A fun little waste of time....

hey WATYF - I got it.

I've only listened to your first version of this about 1,000 times, so I swear you can believe me when I say I love your version of this tune. Now, here's the weird part. I like the first one better. Yeah, the first one sounds "thinner," but one man's "thin" is another's "present." I've never understood the word "boxy" before now, but I swear, the second take sounds like you were just further away from the mic...you know that cool proximity effect you get (lotta' highs, lotta' lows)...it just sounds like everything was further away from the mic.

It's still excellent dude, but I'm encouraged. I just got a c-1. LOL.

bye
 
well don't tell anybody... but...






I like the first version better too... :p



The performance was better. This thing was too rushed... but it was only a goofy experiment just to play aroond with some mics, so I don't mind. But I know what you're talking aboot... I still kinda prefer the first one. I usually get right up on my C-1 and it wasn't like that with this recording, so I hear where you're coming from...

Oh well... enough of this cover crap... I gotta start posting some original material, or people will think I don't even write my own stuff. :p


WATYF
 
watyf, you didn't happen to use a de-esser on the vocal for this version did you? i don't know if anyone else noticed but the sibilance is very tame and the ess's are very smooth and controlled in the new version. that's what struck me. it's the thing that usually gives away home recordings in my opinion. the mic sibilance is always there. i ran one of my old recordings through a wavelab demo de-esser and I'll be damned if it didn't sound suddenly 100% better.

and on the topic of your original music...i've been listening to your tune in my car over the last week and it's really starting to grow on me in a good way. would you mind if i took a crack at singing it?
 
whew... Okay, cool. Again, it's still excellent.

Now, dammit...listen to my latest disaster. I'm using a C-1 on the vocal (far away from the mic, lol), I've got a dmp3 preamp; these are purchases that have been recommended by you and others.

It it's still brittle, I'm killing myself this afternoon.



So feel free to lie.
 
eric... actually.. no de-esser at all. That's prolly just the characteristics of the mic. I did do some EQ work on it, so that might also have helped. And which song are you talking aboot... Roll? Did you mean that you want to cover it for the challenge or just mess with the version I posted? Either way, I don't care.. have at it. :p


chris... I'm home on my lunch, so I'm gonna check oat all the stuff I missed over the weekend... I'll be sure to remind you how brittle it sounds. :p


WATYF
 
sounds nice

you can make that u87 really purr with a nice preamp :)

but your voice sounds nice with or without it..

nice job!
 
Give me a C1 over a U87 anyday!

Just kidding. But in seriousness, I really liked the first one better. I felt the second too bright. Just goes to prove how much mic technique and performance come into play. Moral of the story: Its not the $ its the performance, technique and engineering that count.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top