So, here’s the deal… Young is a bit misinformed. While I agree totally with his point (OCCUPY AUDIO!), his idea of what the digital full-resolution equivalent requires is wrong. 24 bit/88.2kHz audio may as well be 100% with 24/44.1kHz being marginally lower (99% maybe). All anything above 44.1kHz gets you is double the file size for a little low pass filter noise shifting out of the audible range on lower end systems that don’t themselves upsample before filtering. You can have high resolution digital today with a FLAC or ALAC 24bit files. And it will play on EXISTING iPhones/iPods/etc (at least the 44.1kHz ALAC will). What needs to happen is simply that the high res digital formats need to be made available to purchase. No new players are needed (though bigger harddrives would be nice). The file size of ALAC is only about 8 times that of a iTunes download. And, BTW, Bandcamp sites can already offer this.

But that aside… hell yes. And you don’t need to be an audio geek with a expensive system to get a full picture of high res audio. An iPhone with a decent set of open-back headphones and inexpensive outboard amp will do wonders. If you care about music, you should demand it. And while your at it, demand that the 24bit versions retain the full dynamic range — in other words aren’t limited and compressed to death from an audio (not data) standpoint.

This is my favorite audio analogy:
High-res 24bit file/vinyl == Hardcover book.
Heavily limited “Loud” CD/16bit lossless file == Paperback.
MP3/AAC/any other lossy format == Cliffs notes.

Watch in HD with a good set of headphones or studio monitors to get the full effect of the recording. Youtube really mangles the audio below 720p!

In this video, I do a demonstration of the CAD M179 continuously variable polar pattern large diaphragm condenser microphone… first as a Blumlein pair on a drum and guitar combo recorded live in the same room, then showing an array of possible polar pattern combinations on acoustic and vocals. I’m really pretty blown away with these mics for the price. I can’t think of a single microphone I’ve purchased in 20 years for under $500 each with this much versatility and neutral frequency response. And I only paid $250 total for the pair on Amazon (though the price seems to vary).

Everyone raves about these on drumkit toms. I haven’t tried that yet, but I’m interested in how they might stack up to my AEA R84 ribbon mics used with my modified/augmented Glyn Johns drum miking technique. I can’t imagine they’ll beat the AEAs in figure-8, but there may be times where I want a more delicate response that a cardioid or even omni can provide… especially with brushes or an otherwise quiet drum part.

And as I mention in the video, the bass response of these M179 mics is pretty impressive. I’m looking forward to trying them out on a bass amp — possibly even as a stereo pair. Or likewise, they might make a good kick mic outside a solid resonante head.

Basically, this is now one of several mics I’ll recommend to anyone starting out building a microphone collection for a home/project studio.

Once you start to build upon an initial recording by layering performances on top of one another (overdubbing), you start to fold time in on itself like a blanket. I used to think the goal of multi-track production was to make all these superimposed performances sound like they naturally happen all at once. But that’s as misguided as it is unachievable. Once you start using more than a binaural pair of microphones played over headphones, you’ve moved away from any semblance of reality. No matter how traditional the music or minimal the technique, you are manufacturing unrealistic space. And that’s not a bad thing, but it’s important to understand what that means from the perspective of the listener.

A multi-track recording is a harmonious synchrony of multiple points in time and multiple simultaneous perspectives. When tracking, the point is to capture the source and ambience as best you can under the circumstances. When mixing, the engineer’s job is to reveal the character and space around each perspective (each source) and blend them together in a way which simulates immersion into a unique and magical place. I’m not trying to romanticize it. I mean that quite literally. As the listener, you would have to be in an unusual place ruled by physics which hold no limitation over your ability to simultaneously listen from different places in a room — ear to a kick drum, a snare, inside a bass guitar, speaker cone of an amplifier, throat of a singer, a back wall — and a place ruled by physics which enable you to condense down to a few minutes what, in reality, took hours upon hours (if not days) to achieve.

Great records have well crafted songs and engaging moments of performance. They present each perspective of those performances with just enough familiarity that the listener can find their footing in that manufactured world while also providing enough complexity to challenge the listener to move freely to different planes of perspective.

Think about a good recording this way: as the listener, you might might be focused on a lead vocal. You hear where it’s positioned between the speakers (or headphones), you hear the ambience around the singer, you are drawn into that space and experience each breath and syllable. All the while, there’s bass pumping, drums pulsing, guitars, keyboards and all these other sounds washing against you… each with their own space. Each recorded source is another plane of perspective for you to move your focus. Each element sounds natural, blending with other sounds happening at that same moment. So even though in reality this type of acoustic listening experience would be impossible, what you experience when listening to a good recording makes sense. You buy into the artificial environment. And I believe much of that acceptance is subconscious. We experience a wide variety of sound all the time, and we subconsciously know how sound naturally behaves. We can also tell when a sound’s behavior is abnormal.

The natural element in the mix is critical. I don’t care what your sources are… acoustic, amplified, synths, samples, loops, heavily processed noise… all that is fine. The artificial space created around those sources need to sound believable. Even the most alien sound needs to appear to sit in a realistic space.

That, in my opinion, is the entire point of mixing: to balance the alien environment with the natural environment in a way that serves the focal point of the recording. And that’s why I think the English term “balance engineer” is far more fitting for the job than “mix engineer”. Mixing implies blending everything together smoothly into a cake badder… or mush. The balance of the frequencies, position, ambience and dynamic of each source with careful attention to how those sources work together… that’s what should always be on your mind when mixing.

Since we all share similar expectations with how sound behaves, adjusting for those balance concerns is basically a clinical activity. Balance engineering is a craft, but it isn’t necessarily a subjective art. There is more or less a range of right and wrong when it comes to presenting sound in a believable way. If something sounds off to me, it’s not up for debate. We make it sound good. The subjective aspects of mixing really come down to highlighting the interesting and understanding the artistic focal point of the sonic presentation. And often, it’s the artist who dictates these choices… or at least tells you when you’re stepping away from their vision. Once you understand the artist’s priorities with a track, you can make that presentation seem natural.

Try listening to your favorite records. Identify what in the presentation sounds natural and what sounds strange. Are the strange aspects off-putting or interesting? Try to listen to the space around each recorded source. How does the separation and blend of those sounds effect your experience with the music and the presentation as a whole? Does each source sound natural, or is it somehow affected in a detrimental way. What’s the recording’s focal point at a given moment? What grabs your attention, and is it good that it does?

These are all questions of balance, and you can apply that same process of critique during mix-down. Mixing is a constant state of flux. As one small thing is changed, the relationships of everything around it changes. Focus on achieving natural sound from your mix and you’ll easily pick out what isn’t working and make appropriate corrections. First, work to understand the subjective, presentational goals of the song. Then use your innate understanding of aural physics to make the alien combination of sounds, mic perspectives and superimposed performance exist in a believable, seemingly organic space.

But what I do miss are those raw tracking sessions… a great band all in the same room banging out some good tunes. Minimal overdubs. Just gloriously raw performance documentation. And it’s all the more special if there is a time constraint to the sessions. Lately, I’ve been remixing and mastering a lot of archival material that I’d recorded over the years. In the early-to-mid 90′s, getting studio time was a monumental task, so we made the most of it when we got it. We were tracking 10-13 songs in a weekend to make a complete album. And my — at that time — rookie recording skills aside, those recordings are very focused, energetic and exciting.

Also, for a band to get in a good studio to record with an experienced engineer these days will often cost several thousand dollars, not including the mastering. It’s tough to make back $4000+ in sales (that’s before the cost pressing CDs. And as I will harp on constantly here… you probably shouldn’t press CDs). So I wanted to put something together that would allow a tight band with a collection of great songs to get in and out for a price they could reasonably make back in digital sales in less than a year.

So here’s the deal. For a limited time and no more than once a month, I’m offering a package for $2000. You get two days, 16 hours total, to track and overdub as many songs as you can. Realistically, that would be between 6-10 songs for most bands — but hey — if you can pull off good takes of more, then go for it. Then in the couple of weeks following the sessions I’ll mix each song, either on the Toft console or inside ProTools depending on which you prefer. Then I’ll master the approved mixes for both vinyl and digital (download or compact disc) release. If you have any questions, feel free to email or call.

Here’s the details:

Album Production

Make A Complete Album in 16 Hours

There’s two things that I feel strongly about:

• A recording should be a document of sound in place and time which should immerse the listener in that moment.
• Bands should not invest more in a recording than they should reasonably be able to make back in less than one year.

And that’s why I’ve crafted this package. It gives bands a meticulously tracked, mixed and mastered release that honestly documents 16 hours of hard work. And at the current sale price, a band can break even with 400 digital album sales at $5 each.

Currently on sale!

More Details

What you get:

• 16 hours of studio time (usually two 8-hour days over a weekend) to setup, track and overdub up to 10 songs (or more if you can pull it off) engineered by Jimmy Ether at Headphone Treats.
• Your choice of in-the-box or analog console mixing of completed songs. I generally spend between 2-3 hours per song either way. In-the-box gives us total recall on mixes for detailed tweaks. On the console mixing is a bit more like performance art... you get what you get, but it often is more creative and better sounding overall.
• Mastering for both vinyl and digital (download or compact disc) release. About an hour per song goes into mastering all totaled. Mastering takes place over the course of several days.

I'm only doing one of these per month at the most, so get in touch if you're interested and reserve a session well in advance.

Currently on sale!

Quantity:

Price: $3,000.00
$2,000.00Price:

Updating cart...

I got into mastering audio partly out of curiosity and partly out of pure frustration. I wanted to understand why — no matter how good the mix — records often came out sounding slightly inferior without mastering, or unfortunately, often were sterile and lifeless after mastering. I’d sat in on sessions with many well respected mastering engineers throughout the southeast — a couple of personal heroes in fact — but, I’d always come away from the sessions unhappy with the results. And it was through no real fault of the engineers or studios. There was just a level of detail I was hoping to attain, and I was unable to articulate exactly what I was after. Were my mixes so inferior that the mastering engineer could simply do no better with them? No. I’d heard some horrible mixes come out of mastering sounding wonderful. I was perplexed for years. So, as is my pattern, I threw myself into that which was baffling and confounding me. Down another rabbit hole… this one lasting about 8 years.

Many people like to apply a mystical aura around mastering (even some mastering engineers), but it’s a craft like any other. There’s no magic… just technique and experience. What makes it different from the other audio crafts is the necessity to listen to and think of audio in a completely different context than you do when tracking and mixing. Performing, tracking and mixing is about the moment. You always strive to get each moment in recorded time “right”. Mastering, on the other hand, is about the whole.

Over the years, I’ve often heard mix engineers — especially from the indie scene — malign mastering as unnecessary and destructive. While improper mastering can certainly be destructive, some level of mastering is almost always necessary. And it’s not simply to conform to some expectation of loudness (a whole other unfortunate topic for later discussion, but the “expectation” part being highly debatable and somewhat mythical itself). Mastering is necessary to deliver a cohesive sonic presentation.

Great Mixes Need Mastering

When you have a really great mix of a song, it “translates” well. This means you burn the track to a CD-R, rip to your iPod, take it around to every stereo system and pair of headphones you can find and it sounds fantastic. Great mixes are exceedingly rare, but they do exist. So, let’s assume you are a golden-eared Bruce Dickinson who has produced 12 songs, each mixed perfectly. Do they need mastering? Yep. Because no matter how well they translate individually, taken as a whole you will hear inconsistencies. Track 3 sounds louder than the rest, even though it’s not. Track 7 doesn’t have as much low end as the others. The highs of Track 9 jump out after Track 8.

So, here you have these perfect mixes, but you’re being told (or thinking to yourself) that you need to go back and make “corrections” because they aren’t working in context with the other songs. But as you go back to Track 3, you find backing off on levels makes the mix seem less exciting. Adding low end to Track 7 just muddies things up. Bringing back the highs on Track 8 is giving you claustrophobia. You find you’re ruining your perfect mixes. They were right. Now they are clearly wrong. And they still don’t work right in sequence with the other tracks.

This is a common pitfall for mix engineers. I don’t know a single good engineer or artist who doesn’t struggle with this issue at some point. Their instincts tell them their mixes are in the sweet spot. But the clients, bandmates or friends are nitpicking issues of consistency as if they are things that need to be fixed in the mix. The mix engineer is correct… the mixes are right. The client or band is also right… there are consistency issues. The solution is simple. You need a competent mastering engineer. 12-15 hours in the hands of a good mastering engineer and you could have exactly what you’re after, instead of wasting weeks tweaking until you hit the “I’m sick of this… let’s just say it’s done!” mode. I’ve been there more times than I care to admit as well.

Striving For *Your* Best

Mastering is not about fixing mistakes or inadequacies in the material. Often we are forced to do a bit of that, but when I come across clear mix issues I generally try to get the client to correct the mix if logistically possible. Otherwise, I’m limited in what I can do for the project. In fact, the better the mix, more more flexibility the mastering engineer has to make the whole project sound wonderful. I’d go so far to say that if you feel your songs are important and the mixes are fantastic, then you especially need to make sure you are getting a lot of close attention in the mastering process so the project reaches its full potential.

This, in fact, is the very reason I started this website. I want your recordings and mixes to be the best they can be before they ever touch the hands of a mastering engineer (be that me or anyone else). I want to try and clarify what, in my opinion, is the domain of the artist, tracking engineer, the mix engineer, the producer and the mastering engineer. Those roles are rarely clear cut these days. But understanding, in general, what those roles mean and the perspective from which they each approach the music will keep you from beating yourself senseless with the goose chase of forcing one role to inefficiently and ineffectively do the role of another.

So, now I’m back in black… or, um, orange and blue. But back nonetheless!

The plan for this site is to offer my thoughts and experience with regard to audio production. I’ve learned a lot over the last eighteen years as a recordist/producer, and much of that has been through apprenticing, working and chatting with earlier generations of engineers. I’ve always wanted to give some of that back, and I am occasionally reminded of how much I love discussing audio. So I’ll be hanging out here as much as possible.

I’ll be going back through the old forum posts and articles and slowly bringing over whatever I feel is still relevant. But more than anything I hope to get some video tutorials and articles going on the topics which most interest you. So, please use the suggestions tab to the right or shoot me a Tweet or Facebook wall post with any thoughts you have for content direction. I’m all ears.

Please understand that anything I say here — no matter how curmudgeonly — is simply my opinion based on my experience and preferences. If you disagree, cool. Feel free to comment and we’ll debate it. But please use civility and good sportsmanship when commenting. Maybe stop at three beers before posting, unless — like me — you’re a sweet, silly drunk. Otherwise, venture over to rec.audio.pro, Electrical forum or TapeOp forums if you want to start a fight.

“The Last Umbrella” features Bassy Galore on lead and myself on backgrounds:

Then I took the lead on “Remember The Zoo” with Bassy backing me up:

You can listen and download the entire album for the wonderfully-wacky price of TWO DOLLARS on the Expo bandcamp site:

We tracked using the analog/digital hybrid method I had developed over the years. I simultaneously recorded live through multiple wide format tape machines directly from the repro heads into ProTools. Each machine was set up for a different tape formulation. My Ampex 1/2″ 440B 4-track was set up with BASF 911, a +6 tape with similar characteristic to the famous old Scotch 250. The other machine, an Ampex 1/4″ 440(A) 2-track, was set to use Quantegy 456. Both machines were using CCIR/IEC1 equalization, providing greater headroom in the low frequencies with a more gradual roll off in the highs as compared to IEC2.

The 911 tape was always a favorite of mine for drums, bass and pretty much general purpose recording. For these sessions, I was primarily tracking Blake’s acoustic and vocal live while also augmenting with some ambient mics to capture the room. Often it would be a Blumlein pair of Shure 300 Ribbons for a stereo ambient pair. The vocals were mostly tracked with an early MXL V77 tube mic (sounded great while it held up… not much longevity on those suckers). I likely used a Shure SM7 on a few of the more volatile vocal tracks. I think all the acoustic parts were with a Shure SM-81.

The cool thing about 456 tape is that, when the signal is absolutely slammed into it, it exhibits this really gritty brick-wall compression, but without dulling the overall tone. I use the heck out of this for electric guitars… basically stealing Roy Thomas Baker’s trick he used on the Queen and Cars records. There weren’t a ton of electric guitars on Blake’s record though, so I used this machine to get a distinctly hard percussion sound using unconventional instruments. For the self-titled opening track, “Appetizer Sickness”, I slammed the foot pedals on an old spinet piano while miking the strings and overloading the tape.

To fill out the tracks, we recorded several groups of musicians in live overdub sessions. Diana Obscura (of Lynda Stipe’s Oh OK) and her friend Carol were our string duo. Drew and Terri of No River City came in on accordion and cello. And, our friend Lisa Hayes and her coherts from the Atlanta Scared Chorale knocked out the gospel vocals on the final track.

From Blake’s Press Bio:

A drink from a broken glass. A howl for your sweetie. A starry still life staggering with the moon. Daydream fields. A hat for a scarf. Funeral walks and sleeping trees. A boy with a thorn from the head of our savior. Feelings go south. A bottle of whiskey and me on the other side.

The songs of Blake Rainey are haunted; God, ghosts, dreams, and the natural scene all play a major role in Appetizer Sickness, Rainey’s debut solo album. The tunes on Appetizer Sickness are marked by the outcast characters embedded within the remnants of an old world: mill homes and broken sidewalks, bridges abandoned and burned factories all rot along with their inhabitants searching for truth under moon and lamp lit scenery. They struggle each with their own sense of desires and purpose, yet never able to completely lose all hope, transcending in the end with surreal celebration.

Rainey grew up near Esom Hill and the Alabama border in Cedartown, Georgia, some 70 years after Sterling Holloway was born there. Though he currently resides in Atlanta, the rustic roots of a rural town forgotten by time are still at the core of Rainey’s music.

As Rainey is now hard at work promoting his new solo release, he carries on a parallel universe as the frontman of the loud rock band The Young Antiques. The ‘Tiques’ most recent release, 2003′s Clockworker, was also released by Two Sheds. The ‘Tiques’ post-punk blare and energy sharply contrast the muted introspection of Appetizer Sickness, yet the literary overtones are ties that bind.

Guest musicians include:

• Jimmy Ether – guitars, percussion, piano
• Faith Kleppinger – vocals
• Diana Obscura – cello
• Carol Statella – viola
• Judson Henry – vocals
• Drew de Man (of No River City) – accordion
• Terri Onstad (of No River City) – cello
• Pam Burton – vocals
• Sarah Ruska – vocals
• Lisa Hayes – vocals
• Laurie Beck – vocals

From IndiePages:

“I think that compilations that focus on a group of fairly unknown bands are a good thing. This cd does just that: of the 18 bands on here, mostly from the southeastern US, I’ve only heard of 2 or 3 of ‘em. Sure, it’s always a big risk to release a compilation cd without “big-name bands” on it to help sell the disc, but if they’re done right, they can be much more fun to listen to. The music on this comp is primarily bedroom pop music – lots of one-person projects recording at home on a four-track. The overall pace of the record is a bit slower and laid-back, but there are a bunch of great pop moments on here, such as the soft Club 8/Shoestrings-ish twee pop of See Venus, the equally soft Fairline Parkway (who remind me a bit of Aden or Brittle Stars), the really really cool Ether Family Presents (imagine Amy Linton fronting Slant 6), and the vaguely Ropers-ish Lookwell (who I’d quite like to hear more from!), among others, like Lopez Jar and Gritty Kitty. Speaking of the Brittle Stars, there are TWO side projects here: I Love You (Stephen), with a casio cover of Rocketship’s “She’s Gonna Make Me Cry”, and Dan’s project, Clarify. Unfortunately, not all of the bands are very interesting (see Pacer or Polline), and there are way too many instrumentals (four or five; I lost count) that I didn’t much care for. And this compilation makes the error of not including ANY information about the bands at all, which is especially glaring since almost all of these bands are relatively unknown.”