"exciters"

[cecerre]

I have been searching for the trade secret on mixing vocals in pop/rock tracks. Seems that no matter what radio, cd player, etc you play a song on the vocals are always clear as a bell. I have decent mikes and recording equipement so I figured there must be so more tricks up the professional mix down sleeve. I read a couple articles touting the use of aural exciters on vocals, guitars, bass, etc to define the audio with out increasing the peak. Anyone use these devices that can confirm this is where I need to drop some bucks?

Thanks

[BushmasterM4]

KRV offers alot of insight to plugins and effect. And how to use them properly. And it may help you.

KRV Audio site : http://www.kvraudio.com/

Kjaerhus offer very good vst's and the classic series (download all) I use their chorus alot in vocals. Plus they are free

http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/classic-series.php

digitalfishphones.com offer free vst's which have received excellent reviews. I have them but have not tried them yet. They offer a wide variety for free.

http://www.digitalfishphones.com/mai...em=2&subItem=1

[cecerre]

Thanks but Im not completely digital. I mixdown on my mackie 24x8. I am posting in other forums about software so this may be an option in the near future.

Thanks!

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by cecerre

I have been searching for the trade secret on mixing vocals in pop/rock tracks.

Originally Posted by cecerre

I mixdown on my mackie 24x8.

There are no real trade secrets, to be honest. It comes down to a good vocalist in a good space singing into a good mic hooked into a good preamp. Then apply a little (not a lot, usually) compression - if required - during mixing to even out the singer's dynamics a bit (not so much as to take the emotion out of the dynamics, though.)

The questions I would have about your chain - assuming you have a good vocalist who can both sing well and know how to work the mic - would be the mic selection, the recording space and the the preamps.

You say you have good mics. That's a great first step. The only thing I'd recommend there is to take some time to work out which mics work best for which voclists. No two vocalist/mic combinations are necessarily the same. The timbre and feel of one person's voice and style may work best through an RE-20 whil another may shine best through a GT60. If you're not already doing so, take the time to do a soundcheck through multiple mics and see what works best for your vocalist.

As far as recording space, are you alive or dead? Vocal booth or basement, and so on. If you have a really good sounding space, use it. If not maybe try dead but use a very high quality verb.

The only reason I quoted you on your use of the 24.8 is that, while it's a capable mixer, it's mic pres just plain don't compare to what the Big Boys are using for the vocals you're hearing. You might want to consider a "gold channel" or two for stuff like vocals or acoustic instruments that consists of a fairly top shelf preamp and converter that bypasses your 24.8. Not only will this lift a veil off you vocals, but it can also give you a channel or wo that could also be used just to mix in a different sound than all 24.8 all the time.

HTH,

G.

[PhiloBeddoe]

Originally Posted by cecerre

I have been searching for the trade secret on mixing vocals in pop/rock tracks. Seems that no matter what radio, cd player, etc you play a song on the vocals are always clear as a bell. I have decent mikes and recording equipement so I figured there must be so more tricks up the professional mix down sleeve. I read a couple articles touting the use of aural exciters on vocals, guitars, bass, etc to define the audio with out increasing the peak. Anyone use these devices that can confirm this is where I need to drop some bucks?

Thanks

I don't think I'd put an exciter at the top of your list. That would be a little like telling a guitarist that his tone will get better if he buys a chorus pedal. Well it might sound cool sometimes, but you sure don't want that chorus pedal on every guitar track.

It might take some big time gear to match the sound of some of those big budget records, but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get a clear vocal that translates well with what you have. A big part of this game is getting other things out of the way of each other. Maybe a guitar or hi-hat is masking the vocal in critical ranges. Maybe the vocal just isn't loud enough. Vocals are often very loud in pop mixes. Sometimes there are also multiple tight duplicate takes going on to thicken it.

Another element of pop vocals is that they are very even dynamically. This doesn't have to mean super smashed, but an extraneous loud or soft word or even syllable is a dead giveaway of an amateur vocal. Sometimes a compressor can help, or you can just ride the fader.

[cecerre]

Originally Posted by PhiloBeddoe

I don't think I'd put an exciter at the top of your list. That would be a little like telling a guitarist that his tone will get better if he buys a chorus pedal. Well it might sound cool sometimes, but you sure don't want that chorus pedal on every guitar track.

It might take some big time gear to match the sound of some of those big budget records, but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get a clear vocal that translates well with what you have. A big part of this game is getting other things out of the way of each other. Maybe a guitar or hi-hat is masking the vocal in critical ranges. Maybe the vocal just isn't loud enough. Vocals are often very loud in pop mixes. Sometimes there are also multiple tight duplicate takes going on to thicken it.

Another element of pop vocals is that they are very even dynamically. This doesn't have to mean super smashed, but an extraneous loud or soft word or even syllable is a dead giveaway of an amateur vocal. Sometimes a compressor can help, or you can just ride the fader.

Completely agree with all that. I guess Im ready to take the mix to the next level. If you listen to any am-pro-am recordings on near field monitors and then run a pro mix song you will definately hear a difference. I realize there is a lot layering and stereo affects but the vocals are always crystal clear and when the guitar (Or what ever) solos it too is out there clear of the mix. I don't know how to describe better what I am after other than I know it comes down to more than a mono mix of a vocal track no matter how expensive a channel you use. AS an experiment, take a track you recorded and listen to it on your MP3 player, then your stereo and then in your car. You will notice very recognizable frequency and peak changes. Yet run the latest Daughtry (sp?) through the same test and every word, evey vowel every line is clear. (Daughtry was picked at random, could be any pop artist with a good production) MAybe Im beating a dead horse, but I at least am missing something in the mix down to put that 'gleam' on the vocals and instruments. Its good, its just not great.

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by cecerre

AS an experiment, take a track you recorded and listen to it on your MP3 player, then your stereo and then in your car. You will notice very recognizable frequency and peak changes. Yet run the latest Daughtry (sp?) through the same test and every word, evey vowel every line is clear. (Daughtry was picked at random, could be any pop artist with a good production) MAybe Im beating a dead horse, but I at least am missing something in the mix down to put that 'gleam' on the vocals and instruments. Its good, its just not great.

That's because you're not using a realistic comparison. To put things in to perspective .... Compared to the guys that work on a typical commercial release, you're kind of a moron.

And compared to the gear at a typical commercial facility ... your stuff is basically a collection of fisher price toys. And comparing your bedroom / basement / garage recording studio to the places these comercial releases are recorded ... is like comparing lower Wacker Drive to the Ritz Calrton.

If your stuff currently sounds "good," as you say, then give yourself a pat on the back, because most of the stuff being cranked out nowadays by the homerecording warriors sounds like utter garbage. If getting somewhere close to comercial CD vocal quality is an important goal of yours ... then you might as well spare yourself the agony and just go and jump off a bridge right now. And take that piece of junk Aural Exciter with you. I'm sure Southside Glenn agrees with me on this one to a "T."

I'm just sayin ...

.

[Farview]

Most of what you are looking for comes from very expensive equipment. Mixing on an SSL, you can add 9db of high shelf at 8k to just about anything without it sounding like someone shoving an ice pick in your ears. That mackie won't let you do that, it gets screechy instantly. If you are recording AND mixing through the mackie, that grainy veil will always be on your stuff.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by chessrock

I'm sure Southside Glenn agrees with me on this one to a "T."

For a guy who wanted and end to "the bullshit", Keith, you sure seem to want to continue shoveling it.

No, I don't agree with it to a "T", a "Q", or any other letter of the alphabet.

Keith, how much longer before I come home to find you breaking in to my house and cooking my pets in a pot on my stove and screaming "I will not be ignored, Glen!"?

I've already got your full and freely and publicly available contact information on file with my lawyer, along with instructions to pass that info along to the authorities as a likely suspect should anything untoward happen to me, my family, my friends, or any of their posessions. Do you really want to force matters further?

I'm just sayin'...

G.

[faderbug]

Originally Posted by cecerre

I have been searching for the trade secret on mixing vocals in pop/rock tracks. Seems that no matter what radio, cd player, etc you play a song on the vocals are always clear as a bell. I have decent mikes and recording equipement so I figured there must be so more tricks up the professional mix down sleeve. I read a couple articles touting the use of aural exciters on vocals, guitars, bass, etc to define the audio with out increasing the peak. Anyone use these devices that can confirm this is where I need to drop some bucks?

Thanks

exciters are rather tricky, use them wrongly or too excessive and they turn ugly. however in some cases and with some voices they work very well and add brightness and sparkle. there's just no telling untill you've experimented with them.

one thing they don't do is make up for poor tracking or performance though.

i have a ninetees spl vitalizer and an aphex exciter type c both of which i paid about $100 on ebay. the aphex sounds the most musical and subtle and is used on the vocals you hear here.

[masteringhouse]

Save the $ that you would spend on an exciter for a pro mic and/or pre. Also record directly to tape/DAW/MDM bypassing the Mackie. Only use the Mackie for monitoring when you can help it.

[Harvey Gerst]

Very often, I find that people use exciters to try to clean up a muddy mix. They should be working on getting the mix right instead.

[midwesttribune]

as far as vocals in general i know that if you need to make pitch corrections and such you get autotune. and compressing vocals makes it sit with the song so it doesn't seem like you just recorded over it. and delay, and reverb, or voice doubling are all vocal effcts to add additionall charactoristics to the vocal track, that arn't always noticable.

[MCI2424]

All these exiters etc. are used by a bunch'a really big producers, and when asked, they usually deny it.

I only say this because I have viewed the equipment list of dozens of pro studios (even Abbey Road) and they have BBEs and the like.

I guess they buy them to fill rack space?

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

All these exiters etc. are used by a bunch'a really big producers, and when asked, they usually deny it.

I only say this because I have viewed the equipment list of dozens of pro studios (even Abbey Road) and they have BBEs and the like.

I guess they buy them to fill rack space?

The only time that I've seen them used by any pro facility is on bass guitar. They may have them there for that, but certainly not to correct frequency imbalance in a mix. Possibly an occasional vocal, but I truly doubt that this is how most pros get a great vocal sound.

[xstatic]

It is not uncommon to see an exciter used on Kick drum, toms, certain heavy guitar sounds etc... but I can not remember the last time I saw anyone put one on vocals. Just because a couple nicer studios have them does not mean they are all that valuable or even used. For those studios pulling the trigger on 2 or 4 exciters for the rare occasion that a client wants to actually use them is no big deal at all.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by xstatic

Just because a couple nicer studios have them does not mean they are all that valuable or even used. For those studios pulling the trigger on 2 or 4 exciters for the rare occasion that a client wants to actually use them is no big deal at all.

Exactly.

One would be suprised at how often gear is added to a Big Boy equipment for almost the express purpose of having it on their equipment list. A couple of hundred bucks investment in one piece of gear pays for itself and more if it brings in only one client with an album project. Anything beyond that is gravy.

The idea that a studio is *prepared* for anything is attractive to the client. It is also attractive to independent engineers and producers, which is sometimes an even more important reason for a wide equipment list. Studios can rent out more time with a wider equipment list, just because they *do* have that level of preparedness. A producer or engineer wants the comfort of knowing that they have a wide selection of tools at hand just in case.

But that doesn't mean that they use everything they have on anything close to a regular basis. When's the last time you saw a studio with eight different kinds of outboard pre's use pre #8 on anything close to a regular basis? 9 times out of 10, the house engineer will go to his standard playbook, which usually includes a list of preferred hardware that never gets close to pre models 7 and 8 in the inventory. But it's there if someone wants it.

Most NFL football teams have a statue of liberty play or a halfback option pass or some other trick plays in their playbook. And they actually practice them at team practices. But you're lucky if you see them actually call those plays more than once in an entire season. Yet it's there if they need it.

G.

[flatfinger]

A little PSYCHOTHERAPY for you!!

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997.../exciters.html


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995.../exciters.html

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

The only time that I've seen them used by any pro facility is on bass guitar. They may have them there for that, but certainly not to correct frequency imbalance in a mix. Possibly an occasional vocal, but I truly doubt that this is how most pros get a great vocal sound.

All later Pink Floyd records from The Wall to The Division Bell have exiters on all vocals. The producers use them but the only place I see then actually admit using them is in some TapeOp interviews.

Just like the Cher Autotune story, most producers don't like to have their secrets known.

You know, if they never knew it was autotune, with the bad rep autotune has today, people would never believe it was autotune.

Maybe I am nuts, but I hear exciters on alot of recordings fron the late 80s through the 90s and definately on Dave Gilmore and Roger Waters (admitted in interviews).

Lastly, I really think that people here tend to slam exciters in general as being bad, but never even blink when reverb or delay or EQ is mentioned. These are all effects. Just because an engineer uses an exciter for effect, does'nt make him/her a bad engineer. Home recordists (as well as some record producers) have overused every effect ever designed as soon as it hits the market and becomes affordable. Exciters are on the hotlist right now. These devices are not the "fix" for poor mixes period. Poor mixes are poor mixes. They need to be re-done.

Effects added to polish a mix is just that. Sooner or later, every effect will be flamed to death here and we will be down to a mic and a recorder. Then we will argue over "What is the best mic for under $100?"......................

Oh, sorry, it has been done to death!

[masteringhouse]

The main issue that I have with exciters (or any effect really) is using it as a band-aid for poor engineering. If someone likes it for it's own brand of harmonic adjustment, go wth it. Heck, I've seen people use Radio Shack mics and technically more inferior gear for effect.

If you remember the issue of TapeOp with the Floyd interviews please let us know. I would like to read that one.

Thanks!
Tom

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

The main issue that I have with exciters (or any effect really) is using it as a band-aid for poor engineering.

Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst

Very often, I find that people use exciters to try to clean up a muddy mix. They should be working on getting the mix right instead.

These two fine gentlemen have summed it up well, I think. It's not the use of exciters that's at issue, it's the misuse of them.

Its just like the issue I have (and have been slammed for) with multi-band compressor use. I have absolutely nothing against multi-band compressors in and of themselves. Like any tool, they have their uses. It's the same thing with exciters/maximizers/finalizers.

If Floyd did use exciters, it wasn't to try and substitute for or fix slipshod tracking or phoned-in mixing. It was because they had already gotten all their other engineering ducks in a row, and had a quality mix that could, unlike a bridge in Minnesota, handle and support a little extra frosting.

But on this level, way too often such devices are considered to be magic boxes that can make one's 2mix sound like a million bucks without one having to invest any real effort into the actual tracking and mixing. It just doesn't work that way.

G.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Its just like the issue I have (and have been slammed for) with multi-band compressor use. I have absolutely nothing against multi-band compressors in and of themselves. Like any tool, they have their uses. It's the same thing with exciters/maximizers/finalizers.

Exactly. Also the use of an EQ or de-esser when better micing technique, mic, or pre would have resulted in no use, reverb to cover-up a bad vocal, editing and autotune when a better performance was called for, stereo enhancers due to bad mixing, the list goes on.

I think that is the main purpose of this forum, to advance the techniques of the home recordist, as well as a bit of comedy relief.

[xstatic]

When I said that the exciters were present in some of the big studios and that their presence did not mean that they were all that used, that did not mean that they were never used. I only meant that their use may not have been nearly as much as a previous statement seemed to be leaning towards.

When referring to the use of them on Pink Floyd albums it might also be important to consider their history and the situation of the time. When Aphex released the first Aural Exciters, times were very different. Tape was noiser than it is now, and it was the only real option. Aural Exciters allowed you to push the high frequencies in a way that did not really excite the moise of the medium. When Aural Exciters cam out they were pretty highly regarded and were MUCH more expensive than they are now. They offered something that at the time was nearly unacheivable without them due to other limitations that existed. Now however all of those other limitations have been removed and in many circumstances there are other ways to achieve the desired result without the negative drawbacks. There are still those circumstances where they seem to work well, and often times make it easier, but the necessity has certainly changed over the years.

I happen to know an engineer pretty well who was among the first to ever use the Aural Exciters. I always get a kik out of hearing his stories about them and when he tries to show me how useful they are. I always love seeing his face though when I show him a cleaner version of the thing about them that he likes by twisting a couple of knobs on his Midas. Things were certainly different then they are now. Some of the same approaches work very well, but some don't.

Like has been mentioned above though by people on both sides of this issue, Exciters are a tool. When used properly they can be of great assistance. To often however they are used for the wrong reasons. Sometimes they address an issue, but usually in these circumstances it is just a trade off of one problem for another.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by xstatic

{The entire great post by xstatic.}

Very well explained and posted.

To try and take this back to the OP, the basic premise of the question put forward was "should I invest in an exciter to make my vocals sound clear as a bell like they do on commercial mixes?"

I think there's a general consensus in this thread that while exciters may have their uses, they will be a relatively poor investment if one's immediate problems are that they are pumping their vocals from an average quality enviroment through (at best) average quality pres and unknown gain structure.

IMHO (YMMV), before spending a few hundred bucks on an exciter to try and clean up your vocals, make sure your getting the best out of the equipment you have first. Then if it's still not there, and your wallet is just burning a hole in your pocket, try a quality preamp next. For the price of an Aphex 320, you could get small boxes from Grace or Apogee that'll leave the pres in your 24.8 in the dust.

G.

[bkkornaker]

i personally dont like using "exciters"..........

I have an Ahpex aural exciter, and it sits in the rack unused for years......

I also find that if an exciter needs to be used either in the mixing or mastering process.....something is just 'not right' with the way it was tracked or mixed in the first place.

I try to avoid the thing as much as possible, but if its a "track saver" and must be used, i guess i have no choice but to use it..........but it seems you can EQ whats wrong with something, ......before reaching for the 'exciter'.