Using reference recordings...leaving me disappointed.
-
pizzaforbreakfast
- audio school graduate
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:04 am
Using reference recordings...leaving me disappointed.
I've always heard of (and witnessed) engineers use reference recordings at different points of the recording/mixing/mastering process. I know this is a great idea, but every time I try and use a reference record, it winds up leaving me discouraged. From A/B'ing during mixing, to bouncing to itunes and comparing, I still get disappointed. I realise that my pro tools LE mix can't compare to a commercial mixed and mastered recording, so I wonder why I'm referencing in the first place? Any insight?
-
markmeat
- pushin' record
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:25 pm
- Location: Evansville, IN
- Contact:
I'm on board with you, man...
It's usually only helpful in a situations where "X band has the snare way up and we like how that sounds"... great, I'll turn the snare up... something along those lines... I do what I can but I know my setup and the setup they used on... say Van Halen II are WAAAAYYY off base... all you can do it try your darndest.
MEAT
It's usually only helpful in a situations where "X band has the snare way up and we like how that sounds"... great, I'll turn the snare up... something along those lines... I do what I can but I know my setup and the setup they used on... say Van Halen II are WAAAAYYY off base... all you can do it try your darndest.
MEAT
-
MoreSpaceEcho
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6688
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
i keep a variety of references on my computer, just stuff i like the sound of, nothing in particular...for me it's helpful when i've been mixing all day/weekend and my ears are toast. if i'm thinking 'man i thought this sounded good this morning but it sure sounds like total and complete shit now' i'll put on one or two of my refs and see how those sound to me. so if '1000 hurts' and 'laughing stock' also sound like shit...well its time to stop for the day.
i think refs can also be good for really learning what your monitors sound like...just listen to a bunch of things you like and make mental notes...and if you start to notice that EVERYTHING you listen to sounds either too bassy or really bright or whatever, then it's time to look into some (more) treatments for your room.
and they're also good just to remind yourself how wide a range you have to work in...yunno some things are super low endy and dull, others are thin and bright, and they all sound good in the end...
i think refs can also be good for really learning what your monitors sound like...just listen to a bunch of things you like and make mental notes...and if you start to notice that EVERYTHING you listen to sounds either too bassy or really bright or whatever, then it's time to look into some (more) treatments for your room.
and they're also good just to remind yourself how wide a range you have to work in...yunno some things are super low endy and dull, others are thin and bright, and they all sound good in the end...
I'm in the same boat. I've since stopped trying to get my mixes to sound identical to other recordings, but for different reasons:
A) Signal chain. I don't have the same preamps, microphones, compressors, outboard effects that many other studios that these things were recorded in have.
B) Instruments. Most of the people I record with have different instruments, amps, drums, picks, etc...
C) Room. The room I work in is shit. The room THEY worked in was great. They spent many dollars tuning it. I haven't treated my room.
etc etc etc... There are so many variables that go into the differences between recordings... even when it's budget level to budget level. What I look for now is if I can find a similar depth of field and width of the frequency response, then I'm ok. As far as "quality and clarity", I can achieve what I can, but I don't look to compare that from my thousand dollar set up to someone's multimillion dollar set up.
Eh, I'll shut it now.
A) Signal chain. I don't have the same preamps, microphones, compressors, outboard effects that many other studios that these things were recorded in have.
B) Instruments. Most of the people I record with have different instruments, amps, drums, picks, etc...
C) Room. The room I work in is shit. The room THEY worked in was great. They spent many dollars tuning it. I haven't treated my room.
etc etc etc... There are so many variables that go into the differences between recordings... even when it's budget level to budget level. What I look for now is if I can find a similar depth of field and width of the frequency response, then I'm ok. As far as "quality and clarity", I can achieve what I can, but I don't look to compare that from my thousand dollar set up to someone's multimillion dollar set up.
Eh, I'll shut it now.
I'm all about a little kick and snare
I use references extensively. I use them throughout the mixing process to keep grounded on where I'm going with a mix and I always compare my final mixes with a few commercial CDs to see how they stack up.
The long answer is:
1) You can learn alot by listening. Analyzing a good sounding mix can help with all aspects of recording.
2) If your mix doesn't stand up, what is about it that doesn't sound right? I've found that a lot of the quality of good sounding professional recordings is in the arrangement. Does your reference have doubled guitars? Are there pads (low level parts that add depth and complexity) that you don't have?
3) As you learn more about recording (like from reading forums) you can hear many of these techniques on commercial CDs. When you try this stuff on your own mixes you can compare your results to the pros.
4) Don't just use outstanding mixes for references. When emo was the rage I recorded several emo bands. One of the references I used was The Promise Ring, "30 Degrees Everywhere." This is a low fi (some might say crappy) recording. When I would get frustrated I would play a song off this CD and it would make me feel much better.
I just don't accept the idea that I can't record, mix, and master a recording that would sound to the casual listener like a commercial CD from a professional studio. I don't always achieve that goal but that's what I'm trying to do with every project. How can I judge my output if I don't use references?
The short answer is because it should improve your mixing ability.so I wonder why I'm referencing in the first place? Any insight?
The long answer is:
1) You can learn alot by listening. Analyzing a good sounding mix can help with all aspects of recording.
2) If your mix doesn't stand up, what is about it that doesn't sound right? I've found that a lot of the quality of good sounding professional recordings is in the arrangement. Does your reference have doubled guitars? Are there pads (low level parts that add depth and complexity) that you don't have?
3) As you learn more about recording (like from reading forums) you can hear many of these techniques on commercial CDs. When you try this stuff on your own mixes you can compare your results to the pros.
4) Don't just use outstanding mixes for references. When emo was the rage I recorded several emo bands. One of the references I used was The Promise Ring, "30 Degrees Everywhere." This is a low fi (some might say crappy) recording. When I would get frustrated I would play a song off this CD and it would make me feel much better.
I just don't accept the idea that I can't record, mix, and master a recording that would sound to the casual listener like a commercial CD from a professional studio. I don't always achieve that goal but that's what I'm trying to do with every project. How can I judge my output if I don't use references?
-
leftofthedial
- pushin' record
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:36 pm
- Location: Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
- Contact:
Not withstanding the fact that a lot of the stuff I was handed by bands as reference material sounded like total shit. And the fact that most commercial stuff has way too much high end in it it. Sure, it sounds good and sparkles at first listen. But 10 minutes into the listen, you find your ears hurting. And don't get me started on all the commercial country stuff that has way too much exciter white noise that is actually audible. WTF! But if you do have reference stuff that actually does sound good and you are striving for, well, then no harm in that.
They mostly come at night..... Mostly.
-
Frank Wall
- audio school
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:26 pm
I often have the opposite problem. I think my mix sounds great but then listen to a reference and feel like it doesn't have the same depth, dynamic range, and definition.
Probably an issue with my monitoring situation, and leads me to the idea that my mix may not translate very well. So I end up "compromising" my mix to get it to sound okay on systems other than my own.
Probably an issue with my monitoring situation, and leads me to the idea that my mix may not translate very well. So I end up "compromising" my mix to get it to sound okay on systems other than my own.
I only use reference cd's if I'm not getting some kind of sound that the band is asking for. Like the project I'm doing now, I don't listen to that kind of music so I'll have the band bring in some stuff that is from the genre of their music so I can get some ideas for where stuff sits in the mix. Some times I listen to things just for inspiration. Raw Power and Fun House...Technically those aren't great recordings but those records flat out rock because they were tracked mostly live and they got the vibe of what was going on and to me that's what I'm trying to do. Get that vibe on tape so I'm willing to sacrifice some sonic clarity for the sake of the vibe.
I use the Digi002 as well and my room eats a big one but I work with what I have and the room gets treated by the end of this summer. After I'm done with this current project I'll throw some up on the board and see what you guys think. I can use the critiques.....
I use the Digi002 as well and my room eats a big one but I work with what I have and the room gets treated by the end of this summer. After I'm done with this current project I'll throw some up on the board and see what you guys think. I can use the critiques.....
Of course I've had it in the ear before.....
-
pizzaforbreakfast
- audio school graduate
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:04 am
wow...great responses...thanks! Alot of great points. Obviously, i'm taking into consideration that my mix on a PC with no outboard gear is going to sound anywhere a record mixed at a million dollar studio, and those arent the records im necessarily referencing anyway.
Ive always been about using my limitations to make more creative recordings, but even with "lo-fi" or "low budget" records that I know where recorded in a bedroom with 1 mic and a digi 001 (the first Shins records being a prime example) my mixes are missing "that sound". Records sounding like records. I know that sounds very inexperienced and ignorant, but someone has to agree. As green as I am a recording engineer, I have thousands of records and realise that the best tool one has is his or her own ears. Whish leads me to think, is this a mastering issue?
I've never had much luck with mastering( which could be just lousy mastering engineers...you get what you pay for it seems hehe), which gets me to think that I'm just being REALLY subjective.
Again, awesome points...especially listening to a record purely for inspiration during the process...that I am guilty of!!
Ive always been about using my limitations to make more creative recordings, but even with "lo-fi" or "low budget" records that I know where recorded in a bedroom with 1 mic and a digi 001 (the first Shins records being a prime example) my mixes are missing "that sound". Records sounding like records. I know that sounds very inexperienced and ignorant, but someone has to agree. As green as I am a recording engineer, I have thousands of records and realise that the best tool one has is his or her own ears. Whish leads me to think, is this a mastering issue?
I've never had much luck with mastering( which could be just lousy mastering engineers...you get what you pay for it seems hehe), which gets me to think that I'm just being REALLY subjective.
Again, awesome points...especially listening to a record purely for inspiration during the process...that I am guilty of!!
-
Seamonster
- takin' a dinner break
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:19 am
- Location: old Malibu
- Contact:
I keep an ongoing Digital Performer project file with about 30 commercial songs in it, in a wide variety of genres: rock, jazz, folk, classical, re-mastered prog, world, etc. Most are tunes that clients brought in, in response to my usual request that they provide a few referents to the sound they?re going for (both mixing and mastering clients). There?s no Steely Dan in there.
This ?master reference? file serves multiple purposes:
* Having all the tunes in one project allows for quick A/B comparisons.
* The tired-ears-reality-check that others have mentioned, using the couple of tunes that may be relevant to the current project. Though usually I?ll just take a break -- I don?t fully trust notion that the way one tune sounds to tired ears will necessarily be the same as the way another tune will sound to those same ears.
* For inspiration when mixing. Like when I?m afraid to leave something too dry, a quick replay of something from Los Lobos? Kiko can set me straight.
* Especially for mastering clients, to provide a quick visual comparison of waveforms. It can be very educational for them to see that, for instance, an Erik Satie piano piece has an RMS scale that?s about 1/4 that of a crunched Radiohead track. A picture?s worth 1,000 words in explaining that they dont necessarily want their finished work to go above, say, RMS -12 dBFS (or lower). The Katz metering in UAD?s Precision Limiter or SpectraFoo is useful for that too.
* Relatedly, for strongly rhythmic material, it can be enlightening for clients to compare the ratio of ?beat to body? from one song to another. Some hippity R&B things have kick/snare peaks hugely bigger than the rest of the sound, whereas in a folk or ballady thing the vocal may be obviously on top.
* Doing all this helps me to appear more organized than I might actually be.
Generally, I like my clients to learn a little something. It helps to have them providing informed feedback and becoming that much more invested in the process, vs. my having to explain some choice I made after the fact. For the same reason, I?ll often give them a taste of SpectraFoo.
Like, when I take my car in, I appreciate that my mechanic takes me under the hood to show me the hows and whys of what?s going on. Or like when I pay my taxes, I want my government to explain why huge chunks of it are going to corporate welfare and the military. For example.
Hoagie
This ?master reference? file serves multiple purposes:
* Having all the tunes in one project allows for quick A/B comparisons.
* The tired-ears-reality-check that others have mentioned, using the couple of tunes that may be relevant to the current project. Though usually I?ll just take a break -- I don?t fully trust notion that the way one tune sounds to tired ears will necessarily be the same as the way another tune will sound to those same ears.
* For inspiration when mixing. Like when I?m afraid to leave something too dry, a quick replay of something from Los Lobos? Kiko can set me straight.
* Especially for mastering clients, to provide a quick visual comparison of waveforms. It can be very educational for them to see that, for instance, an Erik Satie piano piece has an RMS scale that?s about 1/4 that of a crunched Radiohead track. A picture?s worth 1,000 words in explaining that they dont necessarily want their finished work to go above, say, RMS -12 dBFS (or lower). The Katz metering in UAD?s Precision Limiter or SpectraFoo is useful for that too.
* Relatedly, for strongly rhythmic material, it can be enlightening for clients to compare the ratio of ?beat to body? from one song to another. Some hippity R&B things have kick/snare peaks hugely bigger than the rest of the sound, whereas in a folk or ballady thing the vocal may be obviously on top.
* Doing all this helps me to appear more organized than I might actually be.
Generally, I like my clients to learn a little something. It helps to have them providing informed feedback and becoming that much more invested in the process, vs. my having to explain some choice I made after the fact. For the same reason, I?ll often give them a taste of SpectraFoo.
Like, when I take my car in, I appreciate that my mechanic takes me under the hood to show me the hows and whys of what?s going on. Or like when I pay my taxes, I want my government to explain why huge chunks of it are going to corporate welfare and the military. For example.
Hoagie
-
MoreSpaceEcho
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6688
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
You use Raw Power as a mix reference?!? You are THE MAN. Assuming, of course, that you are, in fact, a man.Mane1234 wrote:Some times I listen to things just for inspiration. Raw Power and Fun House...Technically those aren't great recordings but those records flat out rock because they were tracked mostly live and they got the vibe of what was going on and to me that's what I'm trying to do. Get that vibe on tape so I'm willing to sacrifice some sonic clarity for the sake of the vibe.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests