Someone recently wrote about how they had mixed down a recording on a Tascam 2488 (a very popular and well-built digital recorder) and everything sounded fine, until they burned a CD of the mix-down (which the Tascam does) and the results sounded awful.
Matt wrote:
"The problem is that after pre-mastering a song and burning it onto a CD-RW (using the studios CD Writer) the final product sounds nothing like the mix itself.Example: The guitars and bass sound fine... However, the drums never sound the same. There is no kick drum sound on the CD... But, the kick sound is VERY present when listening to the tracks through the studio monitors, and headphones."
We replied:
We believe you've run into a common problem with the recording process from mixdown to production to post-production and finally with mastering. Namely, what you monitor the mixes with can really make things sound a lot different, often better than they really are.
For example, for a second set of monitors, we made the mistake of buying the Alesis M1 powered monitors for our studio at The Sound-O-Mat (http://sound-o-mat.com). We read all the Alesis literature and studied the graphs and they were supposed to be the most "flat" (e.g. adding or removing any freq. ranges or "color" to the sound) on the market at the time. Big mistake. We should have waited to read the reviews, because it turns out they're extremely bass-heavy. They sound great on my DJ rig, which is where we use them now, but anything I mixed down in the studio sounded really flat on the bass and kick & tom drums.
The reason I tell you this story is that they're probably recorded OK, but you're listening to them from the Tascam 2488, I assume through the audio output, but it could very well be what you're listening to them with that made them sound good when they were recorded and now played back, but ultimately the source material itself isn't really that good. It could be the monitors you're using and/or the headphones (although it's great to hear you're using both - a mixdown should never be down with just one or the other.)
So that would be my guess. The combo of what you've recorded with the Tascam 2488 (good unit!) run through the Yamaha mixing console (you didn't mention which one) sounds great when they finally come out of that setup to monitors or headphones, but the CD is what the tracks really sound like, and they don't sound good on the players or stereo(s) you've tried (which you also didn't specify.)
This happens all the time. And it's very smart of you to have burned the CD and tested it that way. I personally believe you can't listen to enough mixes in enough ways (including from another room, if possible) to make sure everything sounds right.
So, how to fix it. Well, you may have to re-record the drums. That's the worst-case scenario, and I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but that might end up being the case. If so, consider it a lesson learned, and figure out some way to monitor the drums as directly as possible. For example, if you're mic'ing them (you didn't mention if they were real drums, samples, or synth-based) but with that assumption, if you can mic them directly to the Yamaha console and listen to them on monitors and headphones directly from the console (use the headphone out on it, and direct the signal from the channels with the drum mix to them with all other channels canceled, aka turned off) and keep the Tascam out of the recording chain, until you're getting the sounds you want. Only then would I add the Tascam back into the equation and record the drum tracks.
Now, as for fixing them, there are ways to do it, that require post-production work, using specialized audio editing and processing software and hardware. Even if there's only a little signal, if the drums were EQ'ed correctly and live in their own unique frequency range, what we would do at our studio is take the drum tracks, pull the different types of drums out as separate tracks if they weren't recorded that way, or were mixed down and discarded, and then boost the signal accordingly, clean it up, and remix the drums to create new tracks, which would then be mixed back with the guitars and bass, which I assume you kept separately.
That process is rather long, involved and requires a serious investment in gear and software, so it's beyond what I can get into here. You can try playing around with EQ'ing the drums tracks using the Tascam or running it back through the Yamaha console and hoping that the EQ for the bass levels is about the right range (helps if the console has a way to adjust that range, known as the "Q") and then record the playback again on the Tascam. That's a middle-ground solution that I would normally suggest, but when you say "I can hear a LITTLE bit of bass drum" then I think it's likely a lost cause. Again, sorry to say.
So sadly, you'll probably have to have post-production done on the drum track(s) or re-record them, and as said, either way there's a lesson learned, which is that you want to set things up so that there's as little gear between the mics on the instruments to whatever is getting the sounds to your ears. Remove as much as you can as you set up the recording levels and EQ before you start adding any processing, effects, or even a recording device like the Tascam 2488.
In short, if you want things to sound good, keep the recording chain as minimal as possible until you get the right sounds, then add pieces to it one by one, checking constantly that you're still getting the sound you want. If not, then either you need to fix or replace the gear you've added, or consider whether or not its needed or is necessary. So many problems that take a lot of time and money to fix in post-production can be avoided if just this little extra time is taken during the original recording process.
Niki wrote:
"Basically, I pretty much already have everything I need: Cubase SX 3.0 program, MIDI In-out cable, MAudio soundcard. And I also already understand a bit of the basic stuffs. Now I want to record as MIDI (not WAV) from my Keyboard."
I apologize in advance if this isn't the best answer, but your question, while I appreciate the detail you put into it, is rather confusing.
First off, here's what I'm reading as what the problem is you're trying to solve: you want to play your keyboard, record the MIDI output in Cubase, and then play back the recorded MIDI in Cubase and have the keyboard play it, like a sound module. If that's not right, you'll have to post a follow-up.
The first problem I see is you say you have a MIDI in/out cable. You'll need two at least to do this. The MIDI out on the Korg needs to go to the MIDI in on your M-Audio soundcard, and vice-versa, the MIDI out on the soundcard needs to go to the MIDI in on the keyboard. So you need two cables to go back & forth with recording and playback.
Cubase will never show outboard gear as a VST, or know about outboard gear in *any* way. VST plug-ins are software and so Cubase can see and register them for use, but outboard MIDI gear is simply assigned a channel (1-16) or set to "OMNI" or "All Channels", which will send the MIDI to all instruments.
What you need to do is program the keyboard to be on a specific channel only, once you have the two cables set up, say "channel 1". Then you tell Cubase to record MIDI coming in from channel 1 only, assign a track to it, hit record, and play. Then on playback, you have the output from the recorded MIDI track go to MIDI channel 1, and since the Korg has been assigned that channel, if you have it set to receive MIDI (usually there's a "Local (MIDI) Only" mode you need to turn *off*) - it will receive the MIDI data and play it back.
So get your cables set up correctly, assign the keyboard a channel and set up Cubase to record and playback over that channel, ignore the VST stuff which has nothing to do with what you're trying to do, and you'll be set.
My guess is that you don't have two MIDI cables, and don't have the keyboard assigned a specific MIDI channel that you can record and playback in Cubase. Your Cubase manual will have all the details on how to do this, so just refer to that for all the settings for the program, once you have the MIDI cables and keyboard MIDI channel set up. Good luck!
Someone wrote:
"I'm having grounding problems which are making it difficult for me to record a clean guitar sound through a Roland G20 guitar synth and a Boss GT6 effects unit. There's a bad buzzing sound that stops when I touch the guitar with both hands, at least one on the strings. Every time I lift a finger or try to change chords, there's a loud 'click' sound. I don't have this problem with my mics or other gear, just the guitar. I have a Line-6 Pod Pro which also has the same problem: the buzzing increases and decreases when I move around the room. Even if I do find a spot where the buzzing stops for a bit, the slightest thing will set it off again."
There can be several obvious things that can lead to a buzzing or humming sound from a guitar, especially if it's run through effects pedals:
If the hum changes in character and intensity as you move around the room, getting closer or further from computer equipment and your gear, or even when you face in different directions, this suggests that you are picking up radiated interference rather than something coming in via the mains — mains hum wouldn't be affected by your position in the room.
Incidentally, I've also come across some power adaptors that do put interference into the mains circuit when they're plugged in. So it could also be worth unplugging as much gear as you can, testing the guitar signal path, then, if it is quieter, plugging the other gear back in a piece at a time and see when the interference comes back. You may well be able to identify a faulty or sub-standard adaptor this way.
A probably cheaper option than replacing a lot of electronic gear and power supplies is to modify your guitar, installing humbucking pickups and lining the cavity which houses the pickups and electronics with insulating copper foil.
The other factor that may be aggravating the situation is the quality of the mains grounding, which is why a UPS or some kind of power supply regulator is crucial. It is worth using a three-pronged illuminated socket tester to check that you have ground in the first place, though that in itself doesn't guarantee good results. But at least you'll know you have a ground, and if you don't, then you'll have to start there.
As always, if you feel unsure about anything electrical, get hold of a qualified electrician!
Here's a recent response to a followup question on the AllExperts.com Home Recording forum, where we're moderators and "experts". We felt it was worth sharing as it shows one of the ways in which we provide post-production services that are really beyond what most home recording setups, as well as Recording Studios, which tend to dedicate all of their time and money into mics and recording systems like 2" tape or ProTools.
It also has what we consider some good advice on adding reverb to a track after it's already been mixed down, as well as how to record them in the first place and why too much reverb is almost always a Bad Thing (tm).
Someone named Alex wrote back, first to say he'd tried using the software reverb in Cubase first without luck:
"I've tried using cubase to add some reverb but it sounds pretty bad."
Well, if you want to buy an audio editing program that supports some kind of effects plugins, you have many options, most of which are not cheap. There's Adobe Audition, which used to be Cool Edit Pro, Sound Forge (Sony, was Sonic Foundry), Steinberg Cubase, and a few others, but just the programs are fairly expensive, and while both of those I'd recommend because they come with built-in effects that are of decent quality, some even pretty fantastic once you learn to tune them. But it sounds like you've got that route and not been happy with the results.
I'm a bit surprised - if you own Cubase, assuming it's not the LX "Lite" version, and heck, even if it is, and you're just adding some reverb then you should be able to get decent results. If I can say without offending, my guess would be that you need to study up on how reverb works, hardware vs. software as well, and how Cubase reverbs compare to other software models. My bet is you can get decent results if you spend enough time on it.
But then came the clincher:
"I have the tracks saved - I recorded them in a studio. But they have no effects whatsoever as I didn't have the chas for that. I was thinking I could import the audio files into a program that would allow me to add some reverb to it or something. But am In assuming I want to add an effect to the entire track? The vocals aren't recorded separately you see."
But you mention that you don't have the vocals recorded separately - so if you're just trying to add reverb to only the vocals, then you've got a major headache. We've run a post-production and mastering studio at The Sound-O-Mat and we use one of two different approaches:
0. We analyse the track to find out what freq. range about 95% of the vocals fall into and hope to heck there's no bleed-over from other instruments in the same ranges (guitar, saxophone, etc.)
1. The combo of Adobe Audition with Waves' Rverb or TrueVerb allows us to apply reverb to just certain frequency ranges, and then using the range above, apply reverb to that range, and try our best to keep the mix as it was.
2. If people are willing to pay the extra cost, which we think is worth it, we can extract about 95-99% of the vocals (and any bleed-over, unfortunately) and create two separate tracks, one w/vocals and one w/o, then we apply reverb and spend time adjusting the wet/dry ratio (the amount of vocals w/reverb vs. the amount of original vocals) and mix-down the tracks again. This often works surprisingly well - we've surprised many a client.
The biggest axiom when it comes to reverb is that "less is more" - usually, unless you're using it more as part of the instrument than not, you want it not to be noticeable. We recently met a producer whose "signature approach" turned out to be massive, heavy use of reverb on every single recording, regardless of what kind of music. To our ears, it sounded horrid - some instruments or vocals benefit from having the reverb noticeable, but in this case, it just dominated every single recording - it was rather annoying and poorly done, we thought, but that's why we're in post-production - to fix all the really Bad Ideas (tm) that Producers often have, or the lousy job that most recording studios that claim to do mastering do.
I'm not sure why you bring up mics, unless you plan on re-recording? If you are, then we'd suggest recording your tracks with at least one mono "completely dry" track, and then one with the reverb that sounds good at the time, and then mix those two, or add reverb to the dry track.
Other than that, it's quite a lot of work to try and do what you're suggesting - we have probably about 10 years and $4000 invested in software to do the above procedures, so all I can suggest is that you give it your best go, or consider trying to hire the job out to a post-production studio. Good luck!