Update yet again

Sorry for the lack of updates. I plan on doing about four separate posts, and then backdating them. I must admit that I've been rather bad about things, but I will assure you (dear reader) that it's not from the lack of material to write from.

I've been paying attention to the somewhat old newsbit of Metallica's Death Magnetic's CD master, particularly it's supremely loud finish.



This video was great, because after adjusting/normalizing the average peaks of each track, you can hear the difference in sound quality, particularly with the drums. The Guitar Hero mastering has maintained the dynamics of the music, revealing more brilliant cymbal and drum presence, while the CD has the dynamics mushed, revealing dull drums. This goes back to a discourse that has emerged in audio production (The Loudness War), and clearly I'm taking the side of the audiophiles, mostly because loud productions, past a point, no longer sound loud, but just sound bad. As in the case with Iron Maiden, and their Dance of Death album:



At a certain point, one has to wonder just how much louder a CD can get, and notwithstanding obvious distortion and intersample peak concerns, wonder just how exactly can anyone listen to a piece of music with such loud production, when all the transients and dynamics are lost. At what point does the music just become audible mud? With quieter, more dynamic production, however, all one has to do is turn the volume up. The relative audio will be as lound as the listener wants, and the peaks sound more brilliant. The sound has more shape and dimension, and sounds better going through your speakers at your latest house party, complete with the booty-shakin and the head-bobbin.




Anyway, the reason why this has been on my mind is that some original material has been going through some issues with mastering, because I've been noticing that, the metal head that I am, I've been making my stuff sound loud. My music goes through a wave spectrum, and the peaks and dynamics are maintained, yet by utilizing various compressions in the busing chain, I got some rather undynamic drums. It seems that the remastered stuff of Judas Priest and whatnot has been affecting my ability to adequately perceive good production value. So, I'm going back and re-mixing and re-mastering some songs that I've "finished." (I must admit, for my personal stuff, I'm always remixing and mastering, critiquing and fine-tuning my track chains and mixing sequences).

That's all for now.

Apologies for absence

Jeesus.

I apologize. It has been very irresponsible of me to not write in this. This is my audio blog after all!

Well, I suppose I can mention some developments.

I have acquired a Gateway GT5692 desktop PC. It yields 500 GB of Hard Drive Space, Triple-Core AMD processing power @ 2.10 Ghz per chip, 3.25 GB of Ram, DVD-+ drive, and some nifty inputs (HDMI, USB 2.0, IEEE1394, and some smart card slots). I opted out of Vista because of the performance lags that have been reported with audio production, and I switched back to XP. Because Vista was Home and not Professional, I didn't get the downgrade option, so I had to transfer everything as a back-up, and manually reinstall all my programs.

I upgraded to SONAR 7, just in time for Sonar 8 to be released. Why am I at least one whole version behind? Because I like to spend as much time with the previous version as possible. Also, I tend to be cheap, and not have the impulse to be as up to date as possible, since the newer builds of the same DAW just yield slightly better options, and newer capabilities.

I also finally got my hands on a Presonus Firestudio.




It has made tracking drums a dream. It can capture audio sample rates as high as 96 KHZ, which is DVD quality.

So I decided to track some live drums, and I wanted to see how it came out. I've left the overall drum mix uncompressed, but I've EQ'd the kick by cutting out mids between 250-600, roll off the extreme highs and lows (20-60 hz, 18000-20000hz), and spiked the highs at around 8000hz with a Q rating of 1.5. I've raised the mids (600-1050hz) for the overheads, which also captured the tom hits), and I sent the top and bottom snare hits to a separate bus, where they were compressed, gated, and EQs by boosting the lower mids and mids (450-600hz, and 700-800hz). That bus, as well as all the other channels were then sent to another buss, where mild reverb was applied for resonance and ambiance. The EQ was set at rolling off the low end (60hz down), cutting the mids slightly (250-600hz at -3db)and raising up the high end (from 8000hz up to 1.5 db). The drum bus was sent into a rhythm bus, where a different equalization plug-in was set at boosting 150 hz and 7750 hz. That was then routed into the master fader, with the mid-EQs cut (300-650 to -3db).

And here it is. Enjoy.

Parallel Compression

This technique is essentially named for what it is, which is having two sources of audio playing at the same time, with one being the uncompressed audio, and the other compressed. Self-explanatory, really. But the results are quite spectacular.

Here we begin with the raw drum track. I just wrote some drum tracks using MIDI and a sampler, but I will do the same with real drums in the near future. Anyway, the primary drum track:



notice that it's nice and punchy. But once it is fitted into the mix, the kick drum can lose it's punch and dimension, and the snare could lose it's bottom tone.

So we take that drum track, and we feed it into an AUX channel. We insert a compression plug-in, and make it rather tight. I used the Sonitus Compression module, with about -10db as the threshold, and the compression ratio at about 30:1.



Sounds rather nice, but it wouldn't necessarily fit into the mix, as the levels are augmented, which affects the placement of each part of the drums.

So, we play the two sources together, and have the tonal and spatial differences work in congress. I placed the compressed signal at about -10 and left the raw drums at 0db. So let's hear:


Now you have the best of both: nice space and placement, and punch. That should fit into the mix nicely.

Thar you be.

Introduction

This is an introductory post to kind of launch myself into a more legitimate place as a freelancer/practitioner of audio production. Of course, I will not ever make a claim to be an expert or advanced in the field (I'll leave that to others, in the event that it turns true), though I guess I would like to think that I can some interesting things, and that I have something to offer musicians and songwriters.

Moving on, I'm typically called Paco by my friends and close associates. I guess I "specialize" in digital audio, mostly relating to Digital Audio Workstations, plug-ins, and digital mixing interfaces. I can do in-the-box mixing, and I'm capable of using outboard gear, though my experiences with actual hardware is a bit limited. Why admit this, at the risk of career suicide, you may ask? Because I'd rather be an honest, and admit to a deficiency than attempt to compensate through bravado, or just outright dishonesty. Also, using outboard gear is not overtly too complex, as most processing is a matter of preference and experience with particular gear set-ups. Since I've grown accustomed to digital processing (it does offer much more latitude in the manipulation of the original sound, anyhow), it would be best to build on what I'm familiar with, though I also have a strong desire to set myself down in a completely alien environment, and orient myself through complete immersion.

So I've been working on this project, and I've been learning quite a bit about the workings of Pro Tools HD, and the sheer awesomeness of patch bays, processing gears, and track editing. I must say, though, that even though the capabilities of editing are virtually limitless with DAWs such as Pro Tools, Sonar, Logic or Cubase, it does possess onto itself a propensity for overly-obsessive editing. As Andy Wallace mused, when talking to Mix Magazine:

The Pro Tools thing is a mixed blessing. The younger guys who have never had to cut tape or edit by bouncing on analog have a different perspective and are more easily caught up in over-editing. Not so much to the detriment of the material, although that can certainly happen, but just taking up too much time. Editing stuff to a degree that doesn't matter. You're never going to hear it. (Wallace, Mix Magazine, October 2005)

I've also been reading up on the tracking and mixing process for older albums, such as Rainbow's Rising, and I've found that even for major releases of highly progressive and intricate music, that the process of actually capturing the audio was treated as an organic one. This is to say that even something as monolithic as that album was handled very loosely, and quite the amazing effect of the album was accomplished. The takes usually amounted to 1-3, which led to quicker edits and compiling of master tracks, and the actual mixing and mastering were able to take place on a faster time table. This amounted to one AMAZING album. The experience of listening to such great material has had a pretty strong and lasting effect on me,. I do believe that over-processing and editing takes to achieve "perfection" tends to rob the material of its natural feel, groove, and syncopation, and renders the finished product as sterile and mechanical. And though I do look for futuristic sounds and production, I think of Voivod, and how they can maintain that great feel without sacrificing the artifice of distopian futurism.

I think the next post will focus on the effectiveness of Parallel Compression, and processing of drum tracks.

Stay tuned.