"exciters"

[SouthSIDE Glen]

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

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]

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]

{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'.

 

[flatfinger]

if you want all kinds of insane 8k and up harmonics up the wazoo, just get one of those cheapy china LDC mics!!!!!!!! Then sculpt and cut'm down like subtractive synths!!!!!
Ya , That's the ticket!!!!!!!!!

 

[Robert D]

Here's a thought; have you ever recorded in a real studio? If not, I might suggest you invest a little money in the name of education and do so. Find a studio that has that sound you're looking for (ask to hear some demos), and go record a song, taking carefull notes. Get a mix with and without vocals. Use that as your benchmark back in your own studio, assuming all goes well, and then work on doing your own vocals (or your singer's vocals) to the instrumental mix, refining your process/gear/vocal recording space until you achieve similar results.
I think anyone attempting to do any serious home recording should go record in a real studio as part of the learning process. It's money well spent both on education and inspiration.

 

[Monkey Allen]

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

I've used these before, but I always get a message saying that they will expire or that they are not registered.

I've heard so many good things about them, but for me they work like they are demos or something, and not full free plugs.

 

[MCI2424]

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

It was the end of last year, the one with Dave Gilmore's floating studio. I think they discussed the equipment there.

If you listen to "The Division Bell' it is quite clear and "The Wall" and The Final Cut" both used exciters all over them.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I've heard so many good things about them, but for me they work like they are demos or something, and not full free plugs.

It's the "classic" series that are fully free. The others aren't.

G.

 

[legionserial]

I would think (in my humble non-expert stance) that any tool of the trade is exactly that, a tool.

My toolbox at home has a bunch of screwdrivers, a soldering iron, a hacksaw, couple of hammers, and so on and so forth.

So lets say I need to change a light switch. I'm going to need a screwdriver for that. Just because I have other tools doesn't immediately mean that I need to go at the my light switch with a hacksaw or a hammer. Just like I'm not going to use my soldering iron to saw a piece of wood in half.

Personally I try to accomplish what I want with as few tools as possible. My preference would be to use none. And if I can get away with using none, then that means I've done a pretty good job of tracking. In reality though, I will end up using tools. If I could track a song that didn't need anything doing to it, I certainly wouldn't be working a dead end job pulling in a dead end wage. But at the same time, if I think something needs the use of a tool I wouldn't normally use, I'd find out why it needs that, learn from it and apply it next time or retrack.

Anyway, I'm starting to delve into the realms of irrelevance now, so I'll shut up here.

 

[cusebassman]

So lets say I need to change a light switch.

Personally I try to accomplish what I want with as few tools as possible. My preference would be to use none.

I'd recommend still using tools to change a lightswitch... don't want to be grabbin those wires with bare hands

 

[legionserial]

I'd recommend still using tools to change a lightswitch... don't want to be grabbin those wires with bare hands

True, but my point is, if you were superpowered enough to change a lightswitch with your bare hands, wouldn't that be cool?

Just as cool as if I was superpowered enough to record a tune that didn't need mixing.