Tracking with plugs vs. Tracking without plugs

[Merlinmrk1]

Hi all,

Ive just bought a flexicard and have checked out all the demos and decided to go with the Nerve pack!! I mainly record my acoustic guitarist/Singer friend for his own demos(cubase 4), and i just do it for practise.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For years now ive been struggling to record pro standard demos; at the best they sound good, not great. Due to what ive read, all audo recordings were tracked dry- without vst effects. I think this is complete BS! The other day i used the nerve eqs whilst tracking some acoustic guitar, then recorded another tack dry. I opened up the same nerve eq presets on the drylly recorded track.....They sounded totally different!!!Such a huge improvement on material record with the nerve plugs.

Thinks like reverb, Timings for compressors, and other fiddly, tweakable things perhaps should be avoided until the mixdown, incase the settings were wrong during tracking, but then again, the one beauty about ,say '4 track' is that you have to make commitments and record with limiters, compressers, reverbs,etc.

From now on, im always going to track with vst plugs on the audio input channel! (not the insert channel...)F3 audio input channel btw


What are your thoughts on this people.? Is this what everyone else already does?


Cheers

 

[Plec]

I think you should check the integrity of your setup. What you describe is a feature that should not take place in any DAW.

Please post both files for people to hear.

 

[imdrecordings]

Plug-ins on the way in? No thanks....
In fact, a lot of the time, I don't use any plugs. (or try not to) in a mix.
What do you mean by \"pro standard demos\"?
A Demo is a Demo is a demo... it's just that.
You can't polish a turd.
Leave it at that and don't worry about try to make it sound \"Commercial\"
Sounds like you need to work on miking, a little bit.
It looks like you have the gear to make a great recording.
Now just employ the proper technique.

Lets not forget the biggest part of the recording.

THE MATERIAL YOU ARE RECORDING!

-S-

 

[Merlinmrk1]

hi,

Yea, everything i was recording was sounding really overbassy and muddy.

How do i post music?

 

[BTLG]

whats a nerve EQ?

 

[Merlinmrk1]

Hi,

The nerve emulation eqs + compressers vst, for the uad cards.

 

[Merlinmrk1]

So Whats the point having inserts on the audio input channels in cubase 4, if noone uses them? I recorded a few bars of chords with and without the nerve eq.After id recorded these, i opened up the same nerve eq peset on the dry recording and compared it to the one that had the nerve eq during tracking. It definetely sounded better.

Iwould post examples if i knew how.....


Obviously when im recording, i dont want to clip my soundcard, so perhaps compression/limters are great to chain before the DAW, but still, i feel that using the nerve eqs/comps during recording affects the recording enviroment + gives better clarity and sound than using it on dry recorded material. Obviosly u cant tweak too much with the settings during tracking, so i recon just use the presets to record with; then use more after its recorded.(if it needs it)

Any thoughts please folks?

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

1) Before anyone jumps all over you, it's NEVE - not \"Nerve\" - Rupert (Neve) would probably strangle you for strangling his good name.

2) Recording \"through\" plugs isn't any different than adding them after the fact. You're applying a digital process to a digital signal. Inserts are fine for monitoring through the plugs on the way in - Go for it if you must. But to \"cement\" them on the way in - well, they're your recordings. But there's no advantage to it, and several disadvantages to it.

3) If you're even close to needing dynamics on your input, you're recording too hot. Probably WAY too hot. -18dBRMS (assuming your interface is calibrated to -18dB/0dBVU) is more than enough (and *still* too hot for most \"serious\" recordists). But that's all for another thread... And it's probably been beaten to death in enough threads already.

4) Using the (NEVE!!!) EQ/comps during recording should *not* affect the recording environment, and should not give better clarity. If it does, your DAW is seriously broken. Again - You're applying a digital process to an *already digitized* signal. There is absolutely no difference to applying it later. But again (again), if you want to monitor through plugs, there's certainly nothing wrong with that - It's done all the time. It just isn't \"printed\" that way.

 

[BTLG]

Massive -

I don't necessarily think using comp's on your input is a terrible idea. If you already know you're going to compress something after the fact, why not get it from the get go? Sure, it takes some experience, but with enough practice yields great results. That line of thinking seems a little similar to those who don't use effects / reverbs on guitars until the mix... just doesn't work for me.

Matt

 

[Dan Duskin]

I see nothing wrong with using a little EQ (and maybe a little compression) plugins on input. Personally, I don't, because my favorites are the UAD EQ's and Compressors, and they add latency... so I don't see them being usfull on input (unless your system latency is 1.5ms or less).

Does it sound different on input then on playback? ABSOLUTELY NOT! If it sound different, something is wrong!

The benefit of printing a little EQ or Compression to disk is:
- it will save some more DSP and CPU for later
- keeps the mixer cleaner... i.e., less plugins later on
- if it sounds good, and you know what you are doing, why not?

The only compressor I would ever put on the input is the LA-2A... and only for vocals and bass guitar. But EQ is another story... a little EQ boost or notch isn't really going to hurt anything (again, as long as you really know what you are doing). Back in the day, we used to print compression and eq to tape all the time... no big deal.

The thing is... if you NEED to apply some EQ on input, that means their is a problem with any (or many) of the following:
- musicians technique
- the instrument (and general tuning & other maintenance)
- the strings, the heads, etc...
- the microphone placement (and angle)
- the microphone
- the microphone pattern (and other options)
- the acoustics (& placement of instrument & mic within an acoustic space)
- the cables
- the preamp
- the impedance
- the input gain
- the phase (& polarity)
- the output gain
- the converters
- the clocking
- the monitoring level
- the monitors & acoustics of the monitoring environment
- THE KNOWLEGE, TALENT, AND EXPERIANCE !!!

\"But what do you do if you only have a couple mics and a cheap preamp?\" Well... not too much you can do, except do everything the best you can. And this might be a good excuse to EQ on the way in...

 

[BTLG]

I dunno, I've got no problem compressing a kick drum/snare, overheads, bass on input. it saves me the hassle of dealing with it later, and better than anything else it forces me to make a decision and commit to something. the ideal mix situation for me is 'throw up the faders at zero and...ahh' I don't get it everytime, but I try to get damn close.

 

[lance]

I kind of agree with Matt, I like to compress the bass on the way in and sometimes acoustic guitar because then all I have to worry about is a little EQ and I'm done. However, I don't believe there would be any difference recording a plugin instead of using it in the mix later except for having that extra dsp at mix time. Which, in the case of the Neve plugs might not be a bad idea as long as you know what you want. I will say that I would be skiddish of putting plugin compression on a vocal on the way in because of in increased siblance from certain singers. Not that an analog comp wouldn't do the same, but, if you want to stay in the box that's the only way to get the sound of that kick ass comp. you starved for a year to save for.
Lance

 

[saemskin]

Since you *are* recording to a digital environment, and in essence have unlimited channels, there's no reason you can route your incoming vocal to 2 or 3 channels. Leave one dry (always and every time), and put some subtle processing on the other 2. Try out the 1073 on one and the 1081 on the other or something.

Mute the output of the 2 you don't want to monitor through.

When you are mixing down, you'll know pretty fast which one is best for that particular mix. It will be the one that sounds better :wink:

 

[Dan Duskin]

I'm not afraid to commit. However, my ex's will disagree.

 

[Arys Chien]

One reason not to record with plug-in:

We all know one thing. If the singer sings right, sings into the mic right, and we got the mic, mic pre and everything right, and the room is right, then it's possible to record a track that DOESN\"T need any processing afterwards.

And from my own experience, nothing beats that when it happens. The most authentic of all possible. Of course I must admit that I'm not good enough to make it happen everyday, but when I got that once in a while, it's better than sex.

Plug-ins are good when you don't have excellent outbaords and AD, and when you know how to use plug-ins. Yet they always kill something more than outboards. If you always record with plug-in, there's no way you can get familiar with \"good source material\".

I don't know if record with plug-in sounds better than adding the plug-in afterwards, but it seems that you are having more problem than the difference between adding plug-in on the way in or afterwards, so I'd suggest that you ignore the \"benifit\" of the former, if there's any, and record dry signals. This way you can play with the sound anyway you want, and throught those \"playing\" you WILL leran a lot.

My 0.02.

 

[Arys Chien]

One more thing: the \"beauty of 4-track\" idea is not 100% true, if you know some of the great, legendary people that worked with 4 or 8-tracks actually WANTED to have more available tracks to avoid the sound degretion of track bouncing.

Also, those people are the ones that can record \"one track\" right. If you can do that, talk on.

 

[Schaap]

One more thing: the "beauty of 4-track" idea is not 100% true, if you know some of the great, legendary people that worked with 4 or 8-tracks actually WANTED to have more available tracks to avoid the sound degretion of track bouncing.

Almost 100% true. I saw "McCartney in the Abbey road" again and he said: bouncing with the 4 track Studer when recording the Sgt. Pepper album didn't care much for them because it gave the special smeared guitar sound.

 

[BTLG]

Arys -

That's fine and dandy, but I've always felt comparing today's SYSTEMS to yesteryears has been an unfair discussion. I think the concentration should be really on the idea that people had to make decisions at a certain point in the process back then and more often than not that point came early on. I think it really helped people concentrate on the arrangement and the music more than they instinctively do today.

 

[TheEastGateMS]

Just for everyone to note... I ran a test this afternoon regarding the placement of plugs on the input channel vs the audio track channel. It nulled perfectly.

I used a fairchild and plate 140 in Nuendo.

I can post a blank audio file for everyone to hear that it nulled, but I am hoping everyone will take my word on it, since it does concur with common sense anyway. :wink:

 

[Dan Duskin]

...it does concur with common sense anyway. :wink:

haha! Indeed!