The following is the third installment of a brand-new blog in which former EM editor Gino Robair speaks out on issues relating to music technology. Read the first installment and the second installment.
My job keeps me traveling, but I like to get a bit of work done while I’m sitting in an airport or train station. In the past few months, I have assembled a portable, yet highly flexible workstation that let’s me listen, edit, and mix recordings with high-quality effects, as if I was at home.
In this video, I unpack my portable studio to show you which components I bring with me (and how many things end up hanging off of my laptop).
This week’s assignment: Create a checklist of the things you would need to do your work while on the road. Mentally walk yourself through the various types of projects you do, and make note of each cable, dongle, power supply, and accessory you use. When an item is somewhat large—such as a USB keyboard controller—consider whether the one you use is small enough to travel with easily, or if there is some sort of workaround (such as using your ASCII keys to enter MIDI notes or trigger samples).
The following is the second installment of a brand-new blog in which former EM editor Gino Robair speaks out on issues relating to music technology. Read the first installment.
Despite his incredible talent as a singer/songwriter, I don’t like Jackson Browne’s music. I’ve tried many times, even sitting through an 8-encore concert with his top-notch band. Not to get all Lefsetz on ya, but Jackson Browne just doesn’t do anything for me. When his music comes on the radio, my hand is on the dial in a nanosecond. That is, until yesterday, when, for some reason, I listened to Running on Empty in its entirety. And I liked it! What the hell happened?
In my July 2008 editors note “Listen and Learn,” I talked about turning off your iPod, removing your earbuds, and listening to whatever environment you happen to be, just to see if there was something you could learn from the experience. Whether you’re stuck in a noisy airport terminal, pinned between snoring campers, or trapped in an elevator with Muzak, there is usually some kind of auditory lesson you can take away from an initially uncomfortable or irritating situation.
Similarly, I often ask my students to listen to the music that they don’t like. Not just put it on in the background, but really hear it—analyze the foreground and background, scrutinize the production values, and visualize the overall gestalt of it. Many of my students, fresh out of high school, are acutely focused on some ultra-niche style of rap or metal and have little-to-no knowledge of other musical styles, despite the fact that they are bombarded by them on radio, TV, and the Internet.
Why waste your time listening to the music you hate? What does it teach you?
First, if you plan on making money with the craft of recording, it behooves you to understand how different musical genres sound because, at some point, you may get a chance to make a bit of money off of them. (An ex-student of mine who writes and records guitar-based rock has done well for himself tracking vocals for rappers in his garage with only a single condenser mic and a Pro Tools Mbox. And he’s not even out of high school yet!)
Second, even if you don’t plan to record anyone else, there is plenty to learn from nearly every form of recorded sound. Now’s your chance to borrow or steal the good parts and put them to work in your own music.
Third, being able to focus on the production values in a session is a great way to keep your sanity when you’re client is driving you nuts. Sometimes scrutinizing the mic placement on an acoustic guitar is enough to keep you from ripping the instrument out of their hands and chasing them around the room with it.
Which is exactly what I wanted to do back in the ‘80s when I was midway through the seventh encore of a Jackson Browne concert. But yesterday I didn’t have the urge to punch my car radio when Running on Empty came on. For some reason, I was captivated by the sound around his voice. Considering it’s a concert recording, it has an incredible three-dimensionality to it, blending nicely with the highly orchestrated rhythm track underneath. Even while driving 55, I could clearly hear his voice floating in the room. That was enough to set my imagination going, as I visualized the different ways to make such a thing work. Suddenly, I didn’t want the song to end!
This week’s assignment: What’s the most intolerable song you can think of? Give it a listen and pay close attention to the production values, such as the overall mix, the drum sound, the room sound, or where the various instruments fit within the frequency spectrum. Consider how the lyrics (if any) and the production link up: does the mix take any cues from the words in the song?
Can you find three things in the song that surprised you or that you would want to use in your own music? Can you find three things that you would fix or change if you could? (Besides killing the band.)
After you’ve done the assignment, visit Mix magazine’s Web site and see if they’ve covered your most-hated song in one of their Classic Tracks columns. Even if they haven’t, you might find a song on the list that really pisses you off. (I did.) Give it a listen, analyze the recording qualities, then check out the column and see if the things you discovered are covered in the text.
Postscript Avoid doing the assignment by listening to MP3s (or worse, to satellite radio). You’ll have a much better experience analyzing the mix of a song when it hasn’t been through some form of data compression. Better yet, if the song was originally released on vinyl, track it down on that format. If it was a big enough hit, you should be able to find it in the dollar bin somewhere.
The following is the first installment of a brand-new blog in which former EM editor Gino Robair speaks out on issues relating to music technology.
For reasons that you can probably figure out, Antares Auto-Tune is one of the few pro-audio tools that nearly everyone knows about. As if to hammer home the fact, there’s even a version of it available for the iPhone.
Kids can hardly wait to add the much-maligned effect to their own voices! Although Auto-Tune is not the only pitch-correction product on the market, the name has already become synonymous with the technology, just as the name Xerox has come to mean photo-copying.
As Nathaniel Kunkel noted in his March ’09 InSession column, Auto-Tune greatly simplified a chore that required at least two tape decks, a tuner, an Eventide H3000, and many hours to complete. Vocal tuning was already being done by the pros long before Cher’s production team used it so blatantly on “Believe”: Antares simply made the process more convenient, and as a result, more pervasive.
Musicians and listeners alike still treat this technology as the recording industry’s “dirty little secret,” primarily because it can turn someone who is musically challenged into a convincing singer with a mere press of a button. The only talent we need is behind the glass, rather than in front of it, right?
But as Kunkel and other engineers who use it suggest, pitch-correction technology is changing how we listen to music. For example, he notes that, after working with pitch correction for a while, it takes time for his ears to readjust to the idiosyncrasies in songs recorded before tuning technology existed.
I think the decidedly modern sound of quantized melodies has changed our perception for the better. First, pitch-correction technology reminds us how aesthetically satisfying subtle differences in intonation can be in a performance. That may seem like a no-brainer, but try to pitch correct an otherwise musical take without removing the essence of the performance. You’ll see right away how a vocal part has more going for it than a array of discrete pitches.
Second, the technology gives us an opportunity to hear what “perfectly in tune” actually sounds like, and the results are not always desirable. Done incorrectly, pitch correction can make the voice sound mechanical. Artists such as T-Pain and Akon take advantage of that aspect of the technology, figuring out exciting ways to misuse it for artistic purposes. But there’s no excuse when the tuning is unintentionally obvious on a pop-song vocal, and you can hear the algorithm working in the background.
And that’s why I think the far-reaching impact of pitch correction is ultimately good: These artifacts teach listeners to pay closer attention to the subtle intonation cues in music. And the greater an awareness they have of musical details, the more likely they’re going to see through the BS that is often being passed off as art. There is a whole lot more to a song than perfect intonation.
This week’s assignment: Put yourself in the role of a producer who has access to all of today’s software tools. Pick a classic song from the ‘50s, ‘60s, or ‘70s, and listen carefully for any pitch discrepancies in the vocal part. Identify those places where the singer misses the mark, ever so slightly. Think about how you would fix these problems if you were handed this track to mix. What artifacts might you encounter? Work hard to imagine how you’d clean them up.
Once you have finished, step back for a moment and consider whether your pitch corrections would have increased the musicality and aesthetic value of the song? Would it have robbed anything from the artist or presentation? These are not meant to be rhetorical questions: I want to know what you think and discover.
(Note that, with a product such as Celemony Melodyne Editor, which lets you tune individual notes within a polyphonic recording, it is not inconceivable that content owners will go through their back catalogs and fix the pitch errors on their classic masters. What better way to get you to buy those records yet again?)
Postscript For those of you who were horrified by stereo versions of Beatles albums that were originally mono, imagine what will happen if they decide to correct the slightly out of tune vocal parts in the next repackaged release. (You didn’t think the Beatles Industrial Complex was going to stop with the latest box set, did you? I guarantee that you will buy these recordings again, on whatever format wins out in the next decade, when the high-res versions they have in the vault hits the streets.)
Before I pose my question, let me give you some background info. I spent over a month working with various USB mics in preparation for the April ‘07 roundup, “The Direct Connection.” Before I started my research, I naively thought there would be little sonic difference between the mics, imagining that the majority of them would be suitable only for informal recording situations (songwriting demos, jams, Lo-Fi Podcasts). Was I ever wrong!
Each of the mics had its own personality, and a couple of them surprised me by how good they sounded, especially when you consider the price. However, I still had some reservations.
On a recent trip, I wanted to bring only a laptop and a USB mic to throw down some ideas, because I didn’t want the extra weight of an external preamp, A/D converter, or even an XLR cable. Surprisingly, the recordings were good enough to fit into an upcoming project, and now I feel that my studio toolbox is that much richer. Have you had a similar experience?
Tell us how you’ve been using USB microphones. Do you have any interesting tips or anecdotes to share with other EM readers who are using (or considering) USB mics? If so, hit reply: we’d love to hear from you!
I teach an introductory course on recording at a local college, and the days I cover microphones are always the most exciting for the students. Because the course is set up around Digidesign Pro Tools and a 2-channel Mbox, I spend one of the class sessions on recording a drum set using 1- and 2-mic configurations.
The plan is not to teach them the correct way to record drums, but to give them the critical tools needed to find the correct way. The sound an engineer looks for depends on a variety of factors, such as the drum kit, the recording environment, and the song.
A bonus is that this lecture demonstrates how different each model of microphone sounds when used on the same instrument — drums are the perfect subject for mic comparisons. It’s an opportunity to break down expectations, especially when the students have preconceived notions about particular mics.
First, I create a Pro Tools session with a click track and ask a student to play a simple drum beat using hi-hat (or cymbal), kick, and snare. I ask the drummer to play the same beat for several takes, and I change mics and their positions after each. Typically, I start with one mic placed a couple of feet in front of the kit, about waist high. Next, I may set up a stereo pair a few feet in front and above the kit. Next, I’ll place one mic on the snare and one on the kick drum. Which mics I use for each setup depends on what the students are interested to hearing.
When we listen back to all the takes, I selectively mute and solo various mics to hear how they color the sound of the drums. The results are always an ear opener–even for me.
This semester, I brought in some extra mics–a prototype of the omnidirectional Rode NT55 and a Joemeek JM27–and compared them to what the school already has in its mic cabinet (which includes a Neumann TLM 103, a pair of AKG C 1000s, an AKG C 3000, and a Studio Projects T1 tube mic, among others). And, of course, we have pairs of the most widely used dynamic microphones in the world, the Shure SM57 (still in production after 40 years) and SM58.
With a frequency response of 40 Hz to 15 kHz (+/- 10 dB), and more than a 5 dB rise around 6.5 kHz, the SM57 is tailor made for recording certain instruments, such as drums. (Come to think of it, except for the frequency bump, the SM57’s overall frequency response resembles that of many ribbon mics. Interesting…) Nonetheless, this ubiquitous transducer often gets a bad rap, probably because, at some point, nearly everyone has worked with a beat up SM57 running through a cheap preamp onstage or in a studio.
It’s interesting to compare the reaction of the students when they first hear the SM57 as a snare mic to when they hear it again after listening to other mics in the same position. The SM57 offers a band-limited, controlled “thonk” that says Rock Snare Drum like few other microphones do. However, this time around, we found placement was also critical: about four or five inches back from the snare head, rather than right on top of it, gave us the best snare sound, considering the dead acoustics of the classroom.
With an SM57 on the snare and the dynamic portion of the Audio-Technica AT2500 dual-capsule mic on the bass drum, we captured a tight and punchy drum sound. That was a pleasant surprise, because in the room, the kick was boomy and had a long ring to it. We were recording an 18-inch bass drum that had both heads on it, with no opening in the front head and no internal dampening. Not your typical rock bass-drum sound.
On the other hand, the TLM 103 (placed waist high a few feet in front of the bass drum) gave us a wonderfully live and balanced full-kit sound that would be perfect for a jangly pop song or a big-beat rap sample. The overall vibe was reminiscent of Iggy Pop’s “Lust for Life.” And it took us only five minutes to set up.
But I keep thinking about the much maligned SM57 and how versatile it can be in the studio. I recently edited Michael Cooper’s “Six String Strategies,” the December 2007 cover story about recording acoustic guitar. In it, a couple of the engineers he interviewed suggested that the SM57 would work well on acoustic guitar in certain situations.
For example, world-class engineer Richard Dodd noted that an SM57 “only sounds like an inexpensive microphone when it‘s paired with an inexpensive preamp. You pair it with an extremely sensitive, musical preamp, like a Telefunken V76 or Neve 1073, and the balance of the two is a wonderful thing to be heard.” (Dodd’s credits include engineering and mixing for Johnny Cash, George Harrison, Green Day, Tom Petty, Roy Orbison, and Sheryl Crow, among many others. In other words, he knows how to record acoustic guitars.)
It just goes to show you that, when it comes to microphones, you have to keep an open mind and let your ears guide you (rather than spec sheets or price). For some historical background on the SM57, visit Mix magazine’s TECnology Hall of Fame. For info on recording drums, check out Brian Knave’s article “Capturing the Kit.”
The annual Analogue Heaven - California (AHCali) gathering took place yesterday (Sunday, November 12, 2006) at the College of Marin in Kentfield, California. The name of the event comes from the Analogue Heaven mailing list, which, as you would expect, focuses on analog instruments, new and old.
Although the list has an international membership, regional gatherings are often scheduled around the U.S. so that members can meet face to face as well as get some hands-on time with instruments they may have only read about. The California shows tend to be located in the Bay Area, which is handy because a number of manufacturers and instrument designers are in the general vicinity. However, over the years, we’ve had attendees drive from as far south as Los Angeles and from as far north as Seattle.
AH events are informal, and people tend to bring things they want to share with others. Typically, the gathering attracts a wide variety of musicians, collectors, DIYers, and manufacturers, so you never know what you’ll see and hear. For example, a number of DIY modular synth modules were present, not to mention some prototypes (The Magic Smoke Mankato filter), and various other home-brew creations.
Although a number of exhibitors used speakers to demo their gear, the overall volume level was tame compared to past events. However, the volume rose substantially near the end of the day, especially at the table where the CV output of a vintage Korg was being used to control the image on an old Commodore video monitor. (After an afternoon of keeping levels to a minimum, you just can’t help but crank it up before tearing everything down to go home!)
Modular systems represented this year included new ones (Buchla 200e, Synthesis Technology MOTM, Doepfer, PAiA, Analogue Systems, Analogue Solutions, Blacet), and vintage ones (Delta Music Research and EMS). Vintage keyboard synths (Oberheim OB-1 and Matrix-12, and Roland System 100 and Jupiter-4 Compuphonic) and modern synths (Dave Smith Evolver Keyboard) were also present, as were a few drum machines. Mike Brown of Livewire Electronics brought along his vintage tube-based oscillators and noise generator, a small portion of the system he uses in his music. Although I usually bring something from my own collection, this time I brought some boutique instruments that I’m currently reviewing: a Bleep Labs Thingamagoop, a Monotonic Labs Type-U73 oscillator, and an Eowave Persephone ribbon-controlled synth.
Instrument designers visiting the show included Don Buchla, Dave Smith, Mike Brown, and Eric Barbour of Metasonix. Composer/performer Robert Rich was kind enough to bring along his large MOTM system. And San Francisco-based retailer Robot Speak was also present with plenty of Moog-related hardware and software items on display.
List member Brian Comnes, who coordinated the gathering, set up a raffle to raise money for the Bob Moog Memorial Foundation. The donated prizes included hats and shirts from RobotSpeak, a Metasonix TM-6, a gift certificate to Analogue Haven, and a vintage Korg MonoPoly synth (donated by sound-designer and EM author Nick Peck).
Personally, the most interesting aspect of an AHCali meeting is hearing what people have to say about their instruments, finding out what they like most about them, and hearing how they use them. I was particularly interested in learning more about the Buchla 200e, and Chris Muir was patient enough to explain some its deep feature-set to me.
Images from AHCali 2006 participants can be found here, here, and here.
The Bus, EM's editorial blog, features posts from all the EM editors on topics related to gear, recording techniques and much more. It's also home to posts from a selected group of guest bloggers.
The following is the third installment of a brand-new blog in which former EM editor Gino Robair speaks out on issues relating to music technology. Read the first installment and the second installment.
My job keeps me traveling, but I like to get a bit of work done while I’m sitting in an airport or train station. In the past few months, I have assembled a portable, yet highly flexible workstation that let’s me listen, edit, and mix recordings with high-quality effects, as if I was at home.
