How much of it is editing?

Post Reply
User avatar
hyperbolica
Posts: 2792
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:31 am

How much of it is editing?

Post by hyperbolica »

Ok, I just want a little honesty here, which I know is kind of against the code, but I think it would be useful for a lot of people.

I was listening to one of Christopher Bill's recording's once, and the first chord came in like a friggin pipe organ. And the second chord sounded like a robotic trumpet choir. And after that it just sounded like a sampled keyboard genius. I look back and the title was "Half Man Half Machine". No $#!+.

So I listen to everybody's covid recordings. Some of them are just utterly perfect. I mean perfect in a way I've never heard before. Attacks are all perfect, intonation hardly wavers. And then I did one. And I sounded like a high school student. No offense to high school students intended.

I'm not a bad player. If I were part of a real performance that sounded like my recording, I'd be mortified. And then the Christmas project some folks bravely contributed to here on the forum. I know there are good players in that group, but it sounded not as good as some of these other recordings.

So what's up? Let's assume it's not my playing skills that are sub-par that result in my mediocre recording. It's got to be my technology skills. How much time are all of the people putting together these recordings putting into editing? Without even talking about practicing, playing, and recording, it looks to me like the most time is put into editing.

Below are a couple of duets and a quartet I recorded. There are some obvious problems with the performance, but what would it take to take stuff like this and make it into something that was really presentable? How much of it is editing, and how much of it would be just better recording, if you accept that the playing is what it is? Or is it really just that the stuff you hear on youtube recordings really are perfect?

http://dezignstuff.com/recordings/The%2 ... 0Fence.mp3
http://dezignstuff.com/recordings/Echo%20Schmecho.mp3
http://dezignstuff.com/recordings/crazy ... 20love.mp3
Last edited by hyperbolica on Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Burgerbob
Posts: 4530
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:10 pm
Location: LA
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by Burgerbob »

Chris Bill edits the complete **** out of his recordings. That's my biggest problem with him, actually.

There's two general ways to do multitracks- one where you can shoot and record at the same time, and the other where you sideline the video and record separately. Personally, I like to sideline (usually means to pretend to play, but you can just play your part since the audio will not matter) for the video layer, then get some good takes for the audio and put them together. This makes the burden much easier when shooting the video, at least for me.

BUT- if you have an easy way to record video and audio at the same time, there's no reason you can't record both simultaneously for each take. My process is not easy so I choose to separate them.

For this very short multitrack, I sidelined all the video, then came back the next day and recorded probably a dozen takes for each track. I put those together in Reaper, lined them up, and called it a day. No editing at all because I had enough time to get solid, in time, in tune tracks for each one. If you have a longer piece, you can cut it into chunks so you're not trying to record a 5 minute part perfectly in one go, for instance.



If you're world class, you can just do a John Romero and do all of it at once... bit higher level needed for that though.



Pretty sure Brennan is playing all these in the videos as well-

Aidan Ritchie, LA area player and teacher
User avatar
hyperbolica
Posts: 2792
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:31 am

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by hyperbolica »

I'm not even concerned about video at this point. Just editing the audio. The ones I posted above are just as-recorded aside from changing levels. Getting all the beats lined up perfectly with the click track, tweaking the intonation would be a lot of extra work. How much time is spent on that sort of thing vs just recording each track? Is the real feat of things like this the editing, and not the playing?
User avatar
Burgerbob
Posts: 4530
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:10 pm
Location: LA
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by Burgerbob »

I prefer to just get it right when playing.

But, it's not too hard to tweak a pitch here or there, cut out a bit of a note that's too long here or there. I just only want to do that a couple times rather than hours and hours of getting it just right in the edit.
Aidan Ritchie, LA area player and teacher
User avatar
hyperbolica
Posts: 2792
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:31 am

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by hyperbolica »

Burgerbob wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:33 pm I prefer to just get it right when playing.
Right, obviously, but a lot of these recordings are edited. They are clearly too perfect. I'm just wondering how much time folks spend on stuff like that.
User avatar
Burgerbob
Posts: 4530
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:10 pm
Location: LA
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by Burgerbob »

hyperbolica wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:46 pm
Burgerbob wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:33 pm I prefer to just get it right when playing.
Right, obviously, but a lot of these recordings are edited. They are clearly too perfect. I'm just wondering how much time folks spend on stuff like that.
The less the more experienced they are at editing, of course. But probably hours on longer, more involved multitracks.
Aidan Ritchie, LA area player and teacher
User avatar
Finetales
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:31 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by Finetales »

A few things.

First, it is easy to tell the difference between a legitimately flawless recording and one made flawless via editing. Jim Nova's amazing Star Wars multitracks are a perfect example of the former, and Christopher Bill (along with MANY other YouTube multitrackers...he is FAR from the only one, but perhaps the most successful?) is a perfect example of the latter. Excessive pitch correction and compression are very easy to hear, and contribute to the robot or sample-like sound quality you may notice...even if the raw tracks are recorded by good players. A great example of this is some of Matonizz's videos. Matonizz plays solo euphonium with the River City Brass Band and is obviously a professional-caliber player, as are the other members of the RCBB he sometimes brings in for his videos...something you can clearly hear on his videos of concerts with the band. But listen to this part of one of these multitracks he did. It sounds lifeless and synthesized, and uncannily similar to a certain cheesy brass patch on a Yamaha DX7.

Second, the really good sounding multitracks will be mixed and post-processed to sound as good as possible. This isn't the same as editing the actual takes, but mixing, EQing, noise gates, panning, etc. to take the existing material and make it come to life. A multitrack of completely raw takes recorded on a typical home setup is almost certainly going to sound disappointing, regardless of the caliber of player. That's what post-processing is for. On my latest multitrack for example, every track has a noise gate (since I'm recording in a very acoustically imperfect bedroom with ambient background noise around the non-insulated walls), an EQ, minimal compression, and a carefully panned position in the stereo field. Panning is very important because all the mono tracks right down the middle are going to sound thin and lifeless no matter what - you have to use the whole stereo field! The master also has an EQ, a limiter, minimal compression, and tasteful reverb that thickens everything up. Mixing and mastering is an artform in itself, and very daunting for someone with no experience. I still don't know too much but am learning. There are software plugins by iZotope that can suggest decent EQ and compression settings for you, and those are very helpful. I use the iZotope stuff a lot. Even without a second of editing the takes to be in tune, in time, etc., it can take hours to do the post-processing.

Third, multitracking is a skill that must be learned like anything else. Even if you are a good player with studio experience, your first attempt at multitracking likely won't be very good. That doesn't necessarily mean you're a worse player than those cranking out heavily-edited multitracks on YouTube, it just means you have to do it more. Fortunately, multitracking is an extremely efficient way of improving many aspects of your playing all at once, and it's fun. But don't be discouraged if your initial attempts don't sound like the popular videos on YouTube, edited or not. This is the first multitrack I ever did, when I still knew nothing about any of this. Obviously I've improved tremendously as a player since then (this was fresh out of high school, with 2 years on bass trombone under my belt), but the point is if I took that session and post-processed it, it would sound a million times better.

Fourth, as Aidan mentioned there are two ways of doing the video. You can record video of the actual takes, or you can do all the recording and then play along to the track on each part to make the video. I would strongly recommend doing it separately. It provides you a lot more flexibility with the recording portion and saves a LOT of time overall, in my experience. It might seem counterintuitive that doing the video separately would save time, but unless you will actually nail the part with perfect intonation on every chord tone (in a vacuum), time, style, etc., it will be much slower. If you record the video with the audio, you will have to record each part IN FULL perfectly, and one mistake means the take is dead AND the video is dead, and you have to do both over from the beginning. (This excludes certain mistakes like cracking a note but still having the slide in the right position, which you can just punch later and not affect the video.)

When doing certain multitrack projects for other people, I often do record the video and audio simultaneously because the project is small enough that it's no big deal. For example, I recorded all 4 trombone parts to a few big band charts in the fall, and knocked them out in one take with video, doing short punches in a couple of spots afterwards. But for large multitracks where you're doing EVERYTHING instead of just a few parts, doing it separately is much safer. Nearly everyone who does multitracks to any professional degree does it this way, including Jacob Collier. (Jacob, being the freak of nature that he is, will sing the video takes 3 quarter-steps higher than the recording so he "doesn't get bored".) Basically, video is just a big hassle, and it's better to not have to worry about it while doing the actual recording. In my latest multitrack that both I and Aidan linked, only the improvised trombone solo (which anything improvised should ALWAYS be recorded with video) and the percussion and keyboard parts had the actual takes filmed. All the written brass parts were filmed afterwards. (The euphonium video takes I played with my practice mute in because my roommates were home...since the bell never points towards the camera you'd never notice. There's your "peeling back of the curtain" for the day!) I should note, I never "mime" for the camera...I actually play through the part. And I record it too, in case something from the video take ends up being better than the take I already have!

The final thing that's important to discuss about multitracking and how it relates to video, is that I don't record each part all the way through and then move onto the next one. The main reason I don't do that is because it's better for my chops to record a bit of trumpet, then a bit of horn, then mellophonium, then trombone, then bass trombone, then euph, etc. before going back to trumpet, rather than pounding my face into dust recording all the trumpet parts for a few hours. Big multitracks take a very, VERY long time to record (one of my older multitracks with a lot of parts and length took five straight days, waking up to going to bed, to record) and even if you're doing them for fun you have to maximize efficiency with your time and your chops or else it'll take weeks. (Of course, smaller multitracks like the quartets Chris Bill usually does can be done in an afternoon. I'm a glutton for punishment.) Recording each phrase individually takes several orders of magnitude less time than recording a whole part at a time. If you mess up, you lose a few seconds rather than a few minutes to redo it, both on the clock and on your face. Then once you get to the end you go back and punch anything that needs to be punched, then play each part all the way through for the camera.

Finally, it does have to be said that your multitracks can only sound as good as your raw recordings are. You can edit a bad initial product like crazy, but as has already been discussed it's very obvious and still won't sound good (unless you own Melodyne...then you can get away with a lot more). So it helps to both get a lot of multitrack recording experience under your belt, and give yourself the best microphone, audio interface, and acoustic environment you can. And of course it helps to have a good sound!
User avatar
WilliamLang
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:12 pm

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by WilliamLang »

there's a ton of editing in almost every modern recording, even when presented as "live". one example i think of a top orchestras "live" cd sessions being the result of the entire week of rehearsal plus three concerts stitched together and edited on top of that.

but recorded and live are seperate entities now. the standard for recorded music, even on youtube and such, is more or less perfection. one intersting side effect is people internalize perfect sounds and generations get closer and closer to technically perfect capability (perfect is in huge air quotes here, and sometimes/often at the expense of any type of style.)

i do wish people were more honest about their raw sound vs. the final product, but that's the exception, not the rule (and something John Romero also just did in a recent video, where he still sounded fantastic)
William Lang
Interim Instructor, the University of Oklahoma
Stephens Horns Artist
Long Island Brass Artist
faculty, the Longy School of Music
founding member of loadbang
www.williamlang.org
imsevimse
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:43 am
Location: Sweden

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by imsevimse »

I did a few recordings this summer and then experimented to find the best sound. I did not edit any of it. For this recording I filmed with my Canon 550D camera and recorded thru a mixer. I did not use reverb because it does not sound natural to me. I whish I knew more about how to edit but I got a good tip here in the thread from Burgerbob to shoot the video separate and then do a number of recordings to choose from. A classical piece would be fine to do like that, but if you improvise a solo then you need to do the recordings first and after you choose the best recording you then need to learn that solo again real well and "play yourself" for the video, or else it will look real bad.

This recording I made has no audio-editing, but unortunately the Camera adds a little bit of background noise, but not in a way it hurts. I think the sound from the mic is okay.

https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php? ... 03#p115557

/Tom
User avatar
hyperbolica
Posts: 2792
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:31 am

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by hyperbolica »

Thanks all for taking time to answer. I suppose I need to start simple and maybe use band-in-a-box to figure out my recording set up, and then worry about multitracks later. Thanks again.
User avatar
TriJim
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:42 pm
Location: SouthCentral Pennsylvania

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by TriJim »

Sound editing for the neophyte may appear a daunting task, but with modern software tools - like Melodyne, Izotope plug-ins, and DAW Compression, EQ, and Quantize features, it's easier to line-up, tune, and 'energize' a performance than ever before. Of course, you still need an audio engineer with experience using these modern editing tools and a good ear.

For the player, creating a good recording is key - and this should be everyone's goal - otherwise you're asking the sound engineer to make a purse from a sow's ear.

And don't 'ruin' your recording by saving in a lossy format or listening with a subpar sound system.
Mikebmiller
Posts: 871
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:13 am
Location: Spartanburg, SC

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by Mikebmiller »

FWIW, "editing" isn't cheating. It is the process used to make something sound good. I have learned a lot about this in the past 10 months and produced a few videos that, while not on Jim Nova's level, at least don't suck. When playing a 3 - 4 minute tune, at least for me it is difficult to not have at least one small mistake somewhere along the way, whether it is a clipped note or a slightly out of time entrance. Modern DAW software makes it easy to fix these without having to re-record the whole piece. I don't edit pitch, but I like to add just a bit of reverb and to use automation to get the volume right between parts. It also sounds much better if you pan the parts a bit rather than having everything dead center.

Even Jim doesn't record a whole part at once. I have heard his presentation a couple of times and he said that he usually does about 8 bars at a time.
User avatar
harrisonreed
Posts: 4491
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by harrisonreed »

Finetales wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 3:07 pm A few things.

First, it is easy to tell the difference between a legitimately flawless recording and one made flawless via editing. Jim Nova's amazing Star Wars multitracks are a perfect example of the former, and Christopher Bill (along with MANY other YouTube multitrackers...he is FAR from the only one, but perhaps the most successful?) is a perfect example of the latter. Excessive pitch correction and compression are very easy to hear, and contribute to the robot or sample-like sound quality you may notice...even if the raw tracks are recorded by good players.
For the record, Jim is the FIRST person to admit that he only records a few measures at a time per part. I don't know what you mean by flawless recording vs one made flawless by editing. There are literally hundreds of cross-fades happening in any given Jim Nova multi track. And EQ, and pitch correction.

A recording is not a performance. It's entertainment. The days of recording ANYTHING, but especially CLASSICAL music in one take are looong gone. You can get a "live" cd recording of an orchestra, but even that will be composed of rehearsals, and sometimes cuts from different performances.

So, it's all fake. Chris Bill uses too much compression and his auto tune is automated, vs something like melodyne, where you can fine tune each pitch. The pros use melodyne, or newtone, or something similar to that, if they are multi tracking.

I think the Brass Ark recently did an interview with CL where he talks about his first CD and BIS insisted on not doing cross-fades. So it took them forever to record it. He says later something like "thank God those days are over" in the interview. He recently did a YouTube series on playing the Bach Partita. Lots of great moments of him practicing. Lots of mistakes. Is awesome. He alludes to it, but doesn't tell you that all the recorded sessions were compiled, sent to a digital producer, and then assembled into the final recording for spotify. So the performance happened, but it was split over 30 recording sessions where he works on like 8 bars at a time.

Nowadays big studios are using Sequoia, for the advance crossfade editing it allows.

Recordings are great. Videos no longer prove that it was recorded live. If you want live, you gotta go out and catch a concert.

Two notable exceptions are Jim Markey recently doing a few honest to God recitals from his home, warts and all. It was awesome. Lindberg also released a full recital he did in Japan. It is slightly edited, since he uses audio and video from different nights for different pieces, but there is nothing like crazy cross-fades or punch-ins happening.
User avatar
ArbanRubank
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by ArbanRubank »

And all this above is why so many make the mistake of comparing their live sound to what they hear in a recording. Emulation may be a noble effort, but we shouldn't despair too much if we fall short. I have heard performers live who sound nothing like any recording they have ever done.

I imagine actors find the final product very interesting when they screen it. If we were sitting with them in their home theater, they would probably tell us how many takes of a given scene they had to do and how the final cut was blended with other takes that surprised even them when they watched it.
User avatar
harrisonreed
Posts: 4491
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by harrisonreed »

To answer the OPs question about how much effort goes into the editing, it's a lot. Jim Nova goes over his procedure in some of his videos and barely scratches the surface. You've gotta first take the time to set your studio up correctly and get the levels correct. Once that's done you can probably leave everything and not have to fiddle with it.

Most of his time is spent doing punch-ins, where he does multiple takes of the same few bars. You save all the takes, because you might be able to crossfade between two of them and create a better take than any of the individual ones in your audition pile.

If you are doing a professional level recording, this is when the recording engineer would take over, or the artist would send the project file to a digital producer. In his early projects, Jim did most of the next steps himself, I believe. Both ways are acceptable, but a pro audio engineer is best.

Once all the takes are in place, you can begin assembling each part by auditioning each take, and then crossfading the takes together. Then you bounce the audio down to one track per part or instrument. Each of these tracks is ready for pitch correction. Using a plug-in like melodyne will allow for just intonation and won't sound robotic.

Here is a GREAT video showing how pitch correction is used by professionals. Notice that the raw recording he starts with is already good. He uses it for pitch correction, vibrato, creating harmonies, and even creating new melodic lines:



You now have tracks that are ready to be mixed.

For mixing, if you recorded in mono, you'll need to pan each track to get a stereo effect. I like to record in stereo and move my body around the room for each part. This creates a real stereo image. If recording close mic mono, the level of wet/dry reverb will also create spatial depth in the stereo image. Usually reverb will be added after the mix is set, but it is used to create the image so I felt like mentioning it here. The actual "mix" is setting gain levels for each track. It also can involve "riding the gain" to create dynamic contrast that wasn't caught by the mic or to accent these changes. The final mix can also involve the use of compression to REMOVE dynamic contrast, which allows you to increase the overall gain level of the final mix. This is what Chris Bill does. You might also use limiting to catch one or two stray "peaks" that ruin an otherwise good dynamic mix and level and force you to have the gain too low.

Once your mix is good, you add effects. This is where you finalize your reverb, and possibly do some initial EQ if required. At this point, most artists (if they've chosen to do all this themselves) will save their project and send it to a digital producer. The best way is to send the entire project so that the producer can mess with the mix if they want. Another common way is to bounce the audio tracks down to a single stereo track and send the WAV file. The digital producer (who could have been hired to do most of the work above as well) is trusted to do the final mastering. What is mastering? Well, it's what makes amateur recordings of good musicians sound a lot different from professional recordings of the same musicians. An audio engineer would be chosen who specializes in the genre you're working with. If someone has mastered audio for, say, Joe Alessi, you could do worse than to seek out that person and their colleagues to master your final mixes. The same goes for jazz or electronic music. The audio engineer has three things that 99% of even the best musicians don't have:

1. A great ear for recorded music. They know what a real recording sounds like. Most musicians don't. They can tell a good recording from a bad recording, but they wouldn't be able to hear what is actually lackluster in their own raw recordings.

2. Experience in mastering music. If you didn't know what mastering was and still don't, enough said. Most of us don't even know what it is or why it's important.

3. The equipment and the room/space to master music. Most musicians do not have a room that is acoustically designed to objectively work on an audio recording. You need the right room, reference quality monitors and headphones, etc. How will this recording sound on the best speakers? How will it sound on mediocre headphones? Car speakers? A phone? What compromise do we make to get it to sound acceptable on all of those? Now what if we are looking at an entire album or youtube series? Do we have to adjust the volume every time the track changes? Does it sound like a different trombone is being played every track?

It's a lot of work. If you start with a good recording, the more work you put into it the better you'll get to capturing the performance. If you didn't have your mics in the right spot, none of this stuff above will really matter.
Doubler
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:56 pm

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by Doubler »

harrisonreed, your recent comments are among the most interesting, well-written, and informative reading I've run across. Thank you for posting them.
Current instruments:
Olds Studio trombone, 3 trumpets, 1 flugelhorn, 1 cornet, 1 shofar, 1 keyboard

Previous trombones:
Selmer Bundy, Marceau
User avatar
harrisonreed
Posts: 4491
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by harrisonreed »

Just a follow up on the OPs recordings for constructive criticism. The room sounds bad, and it is extremely difficult to edit away a bad room, because the reflections of the articulations show up in the audio. Close miking or acoustic panels are usually the solution that is used, but it won't sound like a great room even if you have a great reverb plugin. There is no way to get the natural sounds of the trombone by close miking. You can achieve a nice polished studio recording sound with that technique though. Artificial reverb is entirely acceptable and sounds great, but doesn't add the freqs that are lost by close miking, because those only start to shine at a distance and are affected by the acoustic space.

There is a lot of grit in the recording (ie a high noise floor and breaths)

These need to be addressed before you can move on to making it sound like the recordings you are using as a reference. You can't easily edit out a bad room, though you can compensate for one by recording as little of that room as possible. You can't fix mic choice or placement in post production.

There are tempo issues where it sounds like different sections were strung together and the tempo doesn't match from the beginning of the sample to the end of it, and there is a sudden tempo change where the next sample begins. If you aren't using a click track to control the tempo of the entire piece, you will run into these kinds of tempo problems. A good DAW takes the click into account and will usually perfectly align your audio to it, at least as you recorded it. In other words it starts where you heard the clock start, and the plugin latency and DAW latency is compensated for. If you didn't actually play in time with the click, that still shows up on the recording.

One way tempo is controlled is to create the click track first, in sibelius or finale as a midi file. You can "conduct" the performance in those programs, and it applies a tempo track to your score. Then you can export the midi file. This midi is used in your DAW to control the tempo, so all the rubatos, accel, rallent, etc are captured and become a part of the click track. You don't assign any instruments to the midi, though you could if you wanted to help you hear the pitch, but what you're really after is the tempo automation embedded in the midi track.

The other way to do it, which is possible in Sequoia and maybe Reaper, is to record a live version as your tempo track. It doesn't matter if there are mistakes, as long as the tempo and expression are what you want. You load this into Sequoia and set the timeline to beats per measure, instead of seconds, and then you can literally go through and mark where each beat of that performance is using the audio. The beats in the timeline ruler stretch to match those markers. So you're left with a project with the correct click track and tempo built into the timeline ruler. You can delete the live recording and multitrack. Or keep it and multi track. Or keep a lot of it, punch in over the mistakes, and then multi track. The tempo will match that original vision.

Once you got those areas, then you can work on EQ to get the right character of sound (the freqs that are lost by close miking are what you're after), and add a great reverb (like Altiverb) to somewhat create the room sound you want and blend the tracks. Even if you don't want to pitch correct, those are things you would need to do.
User avatar
Finetales
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:31 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by Finetales »

harrisonreed wrote: Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:02 pm For the record, Jim is the FIRST person to admit that he only records a few measures at a time per part. I don't know what you mean by flawless recording vs one made flawless by editing. There are literally hundreds of cross-fades happening in any given Jim Nova multi track. And EQ, and pitch correction.
Yeah, I didn't word that very well.

What I meant was, even with Melodyne and other professional tools like that, you can tell when a recording is pro-quality takes (as you mentioned of Jim Nova's initial output in your next post) tweaked and refined versus something that tries to use excessive processing to make it sound good, only to result in something that sounds very synthetic. I didn't mean to imply that Jim doesn't edit his stuff.
A recording is not a performance. It's entertainment.
This I totally agree with. Recorded music is fundamentally different to live music, and however the desired result is reached doesn't matter. We record videos because people like to have something for their eyes to do on YouTube, not because it's more "authentic". As I mentioned previously, I also record phrases at a time rather than full parts start to finish. I'd never get anything done if I did that.

Great posts though, lots of useful information.
quiethorn
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:36 pm
Location: Seattle-ish
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by quiethorn »

Not to dump on Christopher Bill 'cause he's a cool, but I saw him play a few years ago with a local all-state type high school band. He played Blue Bells. He was clearly struggling; it's a hard tune, and he's great and all, but he's no Alessi. Near the end when things get really fast, he made some bad goofs and the band and conductor fell apart behind him. It was all in good fun, the conductor stopped the band and made a light-hearted joke ("We've clearly been at this all day," or something), the audience laughed and cheered them on, and they started up again from before where he had goofed.

I knew a student in that band. She got the CD of their performance from that day. When I listened to Blue Bells, it was like I was hearing a different player. Not only were all the goof-ups and the whole band-falling-apart thing edited out, but his playing overall was much better. I figured either he or someone somehow salvaged his performance, or the band recorded without him and he laid down his part later, cleaned it up, and they mixed it in.

Either way, I got a signed Christopher Bill poster.
User avatar
jbeatenbough
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:57 pm
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by jbeatenbough »

hyperbolica wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:46 pm
Below are a couple of duets and a quartet I recorded. There are some obvious problems with the performance, but what would it take to take stuff like this and make it into something that was really presentable? How much of it is editing, and how much of it would be just better recording, if you accept that the playing is what it is? Or is it really just that the stuff you hear on youtube recordings really are perfect?
In my opinion, those recordings of yours are much closer to being great than you think. A little post processing to give more presence would be enough to make those very solid. They sound a bit thin and the left/right mixing gives no room presence at all - But, they are well played.

You've already gotten great advice for processing- far better than I could give, so instead, my intention is to give you a pat on the back and say you are off to a good start!
John

Tenor:
King 2B Silvertone-DW 12CS
Shires 1Y,T47,Dual Valve-DW 6BL
Shires 7YLW screw bell, T08-25YC-DW 6BS
Kanstul 1555-DW 6BS

Alto:
Thomann TEB480L-Schilke 45B

Trumpet:
King Liberty Silvertone AB-Schilke M2C
King 600-Bach 7C
quiethorn
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:36 pm
Location: Seattle-ish
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by quiethorn »

hyperbolica wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:46 pm Ok, I just want a little honesty here, which I know is kind of against the code, but I think it would be useful for a lot of people.

I was listening to one of Christopher Bill's recording's once, and the first chord came in like a friggin pipe organ. And the second chord sounded like a robotic trumpet choir. And after that it just sounded like a sampled keyboard genius. I look back and the title was "Half Man Half Machine". No $#!+.

So I listen to everybody's covid recordings. Some of them are just utterly perfect. I mean perfect in a way I've never heard before. Attacks are all perfect, intonation hardly wavers. And then I did one. And I sounded like a high school student. No offense to high school students intended.

I'm not a bad player. If I were part of a real performance that sounded like my recording, I'd be mortified. And then the Christmas project some folks bravely contributed to here on the forum. I know there are good players in that group, but it sounded not as good as some of these other recordings.

So what's up? Let's assume it's not my playing skills that are sub-par that result in my mediocre recording. It's got to be my technology skills. How much time are all of the people putting together these recordings putting into editing? Without even talking about practicing, playing, and recording, it looks to me like the most time is put into editing.

Below are a couple of duets and a quartet I recorded. There are some obvious problems with the performance, but what would it take to take stuff like this and make it into something that was really presentable? How much of it is editing, and how much of it would be just better recording, if you accept that the playing is what it is? Or is it really just that the stuff you hear on youtube recordings really are perfect?

http://dezignstuff.com/recordings/The%2 ... 0Fence.mp3
http://dezignstuff.com/recordings/Echo%20Schmecho.mp3
http://dezignstuff.com/recordings/crazy ... 20love.mp3
Congratulations, a COVID-worthy, Youtube-ready recording!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3mhby6ktrwrzy ... e.mp3?dl=0
User avatar
hyperbolica
Posts: 2792
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:31 am

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by hyperbolica »

Wow. You fixed my little chips and big flubs and bad time and funky intonation. And you gave me a pedal C! Wow, I could be a real Youtube sensation! All I need is some tech skills.

Seriously, how long did it take you to fix/process that?
quiethorn
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:36 pm
Location: Seattle-ish
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by quiethorn »

hyperbolica wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:54 pm
quiethorn wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:56 pm

Congratulations, a COVID-worthy, Youtube-ready recording!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3mhby6ktrwrzy ... e.mp3?dl=0
Wow. You fixed my little chips and big flubs and bad time and funky intonation. And you gave me a pedal C! Wow, I could be a real Youtube sensation! All I need is some tech skills.

Seriously, how long did it take you to fix/process that?
It took about 30 minutes... but I've had plenty of practice on my own stuff, and your source material was better to begin with :biggrin:
User avatar
hyperbolica
Posts: 2792
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:31 am

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by hyperbolica »

Wow, well, thanks for doing that, its great to see what can be done with even my feeble simple recording. I'm not sure I've got the motivation to learn all that, It seems like a big commitment to learn, but it helps me appreciate more what others are doing.
imsevimse
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:43 am
Location: Sweden

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by imsevimse »

quiethorn wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:13 pm
hyperbolica wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:54 pm

Wow. You fixed my little chips and big flubs and bad time and funky intonation. And you gave me a pedal C! Wow, I could be a real Youtube sensation! All I need is some tech skills.

Seriously, how long did it take you to fix/process that?
It took about 30 minutes... but I've had plenty of practice on my own stuff, and your source material was better to begin with :biggrin:
Good job :good: , and it only took 30 minutes. It's a real big difference. I think I need to learn some skills on editing. The reverb was good too. I need that reverb for my next recording. :idea:

What program did you use to manage to get this good a result?

/Tom
quiethorn
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:36 pm
Location: Seattle-ish
Contact:

Re: How much of it is editing?

Post by quiethorn »

imsevimse wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 5:20 am
quiethorn wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:13 pm

It took about 30 minutes... but I've had plenty of practice on my own stuff, and your source material was better to begin with :biggrin:
Good job :good: , and it only took 30 minutes. It's a real big difference. I think I need to learn some skills on editing. The reverb was good too. I need that reverb for my next recording. :idea:

What program did you use to manage to get this good a result?

/Tom
I just used Reaper, which looks pretty common on the forum. It comes with the Elastique pitch shifting algorithms, which are pretty good. I used Audio Damage Eos for the reverb.
Post Reply

Return to “Performance”