stupid question #12837 vocal mix.

[jkhuri44]

yo dudes,

just approaching finishing the mixes of my tracks, and i was wondering....

after i finish recording my vox...will the instrumental mix have to be changed to accomodate the vox?

or...when recording the vox, is it possible to pick a mic that sits in the mix, EQ and compress real well and get away with mixing the vox straight ontop of my instrumentals..

i USUALLY do things like that...BUT just wondering what you guys do as im always looking to improve the sound of my work ...as we all are, i guess...

J.

[Chinagraf]

The short answer - yes. If you want it to sound as good as it can that is. You could eq a dip in the mids of your instrumentals, but it will affect other things in the mix, and not every instrument will need the dip, so it will be a less than ideal solution.
Vocals take up a fair bit of space in a track and you need to make space in the other instruments for that vocal. Something people do when learning is mix tracks by leaving the vocal as the last ting they add. What happens is they get a great pumping instrumental and when they bring up the vocal faders the mix falls apart and becomes cluttered, because they haven't left space for the vocal. Not to say there aren't more experienced mixers who can mix while leaving space for the vocal to add it later, but this takes a lot of practise/experience. Also, usually the vocal is the focus of the song, so it's better to mix 'around' the vocal rather than adding it later and having to go back and change the rest of the mix to make it sit. Everyone works differently, but I usually get the vocals, in particular the lead vocal, in as early as possible then fit everything else around them.
Keep in mind that in just about all vocal style music, the vocal is the hero, the lead actor. People don't walk down the street whistling drumbeats.

[jkhuri44]

yo china,

althought i asked the question.....i knew the answer before...i was more hoping for someone to toot the "its ok to add vox later" horn, and say that ..."its still a good idea....an awesome mix engineer in LA Bobs YourRock always does it"...

..alas..

we started recording, and stuff before we knew i was going to be doin lead vox...so i kinda said.."F&* it...ill do the mixing...and when we've got a singer, just slap him in"....

im open to ideas though :P

[heathen]

Depends how well and how much you can or need to eq the vox in relation to the mix, should be fine though, I had to do this last week on a track for a rapper, had the mix tape beat sent to him as a stereo file so it was just vocal tracking I needed to do for him, then mix it.

It turned out ok, well they were jumping up and down, so I take that as the happy customer reaction.

Was a banging track so I hardly even used any compression on the vox (just a bit of opto), mainly just a fair bit of eq. Then the mix went through the Smart C2 on the mixbuss and was done.

Should be easy man.

[jkhuri44]

yo heath,

i figure "it should be easy"...

but i always like to ask myself.."is this what pros do.."....me being the pragmatic git that i am :P

[heathen]

yo heath,

i figure "it should be easy"...

but i always like to ask myself.."is this what pros do.."....me being the pragmatic git that i am :P

Hey man, me too, then I think they are probably just as confused as us most of the time. :)

[jkhuri44]

troo dat...

pro's were noobs once too :P hahaha

we just get "less" noob is the main point here! hahaha

i need to cross that invisible line damn it!!!

[Chinagraf]

Hey J, you do what you need to do to get the product you want ya know? Personally if I had access to the multi I would remix the whole track, but if I only had a BT to do vox over I'd make it work. People did do it that way before multitrack recorders. When I was an assistant I saw a big name producer from the UK lock up a bandtrack off a digital 2 track (PCM1610, no DAW in those days) to a 2 inch multi and just mix the vocal from the mutli and the bandtrack off the digital 2 track together, because they didn't have a vocal up mix, and he didn't want to recall the whole mix. But he did recall the vocal settings that went with that bandtrack mix, so it worked well.
If it's quick demos is it really going to matter to you? Or, after doing all the vocals yourself, do you now feel you have a better feel for the track and therefore would mix it better if you remixed it? Are you lookin for a quick way to get it done cause it's not that important, or is it something you're going to hear in a month or two and think "man I shoulda gone back to the mutlis on that"? Things worth asking yourself. I do some lazy stuff here and there, it doesn't all have to be done the long way, but it's all relative to what you want to get out of the end product.
Re the stupid question thing in the title.....remember, the only stupid question is the one you dont ask.
Oh yeah, you know that invisible line you mentioned. Once you cross it, there's just another one after it. And another. And another etc...
CHeers.

[jkhuri44]

yo china,

this is pretty important ....working on this album for 2 years...full length..lots of time and effort...it gotsta be gud! haha :P

i dont mind going back and fiddling. coz the irritaed month later listen ALWAYS shits me! when i rush things that is!!

cheers,

JK.

[Kurt]

I wouldn't think this is an either/or situation. You need a decent mix to sing over anyway. Once the vocals are down you can (and inevitably will, if possible) go back and fiddle with your mix.

My take, get a good mix, add vocals, fiddle 'til it's a great mix. (but remember when enough is enough, it's done!)

[chris p]

Hi Jamil

Is the mic behaving itself?

Tried the phantom power switch trick yet?

[jkhuri44]

yo!

yeah chris, i'm on CH2....with the Phantom On....that sounds like the mic's in Vintage mode..? everything sounds a whole lot sweeter!

cheers,

JK.

[Son of Sam]

How long is a piece of string?

[Chinagraf]

Twice as long as from the middle to one end.

[Dave Shore]

Hi China,

Sorry, what do you mean when you say 'leave space for the vocals'? I'm (obviously) a newbie - all I have ever done is record the vocals last, then add them on top of the mix. And yes, it does usually end up cluttered.

What should I be doing?

Thanks.

[Chinagraf]

Hi Dave, a simple explanation of the theory is looking at the frequency band the vocal occupies and not boosting any of those frequencies in other tracks, or even cutting those frequencies a bit in all the other stuff. NB - this is not how it works in reality because a vocal is a wide range of frequencies and if you cut all those in everything else your mix would also sound cr@ppy.
Like most mixing things, I can't really give you a specific frequency range because it changes depending on the sound of the vocalist and what else is in the track.
A simple example (using very generic frequency choice) is lead vocals and backing vox. The lead vocal is generally the main feature, so you end up cutting a little from the 3-4 Khz out of the backing vocals, and rolling off the tops around 10Khz. Then you maybe boost somewhere around 3-4 Khz in the lead vocal, and they sit together rather than fighting each other. The area between say 3Khz and 5Khz is a really important one for vocal clarity. But at the same time there are some frequencies in that area that are great ones for guitars, snares and other things. So it becomes a matter of getting the vocal sitting, then choosing other frequencies for the things like guitars that fit around the vocal, or cutting some of the frequencies from the surrounding instruments, like in the backing vox example above.
That's why it's better to record the vocal over the multitrack of the song. You may find there is only one instrument fighting with the vocal, so rather than pulling a lot of mids out of your whole track you can just pull some out of the one instrument that is fighting. NB - also sometimes insted of eqing it can be as simple as pulling down the level on one instrument a little. OR panning instruments out to the sides so there is not so many instruments in the centre of the stereo image fighting with the vocal. I even sometimes put the bass just the tiniest click off centre, not enough to reall notice but enough to clear the centre out a little more. To me the centre of the image is prime real estate for the vocal and kick.
There's an awful lot of reading you could do about this, a lot more than I can describe here. I think on the net you can find stuff under terms like complimentary eq, that sort of thing. BUT - the best thing is to pull up a vocal and one other instrument, say a piano or a guitar. Then just eq the instrument BUT listen to the vocal. Listen to how is sounds clearer when you pull the mids on the instrument. Listen to how as you make the instrument brighter, the vocal will sound duller. Try it all along the frequency spectrum, and listen for how the frequencies affect you perception of the vocal sound.
IMHO this is something that has always helped me with eq - listening to the instruments around the track I'm eqing, rather than only the track I'm eqing itself. And when you're trying to eq to get things to play nice together, don't solo the instrument you are eqing. Work with the mix running.
Did I explain that without making it all more confusing?

[TimS]

Thats a great reply - always learning something on the TR forum - thats why I like visiting here..
Thanks China..
Tim..

[jkhuri44]

true-che! thanks for that China!

J.

[Dave Shore]

Thanks China. But there's one thing I've never quite understood in regards to altering Khz:

When I read up on notes (example the 'A' note on a piano) I learn that it has a certain frequency (which is the number of cycles of the sound wave). The note 'B' is a higher note, because it has a higher frequency. So, I am of the understanding that, as the frequency increases, the note gets higher. Example, the A (that is one octave higher than the A below it) has twice the frequency of the lower A.

In your posting, you refer to increasing the frequency of a track. On my Recording Console I can see that I can 'dial up' the frequency (Khz) on a track.

So, I would think that when I increase the frequency, I highten the note. That is, if I dial up the Frequency on the piano track (that is an A note) then it becomes a A# note and so on.

But that's not the case. The track just gets 'thinner', but the key doesn't change.

Are you please possibly able to point out the flaw in my understanding??

[heathen]

It won't change the pitch, just the freq content. Though you can pick certain harmonics which can be cut or boosted, for instance a dull electric guitar could be eq'd at say 1720khz to make it brighter and add a little more at the 2nd harmonic at the same time, maybe a touch at the third also.

[jkhuri44]

yo dave,

sounds are made up of a few components....

each sound has a fundamental frequency (ie. that which you hear the most of of)
and "harmonics" either higher or lower. Harmonics are softer in volume than the fundamental frequency.

So, lets take your A note..as an example....

A = 440 Hz the realuity is that if you ever played an A on a piano or a flute or whatever, you wouldnt be hearing JUST 440Khz...if you did, every instrument would sound like a sin ewave. :)

For fun, try playing any note on a piano.....and listen to see if you can hear "other" notes when you play that one note. If you play an A...you should with enough concentration be able to hear a 5th Above it...ie. E, or a 4th above it D. This simple exercise helps you get a grasp on harmonics involved in musical notes. With more practise, on an instrument like a piano, each harmonic comes in and out depending on where you are in the attack, hold, decay, release cycle....

Now, when it comes to eq'ing...ur not pitchshifting , you are merely changing the proportion of frequencies in that track. So, if you turn up 440hz on a an EQ, you are STRENGTHENING the fundamental note.....BUT if you turn up 220Hz, which is an octave below, you are not pitch shifting, you're just turning up the bassier harmonics.

NOTE:
if you turn up random frequencies, you bring out junk sometimes, and other times u bring out other things like picking attack, or...mouth noise, or breathiness, etc etc etc...

hope this helps....

[Kurt]

Making the sound higher would require a pitch shifter, not eq.

Almost all sounds you deal with in music are a very complicated mix of many frequencies. Using a piano as an example, you hit an A, the root or fundamental note is 440hz, then there will be a bunch of even harmonics eg at 220, 880, 1760. There are also a heap of less closely related frequencies, generated by other strings, the steel frame, the wooden case, the room etc. The human brain is very good at filling in the blanks, so even if you take out all of the root frequency you will still hear it as an A. The more of the closely related frequencies you remove (or the distantly related you boost) the harder it is for your brain to fill in the blanks, it doesn't make sense any more.

So, when you turn up 880z on your desk, you're increasing a harmonic of the root, so 880hz may be louder than the the root of 440, but your brain knows it's not actually the A an octave up because the mix of harmonics is not right.

[Chinagraf]

Can't add much to that. All really good explanations. Sometimes eqin the harmonics instead of the fundamental can be a way to make things "hearable" (I don't think that's a real word, but it is now) without pushing the same area as another instrument. It can also help low end instruments to be 'there' on smaller speakers. But then it's still always a balancing act.

[TimS]

This is why I love this site - it's educational as well as interesting.
And there is some very knowledgable folk here too :)
Tim..

[Dave Shore]

Aaaaahhhhhh ... NOW I get it ;)

Now I understand the reasons I've been turning these knobs for the last few years.

I'm off to Wikipedia to read up all I can on harmonics...

Thanks a million guys!