|
|
Post by svart on Oct 12, 2014 19:16:27 GMT -6
I thought this was covered before, but can't seem to find it for some reason.
Anyway, I'm looking for tricks and tips for vocals, specifically for very ambient shoegaze type of sound.
I have good vocals for the basis, but i can't seem to get that lush verb'd sound without it being too buried or not enough effect.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 12, 2014 20:08:13 GMT -6
I don't know the artist... but first thought is pre delay...allows for larger longer verbs, and still maintains the clarity.. also EQ of the verb send.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Oct 12, 2014 21:18:49 GMT -6
i find you can lay the verb on pretty thick and cut it off on a good down beat or transient without it being obvious, kinda allows you to over do it without over doing it if you know what i mean
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Oct 13, 2014 6:54:59 GMT -6
I use several verbs, some coming and going (automation) at different parts of the song as needed, and some just barely on and constant, to give me the dimension I am looking for. A Bricasti is in my future purchases, that's for sure.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 13, 2014 7:56:10 GMT -6
EQing the reverb return sure can help a lot too. Soloing up the vocal, listening to it with and without the reverb in question can tell you a lot about what it is doing in the mix too. Try shaving off from the bottom up until you get greater transparency with it AND less interference with the instruments in the mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 13, 2014 8:22:41 GMT -6
Thanks all. I'm pretty up to date on the basic stuff.
I'm just having trouble getting that insane lush reverb sound. I can carve out the verb but then it doesn't sound so thick anymore and then it just disappears into the background.
I was kinda hoping someone had done something like this before and could get into more specifics.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Oct 13, 2014 8:27:30 GMT -6
Compressing the verb hard will make it more dense, do u have a sample of the tune we could hear?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 13, 2014 8:36:47 GMT -6
Compressing the verb hard will make it more dense, do u have a sample of the tune we could hear? I'll have something up in the next day or so. I'll see if the band can send me some links to specific examples they want to sound like. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Oct 13, 2014 8:51:26 GMT -6
How much are you high passing your verb and what verb are you using?
R
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 13, 2014 9:34:04 GMT -6
I've moved my HPF around between 20hz and 500hz, and my LPF around 8k and 2k. I'm using a TC M-one as well as trying to use an LXP-15.
|
|
|
|
Post by sinasoid on Oct 13, 2014 11:25:43 GMT -6
I like the verb on these vocal tracks. Almost no high end presence, super long trails. A lot of the base thickness comes from multiple takes, but the reverb sounds extremely lush without being overbearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 15, 2014 18:43:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by sinasoid on Oct 16, 2014 9:49:50 GMT -6
The delay/verb on Amelia is overbearing for split seconds at certain moments, but other than that sounds pretty good to me. Really good job getting those vocals to hold their own in such a dense mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 16, 2014 12:29:52 GMT -6
EQing reverb returns is often a sign of bad reverb, IME. At least bad settings....which I guess might be presets.... That said--I have two big ones, may or may not be useful to you, but they are to me: 1--DeEss the reverb SEND heavily (if there's any sibilance issues, obviously)--it's amazing how much worse reverb makes a very slight vocal sibilance issue--and you can get super heavy handed, because not one HEARS the send, right? 2- send the vocal to the reverb pre fader/compressor....that way it has the effect of making the louder parts have more verb (which is natural sounding) and the quieter parts MORE intimately dry--again, a natural thing. If you send a crushed vocal to a reverb send, you get back basically a static level of reverb--so you'll constantly be riding the fader along with the vocal to try to get the right level at any given point. To not overwhelm the quiet parts....not make the belts jump out weirdly like they're yelling into your ear.... Other than that....obviously predelay will allow you to have longer swirlier reverb....but, any reverb 101 will tell that.... Ok....bonus third because it's related to the last one: 3-- if I'm going to have a slap delay on the vocal, and it will be mono and saturated (promise)--I will sometimes send IT to the vocal reverb, and not the vocal channel itself. It amounts to a kind of saturated predelayed send that changes the effective predelay as I change the delay time--so, if I want it a little longer to slap, the reverb follows.... Getting wet, but not obnoxious sounding vocal reverb is key. Though, most of that neo shoegaze alternative stuff is actually intentionally obnoxious in it's reverb use, IMO. So, consdier the above tips for NOT being obnoxious that might HELP at being obnoxious--not sure. They certainly wouldn't call ME for that....  |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Oct 17, 2014 17:16:33 GMT -6
2- send the vocal to the reverb pre fader/compressor....that way it has the effect of making the louder parts have more verb (which is natural sounding) and the quieter parts MORE intimately dry--again, a natural thing. If you send a crushed vocal to a reverb send, you get back basically a static level of reverb--so you'll constantly be riding the fader along with the vocal to try to get the right level at any given point. To not overwhelm the quiet parts....not make the belts jump out weirdly like they're yelling into your ear.... Thanks for this popmann. I was listening to "You Don't Send Me Flowers" the other day and you can hear the verb much more as Streisand gets louder , but not as much on the intimate parts. I wondered how they got that accomplished, because I've had trouble doing it. I'm not sure if they even compressed her vocal or not back then because she came from an era where great singers worked the mic, but your advice is solid in this era where there is so much compression. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Oct 17, 2014 18:37:36 GMT -6
EQing reverb returns is often a sign of bad reverb, IME. At least bad settings....which I guess might be presets.... That said--I have two big ones, may or may not be useful to you, but they are to me: 1--DeEss the reverb SEND heavily (if there's any sibilance issues, obviously)--it's amazing how much worse reverb makes a very slight vocal sibilance issue--and you can get super heavy handed, because not one HEARS the send, right?
2- send the vocal to the reverb pre fader/compressor....that way it has the effect of making the louder parts have more verb (which is natural sounding) and the quieter parts MORE intimately dry--again, a natural thing. If you send a crushed vocal to a reverb send, you get back basically a static level of reverb--so you'll constantly be riding the fader along with the vocal to try to get the right level at any given point. To not overwhelm the quiet parts....not make the belts jump out weirdly like they're yelling into your ear....Other than that....obviously predelay will allow you to have longer swirlier reverb....but, any reverb 101 will tell that.... Ok....bonus third because it's related to the last one: 3-- if I'm going to have a slap delay on the vocal, and it will be mono and saturated (promise)--I will sometimes send IT to the vocal reverb, and not the vocal channel itself. It amounts to a kind of saturated predelayed send that changes the effective predelay as I change the delay time--so, if I want it a little longer to slap, the reverb follows.... Getting wet, but not obnoxious sounding vocal reverb is key. Though, most of that neo shoegaze alternative stuff is actually intentionally obnoxious in it's reverb use, IMO. So, consdier the above tips for NOT being obnoxious that might HELP at being obnoxious--not sure. They certainly wouldn't call ME for that.... these should be written in the verb bible or something, they are almost automatic, especially 1. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Oct 17, 2014 20:33:41 GMT -6
Just a thought, fab has a bunch of videos at puremix: one in particular was using multiples verb to add 3 dimensionality to mixes. I Don't think this is exactly what you want but maybe check out his site ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Oct 17, 2014 22:07:21 GMT -6
Sounds like they probably fed the chamber or plate from a more distant mike on Streisand.
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Oct 18, 2014 11:54:14 GMT -6
Just a thought, fab has a bunch of videos at puremix: one in particular was using multiples verb to add 3 dimensionality to mixes. I Don't think this is exactly what you want but maybe check out his site ? I watched one of his reverb videos. If I recall it used this rationale: A room verb to place some distance between the listener and the sound source, a plate verb to set the a front to back boundary and a hall verb to set a low to high boundary. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Oct 18, 2014 12:01:22 GMT -6
Sounds like they probably fed the chamber or plate from a more distant mike on Streisand. That is such an impressive vocal recording and mix. I tried very hard to emulate the sound/effect of Streisand's vocal in that song- trying both plates and chambers and different parameters in my Bricasti- and couldn't do it, though it may be because I was compressing the vocal and didn't have Streisand singing the song. LOL. I'm gonna go back and see if I can get closer without compression. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Oct 18, 2014 12:14:24 GMT -6
Sounds like they probably fed the chamber or plate from a more distant mike on Streisand. That is such an impressive vocal recording and mix. I tried very hard to emulate the sound/effect of Streisand's vocal in that song- trying both plates and chambers and different parameters in my Bricasti- and couldn't do it, though it may be because I was compressing the vocal and didn't have Streisand singing the song. LOL. I'm gonna go back and see if I can get closer without compression. This song is a beauty song done amazing well, love both of them, is it just me, or does it appear they sent the S's through the verb?(especially on Ms Streisand), the other thing that hits me is how much Neil jumps in front of her in the image, i think my monitors or hearing is getting messy, i've never been so sensitive to S's, and i can't imagine they'd push him that far out in front of her in the mix? |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 18, 2014 17:51:04 GMT -6
They sent everything through the reverb. My bible verse (sic) is new. That is NOT standard practice. Never was.
I never worked in a studio that even owned a deEsser, at least that I was aware of....this "problem" honestly didn't become a problem until the intersection of "I don't know how to set a compressor" met "I'm going to buy a modern LDC" met "and record at 44.1 digital"...AND...."I'm going to push the master to DR6"....those are a dangerous set of circumstances....all of those factor into sibilance being a distracting issue.
|
|
