The Cost of an Album: Part II

After some feedback, I'm going to elaborate a little more on "commercial" albums and their costs. Here is a general breakdown of an album.

Session Musicians- Anywhere between $100-$300 per song, per musician. If you're just a singer/songwriter and need full band backing (Drums, Bass, Piano/Organ, Electric/Lead Guitar), figure around $10,000 just for the pro musicians to back you up on your album.

Producer- These guys don't really charge on a per-song basis. And like many other aspects, they have a lot to do with where you are located. They also take a cut from sales. Big name Producers like P-Diddy make over $30 million a year just producing. I've heard of staff record label producers making around $600/day. You can look at probably spending around $5,000 for your album being produced by an industry professional.

Renting a Studio- Let's assume since it's a commercial release, you're in a one of the big cities, like LA for example. $1,000/day for their facilities. They sometimes come with house engineers, sometimes not. Figure between $10,000 and $14,000 for the studio total.

Hiring a Big Name Mix Engineer- $1000/per song.

Mastering by a Big Name Mastering Engineer- $300/hr.

If you're putting out a 12 song album, you're grand total is:
$39,000!!!!

This is NOT the typical price. Most top acts don't need an entire backing band for the whole of their album. And they don't all use the $1,000/day studios, and they don't all take 2 weeks to record. Not every big name mixer does every song for $1,000. But the point of this wasn't to exactly show you "typical", but a more informed view on how and why these albums cost what they do.

Ever hear of Bar Scott? Me neither, but she has a great article here about how one of her albums cost around $15,000 to make, and that's not including the tracking or mastering. Nor is she a house hold name, which is exactly why I mentioned her (aside from also writing an excellent article). It's an expensive world out there, folks. I know your $2,000 album seems like a lot, but count your blessings it didn't cost you 40 grand!

Why Doesn't My Album Sound Like...

Value, price, quality- these aren't clearly understandable concepts in audio recording. It's not common knowledge to the layperson how much a CD can cost. When you were 10, you probably didn't have a great concept of money. $100 was maybe a lot to you at that time. As an adult, it doesn't hold nearly the same value. The more you learn about it, the more you understand its value. Audio recordings are no different, in this sense. The problem arises when you have a musician or a band spend, at least their definition, a significant amount of money recording an album. Spending $2000 on an album might seem like a fortune to some people. And because it's what they consider to be a fortune, unfortunately, they mistakenly compare their recording to the only other recordings they have to reference: commercial recordings.

Financially, you can think of making an album and buying a car almost interchangeably. Not only because there are varying degrees of usefulness and value, but because their costs are relatively similar. You can buy a working car for $500 or $20,000. It all depends on your needs and budget. In the same respect, you can spend anywhere between those amounts making an album.
But this information isn't common knowledge. Most people don't know that the songs they hear on the radio come from albums that literally cost $20,000 to produce. In the same vein, it would be ridiculous to spend $500 on a Geo Metro, and expect it to look, feel, and perform, exactly like a Mustang. So the short answer to why doesn't your album sound like Band X's commercially released album? Because you didn't spend $20,000 making it.

Now, I'm not mistaking correlation for causation- merely spending $20k on an album doesn't guarantee it will sound amazing. But, having a budget of $20,000 allows you access to the same high-end tools required to make those pristine sounding records. Even though it's very rare, we non-commercial studios, occasional get a client who is disappointed that their $2,000 album doesn't sound like Band X's $20,000 album. Those commercial albums are made using some of the best equipment money can buy (sometimes $100K+). Our demand is different than that of a commercial studio. Our clientele aren't releasing records meant to go straight to radio and be sold to the masses at record stores around the country. Sticking with the car analogy, my clientele need a nice make and model, in good condition, to get from point A to point B, without being too lavish and won't break the bank. They need a used Toyota Camry. And so to meet that demand, I carefully chose every piece of equipment I use, to provide the highest quality with the lowest overhead.

This post isn't meant to make you feel like you're getting something cheap and worthless. For some people, a Geo Metro is all they need. Just don't buy a Metro and expect a 69 Mustang.

ADAM A7

So I just got in my new ADAM A7 studio monitors. Where to even begin...

Well, it almost goes without saying, but they are absolutely phenomenal. But not in a way you'd expect. I have since read that the typical "Wow!" factor doesn't happen all at once, but over time. This is definitely true. It's hard to explain, but I'll put it like this: mixes on my older speakers translated fine to these. It's not like stupid mix decisions jumped out, or there was a massive imbalance that I didn't hear before. They still sounded good. It wasn't like going from Yugo to Jaguar. But at the same time, just because the jump wasn't huge doesn't mean it wasn't worth it. I made a little pro's and con's list to help demonstrate.

Pro's-
Well engineered recordings are mind-blowing on these speakers. And I don't mean well-mixed. I mean well recorded, at the source. Well, mixed too. But well-recorded instruments just jump to life. You can hear EVERYTHING. It's encapsulating.
The clarity and detail is astounding. You know when you listen to songs on a set of really good headphones and you hear a ton of things you never heard before? Same thing. In fact, the observation I originally made was I couldn't believe this much detail could be heard without headphones.
The imaging and stereo depth. I've been digging through every song I have for songs that utilize a wide stereo field with harmonies or arrangements. It's the first time in over 15 years I've been this excited to listen to music. And that's saying a lot about a guy whose whole life revolves around music.
Low-end definition is impeccable. Kick's and basses are more than just "low-end filler". They're actual instruments you can clearly make out and hear.

Of course, there are some Con's.
A little bright. It depends on the source for sure, and you do get used to it. At first listen I find myself saying "Holy crap, there is so much high-end going on." Sometimes it sounds that way just because of the comparison between that and the low end. But other times I can actually hear a ton of room tone, the sounds of the pick on acoustic guitar, etc., it get's annoying at first.
Not as warm sounding. This is actually a good thing in the context of needed truly accurate, flat speakers to make mixing decisions on. They don't add any character or color to the sound. Great for mixing, but for listening is a little sad. On certain songs, mainly rock, I expect things to jump out at me in the mids that don't.
Not much low-end. This is weird, because the frequency response of these actually go lower than my old monitors. But the low end just isn't there. I know I just said the low-end is impeccable, and it is. But volume-wise, it's lacking. This is why I'm spending a lot of time listening to songs I've heard a million times, so I can learn the speakers.

The ADAM's shine on acoustic/jazz albums. So what songs did I listen to to test out the ADAM's?

Sunrise- Norah Jones
Blue in Green- Miles Davis
Rikki Don't Lose That Number- Steely Dan
Kiss From a Rose- Seal
The Painter- Neil Young
I Will- Alison Krauss
Change the World- Eric Clapton (the absolute best sounding song out of the bunch)
Spend a Lifetime- Jamiroquai
Riding With the King- B.B. King & Eric Clapton
Name- Goo Goo Dolls
We're Forgiven- The Calling
Shadows- Rufus Wainwright
Gravity- John Mayer
Me and Mrs. Jones- Michael Buble
Stairway to Heaven- London Symphony Orchestra

I think this picture visually demonstrates the ADAM effect.

The left picture is okay. You're not missing any information. You probably wouldn't even consider it to be a bad picture until you see it in HD. The right picture is so clear and detailed. It might be a little crisp at first, but that's just because you're not used to seeing it so clearly.

Final Thoughts: Will they radically change my mixes? No. Have they made me fall in love with music all over again? YES! Worth every penny!

10 Things Every Band Should Know Before Recording

1. Have a budget. This is one of the biggest mistakes first timers make. Recording isn’t cheap, and hours can add up really fast. The worst thing you can do is be in the middle of a project and realize you don’t have enough money to finish. Tell the engineer all about your project beforehand, and find out what his best guess is at how much it will cost. But it is a guess. One of the smartest things you can do is plan in your budget for mistakes, because there will be mistakes! Best case scenario, you come in under budget.
2. Have a time frame. If you are recording a CD or demo, have a completion date set. Some space between recordings is good. A lot of space can be wasteful and hard to get back into. It can be really easy to lose momentum and focus. Having a time frame can keep you motivated and on task.
3. Have an idea of what you want. Bring in CD’s or songs that show what you’re trying to sound like. A good engineer can likely tell what made a song sound a certain way, and use the tools he has to make you sound as close as possible to that. But be reasonable. Unless you’re using the same acoustic guitar, in the same room, with the same mics, the same distance away, and into the same preamps, as the recording you’re trying to match, don’t be disappointed if it doesn’t sound exactly the same.
4. Be prepared. This is for everybody’s sake. Know who is playing what, and when, and be beyond rehearsed. If you come in with a song you just wrote and you don’t know the lyrics, the melody, the guitar part, etc., you’re wasting your money and the engineer’s time. I know of the legends of the Beatles doing 300 takes and writing a ton of songs in the studio. They also had a record company paying for it. Do you have a record company willing to throw a stupid amount of money around for you to do 300 takes and write all your songs in the studio? Doing a little bit of preparation can go a long way with saving you money.
5. Be appreciative. It’s a bad economy. What an engineer’s services are worth and what he makes, well the numbers are pretty far apart. I’m not asking you to pity them, but please’s and thank you’s still go a long way. If it’s going to be a long session, bring him a coffee. If you’re going to break to eat, offer to buy him his meal. Yeah, he’s getting paid. But sometimes no amount of money is worth the tedious amount of hours lining up sloppy drum playing, or piecing together 15 different vocal takes. Trust me, a thank you and a coffee will go a long way.
6. Trust your engineer. Hey, if you can do it yourself, more power to you! But if you’re at someone else’s studio, respect that. If it’s a creative decision, that’s a different story. But if you’re arguing over the level of the guitar part 5 minutes into the mixing session, relax. Let the engineer say “Okay, now it’s done” before you give it a scrutinizing listen. Trust that your engineer has been doing this for a while, and knows what sounds good and how to get it. There have been a few occasions where I have been barraged with emails from everyone in the band picking apart the mix before it was finished. I end up having to write back asking them to wait until I’m finished mixing, and if they still have a problem we’ll fix it then. 9 times out of 10, any of their complaints had been fixed already.
7. Clean up your mess. You’re paying for my services as a sound engineer, not as a janitor. Making sure the studio is nice and clean before a client arrives is something every engineer should do. Leaving it in the same condition is something every client should do. Throw away your coffee cups, Subway wrappers, empty packs of cigarettes. Take your lyric sheets, guitar picks, and drum sticks home with you. Unless your big time record label is picking up the tab, pick up after yourself.
8. Be reasonable. Nit-picking everything to death will drive everyone crazy, and I can almost guarantee no one will notice the little things you’re harping on. There are lists miles long of famous songs that have major performance mistakes you’ve never even noticed. In fact, you can see not only performance mistakes, but engineering mistakes, here. Is that an excuse to get lazy? Absolutely not. BUT! Be realistic. 99% of the people listening to your music are listening to content, performance, lyrics, message, the feel, orchestration, emotional response, etc. The last thing they’re listening for is technical perfection. The only people who might be listening with that level of scrutiny are potential record execs, and trust me; they’ll be destroying the quality of your records way more than the engineers will.
9. You’re being charged to hang out. Personally, I’ve designed my studio to encourage ease and relaxation…for the sake of a stress-free performance. But if you’re going to spend the time shooting the breeze and talking about how great the latest Justin Bieber album is, you’ll pay for it. It’s your project; I don’t care if we do 5 hours of work or 5 hours of talking. You’re still using up 5 hours of my time, so I suggest we be productive!
10. Dammit Captain, I’m an Engineer, not a miracle worker! Ha! Seriously though, it’s not an engineer’s job to have an opinion about your music. We may dig it, we may hate it, but it’s not our job to like it. We take whatever you play and make it sound pristine. If you play good, you’ll have a great recording. If you play bad, you’ll have a great recording of you playing bad. Just be realistic with your performance. If you think you can do better, don’t wait until the song is almost done being mixed to say you want to do it over. If it has mistakes, but you know that’s as good as you could have done it, try not to let the mistake distract you from our job. Think of sound engineering like car detailers; we can buff, shine, and wax all day, but if you don’t like the color of your pink Hyundai Accent, there’s nothing we can do about that!

Tips on Internships

I was just reading a thread by a studio intern who was doing some venting about the nature of internships. Like many interns, he spent long hours taking out trash, cleaning toilets, doing food and drink runs, building maintenance, etc. He rarely got a chance to sit at the controls, and wasn't paid. It was the unpaid thing that really got him down. Interning at a studio is often a full-time job, and it's pretty hard to have a second job to get by while you're doing your internship.

The thing is, this isn't communist China. No one put a gun to your head and said you have to be an engineer. It's a field you chose, you have to take the good with the bad. Putting in long, unpaid hours comes with most internships. Now lets talk about the kind of work you have to do- taking out the trash, cleaning toilets, sweeping, moping, etc. Yeah, it stinks. But guess what? It has to be done! It's not like it's work that the studio owner doesn't do himself- who do you think does all that when you're not there?! In addition to those tasks actually needing to get done, most owners aren't going to just let anyone walk off the street and start using their equipment. Just because you went to school for 6 months doesn't mean you know everything there is to know about the studio! Doing those crappy jobs is also a way to show your respect for the studio.

I had an awesome intern this summer, Luke. There was only one time early on that I asked him to come by and give me a hand cleaning. It wasn't really for him to prove himself, and it wasn't for free labor, it was merely for the fact that it had to get done. I think that was something the poster of the thread was confused on. He seemed to think his studio owner was giving him grueling work to be a jerk and get free labor. In reality, it was probably something like, "Hey, if you can stick out the crappiest times of running a studio, then you're in the right place. If not, this probably isn't for you."

Anyways, if you're looking to be an intern somewhere, not just a recording studio, here are some helpful tips from the threads:

"... but they need to make themselves invaluable. I'm a one man shop, and I cannot afford to pay someone to take 2 hours of studio time, explain to them exactly how I want it done, double check their work, and hold their hand for the same job that I could do in 45 minutes. If I have an intern (and that's a HUGE IF), they will get EXPERIENCE and they will get MENTORING, but they will not get pay -- UNLESS they are bringing something to the table that I cannot do better myself."


"Every studio owner is underpaid and overworked. Find a niche that make their life easier, less stressful and more profitable. "

"Generally I don't care how much they know, for me its all about attitude. Of course if they have more training and experience it can help speed along their development, but it is not as important to me as their work ethic and how they interact with clients and me. "

"I want an intern (or colleague) to act like he has the most grave responsibility on Earth without acting like he has the most grave responsibility on Earth."

What is "EQ"?

EQ is short for equalization. All sounds are made up of frequencies, and changing those frequencies changes the sound. This is done through EQ. So why would you EQ something? For 3 main reasons: to tame problem frequency/frequencies, to enhance the track, and to enhance other tracks. I’ll go into more detail with audio examples for each.

Taming Problems- Frequency imbalances occur due to either a problem with the instrument, problem with the acoustic environment, miking techniques, or a combination of the three. Fixing these problems can require anything from slight dip, to precision cutting with EQ. For this example, I’ll use a snare drum that elicits a nasty overtone. Normally, putting a piece of tape or something called a “moon gel” can solve this problem at the source. But in the event that neither is available, we can use EQ to find and eliminate the problem frequency.
Snare before:

Listening to the “before” track, you can hear a “whooom” that is quite annoying, and so loud it distracts from the rest of the snare. Trying to get this to work in a mix without first resolving this frequency issue will sound horrible.

Snare After:

Using the Waves Q10 EQ, I can zoom in to the exact offending frequency and eliminate it. In this case, there were two problems- one at 197, and one at 202. Once I cut these frequencies out, the snare sounded listenable again.

Enhancing the Track- Every instrument, including voice, has defining characteristics that are represented in the frequency spectrum. For example, a snare between 200-400 Hz contains the “body”. Between 1-3k contains the “snap”, and 5-8k has the “sizzle”. Cutting these frequencies would destroy the essence of the snare drum. Boosting them will enhance it. To get each instrument to stand out better in a mix, we find their essential frequencies and boost them. For this example, we’ll highlight a drum kit.
Before EQ:


After EQ:


You notice that after EQ'ing the kit, each drum piece sits a little more clearly and can be heard better. The Kick is bigger, the Snare has more body and snap, and the Overheads have a little more high end to open up the sound. This will make each drum stick out better in a rock mix without having to turn the whole track up.

Enhancing Other Tracks- This is a continuation of the principal that every instrument has defining frequencies, but instead of boosting, we cut. For example, I know the speakers in a guitar amp rarely produce any tones higher than 5k. If the guitar was miked, that isn’t to say there won’t be any sound beyond 5k. There just won’t be any sound useful to the guitar. And in fact, all that noise above 5k if left in, will only get in the way of other instruments that do use that space. So we cut it out. But to enhance other tracks, sometimes we have to make them sound worse alone to sound better together. For example, depending on the style, an electric guitar does have some useful information below 200 Hz. However, in a mix setting priority should be given to the Kick drum and Bass guitar for sounds under 200 Hz. Cutting that from the guitar might make it sound strange on its own, but in the mix the Bass and Kick have more room to breath, and we really didn’t take too much away from the guitar.

What is "Mixing"?

I’m often asked by clients what I mean when I say a song is ready for “mixing”. They usually assume after they’re done recording that it’s finished. And it can be! But usually there is a lot that can be done to turn it from good to great. There are 3 main phases in recording a song/CD. Tracking, mixing, and mastering.

Tracking is the first phase, where you’re literally recording each track of the song. Even though there might be some processing involved, such as compression and EQ (more on this later), it’s generally not considering “mixing”.
Here is an example of a song after the tracking phase:

Notice how the sound field is completely unbalanced. The drums and vocals are off in a distance, the bass almost non-existent, and the guitars very loud. Everything seems mushed together, nothing is very clear.

Mixing occurs when we edit and process each track after it is done being recorded. This phase usually takes the longest, but is the most beneficial for the song’s quality. The goal of mixing is to get each track to sound its best and fit in with the rest of the tracks. This is done through the use of EQ, compression, reverbs/delays, panning, automation, etc.
Here is an example of a song after it has been mixed:

Now notice how everything seems more balanced. You can hear every instrument, and nothing seems to be fighting for space as much. Some effects have been added for a more produced sound, and with the use of compression and automation, the music flows, rather than staying the same volume.

Mastering is the final stage. True mastering shouldn’t be done by the mix engineer for a variety of reasons I won’t go into now. Where before the song consisted of many individual tracks, it is now “mixed down” into one stereo track. Similar processing takes effect in this stage as in mixing, but affects the overall song, not just one track. Mastering generally consists of EQ, Compression, and Limiting, although other processing is often used.
Here is an example of a song that has been Mastered. Note- I did this in 5 minutes and on headphones. It is far from the ideal way to master anything, but I'm using it for demonstration:

Notice how the song is more glued together. It's also a bit louder than the mixed version so it can compete with songs at similar volumes. The bass is a little more prominent, the stereo width has been widened slightly, and some high end has been added to give it some air. Though I didn't do it for this master, it also requires some DeEssing, as you might be able to tell from the harsh sound whenever an S is sung.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule. Some songs don’t need mixing, and some don’t need mastering. But hopefully this has answered general questions about the stages of your project.

Preparing for the studio

There's mainly 2 reasons you're recording- either you're just trying to get an idea down so you don't forget it, or you're documenting as best as possible a completed idea. If it's the latter, you should really be rehearsed. Know the part you're recording, know the lyrics, know the phrasing, know the pitches, know the dynamics, everything. You should be really well-rehearsed, if for no other reason than it will save you a ton of money! Then again, if you're just coming in to get a couple of ideas down to tape, then don't stress too much about mistakes.

But there is some serious validity to diminishing returns in the studio. The more takes you do, the less likely it is that you'll get it just right. That's not to say that 20 takes later you don't finally land an accurate take, but you most likely won't like it. Or you'll be so relieved that you didn't get it wrong that you'll write it off as being acceptable. But either way, you've compromised your original idea, and the whole reason you're recording! So if you take care of your instrument, make sure you sound your best, and know your part like the back of your hand, recording will be a breeze- and cheap!

Good In = Good Out

One of the key ingredients to a good recording session is the source. It's true a good engineer can make a bad source sound better. But it's much easier to make a good source sound great! There's a few things you can do before your session to ensure it sounds its best:

If you don't have a great guitar, try to get one. Borrow one, buy one, or rent one if you can. Put new strings on it, and have it setup by a professional guitar tech. We have some great guitars here for your use if you'd like.

Bassists, do the same. We'll probably take a line-out from your amp head, so make sure it doesn't have any ground problems. (Although we can get rid of some buzzes!)

Make sure tubes in tube amps aren't going out and the speakers aren't torn. Unfortunately, these are things that need to be fixed at least a month before coming in, as they need a break in period.

Drummers, new heads, new sticks, and tuned drums. And try to have spares of each in case something HORRIBLE happens!

Vocalists, there's a load of things you can do to preserve your voice. Avoid dairy, caffeine, and alcohol. Late night partying the night before tends to not be the best thing in the world for your voice. Honey OR lemon, but not both. Honey in some tea will leave a nice coating on your throat. The citric acid in the lemon will remove a lot of "gunk" in your throat. Put the two together and they'll cancel out. If you have any other questions on what you can do to be more prepared, feel free to give us a call or an email!

The Mics

Figure out which one you liked the best? Here are the mics:

Mic 1- Shure SM58 (Vocal Mic)

Mic 2- Rode NT5 (SDC Instrument Mic)

Mic 3- Sennheiser e609 (Guitar Cab/Instrument Mic)

Mic 4- Shure SM57 (Instrument Mic)

Mic 5- Behringer EC8000 (Measurement Mic)

Mic 6- Rode K2 (LDC Vocal Mic)

Mic 7- Shure Beta57 (Instrument Mic)

My favorite was, and still is the SM57. I listened to an even bigger shootout with even more expensive mics, and I still preferred the 57. My next choice would be the K2. It has a nice snap when the snare gets hit a little harder. Has a nice Motown feel to it. 3rdly, I'd pick the SM58. It didn't sound bad.

The NT5 was too bright and picked up too much room for me. The e609 was phasey, somehow, and sounded just bad. The EC8000 distorted even though the signal wasn't clipping. Not really meant for high SPL's anyways. And the Beta57 was just a disappointment.

Snare Mics!

I don't have the widest selection of mics (although for my purposes, I really wouldn't need a wide selection!) Mainly a bunch of $100-$400 ones and a $1000ish one. But I took out everything I had and recorded each one on a snare drum. All about 3 inches off the edge, slightly angled in, going through my X-12 preamp. No compression or EQ was used. The snare in question is a nice Orange County with new Remo heads. Unfortunately, I don't know much about tuning drums, so I had to deal with it being in less than perfect tune. Give each one a listen and see which one you like best. I'll post the results on the next page.


Mic 1

Mic 2

Mic 3

Mic 4

Mic 5

Mic 6

Mic 7

Engineer/Producer

It comes up a little more often than I'd like. There's certain times when I absolutely want nothing to do with the role as a Producer, and others where I'll insist on it.

When a client asks me to be their producer, they usually want me to tell them when to redo a take, or try it another way, or take a break and come back to it etc. The role of the producer is to have an idea of where the song needs to go, and to get the best performance possible out of the artist. The problem with having me, as your engineer do it, is an awkward conflict of interest. First, you're paying me hourly. If I ask you to try a take again, I make more money the longer you work at it. That doesn't sit well with me. It feels sketchy. Secondly, you might be doing a style of music I'm either unfamiliar with, or just don't like listening to. So I'm maybe not the best person to be asking. Lastly I don't usually like it because I don't know you! What if that was your best take? What if I'm expecting more from you and you can't do it? The studio can be stressful enough, and I worked diligently at making sure it's comfortable. I don't want to undo all that by barking at you to be "better".

Now for when I insist on being the producer! It's almost always when I'm either giving someone a deal or it's a group coming in. Bickering happens real fast and takes up a lot of time. The bass player wants to spend 5 hours on his part, the drummer gets mad, maybe wants me to replace some of the drums with samples, the singer is twiddling his thumbs the whole time. This is the time when I insist on being a producer because they need someone to keep things in order. I will usually say, "Okay, we're not spending anymore time on this." Or, "To be honest, no one is going to notice that mistake". Again, it's not necessarily making musical decisions, but time based decisions. I may or may not be an expert in your style of music, but I probably do know better than you what you can get away with. We could spend 5 hours piecing together 5 different vocal takes, auditioning each line to see which one was best. But more often than not, your average listener won't notice.

And that is the other problem I run into. Obviously you being satisfied is my first priority. I want you to leave with a product you are happy with. I don't want you leaving thinking "Oh I wish I did that vocal line this way instead". But the truth is, EVERYONE does that. Big artists and groups have those regrets. There's always things you'll want to go back and change, but it doesn't mean it's unacceptable. Trust me, the only person who is going to know is you. If you're good, no one else is going to know you could have done that one take better. That being said, I will stop recording if you mess up. If there is a blatant mistake- your guitar is out of tune, you screwed up a lyric, you came in at the wrong time, you're more flat than autotune can handle, I'll tell you.

Why Mp3's?

I was reading a couple of questions people had about why we still use Mp3's in an age where audio quality can be so high. A couple of reasons:

Mp3 players, iPods, Smartphones, etc. How are you listening to music from these devices? Big bulky headphones? Nope, you're most likely using ear buds. Unfortunately, ear buds suck at being accurate. Especially in the bass range. Even the high end ear buds aren't that great, sonically. I mean, by definition, they are so small they can fit in your ear. The speakers they use physically can't reproduce some of the frequencies true to the recordings.

Big quality also means big file size. The point of having mp3's is so you can have a lot of songs at your disposal on a relatively small device. A 3 minute pop song sitting on the hard drive at the studio it was recorded at, is probably 3 Gigs if it was recorded at 96/24. For you to have it on your iPod, it needs to be 3 Mbs. Gonna lose quality to do that!

The final reason, is people. People like things loud. So the producers or record companies ride the mastering engineer's ass to put on loads of compression and limiting on the song so when you hear it, it's "loud" and for a short time, you like it. This comes at a huge sacrifice of dynamic quality. If redbook specifications now allowed CD's the be released at 96/24 (instead of 44.1/16), you have a ton more headroom to make things louder, and thus, suckier.

Now, not all mp3 encoders are equal. There are some very good ones. I use WaveLab 6's, and export my mixes that need to be mp3s at the highest settings I can. That actually yields a surprisingly good result. But even those mp3's are about 3x the size of your standard mp3. If you're looking to make your own mp3 collection from CD's, I'd suggest finding a high quality encoder and use the best settings rather than buying them off iTunes.

Why the Studio?

If you're going into the studio, ask yourself these questions:

Are you recording an album or a demo?
An album is a larger collection of songs with a bit of variety. They don't all have to be hits, and they don't all have to be under 3 minutes. A demo is a small collection of specific songs used as a showcase. So....

Who are you pitching your songs to?
A record label? A management company? A production company? An agent? General population? They're all different, and all could be looking for totally different things.

What do you want to do with your songs?
Are you hoping your song will get on the radio? Don't bother if it's over 4 minutes (sorry!). Are you pitching your song for a soundtrack? No problem if it's 4 minutes. Just know your market and your songs.

Are you willing to change or re-write your songs?
If you're making an album for you, don't worry about it. If you're looking to be picked up by someone, be prepared to have to change your songs.

These are questions you need to have answers to long before you step foot into the studio. Do the songs need arranging, and do you need to hire session musicians? Have a clear idea or example of what you're looking for. Be open to suggestions. Sometimes the engineer is going to know what to spend time on and what will be a waste just from experience. It's okay to change your mind halfway through the project. Just don't expect it to be free!

Piano Mic Techniques, Part VI Blues

Blues Style

New York State of Mind- Billy Joel

7 inch:


21 inch:


Facing:


XY:

Results:

For me, the method that worked the best for the song was the 21 inch technique. I think it was the most accurate sonic representation when comparing my version to the original. The 7 inch had too much separation and not enough middle range, where most of the song's detail is. The facing method was good, but lacked the depth and fullness I was looking for. XY, again, captured too much room tone, and by nature, isn't as spread out spatially as I like. Winner, 21 inch.

Piano Mic Techniques, Part V Piano Rock

Piano Rock

One Angry Dwarf and 200 Solemn Faces- Ben Folds Five

7 inch:


21 inch:


Facing:


XY:

Results:

Man this was a hard one to choose. I like the fullness of the 7 inch method. Since it's the main instrument, I want it to be big sounding. But it did lack some detail. One the other hand the Facing method was also very nice, but totally opposite. It captured the dynamic range of the piano, and articulated the hammer sound, which to me really makes it sound energetic. The downside is that it lacked some of the deepness that I'm looking for and had a bit too much room tone for the style. I suppose what I'll have to do is mix the two tracks, get them to sound as good as I can, and then decide which would work best. Winner- undetermined!.....for now......

Update:
Facing Mixed


7 inch mixed:



Well it's still hard to tell, but I think I'm leaning towards the 7 inch method. I might be getting hung up on the room sound of the facing technique, but for now its not fitting. And I like the fullness of the 7 inch method. Winner, 7 inch!

Piano Mic Techniques, Part IV Pop/Rock

Pop/Rock

Dreaming With a Broken Heart- John Mayer

7 inch:


21 inch:


Facing:


XY:

Results:

Well I think if I were stuck with only one technique, I can't go wrong with the Facing method. What I don't like about it is too much hammer sound for the song, and too bright. I do like how balanced it sounds and how wide it is. The 21 inch method sounds fuller, dryer, though I wish it had a little more air. I'd probably go with the 21 inch technique for this style. It sounds a little closer to the original. Winner- 21 inch

Piano Mic Techniques, Part III Jazz

Jazz style

Christmastime is Here- Vince Guaraldi

7inch:


21 inch:


Facing:


XY:

Results:

Woh! I can't believe I'd use the XY in something! I think because even panned it sounds mono, and since the original that I'm familiar with doesn't use modern day stereo techniques, this type of jazz would certainly benefit from the XY. It does have a little too much room tone, but that's my fault. I'm going to be making a portable vocal room with sound acoustic curtains that will help with this type of recording next time. I think it's also important to mention that I'm listening using headphones, so room tone will probably be less exaggerated on near-fields. The 7 inch technique sounds too harsh and brash for me. The 21 inch sounds good, but a little too washy sounding for me. Probably because I'm not a real pianist and use the sustain pedal more than I should. Again, I couldn't go wrong with the Faced technique. The sonic characteristics I'd like from the piano might not be there, but the natural sound is. But for this, the winner is XY.

Piano Mic Techniques, Part II Classical

The recordings were done in 88.2/24 bit, and rendered at ultra high quality mp3s. I know I just went on a rant on not being biased as a musician when I mix, but the one thing I cannot stand is hearing a piano from the audience perspective. I panned the bass mic hard left and treble mic hard right. I also tried to match the volumes as close as I could. Also, I'm listing them under each song rather than each technique, so it's a little easier to compare and decide which sounds best.

The recordings:

Classical: Prelude in C#m, Rachmaninoff.

7 inch:


21 inch:


Facing:


XY:

Results:

I like the Facing method best for this. It got everything really naturally, and anything I'd need to enhance I can always do with EQ later. XY also sounded good, but dammit I wish it was wider. The 7 inch and the 21 inch either boosted too much or left too much out, and for classical I think it all has to be there. Winner, Facing!

Piano Mic Techniques, Part I

Thanks to Dan Hocott, I decided to take advantage of his lending me his Neumann KM184 stereo matched pair mics. Gorgeous sounding mics, so detailed. Anyways, I thought this was the perfect time to play around with a few grand piano mic techniques on my Hazelton Bros baby grand. I used 4 different techniques, a couple popular, a couple not very. I also wanted to record more than one style, because one technique might sound great on one style and awful on another. Onto the test!

The Techniques:

• 7 inch- This is probably the most popular I've seen. I'm referring to it as the 7 inch technique because the mics are placed about 7 inches off of the strings. One mic is about 3/4 of the way down the bass strings, the other about half way up on the treble strings. The goal is to get a direct sound that accents the bass and treble (obviously).
  
  

• 21 inch- This is kind of the opposite of the 7 inch technique. I placed both mics about 21 inches high, facing down over the hammers, about 15-20 inches apart from the middle of the console. The goal is that it gets more of a room tone, not as direct sounding, and is more balanced. It's not focusing only on the bass and treble, but does pick up more of the hammer sound.

• Facing- To set this up, I had the two mics facing each other at the opposite ends of the piano. At about ear height from the sitting player's position, over the hammers, and the mic capsules match where the high C and low A keys would be if they extended out to the hammers. This is supposed to be incredibly natural sounding, and closely resemble what the player hears.
  
  
  
• XY- I set it up about 6 feet high, behind the player, with the mics facing down towards the middle of the keyboard, slightly over the hammers. Again, this is supposed to be natural sounding, like a mix between what the player hears and a room mic.

I used my Rode K2 at a "sweet spot" near the curve of the piano, but didn't include it in these mixes. I treat it more like a room mic, and depending on what the 2-mic technique needs, EQ it totally differently. Since it's like my "overall balance" mic, I only wanted to show how these matched pair techniques sounded.

The Music:

I didn't want to use just one song, but didn't want to do 1,000 songs. I decided on a selection of classical, jazz, pop, piano rock, blues.

• Classical- Prelude in C#m, by Rachmaninoff. I liked this one because it contains a lot of space, uses a lot of low and mid-high piano range, gets busy, gets quiet, etc. I think it's a good representation of most classical piano pieces.
  
  
• Jazz- Christmastime is Here, Vince Guaraldi. It has the melody and nice full sounding jazz chords in the part, so I thought it was a good overall representation. I would have liked to have done a second Jazz example that focuses more on chord comping, but this will have to do. It's slow, not very dynamic, but wide.
  
  
• Pop/Rock- Dreaming with a Broken Heart, John Mayer. I thought for Pop this was a good selection. It contains a high part, low chords, space, busy playing.
  
  
• Piano Rock- Of course it had to be a Ben Folds song. The only really rocking song of his I know how to play is One Angry Dwarf and 200 Solemn Faces. This is balls to the wall rock, where piano is the main instrument. Perfect example for me.
  
  
• Blues- New York State of Mind, Billy Joel. Yeah, it's not exactly blues, but not jazz or pop either. It's still piano driven, but much softer than the Ben Folds stuff.

Ringtone Adults Can't Hear

Is BS. I mean, the theory is correct. Adults starting at around the age of 25, start loosing their hearing. And that starts at the high end of the frequency spectrum. So technically, yes, there is a tone that a 40 year old teacher can't hear. What's BS is thinking your cellphone speakers can produce that tone. They can't. Anyone who has done some form of sound design knows this. How do you make someone sound like they are on a telephone? Cut out all the highs and all the lows. Because telephones can't reproduce those tones. Now your ringtone might produce a tone, and it might be at a low volume, and your teacher might not hear it, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of hearing it! :)

Voice Over Breathing Problems

So mainly with voice over work, but it can happen with just about any musical style, you'll run into a problem where the singer/voice actor takes a loud breath. There's a couple of ways to go about fixing this. Most engineers will just throw a noise gate on the track. The problem I find in that is it can end up sounding very unnatural not hearing a person breathe as they sing or speak. The other way to correct this problem is to go into the original wave file and manually edit every breath and bring it down in volume. But that's very tedious, and I HATE tedious work.

So I figured since I'm posting little workarounds I've come up with, I'd share this one as well. Here's how it works:

• Load Waves DeBreather. It's similar to X-Noise, except it already has specific tailored noise profiles of breathing.
• Just like in the chair squeak fix, play with the Threshold and Reduction settings until you get rid of all the breaths. What you're doing right now is really no different than using a fancy noise gate.
  
• Here's the trick! Now duplicate the track, open up the Debreather plugin which should already be on the track. On the bottom right hand corner, there is an option to listen to the audio or the difference. By default it is set to audio, but select difference.
• Now you will have 2 tracks. One that has only vocals and no breaths, and one with only the sounds of the person breathing. Just lower the fader to a volume that's more natural and you've avoid spending the next 2 hours manually adjusting every breath!

Hope this helps!

Accidental Chair Squeak!

Dammit! There I was, in the middle of a live acoustic recording, and I lean up in my chair to check something on the levels. SQUEAK! The musician was cool enough to let it slide, but come mix down I'm still faced with this horrid noise. The type of music we were recording was Acoustic Jack Johnson-y, so it's not like I could cover it up with layers of other instruments. Here's what I did to fix it, and to the best of my knowledge, I'm its inventor!

• Duplicate the problem track and edit the duplicated track so the only region it plays is the part with the chair squeak in it.
• Load Waves X-Noise (or a similar noise canceling plug-in).
  
• Set the resolution on high, and get a "noise profile" of the problem area. Now here's the thing, the "noise" you're after is actually the sound of the acoustic guitar (in my case).
  
• Play with the Threshold and Reduction settings until the sound of the guitar is gone and all that remains is the sound of the chair squeak. You're not going to be able to get rid of all the guitar, don't worry about it! Get as much as you can!
• Reverse the phase on the duplicated file and make sure that it matches the panning position of the original track.
  

Viola! Now when the track plays and gets to the chair squeak, the new track will cancel out only the frequencies that include the chair squeak and only leave the acoustic. I will try to include an audio file to demonstrate.

Here's the chair squeak before:



Here it is after:



The squeak is still there, and because some of the acoustic was still left in the X-Noise track, some of it got canceled out. But it sounds much better and it's not something you could have achieved purely with EQ. There is another program called Spectro that could have helped with this as well, but I think there would have been a stark difference, whereas this seems less noticeable in context with the song.

Snare Compressors!

Again, I'm using BFD. Here is the dry sample:


The particular snare I landed on for this loop was a Ludwig WFL Buddy Rich Snare. Settings were around:

Ratio- 6:1
Attack- 1
Release- .2
About 6db GR

API-2500- Brings out thwack. Does some funny things with the overtones. Certainly punchy, lacks some bottom end, definitely shines on the mids and highs. Hit's the snap of the snare harder than any other comp. Sounds compressed though where the others don't. Also has a slightly harsh sounding area depending on the velocity of the snare.



Sonalksis SV-315MK2- Sounds a little aggressive. Much brighter than the API. Brings out the thwack of the snare too, but not as obnoxiously as the API. Again, this one and the URS sound fairly similar, this one being a little more modern sounding.



RComp- Weird reaction, has a vintage sound too it, more so than the API. I guess what I mean by vintage is it's a little darker. Really brings out the high-mids, more than the others. Not as transparent, can hear the compressor working. Definitely brings out the meat of the snare too though, which I like!



URS 1970- Keeps some of the sizzle I like in the snare. Snare sounds great, untouched, transparent until some fills happen. Probably have to play with the attack times better for that. This one doesn't bring out weird overtones like some of the others. I mean, I know the overtone is from the snare itself, but it's not as bad on this comp.



Softtube FET- Yuck. I'm sure it's a wonderful buss compressor, but on the snare it's not great. Leaves a weird crackling artifact. Yeah, I just don't like this one.



Results!
The URS wins this round. Again, if you're happy with your source, I don't like fucking with it too much. I'd use the API on Pop for sure, like a Maroon 5 type song. The beat I'm using for this sample is a little more on the funky side, which is why I'm picking the URS over the Sonalksis. I'd use the Sonalksis in a more heavier setting. Actually my second pick if the URS wouldn't work would be the RComp. It does do something nice for this style. Would be good for funk/rock.

Kick Drum Compressors!

I used a sampled DW Kick from BFD. Here is the dry sample:


Each were approximately:

Ratio- 6:1
Attack-3
Release-.2
About 10 GR

I'm also getting out of the habit of using exact settings for every plug-in and play with the settings for each, getting them to sound as good as I can.

Here are the audio samples. I recorded them in 88.2/24bit, and had to export them (since it won't play wave files) as mp3's at 44.1k/320kbps.


Waves API-2500- Affects more of the beater side of the sound. Punchy, not very deep sounding. Sounds like it would sound good for fast metal with a lot of double-bass drum. Vintage sounding, what a surprise!



Sonalksis SV-315Mk2- Bigger sounding than the API. Sounds much clearer. Still attacks more of the beater sound, but includes some of the thump and low end. I prefer to not hear a compressor working, but if I were forced to, this is acceptable! However! It seems to be doing it's job a little too well and brings the snare bleed out more than the others. That could be a deal breaker depending on the situation. But can you really fault a compressor for doing too good of a job? In all likelihood, I'd probably end up playing with the settings a little more to fix it if it were a real issue.



Waves RComp- Looowwwwww. Really gets it sounding deep. Pretty well rounded, beater isn't as present, and I think that's what gives kicks their "punch". I'd be a little concerned with all the low energy it seems to be effecting. Either that I'd end up in the mastering process put a HPF on whatever it's hitting, or if I left it in, it would destroy car speakers. Would be awesome for R&B or Rap kicks or something heavier. But then I suppose if I were using it for Hip-Hop, I'd be slamming the mutli-band mastering compressor so this didn't tear apart someones car speakers.



Softtube FET Compressor (Neve 1176 clone)- Very natural sounding, very well rounded. This plug-in is weird and takes a little getting used to. There's no normal "Threshold", but I got a sound I liked out of it. Probably the most transparent of them all. Only seems to enhance what's already there, not necessarily add something new. On this particular drum loop and on a DW kick, I might not be looking for natural though. Will have to see how it sounds in context.



URS 1970 Compressor (From what I am told, Neve 2254 clone)- Bigger. Seems to be the middle ground between the Sonalksis and the RComp. Has a nice blend of the meat and punch. Also very transparent. Actually sounds very similar to the Sonalksis. A little darker sounding.



Results!
After listening again and comparing each one, I liked the Sonalksis the best for this. It seemed to really enhance what was already there, and where it did add something new, it was only an enhancement to the track. Being a DW kick, you're expecting a certain punch to it, so I think this did the best job bringing out those qualities. But this was good, because I liked each one for different styles. If I was doing some light pop or jazz (and it even needed compression!) or country, I'd probably use the Softtube Fet or see how the URS sounded. Heavy metal, R&B, Hip-Hop and such, RComp all the way. Something more vintage sounding, like a Beatles tribute band, I'd turn to the API or URS.

Drum Mic Shoot-Out on Gearslutz

So there is a fantastic drum mic shoot-out, found here:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/273201-drum-mic-madness.html

This guy went ALL out, and it was awesome. I didn't even take notes like I normally do. There's too many choices and soooo many mics I can't afford right now anyways. But hell, I gave the kicks and snares a listen. I wrote down the corresponding numbers I preferred the most and whatever I didn't like, I deleted. Fast forward to the results and I was sooooo happy! I ended up picking out the mics I already own!

You might say I picked them out because that's what I'm used to hearing, but I just very recently started miking drums for recorded sound. For the most part I've used BFD or Addictive Drums for my drumming needs. And besides, I didn't know which mics were which beforehand, I just listened to whatever sounded natural to my ears. I'm absolutely in a phase right now where I go after the most natural sounding technique. A lot of the mics I didn't like, I didn't choose because they sculpted the sound in some way. And that might not be bad in a mix context. You might need to take some of the boom out of the snare to get it to sit right. But that's what my EQ is for. I'd rather capture the source as naturally as possible, and tweak it afterwards if it needs it.

Vocal EQ's

EQ
Waves API550A- Not surprising, it's pretty balanced. It's a little nasally and boxy sounding though, and seems to have a little trouble with the low-mids. Still a definite improvement to the track. Much louder than the other EQ's too for some reason.

Waves API550B- Dammit, more disappointment with this one. Unnatural sounding jump from dry to processed. Handles the highs and mids alright, but really boxy in the lows and low-mids. Does an okay job at handling the vocal when it's being sung strong and using a higher register.

URS A Series (API clone)- A bit harsh sounding in the upper mids, and also seems to have trouble with the low mids. I can't blame all this on the plug-ins though, as I had a feeling that was the case with the new preamp I'm using. Slightly muddy sounding, not as defined in the lows, although it is smoother in transitions between the bands than the others. Has a slight compressed sound to it. Not much of an improvement from the original track.

URS Fulltec (Pultec clone)- Seems to handle the lows much better than the others. Kind of a dark sound overall. Fairly balanced with an exception to more concentration in the lows than anywhere else. Not much of a jump in sound from dry to processed. Very natural sounding. Wish it were a hair brighter.

URS N Series (Neve clone)- Focuses more on the deep lows than any of the others. Not a really desirable thing with vocals. Very discrete sounding, rest of the spectrum almost sounds untouched. Kind of a weird transition from dry though. Also has a sort of compressed sound to it.

Vocal Results
As for the EQ's, they all seemed to have some difficulty with the low end. And like I said, I really shouldn't fault them for it because I know it's the preamp. I really shouldn't even say fault, because I LOVE that preamp. That being said, I definitely preferred the sound of the Fulltec over the others.