Topic: How much post production work does everyone do ?

[shruggy1987]

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...

i whole-heartedly agree with this.  if you have a good tape, why not make it sound better?  if taping stops after you hit "stop," then I don't want to be called a taper. 

[Aaron41]

I normalize, reduce loud clapping between songs for quieter shows, and resample.

[Depechemode1993]

let see I don't do much. I resample when I am not taping in 44.1 kHz, Normalize the show to -.5 db, usually boost the highs and lows a bit as I get the right ammount of vocals, and if I have a cassette master I do a slight hiss redux.

[willndmb]

haha i knew my opinion on this would not be to popular

if you tape things then you are a taper
if you edit shows then you are a producer

if you tape shows then edit them to make them sound better you are still a taper however the final product is the result of good producing, not ness good recording

i look at it kinda like if someone asked me who is the best taper vs who releases the best tapes
the answer maybe the same however it may be different

the label doesn't matter really, i just feel any and all editing should be noted in the text file

here is a example of what i am talking about (this even came up in a thread at ufck which got deleted yesterday because of the same issues in this thread)
Taper - willndmb
source - 391 > ua5 > jb3
*no editing was done so there is none noted

now if i edit the show, or worse yet someone else edits the show without asking, as happened at ufck
IMO you can not keep the text file the same as above, it should have the editing notes included
Taper - willndmb
Source - 391 > ua5 > jbs
Notes - fades at the beginning and end of show applied, normalize (whaetever)

thats all i am saying is if you edit the recording in any way it should be noted, again imo

[spearheadtaper]

does anyone have a good page for reading up on this subject about what can be done....so I i will know what normalize means and be able to have a grasp on things before i start messing around with things.....
would be nice to read get a link to a page like www.larryjordan.biz for audio..... 

first two recordings came out great just want to make sure that they are the best they could possibly be also have some spearhead sbds we have taped that have quite a bit of echo that for sure needs to be worked out a bit

[rowjimmy]

I think you guys make excellent points in defense of post-production.
I know more than a thing or two about the post=production tools that I have available to me (and am using them in my home-studio work) but I find that, with live recordings, the improvements can be more subjective than with studio work.

A prime example is EQ. perhaps my minor hearing loss leads me to think that the highs need to come up so that the deedle in the guitar will shine.
Then joe-bob@nowhere.net posts back to etree, "this recording sounds like it was recorded on a tin cain and string! Where's the bass?" Well, generally speaking, I don't care what joe-bob thinks because i'm kind of an a**hole, but he might be right. If I didn't eq it and he said that then he could REALLY be right but at least the flacs he downloaded have the potential to be eq'd properly or at least to his liking. Once you save a change like that, the only undo is to go back to the master files. (We all keep our un altered masters, right?)

This is a neverending debate. Those who regularly do post-producion work make a good case for why and I don't entirely disagree with them. the example above is just one reason why I, generally don't/won't do more than fades or -maybe- normalize.

the label doesn't matter really, i just feel any and all editing should be noted in the text

There it is. Imo, the producer/taper distinction is bogus. But not notating your edits, doubly so. If you make notes, then, it's all good and I think most folks here are going to maintain good info. That means that when I dl your recording and hear how good it sounds, i know that it sounds that way as a combination of the gear, placement, pa, and post-production. Just one more element in capturing and spreading the best sounds.

[balou2]

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...

Ditto.

[spearheadtaper]

you own that echo now. not much can be done to work it out, without overprocessing the daylights out of stuff.

that sucks...

 I was original  hoping to matrix the audio recording to the sbd but do to the echo it sounds horrible that way

looks like I might be ending up just using the audio that was made right back by the boards

[winisp]

I'd second the request for any pointers to good overview doc. My google searches have turned up weak advice at best that doesn't apply as well to live recordings.

From reading this thread and others, it seems like people generally use at least two post production programs. For the sake of discussion, which one is best and why?

[Brian Skalinder]

it seems like people generally use at least two post production programs. For the sake of discussion, which one is best and why?

There's a variety of programs people use:  Audacity, Audition (Cool Edit), Soundforge, Wavelab, Sonic Foundry, Peak, etc.  It's mostly personal preference as many perform the same or similar functions.  Some do, though, perform better than others.

I'd second the request for any pointers to good overview doc.

Overview docs are helpful, but there's LOTS of trial and error involved.  Read the Help file and experiment.  I'd say the most useful functions for minor editing :

• normalizing, or amplitude / gain adjustment (includes fades)
• high pass filter
• compression
• parametric EQ

A good rule of thumb as you experiment:  less is more.  It's real easy to over-do editing in post.  One way I experiment is by applying a function with a very high factor so it's very easy to hear the impact.  Knowing what the function does in the extreme helps understand how it will effect the recording when applied more subtly.

I'm reasonably comfortable with normalizing, HPF, and compression - all of which I use sparingly - but really haven't sorted out the parametric EQ yet.  I know how it works theoretically, but what frequencies to draw back, how much, and with what width still largely eludes me.

[RebelRebel]

for multiple channels(over 2), samplitude/sequoia is my favorite because it is really intuitive and has a really nice interface and has POW-R dither built in , which I love.
for 2 channel editing, I Like wavelab or soundforge.

there isnt a "best" but its all a matter of preference. No magic bullets.

I dont really care about pleasing Joe Blow (you never will anyway..they will always bitch) but I edit it till it sounds good on my monitors and playback gear. Though I  obsess a  LOT more on mic placement and mic selection ..etc....the more emphasis I place on that stuff, the less I worry about editing.  The most crucial things happen before you ever press record.

[Roving Sign]

Post? As little as possible!!!

Lately - I feel like I have my level control down pat...

So my recordings only need tracked and fades...

If it needs more - I consider it flawed - perhaps very listenable - but flawed...

[mmmatt]

I love it when this subject comes up!  I like to do post on my recordings.  The more I record, the better my skills, the better my gear, the less I do.  The is a lot to be said for a recording that requires no post work.  There is a certain purity to a well done recording that is un touched.  That all being said, there are times where post work is warrented.  I do a lot more matrix recordings that ambient so my mindset is a little different than most.  My goal in doing a matrix is to make it sound better than it did at the show or as it did in the best spot of the venue.  Something as simple as light compression can really even out some of the inconsistancies in the engineer's mix, and it can help blend 2 sources together.  However an uncompressed recording often times sounds best fedelity-wise.
     One of the biggest things I do in post on ambient recording is to take out the room-boom.  Reflections and standing wavs can really muddy up a recording.  Sometimes this is as easy as running bass roll-off, but sometimes you have to find the room/pa's resonant frequiencies and manually pad them down with a notch filter.  Viewing a spectral anaylizer while playing back a wav where there is obvious bas abnormalities will allow you to see about where that resonance is. (ie every time the bass player hits a certain note it sounds very boomy and out of place)  Then you can (in most software) loop that one little section and then open up your eq and start making adjustments to take it away.  A good parametric eq plugin will allow you to do a very narrow notch where you are almost singling out a particular frequency.  Pad it down a bit then back up and play the passage again to see if it sounds more natural.  This is what I spend most of my time doing post-wise on ambient recordings, and can make a world of differance.  Sometimes you will find 4 or 5 resonancies and sometimes you can't seem to find any, in thoes cases I will do a general eq or a lhigh-pass filter and call it a day.
     After doing this type of post work, if the room boom was a big factor in the recording you may notice your levels dropped 3 or 4 db!  Then I will most definately normalize and bring the recordeing up to the level it should have been recorded at.  It is for this reason that I am a proponant of using a low-cut while recording if you are sure the situation warrants it.  If you set your levels hot (but not overdriven) to the part of the music that you are keeping, you will have less noise in your recording when completed.  Keep in mind you can bring the bass back up just as easily as bringing it down in post, but best case scenario is to get it right on the original recording.  Obviously setting up in the perfect spot (being a good taper as stated earlier) and chosing the right config, etc makes all the differance in the world as well.
A little light compression can help sometimes to even things out, but keep in mind while bringing down the louder passages, you are also bringing up the quiet ones including the noise that is underneath the recorded music.
     As for noting the text file.  Yes.  I have been guilty of not noting some of mine, but I have gotten back in the habbit.  I don't list everything I do but I may say "typical effects added" or "only sample rate conversion" to let people know that I did or did not do post work on the show.  I don't feel the need to list every step I took.  Especially since most of the recording I do anymore are post mixed multitrack/matrix recording and the act of mixing them in post alone is a ton of post work.  ALWAYS keep your original masters.  I have original masters on every show I ever recorded.
     As for information on how to do this stuff... good luck!  Most of the information out there is for live sound production or studio recording.  People trained in thoes two areas without actual experience in ambient or live recording typically have no clue of how to do it.  Unfortunately there isn't much good information out there on the subject.

     As brian says, less is more.  Do an extreem change to hear how it works and then go back to zero and slowly ad it in.


Matt

[RebelRebel]

an excellent book that is full of good information on mastering recordings :

Mastering Audio by Bob Katz

[F.O.Bean]

i usually never do any post, thats why i invested in high-q gear so i can leave the shows w/ a great representation of what went down, if i have to, i normalize/add gain, but thats few and far between, you get what i recorded w/ me