Hi guys,

I am reading and enjoying Mike's book at the moment. His sense of humor and turn of phrase make it an easy read.

I have read and re-read the section on Timing and Tuning. I have done a lot of Home Studio recordings and I have very rarely touched on these things. I've certainly comped performances and tuned the odd phrase but I've never edited anything for timing.

I should say that I am primarily a rock guy and I speak as someone who was only recently convinced of the merits of a click track.

Editing for timing makes me uncomfortable. Was it always like this? Were the mighty Classic Rock tracks that I hold dear edited in this way? Did someone with a razor blade decide they knew better than John Bonham where his kick and snare ought to be played?

I'm a musician first and foremost and I have spent decades learning groove and feel. Timing is such a fundamental element to playing music, shouldn't it be left to the musician rather than the mix engineer?

Are these kind of timing 'tweaks' common on rock records? How much editing goes on in an average rock project?

If this is wide spread am I listening to real music anymore? Or am I listening to the aural equivalent of a bunch of E number fueled junk food?

I am working on a project at the moment and it is a bit special. The players are great and the drums are really in the pocket. I want it to be the best it can be. Is it time I got my editing chops up to scratch?

Thanks in advance,

Tony.

P.S I'm not questioning Mike's work at all. I'm just very curious if this kind of thing goes on in all genres or is it mostly aimed at chart music where there are lots of sequenced parts going on?

Many (but not all) modern rock recordings have been messed-about-with to improve timing accuracy. The '70s classics definitely were not. You can demonstrate this for yourself by recording examples into a PC, and then trying to line up a few bars against the time base in your DAW software.

Never mind the timing: I have some old Jimi Hendrix live recordings that are very clearly way out of tune. It didn't seem to matter then. It might matter more now, because people are used to hearing computer-accurate timing and tuning.

Don't get me wrong: I would rather listen to Hendrix out of tune, out of time and chemically challenged than pretty much any living rock guitarist.

All modern recordings are somewhat enhanced on their trip through the studio. How much enhancement is too much ? How much can be applied before the recording isn't 'real' any more ? I have no idea !

--------------------
Instant gratification is actually pretty good. It's fast as well.

Well, if you are going to "protool" live musicians' performances so they are quantised and exactly on the beat you are going to end up with a more mechanical and precise recording.

That would be a stylistic choice, whether you want your music to sound like that or not.

If it is a great groove without quantising everything then leave it alone. If it sounds a bit rubbish then you may need to quantise everything...

Regarding the op's question I would say it is something to experiment with rather than an essential technique that you have to do every time.

Quote BigElectricCat:

---

I'm a musician first and foremost and I have spent decades learning groove and feel. Timing is such a fundamental element to playing music, shouldn't it be left to the musician rather than the mix engineer?

---

I don't accept the argument that playing to a click means a trade-off with feel, or groove, as I play with drummers that use clicks but have an abundance of the former. Similarly, there are plenty of drummers that don't play to click that have no feel, or groove, so one wonders that their argument is?

I play in one particular tribute where the drums/bass are interlocked, more so than most bands, and without the groove it simply wouldn't work: even the most acute pair of ears wouldn't notice that there's a click in place, that's all down to the drummer. Just because there's a click that doesn't mean he can't push/pull the rhythm, of course he can.

I know plenty of people who use a click that's got programmed tempo changes in it. I also know plenty of people editing timing, but not to the grid. Just because you move a note to where it sounds 'right' doesn't mean you're quantising to a grid.

And yes, plenty of the great old records did have edits in them. Not many, as it was a complete pain in the arse to do. But some. Have a read of any producer's autobiog and you'll find most talking about window editing on tape at some point or other. If you have a great, unrepeatable take with a couple of timing/tuning issues then you'll tweak it. eg Tony Visconti talks about that a lot in his autobiog. Butch Vig talks about editing the odd vocal on Nevermind with Akai samplers.

Timing can mean shortening/lengthening of notes too. Not just moving the start or Q point. Eg the odd bass or guitar note ringing through (happens to all musicians at some point) can benefit from a quick edit to shorten the note where the groove/arrangement requires it.

I still reckon you're better getting everything rehearsed and played right, whether you plan to fix things or not. But who gives a toss whether there are edits on there, as long as the record sounds right at the end of it? I'd rather capture the perfect feel and correct a few things the musicians didn't quite get than capture a clinical soul-less take.

Btw, worth mentioning that Mike references a lot of commercial pop tracks (not to the exclusion of rock and other genres by any means), where the demand for 'perfect' tuning and timing is greater.

The main point I took away from the discussion in the book was the importance of coordination of the elements rather than a slavish conforming to the grid. If the groove is working then everything is coordinated.

In my experience it is pretty much impossible for one person to emulate the groove of several people working together. There is (Mike Oldfield, Eddy Grant, dance music) an absence of tension that I find a bit dead. For some unfathomable reason millions disagree with me, though.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Quote Mixedup:

---

I still reckon you're better getting everything rehearsed and played right, whether you plan to fix things or not.

---

That's the real issue as I see it, people will use clicks/edits to circumvent the musicians having learned their part/craft. You can't polish a turd when it comes to groove, even with a DAW.

Quote thefruitfarmer:

---

That would be a stylistic choice, whether you want your music to sound like that or not.

---

Excellently put. Do you want it to sound tighter to the groove or more mechanical or even robotic.
My opinion is there is a VERY big difference between sliding a errant bass note or two or a late snare (Obvious errors in an otherwise good performance) and quantising to the absolute grid a whole drum performance and lining everything up against that.
Unfortunately the later is being driven by the commercial hit industry.

Do whatever you think is best!

Edited by Phil Aitman (05/12/11 11:54 AM)

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

I don't accept the argument that playing to a click means a trade-off with feel, or groove, as I play with drummers that use clicks but have an abundance of the former. Similarly, there are plenty of drummers that don't play to click that have no feel, or groove, so one wonders that their argument is?

I play in one particular tribute where the drums/bass are interlocked, more so than most bands, and without the groove it simply wouldn't work: even the most acute pair of ears wouldn't notice that there's a click in place, that's all down to the drummer. Just because there's a click that doesn't mean he can't push/pull the rhythm, of course he can.

---

Hi,

As I said in my OP I am a recent convert to the click. All good musicians can play with a click. I only have an issue with messing with the timing a musician has played. I can go as far as shortening notes and maybe nudging the one or two fluffed notes but I am uncomfortable with wholesale groove editing. I guess my main point is was this done in the past? And how prevalent is it in modern rock productions?

Maybe I'm stuck in the Past but I think the musicians should play, the engineer should capture it and the mix engineer should polish it with eq dynamics and effects. The producer should advise at all steps but surely what the individual musician plays is what we want to hear? Or am I in danger of going down the 'Kevin and his toys' route of that mad classical thread we had a few years ago?

Actually I'm a recent and not 100% convert to sampl layering on drums. SSd samples sound so good..

Perhaps perfect drum samples, fake timing and groove, and overly tuned vocals are why I feel tired and uninspired when I listen to a lot of new rock music? Or maybe I'm becoming an old fart?

Quote BigElectricCat:

---

I guess my main point is was this done in the past? And how prevalent is it in modern rock productions?

---

No and Very respectively.
By No I mean compared to the grid quantising around today. Of course editing was done in the past as far as tape allowed, and there was some creative use of tape editing around but it was limited to what the medium allowed.

I think reading the recent Foo Fighters and Butch Vig article about going back to tape has some interesting insights into the restrictions of old school V modern techniques.

Quote Phil Aitman:

---

Quote BigElectricCat:

---

I guess my main point is was this done in the past? And how prevalent is it in modern rock productions?

---

No and Very respectively.
By No I mean compared to the grid quantising around today. Of course editing was done in the past as far as tape allowed, and there was some creative use of tape editing around but it was limited to what the medium allowed.

I think reading the recent Foo Fighters and Butch Vig article about going back to tape has some interesting insights into the restrictions of old school V modern techniques.

---

Check out 'A year and a half in the life of Metallica'. You'll find that all of Lars' drums are pieced together bit by bit and even fill for fill on their ridiculously best-selling "Black" album...

--------------------
http://www.soundcloud.com/sambrox
seedy.dk

Quote BigElectricCat:

---

Maybe I'm stuck in the Past but I think the musicians should play, the engineer should capture it and the mix engineer should polish it with eq dynamics and effects.

---

You are in the past as since the late 60's everyone has been using multi-tracks and drop-ins. Listen to the early/mid Wrecking Crew records, they're were done start to finish, no over-dubs etc, and they were phenomenal. However, 99% of can't hire the 'A' Team, i.e. the Wrecking Crew, so we have to resort to clicks etc.

Quote shufflebeat:

---

The main point I took away from the discussion in the book was the importance of coordination of the elements rather than a slavish conforming to the grid. If the groove is working then everything is coordinated.

---

That's pretty much what I hoped to get across.

Quote Phil Aitman:

---

My opinion is there is a VERY big difference between sliding a errant bass note or two or a late snare (Obvious errors in an otherwise good performance) and quantising to the absolute grid a whole drum performance and lining everything up against that.

---

I agree, but it's rare that home-brew productions fall under either of those categories, in my experience. They usually seem to need more work than the former case, while it's pretty rare that the 'cure' of the latter case isn't worse than the disease. Most of the time it's a middle way between them that's most sensible, although it's inevitably a question of degree. Personally I'm probably more inclined to over-correct than under-correct, but everyone's entitled to their own taste in that regard -- albeit tempered by the expectations of the musical style they're working in.

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Groove isn't a binary exclusively about timing, grid or no grid, nudge or no nudge. Much of groove is about how well the drum part is constructed in relation to the harmony it is supporting/accompanying/decorating, and the dynamics of that part. And the quality of the marriage with the bass player and/or other rhythm instruments. Relentless "chips/spam with everything" compression for its own sake can easily do more harm than good.

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

You are in the past as since the late 60's everyone has been using multi-tracks and drop-ins. Listen to the early/mid Wrecking Crew records, they're were done start to finish, no over-dubs etc, and they were phenomenal. However, 99% of can't hire the 'A' Team, i.e. the Wrecking Crew, so we have to resort to clicks etc.

---

You seem to be going a long way to misunderstand my posts. I don't see how multitracking, drop ins, or click tracks make a project less musical or less about the musicians. On the other hand, changing the timing of what they played and approved certainly does.

Quote BigElectricCat:

---

I don't see how multitracking, drop ins, or click tracks make a project less musical or less about the musicians. On the other hand, changing the timing of what they played and approved certainly does.

---

Thing is, you're assuming that it's the musician who decides what's right. It *could* be them. Or it could be the songwriter, or arranger, or producer or... just depends to whom you're giving creative control of the project. Most musicians I know don't care what happens: they'll get paid to play something well and that's what they'll do, and what follows isn't their business. (Whether they want to get a mention on the record sleeve is another matter!) Not all records are even written by the time they're being tracked!

The other things you mention (clicks, multitracks, drop-ins etc) are means of 'faking' a performance, just like timing/tuning tweaks. It's just that they tend to be macro tweaks, whereas these tend to be micro tweaks.

Without wishing to hijack this thread, is there a commercially available version of the 'stereo headphone out - mono xlr' cable, as mentioned in fig 2.7 of chapter 2?

My soldering skills are on a par with a 3 year old.

Quote Robin Lemaire:

---

My soldering skills are on a par with a 3 year old.

---

Ditto. The lead pictured was made for me by a Mix Rescuee, but I'm pretty sure Canford Audio would put you something similar together if you got in touch with them -- they did me some red, polarity-flip TRS patch-cables a while back very nicely.

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Actually... the diagram in Mike's book is labelled wrongly! Core 1 in the cable should go to XLR pin 2 (hot) which IS the top pin. Core 2 should go to pin 3 (cold) which is the middle pin. (The diagram shows the wires going to the right terminals, but the pin number labels are wrong).

However... Is this "stereo headphone to mono powered speaker" bodge lead somethnig that would have wide interest amongst our SOS fraternity?

If it is then we (SOS) could have some made up for sale through the shop at a reasonable price. We'd need to be confident that we could achieve a sensible minimum order though....

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Edited by Hugh Robjohns (07/12/11 09:52 AM)

Well, I'd only need the one, but would certainly order it here.

Might also be an idea for you to proof read the rest of the book, pointing out any revisions Hugh, so that I can alter my copy before I read further.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Actually... the diagram in Mike's book is wrong! Core 1 in the cable should go to XLR pin 2, not pin 3. Core 2 should go to pin 3. (The XLR hot and cold terminal labelling is the wrong way around too!)

---

The first I've heard about it -- wish I'd known about it a few weeks ago and I could have changed it for the reprint. In my defense all I can say is that I drew the design in good faith from this description of the cable David Greaves soldered together for me and that does work in practice:

http://koo.corpus.cam.ac.uk/mixerton/articles/monocable/

The pictures on that page are of my cable. I've just had a close look inside the XLR casing of my cable, and it looks as if the pins in David's diagram have indeed been mislabelled. To confirm, should the top pin in the diagram be '2' and 'hot' and the middle pin be '3' and 'cold'? (As I said, I'm a danger to the community with a soldering iron.) If that's right I'll try to post an ammended diagram to the web resources later today.

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Quote Mike Senior:

---

In my defense all I can say is that I drew the design in good faith from this description of the cable David Greaves soldered together for me and that does work in practice

---

If you wire the cable according to the pretty picture then it will be fine... but as it stands, if you wire according to the published pin numbers, and plug the XLR into a proper balanced input then it will still work, but with a polarity inversion, so the absolute phase will be wrong. Few would probably notice...

But if you're plugging into something which doesn't have a proper differential input (and there are quite a few budget devices around that don't!), or the end-user plugs in an XLR-to-unbalanced-TS jack plug adapter (or similar) then it will go blissfully quiet as the signal line is likely to be grounded!

Quote:

---

To confirm, should the top pin in the diagram be '2' and 'hot' and the middle pin be '3' and 'cold'?

---

Yes. The middle pin on both male and female XLRs is pin 3 which is the 'cold' pin -- and that should be wired to core 2 which connects with the (grounded) jack plug sleeve.

Pin 2, the 'hot' pin, is the top one on your book's diagram and that should be wired to core 1 which goes to the junction of the two resistors, the other ends of which go to the tip and ring of the stereo jack plug.

Pin 1 is the XLR ground and that is wired to the cable screen which also goes to the jack plug sleeve.

When you're looking into the back of an XLR to wire it up Pins 1 and 2 swap sides between male and female XLRs, but the cold pin (3) is always in the middle!

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Edited by Hugh Robjohns (07/12/11 09:53 AM)

Quote Mike Senior:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Actually... the diagram in Mike's book is wrong! Core 1 in the cable should go to XLR pin 2, not pin 3. Core 2 should go to pin 3. (The XLR hot and cold terminal labelling is the wrong way around too!)

---

The first I've heard about it -- wish I'd known about it a few weeks ago and I could have changed it for the reprint. In my defense all I can say is that I drew the design in good faith from this description of the cable David Greaves soldered together for me and that does work in practice:

http://koo.corpus.cam.ac.uk/mixerton/articles/monocable/

The pictures on that page are of my cable. I've just had a close look inside the XLR casing of my cable, and it looks as if the pins in David's diagram have indeed been mislabelled. To confirm, should the top pin in the diagram be '2' and 'hot' and the middle pin be '3' and 'cold'? (As I said, I'm a danger to the community with a soldering iron.) If that's right I'll try to post an ammended diagram to the web resources later today.

---

Mike

why not simply publish an errata in the web resources?

I'm on chapter 14 and what I have read that I know about is 100% technically correct and what I don't know about is a revelation.

It's a very good book. Don't sweat it.

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Agreed Reg.

Sorry Mike, was only joking about the Robjohns edition!

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

why not simply publish an errata in the web resources?

---

That's what I meant -- I've just posted this. Hopefully that's now corrected.

Thanks again for the heads-up on that, Hugh!

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

wunderschön!

All sorted.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Am I being a bit dense or would This lead Not do the trick?

Very much enjoying the book btw Mike. Just finished editing some drum tracks following your advice and have got a result that is 10 better than my previous work. The only problem is its making me want to re-visit old stuff and I'm not sure I have all the multi-tracks any more!