Author Topic: Dave Houck's project - new recording (Read 1988 times)

David Houck · « **Reply #75 on:** July 05, 2015, 05:37:34 PM »

Thanks Chalie!

rv_bass · « **Reply #76 on:** July 05, 2015, 06:47:27 PM »

Very nice, Dave! Very refreshing and expressive!

David Houck · « **Reply #77 on:** July 05, 2015, 06:59:56 PM »

Thanks Robert!

edwin · « **Reply #78 on:** July 05, 2015, 07:41:42 PM »

Very nice, indeed. It's always great to hear your playing!

David Houck · « **Reply #79 on:** July 05, 2015, 08:02:05 PM »

Thanks Edwin; it seems like the sound quality is getting closer to where it needs to be, but it's hard for me to tell.

flpete1uw · « **Reply #80 on:** July 06, 2015, 03:36:45 AM »

Dave,
We are always our own worse critic.
Beautiful playing, very enjoyable. Glad the Zoom 16 is working out.
Peace,
Pete

moongerm · « **Reply #81 on:** July 06, 2015, 04:11:34 AM »

Nice work Dave!

David Houck · « **Reply #82 on:** July 06, 2015, 06:30:39 AM »

Thanks guys!

sonicus · « **Reply #83 on:** July 06, 2015, 10:04:49 AM »

Dave,
That new addition is very enjoyable . You are a good influence on my own musical reflection and development. Thanks for sharing that with us .

Wolf

lbpesq · « **Reply #84 on:** July 06, 2015, 11:12:29 AM »

Dave:

VERY tasty! Sounds like a pro job of recording too.

Bill, tgo

edwin · « **Reply #85 on:** July 06, 2015, 11:14:35 AM »

Well, since you asked, the only thing I'd say in terms of sound quality is that it sounds like it could some very slight mastering, just to bring up the overall level a bit with a little bit of limiting or compression (although it's very nice to hear something like this with all of its dynamic range intact) and perhaps a bit more of the low end. The wonderful tone of your instrument and your playing does shine through, though, and that's what really matters. If the listener finds themselves caught up in the music, you know you've done a good job and that's the case here.

David Houck · « **Reply #86 on:** July 06, 2015, 11:53:29 AM »

Thanks everyone!

Edwin, and others with experience in this; eventually I hope to have maybe ten or so songs to put on a CD. (It will take a while; I'm slow.) My expectation is that there is no significant market for this music, and that distribution would for the most part be to friends. For this and household budgetary reasons, I don't want to expend significant funds on this project. I am considering putting the songs up on CDBaby or some similar service, and having them available for download and possibly for streaming, in addition to actual CD's. (I'm still learning about all of this, and the technology seems to change faster than I can read. For instance, apparently Apple is getting ready to launch Apple Music, which from what I read will change the industry significantly.)

I've also been doing some reading about mastering; and Edwin, within the light of what I've read, your point is well taken. My guess is that the difference that mastering would make on the finished songs might significantly depend on who does the mastering. I'm also guessing that there might be a significant difference in price as well.

Again, it may be a while before I have ten or so songs recorded; but I would appreciate any advice on how I should proceed with mastering at that point; who generally I should consider, what I might expect in cost, how I should prepare, and whether it's worth the cost.

A couple things I've read are that the recording provided to the engineer should have a db ceiling of less than -3db to leave room for the engineer to do their work, and that the recording should be 24 bit. So, apparently there are things I should know before I even record the songs, if I intend to have them mastered.

I have much to learn.

Thanks again for the kind comments and suggestions. They help show me how to proceed from here.

sonicus · « **Reply #87 on:** July 06, 2015, 11:55:54 AM »

Mastering is one of those issues with variables relavent to the monitors used and the persons hearing who is listening ( and doing the mastering). . Too many Mastering Engineers step over the line of their own preferances in a way that does not reflect the intentions of the artist AND muscians that end up unhappy without a say in the matter because they were just sidemen or a session player only with out a say.

Often neglected by some mastering engineers are the intended sonic aspects and sound preferences of the instrumentalist and or vocalists . Recently the sound of my Bass was compressed and equalized in a way that I did not care for on a recording for a local song writer singer. My Alembic sound was messed with in a way that I did not care for at all . .

David Houck · « **Reply #88 on:** July 06, 2015, 12:06:48 PM »

Wolf, you wrote ... the intended sonic aspects and sound preferences of the instrumentalist. I don't even know how to express to someone what the intended sonic aspects and sound preferences are. From the same site that I was reading from was the suggestion of sending the engineer some examples from other recordings that sound similar to the intended result, but I can't even do that.

I do understand what you are saying. Without guidance, the engineer wouldn't know how much limiting or compression, to use Edwin's example, I would be expecting to be applied. They wouldn't know what I want it to sound like. And I guess I don't know either.

edwin · « **Reply #89 on:** July 06, 2015, 12:45:16 PM »

Well, good mastering engineers wouldn't make it sound different in terms of the artistic choice the musician or engineer makes (and Wolf, without knowing more details, it sounds like you were the victim of a recording/mix engineer more than a mastering engineer). A good mastering engineer is sort of invisible, but the end product just sounds more there. A good mastering engineer also knows their monitoring chain and room well enough that they are not making decisions and performing drastic changes based on erroneous information. It's one of those things that, when done well, are simultaneously subtle and miraculous. A bad mastering engineer can completely butcher the material, but that's not always the fault of the engineer. A fair percentage of the butchered mastering jobs are the result of record companies demanding a loud record at the expense of sound quality (google The Loudness Wars).

Dave, you are right about keeping the files at the highest resolution possible with a bit of headroom. If you like, you could send me some files via dropbox and I can do a bit of work on them, just so you can hear what I am talking about. You are also right about the variability of cost and expertise. I tend to do it myself unless there's a budget, in which case I'll give the project to David Glasser at Airshow (he has done a number of the official GD releases, including the E72 box, the high res mastering of all the official studio releases, and pretty much all the video/movie releases in the last 6 or 7 years), Brad Sarno, who not only makes great preamps, etc., but is an excellent mastering engineer, or Steve Berson. There are many other good ones, but those are my go to guys.

My personal mastering philosophy is less is more. It shouldn't sound significantly different from the original recordings (unless there are obvious problems, but I don't hear those in your recordings). As far as guidance goes, it's pretty easily dealt with these days by sending references back and forth. In your style of music, limiting and compression should be pretty much inaudible. I just mentioned them because I know they could make the recording sound more present. If you hear it working, then it's too much.