The bass in your voice.

Use your ears. If it needs it, do it. Otherwise leave it alone. Ultimately this is an aesthetic decision more than a technical one.

Consider mic technique. Using a directional mic at close range you will get a boost starting in the mids that rises as you go down toward the extreme bass. If this is the case then applying a filter to compensate may help the recording match the natural tone of the voice, if that's the aesthetic goal. You can, of course, make it sound however you want it to sound as an artistic decision.
 
Alright thanks for the advice if you really want to hear the actual copy i got a link to it. But im going to be creating a little "freestyle" track tomorrow.
I will mess around with it there. Gah i just wish i new everything. I am using adobe audition. I was thinking about switching over to have better controls to something like cubase, but from my understanding seems like cubase is more for midi etc.. i could be wrong though.
 
heatmiser said:
But, it is oh so easy to file them away for later use :D~!
Click to expand...
No disrespect intended, but the only appropriate place to file this one is in the circular file.

There is only one standardized approach that works or even makes any sense: do what the mix needs.

And there is only one way to determine what the mix needs: listen to it.

The facts in this case, heatmiser, there is nothing special about the 150Hz number. And if there's nothing happening on a given track below that frequency, then applying an EQ cut down there is isn't going to mean a whole lot unless there's rumble from something else, and if there's rumble from something else, then the place to address that is at the source of the rumble, not in post production EQ.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
No disrespect intended, but the only appropriate place to file this one is in the circular file.

There is only one standardized approach that works or even makes any sense: do what the mix needs.

And there is only one way to determine what the mix needs: listen to it.

The facts in this case, heatmiser, there is nothing special about the 150Hz number. And if there's nothing happening on a given track below that frequency, then applying an EQ cut down there is isn't going to mean a whole lot unless there's rumble from something else, and if there's rumble from something else, then the place to address that is at the source of the rumble, not in post production EQ.

G.
Click to expand...

so when you eq you mess with a lot of the highs to try to get it to sound right to the ear. I know the AT4040 isnt perfect off the bat and needs a bit of eqing to get up to par.
 
To me (now this is totally personal taste), I'd wanna pull the boom in the lead vox back a hair. Not a whole lot. What I go by is the ratio of the amount of bass in the lead vox compared to the bass synth. Sometimes the lead vox seemed like it had more bass that the synth, and I'm not big on that.

I'd try some shelving, maybe start at 80Hz and move it up until it sounds right. There's no rule... if the lead vox was thin you'd add bass.

To me, though, overall, you got a great sound going there.
 
sotorious said:
so when you eq you mess with a lot of the highs to try to get it to sound right to the ear.
Click to expand...
Only if that's what's called for. I try not to EQ vocals at all if I can help it. But if that's what is called for as being the best solution, then do it.

G.
 
dintymoore said:
To me (now this is totally personal taste), I'd wanna pull the boom in the lead vox back a hair. Not a whole lot. What I go by is the ratio of the amount of bass in the lead vox compared to the bass synth. Sometimes the lead vox seemed like it had more bass that the synth, and I'm not big on that.

I'd try some shelving, maybe start at 80Hz and move it up until it sounds right. There's no rule... if the lead vox was thin you'd add bass.

To me, though, overall, you got a great sound going there.
Click to expand...

thanks. I guess the thing to do is keep experimenting. I think it may be also that i dont really like the sound of my voice.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
No disrespect intended, but the only appropriate place to file this one is in the circular file.

There is only one standardized approach that works or even makes any sense: do what the mix needs.

And there is only one way to determine what the mix needs: listen to it.

The facts in this case, heatmiser, there is nothing special about the 150Hz number. And if there's nothing happening on a given track below that frequency, then applying an EQ cut down there is isn't going to mean a whole lot unless there's rumble from something else, and if there's rumble from something else, then the place to address that is at the source of the rumble, not in post production EQ.

G.
Click to expand...

None taken. I was half-kidding anyway. I thought what he meant is that there was nothing worthwhile going on down there, so cutting it won't hurt, and might actually mean a whole lot if there was some undesireable rumble. I was joking about the possible sources of said rumble. Anyway, I don't consider 140hz to be a magic number (see, I already forgot!) and agree that any undesireable sounds should be eliminated at the source whenever possible...maybe chris's target is a good starting point though if someone is struggling with this issue?
 
sotorious said:
so when you eq you mess with a lot of the highs to try to get it to sound right to the ear. I know the AT4040 isnt perfect off the bat and needs a bit of eqing to get up to par.
Click to expand...

No, that is just what I guessed that I'd be doing if I was at the helm after hearing the first vid. That would be my starting point on that one particular vocal track. I don't really do any eq the same from one mix to another myself.
 
chrisharris said:
..And I know people hate "always do this" stuff, but in my opinion, you're always safe cutting out everything below 150Hz in a vocal. I don't care what kind of character a particular vocal or song has, there's nothing in a vocal below 150Hz that's worth saving. And it can act as a sort of pop filter too.

Nice track.
Click to expand...

Holy cow man, that seems a pretty extreme place to go as a default position. You're well into the body and warmth tones on male vocal.
I can also see shelving in the 100hz range to trim it into place often enough.
 
sotorious said:
... I think it may be also that i dont really like the sound of my voice.
Click to expand...

That's actually a good thing - it means that there's shit in there that you hear and want to fix.

A bad thing would be if it sounded like crap (which I don't think it does) and you thought it was great. :)
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Only if that's what's called for. I try not to EQ vocals at all if I can help it. But if that's what is called for as being the best solution, then do it.

G.
Click to expand...

I don't know why but when I get to use a track without eq it feels like I did a better job. I know it doesn't matter, what matters is the end result, but I always strive to get the sound right in the first place and aim for no eq. It's a more pure sound somehow, more natural.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
No disrespect intended, but the only appropriate place to file this one is in the circular file. There is only one standardized approach that works or even makes any sense: do what the mix needs.
Click to expand...

dumb. plugin presets offer a great place to START. recommending that in every instance you should start with a flat signal and work your way forward is ridiculous. we aren't studio owners or professional engineers. we are HOMERECORDers, hence the board name. we aren't delivering a product to a label that has a $500k investment in a band or artist. if i can shave a couple hours off of mix time so i can be finished with whatever song i'm doing, i'm gonna take it. i understand that someone else's idea of what size and shape of a room works best when applying a particular reverb to a snare isn't going to work for everyone all the time, but dude, i want to start with somewhere in the ballpark and go from there.
 
I want to avoid using presets altogether-

But i have to admit - I've been using presets on my condenser for every track.

I want to get away from it - but (and I think i can blame my speakers) I can't hear any real difference unless I use extreme settings.

The presets are seeming to do alright (once I finish mixing and try it out in my car)
 
ez_willis said:
dumb. plugin presets offer a great place to START. recommending that in every instance you should start with a flat signal and work your way forward is ridiculous. we aren't studio owners or professional engineers. we are HOMERECORDers, hence the board name. we aren't delivering a product to a label that has a $500k investment in a band or artist. if i can shave a couple hours off of mix time so i can be finished with whatever song i'm doing, i'm gonna take it. i understand that someone else's idea of what size and shape of a room works best when applying a particular reverb to a snare isn't going to work for everyone all the time, but dude, i want to start with somewhere in the ballpark and go from there.
Click to expand...

Listening to various presets on a reverb to hear what it can do? Sure. Relying on presets for eq? Nope. If I'm using an eq I already have a pretty good idea why and what to do with it. A preset is more likely to start me farther from my goal than closer.
 
ez_willis said:
dumb. plugin presets offer a great place to START. recommending that in every instance you should start with a flat signal and work your way forward is ridiculous. we aren't studio owners or professional engineers. we are HOMERECORDers,
Click to expand...
Even dumber.

"Flat" *is* a preset starting point, and the ideal place to start. There is ZERO advantage to throwing a dart at a wall and picking another preset location to start from.

So what if it's home recording? That has absolutely ZERO bearing on anything we're discussing here. It certainly is no excuse to be an idiot.
bouldersoundguy said:
If I'm using an eq I already have a pretty good idea why and what to do with it. A preset is more likely to start me farther from my goal than closer.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true.

The closest preset to what we want is almost always "flat" or "bypass". It's also the most educational place to start from because we always know exactly where we're starting from and can always hear exactly what our EQ changes do to the sound from that point.

Frankly, if one is moving to an EQ plug, they should already have a general plan of action in mind as to what it is they want or need to do when they launch the plug. If they need to start at a bogus preset in order to"see" what that does first, they are probably not yet qualified to use EQ.

This is equally true whether one is mixing in a bedroom closet on a netbook or in Studio A at Abbey Road. Location is neither relevant or an excuse.

G.
 
dintymoore said:
It's a more pure sound somehow, more natural.
Click to expand...
Amen, brother. I find this is especially true on acoustic instruments like non-electric piano, vocals and the like. The better the tracking and the less post needed, the better the mix. Most especially true with vocals, IMHO.

There is one big exception IMHO, and that's acoustic guitar, which I almost always want to sweep with the parametric. With the exception of only the very best acoustic guitars (and even then , no guarantees) there seems to almost always be a body resonance here or there that microphones just love to emphasize, and I really prefer to rid the track of those honkers right from the get-go before I go on with the mix.

I'd also point out that this kind of EQ cannot even *begin* to be addressed by any possible preset or cookie-cutter pablum for any odds better than the odds of both winning the Powerball lottery and drawing to an inside straight on the same day. Nor is it any kind of situation where a preset can help hear what's going on, because it requires a hands-on, dynamic process to sort the honkers out.

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top