The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
That Sheen Condenser Microphones
Old 21st July 2014
  #91
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
When transparency is the goal, the specs become important.
A flat frequency response does in no way ensure transparency or quality for that matter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
I would definitely go with the specs over what someone says on the internet without any sort of proof.
but specs don't prove anything and mean less in practice. FF micpres have a better frequency response and are more transparent than NEVE 1073 or API 512. An Audio technica 2020 is more transparent and flatter than a u47.
So if someone "on the internet" tells you that a 1073 and a u47 sound better than fireface pres and a rode NTK mic you will go with the specs? Since the Rode mic and FF pres.
have better specs. ah ha.. ...okedokee

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
Perhaps the soundblaster isn't that terrible by the way..
ok ok on that note.......... I better bow out here. That is just too much for me to take seriously

soundblaster
Old 21st July 2014
  #92
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
A flat frequency response does in no way ensure transparency or quality for that matter
Which is not what I said, but the other specs tell a similar story. And listeners seem to tell that same story as well (if bias is removed).

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule
but specs don't prove anything and mean less in practice. FF micpres have a better frequency response and are more transparent than NEVE 1073 or API 512. An Audio technica 2020 is more transparent and flatter than a u47.
So if someone "on the internet" tells you that a 1073 and a u47 sound better than fireface pres and a rode NTK mic you will go with the specs? Since the Rode mic and FF pres.
have better specs. ah ha.. ...okedokee
Sounding better does not mean sounding more transparent, whole point of processing is to not be transparent. Usually people don't use converters for color, for a very good reason. And your claim is by the way that FF800 has a sound to it, not that it is transparent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule
ok ok on that note.......... I better bow out here. That is just too much for me to take seriously

soundblaster
When you are so biased that you won't even take a listen to the clip that was provided because "It's soundblaster, therefore it can't be transparent", it is hard to take the truth value of your messages very seriously.
Old 21st July 2014
  #93
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
love the specs... so something is flat response 20 - 20 and it's means it's good? let's get real here. My sound blaster live has the same specs. First rule in recording....
don't read specs... Second rule: critical listening is the process!!
Flatline means death in certain circles so maybe you are on to something
Old 21st July 2014
  #94
Lives for gear
The answer you wanna hear and the actual answer to your question
are very very different, according to some of the "advice" you've been
given you're not alone.
What you hear in commercial mixes is not just compression,
is not just the mastering or the verbs, or running tracks thru
gearslutz' piece of gear of the week.
Is in the mixer's skills and taste and experience.
Give whatever setup to a mixing engineer that you like
and you will like the result.
To achieve the same results/professional sounding mixes
one needs to become a very good mixing engineer, is that simple.

But, nobody wants to hear this, instead, people like to hunt
for some dark mixing secret, an unknown esoteric piece of gear that
will magically give them.... the *$heen*
Oh well
Old 21st July 2014
  #95
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
Most interfaces (and there are ones that do things differently, but don't ask me on the specifics!) use their internal clocks to lock to an external clock. The external clock might be setting the "pulse", but the internal clock is still being used to lock to this pulse. In a cheaper interface (eg some of the Focusrite interfaces have wordclock in) you can't improve the specs of the internal clock..because you're still using it.
Im just trying to think what you would gain electronically by doing this as opposed to a mountain of synchronization issues. Im a little puzzled by this. If i were designing an interface with an external clock option then external it would be.

I have briefly looked at the manual for my RME 9652 and it seems to imply once the clock is set to EXTERNAL then the clock signal no longer comes from the internal card. If this is the case and the theory works throwing a superior clock at the card could potentially improve the A>D conversion sampling and as a result produce a more forfilled sound (or atleast a less filtered one LOL).

Quote:
I'm sure in many cases there IS a difference - and sometimes it might be a pleasing difference - but it's not technically "better" and IMO there's precious little point clocking an interface with no digital ins (like the Duet) externally. Hence the reason there's no external clock input
Im not sure if I would entirely agree as for example the AArdsync clock I have is definitely VERY superior electronics to the one inside the card.

Just in its location the card is inside a rather harsh computer environment as opposed to the Aardsync having its own external PSU, nice aluminium case, exclusive earthing circuitry etc. Add to this the additional temperature compensation, smoothing circuits and so on, then I would say technically this CLOCK is going to do a MUCH better job.


Just a thought... would it be worth me pumping one of the MP3s in this thread through the RME with internal clock v1 then external clock v2?

That may well put the debate to bed at this point we are then discussing what our ears are hearing as opposed to clocking technicalities.

You may be right for this sound it might not work at the same time it might help. Perhaps we should see?

I was going to play the MP3 of Sweet Communion simply through my Creative Labs ZEN Mp3 player with a 3.5mm jack feeding unbalanced into the RME 8/I interface. Either internal clocked or EXTERNAL clocked using an AArdvark - Aardsync II feeding to the WCLK in on the RME 9652.

I think this may be beneficial to the op too as although the 9652 isnt quite the same as the FF800 if it sounds better on a 9652 its likely to work on the FF also.

PLEASE NOTE - I am not saying the external clock is the B all and end all but as commented many times in this thread its all an accumulative effect and one bad apple in the bunch and then they all can potentially go bad
Old 21st July 2014
  #96
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
The answer you wanna hear and the actual answer to your question
are very very different, according to some of the "advice" you've been
given you're not alone.
What you hear in commercial mixes is not just compression,
is not just the mastering or the verbs, or running tracks thru
gearslutz' piece of gear of the week.
Is in the mixer's skills and taste and experience.
Give whatever setup to a mixing engineer that you like
and you will like the result.
To achieve the same results/professional sounding mixes
one needs to become a very good mixing engineer, is that simple.

But, nobody wants to hear this, instead, people like to hunt
for some dark mixing secret, an unknown esoteric piece of gear that
will magically give them.... the *$heen*
Oh well
I dont think this is entirely fair.

Quote:
mixer's skills
of course

Quote:
taste and experience.
VITAL

Quote:
Give whatever setup to a mixing engineer that you like
and you will like the result.
Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms quality give anyone anything and it will sound polished like this? good luck!

I think you could say give any kit to a talented mixing engineer and he will make the best of it but he will still suffer any potential bottlenecks just like the rest of us.
Old 21st July 2014
  #97
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintageidiot View Post
Chainrule reminds me of Isawsasquatch, or someone of that ilk.
Wow...I forgot about that guy - He was definitely a clown! Didn't know his ass from his elbow but he loved spouting off.

It's amazing how the noise from some people is super high but the minute they disappear, it's like they never existed.
Old 21st July 2014
  #98
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post

Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms quality give anyone anything and it will sound polished like this? good luck!

I think you could say give any kit to a talented mixing engineer and he will make the best of it but he will still suffer any potential bottlenecks just like the rest of us.
What I meant is give Brothers in Arms' engineer a workable
set up and the result it'll be at the same level because he is
the magic machine, not a piece of gear.
Sure we all have our fav tools and we suffer if for some
reason we don't get to use them, but we do deliver
Is never one move or one piece of gear
is the sum of the 1000s small decisions you make in a mix,
I'm sure you agree.
Newbies never like this as an answer
Old 21st July 2014
  #99
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
What I meant is give Brothers in Arms' engineer a workable
set up and the result it'll be at the same level because he is
the magic machine, not a piece of gear.
Sure we all have our fav tools and we suffer if for some
reason we don't get to use them, but we do deliver
Is never one move or one piece of gear
is the sum of the 1000s small decisions you make in a mix,
I'm sure you agree.
Newbies never like this as an answer
This is an interesting point and yes i mostly agree.

But still lets say now if we placed the OP in absolutely bees knees setup state of the art monitoring, multi thousand $/GBP/euro desk, all the effects you could dream of you get the picture. assuming it was all setup correctly do you think the same recording we are dicsussing would sound polished or no?

On the same note switching back to the Dire Straits Engineer what would be a workable setup ? a fireface800, Sm7B Mackie Monitors? or something with a bit more flavour?
Old 21st July 2014
  #100
Lives for gear
 
drezz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retinal View Post
The answer you wanna hear and the actual answer to your question
are very very different, according to some of the "advice" you've been
given you're not alone.
What you hear in commercial mixes is not just compression,
is not just the mastering or the verbs, or running tracks thru
gearslutz' piece of gear of the week.
Is in the mixer's skills and taste and experience.
Give whatever setup to a mixing engineer that you like
and you will like the result.
To achieve the same results/professional sounding mixes
one needs to become a very good mixing engineer, is that simple.

But, nobody wants to hear this, instead, people like to hunt
for some dark mixing secret, an unknown esoteric piece of gear that
will magically give them.... the *$heen*
Oh well
^^^ THIS ^^^

I've hovered on the brink of ranting on this thread, but held back. There have been some pretty outrageous and pompous claims and advice (mis)given here about replacing this bit of gear and buying that magic bullet, which has had me ing in despair. It's a sad and depressing thing about hanging out on the wrong threads too long on GS, but there's so much knee jerk reactionism and bloated waffle by people who are too fond of looking at the ads in tape op and vintage king and who
probably wouldnt know a good mix if it came up and slapped them in the face, but this quote above sums it up really. ''That Sheen'' is much more about YOU and your ears and skill and process and insight into what makes the whole thing sound good than this piece or that piece. It takes patience and dedication and some years of experience to get it..........
A good engineer and producer can get the results with very frugal equipment if needs be.
Old 21st July 2014
  #101
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drezz View Post
''That Sheen'' is much more about YOU and your ears and skill and process and insight into what makes the whole thing sound good than this piece or that piece.
fair enough........... Let's hear all those great records with "sheen" done on cheap equipment like soundblasters and firefaces. Seriously... Let's hear it!!!
Old 21st July 2014
  #102
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
I've hovered on the brink of ranting on this thread, but held back. There have been some pretty outrageous and pompous claims and advice (mis)given here about replacing this bit of gear and buying that magic bullet, which has had me ing in despair. It's a sad and depressing thing about hanging out on the wrong threads too long on GS, but there's so much knee jerk reactionism and bloated waffle by people who are too fond of looking at the ads in tape op and vintage king and who
probably wouldnt know a good mix if it came up and slapped them in the face, but this quote above sums it up really. ''That Sheen'' is much more about YOU and your ears and skill and process and insight into what makes the whole thing sound good than this piece or that piece. It takes patience and dedication and some years of experience to get it..........
A good engineer and producer can get the results with very frugal equipment if needs be.
I never understand why people have to come onto forums and slate others to some how make their OPINION the one and only.

We are discussing something that has a very subjective answer. If there is something that you particularly disagree with then please spell it out and make the point.

Just claiming disappointment and despair without addressing anything specific makes it kind of hard to really understand what exactly you are complaining about.

Quote:
A good engineer and producer can get the results with very frugal equipment if needs be.
I agree with chain rule do we really think the likes of big time epic bands are produced on what you are referring to frugal gear? I highly doubt it.

Im also shocked you are getting annoyed about people discussing gear on a forum titled GEAR SLUTS!!

you have chosen to enter this thread not us.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #103
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
But still lets say now if we placed the OP in absolutely bees knees setup state of the art monitoring, multi thousand $/GBP/euro desk, all the effects you could dream of you get the picture. assuming it was all setup correctly do you think the same recording we are dicsussing would sound polished or no?
It depends on if the desk had a note on it that mentioned to use a bit more reverb and to EQ the vocals a bit differently...

Or does he not have access to EQ and verb in his current setup? Best buy some converters.
(Sorry futura, I know you are quoted but not all of this is directed at you)

There were several useful posts a few pages ago that dealt with his mixes, and he also gave info on his mic chain and untreated room...which are probably more important than other miniscule things that have been talked about...and cheaper to fix than buying an SSL.

This thread is really not going anywhere at this point...
Old 22nd July 2014
  #104
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by blAh View Post
It depends on if the desk had a note on it that mentioned to use a bit more reverb and to EQ the vocals a bit differently...

.
lol....hear hear.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #105
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
This thread is really not going anywhere at this point...
Fair comments agreed.

Okay I put on the table an offer to send the OPs track 1 into my ADs internal clocked and external clocked producing two versions. Happy to upload the results. I myself are 50/50 on this possible improvement. I believe it has helped me and is certainly something I do when recording my hardware synths but maybe I am living in a fools paradise.

I am also happy to once I have fixed my TC Finalizer to push the OPs track through one of the presets on here and throw it out there and see what people think.

I personally believe externally clocking the FF800 would help and also I like the TC finalizer a lot but.. I am purely electronic in my studio so what effect this might have on the Ops track it might be awful not sure.

So in summary are we effectively saying in answers to the OPs question there is no answer you need to work harder with the same gear?

Or

are we saying you need to do some gear upgrades? + work harder?

Or

is it purely a gear related problem?

There must be some key to all this. Im sure if you selected the right kit you would be half way there.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #106
Lives for gear
 
Dr. Mordo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
Im also shocked you are getting annoyed about people discussing gear on a forum titled GEAR SLUTS!!

you have chosen to enter this thread not us.
The issue for many of us reading this thread is the push to needlessly upgrade converters which will fix nothing.

I love to talk about gear, but in this instance the gear isn't the issue, and the thread has been completely derailed with converter talk.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #107
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post

So in summary are we effectively saying in answers to the OPs question there is no answer you need to work harder with the same gear?

Or

are we saying you need to do some gear upgrades? + work harder?

Or

is it purely a gear related problem?
He did a good job, as everyone has said. However, as has also been mentioned there are things that can still be done to push it further with the given tracks. That being said, some alterations from tracking (room treatment, mic choice) could also benefit how far things can be taken...but with the current tracks and an ITB setup, it can still be improved.

My gut feeling on listening was more reverbs (don't go crazy...and make sure it is tasteful), saturation for warmth (sheen there?!), and EQ alterations. At that point after working with those skills and taking it as far as possible, it can be seen where it really maxes out and if any piece of gear is a noted weak link.

That's how I would approach it though, along with several others who have stated that earlier. And it's not as simple as it sounds...turning those knobs on each of those things (and choosing the right ones) takes some practice.

I believe putting more time into this mix with those ideas would do much more than buying any one piece of gear and sending the mix through it for magic.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #108
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Here are a couple of mixes. I would love suggestions on what I might do to improve them.
Some reverb and appropriate multiband compression across the master bus would make me happy. I only listened for 10 seconds so fwiw.

Suggestions about your converters are risible.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #109
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
Some reverb and appropriate multiband compression across the master bus would make me happy. I only listened for 10 seconds so fwiw.
Would you mind adding a bit more detail here phil?

What kind of reverb what sort of compressor? or is it just a case of any multiband or reverb would be better than nothing?
Old 22nd July 2014
  #110
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
Im also shocked you are getting annoyed about people discussing gear on a forum titled GEAR SLUTS!!


This is most rational post I have read here today. Talking about gear on a gear site??? shame shame shame
Old 22nd July 2014
  #111
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
Would you mind adding a bit more detail here phil?

What kind of reverb what sort of compressor? or is it just a case of any multiband or reverb would be better than nothing?
OP talked about how his mix components sound isolated or disjointed. Reverb is a wonderful way to put things together in one environment, if you don't have a wonderful recording space to rely on for ambient reflections. And anyway, even plaxces with wonderful recording spaces still use reverb. The vocal in particular sounded disjointed to me and I know that reverb on the vocal will tend to smooth out the raw edges and mold it into a mix.

I use a multiband (4-band) compressor on my master fader to boost the high end a small amount (like 6k and up) without introducing or exacerbating sibilants, and to control the combined impact of bass instruments. I don't slam it- usually I'm not getting more than 3 decibels of reduction in any frequency band, and after that reduction I only boost the high band by 1 db. But it sounds great to me and I miss it when I turn it off.

Overall I think OP's recorded parts sound great, and with a little tweaking I think his mixes will too.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #112
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

I think Martin is better than Charlie, especially how adept he is at spritzing water from his mouth...


Old 22nd July 2014
  #113
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
OP talked about how his mix components sound isolated or disjointed. Reverb is a wonderful way to put things together in one environment, if you don't have a wonderful recording space to rely on for ambient reflections. And anyway, even plaxces with wonderful recording spaces still use reverb. The vocal in particular sounded disjointed to me and I know that reverb on the vocal will tend to smooth out the raw edges and mold it into a mix.
Sorry to keep questioning Phil im very interested to hear what you are saying. I do agree about reverb and for the type of thing im doing the reverb tends to be used as a very dramatic cascading effect if that makes sense kind of on the booms and big riffs crowd sounds etc. I am assuming in this context we are talking about something far more subtle. I have a LEX PCM 90 (one of my favourites) I assume this might be more the plate kind of stuff that to be honest I never use but in the context of the Ops vocal improvement is this what you are referring to when you say apply reverb? On the topic of reverb equipment do you have a preference in terms of gear / plugin for THIS type of specific application? i also like 2C Audio Aiether Reverb on plugin and Virsyn Reflect but i suspect these are again more in tune with booms and bangs than the subtleties required for vocals. Just out of interest the Waves plugins I can never get from them what I want so maybe this is a case of chalk and cheese.

Quote:
I use a multiband (4-band) compressor on my master fader to boost the high end a small amount (like 6k and up) without introducing or exacerbating sibilants, and to control the combined impact of bass instruments. I don't slam it- usually I'm not getting more than 3 decibels of reduction in any frequency band, and after that reduction I only boost the high band by 1 db. But it sounds great to me and I miss it when I turn it off.
So what your saying here is the multiband is effectively sitting on the Master Outputs correct? Do you find these specific techniques you are describing you tend to use for everything or is this just applied in context to what you have heard in the case of the OP? Say for example if I hired you to help me mix a dance track would you still employ similiar multiband techniques on the masters? Assuming minimal vocals, primarily synth and heavy bass and kick all synthetic.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #114
Lives for gear
 
nyandres's Avatar
I used to mix in the box. My mixes had a decent amount of that 3d depth and sheen. Now with outboard equipment I get there and it sounds smoother and even more open. Long story short, the equipment does help, but its not really what makes it happen. The sheen is a combination of various things. Tape saturation, and other saturation provided by some compressors. Compressors can glue things together too by removing disconnected dynamics. If you are mixing in the box I love this combination to achieve a lot of this polish. VCC, VBC, VTM, The CLA plugin bundle. I have since bought a real 1176. The kenetek 1176 really gets me there a whole lot quicker and sounds absolutely gorgeous, but the plugins are pretty decent as well and was what I used to use.

Now, once you have an awesome mix, in the mastering process you can achieve that extra layer of Sheen. If you want to test what this is like, try Ozone 5. In the EQ set it to mid/side, and on the sides take out some of the uber lows in the mix so they are more focused in the centered of your mix. Brighten the high mids and highs with a harmonic exciter set to tape mode. Compress the lows a small amount. That will get you that extra sheen. The mastering engineer will do this, but its a good way to test how it could sound.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #115
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
Sorry to keep questioning Phil im very interested to hear what you are saying. I do agree about reverb and for the type of thing im doing the reverb tends to be used as a very dramatic cascading effect if that makes sense kind of on the booms and big riffs crowd sounds etc. I am assuming in this context we are talking about something far more subtle. I have a LEX PCM 90 (one of my favourites) I assume this might be more the plate kind of stuff that to be honest I never use but in the context of the Ops vocal improvement is this what you are referring to when you say apply reverb? On the topic of reverb equipment do you have a preference in terms of gear / plugin for THIS type of specific application? i also like 2C Audio Aiether Reverb on plugin and Virsyn Reflect but i suspect these are again more in tune with booms and bangs than the subtleties required for vocals. Just out of interest the Waves plugins I can never get from them what I want so maybe this is a case of chalk and cheese.
You have to tailor the reverb to the mix you're working on, so you're right that what you go with for epic sounding dance music tracks might be pretty different than what the OP's acoustic gospel music needs. He doesn't need a 10 second decay for example... a short or medium plate would do, or a nice medium sized chamber. Yes I use plates a lot on voice, and also hall or room emulations. I also often use more than one reverb in a mix. I might use one with longer tail or decay, combined with another short one with enough predelay that it works like a soft slapback delay. I also like to layer timed delays with reverb if I'm really going for a long, thick decay (like for dance music stuff.)

I almost always use reverb on an aux and not as an insert. On an aux, the dry signal level remains intact, and you are also freed up to send whatever other signals to be effected that you like. Sharing a reverb is a great way to put different elements into the same simulated acoustic space.

I'm not really a gear slut so I don't think it's necessary to pimp brands of reverb. I've used Altiverb, Lexicon stuff, Dverb, Reverb One, and all kind of other stuff over the years and liked all of it. One thing I will say is, you need to deal with eq issues with reverb and delay just like anything else... that means low and high passing as appropriate. Low end reverb is guaranteed mud, and high end reverb can sound really inappropriate in the wrong context, because it's a super artificial effect. In real life, you are hardly ever in an environment where your s's and t's are reverberating. It can also sound awesome in the right context, for example, the 1980's.

Quote:
So what your saying here is the multiband is effectively sitting on the Master Outputs correct? Do you find these specific techniques you are describing you tend to use for everything or is this just applied in context to what you have heard in the case of the OP? Say for example if I hired you to help me mix a dance track would you still employ similiar multiband techniques on the masters? Assuming minimal vocals, primarily synth and heavy bass and kick all synthetic.
Yeah I very often have a multiband compresser on the master outputs. I use the McDSP MC2000, which I think is the older version of their current ML4000. Just as a test I tried out the multiband compressor in the Ozone mastering suite and found that I could get similar results with that. So I think really any decent software should do the job. The benefit of multiband compression over normal full spectrum compression is that it's more transparent to the listener. If you have pounding low end, you can tame that without introducing pumping or sucking across the mid and upper frequencies. Ideally your mix is already well balanced even before the compressor- it should just be icing on the cake. Also, if I was sending the mixes to mastering engineer that I really trusted, I probably would not use the multiband compressor.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #116
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyandres View Post
Now, once you have an awesome mix, in the mastering process you can achieve that extra layer of Sheen. If you want to test what this is like, try Ozone 5. In the EQ set it to mid/side, and on the sides take out some of the uber lows in the mix so they are more focused in the centered of your mix. Brighten the high mids and highs with a harmonic exciter set to tape mode. Compress the lows a small amount. That will get you that extra sheen. The mastering engineer will do this, but its a good way to test how it could sound.
Yeah Ozone is a really great tool for learning even if you don't end up printing it yourself. That's a great tip about centering the really low stuff- the stereo image tools in Ozone are great just like the multiband compressor.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #117
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Hey phil I just want to say thanks for taking the time out to explain everything Ive learnt some very interesting tips there of which im going to fire up my own studio and test out.

Its fascinating your comments about using the hardware but the little blips of comparisons with rival plugins particularly your words about Ozone. The techniques employed are also of great interest and food for my own experimentation.

I accept what your saying about the reverbs and not plugging piece of kit A vs piece of kit B. All in context I guess.

I hope all these questions are proving valuable to the OP also nice one
Old 22nd July 2014
  #118
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Hey OP uptoolate is there any chance you could upload some stems of your vocal separated from backing? I dont mean a break down of the whole track but ideally just the vocal separated? Ideally track 1.

It would be great to experiment a bit with combos of reverb on say my LEX PCM 90 or TC Powercore or maybe UAD. I dont like the UAD reverb so much but it might be good for this kind of thing.

based on phils comments I might also try some multiband using Ozone or possibley try the TC Finalizer once i get this component I have ordered to fix it.

This would be a fun experiment as its in a sense a trial of put a track in the hands of a clueless idiot and see if the gear does the magic? I have zero experience at this kind of thing and it might be a neat test to see if my studio can do any type of sheen with relatively little skill bar messing with plugins and see what happens.

if it does then it would be ideal to isolate the gear doing the magic and ask why?
Old 22nd July 2014
  #119
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by blAh View Post
My gut feeling on listening was more reverbs (don't go crazy...and make sure it is tasteful), saturation for warmth (sheen there?!), and EQ alterations. .
Ive heard several comments on how warmth and saturation might help. How might I add this? I have basic UAD and Waves plugs plus stock sonar plugs.

And I know this thread meanders off topic, but Im gleaning info anyway. All comments are appreciated.
Old 22nd July 2014
  #120
Lives for gear
 
Jazz Noise's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
fair enough........... Let's hear all those great records with "sheen" done on cheap equipment like soundblasters and firefaces. Seriously... Let's hear it!!!


We lost SmoothVibe and now we've got SV:Frat Boy Edition?

The OP's problems seem to be in vocal tracking. Though I'll add to the caveats given that the biggest problems for many people's mixes is the usual: Poor compression choices and poor reverb/delay choices. People often pick a reverb very early in the mix and stick with it to no good end. As usual I know this error because there was a time I was the king of it. Nowadays I hope to have undone my errors before anyone notices.

Chainrule, don't knock the tech stuff. You don't even know what you're dismissing after all. I know I learnt that stuff in the hope that I could save money and time by understanding the processes that are being undertaken when using various equipment or techniques. While it's yes and no to that part — who doesn't like buying new things, after all? — I feel my technical inclinations have won me more gigs than they've lost me... Except one I saw in the paper last week:

WANTED: ENGINEER

YOU WILL BE RECORDING TED NUGENT'S 'LAUGH AT THE GRAPH LP'

NO TECHNICAL INCLINATIONS, DOESN'T READ MANUALS

(REAL ROCK N ROLLA, GOOD ADC'S, PT's 11)
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump