22 Aug
2014
22 Aug
'14
5:39 p.m.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:12 PM, <tom(a)trellis.ch> wrote:
is it correct that the following two scenarios give
the exact same result?
(digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result)
(digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (result)
I'll add a note that if looping the playback output, using the 1st option
the FX must constantly processes. Option 2 has the FX "recorded in",
which means the FX chain doesn't use CPU.
Of course, this "advantage" of 2 has a disadvantage: you can't change the
FX settings anymore, and certain time varying FX like Flangers and
Phasers might not "line-up" if the speed of the Flanger doesn't match
the loop duration.
(new mail just in from Tom:)
"i'm recording the bass with compression and
eq, it just makes a better overall mix compared to
applying after recording" it
can be looked at as rubbish
Yes totally: assuming the audio the player hears is identical
regardless of settings: musicians generally perform slightly
differently if they hear a compressed version of their instruments
sound.
If the bass player recording with comp & eq also *hears* that, as
opposed to hearing it without compression... then perhaps they'll play
"better" and it'll be easier to mix.
HTH, -Harry
PS: There's a lot of studio guides that mention slightly compressing a
monitor mix to artists.. I find it interesting to read about the
settings, and wether to send some reverb or not too.. :)