More vocal punch?

4db of gain reduction isn't a lot in a vocal. It sounds compressed harder than that. I think youtube is probably doing some compression of things too.

I think the vocal is too loud in the mix. The vocal has a midrange frequency that is a little harsh. Somewhere in the 2500hz range.

There is a low end rumble in the piano. There is even a little low end rumble in the vocal.

If you have added reverb on things, take it off for a while until you get the other stuff worked out.
 
Curious, you didn't record like it shows in the video did you?

In the video you posted that has a sound you aspire to achieve, they are not recorded at the same time. A totally different ability to control and get the vocal sound they achieved there.
 
jimmys69 said:
In the video you posted that has a sound you aspire to achieve, they are not recorded at the same time. A totally different ability to control and get the vocal sound they achieved there.
Click to expand...

agreed. his vocal sound is a combination of mic, room, and probably multiple takes of each segment that were combed over for inflections and the right level of intimacy and feel. It might sound like a live piano/vocal performance, but it surely wasn't.
 
It's all one take.

The piano sound is Addictive keys vsti. So there is some bleed from this from monitors behind me, hence the slighty muddy piano sound. The video might be slightly out of sync as I've only just begun video editing having never done any before.

The rumble is probably traffic outside my house.

I'll try lowering the vocal and make the overall song louder, along with the eq suggestion :)
 
Last edited:
How have they achieved that? The song isn't to a click and is very 'felt' on the piano. I imagine this would be hard to capture the vocal parts in time etc.... it sounds as if he is right up close to the mic too.

Normally if I were recording a song 'properly' I'd use a vocal booth/filter and track separately.

What is meant by 'combed over'?

Thanks for the replies
 
Last edited:
davecg321 said:
What is meant by 'combed over'?
Click to expand...

nothing technical, sorry. i just meant that several takes were likely done and then examined closely for the proper feel and inflections in the voice. I just mean it was likely a thorough process in selecting the final vocals.
 
It seems odd that this particular artist would work that way.

I would of thought he'd prefer to record live, given the style etc. ..
 
davecg321 said:
It seems odd that this particular artist would work that way.

I would of thought he'd prefer to record live, given the style etc. ..
Click to expand...

A good engineer can make it seem so. Not that this is proof of having multiple takes, but that artist does comp instruments as stated by his producer:

"I’m working with this new artist, Keaton Henson, for Sony UK. We were working at Sunset Sound tracking, and The Raveonettes were next door — great, great band. Sune, the guitar player, really wanted to contribute some parts to Keaton’s album but he was on his way back to New York. So we sent him a file, and he sent us back some great guitar parts. That kind of stuff is happening all the time."
 
That's a remarkable recording davecg. I've heard this one before, didn't know you did it in one take!
 
andrushkiwt said:
multiple takes of each segment that were combed over
Click to expand...

You mean "comped"? (as in "composite" or "compile", I believe)

Yeah, your reference material was almost certainly done as separate takes, which would give the vocalist more flexibility to give a very dynamic performance.

I wonder if he might have also used a dynamic mic instead of a compressor? For something to sound this "intimate" you really need to be able to control for extraneous mouth sounds. A dynamic mic is easier for that in that he can back off the mic as needed.
 
Thanks mate. Mine is the first link and not the second. The second is the reference material. Hopefully you mean mine! Haha ;)

I'm slowly getting to where I want my sound to be in terms of production.

:)
 
easlern said:
That's a remarkable recording davecg. I've heard this one before, didn't know you did it in one take!
Click to expand...

VomitHatSteve said:
You mean "comped"? (as in "composite" or "compile", I believe)

Yeah, your reference material was almost certainly done as separate takes, which would give the vocalist more flexibility to give a very dynamic performance.

I wonder if he might have also used a dynamic mic instead of a compressor? For something to sound this "intimate" you really need to be able to control for extraneous mouth sounds. A dynamic mic is easier for that in that he can back off the mic as needed.
Click to expand...


Yes I also think this might of been the case. If you carefully listen to the vocal it hasn't actually got a great deal of dynamic range going on. It's all pretty much consistently one volume Imo. Using a condenser with compression might of been too heavy handed in this instance perhaps?
 
VomitHatSteve said:
You mean "comped"? (as in "composite" or "compile", I believe)
Click to expand...

no, ha, i meant combed over. like analyzed, looked at in detail. it's an idiom. to examine with a fine-toothed comb, for example.

but yeah, comped is something that was done too. certainly edited.
 
Your title, punch, isn't the same as, sit in the mix. But note that bass frequencies chew up space and therefore compressor processing. Make sure you are not to close to the mic--this enhances the bass and your peaks.
 
So the bottom line is that these vocals on the example you gave are not recorded from 18" away with a Rode NT1a in an open room with other instrument being recorded at the same time as you are doing.

In fact the vocal is so intimate that I am guessing that there was a well treated isolation room capturing the vocal. That doesn't mean you can't get close with your setup, but you need to understand that it is not a one off take. There are obvious issues with your room as apparent by the distant vocal sound of your recording. There are ways to deal with this but it is more about the room it is recorded in than the mic or any effect placed on the track. Though using a dynamic mic can help with a shitty room. But that is also just my guessing and offering suggestion.

I wish I had an easy way to solve your issue man. I think more that you need to experiment and research why your recording does not sound as good as your example. Then do what you can to get closer to that sound.

Sucks to hear, but there is a reason why $1000 home studio recordings don't sound like 1.5 million dollar studio recordings. But then there are smaller digital studios that have $10-$30 invested that can pull it off. It has more to do with the understanding of what it takes to get a particular recording in a limited environment.

I am no guru but will try to help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top