Swimming Upstream

Discussion in 'Showcase Work' started by zydeceltico, Feb 14, 2016.

  1. zydeceltico

    zydeceltico Active Member

    Hi All -

    Really proud of this one. The song - and the recording. 100% in the box - -- in my danged living room.

    Sometimes I really dig what technology let's me do.

    Thanks for listening. Hope you dig it!


    Attached Files:

  2. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Is there anyway you could upload this directly? Use the "upload file" button next to the Post Reply button at the bottom right hand corner of the post page... it will open a menu and let you select the file/MP3 from your HD that you want to upload. Wait a few, it'll take a few minutes depending on your internet speed. RO's media player accepts MP3's up to 320 kbps.

    Here's why I'm suggesting this... SC is notorious for adding lossy artifacts to their audio files... it has to do with their conversion process... they've even admitted as much, yet don't plan to do anything about it, and I'm hearing some of those artifacts in your SC file above.

    It just makes it harder for us to critique the recording quality when those artifacts are resident in a recording.
    As far as the song goes, yeah, I like it.
  3. zydeceltico

    zydeceltico Active Member

    Donny - Thanks for the info! Here ya go.

    Thanks for checking out and I am totally looking forward to your feedback on the recording. Vocals thru SM7B. Acoustic with a Rode NT1A. Bass direct. Drums - EZD2. Piano - - sorta direct. Reaper. Mixed - - - - -in headphones. Flame away! LOL
  4. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Much better... okay... so here's what I'm hearing. You've got some pretty hot bass notes up around your hi E and D. Your lower E and A are fine. You may want to get into the EQ of the bass track, and sculpt-out the sympathetic frequencies around that area of those upper notes. For E2/D2, look to around 70 to 80 Hz - but also understand that those notes will also have over tones/harmonics that could reach as high as 100 and as low as 50. But, if you can get into the ballpark, it will help. You could also use a little light compression, say 3:1, @ -10db ( or so) at a relatively quick attack and slower release... YMMV.

    If you can't get it to sit right using standard EQ and/or light compression, you may want to try using an Active EQ.

    Active EQ's allow you to set the EQ for specific frequencies/ranges, and the EQ then attenuates only on certain frequencies at certain levels without affecting the other freq's around it.

    Tokyo-Dawn makes a free 4 band active EQ in VST form: http://www.tokyodawn.net/tdr-nova/

    You might want to try using it (sparingly at first, always start at minimums when using processing) on the bass track.

    Also, your vocals sound pitchy to me, you're drifting both flat and sharp. This may not bother you; I just happen to be a real stickler for pitch and tuning ( and rhythm, and locked-down performances, and groove, and pocket... LOL)

    Other than that, I think it sounds good. I wouldn't consider it to be of a pro quality sound, but for a home recording, it sounds good.
  5. zydeceltico

    zydeceltico Active Member

    Hey Donny! Thanks for all of the feedback and info! Yeah - my days of pro-recording are a few decades past - back when we had to beg, borrow, and steal just to buy tape. I am one of those old guys who still needs to make music and is eternally grateful for digital and being able to do all of this in the house. I was also "one of those guys" back in the day (90s) who SWORE he could hear the difference between tape and digital when it first came out - and I'm still sure I could. Now - - I'm just happy to have a relatively inexpensive way to do my thing that isn't a Fostex 4 track!

    Your EQ notes - thanks - great direction for me to rein in the bottom end. Pitchiness - yeah - I hear it. Thanks for the honesty. I use Reaper for my DAW. It ships with a version of Elastique that is "OK" with pitch correction. I also have Ozone's Nectar which I am pretty sure far surpasses what ships with Reaper but the workflow associated with Nectar is very different - at least for me - and I haven't taken the time to learn that process yet. Maybe it's time. :)

    Thank you for the link to Nova. Very cool. And thank you so much for taking the time to give me honest feedback!
  6. Sean G

    Sean G Well-Known Member

    Nectar isn't too hard to nut out... I stared at it for 6 months scratching my head wondering about how to until I forced myself to learn it...then I realised how simple a process it really is. Using the Pitch Corrector window, you just zoom in then click on the area you want to correct, then drag it either up or down, then preview the result.
    There is also a snap to scale button which helps and you can change the scale and the root note. I find it a little more user friendly than Melodyne.

    There are some really helpful YT tutorial vids as well

  7. zydeceltico

    zydeceltico Active Member

    Thanks Sean. You're inspiring me to break down and invest the time. It is my understanding (which isn't saying much) that work with pitch correction in Nectar "offline" rather than live in the daw. Is that correct?

    I'm going to watch the video you attached. Thanks!
  8. Sean G

    Sean G Well-Known Member

    You can use it both in and outside your DAW, although if you have a few tracks it can be cpu hungry...

    If I'm only correcting pitch I use the pitch editor itself (my DAW shows all the various components of Izotope plug-ins so I can just use or drag onto the track pitch editor without having to use the whole Nectar 2 suite). That way the cpu is not slaving running Nectar 2 open in a multitrack session with dozens of tracks and mutiple plug-ins in use.

    I'm running Studio One Pro 3, in my effects browser it lists each component of my Izoptope plug-ins, making it easier to just select the particular feature of a plug-in you want to use.
  9. zydeceltico

    zydeceltico Active Member

    I can do the same. The Pitch Editor is a separate component. I'll give it a go in a bit. Thanks again for the inspiration. I may "ping" you with a question or two. But the video you linked is pretty clear.
  10. Sean G

    Sean G Well-Known Member

  11. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Time ( and dedication, and practice-practice-practice) is precisely what it takes.
    The more time you put into learning and applying that knowledge, and the more you know about the tools you use; the more familiar you are with how they work, what they actually do, and how they can help you, the better your recordings will sound.

    So many budding engineers, and novice recording hobbyists these days don't have a clue about what the tools they are reaching for actually do. So many of them reach for the wrong types of processing .... kinda like a hobbyist carpenter reaching for a screwdriver to pound in a nail ;)

    And Sean is right... there are so many great instructional vids out there these days.... Thank God for YouTube. It's saved my bacon with Samplitude functions more times than I could count.

Similar Threads
  1. Vox71

Share This Page