Here’s a forum to geek out about music tools, software, production techniques, etc. You can ask me questions in the comment window below, and I’ll try to answer as best I can, when possible. This idea was suggested by Brian McWilliams, who wrote:
“A lot of us ambient music lovers also end up dabbling in ambient ourselves and you are widely regarded for your engineering and gift with sound. For that reason, I think a lot of people might be interested to hear about your experiences and recommendations with gear. Even something like issues you are working out in your studio would be great to read about. As an example, I just found out that you worked on sound design for Camel Audio’s Alchemy. Would enjoy hearing your take on any of the above…”
So I’ll start by answering his question about Camel “Alchemy.” Alchemy is an amazing sample-mangling soft synth that incorporates several different resynthesis tools simultaneously, including granular, additive, subtractive and spectral resynthesis. My friend Tim Conrardy was working for Camel as sound designer and customer service. (Sadly, Tim passed away suddenly in late February, and we miss him dearly.) Last year, Tim asked me to contribute some raw samples to ship with Alchemy’s library, for which they paid me quite fairly. I had hoped to make some presets for the initial release of the program, but I got busy around that time and missed my deadline. So, this Spring I did manage to come up with some interesting sounds, and some of these should appear in the next revision.
Alchemy has a unique timbre due to its various digital mangling capabilities. Generally I find that it excells at creating more diffuse, abstract sorts of textures, rather than the sharp or discreet sounds that analog synths or straight samplers tend to make. Although it can get crunchy or edgy when desired, I find myself gravitating towards slowly shifting blurry sounds. It’s quite deep, and I consider myself a beginner in the earliest stages.
Feel free to ask any other questions, and I’ll try to answer when I can. - Robert
I hope other people respond to this thread… I’d hate to be the only one. I could certainly turn this into a gear interview since I have tons of questions!
It looks like everything is moving towards the laptop for writing and mixing. What is your process like now? Are you mixing externally, on a computer or a combination of both?
Do you see a day when _everything_ will be done on the computer and does that worry you?
Thanks,
Brian
Comment by Brian McWilliams — June 2, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
hi all,
this is interesting indeed.i have tons of questions myself.here’s a few i can come up with at this moment:
1 : Robert,how do you get such a WIDE spacious kind of stereo sound(i’m not talking about reverb,that’s another question).what do you use for that?
2 : i’m also interested in feedback systems on a software level.i absolutely love feedback,i use Native Instruments Absynth 4 as an audio fx for that right now,and Reaktor 5.any feedback / tips / recommendations about feedbacksystems would be greatly appreciated.
3 : what’s a really good software reverb plugin?i really like Logic’s spacedesigner a lot(my best friend has Logic Studio 8,i don’t…..i use Ableton Live 8….well because it’s….live…obviously .
Alchemy is truly amazing.i can create sounds with it that sound like something Robert Rich made……
anyway,all the best to all of you!
keep good music alive!
Comment by wasili — June 2, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
What i want to know is how the heck do you get those weird vocal signature sounds. E-bow modifications?
It would be nice if i could find a way to re-create similar vocal sounds on my PC sense i do not own any instruments apart from what ever VSTi’s and sound sample librarys i have on disc.
I love what you with the stainless steel. It is hypnotic and has an almost bluesy quality behind it.
Comment by Chris — June 2, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
3. - vocal sounds - gliss guitar! Remember Gong from the late sixties? Daevid Allen invented it - or at least transmitted it to me. I just adapted it to lap steel guitar. The high bridge allows the bowing to get a bit more expressive without bottoming out. (Daevid used a Strat.) I use a part from a nut driver set, bowing on the high “e” string, with echo and a tiny bit of verb (not much verb).
2. - Many questions - let me answer these tomorrow.
1. - Tools is tools! Use what works. Doesn’t have to be the latest. Remember that there’s always a reaction to the “state of the art” a few years later when a few people start craving the sound of a certain era, and the old obsolete gear become valuable again. My feeling is that if you can still make music with it, it’s valuable, and ignore what other people think is cool. Trends don’t matter because they’ll cycle around soon enough. As for laptops taking over recording, pay attention to the sound, not the tools. If someone offered an engineer in 1950 the hard disk recording we have now, they would have jumped on it - and still made the same music. Dig into your own mind and create what lives beyond the tools!
I’ll try to answer more tomorrow. - RR
Comment by admin — June 3, 2009 @ 1:31 am
When recording in the field, or just natural sounds in general, do you find it challenging to use the right technique to get the result you want?
Do you also find yourself “fixing up” the sound/sample you recorded afterward in the studio, or do you normally try to keep the recording fresh and raw the way it was recorded originally? ( i guess it would depend on the scape you are trying to create).
Comment by Peter Hrycenko — June 3, 2009 @ 2:15 am
Comment by admin — June 3, 2009 @ 2:37 am
I heard of Gong but never had the chance to listen to them. That was before i was born. :) Thanks for all the information. I just came by instructions on how to build a lap steel: http://buildyourguitar.com/resources/lapsteel/
Although i don’t know how reliable this may be but i will look into it anyways. I don’t think any good sample librarys exist that i know of so why not build one. Another instrument i’d love to build is a “Beam”, that monstrosity used in Chronos by Micheal Stearns. I’ve always been attracted to that sound beside all those other worldly guitar harmonics. Fransisco Lupica did some nifty stuff with the beam as well.
Comment by Chris — June 3, 2009 @ 5:54 am
Hi Robert, thanks for sharing your great knowledge!, my question goes back to the liner notes on “a troubled resting place”, where you can read, ‘tunings based on the harmonic and inharmonic overtone relationships of constrained chaotic feedback and other complex resonating systems’, how did you manage to stablish the relationships in order to obtain the ratios between the notes, pitches?, take care
Best regards
Sergio
Comment by Sergio — June 3, 2009 @ 10:57 am
2.1) one secret to “width” in sound is actually depth. In other words, I try to find a place in the soundstage for some dry sounds up front, medium “wet” and wetter further back. Panning darker sounds toward the middle helps them feel farther away, smaller dry sounds can pan further to the edges to bring them closer - they sound like they are in the speakers instead of behind the speakers. The layers create a sense of wide and deep.
2.2) I find that it’s easier to get interesting feedback performances by taking sources out into channels on a mixing board, rather than entirely in software. Outboard gear helps a lot here.
2.3) I like Space Designer also. I still tend to use outboard reverb, especially Sony units. My R7 died recently so a friend found a used V55 for me. There are a lot of good impulse reverb plug-ins though.
8) Tunings and feedback systems: the point of that liner note comment was to explain that feedback methods of sound-making tend to impart their own tonalities, without the need for analysis. Usually a harmonic series-like structure gets determined by the fundamental frequencies of short delays inherent in the returns from processor units. Resonances get imparted by comb filtering and such. It’s out of my control. Then I simply try to tune to what I hear. Sometimes the tunings are very blurry, and don’t really benefit from analysis.
Comment by admin — June 3, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
thanks very much for those tips Robert.i’ll go experiment with that panning stuff!
but first i have to go to work……
gotta let go……
Comment by wasili — June 3, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
I read in your tour diary where you talked about sending your requirements to a venue before you played a public concert. Could you tell me what you require from a venue? I’m about to release material and hit the road over the next year, so any other gear hints would be appreciated. Thanks for indulging us with this Q and A. :)
Comment by Dale Lindsay — June 3, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
your answer was really helpful, thanks a lot!
Comment by Sergio — June 4, 2009 @ 3:52 am
-It explains what kind of gear I will bring with me, and what gear I need provided for me to make it work. (e.g. a PA system, power outlets, lighting, projection screen.)
-It says how much I expect to get paid, and when I expect it; it asks to find me a place to sleep the night before and after the gig (i.e. the organizer’s hide-a-bed sofa)
-It describes the nature of the show (one or two sets, how long, the fact that I don’t pause for applause, etc.)
- It requires that backstage must provide two bottles of Veuve Cliquot Champaign and 2 oz. Beluga Caviar, and only the cute groupies get a copy of my room key.
OK, I made up the last bit. The reality is that most of the organizers are people I know and trust, so I treat the tour rider as a way to explain things, to help things run smoothly, not a list of demands.
Comment by admin — June 4, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Robert,
About those Sony processors: The ones you mention I just recently bought on ebay. My favorite of all time is the V77 which I have in my studio. My question is this: As you know, the battery on Sony processors lasts about 5 years. (and that goes by quicker than beans these days) The V77 battery is easily user replaced, but the batteries on the earlier units like the R7,D7, M7 and V55 use a battery that is strap welded to the circuit board requiring it to be serviced by a tech or by oneself if you know how. Have you modified yours at all to work like the V77 battery and if so, what kind of parts did you use? Keep up all the great work and I look forward to seeing you in Portland next time you tour here.
Comment by James Sigrist — June 5, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
The V77 is an impulse reverb and very different from its predecessors. It’s good but not the same as the old ones from Sony, which I use for plates and more abstracted ambience. The R77 resembles many of the recent crop of impulse reverbs, so you can save your money and use those if you have a DAW. Note that if you have the same conversation with my friend Steve Roach, he’ll say the same about how the Lexicon PCM70 differs from the others - so take everything with a grain of salt and use what you have to the fullest extent.
Comment by admin — June 5, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Thanks for the info Robert. I’ve never heard the term “impulse reverb” before. Are Eventide products that way? Is the Lexicon PCM80 that way? What does “impulse reverb” mean? Thanks so much for taking the time with all of this and it’s exceptionally nice that you are sharing your thoughts on gear. Your albums all have amazing sound.
Comment by James Sigrist — June 6, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
Comment by admin — June 7, 2009 @ 1:49 am
Very, very interesting. Thanks for the clarification.
Comment by James Sigrist — June 7, 2009 @ 5:28 am
hi all,
just found an incredible reverb plugin called Aether( by Galbanum).
for more info,follow this link:
http://galbanum.com/products/aether/
i.m loving it already!
enjoy
Comment by wasili — June 8, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Comment by admin — June 8, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
The pvc flutes and motm modular hardware synthesizer are cool. Ever think of making something like a pvc trombone? Or there’s always the udderbot: http://udderbot.wikispaces.com/udderbot
Comment by Joe — June 9, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Comment by admin — June 9, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
hi Robert,
just finished mixing and mastering our new album,worked with those panning tips you gave,it sounds amazingly wide now,just like your music!
so thanks very much!!!!
question:do you know any good books about mastering?
i want to step up my mastering skills.
all the best to you!
Comment by wasili — June 9, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Comment by admin — June 9, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
thanks!
i’ll have a look around for it.
Wasili
Comment by wasili — June 10, 2009 @ 5:11 am
i just called the music store,they had a copy of that book.
i’m going to get it this afternoon.can’t wait.
and i’m going to wait with releasing the new record.
hey,why release it when tips from an expert could make it as good as in the dream realm,where there is abundance……
Wasili
Comment by wasili — June 10, 2009 @ 5:23 am
Hi,
An addition to question 2.1 (stereo width and depth) and your reply, which I found very helpful: Do you use different reverb settings for the dry/medium wet/wet sound fields or are these defined simply by the fx-send amount going to the same reverb?
Also, I’m just learning the Turkish ney flute and have been experimenting with reverb and various delay effects for this instrument. Do you have any advice for interesting effect chains for flute in an ambient context?
And one more reverb question (that shows that I don’t really know what I’m doing when it comes to sound production): Lush long reverb tails seem to get somewhat lost when added on instruments with long sustained soundscapes as backdrops, especially when the foreground instruments with reverb also play sustained notes. How can the reverb be made more present on droney soundscapey music without getting a soaked muddy overall sound?
Thanks so much for your already helpful previous replies!
Phil
Comment by phil — June 10, 2009 @ 9:23 am
27. Probably too much information to squeeze into a short answer, but I’ll try to summarize. (1) I find the quality of a reverb often matters more than the length or quantity. I typically mix with two reverbs, a short and a long. lengths differ from piece to piece. Often a choose a plate-style setting for my short, so it doesn’t muddy up the transients. I use the long setting more as a part of the sound design itself. Anything more unusual gets recorded along with the sound of a specific track if necessary. (2) Regarding ney and other flutes - or anything in the vocal range for that matter - I find that any reverb that sits directly on top of the sound tends to muddy it up. Often I use only panned delays, sometimes with a tiny bit of +- pitch shift, and if there’s any reverb on the sound it’s only on the echo returns. that keeps the lead voice clearer. (3) Either use less reverb or use better reverb. EQ’ing the reverb return also helps, reducing a few dB around 200 Hz or so. Depends on the reverb. If you want to create that effect with everything in a cloud, start with a very bright source timbre through a Lexicon PCM70 set to long hall at 20 sec., and use 100% reverb with no dry sound. I tend to opt for more variation, personally, but the Lexicon works great as a homogenizer. I prefer the clarity of the Sony reverbs. To distinguish sustaining lead sounds from the reverb wash, try the delay trick I mentioned above.
Comment by admin — June 10, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Wow! Wonderful answer, Robert - VERY helpful!
That gives me a lot to experiment with.
Thanks so much!
Phil
Comment by phil — June 10, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
Robert
I am currently using all Vst synths and processing entirely “in the box”. Also I am using my sequencers ‘master bus’ for my final mix. I am never completely satisfied with the result. Although I realize that when I listen to one of your pieces it has been ‘mastered’ I cannot duplicate the spaciousness. I have read that summing through and analog device like the ‘Dangerous 2-Bus’ will open up my mix and give it more depth and dynamic range. Would you agree that summing to stereo through an analog circuit is one way to improve a mix.
Thanks
Wayne
Comment by Wayne — June 10, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
Comment by admin — June 10, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Robert
Thanks so much for your prompt reply to my question about analog summing. I will definately try to add some life to my compostions and overall sound field by introducing some external sound sources and as I listen to your wonderful traks more closely I am beginning to hear the life and realism that these sources can add.
Wayne
Comment by Wayne — June 10, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
Thanks for the great info Robert!
To Wayne regarding “mastering”:
I used to think of mastering as a magical process that takes your song and makes it sound better, this seems like not necessarily the case although maybe it can be. You may know more about this than me but in case you don’t, here’s some info I wish someone told me a couple years ago.
Speaking as a young audio engineer and recording artist who has gone through the mastering process on my own album, I have come to a few conclusions. One of things I found was what a mastering engineer can and can’t do with a finished mix. What they are great for is taking all the songs on your album and getting them to the proper volume so that the album flows. Also if there are frequency problems or imbalances the engineer can address that with EQ and multiband compression. With the right tools and the right ears they may be able to open the stereo field a bit and in extreme events the mastering engineer can do some aggressive processing and with EQ, etc., really sculpt your sound. However this aggressive approach is not ideal because any EQ adjustment that is done in the mastering process could be done better and more precisely during the mixing stage. If one instrument is making the mix muddy sounding, the mastering engineer can only duck the entire mix for those frequencies. It is much more desirable to clean up only that particular instrument in the mixing stage. So what I am suggesting to musicians is to get the mix perfect before mastering. Mastering is important because you are getting a qualified second opinion, however the less processing the engineer needs to do the better, especially because there is only so much they can do. I am probably not qualified to give this advice so anyone feel free to correct me where I am wrong. Meow. xo.
Comment by Emit Idy — June 10, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Comment by admin — June 11, 2009 @ 12:24 am
Robert
A question concerning compression. It is obvious that most info concerning mixing and mastering in books and on the internet relate to the pop and rock genres. How do you approach compression. Do you tell your clients to avoid ‘master bus’ compression when submitting pieces to be mastered. Do you use ‘multi band compression’ when and where needed during mastering. Or …do you tend to avoid it so that the dynamic range of your compositions is not affected.
Thanks
Wayne
Comment by Wayne — June 12, 2009 @ 8:36 am
Comment by admin — June 12, 2009 @ 11:53 am
hi Robert,
that book by Bob Katz is truly amazing!it got me hungry for mastering again.it really,really helps so much to get advice from a professional engineer.
i’d also like to know more about alternate tunings and intonation(to experiment with).any books etc you recommend?
thanks,
Wasili
Comment by wasili — June 13, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Comment by admin — June 13, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
great!
thank you very much!
all the best,
Wasili
Comment by wasili — June 13, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
From a philosophic point of view Robert, where do you say you gain your inspiration from? I understand you to be an artist of many dimensions. The acoustic/electric mixture of sounds is something artists (like myself) often try to assimilate into their music and it either comes out to choppy or unnatural sounding (this often happens to me).
I apologize that this isn’t a completely ‘gear’ oriented question, but I feel that your personal philosophy on music and mixing reflects your choice of gear.
Thank you very much for your time and music-
Tim
Comment by Tim — June 14, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
hi Robert,
a little background info:
last saturday,someone gave my best friend some information from a magazine article regarding the tuning of musical instruments down to 432 HZ instead of the standard 440 HZ.
432 HZ seems to be a Universal frequency,connected to the heartchakra.
i listened to some sounds and music that was re-tuned to this,it sounded and felt beautiful!(it also seems that loud music tuned to 432 HZ doesn’t damage your ears)
do you know any really good software for retuning my own tracks down to 432 HZ?
much thanks,
Wasili
Comment by wasili — June 15, 2009 @ 10:42 am
Great intro to just intonation tuning online:
http://www.kylegann.com/tuning.html
Comment by Joe — June 16, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Response to 41. I’m a bit skeptical about small absolute frequency differences being responsible for psychological affects, outside of the fact that acoustic instruments will “relax” a bit more with looser strings (or equivalent) and sound softer. If you are still in Equal Temperament, I think any difference you hear is probably placebo, or sensed relative to the higher A-440. However, I won’t rule out the possibilities of unseen chakras affecting the tone. That’s out of my purvey. You can tune any electronic instrument to A-432 simply by using the global tune knob, and count 8 beats per second against an A-440 reference. (I think that would be 16th notes at 120 BPM). As for loud sounds not damaging your ears, look at OSHA standards and judge accordingly. White noise has every frequency and it’ll still hurt your ears. I’m sure a sine wave at 432 Hz will also hurt your ears if sufficiently loud.
To answer 40. I’ll need a bit more time to try to answer that. As a vague answer, suffice to say that I’m inspired by some hermetic place hidden deep inside me, like a well that pulls water up from a deep ocean. I can’t exactly understand it, myself. I just try to dictate what it tells me, and I measure all of my small decisions against a template that I don’t see in its entirety. When I get stuck, it’s because I can’t find the well-head for a while, stumbling around looking for a drink. - RR
Comment by admin — June 16, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
I can understand, trying to define the ineffiable is indeed difficult. As you use this metaphor of “stumbling around looking for a drink”, I think this describes the whole process of ‘being’ quiet well- grasping at the world but at the same time not being able to contain all of it.
I feel from your music (subjectively of course), is much like the metaphor of the hand ‘grasping’ or ‘not-grasping’. Your compositions ebb-and-flow between these two- I feel that ‘non-trying’ and ‘trying’, as paradoxical as it sounds, are both vital to the music writing process and the balance you find is your innate talent.
So to legitimize this question towards gear, and perhaps refine the question to not make it so vague, would you say that it is not primarily the tools, but rather the artist who defines and creates his music? In relation to this, and your philosophy, how do you write then, is it a meditative, intuitive process, or calculated and methodical?
Thank you very much for your quick reply Rob,
Best of wishes and respect-
-Tim
Comment by Tim — June 17, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
First of all, many thanks Robert for taking the time to participate in this discussion. I have appreciated your work for a long time now and truly value your opinions.
As Lance Armstrong said, “It’s not about the bike”. Similarly, the temptation to get hung up on the high tech gear now available to musicians is a great distraction and often gets in the way of making music. I know I’m guilty of that myself.
Back in the early 90’s, Wordperfect was on it’s way out and MS Word was on it’s way up but in the business world at least, there wasn’t a dominant word processor (unlike now). Back then I asked a computing friend of mine, “which word processor is best?” (WP or MS Word)
His answer was, “the best one is the one you are most familiar with. If you know it well then you’ll get more done. As opposed to using something that is supposed to be better but you struggle to use”.
To a large degree that same principle holds true here. As you stated earlier, “Tools is tools!” If it works for you, get on with it!
Many thanks again.
Comment by Ross — June 22, 2009 @ 8:07 am
to Tim #44: For me at least, the creative process resembles that cliché “10% inspiration, 90% perspiration.” I have periods of insight interspersed with long bouts of effort to shape those insights into a form that does them justice. Alas, I could wish my fingers dripped the honey of genius night and day; instead I need to use a slow-cooked approach.
Regarding the tools, I try to make sure that the tools I’m using are allowing me to express what’s inside, rather than overtly determining the outcome based on their inherent design. So many of the modern looping/sampling instruments impose a “paint by numbers” approach with canned rhythms and rigid tempo/bar structures. People writing the software assume everyone wants to play dance music. For example, about 18 months ago I bought a Korg M3 for live concerts, and had to spend several days going through all the presets and turning off the disgusting “Karma” drum patterns and bass lines… cookie cutter junk! No wonder so much music sounds the same. So for me the key is to find my own voice in the gear, spend time programming it, not buy so much new stuff so I can concentrate on making music with what I have.
Comment by admin — June 22, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
Many thanks for your response Robert.
Making ambient music is definitely a different process to making Dance or Rock music. The presets on almost all software and the sample libraries available are geared toward the common structure of verse, chorus, bridge etc. and yes, so much music now does all tend to sound the same as a consequence (especially Dance ugghh)
Bearing that in mind, I would be interested to hear from not only Robert but other Ambient composers, on how they go about building an ambient piece. I’ve been using Reaper for a while now with it’s standard linear approach to building tracks but just lately have been playing with Ableton Live and it’s Session view, a different slant on music composition that feels good to me and works quite nicely.
From my digging around the web I have learnt that-
Robert uses Logic
Michael Sterns uses Protools
Altus uses Fruity Loops
Steve Roach uses Vegas (no midi?)
Interested to hear how other composers do it and what they use that helps.
Thanks!
Comment by Ross — June 22, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Comment by admin — June 22, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Thanks for the prompt reply Robert.
I hear what you’re saying, loud and clear. I liked that last sentence, it is absolute truth. If you can’t play your guitar well, it doesn’t matter how much you paid for it - you’ll still sound the same.
Thanks again. I’ll continue to watch this page with interest.
Comment by Ross — June 23, 2009 @ 7:27 am
Hi RRGG (robert rich- glurp guru)
My question is the same one the 2nd questioner asked.
How do you get such a wide sound. I’ve always praised you for this to fellow musicians. You’ve heard the different ways I’ve tried recording my stuff. I’ve had problems not only in getting a middle range volume on all my songs, but problems in finding a way to play clean (without reverb falloff/effect dribble)and still get a wide sound that fits all the pieces together without throwing the mix/volume off.Making one track sound louder than the other. How are you getting that right in the middle-can be heard loud or soft-and still fill the room-equalized sound?
And if it’s really top of the line pricey, can you make any suggestions that might help on cheaper or older equipment?
what i play is:
fostex mr-8 digital portable recorder.
korg ms 2000 keyboard
korg electribe mx beat machine
audacity recording program for my computer.
thats it…no open mic at all. straight into machine recording.
Comment by karl ryan — July 3, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
Comment by admin — July 4, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Thank you for your answer about going on the road.
I was curious.
How many tracks do your songs on average usually take up?
Thanks for all the great music.
Comment by Dale Lindsay — July 5, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
Comment by admin — July 6, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Hi Robert,
I have been doing more reading on software samplers as I consider how to replace my aging hardware sampler. A great number of people seem to think that hardware samplers sound better than software (and of course I would rather touch buttons than move a mouse). Though I agree it’s not the tools but what you do with them - I’m still interested in getting the best sound possible.
So my question is really do you have any opinions on this - since I’m not sure how this could really be the case. It would seem to me that your audio interface would be the limiting factor. If you have a great interface, you’d think your samples would sound just as good in a software sampler as they would in a hardware unit. Of course, that’s overlooking the filters, envelopes, etc. found in a hardware unit.
Thanks,
Brian
Comment by B McWilliams — July 24, 2009 @ 11:50 am
Comment by admin — July 24, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
hi Robert,
i’m really impressed by Logic’s “Sculpture” instrument,and its vast soundcreations possibilities.
however,my best friend has Logic,i use Ableton Live 8(don’t want to use anything else actually….Live keeps my creativity flowing like no other)
so my question to you :
is there any AU/VST software instrument that does similar things like Scultpture does?
or any suggestions on how to create sounds that emulate real-world strings etc with different materials and such?
thanks,
Wasili
Comment by wasili — July 25, 2009 @ 6:16 am
Comment by admin — July 25, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
thanks,will try it out!
Comment by wasili — July 25, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Hi Robert,
I was introduced to your music a few years back and got to see you at Partikel last year. I enjoy it very much.
When you play live, how close to your original recordings do you try to get?
I tend to work really fast, do a lot of real-time manipulation and don’t document much. This might make it harder to recreate which I might be OK with, not sure if people would be though if they are expecting something. How do you balance this? Do you use the original as rough template, like a jazz tune or do you work it so that you can match the original accurately?
Comment by Glen Darcey — July 27, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Comment by admin — July 28, 2009 @ 12:12 am
Hi Robert,
This discussion has been really helpful and inspiring, and I come back every once in a while to read the new comments!
I have a question I have been struggling with for many years. Professional recordings, yours included, all have a certain audio quality to them, a level of refinement and differentiation within a mix that has nothing to do with the music itself. When I compare it to my own audio quality, my audio signals (individual or a mix) sound good but too ‘thick’. I’m struggling, of course, with a description of the difference I’m hearing, but professionally produced/mastered records always sound ‘thinner’ but in a very good way.
My attempts so far have included high cut filtering to make individual sounds occupy less room frequency wise and other EQing. Trying BBE and Behringer Ultrafex enhancers gave a bit of a polished and refined sense but at the cost of other flakiness in the general audio quality. I just don’t seem to get the quality I’m looking for. I assume that my equipment is good enough and shouldn’t be a factor.
I would be very glad for any advice on how to get that kind of audio quality that your recordings also have!
Thanks,
Phil
Comment by phil — July 30, 2009 @ 7:10 am
Oops, I meant high PASS filtering (or LOW cut).
Phil
Comment by phil — July 30, 2009 @ 7:49 am
Comment by admin — July 30, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the tips about the 150-300Hz low-mid area and low frequencies in reverb tails! I haven’t worked much with EQ dips in that range and also need to pay more attention to how the reverbs build up certain frequencies.
Could you elaborate on what type of steps during mastering could enhance the audio quality in the way I described? I would assume you are referring to mastering a stereo sum, in which case a high pass filter, as you say, wouldn’t be of much use. But I’m wondering which other processes might be used in mastering to achieve the quality I’m after and that your records clearly have?
I would like to add a related question: I almost never anymore use a compressor on my music, but out of the dilemma above have been wondering if subtly using a mastering multi band compressor on the sum might help getting that refined sound. Maybe a Waves plugin or so? What’s your opinion on compressors for that purpose or compressors in general for ambient type music with and without percussive elements?
Thanks for your comments!
Phil
Comment by phil — July 30, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Comment by admin — July 31, 2009 @ 11:27 am
That’s very helpful, Robert! Thanks for all the good advice!!
Phil
Comment by phil — July 31, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Hello Robert
Could you do something on vinyl ????.As i love records ;-) instead of cds
greetings
Comment by mukuta — July 31, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Hey Robert,
You were right about the individual thing. I have tried to make music using solely the computer before and I have made some decent stuff, but nothing that I would be proud of. The computer just doesn’t give me that creative feeling, if you know what I mean. I am more looking for what kind of hardware to start with for making atmospheres and drones and all those nice things. I have a MicroKorg, a Sony PCM D50 field recorder, an acoustic guitar, a djembe drum, and I have a mixer coming in the mail, so I am going to be able to get going pretty soon. I also have a MacBook with Logic like you recommended, so I’m good there.
I’m pretty new to this stuff, I know how to work the equipment I have right now but my knowledge of how things work outside of that is very little, I know the basics of Logic and I can mess around with some of the VSTs on there but I can’t get too deep into anything at this point.
Like I said I would be really happy if I could get something with some buttons or knobs that I could use to make just frequencies and textures and drones and atmospheric sounds you know? I don’t know what would do that other than a synth, but I don’t know if I would be able to do any of that on my Korg. I saw a video of you using something called “MOTM 730″, I am pretty interested in that, is there a smaller version? =p
Some of these questions might sound pretty dumb but I would rather ask them and look stupid than not ask them and be stupid forever, haha.
Comment by Maximus — August 3, 2009 @ 2:56 am
As for the MOTM, it’s very powerful, and I go to it frequently when I need inspiration. However, for someone starting out, I would warn of the expense that can incur over time. The MOTM 730 is just the clock divider module, only one panel in the system shown in the video. A minimal system for processing and simple sound creation can cost about $2000, and one like mine has grown well past $10,000. So I would consider a modular synth as a luxury item, not as an essential for getting started.
You probably have your most powerful tool built right into Logic - the EXS24 sampler. You can take chunks of your own sound and turn them into instruments. It’s so much easier to use than outboard samplers, very quick and convenient. I recommend you dig into that some more.
The key is to think of every sound as potential raw material for a texture. I think computer software tends to make us think “in the box” or literally, and we need to remember the unthought-of possibilities and bend the tools around our own ideas. - R
Comment by admin — August 3, 2009 @ 10:37 am
Robert,
As an electronic composer/percussionist, I have always loved the tuned percussive sound you use in tracks like Mbira (Rainforest) and Terraced Fields (Propagation). Did you create these sounds with synths or were you playing a percussive instrument?
On a side note… thank you for all the wonderful music over the years! - a fellow composer and myself always refer to you as one of the “holy-trinity” of ambient composers (along with Steve Roach and Michael Sterns)…
Comment by George — August 10, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
All the best - RR
Comment by admin — August 11, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Speaking of tuned percussive sounds, have you noticed the demo at http://www.ableton.com/collision named Rich?
Comment by Marc — August 14, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Comment by admin — August 15, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
hi Robert,
question about field-recording:
next week i’m going to buy an M-audio microtrack 2 for that(unless you have a suggestion for a better one).
do you know a suitable,good quality microphone to record with?
also,what kind of microphone is best for field recording(normal,condenser,whatever)
many thanks!
all the best,
Wasili
Comment by wasili — August 18, 2009 @ 6:35 am
As for type of microphone, it depends a lot upon your intended target. Schoeps probably makes the best high-end shotgun mics for location work, but they are very expensive ($2000-ish). Audio Technica makes an interesting new stereo microphone that probably sounds good; I trust AT, but haven’t heard it. I have used a pair of Oktava MC012 with very good results, in places where I did not want to lose expensive microphones. Also, for Somnium I had pretty good results with a Crown SASS-PII binaural mic. My best results came from a pair of Neumann KM130 Omni mics, but those are also expensive. I hope this helps?
Comment by admin — August 18, 2009 @ 10:51 am
hi Robert,
this is a tremendous help!thanks for all the advice,i’ll look into the olympus and tascam and those not too expensive mics.
regarding the microtrack:the internal battery was the only thing i didn’t like about it.
thank you for taking your time to answer all of my questions!
all the best,
Wasili
Comment by wasili — August 18, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Dear Sir:
I saw a brief comment from you regarding the Tascam DR-100. I have a problem using earphones and would like to know whether the built-in speakers on the device produce sound of decent quality and volume for a portable recorder. I just returned the Olympus LS-10 because of the terribly low volume of the built-in speakers. I am a nature enthusiast wanting to record some natural sounds, and I would also like to record classroom lectures since I am a graduate student. Thanks for your help.
Garfield
Comment by Garfield Danclar — September 22, 2009 @ 11:42 am
hi Robert,
i am in need for some new studio monitors.
right now i have the mackie HR824’s,used them for 6 years now,but have come to a point where they are too “forward” sounding,fatiguing,and lack of midrange clarity.
my studio is 12m2,acoustically treated.
i produce,mix and master music for myself and others.
the new monitors should of the active kind,very revealing,neutral,non-fatiguing,and a low end that goes as low as 30hz.
i’m willing to spend around $4000-5000 on those.
which would you advise?
thanks in advance!
all the best,
Wasili
Comment by wasili — November 2, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
This is a tough question. I am very fussy about monitors, and I am not very excited about most of the powered speakers available that companies market to small studios. The Mackie speakers are not much worse than the others. If you prefer a small powered speaker, maybe you should listen to the recent Focal speakers, from France. Their mid- and top end systems are very nice, although maybe a bit bright. I think Dynaudio BM15 are good, in your price range. I like the Lipinski L707, but they are rather expensive, and need an external power amp. Often I think a better choice is with high-end consumer audiophile speakers, which will need an external amp but give much better imaging and depth than most studio monitors. I am fond of the designs of John Dunlavy, who died in 2007. If you can find Dunlavy SCIIIb speakers, give a listen. I use Duntech Sovereigns for my main system and Dunlavy SCII for surround and I am very happy with them - speakers like this are available used for good prices. (I don’t know where you live, though, so every region is different.) - RR
Comment by admin — November 3, 2009 @ 2:48 am
Hello Robert!
I know you build your own flutes, but what type of flute would you recommend to me with similar character ?
I have never played a flute in my life, but for ambient music I do not need to be a professional, as long as I play with feeling.
Comment by Niclas — November 3, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
hi Robert,
that advice really helped me a lot,and really fueled my curiosity towards high-end audiophile speakers(like the ones you’re using and loving) and external amplifiers.
i will look(and listen) around for those you mentioned.
Thanks!
all the best,
Wasili
Comment by wasili — November 4, 2009 @ 9:21 am
Comment by admin — November 4, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Robert,
Had a few questions about microphones. I am looking into 1 or 2 large diaphragm condensers for the studio. I currently have a pair of ADK TLs and haven’t been that pleased with the top end sound of them. The stock models sound a little closed off on the top end making them sound a little strained. I see that you have a few of them with modded capsules. Considering maybe one of the Audio Technica models like the 4050. In terms of tonality I would like to find something that works well on voice and and has an open clear sound with very little coloration. So somewhere in the clear, transparent, open uncolored area but still rich in tone. Sounds like some “the one mic to rule them all” description that may be a little unrealistic. ;-)
Thanks!
Comment by Chad — November 7, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
The ADK TL has a rather “tizzy” top end, and the new “Vienna” capsules that I retrofitted mine with give a rather “C12″ style response, smoother, also brighter, with a bit of an upper midrange scoop. Very useful on piano and female voice. I have since started using the ADK Zigma CHI series modular microphones, and I am more and more impressed. If you want clear and bright, try the CHI “Ela M” style 251 large capsule. For a warmer sound with connected midrange, open top, (maybe a bit honky on some sources) try the CHI “Neumann U67″ style 67 head. These are very versatile and affordable systems.
The AT 4050 is an excellent microphone, neutral and a bit bland on some sources but rarely “wrong.” It has a pleasant forward midrange and unhyped high end, making it great on female voice, flute, and bass guitar amps. For male voice, a slightly more hyped mic can work better than the 4050. The AT is also a bit “boring” on drums and such. However, it’s a great mic for the neutral character.
I just recorded a jazz concert with the ADK Zigma CHI mics and I was very impressed. I used 47 and 67 LDC on the B3 Leslie (bottom and top), small diaphragm cardioid in ORTF stereo for drum overhead, and 47 LDC on guitar amp. (I used EV N/Dym 408 on snare and AKG D110 on kick, AT 818 on voice.)
I am a big fan of the latest ADK mics, and I have been critical of them in the past, so I recommend you check out the Zigma system.
All the best - RR
Comment by admin — November 8, 2009 @ 4:18 am
Thanks Robert for the input!
Your analogy of microphones to wine is spot on. Kind of like all of the variances of analog filters. I will look into the ADK options for the TLs. The Zigma system might be a little pricey.
I agree on the AT4050. The samples that I have heard using it are a little boring. Some of their other models like the AT4033 or the 4047 sound more interesting.
When stating not having coloration, I think what I really mean is not having that cheap electronics sound ( kind of how the SM57 can sound ). Also mics that have that thick tube coloration in the high end that resembles a megaphone quality. Kind of the opposite to the Neumann rich, crisp high end .
Well, lots to explore but thanks for this forum.
Comment by Chad — November 8, 2009 @ 8:39 am
By the way, I’m somewhat convinced that the cheap sizzle you hear in many Chinese-made capsules is a resonance peak around 15 kHz. It reminds me of the sound I hate in Genelec tweeters, which respond to very high frequencies with a sound like a wire brush scraping aluminum siding, only correlated to the music. It makes my earlobes curl.
The new ADK mics totally DON’T have that edgy HF resonance, and they feel very connected throughout the midrange. They aren’t that expensive either. I think you should be able to get a single capsule CHI 251 for under $500, about the price of an AT4050. The 251 would be a good choice if you want a bright open high end. The 67 or 47 would be good choices for a thicker midrange, but still open sound. I had good results modifying my ADK 51TLs with replacement 67 and C12 clone capsules, and you could ask them about that option, if you are really handy with a soldering iron.
I have become somewhat of an endorsing artist for ADK, although I have to buy stuff from them anyway. I’m a new fan of the CHI systems (I recently bought six Zigma CHI sets) … You could probably email ADK owner Larry Villella directly and mention that Robert Rich recommended you try a Zigma lollipop, his email is “larry (at) adkmic.com” (replace “at” with @). Otherwise, try Blue, or maybe Mojave. Most of your other choices at that quality level will be over $1000. Most of the other Chinese clones don’t have me convinced about the HF response.
Hopefully this helps? - RR
Comment by admin — November 8, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Very cool info Robert.
Thanks. I will look into the TL upgrades. I e-mailed Larry a while ago and he was quoting $250 per mic to change the TL capsules.
I’ve listened to some examples of the Mojave. I liked what I was hearing from the 201s best.
I have a pair Peluso CEMC6 SDCs. These are really under valued mics.
Decisions, decisions.
Well, thanks again!
Comment by Chad — November 8, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Hi Robert,
I had a question regarding recording flutes. I have a side blown bamboo flute and I’m getting a lot of noisy artifacts
when I’m recording it. Is it my lack of skill playing it or are their special measures I should consider regarding recording and mixing a side blown flute?
By the way thanks for all the great music!
Eelke.
Comment by Eelke — November 22, 2009 @ 8:49 am
Comment by admin — November 22, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Thanks Robert. I do not mind some wind noise myself because indeed it adds character and liveliness to the recording. I’ll look into the mics you proposed.
Eelke.
Comment by Eelke — November 22, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Hello RR-
It’s been a while.
I love this feature on your site, but I’m not surprised. You really are one of the unique artists who makes and effort to be accessible to your fans.
So, I thought I would start a small discussion on field recording.
I do a lot of local film projects, including location and post audio. Much of the post I do also includes adding FX and foley. Since I like to record “real” sound as much as possible, I was wondering what everyone else- including you, uses for their field rigs. Not a cart rig, just a totally portable system. Leave the powerbook at home for this one.
Currently I’m using a Tascam DR 100 (film sound settings- 16bit 48k) with AT 8035 (14.5″) or At 875 (6″) shotgun mics and an old $50 AT Pro 24 XY stereo mic that’s seen lots of love. I boom with a fairly common pole and shock mount, but I always use the best wind muffs.
Any thought on field recording in general, use of stereo mics (which do you like, why) and maybe other shotgun suggestions… Sanken is great I’ve heard them. I’m not impressed by Sennheiser any more than my ATs of comparable price..
Talk to you later
Mik
Comment by Mikoli (Sonoprint) — December 9, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Maybe we should throw headphones in there too. After all, live recording is nothing without good monitoring right?
I’m currently using AT ESW9 for most everything now.
I am really curious to see what others use in the field.
Mik
Comment by Mikoli (Sonoprint) — December 9, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
All the best - RR
Comment by admin — December 9, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Hi Robert,
This is a great new feature. I am enjoying getting in on some tips & tricks. Do you ever “proof” other artists recordings? Reason I ask is I’ve been working on a dbl-CD in homage to that fine film, “Stalker”. It’ sounds quite different from your recording (though I do use a a lot of gong samples). I’m not quite sure what to do with the soundscapes at this point. Care to give it a listen?
All the best,
Scott
p.s. gonna make it out to the Midwest for another concert anytime soon?
Comment by Scott Vincent — December 28, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
Comment by admin — December 28, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the heads up on the “proofing”. That might be a bit uncomfortable I can imagine.
So what would it take to have you come out this way? There is a performance center at a local college which hosts top names in the jazz and classical worlds. Do you have a press kit you can send?
Best,
Scott
Comment by Scott Vincent — December 28, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
I’m thinking about hitting the road this year, and the one thing I began to think about is compression. Do you usually compress each individual instrument, or do you just run everything through one compressor at your final stereo mixdown?
Thanks!
Comment by Dale Lindsay — January 3, 2010 @ 1:30 am
Comment by admin — January 3, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Well, that is absolutely awesome.
I completely agree that almost everything that’s been released by most bands/musical projects in the past five to ten years is far too compressed. I’m currently going through the list of albums you’ve mastered to find releases that aren’t smashed. It’s one of the reasons I’ve gravitated towards your music. It has Life.
I had assumed that you used compression on your modular since I found them to be really dynamic, especially when tweaking the resonance. I can see why you wouldn’t want compression on other sources, and it makes total sense. Once again, I find myself assuming something that doesn’t have to be true because of articles I’ve read in magazines. The question was started in my mind because I was watching a lot of live Tangerine Dream on youtube last night, and I was struck by how dynamic and organic everything sounded. I began to wonder if they just had better (hardware) compressors that made them sound so good, or if it had to do with just a difference in mixing/effects. Now that I’ve gone back and listened, I’m willing to say that there is total lack of compression that I’m hearing, and that’s what makes it so exciting. Live TD, along with your work and Steve Roach are my current favorites, and I think I just found one of the reasons why.
Thank you for the insight.
Comment by Dale Lindsay — January 3, 2010 @ 7:49 pm
Hi Robert,
Thanks for answering my e-mail earlier re: analog vs digital synth. I am considering a modular analog synth to better conceptualize my understanding of this. I have looked into some of the packages on synthesizer.com and was wondering if you had any opinion regarding what company is best for starting out. I have seen your demo on the MOTM clock divider and it appears modular analog is very interesting, and I’m sure challenging from a beginners standpoint. Do you have any suggestions? Can you recommend some literature on the subject? And where to start?
Thanks
Adam
Comment by Adam Kocher — February 15, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
Comment by admin — February 15, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
Ok, thinking about the Doepfer basic system, but what would be a good virtual program to consider if I go that route? Arturia Moog Modular?
I downloaded Bestiary from CD baby last night- very cool!!
Thank you for your time answering questions.
Adam
Comment by Adam Kocher — February 16, 2010 @ 10:49 pm
Comment by admin — February 16, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
Robert,
I’ve been keeping tabs on this forum for a while and wanted to let you know that your responses have helped me greatly with engineering my own work. I highly respect and admire what you do as a music artist and just want to say keep up the great work!
Regards,
Comment by TJ Coleman — March 17, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Comment by admin — March 17, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
Hi Robert,
I was curious if you knew about the legalities of synth use “out of the box” . When you record something (and sell it) using a unadulterated pre-programed synth that you purchased, are there copy-write infringements? Is the same true for rhythm loops? I know it’s best probably to be as true to yourself as possible, and inject originality to a piece, but sometimes
what’s there in front of you is the answer- Occams razor so to say.
Adam Kocher
Comment by Adam Kocher — March 26, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
Comment by admin — March 26, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
Hi Robert,
Just downloaded Alchemy from Camel Audio. I am very impressed with the balance of ease of use yet very complex soft synth. I was glad to find some of your programs on there (hope you get some kickback- of course). I am hoping to catch you in Kentucky while on tour.
Thanks for the great sounds!
Comment by Adam Kocher — April 18, 2010 @ 8:33 pm
Oh, one other thing that I wanted to mention about Alchemy from Camel Audio. I purchased the program with plans to use it as a plug in for my Mac Logic Express program. It does work well with that software, which is great. However, I would like to point out that it also works as a plug in for Garage Band on Mac as well. I was thrilled to find that out. This is great for Mac users who want a good soft synth and don’t want to upgrade to Logic express. As an amateur musician I am pleased with Logic Express, but sometimes Garage Band is just what I’m looking for, for it’s no frills ease of use, especially when recording just two or three tracks at a time. So, thanks for the advice. I think this program is exactly what I was looking for in the soft synth realm.
Adam
Comment by Adam Kocher — April 18, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
Hi Robert,
I’m not sure if you’re still watching this page, but I’ve been reading your advice on microphones. I’m afraid I have a somewhat cliché question. I’ve been recording for a number of years with pretty cheap microphones, and I’m looking to bring up the level of my sound. The trouble is, I’m not sure exactly what sound I want, and since my music falls between genres–a little pop, a little classical, a little electronic, even a little jazz–I’ve had trouble finding reasonable advice on what mic to pick. For instance, rock producers like to say that you can use an SM57 on anything, but I hate the coloration it has and end up using my 50$ omnis instead. On the other hand, I don’t know what coloration I really do want, because I don’t have the opportunity to experiment at length with all the different options. Some say that I should go to the store and audition different microphones, but it takes me more time than that allows to figure out what I can do with a sound and whether I like it. I’m wondering, if you were starting out in my confused situation, with maybe a 1,000$ budget, what would you do? Since your music is similarly between genres, perhaps you can understand where I’m coming from and have a few good ideas. Are the AT4050 or Zigma CHI, which you’ve recommended above (though the latter seems to be going up in price), good options in this confused situation? I’ll be recording voice, acoustic guitar, piano, and on occasion classical chamber instruments.
Thanks for your help,
John
Comment by j — April 26, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Comment by admin — April 26, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Thanks for writing back, Robert, it’s very kind of you. You hit the nail on the head at the end there, I’ve definitely been bewildered by the array of choices, but with virtually every mic getting a postiive review somewhere or other, I’m glad to have recommendations from a trustworthy source. The 4050 seems better priced, especially considering that it’s multi-pattern, but I do like the options for future expansion on the Zigma CHI. At any rate, I’ll be looking into one of the two. Interesting to know that large diaphragms are the best values, I hadn’t heard that before. Thanks again.
Take care and best of luck on your tour,
John
Comment by j — April 26, 2010 @ 2:41 pm
Here is more info about the Sony reverbs mentioned earlier:
DPS-V77: This is a one space rack device that is a “best of” of the 7 series (M7/R7/D7/F7). It has algorithmic reverbs.
DRE-S777: This is a two space rack unit that has convolution/impulse reverbs. There is a CDROM drive on the front for loading impulses. It was very expensive and is rare.
See you in Santa Fe in June!
-Dennis-
Comment by Dennis — May 15, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
Alright, that does it! I’m determined to learn to build my own flutes/whistles. I am tired of trying to find the right wind instruments. I’ve always wanted a bass flute, but I can only find them for hundreds of dollars. I have a C bamboo flute, but it’s out of tune with the rest of the world. Too expensive, not the right tuning, out of tune, not low enough, too screechingly high… BAH! *end rant* :\
Hello Mr. Rich, I saw you in Chicago a little while ago. Mr. Rich, what is the first step in learning to create PVC flutes? Is there a book, a manual, what do you recommend?
Comment by Elan Hickler — July 1, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Comment by admin — July 1, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
Hi Robert,
I have another question about reverb here… more technical than anything. I’ve looked through the other posts and don’t quite see what I’m looking for in terms of application. I know you’ve said a lot is up to individual preference but in this case I’m trying to learn how to get specific results.
I’ve been doing a lot of experimenting with all sorts of different soft-verbs (no hardware as of this posting because I can’t afford it - nor do I really have the room for it at this time). I have played with ArtsAcoustic, CSR, Altiverb, Waves IR-1, Sonnox Oxford, Trueverb, Renaissance Reverb, Eos, SIR, Aether, and the newer Lexicon PCM Native bundle to name a few. Actually, the Lexicons, CSR, and ArtsAcoustic are my faves in terms or algorithmic reverbs and Altiverb takes the cake for my IR taste.
Anyway, I have been spending countless hours testing and experimenting with all of these, layering them as inserts, layering them as sends, mixing various wet levels of different configurations, etc… I’m searching for a very particular sound and I’m just not getting it. I guess you could say I’m striving for that beautiful, puffy, cloud-like bliss that repeatedly comes from Steve Roach’s studio in his work (A Deeper Silence and Immersion: Three come to mind). I’ve heard it in your work as well as other artists who do this sort of thing, but not everyone can get that “Steve Roach” or “Robert Rich” sound. I know that a lot of it must be experience and knowing just how to configure everything, but I need some advice to get me pointed in the right direction. My efforts don’t seem to getting me to where I want to be in terms of a “recipe” for that huge, enveloping space. I can’t just put reverb on my synths. It needs something more. That’s what I’m trying to achieve, and I know hardware is involved there but I’m looking for methods I can use to at least get closer to it. The plugins all sound great but something is missing. Perhaps all I need is a process for how can be done with hardware that I can emulate with the plugins…
I’m not trying to steal that signature sound secret, but I want to know how you guys do it so I can apply that knowledge to my work in my own way :)
Comment by David — August 14, 2010 @ 12:16 am
Regarding reverbs, the answer to your question is variable, depending upon whom you ask and the mood they’re in. Most importantly, getting that lush sustaining sound depends a lot upon the source material - what you put through the reverb - as well as the context. It’s one thing to tell someone to go out and buy a used Lexicon PCM 70 and set the large hall algorithm to 20 seconds; it’s another thing to design sounds that bring those algorithms to life, and to put them into a mix context that gives a deep sounding ambience. Until recently, my own secret weapon was the old Sony R7, but only using settings that I came up with myself over many years of programming. That box tends to have a lighter more transparent sound than the Lexicon, but also not as lush. (It’s a dominant sound on Stalker, for example.) Plug-ins are still a bit behind the old hardware for these styles of use. Eos and Aether are very capable for swirling algorithmic tails (it’s important that they have a pitch-blurring feature to really emulate the old long tails, and many plug-ins don’t do that.) Another key is to spend a bunch of time programming your own settings. Trial and error is the key here. That’s about the best I can tell you - there’s no magic bullet. Happy droning! - RR
Comment by admin — August 14, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
I had a feeling that the source material played a big part. You’ve helped me confirm a couple things, for example finding the right patches to feed the reverbs. I’ll concentrate more on the synth patches and let you know what I come up with. =) — David
Comment by David — August 14, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
I have another question perhaps you may be able to answer more specifically… speaking in terms of pitch-blurring, are there specific levels (amounts) of reverb tail modulation that you’ve found work better for certain types of musical applications (such as drones, acoustic instruments, synth pads, etc.)? What is your take on that based on your experience? I know that a lot of this is subjective but I’m curious to hear what you’d recommend for different styles to best emulate that hardware.
Comment by David — August 23, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
Comment by admin — August 29, 2010 @ 10:49 am