#1
Hey Guys,

I just read through the FAQ's but nothing sticks out as an answer to my problem.

First off i have a decent enough setup that i should be able to get a good recording but no matter what the final sound quality sucks... What could i be doing wrong? Here are some details...

Using an SM57 to mic my guitar cab.

Running into a 20ch mixer with built in pre-amp. (using xlr from the sm57 of course).

From the outs of the mixer i'm running into the drop box of my delta 44 sound card.


Once the tracks are recorded i then normalize the volume to bring it up to par. It's still no where near a cd volume and it's already muffling the speakers with only a guitar playing. Any ideas/tips?
#2
sounds like what my problem was with my recording.. luckily it turned out to be a mixing/mastering issue

one thing is compression to bring up volume, the other thing (which helped drastically) were the EQ settings as follows:

Drums:

+9 dB LF

-12 dB MF at 400

+6 dB HF

Rhythm Guitar 1 (Cleanest)

+3 dB LF

+6 dB MF at 2.5 kHz

Rhythm Guitar 2

+1.5 dB LF

+6 dB MF at 4.0 kHz

+1.5 dB HF

Lead Guitar

+6 dB MF at 5 kHz

+3 dB HF

Lead Vocal

+3 dB MF at 3.5 kHz

+3 dB HF

Background Vocals

+1.5 dB LF

-6 dB MF at 3 kHz

+3 dB HF

Bass Guitar

+2 dB LF

+4 dB MF at 400 Hz
My Guitars:
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Epiphone AJ
Ibanez Strat Copy

Amps:
Orange Tiny Terror Head
Old beaten up Peavey cab
Marshall MG30DFX
#3
turn down the gain on the channel with the sm57? maybe?

try a different channel, maybe something is wrong with the pre on that channel.

I dont know what a "drop box" is or a delta 44 but make sure that your using only one preamp, you probably want the one in the mixer, then you want to send a line level analogue or digital signal to the computer.
#4
Quote by wyantsm
turn down the gain on the channel with the sm57? maybe?

try a different channel, maybe something is wrong with the pre on that channel.

I dont know what a "drop box" is or a delta 44 but make sure that your using only one preamp, you probably want the one in the mixer, then you want to send a line level analogue or digital signal to the computer.



I am bypassing all EQ on the mixer just using it for pre-amp. Listing from the mixer with head phones the sound is perfect. I'm thinking it's a compression issue with the way i'm recording. Should i not touch the volume levels after the recording? Should i just boost the hell out of the pre-amp so it's already at the level i need?
#5
i'm guessing you could be sending a mic level signal into a line level inout on your computer? that could account for the super low levels. also remember when you normalize you will boost all the noise along with it. just a thought
All my guitars are old enough to buy beer, are You?
#6
Quote by stevoreno
i'm guessing you could be sending a mic level signal into a line level inout on your computer? that could account for the super low levels. also remember when you normalize you will boost all the noise along with it. just a thought



Forgot to mention... Delta 44 is a PCI sound card by m-audio. The drop box is just something it comes with. It has 4 1/4 inputs and 4 1/4 outputs.

Stevoreno you have a good point. I have also captured the noise using a noise profile capture and then removed it before normalizing the volume. It sounds clean, but still muffles the speakers. The funny thing is listing with headphones when just playing it sounds great... Just after the recording. So it has to be something i'm doing wrong or forgetting with the recording?
#7
First of all, all the EQ that FightingIrishPJ listed is more or less useless. EQ isn't something that can be done from a guide, especially one that doesn't even list the frequencies, just LF and MF and HF...

Anyway, where are you positioning the mic? Because that can have a lot to do with it. Recording isn't a case of plug and play, it's a difficult and complex procedure. You can't expect to just place your mic and get commercial CD quality.
There is poetry in despair.
#8
Quote by fridge_raider
First of all, all the EQ that FightingIrishPJ listed is more or less useless. EQ isn't something that can be done from a guide, especially one that doesn't even list the frequencies, just LF and MF and HF...

Anyway, where are you positioning the mic? Because that can have a lot to do with it. Recording isn't a case of plug and play, it's a difficult and complex procedure. You can't expect to just place your mic and get commercial CD quality.



I've tried every position possible using a lot of guides online. I have headphones in the mixer so i can hear how it sounds from the there and it sounds great while playing. After the recording is where it turns to crap.
#9
This comes up pretty much every week.

Quote by joshb86


Using an SM57 to mic my guitar cab.

From the outs of the mixer i'm running into the drop box of my delta 44 sound card.


Fine so far. Delta 44 is a nice card. I think you just confused people by saying drop box when you meant 'break-out box.' No prob.

Quote by joshb86

Once the tracks are recorded i then normalize the volume to bring it up to par.


Here is the answer from another thread:

Quote by axemanchris

When a final mix is sent from the studio, it is no louder than what you currently have now, and are asking about.

The secret final step is that mix is sent to a mastering engineer. Back in the old days, this meant just a bit of EQ to tweak it, and adding enough compression so that the sudden peaks in volume (transients) wouldn't jump the needle right out of the groove when people played the record. (or worse, jostle the cutter when the master disc was being made!)

This was perfectly acceptable. A lot of high end audio snobs will still pull a piece of vinyl from the '70's off their shelf to show people just how brilliant analog recordings can sound. I mean, *nobody* ever complained about recordings not being loud enough. They just had this extraordinary dynamic range that they enjoyed because the quiet parts were really quiet, and then *BAM!* the loud parts got really loud in comparison. This is why we want our home theatres to have good dynamic range handling ability, because movies rely on this dynamic range for effect. If people wanted their album louder, they discovered that there was an easy solution.... turn it up!

Then, starting around the late '80's, something peculiar happened....

People noticed that the louder the track, the more it stood out and caught people's attention on the radio. (even back in the '70's, commercials were made to sound louder than the rest of the TV programs for the same reason)

The race was on.

They call this 'the loudness wars.' Ever since, people have been trying to get their track louder than the next guy's, so theirs will be the one to stand out on the radio. And now, so that their whole CD won't be so much quieter than the next person's.

If you have a CD from an album recorded in the '70's, put it on, and then take a CD recorded in the 2000's.... the newer one will shred your speakers in comparison. It will appear to be twice as loud.

So, the role of the mastering engineer is now to get the tracks sounding louder - not necessarily better. Watch the meters on your audio gear. A track from the seventies has the meters bouncing up and down in time with the music. A track from the 2000's has the top light on the meters just flickering on and off, and that's about it.

To achieve this, the mastering engineer uses two main tools - compression and limiting. Like any tool, you have to learn how to use it to best effect. Basically (and to totally oversimplify), they compress the living hell out of the final mix, and then slam it even further with the limiter.

We have come to slam our recordings so mercilessly that there is not really anywhere further to go in the loudness war.

I'm not sure what the next step will be, but usually, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's funny that we want hi-def TV, Blue Ray DVD, plasma displays, and high -end audio for our home theatres, yet we're happy with mp3 format music that is compressed to hell and back. We have the technology with DVD to play music back at 96khz and 24 bits, giving us more frequency response and dynamic range than we have *ever* had at any point in history, and yet we only demand that quality for our movies. There is a power resurgence of people buying vinyl for it's audiophile qualities - those same qualities we can get from DVD. We'll see.

One more thing... there has always been a maximum volume for a recording. The recordings aren't *actually* any louder. They are *perceived* to be louder. Your ear listens to audio material and decides how loud it is based on the average volume. By compressing and limiting a track, you raise the average volume so that the 'medium' volume parts are almost as loud as the theoretical maximum that your 'loud' parts are. This is where the less dynamic range comes in. By having a greater average volume, with the loudest parts still where they were before (because if they were louder, they would clip!), the track appears louder.

When you normalize something, that doesn't change the average volume. It adjusts the volume of the whole track upwards until the highest peak hits 0db without clipping.


Now....

Quote by joshb86

It's still no where near a cd volume and it's already muffling the speakers with only a guitar playing. Any ideas/tips?


Listen back to it with the same headphones you listened to the guitar while you were recording. Does it sound okay with those? Can you post a sample?

I don't see any reason why you couldn't get a decent sound with a 57 into a Delta 44 unless you have a problem with bad preamps, or something funny in your gain staging.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jan 8, 2009,
#10
Quote by axemanchris
This comes up pretty much every week.


Fine so far. Delta 44 is a nice card. I think you just confused people by saying drop box when you meant 'break-out box.' No prob.

....

Now....


Listen back to it with the same headphones you listened to the guitar while you were recording. Does it sound okay with those? Can you post a sample?

I don't see any reason why you couldn't get a decent sound with a 57 into a Delta 44 unless you have a problem with bad preamps, or something funny in your gain staging.

CT



axeman... you are absolutely correct. Listening to it with those same headphones it sounds fine. I recorded a short sample with just low end chops. Sounds perfectly fine through my headphones...

You can listen to it in my profile. Thanks man!
#11
A good discussion on what Axe mentioned: Loudness wars

A little later, the blog's author (a mastering engineer) describes its effects on Death Magnetic and why some people would rather record the Rock Band version.
Quote by keiron_d
thank you sooooooo much for the advice Fast_Fingers...i would hug you if i could...i looooove you!


True love exists in UG. Can you feel it?

Recording Guitar Amps 101
#12
Looks like mastering will be my key. I sat down and was able to completely kill the muffle with some mastering tools in adobe audition. First i cleaned the audio up of noise and then used some compression to get a nice clean and clear sounding track. Of course the compression lowered the over all output levels but i can raise it back up and just learn to do some better eq'ing.
#13
Quote by joshb86
Should i not touch the volume levels after the recording? Should i just boost the hell out of the pre-amp so it's already at the level i need?


Short answer: yes. You certainly shouldn't use normalize to bring the volume up. In the end this is about recording at the right volume (keep the signal high and the noise floor low; any muffling of the sound will be at the recording source), mixing (you'll need compression almost every single track for a "professional" sound; guitar tracks need to cut the EQ at 150-300Hz depending on the part) and mastering (2 distinct stages of limiting is the very least to approach the "loudness" on today's commercial products). A good compressor is a must as is a good mastering limiter (I like the Massey 2007)
#14
Quote by joshb86
Looks like mastering will be my key. I sat down and was able to completely kill the muffle with some mastering tools in adobe audition. First i cleaned the audio up of noise and then used some compression to get a nice clean and clear sounding track. Of course the compression lowered the over all output levels but i can raise it back up and just learn to do some better eq'ing.


Though typical of novice recording folks, I think this is wrong-headed. A rookie (or a stone-lazy professional) will say, "leave it, we'll fix it later" or "that can be fixed up a bit in mixing or mastering." Why accept something that you KNOW is going to need fixed? If you compare it to putting up a shelf, it's like you cut it crooked and put it up anyways... knowing that sooner or later, you'll be asked to take everything off the shelf and take the damned thing down and cut it straight in the long run anyways. (I know... we all do that from time to time, but it does illuminate the silliness of it all....)

By comparison, and here's something to take to the bank.... well-recorded tracks practically mix themselves, and subsequently, a great mix is SO much easier to turn into a great master. Nobody likes to spend hours futzing around trying to polish a turd.

Let's try to find out why your tracks sound bad in the first place!!

(.... going back to re-read and get some ideas....)

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#15
Quote by joshb86
I am bypassing all EQ on the mixer just using it for pre-amp. Listing from the mixer with head phones the sound is perfect.


Great news so far.

Quote by joshb86

I'm thinking it's a compression issue with the way i'm recording. Should i not touch the volume levels after the recording? Should i just boost the hell out of the pre-amp so it's already at the level i need?


Won't be a compression issue unless you're using compression. Adjusting the volume levels after you record the tracks is necessary. You can't mix without adjusting volume levels! Careful about boosting the preamps on the mixer too high. It might start to sound dirty, just like anything else when you put the gain too high.

ANOTHER POPULAR MISCONCEPTION:

When going to tape, the wisdom of getting a nice hot signal going to your recorder was well-founded. With digital recording at 16 bits, it is also pretty relevant, assuming you're not clipping.

BUT!!

With 24 bit recording, there is practically NO noise floor except for ambient noise in the room. Only the cheapest of gear will mean noise from your preamps or noise from your soundcard or whatever. (at least enough to worry about)

With 24-bit recording, your IDEAL recording level will average around maybe -10db with peaks no more than -6 db.

I can explain that more if anyone is interested.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jan 10, 2009,
#16
Quote by joshb86
I have also captured the noise using a noise profile capture and then removed it before normalizing the volume.


This is achieved, to oversimplify, by filtering out certain frequencies. This filtering may be part of your problem.

Quote by joshb86

It sounds clean, but still muffles the speakers. The funny thing is listing with headphones when just playing it sounds great... Just after the recording.


So the question is, which one of those sources is the RIGHT one? This is where having a decent set of monitors comes in. With half-decent monitors, you DON'T experience this issue. Without them, you're always second-guessing which of your listening sources is correct.

Quote by joshb86

So it has to be something i'm doing wrong or forgetting with the recording?


Depends on whether the good-sounding source is correct or if the muffled sounding source is correct....

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#17
Quote by fridge_raider
First of all, all the EQ that FightingIrishPJ listed is more or less useless.


I noticed as I browsed those frequencies that there is a LOT of the 'happy face' EQ carving going on over a lot of the tracks. That basically NEVER leads to a good mix, as the mids are WAY under-represented.... and then the end user is going to listen to it on his stereo or iPod with an EQ preset that also has the happy face curve...

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#18
Quote by ebon00
Short answer: yes. You certainly shouldn't use normalize to bring the volume up. In the end this is about recording at the right volume <strike>(keep the signal high and the noise floor low;</strike> any muffling of the sound will be at the recording source),


agreed

Quote by ebon00

mixing (you'll need compression almost every single track for a "professional" sound; guitar tracks need to cut the EQ at 150-300Hz depending on the part)


Whoa! What do you base that on? That is SO much of an overgeneralization, I would consider that bad advice.

Quote by ebon00

and mastering (2 distinct stages of limiting is the very least to approach the "loudness" on today's commercial products). A good compressor is a must as is a good mastering limiter (I like the Massey 2007)


Yes.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jan 10, 2009,
#19
Quote by joshb86
axeman... you are absolutely correct. Listening to it with those same headphones it sounds fine. I recorded a short sample with just low end chops. Sounds perfectly fine through my headphones...

You can listen to it in my profile. Thanks man!


Okay..... I'm going to guess that your headphones are the most accurate. I just fired up the sample on my studio monitors and, in general, it sounds good. I don't hear a muffled sound, and if this is cleaned up through filtering, I'd like to hear it before you cleaned it up.

I'd like to hear it in the context of a mix. It could sound great 'as-is.'

One issue I'm hearing is that it sounds like the mic might have been back from the grill by a half a foot or so. I can hear just a little bit of 'room' sound... it's hard to explain. It sounds aggressive, but doesn't sound 'in your face.' To get that 'in your face' sound, you put the mic right up in the face of the amp.

As fridge raider (who very often has great advice here) suggested, it probably has to do with mic placement. It's amazing how much difference even a few degrees or a couple of inches can make. A good starting point for the tone you're looking for is with the mic pointed straight on and half way between the center of the speaker and the edge. Move it closer to the center for a brighter sound and closer to the edge for a darker sound. (in keeping with what I said above, you can fix it with mic placement and do it properly, or else you'll find yourself fixing it with EQ later. Guess which one will be better in the end?)

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jan 10, 2009,
#20
Quote by axemanchris
Whoa! What do you base that on? That is SO much of an overgeneralization, I would consider that bad advice.


It is a generalization, no question about that, but one that has more than a grain of truth to it in my experience. About compression, that's been the way the "pros" do it in every single studio I've been to in the last 20-odd years (not counting little dingy demo studios that don't produce anything that's intended for commercial use). Compression from various devices is applied to just about everything, generally on submix groups when it comes to distorted guitars since they're fairly compressed already and just needs to "gel" together a bit in the mix, whether it be from plugins or outboard gear. About the low cut on guitars there's not much relevant information below 150Hz for the guitar for most styles of music, some down-tuned metal aside, it's better to leave that sonic space for the bass and the full range of, say, a piano. But this is a bit of personal preference based on the kinds of guitar sounds that guitarists who aren't recordists (and I don't mean that as in "plays the recorder") tend to favor when recording. There's too much bass and not enough mids, especially in metal, and since a lot of guitarists are so dependent on "their sound" to deliver a good performance it's easier to cut that extra bass in the mix. Depending on the part I find that 150-300Hz is usually about right.

Quote by axemanchris
With 24 bit recording, there is practically NO noise floor except for ambient noise in the room. Only the cheapest of gear will mean noise from your preamps or noise from your soundcard or whatever. (at least enough to worry about)

With 24-bit recording, your IDEAL recording level will average around maybe -10db with peaks no more than -6 db.

I can explain that more if anyone is interested.


I understand the basics behind this but wouldn't mind a further explanation.
#21
Quote by axemanchris
Okay..... I'm going to guess that your headphones are the most accurate. I just fired up the sample on my studio monitors and, in general, it sounds good. I don't hear a muffled sound, and if this is cleaned up through filtering, I'd like to hear it before you cleaned it up.

I'd like to hear it in the context of a mix. It could sound great 'as-is.'

One issue I'm hearing is that it sounds like the mic might have been back from the grill by a half a foot or so. I can hear just a little bit of 'room' sound... it's hard to explain. It sounds aggressive, but doesn't sound 'in your face.' To get that 'in your face' sound, you put the mic right up in the face of the amp.

As fridge raider (who very often has great advice here) suggested, it probably has to do with mic placement. It's amazing how much difference even a few degrees or a couple of inches can make. A good starting point for the tone you're looking for is with the mic pointed straight on and half way between the center of the speaker and the edge. Move it closer to the center for a brighter sound and closer to the edge for a darker sound. (in keeping with what I said above, you can fix it with mic placement and do it properly, or else you'll find yourself fixing it with EQ later. Guess which one will be better in the end?)

CT



Wow... I'm impressed. That sample the mic was indeed about a foot to a foot in a half from the cab(you have good ears!). It's actually the only time I've pulled it back because a friend at work suggested trying it. I typically do keep the mic against the grill and near the middle of the speaker.


What i can do is record another sample with my mic back on the grill and won't do any noise removal. I'll just give you the raw recording result. I should have it up shortly, I'll post once it's up.
#22
Quote by joshb86
What i can do is record another sample with my mic back on the grill and won't do any noise removal. I'll just give you the raw recording result. I should have it up shortly, I'll post once it's up.



Ok new sample is up of me dicking around. This was recorded, exported and uploaded. No changes at all, just the raw recording. Once again it's in my profile.
#23
Yeah, that sounds pretty good now, listening on my monitors. Like axemanchris said, it is more 'in your face' in the second sample recording, with less room sound and more 'chug' to the playing. But it's really a matter of personal taste whether you prefer it that way or not.

Try also putting your mic to the edge of the speaker, angled in slightly. That can get a nice representation of the full speaker. It's all about experimentation.
There is poetry in despair.
#24
Quote by fridge_raider
Yeah, that sounds pretty good now, listening on my monitors. Like axemanchris said, it is more 'in your face' in the second sample recording, with less room sound and more 'chug' to the playing. But it's really a matter of personal taste whether you prefer it that way or not.

Try also putting your mic to the edge of the speaker, angled in slightly. That can get a nice representation of the full speaker. It's all about experimentation.



Thanks man. Im going to try the position you just recommended. Once i'm happy i guess i'll have a decent enough mix to move to learn mastering with.
#25
Quote by ebon00
About the low cut on guitars there's not much relevant information below 150Hz for the guitar for most styles of music, some down-tuned metal aside, it's better to leave that sonic space for the bass and the full range of, say, a piano. But this is a bit of personal preference based on the kinds of guitar sounds that guitarists who aren't recordists (and I don't mean that as in "plays the recorder") tend to favor when recording. There's too much bass and not enough mids, especially in metal, and since a lot of guitarists are so dependent on "their sound" to deliver a good performance it's easier to cut that extra bass in the mix. Depending on the part I find that 150-300Hz is usually about right.


Okay... fair enough... as a generalization. Sorry. My comment was more aimed at the compression bit below.

Quote by ebon00

It is a generalization, no question about that, but one that has more than a grain of truth to it in my experience. About compression, that's been the way the "pros" do it in every single studio I've been to in the last 20-odd years (not counting little dingy demo studios that don't produce anything that's intended for commercial use). Compression from various devices is applied to just about everything, generally on submix groups when it comes to distorted guitars since they're fairly compressed already and just needs to "gel" together a bit in the mix, whether it be from plugins or outboard gear.


See... often a bit of compression is necessary to get stuff to sit in the mix. However, to say it is nearly always required leads people to automatically throw a compressor on every track and slam it before they use their ears. Maybe it doesn't need it. Distorted guitars are already compressed to hell and back. Not much need to compress a single electric guitar part. However, compressing a subgroup of electric guitars will help them to gel together a bit.

Again, to overgeneralize, the more dynamic the content, and similarly, the more transients that are present in the content, the more likely you are to need compression.

Ultimately, though... you have to use your ears. Adding compression all over the place willy-nilly will suck a lot of the dynamic energy out of your mix. Save that dynamic energy-sucking compression for the mastering process.

Quote by ebon00

I understand the basics behind this but wouldn't mind a further explanation.


Analog signals and digital signals are measured differently. If you take an analog test tone measured at the output at exactly 0db and run it into a digital recorder at unity gain (ie. not changing the level at all) and record the result, and then measure the output of that, played back again at unity gain with your digital meters, that test tone will be measured at somewhere around -10 to -12db (that range varies a lot further depending on calibration). Go figure. So, that digital signal that people are unhappy with until it peaks around -2db on their digital meters, would actually blow an analog meter off the scale.

Here is a good article I just found on it....
http://www.homestudioguide.com/HowToCalibrateYourRecordingLevels.aspx

Here are my own original sources where I first learned this:
http://www.recordingproject.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=18635&highlight=digital+0db+analog
http://www.recordingproject.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=20471&highlight=digital+0db+analog

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#26
Way nicer, now, Josh.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#27
Quote by axemanchris
Way nicer, now, Josh.

CT



Thank you guys for all the help, i really appreciate it. So i guess since i have a decent mix now i can take this last sample and use it to learn some mastering techniques.

If you guys have and more tips for the mastering department then I'm all ears, other then that thanks for the help on getting me in the right direction. Kudos!
#28
Don't worry about mastering until your final mix is done.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#29
Quote by axemanchris
Don't worry about mastering until your final mix is done.

CT



by final mix you mean all the instrument tracks right?
#30
Yes. Mixing is the actual mix of the different instruments, including levels, panning, FX, EQ, automation and so on. Then when the tracks are all bounced down to one stereo track, that's the track you master.
There is poetry in despair.
#31
Quote by fridge_raider
Yes. Mixing is the actual mix of the different instruments, including levels, panning, FX, EQ, automation and so on. Then when the tracks are all bounced down to one stereo track, that's the track you master.



Thanks man. That brings me to another question. When i'm recording my tracks should i be doing it in stereo? I've always just left it mono.
#32
If you record in stereo, you'll need stereo inputs, i.e. two. This could be in the form of two mics on a piano, or stereo outputs from a synth.

Keep all your tracks mono, then bounce the whole mix down to a stereo track for mastering. But I wouldn't even really think about mastering yet if I were you.
There is poetry in despair.
#33
Quote by fridge_raider
If you record in stereo, you'll need stereo inputs, i.e. two. This could be in the form of two mics on a piano, or stereo outputs from a synth.

Keep all your tracks mono, then bounce the whole mix down to a stereo track for mastering. But I wouldn't even really think about mastering yet if I were you.


Ok cool, thanks.