Vocals in mix

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:46 pm

Hi guys, I´ve always had some problems with vocals in my mixes, I was wondering, what´s the secret to really including your vocal tracks in the mix, my vocal tracks sound ok, but sometimes I can´t manahe to fit them in the rest of the mix, so they tend to sound "kareoke-like", any tips on this matter? Thanks!

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:54 pm

what do you normally do with your vocals after recording them (compression, EQ, etc...)?

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:59 am

if the vocalist is decent sounding enough, have him/her double it.

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:49 am

try mixing the vocals in first and then mix the rest of the song around them.

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:08 am

I normally EQ, then compress with waves Rcomp, then use waves Rvox. I normally roll off a bit around 1K looking for nasal sound, then roll of another bit around 300-500 looking for muddy sound and if it´s too silibant, I´ll use a De esser at the end of the chain. I mean the sound is nice, but it always seems a bit to in front of the mix, I´m looking for a sort of Silverchair sort of sound (refering to the way the vocals sit in the mix)

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:33 pm

Did you try using some delay??? Or maybe, you recorded it too close from the mic...

I sometimes have the same problem with snares when you don't have enough of it in the OH...

Any advices???

Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:29 pm

Cosme wrote:

I normally EQ, then compress with waves Rcomp, then use waves Rvox. I normally roll off a bit around 1K looking for nasal sound, then roll of another bit around 300-500 looking for muddy sound and if it´s too silibant, I´ll use a De esser at the end of the chain. I mean the sound is nice, but it always seems a bit to in front of the mix, I´m looking for a sort of Silverchair sort of sound (refering to the way the vocals sit in the mix)

Bet this is the problem holding up Axl Rose.
Maybe that is too many things to do to those poor ol' vocals there.
Re-Record the vocal in stereo. Now you'll have a L and a R channel.
What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound. It obviously won't save that way and will return to normal after you stop it.
The way to replicate it is to click, seperate Stereo track.
Now simply move one vocal, either L or R, forward or back in the mix.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:21 am

dont sing square on into the mic. try altering the angle of the mic itself, as this can take out quite a bit of shrill and evens out the frequencies a little. it's worth a pop.

dont be afraid of limiters, they can really help keep the vox under control, allowing you to have them nice and upfront in the mix without that kareoke kinda sound.

also, try a real slow and light chorus, with not alot of feedback or depth. using that subtly can make things sparkle.

if you run compression over the whole mix, as you mix it down, you can hear when the vox are overbearing as the music starts to drop out. bring it in and out to compare and contrast.

hope this helps dude..

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:29 am

Quote:

Re-Record the vocal in stereo. Now you'll have a L and a R channel.
What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound. It obviously won't save that way and will return to normal after you stop it.
The way to replicate it is to click, seperate Stereo track.
Now simply move one vocal, either L or R, forward or back in the mix.

Again, this is bad practice and a waste of HD space.
There is absolutely no reason to record a mono source to stereo tracks and "split them". If you want ADT in a DAW, record your MONO source to ONE MONO TRACK and copy / paste it. The copied track will not take up extra HD space.

Polly want a cracker?
http://recording.org/ftopicp-322942-.html#322942

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:23 pm

bent wrote:

Quote:

Re-Record the vocal in stereo. Now you'll have a L and a R channel.
What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound. It obviously won't save that way and will return to normal after you stop it.
The way to replicate it is to click, seperate Stereo track.
Now simply move one vocal, either L or R, forward or back in the mix.

Again, this is bad practice and a waste of HD space.
There is absolutely no reason to record a mono source to stereo tracks and "split them". If you want ADT in a DAW, record your MONO source to ONE MONO TRACK and copy / paste it. The copied track will not take up extra HD space.

Polly want a cracker?
http://recording.org/ftopicp-322942-.html#322942

There is no such thing as wasted hard drive space. If it is used then it is not wasted, the hard drive does not care what you use it for.
Burn the wav. tracks to DVD and then delete them from the poor old HD.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:52 pm

Hi, filmmusic2008!

I just deleted 2 paragraphs from the response you are reading now because I thought it might be best to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You have a major opportunity right now to correct the knuckleheaded posts you've been slappin' onto this site. Think about your previous posts, including the one I'm replying to right now, and consider your next move. When you hit that little REPLY button and start typing, what are you going to accomplish? Are you going to come back at me with an intelligent rebuttal, or are you going to make a feeble attempt proving your preconceived notions about harddrive space and ADT are correct (mister split the stereo file and move it a few ms)?

You have ONE CHANCE to get this right.

This is your ONLY warning!

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:33 pm

Mixing vocals with a DAW shouldnt be such a pain. Ya got the ability to layer track after track after track. If they arent getting bigger then you arent getting them down correctly at tracking. The only way I know to safely assure your self of a great vocal is to make damn sure the original take is full of all the emotion and energy that the lyric and the song call for. If you are layering and doubling a so-so track its still going to be a so-so track.

It takes a certain mindset to let oneself go completely and really perform the song.

There are no amount of buttons or devices that can substitute the reality of this fact.

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:42 am

bent wrote:

Hi, filmmusic2008!

I just deleted 2 paragraphs from the response you are reading now because I thought it might be best to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You have a major opportunity right now to correct the knuckleheaded posts you've been slappin' onto this site. Think about your previous posts, including the one I'm replying to right now, and consider your next move. When you hit that little REPLY button and start typing, what are you going to accomplish? Are you going to come back at me with an intelligent rebuttal, or are you going to make a feeble attempt proving your preconceived notions about harddrive space and ADT are correct (mister split the stereo file and move it a few ms)?

You have ONE CHANCE to get this right.

This is your ONLY warning!

Nothing personal was directed at you.
If one pastes a copy of a mono vocal track, then a new track is needed in Audacity.
If you want to suggest a better 192 khz 32 Bit recording program then we are listening.
The laptop being used has an external HD.
There are no rules for the recording game.
It is about performance of the singer.
PC, not Apple.

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:16 am

Dude - seriously.

Recording a MONO source to a STEREO track is f'ing stupid. It is a direct copy of the exact same thing. THIS IS WASTED HARD DRIVE SPACE. At least if you copy and paste it into a new track, you aren't wasting hard drive space as you don't now have 2 tracks - you have 1 track and 1 virtual track.

At least that's how MY DAW and most others I've ever tried do it. I don't know how Audacity does it and I don't care.

Doing what you're talking about is just retarded. If you want to double the track, fine. Recording it in stereo...dumb.

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:15 am

OK, taking one point at a time:

Quote:

Nothing personal was directed at you.

No, but when you come to this site and post methods that are inefficient and not necessary, and make broad sweeping generalizations such as "most of us have 4gigs of stereo vocal tracks", etc. then I and my fellow compatriots are gonna correct you. Every time. Count on it.

Quote:

If one pastes a copy of a mono vocal track, then a new track is needed in Audacity.

What are you saying? Does this mean that every new track in Audacity corresponds to a new physical file on the HD? As soon as you hit Ctrl-V a new file is created and saved to disc? If so, that's silly on Audacity's part. If not, then the statement is irrelevant.

Quote:

If you want to suggest a better 192 khz 32 Bit recording program then we are listening.

Sampling rates and bit rates have nothing to do with this discussion - irrelevant statement (though, if you are recording mono vocals to stereo tracks at 192k I'm betting you've got way more than 4gigs of stereo vocal tracks on your HD).

Quote:

The laptop being used has an external HD.

Good, external drives are a good thing to have, but irrelevant.

Quote:

There are no rules for the recording game.

True, but there are rules concerning HD space and effecient usage thereof.

Quote:

It is about performance of the singer.

I have no idea how the singer's performance in an iso booth correlates to the way someone utilizes HD space. Care to elaborate?

Quote:

PC, not Apple.

No, both - PC and Apple.
Both have harddrives, and both can be operated effeciently, or not - your choice.

This topic sponsored by: