A few small questions!

NoQuarter

Hey folks,

Just back from the studio and have a few questions, hope someone can help!

Im recording in reaper and for one song theres Vox, bass, drums and acoustic guitar.

The drums sound pretty good but the guitar is sounding a bit thin! Is there any way to beef it up a tad?

And just in general, is there any ways of tweaking some setting to get the most out of the recordings? They arent meant to be sounding perfect but if there are any tips for a newbie that will help a tad that would be great! Maybe if i pan something left/right or click some magic button or add some compression or anything like that? As i said its all new to me so any little tips are appreciated.

Apologies if the question is vague!

Cheers all.

DamagedTrax

the question is very vague :eek::D

but for someone at your level just balance the volumes levels, try a little eq and panning to stop differant instruments clashing and try a few delays or reverbs to add space to it.

when you are eqing think logically about how an instrument should sound and try to eq it while listening to other parts as well as the sound needs to be sculpted in context with the other parts.

you could try some reverbs on vocals to help them sit better (mostly best to keep it small/meduim for lead vox although not always the case)

you could also try a little delay on the backing vocals to add a bit of life to them.

with plugins a great way to learn is by using the presets and listening to what they're doin to the sound. then you can start tweaking them to suit your mix, this way you're getting a close approximation to what you're after without the initial frustration of thinking you'll never figure it out. i think its impossible to learn when you're frustrated with it. if you're enjoying what you're doing you'll take more in and experiment more.

compression is something to worry about once you've gooten your head around the basics of mixing.

anyho.. sorry for the ramble, ive been partaking in some "herbal" medicine :-)

NoQuarter

Thanks a lot, some great ideas there so not to figure out how to use eq and reverb etc etc

But yeah you knew exactly what i was getting at, I just want the parts to sit better together!

Reaper just has so many buttons and such and for a complete novice like myself its all a bit too much!

DamagedTrax

they are the basics of mixing but once you start understanding them and the principles behind their use, you'll eventually start understanding the need for the more complicated stuff like compression.

1 major pitfall to try and avoid (although everyone still does it at the start anyway) - try not to overcomplicate stuff, if a guitar doesnt need to be eq'd because it sounds good in context then leave it. train your ears and learn to trust them.

im sure theres loads more advice you'll get on here but thats the main fundemantals that i can think of.


and before someone else says it, if you eventually get serious about doing it, even as a hobby or for your own projects you need to invest in good monitors and a little room treatment. this doesnt need to break the bank and you could probably kit out a small room for 1500 (some will say less, some will say more) with moderatly good monitors and a few bass traps.

judas101

I once read about a trick to make acoustic guitar more full from some recording guru

When you record a take youre happy with that sounds a bit thin, copy it onto another track and pull it slightly out of sync with the other (fraction of a second)

Dont record acoustic myself so not sure what the result is like. Worth a shot thogh.

DamagedTrax

judas101 wrote: »

I once read about a trick to make acoustic guitar more full from some recording guru

When you record a take youre happy with that sounds a bit thin, copy it onto another track and pull it slightly out of sync with the other (fraction of a second)

Dont record acoustic myself so not sure what the result is like. Worth a shot thogh.

works well at about 20ms outand panned away from original.

NoQuarter

Thanks damagedTrax, I doubt ill be getting serious about it but i just want something worthy to put up on myspace!

Good idea judas, i had actually copied the other acoustic track already, panned one fully left and one fully right (obviously because i dont know what im doing).

I will try figure out how to put 20ms on it later!

Keep the tips coming!

DamagedTrax

king-stew wrote: »

I will try figure out how to put 20ms on it later!

insert delay plugin on track, set "delay time" to 20 ms and set "mix" to 100%

tip: if you slowly increase the delay time the tracks will appear to get wider (but anything beyond 40 ms will start sounding a little too out of time to work well).. its a very handy little aural hallucination!

PaulBrewer

Dragging one track a 64th behind the other can sound wide too - not a natural wideness , but effective none the less.

This method is related to the temp of the song so is less inclined to sound like a delay.

NoQuarter

Thanks paul ill give it a try.

What about frequencies? Is it common practice to fiddle around with different frequencies of different intruments to make them sit better? Im sure ever case is different but are there any set figures to start with or does that even make sense??

DamagedTrax

king-stew wrote: »

Thanks paul ill give it a try.

What about frequencies? Is it common practice to fiddle around with different frequencies of different intruments to make them sit better? Im sure ever case is different but are there any set figures to start with or does that even make sense??

theres no real set frequencies but this will help you a lot.

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

looks a little daunting but just take a minute to have a look at the amount of information its giving you. invaluable for a beginner.

TelePaul

king-stew wrote: »

Is it common practice to fiddle around with different frequencies of different intruments to make them sit better?

This would be mixing.

king-stew wrote: »

I'm sure ever case is different but are there any set figures to start with or does that even make sense??

Makes sense, but alas, no. It's probably better to think of frequencies in broad terms; lows, mids, high-end. It'd be pretty tough to listen to a mix and say , you know, 'Cut that electric guitar by 4 db at 3500hz'. On the other hand, I could say 'Hey, your mix sounds quite mid-heavy, sort it out!'. So start by thinking abut which ends of the frequency spectrum various instruments occupy; it'll let you think more critically about EQ.

NoQuarter

Thanks fellas, learning a lot here!

So ill keep the questions rolling...


Rendering:

In reaper, what should i be clicking on generally?? There are so many options! I render to mp3.

What about sample rate? And channels? Stereo?


EDIT: and also...I have recordings where lets say the guitar stops playing for a few bars, should i cut out the recording between guitar parts even though there is no sound there!? As is the mic was still recording but the guitar wasnt playing but the silent part is still in the mix.

judas101

king-stew wrote: »

I have recordings where lets say the guitar stops playing for a few bars, should i cut out the recording between guitar parts even though there is no sound there!? As is the mic was still recording but the guitar wasnt playing but the silent part is still in the mix.

For guitar it depends how many tracks there is.

Cutting it out could cause an obvious drop.

I always leave the mic track on regardless of vocals or not.

I also occasionally add an extra track of silence which works well (24 hour party people style )

PaulBrewer

king-stew wrote: »

Thanks paul ill give it a try.

What about frequencies? Is it common practice to fiddle around with different frequencies of different intruments to make them sit better? Im sure ever case is different but are there any set figures to start with or does that even make sense??

It is.

I heard an BBC radio interview with Produced Tony Visconti who based his eqing frequencies on the key of the song. So, for example if he was cutting some low mid from the kick drum to sit the bass in the key of G he centres the cut around 196 Hz , the frequency (more or less) of the G note.

Similarly one can accentuate the harmonics of an instrument by same process , to make the low G note more audible in a mix one might boost 784 Hz or 1568 Hz .

It's an idea I've been meaning to try , but haven't yet ...... so it may be a load of cock !

PaulBrewer

DamagedTrax wrote: »

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

.

Interesting post Damaged, Thanks.

NoQuarter

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Similarly one can accentuate the harmonics of an instrument by same process , to make the low G note more audible in a mix one might boost 784 Hz or 1568 Hz .

So different notes are in different frequencies? Thats probably the main characteristics of the note itself actually is it? Yeah i get what your saying about that idea!

So i take it no matter what pitch you're in, on a guitar for example, a G note played on the low strings would be in the same freq as a G note played up on the highest frets??

So if you boost that freq a bit it will kind of enhance the root notes?? Is that right?

PaulBrewer

king-stew wrote: »

So different notes are in different frequencies? Thats probably the main characteristics of the note itself actually is it? Yeah i get what your saying about that idea!

So i take it no matter what pitch you're in, on a guitar for example, a G note played on the low strings would be in the same freq as a G note played up on the highest frets??

No, a 'root' note octave up is twice the frequency of the root. So G1 is 97.999 Hz , G2 (an octave up) is 195.998 Hz and so on.

If you're on a Mac there's a Widget you can get for this info.

TelePaul

PaulBrewer wrote: »

It is.

I heard an BBC radio interview with Produced Tony Visconti who based his eqing frequencies on the key of the song. So, for example if he was cutting some low mid from the kick drum to sit the bass in the key of G he centres the cut around 196 Hz , the frequency (more or less) of the G note.

Similarly one can accentuate the harmonics of an instrument by same process , to make the low G note more audible in a mix one might boost 784 Hz or 1568 Hz .

It's an idea I've been meaning to try , but haven't yet ...... so it may be a load of cock !

That is feckin mental!

PaulBrewer

TelePaul wrote: »

That is feckin mental!

Not really if you think about it !

Take listening to a song on your laptop, whilst you can hear the bass instrument playing a low E you can't hear the bass frequencies (41.23 Hz) as a laptop can't reproduce them.

It's actually the harmonics you hear, not the fundamental. Through the wonders of yer lug/brain combo your mind says 'oh that's the bass' ...

So as an extension of that, you might dig a hole in the kick at around 167 Hz which won't interfere with the 'weight' of the kick much, but may make more sonic 'space' for you bass to be heard at a given volume.