My first "classical" type recording...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blue Bear Sound
  • Start date Start date
sonusman said:
It was too close mic'ed for me. I would have tracked her from across the room to match the piano.
Click to expand...
I see your point, and did think of that, but this came under my "Vocal Demo" fee structure which I max at 3 hours time - so we didn't have a lot of time for experimentation. That is a good approach for me to try if she brings me more of this stuff!


The levels were a bit low.
Click to expand...
I made a conscious decision NOT to fuck with the dynamics too much on this one - BECAUSE I hadn't done this style before and didn't want to overdo it... (and time again prevented a lot of experimentation...)

You're right though - I could still probably raise the average level up a notch or two without too much damage!


A little milky sounding.
Click to expand...
Could you explain this more, Ed? I don't understand what you mean by milkiness, and where you're hearing it?

Thanks for the tips!

Bruce
 
I think it's lovely. Close-miked like that makes it easy to hear everything in her voice, and her voice is *really* easy to listen to. There's something about that honky upright in the background that sets her singing off like a diamond in the rough. Makes it sound like the magic moment of the century in a school concert.

You said you didn't use effects - where'd the reverb come from? Natural?

Maybe it's my listening through cans again, but there were a couple of peaks that seemed a taste too loud - 1.32 for example.

Good work, dude. Made me want to cry.
 
I didn't use EQ/processing during tracking....

I did use several ambient programs for her voice on mixdown.... some light compression via the RNC... no EQ though...

I didn't touch the backing track at all, except for a touch of EQ in the mids to bring it out more.... really just a hair though...

Bruce
 
I thought the mix sounded great. Hard to screw up on a voice like that though =) ....to bad they can't all be that sweet! I love how she kept a great balance between the classical and the pop sound, never going too far one way or the other. She will be great if she keeps up that dream. Way to go on making her sound as good as she is Bruce.

Matt
 
Well, I thought the recording was OK, and she has a nice voice, but her diction leaves a lot to be desired. On the recording, she was all vowels* and no consonants. She slid into most of the words, and I couldn't help but feel that it sounded like a 15-year-old kid trying to sing like some of the popular female singers heard nowadays on MTV and the like. It would be very good for her to take singing lessons, and train her voice; she is only 15, so she definitely has potential. Her voice is good, but her technique is lacking. I thought the recording to have a bit too much reverb, and if it was natural (I think you said you didn't use any effects), I think I would have moved her closer to the mic, or used a more directional mic.

- Wil

* check out Dame Joan Sutherland as "The Woodbird" in the Solti "Ring" cycle - (recorded in the late 1950s/early 1960s, and still stands as the definitive "Ring" recording) - Dame Joan sings beautifully, but she sings all the vowels, and no consonants, and so is very difficult to understand her, which makes it a bloody miracle that Siegfried ever finds his way to awaken the sleeping Brunnhilde... :>
 
Heh!!! A f*cking music critic in every crowd!!!:rolleyes:

Bruce, try a High Shelf filter at about 12 or 13K, boost about 2dB.

Apply a cut at about 390Hz, wide Q, about 3dB. (this freq will depend on which eq you use. It could range from 400 on down to 300 depending upon how that particular eq sounds.)

Boost about 3dB with a limiter over the mix. (might get 4dB if the limiter is really good, like the Waves L1)

You will hear what I mean.

Ed
 
going back to someone's previous post, might have been an idea to position the mic a little further away to blend with the vibe of the piano. other than that, lovely, nice voice. not your fault, but there seems to be one note slightly flat in the choir.nice vocal bruce.

check out a track i just did with a 16 year old gal, it's in the mixing clinic...under "joe meek"
 
"Well, I thought the recording was OK, and she has a nice voice, but her diction leaves a lot to be desired. On the recording, she was all vowels* and no consonants. She slid into most of the words, and I couldn't help but feel that it sounded like a 15-year-old kid trying to sing like some of the popular female singers heard nowadays on MTV and the like."

Yeah, but it's the *unsophistication* of her delivery that's so charming (plus I think the unsophistication of the piano only adds to it). It's like this 15-year old beautiful girl walks in the room, no make-up, no fancy clothes, and all heads turn. And like mgiles said, she hit that ground between a pop and a classical sound (and she probably wasn't even conscious of it - she was probably just trying to sing the song and make it sound good). It was the right tune for something like this too.
 
Really nice work Bruce. I know everyone's saying that it's hard to screw up her voice, but believe me, I could have found a way. :(

;)
 
Ed - thanks... excellent - I will check those settings out!

All - those who made mention of the "pop-stylings" in her delivery --- very interesting observation -- I came to the same conclusion after listening to the mixdown - she definitely DOES apply "pop" stylings to her phrasing.

And I know why... her father told me one of her singing influences was Celine Dion, and coincidently, I heard Celine Dion doing this exact same song on the radio... (of course, different arrangement and backing tracks!) Celine's voice showed more maturity and smoothness, but the delivery style was still on the pop-diva side -- NOT the classical, operatic side.

It was quite clear after hearing that version that my client was emulating aspects of Celine Dion's track.

But regardless -- I think the track worked overall - the expression of youthfulness and eagerness were captured by her stylings even without the smoothness being in place (yet!)... I'm sure it brought a tear to her grandmother's eyes!

Bruce
 
I put a version of the mix up using sonusman's settings for comparison...
(I now understand what you meant by "milkiness", Ed!) ;)

This brings up an excellent point about self-mastering your own mixes.... because I was already used to the mix, there was nothing I felt the need to tweak to bring it out a bit more. Except the levels - I did intentionally leave them slightly low because of the noise floor of the backing tracks (which actually were overcompressed by whoever tracked it!)

But Ed caught that "milkiness" and pointed out. Once I heard it, it became obvious to me as well...
If you mix the material - you are usually too close to be objective about further tweaks to draw out the mix more - unless you leave it sit for a few days/weeks/months. (Just another point to drive home the fact that home-"mastering" DOESN'T work if you've been doing the tracking and mixing too!)


Anyways, for comparison purposes, the 2nd version is at
...

Funny - there was about a 3-4 db level difference between the 1st version and the 2nd version on the CD version (because I used the limiter slightly more aggressively with different release times), but via MP3, that difference is not as noticeable.......... oh well....

Bruce
 
Last edited:
Blue Bear Sound said:
Funny - there was about a 3-4 db level difference between the 1st version and the 2nd version on the CD version (because I used the limiter slightly more aggressively with different release times), but via MP3, that difference is not as noticeable.......... oh well....

Bruce
Click to expand...

This is a result of the "normalization" that mp3 encoding does.

Your point about mastering is a good one Bruce. I usually don't mind mastering my own stuff, but I definately wait a good week before doing so after finishing up a mixing project. I like to get WELL away from the mix before I attempt mastering the CD.

Ed
 
I can't hear much difference on headphones. I'll try with monitors in a day or two. The new one sounds a taste clearer, but I couldn't swear that I wasn't fooling myself. I really wanna hear this. I'll feel better about myself if I can. :D
 
One thing you might wanna alter, allthough it's probably too late,

I would have used a different vocal take at 02:52 on that phrase.
 
Why? I listened again and I don't hear anything wrong with the phrase at that time-index!

:confused: :confused: :confused:


Bruce
 
pitching bruce...

i listened again, and it's there.

now i have no idea to spell these words so ill make it up..

it goes...

je fleur (?),. it's on the word "fleur". it's slightly out, but it annoyed me cus i have perfect pitch:-0 the rest of the vocal is perfect.

maybe try a different take on "dan se cour" or whatever it is. she rises up on "dans" and it sounds like she went a little too high, just a tiny bit.

this is just a tiny thing i had a problem with. she's a great singer though, the mix is great, that piano kinda gives it a nice vibe, it's not excellently recorded, but, hmm, it seemed to work:-0

those choir lines go really well with the main vocals. were you just sent a dat of the backing track then? or was it multitrack?
 
Wow... you have better pitch than me then! I still can't hear the pitch problem! :eek:

Tha backing track she brought it was 2-track stereo on a CD-R... the piano and choir were already mixed. And the piano was overcompressed! So I had no control over it..........

I tracked the lead vocal and did the blend with the 2-track backing............

Bruce
 
Oso Grande De Azul (Big Blue Bear)

I think you have done a great job and implemented the recommendations made by others very well. I too have been diagnosed with perfect pitch which in my opinion is a curse. It makes me cringe when I hear a guitarist bending up to a note and it is just never quite there. Anyway, the song that the young lady sang sounds nice. I agree she needs to work on the technique, and I also noted a few flats or sharps, but you did a wonderful job with the time and format that you were required to work with. Good Job!

Fangar
 
LongWaveStudio said:
I can still hear it.
Click to expand...
I didn't change it!

The point is moot anyways... it's a done deal (it was done the afternoon it was cut)... it's not a project worth re-opening or re-cutting (this was a 3-hour demo special!)

I applied the recommendations that Ed made in the hope of people learning something about the post-mix process... and that people were able to glean some useful info from this thread!

Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top