SMOOTH, HOMOGENOUS, EXCITING mixes... Is it possible???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mercuri
  • Start date Start date
I am not understanding all this stuff about good instruments, gear etc... which shania twain songs are you talking about?

The only ones I have heard have had UNREAL nice vocals, with all the other instruments decimated to about a four bit dynamic range and SEVERELY filtered. WOuldnt matter one iota if those instruments were good or not. Just if they were played in tune and on time. More important is the quality of the filters and EQ's that were used to anihilate those said instruments to make room for her voice
 
Pipeline - the difference between country music and other genres is mainly showcasing the vocalist. Hiphop is a lot like this, except drums get placed on virtually the same level. You *need* to thin the instruments out to reduce the crowding in the mix. (But I don't have to really tell you this - you already stated it.)

However... Despite the thinning and the reduction of the volume, it still sounds fantastic. Listen to an instrumental on one of these tunes and you'll see what I mean.

OK, OK... Flashback: I remember hearing 'Fancy' for the first time on the radio before I got into recording. (Reba tune.) It was the BIGGEST and HEAVIEST mix I had ever heard. I still haven't heard toms that huge. The mix is sparse as hell half the time, though, and it never sounds thin. Listen to the acoustic. Full, sparkling, and clean. You can't hear the bass player unless you focus on it. The guitars are probably EQ'd like mad, but you couldn't tell. They sound big and mean anyhow. That's a really really good country mix.

But the mix isn't the only issue I have here, so I don't think we should focus entirely on that... Thinning a mix for complexity is a requirement. It will make it "fit", but it WON'T impart "that sound" to it.

I know if I had a Neotek console, a 2" tape system, a $3000 amp and a custom Nashville Tele, a D18, a Master's Custom set and a few Lexis I could replicate it.

BUT... The GOAL of this thread is basically to figure out what the MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS are to get "that sound". Not just the Shania sound. THAT sound. That makes me sound like a huge studio. How many more $%#@&*^ dollars do I have to spend?!?!

(P.S. Some would argue that you need racks and racks of crap... What if I just wanted to record a tune with drums, acoustic, and bass??? What do you have to do with your recordings to get it to sound like they did it at Critera??)
 
Oh, yeah... JesusFreak... You brought up some important stuff, too.

I want to get that sound for one reason only: SO I CAN RECORD MY SONG IDEAS and have them sound GOOD without spazzing over why they don't sound acceptable. I'm sure that's why 90% of these guys are on this forum. It's so painful to take what sounded good in your head, track it, and wonder why in reality it sounds like s***. You know??

You said your recording sounded good until the lead and vox came in... See, this is where I am curious. On the original recording, the guitar intro sounds good. In the mix, it sounds good.

There CAN be congruity here.

Chess, you are so right about the instrument making a world of difference... Maybe bad instruments can ruin it for others in a mix? If my vocal channel is almost perfect, but it sounds bad in a mix... Maybe it's because the other instruments in the mix are messing with it??

My sister has recorded small song demos with only an acoustic guitar mic and a vocal mic. She just about has "that sound." With a little tweaking I could get it. It's the mix stage that pulls it apart.
 
I think it's actually more an ear issue that a gear issue. If a really great engineer comes to your house and mixes on your gear, it's going to sound more like HIS work than like YOUR work, mixing at least. And that is independant of format, processing, or anything else.

Home recording is lacking in 2 key elements to make really great sounding recordings.

#1 is a good producer. There is a reason that a decent producer gets $$$$ for his work... The good ones can hear the timing issues and things that we, as the musician, just don't listen for or KNOW how to listen for. When Ifirst went into the studio with a producer, I thought I could play a guitar...at least on the songs I wrote. But that was until I played them over, and over, and over until they were absolutely perfect. Ask yourself how long you typically spend on recording one song. When I have to do a song for real, I'm looking at probably 8-10 hours on guitars alone. For example, when doubling, if it SOUNDS like you just doubled it...it's not good enough. Same with doubled vocal. It takes alot of time and good ears to match up the timing perfectly throughout the entire song.
#2 is a good mix engineer. I don't mean Joe at the studio downtown who has Pro Tools HD or an Amek console. I mean someone you have heard of or heard the work of. Chances are, if you're good at actually recording what you want to hear, much like Ed sonusman talks about all the time on here, then you sent it to a very good mixing engineer, it would come back sounding great. Until it's sent to a big mixing engineer, it's just a rough mix.

No amount of good gear is going to make you sound like any other engineer. Thats why those guys you have heard of are making alot of money. And thats why there's not an Alge2.0, Massenberg X, or Ludwig ME plugin!!:D.

H2H
 
JesusFreak said:
I guess that means that I now need to go and spend another 5000$ on new guitars and amps....crap
Click to expand...

I have a really nice rental shop nearby that loans out some pretty top-notch equipment for a couple days at a time for reasonable money (Andy's Music).

Their equipment list includes JCMs, Marshall cabs, Mesa Dual Rectifiers, Vox, Fender Twins, etc. They also have TC and Lexicom reverbs, dbx comps, and 24-channel Soundcraft boards. If I were to get someone in here who really wanted to pull out all the stops and was willing to invest the extra cash, I'd just assume rent some of this stuff out for a couple days.

It really wouldn't make much sense for me to buy this stuff since most of the guys who record with me are just kicking out demos to be heard by local bar owners. But it's available should I have a special project that might require pulling out a few extra stops.
 
I have some more time, and have one experience I want to add to what I was saying. I have to reserve names because I dont want to get in trouble.

On one of our recent demo songs I wanted a better overall sound on it. We have been using a specific mixing engineer who is really popular with many local/regional groups. He has a pretty reasonable rate and he knows what he's doing. But I was wanting something to stand out, and to go head-to-head with radio hits. So we contacted a mix engineer who is pretty well known and who I liked the sound of the records he had done in the past. Fortunately, one of the producers I work with knows him very well or the following probably wouldn't have worked out. We asked him if he would do a quick mix in his between time, like just 1 or 2 hours on a single song...keep it short and simple, nothing over the top or groundbreaking. He agreed, and it ended up being roughly the same cost as a 10 or so hour mix with our local guy.

When we got it back I was astonished. Even though it was just a fast job, it still had HIS sound on it, you could just tell. Nothing that was earth shattering, but all the pro sounding things were there. Now, I'm not sure if any other engineer would do this for anyone, especially without the close connection he had, but it proved to me that it's all in the mix engineers ears.

chess- I agree, rental is the way to go whan you ned somthing specific. IF you have someone who will rent to you.

H2H
 
H2H,

So what did he do? Did he provide any insights?
 
nope:D
I think it's called job security.

Really, I have never talked to the guy or been to his studio. I am just happy that he mixed my song. I don't think guys at that level give up any secrets very easily anyways. If you have ever read Mix or anything like that, when they do interviews, it's always the same blah answers.

H2H
 
Hard2Hear said:
If you have ever read Mix or anything like that, when they do interviews, it's always the same blah answers.
Click to expand...

Either that or ridiculously blatant product endorsements. :D
 
You're all missing the most important thing:

It's all about how you hold your mouth. ;)



On a serious note, I do think that if you are talking about instrumentals, then a large part of "that sound" comes from the quality of instruments, excessive talent of the musicians, and quality of the actual arrangement. This is from the viewpoint of someone who hasn't even started the learning curve of recording yet... but is looking and listening as a musician. When I hear a great instrumental mix (even if it does have vocals), I immediately notice the raw talent of the musicians. It's obvious.

Then, on the other hand, there are some albums I hear that sound like a lot of money was dumped into making mediocre musicians sound good... and that is obvious as well. It's a bit difficult to explain, but it's like at the same time you think "wow, that recording sounds great" and "wow, those musicians aren't that hot." In my personal opinion, "great mixes" of the first type (great musical talent, good instruments, good arrangements) sound better, and to me are better, than "great mixes" that sound good only in so far as you can tell that the "quality" of the recording process is good.

I don't feel like I'm making my point very clear.

Here's an example: I have many many different recordings of Rachmaninoff's piano concertos (me being a fan of his music). Two immediately come to mind, both the third concerto. One was recorded in the past few years, and was done with a studio orchestra for the purpose of producing a collection of Rachmaninoff's work. The piano was a Steinway I believe, the studio musicians (including pianist) were very good, and the overall performance was certainly competent (kinda like me calling a Ferrari a decent car :) ). The "quality of recording" was fantastic... the piano sound is great, balance between piano and orchestra (and different instruments) was spot on, and the overall sound is very "clean" (for lack of a better word). The second recording was done in 1969. It was a live recording. The orchestra sounds too distant in the mix, and the piano seems to have a bit too much room ambience in it. There is a low level hiss that was never eleminated from the recording, and both high and low frequencies have a very noticeabe falloff. BUT, the orchestra performance was a notch above outstanding. And, the piano performance was nothing short of magical... a once in a lifetime performance that was lucky to have been captured on tape at all. Every note in 45 minutes of playing was beyond perfect.

You want to guess which one sounds better? Despite the obvious quality difference in the recording chain, the '69 recording simply sings, completely by virtue of the performance. Now, that may not be the case if it was captured on some old woman's cassette recorder.
 
There was a Christian songwriter named Rich Mullins who bought a tape recorder from K-Mart and went into an old church with a piano and his acoustic guitar. He layed down about 11 tracks there, just singing and playing what he had written. A few weeks later he was killed in an auto accident. The tape was found after his death and his label released it on a CD. The magic of one of his final performances, and his last few songs written is captured on that tape in every bit. When I first heard it, every emotion that was in the writing I felt in me.

A wonderful performance by a talented artist is that no matter what the meduim or means used to record it.

But we're takling pop music production hitting the radio, so that's kind of out of context here.

H2H
 
Samantha,

You're a great singer.... just heard "Without Love". Very nice. The production wasn't bad, either. Drums in songs like this are often compressed, but that's the difference. Yours didn't sound too compressed.
 
Click on Mercuri's "www" button... then download the song.

Uh.. yeah... she's attractive too. Keep the catcalls to a minimum, eh? :D
 
Bigus Dickus said:

The second recording was done in 1969. It was a live recording. The orchestra sounds too distant in the mix, and the piano seems to have a bit too much room ambience in it. There is a low level hiss that was never eleminated from the recording, and both high and low frequencies have a very noticeabe falloff. BUT, the orchestra performance was a notch above outstanding. And, the piano performance was nothing short of magical... a once in a lifetime performance that was lucky to have been captured on tape at all. Every note in 45 minutes of playing was beyond perfect.

You want to guess which one sounds better? Despite the obvious quality difference in the recording chain, the '69 recording simply sings, completely by virtue of the performance. Now, that may not be the case if it was captured on some old woman's cassette recorder.
Click to expand...

Was that the Van Cliburn version? God, I loved that album!The audience going nuts as the last note is thundered out gave me goosebumps every time! For some reason I thought that album was a little earlier than 1969, but it's been a long time since I heard it.
 
"I've got a REALLY nice all-digital setup with analog tape simulators from Crane Song and a little Telefunken gear, Neumann mics, custom silver Mogami cabling, really nice instruments, a great acoustic environment, and a singer with a killer voice. I'm recording at 96kHz 24bit. "

OK, I went back to the beginning. Let's get some things straight. WHICH Neumann mics do you use? About 50% of them suck IMO (esp for female vocal). Of course, there a lot of high $ mics that I don't like. It's not always about $. Does the mic specifically match the singers voice? One big thing is that when in a high dollar session, the producer will have lots of mics to choose from. And not like a U-47 and a Elux251 and a Sony C800, but multiples of those at their disposal because they all sound different mic to mic.

My current fav vocal mic is a Neumann M149 that we tried out and sounded perfect on the female vocalist I work with. It matches her voice character. A M149 thru a Focusrite ISA110 and a Ueri1176 makes a really great chain for us. But you have to find what works best for you. Renting helps.

H2H
 
LOL... Thanks, Participant. I'll forward the compliments.... ;)

BTW, the drums, bass and piano are synthesized in that song off of my Motif. You can tell they're canned, except maybe the snare :D. It took two days to make it sound like that, but it shouldn't. But - Samantha wrote both of those tunes on the site. I just do the arrangement/recording part.

Hard2Hear - Here's my issue with that mix. The vocals, solo'd, are just a hair away from "that sound". BUT, when I mix it in Sonar, suddenly they sound pinched and amateur. (They were also tracked in 40 minutes - she wasn't in the mood to sing at the time. :D) But I don't understand - Is the digital mixing within the software killing the sound?? I know if Mutt payed a visit to my home and re-tracked the song, it *would* sound more professional. But I really really doubt he could get "that" sound.

"When we got it back I was astonished. Even though it was just a fast job, it still had HIS sound on it, you could just tell... but it proved to me that it's all in the mix engineers ears."

Buuuuuuttttt... Didn't he mix it on his own gear?? Maybe he has a slew of LA2A's, AD2055's, and a top notch Neve console and that's what gave it the sparkle. That doesn't exactly prove that it's the engineer's ears... However, if that guy went into the OTHER guy's studio (who did the previous mix), used all the exact same pieces of gear, and THEN it had the better sound, THEN it would prove it's the engineer, because *he* was the only variable.

Q: Did the recording you had these guys mix have "that sound" when you sent it out? And did it come back with "that sound?"

BTW - I've got a couple TLM103's, KM187's, a U-87 and I'm actually trying to get an M149 for just that purpose. :p I also had a ton of "other" low-end mics that we tried, including C3's, a T3, SE5000, SE2000 (gag me), Rode NTK, and ultimately the T3 sounded the best.
 
Man, dude. She sucks. :D :D

NOT.

Just got done listening. Wow, I'm impressed. What a voice.

Just from my initial observations, I see what you're talking about. Her voice is really exceptional, but something isn't quite doing it justice. It sounds like the other tracks are combatting with her voice just a tad. And I highly doubt it has anything to do with a/d conversion, digital summing or anything like that. Just a basic mixing issue is what it sounds like.

I can't say I'm an expert on getting great vocals; very rarely do I work with anyone even close to her level of talent. But if it were me, I would do this:

I'd listen closely to her vocal track in solo mode . . . then with the music . . . and really listen for "what is going away" or being lost when the other tracks are added.

Next, I'd listen to the vocal in solo mode, then I'd add each instument one by one, two by two, etc. untill I found which instrument or instrument combination seems to be subtracting from her vocal quality the most. If I were to successfully locate a particular track or group of tracks that were the culprit, I'd then proceed to EQ the hell out of that track untill it no longer "took away" what is being taken away from the vocal track. If necessary, take that track away, and re-cut it differently.

Strategy 2:

Make a submix of just the music first . . . then do an EQ sweep on just the vocal track, but cut about 7-8 db during the sweep, slowly, untill the vocal track starts sounding more like it does with the mix. Keep a/b-ing and cutting untill you get her solo vocal track to sound as close as possible to how it does when the rest of the tracks are added.

Don't actually apply the eq to her voice, though. Save your settings and apply that setting, maybe a little less drastic but the same basic curve, to the music track.

If you really think about it, the logic behind this method works on so many levels (and I don't mean that in a Jack Ortman way, either :D), but the drawback is you will often wind up deadening the quality of the music.

My only other possible thought is that she could really benefit from a kickass compressor. :D I'd really like to hear that vocal through a distressor, come to think of it. :D I know, I know. Forget everything else I just got done saying previously in this thread. :D
 
Last edited:
HEY!!!!

Hey Hard2Hear - did you get permission from the creators of the "EXCITING" thread to do a spinoff??????

;) :D

J/K... I listened to those two demos...

Second was definitely more top notch, but here's the kicker for me...

They both had "that sound". Both sounded good. So this is my deduction - you don't need to go straight to tape first to get "that sound".

That leaves the three possibilities: A) I suck at mixing ;) B) They mixed on a nice analog desk with nice FX and/or C) the instruments are far better than what I'm using.

The vocals were beyond my recordings so C) isn't my main issue.
 
chessrock said:
I'd really like to hear that vocal through a distressor, come to think of it. :D I know, I know. Forget everything else I just got done saying previously in this thread. :D
Click to expand...

Dude, you are evil. ;)

Chess, I'll try that. Maybe it is a matter of EQ. Also... I didn't do a lot of compression on the vocals. Maybe about 4 db at the most. We've been working on mic techniques. :D

Also... Thanks everyone for making this such a massive post on the BBS. I hope everyone is extracting a lot of info from it.

And H2H - from your post in your other thread - I can't tell you how much I'm getting out of your input, and I'm sure everyone else is too!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top