TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Is it ok to just squash the hell out of your bassline and just make everything else..
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
no,
you said vocals are the most compressed.
He said we compress vocals.
can you not see the fucking logical error ?
Now i did say vocals are compressed. The only person your sources are contradicting is you and your statements.
And you are right. It is an opinion. One that you and only you share. You will not find 1 engineer that would agree with your statement that vocals are the most compressed element in non dance mixes.
not one.
I said one of the most compressed. And they are.
I never said THE most compressed?
they aren't
lets look at a non dance mix
drums
guitars
bass
vocals
vocals have the least amount of gr of all those elements.
So you aren't right. You aren't approaching being right. They aren't in the top 2. They aren';t in the top 3. Not in the top 4. They are the least compressed. Fucken hell.
Most of those are pretty steady compared to a voice which goes from intimate to yelling and don't need much compression on either tracking nor mixdown on a pop/rock record compared to the vox.
lol
they really aren't for one.
And people know what a voice sounds like. Overcompressing it is easy for anyone to tell. An instrument on the other hand is not. That is why you don't squash vocals. Compression , especially squashed vocals introduce strain on the listener. People listen to vocals. The reason you compress the other elements is to make room for the vocals which you try to make as dynamic as you can. Loud ? sure but not at the cost of the performance.
kinda sucks that your shitty 9 month program has tought you pretty much zero.
Yes people know what a voice sounds like. When's the last time you heard a live singer sound the same as a recorded pop vocal? It doesn't matter if you turn it up or down. It doesn't sound the same.
they use compression on live vocals . What the fuck is your point. You miss the fucking point once again. Overcompression causes ear strain. People pay attention to vocals the most. That is why you don't overcompress vocals.
Applying B to A = C
C makes people not want to listen to your track
Don't apply B to A .
A = vocals
B = overcompression
C = the annoying artifacts created by overcompression.
I mean this even applies to mastering. People that use MB in the mastering process might sqash the lows, sqash the highs but the mid to mid highs where the vocals sit, guess what, never squashed.
NOw please shut up. shut your fucking face. seriously dude. How is this now sinking in.
Anyhow, you do not require the threshold of intelligence I am willing to have a debate with. I can't keep this up. You are a lost case. Good bye.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Looney4Clooney I mean this even applies to mastering. People that use MB in the mastering process might sqash the lows, sqash the highs but the mid to mid highs where the vocals sit, guess what, never squashed. |
lol ok I have to indulge ,
in reference to dark side of the moon
I believe his own quote was
I'm not a big fan of the drums on that one. I always felt like they're kinda p*ssy. And i might be wrong but they are run thru A TG12413.
Look you still are not making the link you think you are trying to make. You still haven't presented anything that supports your claim that vocals are one of the most compressed.
presenting isolated anecdotes does not mean anything. Not only do they not represent how things are normally done but they don't even support your argument. IN both cases, you mention how there is only a master bus. Guess what , that is how they did it back then because they didn't have SSL consoles despite the fact you think they did.
HOw is that relevant today ? Talk about digging a hole. There is nothing you can post or find that will contradict what i've said. WHat you don't seem to understand is that i've been involved with music and he industry for about 28 years. Unlike you who can' play an instrument , has never been recorded, i've been a session musician, i've recorded orchestras, i've conduced orchestras, i've composed for orchestras, bigbands , pop groups. I've sat in on probably 50 sessions in real studios. I listen to music, i've been to more concerts than I can count. My lexicon does not confine itself to EDM. I have more useless knowledge regarding every fucking aspect of music you are wasting your time. So just stop. You just look desperate. Your little 9 month program is a farce and he confidence you seem o exude is funny. You attended a hack program. You know nothing so stop bullshiting.
Krish Sharma said Mick Jagger would bounce up to -10 and even spike -20 db GR during TRACKING during his loudest parts. More compression was done during mixing stage.
phil collins was a drummer and sang. All singers are drummers.
Wow, this thread got meaty.
Look, vocals are not "the most compressed" element in a mix.
Pop, in general, does use a fair bit of compression on vocals, but I'd be hard pushed to name one record where the vocals are THE MOST compressed.
Rock can vary in terms of compression on vocals, as singers often have serious crescendos, but in those cases it's more limiting, and the ompresison will range from light to heavy, but again, I don't think I can name one record where the vocal is the most compressed (unless you're talking a specific effect like distorted and over compressed vocal sound for a certain aesthetic).
The whole thing about desk bus compression has gone way too far and IMO, blown out of proportion. for every famous record that is saturated I can name one that has little to no compression (Thriller Album has virtually no compression at all, not even on the drums).
That late 70's rock sound was the result o7 desk compression, but it was certainly not the norm - it was a fad led by a technological breakthrough, that everyone jumped on at the time, like the wall of sound technique or vox amps on the beatles sound etc.
In terms of tracking, yes, you some compression but how much depends on two things:
1, if it's a particular aesthetic you're going for, which is a matter of taste (and not pertinent to this discussion)
2, Technique of the singer.
With No.2, engineer often find themselves dialling for more compression when they've got someone with bad mic technique or low vocal control. Rappers nearly always need a fair amount becuase they just shout at a mic and you can't dial in for dynamics when their forte is 20-30db louder than their spoken parts....so bear in mind this is technically a band aid to fix bad technique.
For most of the projects I've been involved in, tracking compression for vox is minimal and subtle and mix comression is the same, if any at all. In fairness, it's mainly film work but we do commercials as well but again, we prefer to go easy on compression, and leave that the post processors to squash the shit out of it if need be.
Ideally, I would work so that I have both compressed and uncompressed signals going to tape. Reason being, is that sometimes you need a little "performance" compression (like adding reverb to a vox for the singer to hear) and just enough so that if they spike you're rounding it down, but other than that, you want to keep it as real as possible.
IMO, if you're having to add more than that, then it's either to fix a problem with the singer or to create a specific effect, but certainly, neither of these should be the defacto way of working or the "norm".
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.