quote:

Billy Corgan's great. Does some really amazing shit. My quote's a damn Pumpkins lyric. But I'm not sure I trust his "sound." Mellon Collie's mix is pretty terrible, IMO.

With an artist such as Corgan you have to remember the music is about a lot more than capturing and reproducing sources. I agree with you on the Mellon Collie mixes. That album sounds pretty bland through a hi-fi monitoring rig. BUT IT SOUNDS HEAVENLY BLASTING OUT THE CAR RADIO! And that's why it sold 7 million copies and changed music forever.

Most hard-rock albums from the mid-90's REQUIRE a some boost at 100hz and 10khz. Most consumers leave their EQ's set this way, loudness buttons boost those two frequencies (which almost everyone I know leave engaged!), and radio stations enhance them further.

I think too many engineers are out to impress other engineers these days and mixing shit with far too present highs for the average consumer's EQ settings. Adding the boost for them isn't going to inform people they don't need it.

Try a little EQ on Mellon Collie, Contrast. I bet it changes your mind. It was mastered by Howie Weinberg... All of his albums seem to be hated by the recording crowd... AND LOVED BY THE PUBLIC! ... He uses assloads of compression.

Very few albums sound incredible in both the studio and the car.

If you love innovative music you should check out Billy's solo album. It completely reinvented the wheel as far as rock is concerned.

Don't believe me? Check out the video on this page: http://www.myspace.com/billycorgan

It's so different it may take a few views to dig... But after a while it's frickin' infectious.

On (ELECTRIC STANDING!) drums is Matt Walker of Filter, Brian Liesegang of NIN and Filter is playing the "iMac" and Lina Strawberry is standing behind him and nodding prettily.

DANCE SUCKA!

-Dusty

No, I know. I mean, the album's amazing, I listen to it a lot. The writing's great, and, to me, that seems to be far more important than the mix quality. With EQ, I think it sounds fine, although it's a little boring at times, and some stuff gets lost. I just think that it could have been better.

Billy's solo stuff is great, agreed, and I didn't mind Zwan either.

IMO, Pop would benefit greatly from live end dead end. Dead end = mix end with a RFZ and a cloud above the mix position. Diffuse the back wall and the rest of the side walls to keep the reflections from coming back at your head. This room is long enough for the diffusion to work, it will not work in a small room like mine so you have to absorb. You can make portable gobos very easily by gluing 703 to a 2x4 sheet of luan plywood and cover with your favorite fabric. Make the stands out of conduit using 4' lengths, the base is made of concrete using disposable aluminum cake pans. 1" from the bottom of the conduit drill 2 wholes(one on top of the other) at 90 degree angles insert 8" lengths of rigid ceiling hanger wire in each hole (think rebar on a small scale), set in cake pan and pour concrete, plumb and support until set. Attach 2 conduit anchors (whatever size pipe you used) to the lower half of the 703, don't tighten, slip the panel over the conduit and tighten at the heighth you like. You can rise to 6' or put it almost on the floor. With six to eight of these you can encircle yourself for takes that you want none of the room in. Thats a gobo.

Eddie, some good gobo ideas there. ...don't know if Pop is all that DIY!! I made some simple, less effective gobos for singing and other uses out of extra 2x4 sheets of Auralex glued to plywood, mounted to regular round base mic stands. they're perfect for quickie vocal gobos and sticking in front of an offending wall for parallel surface issues. They're also adjustable up and down. I like using extra crap I have around.

Since you brought it up, what size room does diffusion begin to work at? I've got super tiny rooms (live room is about 12'x10.5', mix room is about 9'x10.5') and was thinking about diffusion. I've heard conflicting opinions on diffusion in small rooms, and I'm a bit confused on the matter.

Pop this conversations can go on forever. There have been some good suggestions and none of them are right and none are wrong. There is no such thing when it comes to acoustics. Between everyones suggestions you'll find a common theme; buy some absorbers and start expirementing. Thats the ONLY way you will know whats right for you. Just don't do anything permanent until you have tried all configurations.

Nick Fournier

Dusty, I can sure appreciate your passion and interpretation of acoustics as an art. You make some interesting points, things to think about.
It's all very romantic to contemplate finding the room to augment the source or make a sonic stamp on every track you record. Maybe it's a castle, old house, gym, church, etc. It's just not practical though. Many of us have only a room or two to experiment with. Often we have one shot at getting something usable to finish. How frustrating would it be to to have your one shot with a drummer and guest whoever in a new space and when you get the tracks home to mix they're almost unusable.
I'm not the most experienced studio cat around but in my 26 years of doing this I've yet to find a professional room that sounded terrible and yet I've recorded in many, many horrifying rooms. By Professional I don't mean a room treated by it's owner with purpose- built products for studios by companies dedicated to such products; Auralex, Sonex, RPG, realtraps, etc...meaning the products are great, it's the applications of such where the mumbo jumbo and theorizing comes in.
It's just not practical to adjust the entire room acoustics to create the desired tone you want on the recording. You want the smile curve, a boxy sound, a fat low end? I'd rather do that with sources and microphones and have the room be somewhat neutral. Seems like a lot of work to either change the acoustic properties of a space or go find another space altogether and roll the dice there.
I don't believe you can create a signature sounding room for what you record either. Pop loves ballads. Does that mean you should build in a second & 1/2 or more RT into the room? I'm exaggerating of course but it's a point to make nonetheless.

I think you'll find for every story of whoever going where ever to record what you won't find are details of what was done once in the rooms. Often these stories are drumset oriented anyways.
Another point about "name" recordings is often they are pedestalled because of the great songs, the artist's legend and the popularity of the piece. Often when all that is removed and you listen as you would to a local artist you'll find the sounds bland, mediocre, or otherwise downright poor in quality. There are many of my favorite records that have less than great drum sounds on them. If you were to ask the artists themselves, many would have loved to have it differently. Having to add EQ to make something speak to you is perhaps telling. For every romantic story about so & so going to a castle to record there are probably a hundred fold other legendary great recordings done at established and planned out professional studios.
Yes, some untreated spaces can sound incredible. It's about who's controlling what in the recording process. I could nearly gauruntee(sp) that Pop's room (either one) is going to have some issues that would be very difficult to undo at mix time, especially with vocals.
The science part of tracking and especially control room acoustics is proven. But yes, science does not make great art. For me, just like a photographer in a studio wants to control his light, backdrops, shading, gobos, contrasts, and depth of field, I want to control my space as well. Perhaps it's analogous to making a picture under natural light as opposed to creating one with control, gorgeous one-off photos are made under natural conditions. But given the choice I think we, as photographers of sound, would not prefer to go into a project with one lens and hope the conditions were right. Hope is not a very good plan...

just some thoughts...
bring on the ostrich feathers

Nick, this has been turned into a general thread. Although, I do agree that anyone who wants specific info applied to their own studio should start their own topic.

So...did anyone listen to the bare tracks?

Just curious. I know it's not the requested clapping/SDC test, but...since you hear the problems in the mix...be interested if you hear it in the tracks. Interested enough to export and upload them...

Nick, forgive my tardiness in checking out your products. Very nice stuff, super reasonable pricing.

Pop, I just checked out the raw vox track. The overall sound's not very good. Your voice is sort of bathed in this harsh, hard acoustically unappealing lighting.

1. It sounds like that because the room where you're recording doesn't sound very good - just looking at the room itself on the level of an "instrument".

2. I think you're maybe not able to hear it because you're - again - sitting in an acoustic environment that's adding - as well as subtracting - elements that are detrimental to you being able to discern subtle differences in qualities.

3. I think when you clear up the acoustics in your room, all this will become clearly apparent. And you'll have a room that not only sounds better, but also a place from which to make more informed and effective decisions.

My 2¢.

I did listen to the raw tracks. I agree the vocal has some not so attractive resonances in it. The A guitar sounds pretty good, it has some problems but some of which may be soundhole woof..after hearing both a couple times I hear some room signature. I'm also trying not to "hear" the suggested issues just because it's the topic. But vocals, especially in light of your search for the holy grail of mics and such, are so much more important. There are elements in that sound I've heard many times in "bedroom" demos. Ceiling/floor might be my first suspect. Gobos would take care of wall issues.

My present projections based on carefully collected and anally-analyzed data spanning the previous 3 years, predict that Pop will not alter his acoustic state in any shape or form until mid to late autumn 2007. At which time he will thoroughly emerge himself in a sea of products ranging in hype from extreme to obscene. Only to later disregard the propaganda, discover the truths and come out of it as a self-proclaimed guru of zen acoustics.

He will then replace the swank commercial products crowding his aura with retro furnishings, autographed lithographs of The Pet Shop Boys, and a beloved guitar stand/manikin named Naomi dressed as a coke-whore soliciting standing waves in the back corner by a framed pair of lace panties that he caught with his headstock long before the dark journey for aural excellency corrupted his mind, soul and worse -- his music.

He will tar the walls, board the windows and lock the door. He will destroy the glass-tit and shellac his modem to Naomi’s ass. He will work entirely in the buff, surfacing only briefly each morning for food, water and monitored visitation. He will work tirelessly for 40 days and 40 nights. -- And at twilight on the final night he will get dressed, retrieve his modem, and release his long-awaited album, dedicated to his understanding wife and billions of patient faithful fans and followers throughout the galaxy.

In short -- I have nothing to add about the general concepts of the live-end/dead-end theory of acoustical treatment. : )

-Dusty

I understand where you're coming from Kel.

I just needed someone to disagree with, and your post was in the wrong place at the wrong time... I still think it's bullshit though.

-Dusty

quote:

Originally posted by dusty:
He will then replace the swank commercial products crowding his aura with retro furnishings, autographed lithographs of The Pet Shop Boys...

LMAO... Pet Shop Boys in Nashville??? This oughta be good!

Dusty, glad I was here to take a poke at, my pleasure. Good conversation. You have a vivid imagination my friend! But sorry, Too late. Pop has already done half the things on your list.

Hey, man...the Pet Shop Boys lithographs can't come down. For any reason. And actually, Dusty...I like the PSB, AND live in Nashville. :P

quote:

I did do a double-take on your lyrics though... For a second I thought you said...

"Like a crack head on the sidewalk..."

I was just listening to this again and did the same thing. I mean, if you listen to it carefully, it's obvious what he's saying. But just listening to it in the background, yeah, he said crack head.

That's probably the effect of the direct reflections from the textured ceiling tile, combined with a momentary standing bass wave that created the ghost "head" syllable.

Should I use wedge or pyramid foam to clean up that nasty "extra word" anomalie?

quote:

Should I use wedge or pyramid foam to clean up that nasty "extra word" anomalie?

Why not a bit of both? Wedge underneath the pyramid foam. You might also consider making a harness to suspend yourself from the ceiling to decouple yourself from the floor.