First Post Here

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeffoest
  • Start date Start date
J

jeffoest

New member
Hi all,

I'm going to share one of the 'goofier' songs that I have done. Honestly, I'm interested in feedback on one particular thing. I have recorded these vocals with a SP C1 and a Grace 101 (I also have a RNP handy). I was wondering by listening to my voice if I might get some recommendations on another good vocal mic to compliment the C1. I'm looking at a tube like the Marshall v69M thinking it might be a warm alternative to the C1. What do you guys think for MY voice?

I do all kinds of music from slow jazz ballads to rock.



BTW, an original jazz song of mine is jazz 'Song of The Day' today on Garageband.com! Cool.
 
Actually maybe this version is a better representative of my voice and style and it's less reverby - more straight ahead - sorry about the silly song - it was a project for a friend.....

Second Version - Different Style
 
Guitar is mixed well, there is good balance between the lows and highs on that instrument.

Compare the meters of the vocal and the guitar, which meter indicates the track with the most volume, the track that is peaking consistently higher, and where the average volume is higher.

If the guitar and vocal track meters are the same ... which is actually much louder ?

The guitar voices itself in a wide range, it is creating a decibel reading in a wide variety of frequency spectrum and the meter doesn't really show this.

The vocal is only producing decibels in a very narrow spectrum, and it's meter is actually more 'accurate'.

At any one time, if the meters are the same, the guitar is then infinitely louder than the vocal in all frequency areas that the vocal is not producing decibels within. We percieve this as the guitar being much louder.

Why ? and how can we take advantage of that, how can that detract and distract ?

The vocal track is mixed well, if I did not know the words to gilligan's isle as well as 'happy birthday', I would say that things are mixed very well and that I could understand the words with relative ease, although I think the instruments are generally too loud.

Do an experiment, send all the instruments to one single bus, and set the compression threshold 3db below the peak, and the ratio at 10:1, do the same to the vocal, what do you see, what do you hear ?

The meters are your friends, you just have to know how to interpret them, and that's what I'm learning, and I may just be thinking out loud here.

Good example for your first post, thanks for sharing, welcome to the board.
 
Hey Jeff. First of all, welcome to the board. I gave the first "Gilligan" a listen. The 2nd? Too busy. Made me nervous and jumpy. :rolleyes:

Artistic Impression
First and foremost. Your vocals are excellent. Intonation, phrasing and improvisational alterations of the original melody lines are noteworthy and appreciated by this listener. (Those scratchy drum samples are the death of this thing by the way...LOL) Your voice deserves better, and I think you know this. :)

Sax solo: Reverb a bit too much. Way too much contrast to the "moist" bass, and dry-as-shite-keys.

Bass: Would be nice to hear more extended notes, and a bit less "punch." Less repetitive "rat-a-tat-a-drone" for sure. More melodic counterpoint is what I am getting at, kinda-sorta. The slap-bass idea has a place here fo' sho', dude. Likes' it alot!

Piano: nice melancholic canvas achieved here although more use of sustain pedal in the middle of the composition (1:52) and onward to the end would be nice. (too "scaley" and disjointed). LOL. Definitely needs some chamber in there. Way too dry.



Thunder: Whoa friggin-Nelly!!!!! Easy boy!!!



Audio Impression

The spectrum from 60hz and lower takes a major dive for most of this tune. Try adding some lows. Sounds way better right off the bat.

Bit too much in the high end in the hood' and the sample-cracking just fools the mind into thinking it is WAY to high, but it really isn't that bad. Judicious use of EQ, parametric and otherwise would move mountains here.

***I don't think a gear change is in order, Jeff. NOT at all. I do think an "ear" adjustment will make this..and your subsequent works, sound markedly improved.***

Using panning/expanding in this tune really improves the soundstage here, in lieu of better mixing/panning/magic tricks.

To sum up, overall I dig this effort. I dig the potential, especially in the vocal/improvisational aspects of the material. This is where the shine off your chrome hubcap is catching my "ear's eye."

Best of luck and interpret my 2 cents worth for what it is. Only 2 cents.


Regards, Lee Tyler
 
studioviols said:
Guitar is mixed well, there is good balance between the lows and highs on that instrument.

Compare the meters of the vocal and the guitar, which meter indicates the track with the most volume, the track that is peaking consistently higher, and where the average volume is higher.

If the guitar and vocal track meters are the same ... which is actually much louder ?

The guitar voices itself in a wide range, it is creating a decibel reading in a wide variety of frequency spectrum and the meter doesn't really show this.

The vocal is only producing decibels in a very narrow spectrum, and it's meter is actually more 'accurate'.

At any one time, if the meters are the same, the guitar is then infinitely louder than the vocal in all frequency areas that the vocal is not producing decibels within. We percieve this as the guitar being much louder.

Why ? and how can we take advantage of that, how can that detract and distract ?

The vocal track is mixed well, if I did not know the words to gilligan's isle as well as 'happy birthday', I would say that things are mixed very well and that I could understand the words with relative ease, although I think the instruments are generally too loud.

Do an experiment, send all the instruments to one single bus, and set the compression threshold 3db below the peak, and the ratio at 10:1, do the same to the vocal, what do you see, what do you hear ?

The meters are your friends, you just have to know how to interpret them, and that's what I'm learning, and I may just be thinking out loud here.

Good example for your first post, thanks for sharing, welcome to the board.


Hi Studio, could you kindly add some "serious mo-fo compression" as to what you are trying to say in your post up there? I would like to learn here from your expertise, but somehow I lost you. It may be me too as I am not as educated as your are in the audio-world. Thanks muchos, ---Lee
 
Wow!

I have to say Wow and thank you for the really truly wonderful welcome and oustanding feedback. When I get better I promise to contribute as well.

A couple comments - you know the 'scratch' of the snare - it sounded much better pre-mastering (i.e. the voice from the synth - a Yamaha Motif) to my ears sounded much better. I think something happened in the mult-band compression area that highlighted and I completely agree with you - it's annoying! lol

I really love your comment on the <60 Hz area. That would be because I cut the heck out of it when mixing and then if that wasn't enough, I cut the heck out of more when I mastered. :-)

I'll tell you - I know that's not good, but I have such trouble in that area. I know part of it is overcompensating for the lack of bass in studio monitors while mixing - but even when mastering I do use my home stereo system and compare to a couple of reference disks. I still haven't quite figured it out. I have one reference song that I just think is mastered so superbly in the bass area - it is the Counting Crows - "Hanging Around" - I just think it's stunning - the bass is so present yet there is no rumble on any system (ranging from my studio montors and my home stereo system to my cheapy computer speakers.

Any great references or words of wisdom on how better to work the <80-100 Hz area?

Thanks again everyone - really am learning a lot!

Jeff
 
Any great references or words of wisdom on how better to work the <80-100 Hz area?

No words of wisdom here, just don't fuck-with and step-on your music too much with 'tronics, and LEARN to use your EARS....more and more. Use decent monitors, use the ole' reference material to strive for the sound you want, check on many types of speaker-laden devices, and make due with WHAT YOU HAVE. Use basic frequency analysis to confirm what your ears are... and what your ears ARE NOT telling you... and ***A/B comparisons*** till you are a french-fried, cochlear crustified, sad-ass musician in audio-hell. Take a break, and try again. Frikking "geargasms" got you by the shorthairs, buddy. :D :D :D All the best! ---Lee
 
Hey, there were no baby grands on Gilligan's Isle! :mad: Jeez,
they had everything on the Minnow, eh? 5 years worth of clothes?? :rolleyes:

:D (j/k)

Cool, man... funny, actually. Great playing... I like that crackly, Hip-Hoppy
vinyl click for percussion.

The storm sounds are good, but maybe mixed too loud.

This reminds me of Tori Amos' piano-parody of "Smells Like Teen Spirit", which
must've made her feel bad, cuz soon after that Kurt was no more.

Great sounds, man. This mix is very spacious. Is that a real sax? Very very smooth.
No, it's not (still listening)... but nicely done pitch bends, and such... what
gives it away is the lack of breath noise... and the sometimes authentically
grainy attack.

Very cool


Chad
 
I listened to the first arrangment, and liked it A LOT. The only thing that got on my nerves a bit was that scratching/percussion/match/electronic thing. (hope you know what I mean) It was just a little too distracting. I would either do away with it, lower the volume, or replace it w/something else.

Otherwise ...Awesome version.

Could you please let me know what your setup is?

What mic do you use on vocals? Preamp? Compressor? EffectsProcessor? Settings? Soundcard?......

I listened to another version on your site (acoustic version of Giligan) I liked it.

What Guitar? Mic/Pre? Mic Placement? Effect?

Thanks for sharing. You have a good style and voice.

Andre
 
studioviols said:
The meters are your friends,

Hey, and The Meters were a good band too! LOL :D

Can't say anything that hasn't been said yet. Pretty nice. The thunder is a bit too heavy. And I dislike midi slapbass in general, but that's my problem...

But the rest is cool. Welcome to the board.
 
more often than not i really like what i hear from that C1 mic. this is in the more often category. nice.
 
The vocal sounded nice. I use a C3, pretty much the same thing. It sounds to me like you hyped up some of the highs with EQ. That might be taking away from the warmth. I didn't read the thread ...so I'm sorry if it's been covered. The other thing is the mic is pretty sensitive to sibilance, so experiment with your positioning, and of course try to control your "esses" at your mouth, not in the EQ. For something like what you've recorded here, I'd try about 12 inches away, mic very slightly turned, using a pop filter about half way between. If you've blended some tube from your pre into the signal, you may have over done it, IMO.

Nice performance!

Tom
 
Thanks all for the kind words and the warm welcome to this group. I am so impressed with your ears. You have pointed out things that I, indeed have done in the mix - some things subtle and some things not so much!

The full equipment used is this:

Yamaha Motif 8 (for all sounds except for acoustic guitar in second version) supplemented by RNP preamp
Studio Projects C1 for vocals
Grace 101 preamp for vocals
Compressed vocals using RNC compressor
Pair of Rode NT5s on Taylor 414 guitar on second version going into the RNP preamp - mike placement was one mic pointed down about a foot away aimed at 12th fret, one mic pointed up towards beyond the bridge about a foot away - recorded in a room that has decent natural reverb - wood floors, high ceilings - did not compress or add reverb to the acoustic guitar...
All reverbs from TC Electronics M-One XL
Recorded and mixed in 24-bit on an Akai DPS 16 multi-track
Imported to computer for post processing on stereo tracks using Cool Edit 2000 and Ozone.

The original concept on the sax solo was to reverb it heavily and have it low volume for sort of a 'sax in the other room' laid back/jazzy feel.... but I destroyed that in the final mix by increasing the volume - as such I agree it probably took on too much verb.

Sluice - were you watching me mix??!!! Yea, I bumped up the EQ at about 8K by a couple db on the vocals. I can't remember exactly but I DON'T think I did that on the second version. I know the C1 is a bright mic and probably doesn't need the bump - I think that I am still guilty of trying to make a mix sound better by adding a few highs where they aren't always needed!

Jeff
http://www.jeffoestreichmusic.com
 
Hey Jeffo,
Great cover here man. Whenever i sing this tune to my 5 mo. old son, he giggles. ...that cant be bad:D .

As the owner/user of both the grace 101 and the rnp, what have you found to be the big differences between the two.... ...and why do you prefer one over the other in different circumstances?

Nice stuff here man!:)
 
Ok here goes

Lose the drums, the scratchy stuff is distracting. The piece doesn't need it anyway.

Nice playing, all the instruments(except drums) are great.

The vocals are excellent. What ever you are doing there works, don't change it.

I think when the storm kicks in-- too hot. You lose vocal presence here.
 
Nice work. After I got past the snare artifacts, I enjoyed it. The 'saxophone' was nice and big, vocals are good and piano sounded nice. Good job

Ray J
 
nice work. Very comfortable feel to it.

Definitely a Strong score of C
 
Back
Top