's not about the money at the end of the day it's about the engineer.

The easiest way to think of it in my mind anyway is if you start with a grade D recording, mix will will bring to grade C, master to grade B.
What is been said is if you don't start on the right path it will be frustrating process to go through.

Great buildings are made with great foundations......

b318isp

Or...rubbish in, rubbish out!

A lot of recordings in the 50s were done with just two mics at 90 degrees to one another, and sounded superb - so you don't need a lot of expensive gear to record, you just need to know what to do with it.

Acoustic recording can be assisted by the venue (natural reverb).

Have a listen to Fleet Foxes, where they have the instruments often laid back into the mix, with lots of space. See if this might be a sound you'd like.

micko4

b318isp wrote: »

Or...rubbish in, rubbish out!

A lot of recordings in the 50s were done with just two mics at 90 degrees to one another, and sounded superb - so you don't need a lot of expensive gear to record, you just need to know what to do with it.

Acoustic recording can be assisted by the venue (natural reverb).

Have a listen to Fleet Foxes, where they have the instruments often laid back into the mix, with lots of space. See if this might be a sound you'd like.

Love the fleet foxes I could definitely live with that sound.I'll let you all know how I get on and post a recording for your opinion and for others with similar queries.were not used to recording so I suppose its no harm doing the first one low budget for experience.nice one for all the sound answers lads.

micko4

b318isp wrote: »

Or...rubbish in, rubbish out!

A lot of recordings in the 50s were done with just two mics at 90 degrees to one another, and sounded superb - so you don't need a lot of expensive gear to record, you just need to know what to do with it.

Acoustic recording can be assisted by the venue (natural reverb).

Have a listen to Fleet Foxes, where they have the instruments often laid back into the mix, with lots of space. See if this might be a sound you'd like.

Love the fleet foxes I could definitely live with that sound.I'll let you all know how I get on and post a recording for your opinion and for others with similar queries.were not used to recording so I suppose its no harm doing the first one low budget for experience.nice one for all the sound answers lads.

Labarbapostiza

micko4 wrote: »

It's just our first ep so we will put one of the songs on facebook,YouTube,send it off to record companies maybe,sell it at our gigs,put it on iTunes and try promote it and that kind of stuff..

It's your first DEMO......I know everyone is calling their first recordings of three songs an EP (extended player), but what you really have is a Demo - a demonstration of what you sound like when you're recorded. An EP is a release, and once something is released; that's it, it's gone. Record companies are not interested in it. If you want to be your own record company fine, but I you want to get involved with record companies, never call your recordings anything other than demos.

Another point about record companies. The world has completely changed. Major record labels now have production budgets that can even be smaller than the plucky indie labels of just a bit more than a decade ago. In fact what can and does happen, is if you're interesting enough for a major label, they'll say; great, we're really hot to sign you, now all we need is 25 grand from each of your rich parents, to cover the production and promotion costs, and we'll do all the rest. It's so bad, even Lady Ga Ga, had to take money from Miracle Whip, to produce and promote her records. Miracle Whip, that's right, that sh1te that tastes worse than communist mayonnaise.

You first demo. The worse the experience the better. It should be a real trial by fire, that completely destroys your self belief, that has you trying to restrain yourself from slashing your throat on even the memory of the recording; you'll have nightmares, flashbacks, etc. This is better than a mediocre recording, which will lead to another mediocre recording. Bono learned to sing after hearing his voice on his first recording. It's floating around and it is horrendous. Elvis' first recording was equally as awful. Sam Philips had some thing where you could record a record for a dollar - like Karoke. Elvis wanted to make a recording for his mother's birthday. It's in stiff competition with Bono's first attempt.

The problem these days is the technology and the skills of the engineer are such, that they can take a really awful band. Autotune the vocals. And when they're "mixing", they'll replace badly played parts with their own. They can, will and do, polish a turd until it's in tune, in time, and pump up the volume so it sounds at first listen, technically, as good as anything a major record company will release. It's still a turd, even if it stinks less. Autotune can fix an out of tune singer, but it won't do anything to fix lack of interesting melody, or lack of charisma.

I'm really confident in the songs and we play them really tight,also I think we would be looking at recording live rather that drums first to a click etc. What is your opinions on this?

Then do some live recordings. The whole playing to a click track ruins the sound for a lot bands. As an example, there's one Irish band I won't name, but who do have a name, when they play live, their songs speed up and slow down, they can in fact do a rock out that slowly builds over a few minutes and is really hypnotic. But, on their recordings, they've used the click track, it's the same tempo throughout the song, none of the subtle builds are there. Their studio recordings are "clean", but they're a real turn off. Their live thing is an experience, and that is really what they've built a following on. They've kind of blown the recording end by releasing "EP"s, and "Albums". They should have just stuck to demos, until someone could capture their sound.

Labarbapostiza

b318isp wrote: »

A lot of recordings in the 50s were done with just two mics at 90 degrees to one another, and sounded superb - so you don't need a lot of expensive gear to record, you just need to know what to do with it.
.

The BBC currently have a radio documentary up on Harold Bradley; the world's biggest unknown guitarist. He played on thousands of sessions, like Patsy Cline's Crazy.

There are records that were produced in the 50s that sound incredible given the limitations of the technology (no multitracking). In the documentary Bradley said the sound came from having all the musicians in the same room, including singers, and everyone having to play very softly, including the drummer, not to overwhelm the voices. The constraints led to the sound.

The constraints of earlier "techniques" also led to particular sounds. Like standing around a single mic and hollerin blues songs. Musicians would have to greatly alter their performance to achieve something that would be worth recording.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0495mw5

b318isp

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The BBC currently have a radio documentary up on Harold Bradley; the world's biggest unknown guitarist. He played on thousands of sessions, like Patsy Cline's Crazy.

Brilliant, must have a listen.

I see Justin Sandercoe is there too.

Thanks for the link.

PaulBrewer

micko4 wrote: »

I understand that but the money just isn't there mate.we are great musicians,I am trained classically myself through trinity and completed my grade 8 at 16 I'm 28 now.I would love to have the money to go somewhere expensive and great if you get what I'm saying.

So your opinion is that cheap recording will have a huge effect on the mix and mastering?

If you're as good as you say you are (!) and the type of music you describe then hop into a proper place and lash it all down together.

If you're as good as you say you are (!) and go to a good spot you'll have a nice room and a nice selection of mics and pres to suit the individual instruments thereby optimising what goes to 'tape'

That would cost you a few hundred quid, especially if you're prepared to record off premium time.

That is, of course, if you're as good as you say you are (!)

micko4

PaulBrewer wrote: »

If you're as good as you say you are (!) and the type of music you describe then hop into a proper place and lash it all down together.

If you're as good as you say you are (!) and go to a good spot you'll have a nice room and a nice selection of mics and pres to suit the individual instruments thereby optimising what goes to 'tape'

That would cost you a few hundred quid, especially if you're prepared to record off premium time.

That is, of course, if you're as good as you say you are (!)

I'm not claiming to be the next best thing.I'm just saying I'm confident.money is the only factor.

micko4

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

It's your first DEMO......I know everyone is calling their first recordings of three songs an EP (extended player), but what you really have is a Demo - a demonstration of what you sound like when you're recorded. An EP is a release, and once something is released; that's it, it's gone. Record companies are not interested in it. If you want to be your own record company fine, but I you want to get involved with record companies, never call your recordings anything other than demos.

Another point about record companies. The world has completely changed. Major record labels now have production budgets that can even be smaller than the plucky indie labels of just a bit more than a decade ago. In fact what can and does happen, is if you're interesting enough for a major label, they'll say; great, we're really hot to sign you, now all we need is 25 grand from each of your rich parents, to cover the production and promotion costs, and we'll do all the rest. It's so bad, even Lady Ga Ga, had to take money from Miracle Whip, to produce and promote her records. Miracle Whip, that's right, that sh1te that tastes worse than communist mayonnaise.

You first demo. The worse the experience the better. It should be a real trial by fire, that completely destroys your self belief, that has you trying to restrain yourself from slashing your throat on even the memory of the recording; you'll have nightmares, flashbacks, etc. This is better than a mediocre recording, which will lead to another mediocre recording. Bono learned to sing after hearing his voice on his first recording. It's floating around and it is horrendous. Elvis' first recording was equally as awful. Sam Philips had some thing where you could record a record for a dollar - like Karoke. Elvis wanted to make a recording for his mother's birthday. It's in stiff competition with Bono's first attempt.

The problem these days is the technology and the skills of the engineer are such, that they can take a really awful band. Autotune the vocals. And when they're "mixing", they'll replace badly played parts with their own. They can, will and do, polish a turd until it's in tune, in time, and pump up the volume so it sounds at first listen, technically, as good as anything a major record company will release. It's still a turd, even if it stinks less. Autotune can fix an out of tune singer, but it won't do anything to fix lack of interesting melody, or lack of charisma.




Then do some live recordings. The whole playing to a click track ruins the sound for a lot bands. As an example, there's one Irish band I won't name, but who do have a name, when they play live, their songs speed up and slow down, they can in fact do a rock out that slowly builds over a few minutes and is really hypnotic. But, on their recordings, they've used the click track, it's the same tempo throughout the song, none of the subtle builds are there. Their studio recordings are "clean", but they're a real turn off. Their live thing is an experience, and that is really what they've built a following on. They've kind of blown the recording end by releasing "EP"s, and "Albums". They should have just stuck to demos, until someone could capture their sound.

Some nice info there mate and a nicely written piece.I always thought a demo was more of a rough recorded thing to give an idea of your sound.I'm hoping to master the tracks and sell the ep and release it on Itunes for sale with artwork etc. But I get what your saying about it being a first demo could be a big learning curve.


Thanks everyone for the input...amazing