![]() If a vocal needs THAT much eq work, I maintain it was recorded like crap in the first place. ![]() Thanks, (maybe this should have gone on the RB forum) What do you experienced mixers think? Is this something you use, or maybe a waste of time? I know there are many paths to Nirvana, but I have never run across this method elsewhere. I haven't had the time or gumption to try it yet, and it seems like a lot of work, although once you establish algorithms and settings individualized for your voice, you should be able to use them routinely. In the final blend you can adjust amplitude as needed." Take your time, find that sweet spot for that range, and that range only. Now, you can apply EQ boast or reduction (In that range.), along with various processors (aural exciter, reverb, chorus, mild delay,) tailored against that track. Obviously in the lower or higher ranges there will be little-to-nothing to work with, but that is exactly why you are doing this. Then deal with each track like it was the only track you had. Let's say you use four tracks on one track filter out all other frequencies leaving behind the 30-60Hz range, the next 120-500Hz, the next 1k-4khz, and finally 8K-16KHz. ![]() Then filter each track into EQ groups, the more tracks, the more impact you can have per frequency range. My question is also about vocal track splitting, but is a different type of splitting than "comping" so i started a new thread.Īn old friend ran a studio in the 70s and 80s, and he recently wrote me the following advice and method: "The goal here is to take your single, unaltered, raw (no FX or enhancements applied) voice-only track and make (In this example) four copies of it. I have been trying to learn the arcane art of mixing, and have been following the excellent current thread started by Josie. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |