[Recording Acoustic Guitar]

oh come on! lols

Here is what I do...

First it depends on how acoustic driven the song is going to be.

If it heavy driven by the acoustic, I use the following.

Audio-Technica 4033 set flat, no pad, no roll off, positioned just about 3 or 4 frets up pointed a little down to stop sub rumble from going direct into the diaphram, just a little off axis. I the use a mic like a Shure KSM27 that has a nice round low end facing directly at the butt end of the guitar body. Last I use a ribbon mic for a room mic.

Just play around with EQ and blend of all of the tracks....sometimes instead of the ribbon I will use a second 4033 facing a reflective wall, it gives me a nice gentle delay...us the roll off on this mic to kill some of the low end garbage reflections. Main thing play around with different positions...romms can do cool things when you find the sweet spot.

If I am using the acoustic for just a rhythm track, I use 2 of the 4033's one closer to the sound hole, one further away almost directly behind the first, about 8 inches higher and rolled off...do what sounds good in your room...and trust your ear.

SMG

[Mastering]

Lot of people on here have said they are good at this...... could those people post a song???

I have sat in on numerous mastering sessions and to me this is something that is far more detail than just mixing - and something i would personally never attempt. Personally i cant remember hearing a song on songstuff that passed as a well mastered song - with the exception of some of finn's music from his first album i think.

Also be interesting hearing what hardware/software is being used by the people that said they are good mastering engineers.

i hear a lot of people using ozone and thinking thats well mastered.

You can visit our myspace page at www.myspace.com/streetervillemusicgroup

I have place up 2 samples of the same song...one unmastered on mastered

[Mastering]

Although most of us produce, compose and record music in different ways, the general trend is to rationalise mastering down to a few key processes and techniques. It's not rocket science, but does require a different approach to the tracking/capturing and mixing of the music.

It's best to, of course, listen with a really critical ear to your mix in order to find sonic problems that others may find with your raw mix. Ill-defined bass, aggressive mids, lack of air and presence, for example. The first step of mastering is to really identify these. A good engineer will take into account how a master will translate when played back on different systems or in different listening environments. That's why it's good to have a few different pairs of monitors or headphones in order to hear this... don't, and I stress don't, master on one pair of headphones or speakers especially if they're low end and crappy. You'll need a setup that offers an extended frequency range, low noise floor. Bass representation is a must and critical in the mastering process... if your system doesn't really represent the 20-100khz frequency range that well you'll benefit from buying a decent sub. Also, listen and compare to commercial recordings... put a few rough mixes on your iPod and listen to them side by side with a professionally finished and mastered song, but try not to do a straight A/B reference, listen to more than just one track in comparison. It's better to have a rounded knowledge of a mastering than just listening to a mastered track in comparison to an unmastered one.

It's well worth investing in some dedicated mastering equipment, whether software packages or mastering equalizers and compressors. I personally use iZotope's Ozone 3 for my mastering, it's an excellent piece of software... around £200 I think.

Well said Locke...

Allot of people think that squeezing the mix and adding tons of gain is the key to mastering. The problem with mastering these days is it has become a level war as to who can get the loudest most in your face 2 mix. A good master however may be a little hotter than your original but do not over kill it. In the digital world you just cannot replace head room that we once had in the analog world. Tape for example you could throw more gain and the end result was a fatter mix, with very little distortion. But the distortion you ended up with was a cleaner distortion. Make sense? When I mix I try to use only enough compression to control the instrumentation and tighten the mix. If you use allot of compression during your initial mix, what do you think happens when you squeeze it even more during your mastering process. Things that become to loud and harsh have to be dealt with and things that are low and muddy also have to be dealt with. What happened to the nice transients that are now missing or tucked away somewhere in compression land. When you mix, do not forget about "AIR" in the mix...it is the breath that balances your mix and brings it to life. If you look around on the net you can find some useful tips on using spectrum analyzers and stereo imagers. Allot of analyzers also point out phasing issues. There are some free ones out there you can play with. Check a mix and see where the problem areas are. Then check a commercial mix and see what the difference is. You will be surprised what you find. If you decide to do your own mastering think about room treatment...nothing expensive..you can make some really nice room treatments for very little money. Sometimes we take friendly transients out of a mix because the room makes them bitter or harsh to our ears. Do like Locke said...take your favorite commercial CD and listen to it....listen to it very carefully. Pay close attention to the image. Listen how everything is proportioned and has it's place. Louder is not always better. But being able to hear everything in phase at the right place at the right time will make it seem louder even if it is not. Once you have a balance then add your gain. Trust your ear. If it bothers you it will most likely bother others as well, if sounds good to you then chances are it will sound good to others. Just do not over do it...This also will sound funny, but do not over think it either.

SMG

[Patchbays]

true!!! Its really easy to use and really opens up the amount of things that you can do

Folks John is right....a patch bay will make life much easier for you, and yes it will save your connection points on your gear. Opens up many worlds of opportunities and out board options. Much easier than digging around for a connection point. Lets say you record a quitar track....your going through a comp/limiter and you find later that maybe you squeezed it a bit to much or you eq on the way down and now you don't like what you have...if you had a patchbay, now you can set up mult's. With the mult you can lay down the same track twice at one time, one track with your effects and one clean...you can always patch the clean back through an amp again later or you can use different compression or heavy or lighter limiting or various eq onto new tracks, and you still always have your original untouched raw track. Don't think I am nuts, but I once re-routed a guitar track back through a small 10" tube amp with an SM57 pointed into a metal bucket just in front of the amp. I needed an old sounding tone, and that gave me what I was looking for. Patchbays allow you to be creative and never screw up. There are many other options they give you. I have 5 different patchbays each are 96 connection points. Some of the bays are normaled to each other some are not. Each piece of outboard gear goes to the patchbay so it can be routed anywhere I need. When I cut vocals, I like to cut 2 tracks...one that is compressed pretty heavy and eq'd and one that is raw. During mix down sometimes I will blend the 2 together to get a certain vocal tone then I eq and compress both together yet again. I do not do this on all vocals but there are times it works really well. But at least I always have more choices.

Learn to use them. You won't be sorry.

SMG

[Main Recording Set Up]

i do everything with my pc... huhuhuh

Sorry folks if I do not reply to the correct spot..but I will learn..I promise.

I also use PC simply because of the price and ease of repair in a moments notice.

I built a small studio at my home. I use an AMEK Big 44 console with Radar when tracking...I'm not to fond of the pre's in the board, not bad pre's but I just like the transformer sound you get from some of the older pre's that used the transformers. I was lucky enough to find a set SSL pre's that were an add on option to the old 4000 series SSL boards. They only take up 4 rack spaces very clean and yet still punchy. I only use compression on the bass and scratch vocal when I track and thats is done through an LA610 and Avalon. Everything else I cut everything dry except for some slight EQ in some cases, I only throw verb back into the Que mix so it sounds a bit more mixed for who ever is playing or singing. After tracking I sync the radar unit up to my MOTU 2408 with a Lucid Genx clock and transfer over to the PC. Most of my mixing I do is in Sonar Producer. I do not mean to step on anyones toes, but I have a hard time learning to like the pro-tools sound, it just sounds different or odd to me. I loose the warmth and it seems to rip out some higher mids, maybe it don't rip them out but it does something funny to them..Anyone agree?

I even built a unit using and old VCR chassis that is full of transformers so when I take the stereo mix back into my masterlink, it kills some of the digital edge.

Any suggestions or ideas would be appreciated.

I hope I put this comment in the right place guys....sorry if I didn't.

SMG