Category Archives: Uncategorized

Assignment 5/21 Intro to music production

Probably the most recognizable aspect of music is dynamics, the changes in amplitude that we hear as changes in loudness, subjective, perceived changes, and in volume, measured, objective changes. Manipulating dynamics is one of the most versatile and important tools the producer uses in post production to shape the sound both of individual instruments and the mix as a whole.

Dynamic processors change certain parameters of dynamics, under certain rules, to alter volume, at any gain stage point in the signal path, for any recorded track or combination of tracks. Perhaps the simplest dynamic processor is the producer himself. The producer can change the volume of the sound on a track through application of amplitude automation. He can even physically change levels on the fly, such as riding faders to balance the dynamics of a track. The human dynamic processor uses a two stage process to change dynamics in real time. First, they analyze the dynamics of the track and determine where the volume should be raised or lowered. Second, they manipulate the faders based on that analysis. This two step process carries over to dynamic processing done by outboard gear and software plugins.

All hardware and software dynamic processors have a side chain or key section, which does the analysis of the input signal and a volume fader section, which changes the volume over time. This is because all dynamic processors are acting as some type of volume control. And because they all work on the same thing, they all use the same parameters and the same means of changing those parameters. The four essential parameters of dynamic processing are, threshold, ratio, attack, and release.

Threshold represents the amplitude level at which the processor begins working. Changing the threshold can influence the sound a great deal, as the different settings vary the results of using the same processor. Ratio is the amount of processing applied to the signal once it is triggered by the volume reaching and surpassing the threshold. It is expressed as the ratio of input to output. A ratio represents how much the input changes as it passes the threshold. For example a 4:1 ratio means that for every four decibels of input that is processed, the signal will change 1 decibel. Attack is how fast the processor begins to work. Changing this parameter influences how the beginning of a signal sounds. Instruments can often begin with a transient, or a rapid change in amplitude. A snare drum is a good example of an instrument that makes a lot of transients. Changing the attack changes how much of the transient we can hear and influences how smooth or punchy the sound is. Release is the opposite of attack. It changes how long the end of the processed sound lasts before it is “released”. This will influence how choppy or slowly the processed sound finishes.

The four major types of dynamic processors are, compressors, expanders, noise gates and limiters. All four of these processors act on the same four parameters, changing those parameters to some degree, and operating under different rules. A compressor reduces the dynamic range by either reducing the loud sounds or by raising the soft sounds. The rule for compression is as the input gets louder the output gets softer. This effect shrinks the dynamic range so that the loud parts are softer and the soft parts louder. This allows the producer to raise the gain of the entire track so that it is louder in the mix without distorting. There are many different applications of compressors to different instruments, to entire tracks and for different effects. The manipulations of the four parameters are interactive, thus creating an almost limitless number of possible effects. This vast opportunity for change makes the compressor widely used but difficult to master. Even the best producers continue to learn more about compression over time.

Expanders are the opposite of compressors in that they increase the dynamic range, either by making the loud parts louder or the soft parts softer. Expansion is not used as much as compression but can be very useful in a situation such as mixing a heavily compressed recorded track to give back some of the differences in the volume of the original track. For example, an orchestra recorded with compression to reduce the chance for distortion could have some of the dynamic range returned in the mixdown through expansion. The rule for expansion is as the input gets louder the output gets louder.

Limiters and noise gates use compression in special ways and function in somewhat opposite ways. Noise gates allow only the sounds above a certain volume to pass through the “gate” by cutting off all sound under the threshold. Gates are useful in removing unwanted sounds from the mix, such as foot tapping, finger movements , squeaks from chairs etc. Limiters allow only sounds under the threshold to be heard. They are essentially compressors that operate with ratios over 10:1. They are traditionally used to prevent loud sounds from distorting but in modern usage they act as loudness maximizers, as heavy limiting can allow the signal gain to be increased a great deal, making the whole track apparently louder, while assuring the producer the signal will not distort.

Dynamic processors have a multitude of uses in the studio in both the tracking and post production stages. Knowing the basics of how each processor works and what it does gives you a good head start to the fine art of applying dynamic processing to change the emotional and spatial presentation for the listener. You will be improving your processing skills forever, as you gain experience as a producer. Enjoy.

Intro to Music Production Assignment 5/14

One of the major advantages of recording in the digital realm over the analog realm is the fact that signal processing is done by software, much of which is included within your DAW, rather than with expensive outboard gear. Digital signal processing, or DSP, is cheaper, easier to use, and has continued to become more accurate, more sophisticated and more innovative. In fact, DSP is so easy to use, and there are so many different types of third party processors available for your DAW, that instead of barely being able to scrape together the basics a big danger for the producer is using too much signal processing.

Today we will be talking about some simple but important knowledge regarding the classifications of the effects that processors apply to the signal. These effects are the same in both the digital and analog realms, because these effects relate to the basic building blocks of sound and are not exclusive to either domain.

Effects can be divided into three major categories that are applied to the three major physical characteristics of sound. First there are the dynamic effects. Dynamic effects control amplitude, which is the strength of the compression and rarification of sound waves as they move through the air. To the listener these effects affect the volume of the sound. Dynamic effects include compressors, limiters, expanders, and noise gates. We will talk about each of these effects and their applications later in the course.

Second, we have delay effects, which control the quality of the propagation of sound waves. Propagation is the measure of sound waves as they move through time and space. To the listener delay effects make certain parts of sounds appear to be three dimensional or happen at a different time than the rest of the sound. Delay effects include, reverbs, delays, phasers, flangers, and choruses. Once again, we will examine these effects individually later .

Finally we have Filter effects, which control the timbre. This is the measure of the relative balance between the amplitude and frequencies of a sound. This balancing produces the quality we often call tone in the ear of the listener. Filters are able to amplify or attenuate particular frequencies to produce the vast variety of tones we distinguish in our minds, apart from pitch or volume, that influence how we perceive sound. Filter effects include, high pass filters, low pass filters, band filters, parametric equalization and Graphic equalization.

Each of these effects are major tools available to the producer to shape and fine tune the quality of the sounds that comprise the final mix. Knowing which effects relate to which qualities of sound can tell us what effects processors to use when, where to place them in the signal path, and which tracks to group together to apply a particular effect to all of them at once. The application of each individual effect is an important piece of knowledge for the producer.

Introduction to Music Production Assignment 5/7/15

Creating efficiently compiled tracks in a DAW using multiple audio recordings

One frustrating aspect of recording any audio track is recording a performance that is perfect except for several notes, or a measure here and there. It’s very difficult, even for the best player or vocalist, to perform perfectly every time, and sometimes hardly any of the time. Something as minor as a note held too long or a slight wavering in pitch can spoil an entire performance and can cause the performer to become angry, lose confidence, scatter their focus or just plain get tired of the process. This makes it hard to capture the quality track you desire, in a small number of takes. The more takes a performer is required to track, fatigue will build and the performance from one take to the next can deteriorate rapidly, until it becomes nearly impossible to replicate anything close to the performance required for a good recording.

In analog recording, “mistakes” in an otherwise good track were “fixed” by a process called punching in. This technique, a physical rerecording over the “bad” portion of the original track, was usually used as a last resort by the producer, trying to save a nearly perfect track in the face of a diminishing likelihood of tracking a complete take as good as the one already on tape. The resultant “patched” track was rarely, if ever, totally smooth at the punch in and punch out points and was one of those parameters the analog producer had to compromise for the sake of time and budget in the project.

With the advent of digital recording and editing techniques, getting a perfect track became much easier. Through a process called comping, or compiled tracking, any number of takes of a performance can be recorded and coexist separately inside the project. Once you are satisfied you have enough performances recorded to compile one perfect track you can then begin to choose which parts of which tracks you like best. Then, when you know what you want to keep, you can begin to cut the regions where these top performances are, isolating them into smaller regions. Having discovered and cut these new regions you then create a completely new track and begin to move the preferred segments of the performance onto the new track. This can be done by dragging, cut and paste, or by using a key command, depending on your DAW and/or your preferred method.

Once you have all your pieces of the performance together on one track ideally you have your perfect performance compiled. But there is still one issue to address. Like the Frankenstein monster, the piecing together of tracks has left some ugly seams where the regions meet at the point of the cut. Where the cut was made the waveform may not be right at zero. It can jump instantaneously back to zero at the cut, creating an audible click as the resultant track is played back.

To combat this problem we use a technique called fading. We fadeout and fade in the regions at the edges of the cuts to sort of “smooth out” the seam between the cuts, and eliminate the audible click. On some DAWs this smoothing out can be done without the need for a true fade by automatically making the cut where the waveform is at zero. Other DAWs must make a fade over a selected, normally quite short, portion of the regions surrounding the cut. The zoom feature can help us find the right place to begin and end the fade. When regions overlap, a similar technique, called crossfading, is used. In the crossfade one overlapping region is faded out while the other is faded in, making an almost seamless transition.

Learning and mastering comping together tracks and fading them to eliminate any resulting clicks is an important tool of the editor and one that should be mastered if we want to capture the best performance possible. This is one area where editing in digital audio versus analog audio gives us a distinct advantage, in that we are able to keep our perfect, except for that one measure, track and “fix it” so that we don’t have to toss out the baby with the bath water. Just remember that comping a track can make you sound like a better player than you are, and this can create problems playing the parts in a live concert setting. To my mind, when used sparingly, it can greatly enhance a recording. But, like any tool, try not to use it too much.

Intro to Music Production-Assignment 4/30

To my regular readers, of which there about 5, over the next weeks I will be publishing assignments for my online course in music production. You might find them useful. Thanks for understanding:

Hello fellow producers. My pen name is Will Servant. Sorry, but I don’t reveal my true name on this blog. I’m an old, white, male. I was a performing musician for several years and have a AA in Sound Arts from Minneapolis Community and Technical College. I have produced some demos and one album of original material. However, I need to learn much more about how to produce music recordings.

My topic today is recording an acoustic instrument. Recording an acoustic instrument involves several basic processes, and I’ll be covering them roughly in the order I like to follow.

Most home studios don’t have a professionally designed and built room to record in. Because of this you often record in your bedroom or garage, rooms that have far from the best acoustics. Vibrations and noise from nearby trains, passing vehicles, noisy neighbors and even your computer can introduce unwanted sounds that affect the clarity of your track and raise your frustration level. Some of these problems can’t be fixed. But there are things you can do to help. For one, if you can record late at night, without waking up your roommate, you can reduce the chance a passing truck or that guy downstairs will make it impossible to record your sensitive mandolin part.

You can also improve your room itself. The physical properties of the room influence your recordings. Rooms with hard surfaces, or of certain sizes, can make it difficult for you to record the sound you want. You might have to hang a blanket on the wall or scatter some chairs around the room. You might even stick one of those huge stuffed panda bears in the corner. We’ll talk about standing waves and live rooms later in the class.

The type of microphone you use and where it is placed will influence any recording, and not just that of an acoustic instrument. If you have a bare bones studio, with only one large diaphragm condenser mic to use, moving the mic around and/or changing the microphone’s polar pattern will assist you in getting the desired sound quality. It might take awhile, but it’s definitely worth it. Remember, and this is important, the best production tools in your tool belt are your ears. Listening critically and constructively is the best way to find the sound you want.

If you can afford several mics I recommend getting one or two small diaphragm condenser mics. These mics can help you record sounds from a particular small area, while rejecting other close by sounds. A good example is recording the sound from the fretboard of a guitar, while avoiding the sound coming from the sound hole. These mics can also be useful for recording a natural stereo, or adding useful ambient sounds, such as the sound from the corner of the room. Having a decent dynamic mic can come in handy when recording acoustic instruments that can cause sensitive condenser mics to distort the signal. In general, experimenting with different microphones and placements is the best way to capture your ideal track.

We have talked about the actual recording of acoustic instruments. Now let’s spend a little time on signal path. Using quality equipment is as important to getting the best possible sound as a good performance. Besides the instruments themselves and the microphones, everything in the signal path has a significant effect on the quality of your recording. Using the best devices you can afford, such as cables, direct boxes, pre-amps, mixing boards, or interfaces, will give you the best recordings possible. It is important not to skimp on any piece of equipment along the signal path. A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. This is true in all recording. Try to balance your spending, regardless of your budget.

Some of these issues aren’t as critical as others for recording acoustic instruments, but always make certain the signal path  is as quality as you can make it. Double check to assure everything is working and set up properly. Something as simple as a condenser microphone with phantom power turned off can drive you crazy. Before recording your track follow each point in the signal path, starting with the source, from component to component, all the way inside the computer. This will help assure you can record the track successfully without any unnecessary hair pulling.

Finally, there is a factor that is often unknown to, or forgotten by, the home producer/recordist. I previously mentioned unwanted noise created by external sources. There are also sources of noise right inside the studio. The dreaded “60 cycle hum” created by grounding issues somewhere in your signal path, can be maddening, hard to find, and difficult to reconcile. Poorly shielded cables can allow radio frequency interference into the path. And what about unwanted noise created right in the studio by the performers themselves? A squeaky chair, or bracelet hitting the guitar, or a foot unconsciously tapping on a mike stand can ruin a great performance.

In summary, although there are plenty of “experts” who will tell you the right way to record an acoustic instrument, the best way is to listen and find the way that gives you the sound you want. You might have to experiment or think counterintuitively. Your studio may have limitations. But your ears and creativity can overcome those obstacles, and your acoustic guitar part will come out clean and crisp. With some feeling, technique, skill and a good performance, a well recorded acoustic instrument will add just the right touch to your mix.

Next we’ll talk about what happens once the recorded signal gets inside the computer.

It’s In The Cans

Some time ago my daughter came to me saying she was tired of the ear bud headphones most kids use with their iPods and such. She wanted a “nice” pair of over the ear headphones for college. She was, of course, most familiar the Monster Beats by Dr. Dre, which are de rigueur for anyone for whom street cred is the least bit important. The most popular models are the Solo, which are expensive for a 16 year old at $200, and the Studio, which, for a teen, tempt burglary at $300. The main feature of the Beats, that which gives them their cool factor, is their bass reproduction, which features the same kind of teeth rattling booming that you hear when a car full of gangsta wannabes pulls up next to you at a stoplight. This is what most teens want to listen to whether they are into hip hop, dubstep, death metal or classic rock. Monster sells them in droves.

The fact that a particular market segment has particular taste in what they like music to sound like is the basis for my observations of the headphone world, as I have been researching a pair for my daughter as she heads off to find adulthood in college. To get an idea of the positive and negative features of the various brands and models readily available I have been reading the user comments at websites such as Best Buy and Amazon, where the average user would purchase. I figured the more esoteric websites offering lesser known yet quality brands were the domain of audiophiles and aural fanatics and would skew my opinions of a product meant for an iPhone and laptop and not a studio or a top drawer entertainment room featuring class A amps and space age speakers with the best 7:1 surround sound crossover unit.

I found that the consumers who actually took the time to comment and review these products were primarily of two types, serious pro musicians and sonic aficionados with limited budgets who were looking for near state of the art, pro level equipment at high end consumer prices and high school kids who wanted to be cooler than their friends and have phones that were more expensive and had better bass than the ubiquitous ear buds worn by the mere peons.

Regardless of brand, model or price the comments were overwhelmingly either raving positive or bitterly negative. One could pretty much determine which category of buyer the commentary was from by the nature of the judgement. A scathing negative comment was invariably from a musician or self appointed audiophile while the “best I ever heard” comments were from kids whose best previous audio experience likely came from a pair of $12 budget ear buds from Walmart. This disparity speaks to many cultural values, our expectations, our perception of value, marketing, design and manufacturing strategies, who creates our entertainment media and why, the realities of sound frequencies, pressure, recording techniques and the human perception of same, and the broadly diverse range of subjective truth among humans relating to their relative perception of the exact same phenomenon.

It is the disparate perceptions, embraced by different people, of phenomenon witnessed by all people, pretty much from the same viewpoint, that are what I see as important here. People perceive both things and concepts, in some ways the same and in others quite different. The frames people use to process these phenomena depend on which perceptions they accept as true. We communicate our truths through language. If we agree that language deals with things and concepts then it is my contention that all things and concepts have both an absolute and a relative nature. I’ll examine this further.

Let us first look at things. The government gives people Food Stamps. This is a tangible activity. It has a giver, a taker, requirements, a physical transactional document that is honored by certain businesses as valid, and a result. It is an absolute thing whose metaphoric frame can be known by knowing any of those various segments separately. It is real and has a recognizable substance. Yet, different people see and judge its value in dramatically different ways, using radically different language to describe and define it. In this sense it is totally relative and one must be aware of the perceiver’s relative agenda before they can know the other parts of their base frame, see it in it’s entirety, and know the language that triggers it into consciousness. To simplify, the glass that is equally full and equally empty is absolute, tangible and universally knowable. But it is relative to those seeing it as half empty and those seeing it as half full.

Concepts are another thing entirely. Concepts are not tangible and therefore there are often as many perceptions of the definition of a concept as there are people perceiving it. But this does not represent relativity. Contrary to things, there is no physically tangible reality to perceive. The absolute nature of a concept must include every disparate perception, for everyone’s perception is real and has to be included in any definition of the concept.

Perhaps this can be slightly more simply stated by using mathematical set circles to describe these ideas. With things there is a real object which means there is something all viewpoints share. Thus all sets intersect and share points of data. These intersected subsets represent the absolute nature of the thing, qualities that everyone accepts as truth. For example everyone sees that a certain chair is made of wood. People who say it isn’t wood are considered as not being truthful. Their set does not intersect the “truth” subset. The relative nature is represented by all the different sets of perceptions, however slight, of the thing. These relative sets may include subsets of shared perceptions of their own but always include exclusive qualities that separate them from other sets. They are sets on their own and not subsets.

Regarding concepts the sets are much different. In this case all the relative sets are actually subsets of the gigantic absolute set of qualities. Once again they may share qualities, creating other subsets, but are again unique subsets unto them selves and thus relative.

So to summarize, the absolute nature of things are subsets and the relative nature sets, and the absolute nature of concepts are sets and the relative nature subsets.

Back to the headphones. Applying the aforementioned principles, the actual headphones are a real and physical thing. They have an absolute nature, the subset of construction materials, color, name, packaging, which everyone sees as the same, and a relative nature, represented by the sets of semi pro and amateur listeners, with their different perception of what the headphones do, how they perform. These differences are revealed through the reviews. Although the relative sets are all different, the subsets created by the shared perceptions of certain relative sets point to a modestly dualist relationship between those sets. They break down basically into those who, for a number of reasons, think they sound good and those who think they sound awful.

This is where things get interesting from my perspective. There are undoubtedly those who would say that how the headphones sound is not about the physical reality of the thing at all but a subjective thought process, in other words, a concept. This sounds logical but it is not quite accurate. Yes, it is subjective process but it remains a thing and not a concept. Regardless of the relative perceptions of sounds good or sounds bad those perceptions are still dependent on the thing being the thing. Therefore the perceptions are also a thing. This is the logic behind the statement “perception is reality”. The thing itself represents the physics of it’s existence and the perception of the thing signifies the metaphysics of it’s nature.

Where we get into concepts are in the reasons for the perceptions. Yes, reasons also relate to the thing but are not dependent on the thing. A reason may relate to several other things. Reasons that relate to many different things, often in a large shared subset, can sometimes be called ideologies, or a logic of ideas. So a reason can exist outside the realm of the thing and must be considered a separate idea, or concept. This subtle but significant difference between perception and reason is confusing to many of us and, when applied dishonestly, can blur the line between the perception and reality of both things and concepts.

Often when coherent collected concepts, ideologies, are applied to perceptions, things can be made to appear to have several different realities, and the agenda behind the ideology directs and focuses all perceptions of the thing into a particular desired reality, somewhat like cattle being led to the killing floor. Absolute truths can appear relative, and thus subject to seemingly logical doubts that the truth might not really be universal. Relative truths can be made to appear universal and apply to everything. It can get kind of scary.

But back to the headphones. The concepts dealt with here are the “reasons” people use headphones in the first place. They relate to the use of the thing, the headphones, but they are more broad reaching. In this instance they line up in a simple, if over generalized, duality of “I want to be cool and have fun” versus “I want state of the art and have a superior experience”. But they could also apply to a relationship with other things, such as the choice of buying an X Box or an iPad, or the choice of going to a poetry slam or a theatrical play. So the reasoning is more conceptual than tangible and thing specific.

What I find interesting about this is the phenomenon of people using the same words to describe essentially different concepts. This muddying of the waters has been called using contested concepts. Words such as love and freedom have become contested concepts because there are many unrelated ideas that use the very same word to describe all of them. For example the people with the highly disparate concepts above, about headphones etc., could all describe their reasoning as doing what is cool. Cool is perhaps the ultimate contested concept.

So how did I get off onto all this esoteric tangential stuff just from thinking about buying my daughter some headphones. Because sick minds leave no stone unturned when it comes to complicating a simple task. But I do think its not bad to understand that we all share at least some truths about “things” even though there are those who say we don’t. And many of us have very few or no shared “concepts”, outside of a sharing of contested words, when we are often told that we not only do share but must share.

So Monster can market Dr. Dre’s Beats headphones to impressionable kids because they are able to convince them that the concept of being cool can only become an absolute reality when they buy those headphones. This flies in the face of the relative reality that any number of headphones, some more and some less expensive, are perfectly able to satisfy their initial reason for having “good, over the ear headphones”. But it is a clear example of how smart marketers use psychology and knowledge of metaphysics to influence our nation of consumers.

Confusion about absolute and relative truths and ideas, concepts, perceptions and reality abound in our world. But we don’t have to suffer that confusion. It can be as simple as believing what we feel or believing what we are told. Yes, one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. Just try to remember that both men are in the same building.