When you think about those sixties and seventies recordings, nobody used any kind of boutique microphone preamps back then. We used the microphone preamps that were in the consoles. There really weren't many manufacturers of consoles back then. Consoles by the major record labels were frequently custom-made.
The early console manufacturers which started up in the middle late sixties were API, Electrodyne, Quad 8, Sphere, Neve, Helios, Norelco/Philips, Auditronics, MCI, Neumann, to name a few, a very few. So you really never complained back then about sonic integrity, blah blah, etc.. We were more concerned with what brand of analog tape and how you tweaked your machines.
Monitor speakers were frequently Altec 604E's or, JBL 4310's. Compressors and limiters were frequently Universal Audio optical LA2 tube or LA3 transistor, FET 1176LN, RCA, CBS, Fairchild and were optical devices or variable "mu" tubes, predecessor to the VCA (voltage controlled amplifier).
Microphone selection was also fairly limited back then. Dominated by Neumann U47/67/87 and a host of others along with the RCA 44 & 77 series of ribbon microphones. And becoming popular was a line of dynamic microphones by Shure. The unidyne series proceeded the well-known SM57 but were very similar.
Much of that sound was a LESS IS MORE approach. We didn't have nothin' in comparison to what we have today. So what you are hearing is pretty much good experience, technique and knowledge, since we were all using pretty much the same stuff.
When it came to Chambers, if you worked for a really good place like Capitol, your chamber was probably specially manufactured rooms or stairwells. If you were poor, you had a spring reverb. If you were rich, you had an EMT plate. If you were really creative, you could use a tape machine for all sorts of effects, like echoes, delays, phasing/flanging. You could also take a beefy power amplifier, connect that to a sinewave oscillator and voilà ! Variable speed generator for your tape recorder.
And tape saturation was a big part of the character of the sound. Learning how to bang the meters just the right way, drums took on a different character. You could do most anything if you had 4 to 8 tracks to work with!
So emulating that sound of a late sixties to early and mid-seventies recording can still be easily accomplished. Yes, the sound of the microphone preamps was a big factor in the sound. None of those older consoles had limited headroom like most of the inexpensive mixers have today. So to try and emulate that older sound means, you need plenty of headroom in your console/preamps. You can get that sound by running your microphone gain trims lower than normal, while pushing up your faders for proper record levels. This will give you improved headroom but will sacrifice some of the signal to noise ratio but since we are probably talking rock and roll here, it won't be much of a factor. That additional headroom will give you that higher-quality, expensive console sound with that punchy quality without maxing out your mike preamps.
George Martin thought I was a worthwhile engineer but I declined his offer as a maintenance Tech.
Ms. Stoopid Remy
Theres a very very common thread here to your list of artists you're seeking to emulate the recordings of............That being the songs themselves. And the arrangements.
The recording approach was simplified because of the LACK of gear available. Lack of tracks meant you HAD to make decisions about the structure of the material....what sections to mix down to open some tracks up for more creativity.
Its the very thing that is lacking today in mainstream music. Its so overproduced and homoginized that it lacks depth and heart.
Showing posts with label techniques. Show all posts
Showing posts with label techniques. Show all posts
Tuesday, 20 June 2017
Sunday, 11 June 2017
Panning Techniques For Mixing. Are Asymmetrical Mixes Weird
When mixing a song there are an infinite number of ways to put together the stereo field or the left to right image across the speakers. When I am working with mixing clients, or training others to do mixing, one of the topics that often comes up is the idea of symmetry or left-right balance. If there is a guitar panned to one side, is there another guitar on the other side of the mix so it does not feel lopsided? This always leads to the question of whether or not left-right balance is something important that we should strive for. Won't it sound weird if we have something on one side without something to balance it on the other side?”
The answer to this is not as straightforward as it might seem. If we look at mixes from some of the great mixers, we will find that many do have almost perfect balance between the left and right side in terms of both arrangement as well as spectral balance. What I mean by spectral balance” is that they seem to have an equal amount of each frequency range on the left and right side of the mix. Check out this Green Day mix as a near perfect example of this. Except for the fact that the hi-hat is panned to the left side, the general sound of the left and right side are virtually identical.
But as we start to listen to a wider range of mixes we will also find the complete opposite. Check out this mix for U2 in which most of the song has a single guitar hard panned to the left side with absolutely nothing to balance it” on the right side.
In the last few decades the norm has been to pan the bass, kick drum, snare and main vocals straight up the middle, but what happens with the other elements is all over the map. We can find examples of very balanced symmetrical mixes as well as completely lopsided mixes. What can we take away from this?
You may have a strong feeling that mixes should have a strong left-right balance, but music fans do not care at all!
It is all just a matter of mood and personal preference. I tend to do both fairly often. Sometimes it is just letting the muse dictate where things should go, but often if I am making a mix asymmetrical it is because I want a particular instrument to stand out or have more presence in a mix. When a guitar (or any other instrument) sits alone on one side of a mix without a complimentary” instrument on the other side it will generally have more personality and connect with the listener in a more direct way. Instruments with left-right counterparts will tend to blend in as part of the ensemble. Another positive aspect of this is that when a primary instrument is set off to one side without an opposite counterpart, it will often compete less with the main vocal in the middle. While one is not better than the other, it is pretty obvious that both are completely valid.
One of the great tools we have available to us in mixing is to experiment with panning and see how it affects the overall feel of the mix, and even experiment with muting parts that have multiple versions of the same instrument/part to feature the part more. Regardless of what you do, the important thing is to mix in a way that you feel is best for the music because music lovers do not really care about anything else.
Here are a few more examples of some great lopsided mixes.
The entirety of Van Halen I
One fairly common mixing technique you will find is a trick where the mix will be fairly balanced in one section and then completely asymmetrical in another. This helps build a sense of dynamics even in very compressed recordings. Check out this John Mayer tune as an example.
Here is Lenny Kravitz doing the same thing
There are some days I actually miss the 70's and 80's not as often as one might imagine and some part of that nostalgia is in panning.
I can tell in a matter of seconds what decade a song was recorded in because as it happens my truck is missing the left side of the stereo mix and the difference between the decades is so very obvious. Starting somewhere in the mid 80's stereo mono” became the norm. Don't even need a left/right channel mix. One speaker pretty much gets it all. But then a Beatles tune comes on. Wow! If your readers haven't tried it—Listen to Abbey Road with one side turned off. A real eye opener.
And I love listening to Eddie Van Halen's rhythm playing on the first album. All the leads are on one side. Of course, you're stuck with David's vocals but the songs aren't all that long.
The answer to this is not as straightforward as it might seem. If we look at mixes from some of the great mixers, we will find that many do have almost perfect balance between the left and right side in terms of both arrangement as well as spectral balance. What I mean by spectral balance” is that they seem to have an equal amount of each frequency range on the left and right side of the mix. Check out this Green Day mix as a near perfect example of this. Except for the fact that the hi-hat is panned to the left side, the general sound of the left and right side are virtually identical.
But as we start to listen to a wider range of mixes we will also find the complete opposite. Check out this mix for U2 in which most of the song has a single guitar hard panned to the left side with absolutely nothing to balance it” on the right side.
In the last few decades the norm has been to pan the bass, kick drum, snare and main vocals straight up the middle, but what happens with the other elements is all over the map. We can find examples of very balanced symmetrical mixes as well as completely lopsided mixes. What can we take away from this?
You may have a strong feeling that mixes should have a strong left-right balance, but music fans do not care at all!
It is all just a matter of mood and personal preference. I tend to do both fairly often. Sometimes it is just letting the muse dictate where things should go, but often if I am making a mix asymmetrical it is because I want a particular instrument to stand out or have more presence in a mix. When a guitar (or any other instrument) sits alone on one side of a mix without a complimentary” instrument on the other side it will generally have more personality and connect with the listener in a more direct way. Instruments with left-right counterparts will tend to blend in as part of the ensemble. Another positive aspect of this is that when a primary instrument is set off to one side without an opposite counterpart, it will often compete less with the main vocal in the middle. While one is not better than the other, it is pretty obvious that both are completely valid.
One of the great tools we have available to us in mixing is to experiment with panning and see how it affects the overall feel of the mix, and even experiment with muting parts that have multiple versions of the same instrument/part to feature the part more. Regardless of what you do, the important thing is to mix in a way that you feel is best for the music because music lovers do not really care about anything else.
Here are a few more examples of some great lopsided mixes.
The entirety of Van Halen I
One fairly common mixing technique you will find is a trick where the mix will be fairly balanced in one section and then completely asymmetrical in another. This helps build a sense of dynamics even in very compressed recordings. Check out this John Mayer tune as an example.
Here is Lenny Kravitz doing the same thing
There are some days I actually miss the 70's and 80's not as often as one might imagine and some part of that nostalgia is in panning.
I can tell in a matter of seconds what decade a song was recorded in because as it happens my truck is missing the left side of the stereo mix and the difference between the decades is so very obvious. Starting somewhere in the mid 80's stereo mono” became the norm. Don't even need a left/right channel mix. One speaker pretty much gets it all. But then a Beatles tune comes on. Wow! If your readers haven't tried it—Listen to Abbey Road with one side turned off. A real eye opener.
And I love listening to Eddie Van Halen's rhythm playing on the first album. All the leads are on one side. Of course, you're stuck with David's vocals but the songs aren't all that long.
Sunday, 7 May 2017
Drum Recording Techniques Timeline
Event Description:
1950's
Very basic techniques when it comes to recording drums, most of the time positioning all instruments around one mic leaving the drums at the back as ambient sounds.
Jan 1st, 1965
mid 60's
Multitracking began! Close mics on drums started to be used so louder drums became more normal. Panning started being experimented with and the conventional method of snare and kick down the middle began.
Jul 1st, 1970
Late 60's early 70's
Jimmy Page believed that simple microphone techniques and distant mic'ing are the only ways to record drums. This became the common view by a lot of people.
Jan 1st, 1980
Early 80's
Big sounding drums were being used, to achieve the large sounding drums necessary heavily compressed room mics and gates started being used. Also drum machines allowed sampled sounds to be used if they couldn't produce a big enough sound.
Jan 1st, 1990
late 80's, early 90's
Dance music began resulting in a large use of computer processed sounds and samples allowing a wide range of drum sounds to be available. Artists also started using samples from old soul tracks as beats.
Jan 1st, 2000
2000's
There are now many different styles of drum recordings for different styles of music. Adavnced technology has also allowed more choice in recording techniques.
1950's
Very basic techniques when it comes to recording drums, most of the time positioning all instruments around one mic leaving the drums at the back as ambient sounds.
Jan 1st, 1965
mid 60's
Multitracking began! Close mics on drums started to be used so louder drums became more normal. Panning started being experimented with and the conventional method of snare and kick down the middle began.
Jul 1st, 1970
Late 60's early 70's
Jimmy Page believed that simple microphone techniques and distant mic'ing are the only ways to record drums. This became the common view by a lot of people.
Jan 1st, 1980
Early 80's
Big sounding drums were being used, to achieve the large sounding drums necessary heavily compressed room mics and gates started being used. Also drum machines allowed sampled sounds to be used if they couldn't produce a big enough sound.
Jan 1st, 1990
late 80's, early 90's
Dance music began resulting in a large use of computer processed sounds and samples allowing a wide range of drum sounds to be available. Artists also started using samples from old soul tracks as beats.
Jan 1st, 2000
2000's
There are now many different styles of drum recordings for different styles of music. Adavnced technology has also allowed more choice in recording techniques.
Sunday, 15 January 2017
Sound Techniques
In the summer of 1965, a new recording studio opened its doors in London's soon-to-be hip district of Chelsea. For a decade to come, this bijou ex-dairy would produce some of the finest British recordings of the era.
John Wood in the Sound Techniques control room, you're a fan of British '60s and '70s music, particularly psychedelic folk and folk-rock, you'll no doubt be familiar with a little tagline gracing the liner notes of some of your favourite records: "Recorded at Sound Techniques, Chelsea". John Cale, Nick Drake, Fairport Convention, Incredible String Band, Jethro Tull, John Martyn, Pentangle, Pink Floyd, Richard Thompson, Sandy Denny and Steeleye Span were just a few of the luminaries to grace this unassuming but hugely important English recording studio.
The early '60s was a time when the majority of studios in London had a reputation for being stuffy and oppressive: manned and administered by scientists in brown lab coats, who had little interest in the 'nasty' guitar music that had so rudely thrust itself upon them. But by the middle of the decade, these studios' dominance was being eroded by a handful of hip new young independents, bristling with young, enthusiastic engineers and producers with as much passion for popular music as the musicians they were recording. By the end of the '60s, Sound Techniques had firmly established itself as one of London's finest studios, drawing in anyone who cared about the quality of their recordings. Just take a listen to Nick Drake's Bryter Later or Judy Collins' In My Life and you'll know exactly what we're talking about when we refer to the unique 'Sound Techniques sound'.
Sound Techniques was the brainchild of Geoff Frost and John Wood, who in mid-1964 were both working at Levy's Sound Studio in New Bond Street, a very busy 'jobbing' studio where they spent much of their time producing 'copycat' versions of current hits for Woolworths' budget Embassy label, as well as laying down tracks for proprietor Morris Levy's own Oriole label. Geoff had been Chief Engineer at the studios since 1959, while John had joined the technical staff in '62. Their decision to start their own venture was partly due to the fact that they wanted to be their own bosses and partly because Morris Levy had just sold out to US giant CBS records, leaving the pair with some uncertainty about their future employment.
As was often the case with the music industry in the '60s, there was no grand design or meticulous planning involved in their decision.
"We decided we'd start a recording studio," John Wood tells me, "and with that wonderful ignorance-is-bliss mentality and impetuousness of youth, we thought we'd just get on and do it and do a better job than Levy's so Geoff left in the September of 1964 and started looking for premises, and that was it!"
The variety of different skills that Geoff, then 28, and John, 24, brought to the table helped ensure that Sound Techniques had an excellent grounding for future success. In his role as Chief Engineer at Levy's, Geoff had taken the lead technical role building and maintaining the equipment in addition to engineering sessions. John, meanwhile, had previously plied his trade in the cutting room of Decca Records prior to his move to Levy's, training his acute ear through many hours working with their classical catalogue.
The finance for the venture came via Geoff's savings and a loan from Barclays Bank, and the company was duly registered at Companies House in December 1964, after a name had been decided upon during a swift but inspired telephone conversation between the two entrepreneurs.
"Geoff rang me up from Peter Godfrey's office, who was our solicitor, saying, 'We've got to have a name for the company!'," laughs John, "and I'm sitting in the control room at Levy's, and there's a Pultec on the rack and an Altec compressor and I see Pulse Techniques underneath Pultec so I said, 'Well, what about Sotec or Sound Techniques?' and that's literally where our name came from. And it was a great name! The biggest mistake we made was not registering it across the world!"
As far as the studio premises go, Geoff and John already knew the kind of thing they should be looking for following Geoff's visit to the United States in '64.
"I got on a plane to Nashville to look at the American studios, to find out why they got so much better sounds than the English studios," Geoff tells me. "There was an incredible difference in the sound. American stuff was open, it was loud — the stuff from British studios was very sort of twee and dull. The sound coming out of America, particularly from Bradley's, really impressed me personally. So the first thing I did when we got off the plane was, after finding a hotel, I knocked on Bradley's door and said, 'I'm a chief engineer from London, is it possible for your chief engineer to show me round?' and they said, 'Well, of course!' And Bradley's was by the far the most impressive studio I saw and just the kind of studio that John and I wanted to build. It wasn't full of deadening materials like English studios were — with English studios the idea was to make everything as dead as possible, but Bradley's just had a very minimal acoustic treatment with a very high ceiling. They also had very minimal equipment. In order to make the English sound more and more American, English studios were buying up more and more equipment. But Bradley's had a very simple desk — I think it was an ex-broadcast desk, a Bendix or a Gates or something like that, and they had outboard EQs — they had Langevins, and all the Langevins were locked in at 3k 8dB boost position and left there!"
These deceptively straightforward lessons would be an important influence on the Sound Techniques story.
After months of trawling estate agents and trudging the streets of the capital, Geoff finally found a building with some potential. Situated near to Chelsea's King's Road and hiding down the end of a small alley, 46a Old Church Street was part of an early 19th-century dairy. Part of the ground floor belonged to a pottery, while the other part of the ground floor and the first and second floors were both available to lease. The deal Geoff and John negotiated included a clause giving them permission to remove part of the second floor to give them the height they required to get a 'Bradley's type sound'. A team of Polish builders was duly set to work to knock out the middle section, leaving the left and right sections in situ to be developed into the control room and an office respectively, both of which would be accessed by separate staircases leading from the live room. An eighth of an inch of asphalt was laid on the floor to dampen the sound to an extent — another Nashville tip — then covered with carpet, although the original gradual slope from the dairy days was left as it was, possibly contributing to the room's sound once they commenced recording. The time now came for a minimal amount of acoustic treatment.
"We cleaned the place up, put double glazing in where it was convenient to, where it wasn't convenient we didn't bother," says Geoff. "As far as acoustics go, John and I went around clapping our hands, and we'd say, 'Ooh, we need something up there!' but bearing in mind we were so short of money, we did as little as possible! Underneath the office, we left the old-fashioned lath-and-plaster ceiling, which did great things for strings."
The first mixer to bear the Sound Techniques name was custom-built by Geoff Frost and John Wood, and sold in order to fund the building of a desk for the studio the construction work had been completed, it was time to build the first Sound Techniques mixing desk. At this point, John Wood also left Levy's, and he and Geoff spent the next few months building the mixer in the middle of the studio's live room (see 'Sound Techniques Consoles' box). With regard to other equipment, John and Geoff were again limited by their rapidly disappearing budget, so they opted to build as much as they could themselves. They could not afford complete Ampex tape machines, so they managed to negotiate a deal in which they bought just the decks, leaving Geoff to build the electronics for three machines — one two-track, one four-track and one mono — which they housed in second-hand consoles purchased at the BBC's redundant equipment stores in Chiswick. Geoff also built four monitor speakers using a design from electronics bible the Audio Encyclopaedia and housed them in a single cabinet to "make things more rigid". The monitor speakers would change progressively as the studio's fortunes improved, and in 1968, as more 'rocky' artistes began to filter through the doors, the studio underwent a revamp, including the installation of an eight-channel desk designed by Geoff and more sophisticated acoustic treatments to make things a little less 'live'.
However, John and Geoff did splash some cash on an EMI limiter, a couple of Altec compressors and a slew of top-quality microphones including Neumann 67s, KM56s, KM54s, AKG D19s and an RCA ribbon. The studio would later move to 16-track and ultimately 24-track by the mid-'70s, and other later purchases included Neumann U47 microphones and Fairchild 660 limiters.
As far as reverb was concerned, John's preference was to buy an EMT plate but their funds had almost run dry, so the pair opted to use what little spare space they had to build an acoustic echo chamber by the front door out of a pre-fab garage kit of parts. But aside from the fact that it was a very small space, it also filled with water whenever it rained heavily so, not surprisingly, as soon as they could afford it they bought their first EMT.
Happy with how the studio was sounding after a few demo sessions, the two men decided that it was time to open for business — but London's music-biz fraternity was not exactly beating the doors down in anticipation.
"We put one advert in Kemp's music directory, which cost a bloody fortune, but we never had a single enquiry!" recalls Geoff. "We were sitting around waiting for the phone to ring for weeks and it didn't ring. In the end, I think we were about three days away from going bankrupt and the phone rang, and it was Frank Barber, who did all John Schroeder's arrangements at Levy's. He said, 'I've got a client who's looking for a studio. He wants to book it for four days a week for about four months and I can't find anywhere where we can get in!' so I said to Frank, 'All right Frank, just let me look at the diary!', and I did actually get the diary out and looked at all these blank pages — and I said, 'Well, Frank, I think we can probably move things around a little!'"
The client turned out to be prolific classical soundtrack composer Phil Green, who had been contracted by 3M to produce around a staggering 2000 tracks of soft orchestral 'elevator music' that they were planning to market with a new cassette-based system they had developed for retail outlets and hotels. Sound Techniques got the gig, and John and Geoff were left thanking the gods, although the first day's recording didn't go quite as planned.
A plan view of the layout of Sound Techniques. The control room and workshop were upstairs, leaving the central part of the live area with a high ceiling. "The interesting thing was that we'd always thought that we would put the strings in the middle of the room, where we had twice the ceiling height, and that they would sound good there," says John, "and we thought we'd put the rhythm section at the end under the office. On what must have been the first day of the Phil Green sessions, we put the strings in the middle, the rhythm under the office and I think we probably had brass as well under the control room — and it just didn't work. They complained they couldn't hear, they couldn't hear the rhythm and they couldn't hear this so we had to change the whole thing round and we ended up with the rhythm in the middle, the brass one end, and the strings under the office — and it worked fine!
Afterwards, that became our standard setup and the interesting thing was that the low end of the studio, where we would put the string section, had a sort of natural resonance around 500-700 Hz or something, and you would get this really big string sound from a small section. That was one of the things that I suppose we were quite lucky with or famed for in latter years the string sounds on the Nick Drake records people are always going on about!"
The Phil Green sessions proved to be a turning point for Sound Techniques Ltd and the work began to trickle in, largely because potential clients were so impressed by the tapes they heard. By this time, the company had also received orders from other studios for mixing desks, so Geoff immersed himself in console manufacturing in the upstairs office-cum-workshop while John settled into the role he would fill until the mid-'70s: Sound Techniques Studio Manager.
The original Sound Techniques 'Chelsea' mixer built by Frost and Wood, in the control even more significant turning point came when Elektra Records began booking time at the studio. Sound Techniques was recommended to the US label by mutual friend and EMI engineer Malcolm Addey. The first Elektra recordings to be made at Sound Techniques were two orchestral concept albums based around the signs of the zodiac and the sea, which John engineered with producer Mort Gamson. Elektra had decided to record in England for the same reason that 3M had opted to with their 'elevator music': British string players were both cheaper and of a higher quality than their American contemporaries. At the end of one of these sessions, the musicians needed paying, so Elektra head honcho Jac Holzman instructed his UK Office Manager to go down to Chelsea loaded with the lucre. The manager's name was Joe Boyd.
It would be the records that Joe worked on with John Wood for both Elektra and, later on, Joe's Witchseason Productions company that would first expose the Sound Techniques sound to the music-listening masses. Wood and Boyd immediately hit it off during Joe's first visit in early 1966. The early projects they worked on together were quickly recorded, straight-to-master-tape recordings of artists such as Alisdair Clayre, Martin Carthy and Dave Swarbrick, and the first Incredible String Band album. It would be during the recording of this latter record that the two became very close, and their relationship both in the live room and the control room would later bring the best out of Sandy Denny, Nick Drake, Fairport Convention, Pink Floyd and Richard Thompson, to name but a few. The way they worked was in no way your typical engineer/producer relationship — they worked in partnership.
"In some ways, some people found it a curious relationship, but for me it's the way I like to work with anybody, really," explains Joe Boyd. "I get nervous if I feel people are pulling their punches around me — you know, if someone disagrees with what I want to do, I want to hear about it and then at least I can make up my own mind. I want as much information as I can get, and John is very gruff and ready to speak his mind. He never suffer fools gladly and he's never shy of voicing an opinion. I find that a very good way to work because I want to know what he thinks of everything I'm doing — sometimes I had ideas that worked OK on paper but didn't in reality, and he'd sober me up when I was getting carried away with what the possibilities were, because John was always looking ahead to the mix and what would actually work."
There is a distinctively rich, colourful sound and style that filters through not just the Joe Boyd records but many other Sound Techniques recordings, to the extent that people have referred to it as the John Wood sound or the Sound Techniques sound. As with all the great studios in the era before excessive multitracking, the individual facets of a particular room gave each studio a unique sound, and the Sound Techniques live room certainly contributed to the great sounds it produced, with the high ceiling in the middle, the space under the office on the right-hand side that gave such a big string sound, and the sloping floor. The natural leakage between microphones would allow the room's character to come shining through.
John Wood and Pat Donaldson (standing) with singer-songwriter Allan Taylor (rear left) and drummer Dave Mattacks in the Sound Techniques control room."It did have a bit of an ambience to it. I think it made a difference, whereas most of the pop records of the era were done in much deader environments," says Livingston manager Jerry Boys, who moved to Sound Techniques as an engineer in 1968. "In a place like Sound Techniques or Livingston, you move your mics away and you get some space on it, so you can use that if you want to.
Even with close-miking, you'd think it wouldn't make a difference but it does!"
"With a medium-sized room that isn't too neutral, you can get a honk out of the room, which sometimes you like and sometimes you don't," says John Wood. "In a way, that one end of Sound Techniques, under the end opposite the control room — the low part of that coloured things, but it coloured them to your advantage, particularly the strings, which is why we got the string sound we got. You would never have expected to shove the strings in such a small area, but you could shove maybe 12 players in there and that space worked for you! It wouldn't work for you if you put a drum kit in there, because it would not be the right kind of coloration, but it did work really well for strings."
Just as the strings sounded great under the office, a band's rhythm section was almost always placed in the centre of the room under the high section of the ceiling, again using the particular idiosyncrasies of the old dairy to bring out the best in the sounds that ended up on tape.
Another factor in the unique sounds of many classic studios was their reverb, whether this came from echo chambers or echo plates. At Sound Techniques, John Wood used to spend a lot of time tweaking his EMT plates to perfection.
John Wood and Geoff Frost (right), 1978."They were certainly very nice plates," says Joe Boyd. "They certainly shaped my approach — I can't mix without an EMT now, really! Those plates were one of those mysteries that John looked after."
"We took a lot of trouble over them," says John Wood. "Again, studios are very much characterised by the sound of their reverb, or then they were, anyway. Empirically, echo plates were a bit eccentric because they would depend on how you set them up, they would depend on the weather, where they were — a hot or cold part of the building. Everybody had their own ways of messing about with these devices, and I spent a lot of time deciding how I wanted to use them at different ratios — you could put delay on them, and the sound would depend on what EQs you sent to them. You'd fiddle about with all the parameters, including the mechanical ones, until you got the sort of reverb that you wanted."
Bassist Rick Kemp was a regular player on Sound Techniques sessions.
Another vital ingredient in the great records made at the Chelsea studio was the quality of the musicians that were employed on the numerous sessions there, and this was no happy accident. Over the years, John Wood built up a close pool of musicians that he would regularly draft in for recording sessions, and tended to keep away from the usual suspects of the session-man circuit. If you take a look at the liner notes of LPs recorded at Sound Techniques during this period, you'll notice the same names cropping up again and again, including Dave Mattacks and Gerry Conway on drums, Danny Thompson, Dave Pegg and Pat Donaldson on bass, Richard Thompson, Jerry Donahue and Simon Nicol on guitars. These musicians knew each others' playing backwards, so when they turned up for a session, there was not only a great social cameraderie, there was also a musical telepathy. In this respect, you can draw likenesses to the house bands that US studios like Chess, Motown, Sun and Stax regularly used, helping to give their records their own unique sound. And just as with the great records produced in those great spaces, John's ethos was always to record as much as possible completely live. There was certainly no love lost between John Wood and the 'fixers' who still presided over many of the session men and women in the late '60s.
"We never used a fixer for a string section on the Nick Drake records," says John. "On his first record I rang the LSO, and I used to book all the strings that way. The others never sounded any good they'd be a lot of deadbeats who'd be out of the pit or whatever. The regular session musicians that you got in the '60s, or the early '60s anyway, were very jaded — they really were quite snooty, a lot of them, and so I never really got them in."
The atmosphere of Sound Techniques is something many of those who recorded there have talked about. It was laid-back and relaxed, with neither the clinical hospital-like feel of some studios, nor the indulgences of the rock-star lifestyle. The closest thing to luxury available was a couple of pints of ale at The Black Lion pub across the road.
One of the most famous Sound Techniques-built desks was the original Trident Studios console."There was absolutely no attempt to make it impressive or luxurious," Simon Nicol tells me. "It was functional. The concrete staircase and the galvanised hand rail could always have done with a lick of paint. It was clean, but in comparison to studios I came across later on, where some of the lobbies outdo five star-hotels — that was not the case with Sound Techniques. Function came above form, substance above style, and that was the ethos of the place. It was a very social business too — I suppose in other places you might have ploughed a natural division between the band and the staff, but when we did take a break to go to the pub, we all went out together! It was always just a very cool place to be."
"It was much funkier than places like CBS or Abbey Road, the bigger studios that people had spent lots of money on," says Dave Pegg, "but those studios never had very good ambiences as far as I was concerned. Sound Techniques was like coming home to us — and there was the cake shop next door and the pub opposite — I remember the pub opposite really well!"
"I can remember the feeling of the place," says Verity Adams, who worked at the studio in the '70s as Office Manager. "I just can remember the lovely atmosphere of the place, and that's what I think must have been partly responsible for the wonderful music that came out of the studio."
Above all, of course, the quality of those timeless Sound Techniques recordings also has to be credited to those that made it all happen: studio engineers Jerry Boys, Harry Davies, Victor Gamm and Roger Mayer, and of course, the two entrepreneurs who started it all, Geoff Frost and John Wood.
The Sound Techniques studio under the stewardship of John Wood and Geoff Frost came to a sad end in 1974 after the lease ran out. The existing landlords wanted to sell the building but Geoff and John could not raise the finance necessary to meet the (then) high valuation of £120,000 that had been put on the property, and were unable to find an alternative space that was both viable and affordable. This, combined with the fact that the pair could see that the record industry was entering a period of decline, led them to take the difficult decision to opt out. John Wood continued in the music industry, becoming a successful freelance engineer and producer, while Geoff Frost continued to use the Sound Techniques name to run a burgeoning software development house. The Chelsea studio freehold was bought by Olympic, who continued to run it as a going concern until the early '80s, when it was eventually sold off and converted into executive flats.
However, the magic of the place will always live on through the records it helped create, and there's little doubt that the musicians who had the good fortune to record at Sound Techniques during its decade-long heyday will always hold onto their fond memories.
"The '60s was a very different time, a very special time," remembers Robin Williamson of the Incredible String Band. "Especially in London, the whole city had an atmosphere and a magic about it a Peter Pan kind of Neverneverland. It was just very surreal, and Sound Techniques was very much a part of that."
At Levy's Sound studio, Geoff Frost had designed and built a raft of equipment and, aside from engineering sessions, had developed the technical skills and understanding that would enable him to design and build mixing desks not only for Sound Techniques but for studios across the world. Again, there was no grand design to move into equipment manufacturing:
John and Geoff simply did not have the finance to purchase a desk from anyone else in 1964.
The Sound Techniques team take their System 12 for a seaside outing."We never started out to manufacture mixers for anyone other than ourselves," laughs Geoff. "It came as a bit of a surprise when people saw the first desk at Chelsea and said, 'Cor, this sounds great, can you make one for us?'"
The desks that Geoff designed for Sound Techniques would also help characterise the sound of the records made at Chelsea and, of course, later on at the other studios they supplied.
Trident and De Lane Lea (at both Kingsway and Wembley) bought a succession of Sound Techniques mixers over the years, as did Sunset Sound and Elektra Studios in California. Initially, these desks were made in the little office in the studio above where the string sections used to be placed.
"We were making mixers up there," says John, "And as soon as the red light went on, it meant stop drilling and hacking about and hammering, and there were two or three people working up there!"
The Mildenhall factory unit where the Sound Techniques System 12 desk was assembled. The biggest manufacturing success came in 1969 when Geoff and John collaborated to design and build the System 12, arguably the world's first compact mixing console. Forty or so of these desks were sold, and effectively mass-produced at a small factory in Mildenhall, Suffolk. The idea for the System 12 came during a brief beverage stop on the A1.
"It must have been about '69, and I remember John Wood and I were sitting in a very early forerunner of the Little Chef in Hatfield coming back to Suffolk from London," recalls Geoff.
"It was pissing down with rain, we were fed up, so we went in for a cup of tea, and I was moaning about the fact that every time we made a mixer, it was me who had to go and install it and lie on my back with hot solder falling in my face. So we were talking about this, and also about the fact we felt that the potential market for the A-range was becoming largely saturated, so I said 'I think we should build a smaller desk that we can virtually mass-produce as a complete unit. It could have a patchbay in it, and after it leaves the factory and it gets to the studio, all they need to do is plug their mics in!' I remember John having to continuously go up to the waitress to get more napkins, which he used to sketch out his ideas and functionality, and I used to sketch out my ideas for the circuitry. By the Monday morning I had the drawings for a prototype!"
Sound Techniques equipment and modules are now extremely scarce, and when they are discovered they change hands for vast sums of money. The technical secrets that Geoff implanted into each mic amp and circuit board have helped secure Sound Techniques gear a reputation for being some of the finest ever made.
John Wood in the Sound Techniques control room, you're a fan of British '60s and '70s music, particularly psychedelic folk and folk-rock, you'll no doubt be familiar with a little tagline gracing the liner notes of some of your favourite records: "Recorded at Sound Techniques, Chelsea". John Cale, Nick Drake, Fairport Convention, Incredible String Band, Jethro Tull, John Martyn, Pentangle, Pink Floyd, Richard Thompson, Sandy Denny and Steeleye Span were just a few of the luminaries to grace this unassuming but hugely important English recording studio.
The early '60s was a time when the majority of studios in London had a reputation for being stuffy and oppressive: manned and administered by scientists in brown lab coats, who had little interest in the 'nasty' guitar music that had so rudely thrust itself upon them. But by the middle of the decade, these studios' dominance was being eroded by a handful of hip new young independents, bristling with young, enthusiastic engineers and producers with as much passion for popular music as the musicians they were recording. By the end of the '60s, Sound Techniques had firmly established itself as one of London's finest studios, drawing in anyone who cared about the quality of their recordings. Just take a listen to Nick Drake's Bryter Later or Judy Collins' In My Life and you'll know exactly what we're talking about when we refer to the unique 'Sound Techniques sound'.
Sound Techniques was the brainchild of Geoff Frost and John Wood, who in mid-1964 were both working at Levy's Sound Studio in New Bond Street, a very busy 'jobbing' studio where they spent much of their time producing 'copycat' versions of current hits for Woolworths' budget Embassy label, as well as laying down tracks for proprietor Morris Levy's own Oriole label. Geoff had been Chief Engineer at the studios since 1959, while John had joined the technical staff in '62. Their decision to start their own venture was partly due to the fact that they wanted to be their own bosses and partly because Morris Levy had just sold out to US giant CBS records, leaving the pair with some uncertainty about their future employment.
As was often the case with the music industry in the '60s, there was no grand design or meticulous planning involved in their decision.
"We decided we'd start a recording studio," John Wood tells me, "and with that wonderful ignorance-is-bliss mentality and impetuousness of youth, we thought we'd just get on and do it and do a better job than Levy's so Geoff left in the September of 1964 and started looking for premises, and that was it!"
The variety of different skills that Geoff, then 28, and John, 24, brought to the table helped ensure that Sound Techniques had an excellent grounding for future success. In his role as Chief Engineer at Levy's, Geoff had taken the lead technical role building and maintaining the equipment in addition to engineering sessions. John, meanwhile, had previously plied his trade in the cutting room of Decca Records prior to his move to Levy's, training his acute ear through many hours working with their classical catalogue.
The finance for the venture came via Geoff's savings and a loan from Barclays Bank, and the company was duly registered at Companies House in December 1964, after a name had been decided upon during a swift but inspired telephone conversation between the two entrepreneurs.
"Geoff rang me up from Peter Godfrey's office, who was our solicitor, saying, 'We've got to have a name for the company!'," laughs John, "and I'm sitting in the control room at Levy's, and there's a Pultec on the rack and an Altec compressor and I see Pulse Techniques underneath Pultec so I said, 'Well, what about Sotec or Sound Techniques?' and that's literally where our name came from. And it was a great name! The biggest mistake we made was not registering it across the world!"
As far as the studio premises go, Geoff and John already knew the kind of thing they should be looking for following Geoff's visit to the United States in '64.
"I got on a plane to Nashville to look at the American studios, to find out why they got so much better sounds than the English studios," Geoff tells me. "There was an incredible difference in the sound. American stuff was open, it was loud — the stuff from British studios was very sort of twee and dull. The sound coming out of America, particularly from Bradley's, really impressed me personally. So the first thing I did when we got off the plane was, after finding a hotel, I knocked on Bradley's door and said, 'I'm a chief engineer from London, is it possible for your chief engineer to show me round?' and they said, 'Well, of course!' And Bradley's was by the far the most impressive studio I saw and just the kind of studio that John and I wanted to build. It wasn't full of deadening materials like English studios were — with English studios the idea was to make everything as dead as possible, but Bradley's just had a very minimal acoustic treatment with a very high ceiling. They also had very minimal equipment. In order to make the English sound more and more American, English studios were buying up more and more equipment. But Bradley's had a very simple desk — I think it was an ex-broadcast desk, a Bendix or a Gates or something like that, and they had outboard EQs — they had Langevins, and all the Langevins were locked in at 3k 8dB boost position and left there!"
These deceptively straightforward lessons would be an important influence on the Sound Techniques story.
After months of trawling estate agents and trudging the streets of the capital, Geoff finally found a building with some potential. Situated near to Chelsea's King's Road and hiding down the end of a small alley, 46a Old Church Street was part of an early 19th-century dairy. Part of the ground floor belonged to a pottery, while the other part of the ground floor and the first and second floors were both available to lease. The deal Geoff and John negotiated included a clause giving them permission to remove part of the second floor to give them the height they required to get a 'Bradley's type sound'. A team of Polish builders was duly set to work to knock out the middle section, leaving the left and right sections in situ to be developed into the control room and an office respectively, both of which would be accessed by separate staircases leading from the live room. An eighth of an inch of asphalt was laid on the floor to dampen the sound to an extent — another Nashville tip — then covered with carpet, although the original gradual slope from the dairy days was left as it was, possibly contributing to the room's sound once they commenced recording. The time now came for a minimal amount of acoustic treatment.
"We cleaned the place up, put double glazing in where it was convenient to, where it wasn't convenient we didn't bother," says Geoff. "As far as acoustics go, John and I went around clapping our hands, and we'd say, 'Ooh, we need something up there!' but bearing in mind we were so short of money, we did as little as possible! Underneath the office, we left the old-fashioned lath-and-plaster ceiling, which did great things for strings."
The first mixer to bear the Sound Techniques name was custom-built by Geoff Frost and John Wood, and sold in order to fund the building of a desk for the studio the construction work had been completed, it was time to build the first Sound Techniques mixing desk. At this point, John Wood also left Levy's, and he and Geoff spent the next few months building the mixer in the middle of the studio's live room (see 'Sound Techniques Consoles' box). With regard to other equipment, John and Geoff were again limited by their rapidly disappearing budget, so they opted to build as much as they could themselves. They could not afford complete Ampex tape machines, so they managed to negotiate a deal in which they bought just the decks, leaving Geoff to build the electronics for three machines — one two-track, one four-track and one mono — which they housed in second-hand consoles purchased at the BBC's redundant equipment stores in Chiswick. Geoff also built four monitor speakers using a design from electronics bible the Audio Encyclopaedia and housed them in a single cabinet to "make things more rigid". The monitor speakers would change progressively as the studio's fortunes improved, and in 1968, as more 'rocky' artistes began to filter through the doors, the studio underwent a revamp, including the installation of an eight-channel desk designed by Geoff and more sophisticated acoustic treatments to make things a little less 'live'.
However, John and Geoff did splash some cash on an EMI limiter, a couple of Altec compressors and a slew of top-quality microphones including Neumann 67s, KM56s, KM54s, AKG D19s and an RCA ribbon. The studio would later move to 16-track and ultimately 24-track by the mid-'70s, and other later purchases included Neumann U47 microphones and Fairchild 660 limiters.
As far as reverb was concerned, John's preference was to buy an EMT plate but their funds had almost run dry, so the pair opted to use what little spare space they had to build an acoustic echo chamber by the front door out of a pre-fab garage kit of parts. But aside from the fact that it was a very small space, it also filled with water whenever it rained heavily so, not surprisingly, as soon as they could afford it they bought their first EMT.
Happy with how the studio was sounding after a few demo sessions, the two men decided that it was time to open for business — but London's music-biz fraternity was not exactly beating the doors down in anticipation.
"We put one advert in Kemp's music directory, which cost a bloody fortune, but we never had a single enquiry!" recalls Geoff. "We were sitting around waiting for the phone to ring for weeks and it didn't ring. In the end, I think we were about three days away from going bankrupt and the phone rang, and it was Frank Barber, who did all John Schroeder's arrangements at Levy's. He said, 'I've got a client who's looking for a studio. He wants to book it for four days a week for about four months and I can't find anywhere where we can get in!' so I said to Frank, 'All right Frank, just let me look at the diary!', and I did actually get the diary out and looked at all these blank pages — and I said, 'Well, Frank, I think we can probably move things around a little!'"
The client turned out to be prolific classical soundtrack composer Phil Green, who had been contracted by 3M to produce around a staggering 2000 tracks of soft orchestral 'elevator music' that they were planning to market with a new cassette-based system they had developed for retail outlets and hotels. Sound Techniques got the gig, and John and Geoff were left thanking the gods, although the first day's recording didn't go quite as planned.
A plan view of the layout of Sound Techniques. The control room and workshop were upstairs, leaving the central part of the live area with a high ceiling. "The interesting thing was that we'd always thought that we would put the strings in the middle of the room, where we had twice the ceiling height, and that they would sound good there," says John, "and we thought we'd put the rhythm section at the end under the office. On what must have been the first day of the Phil Green sessions, we put the strings in the middle, the rhythm under the office and I think we probably had brass as well under the control room — and it just didn't work. They complained they couldn't hear, they couldn't hear the rhythm and they couldn't hear this so we had to change the whole thing round and we ended up with the rhythm in the middle, the brass one end, and the strings under the office — and it worked fine!
Afterwards, that became our standard setup and the interesting thing was that the low end of the studio, where we would put the string section, had a sort of natural resonance around 500-700 Hz or something, and you would get this really big string sound from a small section. That was one of the things that I suppose we were quite lucky with or famed for in latter years the string sounds on the Nick Drake records people are always going on about!"
The Phil Green sessions proved to be a turning point for Sound Techniques Ltd and the work began to trickle in, largely because potential clients were so impressed by the tapes they heard. By this time, the company had also received orders from other studios for mixing desks, so Geoff immersed himself in console manufacturing in the upstairs office-cum-workshop while John settled into the role he would fill until the mid-'70s: Sound Techniques Studio Manager.
The original Sound Techniques 'Chelsea' mixer built by Frost and Wood, in the control even more significant turning point came when Elektra Records began booking time at the studio. Sound Techniques was recommended to the US label by mutual friend and EMI engineer Malcolm Addey. The first Elektra recordings to be made at Sound Techniques were two orchestral concept albums based around the signs of the zodiac and the sea, which John engineered with producer Mort Gamson. Elektra had decided to record in England for the same reason that 3M had opted to with their 'elevator music': British string players were both cheaper and of a higher quality than their American contemporaries. At the end of one of these sessions, the musicians needed paying, so Elektra head honcho Jac Holzman instructed his UK Office Manager to go down to Chelsea loaded with the lucre. The manager's name was Joe Boyd.
It would be the records that Joe worked on with John Wood for both Elektra and, later on, Joe's Witchseason Productions company that would first expose the Sound Techniques sound to the music-listening masses. Wood and Boyd immediately hit it off during Joe's first visit in early 1966. The early projects they worked on together were quickly recorded, straight-to-master-tape recordings of artists such as Alisdair Clayre, Martin Carthy and Dave Swarbrick, and the first Incredible String Band album. It would be during the recording of this latter record that the two became very close, and their relationship both in the live room and the control room would later bring the best out of Sandy Denny, Nick Drake, Fairport Convention, Pink Floyd and Richard Thompson, to name but a few. The way they worked was in no way your typical engineer/producer relationship — they worked in partnership.
"In some ways, some people found it a curious relationship, but for me it's the way I like to work with anybody, really," explains Joe Boyd. "I get nervous if I feel people are pulling their punches around me — you know, if someone disagrees with what I want to do, I want to hear about it and then at least I can make up my own mind. I want as much information as I can get, and John is very gruff and ready to speak his mind. He never suffer fools gladly and he's never shy of voicing an opinion. I find that a very good way to work because I want to know what he thinks of everything I'm doing — sometimes I had ideas that worked OK on paper but didn't in reality, and he'd sober me up when I was getting carried away with what the possibilities were, because John was always looking ahead to the mix and what would actually work."
There is a distinctively rich, colourful sound and style that filters through not just the Joe Boyd records but many other Sound Techniques recordings, to the extent that people have referred to it as the John Wood sound or the Sound Techniques sound. As with all the great studios in the era before excessive multitracking, the individual facets of a particular room gave each studio a unique sound, and the Sound Techniques live room certainly contributed to the great sounds it produced, with the high ceiling in the middle, the space under the office on the right-hand side that gave such a big string sound, and the sloping floor. The natural leakage between microphones would allow the room's character to come shining through.
John Wood and Pat Donaldson (standing) with singer-songwriter Allan Taylor (rear left) and drummer Dave Mattacks in the Sound Techniques control room."It did have a bit of an ambience to it. I think it made a difference, whereas most of the pop records of the era were done in much deader environments," says Livingston manager Jerry Boys, who moved to Sound Techniques as an engineer in 1968. "In a place like Sound Techniques or Livingston, you move your mics away and you get some space on it, so you can use that if you want to.
Even with close-miking, you'd think it wouldn't make a difference but it does!"
"With a medium-sized room that isn't too neutral, you can get a honk out of the room, which sometimes you like and sometimes you don't," says John Wood. "In a way, that one end of Sound Techniques, under the end opposite the control room — the low part of that coloured things, but it coloured them to your advantage, particularly the strings, which is why we got the string sound we got. You would never have expected to shove the strings in such a small area, but you could shove maybe 12 players in there and that space worked for you! It wouldn't work for you if you put a drum kit in there, because it would not be the right kind of coloration, but it did work really well for strings."
Just as the strings sounded great under the office, a band's rhythm section was almost always placed in the centre of the room under the high section of the ceiling, again using the particular idiosyncrasies of the old dairy to bring out the best in the sounds that ended up on tape.
Another factor in the unique sounds of many classic studios was their reverb, whether this came from echo chambers or echo plates. At Sound Techniques, John Wood used to spend a lot of time tweaking his EMT plates to perfection.
John Wood and Geoff Frost (right), 1978."They were certainly very nice plates," says Joe Boyd. "They certainly shaped my approach — I can't mix without an EMT now, really! Those plates were one of those mysteries that John looked after."
"We took a lot of trouble over them," says John Wood. "Again, studios are very much characterised by the sound of their reverb, or then they were, anyway. Empirically, echo plates were a bit eccentric because they would depend on how you set them up, they would depend on the weather, where they were — a hot or cold part of the building. Everybody had their own ways of messing about with these devices, and I spent a lot of time deciding how I wanted to use them at different ratios — you could put delay on them, and the sound would depend on what EQs you sent to them. You'd fiddle about with all the parameters, including the mechanical ones, until you got the sort of reverb that you wanted."
Bassist Rick Kemp was a regular player on Sound Techniques sessions.
Another vital ingredient in the great records made at the Chelsea studio was the quality of the musicians that were employed on the numerous sessions there, and this was no happy accident. Over the years, John Wood built up a close pool of musicians that he would regularly draft in for recording sessions, and tended to keep away from the usual suspects of the session-man circuit. If you take a look at the liner notes of LPs recorded at Sound Techniques during this period, you'll notice the same names cropping up again and again, including Dave Mattacks and Gerry Conway on drums, Danny Thompson, Dave Pegg and Pat Donaldson on bass, Richard Thompson, Jerry Donahue and Simon Nicol on guitars. These musicians knew each others' playing backwards, so when they turned up for a session, there was not only a great social cameraderie, there was also a musical telepathy. In this respect, you can draw likenesses to the house bands that US studios like Chess, Motown, Sun and Stax regularly used, helping to give their records their own unique sound. And just as with the great records produced in those great spaces, John's ethos was always to record as much as possible completely live. There was certainly no love lost between John Wood and the 'fixers' who still presided over many of the session men and women in the late '60s.
"We never used a fixer for a string section on the Nick Drake records," says John. "On his first record I rang the LSO, and I used to book all the strings that way. The others never sounded any good they'd be a lot of deadbeats who'd be out of the pit or whatever. The regular session musicians that you got in the '60s, or the early '60s anyway, were very jaded — they really were quite snooty, a lot of them, and so I never really got them in."
The atmosphere of Sound Techniques is something many of those who recorded there have talked about. It was laid-back and relaxed, with neither the clinical hospital-like feel of some studios, nor the indulgences of the rock-star lifestyle. The closest thing to luxury available was a couple of pints of ale at The Black Lion pub across the road.
One of the most famous Sound Techniques-built desks was the original Trident Studios console."There was absolutely no attempt to make it impressive or luxurious," Simon Nicol tells me. "It was functional. The concrete staircase and the galvanised hand rail could always have done with a lick of paint. It was clean, but in comparison to studios I came across later on, where some of the lobbies outdo five star-hotels — that was not the case with Sound Techniques. Function came above form, substance above style, and that was the ethos of the place. It was a very social business too — I suppose in other places you might have ploughed a natural division between the band and the staff, but when we did take a break to go to the pub, we all went out together! It was always just a very cool place to be."
"It was much funkier than places like CBS or Abbey Road, the bigger studios that people had spent lots of money on," says Dave Pegg, "but those studios never had very good ambiences as far as I was concerned. Sound Techniques was like coming home to us — and there was the cake shop next door and the pub opposite — I remember the pub opposite really well!"
"I can remember the feeling of the place," says Verity Adams, who worked at the studio in the '70s as Office Manager. "I just can remember the lovely atmosphere of the place, and that's what I think must have been partly responsible for the wonderful music that came out of the studio."
Above all, of course, the quality of those timeless Sound Techniques recordings also has to be credited to those that made it all happen: studio engineers Jerry Boys, Harry Davies, Victor Gamm and Roger Mayer, and of course, the two entrepreneurs who started it all, Geoff Frost and John Wood.
The Sound Techniques studio under the stewardship of John Wood and Geoff Frost came to a sad end in 1974 after the lease ran out. The existing landlords wanted to sell the building but Geoff and John could not raise the finance necessary to meet the (then) high valuation of £120,000 that had been put on the property, and were unable to find an alternative space that was both viable and affordable. This, combined with the fact that the pair could see that the record industry was entering a period of decline, led them to take the difficult decision to opt out. John Wood continued in the music industry, becoming a successful freelance engineer and producer, while Geoff Frost continued to use the Sound Techniques name to run a burgeoning software development house. The Chelsea studio freehold was bought by Olympic, who continued to run it as a going concern until the early '80s, when it was eventually sold off and converted into executive flats.
However, the magic of the place will always live on through the records it helped create, and there's little doubt that the musicians who had the good fortune to record at Sound Techniques during its decade-long heyday will always hold onto their fond memories.
"The '60s was a very different time, a very special time," remembers Robin Williamson of the Incredible String Band. "Especially in London, the whole city had an atmosphere and a magic about it a Peter Pan kind of Neverneverland. It was just very surreal, and Sound Techniques was very much a part of that."
At Levy's Sound studio, Geoff Frost had designed and built a raft of equipment and, aside from engineering sessions, had developed the technical skills and understanding that would enable him to design and build mixing desks not only for Sound Techniques but for studios across the world. Again, there was no grand design to move into equipment manufacturing:
John and Geoff simply did not have the finance to purchase a desk from anyone else in 1964.
The Sound Techniques team take their System 12 for a seaside outing."We never started out to manufacture mixers for anyone other than ourselves," laughs Geoff. "It came as a bit of a surprise when people saw the first desk at Chelsea and said, 'Cor, this sounds great, can you make one for us?'"
The desks that Geoff designed for Sound Techniques would also help characterise the sound of the records made at Chelsea and, of course, later on at the other studios they supplied.
Trident and De Lane Lea (at both Kingsway and Wembley) bought a succession of Sound Techniques mixers over the years, as did Sunset Sound and Elektra Studios in California. Initially, these desks were made in the little office in the studio above where the string sections used to be placed.
"We were making mixers up there," says John, "And as soon as the red light went on, it meant stop drilling and hacking about and hammering, and there were two or three people working up there!"
The Mildenhall factory unit where the Sound Techniques System 12 desk was assembled. The biggest manufacturing success came in 1969 when Geoff and John collaborated to design and build the System 12, arguably the world's first compact mixing console. Forty or so of these desks were sold, and effectively mass-produced at a small factory in Mildenhall, Suffolk. The idea for the System 12 came during a brief beverage stop on the A1.
"It must have been about '69, and I remember John Wood and I were sitting in a very early forerunner of the Little Chef in Hatfield coming back to Suffolk from London," recalls Geoff.
"It was pissing down with rain, we were fed up, so we went in for a cup of tea, and I was moaning about the fact that every time we made a mixer, it was me who had to go and install it and lie on my back with hot solder falling in my face. So we were talking about this, and also about the fact we felt that the potential market for the A-range was becoming largely saturated, so I said 'I think we should build a smaller desk that we can virtually mass-produce as a complete unit. It could have a patchbay in it, and after it leaves the factory and it gets to the studio, all they need to do is plug their mics in!' I remember John having to continuously go up to the waitress to get more napkins, which he used to sketch out his ideas and functionality, and I used to sketch out my ideas for the circuitry. By the Monday morning I had the drawings for a prototype!"
Sound Techniques equipment and modules are now extremely scarce, and when they are discovered they change hands for vast sums of money. The technical secrets that Geoff implanted into each mic amp and circuit board have helped secure Sound Techniques gear a reputation for being some of the finest ever made.
Wednesday, 21 December 2016
5 Stereo Mic Techniques For Acoustic Guitar (Or ANY Acoustic Instrument)
If you record acoustic guitar , then chances are you've either played around with stereo recording or at least thought about it. But maybe you're not sure which techniques to use and the pros and cons of each.
I think I can help.
I've recorded acoustic guitar more than any other instrument, so I've spent countless hours of quality time with my guitar and a pair of microphones. And I've gotten pretty good at getting great acoustic guitar tone.
What is stereo recording?
Stereo recording is simply using two microphones to capture a two-channel stereo” image of the source. By panning the signals left and right, you can create a sense of space and width and depth, simply by using two microphones instead of one.
Stereo mic techniques can be applied to any acoustic instrument - drum overheads, piano, cello, upright bass, choirs. I've used these same stereo techniques on all these instruments.
So even if you don't record acoustic guitar, keep reading. These techniques apply to all kinds of recording situations, and it's good to be familiar with them.
Mono recording (using only one microphone) is still very useful. There are plenty of times where I'll simply use one microphone on acoustic guitar, especially if it's for a bigger production where the guitar is playing a minor role. If the guitar is a big focus of the song, then I'll probably stereo-mic it.
Check out these two articles for more on stereo vs. mono recording:
1. XY
XY is oftentimes my go-to stereo technique. Why? Because it doesn't lend itself to phase issues. Phase issues can occur when multiple microphones pick up the same source. If the microphones are in different locations, then there's a chance they'll pick up the sound at different times.
Imagine taking two identical tracks in your DAW and delaying one by a few milliseconds. (Go try it if you've never done it.) What happens? Things start sounding thin. That's what happens when your two mics are out of phse.
With the XY technique, the mics are essentially at the same point in time, so any signal will hit both microphones at roughly the same time. It essentially gets rid of phase issues.
Pros - stereo image without any phase issues
Cons - not as wide” of an image as other techniques
2. ORTF
ORTF (it stands for some French phrase) is essentially taking the XY technique and flipping them outwards instead of inwards. The idea here is to create a recording that sounds very close to how the human ears hear.
The mics are approximately at the same distance and angle as our ears. On headphones, this technique sounds incredible. It's as if you're sitting in front of the guitar listening yourself. (For specific specs on ORTF, click here. )
Pros - realistic stereo field
3. Spaced Pair
Spaced pair is just like it sounds. You set up two microphones spaced out, facing the instrument. Spaced pair is the most susceptible to phase issues. I almost never get it right the first time. It requires a lot of attention and listening to get it right.
Spaced pair can give you a huge, wide sound, but only if you get the two mics in phase. The way I normally go about making sure they're in phase is to listen to the mics in mono. I'll pan both tracks to the center, and move the mics around until the mono signal sounds nice and full. If the sound is missing a lot of bass and sounds phasey, I know the mics aren't in phase yet.
Oftentimes just moving one mic a few inches will fix the problem. Once the mono signal sounds full and huge, you're ready. The stereo signal will be enormous. Be careful, though. If the guitarist moves or rotates a bit, you might be back out of phase again.
Pros - very wide sound
Cons - very susceptible to phase issues, center” isn't as clear
4. Over-the-Shoulder
Over-the-shoulder is a technique I've only used occasionally. Essentially you put a mono mic in front of the guitar and another mic over the neck pointing down. While this isn't a true” stereo technique, a lot of engineers use this as their default setup for recording acoustic guitar.
I find it to be a bit fickle. The front mic captures the body of the instrument, while the shoulder mic only captures the higher-end sound and pick noise. That means I can't really pan these very wide without it sounding funny.
It can give an interesting stereo image with lots of fret noise, if that's what the song needs.
Guitarists tend to like this technique because it sounds a lot like the guitar sounds to their ears when they're playing it.
Pros - if shoulder mic doesn't work, you can still use the front mic as a mono mic; grabs more finger/fret noise and air”
Cons - not really a L/R stereo technique, tends to capture a lot of pick noise, phase issues are still a concern
5. Mid-Side
Mid-side is the most complex technique, but it's pretty cool. The setup is one cardioid (or omni) microphone pointed at the guitar and another figure-8 microphone facing perpendicular to the first mic.
The mid mic gets recorded to its own track. The side mic gets recorded to TWO separate mono tracks (record the same signal to two tracks), panned left and right. Flip the phase on one of the tracks.
This allows you to adjust the width of the recording. The more you bring up the side tracks, the wider the sound. The more you bring up the mid mic, the more mono” the sound.
What's great about this is you can change the width after-the-fact. If you're mixing and wish the track was wider, you can make it happen. You can't do that with any other technique.
Like the XY technique, mid-side doesn't tend to have many phase issues, because the mic capsules are so close together. If your room is noisy or not very well treated acoustically, then this technique might not be for you, as the sid mic is picking up everything to the left and right of the guitar (your room).
Pros - very little phase issues, mono-compatible, adjustable width
Cons - more complex/confusing to set up, having too many choices may bog you down later, harder to ‘commit' to a sound
I think I can help.
I've recorded acoustic guitar more than any other instrument, so I've spent countless hours of quality time with my guitar and a pair of microphones. And I've gotten pretty good at getting great acoustic guitar tone.
What is stereo recording?
Stereo recording is simply using two microphones to capture a two-channel stereo” image of the source. By panning the signals left and right, you can create a sense of space and width and depth, simply by using two microphones instead of one.
Stereo mic techniques can be applied to any acoustic instrument - drum overheads, piano, cello, upright bass, choirs. I've used these same stereo techniques on all these instruments.
So even if you don't record acoustic guitar, keep reading. These techniques apply to all kinds of recording situations, and it's good to be familiar with them.
Mono recording (using only one microphone) is still very useful. There are plenty of times where I'll simply use one microphone on acoustic guitar, especially if it's for a bigger production where the guitar is playing a minor role. If the guitar is a big focus of the song, then I'll probably stereo-mic it.
Check out these two articles for more on stereo vs. mono recording:
1. XY
XY is oftentimes my go-to stereo technique. Why? Because it doesn't lend itself to phase issues. Phase issues can occur when multiple microphones pick up the same source. If the microphones are in different locations, then there's a chance they'll pick up the sound at different times.
Imagine taking two identical tracks in your DAW and delaying one by a few milliseconds. (Go try it if you've never done it.) What happens? Things start sounding thin. That's what happens when your two mics are out of phse.
With the XY technique, the mics are essentially at the same point in time, so any signal will hit both microphones at roughly the same time. It essentially gets rid of phase issues.
Pros - stereo image without any phase issues
Cons - not as wide” of an image as other techniques
2. ORTF
ORTF (it stands for some French phrase) is essentially taking the XY technique and flipping them outwards instead of inwards. The idea here is to create a recording that sounds very close to how the human ears hear.
The mics are approximately at the same distance and angle as our ears. On headphones, this technique sounds incredible. It's as if you're sitting in front of the guitar listening yourself. (For specific specs on ORTF, click here. )
Pros - realistic stereo field
3. Spaced Pair
Spaced pair is just like it sounds. You set up two microphones spaced out, facing the instrument. Spaced pair is the most susceptible to phase issues. I almost never get it right the first time. It requires a lot of attention and listening to get it right.
Spaced pair can give you a huge, wide sound, but only if you get the two mics in phase. The way I normally go about making sure they're in phase is to listen to the mics in mono. I'll pan both tracks to the center, and move the mics around until the mono signal sounds nice and full. If the sound is missing a lot of bass and sounds phasey, I know the mics aren't in phase yet.
Oftentimes just moving one mic a few inches will fix the problem. Once the mono signal sounds full and huge, you're ready. The stereo signal will be enormous. Be careful, though. If the guitarist moves or rotates a bit, you might be back out of phase again.
Pros - very wide sound
Cons - very susceptible to phase issues, center” isn't as clear
4. Over-the-Shoulder
Over-the-shoulder is a technique I've only used occasionally. Essentially you put a mono mic in front of the guitar and another mic over the neck pointing down. While this isn't a true” stereo technique, a lot of engineers use this as their default setup for recording acoustic guitar.
I find it to be a bit fickle. The front mic captures the body of the instrument, while the shoulder mic only captures the higher-end sound and pick noise. That means I can't really pan these very wide without it sounding funny.
It can give an interesting stereo image with lots of fret noise, if that's what the song needs.
Guitarists tend to like this technique because it sounds a lot like the guitar sounds to their ears when they're playing it.
Pros - if shoulder mic doesn't work, you can still use the front mic as a mono mic; grabs more finger/fret noise and air”
Cons - not really a L/R stereo technique, tends to capture a lot of pick noise, phase issues are still a concern
5. Mid-Side
Mid-side is the most complex technique, but it's pretty cool. The setup is one cardioid (or omni) microphone pointed at the guitar and another figure-8 microphone facing perpendicular to the first mic.
The mid mic gets recorded to its own track. The side mic gets recorded to TWO separate mono tracks (record the same signal to two tracks), panned left and right. Flip the phase on one of the tracks.
This allows you to adjust the width of the recording. The more you bring up the side tracks, the wider the sound. The more you bring up the mid mic, the more mono” the sound.
What's great about this is you can change the width after-the-fact. If you're mixing and wish the track was wider, you can make it happen. You can't do that with any other technique.
Like the XY technique, mid-side doesn't tend to have many phase issues, because the mic capsules are so close together. If your room is noisy or not very well treated acoustically, then this technique might not be for you, as the sid mic is picking up everything to the left and right of the guitar (your room).
Pros - very little phase issues, mono-compatible, adjustable width
Cons - more complex/confusing to set up, having too many choices may bog you down later, harder to ‘commit' to a sound
Sunday, 18 December 2016
7 Advanced Guitar Mixing Techniques For An Amazing Guitar Production Audio Issues
Building upon one of my older articles, Top 10 Guitar Mixing Techniques , here are even more tips and tricks to make your electric guitar sound better in your mix.
1. Long Release on Chords - For a longer, more sustained sound for chords, use a long release on your compressor. Think if it this way: the longer the release, the longer the sustain of the chords.
2. Fast Attack to Reduce String Sound - Compression is used to create shape, it's not just used to control the volume. A really fast attack really pushes down on the initial strum, resulting in a more pad-like sound.
If you combine a fast attack with a fast/medium release you'll end up with a chord that seems to wash over you, especially if you hit the chords(and your compressor) hard.
3. Re-amp if Needed - Re-amping means routing your performance from your DAW into an amp and recording it again. If you recorded a great performance through a guitar emulator and you're not satisfied with the sound, re-amping is a great way to give your electric guitar more depth. It's a perfect way to tweak a great performance that has a lackluster sound.
4. Cut at 800 Hz - I always seem to dip a little at 800 Hz, it takes the cheap sound away. Especially if I'm working with cheap guitars.
5. EQ the reverb - Reverb is the number one culprit when it comes to a muddy mix. This trick is applicable to any instrument, but make sure to filter out some of the low-end of your reverb send when mixing electric guitar. It'll still give your guitar space and depth, but without the unnecessary muddiness.
6. Use subgroups - If you're working with many similar guitar track, grouping them together makes mixing a lot easier. This is one of the most important advice I can give. It's simple but extremely important. Bus, route and group your tracks and suddenly your tracks become more manageable.
7. Use the Right Reverb - Take your time to go throw your reverbs. Choosing the right reverb depends on a lot of things: genre of music, speed of song, type of feel.
You can't get a large open vocal sound with a small jazzy -club preset. You're better off with a hall setting. Also, a fast rock song with a cathedral reverb is going to muddy up the mix immediately. So take your time to use the right reverbs for the song.
1. Long Release on Chords - For a longer, more sustained sound for chords, use a long release on your compressor. Think if it this way: the longer the release, the longer the sustain of the chords.
2. Fast Attack to Reduce String Sound - Compression is used to create shape, it's not just used to control the volume. A really fast attack really pushes down on the initial strum, resulting in a more pad-like sound.
If you combine a fast attack with a fast/medium release you'll end up with a chord that seems to wash over you, especially if you hit the chords(and your compressor) hard.
3. Re-amp if Needed - Re-amping means routing your performance from your DAW into an amp and recording it again. If you recorded a great performance through a guitar emulator and you're not satisfied with the sound, re-amping is a great way to give your electric guitar more depth. It's a perfect way to tweak a great performance that has a lackluster sound.
4. Cut at 800 Hz - I always seem to dip a little at 800 Hz, it takes the cheap sound away. Especially if I'm working with cheap guitars.
5. EQ the reverb - Reverb is the number one culprit when it comes to a muddy mix. This trick is applicable to any instrument, but make sure to filter out some of the low-end of your reverb send when mixing electric guitar. It'll still give your guitar space and depth, but without the unnecessary muddiness.
6. Use subgroups - If you're working with many similar guitar track, grouping them together makes mixing a lot easier. This is one of the most important advice I can give. It's simple but extremely important. Bus, route and group your tracks and suddenly your tracks become more manageable.
7. Use the Right Reverb - Take your time to go throw your reverbs. Choosing the right reverb depends on a lot of things: genre of music, speed of song, type of feel.
You can't get a large open vocal sound with a small jazzy -club preset. You're better off with a hall setting. Also, a fast rock song with a cathedral reverb is going to muddy up the mix immediately. So take your time to use the right reverbs for the song.
Thursday, 1 December 2016
Acoustic Guitar Recording Techniques
How to Mic Six-Strings Like a Pro
Three stereo miking secrets guaranteed to make your acoustic guitar tracks shine
Ask five engineers how they approach recording acoustic guitar, and you may very well get five different answers, if you get any at all, that is. While many factors influence an engineer's choice of recording techniques - the character of the instrument, the style of music, the player's personal tonal and dynamic signature, and the recording environment - some engineers prefer to keep their approaches a trade secret. But despite all the possible permutations of instrument, style, player, room, and ego, for most seasoned engineers the real secret to recording an acoustic guitar is stereo miking - plain and simple.
Sure, if it's just "spaciousness" you're after, you could record an acoustic guitar in mono and fold in some enthusiastic stereo processing. Or if you're hankering for a dramatically textured sound, you could try combining a microphone with an acoustic guitar pickup. If depth and accuracy are what matter most, however, you'll find that stereo recording with two microphones is an exceptionally reliable way to record full-bodied, realistic-sounding acoustic guitar tracks.
Let's take a look at three of the most popular techniques, and also examine the questions of microphone choice and mono-compatibility. As you'll find, stereo recording can be a complex art, since the interaction between the two mics will determine many aspects of the sound - including tone, image, and mono-compatibility. But like any art, you'll also find that practice makes perfect. So whip out those mics, pull out that guitar, and give these tips a try: You'll hear the difference.
Three Surefire Techniques
In most cases, you'll want to use a pair of cardioid (unidirectional) mics placed close to the instrument. Close-miking - approximately six to 12 inches from the guitar - is used in most pop and other contemporary recordings that feature acoustic guitar.
Cardioid mics are generally best used for close-miking guitar because they exhibit less bass proximity effect (or bass boost) than other directional types when placed close to the sound source. And we all know that acoustic guitars can sound boomy if miked incorrectly.
Let's explore three common approaches to stereo miking and acoustic guitar. Each of these techniques has been used on countless hit records. Be sure to check out the corresponding audio links, and of course, consider these as starting points for your own creativity. After you've mastered each one, feel free to experiment with your own variations on each method.
Spaced Pair, Version A
Two mics are placed apart from each other at the same approximate height, one pointing at the 12th fret of the guitar and the other at the bridge.
With this approach - as with any miking technique that uses two or more mics that are spaced apart from one another - always be sure to follow the "3-to-1 rule." According to this rule, the distance between two mics should be at least three times the distance between each mic and the sound source. This keeps phase cancellations to a minimum, resulting in a smoother sound that also translates well to mono. So, for instance, if you've got each mic seven inches from the guitar, the 3-to-1 rule mandates that you spread the two mics at least 21 inches apart from each other. (One of a few exceptions to the 3-to-1 rule is with the X-Y technique, as described below.)
Spaced Pair, Version B
Our second technique is a variation on the spaced pair. As in the setup above, one mic points to the 12th fret. The second mic, however, is hung from a mic stand at the performer's ear level, pointing down at either the bridge or at the strings just behind the soundhole. For example, if the performer is right-handed, this second mic would be placed over her right shoulder. (Once again, be sure to follow the 3-to-1 rule.)
You can also move this ear-level mic slightly out in front of the performer and angle it back towards the guitar (versus pointing straight down at the floor), for a brighter sound. This technique usually yields a more open - but thinner - sound than the simple spaced pair on a horizontal plane. Check out the links to hear the difference.
If you're not getting the sound you want with a spaced pair placement, try moving one or both microphones slightly to improve the timbre. Because spaced pair placement is subject to phase interference, moving one mic only an inch or two can dramatically change the sound. To learn more about how phase affects the timbre of stereo guitar tracks, go to the mono-compatibility link below.
The X-Y Technique
X-Y, or coincident-pair, is the no-brainer approach to stereo miking. If you follow these steps precisely, and are willing to move the mics around a bit to find the sweet spot, you'll find it's hard to make a bad recording. (That's assuming, of course, that your room, your mics, and the instrument - and, while we're making a checklist, the guitarist - are half-way decent.)
Place the two mics close together so that their capsules are almost touching. The rear ends of each mic are spread apart at an angle of a roughly 90 to 120 degrees. The result looks like a wide V shape, with one mic's capsule positioned directly above the other.
(The 3-to-1 rule doesn't apply to the X-Y technique because the two capsules are so close that sound waves arrive at both at essentially the same time, minimizing objectionable phase cancellations.)
To start, try placing the two mics opposite the 12th fret of the guitar. If you have a really nice sounding room to record in, try backing the mics up to a distance of one to two feet from the guitar. This will capture more room tone and yield a more natural sound. While the best-sounding position can depend upon the guitar, the room, or the mics, typically, placing the mics around seven inches in front of the guitar's 12th fret will tend to de-emphasize midrange frequencies. That's because one mic will be pointing in the direction of the bassy soundhole, and the other towards the top of the neck, an area rich in high frequencies.
As you experiment, you'll find that the X-Y miking produces a much narrower stereo image than the spaced-pair techniques. But you'll also hear how X-Y lends a smoother, warmer, and more natural sound to acoustic guitar.
Choosing the Right Mics
By definition, stereo miking requires a pair of microphones. Certain types of recording situations - such as chamber orchestra, or an acoustic jazz trio - demand extreme accuracy, and in these cases, it's highly desirable to have a matched pair of microphones. This means more than just two of the same model; it also calls for two mics that have been factory-certified to produce virtually identical frequency response. (Some, though not all, manufacturers sell matched-pair mics.)
Fortunately - unless you're, say, capturing an audiophile-quality classical guitar recording - you won't need a matched pair to record acoustic guitar tracks. In fact, you might not even need to use two of the same model of microphone (though if you do you'll get a more consistent timbre in each channel than if you had used two totally different mics). That said, rules are meant to be broken, so feel free to experiment by mixing and matching mic models. And like any musical instrument, every mic has its own sonic character, so try to get your hands on as many different models as possible and experiment.
Generally speaking, condenser mics are the right choice for acoustic guitar. As a group, they offer a far more detailed and realistic sound than dynamic mics. But before you choose a specific condenser, first decide what kind of sound you want. Small-diaphragm condensers (those with a diaphragm smaller than one-inch in diameter) generally offer a better transient response than their large-diaphragm cousins, producing a less colored, more detailed sound. For pop and country productions where guitar tracks will be tucked into dense arrangements with drums and bass guitar, small-diaphragm mics are often the best choice.
Many engineers consider the AKG C480B ($987 with the CK61-ULS capsule), Neumann KM184 ($729) and DPA 4011 ($2,190) to be among the best small-diaphragm condensers on the planet. (All list prices are in US$.) All three sport cardioid (unidirectional) patterns - meaning they tend to reject any sound that isn't directly in front of them - and sound awesome on acoustic guitar. (Cardioid response is also required for most stereo miking techniques, in order for the resulting recording to have a "left-to-right" soundstage.) AKG's C480B is a modular mic, meaning that you can interchange various capsules - each offering a different polar pattern - with the mic body that holds the internal preamp. This mic features a 70Hz high-pass (low-cut) filter, useful for rolling off unneeded low frequencies when recording acoustic guitar.
The Neumann KM184 exhibits an inherent low frequency roll-off at 200Hz, delivering guitar sounds free of low-end "boominess." DPA's 4011 mic - known prior to 1998 as the Brüel & Kjær (B&K) 4011 mic - features a 1dB roll-off in the midrange frequencies along with a 1dB rise between 10 and 15kHz. The result is a crisp, though not overly bright sound. This 4011 has treasured place in many mic lockers (including my own). Check out these links to hear the DPA 4011 on a Guild M20 acoustic guitar, with various mic placements.
There are plenty of other small-diaphragm, cardioid condensers on the market, many of which offer decent performance for a lot less scratch. Some better-known alternatives that other enginneers report good results with include Shure's SM81 ($530), AKG's C1000S ($297), and Audio-Technica's AT3528 ($259).
Large-diaphragm mics - those featuring diaphragms at least one inch in diameter - can also provide outstanding results when recording acoustic guitar. All other things being equal, these mics tend to offer a slower transient response than their small-diaphragm counterparts. This causes a slight de-emphasis in high-frequency detail and tends to give them a rounder, warmer sound - just the ticket for traditional jazz recordings and lean guitar/vocal arrangements. (It's this warmth that makes large-diaphragm mics so popular with vocals.)
The Lawson L47MP Tube Condenser ($1,995) sounds great on acoustic guitar for these applications. I've also used the Manley Reference Gold Tube Condenser ($5,500) with excellent results. On a budget but craving that large-diaphragm condenser sound? Some mics I have used with great results include the Rode NT2A, Studio Projects C3, and the Shure KSM32.
And what about a dedicated stereo microphone? These mics - such as Shure's VP88 and Rode NT5 - typically have a pair of cardioid capsules mounted in one housing. While they may be useful in certain applications, they're actually less flexible than a pair of independent mics - since their diaphragms are physically fixed relative to one another. In other words, if you want to try some of that mic-above-the-bridge, mic-above-the-fingerboard stuff, or any other interesting variations, you'll want a pair of mono mics.
Mono-Compatibility, EQ & Compression
Stereo-Miked Acoustic Guitar Tracks and Mono-Compatibility
When stereo tracks are collapsed to mono, the result can sound dramatically different from the original tracks. This is not only true of the listener's perception of the width of the stereo image and the discrete placement of different elements in a mix: Conversion to mono can also significantly change the timbre of individual instruments, especially if certain stereo miking techniques were used to record the original. (In rare cases, the instrument could even disappear from a mix, should the left and right signals be far enough out-of-phase to cancel each other out when combined to mono.)
True, in the last couple of decades - with AM radio's diminishing role as a music medium - mono-compatibility has become less of an issue. And in fact, some engineers prefer not to compromise their stereo tracks or limit their recording techniques to cater to the lowest common denominator. Still, many engineers choose to play it safe - ensuring that their miking (or other processing) techniques won't sound terrible if played back in mono. However you feel about this issue, you'll be able to make more informed choices on how to record if you know what the sonic repercussions will be for mono playback. So what exactly happens to stereo acoustic guitar tracks when they are collapsed to mono? The answer depends on what miking technique you use to record.
Spaced pair techniques generally pick up a high degree of uncorrelated signal for each track. That is, many frequency components on the left-panned track are more or less out-of-phase with corresponding frequencies on the right-panned track. (This still applies even if you use the 3-to-1 rule for mic placement.)
This is because each of the sound waves emanating from the guitar will arrive at each mic at a different time. Due to that time difference the mic will pick up the wave at a different phase of its cycle. When the stereo signal is collapsed to mono, the constructive and destructive interference of these out-of-phase components combine to emphasize and de-emphasize their corresponding frequencies. The resulting timbre can be markedly different from your carefully crafted stereo tracks and can play havoc with your mix. You might be able to compensate with EQ, but this might exacerbate the problem.
Tracks recorded with an X-Y technique are far less prone to phase problems. Since the capsules are placed so close together, the sound reaches both mics at roughly the same time. As a result, tracks recorded in X-Y stereo are much more mono-compatible than those recorded with a spaced pair.
A Word on EQ and Compression
Aside from the occasional use of a microphone's passive high-pass (bass roll-off) filter, I prefer not to add equalization to the signal I'm recording. You can never tell in advance exactly how yet-to-be-recorded tracks will interact with the guitar you're recording, so any processing you add during recording is just a guessing game. Since you'll probably need to make subsequent adjustments in timbre (and possibly dynamics) at mixdown, you should avoid processing the signal twice. Your tracks will sound more pristine if you hold off adding processing until you have a complete picture of how the tracks will fit together. Instead, if you're not getting the sound you want during soundcheck, move the mics around until the timbre sounds right.
If you want to experiment with EQ as you're tracking, you can record the music dry and add EQ on the monitor returns. This way, you can hear the results of the EQ without committing to it.
Though many engineers will compress an acoustic guitar during tracking, I usually don't like to do so. As with other broadband, percussive instruments, guitar can easily cause a compressor to pump (cause audible changes in level) if it's not set up exactly right. Once these amplitude modulation artifacts are on tape, they are all but impossible to remove. For this reason, I compress acoustic guitar tracks at mixdown - when I have multiple opportunities to get it right. For the money, the best compressor I have ever come across is the highly celebrated FMR Audio RNC Compressor At only $175, it simply can't be beat. In fact, it easily holds it's on with other compressors in the $1000 price range. The RNC, coupled with the FMR Audio RNP Preamp , has tracked some of the smoothest acoustic guitar I've recorded.
Three stereo miking secrets guaranteed to make your acoustic guitar tracks shine
Ask five engineers how they approach recording acoustic guitar, and you may very well get five different answers, if you get any at all, that is. While many factors influence an engineer's choice of recording techniques - the character of the instrument, the style of music, the player's personal tonal and dynamic signature, and the recording environment - some engineers prefer to keep their approaches a trade secret. But despite all the possible permutations of instrument, style, player, room, and ego, for most seasoned engineers the real secret to recording an acoustic guitar is stereo miking - plain and simple.
Sure, if it's just "spaciousness" you're after, you could record an acoustic guitar in mono and fold in some enthusiastic stereo processing. Or if you're hankering for a dramatically textured sound, you could try combining a microphone with an acoustic guitar pickup. If depth and accuracy are what matter most, however, you'll find that stereo recording with two microphones is an exceptionally reliable way to record full-bodied, realistic-sounding acoustic guitar tracks.
Let's take a look at three of the most popular techniques, and also examine the questions of microphone choice and mono-compatibility. As you'll find, stereo recording can be a complex art, since the interaction between the two mics will determine many aspects of the sound - including tone, image, and mono-compatibility. But like any art, you'll also find that practice makes perfect. So whip out those mics, pull out that guitar, and give these tips a try: You'll hear the difference.
Three Surefire Techniques
In most cases, you'll want to use a pair of cardioid (unidirectional) mics placed close to the instrument. Close-miking - approximately six to 12 inches from the guitar - is used in most pop and other contemporary recordings that feature acoustic guitar.
Cardioid mics are generally best used for close-miking guitar because they exhibit less bass proximity effect (or bass boost) than other directional types when placed close to the sound source. And we all know that acoustic guitars can sound boomy if miked incorrectly.
Let's explore three common approaches to stereo miking and acoustic guitar. Each of these techniques has been used on countless hit records. Be sure to check out the corresponding audio links, and of course, consider these as starting points for your own creativity. After you've mastered each one, feel free to experiment with your own variations on each method.
Spaced Pair, Version A
Two mics are placed apart from each other at the same approximate height, one pointing at the 12th fret of the guitar and the other at the bridge.
With this approach - as with any miking technique that uses two or more mics that are spaced apart from one another - always be sure to follow the "3-to-1 rule." According to this rule, the distance between two mics should be at least three times the distance between each mic and the sound source. This keeps phase cancellations to a minimum, resulting in a smoother sound that also translates well to mono. So, for instance, if you've got each mic seven inches from the guitar, the 3-to-1 rule mandates that you spread the two mics at least 21 inches apart from each other. (One of a few exceptions to the 3-to-1 rule is with the X-Y technique, as described below.)
Spaced Pair, Version B
Our second technique is a variation on the spaced pair. As in the setup above, one mic points to the 12th fret. The second mic, however, is hung from a mic stand at the performer's ear level, pointing down at either the bridge or at the strings just behind the soundhole. For example, if the performer is right-handed, this second mic would be placed over her right shoulder. (Once again, be sure to follow the 3-to-1 rule.)
You can also move this ear-level mic slightly out in front of the performer and angle it back towards the guitar (versus pointing straight down at the floor), for a brighter sound. This technique usually yields a more open - but thinner - sound than the simple spaced pair on a horizontal plane. Check out the links to hear the difference.
If you're not getting the sound you want with a spaced pair placement, try moving one or both microphones slightly to improve the timbre. Because spaced pair placement is subject to phase interference, moving one mic only an inch or two can dramatically change the sound. To learn more about how phase affects the timbre of stereo guitar tracks, go to the mono-compatibility link below.
The X-Y Technique
X-Y, or coincident-pair, is the no-brainer approach to stereo miking. If you follow these steps precisely, and are willing to move the mics around a bit to find the sweet spot, you'll find it's hard to make a bad recording. (That's assuming, of course, that your room, your mics, and the instrument - and, while we're making a checklist, the guitarist - are half-way decent.)
Place the two mics close together so that their capsules are almost touching. The rear ends of each mic are spread apart at an angle of a roughly 90 to 120 degrees. The result looks like a wide V shape, with one mic's capsule positioned directly above the other.
(The 3-to-1 rule doesn't apply to the X-Y technique because the two capsules are so close that sound waves arrive at both at essentially the same time, minimizing objectionable phase cancellations.)
To start, try placing the two mics opposite the 12th fret of the guitar. If you have a really nice sounding room to record in, try backing the mics up to a distance of one to two feet from the guitar. This will capture more room tone and yield a more natural sound. While the best-sounding position can depend upon the guitar, the room, or the mics, typically, placing the mics around seven inches in front of the guitar's 12th fret will tend to de-emphasize midrange frequencies. That's because one mic will be pointing in the direction of the bassy soundhole, and the other towards the top of the neck, an area rich in high frequencies.
As you experiment, you'll find that the X-Y miking produces a much narrower stereo image than the spaced-pair techniques. But you'll also hear how X-Y lends a smoother, warmer, and more natural sound to acoustic guitar.
Choosing the Right Mics
By definition, stereo miking requires a pair of microphones. Certain types of recording situations - such as chamber orchestra, or an acoustic jazz trio - demand extreme accuracy, and in these cases, it's highly desirable to have a matched pair of microphones. This means more than just two of the same model; it also calls for two mics that have been factory-certified to produce virtually identical frequency response. (Some, though not all, manufacturers sell matched-pair mics.)
Fortunately - unless you're, say, capturing an audiophile-quality classical guitar recording - you won't need a matched pair to record acoustic guitar tracks. In fact, you might not even need to use two of the same model of microphone (though if you do you'll get a more consistent timbre in each channel than if you had used two totally different mics). That said, rules are meant to be broken, so feel free to experiment by mixing and matching mic models. And like any musical instrument, every mic has its own sonic character, so try to get your hands on as many different models as possible and experiment.
Generally speaking, condenser mics are the right choice for acoustic guitar. As a group, they offer a far more detailed and realistic sound than dynamic mics. But before you choose a specific condenser, first decide what kind of sound you want. Small-diaphragm condensers (those with a diaphragm smaller than one-inch in diameter) generally offer a better transient response than their large-diaphragm cousins, producing a less colored, more detailed sound. For pop and country productions where guitar tracks will be tucked into dense arrangements with drums and bass guitar, small-diaphragm mics are often the best choice.
Many engineers consider the AKG C480B ($987 with the CK61-ULS capsule), Neumann KM184 ($729) and DPA 4011 ($2,190) to be among the best small-diaphragm condensers on the planet. (All list prices are in US$.) All three sport cardioid (unidirectional) patterns - meaning they tend to reject any sound that isn't directly in front of them - and sound awesome on acoustic guitar. (Cardioid response is also required for most stereo miking techniques, in order for the resulting recording to have a "left-to-right" soundstage.) AKG's C480B is a modular mic, meaning that you can interchange various capsules - each offering a different polar pattern - with the mic body that holds the internal preamp. This mic features a 70Hz high-pass (low-cut) filter, useful for rolling off unneeded low frequencies when recording acoustic guitar.
The Neumann KM184 exhibits an inherent low frequency roll-off at 200Hz, delivering guitar sounds free of low-end "boominess." DPA's 4011 mic - known prior to 1998 as the Brüel & Kjær (B&K) 4011 mic - features a 1dB roll-off in the midrange frequencies along with a 1dB rise between 10 and 15kHz. The result is a crisp, though not overly bright sound. This 4011 has treasured place in many mic lockers (including my own). Check out these links to hear the DPA 4011 on a Guild M20 acoustic guitar, with various mic placements.
There are plenty of other small-diaphragm, cardioid condensers on the market, many of which offer decent performance for a lot less scratch. Some better-known alternatives that other enginneers report good results with include Shure's SM81 ($530), AKG's C1000S ($297), and Audio-Technica's AT3528 ($259).
Large-diaphragm mics - those featuring diaphragms at least one inch in diameter - can also provide outstanding results when recording acoustic guitar. All other things being equal, these mics tend to offer a slower transient response than their small-diaphragm counterparts. This causes a slight de-emphasis in high-frequency detail and tends to give them a rounder, warmer sound - just the ticket for traditional jazz recordings and lean guitar/vocal arrangements. (It's this warmth that makes large-diaphragm mics so popular with vocals.)
The Lawson L47MP Tube Condenser ($1,995) sounds great on acoustic guitar for these applications. I've also used the Manley Reference Gold Tube Condenser ($5,500) with excellent results. On a budget but craving that large-diaphragm condenser sound? Some mics I have used with great results include the Rode NT2A, Studio Projects C3, and the Shure KSM32.
And what about a dedicated stereo microphone? These mics - such as Shure's VP88 and Rode NT5 - typically have a pair of cardioid capsules mounted in one housing. While they may be useful in certain applications, they're actually less flexible than a pair of independent mics - since their diaphragms are physically fixed relative to one another. In other words, if you want to try some of that mic-above-the-bridge, mic-above-the-fingerboard stuff, or any other interesting variations, you'll want a pair of mono mics.
Mono-Compatibility, EQ & Compression
Stereo-Miked Acoustic Guitar Tracks and Mono-Compatibility
When stereo tracks are collapsed to mono, the result can sound dramatically different from the original tracks. This is not only true of the listener's perception of the width of the stereo image and the discrete placement of different elements in a mix: Conversion to mono can also significantly change the timbre of individual instruments, especially if certain stereo miking techniques were used to record the original. (In rare cases, the instrument could even disappear from a mix, should the left and right signals be far enough out-of-phase to cancel each other out when combined to mono.)
True, in the last couple of decades - with AM radio's diminishing role as a music medium - mono-compatibility has become less of an issue. And in fact, some engineers prefer not to compromise their stereo tracks or limit their recording techniques to cater to the lowest common denominator. Still, many engineers choose to play it safe - ensuring that their miking (or other processing) techniques won't sound terrible if played back in mono. However you feel about this issue, you'll be able to make more informed choices on how to record if you know what the sonic repercussions will be for mono playback. So what exactly happens to stereo acoustic guitar tracks when they are collapsed to mono? The answer depends on what miking technique you use to record.
Spaced pair techniques generally pick up a high degree of uncorrelated signal for each track. That is, many frequency components on the left-panned track are more or less out-of-phase with corresponding frequencies on the right-panned track. (This still applies even if you use the 3-to-1 rule for mic placement.)
This is because each of the sound waves emanating from the guitar will arrive at each mic at a different time. Due to that time difference the mic will pick up the wave at a different phase of its cycle. When the stereo signal is collapsed to mono, the constructive and destructive interference of these out-of-phase components combine to emphasize and de-emphasize their corresponding frequencies. The resulting timbre can be markedly different from your carefully crafted stereo tracks and can play havoc with your mix. You might be able to compensate with EQ, but this might exacerbate the problem.
Tracks recorded with an X-Y technique are far less prone to phase problems. Since the capsules are placed so close together, the sound reaches both mics at roughly the same time. As a result, tracks recorded in X-Y stereo are much more mono-compatible than those recorded with a spaced pair.
A Word on EQ and Compression
Aside from the occasional use of a microphone's passive high-pass (bass roll-off) filter, I prefer not to add equalization to the signal I'm recording. You can never tell in advance exactly how yet-to-be-recorded tracks will interact with the guitar you're recording, so any processing you add during recording is just a guessing game. Since you'll probably need to make subsequent adjustments in timbre (and possibly dynamics) at mixdown, you should avoid processing the signal twice. Your tracks will sound more pristine if you hold off adding processing until you have a complete picture of how the tracks will fit together. Instead, if you're not getting the sound you want during soundcheck, move the mics around until the timbre sounds right.
If you want to experiment with EQ as you're tracking, you can record the music dry and add EQ on the monitor returns. This way, you can hear the results of the EQ without committing to it.
Though many engineers will compress an acoustic guitar during tracking, I usually don't like to do so. As with other broadband, percussive instruments, guitar can easily cause a compressor to pump (cause audible changes in level) if it's not set up exactly right. Once these amplitude modulation artifacts are on tape, they are all but impossible to remove. For this reason, I compress acoustic guitar tracks at mixdown - when I have multiple opportunities to get it right. For the money, the best compressor I have ever come across is the highly celebrated FMR Audio RNC Compressor At only $175, it simply can't be beat. In fact, it easily holds it's on with other compressors in the $1000 price range. The RNC, coupled with the FMR Audio RNP Preamp , has tracked some of the smoothest acoustic guitar I've recorded.
Sunday, 20 November 2016
Acoustic Guitar Techniques
Recording The Acoustic Guitar
While the acoustic guitar remains one of the most simple instruments by design, it also remains one of the hardest to get a great sound on in the studio. It's really not brain surgery, but knowing some of the basic laws of physics doesn't hurt. Unfortunately, I skipped school that day and didn't learn my physics, so I had to learn how to get a great acoustic guitar sound one mistake at a time. After making those mistakes, I sat down and formulated these laws which are considered to be the Ten Commandments of recording the acoustic guitar (by me anyway).
For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that if you're reading this, you own a 4 track, or an 8 track recorder, a fairly small console, some basic outboard equipment, and you don't own any $2,000 microphones. If you own 13 foot long console and a 48 track digital machine, you can skip this article because you probably know what I'm about to tell you.
Rule 1 • A condensor mic will almost always sound better than a dynamic mic for acoustic guitars. There are several condensor mics that are currently on the market in the $350 price range that sound great on acoustics.
Rule 2 • New strings will always sound better for recording than old.
Rule 3 • Skinny strings sound brighter than fat ones (can you believe I get paid to write crap like this?!)
Rule 4 • The sound you get has a great deal to do with the dynamics of the player.
Rule 5 • Get down on your knees and position your ear as if it were the microphone while somebody else is playing the guitar. Move your ear around to find "sweet spots". You'll learn more from that, than you will by reading this article. Don't try it with an electric guitar!
Rule 6 • If you have somebody that is assisting you on the session, have them move the mic around what you think will be the sweet spot while the player is practicing the part he or she is about to lay down. Have your assistant wear headphones so you can communicate with him while the moving of the mic is taking place.
Rule 7 • A limiter/compressor will almost always help you get a better sound.
Rule 8 • Don't believe everything you read. I only have seven commandments, not ten.
Let's get right to it. If the sound you want to get is a country/pop, strummed sound similar to the Eagles "Lyin' Eyes", here's the formula: Place the microphone about 6 to 8 inches from the guitar's sound hole, but angle the mic toward the area where the fretboard and the sound hole meet. If you point the mic directly into the sound hole, it will be very full - probably much too full, and very boomy. Use a compressor/limiter to knock down any peaks (3:1 ratio), and set the threshold a little lower to give it a slightly "squashed" or tighter sound. Set the threshold higher to just limit the peaks and give a more open sound. You may need to EQ out some boominess. If so, try rolling off some bottom (100Hz), or cutting a couple of db at 300Hz. To add some "silk" on the top end, try something in the 8-10K range, but be careful, to much will add noise to the track. Positioning the mic so it angles toward the pick will give more attack-less sweetness.
For that John Cougar Mellenkamp sound, try medium gauge strings, a little more compression, and try adding a little EQ around the mids - lets say 700Hz-1.2K. That will give you a sound that is a little more "woodsy" (a highly technical term).
"Ya, well what about Melissa Ethridge," you say. Try this on for size. Use a guitar with a built-in pick up and a microphone to boot. You will undoubtedly get some phase anomalies, but that's part of the sound. Experiment with moving the mic closer and farther. That will affect the phase relationship of the two sound sources. Sooner or later, you'll hit on something that will put a smile on your face. You can pan the two signals left and right to get a broad stereo sound, but make sure that if you check the sound in mono, that there's still some signal left. Keep an eagle ear on Mr. Phase, he can be a tricky bugger.
And now ladies and gentlemen, for the most often heard acoustic guitar sound at the 1993 Grammys it's that Eric Clapton classical/gut string guitar! Piece of cake. Once again, use a condensor mic, but place it about ten inches away from the guitar. As a matter of fact, try placing it about 3 to 4 inches up the neck, but aim it at the players picking fingers. This angle will reduce boominess by virtue of the mic's cardioid polar pattern producing a natural roll off when it's aimed off-axis, while simultaneously delivering the attack of the fingers. Try and say that three times in a row! The added distance will pick up some of the guitar body's resonance. A compressor/limiter is a must for this case because of unexpected peaks. A 4:1 ratio is a good place to start, but set the threshold fairly high so that the most of the guitar's natural dynamics are left in tact.
When mixing acoustics guitars for rock or alternative tracks, you will usually have an electric guitar or two in the track as well. My personal preference is to pan the acoustic and electric across from each other. Send one full left, and the other full right. You'll quickly discover that the electric will overpower the acoustic and the most effective way to even them out is to compress the acoustic a little bit more than what you may have already done going to tape so you can bring the acoustic's level up high enough to compete with the electric.
Another simple but effective trick is to have the acoustic and electric guitars play parts that counter each other rhythmically (giving them each their own space), and have them each play in a different octave. That will give you a full sounding track that remains open and airy at the same time. You can also make an acoustic guitar sound bigger or more rock-like by panning the original to one side and a delayed signal (short delays are best) of the same guitar to the other side. That effect can be taken one step further by using the pitch change option on your delay to "de-tune" one of the guitars just a pinch (one cent is a good place to start). The delay will provide the brain with the psychoacoustic information it needs to perceive the guitar as bigger, while the pitch change will make it appear "fatter."
Funny how fatter is always better in the world of recording, but not in the case of the human body. Just a tangential observation must be time to go.
While the acoustic guitar remains one of the most simple instruments by design, it also remains one of the hardest to get a great sound on in the studio. It's really not brain surgery, but knowing some of the basic laws of physics doesn't hurt. Unfortunately, I skipped school that day and didn't learn my physics, so I had to learn how to get a great acoustic guitar sound one mistake at a time. After making those mistakes, I sat down and formulated these laws which are considered to be the Ten Commandments of recording the acoustic guitar (by me anyway).
For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that if you're reading this, you own a 4 track, or an 8 track recorder, a fairly small console, some basic outboard equipment, and you don't own any $2,000 microphones. If you own 13 foot long console and a 48 track digital machine, you can skip this article because you probably know what I'm about to tell you.
Rule 1 • A condensor mic will almost always sound better than a dynamic mic for acoustic guitars. There are several condensor mics that are currently on the market in the $350 price range that sound great on acoustics.
Rule 2 • New strings will always sound better for recording than old.
Rule 3 • Skinny strings sound brighter than fat ones (can you believe I get paid to write crap like this?!)
Rule 4 • The sound you get has a great deal to do with the dynamics of the player.
Rule 5 • Get down on your knees and position your ear as if it were the microphone while somebody else is playing the guitar. Move your ear around to find "sweet spots". You'll learn more from that, than you will by reading this article. Don't try it with an electric guitar!
Rule 6 • If you have somebody that is assisting you on the session, have them move the mic around what you think will be the sweet spot while the player is practicing the part he or she is about to lay down. Have your assistant wear headphones so you can communicate with him while the moving of the mic is taking place.
Rule 7 • A limiter/compressor will almost always help you get a better sound.
Rule 8 • Don't believe everything you read. I only have seven commandments, not ten.
Let's get right to it. If the sound you want to get is a country/pop, strummed sound similar to the Eagles "Lyin' Eyes", here's the formula: Place the microphone about 6 to 8 inches from the guitar's sound hole, but angle the mic toward the area where the fretboard and the sound hole meet. If you point the mic directly into the sound hole, it will be very full - probably much too full, and very boomy. Use a compressor/limiter to knock down any peaks (3:1 ratio), and set the threshold a little lower to give it a slightly "squashed" or tighter sound. Set the threshold higher to just limit the peaks and give a more open sound. You may need to EQ out some boominess. If so, try rolling off some bottom (100Hz), or cutting a couple of db at 300Hz. To add some "silk" on the top end, try something in the 8-10K range, but be careful, to much will add noise to the track. Positioning the mic so it angles toward the pick will give more attack-less sweetness.
For that John Cougar Mellenkamp sound, try medium gauge strings, a little more compression, and try adding a little EQ around the mids - lets say 700Hz-1.2K. That will give you a sound that is a little more "woodsy" (a highly technical term).
"Ya, well what about Melissa Ethridge," you say. Try this on for size. Use a guitar with a built-in pick up and a microphone to boot. You will undoubtedly get some phase anomalies, but that's part of the sound. Experiment with moving the mic closer and farther. That will affect the phase relationship of the two sound sources. Sooner or later, you'll hit on something that will put a smile on your face. You can pan the two signals left and right to get a broad stereo sound, but make sure that if you check the sound in mono, that there's still some signal left. Keep an eagle ear on Mr. Phase, he can be a tricky bugger.
And now ladies and gentlemen, for the most often heard acoustic guitar sound at the 1993 Grammys it's that Eric Clapton classical/gut string guitar! Piece of cake. Once again, use a condensor mic, but place it about ten inches away from the guitar. As a matter of fact, try placing it about 3 to 4 inches up the neck, but aim it at the players picking fingers. This angle will reduce boominess by virtue of the mic's cardioid polar pattern producing a natural roll off when it's aimed off-axis, while simultaneously delivering the attack of the fingers. Try and say that three times in a row! The added distance will pick up some of the guitar body's resonance. A compressor/limiter is a must for this case because of unexpected peaks. A 4:1 ratio is a good place to start, but set the threshold fairly high so that the most of the guitar's natural dynamics are left in tact.
When mixing acoustics guitars for rock or alternative tracks, you will usually have an electric guitar or two in the track as well. My personal preference is to pan the acoustic and electric across from each other. Send one full left, and the other full right. You'll quickly discover that the electric will overpower the acoustic and the most effective way to even them out is to compress the acoustic a little bit more than what you may have already done going to tape so you can bring the acoustic's level up high enough to compete with the electric.
Another simple but effective trick is to have the acoustic and electric guitars play parts that counter each other rhythmically (giving them each their own space), and have them each play in a different octave. That will give you a full sounding track that remains open and airy at the same time. You can also make an acoustic guitar sound bigger or more rock-like by panning the original to one side and a delayed signal (short delays are best) of the same guitar to the other side. That effect can be taken one step further by using the pitch change option on your delay to "de-tune" one of the guitars just a pinch (one cent is a good place to start). The delay will provide the brain with the psychoacoustic information it needs to perceive the guitar as bigger, while the pitch change will make it appear "fatter."
Funny how fatter is always better in the world of recording, but not in the case of the human body. Just a tangential observation must be time to go.
Friday, 11 November 2016
10 Quick Tips & Techniques For Capturing
1. Tune up!
Slightly out-of-tune strings on a bass may not jump out as much as on guitar (especially in chords), but when that bass line is sitting under other parts in the mix, even slightly off-pitch notes will make their presence known, and sometimes be harder to track down (why does this song sound a little off”?). I'd use a tuner (h/w or s/w), but I'd also always verify by ear, before hitting record, and I'd check tuning periodically as the session progresses—just as with drums, hard players can easily put the instrument out after a few energetic takes.
2. Break in new strings ahead of time
Aside from tuning issues, new bass strings, especially roundwounds, can be very bright, and this may result in a lot of finger noise and fret buzz. If they're changed a day or two before the session, and the bass is played a bit to break them in, there may be less likelihood of problematic noise. In fact, while many players think of them as old-school, flatwounds can sometimes be the best choice, when a fat deep bass sound is called for—it's worth a thought.
3. Record Amp and DI
The easiest way to record bass is to just plug it straight into the console/interface—of course, using the correct instrument-level input or dedicated DI box, and not a standard line input. This will provide a nice, clean, deep tone, but it will likely lack the growl and grit that's often desired—for that, you'll want the sound of an amp. While you can always use a bass amp sim plug-in later, in the mix (see below), there's nothing like the pants-flapping wall of low-end sound coming out of a real bass amp, if one is available. But most engineers will record both—a DI'd signal, and a miked-up amp. They can be combined later on, for the best of both worlds—the clean, round, depth from the DI, with the edge and midrange punch of the amp (but see below, for a caveat).
4. Use an appropriate mic for bass.
If you are recording the output of a bass amp, try to use a mic that will capture more of the low-end than a typical stage mic. An SM57/58 will work, but a mic with a more extended low-frequency response would be a better choice. The Sennheiser 421 is often used, as is the classic kick drum mic, the AKG D112, which has a bumped-up response tuned specifically for low-pitched instruments. I prefer the Electro-Voice RE-20 (you know, the announcer's mic”)—it's more neutral, and it has an extended low-end response, so you'll get not just boom, but real depth.
5. Adjust phase of combined DI and miked-up bass tracks
If you do record the bass both via a DI and a miked-up cab, and combine them later, as suggested above, you'll want to pay attention to the relative phase of the two tracks. Even if the mic is placed very close (an inch or so) to the amp's speaker, that track will still be slightly delayed (on the order of milliseconds), due to that small distance, relative to the DI track.
Small delays like this can cause comb-filtering when the tracks are combined (at close to equal levels), which produces cancellations and reinforcements in the frequency spectrum that can impart a nasal, hollow, or slightly flangey” sound, weakening the tone. You can see the time difference if you line up the waves in the DAW and zoom way in. You can either advance the amp track (via editing) or delay the DI track (via editing or a plug-in) until the two line up—the resulting tone should be fuller, and ultimately sit better, with a more solid low end, in the mix.
6. Limit and/or compress
If ever there was a candidate for compression, bass is it. This instrument has a wide dynamic range (even more so when slap techniques are employed), but it usually needs to sit at a very steady level in the mix. But should compression be applied during recording, to control the levels going down, or later, during the mix, to insure the best blend in the track? Well, the answer is probably both, but with potentially different approaches to squashing the signal. During recording, a Limiter might be the ticket, to control transient peaks that might overload ADCs, producing pops and spikes that can ruin a take. A classic fast VCA compressor/limiter (like the dbx 160) could be employed to handle peaks, without really reducing the player's dynamics at this early stage. Then when mixdown rolls around, more gentle compression can be introduced (like the smooth squash of an optical compressor like the LA-2A), to tighten up the dynamics, as needed for that particular mix. Applying the right kind, and amount, of compression/limiting at all stages will assure you get nice clean recordings, that can be properly squeezed into the mix when the time comes.
7. Don't over-compress/limit
On the same topic, if you do apply some compression during recording, be careful not to overdo it. At this stage, you don't need to hear any effect, it should just transparently control peaks. If you apply the amount of squeeze that may be needed for the mix as the part is going down, it might cramp the player's style—better to leave that for later. Plus, if the signal is over-compressed here, it may bring out the normal squeaks and finger & fret noises so much that it becomes difficult to eliminate them later—this is especially true if the player is really a guitarist who also moonlights on bass. Guitarists who try their hand at bass parts often haven't mastered an experienced bassist's technique for damping the strings, and the little playing noises I referred to, as well as distracting undamped harmonics, can end up overpowering the recording if heavy limiting/compression brings them up (I recently struggled mightily to deal with a bass track that suffered from this flaw).
8. Don't Print effects without a dry version as well
This is sort of a corollary to the DI+Amp suggestion. While effects on bass aren't as common as with guitar parts, some bassists will come in with these big rigs of effect boxes, and want to record their sound”, which often is clearly overprocessed for the song. Rather than argue the point, let the player hear the sound he's used to during tracking, but be sure to also grab a nice clean signal, prior to all the effects, usually straight off the bass via a DI. That way, if your concerns prove all too true come mixdown, you can turn to the dry track, and recreate those favored effects to a more appropriate degree, with studio tools. Even if the effected bass sounds good to you, many pedals and MI effect boxes are noisy, and you might have to recreate the sound anyway, to avoid problematic buzz or hiss from the player's cool-but-dirty toys.
9. Use Plug-Ins to Enhance Recording
Even when the bass track(s) are well-recorded, and sound good, you may want to enhance the bass tone for mixdown with your favorite bass-friendly plug-in processors. Besides the obvious EQs and compressors, there are many distortion processors and amp sims out there suitable for bass. Sometimes a simple tube-warming effect is all you need to add a little subtle fatness, like the many plug-ins that simulate slight tube drive or tape saturation. I always liked the Tech 21 SansAmp on bass, and Pro Tools includes a well-modeled plug-in version of that unit. Most of the popular guitar amp modelers also include options that can add some nice grit & girth to clean bass tracks, including Softube's Bass Amp Room and Logic's built-in B.A.D.—Bass Amp Designer—which, like most bass amp sims, includes models of classic bass amps like the Ampeg SVT and Fliptop, along with modern bass amp & cabinet emulations. Any of these can add that finishing touch to a good bass part, and there are many freeware options as well, for those on a tight budget.
10. Don't Fear the Upright
For the last tip/technique, I'm going to shift gears and talk about recording acoustic—upright—bass. This may seem more daunting, but many of the same techniques apply—I'll mention a few quick items that would be specific to the big box. While the dynamic mics I mentioned above might work fine (especially on stage), a good large-diaphragm condenser would be appropriate in the studio, to capture the high end and air of the acoustic instrument as well as the lows. On stage, the relatively low acoustic volume of the instrument may preclude more distant mic positioning, but you can wedge a small (pencil-type) mic into the bridge, with appropriate foam padding, and this, surprisingly, can often provide excellent sound and much better isolation.
Most upright players (at least the ones who gig regularly) will also have a pickup installed, and once, again, the combination of mic (depth, air) and pickup (midrange punch and growl) can be a winning combination.
And on that (low) note, I'll wrap up. While many bass parts nowadays are probably laid down with samples and synths, by keyboard players and guitarists, what you'll get from a real bassist is more than just his sound, it's the magic in his fingers, and his bass-players' sense of just what to play to perfectly complement the song—it's certainly worth a little extra effect to take advantage of what the true masters of the low-end have to offer.
Slightly out-of-tune strings on a bass may not jump out as much as on guitar (especially in chords), but when that bass line is sitting under other parts in the mix, even slightly off-pitch notes will make their presence known, and sometimes be harder to track down (why does this song sound a little off”?). I'd use a tuner (h/w or s/w), but I'd also always verify by ear, before hitting record, and I'd check tuning periodically as the session progresses—just as with drums, hard players can easily put the instrument out after a few energetic takes.
2. Break in new strings ahead of time
Aside from tuning issues, new bass strings, especially roundwounds, can be very bright, and this may result in a lot of finger noise and fret buzz. If they're changed a day or two before the session, and the bass is played a bit to break them in, there may be less likelihood of problematic noise. In fact, while many players think of them as old-school, flatwounds can sometimes be the best choice, when a fat deep bass sound is called for—it's worth a thought.
3. Record Amp and DI
The easiest way to record bass is to just plug it straight into the console/interface—of course, using the correct instrument-level input or dedicated DI box, and not a standard line input. This will provide a nice, clean, deep tone, but it will likely lack the growl and grit that's often desired—for that, you'll want the sound of an amp. While you can always use a bass amp sim plug-in later, in the mix (see below), there's nothing like the pants-flapping wall of low-end sound coming out of a real bass amp, if one is available. But most engineers will record both—a DI'd signal, and a miked-up amp. They can be combined later on, for the best of both worlds—the clean, round, depth from the DI, with the edge and midrange punch of the amp (but see below, for a caveat).
4. Use an appropriate mic for bass.
If you are recording the output of a bass amp, try to use a mic that will capture more of the low-end than a typical stage mic. An SM57/58 will work, but a mic with a more extended low-frequency response would be a better choice. The Sennheiser 421 is often used, as is the classic kick drum mic, the AKG D112, which has a bumped-up response tuned specifically for low-pitched instruments. I prefer the Electro-Voice RE-20 (you know, the announcer's mic”)—it's more neutral, and it has an extended low-end response, so you'll get not just boom, but real depth.
5. Adjust phase of combined DI and miked-up bass tracks
If you do record the bass both via a DI and a miked-up cab, and combine them later, as suggested above, you'll want to pay attention to the relative phase of the two tracks. Even if the mic is placed very close (an inch or so) to the amp's speaker, that track will still be slightly delayed (on the order of milliseconds), due to that small distance, relative to the DI track.
Small delays like this can cause comb-filtering when the tracks are combined (at close to equal levels), which produces cancellations and reinforcements in the frequency spectrum that can impart a nasal, hollow, or slightly flangey” sound, weakening the tone. You can see the time difference if you line up the waves in the DAW and zoom way in. You can either advance the amp track (via editing) or delay the DI track (via editing or a plug-in) until the two line up—the resulting tone should be fuller, and ultimately sit better, with a more solid low end, in the mix.
6. Limit and/or compress
If ever there was a candidate for compression, bass is it. This instrument has a wide dynamic range (even more so when slap techniques are employed), but it usually needs to sit at a very steady level in the mix. But should compression be applied during recording, to control the levels going down, or later, during the mix, to insure the best blend in the track? Well, the answer is probably both, but with potentially different approaches to squashing the signal. During recording, a Limiter might be the ticket, to control transient peaks that might overload ADCs, producing pops and spikes that can ruin a take. A classic fast VCA compressor/limiter (like the dbx 160) could be employed to handle peaks, without really reducing the player's dynamics at this early stage. Then when mixdown rolls around, more gentle compression can be introduced (like the smooth squash of an optical compressor like the LA-2A), to tighten up the dynamics, as needed for that particular mix. Applying the right kind, and amount, of compression/limiting at all stages will assure you get nice clean recordings, that can be properly squeezed into the mix when the time comes.
7. Don't over-compress/limit
On the same topic, if you do apply some compression during recording, be careful not to overdo it. At this stage, you don't need to hear any effect, it should just transparently control peaks. If you apply the amount of squeeze that may be needed for the mix as the part is going down, it might cramp the player's style—better to leave that for later. Plus, if the signal is over-compressed here, it may bring out the normal squeaks and finger & fret noises so much that it becomes difficult to eliminate them later—this is especially true if the player is really a guitarist who also moonlights on bass. Guitarists who try their hand at bass parts often haven't mastered an experienced bassist's technique for damping the strings, and the little playing noises I referred to, as well as distracting undamped harmonics, can end up overpowering the recording if heavy limiting/compression brings them up (I recently struggled mightily to deal with a bass track that suffered from this flaw).
8. Don't Print effects without a dry version as well
This is sort of a corollary to the DI+Amp suggestion. While effects on bass aren't as common as with guitar parts, some bassists will come in with these big rigs of effect boxes, and want to record their sound”, which often is clearly overprocessed for the song. Rather than argue the point, let the player hear the sound he's used to during tracking, but be sure to also grab a nice clean signal, prior to all the effects, usually straight off the bass via a DI. That way, if your concerns prove all too true come mixdown, you can turn to the dry track, and recreate those favored effects to a more appropriate degree, with studio tools. Even if the effected bass sounds good to you, many pedals and MI effect boxes are noisy, and you might have to recreate the sound anyway, to avoid problematic buzz or hiss from the player's cool-but-dirty toys.
9. Use Plug-Ins to Enhance Recording
Even when the bass track(s) are well-recorded, and sound good, you may want to enhance the bass tone for mixdown with your favorite bass-friendly plug-in processors. Besides the obvious EQs and compressors, there are many distortion processors and amp sims out there suitable for bass. Sometimes a simple tube-warming effect is all you need to add a little subtle fatness, like the many plug-ins that simulate slight tube drive or tape saturation. I always liked the Tech 21 SansAmp on bass, and Pro Tools includes a well-modeled plug-in version of that unit. Most of the popular guitar amp modelers also include options that can add some nice grit & girth to clean bass tracks, including Softube's Bass Amp Room and Logic's built-in B.A.D.—Bass Amp Designer—which, like most bass amp sims, includes models of classic bass amps like the Ampeg SVT and Fliptop, along with modern bass amp & cabinet emulations. Any of these can add that finishing touch to a good bass part, and there are many freeware options as well, for those on a tight budget.
10. Don't Fear the Upright
For the last tip/technique, I'm going to shift gears and talk about recording acoustic—upright—bass. This may seem more daunting, but many of the same techniques apply—I'll mention a few quick items that would be specific to the big box. While the dynamic mics I mentioned above might work fine (especially on stage), a good large-diaphragm condenser would be appropriate in the studio, to capture the high end and air of the acoustic instrument as well as the lows. On stage, the relatively low acoustic volume of the instrument may preclude more distant mic positioning, but you can wedge a small (pencil-type) mic into the bridge, with appropriate foam padding, and this, surprisingly, can often provide excellent sound and much better isolation.
Most upright players (at least the ones who gig regularly) will also have a pickup installed, and once, again, the combination of mic (depth, air) and pickup (midrange punch and growl) can be a winning combination.
And on that (low) note, I'll wrap up. While many bass parts nowadays are probably laid down with samples and synths, by keyboard players and guitarists, what you'll get from a real bassist is more than just his sound, it's the magic in his fingers, and his bass-players' sense of just what to play to perfectly complement the song—it's certainly worth a little extra effect to take advantage of what the true masters of the low-end have to offer.
Monday, 7 November 2016
Gang Vocal Techniques
Gang vocals on a record can be one of the most fun things to do in the recording studio. There's laughing, crying, and it's usually done sometime after midnight, but they have to be done correctly if you want to keep it manageable and still sounding like a gang! I had the privilege of recording gang vocals on Megadeth's The System Has Failed” album, released in 2004… here are a few tips on how to track gang vocals with only a few people, like we did on that album.
First off, I recommend using a large diaphragm condenser mic set to figure 8 or omni.
Don't record more than 5 or 6 people at once or it will tend to get sloppy in a heartbeat. You can use 30 people if you have them, and really want to, but break them into groups of 5 or 6 and record each group separately. In my example, we'll just say I only have 4 guys.
Arrange the group around the microphone, equal distance from the mic, about 3 feet away from it and record a couple takes. (I typically record 2-4 takes of each position). Then, ask them to switch spots and step back a couple steps, and record a couple more takes. Switch again and step back a couple more steps. Now, I like to get creative and have a little fun.. I tell them to get anywhere they want to in the room, and face any direction… record some of that.
You can adjust preamp settings if you want, I don't. I like to keep it at one level the entire time, so when the group is further from the mic, the level is much quieter. Basically, it mimics what you would get if you had one mic in a room with a ton of people, so when the tracks are stacked and panned in the mix, it resembles a group.
EXTRAS:
-For a loose gangly gang sound, only give headphones to 1 or 2 of the people so THEY can hear playback but the others can't.
-Pay attention to the starts/stops of the phrases so everyone is starting/stopping at the same time.
-In the mix, experiment with panning. Also, try bussing the group to a compressor or an effect for some flavor. Does it need reverb or delay?
-For some genres of music, or in particular instances, you may need to record a few takes of the lead singer by himself/herself to blend in with the group, or mix out in front.
First off, I recommend using a large diaphragm condenser mic set to figure 8 or omni.
Don't record more than 5 or 6 people at once or it will tend to get sloppy in a heartbeat. You can use 30 people if you have them, and really want to, but break them into groups of 5 or 6 and record each group separately. In my example, we'll just say I only have 4 guys.
Arrange the group around the microphone, equal distance from the mic, about 3 feet away from it and record a couple takes. (I typically record 2-4 takes of each position). Then, ask them to switch spots and step back a couple steps, and record a couple more takes. Switch again and step back a couple more steps. Now, I like to get creative and have a little fun.. I tell them to get anywhere they want to in the room, and face any direction… record some of that.
You can adjust preamp settings if you want, I don't. I like to keep it at one level the entire time, so when the group is further from the mic, the level is much quieter. Basically, it mimics what you would get if you had one mic in a room with a ton of people, so when the tracks are stacked and panned in the mix, it resembles a group.
EXTRAS:
-For a loose gangly gang sound, only give headphones to 1 or 2 of the people so THEY can hear playback but the others can't.
-Pay attention to the starts/stops of the phrases so everyone is starting/stopping at the same time.
-In the mix, experiment with panning. Also, try bussing the group to a compressor or an effect for some flavor. Does it need reverb or delay?
-For some genres of music, or in particular instances, you may need to record a few takes of the lead singer by himself/herself to blend in with the group, or mix out in front.
Thursday, 3 November 2016
Techniques For Recording Bass
In this tutorial we'll talk a little bit about some techniques for recording bass instruments like bass guitar and upright bass. While it is one of the more simple things to record, there are still a lot of different techniques and ideas that come along with recording the bass of a song, as it is quite important to get a full tone to hold down a mix.
Step 1
First off, like recording everything, the most important part about recording bass is to make sure that you are happy with the tone before you go to record. This means dialing in the settings on both your guitar and your amp, or in the case of a stand up bass making sure that everything is working properly and that your technique is spot on. Also falling under this category is making sure that you have the right type of bass for the song, as a Fender Jazz Bass can sound quite different from a Precision Bass and so on...
Step 2
After you are happy with the sound coming from your instrument, its time to record. Pretty much all engineers, myself included, will always get a direct input signal from the bass guitar. I always do and sometimes it is the only thing that I record, but often times I will use a amplifier and blend the two. As far as choices for a DI box, almost anything will work but I usually use a Countryman Type 85 DI box as these are my favorite to use. While I can understand if you just want to get an amp sound, it never hurts to get the DI signal as well, and vise versa.
Step 3
Next we'll talk a bit about recording your direct input signal while using some compression. While this step (like all of the others) isn't necessary, I always try to record my direct signal with some compression as it can help to keep the level in line and give you a tighter overall sound. While most compressors will do, I find that the Summit TLA100 is a great compressor for bass guitar and is what I will usually use. I can understand if you want to record dry and add compression later, but for me I always like to get a tighter direct sound from the start by using compression during tracking.
Step 4
While getting a direct signal is often times enough for bass, I generally like to try to get an amplifier sound as well. I have used both bass guitar and standard guitar amps for this and both will really give you different tones so you need to know when to use them. Most of the time I will use a bass guitar amp if I am going for a traditional thick and fat bass tone, but on occasion I will add a guitar amp into the mix, which I find gives you more slap and punch. However, I would only recommend trying it out with a guitar amp if you are also getting a direct input signal and blending the two, as the guitar amp on its own doesn't have enough low end presence. Also, be careful to keep the volume relatively low so you don't blow out the speaker!
Step 5
Lastly, I'll talk a little bit about recording an upright bass, as this can be a completely different challenge. Generally what I do is place a large diaphragm tube condenser microphone (like a Neumann M 149) by the bridge of the instrument about a few inches away from it as I find that this will give you a pretty accurate and tight sound. While it never hurts to put up another microphone further back, I generally try to keep my bass sounds as tight as possible..
Conclusion
While these tips can be helpful please keep in mind that these are only guidelines and that you should definitely be experimenting and trying things out to try to get your own methods and techniques down that will work for you and your sound. Remember to have fun and always try out new things!
×
Step 1
First off, like recording everything, the most important part about recording bass is to make sure that you are happy with the tone before you go to record. This means dialing in the settings on both your guitar and your amp, or in the case of a stand up bass making sure that everything is working properly and that your technique is spot on. Also falling under this category is making sure that you have the right type of bass for the song, as a Fender Jazz Bass can sound quite different from a Precision Bass and so on...
Step 2
After you are happy with the sound coming from your instrument, its time to record. Pretty much all engineers, myself included, will always get a direct input signal from the bass guitar. I always do and sometimes it is the only thing that I record, but often times I will use a amplifier and blend the two. As far as choices for a DI box, almost anything will work but I usually use a Countryman Type 85 DI box as these are my favorite to use. While I can understand if you just want to get an amp sound, it never hurts to get the DI signal as well, and vise versa.
Step 3
Next we'll talk a bit about recording your direct input signal while using some compression. While this step (like all of the others) isn't necessary, I always try to record my direct signal with some compression as it can help to keep the level in line and give you a tighter overall sound. While most compressors will do, I find that the Summit TLA100 is a great compressor for bass guitar and is what I will usually use. I can understand if you want to record dry and add compression later, but for me I always like to get a tighter direct sound from the start by using compression during tracking.
Step 4
While getting a direct signal is often times enough for bass, I generally like to try to get an amplifier sound as well. I have used both bass guitar and standard guitar amps for this and both will really give you different tones so you need to know when to use them. Most of the time I will use a bass guitar amp if I am going for a traditional thick and fat bass tone, but on occasion I will add a guitar amp into the mix, which I find gives you more slap and punch. However, I would only recommend trying it out with a guitar amp if you are also getting a direct input signal and blending the two, as the guitar amp on its own doesn't have enough low end presence. Also, be careful to keep the volume relatively low so you don't blow out the speaker!
Step 5
Lastly, I'll talk a little bit about recording an upright bass, as this can be a completely different challenge. Generally what I do is place a large diaphragm tube condenser microphone (like a Neumann M 149) by the bridge of the instrument about a few inches away from it as I find that this will give you a pretty accurate and tight sound. While it never hurts to put up another microphone further back, I generally try to keep my bass sounds as tight as possible..
Conclusion
While these tips can be helpful please keep in mind that these are only guidelines and that you should definitely be experimenting and trying things out to try to get your own methods and techniques down that will work for you and your sound. Remember to have fun and always try out new things!
×
Wednesday, 2 November 2016
Direct Electric Guitar Recording Techniques
When recording an electric guitar, we have the option of using a microphone at the speaker, running directly into the mixer or combining both of these approaches. Each technique offers advantages and disadvantages. Running direct into the mixer produces ultimate separation. If you process the direct guitar sound, you don't risk altering the sound of another instrument since no other instrument has had the opportunity to bleed into a microphone.
Miking the guitarist's speaker cabinet, although allowing for leakage of another instrument into the guitar mic, typically produces the best sound. Using a microphone on the electric guitarist's cabinet captures the essence of the sound the guitarist designed for the part they're playing. Since sound plays such an important role in what and how a guitarist plays, miking the cabinet is often the only way to capture the guitar part in a musically authentic way.
For the sake of understanding some of the more fundamental variables involved in recording the electric guitar, we'll first plug directly into the mixer. When running a guitar directly into the mic input of a mixer, plug the guitar into a direct box first, then plug the direct box into the mixer. The signal going into the direct box can come straight from the guitar or from any effect or group of effects that the guitar is plugged into.
As an alternative, simply plug the guitar straight into the line input of the mixer. When using this technique, the level from the guitar might be a little low, especially if you are using a mixer that operates at +4dBm. Plugging a guitar into Line In works best when using a mixer operating at -10dBV.
Some guitar amps have a line output. Line Out from a guitar amplifier can be plugged directly into the line input of the mixer. This technique lets you capture some of the amplifier's characteristic sound while still keeping the advantages of running direct into the mixer.
Advantages of Running Direct
When you plug directly into the mixer instead of miking the speaker, the recorded track has no leakage from other acoustic instruments that may have been performing at the same time as the guitar. The tracks typically contain less noise than if the amp were miked. Guitar amps have a bad habit of producing their own share of noise. This can be a problem in mixdown.
Sometimes you must run directly into the mixer simply out of consideration for your neighbors. How sensitive are your neighbors to loud guitar amps screaming raucous licks into the wee hours of the morning? Once you've gotten your neighbors angry because of volume, it's all over. It's best to avoid that conflict altogether. If you are recording in an apartment or in a compact residential area, you may have no choice but to record all electronic gear direct and monitor at low levels.
If you must run direct into the mixer and you're experiencing difficulty getting a good sound, try using a direct box that will receive a powered signal straight out of the speaker output of the guitar amp. This will give you the most guitar amp sound you can get without using a mic. Be careful!! Never plug a speaker output into any input until you've been assured by someone whose opinion you trust implicitly that the input is designed to accept a powered output!
Remember, guitars are high-impedance instruments and the total length of cables between the guitar and the amp or the guitar and the direct box should be less than 25 feet. If the guitarist plugs into several effects chained together, then plugs the output of the last effect into the DI, be sure the cables are all as short as possible. If the cables are too long, you'll hear a lot of noise and radio interference along with the guitar track.
If you get into a situation where the guitarist needs to run a long cable length from the guitar to the amp, try this:
1. Use two direct boxes. Plug the guitar into the high-impedance end of the first direct box.
2. Connect a mic cable to the low-impedance output of that direct box.
3. Connect the other end of this mic cable to the low-impedance end of the second direct box. This requires either a special cable with female XLR connectors on both ends or a female-to-female XLR adapter to plug into the low-impedance end of the second DI.
4. Connect the high-impedance end of the second DI to the amp or line in of the mixer.
This procedure lets you take advantage of low impedance within a high-impedance system. If you're connecting two direct boxes together, be sure to use high quality DIs. Each transformer can rob the signal of life and add noise. This technique requires informed judgment concerning the value of adding cable length versus your need for sonic purity. For more information, see The Audio Pro Home Recording Course
Miking the guitarist's speaker cabinet, although allowing for leakage of another instrument into the guitar mic, typically produces the best sound. Using a microphone on the electric guitarist's cabinet captures the essence of the sound the guitarist designed for the part they're playing. Since sound plays such an important role in what and how a guitarist plays, miking the cabinet is often the only way to capture the guitar part in a musically authentic way.
For the sake of understanding some of the more fundamental variables involved in recording the electric guitar, we'll first plug directly into the mixer. When running a guitar directly into the mic input of a mixer, plug the guitar into a direct box first, then plug the direct box into the mixer. The signal going into the direct box can come straight from the guitar or from any effect or group of effects that the guitar is plugged into.
As an alternative, simply plug the guitar straight into the line input of the mixer. When using this technique, the level from the guitar might be a little low, especially if you are using a mixer that operates at +4dBm. Plugging a guitar into Line In works best when using a mixer operating at -10dBV.
Some guitar amps have a line output. Line Out from a guitar amplifier can be plugged directly into the line input of the mixer. This technique lets you capture some of the amplifier's characteristic sound while still keeping the advantages of running direct into the mixer.
Advantages of Running Direct
When you plug directly into the mixer instead of miking the speaker, the recorded track has no leakage from other acoustic instruments that may have been performing at the same time as the guitar. The tracks typically contain less noise than if the amp were miked. Guitar amps have a bad habit of producing their own share of noise. This can be a problem in mixdown.
Sometimes you must run directly into the mixer simply out of consideration for your neighbors. How sensitive are your neighbors to loud guitar amps screaming raucous licks into the wee hours of the morning? Once you've gotten your neighbors angry because of volume, it's all over. It's best to avoid that conflict altogether. If you are recording in an apartment or in a compact residential area, you may have no choice but to record all electronic gear direct and monitor at low levels.
If you must run direct into the mixer and you're experiencing difficulty getting a good sound, try using a direct box that will receive a powered signal straight out of the speaker output of the guitar amp. This will give you the most guitar amp sound you can get without using a mic. Be careful!! Never plug a speaker output into any input until you've been assured by someone whose opinion you trust implicitly that the input is designed to accept a powered output!
Remember, guitars are high-impedance instruments and the total length of cables between the guitar and the amp or the guitar and the direct box should be less than 25 feet. If the guitarist plugs into several effects chained together, then plugs the output of the last effect into the DI, be sure the cables are all as short as possible. If the cables are too long, you'll hear a lot of noise and radio interference along with the guitar track.
If you get into a situation where the guitarist needs to run a long cable length from the guitar to the amp, try this:
1. Use two direct boxes. Plug the guitar into the high-impedance end of the first direct box.
2. Connect a mic cable to the low-impedance output of that direct box.
3. Connect the other end of this mic cable to the low-impedance end of the second direct box. This requires either a special cable with female XLR connectors on both ends or a female-to-female XLR adapter to plug into the low-impedance end of the second DI.
4. Connect the high-impedance end of the second DI to the amp or line in of the mixer.
This procedure lets you take advantage of low impedance within a high-impedance system. If you're connecting two direct boxes together, be sure to use high quality DIs. Each transformer can rob the signal of life and add noise. This technique requires informed judgment concerning the value of adding cable length versus your need for sonic purity. For more information, see The Audio Pro Home Recording Course
Tuesday, 1 November 2016
Drum Recording Techniques, By Joe Hirst
Recording drums in the studio is often one of the most challenging yet rewarding tasks for an engineer, the size and volume of the instrument and variety of sounds it can produce can make it a daunting prospect for anyone undertaking it for the first time. I have around ten years experience of recording drums and have developed several different working methods of which I am happy with but continually strive to change and improve. Throughout this tutorial I will offer some practical and artistic advice aimed at helping you first of all understand some basic principles of drum recording and secondly help you develop your own methods and approaches.
The Drum Kit
You can't achieve a great drum sound with the wrong drum kit, that may sound obvious but in reality there are many factors in choosing the right kit for your recording. Having a clear idea of how you want the kit to sound from the start will greatly help you choose not only the kit but also the recording methods you employ. Preparation is crucial for a successful drum session; if the song suggests an old Motown drum sound for example then you will struggle if you have a brand new DW kit in a large reverberant room. If you feel the kit the drummer has is not right for the job then always hire or borrow anything that'll improve the recording starting with the right snare! As with all recording getting the right instrument, recording space and equipment is essential for a successful session.
Drum kits come in all shapes and sizes and usually in various states of disrepair, as an engineer is very important to be able to get the most out of just about any kit. Fresh heads and careful tuning will always get the best out of a drum, some drummers will do this automatically before a session others will shudder at the thought. I personally like to get involved in tuning drums if I feel the drummer isn't up to it, I recently found some great tutorials on YouTube that I thoroughly recommend (see links at bottom). A drum key, screwdriver and RTOM Moongels (dampening pads) are essential tools for getting the kit in tune and sounding right, always have these handy at a drum session.
There are lots of factors that affect the sound of a drum kit, when I'm recording I'll maybe change several small things that I think will have the greatest overall impact in shaping the sound I'm after.
1. Remove the front skin of a kick drum for a tighter thump sound with little resonance or vice versa
2. Add or remove dampening from the kick drum to adjust resonance
3. Change the kick beater to affect the attack of the beater (felt, plastic, wood)
4. Tighten or loosen the snares
5. Add or remove dampening on all drums
If you are lucky you'll be working with a great drummer who has got all of this covered himself and can tune the toms sympathetically to key of the song if not then don't be afraid to get involved!
The Room
The room you set the kit up in will have a massive impact on how the recordings will turn out, for example if you want a big boomy rock sound don't use a small dead booth, again it's obvious but critical to consider for the overall result. Natural ambience will always help gel the sound of a kit together and create natural space without the need for artificial reverb, for this reason unless you are after a dead sound a largish room with reflective surfaces (brick, wood, stone etc) and high ceilings will be a good bet. Drum screens can help control ambience around the kit and allow you to record a fairly dry close sound whilst also allowing you to capture the full natural ambience of the room.
Many producers and engineers choose specific studios for their drum room. These hallowed spaces make recording drums a pleasure. London has a couple of these magic rooms found at studios like RAK, Abbey Road and of course Miloco's own Garden Studio. In my opinion a great sounding drum room is far more important than an endless list of mics and outboard.
Interesting sounding rooms can also add unique character to a recording, using a brick basement, stairwell or corridor should never be ruled out if appropriate and accessible.
Setting The Mics
Once you have a sympathetically tuned kit in a good room, which works for the tracks you are recording, you can start thinking about how to mic up your kit. I believe there are two main schools of thought when it comes to drum micing:
1. Capture the sound and balance of the kit as a whole using minimal micing. 2. Create a representation of each drum and cymbal to form an overall sound using multimicing.
Both of these approaches have their merit and should be selected and adapted to achieve the sound you are attempting to create. If for example you are recording a metal band and want a clearly defined, punchy and aggressive sound then a multimicing approach would be perfect. In contrast a minimal micing approach would be better suited for recording a jazz kit for example.
Multimicing can mean placing well over fifteen mics on a kit at once, this method clearly requires a large amount of equipment and a lot of time to adjust, here is an outline of a multimicing approach I might take for a big rock sound:
Kick In
Mic inside drum to capture the sound of the beater and general attack of the sound, suggestions include, D12, D112, RE20, basically a solid dynamic that preferably has a large capsule capable of reproducing low frequencies and not distorting at high levels.
Kick Out
Mic on hole of the resonant head (if applicable) to add weight and roundness to the sound and provide more of a note, Neumann FET47 is the classic mic for the job but a U87 will do or any other LDC with a pad that won't distort at high levels.
Kick Sub
Another mic on the outside such as a Yamaha Sub Kick or rewired NS10 cone will provide 808-style sub for your kick drum if needed. This is optional but usually worth taking even if not used.
Snare Top
Mic the top of the snare to capture the main crack and tone. Start by placing the mic a couple of inches above the head facing into the centre, moving the mic will have a dramatic effect on the end sound so always experiment with this. If you have an overly ringy snare for example moving the mic will often help alleviate the worst overtones. I like the humble SM57 on snare top but many dynamics will work, Beyer 201 can be good as can the Sennheiser 441, don't rule out SDCs either (as long as they have a pad!).
Bottom Snare
Mic the bottom of the snare to aid air and sizzle to the sound, blending the two snare mics can yield many different sounds when mixing. Again the SM57 is a favourite of mine but there are many options for this duty.
Toms
Micing toms is essential in this kind of setup and again experiment with positions, moving the mic will allow you to get the best balance between attack and weight and help you minimize spill from other sounds. I usually use either 414s (hyper cardiod mode with 20dB pad) or Sennheiser 421's. 414's offer a strong attack and good spill rejection and 421's often just sound right!!!!
Overheads
There are numerous ways to set up overheads but in this kind of arrangement the most common would probably be by using a spaced pair of mics placed to offer a good spread of the whole kit (possibly one mic over the ride cymbal and another above a high rack tom). The height and width of the mics determine what they capture but essentially you are looking to get an overall picture of the kit with a focus on the cymbals. For a warm and full overhead sound you can't beat Coles 4038's or similar ribbon mics, as an alternative you could use SDCs such as Neumann KM84's, which are bright and provide an excellent transient response.
Hi Hats
If you need a close hi hat sound then a SDC is perfect, an AKG 451 or KM84 will do a great job, you should look to balance the sound between the stick noise and overall tone of the cymbal.
Ride Cymbal
Again this is optional depending on the drum part, if you need to emphasise the bell of the ride for a certain section then placing an SDC close to the cymbal will help you when you come to mix the track.
Room Mics
Capturing the sound of the kit in the recording room helps to add space and depth to the sound and will often gel all of the individual kit mics together. Depending on the room I will usually use a spaced pair of omni LDCs such as 414s, experimenting here can often provide interesting and unique sounds, for example try recording a mono mic pointed at a wall or on the floor behind the kit etc.
Dist Mics
I always like to use a trashy mic set to pick up a whole kit sound which I then heavily limit and distort and blend to taste. This can add excitement and power to a recording and always sounds better than just distorting your drums after. Crystal mics such as the Shure DX520 (Green Bullet) are perfect but my personal favourite is the STC Ball and Biscuit. Ebay is perfect for picking up cheap lo-fi mics that give you a cool and distinct drum sound. The position of this mic varies depending on the player and part but usually I place it between the kick and snare about two feet from the kit.
Fine Tuning the Mics
When using so many mics it is essential that you thoroughly check the phase relationship of everything and make sure nothing is being cancelled out. Most preamps will have a phase reverse switch so you can use that to quickly flip the phase of a mic so see if it solves the problem, if it doesn't then you'll need to move the mic to alleviate the problem. Phase problems often make a particular drum sound weak compared to the others or less punchy often-just phase reversing one or two mics will make a big difference.
Minimal Micing
If you decide to use a minimal micing technique to record your drums then you are effectively looking to capture an overall balance of the kit with around 4 or 5 mics. This approach clearly requires less equipment and time but in many ways requires a better drummer and kit to make it really shine when compared to the multimicing approach. If your drummer plays the hi-hat extremely loud for example and out of balance with the rest of the kit with this method it will be difficult to really adjust that balance when you come to mixing. The sound achieved through minimal micing however can be natural, powerful and more realistic. Glyn Johns is seen as a pioneer of this technique and I believe he used it to great effect with Jon Bonham on many Led Zepplin tracks. More recently a variation of his technique has been called the, ‘Recorderman Technique' there is a great video about this technique on youtube (see links at bottom).
Here is an outline of how I would approach a drum recording with less microphones:
Kick and Snare
One mic on the kick maybe just inside the hole (Fet 47 or similar) positioned to capture a good balance between the attack of the beater and the decay of the drum. One mic on the top of the snare set up as described above.
Overheads
This is where the main difference in setup occurs; the mics are setup in a non-symmetrical fashion. One mic is placed about six inches above the floor tom pointing at the snare and the other over the rack tom again pointing at the snare, ideally they should both be around two stick lengths from the snare centre. The mic above the snare should be panned to the left at about 9 'clock and the other overhead to the right slightly wider.
Room Mics
Add a stereo room mic setup as described above if required.
Dist Mic
I always like to use a distorted mic for blending purposes but it is definitely optional!!!
Summary
Once you have a grasp of these basic principles for recording drums you can begin to experiment and try out your own ideas, compressing and EQing when recording offers some interesting options as does the use of guitar amps and pedals! Always put the best interest of the song first though, a great drum sound that doesn't suit the track is completely useless.
The Drum Kit
You can't achieve a great drum sound with the wrong drum kit, that may sound obvious but in reality there are many factors in choosing the right kit for your recording. Having a clear idea of how you want the kit to sound from the start will greatly help you choose not only the kit but also the recording methods you employ. Preparation is crucial for a successful drum session; if the song suggests an old Motown drum sound for example then you will struggle if you have a brand new DW kit in a large reverberant room. If you feel the kit the drummer has is not right for the job then always hire or borrow anything that'll improve the recording starting with the right snare! As with all recording getting the right instrument, recording space and equipment is essential for a successful session.
Drum kits come in all shapes and sizes and usually in various states of disrepair, as an engineer is very important to be able to get the most out of just about any kit. Fresh heads and careful tuning will always get the best out of a drum, some drummers will do this automatically before a session others will shudder at the thought. I personally like to get involved in tuning drums if I feel the drummer isn't up to it, I recently found some great tutorials on YouTube that I thoroughly recommend (see links at bottom). A drum key, screwdriver and RTOM Moongels (dampening pads) are essential tools for getting the kit in tune and sounding right, always have these handy at a drum session.
There are lots of factors that affect the sound of a drum kit, when I'm recording I'll maybe change several small things that I think will have the greatest overall impact in shaping the sound I'm after.
1. Remove the front skin of a kick drum for a tighter thump sound with little resonance or vice versa
2. Add or remove dampening from the kick drum to adjust resonance
3. Change the kick beater to affect the attack of the beater (felt, plastic, wood)
4. Tighten or loosen the snares
5. Add or remove dampening on all drums
If you are lucky you'll be working with a great drummer who has got all of this covered himself and can tune the toms sympathetically to key of the song if not then don't be afraid to get involved!
The Room
The room you set the kit up in will have a massive impact on how the recordings will turn out, for example if you want a big boomy rock sound don't use a small dead booth, again it's obvious but critical to consider for the overall result. Natural ambience will always help gel the sound of a kit together and create natural space without the need for artificial reverb, for this reason unless you are after a dead sound a largish room with reflective surfaces (brick, wood, stone etc) and high ceilings will be a good bet. Drum screens can help control ambience around the kit and allow you to record a fairly dry close sound whilst also allowing you to capture the full natural ambience of the room.
Many producers and engineers choose specific studios for their drum room. These hallowed spaces make recording drums a pleasure. London has a couple of these magic rooms found at studios like RAK, Abbey Road and of course Miloco's own Garden Studio. In my opinion a great sounding drum room is far more important than an endless list of mics and outboard.
Interesting sounding rooms can also add unique character to a recording, using a brick basement, stairwell or corridor should never be ruled out if appropriate and accessible.
Setting The Mics
Once you have a sympathetically tuned kit in a good room, which works for the tracks you are recording, you can start thinking about how to mic up your kit. I believe there are two main schools of thought when it comes to drum micing:
1. Capture the sound and balance of the kit as a whole using minimal micing. 2. Create a representation of each drum and cymbal to form an overall sound using multimicing.
Both of these approaches have their merit and should be selected and adapted to achieve the sound you are attempting to create. If for example you are recording a metal band and want a clearly defined, punchy and aggressive sound then a multimicing approach would be perfect. In contrast a minimal micing approach would be better suited for recording a jazz kit for example.
Multimicing can mean placing well over fifteen mics on a kit at once, this method clearly requires a large amount of equipment and a lot of time to adjust, here is an outline of a multimicing approach I might take for a big rock sound:
Kick In
Mic inside drum to capture the sound of the beater and general attack of the sound, suggestions include, D12, D112, RE20, basically a solid dynamic that preferably has a large capsule capable of reproducing low frequencies and not distorting at high levels.
Kick Out
Mic on hole of the resonant head (if applicable) to add weight and roundness to the sound and provide more of a note, Neumann FET47 is the classic mic for the job but a U87 will do or any other LDC with a pad that won't distort at high levels.
Kick Sub
Another mic on the outside such as a Yamaha Sub Kick or rewired NS10 cone will provide 808-style sub for your kick drum if needed. This is optional but usually worth taking even if not used.
Snare Top
Mic the top of the snare to capture the main crack and tone. Start by placing the mic a couple of inches above the head facing into the centre, moving the mic will have a dramatic effect on the end sound so always experiment with this. If you have an overly ringy snare for example moving the mic will often help alleviate the worst overtones. I like the humble SM57 on snare top but many dynamics will work, Beyer 201 can be good as can the Sennheiser 441, don't rule out SDCs either (as long as they have a pad!).
Bottom Snare
Mic the bottom of the snare to aid air and sizzle to the sound, blending the two snare mics can yield many different sounds when mixing. Again the SM57 is a favourite of mine but there are many options for this duty.
Toms
Micing toms is essential in this kind of setup and again experiment with positions, moving the mic will allow you to get the best balance between attack and weight and help you minimize spill from other sounds. I usually use either 414s (hyper cardiod mode with 20dB pad) or Sennheiser 421's. 414's offer a strong attack and good spill rejection and 421's often just sound right!!!!
Overheads
There are numerous ways to set up overheads but in this kind of arrangement the most common would probably be by using a spaced pair of mics placed to offer a good spread of the whole kit (possibly one mic over the ride cymbal and another above a high rack tom). The height and width of the mics determine what they capture but essentially you are looking to get an overall picture of the kit with a focus on the cymbals. For a warm and full overhead sound you can't beat Coles 4038's or similar ribbon mics, as an alternative you could use SDCs such as Neumann KM84's, which are bright and provide an excellent transient response.
Hi Hats
If you need a close hi hat sound then a SDC is perfect, an AKG 451 or KM84 will do a great job, you should look to balance the sound between the stick noise and overall tone of the cymbal.
Ride Cymbal
Again this is optional depending on the drum part, if you need to emphasise the bell of the ride for a certain section then placing an SDC close to the cymbal will help you when you come to mix the track.
Room Mics
Capturing the sound of the kit in the recording room helps to add space and depth to the sound and will often gel all of the individual kit mics together. Depending on the room I will usually use a spaced pair of omni LDCs such as 414s, experimenting here can often provide interesting and unique sounds, for example try recording a mono mic pointed at a wall or on the floor behind the kit etc.
Dist Mics
I always like to use a trashy mic set to pick up a whole kit sound which I then heavily limit and distort and blend to taste. This can add excitement and power to a recording and always sounds better than just distorting your drums after. Crystal mics such as the Shure DX520 (Green Bullet) are perfect but my personal favourite is the STC Ball and Biscuit. Ebay is perfect for picking up cheap lo-fi mics that give you a cool and distinct drum sound. The position of this mic varies depending on the player and part but usually I place it between the kick and snare about two feet from the kit.
Fine Tuning the Mics
When using so many mics it is essential that you thoroughly check the phase relationship of everything and make sure nothing is being cancelled out. Most preamps will have a phase reverse switch so you can use that to quickly flip the phase of a mic so see if it solves the problem, if it doesn't then you'll need to move the mic to alleviate the problem. Phase problems often make a particular drum sound weak compared to the others or less punchy often-just phase reversing one or two mics will make a big difference.
Minimal Micing
If you decide to use a minimal micing technique to record your drums then you are effectively looking to capture an overall balance of the kit with around 4 or 5 mics. This approach clearly requires less equipment and time but in many ways requires a better drummer and kit to make it really shine when compared to the multimicing approach. If your drummer plays the hi-hat extremely loud for example and out of balance with the rest of the kit with this method it will be difficult to really adjust that balance when you come to mixing. The sound achieved through minimal micing however can be natural, powerful and more realistic. Glyn Johns is seen as a pioneer of this technique and I believe he used it to great effect with Jon Bonham on many Led Zepplin tracks. More recently a variation of his technique has been called the, ‘Recorderman Technique' there is a great video about this technique on youtube (see links at bottom).
Here is an outline of how I would approach a drum recording with less microphones:
Kick and Snare
One mic on the kick maybe just inside the hole (Fet 47 or similar) positioned to capture a good balance between the attack of the beater and the decay of the drum. One mic on the top of the snare set up as described above.
Overheads
This is where the main difference in setup occurs; the mics are setup in a non-symmetrical fashion. One mic is placed about six inches above the floor tom pointing at the snare and the other over the rack tom again pointing at the snare, ideally they should both be around two stick lengths from the snare centre. The mic above the snare should be panned to the left at about 9 'clock and the other overhead to the right slightly wider.
Room Mics
Add a stereo room mic setup as described above if required.
Dist Mic
I always like to use a distorted mic for blending purposes but it is definitely optional!!!
Summary
Once you have a grasp of these basic principles for recording drums you can begin to experiment and try out your own ideas, compressing and EQing when recording offers some interesting options as does the use of guitar amps and pedals! Always put the best interest of the song first though, a great drum sound that doesn't suit the track is completely useless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)