Nice track. I love the imaging on the acoustic guitars. Nice harmonies, too.

The drums are nicely focused, although the hi hat is a bit hot for my tastes.

The sibilance on the female lead vocal is killin' me, though, Boulder. I realize you are after "air" on her voice, but you need to reign in those "S's".. they're really at the pain level. Just off the top of my head, I'd say to look at the 8k-10k region.

Can I ask what DAW platform you are using? I might have a hint for you on how you could de-ess those vocals without losing the "air"....

Sony Vegas 13. Opposite of many singers she tend to pull back on her consonants so I compensate. I'll certainly listen to suggestions on making it better.

By the way, it's her first time singing in a band, our first attempt at a proper recording, and we just had our first public performance three days ago.

Hi hat is just in the overheads, no close mic.

Any help on the genre?

I'm on very cheap headphones here and I got the Ss problem very obvious. You could automate volumes on them or use a Deesser.
I also think the vocal could use a bit of parallele compression to bring softer words up a bit but keep the vibe.
I'll try to listen to it in the studio tonight and comment further
Nice song BTW !

Okay, well I can manage de-essing. As soon as it was mentioned I could picture three or four ways to do it, including automation and traditional compression with a filtered detector.

In the Cockos ReaPlugs collection there's a super cool plugin called ReaFIR. It has a compression mode with a spectrum display and where the threshold is a curve like many parametric eqs. When the signal crosses the threshold only the frequency that exceeds its threshold (and an FFT windowed range around it) is reduced. It's sort of like a multiband comp but more targeted.

Best way is to manually remove them, which can be done in 15 minutes or so. The plug-in de-esser riders always pull more out than needed while leaving a footprint.
What happens during the set-up of de-essers, your ears get shot triyng to find where the average ss are, followed by reducing leaving you with the impression that its better, which it is, but its not anywhere close to manually going in and surgically removing them one by one, where they are, not just where they "kind of are". .
I know that sounds daunting, but it really isn't. In fact, it take more time to setup the plugin de-essers and screw around with them than a manual edit ever does. At least once you get onto it.
Ess' have a clear transient wave to them. You not only hear them, you can see them. And if your DAW allows smooth attack and fade editing where you edited them, removing ess' can be very unnoticed.

i never have issues with a de esser. i use an outboard de esser DBX 1/2 rack thing ... it's a real pos but it freakin' works! i can adjust what freq it targeting and how much it pulls out ... anything from a light touch to making it "thoud like thith" BUT if i did have an issue one thing i would try would be parallel processing.

Oh, I can edit down to the sub-phoneme level. I used to record/edit people doing corporate presentations. I got to the point where I could start to match waveforms with the script by sight.

Kurt Foster, post: 427276, member: 7836 wrote: i never have issues with a de esser. i use an outboard de esser DBX 1/2 rack thing ... it's a real pos but it freakin' works! i can adjust what freq it targeting and how much it pulls out ... anything from a light touch to making it "thoud like thith" BUT if i did have an issue one thing i would try would be parallel processing.

I've wanted a tracking de-esser for years. been looking at a few. I think the reason those work so well, once again, is because you are getting the suspects before they hit the AD. I think this is why I love the BAX EQ for mastering as well, same reasoning. We use the filters to nip the problems before they hit the AD. It sounds way better dealing with everything before it hits the AD. You get a better capture and better level to my ears.

In this case I think the problem is more my eq than her performance. The raw track is probably fine in terms of sibilance. She just doesn't enunciate consonants super clearly so I tend to (over) compensate with eq. On the flip side, she's never popped a mic that I've heard.

I've already put in a couple of hours editing the vocal for levels so editing sibilance will not be a big deal.

So that's one gross error brought to my attention. Huge thanks to everybody. Anything else? Frankly, if that's all you can find wrong I feel really good about the recording.

Help with the genre? Most of their other stuff falls into the power pop/classic rock range.

First off, I want to thank you for finally... yes... and more so, openly trusting and posting some of your work. You have my respect. I need to create some sort of reward for those who do this as acknowledgment.

I love this. Other than the mentioned sss, its a bit too reverby on the vocals, but it glues to the mix so its not bad, I just think it could be less cold and in the room sounding. Otherwise I just love this. I think I'll listen to it another dozen times. .
Its the kind of bands I've always enjoyed playing in. Nicely done. Love her vocals too. Love the steel. Everything really.

Chris, coming from you that is huge.

Honestly, it is probably my best work yet. After struggling for years against bad sounding sources and bad playing I've finally got a "real" band to work with and it's a wonderful thing. Instead of fighting to subdue the badness I just have to capture what they do and present it well. We've got a whole "album" of songs in the works so there's more to come. I'll keep you posted.

If anybody's interested in my process feel free to ask.

bouldersound, post: 427290, member: 38959 wrote: Chris, coming from you that is huge.

Thank you!

bouldersound, post: 427290, member: 38959 wrote: Instead of fighting to subdue the badness I just have to capture what they do and present it well.

There it is exactly. Words of wisdom.

This is really good! It's a great song and you've put it together very well.

A few possibilities for tweaking:

1. I find the instrument movement in the stereo field during the first 13 sec disconcerting and feel this means the song does not start with a firm positional base.

2. As others have said, the female vocal needs a bit more work in the mix - probably both compression to bring up the weaker phrases plus near-limiting to tame the violent transients - followed by a lift in the level against the backing.

3. Minor work on the sibilance.

4. Let the end fade take a little longer.

Progressive Country Rock?

Good work!

Great song. The strong female vocal, full of earthy character, gritty passion and sensual lyricism, is a major feature - clearly a strong talent here. The tempo / rhythm changes are also strong features. And the super slick harmonies. Occasionally I get a feeling of split personality with this arrangement, some elements such as the lovely slide guitar pulling it to sentimental country ballad, while the punchy accents and distorted guitars pull it to more of a rocker, but still this is full of fine musicianship, highly accomplished in all areas to my ears.

Thanks Boswell for the suggestions, and thanks to you and Jathon for the compliments. I'm going to bet that all of us here have that critical voice in our heads constantly berating our work, driving us to be better. In the end that's a good thing, but it sure helps to have a positive response to balance that out and keep us from just giving up. I'm really looking forward to the next round of tweaks.

Some pics of the drum setup.

Sounds good thru my phone, nice fat snare sound. I'm wondng what kind of mic you used on the lead vox was it a rode? +1 0n some more judicious compression / volume automation on the lead vox. Good stuff.

Vocals and acoustics were done with a 4050 (omni, no pad) into a Solo 610 into a Tascam M-2600 MkII into a MOTU 24i (via the insert send rather than the tape out).

I've edited and crushed the vocal already. I guess I just need to go a little farther.

I know you've worked on your mix since the OP. Could you post a version of it so we can compare ?

pcrecord, post: 427511, member: 46460 wrote: I know you've worked on your mix since the OP. Could you post a version of it so we can compare ?

I haven't actually had time. What we work on depends on who shows up, and with the drummer and guitarist there Wednesday night we tracked drums for another song. I like to have at least bass and guitar playing while tracking drums. When drums, guitar and vocals aren't there I'll get back on this mix.

Finally got back to this.

[MEDIA=soundcloud]bouldersoundguy/crawlin-mix-2

Good lead vocals, but I'm having a problem hearing her when she sings in her lower register. I think some more compression could help that. Also, she could use a bit of pitch-correction here and there to get her onto the "radio-ready" level.
If you are still having a problem having her vocals ride on top of the mix, try "low-passing" some of the instrumentation (acoustic guitar comes to mind), starting at 12k, and working down, just enough to where the it's sounds like the original instrument, but leaves high-end room for the vox.
As far as the de-essing, I usually use both a soft-hitting de-esser, in conjunction with manually attenuating waveforms.

I think it's a good, solid mix - personally, I'm not hearing the need for more compression on the vocals, I think you might start to effect the dynamic range if you added any more reduction - although, you might want to consider automating or adding a volume envelope for those parts where she's dipping down and becomes a bit shy in level and accordingly harder to discern.

I think the vocals have a nice airy and silky top end, so, at least from what I'm hearing, I'm not hearing that a de-esser is needed - there's no harsh sibilance jumping out at me; you might trim back 8k (or so - that's just a guess) by a db, give or take, if there are any specific S's or T's that are jumping out and bothering you.

Can you tell us what DAW prog you are working in, along with the mic and pre combination you used for the LV?
Did you add any other VST processing ( not counting verb or delay) to her track - other than basic EQ / gain reduction? For example, any transient or gain modeling, or a particular channel strip ... either tracking with, or during the mix?

FWIW, from an artistic opinion, there are two things I'm not crazy about - The first is the back and forth panning of the acoustic guitar in the intro, I found it to be distracting. The second thing is her overusing that "growl" technique on her vocal; it gets to be a little too much after awhile... and the more she uses it, the less effective it becomes. Little nuances like those kinds of "vocal aerobics" are much more effective the less that they occur. IMHO of course.

These are "creative" differences, and not technical.

I think it's a solid mix. ;)

d.

EDIT - sorry, I went back further into the thread and saw where you had already mentioned the pre and mic you used - although I'd still like to know what type of processing - if any - you used during this most recent mix.
-d.

I'm recording and mixing in Sony Vegas. We upgraded from Vegas 6 to 13 during this project. The track inserts are probably: ReaEQ -> ReaFIR -> ReaComp, but I'll double check next time I'm there. ReaFIR is set up as a de-esser, which it does in a unique way.

As far as technique, this is the singer's first band and first recording project. She has no training outside of our guidance. At the beginning of this project she didn't know about double tracking or what a harmony is or how to work a mic. She was going on raw talent alone. Although she absorbs new ideas almost instantly I tend to avoid piling too many new ideas on at once. She has a spectacular ear and easily spots problems in her singing during playback, so I'm betting she'll adjust things like the growl as she develops.

The acoustic panning is just the way it was played. He varied the part a little on each take.

Enunciation is still an issue, but she's improving that mostly without anyone's input. I've decided it is what it is and not to try too hard to make every word perfectly intelligible. This whole recording project started out as an offhand idea, more of a demo than a release, so radio-ready is way beyond my goal. If we came anywhere close to that it's a success by our standards. Oh, and there are 7 more songs on this project. They're not quite as epic as this but they all rock.

It's a very good first recording for her.

By the way, we re-tracked one song recently and I decided to give her a C535EB and let her hold it. I liked it better than the 4050.

bouldersound, post: 432575, member: 38959 wrote: By the way, we re-tracked one song recently and I decided to give her a C535EB and let her hold it. I liked it better than the 4050.

That doesn't really surprise me - especially if she's got more live performance experience than she does with static studio/condenser mics. How was the handling noise on the 535? Did you have to gate or filter much?

No handling noise that I noticed, no pop filter, no popping, no gate. I have the 14dB pad and bass roll-off filter engaged, which is typical for lead vocals. Eq and comp on the track as usual, perhaps ReaFIR in between for de-essing. I don't think I did anything too different with plugin settings.

CrazyLuke, post: 432542, member: 48048 wrote: Good lead vocals, but I'm having a problem hearing her when she sings in her lower register. I think some more compression could help that.

Compressors are welcome when from word to word there is too much seperation in levels created by exagerated dynamics. If you want to fix when a section of the song is at a different level, the use of volume automations is a better choice. Unless you are mixing a Rap song and you want to remove all dynamics.

bouldersound, post: 432564, member: 38959 wrote: As far as technique, this is the singer's first band and first recording project. She has no training outside of our guidance. At the beginning of this project she didn't know about double tracking or what a harmony is or how to work a mic. She was going on raw talent alone.

It was a very raw talent recording indeed. With some knowledge how to work the mic and control her dynamics, she could showcase that talent on another level. I have no doubt she could make a career out of it ! ;).

It's working very well as a track, and I think just a little more work on processing the vocals could turn it into a killer. In post #14 I mentioned the positionally slewing intro (which Donny also referred to), and this is still disconcerting for the listener.

On the vocals, I think Donny is right in saying that you do not need more ordinary compression, but what I think you could try is drawing a time line on paper and sketching a level envelope as you run through listening to the mix. Then do another mix, manually riding the vocal track level according to what you have sketched. It probably doesn't need a range of more than 4 - 6dB.

The other problem that I mentioned in post 14 are the excessive vocal transients, and, although acceptable on loudspeaker monitors, these are still painful when heard on headphones at any more than a moderate level. Without trying it, I don't know whether limiting is the answer for taming these, or whether there is a more subtle way of controlling them without obvious detriment to the rest of the track.

Overall, it's a great song and well recorded. The steel guitar is magnificent. A touch more work on the intro and the vocals and it's the sort of track I would go out and pay good money for.

Thanks. I'm pretty sure I've done more work on the vocals since that last posted mix. I think I did more gain editing and work on the compression.

I brought up what both of you mentioned about the guitars in the intro to the band but there wasn't much concern. I'll bring it up again. If they're into it I'll re-track the acoustics.

Very good mix the only thing that tweaks me (a personal thing) is I think the snare could use more crack.

Thanks. It's gone through some updates since I've posted a mix. I don't recall if or how the snare may have been changed relative to this version.

Here's what I ended up with:

https://www.reverbnation.com/gingerslap/song/24951434-crawlin