>I personally wouldnt reccomend doing it (but each to his own)...
If you are recording at 24 bits, just turn down the volume. You have more
than an order of magnitude more dynamic resolution than you do at 16 bits. I
know of more than one producer that is doing this for vocals - the most
dynamicly fluctuating instrument that you can put a mic to, and then
compressing after the fact. How else do you think digital compression units
(TC Gold Channel etc) do this? (This is not an endorsement of outboard
digital compressors :>)
>BUT I have
>heard that the RNC is a great compressor indeed, if you did it extremely
>lightly it may just be enough to take out spikes, but at the same time it
>may very well harm the sound if you're recording all the tracks at once.
That depends what you consider 'harm'. For the vast majority of music, it is
customary to compress the entire group of tracks together, and even
subgroups. If anything, you will change your sound more by compressing
tracks separately - all the tracks will now sound 'compressed'.
If you are happy with the mix (or sub mix, if there is going to be other
stuff to do), and want it to be compressed, then sure, compress it. Don't do
it just to 'get it in the pc'.
>> If
>>your doing the racks seperately, then go for the gold, I'm sure that would
>>spice up the sound quite nicely (Really Nice, I'm sure, hehe). But, by
doing
>>that, at least for me, kind of ruins the entire reason of having an RME (I
>>have a digi96 with the expansion board). I bought it so I wouldn't HAVE to
>>record all of my tracks seperately anymore, so now I need like FIVE
>>compressors (or two bi-linear stereo and a mono one) in order to
getseperate compression on all my stuff. Arg....
>
Nah, just turn them down. Like I said, if you are recording at 24 bits...
>I myself, don't have a real compressor, since I have no money, although I
>have that behringer half/fake tube compressor in my studio from time to
>time, and may own it soon (as gay as it can be, if I get it, those tubes
are
>getting replaced!).
Behringer gets a bad rap - they make great gear for the money. I haven't
heard their 'faux-tube' gear, but I don't think I'll be impressed. I don't
think all that much their solid state compressors either - that I have
direct experience with.
>I usually use software compression, although I would
>severely reccomend using real hardware instead.
It really depends what you have available. Don't be fooled by 'pro'
interveiws - they are comparing software to hardware costing ten or twenty
times as much. Your behringer isn't going to sound better than your
Rennaisance compressor, or PSP stuff.
>I only use software since
>it's what I have. T-racks is great, but is not a plugin, so it can get
>tedious using it on seperate tracks since you can't hear it in conjunction
>with the rest of the them. Overall, you can't beat the sound of a nice warm
>REAL tube compressor, but from what I hear, that RNC can come pretty close
>to compression heaven.
Each to their own - I can't stand T-racks. On my music, it pumped and
breathed like a cheap stomp box. Try the PSP audioware stuff, or the Waves
Rennaisance compressor.
For extra niceness, try using more than one compressor set in series, with
moderate settings on each, instread of one with a drastic setting. As well
as sounding smoother, this allows you to create more complex dynamics
curves, as well as mixing and matching compressor plugins for tonal quality.
>I'm looking to buy a compressor such as TLAudio's Fat 1 or FMR Really
>Nice Compressor 1773 to compress and warm up the XL7 stereo output.
>The compressor will be patched into the RME Multiface. I want to get
>a nice hot signal onto disc and not have spikes.
Note: the RNC won't "warm up your sound". It's designed to be a transparent
and invisible as possible - the opposite of 'warming up your sound". It is
nice, though I haven't heard it much. I'm looking to upgrade my preamp to an
RNP and RNC combo right now myself.
On another note, heres' a cool vocal recording tip -
- mult the send from your preamp to your compressor, and send it straight
into your pc on a second channel, so you have one channel compressed, the
other uncompressed.
- record both inputs to separate tracks, with the uncompressed track muted,
so that you don't have to hear it. Since you are compressing the vocals
coming in, you can monitor everything at a nice level without clipping
anything, or screwing with your gain structure to hear what you need, >and<
you've got a good vocal sound right from the start. Drop the level on the
uncompressed version, to make sure you get all the peaks, a lot (remember
that 24 bits...), especially if she's a belter :>
- now, in addition to the compressed performance, you have an uncompressed
tracking of the same performance. This is usuefull in a number of ways
- it's your backup in case you over/under compressed - no ruined track!
- you can run it on top of the compressed track to give it more range,
while maintaining the general level of the compressed track
- you can run it through a difference compressor, for a different sound
- you can use it for effects - especially ADSR controlled ones, like
filters or wahs - since it still contains the strong dynamic range of the
original recording, and will be more responsive to this. This is especially
cool when you track it with the compressed track. Radical EQs also work,
since the 'effect' track will only poke it's head up on the louder parts.
I'm sure this would also be cool on all kinds of acoustic instruments -
guitars etc.
good luck,
bIz
------------
groovetronica.com - "The beats are ok, I suppose, but the vocals sound like
some vintage jazz singer from my dad's record collection. Definitely not for
me."
------------
Are you still here? The message is over. Shoo! Go away!