the mix session today

DamagedTrax

thanks henessjon, yoda and supersnail for coming over today. session went great. loads of tea and coffee was consumed and lots of nerd bull**** was talked!!! we even got around to mixing the track in between the important stuff

hopefully a lot was learned.

ill have my own mix up soon.. just need to put a few finishing touches on it.

fitz

Looking toward to hearing the mix!

henessjon

great 2 days doing what i love best music and learning at the sametime


there just isnt enough flanger in the world


it is my mission to bring it to the masses


:-)

DamagedTrax

henessjon wrote: »

great 2 days doing what i love best music and learning at the sametime


there just isnt enough flanger in the world


it is my mission to bring it to the masses


:-)

we saw quite enough of your flange(r) today thanks very much :pac:

ZV Yoda

Hats off to Damaged Trax for being a great host. He certainly knows his way around Pro Tools. His explanation of busses & routings was class... "get the number 25 bus into town, then get the number 26 bus back home”… and now I know what parallel compression really is & what it can do for a drum sound.

Anyway, thanks again - was a really informative 2 days for all concerned. Roll on the next one!

Even more gear added to the wish list... Drumagog & UAD cards anybody?

TelePaul

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Even more gear added to the wish list... Drumagog & UAD cards anybody?

What'd you gog? You're the only drummer I've met who approves of it.

ZV Yoda

TelePaul wrote: »

What'd you gog? You're the only drummer I've met who approves of it.

We used it to beef up the kick & snare sound. The weekend for me was all about finding out better ways to improve sound & workflow. Drum replacement was something I was already thinking about & it was great to put it into practice before deciding if it would work for me.

I don’t have any problem using technology to get the sound I want. A few years back (before I had any idea about how commercial drum recordings are made) I'd have said it was cheating. But what's the point in me sitting in my home studio getting frustrated with the snare sound from my recordings? Bottom line is that I don't have a commercial studio with a top of the range kit & live room, so I’ll never really get the sound I want.

I'd much prefer to get the best sound I can from my own gear (i.e. kit tuning, mic placement, playing style, room treatment) Once I’ve done the best I can given the confines of my set up, I'd use drumagog (or Massey) to bring samples just under my original tracks – just to beef up the sound. Not saying I'd want to go down the road of only using triggers, but what I've taken away from the past couple of days is that for me, using live mics combined with drum triggers (& some kind of drum replacement samples just under my own kit) might be the best solution for my set up.

It's all about what works best in a given situation I think. TBH, I see drum replacement to be exactly the same as guitar/bass amp simulators. They simply use pre-recorded sound samples to emulate the sound you really want. Granted, they’re not for everyone & some would say they’ll never replace the real thing, but for home users in particular, I think drums replacement/amp sims are an extremely useful tool.

PaulBrewer

ZV Yoda wrote: »

TBH, I see drum replacement to be exactly the same as guitar/bass amp simulators. They simply use pre-recorded sound samples to emulate the sound you really want.

Huh? I don't think that's right is it?

ZV Yoda

What's the difference?... in both cases (in theory anyway) you keep the original performance, but then superimpose (to a greater or lesser extent) a digitally produced version of the sound you really wanted to capture.

So, if (like me) you're working with a room with less than ideal acoustics (2m x 3m), there are physical limitations to how good anything will sound. So whether I'm after a killer drum sound, or a big guitar sound, chances are I'll struggle to do so in my room.

For me, I do the best I can to improve the room sound/source signal as much as possible (so I can keep as much of the original sound as I can) but then I can also run my audio through a virtual amp simulation, or use my drum track to trigger samples.

So, replacing drums with sampled drums (because I prefer the sampled sound, or simply want to augment my existing sound) to me is the same as running my guitar track through Guitar Rig (because I don't like and/or want to enhance the original audio).

Make sense?

TelePaul

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Huh? I don't think that's right is it?

I think it is. I mean the arrangement is the same and all, and the performance.

PaulBrewer

ZV Yoda wrote: »

What's the difference?... in both cases (in theory anyway) you keep the original performance, but then superimpose (to a greater or lesser extent) a digitally produced version of the sound you really wanted to capture.

So, if (like me) you're working with a room with less than ideal acoustics (2m x 3m), there are physical limitations to how good anything will sound. So whether I'm after a killer drum sound, or a big guitar sound, chances are I'll struggle to do so in my room.

For me, I do the best I can to improve the room sound/source signal as much as possible (so I can keep as much of the original sound as I can) but then I can also run my audio through a virtual amp simulation, or use my drum track to trigger samples.

So, replacing drums with sampled drums (because I prefer the sampled sound, or simply want to augment my existing sound) to me is the same as running my guitar track through Guitar Rig (because I don't like and/or want to enhance the original audio).

Make sense?

No.

The processes are entirely different -

Drum replacement involves dropping in a pre recorded sound (the sample) in on top or instead of the original ..... but you knew that!

Guitar amp modeling is a 'recreation' by the software of a sound, you're not triggering a pre recorded sound.

Entirely different I think you'd agree?

fitz

Point I think Yoda is getting at is that one way or another, it's not the "real" tracked sound.

jtsuited

PaulBrewer wrote: »

No.

The processes are entirely different -

Drum replacement involves dropping in a pre recorded sound (the sample) in on top or instead of the original ..... but you knew that!

Guitar amp modeling is a 'recreation' by the software of a sound, you're not triggering a pre recorded sound.

Entirely different I think you'd agree?

aha but what if you're using convolution for your guitar modelling? That's using a prerecorded sample as an impulse response.

Ethics shmethics!

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

Point I think Yoda is getting at is that one way or another, it's not the "real" tracked sound.

Fair enough -

"They simply use pre-recorded sound samples to emulate the sound you really want." indicated otherwise.

PaulBrewer

jtsuited wrote: »

aha but what if you're using convolution for your guitar modelling? That's using a prerecorded sample as an impulse response.

Ethics shmethics!

Oh you're back !

ZV Yoda

fitz wrote: »

Point I think Yoda is getting at is that one way or another, it's not the "real" tracked sound.

Yip, that was my point... if you're not happy with the tracked sound, you simply augment/replace it with another sound that has been digitally created.

I know that the process by which samples/simulations are created is different, but from a user perspective they essentially get you to the same point... namely a sound that's more like what I wanted (if I had the room/equipment capable of producing that sound).

Either way (in theory) you keep the essence of the original performance, but just enhanced the resulting audio.

PaulBrewer

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Yip, that was my point...

Excuse my misunderstanding !

ZV Yoda

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Excuse my misunderstanding !

I'm hardly in a position to be contradicting the mighty Brewer now, am I?;)

I oversimplified my original point when I said "They simply use pre-recorded sound samples to emulate the sound you really want."

A better phrase would have been "computer voodoo magic can improve the original audio so it sounds like your crappy home studio is actually a passable imitation of Abbey Road"

PaulBrewer

ZV Yoda wrote: »

."

A better phrase would have been "computer voodoo magic can improve the original audio so it sounds like your crappy home studio is actually a passable imitation of Abbey Road"

Gotcha .... !

frobisher

Semantics matter!

PaulBrewer

frobisher wrote: »

Semantics matter!

SeeYoreMa-ntics, yea?

woodsdenis

First of all well done to everyone involved with this. Its very easy to suggest these things and not go and do it. My only point in listening to the mixes which really jarred on me was I think a wrong chord in the chorus. The 2nd chord
of the chorus should be an Eflat which I think the bass is playing. The guitar is playing an F. This happens on the the first 2 rounds of 4 bars on the chorus. It also pops up elsewhere.

Dont shoot me, I dont in fact own this song or in fact an expert on Nickelback and I of course could be wrong. Check it out.

henessjon

woodsdenis wrote: »

First of all well done to everyone involved with this. Its very easy to suggest these things and not go and do it. My only point in listening to the mixes which really jarred on me was I think a wrong chord in the chorus. The 2nd chord
of the chorus should be an Eflat which I think the bass is playing. The guitar is playing an F. This happens on the the first 2 rounds of 4 bars on the chorus. It also pops up elsewhere.

Dont shoot me, I dont in fact own this song or in fact an expert on Nickelback and I of course could be wrong. Check it out.

i think should be D#


however its irrelevant in this excercise a thoroughly enjoyable excercise!!

and should be done more regularly on real songs written by real people that would be us unknowns doing unknown songs.

as a point to note these guys helping us minnows out, spent their whole day being hassled by us ((me)) nerdies pushing noses or buttons where they shouldnt anwsering probably stupid questions

thx again from me

and I would like to be anyone's occasional gofer (or is that Bi-atch) in the studio occasionally lol

woodsdenis

henessjon wrote: »

i think should be D#


however its irrelevant in this excercise a thoroughly enjoyable excercise!!

and should be done more regularly on real songs written by real people that would be us unknowns doing unknown songs.

as a point to note these guys helping us minnows out, spent their whole day being hassled by us ((me)) nerdies pushing noses or buttons where they shouldnt anwsering probably stupid questions

thx again from me

and I would like to be anyone's occasional gofer (or is that Bi-atch) in the studio occasionally lol

Totally agree , and fair play to all who gave their time to do this. However as a mix exercise for anyone who wants to download the individual tracks it
would be good to see if they can fix this as well as any other discrepancies .
It is a real world situation you could be presented with and asked to fix , so great training and experience for those who want to get involved.

fitz

Funny, cause we recorded it using the E flat and it sounded wrong.
Should be possible to chop an E flat in, see if it sounds better to you...

woodsdenis

fitz wrote: »

Funny, cause we recorded it using the E flat and it sounded wrong.
Should be possible to chop an E flat in, see if it sounds better to you...

fitz

Trust me, I am not betting on this . I have heard the song many times of course,but I certainly havent studied it:eek: I just heard a brief 30secs on Itunes and came to this conclusion. I could be wrong.

I think on your version the 2nd chord is a F with an E flat bass.? Is this correct. Either way both should play the same thing?

I think, on a cursory listen the chorus chords are

C Eflat Bflat F x 4

C F Bflat Eflat on the yeah yeah bit

There definitely sounds like an open tuning on the record. A lot of add9 in the verse etc and the chorus chords are no 3rds. It is actually more complex than you think at first listen.

As a disclaimer. I am not a guitar player so if you are please chime in.

Either way well done on all you guys getting it together. As I said in the previous post, if I am right it would hone up somebody's editing skills to fix this. Also there are a few tweaks to be done on vocal tuning, somebody could go for this aswell. All good real world experience, as this is something that you could easily be presented with in the real world. I think the separate wav files have been posted so why doesn't someone investigate this. I could easily be wrong

Denis

TelePaul

woodsdenis wrote: »

fitz

Either way both should play the same thing?

Something harmonically pleasing at least, doesn't have to be exactly the same note.

woodsdenis wrote: »

There definitely sounds like an open tuning on the record. A lot of add9 in the verse etc and the chorus chords are no 3rds. It is actually more complex than you think at first listen.

Denis

Yeah, the guitar sure sounds quite 'drone-ish' and 'chimey' in the intro. Drop D anyway, possibly tuned down a half/full step also?

fitz

You could be right Denis. We all worked pretty quickly on the day, with everything going down in a couple of takes, so it's entirely possible we made a wrong call. I know as a vocalist I'm not thrilled with my performance, but with a bit of tuning it will sound ok, so as you said, good exercise!

fitz

Btw, guitars were tracked in drop-d.

DamagedTrax

woodsdenis wrote: »

fitz

Trust me, I am not betting on this . I have heard the song many times of course,but I certainly havent studied it:eek: I just heard a brief 30secs on Itunes and came to this conclusion. I could be wrong.

I think on your version the 2nd chord is a F with an E flat bass.? Is this correct. Either way both should play the same thing?

I think, on a cursory listen the chorus chords are

C Eflat Bflat F x 4

C F Bflat Eflat on the yeah yeah bit

There definitely sounds like an open tuning on the record. A lot of add9 in the verse etc and the chorus chords are no 3rds. It is actually more complex than you think at first listen.

As a disclaimer. I am not a guitar player so if you are please chime in.

Either way well done on all you guys getting it together. As I said in the previous post, if I am right it would hone up somebody's editing skills to fix this. Also there are a few tweaks to be done on vocal tuning, somebody could go for this aswell. All good real world experience, as this is something that you could easily be presented with in the real world. I think the separate wav files have been posted so why doesn't someone investigate this. I could easily be wrong

Denis

i agree, it would be a very good editing excercise.. i'll be doing a little on the vocal tuning myself.

as far as the guitar goes i dont really know the track well enough to say but the lads that were over with me did say there was the possibility that a wrong chord was played.

trackmixstudio

You're right. should be Eb as chord 2 of chorus.
I will do an edit and reup the guitar tracks tomorrow.