The Loudness War is over

[rakman]

According to a splendid YouTube show the loudness war is now OVER.
All the top mix engineers figured out how to get it loud years ago,
plus most of them can mix ITB as well.... and "anybody who hasn't
figured it out yet is a..." Ouch!

Anyway I've got a question: Sorry no audio.
I'm mixing a fast female pop punk track with electronic
instrumentation,
fast, staccato vocals with wide dynamic range on the verses.
The rest of the vocals are easy to mix, it's just the fast, jumpy
verses
I'm struggling with.
The voc recording is bright and has some compression on it, but not
a "vintage" sound and it lacks weight.
Sticking lots of compression or limiting on the verses with plugins
kills
the bounce, the vocals are too fast to ride, unless I speed up
my metabolism 3X or slow the track down to half speed to
hear what the hell is going on :), plus I actually want the
bounce in the vocals. I tried to get a transparent multiband
thing going with various attack/release settings or a clean
transparent compressor or limiter (as if that even exists)
early in the chain so that the verses sound like the rest of
the vocals but more controlled, tried surgical cuts with Flux Epure
and various other EQ plugins, also tried a varitety of de-esser
settings,
slapback delay, reverb, longer delays, haven't tried any
ambience or short room setting yet.
For some reason my usual tricks aren't working here,
do I need to change ALL the vocals on the song (more
compressed and grungy, a sansamp on the parallell or something)
or is there something I'm overlooking? Any ideas?
I don't want a radical change in the sound, just some way
to make the staccato vocals sit better.

[rakman]

On Jun 9, 9:28*pm, rakman > wrote:
> According to a splendid YouTube show the loudness war is now OVER.
> All the top mix engineers figured out how to get it loud years ago,
> plus most of them can mix ITB as well.... and "anybody who hasn't
> figured it out yet is a..." Ouch!
>
> Anyway I've got a question: Sorry no audio.
> I'm mixing a fast female pop punk track with electronic
> instrumentation,
> fast, staccato vocals with wide dynamic range on the verses.
> The rest of the vocals are easy to mix, it's just the fast, jumpy
> verses
> I'm struggling with.
> The voc recording is bright and has some compression on it, but not
> a "vintage" sound and it lacks weight.
> Sticking lots of compression or limiting on the verses with plugins
> kills
> the bounce, the vocals are too fast to ride, unless I speed up
> my metabolism 3X or slow the track down to half speed to
> hear what the hell is going on :), plus I actually want the
> bounce in the vocals. I tried to get a transparent multiband
> thing going with various attack/release settings or a clean
> transparent compressor or limiter (as if that even exists)
> early in the chain so that the verses sound like the rest of
> the vocals but more controlled, tried surgical cuts with Flux Epure
> and various other EQ plugins, also tried a varitety of de-esser
> settings,
> slapback delay, reverb, longer delays, haven't tried any
> ambience or short room setting yet.
> For some reason my usual tricks aren't working here,
> do I need to change ALL the vocals on the song (more
> compressed and grungy, a sansamp on the parallell or something)
> or is there something I'm overlooking? Any ideas?
> I don't want a radical change in the sound, just some way
> to make the staccato vocals sit better.

Stereo Imaging maybe? It doesnt solve the dynamics problem
but if it gets the instruments out of the way maybe
the vocals can stay inconsistent in volume and still
be heard?

[swanny]

On 10/06/2011 6:28 AM, rakman wrote:
> According to a splendid YouTube show the loudness war is now OVER.
> All the top mix engineers figured out how to get it loud years ago,
> plus most of them can mix ITB as well.... and "anybody who hasn't
> figured it out yet is a..." Ouch!
>
> Anyway I've got a question: Sorry no audio.
> I'm mixing a fast female pop punk track with electronic
> instrumentation,
> fast, staccato vocals with wide dynamic range on the verses.
> The rest of the vocals are easy to mix, it's just the fast, jumpy
> verses
> I'm struggling with.
> The voc recording is bright and has some compression on it, but not
> a "vintage" sound and it lacks weight.
> Sticking lots of compression or limiting on the verses with plugins
> kills
> the bounce, the vocals are too fast to ride, unless I speed up
> my metabolism 3X or slow the track down to half speed to
> hear what the hell is going on :), plus I actually want the
> bounce in the vocals. I tried to get a transparent multiband
> thing going with various attack/release settings or a clean
> transparent compressor or limiter (as if that even exists)
> early in the chain so that the verses sound like the rest of
> the vocals but more controlled, tried surgical cuts with Flux Epure
> and various other EQ plugins, also tried a varitety of de-esser
> settings,
> slapback delay, reverb, longer delays, haven't tried any
> ambience or short room setting yet.
> For some reason my usual tricks aren't working here,
> do I need to change ALL the vocals on the song (more
> compressed and grungy, a sansamp on the parallell or something)
> or is there something I'm overlooking? Any ideas?
> I don't want a radical change in the sound, just some way
> to make the staccato vocals sit better.

Have you tried bouncing the track to another track and reversing it,
compress the reversed track and then reverse it back to normal? This can
work with staccato with a fast attack on the tail of the vocal.

[rakman]

On Jun 9, 10:28*pm, swanny > wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 6:28 AM, rakman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > According to a splendid YouTube show the loudness war is now OVER.
> > All the top mix engineers figured out how to get it loud years ago,
> > plus most of them can mix ITB as well.... and "anybody who hasn't
> > figured it out yet is a..." Ouch!
>
> > Anyway I've got a question: Sorry no audio.
> > I'm mixing a fast female pop punk track with electronic
> > instrumentation,
> > fast, staccato vocals with wide dynamic range on the verses.
> > The rest of the vocals are easy to mix, it's just the fast, jumpy
> > verses
> > I'm struggling with.
> > The voc recording is bright and has some compression on it, but not
> > a "vintage" sound and it lacks weight.
> > Sticking lots of compression or limiting on the verses with plugins
> > kills
> > the bounce, the vocals are too fast to ride, unless I speed up
> > my metabolism 3X or slow the track down to half speed to
> > hear what the hell is going on :), plus I actually want the
> > bounce in the vocals. I tried to get a transparent multiband
> > thing going with various attack/release settings or a clean
> > transparent compressor or limiter (as if that even exists)
> > early in the chain so that the verses sound like the rest of
> > the vocals but more controlled, tried surgical cuts with Flux Epure
> > and various other EQ plugins, also tried a varitety of de-esser
> > settings,
> > slapback delay, reverb, longer delays, haven't tried any
> > ambience or short room setting yet.
> > For some reason my usual tricks aren't working here,
> > do I need to change ALL the vocals on the song (more
> > compressed and grungy, a sansamp on the parallell or something)
> > or is there something I'm overlooking? Any ideas?
> > I don't want a radical change in the sound, just some way
> > to make the staccato vocals sit better.
>
> Have you tried bouncing the track to another track and reversing it,
> compress the reversed track and then reverse it back to normal? This can
> work with staccato with a fast attack on the tail of the vocal.

Very interesting! Thanks. Will try that tomorrow. Wonder if
u could mimic that by using negative compression, also.

According to my partners the main problem on this song is
me trying to combine a rock song with a totally electronic
production,
in a retarded way not a good way :) But the technical problem
of the vocals is still an interesting one to solve regardless.

[malachi[_5_]]

">
> Have you tried bouncing the track to another track and reversing it,
> compress the reversed track and then reverse it back to normal? This can
> work with staccato with a fast attack on the tail of the vocal.
>

This kind of brilliance is why I lurk here.

malachi

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

rakman wrote:

> fast, staccato vocals with wide dynamic range on the verses.
> The rest of the vocals are easy to mix, it's just the fast, jumpy
> verses I'm struggling with.

Audition's ... ie. Izotopes ... multiband comes to mind.

> The voc recording is bright and has some compression on it, but not
> a "vintage" sound and it lacks weight.
> Sticking lots of compression or limiting on the verses with plugins
> kills
> the bounce, the vocals are too fast to ride, unless I speed up
> my metabolism 3X or slow the track down to half speed to
> hear what the hell is going on :),

OK, going by the flow, think classical, don't think pop. Which is to say
that you need to find the motherlode, the single setting that works for all
her vox.

> plus I actually want the
> bounce in the vocals. I tried to get a transparent multiband
> thing going with various attack/release settings or a clean
> transparent compressor or limiter (as if that even exists)
> early in the chain so that the verses sound like the rest of
> the vocals but more controlled, tried surgical cuts with Flux Epure
> and various other EQ plugins, also tried a varitety of de-esser
> settings,
> slapback delay, reverb, longer delays, haven't tried any
> ambience or short room setting yet.
> For some reason my usual tricks aren't working here,

How Leif Roden used analog delay in concert sound comes to mind, I think it
was a yamaha, I get the wild idea of looping through one and adding it in
parallel as a "shadow vox". Methinks the "body" you search is there. And
this one you could gain- or envelope-ride in a box.

> do I need to change ALL the vocals on the song (more
> compressed and grungy, a sansamp on the parallell or something)
> or is there something I'm overlooking? Any ideas?
> I don't want a radical change in the sound, just some way
> to make the staccato vocals sit better.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

rakman > wrote:
>Anyway I've got a question: Sorry no audio.
>I'm mixing a fast female pop punk track with electronic
>instrumentation,
>fast, staccato vocals with wide dynamic range on the verses.
>The rest of the vocals are easy to mix, it's just the fast, jumpy
>verses
>I'm struggling with.

Are the vocals really the problem, or is the problem everything else
but the vocals? Use some aggressive EQ on the guitars... pull the
whole midrange out to allow a place for the vocals to sit. It'll sound
awful in isolation but fine once the vocals are laid on it.

Also, how much of a sense of space do you have with the guitars? If the
guitars are super dry and in your face, they're going to hide anything else
up front. Try reamping in a bright room with mikes pulled back.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[rakman]

On Jun 10, 1:00*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Are the vocals really the problem, or is the problem everything else
> but the vocals? *Use some aggressive EQ on the guitars... pull the
> whole midrange out to allow a place for the vocals to sit. *It'll sound
> awful in isolation but fine once the vocals are laid on it.
>
> Also, how much of a sense of space do you have with the guitars? *If the
> guitars are super dry and in your face, they're going to hide anything else
> up front. *Try reamping in a bright room with mikes pulled back.
> --scott

Lol. Thanks. Some good points/suggestions there.
There weren't any guitars, but I've been ordered to make the
instrumentation more traditional and the drum mix more rock-like,
which will make the whole thing easier to figure out. Re-amping
guitars in an actual room instead of clicking the mouse for
hours is probably a good idea :S

[rakman]

On Jun 10, 5:38*am, "Peter Larsen" > wrote:

> Audition's ... ie. Izotopes ... multiband comes to mind.

As in.. Adobe Audition? Looks good but can it work as
an AU plugin?

Izotope's Ozone is pretty cool because of the multiband
stereo imaging, multiband compression/expansion,
multiband harmonic excitement etc, Wouldn't really say
it's transparent though, ALL plugins add side-effects in
some way, you gain one thing and lose another IMO.
Multiband side-chaining is something I wanna get into,
but the plugin i was looking at for that needs some obscure
hardware dongle.

> OK, going by the flow, think classical, don't think pop. Which is to say
> that you need to find the motherlode, the single setting that works for all
> her vox.

Are there any articles on that subject out there?
Taking ideas from classical recordings in pop?
It's been said by many engineers that electronic producers
need to go out and watch an orchestra to learn
about music and learn about sound/acoustics and I'm sure
there's a lot of truth to it.

> How Leif Roden used analog delay in concert sound comes to mind, I think it
> was a yamaha, I get the wild idea of looping through one and adding it in
> parallel as a "shadow vox". Methinks the "body" you search is there. And
> this one you could gain- or envelope-ride in a box.

Hm. I might make the envelope way snappier and
shorter on the drums and all instruments during the
verses to make space for the vocals, at the moment
delays just make stuff sound muddy. Thanks.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

rakman wrote:

>> OK, going by the flow, think classical, don't think pop. Which is to
>> say that you need to find the motherlode, the single setting that
>> works for all her vox.

> Are there any articles on that subject out there?

Beatles (Martin), Hendrix (Kramer), early Janis Ian, Doors live 2lp -
anybody know what the audience commotion recorded on it is about? - Ritchie
Blackmore's Rainbow, amazing album. Janis Ian is strange, back in the 1980's
I used to demonstrate the demise of the art of recording by playing a song
from each of three albums, newest first. Oldest sounds as if recorded on a
Hollywood sound stage by a very good movie orchestral recording engineer, it
is soo good, so intense, so clear.

Go to a Kramer lecture if he has an AES lecture within affordable distance.

> Taking ideas from classical recordings in pop?
> It's been said by many engineers that electronic producers
> need to go out and watch an orchestra to learn
> about music and learn about sound/acoustics and I'm sure
> there's a lot of truth to it.

That is what chamber music concerts are there for. Learn to deploy a pair on
a quartet, you will then know how to get it intensely right if on an
imagined reamped rock guitar trio. Yes, you can fake it with a "room
designer" type verb, knowing actual acoustic events is helpful when faking a
room, but the real thing tends to be me chaotic and airy. My first choice if
ever reamping guitars would be open back cabinets .... why I like them: I
have made some early "few microphone" rock recordings, there is one with a
pair of 441's in front of the drumkit and a distant open back fender into
the main pair, so good, so good, so good. It is also screwed up because one
of my 421's back then was a HL and Sennheiser only had a "every certified
electronics engineer understands this" diagram in their documentation and
not the simple clear text warning that should have been there to the effect
that polarity from that mic will be inversed if used with a standard mic
cable.

>> How Leif Roden used analog delay in concert sound comes to mind, I
>> think it was a yamaha, I get the wild idea of looping through one
>> and adding it in parallel as a "shadow vox". Methinks the "body" you
>> search is there. And this one you could gain- or envelope-ride in a
>> box.

> Hm. I might make the envelope way snappier and
> shorter on the drums and all instruments during the
> verses to make space for the vocals, at the moment
> delays just make stuff sound muddy.

I've never played with such an analog delay, I just have a snippet of board
tape demonstrating how he used it. Yes, it "muds". On the general note of
adding verb, this is just a special case thereof, it is my opinion that many
people start out using too short pre-delay and too much, more predelay
allows you to use less and thereby preserve clarity while adding perceived
depth of perspective. My experience with ambience mikes - is that the
average level of their signal should be in the -17 to -13 dB range compared
to the average level of the signal they augment. Above that I feel that I
loose clarity. Sounds to me as if many guys out there likes to have their
"echo return" at -8 to -6 dB to compensate for not getting enough room
enlargement because of using too short predelay, but that is just my
opinion.

> Thanks.

Gee, you're welcome, I'll get off of my pet hoppy rant horse and get my
morning coffee now, it should be ready ...

Kind regards

Peter Larsen