Questions About Editing Recordings

[flyingpylon]

I'm still new to live recording and I have some questions about how to edit my recordings so that they sound their best.

First, does anyone know of a good editing tutorial? Something that would explain how to look at a recording on a computer, what all the terms mean, and most importantly, *why* you might make certain adjustments? If not on the web, even a book would be okay. I need something besides application-specific instructions that just tell you where the buttons and menus are.

Second, are there any rules of thumb about setting the proper volume levels during playback? What I'm getting at here is that obviously I can set my recording levels manually to avoid clipping, etc., but then how should I amplify (or not) my recordings so that they are all approximately the same "loudness" when people play them back? Are there any standards here?

For example, would you amplify all recordings so that the peak levels are just short of clipping?

I'm starting to see a lot of parallels with digital photography here. There's capture, post-processing, and presentation. How well you perform each step has a great impact on the overall "quality" experienced by the viewer/listener, and though I'm not attempting to achieve truly "professional" levels of quality, I want to do what I can to make my recordings the best they can be given my time and resources available.

Thanks.

[greenmachine]

First, does anyone know of a good editing tutorial? Something that would explain how to look at a recording on a computer, what all the terms mean, and most importantly, *why* you might make certain adjustments? If not on the web, even a book would be okay. I need something besides application-specific instructions that just tell you where the buttons and menus are.

No specific one, but the web is full of information, google can your best friend sometimes:

http://www.google.de/search?num=100&hl=en&...o+editing+guide

http://www.google.de/search?num=100&hl=en&...diting+tutorial

http://www.google.de/search?num=100&hl=en&q=mastering+guide

http://www.google.de/search?num=100&hl=en&...tering+tutorial

Second, are there any rules of thumb about setting the proper volume levels during playback? What I'm getting at here is that obviously I can set my recording levels manually to avoid clipping, etc., but then how should I amplify (or not) my recordings so that they are all approximately the same "loudness" when people play them back? Are there any standards here?

http://www.replaygain.org/

For example, would you amplify all recordings so that the peak levels are just short of clipping?

This technique is called normalizing. I use it for whole shows. If you divide it into several tracks, it's a different story.

I'm starting to see a lot of parallels with digital photography here. There's capture, post-processing, and presentation. How well you perform each step has a great impact on the overall "quality" experienced by the viewer/listener, and though I'm not attempting to achieve truly "professional" levels of quality, I want to do what I can to make my recordings the best they can be given my time and resources available.

For two channel live recording, I'd say at least 90% of the sound quality depends on the microphones and their placement. The processing is just some kind of 'fine-tuning'.

Edited May 17, 2005 by greenmachine

[flyingpylon]

Thank you very much for your helpful reply.

[deadwing]

One thing I'd add to this discussion.

When you get hold of a sound editor, you will be faced with an array of tools you can tweak and twist your sound with..my advice is...LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!

Well, most of them anyway. Normalising isn't a problem as it just gives you a uniform sound level across your show, add a fade in and a fade out at the beginning/end of the show by all means, and if there is any digi-noise or gaps in your recording, remove them if you can, but, if you intend sharing your recording with other people, then don't apply any other effects or processing.

'Why?' you may ask 'If I can make my show sound better with some re-mastering' (or EQ-ing), then why shouldn't I?'

Simple-because none of us listen to music the same way. I have received shows in trades that have been 'Re-mastered' to death. In an attempt to 'clean' the sound, all the life has been taken out of them-and in the worst cases, end up sounding worse than a really low rate mp3 rip.

If you leave your recording as it comes off the MD, it allows the individual listener to make his own listening decisions, once you've changed it, you remove that choice and impose your own. Most people will have some way of 'EQ-ing' for themselves-be it on a PC or on their hi-fi. Most of my 'live music' listening is on my PC and I use Win Amp. I can use it's in built equilizer to make any adjustments for my own ears which is 'non-destructive to the original.

obviously, if it's just a recording you want to make for your own listening pleasures, feel free to hack it to bits

Edited May 19, 2005 by deadwing

[greenmachine]

Yes, all these effects are helpful if you record each instrument on a separate channel and mix them together in the end, but for 2 channel live recording you usually try to capture the sound 'as heard', so it's wiser to get some good, neutral sounding hardware and be able to understand and work with room accoustics and you most likely will be pleased with the results at once without equalizing or other quirks.

[KrazyIvan]

There are some tricks I like to use to widen the stereo field a bit. I use a stereo electret mic that has the two mics oposite each other on a small cylinder about 1 inch apart.

What I do is EQ the right and left channels seperately and inversly (sp?). Lets say that the bass on your left channel is at +3, I would then EQ the bass on the right channel at -3. Just do this accross all the bands.

If your editor has phase capabilities (some call it channel offset or something similar) you can phase the two channels just ever so slightly (I am talking miliseconds). I do this less often but it can add an interesting stereo effect, especially if you record in mono.

Just experiment. Keep a backup up copy of your work in original form so if you muck it up too much you can go back to the original and start over.

Edited May 19, 2005 by KrazyIvan

[greenmachine]

It's hopeless, i give up.

[deadwing]

It's hopeless, i give up.

←

What's hopeless??

[greenmachine]

To keep people from 'special sound improvements, enhancements' or whatever they call it - without a basic understanding what they are doing they are damaging the sound more than improving it. In his case it would have helped a lot to separate the mics more than one inch instead of messing with the phase. And if there's more bass at a different position in the room, there simply IS more bass on one channel (assuming to use the same kind of microphone for each channel).

Edited May 19, 2005 by greenmachine

[Reactive]

What's hopeless??

←

Perfection is a prison.....

I concur with some of the above members about capturing the "live" essence of the recording. What you may not realize here, and until you have a few months of recording, in fact even better when you have a few years. Is that a magical event happens when you slap on the headphones and play back one of your earlier recordings, you literally time warp back to the moment that you recorded. It's like a massive memory trigger. I can close my eyes and I am there, right back at the very moment I made the recording.

Often I reply to people that just want to record shows and concerts, and that's an awesome experience to have under your belt. Try recording other important events in your life, clip your mini mic's to your lapels and record away. It could be a graduation, a wedding, a day at the beach.

Store the unedited recording away for a while. Upon playback months or years later, you will experience the time warp effect. I did this for a freinds wedding and gave them the cd with a time clause note, saying "do not open until your first wedding aniversary". It really blew them away, all the emotions of the day came flooding back to them. Was an awesome gift.

Live is something that should be edited very carefully, I would touch only volumes, and the odd bit of unwanted clatter in your recording.

Good luck, and let us know how your results were

Gerry

www.reactivesounds.com

[greenmachine]

Perfection is a prison.....

Thank you for opening my eyes, if i underdstand you correctly, what you're basically saying is 'f@#k all that technical blather, just record anything what could be of interest, whether it'll sound good or not'. Strange to hear that from a businessman...

[The Low Volta]

Thank you for opening my eyes, if i underdstand you correctly, what you're basically saying is 'f@#k all that technical blather, just record anything what could be of interest, whether it'll sound good or not'.

very true! and leave the editing to the pro's who make those marvelous flat sounding cd's

Strange to hear that from a businessman...

←

not so very strange, as you remember that his company makes/sells wonderfull (but not very cheap, especially if imported to Belgium ) devices that help to make that recording as good as possible without editing needed...which is only to be applauded

hurray for audio-memorabilia

[flyingpylon]

Thanks again everyone. I will be recording sounds for documentary-type purposes, and generally speaking it's not music to trade, etc.

In some cases what I am recording is a challenge: a race car coming down a track, passing by, and fading into the distance. That in itself is not so hard, but I'm also trying to pick up the sound of the announcer and crowd. With the car's peak levels so high, it can make the rest of the recording pretty quiet.

I'm not sure whether it would be right to try to boost the low-level sounds, since that would also boost the car's approach and passing. I'll need to experiment, but I was thinking I could probably boost them a little and as long as the car's actual passing was still much much louder, maybe nobody would know the difference?

[greenmachine]

very true! and leave the editing to the pro's who make those marvelous flat sounding cd's

[cynicism]...and don't educate yourself to get a basic understanding but rather rely on and buy from the 'pro's'[/cynicism]

I'm not sure whether it would be right to try to boost the low-level sounds, since that would also boost the car's approach and passing. I'll need to experiment, but I was thinking I could probably boost them a little and as long as the car's actual passing was still much much louder, maybe nobody would know the difference?

The only method i can think of at the moment to achieve this would be to use a dynamics compressor (limiter), which can make the car's sound pretty unnatural since it tries to lower the peak levels (much like Sony's AGC), but try for yourself. Propably it's just a matter of the right settings...

Edited May 19, 2005 by greenmachine

[A440]

If you can record the whole experience without overloading--that is, if you can get both the VRROOOOOOOOMM of the race car and the announcements onto the disc--then you can always do some judicious volume boosting on selected passages. Any audio editor will allow you to select portions of the recording to be amplified.

The key is in the initial recording. You have to leave enough headroom so that the loudest sounds don't overload; you also have to pick up the quieter sounds. I'd suggest a battery box and preamp into Line-In--the battery box will expand the dynamic range of the mics, and the preamp will keep your reording from being too quiet.

You can change levels manually during the event, but if both the quieter sounds and the loudest ones come through, you're better off editing/amplfying certain passages afterward.

[flyingpylon]

Yeah, I'm using an RH10 with the Sound Professionals battery box and the in-ear binaural microphones, all plugged into line-in. Not sure I can splurge for a pre-amp just yet, nor am I sure I need one. I've been really happy with the recordings so far, especially when I consider that I don't know what I'm doing! I just need to play with recording levels a little more... I'm tending to have them set a little low. A race car going by is such a sharp, momentary peak.

[greenmachine]

I doubt you'll need a preamp for such exceptionally loud events, keep recording directly to line-in for such situations.

BTW, did you ever use an editor yet, which one?

[Reactive]

Thank you for opening my eyes, if i underdstand you correctly, what you're basically saying is 'f@#k all that technical blather, just record anything what could be of interest, whether it'll sound good or not'. Strange to hear that from a businessman...

←

My mistake, It is I who misunderstood you. ..

No, I certainly do not mean that you or anyone else should go and "f@#K" all the technical blather, however you can get lost in it big time. My approach is to make the best recording you can upfront, go minimal on post editing.

Peace

Gerry

www.reactivesounds.com

[A440]

If you're happy with the battery box results then indeed, there's no need for a preamp. My own experience with battery box alone has usually been that the results are too quiet, but if you're getting all the sounds you want, no need to introduce anything else into the equation.

[The Low Volta]

In some cases what I am recording is a challenge:  a race car coming down a track, passing by, and fading into the distance.  That in itself is not so hard, but I'm also trying to pick up the sound of the announcer and crowd.  With the car's peak levels so high, it can make the rest of the recording pretty quiet.

←

perhaps the safest way to achieve a good result in this particular case is to use two recorders if possible... I know it's slightly besides the topic of sound-editing...but if you could use one with a battery box and all attenuating stuff to capture the car and another, shielded from the worst noise from the track pointed at the speaker (or the sound system), and later join them in an editing program. Audacity allows multirack recording and controlling the volume of and editing/throwing effects on each track seperately, you could export the combined tracks back as a stereo wav when the sound is exactly the way you want it... this would allow sound manipulation and combining so that the car AND the speaker would be present in the resulting picture.

This isn't perfect, as both recorders will produce a slightly different sound image, but since one of the sounds will be so loud, I don't think that will be a problem here...

So, if you can get hold of another recorder for a while, I would try it this way...

[greenmachine]

I assume you mean to use the same mics for both recorders with an adapter or similar gadget. It sounds much like exposure bracketing (and combining afterwards) in photography to expand the dynamic range. No bad idea at all, but somewhat difficult to realize, especially with two independent 2-channel recorders instead of one 4-channel recorder. You have to be very careful not to 'off-phase' the result, a slight time difference can ruin it if you don't combine it very carefully. Also you should be using a lossless recording mode (pcm/wav) to avoid possible differences introduced by an encoder. This method screams for perfection. I like the idea.

[The Low Volta]

I assume you mean to use the same mics for both recorders with an adapter or similar gadget. It sounds much like exposure bracketing (and combining afterwards) in photography to expand the dynamic range. No bad idea at all, but somewhat difficult to realize, especially with two independent 2-channel recorders instead of one 4-channel recorder. You have to be very careful not to 'off-phase' the result, a slight time difference can ruin it if you don't combine it very carefully. Also you should be using a lossless recording mode (pcm/wav) to avoid possible differences introduced by an encoder. This method screams for perfection. I like the idea.

←

huh? glad you see potential in this method... but I'm afraid you're thinking about it in a much more sophisticated and tought through way than I did, I guess (as most of your post reads like Japanes to me, and I'm not one of those MDCF-members that can read Japanese )

I was actually thinking of two separate setups (2x "mic-whatever needed in between-recorder")

1 with a low sensitive configuration pointing towards the track for the car-stereo effect

1 somewhat shielded from the track noises, simultaneously recording the speaker/audience

afterwards combining both recordings so you would get 4 (2x2 tracks), which can be balanced untill all elements are present as wanted... I agree that the (very) weak point of my idea is to align both recordings so that they're in phase...

but please explain you're interpretation further (in non-tech-savvy words ) as I'm interested how you would use one pair of mics with two recorders to achive a better soundpicture (or did I read your post wrong?)

[edit] I think I'm slightly getting your point... you mean that one recorder would get part of the frequency range and the other could fill in the gaps as it would get another part better 'cause of the differing setup or something? but if the mics get overloaded (or just not) by the loudness of the car, would there still be anything else to tape? I don't know if I'm making this any clearer now...

What I meant could be understood as: in stead of pointing both mic elements of a stereo mic towards one source, pointing one toward one side (car) and the other towards the other (audience). but then you woud lose the stereo effect and it would be impossible to protect just one element from overloading without lowering the sensitivity from the other... so I just thought, well...use two setups, each with their own stereo mics, one with lowered sensitivity (car) and the other as it is (audience and shielded from the loudest noise) and combine afterwards...but if you could lead both mic setups into one 4-track recorder, that would be evne much better...but then the MD wouldn't be used anymore, which is imposible!![/ very long edit]

Edited May 19, 2005 by The Low Volta

[greenmachine]

It works like that: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/19197.html, just imagine the whole procedure for audio. If there's ever a situation when you can't capture the whole dynamic range (the quietest and the loudest parts) at once without introducing either clipping/distortion at the high end or noise at the low end, it could be (theoretically, i've never tried it) a good idea to use multiple, differently set channels, you intentionally 'under- and overexpose' parts of the signal and combine them (there are different not equally good methods) in the end. But since i believe the audiophile world is much more sophisticated than the imaginary, this technique is propably useless because of the already quite high dynamic range of single components nowadays available.

I'm not sure how to synchronize the recorders with your method and how the result would sound if done properly though. How would it sound if you stood at two different places at the same time anyway?

[greenmachine]

What kind of language did i speak this time?

[greenmachine]

If your editor has phase capabilities  (some call it channel offset or something similar) you can phase the two channels just ever so slightly (I am talking miliseconds).  I do this less often but it can add an interesting stereo effect, especially if you record in mono.

This is what you'll get if you'd phase a mono signal by 180 degrees:

[KrazyIvan]

That's why you don't want to do a 180, not even in a car at high speeds.

I love recording and have been at it for a while. I don't like overprocessed music. I don't like compressing the heck out of music to achieve a "radio quality" or "hot" mix. All it does is distort the music.

Some of my recordings I leave untouched, some I process, ever so slightly. What does it matter? If I like what I hear I stick with it. If the people I am recording for like it what does it matter? If they don't like it I accomadate, to a certain point.

I experiment. A lot of stuff I do is sound effect production. It helps to have a good set of tools for that. Sometimes the sound you want is not a real thing. You want a race car roaring by to sound like that of an engine that would be more at home in Lucas Arts production. You don't want it to sound like a race car. That is part of the artistic ability of the sound engineer. There are a few left that know how to record and master properly. Most just try to get as close to 0dB as possible. It is sad.

I am not saying that I know everything and I am not saying I am a sound engineer but experimenting is fun and you learn what works and what does not.

I am sorry I do not have the money to spend on a proper sound engineering school. I learn most thing by trial and error. That was the main point of my post.

Experiment and learn.

[greenmachine]

Alright, i get your point, but am still strongly against trying to compensate for inadequate equipment by post processing, especially if a better solution seems to be obvious and easily available. I assumed we were talking about recording live music, a rough and ready mix of several instruments and room accoustics, where in almost all cases it's best to record it as close as possible to 'as heard' without touching it in any way in my experience. It's a different story if you record separate sound sources though, especially from a close distance with little room information. This is the point where creativity is desired for the final mix, even if that means to alienate a sound beyond recognition to create an illusion of an artificial world. Other opinions welcomed.

[KrazyIvan]

Alright, i get your point, but am still strongly against trying to compensate for inadequate equipment by post processing, especially if a better solution seems to be obvious and easily available. I assumed we were talking about recording live music, a rough and ready mix of several instruments and room accoustics, where  in almost all cases it's best to record it as close as possible to 'as heard' without touching it in any way in my experience. It's a different story if you record separate sound sources though, especially from a close distance with little room information. This is the point where creativity is desired for the final mix, even if that means to alienate a sound beyond recognition to create an illusion of an artificial world. Other opinions welcomed.

←

If I record live music sessions I am usually recording via a line out on the mixing board.

[greenmachine]

If I record live music sessions I am usually recording via a line out on the mixing board.

...where some editing can be essential, since you have virtually no room information (coloring of the sound, delays from walls...). It can be a bad idea to record from the mixing board sometimes though, because the mix is designed to sound good together with the room's accoustics, some instruments - like drums - can be even so dominant that they need no amplification at all and thus are virtually non-present in the mix from the board, it should work for purely electronic music; but there are others who can explain it better in these threads:

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=8788

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=5908

Edited May 20, 2005 by greenmachine

[KrazyIvan]

...where some editing can be essential, since you have virtually no room information (coloring of the sound, delays from walls...). It can be a bad idea sometimes though, because the mix is designed to sound good together with the room's accoustics, some instruments - like drums - can be even so dominant that they need no amplification at all and thus are virtually non-present in the mix from the board, it should work for purely electronic music; but there are others who can explain it better in these threads:

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=8788

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=5908

←

Very good threads.

Yes, I made the mistake of mic'n the drums and basically ruining my recording the first time. I have learned that the hard way. Live situations are so different to studio recordings. They are also more difficult than studio recordings.

It does help to have a couple of mics in the audience for ambient sounds. I really need to upgrade those to something better. I am using some cheapy Shure knock-offs that get the job done but leave something to be desired.

As for recording race cars. The first thing is a windscreen. You have to make sure you have an adequate windscreen to cut the wind noise. That is so annoying.

Edited May 20, 2005 by KrazyIvan