M
Mercuri
New member
OH YEAH!! And I forgot... I don't have to Autotune!!!!!!! 
Hard2Hear
New member
I was thinking that trying a distressor may work for you, too. The Empirical Labs stuff is great.
In the other thread, if you like the vocal on the first song, well then it's just pure Eliot, the singer. Some people sound great through anything and I guess he's one of them.
But I can tell you that the vocal is run through a mastering channelstrip plugin on the first one, I think a Waves one. So you never know what works sometimes until you try it.
H2H
In the other thread, if you like the vocal on the first song, well then it's just pure Eliot, the singer. Some people sound great through anything and I guess he's one of them.
But I can tell you that the vocal is run through a mastering channelstrip plugin on the first one, I think a Waves one. So you never know what works sometimes until you try it.
H2H
Hard2Hear
New member
Mercuri-
When the mix engineer did the song, it was already in Pro Tools...so is really wouldnt matter what console he had. And given only an hour or two I doubt he had time to run everything out to outboard gear and back in. There is the possibility tht it ran out through some nice converters, but generally they won't help the sound that already exists, they just won't degrade it any more.
H2H
When the mix engineer did the song, it was already in Pro Tools...so is really wouldnt matter what console he had. And given only an hour or two I doubt he had time to run everything out to outboard gear and back in. There is the possibility tht it ran out through some nice converters, but generally they won't help the sound that already exists, they just won't degrade it any more.
H2H
M
Mercuri
New member
H2H... I mean, I understand it was tracked directly into PT without going through a board... But, on the final mixdown, when they summed it to two tracks, did they go out through a console, EQ it there, and then bring the 2 tracks back into the digital domain?
I ask because Recording Engineer stated awhile ago in this thread that he heard a monitor mix that had "that sound". I guess what I'm looking for is a mix that was done in pure digital (tracked direct and mixed in the box) that has the acceptable finish on it that makes it sound pro, even if the musicians aren't perfect.
I ask because Recording Engineer stated awhile ago in this thread that he heard a monitor mix that had "that sound". I guess what I'm looking for is a mix that was done in pure digital (tracked direct and mixed in the box) that has the acceptable finish on it that makes it sound pro, even if the musicians aren't perfect.
Hard2Hear
New member
mercuri-
Right, and that is the link I am missing.
I am leaving Sunday for a 3 week recording session and a few playing dates. I will be working with the same producer and I'll try to find out some mix details if its at all possible. But I won't be able to get back with you until early January, when I get back home. Make a note to remind me or something, cause by then I may forget to tell you about it.
H2H
Right, and that is the link I am missing.
I am leaving Sunday for a 3 week recording session and a few playing dates. I will be working with the same producer and I'll try to find out some mix details if its at all possible. But I won't be able to get back with you until early January, when I get back home. Make a note to remind me or something, cause by then I may forget to tell you about it.
H2H
M
Mercuri
New member
I'll send ya an email... Thanks, buddy. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it!!!!
crosstudio
New member
with all this talk about cutting and boosting to carve out space (Y) and reverb to add depth (Z), how come no one mentioned panning (X)?
I think that a music mix is 3 dimensional. when you've got three instruments near each other in the horizontal plane (X) like the kick, bass, and lead vocal, there has to be a separation in their major frequencies (Y-axis). That way it appears that the kick hits you in the chest, the bass is in your crotch, and the vocal smacks you in the face. r&b/hip-hop/reggae depend on the ability to deliver that chest thumping, crotch grinding sound while still having that vocalist nail you between the eyes.
the background vocals don't smack you in the face because they are placed further out in both the X-axis (pan) and Z-axis (reverb).
i'm kind of surprised about all of the reverb talk in regards to the lead vocal, because i would think that the lead vocal has the least amount of reverb.
in summary:
when the bass grinds your crotch, the kick is in your chest, the guitar shakes your shoulders, the vocalist spits in your eye, and the pad & cymbals feel like whisp clouds and lightning just above your head... that's good mixin'.
ps. as your equipment (instruments, rig and pre-amp) decrease in quality, the time you're going to have to spend carving frequencies (Y-axis) increases exponentially, because your equipment bled sounds where they weren't intended to be.
I think that a music mix is 3 dimensional. when you've got three instruments near each other in the horizontal plane (X) like the kick, bass, and lead vocal, there has to be a separation in their major frequencies (Y-axis). That way it appears that the kick hits you in the chest, the bass is in your crotch, and the vocal smacks you in the face. r&b/hip-hop/reggae depend on the ability to deliver that chest thumping, crotch grinding sound while still having that vocalist nail you between the eyes.
the background vocals don't smack you in the face because they are placed further out in both the X-axis (pan) and Z-axis (reverb).
i'm kind of surprised about all of the reverb talk in regards to the lead vocal, because i would think that the lead vocal has the least amount of reverb.
in summary:
when the bass grinds your crotch, the kick is in your chest, the guitar shakes your shoulders, the vocalist spits in your eye, and the pad & cymbals feel like whisp clouds and lightning just above your head... that's good mixin'.
ps. as your equipment (instruments, rig and pre-amp) decrease in quality, the time you're going to have to spend carving frequencies (Y-axis) increases exponentially, because your equipment bled sounds where they weren't intended to be.
C
chessrock
Banned
crosstudio said:
Wow. That's quote is an instant classic. Can I put that on my wall? Is it copywritten?
Middleman
Professional Amateur
Is it copywritten?
It is now according to copyrite law.
I agree nice poetic description.
It is now according to copyrite law.
I agree nice poetic description.
M
Mercuri
New member
LOL - But what about Linda Rhonstadt mixes?? Shouldn't be a whole lot of grinding and spitting going on there....... eek: 
V
volltreffer
Imply depressed
Hey cross!
Sure the lead vox has reverb that is not as obvious as some other stuff, but nevertheless makes or breaks your sound... (And even if you DON'T use verbs - it IS a difference to cheap verbs)
But your really true about the panning...
aXel
Sure the lead vox has reverb that is not as obvious as some other stuff, but nevertheless makes or breaks your sound... (And even if you DON'T use verbs - it IS a difference to cheap verbs
)But your really true about the panning...
aXel
crosstudio
New member
you're right Volltreffer, even if you use it sparringly for the lead vocal, you still need a good one and need to understand all the good stuff about pre-delay, early reflections, reverb decay... etc.
Doug H
I'll be there
I bet it's a combination of top of the line...
vocal booths
reverb
analogue mixing boards
recording engineer
Having access to real reverb, even to use just sparsely to make a dry recording sound natural, has to be an ace in the hole.
Analogue doesn't suffer from a lot of mixing issues that digital may have depending on the format of the tracks and how the software is mixing them internally.
There is also the clear advantage in handling random wave spikes resuting from mixing multiple tracks together. I would expect analogue equipment to produce more pleasing results than digital mixing.
vocal booths
reverb
analogue mixing boards
recording engineer
Having access to real reverb, even to use just sparsely to make a dry recording sound natural, has to be an ace in the hole.
Analogue doesn't suffer from a lot of mixing issues that digital may have depending on the format of the tracks and how the software is mixing them internally.
There is also the clear advantage in handling random wave spikes resuting from mixing multiple tracks together. I would expect analogue equipment to produce more pleasing results than digital mixing.
Middleman
Professional Amateur
I was reading a really good book today at GC titled “Mixing Engineers Handbook”. In the back of the book are the overall approaches to mixing by many of today’s top engineers. Almost 20 different people were interviewed.
There were several pages dedicated to EQ carving, specifically around the vocal. There were some great suggestions on production to move instruments sonically to their own space prior to recording i.e. using the right mic, using capos on guitars to move them out of the keyboard range and some other suggestions for bass and guitar placement.
Compression was a high variable. How much, when and where varied highly among different people. They spent a considerable amount of words on master buss compression etc. to pre emulate radio compression and mastering.
They defined 3 general sound approaches as the New York or heavily compressed approached, the London approach which is layering to the extreme and the LA sound which attempts to get a more natural sound in it’s approach. Very interesting stuff
Finally the book covered multiple reverbs and delays on the vocal track as an approach, as well as various degrees of compression. The general consensus was that minimal instruments wrapped around the vocal and getting the right sounds prior to recording was a much better approach than trying to modify recorded information.
Good read for those trying to get “That Sound”.
There were several pages dedicated to EQ carving, specifically around the vocal. There were some great suggestions on production to move instruments sonically to their own space prior to recording i.e. using the right mic, using capos on guitars to move them out of the keyboard range and some other suggestions for bass and guitar placement.
Compression was a high variable. How much, when and where varied highly among different people. They spent a considerable amount of words on master buss compression etc. to pre emulate radio compression and mastering.
They defined 3 general sound approaches as the New York or heavily compressed approached, the London approach which is layering to the extreme and the LA sound which attempts to get a more natural sound in it’s approach. Very interesting stuff
Finally the book covered multiple reverbs and delays on the vocal track as an approach, as well as various degrees of compression. The general consensus was that minimal instruments wrapped around the vocal and getting the right sounds prior to recording was a much better approach than trying to modify recorded information.
Good read for those trying to get “That Sound”.