|
Post by jazznoise on Dec 23, 2016 12:00:40 GMT -6
Sorry I meant 1.5e+8 - 3.0e+8 nM. What the hell is that? First svart and now you? Nano Meters, man! You don't use them every day?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 23, 2016 12:30:52 GMT -6
They haven't made a law against the metric system over here yet that I know of, but it's probably coming....
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 23, 2016 16:29:02 GMT -6
They haven't made a law against the metric system over here yet that I know of, but it's probably coming.... I am holding my breath.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,956
|
Post by ericn on Dec 23, 2016 18:53:20 GMT -6
They haven't made a law against the metric system over here yet that I know of, but it's probably coming.... If they do nobody will be able to fix my car without stripping out all the bolts!
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 23, 2016 21:17:54 GMT -6
Australia began the change over to the metric system in 1970 and was totally metric by 1988. We also had pounds, shillings and pence prior to 1966 and then changed to dollars and cents. To be frank the metric system is far more sensible than the imperial system. Everything is decimal in divisions of 10, 100, 1000, etc. just like dollars and cents which are also decimal. The imperial system with its 16ozs to a lb, 12 inches to a foot, 1760 yards to a mile etc. is really not very simple or practical mathematically. The freezing point of water at sea level in the metric system is 0 degrees Celsius. In Fahrenheit it's 32 degrees. Time the good ol' USA 'got with the program' methinks!
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Dec 23, 2016 21:35:04 GMT -6
Australia began the change over to the metric system in 1970 and was totally metric by 1988. We also had pounds, shillings and pence prior to 1966 and then changed to dollars and cents. To be frank the metric system is far more sensible than the imperial system. Everything is decimal in divisions of 10, 100, 1000, etc. just like dollars and cents which are also decimal. The imperial system with its 16ozs to a lb, 12 inches to a foot, 1760 yards to a mile etc. is really not very simple or practical mathematically. The freezing point of water at sea level in the metric system is 0 degrees Celsius. In Fahrenheit it's 32 degrees. Time the good ol' USA 'got with the program' methinks! I believe there was actually a push for this back in the 70's - or so I thought because I learned about it in school, and I remember being on board. I don't know how the Aussie's did it. I just think there would be too much infrastructure to break down. I'll not insult anyone's intelligence; let's skip the obvious reasons and go right to the absurd.. There are just too many houses with studs that are 16" off center that we'd have to demo and rebuild.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 23, 2016 21:53:30 GMT -6
Australia began the change over to the metric system in 1970 and was totally metric by 1988. We also had pounds, shillings and pence prior to 1966 and then changed to dollars and cents. To be frank the metric system is far more sensible than the imperial system. Everything is decimal in divisions of 10, 100, 1000, etc. just like dollars and cents which are also decimal. The imperial system with its 16ozs to a lb, 12 inches to a foot, 1760 yards to a mile etc. is really not very simple or practical mathematically. The freezing point of water at sea level in the metric system is 0 degrees Celsius. In Fahrenheit it's 32 degrees. Time the good ol' USA 'got with the program' methinks! I believe there was actually a push for this back in the 70's - or so I thought because I learned about it in school, and I remember being on board. I don't know how the Aussie's did it. I just think there would be too much infrastructure to break down. I'll not insult anyone's intelligence; let's skip the obvious reasons and go right to the absurd.. There are just too many houses with studs that are 16" off center that we'd have to demo and rebuild. No need to rebuild, just start the transition. Our standard stud spacing is 450mm center to center. Besides... you're surrounded!
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Dec 23, 2016 22:01:32 GMT -6
Our standard stud spacing is 450mm center to center. Well, there's the problem right there. How will the young couple that buys my house know where to hang that priceless heirloom wall clock that's been passed down through 6 generations?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 23, 2016 22:37:18 GMT -6
I think it was 1980 the US was supposed to change over to Metric. Around 1978 they decided there might be work involved.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Dec 24, 2016 2:56:25 GMT -6
Hey guys and Gals, Merry Xmas Eve where I am, I used lots of De essing here with lots of clip gain. I used Waves RDeEsser x 4, Waves DeEsser x 2, UAD precision DeEsser x 2, Waves C6 x 2 on busses, and TDR Nova on busses. I apologize for taking so long to do this comparison. I have been a little under the weather and with Xmas closing in had to take care of some other things.. I wanted to post the link to the comparisons I mentioned regarding sibilance and what I have to work with at times. The roughs are labeled as such but due to the high peaking ( -.3 was registering -5 to -6 GR at times on the roughs… I know ) and no matter how I tried to match the files by normalizing to rms or peak value it would not work due to the drastic overages in the roughs. These are full scale so please adjust your monitors before playback especially on the roughs. I use two limiters on the rough files one with ISP to hopefully not fry any DAC because i really had thought i blew a driver on one of my monitors while working on the " Master "…
link below… they are wavs… 24 bit 44.1 so prob have to DL, when jcoutu1 does these drives, it will tell me to DL on my iPhone however once I click that the song or file plays, Computer may be different, IDK… wish I had a few of those DBX 520 for this work! Please take a few to tell me what you think.. The sibilance is strong in the first verse and second verse of the rough, you can skip thru if need be and still hear the reference. The Prints are labeled properly which are the full files. Again, the Beat rough was peaking sometimes 4-5db over 0dbfs… DR was going back and forth between DR3-DR5 but mostly DR3… I did not want to hurt any one system or ears so please turn down if you are not calibrated or like balls to the walls DBFS levels… Feedback/ thoughts/ Questions..
drive.google.com/open?id=0B315LtJ5Y4gEbVZqZFFLSURoM3c
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 24, 2016 17:55:21 GMT -6
ChaseUTB I think you did a really good job with that, the difference is drastic. You were really able to transform those into usable vocals. I had a demo song like that a few months ago and I didn't do nearly as well with taming the harshness as you did here, nice work. I guess sometimes you do get handed a superly bright track and have to deal with it, or make the mistake yourself. I ordered some Silmic caps for my 251 so I hope that will help my situation some. I also think my DBX 520 is defective so I'm going to try to exchange it next week. It's funny, I've had just as much bad luck with brand new gear out of the box as I have had with used stuff that's been around a while. Just shows you that nobody's manufacturing and QC is perfect.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Dec 25, 2016 18:06:53 GMT -6
Don't forget the 100M
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 25, 2016 18:17:27 GMT -6
I've had constant sibilance problems forever . Just sick of mix time and having to do all these tricks to make it work . I've found compression seems to always add it and condenser mics . So things might change , but for now I barely use compression and I started to use an SM58 . SM58's don't seem to have sibilance problems . SM57's are sibliant for me . Try an SM58 , EQ "before" the compressor , use just enough compression to tame it a little , automate the fader for volume . Thats where I'm at today . Obviously not the greatest vocal sound with the SM58 but it works and I don't have to worry about sibilance anymore for now . I wanna try the M80 soon though . 58s are sibilant too. If you MUST use a dynamic use an M88. Avoid compression. Don't eat the damn mic. If you use a condenser don't use a cheap one, don't use a pop filter. and don't sing directly into the mic. Position the mic 6" to a foot away, ABOVE the plane of your mouth, angled down a bit. Learn to work the mic to control your dynamics - pull back a bit when you sing louder.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,956
|
Post by ericn on Dec 25, 2016 19:59:22 GMT -6
I've had constant sibilance problems forever . Just sick of mix time and having to do all these tricks to make it work . I've found compression seems to always add it and condenser mics . So things might change , but for now I barely use compression and I started to use an SM58 . SM58's don't seem to have sibilance problems . SM57's are sibliant for me . Try an SM58 , EQ "before" the compressor , use just enough compression to tame it a little , automate the fader for volume . Thats where I'm at today . Obviously not the greatest vocal sound with the SM58 but it works and I don't have to worry about sibilance anymore for now . I wanna try the M80 soon though . 58s are sibilant too. If you MUST use a dynamic use an M88. Avoid compression. Don't eat the damn mic. If you use a condenser don't use a cheap one, don't use a pop filter. and don't sing directly into the mic. Position the mic 6" to a foot away, ABOVE the plane of your mouth, angled down a bit. Learn to work the mic to control your dynamics - pull back a bit when you sing louder. Yeah but we have a couple of generations who grew up on lipsynced videos where they do everything your saying not to!
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Dec 25, 2016 20:50:09 GMT -6
ChaseUTB I think you did a really good job with that, the difference is drastic. You were really able to transform those into usable vocals. I had a demo song like that a few months ago and I didn't do nearly as well with taming the harshness as you did here, nice work. I guess sometimes you do get handed a superly bright track and have to deal with it, or make the mistake yourself. I ordered some Silmic caps for my 251 so I hope that will help my situation some. I also think my DBX 520 is defective so I'm going to try to exchange it next week. It's funny, I've had just as much bad luck with brand new gear out of the box as I have had with used stuff that's been around a while. Just shows you that nobody's manufacturing and QC is perfect. Thank you for taking the time to listen and leave feedback! Very appreciated, hope all is well up at " The Zoo " ( name I just made up for your recording studio 😭🤣🤠)
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Dec 25, 2016 21:43:16 GMT -6
Hey ChaseUTB, sounding much better than what you were dealt. Why are you using all these different deessers though? Why not just manually pull the s's a bit harder and preserve a bit more air in the vocal?
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Dec 25, 2016 21:49:48 GMT -6
Hey ChaseUTB, sounding much better than what you were dealt. Why are you using all these different deessers though? Why not just manually pull the s's a bit harder and preserve a bit more air in the vocal? I use clip gain always and employed it heavily. I hardly ever use de essers, the sibilance was that bad. The beat was over powering, I had to parallel and serial compress the vox which of course made things worse! I used the Ren De ess split mode to key in on certain frequencies from 3k - 10k and would dig into the threshold and limit the range of de-essing. For some reason my Nectar izotope wasn't working or I would have used that as well. The vox were recorded clipped thru a first gen blue mbox mini and a blue spark.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Dec 26, 2016 10:25:15 GMT -6
I've had constant sibilance problems forever . Just sick of mix time and having to do all these tricks to make it work . I've found compression seems to always add it and condenser mics . So things might change , but for now I barely use compression and I started to use an SM58 . SM58's don't seem to have sibilance problems . SM57's are sibliant for me . Try an SM58 , EQ "before" the compressor , use just enough compression to tame it a little , automate the fader for volume . Thats where I'm at today . Obviously not the greatest vocal sound with the SM58 but it works and I don't have to worry about sibilance anymore for now . I wanna try the M80 soon though . 58s are sibilant too. If you MUST use a dynamic use an M88. Avoid compression. Don't eat the damn mic. If you use a condenser don't use a cheap one, don't use a pop filter. and don't sing directly into the mic. Position the mic 6" to a foot away, ABOVE the plane of your mouth, angled down a bit. Learn to work the mic to control your dynamics - pull back a bit when you sing louder. I use old Unidyne III SM58's for live vocal recording all the time. These are smoother and have a more open top end than the later Juarez, Mexico 58's. I don't use EQ and use light compression with a Aphex 651. I've never considered the need for a de-esser for that mic, unless the singer has a lisp. They mate well with the AKG 535's, another excellent live recording vocal mic.
My experience is it's not the mic creating the need for a de-ess, it's the preamp. Many distort the tops creating a need to fix that.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 26, 2016 10:59:16 GMT -6
On a very few people M-88s can also have sibilance issues. I've used my 1970 Unidyne III SM56s successfully. I've never tried a newer one than the mid '70s.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 26, 2016 11:34:27 GMT -6
I use old Unidyne III SM58's for live vocal recording all the time. These are smoother and have a more open top end than the later Juarez, Mexico 58's. I don't use EQ and use light compression with a Aphex 651. I've never considered the need for a de-esser for that mic, unless the singer has a lisp. They mate well with the AKG 535's, another excellent live recording vocal mic.
My experience is it's not the mic creating the need for a de-ess, it's the preamp. Many distort the tops creating a need to fix that.
Er, don't you mean Unisphere Is? The Unidyne III is the 545, aka SM56/57.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 27, 2016 4:50:49 GMT -6
Yes, it certainly is. And very highly underrated.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Dec 27, 2016 16:15:48 GMT -6
58s are sibilant too. If you MUST use a dynamic use an M88. Avoid compression. Don't eat the damn mic. If you use a condenser don't use a cheap one, don't use a pop filter. and don't sing directly into the mic. Position the mic 6" to a foot away, ABOVE the plane of your mouth, angled down a bit. Learn to work the mic to control your dynamics - pull back a bit when you sing louder. I use old Unidyne III SM58's for live vocal recording all the time. These are smoother and have a more open top end than the later Juarez, Mexico 58's. I don't use EQ and use light compression with a Aphex 651. I've never considered the need for a de-esser for that mic, unless the singer has a lisp. They mate well with the AKG 535's, another excellent live recording vocal mic.
My experience is it's not the mic creating the need for a de-ess, it's the preamp. Many distort the tops creating a need to fix that.
Is it this one here ?? www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Shure-565sd-Unisphere-1-Professional-Dynamic-Handheld-Microphone-/132045752401?hash=item1ebe8a4851:g:YJoAAOSwJ7RYYbdJ
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 31, 2016 9:45:32 GMT -6
Don't forget the 100M Gonna tweak on the 251 today. Silmic caps en route via USPS saturday mailbox service. Do you have any idea what would happen if you doubled the value of the cap from capsule rear diaphragm to ground from .0047 uF to a .01 uF? This is one of a few things that has been reported that Telefunken USA did in their reissue (among other things) that I have not experimented with.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Dec 31, 2016 12:15:41 GMT -6
PM sent
|
|