Syntrillium Backup Forums :: View topic - Ozone vs T-racks

Tomcat2 · Location: USA Posts: 11

I'm looking for some "finalizing" or "mastering suite" software to use with cep2. Since both of these are the same approximate price, what do you think of each, and if I can only afford one (true) which would be a better buy for "finishing" off before burning to CD?

Tom

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

They both are capable of accomplishing the same things. I have T-Racks and find that it is very user friendly, albiet somewhat more limited. Ozone, (which I will be buying this week-end) has more parameters than can be adjusted, which also increases the learning curve. Choose your poison!

turboman · Posts: 15

I am a hobbyist, and I did considerable research before I made my selection of T-racks.

I record my songs in Cool Edit. I wanted to get "that" sound that was eluding me for so long.

For me (and nobody else, so don't flame me) the choice was T-racks. Ozone appears to have more bells and whistles (like reverb). But for my belief that you can't master unless you know what you're doing, T-Racks has 50 presets. I can quickly hear what I like, and tweak where necessary.

I don't have the knowledge, expertise, or hearing to start from scratch with Ozone. Maybe as I get better, I can get Ozone too.

Good Luck.

Graeme · Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663

I suppose the simple answer is that Ozone is far more flexible than T-Racks and is the better buy, for that reason, if no other. On the downside, Ozone is a bit of a resource hog and takes up a lot of screen if you run in one of the lower resolutions.

The more interesting question is why you feel the need for either? These tools are intended to be used in a very subtle manner. I had a quick peek at your webpages and I see no evidence of the sort of monitoring system which would allow you to even hear such subtle changes to a mix.

I also downloaded and listened to one of the tracks on your site ('Solitude') and I would respectfully suggest that you experiment more with basic mixing techniques before spending (quite a lot of) money on tools which are not really going to make the difference I suspect you are looking for.

post78 · Location: USA Posts: 2887

I swear I remember the other Tomcat (Tomcat1?) asking this exact same question...

andyeb · Posts: 45

T-Racks makes an OK-ish turn the handle solution, but I believe a product like Ozone would encourage you to understand the process a little more.

When I was evaluating mastering solutions to setup http://www.freemastering.co.uk I looked at T-Racks and Ozone, but eventually I went for a hand-picked combination of plugins for maximum flexibility for about the same cost as T-Racks. Personally I consider T-Racks to be somewhat over priced, but then I'm interested in mastering as an end in itself Smile

.

So I guess my answer is "neither", depending on how involved you want to get.

hope that helps,

Andy

Syntrillium M.D. · Location: USA Posts: 5124

Hi Tom, and welcome to the forums! I'd just like to add that CEP2 does offer an entire suite of tools that can (in many ways) achieve the same 'finished' sound that you're looking for. These include the Parametric EQ, Pan/Expander and Hard Limiter (for loudness maximizing).

As Graeme mentioned, there's a bit of a learning curve to each of these...but be patient and read through the archives here. You'll find an enormous amount of information here, so just know that you've come to the right place!

You might also want to take a look at our TIPS & TRICKS section of the forum. There are quite a few threads in there that deal with various 'mixing/mastering' processes.

Tips & Tricks

Happy Recording!

---Syntrillium, M.D.

Tomcat2 · Location: USA Posts: 11

Yeah, I may be jumping in too soon. I'm new to CEP2 and don't yet know all or even most of what I can do with it alone. However, I just got Richard Riley's book on Using Cool Edit and am getting a lot of information from it. Last night I was fooling around and found I could get a lot of mileage out of using the EQ with "presence" setup and "simple bass lift" setup and then using the hard limiter to set final levels. Actually I think I will keep working with just CEP2 and learning to use it before I go off and spend money I may not need to. Thanks a lot guys.

Tom

PS I just checked and I'm not getting too senile (I'm only 67). I haven't registered twice, so if someone else using Tomcat asked this same question it wasn't me. (Phew, sometimes you don't know if you are being a senile, incompetent old fahrt.)

post78 · Location: USA Posts: 2887

Mark T · Location: Norway Posts: 890

Hi Tom,

Having embarked on this learning curve fairly recently (and following lots of "discussions" with Steve and Graeme), I notice a lot of reference to presets in your posts. May I suggest that you instead learn how eq, compression etc work, rather than relying on loading a preset and then tweaking it? I used to do this, but following said discussions I went out and found some primers and started using the fx from scratch. The difference is amazing, where I used to use masses og eq and stuff I now use a tiny lift or reduction in a couple of places and get the space in my mixes (or lack of it) exactly as I want them (well, maybe not exactly, I'm still learning Blush

). However the feeling of accomplishment when a track sounds the way you intend it to is fantastic:D.

Keep rocking!

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

I endorse the deeper answers above. It's not a question of which so much as a question of when. You don't need a mastering program until you've got decent monitors and an understanding of what's going on with the presets. Check out computermusic.co.uk for some useful tutorials on using compression, gates, and so on. They have been a great help to me (and BTW, I'm 60 and fairly new to computers -- I got into this as a musician, not as a computer geek) and have allowed me to make some pretty nice sounding recordings with CEP. I own T-Racks, and like it...but it doesn't hear for you, and it doesn't think for you. It will make your songs sound good on a CD, but only if you've done the preliminary work of tweaking each track. I might also suggest reading Recording magazine, which has occasional articles on mastering. Good luck. It's tremendously satisfying to have people listen to your recordings and compare them favorably with professional product. Old guys rock!
John

Mark T · Location: Norway Posts: 890

Tomcat2 · Location: USA Posts: 11

Hi Mark,

What primers did you get and where did you find them? Thanks for your help. I'm actually having a lot of fun with all this new stuff to learn. Helps keep me young (or will drive me crazy, whichever occurs first! LOL)

Tom

PS My wife and I are retired and live in an apartment complex. She is busy writing storys and neither she nor our neighbors are interested in listening to me play things over and over, so, out of necessity I work with headphones. I presently use AKG K240M headphones but a pair of AKG K240DF phones are on my christmas list. Then after I get something worthwhile, I check it out on my Sony Walkman CD player, in my car, and in a Sony boom box (we don't have a regular Stereo anymore).

Cal · Location: USA Posts: 577

Tomcat2... about the headphones: since you *must* or choose to use them, have you looked seriously at Sennheisers or Beyerdynamics? The top of the line are very transparent, true, and mostly uncoloring. Since monitors are crucial in trying to achieve life-likeness, so should headphones be. If you haven't, check out the websites for Headroom and Headwize.

About the finalizing products: Having worked with Cool Edit now nearly 3 years and in getting somewhat accomplished at using its tools, i did an A/B comparison between what i could get with just those and, what improvements could be made using Ozone on MY final processing. I have to say that with Ozone open and switching back and forth between Ozone on or bypassed, I could find no improvement over what I could do with Cool Edit's own processes. The components of Ozone or T-Racks can be found in Cool Edit.

I agree with Synt above that Cool Edit already has mastering tools, and according to your ear and skill, you can achieve near-pro mastering results.

Cal

Graeme · Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663

Sonicillusion · Posts: 7

I have T-Racks as well as the Steinberg and Waves Mastering bundles and in my opinion, Athlough T-Racks is not as in depth as other Mastering apps, I enjoyed the sort of instant gratification knob twiddling that one used to get with rack mount hardware. I tend to over-process less with T-Racks as opposed the heftier programs and think ...in general it sounds quite good....but....just an opinion

Mark T · Location: Norway Posts: 890

www.recordingwebsite.com/articles/eqprimer.html
I found this one in 30 secs searching for "eq primer" in Google - it shouldn't take too long to find some others;)

Also try the ozone homepage and download their mastering manual, it is excellent.

Good luck

Tomcat2 · Location: USA Posts: 11

Yes, I'm well aware of the problems involved with using headphones, but that doesn't make the necessity at this point in time go away. So I will do the best I can under the circumstances. Like I said, I do then take the CD and listen to it on other devices.

Also, the more I play around with CEP2, the more I discover and come to feel, also, that everything I actually NEED is already in there.

And, thanks for the lead and link to the primer on EQing.

Tom

Craig Jackman · Location: Canada Posts: 909

If you're a person who like to load a preset, then tweak the odd parameter Ozone is not really for you. Sure it can do an awful lot, but it's complex, and not tremdously intuitive. T-racks is much easier to get into on a shallower level, and can provide some satisfying results, but won't go to the depths and exactness that you can get with Ozone.

The best compromise for me is to use Waves C4, with the built in effects of CEP ... if Syntrillium would make multiband processing easier I could do everything I need within the program.

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

I have T-Racks and bought Izotopes Ozone Sunday. I have been recording a session all week and haven't really had time to start with the Ozone "learning curve". I still maintain that they both are capable of the same end result, they just go about it differently. I also use the Wave's Native Bundle and think that hands down, it is a great investment. I jumped the gun on Santa's surprise (Ozone), so I surely hope that Synt is sitting on a "new" release for Santa to buy!! Shy

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

Tomcat2, is there a time when your wife is away that you can set aside for using monitors? I'm very skeptical of using headphones to master something you will ultimately listen to through speakers. If your wife grocery shops at a particular time each week, maybe you could use that time to listen to the real deal.
I admit I have the luxury of a detached 2-car garage that has been converted into a studio (and is still being converted...today I bought sheetrock and paneling to finish the surfaces, next up will be carpet) but where there is a will there is famously a way.
Mark T, you are but a child.
John

post78 · Location: USA Posts: 2887

lp: He lives in an apartment complex so he still has to worry about neighbors, regardless of where his wife is. Wink

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

post78, of course I am aware of that. I too am blessed with a wife who writes, and one with the ears of an 18-year-old to boot. And one who does NOT like my sharing my music with her! My concern is that perhaps Mr Tomcat2 could use speakers at a suitably low level to master and thereby bypass a number of issues deriving from the use of headphones...you don't have to set the amplifier to "Stun" in order to hear properly. Given his age, it would be natural if he preferred to crank 'em up, but the difference between headphone listening and monitor -- um, monitoring -- are not dependent on sheer volume. I think perhaps Mr Tomcat2 might find a window of monitoring opportunity...which would beat the hell out of inferior mastering via headphones. I am suggesting, in short, :Daccommodation rather than confrontation....I too have a degree in apartment studiology.

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Tomcat,
You could always purchase "gift certificates" to a daily spa (beauty parlor) for the Missus and then take advantage of her timely absence and get some mixing done. Wink

Tomcat2 · Location: USA Posts: 11

Hey guys, there's some good creativity on how to "accomodate" my wife. Of course, that opens up an entirely new Pandora's Box of "what monitors, etc." which could take this thread into the next millenium!!!!! But, realistically, I will have to see what I can do because, since I'm retired and on fixed income, there is also a problem about affording good monitors. It never ends, does it? I do appreciate everyone's genuine interest and suggestions. Thanks a lot.

Tom

PS Voodoo, if you feel like it, after you have a chance to use Ozone some and have an opinion on it, I would like to know what you think of it. Thanks.

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Fer sure Tom...

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

TomCat2, decent monitors (those that will work for what you and I do) aren't that much. I have a pair of Carvins, which sell for $300 including shipping. Had I waited a few months, I could have gotten powered ones for $490, and saved buying a $400 amplifier. Granted these are not premium, state-of-the-art monitors, and I am sure there are many who will sneer at them, but there's a lot of bang for the buck. If you live in a large city you might look for used monitors...or at harmonycentral.com for bargains. For myself, the attraction of computer-based music is that once you have some monitors, a couple of good mics, and a little imagination, the sky's the limit.
John

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

my own 2 cents . . . I can't argue that CEP2 can't do a lot of stuff, since I don't have it, I don't doubt that it can, in fact . . I use various software packages, including cooledit2000, sonar (mostly), and ntracks. Two points about the new version of ozone (2.0),is that it will now do dithering of various sorts (an excellent pdf devoted to dithering comes with it). You dither in ozone at the high bit resolution, then turn dithering off in your sound app, and just save from 24 bit to 16. It also includes many more presets, which to me are informative in that I can study them. A lot of improvements over version 1, in fact.

At the very least, their free pdf on mastering is worthwhile reading, since it applies generically.

http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/ozone/ozoneguide.html

I tend to use both headphones and speakers to mix. Yeah, SteveG, I know, musicians listen to different things, but I'm learning . . . . my speakers are probably not 'monitors' in the sense meant here, but are pro level stereo pa, that I also use on gigs. Don't have the specs in front of me, they're crate, two way, I also have a subwoofer. I can't detect great coloring in the sound. I always burn a given take and lsten to it on my consumer-grade cd sound system, decent system someone that likes music might have, and they come off. headphones are Roland rh-50 (claims 22Khz as upper limit, yeah, right . . . ).

just had to say something after lurking in silence for months . . .

Jim

Jim

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

Jim, you are doing what I did before I got these monitors. There are advantages to "real" monitors that are not apparent before you experience them. They represent a phenomenon that I am unfortunately familiar with, which is "Gear Creep": you go along happy and satisfied with something (sometimes for years -I used PA cabinets for 20 years for monitoring, just because they were on hand and they sounded neutral) and then you hear what your music actually sounds like on good monitors and you have to have 'em. When I listen through PA cabs now, the sound is diffuse, lacking in detail, and, especially, lacking in "imaging": with a good set of monitors carefully set up in front of you, you can hear all the details of panning, reverb, level, and so on and then make the adjustments in your mix accordingly. With the big boxes, you can only hear an approximation of what you are doing. When a cassette deck was all I had for mastering, it didn't make a big difference. But now that I'm burning to CD, I want it to sound like "store bought". This is the problem with headphones. There are a lot of learned and experienced people who have explained why headphone mixing doesn't lead to good results, and I defer to them. All I know is that I am invariably disappointed in the results I get using headphones.
Cool Edit Pro is your codependent in this Gear Creep. I can do things with my computer that would have required many many dollars' worth of gear in the analog era. And software will provide what CEP can't. For example, I am using a multiband compressor, and of course T-Racks, Antares Auto-Tune and BBE Sound Maximizer in DirectX incarnations with CEP to expand my capabilities.
Will I ever be T-Bone Burnett? Only in my fantasies...but I sure am getting good results with what I've got. Naturally, I'm still not THERE yet: if only I could afford a newer digital mixer, and really high-end monitors....it's the same boat TomCat2 is in, except that he's just now stepping over the gunwale and I've got a couple of years at the oars. Big Grin

cheers
John

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

I believe you about the monitors. A set is on my list. I'd prefer to have the pa just set by the door, ready to go, anyway. If there hadn't been that (still sharing my pain) total burlary in baton rouge in 96, ALL my gear stolen, I would have made it by now, but I've had to reaquire, from the bottom up. That included stolen OEM software installation disks. which reminds me, i've got all my original midi/wrk files from 92-96 backed up on Norton Backup, which was stolen (the OEM, not the backups), and is no longer sold or supported in any way by Symantic. i wonder if anyone around here has a copy of that? it was included in norton desktop for win3.1, i think also it was stand alone. I would appreciate help in restoring those backups.

Anyway, the headphones I use principally when I'm doing midi recording, not so much for mixing per se, though checking the pan with them is not a bad thing.

I don't have any way to know for sure how much the crates are affecting the mix. I'd love to do a side by side comparison of them vs true monitors They do get good signals, from a mackie1402 vlz pro, and a MIA, with roland synths originating the sounds first of all.

little by little, step by step . . . .

Jim

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

Jim: Wow, that really hurts to think about a theft like that. :(And I understand wanting a PA bag already packed, so to speak. I played in a duo for a few years and finally built a dedicated rack with a mixer, BBE, and power amp on wheels...all it took was a couple of cabs, some cables and mic stands, and the rack, and we were on our way.:D

Piece by piece, that's the ticket. Many years ago I remember seeing an old guy (probably younger than I am now, come to think of it) ;)building a fieldstone fence by hauling each rock to the site, setting it up and mortaring in place. "One piece at a time", he said, and went back to his work.

And, TomCat2, that's a good philosophy to follow for those of us who are disposible-cash impaired. Buy something that will form a part of your overall plan and keep on going. I still have the first guitar I ever owned, and not out of sentiment: I play it all the time. I hook up my 4-year-old condenser mics to my digital mixer with 20-year-cables, too.
John

SteveG · Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

Steve,
Why is checking pan with headphones daft? Again, this is on a midi track. If I don't use the headphones when recording the midi, I don't get an accurate representation of the sound at all (given the relationship of my keyboard to my speakers) particularly on stereo patches.

If, when I bounce or record that track to an audio track in sonar, it doesn't sound right 'in the room' itself (I often use cakewalk soundstage, wherein you really do have to use the speakers to hear that spatial movement, and I would have that midi track panned center anyway to begin with), then I redo it.

I hear you about the midrange. Here's the thing with me: as you know, virtually all the recording I do is from various hard and software synths, fairly highend. Unless I tweak the patches, they are what they are. They are generally pretty good. If I have the hardware mixer eq'd to 'u', as I do, then I should be getting the detail in the mids that is in the patch. At least before whatever plugin fx I might add, such as the magic dust from ozone:). Therein, I might be getting some problems. I do record a singer from time to time, and yeah, there's the rub. I have heard my stuff on low end boom boxes, car stereos, and my own mid range stereo system. They seem to work.

On a slightly different topic, the new Echo driver for the MIA will do nice things . . I can set up two of the virtual outs to use 'purewave', which bypasses the windows kernel mixer and talks directly to the echo wdm driver . . and get 24 bit playback in cool2000 on win2k. I can keep two of the virtual outs in wdm for sonar (which they recomend for that app). This works out well, since I often do the final 'mastering' in cool2000. Unfortunately, the 'super channel' setup, which they also recommend for sonar, does funny things with the liveSynth soundfont player, it makes the sustain pedal nonexistent! I've forgotten now what OS you use, do you still use the vxd drivers? On the topic of the thread . . . have you checked out ozone 2?

anyway. I've been quiet. I get like that sometimes. I'm strange. Oh yeah, I do listen to quite a bit of very varied kinds of music over this system (the mia is great for cd listening), so I am familiar with mucho mixes by top notch people (at least by ear). This is my main music listening setup, in fact. I use my consumer stereo mainly as the audio for my tv setup.

pax

Jim

SteveG · Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

Thanks for the explanation, Steve.

I need to define "Gear Creep" a little more closely: this is NOT the same thing as having a 20 gig hard drive, and then a friend gets a 30 gig hard drive, so you MUST have a 40 gig....
No, what I'm describing is the phenomenon of improving your ability to hear by improving your equipment. I mean that, when I used PA cabs to listen, I was blissfully unaware of the sound that I COULD be hearing. It's like listening to your first CD after a lifetime of vinyl LPs. Suddenly entire record collections become obsolete. For me, the experience of hearing through good monitors meant that I would never again be satisfied listening through anything less, and knowing that if I bought better monitors, I would undergo the same process. I have already noticed deficiencies in my lovely monitors, (and, of course Steve, this came about from playing my CDs through other systems and learning what translated well and what didn't) and I am sure that when I can manage it I will go to the next level. Naturally, this is entirely separate from the issue of whether my playing or recording skills go along, but my experience has ever been that the more clearly you hear, the better you are able to perform and record.
And, to relate this all to the topic of this discussion, that is a more fruitful process than trying to pick software that will magically make poorly mastered recordings (no offense, Mr Tomcat2, I'm waxing eloquent here) into radio-ready hits. As mentioned above, it's a process of incremental improvements in gear as well as in your ability to distinguish those improvements. Cool

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

"was blissfully unaware of the sound that I COULD be hearing"

It's been awhile.... but I remember when I bought my first set of monitors (Alesis Monitor 1's with an Alesis amp). I was blown away with what I could now hear. I also came to understand why all my past mixes, (using PA equip) just didn't cut it. When I bought the Hafler Transnova P1500 and starting driving the monitors with a better quality amp, I could also hear the difference. Same goes when I bought my 2nd set of monitors (Audix) which, while everybit as good as the Alesis... sounded totally different. I recently got a 3rd set of P.A.S. monitors and there is NO comparison. They blow both my other systems away. Each improvement has helped me to understand what is/was lacking in the previous kit. I use the Alesis mostly because I have used them the longest and thrust my judgement with them. I use the Audix to see how my mixes translate to smaller speakers, and I use the P.A.S. for mastering only.

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

Steve, panning in the software, that is hard panning L in sonar in the midi track, doesn't knock out half the signal. On the 'nice piano' patch, very stereo, it moves the highs over to the left side. Recording an audio track of it still retains audio in the 'right' channel, though the impression is still that the piano is on the left. If i pan that in the hardware mixer, of course, it does all move to to the left.

How does this translate to acoustic recording of pianos? In other words, does a stereo patch, panned in software, screw up the mix do you think, if it's being used in, say, a trio?

Jim

SteveG · Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695

MIDI pans could certainly be different - they are not required to follow the rules of acoustics at all. But if you still have signal left in one channel when you have moved the pan control as far as it will go in the opposite direction, then this may not be a full-range pan. It is quite possible for a program patch to be arranged so that the pan control only has a limited effect, and this may well be what happens with your piano patch.

But the answer to your actual question is possibly slightly different. As far as the piano sound in the mix is concerned, you have to ask yourself a few questions: Do you want this to sound acoustically realistic? How wide do you want your piano sound to be? If you don't want a fifteen-foot wide piano and 6ft wide drums, where are you going to position them all?

The recieved wisdom about this for a piano trio is to put most of the kit between centre stage and one side, the piano between centre stage and the other side, and the bass and kick-drum dead centre in mono. If you have a singer, you can have the singer with the bass and kick, because they are frequency separated. This is by no means the only way to do it, but it is a good starting point, as it will separate the sources out in the mix, which will aid clarity as far as the listener is concerned. It should be easily possible within CEP to rearrange the stereo output from the piano to be between one side and the centre - you can accomplish this with the channel mixer. But your starting point will have to be a full-width stereo signal with no attempts made at panning it at all, because you want to retain the stereo, and just alter its width and position. If you use the 'center-left' or 'center-right' presets, this will probably be fine - it should just leave the difference signals past centre on the opposite side, and since this will be reverb, (if there is any) it will sound natural. Use the same procedure with the drums, and if you have difficulty isolating the kick, don't worry about it too much. Then place the bass in mono and pan it dead centre. Now listen to the effect (on loudspeakers!) and see what you think.

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

Steve, thanks for the clear answer. I use cooledit2000 rather than CEP (I need the midi support of cakewalk), but it also has the channel mixer, with the presets. I would need to export and reimport to sonar, but it will be worth experimenting, I am interested in getting if not a 'real' effect, at least a clear one. Real is good too, though. The whole point about the mids being less clear on non-monitors is disturbing, since the midrange is where most of what happens, happens. I do have a good ear, but it is a musicians ear, from of old.

The roland nice piano is a patch setup from the players point of 'hear' . . . the middle of the keyboard. of course, when it plays back through speakers ten feet, say, appart, it's a bit odd, maybe, since no piano is ten feet wide sitting at the keyboard, but somehow it does work for solo piano playback (maybe I'm mishearing something . . .) but, practicing on it with headphones is perfect, since it fits the stereo field perfectly in that way.

However, it does bring up another question regarding 'width' of piano, in an acoustic situation . . . I suppose it depends on the mic'ing, but after all a decent grand is six to nine feet long. hmmmmm. just musing out loud. that 'width' or length more properly probably is only apparent if one gets fairly close to the piano, and the piano is probably not mic'd to reflect that in a recording (or, is it? I have virtually no real world recording experience, or wasn't paying attention to anything but the playing when I did).

I do have cakewalks soundstage, which does interesting things. It can affect individual tracks, (if you run several copies, you can hear them all at once. one copy can run from the aux send to several tracks if one hasn't the resources for multi copies but you can't hear all the players at once then) such that instruments do appear to move in space backward, forwards, instead of merely left and right. I need to do more testing and examining of how the tracks edit down destructively to see what kind of effect it has on the stereo instruments, and how a mono track would work, etc. Most of what I've been composing lately has been not 'real' in the sense of a piano trio, so I haven't used it, but I like to do that kind of thing as well . . . i have a bunch of covers of jazz standards, piano, bbehind, drums. Soundstage (if you read the blurbs about it) is an interesting thing. it includes types of mics (not brands, just types), don't know how real the differnce between it's omni and it's cardiod, for instance, but it does 'color' the sound. Room size, mic distance, etc.

It's a plugin I'll run a search on, to see if it's been discussed here. If it hasn't, I'd be interested in hearing what anyone has to say about it.

Jim

SteveG · Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695

Jim, classic piano micing is inevitably a compromise between width and having sufficient signal that's not swamped with room acoustic. So quite often, it's a stereo pair that's only panned slightly. A good approach is to use a MS (Mid-Side) pair, although you don't see this too often. But hey, there are more ways to mic a piano than just about any other instrument, and they are all a compromise! On a grand, there's the classic 2 separated mics positioned 1/3 of the way from each end, the treble one about mid-way over the resonating part of the strings and the bass one rather further towards the far end of the instrument, both mics about a foot over the strings. On uprights, all sorts of techniques are used, including PZMs, which actually work quite well!

But you inevitably end up panning them where you want them in the mix - you can't just pan the channels hard right and left. So yes, they are recorded to fit the musical environment that they're in.

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

Steve, I was just listening to Jarrretts trio live Blue Note recordings, I assume the recording reflects a 'best seat' sort of thing. listening on the consumer stereo I use in the frontroom, anway . . . the piano appears to take up on the right, and a bit into the right/middle. the bass (why does that misprint?) seems in the middle, and percussion middle to far left. On jarretts solo intros and such, there is plenty of piano seeming on both sides . . . just some observations. an interesting comparison is to listen to the cd jarrett made on his own, in his home studio. for one thing, it's very loud . . . a musicians ear doing the mastering?

I've thought for many years that ECM produced good sounding recordings, yea from the old lp days. Manfred Eicher has produced a lot of them, not only for Jarrett. How much of the final product, as far as record quality, depend on the skills of the producer? I'm not all that clear on 'titles' and such. I realize there are sound engineers at the site, and in the studio as well for the final mix. Do you have any opinions or knowledge of, particularly, jarretts trio stuff (which has been superbly recorded for decades, now) . .

thanks for the description of mic'ing a piano. maybe the design of the roland nice piano's respond to a midi pan command is to allow for that kind of thing, placing the piano in the mix.

ok, this is all completely off the thread topic, sorry. I did run a search on stound stage, no hits. There, it's a little back on at least the forum topic . . .

thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated as always.

Jim

SteveG · Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695

The classic producer/engineer role split was that the producer was responsible for the content and performance, and provided the necessary feedback to the artiste, and the engineer was responsible for the sound. Guided of course by the producer, who always knew best. Okay, they didn't always know best, (certainly about the sound) but they were the ones with their names on the record label.

But things have changed quite a bit, and there is considerable blurring of these roles. In my own case, for instance, in sessions where I have got the sound just the way I want it, and I am familiar with the content, performance and, most importantly, artiste then I don't need a producer. On the other hand, in a lot of studio sessions I have been very grateful that somebody else was making production decisions, especially when it was about material that I was not at all sympathetic to, or familiar with.

On balance, I'd say that precisely 2 was a good number of people to make recording decisions. And no more than that!

Somewhere I've got some stuff on ECM recordings - I'll dig it out if I can find it and see if there are any clues...

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

Yeah, two sounds like a good committee. Well, there was George Martin. I'd appreciate any info you have on ECM.

Jim

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Yea.... Geo Martin and Geoff Emerick!

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

ok, enlighten me as to their relationship, I am unaware.

Didn't you say you got Ozone lately?

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Question #1: Geoff Emerick was the engineer that worked on the majority of Beatles records and was/has engineered most of Sir Paul's work.

Question #2: Yes! I got Ozone about 2 weeks ago, but with working on a current session and putting time in at my "Day" job (actually, I'm a shift worker).... I haven't had the time for it or the Wave's Native Gold bundle that I got shortly before that.

Question #3: Do you think Synt's gonna have anything ready for a Christmas release? My Santa's standing at the ready to buy me something, buy I already beat her to the punch with Waves and Ozone.... ;)

Oh... almost forgot, Geoff Emerick also did "Dark Side of the Moon" for Stink Floyd. Do a search for "Geoff", I think you'll be rather impressed with his credentials! Smile

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

Why does he get no credit for Dark Side, I wonder? My cd has Alan Parsons as the original 'engineer.'

With Waves and Ozone, you seem to have quite a bit of stuff already . . what can Synt offer? Now that the newest Echo driver gives me 24 bit playback in win2k for ce2k, I'm a lot happier with it.

You could get cakewalks soundstage dx plugin . . . at least I'd have someone to talk about it with then8)

Jim

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

".... what can Synt offer?" Well, a "new" release of version 2.0 (2.0a? maybe).

SteveG · Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695

SteveG · Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695

I found the ECM article and it's really not very helpful. Listening to a couple of recordings, and reviewing a few other comments about Jan Eric Konghaug's technique (ECM primary recording engineer) cuts out quite a bit of the guesswork, and leaves you with a technique that is basically fairly close-mic but with high-end Lexicon reverbs used extensively.

We're talking about units that you could put your average early punk band into and they would come out sounding nearly professional! Of course ECM recordings are going to sound good!

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Ooops! Sorry, my bad! (The sad thing is... I actually knew that! Blush

) Geoff worked with Supertramp, Jeff Beck, Robin Trower, Split Endz and a host of others..... Wink

Mark T · Location: Norway Posts: 890

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

IMO, the only thing more depressing that Waters..... was Syd Barrett

tomcat · Location: USA Posts: 345

Mark T · Location: Norway Posts: 890

Tomcat2 · Location: USA Posts: 11

Well, hello Tomcat 1! Glad to meet you. Actually, at this point, I've decided to keep working with CEP2 (and dare I say it, SF6, which I also have) and see if I can get what I want without having to go to the expense of either of those plugins. And also, I'm waiting to hear what Voodoo has to say about Ozone after he gets a chance to use it and have an opinion.

Meanwhile I've got a couple of questions about things that have been raised concerning my using headphones.

1) Since the vast majority of people listen to our music over average stereos, boomboxes and car CD players, why are super duper expensive monitors desirable for us homestudio masterers? Why not use equipment of the type the audience is going to use?

2) Since NO monitors are perfect and it is necessary to "learn" how your monitors sound using a commercial CD so you "learn" how to compensate for your particular monitors, why can't you also "learn" how a go