Anyone Using Pro Tools?

Paul King · Post by **Paul King** » 31 Dec 2006 8:07 pm

On Saturday I did some recording for a friend of mine. He was using the computer and Pro Tools. It appears to be a good recording setup from what I could tell. I went direct which I prefer not to do. But recording has never sounded the way I want it to sound. I guess you just have to learn to record compared to playing in a live situation. I did enjoy getting to record the steel tracks even though the sound is not what I really wanted. I guess we will see what the final EQ and final mix sounds like. It may be better than what I am thinking. You guys have any advice on recording the steel guitar with Pro Tools I sure would appreciate it.

Mark van Allen · Post by **Mark van Allen** » 1 Jan 2007 2:49 pm

Hi, Paul, Even though I have analog and digital tape machines, nearly 100% of my recording work is on ProTools these days. Between the editing capabilities, instant rewind/locate times, ever-increasing quality and availability of plug-ins, and the speed and ease of adding new tracks, headphone sends, etc. during tracking sessions, it's hard to beat. Compatibility with other studios is a big plus, also.
As for recording steel into ProTools, it's pretty much the same as any recording medium or platform, what goes in is what you have to work with. I've never liked the sound of direct steel with no signal conditioning, except when used as a special effect. If you need to record direct,(can't mic an amp), I'd suggest trying any of the preamp/effects boxes: ProFex II, TransTube Fex, Genesis, Line 6 POD, etc. Many players prefer micing a good sounding amp with a nice condenser mic, or several placed at varying distances.
For quick setup and repeatable sounds, I usually use a Peavey TransTubeFex into whatever nice preamp the studio has available, Manley, Avalon, Peavey VMP-2, etc. I try to steer the engineer away from adding too much compression.
There have been a number of threads over the years here with great recording suggestions.
As far as ProTools, depending on the plug-ins the particular studio has available, it gives you near instant ability to audition various EQ curves, compression, etc. You might really like adding something like the PSP Vintage Warmer plugin, which is a nice compressor which adds a lot of beef to the signal without really squashing it. The Joe meek EQ plugs are pretty nice, the tonal changes are obvious and immediate. That plug-in is now included with a lot of ProTools systems.

Paul King · Post by **Paul King** » 1 Jan 2007 7:21 pm

Thanks Mark for the tips. I sure appreciate all the help I can get.

Chris Tarrow · Post by **Chris Tarrow** » 4 Jan 2007 2:17 pm

What Mark said. And, don't be bullied into not using an amp! It may be easier and quieter to go direct, but the amp is part of the instrument! Sounds better to have some air moving anyway IMHO.

Gaylon Mathews · Post by **Gaylon Mathews** » 4 Jan 2007 6:10 pm

I use Pro Tools as well. Here's a few photos of my modest little setup. I just record my own stuff and do a few demos for local folks. It's too much fun!

Paul King · Post by **Paul King** » 6 Jan 2007 6:54 am

I have so many questions concerning recording with Pro Tools. Do you set the controls straight up and down when recording? Do you guys play through the amp and use your normal amp settings? When going direct is the settings on Pro Tools straight up and down? I may be confusing everyone since I have never worked the system. I am somewhat confused myself and just trying to get the best possible results. This is our first try at recording with Pro Tools and we want the best possible sound we can get since the CD will sold at our gigs.

Randy Beavers · Post by **Randy Beavers** » 11 Jan 2007 2:32 pm

I also use Protools. If you are going to record your steel direct, just make sure you have the sound you want before plugging into the recording rig. This is going to require some kind of eq between the guitar and interface.

I record a dry direct signal only to use it to reamp at a later time.

Paul King · Post by **Paul King** » 11 Jan 2007 6:33 pm

Thanks Randy for the tip. Thanks to all who have given advice. I have not heard the mix since we redone the songs last Saturday. I will tell the gentleman doing the recording to take a look at this forum for all of the tips.

Jon Kemppainen · Post by **Jon Kemppainen** » 26 Oct 2007 9:09 am

I just got back a mixdown of some stuff we recorded direct to protools and it sounds pretty bad tone-wise. We chose to record direct because it was late at night and we couldn't make alot of noise. The project is essentially done and cannot be changed at this point. Too bad, won't do that again! Just wondering, does anyone have any recommendations on EQ settings or plug-ins we could have used to make it sound as good as it could? Also, it is begging for a good reverb or delay. My friend said that all the reverbs that came with his protools rig were pretty poor quality. Any suggestions for a plug in to use? Do you all typically record dry and then add the reverb?

Jay Fagerlie · Post by **Jay Fagerlie** » 27 Oct 2007 8:01 am

Jon,
If the problem you are having is because everyone went direct, you may be able to help it by re-amping. If you're not familiar with the concept-you can take the dry signals and run them out to amplifiers and re-record them....this way you can add some room and amp sounds to the original tracks. I wouldn't go too crazy with EQ's or anytrhing else until you can identifiy what it is you want to sound different.
Take the recording around to different places and listen to it on different playback systems to get some critiques, that always helps.
Good luck and keep us posted,
Jay

Rich Weiss · Post by **Rich Weiss** » 27 Oct 2007 10:51 am

I've been recording with P.T. for about 5 years.
When I record direct, I use the Black box, which helps a little bit. I also record dry, and add reverb later, although it's easy to monitor your playing with reverb.
I like a plugin called Realverb, which I'm not even sure they make anymore.

Daniel Iribarren · Post by **Daniel Iribarren** » 30 Oct 2007 7:57 am

What gives a digital workstation like protools it's sound, as opposed to say an analogue tape recorder, or another digital workstation is how the analogue signal gets converted to a digital one (and vice versa).
I think the Pro Tools AD/DA converters are pretty good, but if you really want better sound I would recommend getting an external converter. There are a number of good ones on the market and they can get pretty pricey, Apogee makes the rosetta which I think is great.
That being said, like most people I prefer to mic the amp because to me it's part of the sound. But in any case, a good converter makes a all the difference.

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 31 Oct 2007 7:14 am

I agree that the converters are absolutely critical because that's where the sound is captured. Most any DAW will let you use external converters of your choice. But that's really an entirely different issue than the actual sound of the software. People go round and round as to what program sounds better. They all do sound different, and the more tracks and the more processing you do to a mix, the more that sonic imprint becomes visible. Each program has a different set of algorithms that handle the math of calculating the audio. After all, it's ALL math once it's in the computer.

Perhaps the most critical stage is the "summing" stage. That's where the multiple tracks get "summed" or "mixed" down to just left and right (stereo). Some call this the "mix engine". You can read the many differing opinions out there about which ones sound better. ProTools in general is considered ok, but not spectacular compared to some others. I keep hearing that the sonics of Nuendo are great. To my ears, I find that ProTools HD sounds a lot better than normal ProTools. One popular method these days to entirely avoid the sonic issues of a digital mix engine is to actually take your multiple tracks out of the box and mix them in the analog world like thru a good ol' mix console or thru these new analog summing boxes. Yet another example of where analog wins over digital.

I've heard the difference between "in the box" mixes and analog summed mixes, and the analog stuff wins every time. Better detail, less veiled, more wide, more 3D, more distinction between tracks, etc. I think that someday they'll get there with digital mixing, but it's not there yet from what I can tell.

But getting back to the thread topic, this isn't really specific to PT, but recording in general. If you're trying to capture steel in a recording, the hardest and probably most important thing to do is to remove lots of the low end. It won't be the sound you hear when you play, but it will let the steel "fit" in a mix. That goes for most recorded sounds; vocals, piano, guitars, etc. It takes a lot of low end and low midrange cutting to make certain sounds fit. Tom Brumley told me about when he cut "Together Again". He said his amp tone was very big and fat, like many of us go for on stage. But when the engineers mixed it in, they cut ALL the low end to make the steel mixable. We've all heard the results. It may not sound right when you solo up the track, but if you have the whole mix going, you'll understand why low end needs to be cleared out. Often, there is very little energy below 200Hz in instruments like guitars, steel guitars, vocals, pianos, etc. You may also find that there is a peak that needs to be cut a bit as well somewhere up in the 1.5kHz to 3kHz range.

Brad

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 31 Oct 2007 7:18 am

Oh yea, and try miking the amp instead of direct. Direct can be real hard to make sound right. Nearly all the great tones you've ever heard recorded were done by miking an amp correctly. This is still the way it's done with the big guys.

Brad

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 31 Oct 2007 7:26 am

Jon, I saw that you asked about how to make an already direct recorded steel sound better. Maybe try this:

add a LPF to the sound. That's a low-pass-filter. It is a type of EQ that removes the high frequencies and "passes" the audio below the chosen frequency. Try setting the frequency somewhere around 5kHz. This will help emulate a real steel guitar speaker. The direct sound will always have way way way too much energy up high where tweeters operate. Steel guitar just doesn't normally have energy up there when it comes out of a steel amp. So try dumping those unnecessary highs with a Low Pass Filter set around 5kHz, and then see if your tone is more "normal".

Brad

robert kramer · Post by **robert kramer** » 1 Nov 2007 2:13 pm

Very useful tips on this post!

Jay & Randy,

What kind of re-amp box do you use? Or is it possible just to take the recorded signal directly from the output of Pro Tools into a guitar amp?

When overdubbing in Pro Tools, I always monitor the input of an instrument in this way: I create an Aux track and then set the input of that Aux track to the same input as the channel I'm recording my overdub instrument on. In this way, I'm always hearing the pre-recorded track and the overdub instrument. I can create a headphone mix from the Aux, add effects and make it stereo.

Bill Dobkins · Post by **Bill Dobkins** » 2 Nov 2007 6:28 pm

I wish I understood how to record with a computer. I have cakewalk, music creator 3 and know nothing about it. Any advice.

Jay Fagerlie · Post by **Jay Fagerlie** » 3 Nov 2007 8:51 am

Robert,
I use a Millenia Media TD-1.
Check it out:
http://www.mil-media.com/td-1.html
I know, it's a shameless plug for the place I work, but it is truly some of the best stuff you can get.
Jay

Bill Hatcher · Post by **Bill Hatcher** » 5 Nov 2007 9:40 am

Anybody NOT using ProTools!

I don't care for the way it sounds, but it is the default setting in the home and most pro studios these days.

I did some work on some Mac program last week...Pro something. Sounded good, $500, but you have to buy a $5000 Mac to run it!!!

Will Holtz · Post by **Will Holtz** » 5 Nov 2007 1:58 pm

I use Cakewalk Sonar in my home studio, but if you want to try computer recording on the cheap, check out Reaper. It is a very small but powerful DAW. Free to try out and only $50 to get a license for non-commercial use ($225 for commercial). The trial version is fully functional and will work forever. Currently only for PCs, but a Mac version is coming out any day now.

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 5 Nov 2007 8:33 pm

Hey, my Mac cost $1100 just this year. You can even get a Mac Mini for under $700 that will simply blow doors off of many other PC machines. The whole "mac's are expensive" thing isn't really true anymore. It used to be, but not these days.

Brad

Johan Jansen · Post by **Johan Jansen** » 1 Dec 2007 6:06 am

anyone using protools LE /digi 001/ Mac G4 in combination with a Alesis HD24 XR?
Curious...
JJ

Darvin Willhoite · Post by **Darvin Willhoite** » 1 Dec 2007 5:24 pm

We don't use Protools in our studio. My Son, who runs the studio, has had some experience with it, and didn't care for it. He feels its way overhyped. He uses Cakewalk when he needs digital editing.

The Steel Guitar Forum