Topic: Post Production of Tapers Recordings

[Frequincy]

Hi, I'm new here. Iv'e been in the studio recording field for some years now. I run my own comercial studio. I was trained at the Conservatory of Recording Art and Sciences in Tempe, AZ, blah, blah, blah. I really admire the taping community here. Iv'e traded and collected recordings for awhile now.

I just wanted to hear your opinions and/or techniqe regarding any processing done to your recordings after the fact. Iv'e read a lot of posts here about normalizing but not much in the way of dynamics and/or mastering. I was just curious to hear some of your opinions on that. I'm not wanting to get into the 'loudness war' debate either. I appreciate a recording with good dynamic range, but hey, that's just my humble opinion. Thanks.

[aegert]

Hey
I'm for post processing recordings big time.. I just got back from the ny funk exchange gig at a small gar in Brooklyn .. No compression on vocals.. Peaks of the band are in the -12 to -6 range but transients on vocals are at -1db... The recording definitely needs limiting and eq to manage that. This enables the rest of the music to come up 2-3db at least... The limiter on the deck is a brick wall so I don't use it.

This will not kill dynamic range...

Post eq on roll offs of sub and super frequencies helps as well..

These are way minimal edits but the end result is hugh.. You can take a -23db avg rms recording and move the rms to -19db or further and not touch dynamics at all!

One mans opinion but it works... There are plenty of other ticks to use as well this is just the small stuff. I think its important to bring over all levels up to cd range.

A

[RobertNC]

I put all my effort into the show itself.  

First I try to find out what I can about the venue if I've never been there. TS is a great place to find out what the venue attitude towards tapers is, how the acoustics are, best spots to set up, etc.

Then I do whatever I can with the logistics of getting in and setting up, while trying to find a balance between respecting the venue and pulling the best tape I can.   I always have a tapers ticket if there is a section, but a lotta times I will buy a second ticket to see if it is cool to tape from a better spot than the section if there is one.  Some venues are totally cool with taping from your seat.  If not, I respect the venue's wishes and go to the section wherever it is.

Once I am set up. I just roll it and enjoy the show.  Sometimes I'm really excited about the results.  Sometimes I'm really disappointed.  Most times I am reasonably happy.  Almost always I feel like either a recording does not need any real post, or in the worst case, probably cannot be improved much by any post.

Granted, I don't really know anything about post production techniques.  But my gut feeling is that I have the sound mix of the show, the venue ambient acoustics at whatever location I end up, the crowd noise, my mic characteristics and whatever color or lack of that my gear's analog stages add, all rolled into what at the end of the night is a lot of complex factors combined into only two (or for a few four) channels of a complex sum of the information from all these many sources.

Sure you can tweak the sound some post.  But how much can you realistically do with what you end up with?  I really don't know.  I just do whatever I can going into a show, then roll tape and have a great time with it all...

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

I don't do anything to my tapes when I get home...  I just slap them on a CDR and listen...  If I F*** something up, that's my own fault.  I trust the soundman to make a venue sound as good as it can, I don't try to mess with it...

YMMV, my opinions are worth nothing...

Terry

[bhakti]

i have pulled some very average tapes in the past that have sounded NEAR brilliant with a bit of EQ and normalization...

often i get a tape that i just don't touch at all [very often in fact], but if you're in a part of the venue that has a bit of a bass trap or you're not quite in the sweet spot, i think a tad EQ can definitely fix a few these kind of tapes...

also, just my humble opinion...

[JiB97]

I'm in Tempe too and have had a few friends go to the Conservatory. Cool.    What studio do you run?

[cybergaloot]

but if you're in a part of the venue that has a bit of a bass trap

As a n00b I'm curious what is considered a bass trap.

[anhisr]

I record M/S most of the time so, I have to have some post production.  Since I have been doing this I find myself doing more than just the M/S mix now.  My Ween tape sounded horrible.  After a little work in Wavelab, it sounded much better and then I posted a torrent.  If I would had never worked on the show, I would have never posted.

[Dede2002]

i have pulled some very average tapes in the past that have sounded NEAR brilliant with a bit of EQ and normalization...

often i get a tape that i just don't touch at all [very often in fact], but if you're in a part of the venue that has a bit of a bass trap or you're not quite in the sweet spot, i think a tad EQ can definitely fix a few these kind of tapes...

also, just my humble opinion...

Exactly right. Same thing here.
It's OK to know what my mics and rig "heard" last night at the club.
But what I do really care about is what my ears heard last night and what they are going to hear again in my stereo or car.
Plus, I'm a stealth taper . I've never had the chance to clamp my mics to no stand, choose the perfect mic configuration or anything like that.
If I can fix a tape that sounds just OK ( thanks to my stealth condition) and make it sound better, why not?
Plus, EQ is not black magic of the plague itself. You can't recreate something that is not there already (in your recording, I mean). EQing is just a way to achieve tonal balance with the sounds and frequencies you've captured on tape. Simple as that.
Just my 2 cents. I'm a purist most of the time. But I like to listen to good sounding tapes.

[Frequincy]

I'm in Tempe too and have had a few friends go to the Conservatory. Cool.    What studio do you run?

I was in Tempe in 03'. I'm actually from Illinois. I spent some time in Nashville, TN. The name of the studio is Freqiuncy Recording, my name is quincy, It's sort of a pun, my spelling is OK. I do mostly demos, I love it.

I appreciate the responses. I love the audio engineering aspects of recording. It seems the choices are endless these days...

[aegert]

I edit every show...

In the end 90% of the sound guys don't get it right.. And if they do depending on the room that could be for one spot alone....

I find every recording can use eq management to make it better listen able on cd or the like... They have an RIAA line for a reason.. Every one of your favorite live records have been mastered... Thats what we are talking about here.. If you are in a medium sized room with subs and you have flying cabinets and the stage sound is loud you are bound to wind up with spikes and valley in the frequency spectrum.. Managing these helps make the show more listen able.

After you reduce, and I mean only reduce not boost, these pesky frequencies while taking into account your avg rms is in the -22db range to start you are going to have to reclaim gain. To do that you will need to reduce transients a little, limit.... If you don't you are going to have to turn your listening system up loud to listen and at that point you add distortion because your pre now is overworking...

When I record I shoot to have transient peaks to not exceed -3db in the end they usually do.. My main peaks live in the -12 to -6db range... Listening to music with rms resultant from these levels yield a thin listening experience. I am not talking about squashing a recording or even touching the  real dynamic range. It just does what every good light mastering job does. It brings the levels up so the peaks reside where they should for a cd release... Again this is not the loudness war argument... I am tot taking any musical peaks and reducing them to to make low peaks loud....  We are talking about moving avg rms from -22db to -19 or as far as -17db and peak rms from -11db to -10db  small moves with much headroom to spare.. These are example numbers and they vary.. Sometimes you need less sometimes a little more....

In the end you will like the sound better for it... It doesn't mean you didn't get a good pull.. There are virtually no recordings released today that are dry and unedited.. In fact all recordings are edited multiple times from track recording to mixing then mastering.. There could be 5 compressors touching portions of the music before you buy a cd and this could be for country music which ain't loud....

Now I agree there is a tendency to make music to loud in music today. You know a loud waves when you see them they are brick walled and square no definition ..... That is not what we are talking about here... rms of -5db  LOL

A

[Sloan Simpson]

They have an RIAA line for a reason..

Could you explain that?  I'm aware of the RIAA curve for vinyl playback, but I assume you're talking about something different.

I'm also of the make-it-better school.  I know lots of folks tape bigger shows, but most of my stuff is in small clubs and pretty much everything can use some help.

[Dede2002]

Great topic

[Sloan Simpson]

by some of these responses, I know that I'll never let anyone else "master" my recordings.

Which parts do you disagree with?

[Sloan Simpson]

by some of these responses, I know that I'll never let anyone else "master" my recordings.

Which parts do you disagree with?

Altering them, in any way.

They are archival recordings, to document the scene as its played out. Altering them leaves a different impression on the listener than the way the gig actually played out.
I also don't get multi-mic ambient recordings (by multi-mic, I mean, more than a stereo pair). And, sbd/ambient matrix mixes.

I'm a purist,... two mics to be listened to by two ears.

I'd feel the same way if I were able to capture it the way it played out   I suspect chamber stuff is easier captured well in the first place, as opposed to punk/metal/etc.