Does Anyone Else Do This With Vocals?

[aaronmcoleman]

hmm I guess everyone does things differently, but I've never found normalizing to be of much use. One track may have a huge peak so normalizing won't increase most of the volume. For other tracks that are smoother, normalizing can make a huge difference. But, just moving the faders up and down does the same thing so I don't really see the point. If it works in your workflow it's cool, but for most of us it would be a waste of steps and time.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

hmm I guess everyone does things differently, but I've never found normalizing to be of much use. One track may have a huge peak so normalizing won't increase most of the volume.

Right, which is why I split out a weak section and adjust that to match the surrounding parts of the track.

For other tracks that are smoother, normalizing can make a huge difference. But, just moving the faders up and down does the same thing so I don't really see the point.

Moving a fader after the inserts is not the same as gain adjustments before the inserts. Inconsistent levels into dynamics processors sounds different than consistent levels. I'm not compressing just for some help with levels, I'm doing it for the density it gives the track.

If it works in your workflow it's cool, but for most of us it would be a waste of steps and time.

The specifics of the DAW you use will bias your habits. In Pro Tools doing something like this would be slow and clumsy, but the way Vegas operates it's fast and easy. In Vegas there's no way (that I know of) to put the fader before the inserts without using a group bus, and I may need the fader for other things anyway, so I use the Normalize and Gain functions.

 

[dewhitt]

If you think it's important that your wave form have a more attractive appearance, that's your business.

Thanks for the comments, I definitely appreciate your point of view, and I agree with much of it. I think my original post was a little misleading about the above and I just want to clarify ...the visual appearance of the wave form is really not important to me at all, I was just trying to clearly explain the technique I was referring to, and I was thinking that describing the end result would help.

Best Regards,

Dave DeWhitt
SoundClick artist: Dave DeWhitt - page with MP3 music downloads

 

[RAMI]

Having heard Dave's music, I'd say that whatever he does is working. I have to admit that if this was posted by someone who's music I never heard, I'd be sceptical about his technique and his knowledge. I'll keep that in mind next time I'm ready to jump on someone who asks about, or uses a technique that seems weird or un-necessary to me.


(I'm not directing this at anyone but myself)

 

[PDP]

The specifics of the DAW you use will bias your habits. .

Exactly, its a breeze in Cubase 5.5, It doesnt feel analytical or tedious overthinking because its fast once you learn it. Cubase actually remembers the edits, so even if you do 10 other things you can go back and un-do or do whatever you want.

 

[sfrandys]

I have done this in the past as well. But don't you loose some quality because everytime you do something destructively you are dithering to some extent. And after doing this several times on the same section loose those precious 1 and 0's as you go.

 

[miroslav]

I do this ALL the time with everything/anything that needs it.

I slice up my tracks into "chunks" when possible...and things like vocals or leads make it very possible, though I'll slice up a drum track if need be, even if it's just a single snare hit...and then raise/lower the level for that one object.
In Samplitude...this is not a destructive action, so the original waves are never changed.

Also...this has nothing to do with normalizing for equally loud peaks...it's more about adjusting the individual "objects" (that's what Samplitude calls them when you slice up a track into small parts) so that their level is consistent with the intent of the recording.
So....if the vocals have one quite word that was not quiet intentionally, but rather it's just how it got recorded...and during the mix that one word is getting lost, level-wise, you can adjust it to be consistent with the the rest of the track. Same thing if something is too loud...like a guitar string that got plucked too hard on a given note or a snare hit that just sticks out much louder than all the others...
...that's what editing is about, that's what a DAW is for.
Not sure why some folks are "concerned" about doing these types of edits. You are doing what needs to be done....there's nothing wrong/fake about adjusting levels/EQs/etc.....

 

[mixsit]

I have done this in the past as well. But don't you loose some quality because everytime you do something destructively you are dithering to some extent. And after doing this several times on the same section loose those precious 1 and 0's as you go.

In floating point?
Do a string of +5 -5's, couple dozen ought to do it, and a/b to the untuched.
(...i've never ..but ?
I'll leave stuff untouched (at zero') where I can, but really, for like a/b to keep it real' on a compressor for example yeah, equal loudness is way above any thought of damage from gain error.

 

[jukeboxjoe]

ditto

Add one to the "I do that too" pile. I use the Roland MV8800 which has fader automation but not fader automation memory (ie if you jump from part to part it does not update the faders appropriately), so I went with something similar to what you described. I can non-destructively chop my vocals down to whatever unit I desire and adjust the gain on each chop for a nice even track. Works like a charm.