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.