Need Basic workflow advice

P

percoplus

Active member
Okay, I have been fumbling around in Audition and having fun with effects and whatnot. However, I have no idea what I am doing. I would like to know what is the normal workflow for editing my recordings. I am a videographer and recording 4 channels onto my new Edirol R-44 - two from a set of mics in the room and two from the soundboard. Doing a lot of band videos in live performances in clubs, etc.

I am more or less familiar with Audition. I just don't know what to do and in what order - EQ, compression, reverb, noise reduction, etc. Please explain what "mastering" is. Maybe direct me to a good book or article. Is there a guide that tells which frequencies affect specific instruments and what EQ settings should be?

In a typical recording studio, each instrument is treated separately. I am recording the whole band. Do different rules apply?

This question should be in the FAQ section.
 
Actually I think he is filming.

After syncing your takes and editing you would mix.

Read the stickies, take a class. You question is sort of tell me everything about sound and nobody can answer that in a forum response.

Your talking like you are familiar with recording studios and then you pop out with "explain "mastering""? That is a music term not really a film term, at least not in the way you are using it.
 
Should be an easy question to answer. Just looking for the normal operating procedures once you get an audio file into Audition, or DP or whatever program. What are the things you do to every file, no matter what type?

Say for example, I record a band using a stereo pair of mics without any processing - just the mics plugged into a recorder. What are the typical steps needed and in what order to get the sound you want?

I am asking if the entire process is called "mastering" or if that is a separate thing.
 
Here's a start. Correct where I am wrong.

Step 1 - place audio file in editor
Step 2 - noise reduction
Step 3 - compression/expansion
Step 4 - EQ
Step 5 - reverb
Step 6 - stereo expansion
Step 7 - panning
Step 8 - volume gain

Is this the correct order of things? what's missing?
which are mandatory with music? which are optional?

Mixing should be here someplace, In my case, I record the whole band, not individual instruments. I do, however, try to get a separate stereo feed from the house soundboard. Sometimes it's vocals only, but usually the whole band mix.
 
Last edited:
percoplus said:
Should be an easy question to answer. Just looking for the normal operating procedures once you get an audio file into Audition, or DP or whatever program. What are the things you do to every file, no matter what type?

Say for example, I record a band using a stereo pair of mics without any processing - just the mics plugged into a recorder. What are the typical steps needed and in what order to get the sound you want?

I am asking if the entire process is called "mastering" or if that is a separate thing.
Click to expand...

There's a sticky with a ton of post production info that might be what you're looking for. It still seems like you're more looking for music production info though.
 
If I am videotaping musicians, I guess I need to know a bit about music production.

I am not producing music CDs. I just want my videos to sound realistic and good enough to make them happy.

i haven't found any stickies that answer my question. just specific issues. The link above: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=51526 is about setting up a studio. Helpful, but not what I am looking for at the moment. Thanks
 
percoplus said:
...
In a typical recording studio, each instrument is treated separately. I am recording the whole band. Do different rules apply?

This question should be in the FAQ section.
Click to expand...

If you look at network broadcast concert-type productions (Austin City Limits, HDNet Sunday Concerts, etc), they often use micing very similar to what you'd find in a recording studio, with individual mics on each instrument or section and for each primary vocalist. 'Course the production companies have a control room truck and a gajillion audio channels to play with ... AND the concert is staged specifically for broadcast rather than what indy videographers usually have to deal with, where the venue performance is the primary objective and the video shoot has to piggy-back catch-as-catch-can. For example, I was in the audience at a John McDermot concert a few years ago that was shooting for PBS. Any number of times during the show they cut and restarted or picked up a production number because of some flub or other event. You'd never have that happen if you were shooting a band in a club even if, say, a waiter dropped a full tray of dishes in the middle of a song.
 
Last edited:
percoplus said:
If I am videotaping musicians, I guess I need to know a bit about music production.

I am not producing music CDs. I just want my videos to sound realistic and good enough to make them happy.

i haven't found any stickies that answer my question. just specific issues. The link above: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=51526 is about setting up a studio. Helpful, but not what I am looking for at the moment. Thanks
Click to expand...

I think that's because what you're doing is sort of in the middle.

Normally someone would hand something like off to someone expressly familiar with music production. Lots of bands (big ones... this isn't the case) tour with dedicated mixers (and I'm not talk FOH mixers) who are responsible for tracking and mixing live shows. They are independant of the video folks.

It's essentially two separate worlds that you're combining. It doesn't mean you can't combine them successfully, but you need to learn music mixing and production separately from video production. Much of what you might already know about production audio may be applicable but the worlds and tools do start to move in different directions fairly quickly.

As the above poster noted it's like recording a band live.

I tried to find a great video (documentary short) on the team that records Kiss concerts live but it seems like Kiss' nasty habit of being all corporate about copyright has seen them removed from RME's channel on YouTube.

Using EQ: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug01/articles/usingeq.asp

Compressors: http://www.tweakheadz.com/compressors.htm

You can pretty much google and find lots of good information. There's a lot to soak up, but don't let it get you down.

You'd be surprised what a talented engineer can do with "just" EQ. I'd say that and understanding levels in analog and digital audio systems would be a solid foundation.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, hey! that's some good info in those links!

I am definitely between two worlds. Often with little control of what I am recording. I have to make it sound good afterwards, though.
 
I think that you should keep it very basic. The audio from the board will be mixed & EQed so that it sounds good in the performance venue. The audio caught by the mics will be a combination of the FOH speakers and the stage bleed.

Your job is not to mix the music but to bring the sound of the mix back into perspective. The FOH mixer will be compensating for the deficiencies of the room. For example - if it's a small room he may not put much guitar into the mix as there could be a lot of guitar bleeding off of the stage. The room may suck up low end, so the FOH mix may be very boomy on playback.

With situations like this I try to get each mix - the one off the console and the other off the mics - to sound as good as I possibly can individually using EQ only. The next step is to create a blend of the two. It may be as simple as just balancing levels, or you may have to completely re-EQ as you go. After I have completed that then I decide if any other enhancements - reverb, compression, etc. - are needed. I try to avoid compression on live performance as much as possible; dynamics are the essence of live, at least in my opinion. And use reverb sparingly, it's probably already in the original mix and there will be some ambience from the room. Don't worry too much about making the mix stereo, most live mixes are mono. Keep in mind that you are not making a music video, you are documenting a live performance.
 
unclebob6958 said:
I think that you should keep it very basic. The audio from the board will be mixed & EQed so that it sounds good in the performance venue. The audio caught by the mics will be a combination of the FOH speakers and the stage bleed.

Your job is not to mix the music but to bring the sound of the mix back into perspective. The FOH mixer will be compensating for the deficiencies of the room. For example - if it's a small room he may not put much guitar into the mix as there could be a lot of guitar bleeding off of the stage. The room may suck up low end, so the FOH mix may be very boomy on playback.

With situations like this I try to get each mix - the one off the console and the other off the mics - to sound as good as I possibly can individually using EQ only. The next step is to create a blend of the two. It may be as simple as just balancing levels, or you may have to completely re-EQ as you go. After I have completed that then I decide if any other enhancements - reverb, compression, etc. - are needed. I try to avoid compression on live performance as much as possible; dynamics are the essence of live, at least in my opinion. And use reverb sparingly, it's probably already in the original mix and there will be some ambience from the room. Don't worry too much about making the mix stereo, most live mixes are mono. Keep in mind that you are not making a music video, you are documenting a live performance.
Click to expand...

That there, sounds to me like a man who know what he's doing; perhaps has known for some time.

Which reminded me that you shouldn't be too hard on yourself; think where you could improve, what you'd like to get out of the next time and work towards it.

The challenge should be seen (in my mind) as exciting and a chance to grow rather than an obfuscated mess of problems that weigh you down.
 
percoplus said:
Yeah, hey! that's some good info in those links!

I am definitely between two worlds. Often with little control of what I am recording. I have to make it sound good afterwards, though.
Click to expand...

One of the greatest fallacies of production is the idea the "we can fix it in post." You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You may or may not - most often not - make it sound good afterwards. Most of the time, the best you can do is take something that sounds bad and take the rough edges off so it sounds a little less bad. It'll never sound as good as it would have had it been recorded properly to begin with. If the raw material isn't there in the original recording, there's nothing you can do to put it there later.
 
Steve House said:
One of the greatest fallacies of production is the idea the "we can fix it in post." You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You may or may not - most often not - make it sound good afterwards. Most of the time, the best you can do is take something that sounds bad and take the rough edges off so it sounds a little less bad. It'll never sound as good as it would have had it been recorded properly to begin with. If the raw material isn't there in the original recording, there's nothing you can do to put it there later.
Click to expand...

It's funny, when I hear someone say that (fix it in post) during production, my heart sinks - especially if it's something that can be remedied now and will save hours upon hours later.
 
percoplus said:
Should be an easy question to answer. Just looking for the normal operating procedures once you get an audio file into Audition, or DP or whatever program. What are the things you do to every file, no matter what type?

Say for example, I record a band using a stereo pair of mics without any processing - just the mics plugged into a recorder. What are the typical steps needed and in what order to get the sound you want?

I am asking if the entire process is called "mastering" or if that is a separate thing.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that I do with every file no mater what. You want to do as little as possible, but what that is, is completely dependent on what the recording is what is wrong with it and what you expect to get out of it.

In your list 1, 7 & 8 would be about all that is always done.

The entire process is called audio post. Mastering (in the way you are talking about) is done post mixing on music to polish it for CD duplication (or LP).
 
Like i said, I often have no control over what I am recordingand have no choice but to fix in post. That's why I have a 4-track recorder. Hoping that either the soundboard will be a good mix or my ambient mics will pick up a balanced sound.

I see there are some good books on how to mix and EQ. These mostly deal with sound that has been recorded properly (in studio and with each instrument recorded separately) I don't see anything showing how to EQ an entire band mixed into a single file.

However, I have a shoot in a couple of weeks where I may have some input before the fact. It's a full jazz band in a casino showroom. I am to meet with the house sound guy the night before. I understand that his responsibility is to the house. What should I ask of him so that I can have a more usable recording while not causing him too much extra work?

I am thinking to make sure any amplified instruments like the bass and guitars are miced.

Thanks Noiz2. So, I'll call it "audio post"
 
Last edited:
percoplus said:
Like i said, I often have no control over what I am recordingand have no choice but to fix in post. That's why I have a 4-track recorder. Hoping that either the soundboard will be a good mix or my ambient mics will pick up a balanced sound.

I see there are some good books on how to mix and EQ. These mostly deal with sound that has been recorded properly (in studio and with each instrument recorded separately) I don't see anything showing how to EQ an entire band mixed into a single file.

However, I have a shoot in a couple of weeks where I may have some input before the fact. It's a full jazz band in a casino showroom. I am to meet with the house sound guy the night before. I understand that his responsibility is to the house. What should I ask of him so that I can have a more usable recording while not causing him too much extra work?

I am thinking to make sure any amplified instruments like the bass and guitars are miced.

Thanks Noiz2. So, I'll call it "audio post"
Click to expand...
The stage is 'audio post' while the various processes that are applied there are often called 'audio sweetening.'

The reason is you're not finding much info on how to EQ an entire band recorded by stereo micing the full ensemble is there's not very much that can be done at that stage. When you stereo mic the full ensemble, you are mic'ing not just the band but the etnrire room as well. Anything done to the recording in post affects the whole magilla. Sure, if there are unnatural sounding peaks or gaps in the overall frequency balance you can dial in some corrections but there's nothing you can do with equalization to tame an overly bright trumpet that won't also affect the clarinet, for example. And if the clarinet is too soft but the trumpet too forward, there's not much at all you can do to adjust their individual levels if they're already mixed into a single stereo track. Yes, you can do some basic gross adjustments but beyond that, not much.
 
Steve House said:
The stage is 'audio post' while the various processes that are applied there are often called 'audio sweetening.'
Click to expand...

In the video/broadcast world, yes. In the film world audio post is the editorial through the final mix. Not sure what you mean by "the stage', unless it's the mix stage. "Audio Post" is short for Audio post production, after the shoot.

To the OP. I wasn't actually trying to be snide, but what is it you do to every video clip polish it? What lens do you use on every shot? Your asking the same kind of question and the truth is that if it actually could be distilled into a simple formula that one could put in a forum post we would all be out of jobs.
 
Noiz2 said:
In the video/broadcast world, yes. In the film world audio post is the editorial through the final mix. Not sure what you mean by "the stage', unless it's the mix stage. "Audio Post" is short for Audio post production, after the shoot.

To the OP. I wasn't actually trying to be snide, but what is it you do to every video clip polish it? What lens do you use on every shot? Your asking the same kind of question and the truth is that if it actually could be distilled into a simple formula that one could put in a forum post we would all be out of jobs.
Click to expand...

"Stage," as in a particular phase within an overall process. The word "stage" is used in the same way in the sentence "A man's life can be divided into three main stages: Infancy, Adulthood, and Old-Age." A show would be in the preproduction stage when one is preparing the script, creating the production design, auditioning talent, etc. So too, audio post would be one of the many stages within the overall production process that the show will pass through as it moves from original concept to final release. During the audio post stage of production, one of the techniques employed might be to apply equalization to a track in order to reduce excess sibilance present in the original recording, thus sweetening the dialog.
 
Last edited:
Steve House said:
"Stage," as in a particular phase within an overall process. The word "stage" is used in the same way in the sentence "A man's life can be divided into three main stages: Infancy, Adulthood, and Old-Age." A show would be in the preproduction stage when one is preparing the script, creating the production design, auditioning talent, etc. So too, audio post would be one of the many stages within the overall production process that the show will pass through as it moves from original concept to final release. During the audio post stage of production, one of the techniques employed might be to apply equalization to a track in order to reduce excess sibilance present in the original recording, thus sweetening the dialog.
Click to expand...

OK My "stage" may be senility...;~)

My bias is film and "sweetening" is not a term ever used there. It is used a lot in video where your going to use 90% production and you just need to remove some of the suckiness to make it not embarrassing on broadcast. In that case you probably do have some semi fixed things you do because your on a tight deadline and, well your job is to remove the suckiness.

Film goes through audio post. Exactly what that entails has a fair amount to do with budget but it's basically dialog editorial, Sound FX editorial, Foley and final mix. On a big film these are all done by crews of people and on "mini indi's" they are done by (often) one person. But it is not "sweetening", and (film) post folks will get very offended if you refer to it as such.

In film post there isn't really any "given" treatment. Dialog goes through an editorial process and is then mixed. Everything else is recorded/ created and edited into place and mixed. As a rule dialog is not touched (except editing) except in the mix. SFX is heavily modified to suit, and Foley is pretty much as recorded. Then it is all mixed with the music (as a rule not heard by "audio post" till the final mix) and comes out as the Final mix.

Again with a Mini-Indi it's often one person doing all the editorial and mixing. But the work flow is basically the same.

In video land (broadcast news etc.) it's more, picture editor picks everything. Sound "sweetens" the video sound edit (adds some FX fixes the worse of the production and bounces out a mix) and then it's back to tape and on the air.

IF you are in the Mini-Indi world you are well advised to go the "film" route" rather than the "video" route. The reason is who you are competing with. If your doing a feature it's Hollywood and if it's a doc it's Michael Moore. And they both turn out highly polished products.

If you do a "video" sweetening on your Mini-Indi forget "breaking out" it just isn't going to happen. Anyone who would buy your film is going to understand you don't know the market and steer clear. The ONE thing the Mini-Indi has going for it is the time to do a fully polished film. And that means doing "audio post" not "sweetening".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top