Topic: How much post production work does everyone do ?

[spearheadtaper]

just curious how much people around here master and adjust there recordings.......

so far with my first two.... i have just tried to adjust the volume so that its the same all the way through.....so I don't have to adjust the volume when watching
and no clicks pops or dropouts, or problems with levels being to high so other than that not sure what I might be looking to do...



just curious as to how much you guys tweak your recordings and how many just upload it and flac it     try to get some ideas as to what to be doing

[Brian Skalinder]

I would do whatever editing you feel makes it sound good to your ears.  Then seed whichever you prefer - the master, or the edited version.  Just remember, if you do edit - always keep your unedited master!

[bconnolly]

I always keep the raw wav from the Microtrack in its own folder (with all the soundcheck and what have you) and an MD5.  For the mastering process, I'm limited in knowledge to doing normalization, cropping, and fades.  I'm in the process of learning how to properly boost volume and compress recordings but I'm not in too much of a rush.

I find that, with my recordings at least, just running Replay Gain (in FB2K) on the FLACs boosts the volume to an acceptable level.  Most of my shows come out too low (better than too hot, right?) so all they ever need in my opinion is a kick in the volumetric pants.

[Roving Sign]

I think Replay gain is a no-no and shoud be noted in any text file...

Isnt replay gain a RMS normalization...?

[rowjimmy]

uhg on un-documented replaygain.

I resample, put fades at the beginning and end and, barring nasty sonic illness (snap crackle & pops) track & seed.
If it's not good enough, the people on the othe end can fix it to their liking or press delete.

I'd consider normalizing an all-around quiet recording but i'd absolutly document it.

[greenone]

uhg on un-documented replaygain.

I resample, put fades at the beginning and end and, barring nasty sonic illness (snap crackle & pops) track & seed.
If it's not good enough, the people on the othe end can fix it to their liking or press delete.

I'd consider normalizing an all-around quiet recording but i'd absolutly document it.

Bingo. Just the facts, ma'am.

[bconnolly]

Foobar2K's replaygain is just metadata.  It doesn't actually alter the waveform in any way (you can remove it just like any sort of ID3 info)

[kfrinkle]

I would do whatever editing you feel makes it sound good to your ears.  Then seed whichever you prefer - the master, or the edited version.  Just remember, if you do edit - always keep your unedited master!

A-men.  I listen to my recordings more than anyone else does probably.  I am gonna tweak with my recordings till I get em exactly how I want to hear them for my listening enjoyment at the office.

[willndmb]

NONE
imo if you are a taper you tape
if it comes out good, good
if not, oh well better luck next time

if you take a recording and "play" with it to make it sound good/better then you are not giving people the real recording, thus imo you are no longer a taper and now a producer

so any and all adjustments to a recording should be noted in the text file -- again imo

[willndmb]

uhg on un-documented replaygain.

I resample, put fades at the beginning and end and, barring nasty sonic illness (snap crackle & pops) track & seed.
If it's not good enough, the people on the othe end can fix it to their liking or press delete.

I'd consider normalizing an all-around quiet recording but i'd absolutly document it.

[spearheadtaper]

NONE
imo if you are a taper you tape
if it comes out good, good
if not, oh well better luck next time

if you take a recording and "play" with it to make it sound good/better then you are not giving people the real recording, thus imo you are no longer a taper and now a producer

so any and all adjustments to a recording should be noted in the text file -- again imo

actually I guess I kinda mistated the end result would be for audio for a dvd....so that is a totally produced product and I would like for it to sound the best it can.....  but from what I have tried so far I like my original unedited recordings best....via decibel changes in final cut at a few points 

[Brian Skalinder]

if you take a recording and "play" with it to make it sound good/better then you are not giving people the real recording, thus imo you are no longer a taper and now a producer

I enjoy sharing my recordings with others, but - call me selfish - I'm not especially interested in whether or not I give people the "real recording".

So I'm a "producer" and not a "taper" if I do one or more of the following...

• add fades at the start/end of each set?
• apply compression to reduce thunderous applause between songs during an acoustic performance?
• normalize because my levels were off?
• apply a HPF in post as opposed to on my preamp at the time of recording?
• mix my SBD and AUD sources in post instead of on-the-fly?
• use a parametric EQ?

All of the above are "playing" with the recording to make the recording more pleasing to my ears, i.e. "make it sound good/better".  I guess I'm a "producer" and not a "taper", then, whatever that means.  Not sure why the label matters...

[BayTaynt3d]

Depending on the artist, venue, purpose (was I specifically asked to do something vs. taping for personal use), my mood, etc., I will use some, all, or none of the following post edits (typically in this order of workflow, and ALWAYS saving an original in addition to the mastered files):

1. Fix any clipping that might have happened with Sony Clipped Peak Restoration & Waves X-Crackle VST
          (that combo can salvage the unsalvagable sometimes)
2. Unwind/reverse/level-off any riding of the levels I might have done at the start with volume envelopes
          (i.e., started too hot, so dialed levels down, in post, I'll bring the opening down to the levels I eventually stabilized on)
3. Adjust left and right channel level if one was run a little lower/hotter than the other
          (this is NOT panning, which may blend the channels depending on s/w and setting, I just add a slight bump to one channel all by itself)
4. EQ if needed (typically rolling off some bass, but sometimes brightening up the mids, but not too much EQ if any usually)
5. I might use Waves S1 Stereo Imager to expand soundstage or rotate it a tiny bit if my seperation sucked or I was asymetrically positioned
6. I might add a tiny bit of Waves R3 reverb if it sounds flat/dry (usually only do this with small classical ensembles in a dead room)
7. Always normalize if I can get anything out of that
8. Might possibly compress a tiny bit using the Waves L3 MultiMaximizer (never that much, but sometimes use this instead of normalizing by going just a bit farther than I could have with a straight normalize, I basically flatten out some of the big peaks without doing much more)
9. This is the point I'd mix AUD/SBD parts together if doing a matrix in post (I'd have mastered each seperately first, then mixed)
10. Then of course, I track it, and depending on gig, maybe fades in/outs on tracks or only at beginning of 1st song and end of last

But like I said above, I might not do ANYTHING just as easily as I might mess with it all -- but the key is not to do too much of any one thing, just a tiny bit here and there, otherewise, you'll end up ruining it more times than not. It just depends on a bunch of factors...

[midside]

Right on Brian, I'm on the same page as you.  An unmastered recording is a 'raw' recording that could almost always use some post production.  I prefer to be a 'producer' as it was mentioned earlier.  Why?  Because a 'raw' recording just doesn't shine the way something properly handled in post does.
The recording you pull will never sound the way your ears pick it up.  The mics you pick as well as the way you set them up change the way you capture the show.  Proper post production will actually make a recording sound more like the actual event than what you have on your raw recording.
But, most tapers don't know these techniques and cop out by saying that you are doing something wrong by 'playing' with it.
That's bogus.  Just ask the pros what they want to hear.  You know, the people that get paid BIG bucks to master.....because it sounds better.
Audiophiles use 'the best' recordings to test their playback system and all of these recordings are 'produced'.
Anyhow, to talk someone down because they know how to use professional tools properly is lame.  This takes years if experience combined with good sensibility.
I think post gets a bad taste in people's mouth because of the amount of people out there that don't know how to do it properly and end up trashing a good recording.......

[momule]

Right on Brian, I'm on the same page as you.  An unmastered recording is a 'raw' recording that could almost always use some post production.  I prefer to be a 'producer' as it was mentioned earlier.  Why?  Because a 'raw' recording just doesn't shine the way something properly handled in post does.
The recording you pull will never sound the way your ears pick it up.  The mics you pick as well as the way you set them up change the way you capture the show.  Proper post production will actually make a recording sound more like the actual event than what you have on your raw recording.
But, most tapers don't know these techniques and cop out by saying that you are doing something wrong by 'playing' with it.
That's bogus.  Just ask the pros what they want to hear.  You know, the people that get paid BIG bucks to master.....because it sounds better.
Audiophiles use 'the best' recordings to test their playback system and all of these recordings are 'produced'.
Anyhow, to talk someone down because they know how to use professional tools properly is lame.  This takes years if experience combined with good sensibility.
I think post gets a bad taste in people's mouth because of the amount of people out there that don't know how to do it properly and end up trashing a good recording.......

+T's   ya took the words right out of my mouth.