Turtlerock Forum

Posted: **Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:56 am**

Hi guys,

Figure I'll post here for this one..

I'm specifically keen to hear from those composing/producing for TVC's. How are you approaching the recording/mixing of acoustic guitars to sit in a TV mix? To me they often sound quite up front and dry but with subtle effects. Small/dead or live room, close miked (and what), steteo/mono, etc. Some practical examples would be appreciated.

Cheers.

Posted: **Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:46 pm**

Ok, giving away a secret, my partner may kill me for this...nah, kidding...it's no big secret...if thr guitar is a feature' we record with a U87, Neve pre >1176, but we also have a SM69 (stereo mic) back just over 30cm. We use mainly the mono 87, but just bring up the SM69 till we hear the tiniest bit of side action coming into the mix. In the mix we buss all 3 to a stereo subgroup and compress again, he uses the stock compressor in the Fairlight, whatever that is.
FX, we usually use the Bricasti M7 set on one of the small rooms, studio B far is my fave. I like a tiny bit of dimension d on some mono tracks too, paticularly strummy parts. EQ, which is the biggest factor IMHO hmmm, we HPF around 100Hz, but also do some heavy scooping around that 250 500 area, usually centred around 300Hz with a broadish Q, say 1.2 I have an old Martin D28 as my main acoustic and it is quite bottomy, so the eq as always depends on the track and the guitar and the part being played.
We also use passive eq's for the top end boost/sparkle. I only have one Pultec so it mainly goes on the mono track. I have an Amtec too so that get's used if it's stereo. It doesn't match the Pultec perfectly but I haven't had anyone ring up and complain so far :)

The other thing I used to do for sparkle before I had the eq's was to duplicate the guitar track, high pass the duplicate up to around 10Khz, put a mono chorus on it (inserted over the track) and mix it back with the original. This was my home brew attemp at
mimicking the top end phasy magical sheen you get from a Neve 1073 eq. Worth a try if you are low on eq.
As always, the trick with all your FX is mix them to a level where they are not obvious, but if you mute them you notice something from the track has 'gone'.

Posted: **Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:49 pm**

Can't edit so...one thing I forgot is that when I record I have a tin of about 20 different picks of varying thickness and materials. It is amazing how a part can be not working, then you change to a heavier or lighter pick and it sounds totally different.
I generally use lighter picks for a brighter jump out sound and thicker picks for sittng back mellower parts. I even have one that looks like clown vomit. Collect as many as you can..

Posted: **Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:32 pm**

Chinagraf wrote:Ok, giving away a secret, my partner may kill me for this...nah, kidding...it's no big secret...if thr guitar is a feature' we record with a U87, Neve pre >1176, but we also have a SM69 (stereo mic) back just over 30cm. We use mainly the mono 87, but just bring up the SM69 till we hear the tiniest bit of side action coming into the mix. In the mix we buss all 3 to a stereo subgroup and compress again, he uses the stock compressor in the Fairlight, whatever that is.
FX, we usually use the Bricasti M7 set on one of the small rooms, studio B far is my fave. I like a tiny bit of dimension d on some mono tracks too, paticularly strummy parts. EQ, which is the biggest factor IMHO hmmm, we HPF around 100Hz, but also do some heavy scooping around that 250 500 area, usually centred around 300Hz with a broadish Q, say 1.2 I have an old Martin D28 as my main acoustic and it is quite bottomy, so the eq as always depends on the track and the guitar and the part being played.
We also use passive eq's for the top end boost/sparkle. I only have one Pultec so it mainly goes on the mono track. I have an Amtec too so that get's used if it's stereo. It doesn't match the Pultec perfectly but I haven't had anyone ring up and complain so far :)

The other thing I used to do for sparkle before I had the eq's was to duplicate the guitar track, high pass the duplicate up to around 10Khz, put a mono chorus on it (inserted over the track) and mix it back with the original. This was my home brew attemp at
mimicking the top end phasy magical sheen you get from a Neve 1073 eq. Worth a try if you are low on eq.
As always, the trick with all your FX is mix them to a level where they are not obvious, but if you mute them you notice something from the track has 'gone'.

+11111111111111

Thanks for the excellent practical tips Andy! When you mentioned the scoop at 250/500 area it was a bit of a validation to an accoustic part I recorded a few months ago. Using a Cole Clarke Fat Lady 1 or something like that. I was struggling to get it to work in the mix, but as soon as a scooped around that region, it made a great difference. I was thinking, "hmm, maybe it's a bit unorthodox though".

And the Bricasti M7 impulses. I was playing with them. I'll have to track them down and download them again, as I lost them in a SSD failure. I'm guessing you have hardware though....ha ha.

Posted: **Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:40 pm**

Andy, sensational post and a lot of useful info in there. Thanks. Do you have any links to TVC's that feature work you've done such as in the example you've given? I'd be interested to check it out and actually I'm sure it's not normal to listen to ads as often as I do, I guess you have to know what you're up against!

You seem to have a very well equipped studio, am I right in assuming then that you don't use a lot of sample libraries for TVC's?

Cheers.

Posted: **Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:13 pm**

D-wayne...you would be surprised how quickly that 200 - 500 Hz area builds up and makes tracks muddy or boomy. It's quite natural to hear it in a single instrument, but with 60 tracks it gets out of hand real quick. If I could give onlyone bit of advice regarding mixing it would be to use a cut of -3dB centred at 300 Hz with a Q of 1.2 on nearly every track, maybe not bass. In reality you have to listen and assess each track individually, but if I had to come up with a blanket statement to help younger guys starting out to clean up their mixes, that would be it. That plus high pass everything that doesn't need to be bassy at around 90 Hz. Again, a blanket statement.

Spall...is it Darren? I think I saw that somewhere...
There's some guitar stuff on my old reel, if you go to http://gasinc.com.au and choose the showreels section, reel 2. It's only available as flashvideo though, so Steve Jobs might not let you watch it if you are on an I-pad.
I do use orchestral libraries (Miroslav, Sidlaczeck and Halion S.O.) if the budget isn't there but I mainly use real players for drums strings brass etc... I tend to push the line of using real players instead of samples mainly because they play much better than I could, plus it really addds to the vibe. I also play a lot of instruments myself, all well, none oustandingly and have a decent collection..rodes..hammond...bunch o guitars etc..
Jack of all trades master of none.

Posted: **Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:02 am**

Andy - close, no it's David :)

I checked out the reel, there is some nice work in there...also I am really impressed with much of the spots shown under the TV section, it's very solid work. Funnily enough the Lexus hybrid TVC up there caught my eye as I did a TVC for their Hybrid also (for the UK/Europe).

Well I'm in a similar camp as you in that I play many instruments myself coming from a performance (etc) background but entrust the rest to sessionists. I can't comment as a long-serving contributor to the TV areas as yet as I don't have a lot of work/history under my belt in this area as yet, but I must say it's where my passion is and I'm putting my all into making sure that the work I have done and what I am working towards doesn't fade into obscurity! So I'm always appreciative of the experience others can impart, especially in this crucial period where the learning curve is so steep.

Cheers.

Posted: **Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:59 pm**

Dwane, here are the (free) Bricasti M7 IR's you were talking about. Click on the free impulse responses link to download the zip file.

http://waveformless.blogspot.com/2009/05/free-bricasti-m7-impulse-responses.html

Thanks.

Posted: **Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:10 pm**

vanderlae wrote:Dwane, here are the (free) Bricasti M7 IR's you were talking about. Click on the free impulse responses link to download the zip file.

http://waveformless.blogspot.com/2009/05/free-bricasti-m7-impulse-responses.html

Thanks.

Hey Thanks Spall! Downloading now!

Posted: **Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:06 pm**

[quote="vanderlae"]Andy - close, no it's David :)

[quote]
So how come your name isnt in your signature then David?
Make it alot easier remembering everyones name correctly - also as Rick asked..

Posted: **Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:27 pm**

I got all excited thinking this might be another audio comment, but it is just the TR Army...

Hi Tim,

Spall is my surname and is on the signature? It's hardly like I'm hiding from anyone. From Rick's sentiment below I take it to mean that if a first name is okay, then surely a surname is also. If not, then as cooky as that is...I'll drop it.

In fact, forget it - I've dropped in favour of my first name. Sold.

rick wrote:all i ask is from you guys is that you use your real name on my board
( and yes i can deal with members just using their first name for those guys that feel need to keep the big brother guessing and you will notice a couple of long time forum guys have decided to do just that )

Posted: **Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:21 pm**

Chinagraf wrote:D-wayne...you would be surprised how quickly that 200 - 500 Hz area builds up and makes tracks muddy or boomy. It's quite natural to hear it in a single instrument, but with 60 tracks it gets out of hand real quick. If I could give onlyone bit of advice regarding mixing it would be to use a cut of -3dB centred at 300 Hz with a Q of 1.2 on nearly every track, maybe not bass. In reality you have to listen and assess each track individually, but if I had to come up with a blanket statement to help younger guys starting out to clean up their mixes, that would be it. That plus high pass everything that doesn't need to be bassy at around 90 Hz. Again, a blanket statement.

Along with everyone i'd have to say thanks for your post Andy, to the point and easy to understand. Cheers mate.

In regards to the quoted bit of material i'm just wondering if you have ever tried the "Brit vs Yank" method that Stav mentioned in one of his articles in AT lately? I'm just wondering if it's really that safe to do this, obviously if you do the EQ cut before tape and didnt get it right then a great take could be left to rot. That said what Stav said does make sense, in regards to this i'm wondering that if you are going to cut that "big body sound" from the take in the mix as opposed to doing it pre-tape is it wise to rely on the live mix you are monitoring before pressing the red button. Arrrgh im confusing myself. ok. If one was to do the EQ pre tape, and it "sounds" the way you want it before recording is it wise to rely on what you are hearing versus what the mic is actually capturing?

Oh man. i hope you get the gist of what im saying. i'll try again if you can't.LOL

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:04 pm**

vanderlae wrote:I got all excited thinking this might be another audio comment, but it is just the TR Army...

Hi Tim,

Spall is my surname and is on the signature? It's hardly like I'm hiding from anyone. From Rick's sentiment below I take it to mean that if a first name is okay, then surely a surname is also. If not, then as cooky as that is...I'll drop it.

In fact, forget it - I've dropped in favour of my first name. Sold.

rick wrote:all i ask is from you guys is that you use your real name on my board
( and yes i can deal with members just using their first name for those guys that feel need to keep the big brother guessing and you will notice a couple of long time forum guys have decided to do just that )

David,
I wasnt having a go mate - I wouldnt have known your surname was Spall, unless it had David in front of it!
Its all good..

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:41 pm**

No worries Tim, cheers ;)

Andy - is the U87 you carry an original or an AI model? It's one mic I have had on the list for a while actually so I'm curious as to whether the audible difference is significant between models.

Cheers

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:21 pm**

Mid 70's U87 x 2. At the risk of sounding 'gearist' I dont really like the sound of the Ai. It does't have the smoothness in the top end of the original.

In reply to Mick I eq things to sound the way I want when I track them. IMHO when you are recording and have your initial vibe going is the time to make it sound the way you hear it in your head. Strike while the iron is hot. After that the initial concept you had becomes diluted by things like time, other people's opinions, budget etc.. I come from the school of thought where when you have finished tracking and push up all the faders it sounds like a record, not like a dog's breakfast.
But to do this you need to have some sort of vision for the track before you hit record. It is tricky to achieve a goal when you don't know what that goal is.

Cheers.

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:35 pm**

Chinagraf wrote:Mid 70's U87 x 2. At the risk of sounding 'gearist' I dont really like the sound of the Ai. It does't have the smoothness in the top end of the original.

In reply to Mick I eq things to sound the way I want when I track them. IMHO when you are recording and have your initial vibe going is the time to make it sound the way you hear it in your head. Strike while the iron is hot. After that the initial concept you had becomes diluted by things like time, other people's opinions, budget etc.. I come from the school of thought where when you have finished tracking and push up all the faders it sounds like a record, not like a dog's breakfast.
But to do this you need to have some sort of vision for the track before you hit record. It is tricky to achieve a goal when you don't know what that goal is.

Cheers.

Get the Inner Tube mod done to the U87 Ai - well worth it..

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:57 pm**

Get the Inner Tube mod done to the U87 Ai - well worth it..

Hi Tim,

What does this cost to get done (does it need to be done by tech or is it user installable?) and can you offer any opinion in how close this gets it to u67 land?

cheers

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:01 pm**

lonearranger wrote:
Get the Inner Tube mod done to the U87 Ai - well worth it..

Hi Tim,

What does this cost to get done (does it need to be done by tech or is it user installable?) and can you offer any opinion in how close this gets it to u67 land?

cheers

Legacy Audio sell them - RRP $2300+
Here's the speel;

Turn your U-87 from standard solid state, into a true tube microphone. The change over is accomplished quickly and easily by the user in one (1) minute or less.

This retrofit is non-destructive, and can be reverted back easily if one should ever want to use the retrofit at another studio. There are identical retrofits for both the older standard type as well as the newer a-i, with equally impressive results.

As one U-87 owner who utilizes the retrofit in a variety of applications said "I used to like how my solid state 87 sounded until I heard it tubed. Now because of the added sonic dimension and clarity, I won't use it unless it is tubed".

The retrofit has been a consistent winner time and again, in critical blind listening tests between itself and top world class solid state and tube microphones. Those who have conducted these microphone "shootouts" are like yourself, professionals in the audio field. They have been surprised and are greatly impressed when they learn the microphone they chose as best sounding overall is the retrofit.FEATURES:

The Retrofit Kit includes:
The internal Tube Retrofit pre-amp assembly
Power Supply with continuously variable pattern pot
Cables for the mic (7-pin), and power supply (Grounded AC)
Instructions for change over (click for instructions)
All components are pre-assembled and ready for installation.

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:01 pm**

TimS wrote:
lonearranger wrote:
Get the Inner Tube mod done to the U87 Ai - well worth it..

Hi Tim,

What does this cost to get done (does it need to be done by tech or is it user installable?) and can you offer any opinion in how close this gets it to u67 land?

cheers

Legacy Audio sell them - RRP $2200+
Here's the speel;

Turn your U-87 from standard solid state, into a true tube microphone. The change over is accomplished quickly and easily by the user in one (1) minute or less.

This retrofit is non-destructive, and can be reverted back easily if one should ever want to use the retrofit at another studio. There are identical retrofits for both the older standard type as well as the newer a-i, with equally impressive results.

As one U-87 owner who utilizes the retrofit in a variety of applications said "I used to like how my solid state 87 sounded until I heard it tubed. Now because of the added sonic dimension and clarity, I won't use it unless it is tubed".

The retrofit has been a consistent winner time and again, in critical blind listening tests between itself and top world class solid state and tube microphones. Those who have conducted these microphone "shootouts" are like yourself, professionals in the audio field. They have been surprised and are greatly impressed when they learn the microphone they chose as best sounding overall is the retrofit.FEATURES:

The Retrofit Kit includes:
The internal Tube Retrofit pre-amp assembly
Power Supply with continuously variable pattern pot
Cables for the mic (7-pin), and power supply (Grounded AC)
Instructions for change over (click for instructions)
All components are pre-assembled and ready for installation.

Posted: **Sat May 01, 2010 4:00 am**

Chinagraf wrote:Mid 70's U87 x 2. At the risk of sounding 'gearist' I dont really like the sound of the Ai. It does't have the smoothness in the top end of the original.

In reply to Mick I eq things to sound the way I want when I track them. IMHO when you are recording and have your initial vibe going is the time to make it sound the way you hear it in your head. Strike while the iron is hot. After that the initial concept you had becomes diluted by things like time, other people's opinions, budget etc.. I come from the school of thought where when you have finished tracking and push up all the faders it sounds like a record, not like a dog's breakfast.
But to do this you need to have some sort of vision for the track before you hit record. It is tricky to achieve a goal when you don't know what that goal is.

Cheers.

And cheers to you China, i'd love to be able to post something here that had "mid 70's u87x2" in the body of the post/ramble/tweet.

to be honest the "strike while the iron is hot" analogy is true for me, i try and get it the way it is, when it is, regardless of mic-pre or mic choice. But when you say "the way it is in your head", well, when i know it should sound like "that" mate, if i had the 30k+ worth of outboard and summing mixer then things would be rosy, but when i have "that sound in my head but can't get "it" due to lack of cool gear i wonder whether i can get the onboard and plugs to make it the same as the "in-house sound" i have.

And while i'm typing is it really stupid to say "should i buy the uad solo/laptop?" if i buy it which plug will benefit me most.....thats if i don't get that neve pre i've been praying for. let fly turtle rockers

Posted: **Sat May 01, 2010 9:41 am**

It doesnt make it sound like a U67...

Turtlerock Forum

Acoustic guitar for commercials

Acoustic guitar for commercials