4 Sep
2014
4 Sep
'14
7:37 a.m.
On 22/08/14 23:57, tom(a)trellis.ch wrote:
On Fri, August 22, 2014 17:39, Harry van Haaren
wrote:
I'm a musician. I also do a lot of recording.
One thing I told years ago by a gnarled old recording engineer was
always put plenty of reverb into the vocalists monitor. I took this
on-board and while I always record may parts as dry as is practical, I
always have plenty of FX in the monitor. I find it makes me sing better
and play better/cleaner.
I've analysed this a lot over the years and I can see two reasons.
For Vocals, the reverb is distracting and stops me from concentrating on
micromanaging my voice (which is not great to start with and could use
all the help it can get). For particularly challenging material a double
Scotch helps too, reinforcing the distracting aspect of the reverb.
For my instrument parts reverb or echo multiplies the tiniest of
mistakes and therefore I concentrate a lot harder on not making them,
leaving the actual playing to motor memory. My motor memory plays a lot
better than my conscious process.
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.
this is an interesting side-aspect indeed that goes beyond the generic
rec/play/fx fx/rec/play question.
Having the musician hear processed audio doesn't mean it has to be
recorded with FX though. It asks for a tight system (i.e. the
delay/latency of the processed audio is below the threshold of what is
acceptable by player).
I think what is sent to the musician must no be necessarily be the same
that is being recorded.