Yeah Clark... all you need is an SM-58 on your vocal. And a big extra foam pop filter. Stop screwing around with the condenser microphone thingies. If an SM-7 is okay for Michael Jackson's lead vocals. Then a 57 or 58 is more than adequate for your vocals since those microphones don't sound much different from the 7. Warm, lush, almost like a Neumann U-87. And not someone's cheap large diaphragm condenser microphone thingy. Or small diaphragm condenser microphone thingy. And you'll have it. It's a phallus, see? That you need a condenser microphone for the vocals. You absolutely don't. If you want something better sounding than the 58? Get yourself a cheap Fathead from Cascades... 160 smackers. That's a ribbon microphone and those are even warmer and lusher sounding. Just don't blow into one without a big foam pop filter on it. Then you'll amaze your friends and family!

Otherwise there's really no way to change that vocal sound, with EQ, dynamic range modifications, effects or other Plug-in thingies. Since garbage in usually equals garbage out and your microphone on the vocal, is as clear as shattered glass. Even running that through tubes ain't going to make the difference you want to hear. It has to start at the source. At the microphone. So if you're hell-bent on using condenser microphones? Then your vocal is fine. It's the best that mediocrity has to offer. Then for some that's just fine. Not for me it isn't.

You can get this right. You're Canadian!
Mx. Remy Ann David

Clark... do NOT change your workflow. Continue to use the same mic and pre that you did with the song that Chris worked on with you. It sounded great. Send your vocal track to Chris (or myself) for a little EQ tweaking.
This is totally useable. It just needs a little tweaking... very little. You really aren't that far off here on this one - and there's nothing "harsh" about your vocal at all. It might have a little too much around 900 - 1k or so, but that's about it. Your singing partner's voice might have a bit too much weight around 200-300 or so...

there are no drastic changes needed here, Clark. Don't change your mics or pre. They are sounding fine. Just a few tiny tweaks...

d/

I'm with Donny, Remy is having a sm58 week and she has promoted it on many posts.. ;)

Less harsh and ugly?? I don't think that of your voice. You should already know that the softness may come from interpretation more than recording technics. You could sing softer. I'm not saying you should on that song. It sound very good to me but I get what you are saying. She sings very litely and airy.

Adding to the things Donny said, there might be a bit too much mids in the reverb as well and I feel your voice has more dynamics than the girl's. I'd either lower the compression ratio and/or threshold on her track or add a bit more on yours.

Thanks so much for listening lady and gentleman.

PCrecord, you have a very good ear! There is a touch more compression on her voice, because I felt like hers was responding to it better than mine was. But if you can tell then I need to re-evaluate.

As far as what mic to use on my vocals, I am actually quite sympathetic to what Remy was saying. The C414 that I have been using on my vox for the past couple years sounds great, don't get me wrong, but it's missing the milkiness and richness that I hear in recordings done with dynamic mics. I am a little disenchanted with condenser mics on my vocals. I don't think I would use a 58 like you were suggesting Remy, but every male vocal recording done with a sm7 that I've heard in the past few months has stood out to me like "that's what I'm missing!" I'm going to try those EQ tricks that Donny and pcrecord recommended, cause there's no way I'm retracking these vox (I spent about 20 hours tracking and editing them to get that sound) but I would also be interested in pretending that Remy never mentioned a 7B and hear your guys opinions on experimenting with one for my next recording.

Pax Caritas et lol,
-Clark

I should have bought the two SM7's from Kurt a few months back. They are on my list. But, your problem won't be corrected with another mic alone, Clark. I'm with Donny, Remy is talking errr I'm hearing live sound more than 21 century HD pro audio from her over and over. :cautious:

imho, your pre and conversion is problematic too. There is a metallic overtone and upper mid that is inherent to low to mid level gear which, I hear but others are still thinking this or that is going to make change better.
From your last mix, we know this can be worked out with some editing and technique. (I didn't use a de esser on your vocals btw.)

You are doing an awesome job getting the best sound you can get with what you have. If you are planning on investing in anything, all the mid level stuff sounds similar to me (size wise). The big changes come when you drop a few grand per channel. So, keep writing until you have a lot of money to burn on the vox chain or keep sending me your tracks!!! .

I couldn't resist . :D

PS, to everyone on the planet....

(I would try and avoid vocal tuning or riding software as it does weird things on everything from phase to accumulative aliasing distortion) . I use melodyne but I use it very methodically and undetected. Vocal riders are one ugly low mid twist and turn thing that I will spend hours trying to repair after the fact. I know some need it, or think they need it but I'd rather hear real life over perfect.

i also think less layering sounds bigger than the opposite. The more laying, the more smeary the bass gets.

audiokid, post: 419090, member: 1 wrote: There is a metallic overtone and upper mid that is inherent to low to mid level gear which, I hear but others are still thinking this or that is going to make change better.

audiokid, I refrained to mention it before, but I heard it too. That metallic sound, around 10k isn't it ?

Also, I feel Clark's vocal could use a tinny bit more bottom..

But I should say they are all minor things that didn't stop me from enjoying the song ;)

I'd be cheating now because I just spent 60 hours on his last mix so I know what I did to it all.

Usually the first mix is the most time consuming

The bottom end was problematic. The SSS were hot but easily fixed enough to never worry about it

But, if he had better vocal tracking he would have had better SSS and a tighter bottome end
In this track, I hear the guitars phase in and out but in an unusually way that isn't natural
I tend to like guitars sounding like they sound.

audiokid, post: 419090, member: 1 wrote: keep writing until you have a lot of money to burn on the vox chain or keep sending me your tracks!!!

That's my plan! Lol

audiokid, post: 419091, member: 1 wrote:
(I would try and avoid vocal tuning or riding software as it does weird things on everything from phase to accumulative aliasing distortion) . I use melodyne but I use it very methodically and undetected. Vocal riders are one ugly low mid twist and turn thing that I will spend hours trying to repair after the fact. I know some need it, or think they need it but I'd rather hear real life over perfect

In that case I'm honoured that you had to ask if I used pitch correction on the tracks I sent you! ;)

Does I Knew This Would Be Love have the residue of pitch correction you refer to?

Say that again?

Referring to this post of yours:

audiokid, post: 419091, member: 1 wrote: I use melodyne but I use it very methodically and undetected. Vocal riders are one ugly low mid twist and turn thing that I will spend hours trying to repair after the fact. I know some need it, or think they need it but I'd rather hear real life over perfect.

Do the vocals in "I Knew This Would be Love" sound like they were tuned methodically and undetected or ugly twist and turned?

Gotcha

No, they don't but I do hear Autotune sometimes but it's not bad. Autotune takes the transients and tunes them, takes the low mids and forces a weird quantizing thing
to them.

Some vocals ive heard from people use vocal riders that sound like smearing and delayed goo. I'm old school where I'd rather hear a guy singing his ass off with done pitch issues over the phase thing that an Autotune creates.

Back to your track here,

The guitars sound nice but are a bit left/right busy, but that's a creative thing that doesn't seem to be effecting the track in mono, although to do here it breathing.

What are you hearing?

Sorry for typos
I'm on my iphone at the lake and the Internet is cutting off.

I was generally speaking about Autotune

Ok, I was out at the lake these last few days too! I'm back now and I've got an updated mix of this song, and it's even "mastered!"

Besides the "mastering" I made a few other tweaks and I think I got rid of some of the metallic sound that you guys were hearing before in the reverb. One issue I'm still struggling with is the balance between the vocals and the instruments. The track seems so quiet and empty when Janaya and I aren't singing. What do you guys think? Is that a problem? Is it worth experimenting with read/write automation to

Sounds great Clark,

suggestions

I would take a bit reverb of of Janaya and turn her down, just in her solo spots.
Also, I would pull that one note on the guitar that is the root ( don't know the note) but its too loud in comparison. In Samplitude, we can pull the volume of a note down. Maybe if you have Melodyne, you can do it there too.

Notes that are dominant like that, I always turn them down, play them softer.

Thanks Chris. :)

audiokid, post: 419297, member: 1 wrote:
Also, I would pull that one note on the guitar that is the root ( don't know the note) but its too loud in comparison. In Samplitude, we can pull the volume of a note down. Maybe if you have Melodyne, you can do it there too.

You're talking about the fingerpicking part? The root note on all of the chords? Or one in particular?

I find the song really good as is !
There is only 2 things I noticed, but those are according to taste alone.

1. I would ajust for a longer delay on vocals to follow the quarter notes or half notes (may be when the bass note hit in the finger picking) on both L/R channels. It would add to the rithme of the song.
2. On her voice, I detect a tinny bit too much of low mids. It may not come from her voice but from the reverb (the room she was in or the added reverb) So the reverb could be EQ a bit.
   class="xf-ul">
   Nothing bothers me with the guitar and I'm curious to why Chris made his suggestion. (rather interested than curious in fact)

   At one point, we must take a step back and avoid overmixing a song. You certainly have a nice song and I'm confident most people wouldn't notice the things we said here. You're last mix/master, may be your definitve version, it's up to you to decide if you still can make it better ;)

I'm tossed on the delay, Clark. It's not a deal-breaker by any means, and I get where you're coming from in using it, having done it many times myself.. as it can add some dimension and vibe.

But, in this situation, I'm finding that it pulls the listener away from the very nice vocal performances you both gave. And, there's an intimacy on this track, and things like "saw you with new eyes...eyes...eyes..." is for me fairly distracting. I'm not referring to just this section, but in general. And, along with being distracting, it also becomes very predictable, too.

If your voices were below average, or at best average, then I'd say using the delay would be fine - using effects like verb and delay to cover certain inadequacies in vocal performances is one of the oldest tricks in the book, but with your voices, (I'm saying this as a pretty good singer myself) I think the effect is distracting the listener away from the nice nuances and intimacy that you both have going on here.

I dunno, I'm just thinking out loud, I guess... if you were to poll 10 different audio engineers/producers, you would very likely get 10 very different opinions, so of course, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

Bottom line, if I were the producer on this track, I'd dump the delay and look at a nice warm plate or rich sounding hall instead, with a predelay of around 100ms or so ... and just enough to add some depth and space, but not so much that it would also distract the listener.

Now... as far as guitar notes jumping out, the most common knee-jerk reaction in DAW land is to add compression to the track, but in this situation - personally speaking - I wouldn't go with a compressor on the acoustic, I would instead opt for some type of volume envelope control.

As Chris mentioned, when using Samplitude, we have the ability to use the Object Editor, which is a fantastic tool that allows for the precise editing and control of all audio parameters, (including volume) down to even one single note.

I don't remember what platform you are using, but you might consider using an envelope draw tool for unexpected volume changes, or, using automation on the track to control those random peaky notes ( to my knowledge, all DAW platforms have automation, and most, if not all, also have an envelope drawing tool). If you do decide to use GR, I sure would make it was as very little as possible! In a song like this, dynamics are really important, and GR could wipe out the dynamics pretty quickly, if you're not really conservative with it.

IMHO of course.

d/

ClarkJaman, post: 419300, member: 42802 wrote: Thanks Chris. :)

You're talking about the fingerpicking part? The root note on all of the chords? Or one in particular?

Yes, the fingerpicking part, the ending note of each phase. Its sticking out like a finger in the chest.

For Marco,
When there is a looped phrase like this, (in such an open and intimate song), imho, its sounds more musical when you don't notice a repeat exactly the same over and over. Lowering the volume on that note (style) would open the journey to the chord and other musical parts surrounding it.

Right now its like pointing a finger at the end of every sentence. Same word with the same boring velocity. The note is the last thing I remember everytime you play that part. Its a performance skill I would work on but, after the fact, you could use an EQ to surgically pull out the higher freq in it, use the lower freq in it to keep the body/
To further improve it, I would also grab just that note in an edit ( object editing)
I would also use a sidechain. There are a few ways to improve that.

fwiw, you did the same thing on the mix I just did for you, but on the low note of the fingerpicking that time. As you built the song, you seem to build it around the ending notes of a fingerpick. Last time,it became a problematic clash with the bass, kick, guitar and toms all hovering around that same freq. I used a sidechain and hpf to lower the volumes of all the other notes that fell on that note. Make sense?

hope that helps.

I'm the same with Donny, the delay isn't doing it for me either. In acoustic music like this I use delays that sound natural, not obvious.

Ok, I understand what you're talking about with the fingerpicking now. It's that high F# that plays over and over and over again... Now that you pointed it out, it's really annoying. I am going to try and minimize it a bit. I don't use samplitude or Sequoia, I use Cubase, so I'm not sure I can do it the same way that you are recommending, but I'm sure where there is a will there is a way! :P Maybe a de-esser tuned to that frequency or a multi-band compressor? I'll go try it right now.

As far as the delay, I sympathize with you pcrecord for the longer delay, but I also understand what Chris and Donny are saying. On one hand I wanted to minimize the delays so that it doesn't take away from the vocals, especially with Janaya's beautiful voice. But on the other hand, I disagree with what Chris said about using natural delays for an acoustic song like this- I don't feel like this is a raw, acoustic song. The vocals are heavily edited to sound almost inhumanely perfect and there's a mesh of synthesizers and stuff in the background that don't sound "natural" at all. Ultimately, I set the delays as they are as a compromise, and I like how they sound. Donny, it's interesting that you mentioned the line "saw you with new eyes... eyes... eyes...". That delay on the word "eyes" is an exception to the rest of the song. I automated the plugin to get that effect on that one word only. :P

I found the problem frequencies using my ears and a pitch to frequency chart: 675hz was the real bad boy. 1109 and 1475 were problematic too, and 2960 was getting on my nerves just a touch. The multiband comp/de-esser idea didn't work, but I used a 4-band parametric eq to notch out those 4 frequencies with the Q as narrow as possible and it made a huge difference. I didn't notice how bad that note was ringing until I soloed it and listened intentionally to that specific note.

Take a listen to the new version and let me know what you think. Do you notice a difference?

https://jungleheart.bandcamp.com/track/i-knew-11

Different song than the OP?

The link I posted is correct, but the little box that RO put on my post is wrong. :/ Click on the link, not the big play symbol.

I fixed the link. (deleted and re-posted just that link which built the media again.)

I still say the same things mentioned earlier, Clark

Maybe its sounds different in some ways but not improved to where I know it can be. Her voice is still too loud compared, a bit bottom heavy as Marco mentioned. hpf (y)
I would dry her up more. It sounds like she was recorded in a boxy room, you both would sound better with the same room sound.
Vocals are almost too loud in spots. Welcome to the last 5% where it all makes the difference now. Baby steps.

The mix is very good though. Its clean and easy to get it where you want! Its sounds like you need a break, get fresh ears.:love:

Thanks, but what about the guitar? Is that one note sounding better to you?

no, you've tamed it but its still overpowering. Not sure what would be best, possibly a big lpf just on that note. You want the body of it, just not the upper freq sustained lingering. Or, a major drop in level. I'd pull it down until you can't hear it, then start turning it up so its there, but not like its a finger in your chest.

I'm not so sure you would go to this trouble, but for me, I do this stuff all the time so its no big deal and fun. Here's a trick that you can do on all DAW's.
Dup the guitar track, manually remove all the notes except for that one,
on the original, do the opposite.
Blend to taste. It should be seamless if you chop it exactly on both tracks.

Depending on your DAW programs,
You could also do the above, but use a sidechain compressor from the one note "you copy" to duck the F on the original track. I've even retracked a note on a keyboard just for this or, even simpler when possible, found some other note that falls on the same spot to duck something. Make sense?

You can also automate (volume and/or compressor and/or EQ) for 1 phrase and copy it (the automation) to the whole song

This song is organic and great. Keep it as is, then get a record contract, and let the label fuss over the minutia of mic choices, etc.