R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?  (Read 5394 times)

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2006, 10:44:37 AM »

if i were mixing that voice, i'd prefer to get the "with out FX" version.
Logged

Michael Durovic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2006, 11:25:04 AM »

that's a statement. Smile

did you listen it to on cheap hifi and/or tv too?


or did I get you wrong?
the fx version is what I do while mixing.

Did you mean the wo fx version as a rough track to start with your mixing or as an end result of your mixing?

(If I just were a native speaker... )
Logged
you never have enough time

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2006, 12:55:50 PM »

the "wo" version sounds really good!!!!

without hearing the entire mix around it, i can't really comment on the effected one.  that could in fact be the best solution to get the vocals out front.  i simply don't know.

to me, the effected vocal sounded thin, and very bright.

if i had the raw file (wo version) i'd start with a bit of compression and just try to blend it with the track as is.

that is a REALLY good vocal sound the way it is.

i was listening on my questeds in my mix room.

Michael Durovic wrote on Mon, 13 February 2006 10:25


(If I just were a native speaker... )



if i could speak and type your native language better then you could speak or type english i would accept that.  however, i can not.  your english (american) is fine.
Logged

pg666

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2006, 01:26:25 PM »

if it matters, i preferred the non-fx one too.

get the singer to back up a bit if the proximity boost is too much..
Logged

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2006, 01:38:30 PM »

me too.

jeff dinces

Michael Durovic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2006, 01:51:45 PM »

I  see.

the prob with lower-eq'd voices is (as far as I could verify with my surroundings...) that it mushes the whole mix and needs to be set up real loud in the mix to get through.
that's where volume compromises, that's when we have to use the L2 and sqash it.

that vocal is for an acoustic track.
I try to get an rough mix for you.

j, where can I post files larger than 2mb? (it's 4,5)
Logged
you never have enough time

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2006, 02:08:04 PM »

you'll need an ftp server.  or you can email the file to me and i'll host it.

mp3 is ideal though.

i'm not saying your processing is bad.  i'm just saying if you were to send me those files to mix, i'd want the un-processed version to work with.

i think you should roll off the vocal around 80 - 100 Hz and apply a little compression and see if that helps you.
Logged

scottoliphant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 721
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2006, 06:19:31 PM »

thanks for opening yourself up to scrutiny and posting those Michael! I was curious. I tend to err on the side of using less effects, since I'm just now starting to really grasp the principals of things like compression, and reverbs still sound funny to me. My personal opinion is that just because we can use effects, doesn't mean we should. I'm a graphic designer by day, and we all got really excited the first time we opened photoshop up and discovered all of the image filters =) the internet alone was powered for years by pillow emboss Surprised

Michael Durovic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2006, 08:35:08 AM »

j.hall wrote on Mon, 13 February 2006 20:08

you'll need an ftp server.  or you can email the file to me and i'll host it.

mp3 is ideal though.

i'm not saying your processing is bad.  i'm just saying if you were to send me those files to mix, i'd want the un-processed version to work with.

i think you should roll off the vocal around 80 - 100 Hz and apply a little compression and see if that helps you.


thanks j., I'll send it to you via pm (if possible).
mp3 @ 192 kbps is what I thought of.

please say my processing is bad (my brother is a tae kwon do fighter and I'm sure I can get your address...).
To be serious: please tell me what you think is wrong, what you might do another way round.

As native Austrian I gave up reaching for that L.A. sound (that's what european mostly mean by "american sound")
So I decided to go with AKG and present the most clarity possible
in a mix...
After 3 years of doing stuff that way it's itching in my fingers to give it another try to make things warm, close, roomy what undoubted is what european miss in european mixes... (mine are mostly powerful, but more metal than rock and for sure not cosy)

by the way:
what you heard is pseudo-binaural (2 C414, roll off @ 80HZ,
-12db, hypercardioid), if you listen carefully you hear it slightly left in the wo fx version. if you mono it you see that phasing occurs.

my way of mixing mostly isn't thought to be heard in mono, that's probably a mistake in conception but I think just singles need to be fully adapted to that...

which plug in/outboard & settings would you use to fx the vocal?
Logged
you never have enough time

Michael Durovic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2006, 08:54:09 AM »

scottoliphant wrote on Tue, 14 February 2006 00:19

thanks for opening yourself up to scrutiny and posting those Michael! I was curious. I tend to err on the side of using less effects, since I'm just now starting to really grasp the principals of things like compression, and reverbs still sound funny to me. My personal opinion is that just because we can use effects, doesn't mean we should. I'm a graphic designer by day, and we all got really excited the first time we opened photoshop up and discovered all of the image filters =) the internet alone was powered for years by pillow emboss Surprised



scott,
thanks for giving me that sort of of positivity, that's where you opened yourself, I do not just appreciate even much more admire that kind of behaviour.

believe me, it isn't half as hard as forgetting my wifes birthday or yesterdays valentines again! (just joking, or should I say still choking?)

all the effects I use are set up to achieve just a small part of the goal.
e.g.if I want to set up a compression rate of -12db, I mostly don't use one single compressor/limiter but 2 or 3 instead.
I do so according to the theory that the human ear adapts relative quick to one sort of fx (even if heavily used) but needs longer/ isn't able to reconstruct the original picture if there are many fx in a chain.

that's why I use an C4, a LA2A, a tape sim, a L2. yes, I do heavy compression, but not in one plug.

I too don't like too much special fx(like cathedral reverb or phasers/flangers, delays etc...) it's not that I can't use them (at least I tell myself so...) but with drums I too don't like that extra large/wide/heavy ones, they never could be that in natural. the other way round I like to mis-use instruments/tunings/playing techniques they are more human controllable than 19" or plugs (cause I didn't design them and for sure never will...)

I do know what you mean, my products mostly sound direct/natural but forced to beat the shit out of the song by instrument-behaviour (if I'm allowed to do that word creation)

metal lives. Wink
Logged
you never have enough time

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2006, 11:31:23 AM »

FX to me are what create a lot of illusions.  delays, verbs, phaser, flanger.  if you are tasteful, these effects can be deadly.

the rough mix syndrome makes using them difficult.  i have MANY clients pull the FX out of a mix because "we just aren't used to hearing it in there"

i'll tell them to re-evaluate and come back with a better reason, but they typically don't change their minds.

any chance you can make an mp3 of the mix you ended up with on that song that vocal came from?

email it to me, i'll host it.
Logged

Michael Durovic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: treating tracks, what do you prefer and why/how?
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2006, 05:06:25 PM »

ready with a better mix.
sadly I will be back in my office (reachable version) on friday.
hope you are willing enough to wait...

Smile

meanwhile:
the song isn't produced by me. just was engineer with recording, mixing.

a simple dreadnought-similar guitar caught with:
pseudo-binaural (2 c414, hard panned)
di, piezo out
yamaha subkick on the right backside
valve mic on the 12th fret

DI I just caught for complete tracking, it wasn't used in the mix.

the subkick I use for 2 different reasons: 1st to complete, enhance the single guitars, make it sound full as you would strum them by yourself
2nd to create psycho-acoustics, undefined guitars/rumble in the pre-chorus passage.
if I totally produced the song I would have treated the singer to find another line for chorus and define the verses ( eg. making 2 different ones, not just repeating), as a 3rd part I would have introduced a singalong of about 30sec at the end of the song (probably with the bongos in the back)
Logged
you never have enough time
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 21 queries.