|
Noob Vocal effects question
|
View this Thread in Original format
| scorpradio |
Greetings All, total noob question here.
Running Ableton and I am in the midst of doing a bootleg remake with an isolated vocal track.
I have never dealt with Vocals before but am finding that this vocal track has given a dynamic that I didnt expect.
Question is, I am having to do some splitting of the vocal track in order to maintain 130 bpm (the vocal track is 97 bpm)which is working for me (I am sure there probably is a better way..I am just to inexperienced to know any better)but because of the splits I am getting drop offs in sound (of course)and it is completely noticeable.
By chance , is there any suggestions anyone could lend to having a better "blend"?
Note* Although it is an isolated track, it still has the original vocal effects (delay,etc.) I experimented with adding more delay in between the splices but failed.
Any help greatly appreciated!!! |
|
|
| Raphie |
IMHO you got 5 options
1. You timestrech the vocal to the track, without pitchshifting othwise you get Alvin and the Chipmuncks
2. You slowdown your track to the vocal
3. You settle with a tempo somewhere inbetween so the pitching is less obvious
4. you indeed chop and reseat every single sybil, but this WILL sound very unnatural and is basically a waste of time
5. Forget bout the whole idea of getting a 90bpm accapella fit on a 132bpm track
It's like XXL girls trying skinny jeans, some things are just not meant to be
 |
|
|
| scorpradio |
HA HA! Epic pic! Thanks so much Raphie, appreciate your response.
Something told me I would probably be faced with this however I did not think about timestretch.
The one bene I have with this is that somehow and in someway that I cant figure out, the isolated track has all the vocal effects with it. As well, the actual singing on the track is somewhat split in between verses,so...it is the effects that are trailing but then stop due to my splicing.
So, it got me thinking. I am wondering if the time stretch would essentially be stretching the effects rather than her actual voice.
I am not sure and will have to test this theory out. |
|
|
| Raphie |
Simple answer? Timestretch first, all fx will stretch too and fall into timed place
If the new faster pace, kills wht you try to obtain with th vocal then either insert a 90bpm break apply the voice there, or just let the idea go alltogether. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
You could try using an expander/gate to get rid of the FX tails, or just some surgery in a wav editor to get rid of them. However, if you've got prominent echoes or reverb tails overlapping the lead vocal, you might have to live with that. Then, you can probably add your own effects to fit your mix.
Then, I'd suggest just stretching the vocal as far as you can take it before it starts sounding unnatural or has too many artifacts, and let that be your tempo, rather than trying to force them to your tempo. When singers sing at a slow tempo, they phrase things differently, use different inflections, and breathe differently than they do when singing at faster tempos, so stretching too far usually sounds pretty fake. Held notes usually have some vibrato, which can sound awful (i.e., way too fast, warbly) when sped up. |
|
|
| scorpradio |
Thanks Cry, good pointers indeed.
I think one thing I have going for me is the fact that the effects DO drag on past the actual vocal itself. I have tried to drop the volume of each clip after the vocal and place each section as tight as I can.
I haven't tried to time stretch each clip yet because of the above mentioned. I just am trying to get it as tight as possible before hand.
Below is an example of where I am at. The "drop" off is quite noticeable to me but is getting better. I decided to add some different backing oh's and ah's with a strong delay in between the mix and it is helping..a little,but obviously as you will see, the "timing" is still an issue
Oh, and please dont laugh at my cheesy mix...it is still very raw..lol
And yes...you will know this song..I couldn't help myself..lol
|
|
|
| Raphie |
Tempo is not your problem
Sync and groove is
Just keep the accapella of beatiful things INTACT, stretch it as a whole and build a fitting groove around it
I took Adele from 105 to 128 and still sounds natural
|
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by scorpradio
And yes...you will know this song..I couldn't help myself..lol |
I still love this song. Everybody should remix it.
[/QUOTE]
The timing starts out OK, but the individual lines start to get ahead of the beat around 0:29. I'd start by splitting each line into its own clip and nudge it back (i.e., later) in time by a few ms at a time until each one is on, or just behind, the beat. A vocal like this sounds unnatural when it's pushing the beat - keep it a little on the lazy side and have it just behind the beat and it should feel much more fluid. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
I took Adele from 105 to 128 and still sounds natural
|
No, it doesn't sound natural. It's a cool remix and I definitely wouldn't say that it sounds bad, but it doesn't sound natural. There are a ton of artifacts from the time stretching in that track. Listen to the inflections and note transitions, particularly when the interval is greater than a few semitones - they have an effect similar to the robotic auto-tune/Cher effect that comes from shortening the inflections and note transitions at a constant rate. Singers don't sing that way - the inflections and note transitions are much more constant at different tempos than the held portion of the note is. When they sing at a slow tempo, each note is held a little longer that it would be when sung at a higher tempo, of course, but the note transitions don't change at a constant ratio. So, when you speed up the tempo too much, you speed up the transitions and inflections by a rate that singers don't naturally sing at. The result is an unnatural rate of change between notes (especially noticeable at larger intervals) that, in effect, is perceived as a diminishing of the pitch transitions (e.g., similar to the Cher effect). |
|
|
| Raphie |
Ok, ok, it sounds acceptable then.
When speeding up +/- 20% you can't avoid that
Most artifacts you hear are because I worked with a 128!!!!! Kbs mp3 of the net :D |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
Ok, ok, it sounds acceptable then.
|
Yup. It's a very cool remix.
| quote: | Originally posted by Raphie
Most artifacts you hear are because I worked with a 128!!!!! Kbs mp3 of the net :D |
I'm not talking about the mp3 quality. I'm talking specifically about how the note transitions are changed due to the time-stretching. mp3 quality has no effect on that and, as you said, it's unavoidable, but still sounds fine and most people won't even notice it. |
|
|
| Raphie |
F| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
Yup. It's a very cool remix.
I'm not talking about the mp3 quality. I'm talking specifically about how the note transitions are changed due to the time-stretching. mp3 quality has no effect on that and, as you said, it's unavoidable, but still sounds fine and most people won't even notice it. |
I know, you're right, you are aways very anal with female vocalists |
|
|
|
|
