Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Vocal levels at mixdown
As a novice at mixing down, I struggle with vocal levels. I know that
a lot of the decisions on how loud to make everything in the mix are part of the art behind mixing, but I'd like to learn some of the fundamental rules. Can anyone guide me to a good website that covers this? But, specifically... In a song with great dynamic range, the singer obviously sings a bit louder on the heavy chorus than on the quieter verses. Once you've got that vocal track recorded, is it fundamentally wrong to push it louder for the big choruses? I have trouble knowing what to do with all the instruments and vocals when making a vast dynamic transition. I'm not a huge fan of compression, but how else do you mix a rock song with minimalist verses and big choruses and get a final workable product that doesn't make listeners want to change the volume knob throughout the song? Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
you've basically asked somebody to tell you to go to college in a
production sound program and learn all of this stuff on your own as it requires finesse and a gentle touch and years of experiance. not do this do this do this. or you could find a geeky friend from the audio visual club and say that youve got porno in it for him :P ps: seriously though, make sure youre using a good program for starters, itll make it easier to learn. try adobe audition. email me if you want the installer. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Good program is problem number 1. I've got an
old-totally-incompatible-with-everything digital eight track and that's what I've got to mix to. Mixdown is a little nightmarish, what with having to bounce tracks and turn knobs in real time like in the old days. Maybe next project I'll go computer. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I reference all the time. It helps, that's for sure. Still, I
wish I had a better knowledge base. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to go to computer recording sometime, but that's more cash.
And I'm not sure what I'd do with all my outboard gear. I don't understand how you use auxilliary effects on outboard gear with computer-recorded tracks. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
I'd like to go to computer recording sometime, but that's more cash. And I'm not sure what I'd do with all my outboard gear. I don't understand how you use auxilliary effects on outboard gear with computer-recorded tracks. Have you looked at the Production - Mixing - Mastering with Waves course? It's only $80 bucks. I don't know how many Waves plugins you've got but there's a lot of very useful techniques in the course for sure. Check it out: http://www.waves.com/content.asp?id=677 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I just thought I'd also say I realize you're not doing computer
recording but nonetheless the course may help give you some really good pointers for when you do finally get into that area. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
a few quick pointers:
1) rock music is drenched in compression. if you like rock music you like compression. you probably have stinko compressors. if you had $2500 compressors you'd have a different view of them. 2) a good thing to do is to record the verse and choruses on separate tracks. then balance the volumes as individual entities during mixdown 3) you should get a computer. the 90's are over. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
the 90's are over. Thank God! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, that looks great. I love learning about recording and I'll
take that course once I go computer. J.C. Scott wrote: I just thought I'd also say I realize you're not doing computer recording but nonetheless the course may help give you some really good pointers for when you do finally get into that area. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
It does sound slick to not have to have all that extra stuff cluttering
up the desk. But I've come to love my mediocre equipment... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
1) I'll defend my compressor (without saying what the brand is... it's
not 2.5K, though). I'm real happy with it, I just hate the idea of sucking out range. It just seems wrong. But I think I'm wrong to think that, considering rock is my genre. 2) Interesting. Although I'm track-short as it is. (See (3).) 3) I know, don't rub it in. Eight tracks and every other limitation in the world drives my nuts. I feel real crummy about that but refuse to bring my computer in the kitchen into my recording bedroom and refuse to buy a second computer for recording. I'm just a hobbiest, and besides, you should see my car. It really deserves my next money allocation. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
1) I'll defend my compressor (without saying what the brand is... it's not 2.5K, though). I'm real happy with it, I just hate the idea of sucking out range. It just seems wrong. But I think I'm wrong to think that, considering rock is my genre. But that is what compression does. Compression reduces dynamic range. If you don't want to reduce dynamic range, don't compress. There is nothing at all wrong with that, and good records were made for years without compression. But compression can be a useful tool either to reduce overall dynamics or just to reduce slower long-term dynamics, to help a track fit into a mix in a particular way. 3) I know, don't rub it in. Eight tracks and every other limitation in the world drives my nuts. I feel real crummy about that but refuse to bring my computer in the kitchen into my recording bedroom and refuse to buy a second computer for recording. I'm just a hobbiest, and besides, you should see my car. It really deserves my next money allocation. Eight tracks should be enough for anyone. When I was an intern, we had four tracks on 1/2" and we were the largest studio in the state. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Jan 2005 21:15:22 -0800, wrote:
1) I'll defend my compressor (without saying what the brand is... it's not 2.5K, though). I'm real happy with it, I just hate the idea of sucking out range. It just seems wrong. But I think I'm wrong to think that, considering rock is my genre. If you don't want to reduce dynamic range, why compress? That's what a compressor DOES :-) CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mixing down to AIFFs on a laptop. I plan to have my stuff mastered.
It's a bunch of money for a hobby, especially when my final sound is not professional, but then an album lasts a long time, and I like it to be the best I can make it. So I'll let the mastering house take care of that. Let them do the stereo compress of the whole thing, too. Last time it worked pretty well. I'm using the built-in mixer. I rarely use inserts. I use sends and returns on recorded tracks for compression. I have to bounce when I'm doing two drum tracks, one bass, 2-3 guitar, an organ or synth or two, and various vocals. A few of my songs fit on eight but others have up to 6 vocal trax. It's a real pain. Figure out something new about mixing after I'm done with a mix then have to remix twice! Peter McIan says no more compression than 2-3 reduction on vocals. But on pro rock albums, it sounds like vocals are almost completely compressed (more than 2-3 reduction) without any range. I assume the way you know when you're compressing too much is because the vocal gets that sucking sound. Why is riding the faders better sometimes? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How do you reply to parts of a post?
Early on, it really bothered me to think that range gets limited all the time. Probably b/c I started as musician (though a hack) first, recording guy second. But the more I work on troublesome songs, the more compression is so nice to keep the vocals afloat. Even if it does damn their range and interest level. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Four tracks? That makes me feel good.
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Jan 2005 19:16:39 -0800, wrote:
But the more I work on troublesome songs, the more compression is so nice to keep the vocals afloat. Even if it does damn their range and interest level. Why are they troublesome? Maybe you need to go back and record a better performance? Unless you're doing this professionally, when advanced turd-polishing is a necessary skill ;-) CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: Eight tracks should be enough for anyone. Have you floated the idea past Bjork? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Well, the one song I've had the most trouble with is one with pretty
aggressive rhythm guitar with brittle distortion. It fights for the same spot as the vocals at some points in the song, but I didn't want to suck too much of the energy out of the guitar. The levels overall weren't bad, and the individual tracks weren't begging for compression, but since they fought with each other, I wanted some compression to help separate them. So I compressed both, pulled back 3-5KHz on the guitar, and pulled the guitar level down for the verses. I'm pretty happy with the mix now, but it took a long time to get there. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Too much distortion can really mess up a mix. As a rule, I try to back
off the distortion a bit when recording. Lemme rephrase. I back off the ****ty, pedal distortion and lean into the volume of the amp. No master volume, distortion crap sounds as good in the studio as a wide open tube amp. That's why it's good to use smaller amps where you can really dime the volume knobs and then work the knobs on your guitar for some variety. Nothing aggrivates me more than when I hear guys talk about an amp...Marshall for instance and say, "it only has one good sound". True, when you use one guitar and put all the knobs on 10 and never switch off your bridge pickup and you use pedals for everything....yeah, it's got the tendancy to always sound the same. I'm off on a rant now...gotta go to bed.... later, m |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Vocal levels at mixdown | Pro Audio | |||
Ideas on keeping a vocal "out front" | Pro Audio |