Using the mastering multiband compression for a single track?

[-mjk-]

@Mark Richards lets bring that over to Production Tips. That's where I put my Ghost methodology post.

 

[David Porter]

Hey Mark - interesting to hear your test results.

When I first bought a dedicated digital multi-track recorder (Roland VS840) in 1998 I hadn't done any home recording since selling my Tascam Porta-One in the early 90's. At the time, I was amazed at the unbelievable clarity and crispness of the digital realm. I did quite a bit of recording there for a couple of years with a very simple setup - but by the early 00's I had joined a working band and put my stuff away for years. Later when I got back to it and set up my recording gear again and started to tinker... that's when I began to have reservations about the clarity and crispness that is somewhat inherent with digital. I started to realize that with some original and cover material - it wasn't that it sucked (although it wasn't great either) - it was that it just wasn't coming across like I heard in my head. I was wanting the *sound* of my recordings to be closer to those of my favorite records: Zeppelin, Steely Dan, Hendrix, SRV, etc. Think.... softer, more forgiving, warm, etc. I'm sure you get it.

So yeah... no matter how I mixed and tweaked and re-recorded stuff - it just wasn't happening. So I put my stuff away again and got into my work for a while. Then my small business started to take off a little... and since... I'm just trying to learn more about making quality recordings from a bit more of a purist point of view: good performances with good gear, straight forward as possible, mic'ing guitar cabs, real drums if I can afford it or my friends are into it - and if there are techniques or gear that may get me closer to the sound of my favorite records - yeah, I'm interested.

I haven't spent a lot of time on it yet - but have been reading a little about reel-to-reel's and other tape options. At homerecording.com - there is a surprising bunch of people there that still use Tascam cassette recorders - which is just amazing to me. The noise factor (particularly with a bunch of bounces) - that I remember - is just a deal breaker for me.

Your idea of blending the analogue mixer signal with the digital is intriguing. If you explore that - please report back.

The struggle continues. And it's fun!

(and yes - apologies to isoneedacoffee for hi-jacking the thread. we're just bullshitting here )

 

[-mjk-]

FWIW, when I took my mix master to Sony, Vlado told us he prefers to master from 1/2" 1/2-track tape rather than DAT which is what we gave him (and what everyone was using at the time).

 

[isoneedacoffee]

Hi again. Just giving an update. (I haven't disappeared!).

I've played around lots with the DP24 over the past couple of weeks. Over that time I got myself a couple of useful compressors at great prices (used):
1) a HHB Fatman (stereo-tube compressor)
2) a DBX MC6 (same circuit as the 160 series).

They're usefully different from each other and I like what they each offer. In series, they also work great.

I also have another toy on the way - a Golden Age Project Pre-73. This should be wonderful to add some warmth/colour/grit to certain tracks.

I'm starting to realize that I'm likely going to need a laptop close to the DP24 when mixing as was mentioned earlier. So far, I can see myself using a DAW for mainly 1) cleaning tracks and basic editing 2) phase alignment, 3) using a spectrum frequency analyser when I have doubts, and 4) mastering.

 

[-mjk-]

Thanks for the update.

 

[lastmonk]

@isoneedacoffee hmm..... Following this thread, I thought your initial goal was to get drum compression mastered(one track) etc, without the use of a computer, which led you to outboard compressors, which now leads you back to the computer and DAW for mastering

Now that you messed around with the DP 24 for a couple of weeks, Did you discover that you could send your Drum Master 1, and Master 2, or simply connect the DP 24 out to something like a Tascam Pocket Studio e.g. DR-05 and then Bring the Drum Master back into the DP 24 on a Track to be processed some more? I think these Tascam Pocket Studios can be had for under $100. This is kind of a old school maneuver, it involves 2 digital recorders, the DP 24 and a something like a Tascam Pocketstudio.

https://tascam.com/us/product/dr-05/top

But in the end there is no computer involved, because both Tascams produce very good digital recordings. This has worked for me in a lot of instances.

You could have, mastered your drum track on DP 24 following mjk's suggestion, and then,

DP 24 Out Jack -> DR Mic in, then DR Line-out, to DP 24 input jack

and Done

The mastering facilities on the DP 24 are awesome if you know something about mastering.
Between the Mastering Library Templates, and the customizable options you can go along way.
There are some old dudes that would have killed to have this level of mastering on the original portastudios

 

[-mjk-]

@lastmonk the DP-32 is a machine that we only dreamed of 30 years ago. For those of us who prefer a dedicated control surface, 32 tracks of digital audio that sits on my desk with a footprint smaller than my VOX amp is mind-blowing. It's very fast to work with too. This old dude would have killed to have that level of ease and sophistication years ago.

 

[lastmonk]

For sure!, but my implied point here is that some of the best recordings that have ever been made were done so without a DAW. Why is it that in the last decade or so the DAW has suddenly become indispensable? Its almost as if without the DAW we wouldn't know how to overdub, move tracks around, isolate tracks for compression etc. The concept of bouncing and using two recorders to sub mix mastering worked a long time ago, and it works today! And today we're dealing with digital portastudios that can record with 16bit, 24 bit resolution virtually perfect sound and no degrading of sound with overdubs, virtual tracks, endless bouncing, for $400-$500.

Its not about old or young here. Its about not getting caught up in marketing/technology/upgrade traps. What's good for Avid(Protools), Steinberg(Cubase),etc is not necessarily good for the musician, performer, studio engineer, or recording engineer. Steinberg and Avid need to sell recording solutions every year, we really only need to buy one solution that lasts years. So Steingberg and Avid have a dilemma. How can they keep pushing product if the ones we already have meet our needs? That's easy! They create new needs for us. So through well placed marketing/advertising, cognitive psychology research etc they create artificial needs and then sell us real solutions to those needs.

Sure we all fantasize about having the best gear, most up to date studio, instruments, etc. No one wants to feel left behind, or left out. That's why so many chase the latest technologies and fall victim to a "keep-up-with-the-jones's" hustle. But the reality is most folks doing recording, mixing and mastering are not working with 200 tracks, and 80 piece orchestras, or big budget film scores.

IRL the vast majority of us are working with bands, trios, quartets, choirs,duo and solo acts, maybe some video game work here and there. In most of these situations DP32, DP 24 are Cadillacs and are more than up to the task. In a great many of these cases a DP 03 would actually get the job done. And then we have garage bands and hobbyists who have visions of something bigger and want to get the gear that the big boys use And Steinberg, Avid, and friends are happy to sell all of those folks on the DAW+computer adventure. But from what I hear the entire home market was born and thrived on the 4 track Portastudio for a decade or so. Whole music genres owe their existence to the 4 track Portastudio and that was a tape based technology.

If the sound/recording engineers got it done back in the 80's, 90's with 4 track tape studios, why can't we get it done today with 24 and 32 track digital portastudios But of course we can.

Having cubase/protools + 90 gazillion plugins will not transform you into a sound or recording engineer or guarantee that your recording will be worth listening to. To the contrary, all the time spent on the software specialization you are likely to miss the forest while focusing on a particular tree.

Of course I can manufacture scenarios where the Portastudio falls short and the Daw+Computer shines, but IRL those scenarios don't apply to most folks doing recording.

@mjk and the important thing is you have the ease of use and sophistication now. And there's no time like today

 

[Arjan P]

lastmonk (sorry, no Quote button): "Steinberg and Avid need to sell recording solutions every year, we really only need to buy one solution that lasts years. So Steingberg and Avid have a dilemma. How can they keep pushing product if the ones we already have meet our needs? That's easy! They create new needs for us. So through well placed marketing/advertising, cognitive psychology research etc they create artificial needs and then sell us real solutions to those needs."

Sorry but that's a bit simplistic IMO. Tascam also needs to sell stuff every year so that argument doesn't fly. There is no reason whatsoever to not still use your Windows XP computer with Cubase 5 on it, just like a 30 year-old Portastudio. Even better, you can still get another PC, install Windows XP and Cubase 5 on it and you're back to the brand new setup from 15 years ago (just don't connect to the internet).

On the other hand, I give you the following situation: I'm recording a vocal lead track in Cubase but want to try several takes. I put the new track in record, loop it 5 times and record the vocal 5 times (without interruption). I open the track, see my 5 takes, make split points across these and for each sentence, or word even, I simply point to the section of 5 that I like best with the comp tool. Voilá, best of 5 in a matter of half an hour. Oh wait, some words are not quite in tune: Double click, start VariAudio, let it process the audio and see the notes that were sung. Pull the sections to the correct tuning, done! Now Steinberg comes with a paid update for the next version. It has improvements in the mixer section. Do I need it? No, so I let this version go and stick with what I have.

And don't get me wrong, I've been using one box solutions with a lot of pleasure and great results for years (Akai DPS) so I know the pros of that as well, but I certainly know the pros of a DAW and won't be going back soon..

 

[lastmonk]

@Arjan P Its all good. I'm not going to tell you DAWs don't solve problems, because they do! I'm not going to tell you there are no scenarios where a DAW makes more sense than a portastudio, because there are. I'm not going tell you that some smart professionals don't use DAWs because I personally know some who use them.

I will say this,there are people who successfully and professionally record bands, trios, quartets, quintets, vocals, choirs, orchestras, big jazz bands, and concerts who don't use the DAW + general purpose computer. I can with certainty say that the majority of all records ever recorded in the history of recording were not recorded with DAW + general purpose computers. I can also say that if the DAW + general purpose computer recording solution were to totally vanish today, that musicians, sound engineers, recording engineers, producers, etc would still be able to produce high quality 16bit, 24bit, 96bit digital recordings.

In other words DAW + general purpose computers represent "a way to solve the recording problem" not the "only way". And its a matter of preference as to which you choose. I left DAW + general purpose computer behind a couple of years ago. I had even become quite proficient at it, but it was the best decision that I could have made with respect to my recording needs. Obviously you have a different work flow that works for you. That's kewl. Whatever works for you

But it is a mistake to try to convey that for a certain level of quality, or complexity you absolutely need to have a DAW + General purpose computer, because that's simply not true. There are always more ways than one to skin any kind of cat. The recording process is no different. And I've seen some very elegant recording workflows using dedicate portastudio solutions.

Its not the tools that make the man. Its the man that makes the tools. I've been able to get it done with Tascam DP 24, sends, returns,aux's, 1/8, 1/4, XLR jacks and the appropriate outboard gear. DAW's, VST's and General Purpose computers are just not in my work flow any more and good riddance. I've found out how to practically, efficiently, and cost effectively solve all my recording needs with dedicated midi recorders and dedicated audio recorders, midi cables and audio cables.

I've found that it allows me to spend more time composing, arranging, learning new repertoire, getting better on my instrument, honing the relationships with my audience, and execution of my performance.

If the DAW thing worx better for you tally ho But the best arrangers, producers, composers, conductors, sound engineers and recording engineers in the world were making and winning grammys before anyone knew what the acronym DAW represented And some of them continue to do so now after strong exposure to the DAW .

@Arjan P DAW + personal computer is a matter preference, not a matter of necessity. And contrary to popular perception they are not even always a matter of convenience, because sometimes the work flow is easier on a DAW and sometime the work flow is easier on a portastudio. Sometime the work is almost impossible on a DAW and sometime the workflow is almost impossible on a portastudio. Its a matter of personal preference.

But the vendors, Avid, Steinberg,etc are currently involved in a full court press to exude the notion that DAW + general purpose computer is the real center of any professional recording project and that my friend is simply fake news

 

[Arjan P]

@lastmonk I think we agree on most counts. I'm simply more productive and creative on a DAW, certainly with my setup together with the DM3200 and outboard - all wired and set up to go instantly. I'm not trying to convince anyone to do the same, but like you said, some things are easier on one platform, others on another.

 

[lastmonk]

@Arjan P, Clearly, I could make arguments for where a DAW + general purpose computer wins the day. I could make cost arguments, physical space arguments, maintenance of equipment arguments, ease of upgrade arguments and a host more on behalf of something like Cubase. But man, you travel enough and meet enough ppl, in enough diverse situations and you realize its all relative.

20 years from now the folks will look back at us and these daws and wonder how could we ever get music recorded or produced with Cubase, Protools, Logic, Reason, etc. It will be like how we look at tape today.

20 years from now things will be a lot more AI (Artificial Intelligence) driven, we will have moved away from the general purpose computer to commodity throw away tablets and other low cost dedicated devices and flex screens. We will have probably moved on to midi distribution over audio. i.e. everything will be able to play midi, because it will be a data driven world. We are there now. Everybody walks around with a pocket computer in the form of an IPhone, or Android, or IPad device. All of those devices can play midi. It use to be the case that midi was relegated to certain devices and once you composed a song stored in midi in order to share it with the world it had to be converted to stereo audio.

Those days are quickly coming to an end. I've already started sharing my music in midi format with non musicians who can play it using apps on their iphone and androids. Midi is faster to transmit, takes less space, and I don't have to mix it down to stereo!!!!

Is it a coincidence that the industry is developing a new midi standard Midi 2.0?

https://www.midi.org/articles-old/t...industry-amei-announce-midi-2-0tm-prototyping

Sure acoustic instruments and the voice are audio, but in 20 years we will have advanced sampling and raw data representation to the point where mapping a sample to a midi CC will be done on the fly. Hell my Motif's integrated sampler already has a crude version of this.

So its all relative. What we are making a big deal about today, folks will be laughing at in a little over a decade from now. And will wonder how we were able to record 48 high quality tracks in Cubase or Protools

 

[-mjk-]

DAWs only work if you use the Virtual Talent plugin. Lol

What if some of the notes are out of tune? How about doing another take and singing it properly? I did all those tripled tracks manually, no auto tune because I'm a professional singer. There is far too much looping and computer software fixing of mediocre performances today. New records all have the same robotic sounding vocals. Boring. No soul.

 

[isoneedacoffee]

The thread that I started has gone completely off topic. I've now left it unwatched. If you would like to continue talking about various modes of applying compression (both internal and external) to tracks in the DP24 - the pros and cons of various forms of compression, etc - please tag me as I'm eager to learn more about this topic.