Third time's the charm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_guinn
  • Start date Start date
M

mark_guinn

New member
Sorry to be annoying and keep reposting this song, I just really would like some feedback. And I promise that this time the links will work. :)

 
Hey Mark it worked this time:D Nice job I thought the bass sounded a little muddy .Good job on the vocals.What your recording set up?
 
I liked it, great vocals, and a great song reminded me of Radiohead a bit :).

Keijo
 
first thing I noticed is that is has lower volume than average.

Second thing I noticed is that even though the vocal effect is untraditional, I found my self liking it, and liking the vocal as well.

The kick and bass are nice and tight. good.

Is that an mc012 oktava on the vox? good.

For some reason, I could hear some not so good quality converters in there. What card are you using? Or maybe you just did not enter the digital domain as hot as possible. Or were you using sonic foundry reverb?


All together, Its well balanced and spacious. Keep it up
 
Thanks for replying guys. This was about the most amateur recording ever, so here goes. The drums were recorded onto a digital 4-track with an NT1 (overhead) and 3 57's (floor tom, kick, and snare). I then transfered that to my computer and ended up replacing the kick with a sample. The guitars are all direct through a Digitech RP2000 except the acoustic which was also miced with the NT1 and a 57. The bass was tracked direct. The vocals were recorded with the NT1 as well with some compression and a bit of reverb (FreeVerb). I just copied the track and delayed it about 20ms and panned them hard left and right. That is the only effect there. I'm flattered that you like them though. Like I said, it all went digital through the soundcard on my computer (ESS something--the crappy one that came on my computer). So you definitely heard some bad converters. What could I do to make it better? Like the bass--how could I make it less muddy?
 
the bass does not sound muddy to me at all. You can mess around with the attack time of compression to see if you can make it more punchy, but it sounds fine as it is.

To get the best resolution, there are some things to keep in mind.

THe resolution you have is good. TO get it better will require a substantial of amount of money that most probably will not make a difference to the person who is buying your CD. What the people want is a good song, nice vocals, big low end and rhythm.

If you are transferring to your computer via 4 track, make sure that you record initially at 24 bits and also record into spdif via 24 bits with the best and shortest cable you can afford. With spdif there is an slight difference between 15 foot and 3 feet.

Record as hot as possible. As close to cliping as possible without clipping. THe difference between a -1 signal and a -12 signal is 2 bits, so on a 16 bit sound card you are only getting 14 bits at -12 which is not very good.

Do as little editting as possible since 16 bits does not respond well to editting.

I was listening again and I thought that I should mention that there are commercial Cds that sound about the same. THe quality is good. I really lik the vocal. The singer has a really good voice.
 
Wow. You know you guys can say negative things as well... I really want to get better at this and that's the only way.

CyanJaguar: Thanks dude. I sang and played all the guitars on this one. I'm really happy that you like my voice!
 
i really liked it, i downloaded it and have listened to it 15 plus times since a couple of days ago.... god, one morning i woke up to it ringing in my head:) great song
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top