1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Loud Vox or not????????

Discussion in 'Vocals' started by daveseviltwin, Aug 27, 2005.

  1. Before I send a mix in before mastering, wouldn't it be best if the vocals are just a little louder than most of the mix? Not much just a 1/2 db or db. It just seems like the compression and limiting is going to crush the vox anyway, right? I also like to mix my drums loud, is that a problem?
    Also, if I have minor master eq's on my mix should I just take them off. I would think that the mastering engineer would be able to hear where it needs to be boost/cut. I usually don't go any higher that 1or 2db boost on my master eq. What is preferred? I
  2. Massive Mastering

    Massive Mastering Well-Known Member

    Rough call on the EQ... I'd look for what really needs it in the mix before putting one across the bus.

    On the vocal thing - Shooting for the best balance is preferred, but in the grand scheme of things, erring on the side of the vocals being a whisker hot is definitely bette than them being a whisker soft. No one ever moans about being able to hear the vocals clearly, but they sure do pitch a fit if they can't.

    Be careful not to make them stad out so much that they seem disjointed from the rest of the mix, though...
  3. TrilliumSound

    TrilliumSound Active Member

    I'd suggest to avoid the EQ on the mix bus too. If you use it, there is probably something you want to compensate or to correct. What do you like the most when you turn on that EQ?

    Always depends the approach of the ME, the comp type and settings choice but +1 dB on lead vocal won't certainly hurt. You can go with 2 type of mixes for vocal concerns, ask your ME what he thinks and what you might prefer after an attempt.

    Really Loud Drums... for what? If you like it loud then go for it unless it kills the music vibe or they jump out of the mix. Or you want to make sure they do not get buried during the Mastering? Again, you should have a little talk with your ME on this.
  4. Michael Fossenkemper

    Michael Fossenkemper Distinguished past mastering moderator Well-Known Member

    I would send both, main and vox up.

    I like loud drums too.

    As for the EQ on the 2-bus, if it's really part of the sound, then leave it. If it's to correct something, then I would take it off.
  5. HMMM

    I don't think the vox or drums are overwhelming but they are just a bit louder. As far as the EQ, it's not there to fix anything it just adds a bit of clarity and bottom end to the mix. Everything sounds a bit "dark" without a little boost around 1-5k. I don't know much about mastering but I thought that might be a sweet spot for the ME so I didn't want it to boost too much because I assumed that would be one of the spots that he/she would want to work with. There EQ boost is going to sound much better than my REQ so I'll take them out. By the way, I've read alot about some you guys using the L2 and I have to say it just sounds too digital to me. Just a thought...
  6. TrilliumSound

    TrilliumSound Active Member

    Re: HMMM

    What do you mean by too digital? If you hear artifacts from it, it is because you are pushing it too much, settings and/or dithering choices as well or maybe you simply don't like the sound of it.
  7. ok

    When I record on digital media it sounds digital to me. Anything I do on Analog sounds more natural to me. Of course, I can't afford analog equipment so Pro Tools and Plug-ins are available for me at an affordable price and happen to be available when I need them. I can hear the difference when I listen to vinyl and when I listen to a CD. Personally, I think digital is very convenient and efficient but in reality there is not a machine taking audible "snap-shots" for me when I use analog equipment. It's a shame that the digital manufacturers have tricked everyone into thinking that digital is the best sound quality. We took a step back for sound quality and a step ahead for convenience with digital media. So, here's my point, when I make an adjustment to my mix with a digital plug-in it sounds digital to me. I really don't even like to use a digital eq on anything unless it's neccesary. I'm just a firm believer in getting it right before I hit record. So many engineers now are trying to edit their way through mixes instead of buying or placing the right mic or spending a day adjusting your eq on the board. The mixing console has become unimportant to people lately. Just buy a patch bay if you aren't going to use those pretty little knobs on your board. There's nothing better than hearing the sound of a nice SSL or Neve board. Sorry guys, I'm 26 and just really trying to get a career started as an engineer so I have way too much to bitch about. Ok, so I still haven't gotten to the point. I tried various ways of adjusting the L2 and I'm not pleased with it. If I had 50,000 bucks to buy analog equipment to supplement it, I might like it. There are many high end compressors that I have heard that you don't even have to really compress your mix with. By just running it through that wonderful analog circuitry it sound so natural and crisp and I have never heard a digital compressor/limitor do that. And yes, I do know that if you can "hear" a compressor you've done something wrong. I'm so thankful for the ability and affordability of digital equipment but on the other hand, I'm sad that record labels and radio push to get albums that are overcompressed to begin with and then they crush it more on the radio. This is a completely different subject but I feel strongly about dynamics. Finally, to my point, there is no substitute for good, professional mastering, especially not the L2 or the finalizer. I hope I don't offend anyone on here because I know alot of people really dig the "modern" style but I just really love the smoothe sound of some analog compressors. Nothing personal intended toward you Trillium its just a sensitive subject for me. It makes me weep like like a little girl sometimes when I think about it. What a great forum. Thanks for having me guys.
  8. Reggie

    Reggie Well-Known Member

    All I know is that my record player takes up my entire passenger seat in my car and my "record wallet" to hold my album collection takes up almost my whole back seat. I'm starting to think maybe CD's aren't such a bad idea after all...
    But if you don't like the sound of CD's, don't listen to them. Leave them for (most) people who aren't bothered by the sound.
  9. Apparently you didn't understand what I said. But yeah, if you want them you can have them. Don't take it seriously dude, it's just an opinion. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way. Can I get an Amen?
  10. TrilliumSound

    TrilliumSound Active Member

    Hi Dave,

    Don't worry, I did not take your words personal and I think I understand what you are saying and it is always interesting to get different points and opinions and it is a good way to learn...always. I think you are confusing few things. First, I am an analog believer for 25 years. I use tube comps, limiters, eq's, playback etc... but some digital gear in the chain sometimes does the trick and very well. Look at it this way;

    Analog Playback device or DAW, through a good D/A, to tubes EQ, and analog/tube comps/limiter then through a good A/D then using a Digital Limiter (for safety clipping)not to achieve some volume and getting 8 dB reduction with the ARC mode, just use it as a safety device, you think you are going to hear it? Not me.

    I think that good quality digital gear + experience does not have that digital sound as you say, it certainly does not sound analog but could be darn transparent if used on good hands and there are always exceptions also. If I insert a digital EQ in the chain (above) like a WEISS or any decent digital gear, you think you will going to hear digital? Just like adding an L2 or any other digital gear, if used properly, it could be pretty transparent imo. But again, don't get me wrong, I am an analog guy to the bone because I love analog for many many reasons and digital gear is a + for me, and for others, it is their main approach and they do extremely well, believe me...without that digi sound that I think you are talking about.


  11. Michael Fossenkemper

    Michael Fossenkemper Distinguished past mastering moderator Well-Known Member

    Re: HMMM

    That is corrective eq, I would take it off.
  12. good

    Thanks Mike. I will take that off. Trillium, that's what I was saying. If used with analog equipment it could sound good. If you're using primarily digital eq's and plug-ins, it can be heard.
  13. TrilliumSound

    TrilliumSound Active Member

    Re: good

    I'd say mostly plug-ins but there are exceptions there too.
  14. sorry tril

    sorry tril, when I say digital eqs, I mean eq plug-ins. Although, as simple and cheap as they are, a good RTAS plug-in always seems to do a great job for me I just want to do a little tweak somewhere. There are pros/cons with both digital and analog. It just always seems to start a great conversation when you bring it up until the guy that uses his soundcard pops in and says, "If you don't like digital, don't use it. I think it sounds better".
  15. lucidwaves

    lucidwaves Guest

    I dont know of anyone here who would say that digital sounds better. But if done correctly (algorithmix eq, uad pultec and precision eqs and comps, some people swear by the sonalksis stuff) digital plugs can sound pretty damn good. No, it may not sound as good as quality analog (excepting maybe the algorithmix eq which is a pretty expensive plug anyhow) but it is a great place to start and a viable solution if your budget cannot include quality analog gear.

    In my case, it is a stepping stone until I can afford (until I can save up for) the expensive analog stuff.
  16. IMHO (and I am just an amateur enthusiast) - For those on a small budget, digital recording offers a lot. In the past I had a Fostex 8 track (I used to be proud of my track bouncing skills and recording levels, etc) and mackie mixer and a couple of rack processors like compressor and multi-effects. Of course I loved it at the time and especially loved mixing with all the faders and switches and EQ etc. It needed a lot of skill to get good results, no quick editing or reprocessing to "correct" a bad vocal or level, etc.

    Now I use Cubase SX on my PC and I can honestly say that as well as being able to record as many tracks as I like without bouncing, that after a while you grow into it and with all the convenience of vstis and effect plug-ins, I really prefer the digital realm and the general sound is much better - I realise that I didn't have high end analog gear (which I'm sure would have sounded MUCH better than my little home set up) to really make a fair comparison.

    The only big difference to my ears is recording guitars, especially overdriven or distorted guitars, but with practice the differential is less and I have MUCH to learn about digital recording and using Cubase SX, I've only been involved with it for a shade over a year. Guitars still sound a little more tinny and compressed than my older 8 track recordings but they are acceptable.

    Mixing is not much fun in Cubase (long, arduos process with the mouse and clicking buttons etc.) unless you have a controller (I don't yet, still expensive). It's easier to get an acceptable, noise free sound using digital, analog required more precision but those who were precise got that great analog sound with virtually no noise (not me, but my best recordings still have great range and sound good to the untrained ear)

    It's getting more and more difficult to choose analog as a recording option - You can still buy Studer analog 24 tracks etc but because afordable 8 and 16 track analog recorders are no longer sold by some companies, ie Fostex, tascam etc, and even the range of analog mixers are gradually being reduced, the costs of analog are more and more prohibitive - just like digital recorders and mixers once were, ironically.

Share This Page