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.

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.

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.

wrote:
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.

Have you tried listening to CD's of music you consider to have good
vocal production qualities? It's similar to musicians who play by ear,
in my opinion. Of course, it won't teach you every, single thing you
need to know but over time you'll learn quite a bit more by trying to
duplicate a reference CD than if you tried to recall productions
qualities based on memory and what you think it should sound like.

wrote:
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.

All the bg time mixers do things that could be considered wrong. You
can find guys who have equally good sounding mixes and they've used
opposite techniques to get there.

I think in another post you said you're using a digital eight track in
another post. not to be discouraging, but you're nit going to be able
to make recordings.mixes that you can compare favorably with a big
buget album. In addition to years of practice and learning how to use
gear, the sounds you hear sometimes can only come from really expensive
gear.

Rather than be discourage, however, let it be freeing. Assume that
everything you do and every idea you have is "right". Just do all those
things like mix with and without compression - push the vocals in the
choruses. Mix ou song as many differnet wa as you can and then take
them all somwhere to compare them to each other. Spend a some time,
months, developing your own mixing baseline, the start comparing to
albums and start modifying what you do. There are infinte options and
in mixing, the end justifies the means.

Yeah, I reference all the time. It helps, that's for sure. Still, I
wish I had a better knowledge base.

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.

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

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.

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.

wrote:
the 90's are over.

Thank God!

On 12 Jan 2005 16:35:49 -0800, 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.

Same way you do on a tape-based system, if you want to. Get a sound
card with multiple output pairs, use an external mixer.

Though, mostly, it's all done in the computer these days. I kept a
rack of outboard FX for a long time but finally realised I just wasn't
ever using it so I trimmed down the system.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

What are you mixing down to ?
How are you making final media to listen to ?
Standalone CD burner, cassette, dat ?
Does the 8 track have mixer builtin,
or do you use a sepatate mixing board ?
Are you using inserts, or sends and returns ?
You can keep all your analog outboard.
If you only have 1 stereo compressor use it
on your stereo mix, depending on the song -or-
one side on the vocal channel, (other on bass maybe)
Don't be afraid to ride the vocal slider when mixing.
Normally with compression and limiting if you hear
the effect your using too much.
You shouldn't be needing to bounce all that much.

rd

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."

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

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?

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.

Four tracks? That makes me feel good.

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

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:

Eight tracks should be enough for anyone.

Have you floated the idea past Bjork?

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.

Date: 1/12/05 7:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: . com

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.

I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get
a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
getting into recording now, you don't need a gazilion dollars to have a nice
sounding "basic" professional studio.

"Raymond" wrote in message ...
Date: 1/12/05 7:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: . com

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.

I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get
a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
getting into recording now, you don't need a gazilion dollars to have a nice
sounding "basic" professional studio.


But it probably won't sound like a good 24 channel mixer, either. And the
less of the industry bar that's lowered by amateurs, the more hope we have
of maintaining some semblance of quality in the industry. ;-)

DM

Raymond wrote:

That's the reason why so many people are
getting into recording now, you don't need a gazilion dollars to have a nice
sounding "basic" professional studio.

But they overlook the most important part of _a nice sounding "basic"
professional studio_: the room. The gear might sound good, relatively,
but the room is useless in the traditional sense, so we get folks
thinking a mic shoved in the face of everything is how music is supposed
to sound, because they can't let the room into the sound without
screwing it all up.

--
ha

In article writes:

I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get
a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
getting into recording now

It's also the reason why people have so many questions and fumbles
getting started in recording. With real hardware it's easy to
understand signal flow and easy to find a problem when something is
wrong.

A computer serving as a recorder and mixer is a tough way to start out
learning about recording for those without a lot of intuition and a
good bit of computer knowledge. We don't expect that of musicians.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Gotta disagree Hank. While it's true a bad room can be tough to work
in......here's just a few examples of non-professional studio rooms.
Sunn = gas station
Staxx = movie theater
RVG = home
Motown = basement

They all sounded fine. True throwing up some mics in a garage is going
to sound bad, but just about any space can be tweaked to work. Also,
that "mic shoved in the face of everything" is basically what you older
guys started in the 70s. Taking the bottom heads off the drums....come
on. That didn't start in a home studio. There are just as many
horrible things that have come out of very expensive, professional
rooms as there are home studios.

later,
m

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

I swear... I *never* asked for a bottom head to be removed. I always
wondered who's idea that was, and always had a sneakin' suspicion
that it was WF Ludwig on LSD.


wrote in message ups.com...
Gotta disagree Hank. While it's true a bad room can be tough to work
in......here's just a few examples of non-professional studio rooms.
Sunn = gas station
Staxx = movie theater
RVG = home
Motown = basement

They all sounded fine. True throwing up some mics in a garage is going
to sound bad, but just about any space can be tweaked to work. Also,
that "mic shoved in the face of everything" is basically what you older
guys started in the 70s. Taking the bottom heads off the drums....come
on. That didn't start in a home studio. There are just as many
horrible things that have come out of very expensive, professional
rooms as there are home studios.

later,
m

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1107463493k@trad...

In article writes:

I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get
a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
getting into recording now

It's also the reason why people have so many questions and fumbles
getting started in recording. With real hardware it's easy to
understand signal flow and easy to find a problem when something is
wrong.

A computer serving as a recorder and mixer is a tough way to start out
learning about recording for those without a lot of intuition and a
good bit of computer knowledge. We don't expect that of musicians.


I know a lot of computer champions, gurus if you will, that haven't the
slightest clue about audio or processing... so all the intuition and 'puter
knowledge in the world isn't going to make them a recordist. Kinda'
works *against* the average Joe both coming and going. I mean, if
a bloke's never used any hardware, what difference does a choice of
plug-ins & emulators make if they don't know what they're supposed
to be emulating?

I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could
get
a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
getting into recording now, you don't need a gazilion dollars to have a nice
sounding "basic" professional studio. BRBR


Maybe you mean basic "home studio". A professional studio doesn't just have a
computer and a basic interface. It also has a good recording space (or
spaces), an accurate mixing environment, and good cue system. A professional
studio should also have a mic locker stocked with professional quality mics.
It should also have amenities which allow the clients enough creature comforts
to relax and allow their best performance to be recorded. Good HVACV is
critical. So is soundproofing. Whether the facility uses a computer and a
basic interface as its primary recorder is not generally what tips the scale
toward "professional".


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

wrote:

Gotta disagree Hank. While it's true a bad room can be tough to work
in......here's just a few examples of non-professional studio rooms.
Sunn = gas station
Staxx = movie theater
RVG = home
Motown = basement

And they weren't run by starry-eyed newbies with little clue and
mediocre kit. Talk all we want about contemporary specs of cheap gear.
Now put that up against the headroom in an API or old Neve, etc. There
are big differences.

They all sounded fine. True throwing up some mics in a garage is going
to sound bad, but just about any space can be tweaked to work. Also,
that "mic shoved in the face of everything" is basically what you older
guys started in the 70s.

No, Mike, I didn't start that. And I avoided it back then and still do
whenever possible. Sometimes we need the separation; sometimes we don't.
I have recorded _lots_ of stuff straight to two-track. No "mixdown",
just _mix_, done, and often with less than one mic per source.

Taking the bottom heads off the drums....come
on. That didn't start in a home studio. There are just as many
horrible things that have come out of very expensive, professional
rooms as there are home studios.

Isolation does not come inexpensively. Intrusive sounds require shoving
mics right into the faces of instruments. You cannot inexpensively
"tweak" a space into strong acoustic isolation. My present space is
nowhere near as quiet as was the studio room at onion audio inside
Armadillo World Headquarters, but it happens to be next to the middle of
nowhere and as it happens can be used quite often without external sound
interference. However, the surrounding real estate was no less expensive
than proper treatment of a room in a noisier environment.

In those older classic spaces where such great music was recorded, they
didn't heap track upon track upon track. People played together all at
once, overdubbing was minimized, and noise captured aldong with a take
wasn't captured again and again with added tracks, to become a real
problem come mix time.

--
ha

Lines: 46
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: pcpocbcnbdmdhgfgdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbogc kdpjcpbddecbolalcpdfdfhdacgfjadijaipammpmgokopgjea bcbaffbemofepnaffidobadcejjoaadbhhlbijbiljlfonobel cbknckakif
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:50:59 EST
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:50:59 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1147450


On 2005-02-04 said:
But in the old days a musician could figure this stuff out fairly
easy. IF you bought the Teac 3340 and its companion mixer
(anybody remember the TEac board went with that machine, an 8 x 4
with a stereo cue mix?) you could figure it out.
SO no signal out the buses because the needles on the tape machine
weren't moving, change the patch cables, plug in the phones, see
where you had signal. Try troubleshooting the signal in your daw
g.
I've still got one of those TEac mixers. USed it as my headphone
mixer for my studio for many years. HEll I could get two separate
stereo mixes for cue for musos recording. A separate mix for the
drummer and another for the rest. Even more if everybody would
settle for mono mixes. It's sitting in a storage unit waiting
for me to get time to bring it back out put it on the bench and
go through it!!!
IT's midnight and I've finished playing a gig at a piano bar and
had too many highballs. SHould go to bed g.
Yessiree... Teac Model 8. Up until about 6 months ago, I knew
where two working units were for sale... in the lobby of a tech's
place. Unfortunately, he closed due to some delinquent tax
issues, or you could have had them for a song.
Damn that's too bad. I think mine was called a model three, but again
I've finished a mardi gras gig at a piano place, too many highballs
but I'm thinking mine was the model 3. Four bus board, 8 channels, 6
of the 8 had mic level ins if switched properly. FOur buses, stereo
cue mix. All the subsystems patched together with rca jumpers. DId
me quite wlel for many years as cue mixer for musos when recording.
Also allowed me to set up a cue mix for myself when recording people.

NO phantom power but if you've good mic amps no need. STill a
versatile little mixer. USed mine even on stage for minotir mixes for
a number of years.

Regards,



Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

wrote in message .. .

On 2005-02-04 said:
But in the old days a musician could figure this stuff out fairly
easy. IF you bought the Teac 3340 and its companion mixer
(anybody remember the TEac board went with that machine, an 8 x 4
with a stereo cue mix?) you could figure it out.
SO no signal out the buses because the needles on the tape machine
weren't moving, change the patch cables, plug in the phones, see
where you had signal. Try troubleshooting the signal in your daw
g.
I've still got one of those TEac mixers. USed it as my headphone
mixer for my studio for many years. HEll I could get two separate
stereo mixes for cue for musos recording. A separate mix for the
drummer and another for the rest. Even more if everybody would
settle for mono mixes. It's sitting in a storage unit waiting
for me to get time to bring it back out put it on the bench and
go through it!!!
IT's midnight and I've finished playing a gig at a piano bar and
had too many highballs. SHould go to bed g.
Yessiree... Teac Model 8. Up until about 6 months ago, I knew
where two working units were for sale... in the lobby of a tech's
place. Unfortunately, he closed due to some delinquent tax
issues, or you could have had them for a song.

Damn that's too bad. I think mine was called a model three, but again
I've finished a mardi gras gig at a piano place, too many highballs
but I'm thinking mine was the model 3. Four bus board, 8 channels, 6
of the 8 had mic level ins if switched properly. FOur buses, stereo
cue mix. All the subsystems patched together with rca jumpers. DId
me quite wlel for many years as cue mixer for musos when recording.
Also allowed me to set up a cue mix for myself when recording people.

NO phantom power but if you've good mic amps no need. STill a
versatile little mixer. USed mine even on stage for minotir mixes for
a number of years.

Regards,

OK... I'm double deslexic and saw the three backwards... wink, wink...

DM

From:

Damn that's too bad. I think mine was called a model three, but again
I've finished a mardi gras gig at a piano place, too many highballs
but I'm thinking mine was the model 3. Four bus board, 8 channels, 6
of the 8 had mic level ins if switched properly. FOur buses, stereo
cue mix. All the subsystems patched together with rca jumpers.

TASCAM's first "studio" mixer was the Model 10. Next to come was the
Model 5, then the Model 3. The 10 and the 5 were set up for 4-track
recording, the 3 was the first one that had 8-track monitoring. The
Model 1 was an 8-channel line level mixer with just level and pan that
was designed to be the 8-track monitor mixer for the Model 5. There
was a small Model 2 also. The Model 10 (and I think the Model 2) had
1/4" "high impedance" mic inputs and they sold plug-in transformers
with XLRs for people who wanted to use real mics. All the other mixers
had XLRs for mic inputs. The Model 15 and Model 16 were later and
fancier.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo