And it's time for another production diary!
-Kim.
Flesh And Bone - Production Diary
-
- KVRAF
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
Please keep in mind that these "days" correspond to calendar days. Each "day" probably only averaged about two or three hours working on the song. These are not full days!
DAY 1
As before, we begin with the somewhat unorthodox approach of recording the vocals before writing the tune or harmonic structure (chords, tonality, etc). As you can hear, I set up a basic piano backing for Maxine to sing to - essentially a tuned metronome. We did about seven takes, though in this bounce you can only hear four. We did four "regular" takes, for Maxine to get warmed up and feel her way around the words - getting a sense of how the words fit with beats and bars at that tempo. Consider this - the lyrics were written by Maxine without even considering musical timing. It was probably closer to poetry than lyrics. Most lines didn't even rhyme!
After the four "regular" takes, I had Maxine do some alternate takes - loud, soft, and whisper. The "loud" take had a lot more energy in its delivery, and usually higher and wider pitch range. The soft take was the opposite - much flatter, lower, and almost a monotone in places. The whisper take was, obviously, whispered.
The loud and soft takes were similar to the alternate takes we recorded for Undone. They ware extremely useful for Undone, allowing me to use different takes for different sections of the song to structure the vocal "performance" in line with the rest of the song. Because the regular and loud takes were quite close (in performance style) in a few places, I could actually swap and change them in a couple of places. This was not just for building a performance, but also to change the melody. There was no melody pre-written, so each time Maxine sung the lyrics, they came out differently.
-Kim.
DAY 1
As before, we begin with the somewhat unorthodox approach of recording the vocals before writing the tune or harmonic structure (chords, tonality, etc). As you can hear, I set up a basic piano backing for Maxine to sing to - essentially a tuned metronome. We did about seven takes, though in this bounce you can only hear four. We did four "regular" takes, for Maxine to get warmed up and feel her way around the words - getting a sense of how the words fit with beats and bars at that tempo. Consider this - the lyrics were written by Maxine without even considering musical timing. It was probably closer to poetry than lyrics. Most lines didn't even rhyme!
After the four "regular" takes, I had Maxine do some alternate takes - loud, soft, and whisper. The "loud" take had a lot more energy in its delivery, and usually higher and wider pitch range. The soft take was the opposite - much flatter, lower, and almost a monotone in places. The whisper take was, obviously, whispered.
The loud and soft takes were similar to the alternate takes we recorded for Undone. They ware extremely useful for Undone, allowing me to use different takes for different sections of the song to structure the vocal "performance" in line with the rest of the song. Because the regular and loud takes were quite close (in performance style) in a few places, I could actually swap and change them in a couple of places. This was not just for building a performance, but also to change the melody. There was no melody pre-written, so each time Maxine sung the lyrics, they came out differently.
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
DAY 2
Here I've culled and edited the vocal performances. I removed all the takes I wasn't going to use, and also edited different takes of the same lines so that they roughly line up. Obviously they're very different performances (and even more difficult without a set melody!), so it's really just to make sure the phrases roughly fall together. I've panned the two main vocal takes ("regular" and "loud") left and right to make them easier to distinguish.
Next I worked out chords and the basic tonality of the song. Not much to say here, just a case of juggling between what works with the performance and what works in a song. It's really a compromise between -
- Chords that work well in a song, but requiring a lot of vocal manipulation
- Chords that follow the vocals, but don't make much sense in a song context.
When choosing chords for a song I have to consider factors like tonality, cadence, momentum, expectation, sequence, etc. For each note in the vocal take, I have an idea of what chord will work best in the context of a song, and I have to consider -
- Is the note consistent with the tonality of the chord?
- Do I keep the chord but change the tonality? This usually covers flat/natural 3rds (minor/major) and flat/natural 7ths (dominant/major sevenths).
- Do I change the chord? Sometimes this can give rise to interesting chord progressions or interesting shifts in the harmonic context of other notes
- Do I change the vocal note? Sometimes a note will just not work with where the song wants to go, sometimes a note will suggest a chord which doesn't work with the others. Sometimes the note is just wrong or out of tune (eg almost a major 3rd that should have been minor).
-Kim.
Here I've culled and edited the vocal performances. I removed all the takes I wasn't going to use, and also edited different takes of the same lines so that they roughly line up. Obviously they're very different performances (and even more difficult without a set melody!), so it's really just to make sure the phrases roughly fall together. I've panned the two main vocal takes ("regular" and "loud") left and right to make them easier to distinguish.
Next I worked out chords and the basic tonality of the song. Not much to say here, just a case of juggling between what works with the performance and what works in a song. It's really a compromise between -
- Chords that work well in a song, but requiring a lot of vocal manipulation
- Chords that follow the vocals, but don't make much sense in a song context.
When choosing chords for a song I have to consider factors like tonality, cadence, momentum, expectation, sequence, etc. For each note in the vocal take, I have an idea of what chord will work best in the context of a song, and I have to consider -
- Is the note consistent with the tonality of the chord?
- Do I keep the chord but change the tonality? This usually covers flat/natural 3rds (minor/major) and flat/natural 7ths (dominant/major sevenths).
- Do I change the chord? Sometimes this can give rise to interesting chord progressions or interesting shifts in the harmonic context of other notes
- Do I change the vocal note? Sometimes a note will just not work with where the song wants to go, sometimes a note will suggest a chord which doesn't work with the others. Sometimes the note is just wrong or out of tune (eg almost a major 3rd that should have been minor).
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
DAY 3
Here to vocal takes have been tuned and processed. I use Melodyne Plugin for vocal manipulation. This allows me to not only correct intonation, but dramatically repitch notes and adjust timing with surprisingly few artefacts. Comparing to DAY 2, you'll notice the vocal takes are working with the piano chords much better - as if chords came before the vocal!
There are a few edits that are still audible - they're not from Melodyne, but from jamming two segments together that weren't sung together. Someone going for a more natural end result might approach these edits differently, but I don't mind a few "production artefacts" here and there.
The processing of the vocals usually happens quite early in the composition process. The vocal is the most important part of a (pop) song. I take the approach of making sure the vocal sound is right first, then fitting the other instruments around the vocal. Spectral balance influences decisions such as instrument choice, voicing, and effects. By making sure the sounds are in the right ballpark as I'm composing, I avoid situations where different sounds clash badly, requiring significant fixing. Choosing the right instrument and composing with the right voicing is preferable to fixing bad choices with excessive EQ or panning.
-Kim.
Here to vocal takes have been tuned and processed. I use Melodyne Plugin for vocal manipulation. This allows me to not only correct intonation, but dramatically repitch notes and adjust timing with surprisingly few artefacts. Comparing to DAY 2, you'll notice the vocal takes are working with the piano chords much better - as if chords came before the vocal!
There are a few edits that are still audible - they're not from Melodyne, but from jamming two segments together that weren't sung together. Someone going for a more natural end result might approach these edits differently, but I don't mind a few "production artefacts" here and there.
The processing of the vocals usually happens quite early in the composition process. The vocal is the most important part of a (pop) song. I take the approach of making sure the vocal sound is right first, then fitting the other instruments around the vocal. Spectral balance influences decisions such as instrument choice, voicing, and effects. By making sure the sounds are in the right ballpark as I'm composing, I avoid situations where different sounds clash badly, requiring significant fixing. Choosing the right instrument and composing with the right voicing is preferable to fixing bad choices with excessive EQ or panning.
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
DAY 4
Readers of previous production diaries and other posts here on KVR might recall that I usually apply saturation to instruments in the final stages of the mix, on the basis that it should add a bit of extra colour to sounds without considerably changing their character. This time around I've tried adding saturation at the start instead - making the saturation an integral part of the sounds themselves (rather than a last-minute add on). Hence, these processed vocals are not only brighter, less muddy, and more consistent in level, they're also a little more filthy too.
I've added drums and bass for the chorus. The general hierarchy that I use is - vocal and snare in the foreground, kick and bass just behind, and everything else further behind. The vocal is the most important element because it carries the song. Already at this stage of the song, it already has most of what people will listen to and identify with.
The snare is just as important as the vocal because it drives the rhythm. It establishes the backbeat and the groove, and provides a central reference point for all other instruments. The snare also exists in the mid and upper frequencies, similar to the vocal. This is also the range that people (humans) are most sensitive to. Finally, the snare also cuts through on all playback devices, from massive club systems to your granny's kitchen radio. Unlike the kick, using the snare to hold the beat means that it'll be heard wherever the vocal is heard.
The kick and bass are, in a sense, bridging elements. The kick mirrors the snare in the low frequencies, and the bass is a combination rhythm and melody.
-Kim.
Readers of previous production diaries and other posts here on KVR might recall that I usually apply saturation to instruments in the final stages of the mix, on the basis that it should add a bit of extra colour to sounds without considerably changing their character. This time around I've tried adding saturation at the start instead - making the saturation an integral part of the sounds themselves (rather than a last-minute add on). Hence, these processed vocals are not only brighter, less muddy, and more consistent in level, they're also a little more filthy too.
I've added drums and bass for the chorus. The general hierarchy that I use is - vocal and snare in the foreground, kick and bass just behind, and everything else further behind. The vocal is the most important element because it carries the song. Already at this stage of the song, it already has most of what people will listen to and identify with.
The snare is just as important as the vocal because it drives the rhythm. It establishes the backbeat and the groove, and provides a central reference point for all other instruments. The snare also exists in the mid and upper frequencies, similar to the vocal. This is also the range that people (humans) are most sensitive to. Finally, the snare also cuts through on all playback devices, from massive club systems to your granny's kitchen radio. Unlike the kick, using the snare to hold the beat means that it'll be heard wherever the vocal is heard.
The kick and bass are, in a sense, bridging elements. The kick mirrors the snare in the low frequencies, and the bass is a combination rhythm and melody.
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
DAY 5
Maxine got a message at 0:21.
Always remember to turn your phone off when recording!
By this stage, most of the song (except the bridge) has a skeleton of drums and bass. A few other other background instruments have been added too - pads, acoustic guitar, tremolo guitar, and distorted guitars. The piano has also been re-performed.
About half the song has been "joined" too. Usually, my process is to work with different sections in isolation at first. While I'm establishing their basic vibe and laying down drums and bass, I'm also thinking about their order in the song, and any bridging sections. Even with songs that have been "fully written" and organised beforehand, I very rarely place sections in their near-final positions until after I've developed the sound a little. Doing this also allows me to lay the foundation for repeated sections (such as choruses) just once.
An interesting side-note about acoustic guitars: I find them to be strange beasts in terms of timing. When I play acoustic in my room (not recording), all is fine. When recording, however, the strums almost always fall about 50ms too early. It doesn't feel like that when I'm playing, and it doesn't occur with electric guitar - just acoustic. It's so consistent that I can almost always fix it by simply slipping the entire recording back about 50ms. Does anyone else get this? Can anyone explain it?
-Kim.
Maxine got a message at 0:21.
Always remember to turn your phone off when recording!By this stage, most of the song (except the bridge) has a skeleton of drums and bass. A few other other background instruments have been added too - pads, acoustic guitar, tremolo guitar, and distorted guitars. The piano has also been re-performed.
About half the song has been "joined" too. Usually, my process is to work with different sections in isolation at first. While I'm establishing their basic vibe and laying down drums and bass, I'm also thinking about their order in the song, and any bridging sections. Even with songs that have been "fully written" and organised beforehand, I very rarely place sections in their near-final positions until after I've developed the sound a little. Doing this also allows me to lay the foundation for repeated sections (such as choruses) just once.
An interesting side-note about acoustic guitars: I find them to be strange beasts in terms of timing. When I play acoustic in my room (not recording), all is fine. When recording, however, the strums almost always fall about 50ms too early. It doesn't feel like that when I'm playing, and it doesn't occur with electric guitar - just acoustic. It's so consistent that I can almost always fix it by simply slipping the entire recording back about 50ms. Does anyone else get this? Can anyone explain it?
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
DAY 6
Here it begins to come together. The whole song is stitched together, backgrounds and atmospherics are added, precision editing is beginning...
I think this is the day that I realised I might need to make two versions of this song. I was originally aiming for a standard 3:30 pop song. Maxine had also specifically asked that the song be short. She actually suggested under three minutes, but I consider that to be too short. No doubt many pop songs are less than three minutes, but as a composer, I prefer a little more time. It gives the song a bit more scope for musical development and expressive range. I usually aim for 3:30, though I often blow out to 3:40.
Six minutes, on the other hand, is way over! This was actually quite surprising - the song is not unstructured, isn't packed with unrelated or irrelevant "stuff", and isn't what I'd consider "sprawling" in the same way that a Tool song might be. It's just that the sections themselves are quite long, and there are some pretty substantial bridges between them.
I actually quite like this song as it is, and I'm always hesitant to chop out large chunks of my work. The idea to do two versions allowed me to keep this "full" version while also having a short version to play for people with short attention spans. It also gave me the opportunity to do two different masters - a loud "single" master, and a quieter full version with less damage to the sound.
I figured to bring it down to 3:30, I could cut the opening chorus and the bridge (third verse). While it's kinda odd to have a pop song without a bridge, I've done it before with Just A Thought and it doesn't sound quite as clipped as might otherwise be expected.
-Kim.
Here it begins to come together. The whole song is stitched together, backgrounds and atmospherics are added, precision editing is beginning...
I think this is the day that I realised I might need to make two versions of this song. I was originally aiming for a standard 3:30 pop song. Maxine had also specifically asked that the song be short. She actually suggested under three minutes, but I consider that to be too short. No doubt many pop songs are less than three minutes, but as a composer, I prefer a little more time. It gives the song a bit more scope for musical development and expressive range. I usually aim for 3:30, though I often blow out to 3:40.
Six minutes, on the other hand, is way over! This was actually quite surprising - the song is not unstructured, isn't packed with unrelated or irrelevant "stuff", and isn't what I'd consider "sprawling" in the same way that a Tool song might be. It's just that the sections themselves are quite long, and there are some pretty substantial bridges between them.
I actually quite like this song as it is, and I'm always hesitant to chop out large chunks of my work. The idea to do two versions allowed me to keep this "full" version while also having a short version to play for people with short attention spans. It also gave me the opportunity to do two different masters - a loud "single" master, and a quieter full version with less damage to the sound.
I figured to bring it down to 3:30, I could cut the opening chorus and the bridge (third verse). While it's kinda odd to have a pop song without a bridge, I've done it before with Just A Thought and it doesn't sound quite as clipped as might otherwise be expected.
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
DAY 7
This is when I programmed the drum fills. Up until this point, the drums were all temp loops (not pre-recorded or pre-programmed loops, just my own patterns) to just set the groove and have something to work to. On this day I added subtle bar-to-bar variations and fills. Rather than programming two or three fills and distributing them throughout the song, I work on each part of the song individually, and come up with a slightly (or not so slightly) different fill for each instance. This allows the drums to interact better with the rest of the instruments and the timing of the preceding and following bars. It also gives the song a slightly more organic feel. It doesn't quite sound like a collection of loops.
At the end of this day's bounce you can also hear the reversed drum hits I used throughout the song. Again, rather than using the one reverse sound, I rendered five different variations (combinations of kick, snare, crash, and ride) so I could use whatever is more appropriate in each situation.
-Kim.
This is when I programmed the drum fills. Up until this point, the drums were all temp loops (not pre-recorded or pre-programmed loops, just my own patterns) to just set the groove and have something to work to. On this day I added subtle bar-to-bar variations and fills. Rather than programming two or three fills and distributing them throughout the song, I work on each part of the song individually, and come up with a slightly (or not so slightly) different fill for each instance. This allows the drums to interact better with the rest of the instruments and the timing of the preceding and following bars. It also gives the song a slightly more organic feel. It doesn't quite sound like a collection of loops.
At the end of this day's bounce you can also hear the reversed drum hits I used throughout the song. Again, rather than using the one reverse sound, I rendered five different variations (combinations of kick, snare, crash, and ride) so I could use whatever is more appropriate in each situation.
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
DAY 8 and DAY 9
I've combined these two days in the diary because, honestly, I'm not entirely sure what exactly I did. In these late stages I usually do micro-edits and fine-tuning. Just lots of little things here and there to tighten up the production. Unless you knew what to listen for though, you'd be hard pressed to point out what the difference is. From memory, there are two things I know I did - reversed reverb and drum replacement. The reversed reverb is at 0:35, 2:47, and 4:18.
The drum replacement was a bit of an ordeal. I was fine-tuning the kit and came to the realisation that the kick I was using had very different levels of low end depending on the velocity of the hit. After spending some time with eqs and compressors, I finally realised I had to swap out the sample set itself. Fortunately I found a more appropriate kick, but it got me thinking - How amazing is it to be able to completely replace the kick drum this late in the production? Likewise, I realised the snare was actually quite trashy - more so than I would have liked. Too much saturation will make a snare trashy, and it'll lose its definition and bite. Listening back, the difference is so subtle as to be almost unnoticeable in the context of the song.
-Kim.
I've combined these two days in the diary because, honestly, I'm not entirely sure what exactly I did. In these late stages I usually do micro-edits and fine-tuning. Just lots of little things here and there to tighten up the production. Unless you knew what to listen for though, you'd be hard pressed to point out what the difference is. From memory, there are two things I know I did - reversed reverb and drum replacement. The reversed reverb is at 0:35, 2:47, and 4:18.
The drum replacement was a bit of an ordeal. I was fine-tuning the kit and came to the realisation that the kick I was using had very different levels of low end depending on the velocity of the hit. After spending some time with eqs and compressors, I finally realised I had to swap out the sample set itself. Fortunately I found a more appropriate kick, but it got me thinking - How amazing is it to be able to completely replace the kick drum this late in the production? Likewise, I realised the snare was actually quite trashy - more so than I would have liked. Too much saturation will make a snare trashy, and it'll lose its definition and bite. Listening back, the difference is so subtle as to be almost unnoticeable in the context of the song.
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
DAY 10 - FINAL MIX
My usual mixing process is to add saturation, panning, and reverb. However, this time I'd taken the approach of adding saturation at the start - as an integral part of each instrument's sound. This worked quite well, and meant that the final mix was very quick - just panning and reverb.
For panning, I keep the lead vocal, snare, kick, and bass all panned dead-centre. These are the core of the song, and need to be audible in both speakers equally. All other instruments get thrown about the stereo space. While I try to keep them roughly balanced in relation to each other, it actually doesn't matter that much if the background is a bit heavy on one side. The vocal, snare, kick, and bass keep the overall mix centred.
I usually work in mono (or at least, everything panned centre) up until this last stage for a number of reasons. For the Undone production diary, I wrote this:
This is the stage at which I did the "single" edit. I didn't bounce the unmastered single though because the sound is exactly the same as the full version.
-Kim.
My usual mixing process is to add saturation, panning, and reverb. However, this time I'd taken the approach of adding saturation at the start - as an integral part of each instrument's sound. This worked quite well, and meant that the final mix was very quick - just panning and reverb.
For panning, I keep the lead vocal, snare, kick, and bass all panned dead-centre. These are the core of the song, and need to be audible in both speakers equally. All other instruments get thrown about the stereo space. While I try to keep them roughly balanced in relation to each other, it actually doesn't matter that much if the background is a bit heavy on one side. The vocal, snare, kick, and bass keep the overall mix centred.
I usually work in mono (or at least, everything panned centre) up until this last stage for a number of reasons. For the Undone production diary, I wrote this:
I'm also quite minimalist when it comes to reverb. I only used two reverbs in this song - a drum room and vocal hall. The drum room is inserted on the drum bus to give the samples a bit of air before running into the drum bus compressor. The vocal hall is set up as a send and tuned to suit the lead vocal. Most instruments are then sent to the vocal hall in small amounts. This gives the whole mix a subtle sense of space and air.I leave panning to this late stage because I prefer to compose in mono, for a number of reasons. One is that (non-audiophile) people tend to listen in mono, so I don't want to include panning as a significant composition device. Also (and probably more importantly) panning adds extra space in the mix, which I would fill up in the composition process. Once this space is filled, it's extremely difficult to get it back without losing sounds. My composition process is very much one of adding more sounds until I can't fit any more, so I tend to come to the mix with something that's a bit more dense than it should be. Leaving panning to this stage gives me a bit of room to add some space back in.
This is the stage at which I did the "single" edit. I didn't bounce the unmastered single though because the sound is exactly the same as the full version.
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:25 am, edited 6 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
DAY 10 - FINAL MASTER (SINGLE and EXTENDED)
Hmm.
I don't really know what to say here.
A touch of EQ.
No compression. No limiting. Not even multi-band side-chained adaptive mid/side stereo enhanced phattening presets.
Just clipping. With freeware GClip.
My process is to load the mixdown in a new project, and line it up with several reference tracks. My reference tracks this time were:
Heaven On Earth - Britney Spears
Don't Miss You - Amy Pearson
In This Life - Delta Goodrem
Control - Poe
First I roughly match the levels by bringing the commercial tracks down by about 12dB. I then EQ my track to match the average of the references as best I can. Note that I don't use any measuring instruments for this - it's all done by ear. It aim for a consistency such that when I quickly switch between the tracks, my master doesn't stand out or draw attention to itself.
Then I turn my monitoring down and the commercial tracks back up to their original level. I then do what I can to bring my track up to their level. I usually use T-RackS, but this time I decided I didn't need any compression or multiband limiting due to the way the mix turned out. In fact, as loud as the single version is, I could probably push it another 3dB before serious damage to the audio became obvious. Instead of fighting the sound to bring it up to level, I actually had to back off a little to bring it in line with the commercial reference! I was almost tempted to target the extended version to this level as well. In the end though, I gave it (the extended version) an extra 6dB headroom. It sounds a little better, but it's also a little quieter. I'm working on the basis that people with the attention span to appreciate the full six minute version are also experienced in adjusting their volume control. The single version is more suited for casual listening (on rotation on an iPod, or on computer speakers, for example).
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced the 6dB drop in level is worth the reduced damage. I'll live with it for a while before I solidify my decision, but usually I actually find the opposite - that after time the damage becomes less noticeable because I'm listening to the song!
-Kim.
Hmm.
I don't really know what to say here.
A touch of EQ.
No compression. No limiting. Not even multi-band side-chained adaptive mid/side stereo enhanced phattening presets.
Just clipping. With freeware GClip.
My process is to load the mixdown in a new project, and line it up with several reference tracks. My reference tracks this time were:
Heaven On Earth - Britney Spears
Don't Miss You - Amy Pearson
In This Life - Delta Goodrem
Control - Poe
First I roughly match the levels by bringing the commercial tracks down by about 12dB. I then EQ my track to match the average of the references as best I can. Note that I don't use any measuring instruments for this - it's all done by ear. It aim for a consistency such that when I quickly switch between the tracks, my master doesn't stand out or draw attention to itself.
Then I turn my monitoring down and the commercial tracks back up to their original level. I then do what I can to bring my track up to their level. I usually use T-RackS, but this time I decided I didn't need any compression or multiband limiting due to the way the mix turned out. In fact, as loud as the single version is, I could probably push it another 3dB before serious damage to the audio became obvious. Instead of fighting the sound to bring it up to level, I actually had to back off a little to bring it in line with the commercial reference! I was almost tempted to target the extended version to this level as well. In the end though, I gave it (the extended version) an extra 6dB headroom. It sounds a little better, but it's also a little quieter. I'm working on the basis that people with the attention span to appreciate the full six minute version are also experienced in adjusting their volume control. The single version is more suited for casual listening (on rotation on an iPod, or on computer speakers, for example).
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced the 6dB drop in level is worth the reduced damage. I'll live with it for a while before I solidify my decision, but usually I actually find the opposite - that after time the damage becomes less noticeable because I'm listening to the song!
-Kim.
Last edited by Kim Lajoie on Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
I've tried to keep this brief, so I didn't go into details of specific sounds or instances of techniques I've used. If you've got any questions about specifics (like "How did you get xx sound at xx:xx?"), feel free to ask!
Also, if you've got an explanation for the acoustic guitar timing phenomenon, please share it!
-Kim.
Also, if you've got an explanation for the acoustic guitar timing phenomenon, please share it!
-Kim.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
-
- KVRAF
- 13124 posts since 7 May, 2006 from Southern California
I've read through it as I have with your other production notes. They are an excellent resource though it's been over a year since I've done a production like you describe. I would have bumped it if I knew you were looking for input.
Thanks
3am
-
- KVRist
- 192 posts since 28 Jun, 2006
I just did -- I thought it was a really interesting insight into how you approach and compose, great job. Love the song too.