Hey sjoko

  • Thread starter Thread starter tubedude
  • Start date Start date
tubedude

tubedude

New member
On "you know" at 1:00 til about 1:20, is that a double tracked vocal? What did you have going on there. Also, what was going on with reverb during the verse parts? Was that protools reverb, or something else? Remember any details about it and the way you had predelays and panning going on? The vocals do sound nice, and I'm wondering what piece of equipment would have taken the MOST away from them if removed, that crazy mic, that crazy preamp, or the converters.
Check out my preamp question "poll" in the rack forum too. :)
Paul
 
Damn you make me work for a living, I had to open the tracks up in PT to go and look.

the 1 till 1:20 bit - yes its a double tracked vocal panned L & R
Every vocal part is done 'real' - no comping or doubling, she's just brilliant, combine that with a perfect voice, perfect pitch and perfect memory........
It took her well under an hour to do every vocal on the track, and the total # of vocal tracks is 16.
(I'll post a track soon which has 29 vocal tracks - as soon as I have figured out how to do the grouping for a rough mix)

The reverb and delays were those that come as standard with PT.
I don't remember the settings, they were different L to R - but I printed to free up DSP, as I was using just one card.
The final thing was put through the standard compressor / expander - but only very very mildly so.

The part of the signal path that makes the biggest difference is without any question the converter. We wanted an almost hard vocal sound, so I shelved the low end of the lead, as well as the different groups of backing vocals.
Shelving was done per group of vocals, each group routed through a stereo bus, with different levels of shelving applied to each group.
This in effect took away one of the primary advantages of using a high end tube mic and pre combo .... a full extended low end.

Without the converter I would not have had the level of dynamics, seperation and clarity. In other words, I could have used an SM57 and made it sound good - because of the converter.
I think Shai is experimenting with the same one I used at the moment.
 
Which is?......(if I may be so bold)

I just got a Lucid AD 9624 which is rocking my world. Not only does it sound great, but the clock is making my other A/d's sound better.

Sorry to interupt, I wish could hear the voice y'all are refering to. I love great voices!!
 
A Lucid AD9624

Its simply the best sounding AD there is, the more you start stacking - the more apparent the difference becomes.
It sound better then the Apogee (wich has the same chip in it) because the circuitry is higher quality and better designed.

Unfortunately its a whole circle thing:
The AD2496 sound amazing - so your recording sound a whole lot better, but you only really get to hear how much better if you:
- use a DA2496 to listen through
- use a good external clock
Lucid have just released a small clock, which is the first accurate external clock that doesn't costs near 2 grand. Best investment one can make.

Oh yeah 'the voice' is http://www.mp3.com/uru the track You Know - recorded at home while I'm finishing the studio, on a basic bareass Pro Tools system without any but the standard plug-ins
 
Thankee...
Damn Razor, you got a Lucid? You can really tell a difference huh, without a doubt? Thats gonna be one of my near future investments, I hope...
I want the 8 channel one :) $2,200 or so, but much cheaper that way in the long run, cause they have a/d AND d/a in the same unit ...
 
Hey sjoko2.

The soung is TIGHT!

We need to talk about this song.

E-mail me, once you read this post.

Ed
 
Back
Top