Most important part of recording process?

For those of you engineers out there, what is the most important leg of the recording process?

If we break it down to recording, mixing and mastering, which one has the greatest influence on the end sound?

Also, is there a garbage in/garbage out theory? In other words, if you don't get a good recording will all the mixing and mastering not matter?

Or, is it the mixing and mastering that makes all the difference and recordings for most major albums all sort fall within a certain quality bracket in this day and age?

I listen to vinyl and keep seeing the SPARS Code used in various descriptions of the recording process for specific albums. Just wondering if there are major red flags or desired combinations for the vinyl collector who loves that open analog sound. I know AAA is obviously the process to shoot for but what about ADA? or AAD ?

 

Having a good mic - the rest I think is equally importan...oh, I'm not an engineer though

 

Anyone can answer that has an opinion....or a good ear for sound!

 

For starters you have to have good sound from the basic sources..meaning the sound of the instruments to begin with. After that it's very much a step by step thing....you have to decide what sort of mic placement will work best for the sound you're after (let alone the quality of the mics themselves). And I fully agree...if the basic recording isn't good to begin with in terms of preliminary settings/adjustments, the mix will only take you so far.

 

No question: the recording is #1.

The sound of the instruments/voice and the performance are more important than any other process.

 

I would it's a mix of all three that results in the finished product.

 

Having something worth recording.

 

Several good, long sessions in the rehearsal studio before tracking.

 

Knowing what to leave in and what to take out...essential.

Not overloading the mix.

 

To Master poorly is easier to do than to record poorly.

 

So are we safe to say that if we want that true analog "sound" we must record in analog to start the process...is this integral to getting analog sound?

I am currently in a small argument/discussion with someone who is all-knowing and feels you can still achieve a good analog sound by recording in digital and then mixing and mastering in analog....which just seems bassackwards to me, but I am not in the know, so asking others who are.

 

Your friend using "good analog sound" as a descriptive term is incorrect. Recorded sound is either analog or digital. It can also be good or bad. Analog and digital are purely technical processes. Good and bad are subjective adjectives to a listener. They are two separate things.

 

That's not true at all.

 

Of course! Getting good-sounding tracks down is paramount. "Fix it in the mix" is a poor substitute. There's only so much fidelity that can be wrung from a poorly done recording.

 

Let me clarify..In my opinion more modern recordings are adversely affected by poor mastering than by poor recording.

 

Tracking is most important. You can put lipstick on a pig but ...

 

Instruments/voices/room/mics/engineer then everything else in that order IMHO

 

+

Microphone placement.

Every mic, no matter what price-point, has it's own sonic signature. Every room/environment has it's own sonic signature.
Therefore, you could have the greatest mic of all-time; yet if it's to close or to far away, your not going to get the best recording.
Conversely, you can accomplish a superior recording w/a lesser mic though proper placement within the room/environment in relationship to the instrument.

The instrument doesn't have to be fantastic to accomplish a great recording. Reference "The Troogs" [ceramic ocarina] & "The B-52's" [toy piano]!!

 

To you, what exactly is the "sound" of analog? Why do you think it's better?

In my opinion, early digital recordings could be perhaps harsh or edgy compared to analog, but advancement in converters eliminated that.

For me an analog sound is the sound of tape compression, tube equipment and the eq curves required for masters for vinyl. It is a different flavor than digital and in my opinion is no better than digital.

As to the debate on analog or digital first, most engineers that want to incorporate analog into the recording process will track to tape and then mix and master in the digital world. Two big reasons: the sound of tape compression is best captured when recording the source (especially drums). Second, the editing and mixing tools available with digital make the mixing and mastering process much much easier.

 

That I can agree with!

 

Yes, everything starts with good mic placement! This is especially critical with complex acoustic instruments like a drum kit.

I've actually learned how to get great results using just one mic on a drum kit!

 

you can't polish a turd.

 

When I interviewed the late John Fry (Ardent, Big Star) he offered a few thoughts as to why his recordings sounded so good. When he started out recording he was frustrated by the quality of his work. Then he realized "I wasn't getting a good sound because the musicians weren't making a good sound." He became a stickler for properly maintained and tuned instruments, including the drums. I've heard the basic band tracks for Radio City (done live by the band in 2 or 3 takes) and the sound of the instruments just amazing. Beyond that I would add mics / mic placement. It's always made a big impression on me that the drum track for When The Levee Breaks was done with one mic suspended high above the drums.

 

John did great work at Ardent. Can you post a link to the interview?