|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 24, 2015 11:00:10 GMT -6
I was just thinking she would be a tough one to record with how dynamic she is...and surprising it would be a 6176 considering the relatively low headroom.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 24, 2015 11:02:13 GMT -6
hmmm
|
|
|
Post by warrenfirehouse on Nov 24, 2015 12:20:33 GMT -6
Hahahaha was just about to post this. So awsome!
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Nov 24, 2015 13:51:11 GMT -6
I've never heard a cello sound like that either, it makes my curly hair stand on end. it sounds terrible!!!! I like it, it sounds haunting. Not everything has to sound like the Boston Pops ya know.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Nov 25, 2015 8:39:53 GMT -6
it's out of tune.
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Nov 25, 2015 9:35:42 GMT -6
Dude doing the "Adele in 25 styles" is frigging talented. Im thankful for people like him.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 25, 2015 10:36:44 GMT -6
Yeah, it seems a little pitchy in places, but the player is using a pretty wide vibrato, so most intonation issues are pretty well masked. I doubt the instrument was "out of tune," she never played an open string. My guess is that it may have been the monitor system. Regardless, the cellist's performance doesn't offend me. Personally, I don't like the way the cello is mixed at all. It sounds like a DI pick-up. I didn't a see mic; perhaps there was one in the instrument, but given that all the other instruments you hear are 'acoustic,' it's a poor choice, and EQ'd inappropriately IMO. That said, generally speaking, I love the mix.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 25, 2015 15:54:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 25, 2015 16:37:05 GMT -6
Wow that sounds really good unplugged. Maybe better, even. I always like seeing pop singers without all the tricks.
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Nov 25, 2015 16:50:04 GMT -6
Hmmm maybe that warbling is her natural voice, no mic
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Nov 29, 2015 14:58:29 GMT -6
Sounds like the Cello could be auxed into a synth of some kind to me. Only listening on my laptop but that was my impression.
|
|
|
Post by forgotteng on Nov 29, 2015 15:30:05 GMT -6
I'm voting for no auto tune. I'm not sure what they used on the new album but I know at one time they were using UAD re-201 into 140 plate. I've used that combo myself to great success.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 1, 2015 8:27:48 GMT -6
What I find interesting is all the AE talk on the internet about purity, like using the least amount of EQ, the least amount of compression and all that.. Then you read articles like that where the dudes have 3 multiband EQs doing as much as 20dB on bands, 4 compressors, a ton of effects, just on the main vocal...! Then have 3 compressors on the main bus, a ton of effects and compression on the background vocals, huge cuts and boosts on instruments, etc. Plus having like 50 other tracks with all this happening too.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 1, 2015 8:47:16 GMT -6
I've seen tutorials where just using a multi-band EQ is so challenging, I just give up. Yet, it works in the right hands, so it all depends I guess.
There are many recordings that aren't hugely processed, but when you take into account all the variables when releasing a record, different codecs, most people using earbuds or computer speakers, CD's, vinyl, mp3's, high res files, satellite radio, etc., it's amazing anything sounds good today.
Also, the emphasis on chops has passed because there are so many tools to "fix" things now. Even back aways, engineers used what was available. I know that for Art Garfunkel's records they'd splice every other word, line, or phrase to cobble together a take.
I'm still a fan of a band in a room though. Lucinda Williams' records sometime sound like at least the main tracking was done with the band in a room, Lyle Lovett plays and sings at the same time, so there's hope.
|
|
|
Post by forgotteng on Dec 1, 2015 8:59:02 GMT -6
Its the wild west out there. Anything goes. I know personally I've worked against myself trying to use to many doo dads. Add this here take it away here. With skill and practice comes better choices.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 1, 2015 9:20:54 GMT -6
Well, I used to follow every single word of folks on the internet when I was trying to learn.. And it led me astray for years. The biggest crock was/is folks who say that only the purest will do. It's taken me years to shake that mindset and once I did, my recording and mixing jumped 100x in production value.
Just finding small nuggets of info from the pros almost always gives clues to what it takes to succeed, and in most cases, it's a whole lot more than we've been led to believe. "A little compression" really means like 6-8dB+, "a little EQ" really means like 12dB+ of boost/cut, etc.
It's really enlightening finding articles like that one that let us see behind the curtain.
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Dec 1, 2015 9:44:17 GMT -6
I know some guys who make records for the majors. The guys who do the tracking (usually the producer now) use almost nothing. The guys who do the mixing use a fucking syllabus full of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 1, 2015 10:00:57 GMT -6
What I find interesting is all the AE talk on the internet about purity, like using the least amount of EQ, the least amount of compression and all that.. Then you read articles like that where the dudes have 3 multiband EQs doing as much as 20dB on bands, 4 compressors, a ton of effects, just on the main vocal...! Then have 3 compressors on the main bus, a ton of effects and compression on the background vocals, huge cuts and boosts on instruments, etc. Plus having like 50 other tracks with all this happening too. My view of Tom Elmhurst, if one were to believe what he said from the SOS article and from this one is that he uses software EQ's, mostly parametric , to notch out frequencies. Apparently, he's got that big Neve desk with all those EQ's and he doesn't touch the EQ's much. He boosts a bit on the vocal with a hardware inserted Pultec EQ . On the Mix Bus he uses a stereo EQ for a smiley face curve. It seems his idea of "boost" for channels is to bring the sound forward with the faders. He used the fast compressor/slower compressor duo on the vocal, again with hardware, which seems pretty common. The thing that appeared different is that he used a stereo limiter and two stereo compressors on the overheads/ambiance group. It did make "Rolling In The Deep" sound different than the typical sample based sounding pop song. There's a lot of room/ambiance in the drum sound. On the Mix Bus he used a Stereo Compressor and a Stereo EQ which seems quite common. He did use the Hedd for Tape Simulation/A-D conversion. Of course, who knows how much boosting was done while tracking? He talks about using two deessers on the vocal, but he only boosted with the Pultec. Perhaps that-or a bright mic, or the timbre of her voice- was enough to need the deesers. I've never heard a real Pultec. So, I have no idea how one sounds when you boost at 12K. They also don't mention the other instruments, but it seems like his philosophy is to mostly notch and then ride faders.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 1, 2015 10:05:23 GMT -6
What I find interesting is all the AE talk on the internet about purity, like using the least amount of EQ, the least amount of compression and all that.. Then you read articles like that where the dudes have 3 multiband EQs doing as much as 20dB on bands, 4 compressors, a ton of effects, just on the main vocal...! Then have 3 compressors on the main bus, a ton of effects and compression on the background vocals, huge cuts and boosts on instruments, etc. Plus having like 50 other tracks with all this happening too. My view of Tom Elmhurst, from this article and from this one is that he uses software EQ's, mostly parametric , to notch out frequencies. Apparently, he's got that big Neve desk with all those EQ's and he doesn't touch the EQ's much. He boosts a bit on the vocal with a hardware inserted Pultec EQ . On the Mix Bus he uses a stereo EQ for a smiley face curve. It seems his idea of "boost" for channels is to bring the sound forward with the faders. He used the fast compressor/slower compressor duo on the vocal, again with hardware, which seems pretty common. The thing that appeared different is that he used a stereo limiter and two stereo compressors on the overheads/ambiance group. It did make "Rolling In The Deep" sound different than the typical sample based sounding pop song. There's a lot of room/ambiance in the drum sound. On the Mix Bus he used a Stereo Compressor and a Stereo EQ which seems quite common. He did use the Hedd for Tape Simulation/A-D conversion. Of course, who knows how much boosting was done while tracking? He talks about using two deessers on the vocal, but he only boosted with the Pultec. Perhaps that-or a bright mic, or the timbre of her voice- was enough to need the deesers. I've never heard a real Pultec. So, I have no idea how one sounds when you boost at 12K. They also don't mention the other instruments, but it seems like his philosophy is to mostly notch and then ride faders. I read once from a big metal engineer, that you boost to make things unique, and cut to fix things, and that it doesn't matter how much as long as it works. Applying that philosophy is harder than it sounds, but it's definitely helping me. Another point you bring up is riding faders. The pros do this so much more than people believe or understand.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Dec 1, 2015 13:03:20 GMT -6
I do some major label work, a lot of indie label work, I make my living doing it and I have a bunch of buddies here in LA who also make their living doing records. I'm no expert and I have a lot to learn but I'm a pro. Some of my records sound great and some sound lousy. But I'll tell you guys this...we are compressing and eq-ing the pants off of stuff out here in LA. Like SMASHAROONY! Maybe not everyone but a LOT of guys. A lead vocal could easily be pegging the meter on an 1176 or a 176 or a Stay. 2 or 3 Eqs. Maybe more. I have visited buddies during a mix seen a distressor into an 1176 into a Fairchild and they're all working hard. Then again I've seen guys barely tapping a lead vocal...but not in a pop mix headed for radio. I have a buddy who has been a mentor to me...his nominations and awards are endless. He often has a multi band comp on the vocal, saturation, traditional compressors, Eqs, multiple de-essers, mults with HEAVY hi-end eq...just on the lead vocal. I often split up lead vocals in to verse, pre, chorus, bridge, etc... All of them with different treatment, heavy comp and eq, multiple chorus/mod effects, mults...on and on. Whenever I try to leave things "pure" I get my ass handed to me and lose the damned gig. It's happened lots. I got a buddy who's a dance/EDM producer. He mixes in to an L2 SLAMMED. It's on his master from jump. 8-12 db of reduction right off the bat. His stuff sounds killer. I can't make that work but I ain't afraid of a lot of compression. It can be done and done well. You know, when I'm turning in a mix to a major I gotta be loud. The rough I'm competing with ( and we ARE competing for work in that world) is usually slammed. If I'm too quiet I won't get the job. Once I have the gig I can back off a little but not too much. It's expected. It's the zeitgeist these days. Maybe Some bigger guys can leave stuff uncompressed but in the trenches it's a different deal. I don't like it but I'm learning how to do it.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 1, 2015 13:11:14 GMT -6
I do some major label work, a lot of indie label work, I make my living doing it and I have a bunch of buddies here in LA who also make their living doing records. I'm no expert and I have a lot to learn but I'm a pro. Some of my records sound great and some sound lousy. But I'll tell you guys this...we are compressing and eq-ing the pants off of stuff out here in LA. Like SMASHAROONY! Maybe not everyone but a LOT of guys. A lead vocal could easily be pegging the meter on an 1176 or a 176 or a Stay. 2 or 3 Eqs. Maybe more. I have visited buddies during a mix seen a distressor into an 1176 into a Fairchild and they're all working hard. Then again I've seen guys barely tapping a lead vocal...but not in a pop mix headed for radio. I have a buddy who has been a mentor to me...his nominations and awards are endless. He often has a multi band comp on the vocal, saturation, traditional compressors, Eqs, multiple de-essers, mults with HEAVY hi-end eq...just on the lead vocal. I often split up lead vocals in to verse, pre, chorus, bridge, etc... All of them with different treatment, heavy comp and eq, multiple chorus/mod effects, mults...on and on. Whenever I try to leave things "pure" I get my ass handed to me and lose the damned gig. It's happened lots. I got a buddy who's a dance/EDM producer. He mixes in to an L2 SLAMMED. It's on his master from jump. 8-12 db of reduction right off the bat. His stuff sounds killer. I can't make that work but I ain't afraid of a lot of compression. It can be done and done well. You know, when I'm turning in a mix to a major I gotta be loud. The rough I'm competing with ( and we ARE competing for work in that world) is usually slammed. If I'm too quiet I won't get the job. Once I have the gig I can back off a little but not too much. It's expected. It's the zeitgeist these days. Maybe Some bigger guys can do it but in the trenches it's a different deal. I don't like it but I'm learning how to do it. I always thought that it was about how you fit it all together that matters more than "how much" you use. I still contend that learning to put together a hard-hitting, super compressed mix that still sounds good, is MUCH much harder than laying off all the effects and doing a "natural" mix.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Dec 1, 2015 13:18:22 GMT -6
I agree Svart. Some of my early work sounds great. Almost no compression. I didn't know what it did so I didn't use it. Sounds good but it doesn't sound competitive. I've been trying to master heavy compression for 15 years. To my ears it's THE THING that defines modern music from a technical perspective. It's f__kin hard to do well...keep it smooth and full and controlled and enjoyable. Anyone can crank down on a compressor and get loud. It's hard as hell to crank down and stay pleasant and fun and smooth and precise. It's taken me a long time and a lot of practice and I still eff it up all the time. But the guys that do it well...man...you listen to their mixes in an A/B style with your own and just face palm yourself to retirement. The big guys are good at compression. Flat out. Good at lots of things but they're really good at compressing stuff. I've spent years chasing it. I hate em for it.
|
|
|
Post by forgotteng on Dec 1, 2015 14:01:06 GMT -6
I agree Svart. Some of my early work sounds great. Almost no compression. I didn't know what it did so I didn't use it. Sounds good but it doesn't sound competitive. I've been trying to master heavy compression for 15 years. To my ears it's THE THING that defines modern music from a technical perspective. It's f__kin hard to do well...keep it smooth and full and controlled and enjoyable. Anyone can crank down on a compressor and get loud. It's hard as hell to crank down and stay pleasant and fun and smooth and precise. It's taken me a long time and a lot of practice and I still eff it up all the time. But the guys that do it well...man...you listen to their mixes in an A/B style with your own and just face palm yourself to retirement. The big guys are good at compression. Flat out. Good at lots of things but they're really good at compressing stuff. I've spent years chasing it. I hate em for it. Noah, thanks for posting this. I have been wondering about this for years. I have been in the position of mixing my butt off and feeling like I nailed the mix. I used a significant amount of in and out of the box compression and eq and then I go to safety check against something cuurrent and my mix sounds like theres a blanket on it. Makes me glad I have a great mastering engineer to help me sort it out. Good times.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 1, 2015 14:46:36 GMT -6
The elephant in the room: Modern music that almost nobody considers worth buying...
I think people today ought to be looking really hard at arranging and counterpoint. When you get that right, you don't need tons of signal processing.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 1, 2015 15:25:18 GMT -6
The elephant in the room: Modern music that almost nobody considers worth buying... I think people today ought to be looking really hard at arranging and counterpoint. When you get that right, you don't need tons of signal processing. On this topic, there was an article in The New York Times the other day on how industry people were dumbfounded about Adele's new album sales records, and lots of 30-40 year old demographic buyers for first time in 5 years. I thought this was very funny.. I'm not a fan of this genre but GEE turns out when you have a singer with talent people actually want to buy her records, unlike with manufactured garbage pop that constitutes 99% of youtube/streaming/radio these days. Turns out people have taste enough to know an inferior product. That said, there is quite a bit of indie music worth buying and lots of hipster vinyl collectors and HDtracks weirdos who do seem to care, whatever one thinks of them. Personally I hate the sound of most records today, especially that bottom and sample heavy, distortion-limited sound that predominates in many rock and pop genres with little musical development per song either. Just lazy production, very boring at this point to put decapitator and other saturation plugs on everything and boost to death. Hate that shit
|
|