[[email protected][_2_]]

I did a live recording. Only 9 tracks. The drums were on 4 (two kicks,
a snare, and an overhead). Went back and redid the lead vocals. The
only remnants of the old vocals are on the overhead track, but at a
fairly low volume that can't be heard with the new track in place.
The overhead caught the toms and cymbals pretty well. However, as I
said, it's got the old vocals on there as well. How would I best
compress this in order to bring the cymbals and toms out as much as
possible without bringing the old vocals up? What would be good attack/
ratio/threshold/release settings to start at? I assume I shouldn't put
too much on it. Any other things I can do to bring these instruments
out?

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

wrote:
I did a live recording. Only 9 tracks. The drums were on 4 (two kicks,
a snare, and an overhead). Went back and redid the lead vocals. The
only remnants of the old vocals are on the overhead track, but at a
fairly low volume that can't be heard with the new track in place.
The overhead caught the toms and cymbals pretty well. However, as I
said, it's got the old vocals on there as well. How would I best
compress this in order to bring the cymbals and toms out as much as
possible without bringing the old vocals up? What would be good attack/
ratio/threshold/release settings to start at? I assume I shouldn't put
too much on it. Any other things I can do to bring these instruments
out?

Compression will make matters worse, EQ will help the cymbals, but not
the toms.

[Richard Corfield[_3_]]

On 2008-05-18, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
wrote:
I did a live recording. Only 9 tracks. The drums were on 4 (two kicks,
a snare, and an overhead). Went back and redid the lead vocals. The
only remnants of the old vocals are on the overhead track, but at a
fairly low volume that can't be heard with the new track in place.
The overhead caught the toms and cymbals pretty well. However, as I
said, it's got the old vocals on there as well. How would I best
compress this in order to bring the cymbals and toms out as much as
possible without bringing the old vocals up? What would be good attack/
ratio/threshold/release settings to start at? I assume I shouldn't put
too much on it. Any other things I can do to bring these instruments
out?

Compression will make matters worse, EQ will help the cymbals, but not
the toms.

Include a gate?

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Richard Corfield wrote:
On 2008-05-18, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
wrote:
I did a live recording. Only 9 tracks. The drums were on 4 (two kicks,
a snare, and an overhead). Went back and redid the lead vocals. The
only remnants of the old vocals are on the overhead track, but at a
fairly low volume that can't be heard with the new track in place.
The overhead caught the toms and cymbals pretty well. However, as I
said, it's got the old vocals on there as well. How would I best
compress this in order to bring the cymbals and toms out as much as
possible without bringing the old vocals up? What would be good attack/
ratio/threshold/release settings to start at? I assume I shouldn't put
too much on it. Any other things I can do to bring these instruments
out?
Compression will make matters worse, EQ will help the cymbals, but not
the toms.

Include a gate?


You want the guy to gate his overhead mike? Good luck with that one :-)

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

wrote:
I did a live recording. Only 9 tracks. The drums were on 4 (two kicks,
a snare, and an overhead). Went back and redid the lead vocals. The
only remnants of the old vocals are on the overhead track, but at a
fairly low volume that can't be heard with the new track in place.
The overhead caught the toms and cymbals pretty well. However, as I
said, it's got the old vocals on there as well. How would I best
compress this in order to bring the cymbals and toms out as much as
possible without bringing the old vocals up? What would be good attack/
ratio/threshold/release settings to start at? I assume I shouldn't put
too much on it. Any other things I can do to bring these instruments
out?


Compression will bring out low level detail including the vocal spill.
If you have the original vocal track you can try inverting it, delaying
it and mixing it into the overhead track. The idea is to emulate the
distance between the two mics with the delay to get them in phase, then
to cancel the vocal on the overhead track my mixing in some of the
inverted vocal signal.

Cheers

Ian

[Richard Corfield[_3_]]

On 2008-05-18, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
the toms.

Include a gate?

You want the guy to gate his overhead mike? Good luck with that one :-)

It was an idea. It's already recorded so why not play?
I was thinking more an expander on the basis that these vocals are
noticeable when the percussion isn't being hit. Having not heard the
recording I'd not know what the chances of success are.

I've gated (or expanded) room mics in conjunction with compression to
compensate for the compressor in the quiet gaps.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I did a live recording. Only 9 tracks. The drums were on 4 (two kicks,
a snare, and an overhead). Went back and redid the lead vocals. The
only remnants of the old vocals are on the overhead track, but at a
fairly low volume that can't be heard with the new track in place.
The overhead caught the toms and cymbals pretty well. However, as I
said, it's got the old vocals on there as well. How would I best
compress this in order to bring the cymbals and toms out as much as
possible without bringing the old vocals up? What would be good attack/
ratio/threshold/release settings to start at? I assume I shouldn't put
too much on it. Any other things I can do to bring these instruments
out?

Compression is going to bring the old vocals up no matter what, because
anything you do to push the loud stuff down is going to bring the sound
of the soft stuff up. You can fiddle around with some wide EQ cuts in
the midrange... it'll change the tone of the toms but maybe not in a
bad way.

If you bring the whole mix up, though, can you hear the old vocals
back there? If you can't hear it in the final mix, it doesn't matter
if it's on the original tracks. Adding some reverb on the new vocals
can help hide the residue too.
--scott


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

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
wrote:
I did a live recording. Only 9 tracks. The drums were on 4 (two kicks,
a snare, and an overhead). Went back and redid the lead vocals. The
only remnants of the old vocals are on the overhead track, but at a
fairly low volume that can't be heard with the new track in place.
The overhead caught the toms and cymbals pretty well. However, as I
said, it's got the old vocals on there as well. How would I best
compress this in order to bring the cymbals and toms out as much as
possible without bringing the old vocals up? What would be good attack/
ratio/threshold/release settings to start at? I assume I shouldn't put
too much on it. Any other things I can do to bring these instruments
out?


Compression will bring out low level detail including the vocal spill.
If you have the original vocal track you can try inverting it, delaying
it and mixing it into the overhead track. The idea is to emulate the
distance between the two mics with the delay to get them in phase, then
to cancel the vocal on the overhead track my mixing in some of the
inverted vocal signal.

Cheers

Ian

In theory this should work, but unfortunately it doesn't because the
original vocal will differ enough to comb filter with the overhead
bleed, but will never fully cancel out.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Richard Corfield wrote:
On 2008-05-18, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
the toms.
Include a gate?
You want the guy to gate his overhead mike? Good luck with that one :-)

It was an idea. It's already recorded so why not play?
I was thinking more an expander on the basis that these vocals are
noticeable when the percussion isn't being hit. Having not heard the
recording I'd not know what the chances of success are.

I've gated (or expanded) room mics in conjunction with compression to
compensate for the compressor in the quiet gaps.

- Richard


I understand what you're saying, but this guy has one overhead mike.
Gating it will **** the cymbals all to hell and back, not too mention it
will sound really stupid while the gate is open after cymbal hits. Doing
what you were doing is a different ballgame.

[Frank Vuotto]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:47:13 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:


In theory this should work, but unfortunately it doesn't because......

Without hearing the tracks, you've dissed every method that has been
posted, all of which could help enough (in some situations) to make
the track a bit more acceptable.


Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Frank Vuotto wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:47:13 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

In theory this should work, but unfortunately it doesn't because......

Without hearing the tracks, you've dissed every method that has been
posted, all of which could help enough (in some situations) to make
the track a bit more acceptable.


Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

One of them won't help, it will make the problem worse and one of them
flat won't work at all. I explained the pros and cons of each one as
they came up. What part did you not understand? Maybe you care to
explain how phase cancellation or compression is gonna help, I can quote
from my original post in case you need to read it again. I mentioned the
drawback on EQ'ing (so did someone else) and why gating wouldn't be much
help. Don't you read? None of these things I need to hear to tell the
guy it ain't gonna fly.

[[email protected][_2_]]

I figured this was the case. The problem is that some line were sung
in different spots on the recording. In other words, he sang (and
layed out) in a couple different places on the new vocal track, so
there are parts on the old track that appear with no new vocals over
them to hide behind. Just three or four lines. I was messing around
last night and was able to repair two of those tricky spots by copying
and pasting some overhead stuff. Maybe I'll be able to do that for all
such areas. If so, I don't have a problem with having the old track
doubling the new one. It's only noticable when the old vocals stand
alone. So then I'll be able to squash that overhead pretty good, I
think.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I figured this was the case. The problem is that some line were sung
in different spots on the recording. In other words, he sang (and
layed out) in a couple different places on the new vocal track, so
there are parts on the old track that appear with no new vocals over
them to hide behind. Just three or four lines. I was messing around
last night and was able to repair two of those tricky spots by copying
and pasting some overhead stuff. Maybe I'll be able to do that for all
such areas. If so, I don't have a problem with having the old track
doubling the new one. It's only noticable when the old vocals stand
alone. So then I'll be able to squash that overhead pretty good, I
think.

Add backing vocals! Backing vocals can hide all KINDS of stuff.
--scott


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

[[email protected][_2_]]

On May 18, 2:44*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:
I figured this was the case. The problem is that some line were sung
in different spots on the recording. In other words, he sang (and
layed out) in a couple different places on the new vocal track, so
there are parts on the old track that appear with no new vocals over
them to hide behind. Just three or four lines. I was messing around
last night and was able to repair two of those tricky spots by copying
and pasting some overhead stuff. Maybe I'll be able to do that for all
such areas. If so, I don't have a problem with having the old track
doubling the new one. It's only noticable when the old vocals stand
alone. So then I'll be able to squash that overhead pretty good, I
think.

Add backing vocals! *Backing vocals can hide all KINDS of stuff.
--scott

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

Ah.. that's an idea, too.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

wrote:
I figured this was the case. The problem is that some line were sung
in different spots on the recording. In other words, he sang (and
layed out) in a couple different places on the new vocal track, so
there are parts on the old track that appear with no new vocals over
them to hide behind. Just three or four lines. I was messing around
last night and was able to repair two of those tricky spots by copying
and pasting some overhead stuff. Maybe I'll be able to do that for all
such areas. If so, I don't have a problem with having the old track
doubling the new one. It's only noticable when the old vocals stand
alone. So then I'll be able to squash that overhead pretty good, I
think.

Instead of compressing the overhead, you might try riding the fader a
little bit. This may be the trick.

[Richard Webb]

To: kludge
kludge wrote:

there are parts on the old track that appear with no new vocals over
them to hide behind. Just three or four lines. I was messing around
last night and was able to repair two of those tricky spots by copying
and pasting some overhead stuff. Maybe I'll be able to do that for all
such areas. If so, I don't have a problem with having the old track
doubling the new one. It's only noticable when the old vocals stand
alone. So then I'll be able to squash that overhead pretty good, I
think.

Add backing vocals! Backing vocals can hide all KINDS of stuff.
INdeed, or something else that'll help hide. IN this case probably bg vox.

A few years ago I was assisting the production of a gospel album. INtro and
virst verse of song was acoustic guitar with piano coming in, drums and whole
band coming in full after second for chorus.

Problem: TIming was shaky drummer didn't follow the click, but band followed
the groove set by drummer, and singer redid vox for keepers, but the acoustic
and others on intro/first two verses didn't quite mesh.

My solution: Bring in an organ droning chords on second verse, holding chord
until chorus was in with full drums, rhythm section and backup vox. Average
listener would never feel it.


Regards,
Richard
Use elspider at bellsouth dot net to email.
.... GOOGLE AIDS AND ABETS SPAMMERS!
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
* Derby City Online - Louisville, KY - telnet://derbycitybbs.com

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

This story is all about kludging. It should have been about planning.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
wrote:
I did a live recording. Only 9 tracks. The drums were on 4 (two kicks,
a snare, and an overhead). Went back and redid the lead vocals. The
only remnants of the old vocals are on the overhead track, but at a
fairly low volume that can't be heard with the new track in place.
The overhead caught the toms and cymbals pretty well. However, as I
said, it's got the old vocals on there as well. How would I best
compress this in order to bring the cymbals and toms out as much as
possible without bringing the old vocals up? What would be good attack/
ratio/threshold/release settings to start at? I assume I shouldn't put
too much on it. Any other things I can do to bring these instruments
out?


Compression will bring out low level detail including the vocal spill.
If you have the original vocal track you can try inverting it,
delaying it and mixing it into the overhead track. The idea is to
emulate the distance between the two mics with the delay to get them
in phase, then to cancel the vocal on the overhead track my mixing in
some of the inverted vocal signal.

Cheers

Ian

In theory this should work, but unfortunately it doesn't because the
original vocal will differ enough to comb filter with the overhead
bleed, but will never fully cancel out.


That's what the delay is for.

Cheers

Ian

[Anahata]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:03:08 +0100, Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

In theory this should work, but unfortunately it doesn't because the
original vocal will differ enough to comb filter with the overhead
bleed, but will never fully cancel out.

That's what the delay is for.

Even with the delay there won't be cancellation. At best, with judicious
eq on the delayed vocal, there might be a slight weakening of the vocal
but the difference between a close mic and distant mic is a lot more than
pure delay.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

anahata wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:03:08 +0100, Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
In theory this should work, but unfortunately it doesn't because the
original vocal will differ enough to comb filter with the overhead
bleed, but will never fully cancel out.
That's what the delay is for.

Even with the delay there won't be cancellation. At best, with judicious
eq on the delayed vocal, there might be a slight weakening of the vocal
but the difference between a close mic and distant mic is a lot more than
pure delay.


Thank you.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On May 19, 5:49*am, Laurence Payne wrote:
This story is all about kludging. *It should have been about planning.

It's a live recording. Things happen.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
On May 19, 5:49=A0am, Laurence Payne wrote:
This story is all about kludging. =A0It should have been about planning.

It's a live recording. Things happen.

It's true, though, that careful planning can help keep things from happening.
And a lot of that involves recording a run-through if at all possible, and
having decent monitoring so you can tell what is going on with the tracks
before it's too late. That's not always possible either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected][_2_]]

On May 19, 2:46*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On May 19, 5:49=A0am, Laurence Payne wrote:
This story is all about kludging. =A0It should have been about planning.

It's a live recording. Things happen.

It's true, though, that careful planning can help keep things from happening.
And a lot of that involves recording a run-through if at all possible, and
having decent monitoring so you can tell what is going on with the tracks
before it's too late. *That's not always possible either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Well the main problem is that the singer decided to change the lyrics
of the song after the fact. Not a whole lot to do with the
engineering.

[Richard Webb]

To: kludge
Scott wrote:
This story is all about kludging. It should have been about planning.

It's a live recording. Things happen.

It's true, though, that careful planning can help keep things from
happening. And a lot of that involves recording a run-through if at
all possible, and having decent monitoring so you can tell what is
going on with the tracks before it's too late. That's not always
possible either.
NO it isn't, and I've done enough recordings where I didn't have adequate
monitoring. which is one reason that mobile rig of ours goes for the price we
charge g.

Iow it isn't the media that the tracks are recorded to that one pays for, it's
the monitoring environment, the time and personnel to concentrate on that
recording.
THe crew of three can be helpful even if you bring your own laptop or chosen
storage device, but the monitoring environment is where the money is.

By the time all's said and done your clients might pay you as much fixing it as
they would have paid to hire a rig like ours from somewhere near the venue.

Regards,
Richard
USE elspider at bellsouth dot net to email ...
.... GOOGLE AIDS AND ABETS SPAMMERS!
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
* Derby City Online - Louisville, KY - telnet://derbycitybbs.com

[Richard Webb]

To: Laurence Payne
Laurence Payne wrote:
This story is all about kludging. It should have been about
planning. --- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32

Amen brother! Had the op done the planning part, or the folks arranging the
piece ...

Maybe a bit of rehearsal, or a run through.
See my other post.

FLetcher's favorite recording axiom again ...

'Pre production planning prevents **** poor performance."


Regards,
Richard

Use elspider at bellsouth dot net to email ...
.... GOOGLE AIDS AND ABETS SPAMMERS!
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
* Derby City Online - Louisville, KY - telnet://derbycitybbs.com

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Well the main problem is that the singer decided to change the lyrics
of the song after the fact. Not a whole lot to do with the
engineering.

THAT is very bad planning... not on the part of the engineer, mind you...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message ...
Richard Corfield wrote:
On 2008-05-18, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
the toms.
Include a gate?
You want the guy to gate his overhead mike? Good luck with that one :-)

It was an idea. It's already recorded so why not play?
I was thinking more an expander on the basis that these vocals are
noticeable when the percussion isn't being hit. Having not heard the
recording I'd not know what the chances of success are.

I've gated (or expanded) room mics in conjunction with compression to
compensate for the compressor in the quiet gaps.

- Richard

I understand what you're saying, but this guy has one overhead mike.
Gating it will **** the cymbals all to hell and back, not too mention it
will sound really stupid while the gate is open after cymbal hits. Doing
what you were doing is a different ballgame.

Some things just require isolation or the ability ro get it right the first time.

;-)

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

wrote in message...

Well the main problem is that the singer decided to change the lyrics
of the song after the fact. Not a whole lot to do with the
engineering.

That's a sure-fire call for re-tracking.

You can really record a song before it's written.




DM

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:43:36 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Well the main problem is that the singer decided to change the lyrics
of the song after the fact. Not a whole lot to do with the
engineering.

OK. I didn't say it was YOUR bad planning :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

David Morgan \(MAMS\) /Odm wrote:

Some things just require isolation or the ability ro get it right the first time.

;-)

Or, the THIRD possible option... to just record concert after concert until
the band FINALLY gets it right. With the decrease in cost of multitrack gear
this is becoming possible now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 8:58*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:

Well the main problem is that the singer decided to change the lyrics
of the song after the fact. Not a whole lot to do with the
engineering.

THAT is very bad planning... not on the part of the engineer, mind you...
--scott



Well, I don't know if I'd call it bad planning. He changed the
lyrics. Maybe you get a worse recording but a much better song.


If the OHs are mostly just being used for more ambient drums, I would
key the room off the snare (and toms and whatever else). You can
have it clamped down to zero in between or split the difference until
it sounds the way you like it and the vocs on the room aren't
objectionable.

And wherever they still; are put in a guitar fill : )

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

anahata wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:03:08 +0100, Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
In theory this should work, but unfortunately it doesn't because the
original vocal will differ enough to comb filter with the overhead
bleed, but will never fully cancel out.
That's what the delay is for.

Even with the delay there won't be cancellation. At best, with judicious
eq on the delayed vocal, there might be a slight weakening of the vocal
but the difference between a close mic and distant mic is a lot more than
pure delay.


Yes but you don't need complete cancellation. The bleed is already at a
low level and it is not hard to achieve another 10dB of reduction.

Cheers

Ian

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 07:12:54 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Well, I don't know if I'd call it bad planning. He changed the
lyrics. Maybe you get a worse recording but a much better song.


If the OHs are mostly just being used for more ambient drums, I would
key the room off the snare (and toms and whatever else). You can
have it clamped down to zero in between or split the difference until
it sounds the way you like it and the vocs on the room aren't
objectionable.

And wherever they still; are put in a guitar fill : )

Yeah - that's a point that hasn't been getting a lot of attention. If
this section was originally background to a vocal, isn't it sounding a
bit empty without it? Or is it one of those songs where everyone hits
their groove and belts away regardless? :-)

[Richard Corfield[_3_]]

On 2008-05-20, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Well the main problem is that the singer decided to change the lyrics
of the song after the fact. Not a whole lot to do with the
engineering.

THAT is very bad planning... not on the part of the engineer, mind you...

The Queen song "Fried Chicken" seemed to do well with it.

- Richard :-)

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[[email protected]]

:
On May 19, 5:49*am, Laurence Payne wrote:

This story is all about kludging. *It should have been about planning.

Feh. : ) Who among us has not kludged a bit on a track and not
bragged about it for years? : )


And, also, kludging isn't inherently a bad thing, and it's a great
learning experience when one can lessen a negative aspect of a
recording with a little of it, whether by trial and error or having a
technique passed on by someone who has dealt with it before.

A de-esser can be seen as a kludge. "Tell the person to stop
whistling their "s"'s" "Get a new singer". All that. Still got a
few spots of sibilance? Break out the de-esser. It's not a kludge
because you did some planning? I don't think so : )


On May 19, 2:37 pm, " wrote
It's a live recording. Things happen.

Amen. Lessening vocals in overheads is just another mixing skill.
What's bad about that?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 06:32:24 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

It's a live recording. Things happen.

Amen. Lessening vocals in overheads is just another mixing skill.
What's bad about that?

I think the bad thing about this story is the tacit assumption that
the band can play the same thing whether there are lead vocals or not.
That's what sometimes happens in a bad multitracked recording (which
prompts the engineer to play with eq to make instruments that should
have been "listening" to each other sit together in the mix). But it
should never happen in a live one. What the band played to back up a
lead vocal won't stand alone, will it?