analoog tõesti ruulib.
"Miksimine, masterdamine ... !?"
Moderaator: Moderaatorid
Sonari foorumist sattusin lugema väga tabavat võrdlust, et miksimine digitaalses keskkonnas - see on justkui segaks kokku kaks klaasitäit liiva. Analoog-miksing on aga nagu kallaks vedelikke kokku. Ehk siis, mida peenem liiv ( mida rohkem bitte ja kõrgem sample rate ), seda vähem "teraline pilt" ja seda rohkem on digitaalne musa analoogmusa kvaliteediga. Milliselt tasemelt alates aga inimkõrv enam erinevust ei tunneta? Kes teab ...
Ja veel üks huvitav mõte - sageli arutletakse, et kas erinevad sekventserid ( odavad versus kallid ) annavad ka erineva miksimiskvaliteedi?Sonari poolepealt seletati asja nii - sekventseri miksimistulemus sõltub ( puhtalt signaalide summeerimisel ) kolmest asjaolust ...
1. Kas kasutatakse floating point- või fixed point aritmeetikat?
2. Milline on panoraami arvutamise metoodika? Ehk siis, kui keerad mono signaali näiteks 50% vasakule, milline on siis vasaku ja parema kanali tugevuste vahekord? ( Sonaril saab seda ise regullida, muide )
3. Millist ditheri algoritmi kasutatakse? ( see on siis see imevaikne digitaalne müra, mida peab lisama signaalile, kui konverdid faili 24 biti pealt 16 biti peale. Erinevad algoritmid kõlavad erinevalt )
Kui nendes kolmes asjas erinevusi ei ole, siis on ka võimalik saavutada identne miksimistulemus. 2+2 on ju alati 4, pole ju vahet, millise arvelaua peal sa seda arvutad!
Soundivahe tekib aga siis, kui kasutad lisaks efektipluginaid ja need on küll vägagi erinevad, nii hinna kui omaduste poolest ...
Viimati muutis raen, 22 Juun 2005, 18:53, muudetud 1 kord kokku.
Mõni sekventserprogramm lisab dither-i automaatselt, alati kui suurema arvu bittide pealt väiksema peale lähed, mõni aga küsib su käest, kas ja millist dither-i algoritmi lisada. Sonar teeb seda näiteks automaatselt ( küll saab selle muidugi menüüst ära keelata ), Logic aga minu mälu järgi lasi mixdowni aknas valida.
Kuivõrd dither-it tuleks lisada AINULT ühe korra, kõige lõpus, siis kui lugu on n.ö "valmis" ja konverdid selle 16 biti peale ( et seda siis CD plaadilt kuulata saaks ), siis on dither-i funktsioon peal ka nii mõnelgi mastering-programmil ja/või limiteril.
Dither-i kohta on väga tabavalt öeldud - see on nagu käigukastiõli, kõik saavad aru, et see on vajalik, aga vähesed on seda oma silmaga näinud.
Sama mul - ma saan asja põhimõttest aru küll, aga olulist erinevust failidel, mis dither-iga või ilma, ma küll ei tee, saati siis veel erinevatel algoritmidel.
Ja mis siin ikka ise pead vaevata, tee nagu kästakse ja asi ants!
Loe ka siit - http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/o ... gGuide.pdf
Kuivõrd dither-it tuleks lisada AINULT ühe korra, kõige lõpus, siis kui lugu on n.ö "valmis" ja konverdid selle 16 biti peale ( et seda siis CD plaadilt kuulata saaks ), siis on dither-i funktsioon peal ka nii mõnelgi mastering-programmil ja/või limiteril.
Dither-i kohta on väga tabavalt öeldud - see on nagu käigukastiõli, kõik saavad aru, et see on vajalik, aga vähesed on seda oma silmaga näinud.
Sama mul - ma saan asja põhimõttest aru küll, aga olulist erinevust failidel, mis dither-iga või ilma, ma küll ei tee, saati siis veel erinevatel algoritmidel.
Ja mis siin ikka ise pead vaevata, tee nagu kästakse ja asi ants!
Loe ka siit - http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/o ... gGuide.pdf
Raen üks küsimus
Nii ma teen mixingu, elemendid omavahel klapivad alustan siis mixdowni teen ka selle ära.Kõik kõlab nagu ok, aga analüüsin siis Wavelab's loudness'i.Selline hea validusega lugu jääb -10 kuni -12 db vahele,
aga mul jääb vaiksemaks ja panen winampi käima kuulan proffie tööd, tõesti on nagu lugu natuke vaiksem. Nii võtsin siis asja uuesti lahti lisasin Limiteril input'i 1db, aga ikka nagu pole see, ei taha seda input'iga liialdada ka hakkab clippima.
Mida sa soovitad, wavelab's hiljem veel pisike vintage warmer oleks liiast???
Nii ma teen mixingu, elemendid omavahel klapivad alustan siis mixdowni teen ka selle ära.Kõik kõlab nagu ok, aga analüüsin siis Wavelab's loudness'i.Selline hea validusega lugu jääb -10 kuni -12 db vahele,
aga mul jääb vaiksemaks ja panen winampi käima kuulan proffie tööd, tõesti on nagu lugu natuke vaiksem. Nii võtsin siis asja uuesti lahti lisasin Limiteril input'i 1db, aga ikka nagu pole see, ei taha seda input'iga liialdada ka hakkab clippima.
Mida sa soovitad, wavelab's hiljem veel pisike vintage warmer oleks liiast???
Kompressioon
Raen räägib 6iget juttu , et tasub lihtsalt eq-d paika panna , pole m6tet yle pakkuda igasuguste kompressoritega, muidu v6ib asi hoopis heli 2ra rikkuda. Olen ise kogenud seda..
EDIT:
Wintage warmer on v2ga hea plugin ja samuti Antares firmal on ka mingi lamp v6imu plugin , m6lemad on v2ga head , soovitan kasutada.
EDIT:
Wintage warmer on v2ga hea plugin ja samuti Antares firmal on ka mingi lamp v6imu plugin , m6lemad on v2ga head , soovitan kasutada.
Näiteks miksimise fiximisel selline nipp, mida ise kasutan. Võib juhtuda et mõnel instrumendil, laulul, trummidel, kus iganes on kuulda parasiitsagedus. Lihcalt öeldes mingi sagedus mis pidevalt undab... Mulle õpetati kuidas soundi parandada või sellest sagedusest lahti saada. Selleks tuleks kasutada graafilist ekvalaiserit. Hea kui oleks nelja ribaline: Low-cut, low-mid, high-mid, high cut. Lisaks Gain - ehk siis sageduse võimendaja/alaldaja, Frequency - sageduse valik, Q - mis määrab ära kui kitsa- või laialribalisena soovite sagedust ära lõigata.
Valite kõigepealt kas lõigata madalaid-keskmisi, või kõrgeid keskmisi. (Tegelikult saab softi-ekvalaiseri low-mid ja high-mid- iga mängida kogu sagedusskaalas)
Q - parameeter tuleks keerata siis hästi suureks - see tähendab tegelikult, et riba, mida te lõikama hakate on hästi kitsas. Gain-i keerate ka enam-vähem põhja. Hakkab vilistama. Nüüd Frequency nupuga otsite üles selle sageduse, mis KÕIGE ROHKEM teistest sagedustest "lärmi" tekitab. (ettevaatust kõrvaklappide kasutamisel ja kõval võimendamisel) Kui olete selle leidnud, keerate Gain nuppu tagasi nullist allapoole. Ja nii saab toimida iga järgneva sagedusega, nii palju kui teil ekvalaiser lubab. Seda saab teha ka parameetrilise ekvalaiseriga, näiteks kui on 30 ribaline ekvalaiser. Kuid see ei anna siiski niipalju võimalust sageduste otsimisel.
Tihtipeale normaalse tugevusega ei kuule neid parasiitsagedusi välja. Vaikselt kuulates oma lugu on näiteks bass juba hästi mahlane ja mütsuv. Aga kui tahate sõbrale oma loomingut tutvustada ja keerate volume tugevamaks, kostub bass kõigist üle. Jälgides Fletcher- Munsoni kõveraid, siis teatud helitugevusel hakkavad teatud sagedused rohkem esile tulema/kaduma.
Näiteks on juhtunud, et laul kumiseb kusagilt altpoolt hirmsast (võibolla mikri asetus olnud ruumis puudulik), siis jällegi otsida need kõige rohkem müra tekkivad sagedused üles ja lihcalt ära lõigata.
Üks märkus veel. Kui on kuulda et on mingi kindel "hummm" või mis iganes vilin - seda on lihtne elimineerida, aga kui see vilin kostub näiteks mõne instrumendi või laulu tööregistris, on oht et selle lõikamisega võib lihcalt mõne noodi ära "kaotada"... Näiteks saate laulus ühest segavast kuminast lahti, aga kuhu kadus alumine Do-noot ?
Trummidel üksik komponente miksides ja percussioniga on lihtsam - helikõrgused ei muutu. Jällegi, see on omamoodi kunst ja nõuab harjutamist. Näiteks mõnikord väga halva akustikaga saalis (kooli aulad) kus tahetakse teha helivõimendusega kontserti, kasutavad helitehnikud paari parameetrilisi ekvalaiserit, ning sõna otseses mõttes "vilistavad" need sagedused läbi võimu, et otsida see kõige hullem sagedus üles, mis võib mikrid vilesse ajada või kui basskitarr ja basstrumm tahab oma kõminaga ülejäänud pillid ära matta. Igatahes sellised mõtted.
Palun kui Teil on midagi parandada, vastu vaielda, täiendada - tehke seda!
Valite kõigepealt kas lõigata madalaid-keskmisi, või kõrgeid keskmisi. (Tegelikult saab softi-ekvalaiseri low-mid ja high-mid- iga mängida kogu sagedusskaalas)
Q - parameeter tuleks keerata siis hästi suureks - see tähendab tegelikult, et riba, mida te lõikama hakate on hästi kitsas. Gain-i keerate ka enam-vähem põhja. Hakkab vilistama. Nüüd Frequency nupuga otsite üles selle sageduse, mis KÕIGE ROHKEM teistest sagedustest "lärmi" tekitab. (ettevaatust kõrvaklappide kasutamisel ja kõval võimendamisel) Kui olete selle leidnud, keerate Gain nuppu tagasi nullist allapoole. Ja nii saab toimida iga järgneva sagedusega, nii palju kui teil ekvalaiser lubab. Seda saab teha ka parameetrilise ekvalaiseriga, näiteks kui on 30 ribaline ekvalaiser. Kuid see ei anna siiski niipalju võimalust sageduste otsimisel.
Tihtipeale normaalse tugevusega ei kuule neid parasiitsagedusi välja. Vaikselt kuulates oma lugu on näiteks bass juba hästi mahlane ja mütsuv. Aga kui tahate sõbrale oma loomingut tutvustada ja keerate volume tugevamaks, kostub bass kõigist üle. Jälgides Fletcher- Munsoni kõveraid, siis teatud helitugevusel hakkavad teatud sagedused rohkem esile tulema/kaduma.
Näiteks on juhtunud, et laul kumiseb kusagilt altpoolt hirmsast (võibolla mikri asetus olnud ruumis puudulik), siis jällegi otsida need kõige rohkem müra tekkivad sagedused üles ja lihcalt ära lõigata.
Üks märkus veel. Kui on kuulda et on mingi kindel "hummm" või mis iganes vilin - seda on lihtne elimineerida, aga kui see vilin kostub näiteks mõne instrumendi või laulu tööregistris, on oht et selle lõikamisega võib lihcalt mõne noodi ära "kaotada"... Näiteks saate laulus ühest segavast kuminast lahti, aga kuhu kadus alumine Do-noot ?
Trummidel üksik komponente miksides ja percussioniga on lihtsam - helikõrgused ei muutu. Jällegi, see on omamoodi kunst ja nõuab harjutamist. Näiteks mõnikord väga halva akustikaga saalis (kooli aulad) kus tahetakse teha helivõimendusega kontserti, kasutavad helitehnikud paari parameetrilisi ekvalaiserit, ning sõna otseses mõttes "vilistavad" need sagedused läbi võimu, et otsida see kõige hullem sagedus üles, mis võib mikrid vilesse ajada või kui basskitarr ja basstrumm tahab oma kõminaga ülejäänud pillid ära matta. Igatahes sellised mõtted.
Palun kui Teil on midagi parandada, vastu vaielda, täiendada - tehke seda!
Tervit kõigile! Panen ka mõne mõtte kirja.raen kirjutas:Minul on alati jama vokaaliga - kuniks kõlab ainult fono, ilma vokaalita, on kõik tasakaalus ja ok. Aga nagu miksin enda vokaali juurde, kohe tekib keskmistele sagedustele "küngas", mis mõistagi hakkab ka miksingu kuulamisel valusalt kõrva. See "küngas" tulebki vokaalist, mis on mul tavaliselt küllalt tugevaks ja ette miksitud. Oluliselt vähemaks aga võtta ei saa, sest siis mattub laul teiste pillide varju ja arusaadavus sõnadest kannatab.
Kui laul kattub oluliselt teiste soundidega (sagedustega) siis olen kasutanud sellist võtet, et salvestan ühele rajale musta versiooni laulujoru ja lähtuvalt minu tämbrist või kliendi tämbrist otsin sinna sobiliku soundi komplekti. Sedasi on mugav otsida ja ei pea hirmsasti EQ möllama. See komplekt pille mis lõpuks leitud või olla üsna huvitav ja tavapäratu. Võib ka öelda, et partituur peab olema paigas ja pole vaja laulu registrisse hirmsasti midagi kuhjata. Laul on ikkagi ise kõige parem instrument.
Kui aga laul ja muu *wav andmed sees ja neid muuta ei taha või ei saa siis variant kuidas laulule ruumi teha on suunata osa infot (näit: Pad, strings, piano jne.katseliselt ) mingi Bus-i alla ja neile peale lükata stereo expander. Sellega tekib rohkem õhku üldsoundi ja laul kostab paremini välja.OK seniks kõik
Tegin väikese copy-paste siit http://www.hdqtrz.com/
Nii mõnigi asi on siin kenasti kokku võetud.
WHAT THE HECK IS MIXING?
Firstly, mixing is about your ears. Keep them fresh (and clean, of course). Never ever attempt to mix a piece of music at the end of a long listening session. Take a break of at least an hour and preferably overnight. The human ear is incredibly good at identifying problems with certain sounds, but not if it's had time to get used to them.
Secondly, your monitoring system. It goes without saying that you should buy the best equipment you can afford. Without a reasonable system you'll have no idea how accurate an image of the music you're getting. But even if you do splash out on an amp and speakers, how do know you're getting a true picture? The answer lies in listening to your mixes on as many other systems as possible, so that you know, for example, if you're tending to mix a little bass-heavy or aren't adding sufficient top end. Finally, don't think about mixing through headphones. Irrespective of what it may say on the box, headphones do not reproduce music in stereo. They reproduce it 'binaurally', which is quite different, and makes it all but impossible to set up an accurate stereo mix.
FEEL YOUR WAY
You can take any approach to mixing you feel is appropriate to your music, from the 'wall of sound' to a cleaner, more considered approach where space is created around each instrument in terms of both frequency and time.
The latter approach is undoubtedly the more time consuming. You need a good ear to determine the area of the frequency spectrum in which each sound predominates and to prevent too much overlap. But that's what professional studio engineers and producers are able to do, and the results usually speak for themselves.
The most basic function of mixing - the balancing of levels between individual instruments (or tracks) - is not something anyone can advise you about. You know how you want your music to sound and the level controls are in your hands. But do bear in mind the likely destination for a particular mix. There's no mystery here. The primary requisite for the dance floor is a rhythm track which to hit the punters in the solar plexus. But apply the same bottom end to a song destined for someone's car stereo, and it'll cause major problems.
Bass needs to be tailored quite specifically to the needs of a particular track. Using EQ, it's possible to strip away low frequencies to quite a high level before the ear will tell you anything is missing (though this is where having an accurate monitoring system is so important). Very low frequencies are often not audible but will soak up a high proportion of a speaker's available energy. Filtering them out can actually increase the perceived volume of the audible bass and will certainly reduce distortion at high sound pressure levels. As effective as EQ is in such applications, it can be something of a mixed blessing in the wrong hands. Use it to correct minor problems with individual sounds and to create space round certain instruments by filtering out unwanted frequencies, but don't rely on it as a universal panacea. Obviously, much will depend on the versatility of the controls; sweep and parametric EQ is much more effective at homing in on problem areas of the frequency spectrum. But they can just as easily be responsible for raising the profile of certain sounds till they just don't fit in any more.
There's no clear dividing line between the two, except to say that the ear is much more forgiving of frequencies which aren't there than those that are. So wherever possible, try cutting the frequencies you don't want, rather than boosting those you do.
WET, WET, WHAT?
One of the areas of controversy, which has divided musicians and producers for years, is whether to record tracks 'dry' or 'wet'. No, it's nothing to do with toweling yourself off after you get out of the bath, it's down to whether you add effects such as reverb and delay before you record them or whether you leave them dry and add your effects during the mixing process.
There are pros and cons to either approach, which need to be carefully considered. Record your track with effects and they're impossible to remove subsequently. If at the mixing stage, you decide you have too much reverb on the vocals, you'll have to live with it, or re-record the performance. On the other hand, you may only have a single effects processor and want to use this for another effect on mix down. So unless you do without the vocal reverb, you have no choice but to record with it. Vocals need reverb like England needs Michael Owen but overdo it and it's dead easy to lose the voice in a sea of mush.
Reverb often has the effect of pushing vocals back in a mix. Great for preventing them sounding like they're sitting on top of it (as they often can when recorded dry) but not so good if it's masking an otherwise excellent performance.
You can get round this by introducing a pre-delay to the reverb. This can be set up on most effects processors and can be applied to many instruments, but is particularly useful for creating space around a vocal or bringing it forward while giving it an 'aura' of reverb. You'll need to experiment with the pre-delay setting, but around 30-50ms should do. The tendency of reverb to clutter up a mix is something you need to listen for very carefully.
And it's vitally important that you choose a program with the right reverb time for each track. 'Hall' programs sound great in isolation but can clog up the music quicker than the mud at Glastonbury. Short reverbs are great for creating interesting room ambiences and don't take up as much space in the mix, but can sound unnatural. This is one argument for not adding reverb until mix down.
When all your instruments are 'in place' you can properly assess the type and quantity of reverb you'll need. If this isn't feasible (perhaps you only have one effects processor) try to keep reverb to the minimum needed to achieve the desired effect and limit reverb times. Long reverbs often don't have time to subside before being re-triggered and can accumulate in your mix like Glastonbury mud (yes I know I've said it already, but you should have seen it).
Use pre-delays if they're available and don't reject the use of gated programs. The overuse of gating effects on drum sounds in the late 80s may have contributed to their current unpopularity, but they can be extremely useful in chopping of unnecessary reverb tails and creating space. Another trick is to limit the frequency response of reverb using either your mixer's controls, or your processor's built-in EQ (if it has it). This is best done by monitoring return signals from your reverb unit and cutting any unwanted frequencies or limiting those, which appear to be obscuring the sound.
PANNING FOR GOLD
The art of panning instruments and sounds to create a convincing stereo image is one of the most important in mixing, yet is frequently misunderstood. So often, you hear demo tapes where the instrument placing appears to have been carried out quite arbitrarily. It's like sharing sweets: one for this side, one for that side, and one in the middle for luck. Panning is an essential part of mixing; a means of achieving balance in your music as well as creating the transparency of a stereo image that we all take for granted in commercial recordings, but which can be difficult to reproduce.
Though I'm loath to talk about what usually happens in a mix (if we all did what 'usually happens', we'd still be playing whistles and banging hollow logs), there are a few basic ground rules, which you really can't get away from. The first is that the dominant, low frequency instruments invariably sound better placed at or around the center of the mix.
I'm talking here about the bass drum, the bass guitar or synth and any deep percussive instruments you may be using. Pan them too far left or right and your music will sound off-center. Fine, if that's what you're aiming at, but there are much better ways of getting creative with your pan controls.
One of the best is to set up some interesting rhythmic interplay using your different percussion sounds. Obviously, if you're using a sample loop for the drum track this may not be possible, but you could always augment it with additional percussion (such as cabasa or claves) and pan these to the left and right. Alternatively, try setting up a delay on one of your instruments and panning the dry and delayed signals to opposite sides of the mix.
Lead vocals are also placed at the center of mix in most recordings, though this has much to do with where you'd find the singer at a live performance. There's is certainly nothing to prevent you experimenting with the positioning of the vocals, particularly where you also have backing vocals as well which can be placed in a similar position on the opposite side to the lead vocals, to balance things out.
But again, hard panning left or right of any vocal parts can be difficult to live with. I should also remind you that pan controls are not static, and there's nothing to prevent you from panning instruments left and right during a recording. It's easily overdone, but in moderation it can provide a real sense of movement (quite literally) within a mix. A more subtle alternative would be to use a stereo chorus program on a effects unit which features auto-panning. This leaves the dry signal in place, but shifts the chorusing between the left and right speakers. And talking of effects brings us back to reverb, which can be used to create a convincing stereo image from any mono source.
By panning outputs left and right, you can use reverb to produce a much broader, more expansive sound, even at short reverb times. On the other hand, reverb may be upsetting your stereo imaging by changing the apparent location of a specific instrument. If this does occur, try panning the reverb to exactly the same point in the stereo field as the dry signal, preferably sticking to a mono effect.
INSTANT MIX FIXES
To round things off, how about a couple of ways to provide an instant fix for your mix? If you've already mixed down to stereo and found the result disappointing, try sticking the entire mix through an aural enhancer. Though not always successful in treating a complete mix, they can alter the overall sound in subtle and distinctive ways, particularly processors which affect the stereo imaging.
Alternatively, give the track to someone else to mix. The results may not be to your liking (at first), but I guarantee they'll reveal a side to your music that wouldn't have emerged had you been sat behind the mixing desk. What have you got to lose?
RECORDING VOCAL
Here are a few basic guidelines and a few tricks of the trade to help you get a professionally produced vocal sound.
1. Make sure the singer is well rehearsed, physically comfortable, and under no psychological pressure. Most singers perform best standing up in a room that has a comfortable but not over-warm temperature. If they are distracted by other members of the band or by hangers-on, send everyone but the engineer (and producer, if you have one) out of the studio.
2. Take time to get the vocalistâs headphone mix right, and give them a little reverb to help them sing more confidently. If you can rig up a system that allows vocalists to adjust their own monitor level, it will make life a lot easier. A good headphone mix really helps to encourage a good performance.
3. Always use a pop shield between the singer and the microphone. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in unnatural âpopsâ on plosive âbâ and âpâ sounds that canât be fixed afterwards. Foam wind shields are virtually useless in combating pops.
4. Use a good microphone: it doesnât have to be anything too special, but you should avoid low-cost âbargainâ models. Professional studios generally use condenser microphones, but in the project studio a good back-electret microphone or even a good dynamic vocal microphone can produce excellent results.
5. Pick a microphone to suit the singer. Singers with thin or excessively bright voices may actually sound better with a dynamic microphone, such as the Shure SM58, while those needing more of an open sound would benefit from a capacitor or back-electret microphone. If you have several microphone models to choose from, try a test recording with each and see which is most flattering to the vocalist.
6. Use the right microphone pickup pattern: most project studio vocal recordings are made using cardioids or unidirectional microphones, as these pick up less sound from the sides and rear. However, an omni microphone of a similar quality generally imparts a more natural, open sound and that can be useful if youâre working with a singer who tends to sound nasal or boxy. If you work a couple of inches closer to an omni microphone, youâll get close to the same âdirect sound to room soundâ ratio you would achieve with a cardioids.
7. Put the microphone at the right distance, because if you get too close to it youâll increase the risk of popping and the level will change noticeably every time the singer moves slightly. Cardioid microphones also exhibit a bass-boost âproximity effectâ that varies as the singerâs microphone distance varies. On the other hand, if the singer is too far away from the microphone the room reflections will color the sound, making it seem remote and boxy. As a rule, a microphone distance of around six to nine inches is ideal.
8. Minimize the roomâs influence on your sound. The microphone picks up both direct sound from the singer and reflected sound from the room. Reduce the roomâs contribution by keeping away from the walls and by improvising screens or room dividers behind and to the sides of the singer.
9. Use microphone technique to help control level: if the singer can be persuaded to pull back from the microphone slightly when singing louder notes, thereâs less risk of overloading the recorder or microphone preamp, and you wonât need to use so much compression to even things up. An experienced singer may also lean into the microphone on quieter, more intimate passages to exploit the proximity effect. However, to prevent an inexperienced singer getting too close to the microphone, position the pop shield about three inches from the microphone.
10. Where possible, mount the microphone on a stand. Only let the singer hold the microphone if to do otherwise would compromise their musical performance. When the singer is hand-holding a microphone, particularly if itâs a cardioid model, make sure they keep their hand clear of the top part of the microphone, as obstructing this area can change both the directional and tonal characteristics of the microphone.
11. Donât settle for anything less than the best vocal performance you can get, and donât expect to get it all perfect in one take. More often than not youâll have to punch in and out around phrases that need re-doing, but if you have enough tracks, get the singer to do the whole song several times and then compile a track from the best parts of each take. You can do this on tape by bouncing the required parts to a spare track, but hard disk editing is much more flexible in this respect.
12. Use suitable compression â even well-disciplined vocalists tend to sound uneven against the very controlled dynamics of a pop mix, so it helps to apply a little compression while recording. Err on the side of using less compression than you think you will finally need, and use a compressor that has a reasonably neutral characteristic. Aim to achieve 5-8dB of gain reduction on the loudest signal peaks.
13. Donât be afraid to use more compression on the vocal track once it has been recorded. When the performance is in the bag you can try both subtle and heavy compression to see which works best with the track, though if youâre using a lot of compression you may need to gate the vocal track first. This will prevent noise build-up in the pauses between phrases. Itâs at the mixing stage that a compressor with an obvious character can be used to make a vocal seem larger than life.
14. Donât gate the vocal while recording. A badly set-up gate can ruin an otherwise perfect take, so save gating until the mixing stage. Use the gate before any further compression, but donât gate so hard that you remove all the breath noises preceding words, as these are part of the character of a vocal performance, and the recording will sound unnatural without them.
15. Use EQ only when needed: on most budget mixers the EQ only sounds decent when used sparingly or to cut unwanted frequencies. Mid-range boosting usually results in a nasal or phase sound, so use as little EQ as you can. If youâve picked the right microphone, and taken the time to fine-tune its position during recording, you shouldnât need much corrective EQ anyway. Of course, there are times when EQ is used for creative purposes, and at such times itâs best to use a good-quality outboard equalizer, because the difference between a budget EQ and a really good one is immense. Resist the temptation to pile on too much high-end boost, as this will enhance sibilance, bring up background noise and may make the end result fatiguing to listen to.
16. Use reverb sparingly: vocals recorded in a dry acoustic environment need reverb to give them a sense of space and reality, but donât use more than the song really needs. As a general rule, busy songs need less reverb and slower ballads with lots of space in the arrangement can afford to use more. Listen to some commercial records in a similar style to your own and see what reverb techniques the producer has used.
17. If the vocals are very brightly recorded, they may cause any added reverb to sound sibilant. Instead of de-essing the vocals (which often sounds unnatural), try instead de-essing just the feed to the reverb unit. You can also experiment with the reverb type and tonality to minimize sibilance.
18. If you do have to de-ess the vocals, try to use a split-band de-esser rather than the simpler compressor with an equalizer in the side-chain, as the split-band approach produces fewer undesirable side effects. Itâs always best to try to avoid sibilance by moving the microphone slightly or by using a different microphone, rather than trying to fix it afterwards. Pointing the microphone slightly above or below the singerâs mouth sometimes helps.
19. When youâre using prominent echo or delay effects on a vocal, try to get them in time with the song, either by calculating the delay needed to match the tempo or by using the tap-tempo facility if one is provided. For a less obvious rhythmic echo, try a multi-tap delay with irregular tap spacings.
20. To ensure that the vocal is mixed at the right level in the song, listen to the mix from outside the room and see if the song has the same balance as something you might hear on the radio. The vocals are the most important part of the song and so must be well forward, but not so far forward that they sound âstuck onâ to the backing.
Nii mõnigi asi on siin kenasti kokku võetud.
WHAT THE HECK IS MIXING?
Firstly, mixing is about your ears. Keep them fresh (and clean, of course). Never ever attempt to mix a piece of music at the end of a long listening session. Take a break of at least an hour and preferably overnight. The human ear is incredibly good at identifying problems with certain sounds, but not if it's had time to get used to them.
Secondly, your monitoring system. It goes without saying that you should buy the best equipment you can afford. Without a reasonable system you'll have no idea how accurate an image of the music you're getting. But even if you do splash out on an amp and speakers, how do know you're getting a true picture? The answer lies in listening to your mixes on as many other systems as possible, so that you know, for example, if you're tending to mix a little bass-heavy or aren't adding sufficient top end. Finally, don't think about mixing through headphones. Irrespective of what it may say on the box, headphones do not reproduce music in stereo. They reproduce it 'binaurally', which is quite different, and makes it all but impossible to set up an accurate stereo mix.
FEEL YOUR WAY
You can take any approach to mixing you feel is appropriate to your music, from the 'wall of sound' to a cleaner, more considered approach where space is created around each instrument in terms of both frequency and time.
The latter approach is undoubtedly the more time consuming. You need a good ear to determine the area of the frequency spectrum in which each sound predominates and to prevent too much overlap. But that's what professional studio engineers and producers are able to do, and the results usually speak for themselves.
The most basic function of mixing - the balancing of levels between individual instruments (or tracks) - is not something anyone can advise you about. You know how you want your music to sound and the level controls are in your hands. But do bear in mind the likely destination for a particular mix. There's no mystery here. The primary requisite for the dance floor is a rhythm track which to hit the punters in the solar plexus. But apply the same bottom end to a song destined for someone's car stereo, and it'll cause major problems.
Bass needs to be tailored quite specifically to the needs of a particular track. Using EQ, it's possible to strip away low frequencies to quite a high level before the ear will tell you anything is missing (though this is where having an accurate monitoring system is so important). Very low frequencies are often not audible but will soak up a high proportion of a speaker's available energy. Filtering them out can actually increase the perceived volume of the audible bass and will certainly reduce distortion at high sound pressure levels. As effective as EQ is in such applications, it can be something of a mixed blessing in the wrong hands. Use it to correct minor problems with individual sounds and to create space round certain instruments by filtering out unwanted frequencies, but don't rely on it as a universal panacea. Obviously, much will depend on the versatility of the controls; sweep and parametric EQ is much more effective at homing in on problem areas of the frequency spectrum. But they can just as easily be responsible for raising the profile of certain sounds till they just don't fit in any more.
There's no clear dividing line between the two, except to say that the ear is much more forgiving of frequencies which aren't there than those that are. So wherever possible, try cutting the frequencies you don't want, rather than boosting those you do.
WET, WET, WHAT?
One of the areas of controversy, which has divided musicians and producers for years, is whether to record tracks 'dry' or 'wet'. No, it's nothing to do with toweling yourself off after you get out of the bath, it's down to whether you add effects such as reverb and delay before you record them or whether you leave them dry and add your effects during the mixing process.
There are pros and cons to either approach, which need to be carefully considered. Record your track with effects and they're impossible to remove subsequently. If at the mixing stage, you decide you have too much reverb on the vocals, you'll have to live with it, or re-record the performance. On the other hand, you may only have a single effects processor and want to use this for another effect on mix down. So unless you do without the vocal reverb, you have no choice but to record with it. Vocals need reverb like England needs Michael Owen but overdo it and it's dead easy to lose the voice in a sea of mush.
Reverb often has the effect of pushing vocals back in a mix. Great for preventing them sounding like they're sitting on top of it (as they often can when recorded dry) but not so good if it's masking an otherwise excellent performance.
You can get round this by introducing a pre-delay to the reverb. This can be set up on most effects processors and can be applied to many instruments, but is particularly useful for creating space around a vocal or bringing it forward while giving it an 'aura' of reverb. You'll need to experiment with the pre-delay setting, but around 30-50ms should do. The tendency of reverb to clutter up a mix is something you need to listen for very carefully.
And it's vitally important that you choose a program with the right reverb time for each track. 'Hall' programs sound great in isolation but can clog up the music quicker than the mud at Glastonbury. Short reverbs are great for creating interesting room ambiences and don't take up as much space in the mix, but can sound unnatural. This is one argument for not adding reverb until mix down.
When all your instruments are 'in place' you can properly assess the type and quantity of reverb you'll need. If this isn't feasible (perhaps you only have one effects processor) try to keep reverb to the minimum needed to achieve the desired effect and limit reverb times. Long reverbs often don't have time to subside before being re-triggered and can accumulate in your mix like Glastonbury mud (yes I know I've said it already, but you should have seen it).
Use pre-delays if they're available and don't reject the use of gated programs. The overuse of gating effects on drum sounds in the late 80s may have contributed to their current unpopularity, but they can be extremely useful in chopping of unnecessary reverb tails and creating space. Another trick is to limit the frequency response of reverb using either your mixer's controls, or your processor's built-in EQ (if it has it). This is best done by monitoring return signals from your reverb unit and cutting any unwanted frequencies or limiting those, which appear to be obscuring the sound.
PANNING FOR GOLD
The art of panning instruments and sounds to create a convincing stereo image is one of the most important in mixing, yet is frequently misunderstood. So often, you hear demo tapes where the instrument placing appears to have been carried out quite arbitrarily. It's like sharing sweets: one for this side, one for that side, and one in the middle for luck. Panning is an essential part of mixing; a means of achieving balance in your music as well as creating the transparency of a stereo image that we all take for granted in commercial recordings, but which can be difficult to reproduce.
Though I'm loath to talk about what usually happens in a mix (if we all did what 'usually happens', we'd still be playing whistles and banging hollow logs), there are a few basic ground rules, which you really can't get away from. The first is that the dominant, low frequency instruments invariably sound better placed at or around the center of the mix.
I'm talking here about the bass drum, the bass guitar or synth and any deep percussive instruments you may be using. Pan them too far left or right and your music will sound off-center. Fine, if that's what you're aiming at, but there are much better ways of getting creative with your pan controls.
One of the best is to set up some interesting rhythmic interplay using your different percussion sounds. Obviously, if you're using a sample loop for the drum track this may not be possible, but you could always augment it with additional percussion (such as cabasa or claves) and pan these to the left and right. Alternatively, try setting up a delay on one of your instruments and panning the dry and delayed signals to opposite sides of the mix.
Lead vocals are also placed at the center of mix in most recordings, though this has much to do with where you'd find the singer at a live performance. There's is certainly nothing to prevent you experimenting with the positioning of the vocals, particularly where you also have backing vocals as well which can be placed in a similar position on the opposite side to the lead vocals, to balance things out.
But again, hard panning left or right of any vocal parts can be difficult to live with. I should also remind you that pan controls are not static, and there's nothing to prevent you from panning instruments left and right during a recording. It's easily overdone, but in moderation it can provide a real sense of movement (quite literally) within a mix. A more subtle alternative would be to use a stereo chorus program on a effects unit which features auto-panning. This leaves the dry signal in place, but shifts the chorusing between the left and right speakers. And talking of effects brings us back to reverb, which can be used to create a convincing stereo image from any mono source.
By panning outputs left and right, you can use reverb to produce a much broader, more expansive sound, even at short reverb times. On the other hand, reverb may be upsetting your stereo imaging by changing the apparent location of a specific instrument. If this does occur, try panning the reverb to exactly the same point in the stereo field as the dry signal, preferably sticking to a mono effect.
INSTANT MIX FIXES
To round things off, how about a couple of ways to provide an instant fix for your mix? If you've already mixed down to stereo and found the result disappointing, try sticking the entire mix through an aural enhancer. Though not always successful in treating a complete mix, they can alter the overall sound in subtle and distinctive ways, particularly processors which affect the stereo imaging.
Alternatively, give the track to someone else to mix. The results may not be to your liking (at first), but I guarantee they'll reveal a side to your music that wouldn't have emerged had you been sat behind the mixing desk. What have you got to lose?
RECORDING VOCAL
Here are a few basic guidelines and a few tricks of the trade to help you get a professionally produced vocal sound.
1. Make sure the singer is well rehearsed, physically comfortable, and under no psychological pressure. Most singers perform best standing up in a room that has a comfortable but not over-warm temperature. If they are distracted by other members of the band or by hangers-on, send everyone but the engineer (and producer, if you have one) out of the studio.
2. Take time to get the vocalistâs headphone mix right, and give them a little reverb to help them sing more confidently. If you can rig up a system that allows vocalists to adjust their own monitor level, it will make life a lot easier. A good headphone mix really helps to encourage a good performance.
3. Always use a pop shield between the singer and the microphone. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in unnatural âpopsâ on plosive âbâ and âpâ sounds that canât be fixed afterwards. Foam wind shields are virtually useless in combating pops.
4. Use a good microphone: it doesnât have to be anything too special, but you should avoid low-cost âbargainâ models. Professional studios generally use condenser microphones, but in the project studio a good back-electret microphone or even a good dynamic vocal microphone can produce excellent results.
5. Pick a microphone to suit the singer. Singers with thin or excessively bright voices may actually sound better with a dynamic microphone, such as the Shure SM58, while those needing more of an open sound would benefit from a capacitor or back-electret microphone. If you have several microphone models to choose from, try a test recording with each and see which is most flattering to the vocalist.
6. Use the right microphone pickup pattern: most project studio vocal recordings are made using cardioids or unidirectional microphones, as these pick up less sound from the sides and rear. However, an omni microphone of a similar quality generally imparts a more natural, open sound and that can be useful if youâre working with a singer who tends to sound nasal or boxy. If you work a couple of inches closer to an omni microphone, youâll get close to the same âdirect sound to room soundâ ratio you would achieve with a cardioids.
7. Put the microphone at the right distance, because if you get too close to it youâll increase the risk of popping and the level will change noticeably every time the singer moves slightly. Cardioid microphones also exhibit a bass-boost âproximity effectâ that varies as the singerâs microphone distance varies. On the other hand, if the singer is too far away from the microphone the room reflections will color the sound, making it seem remote and boxy. As a rule, a microphone distance of around six to nine inches is ideal.
8. Minimize the roomâs influence on your sound. The microphone picks up both direct sound from the singer and reflected sound from the room. Reduce the roomâs contribution by keeping away from the walls and by improvising screens or room dividers behind and to the sides of the singer.
9. Use microphone technique to help control level: if the singer can be persuaded to pull back from the microphone slightly when singing louder notes, thereâs less risk of overloading the recorder or microphone preamp, and you wonât need to use so much compression to even things up. An experienced singer may also lean into the microphone on quieter, more intimate passages to exploit the proximity effect. However, to prevent an inexperienced singer getting too close to the microphone, position the pop shield about three inches from the microphone.
10. Where possible, mount the microphone on a stand. Only let the singer hold the microphone if to do otherwise would compromise their musical performance. When the singer is hand-holding a microphone, particularly if itâs a cardioid model, make sure they keep their hand clear of the top part of the microphone, as obstructing this area can change both the directional and tonal characteristics of the microphone.
11. Donât settle for anything less than the best vocal performance you can get, and donât expect to get it all perfect in one take. More often than not youâll have to punch in and out around phrases that need re-doing, but if you have enough tracks, get the singer to do the whole song several times and then compile a track from the best parts of each take. You can do this on tape by bouncing the required parts to a spare track, but hard disk editing is much more flexible in this respect.
12. Use suitable compression â even well-disciplined vocalists tend to sound uneven against the very controlled dynamics of a pop mix, so it helps to apply a little compression while recording. Err on the side of using less compression than you think you will finally need, and use a compressor that has a reasonably neutral characteristic. Aim to achieve 5-8dB of gain reduction on the loudest signal peaks.
13. Donât be afraid to use more compression on the vocal track once it has been recorded. When the performance is in the bag you can try both subtle and heavy compression to see which works best with the track, though if youâre using a lot of compression you may need to gate the vocal track first. This will prevent noise build-up in the pauses between phrases. Itâs at the mixing stage that a compressor with an obvious character can be used to make a vocal seem larger than life.
14. Donât gate the vocal while recording. A badly set-up gate can ruin an otherwise perfect take, so save gating until the mixing stage. Use the gate before any further compression, but donât gate so hard that you remove all the breath noises preceding words, as these are part of the character of a vocal performance, and the recording will sound unnatural without them.
15. Use EQ only when needed: on most budget mixers the EQ only sounds decent when used sparingly or to cut unwanted frequencies. Mid-range boosting usually results in a nasal or phase sound, so use as little EQ as you can. If youâve picked the right microphone, and taken the time to fine-tune its position during recording, you shouldnât need much corrective EQ anyway. Of course, there are times when EQ is used for creative purposes, and at such times itâs best to use a good-quality outboard equalizer, because the difference between a budget EQ and a really good one is immense. Resist the temptation to pile on too much high-end boost, as this will enhance sibilance, bring up background noise and may make the end result fatiguing to listen to.
16. Use reverb sparingly: vocals recorded in a dry acoustic environment need reverb to give them a sense of space and reality, but donât use more than the song really needs. As a general rule, busy songs need less reverb and slower ballads with lots of space in the arrangement can afford to use more. Listen to some commercial records in a similar style to your own and see what reverb techniques the producer has used.
17. If the vocals are very brightly recorded, they may cause any added reverb to sound sibilant. Instead of de-essing the vocals (which often sounds unnatural), try instead de-essing just the feed to the reverb unit. You can also experiment with the reverb type and tonality to minimize sibilance.
18. If you do have to de-ess the vocals, try to use a split-band de-esser rather than the simpler compressor with an equalizer in the side-chain, as the split-band approach produces fewer undesirable side effects. Itâs always best to try to avoid sibilance by moving the microphone slightly or by using a different microphone, rather than trying to fix it afterwards. Pointing the microphone slightly above or below the singerâs mouth sometimes helps.
19. When youâre using prominent echo or delay effects on a vocal, try to get them in time with the song, either by calculating the delay needed to match the tempo or by using the tap-tempo facility if one is provided. For a less obvious rhythmic echo, try a multi-tap delay with irregular tap spacings.
20. To ensure that the vocal is mixed at the right level in the song, listen to the mix from outside the room and see if the song has the same balance as something you might hear on the radio. The vocals are the most important part of the song and so must be well forward, but not so far forward that they sound âstuck onâ to the backing.
Nüüd jääb veel maarahvale ümber tõlkida ja teema lukku
Eks me vast kõik pursi, kes rohkem kes vähem, inglite keelt ka
( kes üldse mitte, sel on tagumine aeg õppima hakata )
Aga tegelt tahtsin PriitS-i siin kusagil eespool kirjutatud kommentaari peale omakorda kommentaariks öelda, et need parasiit-sagedused on jah need, mis rikuvad soundi üldpildi ära. Eks õppinud mehed kuulevad need lennult ära, aga minu jaoks on küll Har-Bal suureks abiks. Tavaliselt mul näiteks tekivadki masteris kusagile keskmiste sageduste kanti mingid ebameeldivad sakid ja kuulda on ka kohe, et asi pole paigas. Har-Bal näitab selle koha ära ja kui pisut sealt alla tõmmata, on kohe asi puhtam. Tavaliselt piisab ühest väiksest tõmbest konkreetsest kohast ( hea, kui muu saaks puutumata jätta ). Ja kui siis EQ võrdluseks vahelt ära võtta, on kohe jube kuidas see parasiitsagedus "vilistab" või "undab", nagu PriitS tabavalt ütles ...
Ausalt öelda ei ole, sest kui mööda interneti avarusi liigelda, siis kogub sama materjali kokku. Üleüldse tundub mulle, et selles valdkonnas ( st. miksimise-masterdamise ) ei ole niivõrd määrav see teoreetiline teadmine asjast, vaid pigem tugev praktiline tegevus. Võid läbi lugeda kümme tarka raamatut, aga see ei asenda praktilist tööd ja kõrva treenimist. Umbes nagu kidramänguga - mis kasu on sellest, kui loed õhtuti enne uinumist Mätliku "Kidra-ABC-d" ... ? Selle asemel parem võta pill ja mängi!Raen kas oled endale soetanud ka mõne miksimise ja masterdamise teemalise raamatu?
-
StargateMax
- Äss
- Postitusi: 358
- Liitunud: 18 Sept 2005, 16:59
hehe:D
Ma olin just hädas vokaalile reverbi kukile upitamisega, pidevalt kostis justkui vannitoast! Vahepeal loobusin reverbist ja jätsin ainult 2 delay'd alles, aga siis kostis vokaal liiga kuivalt ja justkui otse mu pea seest.
Ei osanud midagi peale hakata, siis leidsin siit selle ingl. k. texti ja ennäe imet - sain asja hoopis paremaks, enam pole seda "vannitoa kõla". Reverb, õigesti kasutades, ikka teeb asja ruumilisemaks ja ehedamaks.
Ma veel maadlen selle värgiga, et mu vanematel Reasoniga tehtud lugudel on kõrvaklappidega hea ruumiline heli, aga S90-kõllidega kõlab kuidagi pudruselt ja mitte nii mõnusalt "stereolt"
Puhtalt VST-pillidega (NI ja Spectrasonics) on aga päris hea effekt, seda "pudru" pole.
Ma olin just hädas vokaalile reverbi kukile upitamisega, pidevalt kostis justkui vannitoast! Vahepeal loobusin reverbist ja jätsin ainult 2 delay'd alles, aga siis kostis vokaal liiga kuivalt ja justkui otse mu pea seest.
Ei osanud midagi peale hakata, siis leidsin siit selle ingl. k. texti ja ennäe imet - sain asja hoopis paremaks, enam pole seda "vannitoa kõla". Reverb, õigesti kasutades, ikka teeb asja ruumilisemaks ja ehedamaks.
Ma veel maadlen selle värgiga, et mu vanematel Reasoniga tehtud lugudel on kõrvaklappidega hea ruumiline heli, aga S90-kõllidega kõlab kuidagi pudruselt ja mitte nii mõnusalt "stereolt"
Puhtalt VST-pillidega (NI ja Spectrasonics) on aga päris hea effekt, seda "pudru" pole.