Eqing / Mixing Advice For A Fellow Friend :)

[Mahesh]

Heya gang,

 

I got to record some songs in a good studio who were doing free rehearsal week. The entire session was given to me as a stereo render. The quality of the session is really good. When I listen to it on the headphones, they sound good. On the speakers, I'm not so much happy. ( Like I told John, I always thought it was the other way around lol ).

 

Anyways, I'd like to know your opinion/tips on EQing a track which has both the guitars and vocals on a single track.

 

So if you  were in this situation, what would you do?

 

I've taken a course on music production online and have went through a lot of material but don't have that much of hands on experience and I would definitely call myself a novice so all help is much appreciated.

 

 

Thank you,

Cheers,

Mahesh

 

[IKONE]

HI mahesh,

 

honestly thats a big area. Why you want to EQ? Is there really something to EQ out? high mid low knobs and the way to adjust 'em to your like? Do you mean that?

 

If you think your mixes sound better on headphones than on your speaker - Start mixing in mono! Hehe, no , but when you're satisfied on a stereo mix switch to mono and check proportions. Mostly the voice will be buried in the instrument or competing with the instrument. Or do you mean that?

 

kind regards.

iko

 

 

 

 

[Stova007]

Hey Mahesh,

Mixing a single track with guitar/vocal is more difficult than mixing separate tracks...but it can certainly be done. Anyway you could post a snippet of the recording? I think that would help us narrow down what you might want to work on with the mix.

[TapperMike]

It's most likely a levels issue not an eq one.  Start with a limiter and work backwards

[Mahesh]

It's most likely a levels issue not an eq one.  Start with a limiter and work backwards

You maybe right Mike! The guitars are lower than I'd want it to be so that might be the issue.

 

 

Hey Mahesh,

Mixing a single track with guitar/vocal is more difficult than mixing separate tracks...but it can certainly be done. Anyway you could post a snippet of the recording? I think that would help us narrow down what you might want to work on with the mix.

Hey Michael, thanks for replying I'm attaching a soundcloud link to this post which will give you an idea.

 

 

HI mahesh,

 

honestly thats a big area. Why you want to EQ? Is there really something to EQ out? high mid low knobs and the way to adjust 'em to your like? Do you mean that?

 

If you think your mixes sound better on headphones than on your speaker - Start mixing in mono! Hehe, no , but when you're satisfied on a stereo mix switch to mono and check proportions. Mostly the voice will be buried in the instrument or competing with the instrument. Or do you mean that?

 

kind regards.

iko

Hello Iko, one thing is that, even though I have a stereo rendered track, the guitars and the vocals are not separate, I cannpt manipulate them seperately. I guess I'm not good with the terms here. 

 

I guess I might have to find another opportunity to record, I'd like your opinions anyways. Thank you all.

 

The track won't play in the post since it is private. Please click on "Listen on SoundCloud" to head to the soundcloud page.

 

[TapperMike]

I've heard the track.  I have some things to do.  I'll pm you with my response which will be rather lengthy.

[TapperMike]

Unfortunately.  The ceiling was too high.  It may have been a 24bit 48k that got run through the mill when it was uploaded.then sc used normalization

 

Right now I'm doing some rather elaborate post processing. Splitting the stereo tracks and duplicating them then processing each a little differently. Then remixing them in the stereo field.

[TapperMike]

This is apparently taking up more time then I have right now.

[Mahesh]

I heard the 6 second snippet Mahesh.

 

If I understand correctly, you'd prefer the vocal to sit a little lower in the mix and guitar a bit higher? If that is correct, you might try adding compression to the overall mix. It's a simple things to do, so you'll know very quickly if that's going to bring you closer to the desired sound.

 

I recall one case where my old recording deck would no longer allow me to reload masters. I had an older mix of a tune with the vocals sitting much higher than I wanted, but couldn't access anything except the previous 2-track stereo mix. I did exactly what I suggested above...stuck some more compression onto the overall mix. It didn't quite work miracles, but it did seem to add a bit more power to the track and did squash those vocals more. Food for thought anyway!

 

Tom

Hey Tom, with finding just the right threshold after tweaking things, that does help a bit in bringing down the vocals a little more. Definitely something to remember for quick fixes. Thank you

 

 

 

Unfortunately.  The ceiling was too high.  It may have been a 24bit 48k that got run through the mill when it was uploaded.then sc used normalization

 

Right now I'm doing some rather elaborate post processing. Splitting the stereo tracks and duplicating them then processing each a little differently. Then remixing them in the stereo field.

 

Mike, that's an interesting method to try! Like I said, practicality is pretty new to me. Will definitely tweak around a bit and see what can be done. Thank you!

[TapperMike]

I'll show you a little trick

It's not a reverb effect or a delay effect

 

Watch - http://tappermike.com/songstuff/chro11b.html

First the duplicate track is played the same as the rest.

 

Second (brief) I move the track over for a sever delay sound.

 

Third time I back up the position so it is slightly out of alignment with the original one.

 

Thats what you want... a very very slight shift along the timeline. The reflection is niether spring nor room nor dampened

Edited January 19, 2014 by TapperMike

[Mahesh]

I'll show you a little trick

It's not a reverb effect or a delay effect

 

Watch - http://tappermike.com/songstuff/chro11b.html

First the duplicate track is played the same as the rest.

 

Second (brief) I move the track over for a sever delay sound.

 

Third time I back up the position so it is slightly out of alignment with the original one.

 

Thats what you want... a very very slight shift along the timeline. The reflection is niether spring nor room nor dampened

F**k. lol That's brilliant man. It sounds so much better! Very neat trick! Thank you.

 

That brings me to the question I need to ask you. How do you go about mixing a track? ( Even if it is a full orchestrated sound ). I'm not so much asking for the procedures but more of the steps. Every step in the process will change the way the track sounds and so if I were to mix a track in any random procedure, I might not get the sound I'm looking for. I've asked this question to many sound engineers who mostly end up saying different answers. So I'm trying to derive perspectives here. 

 

Thank you for your help Mike!

Cheers

Mahesh

[TapperMike]

It's impossible to do so after the fact. And impossible to give a one size fits all.

 

I love these forums because songwriters as opposed to producer/dj types are in it for the long run. They expect to go through revisions along the way. The same is true for recording and mixing.  In an instant world it's still better to step back and treat the arrangement / recording and mixdowns as separate parts of the journey.

 

It starts with good arrangement and recording techniques.  I am a firm believer in old school hardware four tracks for songwriter types as opposed to daws.  Because It makes one focus on arrangement.

 

I own this....

 

Which you don't need and has a lot of confusion.

 

What would be preferable for you is a used (or new) multi-track recorder that you can transfer the format to your computer for mixdown and mastering.  Something like rudi has.  You actually only need two inputs but you will need to be able to send those inputs to at least four channels (preferably 6 or more)  Dont get a fostex MR-6 The user inteface is difficult and the buttons are very hard and sticky and break easy (coming from someone who has and has broken the thing due to unresponsive controls) Tascam's dp series are fine. Roland BR series is fine, newer zooms (R8, R16, R24) are great (don't get older zooms MRS-4)

 

The two big things is it unclutters the mind and you won't have to deal with latency issues. When you record Your job is to play the instrument and/or sing the song, not be distracted by a ui or fight with other things. Once you hit record look away from the controls and if at all possible away from the levels. (not always possible) they serve as a distraction. If you've set your levels correctly then you shouldn't have to worry about them.

 

I know, money is tight. It is for me too (now)

 

Side note:

 

I would suggest that you may wish to have some type of metronome if you ever wish to farm out work by other musicians. I listend to your song a lot and while I could figure out the chord changes I didn't fair as well with trying to map a beat. So when I tried to overdub a bass onto it I'd catch some stuff right on and other stuff (especially as the song progressed) I was always on the beat marker but the beatmarker was behind the chord changes.

 

 

 

 

Mic'ing.

I notice that aside from having a wide dynamic range on your voice the michrophone is positions for your voice. Between your singing loudness and the apparent focus of the mic. Your guitar is being squashed. The most prefered method is to record these separately. The second is to mic these separately with narrow focus mic's even if there is cross talk between them.

 

Here is a dummied down understanding of phase cancellation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N0ER4A73QE

 

I don't ascribe to all of it as when I mic I use different distances,  The distance and type of mic's when paired allow for better/ fuller mixing during mixdown.

 

Now I want you to listen (diss believe what you see and focus on the listening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9yUVgrmPY

 

Alanis Moresette has a wide dynamic vocal range.  You have a wide dynamic vocal range (soft to loud) And while I'm betting a multi-band compressor was used on the end it would have never gotten to that point without some ingenious mic'ing pre q and riding the gain and overdubs.

 

She and the song go from wisper soft to extremely loud within a very limited dynamic range.  Yet nothing is squashed and the quiet parts are "crisp" and clear the loud parts the other instruments and her voice arent' muffled.

 

I bring these subjects up because.  While I was listening to your song (You're a great vocalist) you had a moment when you performed a decrescendo on a sustained note and slightly turned your head away from the mic.  Getting back to phase cancelation.  Phase cancellation can occur even with one mic It doesn't have to be complete phase cancellation where no sound occurs. But I heard a little of that and a dramatic shift in eq that I struggled with a little bit then decided I had to take care of some bills.  So there was that slight moment when it sounded slightly off in phase and slightly darker q and...unnatural drop in volume not consistent with your decrescendo. It drove me nuts trying to come up with something to compensate.....

 

From my ears it sounded like a condensor mic with a narrow field pattern

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar07/articles/micpatterns.htm

 

 

Anyway, It's time to go to work here.  There is much to cover yet.

 

[TapperMike]

Back for a short bit.

 

Okay controlled use of levels and or compression. Lets talk about setting the trim and vocal technique. 

 

The trim.  The trim is the first level control and affects everything thereafter.  This is why it is always located near the actual input of a mixer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-SPn1B1H0M

 

Here is a common problem that engineers have with musicians when setting the trim.  An engineer needs that a vocalist sing as loud as possible to set the optimum level. Not to high to there is not clipping (an unwanted distorted muffled effect from recording too high) and not too low so an optimal dynamic range and headroom can be achieved.  Now live and recording situations are quite different.  And often require different mic's and eq settings. In live situations the main goal is to get the levels up and eq the hell out of it to reduce feedback issues.  The more you use feedback rejection methods as a means to an end the more muffled the sound becomes. If the levels are too high for the stage monitors it can cause permanent ear damage for the band members but if it's too low. They can't hear themselves no matter how close to the mic. Especially in a band situation. Live situations can be hell if there is not good communication between the engineer and the musicians.  Recording situations can be equally hell for the same reason of poor communication.

 

When a sound engineer is setting the trim levels those shouldn't change. However sometimes when setting the level a musician/singer will not give the same volume out put as they do when performing.  Sometimes they set the level and then the musician/singer performs more quietly which causes the levels to drop.  More often as the song goes on the musicians "rise up" singing/playing harder / louder then originally intended redlining the meters.

Which is a little bit like what happened with your song.  As you bring more excitement you sing harder and play harder.  On analog tape this would have caused a mild soft tape distortion at best.  In the digital realm this results in clipping.  When the singal is too hot it clips. The sound is distorted (though not like guitar distortion) the higher frequencies disappear and everything sounds more muffled.  Yes, headroom is good for EDM but EDM already starts with a very limited dynamic range and once you go beyond headroom you've hit the volume ceiling which is clipping.

 

Heavy Metal and EDM  are the only two musical styles which should use maximum headroom.

 

Adjusting the trim during recording is destructive and non reversable.  (almost) all other volume levels during the initial recording are not.  So what does this have to do with Alanis Morisette and you?  As mentioned earlier studio mixing is not like live mixing.  You don't have to eat the mic in the studio and it's best that even if you close mic it be set further back.  This way the levels won't fluctuate as much with changes in singing or playing volumes. When you sing at a very soft level come closer to the mic. When you sing at a normal level stay a few inches back.  When you sing strong with full voice sing past and off axis from the direct line of sight to the mic. As well you can sing strong without as much force and still have a forceful strong delivery. It takes a little time to develop.  But your heartfelt singing can exist at a slightly lower level.

Not just a qualifier, I quite enjoy the fact that you bring emotion to the song in your singing. Don't lose that quality.  It gives credibility to your song writing. You can still bring that dynamic

Why I prefer using two mic's even when mixed down to mono. When you have a center focused near mic it picks up highs in a natural way that don't sound as synthetic as adding hi's to the the q. When one uses a slighty more distand large diapham ribbon it captures the mids and lows better. It also adds a quality of "air" even in a treated room. It's also easier to manage levels after trim but before the signal chain.

....more to come

[IKONE]

Sorry if i hijack this a bit. Just wanted to say

 

"Thanks for explanations, TapperMike."

 

And thanks for the hint on zoom r24. As you say "Distracting grafic uis". I know that.   But until yesterday i was sure - if i hav the money i would buy me a focusrite (musical(?)-presamps) or a presonus box (very nice DAW) but now i am sure the i'll get rid of that pc interface idea. If those multitrack recorders safe it on SD card i guess these are better than a pc.

 

I only have some question, Mike. I experienced that using the inbuild mic from a ipad sounds better than a rode m3. Means, not in recording 'quality' but in recording the voice as i think it should sounds like.

 

Of course the voice is very distanced but i feel that i captures more than this rode m3 does in the same signal to noise ratio. Is it the warm room-verb of my not-so-treatend room which makes it sounds more naturally and musically than what i have when i sing a few inches aways from my rode? I think if i max gain this rode m3 i could archiev the same effect but with more resolution and with more captured noise. 

 

Anyway, thanks mike. Really appricate your knowledge.

 

iko

 

[Mahesh]

Mike, whew! That's a lot to take in but every bit of it so much useful. I realize that I need to learn a little more about how I use the mic while performing. That was a good tip that you gave me there. Also, yes, I use a metronome pretty much all the time besides recording live, but I need to get better with my sense of timing, make my internal clock (as Victor Wooten would call it) stronger.

 

I have tried using two mics before, placing them in different positions and mixing them down to a single track. I feel It gives more tonal quality.But I've had disastrous results trying the same in a non studio environment, so I avoid while recording anywhere else. Getting a better sense of the acoustics and mic placements is in order. Thank you for that link, I didn't have the time to go through it in depth but I've bookmarked it to go through as soon as I get back home in a while.

 

 

I've jotted down your preferences for the multi track recorders. I'm gonna window shop a little once I get back lol. They all look pretty steep for me at the moment, but it is sure on the list after I buy a decent microphone. 

 

 

Thank you so much for all that you've been doing for me on this thread.  This is super helpful and mind opening for me. These posts( and the ones yet to come as you mentioned ) are gems that I'm sure would help many more users in the future as well.

[TapperMike]

Yikes I was posting in response to iko and then Ramesh replied before I posted.

Anyway. Iko this is for you though it may be of value to anyone reading this thread.

This is where guy's like me get all wishy washy for a reason. The entire recording process is like ... economics. Everything affects everything else either directly or indirectly. Example if you solo a channel so you can hear that channel only and then apply a little eq that audio signal may sound great in solo mode. But when you bring in the other channels what you did will affect how you hear the other channels to a greater or lesser degree.

So A Rhode is good when you have a properly prepped room. I cannot afford to build an isolation booth in my apt. An isolation booth Isolates the sounds to the room itself and what is being recorded in the room. They are like... if you've ever walked into a walk in cooler like restaraunts have and turned off the cooling syste. The reflections are hard so then you have to sound proof the walls/ceiling and floor to reject all the audio from the instrument or voice.

If you have a sensitive ribbon mic in a room and you are recording a voice in that same room and listening to the recording as well as any playback recordings.... Your mic is going to pick up the sound of those other things on the mic and then down the line. This is known as bleeding Bleeding is when one sound is no longer in isolation. The fantasy or ideal is that you want to record tracks with as much isolation as possible in order to properly process them in the later stage of mixdown[/b[ It's not a good idea to think you can save bleeding issues in the mixdown. If the bleed is minimal you might be able to suppress the bleed with a noise gate. More often then not if you try to completely eliminate the bleed with a noise gate it will have a detrimental effect on the sound quality of what you actually intended to record at the time.

Simple solution.... Use headphones for playback sounds and try to isolate your live instruments (if you have more then one such as singing while playing guitar or more instruments) Understanding mic characteristics if you have lots of them or one allows you to make the most of what you have. I'm not rich though at one time I did own a small studio which bankrupted me and all the stuff was sold off to pay off creditors. I lost big and I'm still paying off the debt many many years later even after. Now I practice guerrilla recording. I don't use warez. I will occasionally use freeware. I generally use modestly priced plugins for sounds and use the effects inside my daw or soundlibrary rather then chase after expensive plug ins that I may use once or not at all.

Okay... so as usual I still haven't touched basis with a lot of things that need to be discussed about the initial recording process. If I get too side tracked with mic selection and placement That will be all too consuming and maybe a little scary. Next up the signal chain for recording and understanding meters.

Edited January 21, 2014 by TapperMike

[TapperMike]

More sidetracking for now.

On presonus boards they have phase invertors for phase cancelation issues. Which I think is great.

Roland had an interesting mic emulator (prolly still does I just don't use roland stuff anymore) Others may as well.

The first thing is to follow the video on treating noise cancelation issues. The second repair method is as I've shown above have one mic recorded on one track and another mic on recorded to a second track then shift the object in the timeline ever so slightly.

Some companies like "Roland" produce mic emulators just like amp sims. As well as mic preamp processors can be had by the millions both free and pay. Some of the free ones are actually quite good.

I realize this next part is all "Pie-In-The-Sky" for guys like you and me but I found it quite amazing.