|
Post by forgotteng on Jun 26, 2016 10:30:50 GMT -6
You can coach a vocalists all you want, (and you should,) but there are times where they either won't listen to you or can't/don't have the experience to correct. It's good to have tools for this. I like the splitter idea.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 26, 2016 13:04:22 GMT -6
You can coach a vocalists all you want, (and you should,) but there are times where they either won't listen to you or can't/don't have the experience to correct. It's good to have tools for this. I like the splitter idea. Unfortunately limited budgets equal limited time but clients expectations still remain high once they make a decision to pay to use a studio facility. On one hand one could argue that a client should have some understanding of the different requirements of recording in a studio versus belting out a tune into a SM58 on stage. Obviously most do but the less experienced generally don't completely understand this and have to learn what is, and what isn't, possible in a studio situation. This comes from experience. A seasoned recording musician knows that they can't go from a whisper to a scream in one breath without likely exceeding the limits of the recording medium or at least compromising the recording. With an inexperienced client they have to learn this (often the hard way) and it can be frustrating for both themselves and the engineer/producer when trying to balance both performance and the technical requirements. Anything that can be implemented to either avoid these technical limitations altogether (or at least reduce them to a manageable level so you don't get stuck with hours of fixes in post) makes for a faster, smoother workflow and a happier client (and engineer) IMO. Bring on the mic splitter!!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 26, 2016 13:46:12 GMT -6
The idea that people need to change anything for a recording is ill-founded. In today's world vocalists will succeed or not based on what they are capable of delivering on stage. Building crutches for vanity recordings will continue but I think performance on stage trumps all in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 26, 2016 14:17:49 GMT -6
The idea that people need to change anything for a recording is ill-founded. In today's world vocalists will succeed or not based on what they are capable of delivering on stage. Building crutches for vanity recordings will continue but I think performance on stage trumps all in the real world. I don't disagree and nothing beats a great live performance. However we no longer have the recording budgets (most artists fund themselves) or the time to spend dealing with technique issues especially from relatively inexperienced recording clients. (it sucks I know). If a splitter means we can keep the best entire vocal take rather than have to retake different sections at various gains which may be technically good, but not necessarily the best performance, then I'll take the splitter and a couple of pre's set high and low. This can end up saving hours during both tracking and in post. Even an artist we just finished recording who was very big here 20 plus years ago couldn't get a cent from his record company (Liberation Records) to fund his last two albums. They said bring us the finished album and if we like it we'll give you some ISRC's and do some publicity for it. That's pretty much the model these days unless you're an Adele or a Justin Bieber. Springsteen took 14 months to record 'Born to Run' and 6 months on the title track alone. Today we get 6 hours to record 6 six songs and I doubt if the clients expectations are any less.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 26, 2016 15:22:59 GMT -6
People need to stop referencing how established stars made records during the middle of the album era. Prior to the late '60s virtually every album was recorded and mixed in a day and a half. I'd argue those albums were far from unlistenable and way above the quality of today's average.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 26, 2016 15:43:03 GMT -6
People need to stop referencing how established stars made records during the middle of the album era. Prior to the late '60s virtually every album was recorded and mixed in a day and a half. I'd argue those albums were far from unlistenable and way above the quality of today's average. The 50's and 60's produced some of the best performances /recordings IMO. Today we have too many tracks and too many options available to 'fix' things after the fact. We sometimes joke about dusting off our 1" 8 track and offering live to tape sessions mixed to 1/4" 2 track (no computers) and released only on vinyl. You never know it might start a trend?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on Jun 27, 2016 7:35:08 GMT -6
The idea that people need to change anything for a recording is ill-founded. In today's world vocalists will succeed or not based on what they are capable of delivering on stage. Building crutches for vanity recordings will continue but I think performance on stage trumps all in the real world. I Agree 110% ! In the old days I always tried to get any artist to play live before stepping into the studio! An unbiased live audience is the best teacher and material filter in the world! All to often the only people who have ever heard an artist are the family and boyfriends/ girlfriends who tend to stroke the artists ego! The problem is other than open mic nights trying to find a stage for the unknown is getting harder and harder!
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jun 27, 2016 10:31:57 GMT -6
I think not doing some pre-production work with the artist, sending them home to work things out prior to the recording session, can be a big mistake. You can end up having to use editing chops to create a listenable "performance." Which is a major hassle and possibly a waste of time. I was just talking to svart about this. I know there's got to be a limit to how much improvement can happen in a pre-production period, but I have major regrets about being forced into recording completely unlistenable tracks from amateurs, and having to spend hours chopping and bending them into shape, or finding new players. In the '60s this wouldn't have even been possible. If I had simply attended a few rehearsals with the groups before recording, I would have picked up on the red flags way ahead of the tracking nightmares that were to follow, and known where to advise the performers and prepare myself for certain kinds of attentions that need to be paid during production. Maybe there are some gigs I simply would have passed on, in retrospect. I'm not really wanting to be the fix-it producer any longer. I suppose it was a valuable lesson to learn, however, so there is that. It's amazing to me how many groups these days get away with murder in terms of musicianship, when you put them under the studio microscope.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 27, 2016 11:21:36 GMT -6
What I do is CRUSH the return vocals to their headphones. I find that some singers will find a level where they hear themselves in the headphones too low, they sing higher, then find it's too high, then sing lower, etc. They create this strange feedback cycle with themselves.
I'll absolutely crush the vocal going back to their headphones so that no matter how loud or soft, they hear mostly the same level. 99% of the time they'll lock into a more even dynamic.
Sometimes I add some reverb too, it helps them harmonize with themselves and makes the transitions less abrupt.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 27, 2016 11:31:40 GMT -6
Also, I almost always run through a slow, light compression on tracking. Usually the LA2A doing about 3-6db on the loudest parts. Coupled with another 3-9db on mixdown, I rarely have problems.
However, I've had a few that have given me fits. Usually I'll just track the loud and soft sections separately if the normal stuff isn't working.
If I just can't seem to nail all this in the beginning, I'll automate the vocal AND do compression.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 28, 2016 7:02:32 GMT -6
What I do is CRUSH the return vocals to their headphones. I find that some singers will find a level where they hear themselves in the headphones too low, they sing higher, then find it's too high, then sing lower, etc. They create this strange feedback cycle with themselves. I'll absolutely crush the vocal going back to their headphones so that no matter how loud or soft, they hear mostly the same level. 99% of the time they'll lock into a more even dynamic. Sometimes I add some reverb too, it helps them harmonize with themselves and makes the transitions less abrupt. That's very interesting... I've always thought and practiced the opposite thinking that if a singer hears their own dynamics, they'll learn to control them better. But your method is a worth a try!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by ericn on Jun 28, 2016 7:11:26 GMT -6
What I do is CRUSH the return vocals to their headphones. I find that some singers will find a level where they hear themselves in the headphones too low, they sing higher, then find it's too high, then sing lower, etc. They create this strange feedback cycle with themselves. I'll absolutely crush the vocal going back to their headphones so that no matter how loud or soft, they hear mostly the same level. 99% of the time they'll lock into a more even dynamic. Sometimes I add some reverb too, it helps them harmonize with themselves and makes the transitions less abrupt. That's very interesting... I've always thought and practiced the opposite thinking that if a singer hears their own dynamics, they'll learn to control them better. But your method is a worth a try! This is one of those it really depends on the vocalist situations, in many cases any changes in their dynamics will screw them up big time! Now from years of mixing wedges I came up with the theory that this is why you want a booth or a tracking room, so when your mix treatment screws up the talent they can't throw things at you !
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 28, 2016 7:16:36 GMT -6
Also, I almost always run through a slow, light compression on tracking. Usually the LA2A doing about 3-6db on the loudest parts. Coupled with another 3-9db on mixdown, I rarely have problems. However, I've had a few that have given me fits. Usually I'll just track the loud and soft sections separately if the normal stuff isn't working. If I just can't seem to nail all this in the beginning, I'll automate the vocal AND do compression. I had an Aphex Expressor (Jim Williams modified) followed by a WA76 each knocking off up to around 3-6db during tracking in conjunction with adjusting the gain of a Mercury Audio V76M preamp from +60db for the whispers down to +18db for the loudest sections. (Flea 47 mic) This was during the initial tracking session when she was rushing trying to get her final vocals finished. In the end she booked another day and gave us a vocal breakdown of the song ie. quiet/medium/loud and allowed herself (and us) several passes to track each section at suitable gains. This made the difference but had we split the mic across a couple of pre's with their gains set to cover the extremes it may have meant we could have nailed the early vocal takes with less issues.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 28, 2016 7:18:49 GMT -6
What I do is CRUSH the return vocals to their headphones. I find that some singers will find a level where they hear themselves in the headphones too low, they sing higher, then find it's too high, then sing lower, etc. They create this strange feedback cycle with themselves. I'll absolutely crush the vocal going back to their headphones so that no matter how loud or soft, they hear mostly the same level. 99% of the time they'll lock into a more even dynamic. Sometimes I add some reverb too, it helps them harmonize with themselves and makes the transitions less abrupt. That's very interesting... I've always thought and practiced the opposite thinking that if a singer hears their own dynamics, they'll learn to control them better. But your method is a worth a try! You're right, sometimes it doesn't work and does the opposite! I guess that's part of the art of recording, you gotta help figure out how to work the artist and get the best performance from them you can. The end product is certainly a culmination of all the tricks and skills an engineer has, in conjunction with the performance of the singer. If you can figure out how to get better takes from the artist, you can spend more time being artistic with the mix, rather than spending your time fixing problems. Unfortunately a lot of artists don't understand this dynamic. They think that it's wholly the engineer's job to make them sound like a star.. Usually you can persuade them to "help you help themselves", but sometimes you just have to resort to tricks. More often than not though, at least some compression and reverb is on the vocal return to the singer and it helps more than it hurts.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 28, 2016 10:17:41 GMT -6
Reverb is very helpful provided it doesn't shift the pitch around such as LexiCons.
|
|