reverb and compression

[andgar]

I have just recorded with my group and I'm now in the incredibly exciting mixing/mastering phase... I'm being helped by the engineer, but there are some things that I've gotten a whole lot of conflicting advice on:

Reverb - I've listened to a heap of recordings from my collection (all recent recordings where I have some vague notion of liking the "sound"), and the variation in amounts of reverb is almost ridiculous... Carla Bley has piles of it, Jim McNeely's Tentet album has almost none, a few of my favourite Australian albums seem to have a tendency towards very little reverb... given that this isn't something I had ever particularly noticed before, how do I (or you for your recordings...) decide how much reverb to slap on???

Compression - I have a reasonable understanding of how compression works (or at least the outcome of compression), and I like the sound we're getting at the moment with "only a little compression". But some people tell me that a heap of compression is the way to go... this kind of makes sense with more and more (most?) people listening on their mp3 players with dodgy earphones, but I don't think a highly compressed recording would be right for my band

As far as I can tell, these are the BIG ISSUES of the "sound" of a recording, so I'd like to get some opinions from round here

I know the overriding sentiment is as long as the music's good it'll be fine, but it'd be good if the "sound" sounds good too...

[bodgey]

What a deafening silence from the learned and experienced that stalk this place.

My 2 cents:

Ultimately, it's your record and therefore your sound so trust yourself and your ears.
Reverb: it's a matter of personal taste, but I find that often a small
amount of reverb can 'broaden' the mix and give a cohesiveness to the sound that may not be there if you recorded in seperate booths. Having said that, it's worth doing some test mixes with varying amounts of reverb and trying them out on various bits of equipment. I'm not sure, but I have a vague inkling that you are a guitarist - do you know Jim Hall's 'Live' album? I really love the sound of that record, and it's as dry as a dead dingo's donger. I also like Rosenwinkel's sound (most of the time), but it can be like eating too much chocolate cake after a while. One feels a bit queasy.

I have fond memories of being a work experience monkey in a famous Hobart recording studio and spending half the day running from the studio downstairs to the engineer's car as he tried various mixes out on his exceptionally shitty car stereo - if it 'worked' there, it would work on anyone's crappy home stereo.

I like the 'lowest common denominator' idea - as you say, more and more people are listening to music on MP3 players which, obviously, compress the living shit out of the music and destroy all the nuance in a recording - iTunes has a lot to answer for. If you can hear the important details in a mix on crap equipment without compromising the quality of the mix on high end gear too much, you're onto a winner. Having said that, you don't want to compromise tooooo much. I digress.

As far as compression goes, I think you're on the money by using 'only a little compression'. Too much can lead to a bland sound with a glaring absense of dynamics. A little compression can add cohesiveness, just like a little reverb.

Reverb and compression in mixing is kind of like cooking with cream....used wisely, they can bind everything together and define the 'sound' of a mix, but use too much and all you taste is cream.

Ok, 2 cents over.

Where's P Rex? He knows a boatload about this stuff, as I'm sure many others here do. This stuff should be talked about. Trial and error is all well and good, but it's also bloody expensive!

[ironguts]

In general my opinion is as little as possible of both of them, the cream thing as bodgey says.

The thing is though you need to work out what suits the music by understanding what these things do. I used heaps of compression on some of my solo album to help bring out some sounds that might not be as well heard without it, same as with the reverb,it helped highlight certain sounds. On other tracks I kept it dry as a nuns otherwise the definition would be totally lost and would basically destroy the piece.

You'll have to listen and decide this one because it's your music and you need to work out how you wish to present it. A good sound engineer should have some experienced input but the bottom line is your ears. I've often insisted on things against the recommendation of experience, but you don't have to wear black to a funeral.

[gator]

ironguts said:

. A good sound engineer should have some experienced input but the bottom line is your ears. I've often insisted on things against the recommendation of experience, but you don't have to wear black to a funeral.

Thats right -but its really important to make your views as clear as possible to the engineer - by far the most issues arise when you cant articulate what you want.An engineer can also just take charge of the sound if you havent got your shit together ... and be prepared to try some things(time and money allowing). One of the best ways to learn about this is to read up - there are some great recording magazines that will refer you to a particular recording so you get an idea of how effects affect sound. If you can play around with compression on Logic audio or Pro tools - even low end plug - ins can teach you something important about effects.

[ironguts]

well at least now we know the diff between affect and effect, nice one.

[gator]

is that a fect?

[ironguts]

with compression

IS THAT A FECT

with reverb

iiiisstthhss tthhaahattattt aaaffaaaeeaaa ffffeeeccceecccttttccttttttttttt

[andgar]

Thanks all (and bodge, no guitar for me - i play saxophone - much easier)

[ironguts]

Ah, then you do need loads of both!

[bodgey]

Andgar - sorry!! ;D
Just please please please stay away from the Garbarek records!

[andgar]

nah, i've been thoroughly brainwashed as a rollins fan since i was 10, so couldn't be further from garbarek

guts - when you say you generally don't like much reverb (and i agree that even medium reverb on your trio discs would sound kinda weird), do you try and avoid recording in a room with much natural reverb - a la ECM records?

My group is a four-horn with rhythm section thing, so i think some reverb is a good way of unifying the sound, as bodge said. we recorded in the jazzworx room in brisbane instead of a studio, largely because we know the room well and like the "sound" of it. it's a fairly "live" room (nowhere near an ECM sounding room though) and the engineer had two old RCA ribbon mics for the room sound, so there's not too much artificial reverb. I've got a few tracks on my myspace if anyone cares to pass comment - nothing's finalised yet, i plan another round of mixing/mastering in the new year

[ironguts]

If you have a good room and good mic, ala ribbon of some sort, then you are a step ahead and prob don't need much done at all. The Jazz works room has a great sound for recording I'd say. Like you say the room has some sound in it, not too dead at all but it also doesn't ring too much either. The thing is that you can always put more on (reverb) if you need it, but once it's there it's very hard to get off, if you can at all. The other thing a good room does is allow the playing process to be more relaxed, a really dead room can suck the chops right out of you and make it hard to 'perform' for the recording.
What's your myspace? I'll have a listen. Is this Ben?

[andgar]

Nah, andrew garton here, ben recorded at jazzworx a couple of weeks ago - same engineer though. My myspace is www.myspace.com/andrewgarton

[ironguts]

Doh, now I see it at the bottom of all your posts.

[bodgey]

Hey,

Just checked out the tunes on your myspace.

The sound of the room is great - you can hear the room, but it doesn't take over and colour the sound of the instruments too much.
It's a beautiful, warm sound that the engineer has captured.

From my point of view:

The rhythm section lacks a little clarity. The top end of the drums is there, but it's not balanced to the rest of the kit, unless the drummer hits out a bit. It's better against only one or two horns, but when all four of you arc up, the rhythm section suffers a little bit.

The horns sound good - I'd hesitate to use reverb, as I think they already blend well, and the balance is right. The bone sounds a bit naked occasionally, but I don't think it's a problem. If you do want to go down the reverb path for the horns, I wouldn't use much or you'll run the risk of losing the sound of the room.

You may want to compress the rhythm section slightly to bring out the details, and unify them a bit more.

That's in general. As far as the tunes themselves go, I'd probably use a tiny little bit of reverb on the horns for 'Pensive', and compress the rhythm section slightly. For 'Dreams of Forever', I'd splash a little more reverb around, maybe over the whole mix - given that the writing at the start of the track is focused on the horns and guitar, I feel it needs just a bit of reverb to highlight the interaction of the guitar and the horns that are moving.
Maybe you could ask the engineer to setup the reverb as a channel return and sit there riding the fader throughout the tune...just to mess around with it and see where it works.
I wouldn't put any reverb on 'Scrapple' - the raw room sound suits it to me. Maybe a touch on the guitar.

Anyway, what do I know? Like Guts said, it's all down to your ears.

Ha, just listening to 'Scrapple' - that rinky-tink bit with the rim of the snare cracks me up. Thank christ for humour in music. Tasty tunes.