bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Everyone else was.
S
sotorious
New member
Well i messed with the eq and made my self sound muffled.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
On that utoob track? Maybe it's not to basy. Maybe the lack' is in not enough articulation tones.
Here's a question (general, not to you Sotorious..
How about if I just track the friking thing so it sounds pretty balanced to begin with? Hmm. Not mich 'cutting needed...
Ding.
S
sotorious
New member
On that utoob track? Maybe it's not to basy. Maybe the lack' is in not enough articulation tones.
Here's a question (general, not to you Sotorious..
How about if I just track the friking thing so it sounds pretty balanced to begin with? Hmm. Not mich 'cutting needed...
Ding.
on another track i did I just need to view someone in action, while they mix down a track.
NL5
Unpossible!
OK - Just for shits and giggles, I took a pretty sparse chorus section from a song I mixed awhile back. The mix is kinda screwy since my outboard is no longer set up for this song, but that won't really matter for this - although without much bass guitar, the vocals should be even more transparent in the lower registers.
Anyway, there are five files. the only difference is where I placed the hi-pass filter on the main vocal track. Would love to hear some thought on the order in which the files should be, and any thoughts on where the hi-pass is set.
http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/vox.zip
.
Anyway, there are five files. the only difference is where I placed the hi-pass filter on the main vocal track. Would love to hear some thought on the order in which the files should be, and any thoughts on where the hi-pass is set.
http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/vox.zip
.
O
oretez
Hwy 50
misses the point of most of the posts Absolutely nothing wrong with AT4040 as a vocal and might not need any EQ what so ever . . . depends: content (composition), arrangement, room, how other voices are tracked
even a decent condenser can present hyped bass proximty effect if you are sitting right on top of the mic . . . so work on mic placement and technique
one of things that elevated vintage U47s to iconic status was an electronically enhanced bass response (and some of the modern U47 clones achieve an extended bass response without the Nuemann circuit)
as a general rule where you are going to run into the most trouble with any multi voice (musical voice not just vocals) mix is in the mid range but this does not mean that a Motown 'mid cut' is automatically the approach you need
understanding the intent of the arrangement is beneficial then pretty much like nearly everyone says over and over and over and over and . . . (you get the idea) you have to listen to how the mix supports the goals defined by the arrangement . . . without some goal you are merely winging it chaotically (and a blind pig can still find a truffle but the approach can be expensive particularly when you look to some bit of gear or software to fix a problem that probably does not exist . . . ) AT4040 is a decently transparent mic . . . in even a half decent you can back away from it more then 3 in. and all other things being equal it can capture, warts n' all pretty much what you sound like. Nothing wrong with Cuebase but in terms of 'control' pretty hard to beat current version of Audition, particularly if you are tracking a single voice at a time.
nothing wrong with the tools and depending on what else is in the track you really might want what is in you voice @ 200, 150, 100 Hz . . . that stuff can be timbre defining, add character etc.
approach it all via placement and technique first, if vocal are the center of the tune . . . you might want to explore EQ'ng other voices away from it . . . again not a 'rule' . . . but if vocals define the tune you want to find a way for the other voices to support it not cripple the vocals in support of the support
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I thought things were primarilly based on aesthetic choices and how they sound to the mixer rather than brought down from the mountain, carved on tablets of stone with severe penalties for disobedience !
NL5
Unpossible!
Whether or not it NEEDED a low cut is sorda irrelevant. The only way it wouldn't matter is if I recoded it with a hi-pass filter, and there was no content below a set level. This is NOT the case. It was recorded on a UM92.1 full range, and pretty heavily compressed with a MC77.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Hmm. Maybe I'm missing your point. I can track male vocal, 4047, (with or w/o a 50Hz HP with a little care from my setup and the vocalist being mindful of it) at the right distance and it can have fine focus, presence, and content and appropriate weight and size to a context right down into 100-150-200 ranges.
I could see heavily compressed' coming into play perhaps.
But to say there is never any context for 100-150 ..?
Also I appreciate your not throwing in a hidden 'tracked with HP' curve (which I never expect nor wanted to imply you would have
), but it seems to me how it is recorded is at the core of most of this 'to cut or not to cut' thing. 
NL5
Unpossible!
OK, even if a track is recorded with the "appropriate" amounts of 100-200 hz content, wouldn't cutting that content be noticeable - or even obvious?
The singer sang up close on the mic, and has a pretty deep/loud voice. I can't imagine too many singers having more natural low frequency content.
but it seems to me how it is recorded is at the core of most of this 'to cut or not to cut' thing.
Ideally, yes. How it fits in the mix is all that matters. But you should still be able to tell from my sample if it was cut or not, and by how much. It's just supposed to help people understand what is really going on in the lower registers of a vocal. Arguing about audio is pointless IMO. It's funny how when you have actual audio samples, all the experts seem to disappear.........
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
As of this writing I have only had a chance to give a cursory look at three of the samples. I won't say which ones just yet, so as not to pollute any one else's analysis in the meantime, but none of the three I have checked so far have anything happening below 100Hz except for a steep cliff drop-off to silence at around 50Hz, which is practically textbook typical for male vocals.
But it's just about bedtime here so any more analysis from me is going to have to wait until I can get back to it.
G.
gcapel
boom box recordings
Here is a shot in the dark but is there a low cut or bass roll off on the mic your using? If so give that a shot, because its hard to "polish a turd".
I always try all the tricks I can at the microphone first (mic selection, settings and placement. Then if that doesn't work then by all means start monkey'ing with eq.
I always try all the tricks I can at the microphone first (mic selection, settings and placement. Then if that doesn't work then by all means start monkey'ing with eq.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Here you go then.
If D is 'flat'--
E 80
B 100
C 120
B 180
So as I'm looking at these numbers it occurs to me they're too close together. They're my guesses', but then I don't really think I could pick 20 Hz intervals, so.. E and B could be lower.
fudge fudge..I did a little listening to some songs from a pair of recent proj. that were relevant, just to do some conscious comparisons of different filters. (i.e. male voc, rather sparse old school vocal up', country and blues.
A few additional tidbits to add;
I don't change my stand on this yet. These two projects were; R121 at about 6" with a pop filter on one (I needed another fig-8 there) and RE20 (up close) on the other. The 121 probably had the 50Hz cut on the Chameleon, the RE20 was on an RNP- no filter (but no low lift' from that mic either.
Cases in point- The R121 gig is going to get either a bit more HP or just as likely some gentle shelf cut to trim them in. The RE20' is going to get a little lift (also around 100) on some of them! (both are in different stages of mixing.
There's a huge diff between 'HP@ 120' (or whatever) with 6db per oct. and 12. You could juggle freq. and slopes and easily come up with very similar weight with diff cutoff points.
Which leads to one of the earlier points I think- If the shape down there is good to begin with (appropriate and assuming not other noise problems- the choice could be a shelf (or bell).
A little true story. I once complained 'Mom why do you have to put the giblets in the gravy!?' "Oh just eat it. You can't taste em' anyway."
'Then why'd put them in..?"
Dad fixes to smack me a good one..
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
Funny, I was setting up a Peavey PA this morning and on top it Peavey suggests "To make the vocals sound better add +5db to 125hz and 250hz slider", go figure.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Is this thing on?
So what's up? This thing just dead? (...of excessive cuts
So what's up? This thing just dead? (...of excessive cuts
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Yes. "all the experts seem to have disappeared.........
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I don't know who you guys are calling "experts", I see no one in this thread that would qualify (including me). But in the vacuum that has occured here, I'll give my observations:
In order, from amount of least to most bass cut, with least at the top:
D
E
C or A (very close)
B
I hesitate on picking knee frequencies, because I have no idea what kind of profile you used for the high pass as far as dB/octave or whether there's a bump at the knee frequency, etc., but B is the only one I feel fairly confident is kneeing above 100Hz.
An interesting side thing, though, is an apparent effect on the high end. It seems that the less high pass applied, the more aliasing distortion on the top end. Whether this is an artifact of your EQ plug or MP3 encoder, I don't know.
G.
In order, from amount of least to most bass cut, with least at the top:
D
E
C or A (very close)
B
I hesitate on picking knee frequencies, because I have no idea what kind of profile you used for the high pass as far as dB/octave or whether there's a bump at the knee frequency, etc., but B is the only one I feel fairly confident is kneeing above 100Hz.
An interesting side thing, though, is an apparent effect on the high end. It seems that the less high pass applied, the more aliasing distortion on the top end. Whether this is an artifact of your EQ plug or MP3 encoder, I don't know.
G.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Ooops, now I see a typo on mine, that scond b/180 was supposed to be a'.
Sh*t..
off to the gig..
Sh*t..
off to the gig..