August 9th, 2010 – Thanks to DigitalLush for the question. As always, please feel free to email me questions and I will do my best to answer them.

Stumbled upon your site the other day and have been checking back reading different articles of interest. I came across one you had written on mixing. So here’s a question that I don’t know if it was covered indirectly, but I’m still curious about:

Thanks for your insight and keep up the good work.

Unfortunately, there is no way you can tailor a mix exactly to a system you’ve never heard before. Every sound system will be different and even speakers that you have going through the exact same amp at home, will sound different in another room within your house.

That being said, there are things you can do to try and sound as good as possible. I realize that you are primarily worried about what your mix will sound like in various performance venues but mix engineers who only work in one studio face the same problem: they cannot control the sound systems that listeners will be using. Someone could be listening on an iPod, in their car, or on a $100k home stereo system.

Mix engineers will do a mix on their own setup, and then bounce a copy to listen in as many places, and on as many stereo systems as they have time for. This helps them understand how their mix will sound on other systems, and allow them to create a mix that will average out well across different systems. In your case, you’ll want to do something similar. Create a mix that sounds good on your speakers, on your headphones, your friend’s systems and play it in as many places as possible to get a good idea on how the mix will translate across different sound systems.

As well, a great way to fast track the process is to listen to a song from your favorite artist that sounds good on your speakers and headphones, and use that as a guide to mix your own tracks. If those bangers are working well in a club, then yours probably will too. Hope that helps!

Do you guys have any other suggestions?

Since you’re looking at recording vocals, you’ll want to look at condensers with large diaphragms. My favorite mic brand is Neumann (especially the TLM102 and 103), but they’re pretty pricey. Right now, I am using an M-Audio Sputnik tube microphone and it sounds great. Of course, it’s way more than what you’re looking to spend, but if you’re looking at microphones that cost $100 to $200 dollars, you’re in luck because there are still a lot of great mics in that range:

* I like M-Audio products quite a bit. They have the Nova which is a pretty basic mic at $100.
* Audio-Technica is also a pretty good bet. I’ve used them on vocals and overheads. The AT2020 is $100, but if you want to spend a little more, the AT2035 has a high pass filter to get rid of any low frequencies you don’t want to record and it’s $150 with the shockmount. The AT2041 package is an even better value at $20 more, and you get the AT2020 and a AT2021 small condenser in case you want to record some ambient room sounds at the same time.
*Studio Projects is a budget brand, but I’ve used them before and they’re pretty decent. The B1 is $120, but the B3 is the better one in their product range at $160. It allows you to switch polarity (cardioid, omni, figure eight) which is pretty good value at the price-point. With the switchable polarity, it could be pretty versatile for recording stuff other than vocals.
*AKG has a new budget line called Perception. The pricing is pretty good for AKG but more expensive than the others I listed. The Perception 220, is $180. I haven’t listened to that series specifically, but I’ve had good experiences with AKG.
*At the risk of being unpopular, I might also suggest taking a look at Behringer. On principle, I do not like to support their company because they blatantly steal designs (they once cloned a Mackie mixer, to the point that they copied a little easter egg that a Mackie engineer had printed onto the circuit board), but they are very inexpensive, and I find their B2 Pro microphone to be surprisingly good. You can find them for $150 shipped free on Ebay.
*The Rode NT1-A is an awesome microphone for the money, but it’s a little out of your range at $230. It’s one of those mics that you don’t grow out of, you always have it in your collection. So if you can stretch your budget a little, it’s an excellent choice. Of course, you can find some used ones on Ebay for way under $200.

Some things to keep in mind when you decide between these microphones are whether or not there is a lowcut/highpass filter switch, whether there’s a switch for attenuation (usually 10db reduction) for loud sound sources, and whether you can switch the polarity. Of course, having all these options on a mic means that it will be more expensive, but having them allows you to use the mic in a variety of situations, and on a variety of sources.

Out of all the microphones I suggested, I can’t recommend the Rode NT1-A enough, however since it’s slightly out of your price range, the next best thing would probably be the Audio Technicas quality wise. The AT2035 is the better of the mics, but the AT2041 has the best value since it includes two different mics in the same package. Make sure that the one you choose includes a shock-mount, because many large diaphragm condensers are weird sizes and it’s just easier to get one from the manufacturer when you buy the mic.

What mics would you guys suggest that Darren take a look at? Also, I love answering reader mail, so send in more questions guys and gals! Thanks Darren!

Photo courtesy of Tim O’Brien

November 11th, 2009 – Thomas K. asks “I read your article on school and audio engineering. I’m just wondering where you went to school, where you first started out engineering, and how you made that transition. I’m currently going to school, and learning about audio production, and interning (for free). I have pursued a lot of what have turned out to be dead ends in my search for employment in the field of audio production/engineering. I’m sure you’re a busy guy, but I’d really like to know about the finer details of the transition from the bubble of school into the real world of audio work.”

I went to a school in Toronto called Harris Institute for the Arts which is billed as one of the premier schools of its kind in North America. That being said, as you might have guessed from some of my posts, I’m not particularly a fan of audio engineering schools (including specific issues with this school which I won’t get into). While they are good for having on a resume when you start knocking on the doors of potential employers, in my case I didn’t feel like it delivered as much value as the tuition cost.

My real learning took place when I started working in a studio and I feel that this is where you’ll start to become a good engineer. I’m glad to hear that you are interning because, along with learning a whole lot (technical and business), meeting people in the line of work you want to pursue is invaluable. This is how you will get a job (though not necessarily with that company). Getting your name out there is the hardest thing to do and internships provide the connections that are so hard to get on your own.

To succeed in the audio field, especially with the fragile business state it’s in, you have to be focused and driven. As you’ve already discovered, it’s a pretty tough job market out there right now. To really get down to how YOU will succeed (there is no universal answer, everyone is different), here are two questions : (1) Why do you want to pursue audio production and engineering? (2) What aspect of it do you like?

For question one, I wanted to learn audio production skills because I enjoyed writing songs, and wanted to be able to take a song from idea to finished product. In the beginning for me, it wasn’t really about selling songs, or becoming a professional songwriter, I just wanted to know how to do it. For another person, it may be that they want to work with huge artists in a really nice studio. Or perhaps they really like playing with gadgets and gear, and want to combine that with their love of music. In each case, knowing why you are interested in audio production and/or engineering will help you can really narrow down which specific skillset to develop in the broad audio field. Schools will teach you a little bit of everything, but not enough of one thing to make you effective in that specific category. If you are driven, you must identify what you need, and develop your own abilities.

For the second question, there are many different diverse possibilities. From music composition (freelance composers need to be able to engineer and produce their own music, unless you’re Danny Elfman or Hans Zimmer), to owning your own studio that specializes in recording bands, or working at a facility that provides post-production sound services for the movie industry, you cannot afford to spread yourself thin; you must focus on a niche and pursue it. Of course, all of the above examples have overlapping skillsets, and you may (and probably do) enjoy aspects of each, but every job has a lot of specific skills and if you want to succeed, I suggest you first master one and then branch out later if you like.

I don’t want to sound grumpy or dissuade you from your dream, but if you want to work at a big recording studio, it’s pretty tough going these days. There are only small production studios (like Joe from HomeStudioCorner), or huge million dollar facilities. There aren’t any medium-sized studios anymore. The big studios take all the high end business and the small guys working in their garages have such low overhead that they price the medium studios out of business. I’m not complaining about it; it’s what it is. Working for big studios is hard because since the medium studios are out of business, all those experienced engineers are looking for jobs and there are only so many positions at big studios. It’s going to be hard for someone new to break into those companies.

If you are really interested in recording bands, I would suggest that you approach those you like and run your own home studio. You’ll get satisfaction, if you hustle you can get a decent chunk of business, and you’ll learn to do everything. If you really want to work for a big studio, there’s another way to do it; work for the video game and movie industry.

There are so many different engineering jobs you can get within the film industry, and it’s not hurting as bad as the music industry. Sound designer, ADR engineer, sound editor, are some of the jobs you can aim for. They pay well, and they’re a lot of fun. When I came out of school, I was determined to work in a music studio (and I got to), but nowadays I’m very interested in those industries as well. Problem is, I’m going to have to start from the bottom (which doesn’t actually bother me that much). If you are interested in it, you can start focusing your development there. I would say that for audio engineers, the film industry is probably a good bet for getting work.

I hope I answered your questions adequately, if not let me know what I missed. Thanks for taking the time to write to me. Answering your questions helped me articulate in my own mind, my position and where I want to be. If any one else has any questions, please post them up in the comments.

July 4th, 2009 – First off, I’d like to wish a Happy Independence Day to our American readers! May your weekend be full of liquor, barbeques, and pretty pyrotechnic displays. Anyways, back on topic…if you have any questions about songwriting, producing, or engineering, post them up! I can’t promise that I’ll be able to answer them, but if I can’t, I’ll find someone who knows more than me. If you are experienced in any of those topics and would like to write an article to be posted on this site, please drop me an email. My contact information is listed in the “Contact” page. Thanks!

Photo courtesy of Tim O’Brien

November 24th, 2008 – As a writer that posts daily, and also has a nine to five, I sometimes find it difficult to come up with topics to post about. I’m certainly not at the level of MusicRadar or Engadget, so I don’t have manufacturers or PR people beating down my door to write about their products.

That being said, maybe it’s a good thing. After all, I am able to write about topics that directly relate to my experience. Also, it means that I can take more time to answer questions you, the readers, may have. What topics would you like to see represented on this website? Is there anything you wanted to know more about? While I’m certainly not an expert, I’ll do my best to answer your questions. So ask away!

Photo courtesy of Tim O’Brien

October 26th, 2008 – David Dennis writes: “Can you elaborate a bit more (maybe in a follow-up post) on what the Protools features are that you like?”

As many of you know, I’m a big fan of Logic. It includes everything I need to take a song from idea to CD-ready. I don’t have to fool around with adding new plug-ins or new sounds (unless I want to) because Logic includes a great library of sounds. Apple and Emagic have put together a package that is all inclusive for a very reasonable price (even more so with Logic Studio). It may not be as cheap as ProTools with an Mbox, but I can choose what interface I use with it and, with all the added content, it’s a much better deal.

So why do I still use ProTools, and even prefer it when recording vocals? Well let’s start with the “pro” of ProTools; that it’s the industry standard. Sure, all recording software is able to record to WAV or AIFF format. Certainly you can take an audio file in Logic that has been recorded in AIFF format and open it in ProTools, but you only get that audio file as an audio file. You cannot take a track that has multiple comped audio files, and hope to open it with all the timing properly in place in another DAW. The only way to transfer a track completely, is to bounce each track separately as a complete audio file, thereby creating one contiguous audio file per track.

Regardless of whether an engineer in a studio likes ProTools or not, every successful studio has it for their clients. Even people who know nothing of music production, will know what ProTools is. The basement engineer with a ProTools Mbox wants to know that he can mix on a big studio’s ProTools TDM or at least Digi002 rack set up, and still use the nice mixing console, pre-amps, EQ’s et al. I would love it if all the DAW companies got together and made a common save file format but I’m sure it’s not in DigiDesign’s best interest to do that. I seem to remember trying something like that out a few years ago but I don’t recall it working very well.

Ok, now on to why I think the audio handling in ProTools is better than Logic’s. The difference in the implementation of audio is small, but the philosophy behind each is radically different. I feel that Logic treats audio as if it were pictures, while ProTools treats audio like it was still on old-fashioned tape reels. This difference is what allows ProTools a massive lead in my opinion. Within Logic, each audio region is like a picture arranged in a collage. Regions sit on top of each other and can be shortened, but ultimately precision with each region isn’t the goal, it’s the final comp that matters. Like ProTools, Logic gives precedence to the next region, so from left to right, the latter will be superimposed onto the earlier region. But the difference is, Logic leaves the bottom layer intact and simply decides what plays by what is more important. This eliminates the need to edit each region to the sample level, you just have to worry about region placement. I feel that this is the way that Photoshop works with layers. The top layers are cut so that what overlays on previous layers is precise, but the lower layer is just pasted on. On a side note, I much prefer dragging my mouse over a track and deleting whatever is underneath the highlighted timeline (whether that is one or many regions, or if it makes a smaller region out of a larger one), over resizing each region individually like Logic forces you to do.

ProTools acts very much like its analog counterpart, the tape reel. When you place an audio region on top of another, it “erases” what is beneath it. This newly shortened piece of audio is made into a separate audio region automatically. Of course, you can re-extend it if it was a mistake, or you can further chop it apart but the difference is that each cut you make generates a new region. In Logic, this is not the case. If you shorten a piece of audio, it is not a new region. However, if you separate a region into multiple parts, then you can turn the pieces into separate regions.

You must be wondering why I’m such a stickler about this small difference if it doesn’t affect anything. In fact, it does make a difference when you’re doing fine audio work like comping vocals or lead instruments lines, or doing very intricate cuts for something like a glitch remix of your favorite electronica song. When dealing with regions that you want to copy, you want the ability to make each region separate so that you can affect each piece without affecting the others. For example, say you’re comping a vocal track and you have a lot of takes but want to only take certain parts, maybe even comping together parts of one word. First of all, you definitely want to be able to cut a region so that it’s clean down to the sample, something that’s darn near impossible to do with accuracy in Logic.

Now what happens if that vocal line appears somewhere else in the song but you want to put together the comped parts in another way so that the song doesn’t sound like it’s robotically looping. If some of those regions are shared, you will not be able to change those regions without changing the regions that you already used. You could manually make that region a new one, but shouldn’t that be automatically done for you? How often does someone want regions that are in different parts of the song to be changed when a copied version of that region is later changed? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been working with drum samples and wanted to extend the tail of cymbal and not realized that I did it to the rest of the cymbals until much later.

Speaking of cymbals, sometimes I like to do effects like reverse cymbals (tacky I know, but it’s a pop standard). In Logic, unlike ProTools, I have to make that specific cymbal region its own, so that I can reverse it without affecting the others. That, or I have to go into my directory structure, copy the file so I have a duplicate and rename it so it’s considered a totally different region by Logic. You might consider this a small annoyance, but when dealing with a large amount of material, getting the job done efficiently is paramount. You spend time learning quick keys to save time don’t you?

I hope this provides more insight into why I think Logic is lacking in the audio handling department. If they fixed it, I would have no reason to use ProTools but when doing fine audio work, Logic just doesn’t cut it for me.

NB. This post relates to Logic Studio and ProTools 7 and below. I have no reason to suspect ProTools 8 handles audio any differently, and Logic Studio has not yet proven to me that regioning is handled properly.

Photo courtesy of Tim O’Brien

July 30th, 2008 – 3NOS writes: “Thanks for the advice on what to invest in for a beginner’s recording set-up.
What I’m wondering now is, instead of buying an audio interface for my PC, is it worth it to purchase a smaller, stand-alone product like the Boss BR-600, or even bigger hardware like the Korg D3200 (which I have at work)? I’m doing “unplugged” stuff, vocals, acoustic guitar, and bass.
On a dedicated recording station, there are physical sliders and buttons, no extra software is necessary, and products like the BR-600 is portable (tho that’s not a high priority for me). Granted, I’ve read that limited memory can be a problem, and an integrated CD burner will cost more on a higher model, and I’ll still need to buy a good mic (as per your strong suggestion). I’m just thinking maybe a stand-alone product might help streamline the process and also cut down on set-up time.
Any thoughts?”

Good question 3NOS. I suppose the first thing to consider is how you will be recording and what kind of end product you expect. Hardware like the D3200 is good as a hybrid solution if you also want to mix your band through it for live performances, as well as record. If you want a “live off the floor” sounding recording, then such solutions will work well for you since you don’t have to lug around a computer. Also, the load time of the device is instantaneous. However, if you want to do any sort of professional mixing, you will need to be more skillful and have a lot more time to get the same output as a software DAW (digital audio workstation).

Let me explain. Let’s say that you are miking a person playing the acoustic guitar. Inevitably, that person will move back and forth so if you’re using a cardoid type microphone, that volume change will be apparent. There are two ways to solve this problem: you can either adjust the volume for each section where the recording is inconsistent, or you can apply a compressor. If you want to go the volume route, you will have to know exactly when the volume is going to change, and then ride the fader to adjust accordingly (this is assuming your recorder supports automation. If not, you’ll have to live with the inconsistent levels). If you want to use a compressor, you will have to make sure that the device you buy has one built in, or else you’re going to have to buy an external compressor and lug it around (kind of defeats the portability of your set up).

Now let’s examine the process through computer software. You will have any number of plug-ins available to you in the software itself so there’s no need to lug around external compressors and such. As well, instead of having to automate a fader, you can automate the volume changes by drawing a volume curve. Let me tell you, this is super easy and saves me so much time over riding faders on a physical mixer. Don’t get me wrong, I like having a fader for overall levels but being able to draw volume changes is fantastic, it saves so much time. Lastly, you will have so many more options available to you and you’ll be able to adjust everything you’d want to by adding software plug-ins. If the recorder you buy doesn’t have a CD burner included, you’ll have to transfer your files to a computer anyways so why not start with a laptop and interface.

From an expense standpoint, it really depends on how many inputs you want. The Korg D3200 has a 32-track input which means that you can record 32 simultaneous tracks at once. In your case, that would mean you’d need 32 microphones recording at once to use it at full capacity. I’m not sure about you, but I don’t have the kind of money for 32 microphones to justify a 32 track input mixer. If you are recording vocals, an acoustic guitar, and bass, the minimum number of microphones is 3 (assuming one vocalist only). The maximum for that same setup might be 5. I think that an 8 input device would be suitable for you. The BOSS BR600 you listed has 8 inputs but records to compact flash. Switching out flash cards might be a pain, but if you only pay $300 for the unit (a used price that I found while searching), it still might be worthwhile.

If you’re thinking of moving up to the Korg D3200, that comes in at $1300. An M-Audio Firewire 1810 is $550, plus you’d need a laptop (audio software is included with the Firewire 1810). If you want a decent laptop, the total will come in at a little more than $1300 but you’ll be able to do much more on the mixing side. Coming back to what I said in the beginning of this post, it really depends on what you want to do. Yes, if you’re worried about recording set up, the solutions you listed are cheaper and much faster for set up. But once that music is recorded, what are you going to do with it? If you’re happy with the way it is, then buying standalone recorders is fine. If you want to mix and clean up your recordings, it’s much better just to start with a more versatile set up.

I am slightly biased against stand-alone solutions because I like to be able to put together the best possible gear combination I can. I have recorded on 4-track tape standalones in the early 1990′s, and I have played around with more recent digital hard-drive based units. I didn’t enjoy using them, nor did I think the output was good enough to be considered professional. This is not to say that you couldn’t get something that sounded great out of them, but it’s very difficult. I have become wary of “all-in-one” solutions in anything I buy; I’d rather have one thing that only does one thing, but does it very well. Quite often, when things advertise their ability to do everything at once, they cut corners on each part of the chain.

I hope this helps! Let me know if I missed anything. Good luck on the recording!

Photo courtesy of Tim O’Brien

July 29th, 2008 – Shav737 writes: “Hey. Love the site. I’ve been playing guitar for as long as I can remember but I’m brand new to recording. A friend hooked me up with Cubase SX and told me to play around with that for a while. I rapidly found out that I have no idea what I’m doing, and my computer mic isn’t cutting it. I’ve looked into MIDI interfaces for guitar and mic but don’t even know enough to ask the right questions.
1. I plan to dive into this more in the future, what kind of hardware would be a good investment that will last me beyond a beginner’s phase?
2. What else should a beginner know?
Keep up the good work!”

Hey Shav737, I would say that if you’re tired of using your computer mic, the first thing you will need to do is get something that will allow you to input a better microphone into your computer: an audio interface. You could bypass having an interface completely by having a USB microphone, but they do not provide the best sound quality for music. Most professional microphones use either 1/4 inch connectors (they look like the big headphone cables), or XLR connectors. These cables will not fit into your typical computer sound card (unless you have a very high end one), so any interface (my fancy word for professional sound cards) you look at will need to have these connectors. How many inputs you need depends on how many things you need to record simultaneously, but I would suggest two is a good start (this allows for recording two microphones for stereo).

Almost all interfaces available will work on both Mac and PC platforms so there is no need to worry about compatibility. If you’re looking for a good brand, I would suggest M-Audio. I have a Firewire 410 and all my non-studio recordings have been made with it, including film music I’ve recorded. If you’re running a PC, you likely don’t have Firewire ports, so you’d be looking at a USB interface like this one. The interface you get will be the thing that allows you to plug your microphones and guitars into your computer so this is a good place to spend a little more money if you want to make sure it lasts you a while.

You ask about which equipment is best to spend money on to last beyond the beginner’s stage. Check out my post on gear for more information, but the short of it is: crap in, crap out. By this I mean that you should buy the best quality microphone and cabling you can afford. The interface is also important but you will inevitably upgrade it as you get better; microphones stay with you. All the phasers and EQs in the world won’t make a crappy vocal recording sound any better, so try to get the best sound into your computer that you can; it will save you a lot of time (which ultimately saves you money).

What kind of guitar are you recording? Acoustic guitars sound best when miked. Electric guitars can be plugged directly into your interface if you have a Cubase amp modeller plug-in. However, the best electric guitar recordings are done by miking the amplifier itself. Oh, one other thing I’d like to mention: if you’re looking to record vocals and guitars, you don’t want to be looking at MIDI interfaces. Check out my post on MIDI for an in depth explanation, but the long and short of it is that recording vocals and guitars is audio and not MIDI, so a MIDI interface won’t help you. Some audio interfaces, however, have MIDI support should you want to get a keyboard later on down the road.

I hope I answered everything. If not, hit up the comments and I’d be happy to answer any other questions you might have. Let us know how your recording is going, and good luck!

Photo courtesy of Shure

June 16th, 2008 – In our first readers’ questions post, ALF asked the following: “I’ve been experimenting with recording acoustic guitar very recently (aka yesterday) but my recordings are barely audible, even when I stick the mic (an SM57) really close to the soundhole. I have to turn the gain/volume on my (crappy) interface all the way up to get anything above a whisper but that results in excess static and noise. I’ve also tried messing with the Cubase mixing board but it wasn’t sufficient. What’s the most effective way to record using this simple setup? Do I need some sort of signal boost? Or am I doomed to using the on board preamp?”

The Shure SM57 is a dynamic microphone. Standard traits of a dynamic microphone are its ability to handle high volume (SPL’s), it doesn’t require phantom power, and dynamics are typically more sturdy than condensor, tube or ribbon microphones. Because of this, they are the industry standard for live shows (they can take punishment from the singer), and for recording loud instruments in the studio, including acoustic ones such as a trumpet and amplified ones such as electric guitars.

Keeping all that in mind, my first choice for recording an acoustic guitar would be a condensor microphone because of its higher sensitivity; I have seen SM57′s used to mic acoustic guitars but it would not be my first choice. To get the response out of an SM57 that comes close to a condensor, you can do one of two things: play the guitar louder, or turn up the pre-amp. Unfortunately, it sounds like your pre-amp may have a quite a bit of noise so perhaps the second option is not the best.

Here are a couple suggestions for your setup: (1.) Try different microphone placement; sometimes right in front of the sound hole is not the best place to mic. Depending on where you put the microphone, due to the uniqueness of every instrument, your guitar may have soundwaves that cancel each other out coincidentally where you placed the microphone. (2.) If you are going to record, I would suggest using a noise gate during mixing (Adjust the threshold to just above the hiss level) to at least get rid of the noise when the guitar is not playing.

That’s all I can think of now. Let us know how it goes; good luck!

Photo courtesy of Tim O’Brien

June 12th, 2008 - This is the first installment of reader questions. Please post questions you might have about anything songwriting or music production related. Depending on the amount of questions, I may or may not be able to answer them all. When submitting questions, please try to think of questions you might have that other people may also want to know the answer to. Answers about specific hardware setups will most likely not get answered because I would have to see the set up in person in most circumstances which, of course, is not feasible. I look forward to your questions!