LROX's Formspring answers http://www.formspring.me/LROX http://www.formspring.me 60 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/282227842337475848 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/282227842337475848 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:12:41 -0500 LROX
My Mechanic is a good example, he's not running the cheapest auto repair shop, but he's upfront about what he can or can't do with your car. He explains everything and every time I take my car in for something minor, like an oil change, they check everything (including the molding on your windows) and without any pressure at all, point out what can potentially go wrong with your car months down the road. Much better than going to the Dealership's repair center, where I would pay a lot more and have some snobby certified ass*** take his sweet a** time while doing the work half-assed.

I recently had a sports jacket tailored and went to my wife's taylor; he's this cool older guy who gives you a hug when you walk in the door. I wouldn't hug all my clients, but you get the idea, it's all about doing great work and being personable, at least that's what I try to shoot for. Good luck!

P.S. If you're ever in Highland Park (North East L.A.) and your car breaks down, call Bussard's All Pro on York, they will take care of you.]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/281906061026265694 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/281906061026265694 Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:54:02 -0500 LROX
My Mechanic is a good example, he's not running the cheapest auto repair shop, but he's upfront about what he can or can't do with your car. He explains everything and every time I take my car in for something minor, like an oil change, they check everything (including the molding on your windows) and without any pressure at all, point out what can potentially go wrong with your car months down the road. Much better than going to the Dealership's repair center, where I would pay a lot more and have some snobby certified ass*** take his sweet a** time while doing the work half-assed.

I recently had a sports jacket tailored and went to my wife's taylor; he's this cool older guy who gives you a hug when you walk in the door. I wouldn't hug all my clients, but you get the idea, it's all about doing great work and being personable, at least that's what I try to shoot for. Good luck!

P.S. If you're ever in Highland Park (North East L.A.) and your car breaks down, call Bussard's All Pro on York, they will take care of you.]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/281905280051063379 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/281905280051063379 Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:50:56 -0500 LROX
Be honest with yourself and pass it to the left. Good luck!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/248914452328489123 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/248914452328489123 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:57:09 -0400 LROX
What this means is that it made my nearfield monitors sound better, and that's really the purpose of that unit; it's meant to be used in live applications ("the club") to increase the "umph" of the audio running through it so it's the kind of processor that you would have to be careful with if you're going to use it to process audio, especially when you don't have an accurate playback system (i.e., "a full-range, flat frequency response DAC + speaker system"). Like with any other processor, having an accurate DAC and monitoring system is crucial to know what you're actually printing.

These days, you have a lot more options in the "psychoacoustics" department that give you more options and control, but if you have one around and want to use it on your mixes, go for it! I would just advise you to go easy with it. Good luck!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/225674526665507953 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/225674526665507953 Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:50:00 -0400 LROX
I personally don’t like that approach and to be honest, I’m not an “industry” type of audio engineer who knows many other engineers “in the industry” to know if that works for people or not, so maybe I’m not the best person to ask how to go about that, but I’ll offer you my thoughts on this anyway:

I think that’s a scandalous move, to be honest and don’t think it’s an honest way to try to get clients. I would think that hitting someone up and offering your services for starters assumes that they are unhappy with whoever they’re working with currently, and that’s likely not the case. Often times, artists already have an engineer they’re comfortable working with, so you’re already coming off like a sales person who’s trying to sell themselves to someone who isn’t looking to change what they’re already doing. Honestly, I’ve seen (heard) people working with other engineers who may not even be that good at working with audio, but they’re friends or at the very least, the artists have a degree of trust that shouldn’t be imposed upon, so thinking that because you can do “better” doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

Try scouting local up-and-coming artists that may be doing their own engineering who aren’t that great at it and see if you can help them. Since both you and these artists are sort of starting out, it’s a win-win situation for all.

This is pretty much helping to develop an artist (since labels aren't doing this anymore, maybe it's up to up-and-coming engineers such as yourself to take this on) and if you both keep at it, years down the road it can lead to success for everyone. If you’re good at what you do, people will seek you out. There’s no need to come off like a desperate salesman begging for a gig.]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/220615710097829659 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/220615710097829659 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:48:04 -0400 LROX
If you feel that there's an extra something missing, then sure, processing done by a mastering engineer who (hopefully) has better gear and more accurate monitoring than you can help, so it may be worthwhile to consult with one. They should ask what you expect sonically from your project and then be able to tell you if those expectations can be met based on the quality of your mixes (and advise you on how to get the mixes there if there are issues with the recordings and quality of the mixes).

From my experience in working with projects that have been saturated with analog processes, most of them take it to a certain point and then leave a few dB's of headroom for the mastering stage which can then be fun because we can then play with various degrees of additional saturation (I like to get these kinds of projects to saturate more while retaining/revealing as much depth as possible, without getting that harsh top end that is often there when it's overdone with lesser quality effects and other processes).

That said, I've unfortunately have had to turn down a few projects who have been distorted too much (clipped inputs while recording and too much added harmonic distortion by the use of digital processes that don't sound that great when pushed past a certain point).

That said, I've honestly never turned down a project because it sounds optimal, it's always because it's been too far pushed and then when I ask for mix revisions these are not possible for one reason or another. Good luck!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/217080271109911878 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/217080271109911878 Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:39:27 -0400 LROX
1. Send the mixes, let me check them out to see if anything sticks.
2. Once I've checked out the mixes, I'll let you know; if the mixes are good to go, send money.
3. By this time, I would have given you an estimate of how long it will take me to finish your project, so I will then have masters for you to listen to (usually a little bit before the estimated date, if later, I will let you know and why).

I hope this was brief enough! Thanks!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/197487269282608148 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/197487269282608148 Tue, 24 May 2011 19:03:55 -0400 LROX
From experience in mixing for clients that have only a stereo mixdown of the instrumental, I would say that sometimes it can be a little difficult to make the vocals "glue" to the mix; it's probably because part of the glue when mixing a song is that sometimes you add a touch of compression at the mix bus, which will add a bit of that comp's character to everything in a mix (if we're talking about a traditional mix where everything is in the same session) and the same applies to using an EQ to polish an entire mix; the vocals are going to be affected by it as well.

That said, it's not the end of the world. I've been able to get good results mixing vocals to a stereo mixdown of a track, all dependent of course on the quality of the instrumental's mix. It's a matter of listening to the instrumental and then dialing in the right processes for the vocals to make them sit as good as possible. It's a bit "nontraditional" but sometimes we have to work in nontraditional situations and the gig is to make things sound good - there's no such thing as "wrong" or "can't do it that way"; it's all about getting it to sound good whatever you have to do, LOL!

If the instrumental mixdown isn't too compressed, I'll try adding some light compression on the mix bus to try to glue the vocals to the track, sometimes that works out and adds a little bit of that glue factor. Good luck!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/194575742527371891 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/194575742527371891 Mon, 16 May 2011 18:14:31 -0400 LROX
Let's say you have an effect that you want to add to some of the tracks in your session (like a Flanger for example), but you would like to blend in the dry signal with the processed signal.

If you create a send bus with the Flanger, and send the signal to it POST fader, you won't be able to blend in the "dry" signal because bringing the levels down on the source tracks will also reduce the amount of signal feeding the Flanger. Sending it PRE fader uses only the send level as the source of input to the send bus, regardless of the track's fader level. With Flange effects, it's typical to have an unevenness in level, so blending in the dry tracks a tad would most likely give you a more balanced result. Good luck!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/177627214936830963 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/177627214936830963 Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:47:08 -0400 LROX
The absolute most important piece of gear I can't live without is definitely my brain though. Nah, forreal, in all seriousness - having spent a few years already working on A LOT of projects, experience is an invaluable tool I use every day.

I watched a little bit of "Last Samurai" on TV the other day, and sometimes it kind of reminds me of that scene when Tom Cruise has visualized how he's going to cut those cats up with the sword before he does it; often times when I sit down to work on something, I can "visualize" how things will turn out when listening to the raw tracks (or mixes) before I touch a knob and I don't think I'd be able to do this without having a lot of experience already.]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/169201400121692204 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/169201400121692204 Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:44:10 -0500 LROX
I prefer using compression at mastering to tame the peaks a little bit, just for an added bit of dynamic control and sometimes I might leave the peaks on a mix poking out a little bit too much (on kicks for example) so that I can add more "glue" at mastering, sometimes after tone shaping a mix with filters. Once in a while, I may get a mix that has a bit too much "crest" (the difference between the peaks and valleys in the signal of a mix) so the mix isn't sounding "glued" the way an optimally-processed mix might sound when using just the right amount of dynamics control; I would then use compression to even things out a bit, but as you know, it's not possible to focus just on the drums when applying a compressor to the entire mix.

Not enough compression is always better than too much compression though. I recently worked on a mix where someone applied a bit too much compression, making a lot of the other elements of the mix squashed and uneven, and there's a few things you can try at mastering to pull things out a bit, but there's nothing like having just the right amount of compression and other processes that work for the mix. If you work out the dynamics you want to hear from your mix, it's possible that at mastering, all you would need is just a bit of tonal shaping, and if levels are to be increased a bit, it could happen without changing too much of the mix's dynamics.

Good luck and thanks for the question!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/166402047799759373 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/166402047799759373 Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:22:19 -0500 LROX
The stock cable is decent, but a better cable with heavier wire does make them sound a bit more open & extended (if you get these, try to find a place that you can get to and try an aftermarket cable, since you can easily detach the stock cable to A/B and make a decision on whether you think it makes a difference or not, as these cables can run a couple hundred bucks, unless you make your own).

Another thing I did with mine that I think improved them quite a bit was the "foam mod" by APureSound:

http://apuresound.com/hdsennmod.html

I decided not to remove the foam discs from the pads, I feel they sounded slightly better with them on, but did remove the smaller foam discs from the drivers themselves as the tutorial shows and the bass opened up quite a bit more. DISCLAIMER: Do this at your own risk, once you remove those you can't put them back in and all I can say is that I loved mine a lot more after doing so; headphones are a very personal thing and you may not like what others do, so please try and listen to a pair that's been modded and compare to yours first. Good luck!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/162254550764389156 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/162254550764389156 Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:41:39 -0500 LROX
From my experience in mixing and then mastering albums, how an album is going to turn out sounding depends primarily on how each was recorded. Each album will vary - obviously because they're all recorded at different places, with different gear and on different formats. Even if you have the same gear as everyone else, chances are you're going to be using it differently than anyone else, so that's part of it too.

In mixing, you can further shape the sound of an album if you can mix well enough to bring the best out of the recordings, and then either polish it up a bit more or destroy it (sonically) at Mastering. If you've ever heard a remaster of an album you like and find that the remaster was made loud just to keep up with the latest (louder) releases (example: Nas' "Illmatic"), you can say that the remastering of this particular album ruined the "classic" sound of the original, so we have to appreciate that no album will sound identical sonically to another, and that it's okay if we have to turn down/up the volume knob to listen to different albums from time to time. Simply "remastering" an album, or mastering an album from the jump so that it competes in loudness with newer albums is, in my honest opinion, Irresponsible.

So for me, the best-sounding albums are the ones that optimize their recordings. A good example of this is the Beastie Boys' "Check Your Head". There's so much dynamics on this album that when turned up loud, you can hear a bunch of little things you can make out that don't sound "squashed" together like you would listening to albums that have been smashed (either by tracking levels into distortion, mixing into distortion or mastering into even more distortion). It sounds great on CD also, proof positive that you can have great-sounding albums on the CD format without having to use all of the sonic real estate that the CD format has to offer just because it's there.]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/161946702138345256 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/161946702138345256 Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:18:22 -0500 LROX
The only client who's been at my place has been DJ Rhettmatic, and that's because...it's f-ing DJ Rhettmatic! He wasn't even there when I was working on his album, we did a sequencing session of the album after I had already done my thing with it (Shout out to Rhett; I hope he has forgiven my little ass dog Tobie, for getting a little crazy while he was here).

That said, I think even if I were to open a commercial facility, I would have to hire engineers to work with clients because I frankly suck at talking while working. I consider myself more of an artist while working with audio, so it would be like asking a painter to paint a picture and explain what he's doing as he's trying to craft a masterpiece; I guess this is what you call being "eccentric".

Besides, I don't think sitting in on sessions to learn how to get better at mixing or mastering from another person is valuable at all. First off, the environment you'd be sitting in isn't yours and the decisions one makes while processing are due to the perception you acquire from your environment. At best, you'd only be learning why I would be doing something based on a singular experience, since I don't perform the same processes on every song.

What you want to work towards is (and this is how I've accomplished it over the last 15+ years or so):

->Get the best possible monitoring tools that work for your space (this includes speakers, furniture and treatment).

-> Learn how to best set it up in your space.

-> Learn the weaknesses of your setup and improve your problem areas.

-> You'll know when you have a great setup when you are able to work on a mix or a master and not have to leave your station to check it somewhere else.

It takes years to get it right, but it's the best way because you learn to listen along the way. If I had to start over again, I would definitely not look to sit behind someone, but work towards getting that goal for myself in my own space. Good luck sir!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/160109721708163009 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/160109721708163009 Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:38:51 -0500 LROX
1. Clipping tracks while producing (some think that pushing into the red digitally gives you the same kind of "warm" saturation you get from analog gear & media, which is much more forgiving and pleasing to the ear when pushed into distortion). Maximizing your SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio) is the best bet (your meters should be as close to clipping but not clipping at all, basically). Sure you may not hear your tracks immediately punching through your speakers - but this is okay! Having this kind of room is best 'cus then you can process things as much as you want later when you mix your beats (having the ability to un-do any processing is invaluable, please believe). When I used to make beats, I recall not messing with any sounds that looked "flat-topped", sometimes samples are already maximized and ideally we don't want this.

2. Adding compression to each track. Sometimes it's cool to add a little bit of crunch to your drums, but this can get out of control really quickly. Auditioning for example, a heavily-compressed kick drum may sound great by itself, but once you start stacking tracks and doing the same thing to every other track in your session can suck the life out of your mix. I like using parallel compression for my drum bus most of the time (if you don't know how, Google it because there are tons of tutorials out there, and a few ways to do it too). What I like most about parallel comp'ing is how you can bring up the (often heavily) compressed signal in your mix while finding the right balance with the un-compressed bus, to give you a nice and open drum mix, while having that "swing" that the right amount of compression can give you.

3. Shooting for loudness and a "finished" sound while mixing. One of the things I feel has gotten lost in these last few years of being able to do everything ITB is the lack of distinction between mixing and mastering. It's okay if a mix isn't peaking at 0dBFS (my goal is to get mixes to peak as close as "0" without seeing any red LEDs go off). It's also okay if it sounds a little too heavy in the low end, and if it's a bit too airy (not to be confused with sibilance issues or harshness in the upper freqs). The best analogy I can think of is Bacon. When we cook Bacon, it has a TON of fat in it; we don't eat all the fat because most of it is left on the Pan, but it's necessary for it to be on the Bacon to give the slices of Bacon we do eat that flavor. Recording & Mixing would be the equivalent of the production of Bacon up until it gets packaged and delivered to the store, and Mastering is the process of cooking it (without burning it). Sometimes people are taking the Pig straight to the Pan (and this is not a good look).

Work with a meter that gives you both Peak and RMS (otherwise known as "average") levels. Peak is easy to figure out: Avoid the "red". Average levels can get tricky especially if you're using compressors in your busses or master, so a good rule of thumb is to stay between -18dB and -15dB for your average levels. If you have average levels in this ballpark and the mix sounds glued enough to your ears, chances are you have pretty good levels for Mastering (whether you decide to do it yourself later, or send to someone to master your mixes for you).

Good luck!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/159183349863187401 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/159183349863187401 Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:17:47 -0500 LROX
"Redsecta" is a play on "Red Sector" as in "hot area" which was a two way name for the bedroom studio I had at my parents over 20+ years ago (we came up with dope stuff AND had no AC).

I've got a very romanticized explanation of "Redsecta" on my site, but the short version is that one of MCs in a group I used to produce while I lived at my parents' house was from Louisiana and when he was at my place and his girl would page him (yes, page him), he'd pick up my phone and tell her he was at "Red sectuh studiohs!" and the way he pronounced "Red Sector" sounded more like "Redsecta" so that's where that began.

Unfortunately, you made me remember a box of things that were stolen while I was moving into my first apartment, which had many photos of my old bedroom setup at my parents, so now all I have is memories of everyone sweating bullets while trying to record and many childhood friends writing rhymes and us coming up with beats for them. Thanks for the question, but yeah, I'm not "Normal."]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/159076742705748314 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/159076742705748314 Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:14:10 -0500 LROX
To be clear, I use these for mixing only (not for mastering). It's true that they lack a little bit in the mid range, but to compensate for this, I've set up my mixcubes to work alongside the 824s.

A few years ago, after some treatment to my space & after I had a custom desk built, I did some rough measuring of frequencies from 50Hz - 18kHz and found that the majority of the mid frequencies dipped about -2dB (calibrated a 1kHz tone at my target monitoring SPL, which was 80dB I think). My DAC/Monitor Controller allows me to use two simultaneous outputs (meant to be used for a sub) but in my case, I used it to patch in the Mixcubes to help balance out the mid range, since while mixing, I don't use a sub and hearing more of the mids was a bigger concern, so these have been trimmed down about -2dB and when measuring again, the dip I had in the mids was no longer a problem. It was like improving the mids on the 824 without having to worry about a crossover for the mid!

There are better, more sophisticated ways to measure the response of your monitoring system, but I'm really not that concerned with it; for this kind of thing, I'm only interested in a ballpark estimate and from there it's all about your ears & perception (if your ears are experienced enough, you can adapt to less than perfect monitoring situations). You commenting on my work is proof that estimates for this sort of thing work, so thanks for the question!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/2116037643 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/2116037643 Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:39:28 -0500 LROX
For example, let's say we have a mixdown where the vocals are a bit too loud, but it's not possible to go back to the mix and simply bring down the vocal tracks. The first thing I would do is audition the mix in mono and then the sides to see if the vocals were mixed for the most part "in the middle." If this is the case, then breaking out the mix to a M/S Matrix would help us since we are able to isolate the mono information and what I would do is automate a slight volume dip of the mid channel on the parts of the mix where the vocals come up a bit too much. If the vocals were mixed spaciously and there's a lot of the vocals on the sides as well, then we can't do much to fix the problem.

If the vocals are for the most part living in the middle, there will be other elements of the mix included in this "mid" channel, and we'd have to be careful not to over-do it, since everything that lives in the middle of the mix would also be affected (brought down in the dip). As you can guess from this example, it still would be best to bring the vocals down at the mix stage, since we would only bring the vocals down, and not everything that lives in the "mid" portion of the stereo mix, so typically, when I take on a project and we have this kind of issue, I would advise you to bring the vocals down a bit at the mix stage, but if for some reason it is not possible to do so, then doing m/s processing on the mix would be the only way to try and fix it.

So, the best thing to have is the ability to go back to the mix and be able to make changes. One of my tasks at mastering is to audition the mixes and check for balance issues and if anything comes up, I would let you know what that is and hopefully we can take care of it by revisiting the mix and make adjustments.

On the production end, M/S processing can be useful if for example you have a section of a sample with information you would want to get rid of (or bring up/down), but for mixing, you'll want to make sure you mix has the proper balance through panning and gain staging for each of the tracks that make up your mix (listen to your mix in mono once in a while as you mix, to make sure nothing cancels out, especially when using effects that affect phase). Peace & Good Luck!]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/2016046737 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/2016046737 Sat, 01 Jan 2011 21:47:26 -0500 LROX
I would only consider the "Pro" model as a serious reference tool, since it doesn't have a noise cancellation circuit which will affect the quality of the signal. As far as these being a true professional reference, I honestly can't say because I have not given them a serious listen/field test. After the little bit of exposure I've had with these, I found them to be very hyped in the low frequencies and hyped also in the upper frequencies and like with any other monitoring reference, "hype" is not a good thing as it makes you over/undercompensate your decisions.

Another thing to consider is that closed-back designs like this model don't sound as "natural" as high-end open-back designs, these tend to be fatiguing more than open-back designs which by design can sound more "open". Isolation is great for tracking, but not really for critical listening, when you want a more "open" feel/perception. When you listen to a pair of high-end, open-back designs (like the AKG 701 for example), you'll notice that a set like this sounds more "natural" and less fatiguing to listen to for extended periods of time (and how long do you expose your ears to sound when you're a professional audio engineer? That's right - extended periods of time).

I'm also skeptical when it comes to who is saying what about a product. Monster Cable doesn't have the same history of making reference-grade headphones unlike AKG, Sennheiser, Grado, Stax and so on. This may be a personal bias, to be fair. All I can say is that I've heard them and not liked how hyped they are for the price (considering that you can get the AKG 701 for about 1/2 the price, and it's a model that gets lots of props by most headphone audiophiles).

That's just my 2 cents though, I personally wouldn't consider them a serious reference headphone after many years of experience using other high-end models that I've had for many years.]]> http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/1931865258 http://www.formspring.me/LROX/q/1931865258 Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:51:12 -0500 LROX