Improving Muddy Recordings???

  • Thread starter mantleproduction
  • Start date
M

mantleproduction

Guest
This may be a simple question:

Why do most home studio producers? recordings turn out so muddy and dull? I am a recording engineer for audiobooks and spoken material, but eventually want to record a CD with some musician friends of mine.

How have you improved your sound? As a musician and recording engineer, how can I record my band's own demo CD at home with Cubase (8 tracks), condenser mics, and a completely sound-proof room, and not make the same mistake that many home studio producers have done? I?m hoping to go for pop/soft rock sound.
 
crap in = crap out ...

you can fix a lot of things but its better to modify sounds and get them happening before you start recording, easier said than done I know, but use your ears and common sense, for example a dull snare with 10 db's of hi end boost sounds just like that ; a dull snare with hi end boost, move the mics until you hear what you want and then start recording...
 
absolutely, substractive eq is the key but try using that apprach during the mixing stage, not at the recording stage...
 
Also bear in mind that frequencies get eaten up by other instruments when mixed together - so compensate for that when eq'ing an instrument in isolation.

In addition, there is no substitute for good mics - I've just bought a pair of GT55 condensers and it's a dramatic improvement over the NT1s I was using for drum overheads.

Lastly, with cheap eqs (inc most budget mixer eq and software eq), subtractive eq is the only way to go - aggressive boosting only works/sound good with quality outboard eqs.

:monkey:
 
As above - NEVER assume that you can 'fix it in the mix'!

The mastering process generally 'enhances' on the quality of the original recording hence if the original recording is pants, when it gets to the mastering stage, there is less to work with.

There are a number of ways that you can boost the quality of a recording assuming that the original mix down is of sufficient quality. Invest in some software mastering and other fx plugins for one.

The Waves mastering bundle has some great mastering fx but there are others too.

Do you have audio editing software like cool edit pro or Soundforge?

If so, try reading up on mastering in general (there are a number of threads here on FP - many of which will redirect you here - http://www.studiocovers.com/articles9.htm ).

Good luck...oh and welcome to FP!!! :)
 
The best way to avoid making mistakes is to do things completely wrong from the start.

If you started out perfectly you'd never acquire the knowledge you need to progress.

So just make a recording, master it, screw it up really badly. And from there you will learn the limitations of mastering much more effectively than getting it right from the start.
 
yea I agree with music man u dont want to eq during recording because if you do you ll lose sound you can t get back. so eqing is better done at the mixing process.One thing I learn is if you record something great the mixing process will be alot easier and that includes mic placement techniques and mics that pick up the instrument right.And if after you mix your music you take it to a good mastering engineer they will make it sound close to perfect because they know wha frequencys to take out just from listening and there rooms are built for perfect sound and they give great deals to freelance recording/ mixing engineers.
 
First, learn everything you can.

And then throw out the rules.

By that I don't mean forget everything you just learned -- but that rules are just guidelines.

Mix by your ears -- not by settings or rules you've learned or set up. (Doesn't hurt to keep an eye on the meters, though. ;) )

Everybody's advice above is good.

A trick that may help you to create a more defined mix that suggests real people playing in real space is to visualize your stereo mix in three dimensions.

This involves a little mental shenanigans, though.

Obviously, there is the left-right axis defined by the stereo speakers. And it's not too much of a leap for most of us to see that, by judicious use of reverb and echo [which should not be treated as the same type of phenomenon] you can help create the psychoacoustic image of front to back depth.

But what about the third, vertical axis? That's where the mental trick comes in. You need to get in the habit of visualizing this as the spectrum from bass (at the bottom in my view, but I suppose it's arbitrary and you could visualize the bass on top) to treble (at the top in my schema).

While this is sort of an artificial conceit it can help you get into the habit of making a "space" for every instrument, voice and sound in the 3D matrix you're imagining.

So, for example, you can have a piano on the left and a rhythm guitar on the right -- and while, if these two instruments were 'stacked' in the same left-right position they'd mask each other's detail and definition, because they're separated in the stereo spread you can hear each clearly and they complement each other.

Now, you can also put, say, some high strings or a high organ part on either or both sides (who wants strings on just one side? Well, never say never)... and if there's not too much frequency overlap with the piano/guitar you'll still have clearly defined instruments.

Of course, this is a working metaphor. You might not be able to separate two similarly pitched instruments that exist in the same left-right space just by adding reverb -- but if you move one of them a bit on that axis you'll get more psychoacoustic definition than if you hadn't added the verb. (Also remember tha in most environments the farther back a sound is the closer to the center it will normally be positioned. (Sort of the audio equivalent of perspective.)

And, finally, back to the echo vs. reverb thing. The interplay between echo and reverb is extremely complex (and you've probably noted that many satisfying reverb patches do use some predelay echo). But -- and this is a rough rule of thumb just to use as a jumping off place -- you can generally think of reverb as "positioning" a sound back away from the listener. But you can sometimes push a vocalist or lead instrument forward with a subtle (or not so) use of echo (with less or even no reverb). When done over agressively this can sound pretty fake -- but even then it can be satisfying. But, done with discretion it can shove a vocal forward in the mix in such a way that it sounds like it's almost in front of the speakers. (Also, you can use more echo if you gate the echo to eliminate or at least attenuate the echo trail that lingers after the original sound.)

Also, on subtractive EQ --- it's a very good rule of thumb because most beginning engineers end up turning up the bass and treble on EVERYTHING. But, as always, ultimately you should be guided by your ears... not where some white line is on some knob. One key: don't get in the habit of soloing sounds when you EQ them. Listen to them in the mix when you're EQing -- because you're trying to get the sound to "seat" itself in the mix.

A good example is acoustic guitar. If you have a solo acoustic you want it full, with plenty of bass and plenty of sparkle too, since it's got to stand in for "the whole orchestra." But -- in a typical rock or country mix -- that acoustic guitar is probably only a chunky rhythm element. You'll almost certainly want to shelf off the bass with a high-pass filter -- and, depending on the situation and mix, you might even want to roll off some highs, too, if the guitar conflicts with other instruments or interferes with vocals.

Did I mention you should use your ears... ? :D
 
Back
Top