what do you normally do with your vocals after recording them (compression, EQ, etc...)?

if the vocalist is decent sounding enough, have him/her double it.

try mixing the vocals in first and then mix the rest of the song around them.

I normally EQ, then compress with waves Rcomp, then use waves Rvox. I normally roll off a bit around 1K looking for nasal sound, then roll of another bit around 300-500 looking for muddy sound and if it´s too silibant, I´ll use a De esser at the end of the chain. I mean the sound is nice, but it always seems a bit to in front of the mix, I´m looking for a sort of Silverchair sort of sound (referring to the way the vocals sit in the mix)

Did you try using some delay??? Or maybe, you recorded it too close from the mic...

I sometimes have the same problem with snares when you don't have enough of it in the OH...

Any advices???

Cosme wrote: I normally EQ, then compress with waves Rcomp, then use waves Rvox. I normally roll off a bit around 1K looking for nasal sound, then roll of another bit around 300-500 looking for muddy sound and if it´s too silibant, I´ll use a De esser at the end of the chain. I mean the sound is nice, but it always seems a bit to in front of the mix, I´m looking for a sort of Silverchair sort of sound (referring to the way the vocals sit in the mix)

Bet this is the problem holding up Axl Rose.
Maybe that is too many things to do to those poor ol' vocals there.
Re-Record the vocal in stereo. Now you'll have a L and a R channel.
What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound. It obviously won't save that way and will return to normal after you stop it.
The way to replicate it is to click, seperate Stereo track.
Now simply move one vocal, either L or R, forward or back in the mix.

dont sing square on into the mic. try altering the angle of the mic itself, as this can take out quite a bit of shrill and evens out the frequencies a little. it's worth a pop.

dont be afraid of limiters, they can really help keep the vox under control, allowing you to have them nice and upfront in the mix without that kareoke kinda sound.

also, try a real slow and light chorus, with not alot of feedback or depth. using that subtly can make things sparkle.

if you run compression over the whole mix, as you mix it down, you can hear when the vox are overbearing as the music starts to drop out. bring it in and out to compare and contrast.

hope this helps dude..

Re-Record the vocal in stereo. Now you'll have a L and a R channel.
What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound. It obviously won't save that way and will return to normal after you stop it.
The way to replicate it is to click, seperate Stereo track.
Now simply move one vocal, either L or R, forward or back in the mix.

Again, this is bad practice and a waste of HD space.
There is absolutely no reason to record a mono source to stereo tracks and "split them". If you want ADT in a DAW, record your MONO source to ONE MONO TRACK and copy / paste it. The copied track will not take up extra HD space.

Polly want a cracker?
(Dead Link Removed)

bent wrote:

Re-Record the vocal in stereo. Now you'll have a L and a R channel.
What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound. It obviously won't save that way and will return to normal after you stop it.
The way to replicate it is to click, seperate Stereo track.
Now simply move one vocal, either L or R, forward or back in the mix.

Again, this is bad practice and a waste of HD space.
There is absolutely no reason to record a mono source to stereo tracks and "split them". If you want ADT in a DAW, record your MONO source to ONE MONO TRACK and copy / paste it. The copied track will not take up extra HD space.

Polly want a cracker?
(Dead Link Removed)

There is no such thing as wasted hard drive space. If it is used then it is not wasted, the hard drive does not care what you use it for.
Burn the wav. tracks to DVD and then delete them from the poor old HD.

Hi, filmmusic2008!

I just deleted 2 paragraphs from the response you are reading now because I thought it might be best to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You have a major opportunity right now to correct the knuckleheaded posts you've been slappin' onto this site. Think about your previous posts, including the one I'm replying to right now, and consider your next move. When you hit that little REPLY button and start typing, what are you going to accomplish? Are you going to come back at me with an intelligent rebuttal, or are you going to make a feeble attempt proving your preconceived notions about harddrive space and ADT are correct (mister split the stereo file and move it a few ms)?

You have ONE CHANCE to get this right.

This is your ONLY warning!

Mixing vocals with a DAW shouldnt be such a pain. Ya got the ability to layer track after track after track. If they arent getting bigger then you arent getting them down correctly at tracking. The only way I know to safely assure your self of a great vocal is to make damn sure the original take is full of all the emotion and energy that the lyric and the song call for. If you are layering and doubling a so-so track its still going to be a so-so track.

It takes a certain mindset to let oneself go completely and really perform the song.

There are no amount of buttons or devices that can substitute the reality of this fact.

bent wrote: Hi, filmmusic2008!

I just deleted 2 paragraphs from the response you are reading now because I thought it might be best to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You have a major opportunity right now to correct the knuckleheaded posts you've been slappin' onto this site. Think about your previous posts, including the one I'm replying to right now, and consider your next move. When you hit that little REPLY button and start typing, what are you going to accomplish? Are you going to come back at me with an intelligent rebuttal, or are you going to make a feeble attempt proving your preconceived notions about harddrive space and ADT are correct (mister split the stereo file and move it a few ms)?

You have ONE CHANCE to get this right.

This is your ONLY warning!

Nothing personal was directed at you.
If one pastes a copy of a mono vocal track, then a new track is needed in Audacity.
If you want to suggest a better 192 khz 32 Bit recording program then we are listening.
The laptop being used has an external HD.
There are no rules for the recording game.
It is about performance of the singer.
PC, not Apple.

Dude - seriously.

Recording a MONO source to a STEREO track is f'ing stupid. It is a direct copy of the exact same thing. THIS IS WASTED HARD DRIVE SPACE. At least if you copy and paste it into a new track, you aren't wasting hard drive space as you don't now have 2 tracks - you have 1 track and 1 virtual track.

At least that's how MY DAW and most others I've ever tried do it. I don't know how Audacity does it and I don't care.

Doing what you're talking about is just retarded. If you want to double the track, fine. Recording it in stereo...dumb.

OK, taking one point at a time:

Nothing personal was directed at you.

No, but when you come to this site and post methods that are inefficient and not necessary, and make broad sweeping generalizations such as "most of us have 4gigs of stereo vocal tracks", etc. then I and my fellow compatriots are gonna correct you. Every time. Count on it.

If one pastes a copy of a mono vocal track, then a new track is needed in Audacity.

What are you saying? Does this mean that every new track in Audacity corresponds to a new physical file on the HD? As soon as you hit Ctrl-V a new file is created and saved to disc? If so, that's silly on Audacity's part. If not, then the statement is irrelevant.

If you want to suggest a better 192 khz 32 Bit recording program then we are listening.

Sampling rates and bit rates have nothing to do with this discussion - irrelevant statement (though, if you are recording mono vocals to stereo tracks at 192k I'm betting you've got way more than 4gigs of stereo vocal tracks on your HD).

The laptop being used has an external HD.

Good, external drives are a good thing to have, but irrelevant.

There are no rules for the recording game.

True, but there are rules concerning HD space and effecient usage thereof.

It is about performance of the singer.

I have no idea how the singer's performance in an iso booth correlates to the way someone utilizes HD space. Care to elaborate?

PC, not Apple.

No, both - PC and Apple.
Both have harddrives, and both can be operated effeciently, or not - your choice.

wow guys relax. you're both right.

recording mono source in stereo does take up hard drive space. if you care about hard drive space then this is a problem. knucklehead does not care about hard drive space, so it's not a problem to him.

you guys just do it different ways, so what?

argument>

Sorry guys.

Please allow me to elaborate.

There are a lot of folks that are new to the recording biz that eat up this kind of misinformation, some take it a step further and assume that recording a vocal (or guitar, etc.) to a stereo track actually results in a stereo image. Search the site, see for yourself how many posts start off "How come my stereo vocal track doesn't sound like (insert band name here)" or my favorite "Why is it that when I record my vocals to a stereo track they sound the same in both speakers?"
When we ask these folks how they are recording their vocals, they tell us they are running one mic to a stereo track - they do not know the difference between a stereo track in a DAW and an actual stereo image.
They think that if it says "stereo" it must truly mean "stereo".
:roll:

When someone comes on here and says it's perfectly fine to record vocals to stereo tracks it raises the confusion factor, why not say it's fine to record ALL of your instruments to stereo tracks? How about the kick drum? Or maybe a stereo track of hi-hat?

Filmmusic is correct, sorta (he leaves out the main ingredients, that being pitch and flange) when he talks about splitting the files and separating them by a few ms - it's ADT, after all. But IMHO, it's bad form to continue to suggest that it's acceptable to record single mono sources to stereo tracks to accomplish it.

There are far better ways to skin a cat!

elaboration of petty argument>
I couldn't resist, Rockstar!

There is only theory.
The point about 4 GB of vocals is if you have an external drive you can let the program record for 30 minutes. I have no hi hats, perhaps I need some. Just a voice and a guitar.

No iso booth. Move the laptop far enough away to not pickup any fan noise.
Recording myself, it is best to watch the screen when recording. It works having a stereo track recording, besides there are two mics and a Firewire interface with dual XLR inputs, we are getting a stereo image.
The advice is to use two mics, though the original answer was what to do with vocals that were already recorded...

This is truly a case of, well... misinformation.

filmmusic2008 wrote: Now simply move one vocal, either L or R, forward or back in the mix.

hmmm yeah, but how do your tracks sound in mono? :roll:

I am just kinda upset my mbox does not have this forward and back pan pod.
Seems like an unlikely thing to leave out.

I am just having my fun. :D

Nor does Vegas!!!

Wonder if there's a freeware version we can download somewhere?

:lol:

Markd102 wrote: [quote=filmmusic2008]Now simply move one vocal, either L or R, forward or back in the mix.

hmmm yeah, but how do your tracks sound in mono? :roll:
The vocals merge.
The Doors' first record doubles the vocals, even though they only had 4 tracks. No effects other than having the singer listen to the playback and layer it. They recorded it so the vocal jumped out of the front of the speakers.
In theory a 2nd vocal track could be done with a different timbre voice from the same singer, as was the case with Morrison. The sound quality or timbre is affected by volume of singing. It is useful to add a softly sung vocal on top of a heavy one.
A higher or lower octave, or even singing in levels.
A singer could singer a Minor Chord by singing the I then the Flat third as an interval stacked on each other with two tracks

With a second vocal track, similar to "Cars Hiss By My Window" by The Doors the second is lower in volume and has more room sound. Jim was further from the mic.

Well. I couldn't bare to read all of it. It's just too much. I think it all fell apart here:

What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound.

Now, to me that sounds like your computer is pooched. Time to buy a new computer if it cannot handle recording a single stereo track in sync. Otherwise it's pointless to record a mono source to a stereo track.

Ok. Then there is also this:

There is only theory.

What about practice? Is there no practice? That is don't people actually put these ideas to use? Does gravity only exist for some people? Theory seems to be what you are reading about. Practice is what many people here put to use. Experience is the best tutor.

Everything after that seems like some regurgitated schlep from the instructor at Full Sale(as Ms. Remy would put it).

Anyhow. Carry on. It has been entertaining.

filmmusic2008 wrote:
Re-Record the vocal in stereo. Now you'll have a L and a R channel.
What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound.

HUH!!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

Having gone back to painfully read some of the other posts, I've finally made sense of this post:

What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound.

Audacity? The problem here being that you assume that all DAWs use the same crappy engine that windows supplies. For it's internal sound devices. Having gathered that I can also assume that you are using the highest quality Soundblaster card there is!

Think about this though. What if. Just what if, the person in question is using an actual audio interface designed for recording. Using a decent audio engine and ASIO or other IO driver that bypasses windows operations altogether. And, what if their daw can actually record multiple tracks in sync over large time spans?

You are comparing apples to oranges and commenting on something that it is all too apparent you know nothing about. Please! Stop! I don't want to see you get torn into over such a trivial thing.

hueseph wrote: Well. I couldn't bare to read all of it. It's just too much. I think it all fell apart here:

What was found on playback, is that if the computer freezes or overloads for a second then one of the channels gets "accidentally" delayed and gives a huge sound.

Now, to me that sounds like your computer is pooched. Time to buy a new computer if it cannot handle recording a single stereo track in sync. Otherwise it's pointless to record a mono source to a stereo track.

Ok. Then there is also this:

There is only theory.

What about practice? Is there no practice? That is don't people actually put these ideas to use? Does gravity only exist for some people? Theory seems to be what you are reading about. Practice is what many people here put to use. Experience is the best tutor.

Everything after that seems like some regurgitated schlep from the instructor at Full Sale(as Ms. Remy would put it).

Anyhow. Carry on. It has been entertaining.

Correction, the stereo track is always recorded in sync. Maybe you misunderstood.
Of course any computer that is 2 years old can be replaced.
It happens that a momentarily delay on playback, not on recording, caused an effect
Once Stop is pressed, the delay is corrected.
It only gave an idea, try re-creating that delay by moving the L or R track forward a few ms. That is practice.
Good and Bad is Roman.

Audacity does not come with Windows. No one ever said it did. It is simply free and easy. http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/
Sound Blaster? Is that comedy? If so it is Roman, not Greek.
We have been talking of interfaces...
Try a Yamaha GO46 32 Bit 192khz. What is higher quality than that?
There is only different sounds at this level.
Of course there is the Sonar Producer which is 64 bit, only if you use that will I agree you have a better system than ours.

filmmusic2008 wrote: [quote=Markd102][quote=filmmusic2008]Now simply move one vocal, either L or R, forward or back in the mix.

hmmm yeah, but how do your tracks sound in mono? :roll:
The vocals merge.
The Doors' first record doubles the vocals, even though they only had 4 tracks. No effects other than having the singer listen to the playback and layer it. They recorded it so the vocal jumped out of the front of the speakers.
In theory a 2nd vocal track could be done with a different timbre voice from the same singer, as was the case with Morrison. The sound quality or timbre is affected by volume of singing. It is useful to add a softly sung vocal on top of a heavy one.
A higher or lower octave, or even singing in levels.
A singer could singer a Minor Chord by singing the I then the Flat third as an interval stacked on each other with two tracks

With a second vocal track, similar to "Cars Hiss By My Window" by The Doors the second is lower in volume and has more room sound. Jim was further from the mic.

Now you're contradicting yourself.
In your original comment you were talking about 1 vocal take on 2 tracks, with one of the tracks nudged a few ms ahead or behind the other, and panned left and right. Yes, this will give you a bigger sound.
However, if you listen to that in mono, those two tracks are will create a phase problem and the vocal will be drastically reduced in volume and sound like shite!

Now in this post you talk about the tallent singing the part twice. Different kettle of fish!

It happens that a momentarily delay on playback, not on recording, caused an effect
Once Stop is pressed, the delay is corrected.

You're talking about latency here. It does not get recorded to disk like that.

As far as audacity is concerned, there are far better free solutions out there. Kristal for Windows and Ardour for Linux/OS X. Both allow for real-time effects. Can't do real time effects with Audacity.

I won't even bother commenting on the Yamaha..oops too late. Is there better quality than that? Well if you have to ask...........

**** (I wish I had an auto-correcting stop button)****

I would like to know the source of this Doors recording information you have trotted out here for all to see. I'm pretty sure that you werent there in person, and if this is something thats been dandied around on the net as heresay, I want to know about it.

Its kinda like the rest of the guys have been saying all along....you are making pointless misinformation seem like some cureall for a very basic function of recording technique.

I realize there may be a language barrier here that is keeping some of the exchanges a little iffy, but misinformation does not make it past the gates here.

Either come with something that makes sense and is a fact or dont bother............

AND no melt downs......

Allrighty.....return to your regularly scheduled programs. And boys, teach em something.....K?

( yamaha stuff is nice, but the best????)

Davedog wrote: **** (I wish I had an auto-correcting stop button)****

I would like to know the source of this Doors recording information you have trotted out here for all to see. I'm pretty sure that you werent there in person, and if this is something thats been dandied around on the net as heresay, I want to know about it.

( yamaha stuff is nice, but the best????)

The point is that there is no such thing as the best... only the way anything is used can be the best. For us, that means blues and reggae .
If a band does not play Reggae, they can not be the best.
The best recordings are the vocals from old Lomax Field Recordings made in prison camps in the 1930's for the Library of Congress. Documentation was the goal.
Quality is not the brand, quality is what you like the sound of.
There must be value in it for there to be quality. For instance, there is no quality in the political commercials we hear on the radio. Did they use expensive gear though? Hell yeah.

Recording The Doors First Album
with Bruce Botnik

From Jac Holzman's book regarding The Doors,

In my folk days, I would mike voices and instruments very close up, and the records sounded fat and full, the voice popping out, right in front of your living room speakers. I thought that with equivalent miking and proper stereo spacing we could make a virtue of the group's sparseness

Oh dear...