I had a few problems with bleeding but not to the extent you are talking about Chris.
Problems when artists would change the song and decide to do a quiet part with a recording that wasn't before.
When you mute the instruments to create that quiet part, those instruments are still present in the headphone bleed.
I also had a few deaf drummers who would ask for very loud click.

I bought some vicfirth headphones that I use when ever I feel bleeding may become a problem (soft vocals, acoustic guitars and drums)
They are a pain to wear because they are tight and warm but they do the job well.

audiokid, post: 422305, member: 1 wrote: The bleed from all these parts is still in the background. It can be so soft on one track but throughout mulitple versions as described above, will cause all sorts of upper freq swirling effects that become a de-essing nightmare..

That is a serious problem and I'm not sure how I would go at it. Of course a gate or track edit would take care of silent parts but if you hear it with the performance, I would use minimal to no compression and maybe try to EQ out the most problematic frequencies. Or I would try to figure out something with RX4, like the dereverb and denoiser...

Sort of a long shot here, but could you cancel out the track that's bleeding?

Here's the idea, assuming you have the track played through the headphones still on file.
1) Reverse-eq the track to account for the frequency response of the headphone drivers/muffling by head/response of mics as closely as possible
2) Invert polarity of the signal
3) Mix in the signal to as close to null as possible.

Has anyone tried anything like this before? Does it do more harm than good by introducing garbage to the mix? I suspect that it would be more effective on simple, repetitive signals (clicks and things) than full programs.

I'm not speaking from experience here if you couldn't tell;)

Reverend Lucas, post: 422330, member: 48050 wrote: Sort of a long shot here, but could you cancel out the track that's bleeding?

Here's the idea, assuming you have the track played through the headphones still on file.
1) Reverse-eq the track to account for the frequency response of the headphone drivers/muffling by head/response of mics as closely as possible
2) Invert polarity of the signal
3) Mix in the signal to as close to null as possible.

Has anyone tried anything like this before? Does it do more harm than good by introducing garbage to the mix? I suspect that it would be more effective on simple, repetitive signals (clicks and things) than full programs.

I'm not speaking from experience here if you couldn't tell;)

Doing what you say, it would be better to record the instruments through headphones bleeds again (the same if possible) and then use that as a nulling track...
It's an interesting idea ! ;)

pcrecord, post: 422331, member: 46460 wrote: Doing what you say, it would be better to record the instruments through headphones bleeds again (the same if possible) and then use that as a nulling track...
It's an interesting idea ! ;)

That would be a much simpler and better way to do it.

I've got a few EX 29, Extreme Isolation, they are really good headphones like that. They don't sound that great but are very quiet and avoid this, indeed. I'm sure the studio who tracked that band needed better for sure. And maybe the band wasn't holding then tight, who knows.

However, this is a problem with the mass most people aren't aware of, and what its doing. To what extent is dependent on how well you isolate and how much we overdub. I hear this all the time and have tricks to deal with it but the above was a pinnacle moment for me because I didn't realize how bad it can really get.

Bleed is a good thing when its together as a band. The small freq bandwidth that bleeds from headphone pushes upper mids throughout, but an EQ or side chain can deal with that pretty easy. But once we start over-dubing, those slight pitch and phase changes changed, including the now changed ticking on other tracks create phase, they are the worst.

Reverend Lucas, post: 422330, member: 48050 wrote: Sort of a long shot here, but could you cancel out the track that's bleeding?

Here's the idea, assuming you have the track played through the headphones still on file.
1) Reverse-eq the track to account for the frequency response of the headphone drivers/muffling by head/response of mics as closely as possible
2) Invert polarity of the signal
3) Mix in the signal to as close to null as possible.

Has anyone tried anything like this before? Does it do more harm than good by introducing garbage to the mix? I suspect that it would be more effective on simple, repetitive signals (clicks and things) than full programs.

I'm not speaking from experience here if you couldn't tell;)

I'm pretty certain many of us haven't thought of this, or hears it as a problem. Being a mixer, you are hearing other people mixes. When we record only ourselves, there are a lot of things we don't know about our room, techniques etc.

Consistent bleed isn't that bad and is easily dealt with. The culprit bleed is when we track to different version. The mix ends up having audible various versions of now removed overdubs. You cannot remove this. Its there playing in the background like a ghost.

Example: Band plays together. Acoust Guitar is out of tune but everyone else is good (for now) ;)
Recordist get the guitarist to redo the track. He plays to his last version and gets it close enough.

But, now his new version is different than what was bleeding on the original tracks of everyone. Follow? We now have two versions of acoustic guitar . One that is good on the Acoustic track and bleed from the bad track, still part of the rest of the bands track. Start compounding this now. Mashing up everyone like this. Its a huge problem.

I've done this sort of bleed correction in the past in the same way as I have taken out floor monitors: do a bleed take while replaying the monitor track at exactly the same volume, asking the performer(s) to keep completely still and silent. After the take, subtract the bleed take from the performance take. It's not perfect, but it can work where the bleed or feedthrough is really bad. It won't work to cancel out a badly played or out-of-tune part.

Boswell, post: 422338, member: 29034 wrote: It won't work to cancel out a badly played or out-of-tune part.

Right, which is usually why most overdub. Someone is off.
I've heard tracks where someone will autotune or use melodyne to correct the loud stuff, leaving the bleed still there. Client leave it like that and you now have pitch corrected overdubs with out of tune bleed. They'll do this to 20 tracks!

I've heard this on stems released by record labels for remixes. When I get the stems, its impossible to do anything with it then. At that point, its all mashed up and compressed to hell.

I was thinking of trying something like VocALign for some time to better align backvocals. I guess it would make things a lot worst with the bleedings...
I think those are the things you don't really worry until you have a problem ! ;)

Spectra Restoration tools can get some of this but its pain staking and no matter how we try and clean this up, it effects something else. The best solution, once we have produced music that has all the creative parts right, if you can, retrack everything over with as little overdubbing as possible. It another reason why tape sounded great back in the day. It wasn't the tape, it was we had to be good enough to play from start to finish with less overdubs than today.

reading this thread it just occurred to me the tools have created the need rather than the other way around. ironic.

Kurt Foster, post: 422348, member: 7836 wrote: reading this thread it just occurred to me the tools have created the need rather than the other way around. ironic.

Exactly Kurt! , "less is more". Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. To me, its all about source and conversion. After that, its the issues with summing and capture and playback systems.
I hardly use plug-ins. 48 tracks running, I might have 8 plugs running. Samplitude is really the Cadillac for dealing with issues right on the suspect spots which is "Object Editing" . Basic EQ curves and filters are my thing. Even with my analog chain, very little is happening, its there for charter augmentation. Most everything I do is based around filters and M/S approach which is simply a way to tidy up the congestion we can't hear well on one box.
One of the most confusing things I just can't get my head around is why people need so much DSP with a list of 100 plug-ins. Pro Tools, what a marketing machine.

Marco, I've never looked at this:

Cool plug-in but I would do this process manually by lining up the peaks and listening to how each phrase glued to the rest of the audio in a mix. I will often have to crossfade sections, move and reverse as Bos described to null because bleed might not syncing with the current tracks that were replaced (overdubbed). Part of my workflow as a mixer is repairing bad punch-ins, clicks and tails left, bleeds effecting the phase, most often very obvious between words or beats.

This is a great audio example of what's happening with bleed, but the product doesn't address removing bleed because on tracks we want to keep. The direct problem is the someone during the recordings "bad out of tune bleed" is part of the tracks we want to keep. And so it goes.

audiokid, post: 422350, member: 1 wrote: Cool plug-in but I would do this process manually by lining up the peaks and listening to how each phrase glued to the rest of the audio in a mix.

That's exactly what I do now. But the product seems to do it very well without noticeable artifacts.
Thing is, this discussion about bleeds make me realise that doing it manually or with vocalign may not be a good idea unless the headphone bleeds are very low.. When copy paste and sliding stuff in time. It's surely can build up a mess in the background...

wait! ......wait! ........ i'm getting something ....... channelling from a "different" wavelength .....

"downward expansion ........ sm57 .............. sm57 ....................downward expansion ....... noise gates ....... "

now i'm really scared!

Kurt Foster, post: 422354, member: 7836 wrote: wait! ......wait! ........ i'm getting something ....... channelling from a "different" wavelength .....

"downward expansion ........ sm57 .............. sm57 ....................downward expansion ....... noise gates ....... "

now i'm really scared!

I don't get it? :)

Kurt Foster, post: 422354, member: 7836 wrote: wait! ......wait! ........ i'm getting something ....... channelling from a "different" wavelength .....

"downward expansion ........ sm57 .............. sm57 ....................downward expansion ....... noise gates ....... "

now i'm really scared!

Are you trying to revive Remy's account kurt ? ;)

no, not at all ...... frequency dependent compression .... oh sh*t! it's happening again!

I've been using Beyer Dynamic DT100 old school headphones for years. Had to replace the original worn out vinyl pads with the new comfy cloth ones a few years ago. Only exception, Sony HDR750 (I think ) for drummer, because the BD's are high OHM, I think 400, very quiet sometimes.. I have never understood how anyone could let bleed from headphones become an issue, always seemed natural to eliminate any issues from it, IF present.

It the case of a whole band playing together the bleed of the acoustic, proportional to the rest of the bands directly mixed sounds, and the new over dub, the momentary dissonance from the bum notes bleed should barely be audible, and if it is not a huge problem, in all but the slickest pop, which probably isn't using live tracking. Even then, you could just edit the live multitrack for that momentary sour not from another section.

I've overdubbed straight over rough tracks, cut in a live room bleeding into evrything, mainly oh and room, and been fine in rock and roll. The ghosting effect just blends into the ambience, and yeah gating and stuff can go a long way to making it disappear if u don't want it.

That said, just in a typical band in stage setup, it's quite remarkable how much isolation you get!

I like those ISO phones for drummers who want it reall loud, and need a have a click. I've also automated the click to fade or mite at the end of tunes.

It sounds to me like you got a sloppily eecorded set of tracks for the genre Chris. Over loud cans, or maybe they used open back cans. Ecessivly high recording levels?

I treat bleed as part of the sound, and usually try notching and de essing, the worst of it. One time I got a live recording w bleed over the leads, and I duplicated the track and nudged the copies a bit, and it "filled" in things a bit. I hope as it becomes more and more common to see an LDC at people's houses, and equipment is just taken for granted, basic recording considerations will be next to spread. I got faith in the future. Even if humans don't learn it, equipment will just do it for us. Yay.

In a live situation, bleed is something you work with. It's not usually a problem from headphones or even from floor monitors if you are careful, since the main trouble is original sound sources getting into mics other than the one you have set up for them. But the crucial point is that when it's live, it's all the same take (the only one). There is no difference in tuning, rhythm, solos etc that you get in a studio on overdubs by musicians who have come to see not getting it correct first time as their right.

Boswell, post: 422372, member: 29034 wrote: In a live situation, bleed is something you work with. It's not usually a problem from headphones or even from floor monitors if you are careful, since the main trouble is original sound sources getting into mics other than the one you have set up for them. But the crucial point is that when it's live, it's all the same take (the only one). There is no difference in tuning, rhythm, solos etc that you get in a studio on overdubs by musicians who have come to see not getting it correct first time as their right.

Bos is precisely following. (y)

And I'll say it again, Bleed is a good thing if its in time. But when its not, and when its accumulating by means of overdubbing, consider this an essential look into your next mix. Bookmark this thread.

Next time you are mixing. Take a deeper listen to the headphone bleed in all the tracks, normalize the levels to study how they are sounding and lining up.

Without being rude or suggestive we are all loser's here, I doubt many of us are fully aware of what this is really doing. I guarantee mass thinks they aren't subjected to this like I was. Think again. I make a living at this section more than I should even be sharing.
The moment two bleeds are out of sync, is 1 too many.

My point here, it took a bad version of this to get me to look deeper into something I am now blown away from. Knowing this will add another (that 2% towards wow). This is one of those dark distractions fooling us to look elsewhere when mixing.

this is a perfect example of why we should make decisions and then stay with them .... practice "proper" techniques to avoid issues.

when i track, i like to get takes with the whole band and then go back and punch in to fix a few clams (usually the bass) .... in this case, phones are not necessary unless requested ... do several passes and then edit different passes for the perfect take. decisions made, problems avoided.

i think a lot of these kinds of problems happen to home hobby recordists who are recording by themselves. they may not be aware of what they need to do to get useable tracks.

it might not be a popular thing to say but if i were accepting projects, i wouldn't touch something with these kinds of issues. i would tell the client to do it over right. even when recording by myself, i can get tracks sans phone bleed ....

for example; when recording guitars or keys, record direct then re amp ...

audiokid, post: 422404, member: 1 wrote: And I'll say it again, Bleed is a good thing if its in time. But when its not, and when its accumulating by means of overdubbing, consider this an essential look into your next mix. Bookmark this thread.

In theory, any bleeds (live through monitors or through headphones) could become a problem depending on the distance and how loud it is from the mic.
Of course it's a lot worst if you copy and paste stuff around and/or time drag ...

Kurt Foster, post: 422405, member: 7836 wrote: this is a perfect example of why we should make decisions and then stay with them .... practice "proper" techniques to avoid issues.

when i track, i like to get takes with the whole band and then go back and punch in to fix a few clams (usually the bass) .... in this case, phones are not necessary unless requested ... do several passes and then edit different passes for the perfect take. decisions made, problems avoided.

i think a lot of these kinds of problems happen to home hobby recordists who are recording by themselves. they may not be aware of what they need to do to get useable tracks.

it might not be a popular thing to say but if i were accepting projects, i wouldn't touch something with these kinds of issues. i would tell the client to do it over right. even when recording by myself, i can get tracks sans phone bleed ....

for example; when recording guitars or keys, record direct then re amp ...

Without doubt Kurt.

But, that pro world is diminishing; or lets say, the home studio and "2 track at a time" might be the most popular method for musicians to make music today.
I will say it again, there hasn't been one mix (recorded on a DAW) where I didn't do something because of some timing issue bleeding / phasing out.

To expand, one of the worst offenders, contributors to sss and spiky upper mids is a direct correlation between cymbals/ hats and vocals. Which, are often in bleed that has been altered from the original passes. So, what we end up with are bleeds that should be there to add a constant and natural sync now changed. This not only creates a weird change in volumes, the slight changes from overdubs now create a swirly effect like two instruments of the same duplicated and shifted by a byte that randomly swings all over the map!

Its a huge problem.

Maybe.... why vinyl, tape, analog, old school etc all sounds better. Follow me? The gear back then didn't allow us to edit so much. We played the stuff through instead of what I am now pointing out as possibly the sole reason why digital audio sounds so unnatural to us.

OMG, the new generation edits everything. Thats all it is. One big edit path where nothing is real. Listening to the headphones is a game changer.

Here is a secret weapon that I've done for years. When I produce something and have the opportunity to play my guitar, I will track my performance start to finish and hide it in the background. I do this so there is something that ( maybe even subliminally) adds a sense of real to the music. I swear its a mojo maker.

well, all that may be. But ...one of those demo tracks I posted that you said had audible heapphone phasing, I didn't even wear headphones on... the 414... Because I was only doing half a verse for sake of analysis, I didn't bother to monitor the DAW playback. In fact, I didn't even have playback running. I recorded it a ccapella to a blank track on a new project line... so, I dunno.

FWIW

DonnyThompson, post: 422418, member: 46114 wrote: well, all that may be. But ...one of those demo tracks I posted that you said had audible heapphone phasing, I didn't even wear headphones on... the 414... Because I was only doing half a verse for sake of analysis, I didn't bother to monitor the DAW playback. In fact, I didn't even have playback running. I recorded it a ccapella to a blank track on a new project line... so, I dunno.

FWIW

Well, there ya go :barefoot: . I said it sounded like it could be headphone bleed or combing? I hear walls and some weird phase or questionable combing that doesn't sound like the mic's alone. Just a guess but it sounds like around a 4ft to 6ft distance that is producing a combing effect on both mics.
I isolated the suspect freq, saw a similarity and posted this. So, I'm at a loss for you then. Its hard to pin down something I have know idea where its originating from, to boot... what you or others don't hear as well. Go figure... o_O
FWIW, headphone bleed has a very similar effect to what I'm hearing in the upper mids of both. You said it was a texture of nodes removed? I have no idea. I thought I heard this same upper mid on another vocalist (in a past mix of yours) so I was really hoping we nailed in down. Simple easy fix (y)
The vox's alone do include close walls and a low ceiling. I hear a combination of these issues in the both.

In a mix, it all gets washed around and maybe its hardly even worth worrying about.

DonnyThompson, post: 422418, member: 46114 wrote: well, all that may be. But ...one of those demo tracks I posted that you said had audible heapphone phasing, I didn't even wear headphones on... the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.akg.com/…"]414[/]="http://www.akg.com/…"]414[/]... Because I was only doing half a verse for sake of analysis, I didn't bother to monitor the DAW playback. In fact, I didn't even have playback running. I recorded it a ccapella to a blank track on a new project line... so, I dunno.

EDIT: My opinions are subjective to my workflow, as a mixer receiving or using a system such as mine.

Could be why I preferred the 414 in some regards. It has more size to work with, hybrid. The Tube however, sounds better as is (no hybrid after) because it is masking some of what I hear in your room and sits better, as is. My final opinion, I prefer the mid range of the tube but have more hope for the 414 if I was inserting an LA2A on the stem and mixing it through my process. That being said, the Tube would be harder to bring it up front in a mix, compared.

My way of thinking, the tube version would then have a smaller spectrum and suffer because it becomes an issue of supporting the weakest dominant in the mix. That is, if you want the vox to be out front in a balanced texture sort of way.

Cheers!

I wasn't doubting you on the room, Chris... I'm sure the spare bedroom I'm using to record in isn't the best choice.

The 5k-7k "edge" you are hearing that bothers you and Marco is my voice. I've been told by many others about it for many years, some dig it, some don't.

After I had the throat surgery, I lost about a half-step of my top end range, and about a step on the bottom end (so I can't sing quite as high by a half step and I can't sing quite as low by a whole step). I didin't really mind all that much, I was kinda tired of singing Journey and Triumph songs anyway - LOL - But, what I gained ( for better or worse) was a rasp - that I thought would go away with time - or at least that's what the Doc thought, and while it receded a little, it never left completely....and, i short time, I discovered that within the rasp was a harmonic - in that 5k - 8k range you're pointing out.

So, what you are hearing is me hitting the note pure with one voice, but on top of that is a "second voice" which is that added edgy harmonic.
(If you listen to some early Van Halen, you can hear Roth has added harmonics to his voice is well - although I don't know if it's because of surgery or just his natural voice).

I don't have as much of it in my speaking voice, but when singing, it's very evident. It gets edgier - or a bit smoother - depending on what range I'm singing in.

There's not much I can do about it; I can EQ it out to an extent, but then the overall tone suffers. I've tried isolating and notching it with the narrowest Q possible, but as you know, that only works if I were to sing only one note - LOL - and because I'm moving around on a melody line, the edge harmonic drifts... it's really hard to nail down.

I think the 414 probably serves me best - at least for most vocals - because it's more transparent than the tube, which adds its own edge - and on my voice it can become too much, because I'm already edgy..

As far as the reflections, I can start tracking in my mixing room, where I'm sure reflection will be far less because of the traps, BB absorbers and diffusers I have installed - I just normally don't like to track in there because of the other everyday noises that are common - computer, power supply fans, etc., plus, that room sits on the side of the house where the road passes by... cars going by on wet pavement don't really bother me much when I'm mixing, but when I've got a hot mic set up to track, some of that stuff inevitably leaks through.

As for the voice, I'm kinda stuck with it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and it also all depends on who is listening. It's about a 40/40 opinion either way, with the other 20% not noticing, or not caring one way or the other.

I guess I'm just gonna have to keep singing in different mics to find the best match, although I can start tracking in my treated room - which I'm sure will help with the reflections you were hearing; although that won't do anything to improve the little devil that lives in my throat. ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 422424, member: 46114 wrote: I wasn't doubting you on the room, Chris... I'm sure the spare bedroom I'm using to record in isn't the best choice.

The 5k-7k "edge" you are hearing that bothers you and Marco is my voice. I've been told by many others about it for many years, some dig it, some don't.

After I had the throat surgery, I lost about a half-step of my top end range, and about a step on the bottom end (so I can't sing quite as high by a half step and I can't sing quite as low by a whole step). I didin't really mind all that much, I was kinda tired of singing Journey and Triumph songs anyway - LOL - But, what I gained ( for better or worse) was a rasp - that I thought would go away with time - or at least that's what the Doc thought, and while it receded a little, it never left completely....and, i short time, I discovered that within the rasp was a harmonic - in that 5k - 8k range you're pointing out.

So, what you are hearing is me hitting the note pure with one voice, but on top of that is a "second voice" which is that added edgy harmonic.
(If you listen to some early Van Halen, you can hear Roth has added harmonics to his voice is well - although I don't know if it's because of surgery or just his natural voice).

I don't have as much of it in my speaking voice, but when singing, it's very evident. It gets edgier - or a bit smoother - depending on what range I'm singing in.

There's not much I can do about it; I can EQ it out to an extent, but then the overall tone suffers. I've tried isolating and notching it with the narrowest Q possible, but as you know, that only works if I were to sing only one note - LOL - and because I'm moving around on a melody line, the edge harmonic drifts... it's really hard to nail down.

I think the 414 probably serves me best - at least for most vocals - because it's more transparent than the tube, which adds its own edge - and on my voice it can become too much, because I'm already edgy..

As far as the reflections, I can start tracking in my mixing room, where I'm sure reflection will be far less because of the traps, BB absorbers and diffusers I have installed - I just normally don't like to track in there because of the other everyday noises that are common - computer, power supply fans, etc., plus, that room sits on the side of the house where the road passes by... cars going by on wet pavement don't really bother me much when I'm mixing, but when I've got a hot mic set up to track, some of that stuff inevitably leaks through.

As for the voice, I'm kinda stuck with it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and it also all depends on who is listening. It's about a 40/40 opinion either way, with the other 20% not noticing, or not caring one way or the other.

I guess I'm just gonna have to keep singing in different mics to find the best match, although I can start tracking in my treated room - which I'm sure will help with the reflections you were hearing; although that won't do anything to improve the little devil that lives in my throat. ;)

Gotcha! I actually have a similar problem that ended my singing career early on. My Wisdom teeth became impacted and abscessed without me knowing. I was getting sick all the time but I had no pain. Eventually after years of suffering, constantly becoming sicker and sicker, I thought I had cancer and was heading fast towards kissing angels.
Having no family left to help support me, I had to keep working to live, 6 nights a week city to city. My voice and health took a brutal beating which eventually scared me for life. The constant infection turned into Quinsy, which in a nut shell, is an infection that closes off your throat. Without a hospital near by to lance my throat , you are done. It damn near killed me had I not made it to a hospital.

About that time my sister was just finishing Dental school and suggested I come to see her Prof. They took one look at the X Ray and put me under, carved those babies out! Within two weeks I starting feeling better than I ever did my whole adult life. But, I lost my voice because of this preventable tooth thing.
My voice has a similar freq that almost adds a second octave. Its weird and it also hurts when I push. When I swallow, part of my throat doesn't quite close. Its all internal, meaning I look normal but I am fucked for life.
It forced me to sing lower for another 12 years and eventually I had to get off the road. Smoky bars and 6 nights a week is a closed chapter. thus, I am here today pretending to be a mixer and so it goes...

I know what its about. See, I told you we had more things in common.

Interesting thread. Can someone tell me how to deal with can bleed when I myself record? I gotta have it loud in the cans or I just can't hear. My hearing tests show me as having normal hearing. Is it psychological or am I doing it wrong to need it so loud in the cans?

Unless you have a "stellar acoustic room" I would without doubt track in a treated control room any day of the week. Find ways to isolate your fans. I use a PCAudioLabs CP which has rubber shocks on the drives. Its super quiet! Maybe you have an option to use those rubbers?

Also, build a small enclosure if that helps, or put foam around it. Look online for this ot even buy a different CP BOX. there are options!
Create the vertical space using virtual effects over goofing around with a boxy room. Those how say, you can't do, it, I disagree. I got of that trip long ago. Create space rather than living in a box. Isolation and effects will put client money in the pocket.

JohnTodd, post: 422427, member: 39208 wrote: Interesting thread. Can someone tell me how to deal with can bleed when I myself record? I gotta have it loud in the cans or I just can't hear. My hearing tests show me as having normal hearing. Is it psychological or am I doing it wrong to need it so loud in the cans?

Get excellent cans to start with. And, study what headphones bleed is doing to your mix. Hearing is believing.

Track soft and learn to listen at low levels!!! I cannot rave about this enough. I use phones just loud enough so I can hear the effects I need. My tallent hears their voice naturally as well as in the phones. Its not a fun learning curve but the results are better pitch and way better sound! You learn to appreciate it. I never used to do this until I discovered how bad bleed really is.

This is of course not possible for everyone. I mean, if you are in business of recording, you can't fight people's habits or comfort zones. Being aware, you at least aren't trying to fix something that isn't possible. Or, whats causing you to spend money on better mic/s etc. Something this simple might all be caused from the above.

Thanks, audiokid.

My singer is an example, too. On stage he sings just fine, but in the studio, he is a bit pitchy. I know he does good on stage because I've reviewed videos of his performances. But in the studio, not as much.

But hey, we only have one pair of "studio" cans between us. Turns out both of us use my cans when tracking vocals.

I don't think it's the cans, but could it be? They are Senheiser HD215. Good sound quality, circumaural, closed back. They don't bleed at regular levels, but they do bleed at "my" loud levels.

Also, am I misunderstanding something about the cue mix? I just put stuff in the cans to listen to. I'll strip out some of the complex keyboard parts, and dwell on drums/bass/guitar and click in the cans. No FX on the singer's voice. Am I doing it wrong?

I've even done this: One can off the ear, and audio cue sent ONLY to the other one that is on the ear. Minimizes bleed nicely when he is singing, but my loud levels still bleed when I sing.

Somebody help! audiokid is gonna get tired of dealing with all my blood spilled out everywhere. Especially since I love to overdub lots of BGVs! With the same mic, preamps, cans, singers, and mediocre sounding rooms!

Try the bleed subtraction experiment (post #8 in this thread). It might not produce a pretty sound, but it may give you an idea of how audible your bleed is on a standard take.

Thanks, Boswell.

What if I put a phase flipper on my cue mix out? Then all the bleed would be 180 out, and the singer would never be able to tell.

Yes, that should work for the "quiet" take. It doesn't remove the need to add the two takes together.

Now I'm lost. What is this other take? Please forgive.

To cancel out the bleed, you have to perform a differencing operation between a performing take and a "quiet" take that's identical in terms of what's playing into and the position of the phones but the performer does not perform any singing or playing. If you sent exactly the same phone track both times, you would have to subtract the "quiet" take from the performing take to remove any bleed. If you were to invert the phone track before sending it to the phones, you could numerically add the two resulting tracks and the bleed would still cancel.

A-ha! Now I get it! Thanks!