|
Post by popmann on Jul 16, 2018 22:21:49 GMT -6
The slippers are ruby.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 16, 2018 22:36:02 GMT -6
You should be my vocal coach yotonic !
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 16, 2018 22:43:12 GMT -6
He's 47 on vox and 67 on acoustic guitar. I have a couple of nice Harmony guitars and they really are great for this because they stay pulled back volume wise without losing full tone and note separation. Really great to write with. Mine sound exactly like that, which is also now his trademark sound. What I love about Ryan is that he's never "in his own head" when he's singing, you never hear him listening to himself and trying to sound good. He is conversational in tone and just singing the song like a narrator, and the vox fall where they fall. I'm sure part of that is his own personality and swag, but the other part is the seasoned skill of knowing to "be in the song" and not "in your head" listening to your own performance. Nicely put. Just as an aside, I see a ton of pics with him using a 414 on acoustic. Usually the old silver EB but sometimes the later body color scheme, which could be a ‘teflon’ EB or a b-ULS.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jul 17, 2018 0:32:06 GMT -6
Just found out it was an SSL board, at Wessex studios. I was gonna say that. I love my Neve stuff, but the SSL can really give you something clean and punchy, especially with these older, darker, tube mics like the U67 or M49. Don’t over look them.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 17, 2018 7:23:08 GMT -6
I do really like my Neve style preamp, but time and again, I notice something I really like the sound of, and it was done on an SSL board. I don’t get the rap you track on API and mix on SSL. I’ve been in the studio on mixing sessions for Neo and James Blunt and Brad Paisley, where all the tracks were done on the SSL, and they sounded great. I can’t say that the Neve necessarily sounds better.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 17, 2018 7:59:08 GMT -6
I do really like my Neve style preamp, but time and again, I notice something I really like the sound of, and it was done on an SSL board. I don’t get the rap you track on API and mix on SSL. I’ve been in the studio on mixing sessions for Neo and James Blunt and Brad Paisley, where all the tracks were done on the SSL, and they sounded great. I can’t say that the Neve necessarily sounds better. SSL gets a lot of hate from those who've never used one, and a few who have. The older desks are one of those tools that you can destroy your work with as easily as build a masterpiece, whereas the old reliable API and Neve boards were a lot harder to destroy a mix on it seems. Tracking through one is the same as anything else, you monitor through your chain and you hear what you're getting.. So it follows that if you're not getting what you want, then you need to change it at the source and the desk you're working on is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 17, 2018 8:10:07 GMT -6
That’s interesting svart. What was it about the early boards that made them more volatile than the Neve and API? I know Warren Huart loves his SSL 4000, and correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t CLA use a vintage SSL? Not that he’s my benchmark of good sound. 😏
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 17, 2018 8:18:20 GMT -6
That’s interesting svart. What was it About the early boards That made them more volatile than the Neve and API? I know Warren Huart loves hi Neve 4000, and correct me if I’m wrong, but downy CLA use a vintage SSL? Not that he’s my benchmark of good sound. 😏 SSL added tons of features like extended range EQs with all the parametric abilities, channel compressors on every channel, extreme amounts of gain.. And then there's the routing abilities that have tons of switches, VCA's and buffers. And when you have dozens and dozens of channels you need to be very careful of gain across the mix buses or else you start getting distortion that adds quickly. It leads to the ability to screw up the gain staging, overly compress, saturate certain sections of the circuitry and overload others. The common complaint of those who've not used one properly is the "crunchy" sound they claim is "the SSL sound". It's not, but it's the symptom of someone doing something wrong on one. The pros who've used these know the limitations and the sweet spots, and navigate the board with finesse. Others push the boards to the limits for some of their crunchy quality (like CLA) to give the audio signal a little more grit and edge in the mix. The older consoles had much less intrinsic gain throughout the system, and much less extreme abilities for EQ, etc, as well as lots of transformers and other circuitry that are known to handle overs more gracefully than IC opamps, so they were a bit more forgiving IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 17, 2018 8:32:16 GMT -6
But then again, I think by the time the 4000's really hit their stride, people were looking for ways to give an edge to their mixes, so pushing the SSL desks were an easy way to get more grit if the tracks didn't already get enough from the tapes and such. Tons of studios had one or more, and therefor a ton of records were made with people pushing these things to their limits and making the way for the crunchy "SSL sound" myth.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jul 17, 2018 9:03:27 GMT -6
I do really like my Neve style preamp, but time and again, I notice something I really like the sound of, and it was done on an SSL board. I don’t get the rap you track on API and mix on SSL. I’ve been in the studio on mixing sessions for Neo and James Blunt and Brad Paisley, where all the tracks were done on the SSL, and they sounded great. I can’t say that the Neve necessarily sounds better. Some have argued the SSL preamps and line-amps have less 'weight' to the sound than Neve or API preamps and line-amps and thus, sounds recorded on them are lighter and easier to weave together into a mix. And the same might argue that the Neve and API preamps might yield a better stand-alone sound but the lighter-weight SSL recorded tracks are easier to work with in ensemble. I much prefer my Neve and API preamps... just saying what I've heard said to me by some who've mixed multi-million selling records.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 17, 2018 9:52:34 GMT -6
I get the mixing on SSL desks. I get the automation. I think some of you may be attributing a "sound" to SSL that I don't really think it deserves. My experience is in LA primarily, and while there used to be dozens if not a hundred + SSL's in the top studio's all around town, no one tracked on them, and especially for a vocal overdub, no one used the desk. They were 90% in mixing rooms.
Now of course, I am exaggerating. I'm sure someone cut vocals on an SSL. But rarely. SSL's claim to fame is firmly in their automation and mixing attributes, not their sonics, although they DO have a noticeable sonic imprint that some like. If you want a pre that is less heavy than a Neve, or less punchy than an API - awesome!! There are a myriad of options that excel far past SSL.
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jul 17, 2018 11:01:02 GMT -6
The mic sounds like a 67 but I’d argue what you’re really digging about that vocal sound has more to do with the magnificent room it was no doubt recorded in. I hear a lot of natural reverb in those takes. Along with an Eventide sounding stereo verb. He’s well spaced from the mic too. Probably a foot or more off. Bet all the engineer had to do was push up the fader.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 17, 2018 13:03:03 GMT -6
I think you’re probably right cowboy. There’s something so wonderful about the sound quality of that track. It made me think it’s more than the mic, although I do love the way that mic sounds. After thinking about it, it sure does sound like the 67 I used at The Barbershop Studios with Jeremy Gillespie. There were a few places where Townsend hit notes I was sure would cause the mic to pinch, but it’s perfectly clean. It got me thinking maybe i’ve just been printing my vocal too hot. Cowboy’s probably right, and Townsend’s real good distance from the mic. I I typically don’t stand really close to the mic, so I’m thinking I’m just pushing the preamp too much because my sound’s been a little too gritty lately. On the other hand, it could just be my voice 😕
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Jul 17, 2018 15:57:59 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 18:35:47 GMT -6
I think you’re probably right cowboy. There’s something so wonderful about the sound quality of that track. It made me think it’s more than the mic, although I do love the way that mic sounds. After thinking about it, it sure does sound like the 67 I used at The Barbershop Studios with Jeremy Gillespie. There were a few places where Townsend hit notes I was sure would cause the mic to pinch, but it’s perfectly clean. It got me thinking maybe i’ve just been printing my vocal too hot. Cowboy’s probably right, and Townsend’s real good distance from the mic. I I typically don’t stand really close to the mic, so I’m thinking I’m just pushing the preamp too much because my sound’s been a little too gritty lately. On the other hand, it could just be my voice 😕
Maybe but I doubt it, in a proper chain I've recorded vocalists three to five inches away screaming into a condenser and never once have I got it to "pinch". Although in other chains (usually my home recording setup) it doesn't take much effort to get the whole thing breaking up a similar input / output. I did tell them to stand at least a foot away, but they rarely listen..
I originally subscribed to the CLA way of doing things (or near enough).. Relatively dark tube pre-amp or Neve (my thing) into something like a U67 (or a dynamic in a lot of cases) dual chained with either two LA-2A's or a 2A / 76 (heavy comping) then a pultec for clearing things up, keep the input stage cool then make it up with comp section.. Pad the mic if need be and of course make sure the output is properly staged, it does work..
Issue with that approach is on more intimate passages where the mix density drops you don't get the dynamic range for the larger than life sound. Because I know how to actually use a mic I hang back about a foot, rotate the mic 10 degrees off axis / back off on the comp and lean in for the close up passages and when I go full pelt (being a very loud singer) move my head to the right further off axis so I don't overload things, this way I can run things a little hotter without any downsides. After practice it becomes second nature..!
On the SSL thing, I tracked / mixed with a 4K for a few years and I like the sound of it.. Probably because I was already used to something a bit more in between coming off the back of a Trident LFAC I practiced on for years at college. Never used an API or Neve desk, but I've used their pre's / comps and I agree with Bill, the API's are "punchier" and the Neve is a bit smoother but to as to what I prefer meh it's like asking what type of pickle you want on your burger, they're all guuuudd.!
The old SSL's keep you warm in winter, so there's another pro..!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 18, 2018 8:33:48 GMT -6
I sold my compressors, so i'd have to use UAD's LA2A or API 2500 plug-ins if I want to print with compression. If I could get one of them to sound how I liked I'd be glad to use them, but the 2500 pulls too hard, and the LA2A colors too much. UAD's CL1B plug is $299 when not on sale. For that much cash, I'd put it toward a second hand real compressor. I have all sorts of other brand compressor plug-ins, but you can't print with them.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jul 18, 2018 9:01:01 GMT -6
SSLs. Love/Hate thing for sure. I mixed on a Duality for a bit. Ended up loving it. Haven't mixed on any other SSLs but my experience was it had a sweet spot for the level. If you where under it or over it it just didn't work very well in your favor. If you got the VU meters bouncing in the right spot..god damn. It was great. Same with the buss compressor. If you did it right, hell yeah. If you didn't...gross.
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 18, 2018 9:23:27 GMT -6
It might be an interesting group exercise to try and help you get this vocal sound.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 18, 2018 9:45:23 GMT -6
Interesting idea Happychap, thanks. Hopefully when I get the Stam SA67 it will go a long way toward that. I'm using the Soyuz 0-19 FET right now. It has a capsule based on the K67, so it's not too far off the sound I'm trying for. I use the Stam SA73 Neve style pre > UAD Apollo. I can use any of the UAD versions of the LA2A or the API-2500 plug-in for compression. Perhaps I need to add a little EQ adjustment too.
I did a track two days ago where I think the vocal was set too hot. I need permission to use it, but maybe I can run a short version later today with some of the parts that bug me as an example of what I need to remedy.
I have done one vocal that was satisfying with this configuration, but have no idea what the settings were then. I probably had it running through the Dizengoff D4 > Warm WA2A . This track I did a while back with the Soyuz 0-19. I'll post the more recent one a little later today.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/05-give-your-love-the-best-that-you-can-do
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 18, 2018 10:48:04 GMT -6
Cool. When you compare your vocal track to Pete's, what do you hear?
Pete's vocal track has a low-mid clarity as a focal point, whereas your focal point is more in the highs. Proximity and 'verb choice are obviously different. I'm on 'phones that are really tilted to the high-end, and I hear some hash up there on your track, where Pete's is much more subdued.
Now, the question is why? Why the mid-low-mid clarity on his track, compared to yours. Voices are different, of course- perhaps you have more high-end information, comparatively.
Then there's the mic. I think what you like about Pete's track is that it just feels right- there's nothing poking out at you. Again, different voices, but maybe you should consider a ribbon mic to get that same relaxed feeling, but with your voice. That said, you're certainly a talented engineer/artist.
ps- I'm just comparing tracks. Your track certainly stands on its own just fine!
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jul 18, 2018 15:54:39 GMT -6
I agree with the above.
Have you ever tried a TLM170? Or U89? Into a neve preamp.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 18, 2018 15:57:56 GMT -6
Right around 1:12, "I don't know, etc" Pete hits it hard, yet it stays clean. That's what I'd like to get. At 2:18 , my "give your love" gets edgy. Near the end, at 3:20, I sing "I can see the fires falling", listen to "fires", that's what I call the mic pinching.
Now, Pete obviously had great mastering. I noticed my master is a little bit louder than Pete's track. It makes me wonder if I'm just pushing my 2 bus compression too hard, trying to get too much punch and volume before mastering. I used ARIA mastering for this track. They're really good because they do run the track through all their high end analogue gear, even though it's not the same as having hands on it.
Also, I'd really like to know what reverb Pete used, I love the way that sounds.
It may be a combination of factors, mic position, preamp, vocal technique. I had very little issue when I had the Chandler REDD here for a week, but the Chandler does have a full frequency approach to their REDD design, it sounded great before mastering, but the ESSES came out after mastering. Here's an example of the Chandler REDD through my Stam SA73> Apollo:
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/a-champagne-christmas-1
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 18, 2018 16:04:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jul 18, 2018 16:42:08 GMT -6
Ill check it out. Im guess the 67 worked best as its the smoothest(usually) of the ones you listed. The two clips in here Im hearing to be too bright on your voice. I want more lushness and a little less sizzle..thats just me though. If you can find a U89 in good shape to try out, Id give it ago. I think it would work well on your voice as they are realllly smooth. Too much so on most. Could be great through a clean pre(grace or something) or API style too if the neve was too sluggish. Id bet money Pete was using a plate reverb just masterfully EQed and tucked in. Super short too. Nothing beats a real plate
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 18, 2018 17:26:42 GMT -6
Yep, the U67 was everyone's choice, as great as the others were. I agree, I'm trying to figure out why I'm getting that sizzle, is it the compressors on the 2 bus, my natural sibilance, perhaps I'm not using a de-esser properly and then mastering brings that even more forward? I rarely use EQ at all, typically only a little HPF to try keeping the low end from being muddy.
I have the UAD EMT-140 and my Liquid Sonics 7th Heaven reverb has a nice assortment of plates, but I also have the Sound Toys Little Plate, which seems to be the closer emulation to me. I also have Logic's reverb and all the Waves reverbs, which I never use.
From that selection, do any of you guys here know which reverb plug and which setting might get closest to the sound of the reverb on Pete's track?
|
|