Old 11-13-2010, 06:30 PM   #1681
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reapercurious View Post
now there are better freeware plugins to do almost everything than the best payware plugins of 10 years ago, but i was so much better at mixing back then. now my mixes sound like ass. everything sounds so much better in general these days, but when i try to mix them together, it just sounds flat and boring. i guess this isnt always the case, but... anyone else?
You might want to check out this thread:

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=68258

Even easier, and perfectly seriously, feel free to go back to whatever you were doing 10 years ago. Good sound does not get worse with technology.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 07:46 PM   #1682
reapercurious
Human being with feelings
 
reapercurious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,890
Default

thanks yep,

i think the problem is that 10 years ago, i didnt know what the hell i was doing, but now what i 'know' outweighs the original ignorance (necessity being the mother of invention,) that caused me to be creative.
reapercurious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2010, 04:25 AM   #1683
Captain Damage
Human being with feelings
 
Captain Damage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lowell, MA, USA
Posts: 271
Default

10 years ago when you didn't know what you were doing, you'd tweak a knob and stop when it sounded good. Or if you couldn't get it to sound good, you'd abandon that route and try something else. I think people often overthink what they're doing and actually waste time while trying to save time by targeting things precisely and getting frustrated when it doesn't work out. When what you should be doing is tweaking and listening. Let your new knowledge guide your tweaking, not replace it

If you listen to something and say "It needs a cut at 2k," you put the cut in and it doesn't work, you're going to get frustrated, and maybe try and lay another effect, and another etc. If you listen and say "Hmm, something in the upper mids," and then go tweak in the upper mids - which your knowledge tells you is in the 2k range - then you're much more likely to get a good result.

If you lose your keys are you going to look up in the attic, even though you haven't been up there for weeks and your keys couldn't possibly be there? No, because you're using your knowledge to guide you. But you're also not going yo keep looking in the empty bowl on your dresser where they should be because you know they aren't there.
Captain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2010, 04:40 AM   #1684
Marah Mag
Human being with feelings
 
Marah Mag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 3,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Damage View Post
But you're also not going yo keep looking in the empty bowl on your dresser where they should be because you know they aren't there.
Well speak for yourself!

Good points.

Sometimes the reason recordings sound like ass is because of things done to make them not sound like ass.

I sometimes think sound quality is overrated. Certainly over-prioritized.
Marah Mag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 07:07 PM   #1685
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marah Mag View Post
...I sometimes think sound quality is overrated. Certainly over-prioritized.
Signature-worthy
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 08:29 PM   #1686
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
Signature-worthy
True. I think (just guessing obviously) if you spoke to legendary engineers like Bruce Sweiden or similar they'd give you the old medical credo...

"First, do no harm."

Anyway, this is a great thread (with some pure gold from Yep) and if there's one easy answer to the thread title it's (imo) "Overuse of compression". It seems in some cases people are too focused on what they can do to sound to get credit than just letting (already good) sound just mostly be.

Having said that the #2 answer is (again, imo, YMMV) very simple, poor monitoring. You can't expect to hear everything with $200 speakers in a sub-standard room. You do the best you can and move on and sometimes make bad decisions based on what you hear at the time.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2010, 10:01 PM   #1687
Marah Mag
Human being with feelings
 
Marah Mag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 3,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post

...people are too focused on what they can do to sound to get credit than just letting (already good) sound just mostly be.t
That rings true. I might add though that letting an already good sound "just mostly be" isn't the same as saying it should go "unprocessed" or raw or left "real" (there are no real sounds in recording.) Creating a sound requires some kind of processing, often a lot, but at some point the processing stops creating the sound and starts creating the sound's space. That's a line to be aware of.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post

Having said that the #2 answer is (again, imo, YMMV) very simple, poor monitoring. You can't expect to hear everything with $200 speakers in a sub-standard room. You do the best you can and move on and sometimes make bad decisions based on what you hear at the time.
And that is really the basis of my sig-worthy brilliance, above!

I work in a sub-standard room without any special treatment. But by what standard is it sub? And what does that standard necessarily have to do w what I am trying to accomplish as a noisemaker and recordmaker? Or with what anyone, in particular, wants to accomplish in their sub-standard room?

I don't know but it seems to me that there's a quality of sound (I almost said level of sound, but that's not right) that is not practically and easily attainable sans a reasonably tricked out control room, at minimum. And so it seems to me that if you're trying to produce work that says "engineerial chops" without access to that kind of studio space... well, that's a task that I personally wouldn't volunteer for (though I've fallen into it often enough.)

It's not that I'm lazy (though I am), it's that as a songwriter type, I don't feel a need to aim that high ON THAT SCALE. But even as a producer type, there's a limit to how far I'll pursue, on my own, OMFG sound quality, not only because of my sub-standard room, but bec there are people who CAN achieve that kind of audio quality (whatever that means) and who are able to "put sound" to the recordings/songs/concepts/etc that I AM able to perpetrate in my arguably sub-standard room.

Instead of worrying about the maximum sound quality I can get, I try to make sure there's a minimum level I don't fall below. That's not all that difficult on a DAW.

The perceived need to do everything is an albatross. Eat it for breakfast.

Even name producers get others to mix their mess.

Last edited by Marah Mag; 11-22-2010 at 02:42 AM. Reason: punch-ins & overdubs
Marah Mag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2010, 03:15 AM   #1688
Captain Damage
Human being with feelings
 
Captain Damage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lowell, MA, USA
Posts: 271
Default

This is it right here:

Quote:
Instead of worrying about the maximum sound quality I can get, I try to make sure there's a minimum level I don't fall below. That's not all that difficult on a DAW.
Captain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2010, 10:46 AM   #1689
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marah Mag View Post
Instead of worrying about the maximum sound quality I can get, I try to make sure there's a minimum level I don't fall below. That's not all that difficult on a DAW.
Not at all. If the point is to make something that doesn't suck, not hard at all. If the point is to make something that is sonically outstanding - often the goal of higher level producers or engineers - a little more difficult.

Again, it's all relative. To record and mix your own music so that when someone plays it, it doesn't immediately scream "Home Job!" is the goal of most... to not draw attention away from the song with a bad recording or mix. Not hard to do. I hear songs done by people here all the time that sound really good.

With a daw, the Internet, a little practice and reading anyone can get there. The fantasy is when people compare their recordings and mixes to higher level professional recordings and mixes. It is often a fantasy. There's "good" (which is what we're generally after, good enough) and then there's "great".

I saw that happen with Lynn Fuston. We all mixed the same tracks, a bunch of generally experienced engineers and all the mixes sounded good to me. His mix was clearly better than all of them. It sounded like a "record". The frequency balances were near perfect. The levels were perfect. There was nothing left to do, even for a mastering engineer.

Trust me when I say he didn't get there with 5 years of practice and study of Internet forum tips.

So there's a good bit of relative space between "not sounding like ass" and sounding great. Most of us are somewhere in the middle and the middle is often good enough and of course, "sounding like ass" is relative, it depends on whom you ask.

Last edited by Lawrence; 11-22-2010 at 11:07 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2010, 04:09 PM   #1690
Captain Damage
Human being with feelings
 
Captain Damage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lowell, MA, USA
Posts: 271
Default

I think this is why so many of us got frustrated with Flmason. We're trying to participate in a thread about not making your mixes sound amateurish; how to make them good enough that the flaws don't detract from comprehension of the music. And he'd write a 500 word post implying that since none of us could or would give him a formula to make his mixes sound like Houses of the Holy, we were either incompetent or conspiring against him.
Captain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2010, 02:38 AM   #1691
Martinez
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1
Default

Hey can someone please tell Me what the name of that beautiful impressionist painting was that Yep used for His example of what a modern mix sure should be like?

Love that painting as example of the mix!
Martinez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 06:16 PM   #1692
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Damage View Post
I think this is why so many of us got frustrated with Flmason. We're trying to participate in a thread about not making your mixes sound amateurish; how to make them good enough that the flaws don't detract from comprehension of the music. And he'd write a 500 word post implying that since none of us could or would give him a formula to make his mixes sound like Houses of the Holy, we were either incompetent or conspiring against him.
Nah, never figured the was a conspiracy, LOL!

Just felt like I was being told electric guitar production techniques, be it for amps or sims wasn't a valid topic, and was being handed panaceas like "reduce the gain" or "its all in the magic fingers of player x" or produce x or whatever.

When, well, as yep points out in a newer thread, it is important. So's I feel vindicated, LOL!

That aside, there are formulas. Are we going to say AC/DC's sound or any of a large number of other immediately identifiable artists... aren't formulas of a sort?

The key question being, of course, "What do the pros really do?" And from the analystical side... can what works be quantified in a way that you can aim at it with any equipment you have?

The -3db roll off seen in many commercial mixes being an example. If you know that a -3db (to -6db typically) works... you can try to shoot for that with any particular tools in your mix.

I.e can we define what works in technical terms, without "tone mojo mythology" so that we a) really know and b) can do it on que?

In any event, no need to answer really, don't wish to derail, just respond to a comment made about me. Clearly folks still misunderstands. Guess I need to learn to communicate better.
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010, 04:22 PM   #1693
ozbald
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 106
Default

Count me as just one more who signed up specifically to thank yep for this brilliant thread. My recordings are still sometimes mildly ass-tinged, but thanks to you they're becoming less so all the time.
ozbald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2010, 02:03 PM   #1694
steadyrev
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: JAMAICA
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason View Post

That aside, there are formulas. Are we going to say AC/DC's sound or any of a large number of other immediately identifiable artists... aren't formulas of a sort?
FL I hope this helps. [ if I undestand you correctly ]

http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/ind...st_.2F_How-Tos
steadyrev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2010, 02:24 PM   #1695
Sigilus
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,763
Default

what boggles me is that flmason doesn't just start his own thread with a suitable title corresponding to the topic he so fervently seems to want to discuss.

apply head to wall. repeat.

that seems to be how he plans to attack the situation. =\ can we return to recording?
Sigilus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 03:15 PM   #1696
Fishtank
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6
Default Hello

Hi everybody,

I found this tread few days ago and must say, absolutely fantastic!!! Couldn’t stop reading since. The last time this happened to me was when a friend of mine hyped me to the new Battle Star Galactica (big time hesitation at first, but ended up watching the whole thing in one breath).

Yep, thank you very much for sharing your experience and knowledge, openly and consistently. This is really refreshing!


Now my question, if I dare, since it is my first post.

Yep, can you tell us about 3D mixing techniques, such as panning outside the stereo field (as an example) or psychoacoustic tricks that can be used to enhance the 3D feel in a song.

The link below will illustrate better than my words:

http://gprime.net/flash.php/soundimmersion

Thank you so much!
Fishtank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 02:09 PM   #1697
space42
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3
Default

Just wanted to take a minute and thank Yep for this wonderful thread!
I read it from beginning to end during a time where I was starting to record a new project. Perfect timing!

I recorded and mixed this project using reaper, free effects (besides superior drummer), inexpensive condensor mics, and some sound advice from this thread.

While far from perfect, it is done and it came out much better than some previous efforts!

I hope it is ok to post a link to music in this thread..

Check it out - feedback welcome

www.rinahsegal.com

Thanks again,

Jerry
space42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 03:39 PM   #1698
grampazero
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reapercurious View Post
thanks yep,

i think the problem is that 10 years ago, i didnt know what the hell i was doing, but now what i 'know' outweighs the original ignorance (necessity being the mother of invention,) that caused me to be creative.
Thanks to YEP and all the others here for a wonderful thread. Regarding "knowing" things musical, during WWII, on a flight overseas, Irving Berlin asked one of the pilots if he would please listen to a song he was working on, and the pilot replied "but I don't know anything about music," to which Irving Berlin replied: "That's why I'm asking you." Enjoy the holidays everyone!
grampazero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2010, 04:06 PM   #1699
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default Yep, The 2nd Year Collection, Is Now Up!

You can go HERE and grab the zip file. This covers from 12-24-2009, post #1126, to 12-25-2010 post # 1687 in both RTF & PDF formats.

This folder also includes.....

Producing yourself-- WDYRSLA spin off 2 - Stopped 3-28-10 at post #161

and

Yep's Room Acoustic Thoughts - Stopped 9-23-2010 post #76.

Again, a HUGE Thank You to yep & everyone who has posted in the threads, I have learned a lot from ya all!

Merry Christmas!
__________________
Yep's First 3 Years in PDF's
HP Z600 w/3GHz 12 Core, 48GB Memory, nVidia Quadro 5800, 240GB SSD OS drive, 3 480GB SSD Sample/Storage drives, 18TB External Storage, Dual 27" Monitors
Smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2010, 10:26 PM   #1700
mixer
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 459
Default

Thank you for assembling all this great info into one place. Well, two places. Just found the first year's file, too. Big appreciation!
mixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 01:48 AM   #1701
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

Your Very Welcome mixer!
__________________
Yep's First 3 Years in PDF's
HP Z600 w/3GHz 12 Core, 48GB Memory, nVidia Quadro 5800, 240GB SSD OS drive, 3 480GB SSD Sample/Storage drives, 18TB External Storage, Dual 27" Monitors
Smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 06:24 AM   #1702
Cosmic
Human being with feelings
 
Cosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Online
Posts: 4,896
Default

I just wanna say that because of this thread my homebrew garage rock stompers have become exactly that.......and I will forver be indebted to YEP for opening my mind up and clarifying more rudimentry mistakes I was making than I can list..

heres an example...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8nbMluTVUc

It might not be "Radio" production but its almost exactly what I'm after


my next video will be dedicated to YEP and REAPER!
Cosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2010, 05:21 AM   #1703
electro_harmonix
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posts: 8
Default

Thank you very much again, Smurf, for putting it together. Very nice. To you and Yep and the others: Happy new year. See you 2011.
electro_harmonix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 04:00 PM   #1704
u8nc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 7
Default my input on this

I'd like to go back to look at the thread title, "why *do* my recordings sound like ass?". Since the hardest part of most "do" seems to be the decision/s immediately preceeding, a good way to revisit the title is to ask "why are my decisions leading to my recordings sounding like . .? " or, maybe more pointedly, "why am i deciding to make my recordings sound . .?".

A photographer wouldn't take a picture of a spectacular vista through a dirty window, and i see the thread given so far as to help to clean up the glass, still leaving you the freedom on how to look through it or around it however you want, without recipes or presets. Well at the beginning Yep discussed the listening environment, and i hope people dont mind if i bring up some extra stuff i think may help in the way of more advice given for cleaning dirty spots missed.
( unless you subscribe to the notion that because everyone else is looking at vistas through tourist coach grubby windows, so that must be "where its at", hey lets sim the effect. )


one of the best things i did years ago was to decide for myself not to follow the gear magazines seduction of control rooms with executive chairs, but raised my work table up to drafting stool height. Benefits were immediate; I could play guitar more comfortably at the DAW, i had enough room under my knees for a (music) keyboard on a shallow slide tray, so that kept the 'puter keys & mouse also on centre above. It's a better breathing position to sing at, prior to more serious takes away from CPU fans. More room under the desk for things that were otherwise in the way** and at the same time i pulled the desk away from the wall so that i had DIRECT rear access to all my connections at CHEST LEVEL. No more crawling under desks or straining cables in re-arranging gear No damaged cables from the rats nest on the floor.

The end result is predicably less fatigue at 3pm in the afternoon from better overall posture and my decision-making was as fresh as at morning break. Sometimes concentrated thinking is actually better done standing. Look through your DVD special features and you may see the animators and 3D modelers at the same working height. Not for no reason.

What followed then, was i raised my humble 32 channel eurorack to the same viewing angle as my display monitors, so i was looking directly at all of it without parallax hassle. again much much easier and less frustrating to make good decisons, so i ventured to make a light gauge steel frame that hung from the roof framing and got everything up off the desk!! superb! and at the same time i challenged the opinion of having the chin up in the air to look up at the puter displays, like you see in those old ergonomics diagrams. cricked-necksville.

Now that i was at barstool height i found it is less fatiguing to have the monitor ( display) bases set down about 4" in a drop section at the back of a very luxuriously empty bench. mock it up and try it for yourself how comfortable it is looking slightly down from level.

every trade has its tricks, not just to blind the client with science, or to keep the layman locked out but to do things with EASE. then the magic (you) that flows is less obstructed. i'm not dogmatically saying everyone must do likewise, but if i present one variation to doing things, then there might be a second variation from a norm, then how many more could there be? 20? 200?

all from one decision to think for myself over one item.
Before those days i was the guy just fooling with knobs and blinking LED's after dinner to keep myself away from the TV, but now i'm readying myself to travel up to 60 miles to perform my compositions live. What changed? I still put my pants on the same way each morning.

--

** just because you'll find extra room under there its no justification for accumulating Junk. I'm glad Yep repeatedly covers that also. The trash can is a great cheap airconditioning unit because its not the air that gets hot, its all the items in your building that retain and re-radiate it. Here in rural Australia 40˚C (104˚F) is quite common so anything that reduces heat also helps me stay fresh at my station.

One last thing about heat ( unless you're in snowbound conditions ) I replaced all my wall warts and external power packs with two rails of DC voltage from disused car batteries kept topped up with their own solar panels. Whats the point of the expense of a solar-to-mains system, when everything has to be stepped back down to 12v and 9v again? the heat they give off is alarming. There seems to be a trend towards using 9v AC internally among some manufacturers now, which means at least one circuit still has to be given over to a small inverter, but as a safe DIY excercise its worth investigating just what you can do by staying at DC level. Not to mention the savings from a reduced power bill. Even running some LED lighting around makes for the right amount of dim mood lighting, and you'll have less problems with separation of audio and mains power. i've not done before/after measurments but i often wonder if i my system is electrically quieter overall.

sorry for long first post.
u8nc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2011, 10:51 PM   #1705
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

Your Very Welcome electro_harmonix, hope it helps out some!

And there are good points in your post there u8nc, Welcome to the forum!
__________________
Yep's First 3 Years in PDF's
HP Z600 w/3GHz 12 Core, 48GB Memory, nVidia Quadro 5800, 240GB SSD OS drive, 3 480GB SSD Sample/Storage drives, 18TB External Storage, Dual 27" Monitors
Smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 08:11 AM   #1706
Small Stone
Human being with feelings
 
Small Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: QC, Canada
Posts: 29
Default

Hi, just wanted to say thanks to yep and everyone participating in this thread, even though I'm not even finished going through it.

It has been really eye-opening, and it will serve as a reference for the years to come! I feel a new confidence just thinking about all the stuff that has been said here.

I'm planning on releasing an EP sometimes in may, so I'm really looking forward to working on it with this thread in mind.
Small Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 11:30 AM   #1707
shoyoninja
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 431
Default

I've said some stuff about recording vocals a while ago, I´ll try to add a little more to that.

There are lots of mistakes that can make the vocals sound lame, the top two I think that are:

1) Not respecting own limits;
2) Forgetting about the purpose of the vocal track and no planning;

1) Not respecting limits:
Some might look at this and think, "bah, I just see the highest and lowest notes I can sing and I stick to that". But that's not enough.

Being able to hit a certain note does not means that you should use it to sing. You should limit your singing to the notes where you can do ALL of those: hit the pitch EVERY time with NO effort, sing it with high, low, mid dynamics, keep your voice NATURAL.

Lets see all of these, one at a time:
a)Hit the pitch EVERY time with NO effort: This is simple, if you have to push a note, constrain, you will have a great possibility of having your voice breaking into falsetto producing a Tarzan like "quality" tone :P. Even if you hit such note when recording, it will sound squeezed, strained and unconfident. Even worse, because you are having to focus your attention on just getting the note produced, you will change the goal of the WHOLE track from passing emotions to "hitting that damn high/low note".

Trying to use those notes (screamming) will lead to a decay on the quality. Specially if you give too much attention to it (innevitable if it's hard to get done).

So, the solution is: Keep it simple and focus on using what is EASY to produce. Believe me, it's a favor you will do to someone who will listen to you.

b)Dynamic range: Besides keeping it on the easy notes, you should be able to, EFFORTLESSLY, vary the dynamic level, from powerfull to soft, without fighting with the notes. Try to figure your own possibilities, keeping away from strainning.

It's acceptable to use a note where you cant vary dynamics too much without strainning, but that should be on your very limit.

c)Keep it NATURAL: This should go without saying, but because of the "higher the better" way of thinking of most, some way around is created to deal with it. DO NOT try to force your voice to do anything besides what you are used to, it will produce tons of tensions and strainning, will probably lead to vocal problems with time and, if this wasnt enough, will be at best annoying to listen to.

This also includes 4 minutes videos on youtube describing magical ways to "release vocal extention", "resonance", "speech level singing", etc...

Yes, there ARE many "voice placements" used by voice teachers, but they are just references, without the trainning any attempt to "put your voice on the mask", "find mix voce", "find head voice", or whatever will fail completely.

If you keep it on your natural voice, where you can sing with ease, you will be able to produce lots of details and get the audience attention.

I stated this before, but the best thing one without professional help can learn is some sort of relaxing techniques. The ones that involve breath control are even better.


So: relax before singing, keep it natural, keep it easy. Most without technical background will be limited to less than an octave thinking like this. This is NORMAL, this is the way your voice is supposed to be, you are not under tallend, or whatever others may say.

This sets the background needed to go to number 2:
2)Focus on the purpose of the track: Transmit something to the audience.

Keeping the execution easy, now you can plan how you will sing the track. The way I do (which is the way I was taught) it is to take the song appart and plan each phrase and word. I think I've said this elsewhere, but anyways, let's take a well known song verse so that I can show what I mean:

"
More Than Words:

Saying I love you
Is not the words I want to hear from you
Is not that I want you
Not to say but if you only knew
"

Lyrics and melody should NOT be a concern at this point, learn it all before, memorize it. This is done by repetition and there is no secret to it.

Now, the first phrase:
"Saying I love you"

First thing: We sing on vowels, period. DO NOT create excessive pauses on the consonants, try to keep the phrase one whole thing, UNLESS there is a pause on the melody. This is a sort of a poor's man legatto, it's vital and it's needed.

So, it could be sang like this:
Saaaaaaaaaaayinnnnnnnng Iiiiii looooove youuuuu

Now lets look at the first word:
Saaaaaayinnnnnng

The first "a" is something like an "EH", then there is an "EE" immediately followed be an "n" which will turn the sound into something closed. This could be acceptable, but I dont like it, lets change it:

Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaying.

The idea is to extend the "EH" vowel and keep all the rest fast and with small changes. The "EE" and the "n" should be almost skipped, but they must be there. This way we keep the open "EH" vowel and the closed "ing" sound gets a smaller part, only to identify the word.

Then we get "Iiiiii"

This as actualy two vowel, an "AH" and an "EE". Again, lets do the same as before, adding the "EE" just at the very ending of the word, it's even acceptable to skip the "EE" completly.

So, it will be:

"Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiie" where the "i" should be just "ah". Like Aaaaaaaaah.

Now, "loooove". There is no big secret here... But do not give the "l" or the "ve" much enfasis. Keep the "Ô" sounding. Should you go "looovvvvve" it will sound really lame, although I think it's hard to figure someone doing this.

And finally "you", let's put it on hold for now

Next phrase:
"Is not the words I want to hear from you"

Lots of consonants, very easy to break the legatto. Any attempt to sing this in a region where you are not confortable will break it, it will sound bad. Should come like this:

"Is noot the wooords I want to hear from youuuu"

Again keep consonants small and quick. We need the "s" on the beggining, but it should be very, very small, or it will sound like there is a snake on the studio. In fact "Is not" should be almost one single movement, the s should turn int the n and immediately into open "OH" which will be the vowel to hold. So it becomes this:

Isnooooot (where "o" is "oh")

Now the "t" should be almost suppressed and liked into the next "th", the following "eh" or "ee" (depends on accent) should also be quick linking into "words", like this:

"Isnooooothewooooords"

Notice that we will pass quickly through the "w" (OO) and go straight into "Ô" (like in Open).

The final s should be, again, fast.

The same idea should be repeated to the rest of the phrase, holding open vowels, reducing closed vowels and almost suppressing consonants.

Now, the next phrase:

"Is not that I want you"

This is most important. Since this melodic line is equal to the first phrase, we will create a great mood if we keep a few ideas linked to the other phrase, its easy to do so, since we have "I" again, and an "Ô" in "want" at exactly the same point where "love" was.

Do the same as before to the first words "Is not that", open vowels, short consonants. Repeat what we did to "I" on the first phrase and the want should be matched closely to love, maybe it will sound almost like wont, but that is ok. Hold the "Ô", shorten everything else.

And now "you" again:
This is a most important spot, this and the one on the first phrase should match EXACTLY. Keep timmings, and vowels as close as possible, if you hold the "OO" on the first, hold it on this one too.

And on to the bridge doing the same as stated before.


Now that's one layer we made for the performance line. Next you can add dynamics on top of it:

Saying I love you ( keep it on mid, decay on "you" almost to a whisper)
Is not the words I want to hear from you (all on low)
Is not that I want you (begin almost whispering and bring it up to end the you on mid again)
Not to say but if you only knew (mid to strong)

Now understand what we did, the "vowels layer" is equal on both first and third phrases, but the dynamics planning is opposite.

Now we have 4 lines of information to the vocal track: Lyrics, Melody, "vowel planning" and dynamics. Memorize them all and execute it.

This will add a sense of planning and professionalism to the track that no high note alone can ever bring. Also you can't hope to think about all this info and still worry about hard to hit notes, that's why the first item is mandatory.

A good exercise is to keep that in mind and listen to professional recordings to see what the artist has done. You will notice the planning, even if the guy didnt plan and somehow he does it naturaly (we all do it without knowing to some extent).

With all those layers of info many things can be done to create moods. If you use an idea on some part of the music the audience will expect it when some of the info comes around again. The melody of one verse is repeated on the next, for example. You can then create surprise by modifying dynamics and keeping the melody exactly the same.

Notice that this will not be something that the common listener will be able to spot and say "ahhh" now he is holding the AH longer than the EH. He will just feel that something was changed intentionaly but will not know what, and almost always he will like it. It's not like just changing the melody line.

Also about vowels. Open vowels have more "power" so to say, closed have less (EE OO), balance this with the dynamics always. An EE sang soft will sound very, very small. An AH at the same level will sound more powerfull. This is nice to create contrast.

I hope that I've made myself clear and that this helps in someway. You can also apply this to someone who comes over to record vocals and has enough control over his voice to follow you.

I'll try to post the example I've given here later today, both with the crude tracks, then dynamics and vowel planning.

Last edited by shoyoninja; 01-17-2011 at 11:40 AM.
shoyoninja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 06:25 PM   #1708
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtank View Post
Hi everybody,

I found this tread few days ago and must say, absolutely fantastic!!! Couldn’t stop reading since. The last time this happened to me was when a friend of mine hyped me to the new Battle Star Galactica (big time hesitation at first, but ended up watching the whole thing in one breath).

Yep, thank you very much for sharing your experience and knowledge, openly and consistently. This is really refreshing!


Now my question, if I dare, since it is my first post.

Yep, can you tell us about 3D mixing techniques, such as panning outside the stereo field (as an example) or psychoacoustic tricks that can be used to enhance the 3D feel in a song.

The link below will illustrate better than my words:

http://gprime.net/flash.php/soundimmersion

Thank you so much!
Thanks for the kind words!

I have no strong opinion on such stuff, and frankly feel that it's a bit outside the scope of this thread. It's not that hard to achieve that kind of "match being lit right next to your ear" effect, and almost any stereo mic technique will achieve it. You can google "dummy head recording" for details on a particularly effective approach.

Honestly, though, I'm kind of a fan of the eons-old proscenium. Hell, I'm a fan of mono, for that matter. A hard-panned tom-roll can be a nifty treat for listeners on headphones, but those kinds of psycho-acoustical "special effects" are probably a topic for a dedicated thread.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 06:31 PM   #1709
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by space42 View Post
Just wanted to take a minute and thank Yep for this wonderful thread!
I read it from beginning to end during a time where I was starting to record a new project. Perfect timing!

I recorded and mixed this project using reaper, free effects (besides superior drummer), inexpensive condensor mics, and some sound advice from this thread.

While far from perfect, it is done and it came out much better than some previous efforts!

I hope it is ok to post a link to music in this thread..

Check it out - feedback welcome

www.rinahsegal.com

Thanks again,

Jerry
Sounds pretty good!

If you want advice, I might suggest trying to tamp down on the "clacky" pick attack of the acoustic guitar which sounds a little "miked". I would also clean up the lows a little bit, maybe strip out some of the lows from the guitar to let the bass do its job. I also might hit the vocals with a bit more compression and a little more midrange-focus on the eq bring out the melody and "note" of the performance.

Overall, though, great job.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 06:33 PM   #1710
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dj Gaz Le Rock View Post
I just wanna say that because of this thread my homebrew garage rock stompers have become exactly that.......and I will forver be indebted to YEP for opening my mind up and clarifying more rudimentry mistakes I was making than I can list..

heres an example...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8nbMluTVUc

It might not be "Radio" production but its almost exactly what I'm after


my next video will be dedicated to YEP and REAPER!
Love it!
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 06:57 PM   #1711
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoyoninja View Post
I've said some stuff about recording vocals a while ago, I´ll try to add a little more to that...
Absolutely fantastic post.

And it applies to all instruments, not just vocals: singers and musicians alike can benefit by expanding their range and capabilities, but what you are mechanically capable of is often a much larger set than what you can perform fluidly, effortlessly, and musically.

There is nothing wrong with being musically or technically ambitious, but that psycho-spiritual-emotional-physiological "connection" with the listener starts to fray when the performance becomes a forced and mechanical exercise. If you need dozens of takes or complex processing to get it to sound right, then chances are that you are starting to lose some piece of what makes it worth doing to begin with.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2011, 04:56 PM   #1712
rhkk
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11
Default Please relax!!!

Man I love this thread! have not been in a while and finally got caught up. The last few posts are just what I needed. I seem to try to extend my vocal range sometimes to extremes, I record my songs while I look at a lyrics sheet, (horrible!), and I lose confidence as soon as the red light goes on even when I am by myself! (thats kind of a funny when you really think about it.)

Anyway I have to stay within myself. RELAX and do what you know you can do with confidence. I am not a bad singer or player until I try to do something out of my comfort range! THANK-YOU. I needed that!
rhkk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 06:48 PM   #1713
steadyrev
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: JAMAICA
Posts: 492
Default

I came across this today.
It may come in handy at some point.

http://mixonline.com/recording/ai/audio_mixing_strings/
steadyrev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 08:57 AM   #1714
RMS
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7
Default Fundamentals

I found this thread a week ago... and wow.
Thank you, yep!

I've pretty much read most of this stuff before in different words, but you seem to explain more in 'my terms'.

I have a question that touches on something you said earlier in the thread.
When you 'cut the fundamental', do you cut the frequency for the C note (440 if in the key of C', etc.), or just somewhere in that octave? I'm a little confused here.

Thank you for all your expertise.
RMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 12:15 PM   #1715
Arbiter
Human being with feelings
 
Arbiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 156
Default

His point was that using presets with pre-calculated cut and boost points won't work for all source material.

Trying to EQ based on math and key won't yield any better results than simply moving a band of EQ until you hear the frequency you want to boost or cut.

That said, if something was playing only middle C for the whole song you could cut around 260hz to follow the "cut the fundamental" strategy. If the instrument generally stays within the same octave, you can use a similar cut with a larger bandwidth. If the instrument is all over the place, you'll generally need a more complex solution... assuming you're dead set on cutting the fundamental for a particular reason.
Arbiter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 12:26 PM   #1716
DuraMorte
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In your compressor, making coffee.
Posts: 1,165
Default

The way I understood it was, cut the fundamental, so that the low-end of the mix remains clear and focused.
For example, you probably don't need anything below 120Hz in a guitar tone, or a vocal, or accordion, or anything really, except for kick drum and bass guitar.
So you cut out the fundamental frequencies of those instruments, to leave more space for the kick and bass guitar, and prevent the low-end of your mix from becoming a huge mush of garbage.
But that's just how I understood it.
__________________
To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. - yep
There are various ways to skin a cat :D - EvilDragon
DuraMorte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 02:50 PM   #1717
Tinderwet
Human being with feelings
 
Tinderwet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoyoninja View Post
I've said some stuff about recording vocals a while ago, I´ll try to add a little more to that.

There are lots of mistakes that can make the vocals sound lame, the top two I think that are:

1) Not respecting own limits;
2) Forgetting about the purpose of the vocal track and no planning;

1) Not respecting limits:
Some might look at this and think, "bah, I just see the highest and lowest notes I can sing and I stick to that". But that's not enough.

Being able to hit a certain note does not means that you should use it to sing. You should limit your singing to the notes where you can do ALL of those: hit the pitch EVERY time with NO effort, sing it with high, low, mid dynamics, keep your voice NATURAL.

Lets see all of these, one at a time:
a)Hit the pitch EVERY time with NO effort: This is simple, if you have to push a note, constrain, you will have a great possibility of having your voice breaking into falsetto producing a Tarzan like "quality" tone :P. Even if you hit such note when recording, it will sound squeezed, strained and unconfident. Even worse, because you are having to focus your attention on just getting the note produced, you will change the goal of the WHOLE track from passing emotions to "hitting that damn high/low note".

So, the solution is: Keep it simple and focus on using what is EASY to produce. Believe me, it's a favor you will do to someone who will listen to you.

b)Dynamic range: Besides keeping it on the easy notes, you should be able to, EFFORTLESSLY, vary the dynamic level, from powerfull to soft, without fighting with the notes. Try to figure your own possibilities, keeping away from strainning.

It's acceptable to use a note where you cant vary dynamics too much without strainning, but that should be on your very limit.

c)Keep it NATURAL: This should go without saying, but because of the "higher the better" way of thinking of most, some way around is created to deal with it. DO NOT try to force your voice to do anything besides what you are used to, it will produce tons of tensions and strainning, will probably lead to vocal problems with time and, if this wasnt enough, will be at best annoying to listen to.

This also includes 4 minutes videos on youtube describing magical ways to "release vocal extention", "resonance", "speech level singing", etc...

Yes, there ARE many "voice placements" used by voice teachers, but they are just references, without the trainning any attempt to "put your voice on the mask", "find mix voce", "find head voice", or whatever will fail completely.

If you keep it on your natural voice, where you can sing with ease, you will be able to produce lots of details and get the audience attention.

I stated this before, but the best thing one without professional help can learn is some sort of relaxing techniques. The ones that involve breath control are even better.


So: relax before singing, keep it natural, keep it easy. Most without technical background will be limited to less than an octave thinking like this. This is NORMAL, this is the way your voice is supposed to be, you are not under tallend, or whatever others may say.

This sets the background needed to go to number 2:
2)Focus on the purpose of the track: Transmit something to the audience.

Keeping the execution easy, now you can plan how you will sing the track. The way I do (which is the way I was taught) it is to take the song appart and plan each phrase and word. I think I've said this elsewhere, but anyways, let's take a well known song verse so that I can show what I mean:

"
More Than Words:

Saying I love you
Is not the words I want to hear from you
Is not that I want you
Not to say but if you only knew
"

Lyrics and melody should NOT be a concern at this point, learn it all before, memorize it. This is done by repetition and there is no secret to it.

Now, the first phrase:
"Saying I love you"

First thing: We sing on vowels, period. DO NOT create excessive pauses on the consonants, try to keep the phrase one whole thing, UNLESS there is a pause on the melody. This is a sort of a poor's man legatto, it's vital and it's needed.

So, it could be sang like this:
Saaaaaaaaaaayinnnnnnnng Iiiiii looooove youuuuu

Now lets look at the first word:
Saaaaaayinnnnnng

The first "a" is something like an "EH", then there is an "EE" immediately followed be an "n" which will turn the sound into something closed. This could be acceptable, but I dont like it, lets change it:

Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaying.

The idea is to extend the "EH" vowel and keep all the rest fast and with small changes. The "EE" and the "n" should be almost skipped, but they must be there. This way we keep the open "EH" vowel and the closed "ing" sound gets a smaller part, only to identify the word.

Then we get "Iiiiii"

This as actualy two vowel, an "AH" and an "EE". Again, lets do the same as before, adding the "EE" just at the very ending of the word, it's even acceptable to skip the "EE" completly.

So, it will be:

"Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiie" where the "i" should be just "ah". Like Aaaaaaaaah.

Now, "loooove". There is no big secret here... But do not give the "l" or the "ve" much enfasis. Keep the "Ô" sounding. Should you go "looovvvvve" it will sound really lame, although I think it's hard to figure someone doing this.

And finally "you", let's put it on hold for now

Next phrase:
"Is not the words I want to hear from you"

Lots of consonants, very easy to break the legatto. Any attempt to sing this in a region where you are not confortable will break it, it will sound bad. Should come like this:

"Is noot the wooords I want to hear from youuuu"

Again keep consonants small and quick. We need the "s" on the beggining, but it should be very, very small, or it will sound like there is a snake on the studio. In fact "Is not" should be almost one single movement, the s should turn int the n and immediately into open "OH" which will be the vowel to hold. So it becomes this:

Isnooooot (where "o" is "oh")

Now the "t" should be almost suppressed and liked into the next "th", the following "eh" or "ee" (depends on accent) should also be quick linking into "words", like this:

"Isnooooothewooooords"

Notice that we will pass quickly through the "w" (OO) and go straight into "Ô" (like in Open).

The final s should be, again, fast.

Now, the next phrase:

"Is not that I want you"

This is most important. Since this melodic line is equal to the first phrase, we will create a great mood if we keep a few ideas linked to the other phrase, its easy to do so, since we have "I" again, and an "Ô" in "want" at exactly the same point where "love" was.

Do the same as before to the first words "Is not that", open vowels, short consonants. Repeat what we did to "I" on the first phrase and the want should be matched closely to love, maybe it will sound almost like wont, but that is ok. Hold the "Ô", shorten everything else.

And now "you" again:
This is a most important spot, this and the one on the first phrase should match EXACTLY. Keep timmings, and vowels as close as possible, if you hold the "OO" on the first, hold it on this one too.

And on to the bridge doing the same as stated before.


Now that's one layer we made for the performance line. Next you can add dynamics on top of it:

Saying I love you ( keep it on mid, decay on "you" almost to a whisper)
Is not the words I want to hear from you (all on low)
Is not that I want you (begin almost whispering and bring it up to end the you on mid again)
Not to say but if you only knew (mid to strong)

Now understand what we did, the "vowels layer" is equal on both first and third phrases, but the dynamics planning is opposite.

Now we have 4 lines of information to the vocal track: Lyrics, Melody, "vowel planning" and dynamics. Memorize them all and execute it.

This will add a sense of planning and professionalism to the track that no high note alone can ever bring. Also you can't hope to think about all this info and still worry about hard to hit notes, that's why the first item is mandatory.

A good exercise is to keep that in mind and listen to professional recordings to see what the artist has done. You will notice the planning, even if the guy didnt plan and somehow he does it naturaly (we all do it without knowing to some extent).

With all those layers of info many things can be done to create moods. If you use an idea on some part of the music the audience will expect it when some of the info comes around again. The melody of one verse is repeated on the next, for example. You can then create surprise by modifying dynamics and keeping the melody exactly the same.

Notice that this will not be something that the common listener will be able to spot and say "ahhh" now he is holding the AH longer than the EH. He will just feel that something was changed intentionaly but will not know what, and almost always he will like it. It's not like just changing the melody line.

Also about vowels. Open vowels have more "power" so to say, closed have less (EE OO), balance this with the dynamics always. An EE sang soft will sound very, very small. An AH at the same level will sound more powerfull. This is nice to create contrast.

I hope that I've made myself clear and that this helps in someway. You can also apply this to someone who comes over to record vocals and has enough control over his voice to follow you.

I'll try to post the example I've given here later today, both with the crude tracks, then dynamics and vowel planning.
Isn't it some serious overthinking? I mean, teaching people how to sing has its place, but it isn't directly related to mixing/recording. It sure is important, but then we could come up with so many micro topics related to music and get lost in the details.
Tinderwet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 09:07 PM   #1718
shoyoninja
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinderwet View Post
Isn't it some serious overthinking? I mean, teaching people how to sing has its place, but it isn't directly related to mixing/recording. It sure is important, but then we could come up with so many micro topics related to music and get lost in the details.
Well, it may seem so because of the long explanation. But planning on how to record vocals isn´t that straightforward, so I worked a little bit on the examples.

And I really tried to stay away from how to sing, it´s more like how to plan your singing. You can easily apply a similar workflow to a guitar solo (or any other melody line for that matter). But when tracking vocals this is usefull (I think it´s mandatory to have at least this little bit of detail, but then again that´s just me). If not, what to do when you record someone and it sounds lame or boring? Just get another singer to do it?

Anyways, the info I tried to share here helped me a lot, either when recording myself or someone else on the studio. This can make a huge difference. In fact, as long as the song is carefully planned, even the microphone and pre-amp type plays much smaller roles on the final result. Because the planning will develop a much clearer idea of the end-result you are after.
shoyoninja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 06:31 AM   #1719
Tinderwet
Human being with feelings
 
Tinderwet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoyoninja View Post
If not, what to do when you record someone and it sounds lame or boring? Just get another singer to do it?
Yeah you're right about that one. You work with what you got, so it's better be good. And I'm afraid there aren't many good singers to begin with so more often than not it's the engineer's "magic" if a vocal track turns out to be good.
Tinderwet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 01:53 PM   #1720
Small Stone
Human being with feelings
 
Small Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: QC, Canada
Posts: 29
Default

Damn, just finished reading! That was long, but worth it!

Quick question about recording vocals (this might be the subject of a new thread, but what the heck...):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marah Mag View Post
Instead of worrying about the maximum sound quality I can get, I try to make sure there's a minimum level I don't fall below. That's not all that difficult on a DAW.
I get that, but I have a problem because my voice is quite soft and low (think Serge Gainsbourg, Frank Zappa, or that guy from The National), and can barely reach -30 db. Is this enough? I know the ideal level should be around -20/-18db.

Should I use a preamp to boost it before recording? Should I boost it in the mix? EQ it? How do they record(ed) those guys anyway?

Sorry if I'm being off topic. You can tell me, and I'll start another thread.

(BTW, I use a condenser through an ART interface, and the gain is at maximum...)
Small Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.