Recording hardware- add effects later OR have there when recording. Theoretically the same…. or not?

robosardine

So there is the question. I’m sure many of you will have the answer readily to hand…. at the same others will be thinking mmmm… not too sure 🤔
So if you record a synth (like say a 303 Bassline synth😎 or whatever it may be) straight into an iPad and then afterwards play that recorded file through some iPad app effects - should you expect that to sound exactly the same to the naked ear as if you had plugged the synth into the iPad as a Hardware Input (with exactly the same effects at the same settings) and recorded it as a live take.
How much difference in sound/quality etc should you expect if any?

CracklePot

You have to record the file at the same quality as the project, at least.
Your project could be set to a higher sample rate, and while working live AUM works in 32 bit float.
When you record to the common 44.1 kHz and 16 bit, you may perceive a drop in audio quality.
I probably wouldn’t notice in most cases, though you might.

hacked_to_pieces

Primitive I know but try both methods then use your ears to decide which method your prefer. But the sound ran thru the same effect chain before are after recording should have the same sound quality . Generally recording dry and adding effects after is more flexible. By contrast recording wet tracks makes it easier to progress in some cases.

catherder

Many effects will sound differently if the amplitude envelope of the input signal is different. So if you want to make the two recording versions sound similar, you will have to closely match the amplitude.

wim

^ this

Matching the amplitude into the FX is a critical factor.

I doubt that sample rate will have any effect unless you change the project sample rate afterward. Once the signal enters the DAW it should be converted to whatever sample rate the DAW is using. Same for any audio the DAW later loads from disk.

I suppose it's possible that let's say, the DAW works at 32 bit but saved the audio file at 16bit, then upsampled it back to 32 bit on reload, it could marginally affect the sound (definitely if there was clipping on the 16bit save). That would be weird practice though. Its hard to imagine any serious DAW working that way.

It's an interesting question though. My initial gut-reaction was "no way", but if you work at it you can come up with scenarios where it could make a difference. (Not that I believe anyone could tell by ear, unless there was some kind of clipping involved ... but that's a whole 'nother debate.)

robosardine

Thanks. I will be giving it a go shortly - I was just wondering what the official line is and if there was anything I could do to make it more likely to help it happen. I wasn’t sure if it had established form or not.
I haven’t a clue how I would go about matching amplitudes or how practical that would be in a regular situation though. It sounds like I can expect it to be fairly close without too much preparation - so that’s encouraging 😀

TheOriginalPaulB

I record both dry inputs and effects on separate channels in AUM. I can then mix the two in the DAW, change the balance, or completely redo the effects if I find I want to. I find it helpful to have the effects audible when recording as they invariably influence my playing.

McD

The wonderful thing about digital recording and manipulation is that data is immutable: "unchanging over time".

So, the data coming into the iPad taking these two paths should be identical if the settings in gain and FX app are equal:

1. recorded as input and later processed through an FX app processing track in a DAW
2. input through an FX app and saved to disk as a DAW track

Now, in practice the engineer doing the recording decides on the settings using monitors or headphones at either the recording time of later. Their can be wide swings in decision making between these two approaches.

So, deferring decisions to the later stages mean you'll probably be able to try settings and take time off and listen to the results. In other words, by recording "dry" you get do overs... many, do overs.

The benefit of laying down tracks with FX added is that the client may prefer the quick playback sound but even then you can
sneak in an FX addition for playback on a still dry track, right? So, best of both worlds by always saving a dry copy even when
adding FX for playback of the session work.

The biggest impact on this decision process would be when using expensive hardware for the session like some amazing tube based compressor with magical qualities that the client requested and that needs to be returned immediately or left in the studio being used. Thankfully we have developers like DDMF modeling this gear and making us plug-ins that get you close enough at a fraction of the cost and we can get "do overs" using it to the best effect when it might be new to us.

attakk

Personally - and it’s nothing to do with sound quality - I like to get parts recorded to audio with effects as soon as possible purely because I find committing to that sound drives the track forward in terms of getting it finished : it allows me to move on & concentrate on the next part the track needs and thus stops “option paralysis” later on down the line - or my track becoming just another unfinished loop as the urge to go back & tweak in the search for absolute perfection - just because I can - can be really strong.

McD

@attakk said:
Personally - and it’s nothing to do with sound quality - I like to get parts recorded to audio with effects as soon as possible purely because I find committing to that sound drives the track forward in terms of getting it finished : it allows me to move on & concentrate on the next part the track needs and thus stops “option paralysis” later on down the line - or my track becoming just another unfinished loop as the urge to go back & tweak in the search for absolute perfection - just because I can - can be really strong.

In this case… your the client. Getting work finished is huge. Removing barriers is always a good idea…. Paralysis is total time waster.

senhorlampada

@TheOriginalPaulB said:
I record both dry inputs and effects on separate channels in AUM. I can then mix the two in the DAW, change the balance, or completely redo the effects if I find I want to. I find it helpful to have the effects audible when recording as they invariably influence my playing.

Same here. Something I like to do that since I started using portable recorders. I like having the audio committed like @attakk mentions, but with the flexibility of having the dry signal to mix with the wet or completely redo if I notice something off, while having the effected as a reference.

That being said, most of the times I just keep the wet as is or only slightly balance with the dry signal