Mixing Rap Vocals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7khat
  • Start date Start date
The process is the same idea, fix the issue then fit it in the mix.
 
As opposed to... ?

Not fixing the issue and having it sound like ass, but somehow kind of sits ok in the mix?
Or fixing the issue but not fitting it into the mix, so it sounds like ass?

And the 'fixing of the issue' and fitting it into the mix are not really two separate things. In many cases, the "issue" is only an issue because of the mix - if you listened to the track by itself, it might sound fine. Individual tracks might sound good with a strong low end, but try and fit them all together and this suddenly turns from being a good thing into being a problem. Look at it in individual stages in terms of what each stage does to the signal, but think about it as the overall process of taking the raw tracks and shaping them into the final track by the means you deem necessary, even if this means several stages of EQ and compression.

Yes, its always best to get it right at the source and on the way in, but with more busier mixes its often hard to work out quite how everything will fit together until you have it all there. Heck, this is something that professionals struggle with, and we're mere amateurs! Whilst working on an album in a pro studio, you might have the time, experience and patience necessary to lay down scratch tracks for all the parts... see how they all fit together... experiment with different techniques, tones, etc... perform all the overdubs that you think will 'work' for the song... revisit the mix... rerecord parts again... and again... the kind of luxuries that only artists shutting themselves away in a studio for a few months can have.
 
yea I guess I'm too much of an idealist. Or just plain stupid. I believe you are right. however I don't believe in it.
 
TheChikenMaster said:
yea I guess I'm too much of an idealist. Or just plain stupid. I believe you are right. however I don't believe in it.
Click to expand...

Ok, then why mix at all? Why use an EQ on a track? Shouldn't you fix it with better mic selection and positioning? Why use a compressor? Isn't that a performance issue, where the artist simply wasn't even enough with their dynamics? Hell, why use reverb, shouldn't you just be recording in a hall and blending in distance mics?

I think it's worth noting here that oftentimes there's a significant difference between the way an instrument sounds in a room, and the way we're used to hearing it on an album. Don't believe me? Listen to the kick drum on a modern metal recording, and then listen to it on some Dio-era Sabbath. Totally different beast - the former will be completely scooped, both deeper and brighter, and very compressed (to say nothing of significantly louder in the mix) while the later will be rounder, middier, and more dynamic.

You can whine about it "not being the way it should be" or you can accept the reality that that's how it's done, and that part of recording is learning to sculpt sounds. Or, you could go back to tracking entire bands live in the room into a stereo pair of mics, and be done with it.

Sorry if I'm coming on a little hard, but that attitude just doesn't make sense to me. We have a large number of tools at our disposal to change the timbre and dynamic response of a performance, and the entire industry uses them. :confused:
 
you hit the nail on the head I stand corrected. I did enjoy the debate.
 
TheChikenMaster said:
you hit the nail on the head I stand corrected. I did enjoy the debate.
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't quite believe that. ;)

Listen, at the end of the day, just try it. Take a raw track, and then draw up a truly stupid EQ tweak, something pretty obvious. Low pass well into the body of the sound, and then put a very narrow, obvious peak somewhere as well. Or, better yet, use one EQ as a low pass, and another for a narrow peak. Put 'em both before a compressor set for a pretty heavy, almost audible compression. Then, hit play and start moving them around. Move the compressor from last to before both EQs. Move the compressor in the middle. Put the boost first, then the compressor, then the low pass. Reverse that order. Just play for a bit.

If you really can't hear any difference no matter what order you run the plugins, through a halfway decent set of monitors, then come back here, post up "hey Drew, you know what, I tried it, and I think your full of shit," and I'll reply "hey, cool, sorry for wasting your time" and don't worry about it.

If nothing else, the nice thing about home recording is you lose absolutely nothing by taking some time to experiment. :)
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
Not really - remember that an EQ changes the relative energy of different frequency bands, while the compressor changes the relative energy of the whole sound. So, if you've got a lot going on in the bass frequencies that you don't really want in the final track, putting an EQ before your compressor lets you pull out a lot of that energy so it doesn't in turn play much of a role in the way a compressor is triggered.

On the flip side, if you want to boost something in a frequency range, if you do that before the compressor then most of that boost is going to get squashed down when the augmented signal hits the compressor.

So, I think using an EQ before and after the compressor can make perfect sense - use the first to make some tweaks to the "tone" of the track hitting the compressor, and then the second to make it fit into the mix better. If you know for a fact that you don't want anything under, say, 120hz on your lead guitar, then low-pass it pre-condenser, just so any of that low end boom can't impact the way the compressor is triggered. Once you have a nice, compressed sound you're happy with, if you think it needs a little bit of a boost around 1.2khz to jump out, then add that with a post-compressor EQ just so that boost doesn't push the track above the compression threshold here and there or get leveled down.

Consider the function of the units - sometimes, it makes sense to compress before EQ and sometimes it makes sense to EQ before compression. There are certainly times when you'll want to do both.
Click to expand...


This answered my question to Chibi about why one would want to EQ twice. Thanks - I understand it. But in the case of not wanting to compress a frequency you've boosted with EQ, a quicker way to compress might be to use a multiband, right? In order to avoid compressing the boosted frequency range more than the rest of the track, I mean.

However, I've gone into my editing software (Audition 3) and I've figured out that I can put an EQ on a raw track, put a bus on it where I can compress it, and then put a bus on the bus (is that a double-decker bus? :D) where I can EQ what's been EQ'ed and compressed earlier up the line. But it would be simpler just to put a multitrack on the initial track with the EQ on the same track.
 
There are 2 instances where I'll EQ before compression every time.

1. Low end... If its untamed going in, it'll trigger the compressor in an undesirable way. Do a little subtractive EQ as needed BEFORE the compressor to rid this, it wont help to do it after because the compressor is already f'd up from the start!

2. Parallel/exciter... Got a vocal track that needs some sheen without grating your ear drums out on the transients? Take a split and put an EQ before a compressor. Boost generously around 10-12k, and maybe high pass to taste. Then SQUASH it with the compressor, so you're constantly getting 10 or more dB gain reduction. The compressor will tame the high end boost you made, so its not out of control on certain words, and gives a "glossy" quality to the track. Then mix the split in with the original to taste.

That method helps a lot when you're mixing vocals to a stereo pre-mixed instrumental, as you won't have to push the gain on the vocal to let it be heard.
 
thanks for the tip guys
anymore ideas n tips? i belive me and everyone else can use your tips & experience n step up more
 
Q-tips would be nice to clean my ears out and except what everyone else is saying:D
 
Just because a particular technique doesn't make sense to you, doesn't make it wrong. In this case, it's actually used quite regularly.

You've got a closed mindset that will limit your progression if you hold to it... Fact is, the pros (and anyone worth a shit) care about the SOUND they are trying to achieve -- not the worry of using a technique that might stray from the beaten path. If it sounds good, it is good -- point blank. You can't argue that.
 
Try another approach

Sometimes I work on the sound of the vocal before bringing any music up at all. Once I get the vocal sounding close to what I think they should sound like I start mixing music around that.
 
whjr15 said:
Just because a particular technique doesn't make sense to you, doesn't make it wrong. In this case, it's actually used quite regularly.

You've got a closed mindset that will limit your progression if you hold to it... Fact is, the pros (and anyone worth a shit) care about the SOUND they are trying to achieve -- not the worry of using a technique that might stray from the beaten path. If it sounds good, it is good -- point blank. You can't argue that.
Click to expand...

Your right there is no wrong way to eat a reeses.:D
 
y-kause said:
WHEN I DO MY VOCALS I ADD THE FX 1ST IN THIS ORDER

EQ,COMPRESSION,EQ,DYNAMIC PROCESSING(CLASSIC SOFT KNEE),D'ESSER
THEN I RAISE THE WAVE FILE TO -1DB PEAKING

i pan the adllibs -75 and 75


the key word is less is more and listen!
Click to expand...

I'm recording a rap album for a friend and after mixing I have to dump it to digital. My question is, sometimes when I burn the Cd it is not very loud. How do you raise the volume on the wave file? I use both Audacity and Reaper. Thanks. Sorry to hijack the thread.
 
Use light compression very light, and turn up the makeup till its loud enough for ya.:) Dont take my word for it though its my method if I need it.:)
 
Its me again :p

I know it doesn't matter that much, but why use makeup gain if you're not actually pushing that much GR? May as well just push the track fader up a bit.
 
Only when I need. For example if the fader doesn't go up any further:D
 
keep it simple

most of the time, as far as rap goes, if you have a decent sounding take and you want the right volume level for the vocals in relation to the kicks, snares, samples, and whatever else might be in the mix, just turn your monitors down till you can barely hear the music. at this point, if the vocals are the most audible thing, then they're at the right level. there's exceptions to every rule, but generally this works for me.
 
now I do mix rap vocals and I can't believe nobody said anything about the gain stage in case the vocal was recorded low. What about volume automation to get everythings volume in the ballpark of where you don't have to compress all heavy handed. This comes before any eq or compression or any reverb...anything.

I read this thread and the original question on my mind I see that without what I just mentioned ur just trying harder than you should. I agree with the eq before and after compression but these othe steps are equally necessary. I realized like alot of amateur engineers/producers that if you want a pro sound you gotta do what pros do. Making a song from beginning to end is a very time consuming process. Proper mixing for the average record is a 5 hour and up process (depending on the material). I want professional results so I put in professional time for them. Period.

this is the same thought that has to pass through your thoughts as you record (preproduction) mixing properly and mastering (which should be sent out for best results).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top