Advise on Mastering Vocals

proactive wrote: We need to ensure that the audio does NOT change in anyway from the original recording, even if it sounds better. Thanks.

Do you mean you don't want to degrade the audio in any way? Mastering in it's nature changes the audio.

Would your audience be willing to make a donation for a CD? You can raise a fair amount of money that way to pay for professional work.

1) You don't "master vocals."

2) Forgive us if some of us are skeptical and jaded about "sound proof and acoustically treated" -- Too often, we find out later that there's a bunch of foam up on the walls.

3) You don't want it to change...? Are you just trying to write files to a compliant disc?

You want your speaker/announcer to be approximately one fist distance from the microphone capsule. A foam or nylon stocking on a stick is highly recommended.

Output of the microphone preamp would be nicely enhance with a simple dynamic range compressor. DBX 166 comes to mind as a good sounding inexpensive compressor. Only a few DB are necessary when the speaker's energy begins to build. A low-cut filter may also be a good idea depending on his working distance from the microphone. But you have to listen to it to decide whether to engage it. If he sounds like he is in a mud bucket? Switch it on. Cannot really be judged properly through headphones.

There is no other mastering necessary. No other equalization will also be necessary. This is a very nice clean straightforward way of recording the human voice. A microphone such as a Shure SM58 to a Neumann U87 are great for this application. These are very smooth sounding for the human voice and are of the most popular vocal microphones ever used. Mastering is typically used to polish up musical productions. You as the engineer or to optimize this for most pleasant sounding and most highly intelligible with low ear fatigue. This means no hyper processing. A slight use of a downward expander sometimes referred to as a noise gate can also be beneficial, as it slightly turns down the microphone between words & at pauses. Overall providing a tighter sound. Something I frequently to come post compression i.e. after the compressor. DON'T GATE, but merely downward expand by 6 to 10 DB so that the microphone is actually always on. Never cut completely off. Threshold is critical for this setting to get it right. As you only wanted turning down when things get quiet. You don't want to turning down on low-level words. Threshold setting is critical for this function. Doesn't work worth a crap in software either. But that's for more advanced students.

An old Daffy Ducker
Ms. Remy Ann David

If the playback to the group is clear and intelligible, and doesn't sound boomy (unless it's the acoustics of the room) then you're done.

proactive wrote: We have only one speaker and we don't even add music.

We need to ensure that the audio does NOT change in anyway from the original recording, even if it sounds better. Thanks.

One speaker? :shock: Bad news. Chances are that what you play (wherever is played) will always seem to you like something has changed. Furthermore, maybe you should plan to make recordings for stereo not mono applications. --- :wink:

Umm... I think by "one speaker" the OP meant that there is only one person speaking.
And why would they need to plan to make stereo recordings? The stated application is for playback to a live audience - I would think this would be in mono anyway.

Personally, I second codemonkey's post. If you're done, you're done. But Remy's advice also sounds very good if you are looking for better quality up-front.

Duplicate, please erase

DUPLICATE

Uhhggg! Ed, if you are going to give advice, please be more informed than you seem to be.

mwacoustic wrote: Umm... I think by "one speaker" the OP meant that there is only one person speaking.

Well let's see:

They (he) said: "We are a not for profit spiritual organization and cannot offered to go for professional mastering.We record strictly male vocals in a semi-studio setup (sound proof & acoustic treated). We have only one speaker and we don't even add music. We are able to record fairly well."

We this and we that. Doesn't that infer a group of people recording more than one person? Why assume that one "speaker" meant one person? Then, did or did not they/he say "we record strictly male vocals?". Sorry, I had to take it literally. You could be right though, but you then must agree that the whole thing is not well formulated.

And why would they need to plan to make stereo recordings? The stated application is for playback to a live audience - I would think this would be in mono anyway.

Did or didn't they say "cannot offered to go for professional mastering"? They did ask : "please advise how to do the mastering, to the release quality" Right?

I think they are trying to make a recording which they plan to handout to someone to hear or maybe even sell to the public. Either way, they will have sound quality problems if indeed they are mixing with just one speaker.

Personally, I second codemonkey's post. If you're done, you're done.

Codemonkey was referring to recording people in general. Your remark is as good as advise as giving none --- :D

Why would mixing a vocal(s) with one speaker not be recommended?

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Uhhggg! Ed, if you are going to give advice, please be more informed than you seem to be. Why would mixing a vocal(s) with one speaker not be recommended?.

I think at this point we should wait for the OP to clarify as to whether one or several persons are being recorded, don't you think?
Also, your question is surprising to me Michael. I guess the best way I can answer it is : for the same reason most cars have 4 wheels not 3.

Actually, my memory informs me I was referring to the (quote) playback to the group (/quote).

Make sure it sounds clear enough in your studio, double check it's still intelligible in the room you play it back in (a hall of some sort?) and if the acoustics in there don't destroy it (boomyness etc.) then you're finished. If it is boomy, (try to) fix it with an in-house EQ.

However yes, this could apply to recording anything in general, not even just people.

music_guy wrote: Quote:
And why would they need to plan to make stereo recordings? The stated application is for playback to a live audience - I would think this would be in mono anyway.

And where did they say that's what they are planning to do?

I dunno, I guess I base my statement on this (emphasis added):

proactive wrote: We do not sell the disks/audio material but do play it to groups of audience and want to give them the best experience

And codemonkey confirmed what I thought he meant - the point being that if the OP can meet his goal of a quality playback to the audience, then he doesn't need to do any "mastering", in the sense of mastering say a music album (eq, dynamics, magic fairy dust, etc).

I'm getting a growing feeling that by "mastering" he might just mean burn to CD? This would sort of explain the comment about "not changing the sound" - perhaps they just want to get it off the computer and into the sound system?

Oh, proactive, where are you? Please come back and clear things up for us.... :)

As Michael Fossenkemper and "music_guy" battle it out...

A Codemonkey is playing in the bushes, learning valuable skills from his brethren and generally having a good time.

All the while, the OP has stated;

"We need to ensure that the audio does NOT change in anyway from the original recording"

So what the funk is the point of this discussion?

Just wanted to say hi Mum.

music_guy wrote: [quote=Michael Fossenkemper]Uhhggg! Ed, if you are going to give advice, please be more informed than you seem to be. Why would mixing a vocal(s) with one speaker not be recommended?.

I think at this point we should wait for the OP to clarify as to whether one or several persons are being recorded, don't you think?
Also, your question is surprising to me Michael. I guess the best way I can answer it is : for the same reason most cars have 4 wheels not 3.

I think you should stick to DJ'ing.

For the first half of the music industry, everything was mixed with one speaker. If you are mixing a mono source, it won't matter how many speakers you have around the room. They are all going to play the same thing. If you have 90 vocals and pan them up the center, same thing. You don't need 2 speakers. Most mixers I know still mix with 1 speaker for a good percentage of the time. If he is going to use the CD to play in front of an audience, then I would recommend mixing in mono, or very very near mono. You don't want to have half the audience hearing one thing and the other half hearing another.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote:

I think you should stick to DJ'ing.

I think your vile comment is unworthy of a "Moderator". The professional attitude is to wait for the OP's clarification on this matter (re: one speaker monitor or recording one person?) which would validate one of these arguments and not to opt to ridicule other members who don't agree with you. I certainly don't deserve to be spoken in this condescending manner, I don't care who you think you are Mr.

I'm sorry if you don't like my form of moderating you. Maybe instead of jumping into threads with a know it all attitude posting questionable information, you can try a different tact.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: I'm sorry if you don't like my form of moderating you. Maybe instead of jumping into threads with a know it all attitude posting questionable information, you can try a different tact.

You are unbelievable, the only one who displays that attitude is you. And unlike you I've never tried to be disrespectful to anybody.

If you came into my house and said things I didn't agree with, I would argue with you politely, and possibly in my tone or infection you may misunderstand something I say as being a direct piece of harassment, like if I said flippantly that "you're an unproven unknown entity and you smell like cheese" which is something I might say... If you got uppity and took the argument to me even further. I'd yell even louder, then if you got close enough and looked like getting violent. I'd boot you outside.
This isn't my house, or even an actual house, so who cares.
Just chill out and try and come up with witty comebacks with little nuggets of information. Don't get all pissy.

Btw, I don't know anyone here from a bar of soap. And if I wanted to check your mastering chops I wouldn't click a myface link. So for now you remain unproven.

Greener wrote: If you came into my house and said things I didn't agree with, I would argue with you politely, and possibly in my tone or infection you may misunderstand something I say as being a direct piece of harassment, like if I said flippantly that "you're an unproven unknown entity and you smell like cheese" which is something I might say... If you got uppity and took the argument to me even further. I'd yell even louder, then if you got close enough and looked like getting violent. I'd boot you outside.
This isn't my house, or even an actual house, so who cares.
Just chill out and try and come up with witty comebacks with little nuggets of information. Don't get all pissy.

Btw, I don't know anyone here from a bar of soap. And if I wanted to check your mastering chops I wouldn't click a myface link. So for now you remain unproven.

Why don't you shut the f*** up a$$hole? you are the reason why the real masterers run away or don't show up here no more. Sorry everybody but finally after lurkin for sometime I had to say something.

You should most likely apologize for your aggressive tone and un-useful printing of expletives.

Many are Christian and prefer not to have this type of insult in their daily reads.

Many are children and do not need further permission by unknowns to insult.

I do not give you permission to go , on my behalf, and insult others in the name of whatever it is that you are doing this in the name of.

that much "honesty" is unnecessary...

No can we get back to the original question, or has the OP run for the hills?

honestyhurts wrote:
Why don't you shut the f*** up a$$hole? you are the reason why the real masterers run away or don't show up here no more. Sorry everybody but finally after lurkin for sometime I had to say something.

I'm glad all the "masterers" have run away, that just leaves the Masters and I.

Why don't I shut the up? Arsehole.

Space wrote:

I do not give you permission to go , on my behalf, and insult others in the name of whatever it is that you are doing this in the name of.

I hope you feel better :D

Greener wrote: [quote=honestyhurts]
Why don't you shut the f*** up a$$hole? you are the reason why the real masterers run away or don't show up here no more. Sorry everybody but finally after lurkin for sometime I had to say something.

I'm glad all the "masterers" have run away, that just leaves the Masters and I.

Why don't I shut the fuck up? Arsehole.

don't like it ha? you are just pathetic and make me laughin out loud :lol:

What don't I like?

I'm pathetic and you in your pants laughing?

Does that mean you're apathetic?

Wouldn't that mean, if you're apathetic that I couldn't be pathetic in your eyes. Due to the fact that I'm not "having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity".

Unless you defecating yourself is "compassionate or contemptuous pity".

I'm getting confused here about how your honesty is supposed to hurt?

Let's get really honest. I am nothing, no one. I'm a fat, smelly unkempt person typing into my computer from afar. Making you soil yourself.

Greener wrote:

Let's get really honest. I am nothing, no one. I'm a fat, smelly unkempt person typing into my computer from afar. Making you soil yourself.

i am growing sympathetic about the fact tha you are so pathetic and I will feel contempt for my discontent until you change the content of yer epileptic human existence.

honestyhurts wrote:
i am growing sympathetic about the fact tha you are so pathetic and I will feel contempt for my discontent until you change the content of you epileptic human existence.

"I'm growing sympathetic about the fact that you're so pathetic and I'll feel contempt for my discontent until you change the content of your epileptic human existence."

Is that what you meant to type? Without errors?
Just trying to figure out if you're annoyed because I epileptics or you're annoyed at yourself for being unhappy about me being alive?

Just want clarification here. I mean we are typing at one another, I'm sure if we were in the same room, many other forms of communication could be used to get the point and feeling across.
So when you use text, you have to be sure the meaning of the words is that which the writer intended.

Or confusion reigns supreme.

Look up nihilist, then annihilation. Then come play.

I was hoping we could avoid this.

Nobody "wins".

ok, stop making me edit out the cuss words.

Now that we've vented... I probably started this with my post so I apologize. back to our regular program.