Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

Greetings to all. Brand new to the group, very new to Logic. I've been  
using Pro Tools  in a studio situation for a dozen years, but L8's  
VI's made it impossible to resist, as does the simple convenience of  
listening through the speakers. Quite honestly, there has been a bit  
of a learning curve, with unexpected obstacles popping up rather  
frequently. I've been finding my way around OK, but this one has me  
stumped.

My keyboards, and their sustain pedals, function normally in every  
program but Logic Pro 8 (that is only PT and Garage Band, admittedly,  
but a fair sampling to rule out any hardware problem.). In Logic,  
pressing the sustain pedal transmits start and stop messages, and  
rolls the output volume (that little slider at lower right) to zero.

  I've dug and drilled into the various prefs, including MIDI and  
control surface setup, and have no idea how to change anything. I did  
manage to wiggle my way to a setting where, now, pressing the sustain  
pedal repeatedly toggles the individual track volume to 0 and then up  
full. I have no idea what I did. I do recall it was somewhere in the  
preferences for Control Surfaces - Controller Assignments. However,  
when I closed and reopened the session, it had reverted to its  
previous behavior.

In addition, when Logic starts up, it tells me the MicroKONTROL  
control port is not assigned, and advises me to reset the MIDI  
assignments, which I've done repeatedly with no result. Again, these  
problems are specific to Logic only. OSX 10.5.8, MacBook Pro 2.33, 3  
gigs of RAM.

Any help from more experienced Logicians would be gratefully received.

Best wishes,
Bobbo

Welcome.

Can't really help but sounds like the sustain pedal is being seen as a
volume/dynamics pedal?

Weird.

 

I have one on my keyboard and it was automatically found as sustain and
works fine in all programs (Sibelius, Logic etc) .  Maybe the keyboard
driver is having the issue ?   Do you have the current or most recent one
installed?

 

Steve

From: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bobbo
Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2009 22:07
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Sustain Pedal Does Everything But - First Post

 

  

Greetings to all. Brand new to the group, very new to Logic. I've been 
using Pro Tools in a studio situation for a dozen years, but L8's 
VI's made it impossible to resist, as does the simple convenience of 
listening through the speakers. Quite honestly, there has been a bit 
of a learning curve, with unexpected obstacles popping up rather 
frequently. I've been finding my way around OK, but this one has me 
stumped.

My keyboards, and their sustain pedals, function normally in every 
program but Logic Pro 8 (that is only PT and Garage Band, admittedly, 
but a fair sampling to rule out any hardware problem.). In Logic, 
pressing the sustain pedal transmits start and stop messages, and 
rolls the output volume (that little slider at lower right) to zero.

I've dug and drilled into the various prefs, including MIDI and 
control surface setup, and have no idea how to change anything. I did 
manage to wiggle my way to a setting where, now, pressing the sustain 
pedal repeatedly toggles the individual track volume to 0 and then up 
full. I have no idea what I did. I do recall it was somewhere in the 
preferences for Control Surfaces - Controller Assignments. However, 
when I closed and reopened the session, it had reverted to its 
previous behavior.

In addition, when Logic starts up, it tells me the MicroKONTROL 
control port is not assigned, and advises me to reset the MIDI 
assignments, which I've done repeatedly with no result. Again, these 
problems are specific to Logic only. OSX 10.5.8, MacBook Pro 2.33, 3 
gigs of RAM.

Any help from more experienced Logicians would be gratefully received.

Best wishes,
Bobbo





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:51AM ~11/25/09, Steve Curringotn wrote:

> Welcome.
>
> Can't really help but sounds like the sustain pedal is being seen as a
> volume/dynamics pedal?
>
> Weird.
>
> I have one on my keyboard and it was automatically found as sustain  
> and
> works fine in all programs (Sibelius, Logic etc) . Maybe the keyboard
> driver is having the issue ? Do you have the current or most recent  
> one
> installed?
>
> Steve
>
Thanks, Steve. Yes, pedal working fine in all other programs. In fact,  
a friend wrote with a few suggestions, and had the same reaction as  
you; that this is really weird. I think that was even his word! In  
truth, I've noticed a lot of weirdnesses cropping up with Logic, by  
which I mean either unexpected events (see below) or dialogues that  
were just beyond me. This is, no doubt, due to my unfamiliarity with  
the basic language of the program. It is not, uh, Logical, said  
Spock. :)

However, I seem to have solved the problem by going to Preferences,  
Control Surfaces, and telling the program to ignore all control  
surfaces. This appears to prevent the MicroKontrol's pedal signal from  
being read as a keystroke of some sort. The MIDI monitor in the  
Transport now shows a 64 value, which is correct. Before, pressing the  
pedal showed no MIDI input at all. However - in yet another of those  
oddities, the faders all seem to control one single fader, so the  
control surface is *not* being truly ignored.

I'm going to invest some time in David Nahmani's book, Logic Pro 8 and  
Logic Express 8. David runs Apple's Logic forum.

Thanks,
Bobbo

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry, this isn't a strictly Logic query, but I am looking for  
monitors to use with logic, which I am running on my imac:

  Model Name:	iMac
   Model Identifier:	iMac9,1
   Processor Name:	Intel Core 2 Duo
   Processor Speed:	2.93 GHz
   Number Of Processors:	1
   Total Number Of Cores:	2
   L2 Cache:	6 MB
   Memory:	4 GB
   Bus Speed:	1.07 GHz
   Boot ROM Version:	IM91.008D.B00
   SMC Version (system):	1.37f3

I was told by an audio engineer that you need to spend £400 a speaker  
or its money down the drain, which rather made me gulp (I guess that's  
about $400) so I did some research and got totally and utterly  
confused. In the end the speakers that I guessed might be best are these

http://store.solutions-inc.co.uk/product/krk-rp8-g2-monitors-pair

The KRK RP8 from Rokit

I would anticipate having them about three feet away from me, in a  
room that is about 12' x 20'. I don't have a studio to work in, and  
the room has wooden floors and lots of windows. That, I know, is far  
from ideal but there's not much I can do about it.

Given that, does anyone have any advice as to what speakers I should  
get. I don't even know if the ones above are right for using with an  
imac, so any help would as always be much appreciated

thanks in advance

Andy

The issue here is knowing exactly what you are doing with the MAC and what
you expect from the monitors.

KRK, Adam, Genlec, Yamaha  and even the higher end M-Audio all work fine but
it is horses for courses in many ways. 

How long is a piece of string?

 

The ones you mentioned would be just fine for normal studio use but then so
would lower cost ones if you are not trying to be too critical in your
listening.

 

S.

From: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Andy Brook
Sent: Sunday, 29 November 2009 02:35
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Speaker Monitors

 

  

Sorry, this isn't a strictly Logic query, but I am looking for 
monitors to use with logic, which I am running on my imac:

Model Name: iMac
Model Identifier: iMac9,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.93 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 6 MB
Memory: 4 GB
Bus Speed: 1.07 GHz
Boot ROM Version: IM91.008D.B00
SMC Version (system): 1.37f3

I was told by an audio engineer that you need to spend £400 a speaker 
or its money down the drain, which rather made me gulp (I guess that's 
about $400) so I did some research and got totally and utterly 
confused. In the end the speakers that I guessed might be best are these

http://store.solutions-inc.co.uk/product/krk-rp8-g2-monitors-pair

The KRK RP8 from Rokit

I would anticipate having them about three feet away from me, in a 
room that is about 12' x 20'. I don't have a studio to work in, and 
the room has wooden floors and lots of windows. That, I know, is far 
from ideal but there's not much I can do about it.

Given that, does anyone have any advice as to what speakers I should 
get. I don't even know if the ones above are right for using with an 
imac, so any help would as always be much appreciated

thanks in advance

Andy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey

Man Parrish here. I've mixed and produced over 80 released records in my 25+ year career. A few even hit the top of the charts. I ONLY mix and Dj on headphones ( currently Sony MDR series). Any one that tells you that you need to spend major money on monitors, doesn't know what they are saying, flat out wrong.   

Mixing is an artform, like composing. Do you need an orchestra to write a symphony? Not at all. You can look at it this way for simplicity. If composing is a relationship of notes, then mixing is a relationship of levels, frequencies and stereo imaging. If you know your mixing craft, you can mix on a huge system or tiny speakers. We used to do that back in the 80's. I've mixed many a commercial release record on AuraTone speakers (5 inch populat speaker cubes). I can tell you honestly, I had better mixes on the small speakers that the huge ones. 

Yeah it's great to blast away on a big rig. I LOVE it, but mixing on the small set forced me to be more aware of what's going on. Here's a great tip I learned from a famous engineer.... Turn you mix way down in volume, I mean way down. Now listen to you track. Are the levels and relationships where you want them? You may be suprised. Tweak it and turn it back up. 8 out of 10 times it's better. Why? Psychologically as humans, we hear differently at different frequencies and differently volumes. 

For instance evolution has made us more sensitive to frequencies in the human speech range. You know, that annoying harsh mid-range that can drive you nuts. Ever heard of shreaking bass? No.. 

Bigger louder systems can fatigue your ears quickly. We used to take breaks every hour or two to "refresh" our ears while mixing in the studio.

So, basically what I'm saying is that it is WAY more importiant to learn your craft then rely on fancy stuff to fix it for you. I own fancy stuff, but that's after years of learning my craft and making some great choices.  Look at it this way.. If it sounds like sh*t in the first place, a bigger system will only put lipstick on that pig. You're the one who has to fix it, not the speakers. 

How do you know what works? Do a few test mixes. Listen on your iPod, in your car, on your home computer import it into iTunes, etc.. You'll get an idea of what's going on. Also give it a rest! I do a few test mixes and give it 24 hours till I listen again. My ears and brain are refreshed. You'd be shocked what you missed. That's an absolute rule on anything serious I mix.

Mixing is all about POINT OF REFERENCE and once you learn the limits of your system, headphones or huge concert rig, then you're good to go.  I too get hung up in the "gear thing" so you're not alone...

This has been a long post, but hopefully it can help.

Thanks!

Man Parrish

www.ManParrish.com



--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Andy Brook <bbgrove@...> wrote:

>
> Sorry, this isn't a strictly Logic query, but I am looking for  
> monitors to use with logic, which I am running on my imac:
> 
>   Model Name:	iMac
>    Model Identifier:	iMac9,1
>    Processor Name:	Intel Core 2 Duo
>    Processor Speed:	2.93 GHz
>    Number Of Processors:	1
>    Total Number Of Cores:	2
>    L2 Cache:	6 MB
>    Memory:	4 GB
>    Bus Speed:	1.07 GHz
>    Boot ROM Version:	IM91.008D.B00
>    SMC Version (system):	1.37f3
> 
> I was told by an audio engineer that you need to spend £400 a speaker  
> or its money down the drain, which rather made me gulp (I guess that's  
> about $400) so I did some research and got totally and utterly  
> confused. In the end the speakers that I guessed might be best are these
> 
> http://store.solutions-inc.co.uk/product/krk-rp8-g2-monitors-pair
> 
> The KRK RP8 from Rokit
> 
> I would anticipate having them about three feet away from me, in a  
> room that is about 12' x 20'. I don't have a studio to work in, and  
> the room has wooden floors and lots of windows. That, I know, is far  
> from ideal but there's not much I can do about it.
> 
> Given that, does anyone have any advice as to what speakers I should  
> get. I don't even know if the ones above are right for using with an  
> imac, so any help would as always be much appreciated
> 
> thanks in advance
> 
> Andy
>

Excellent post mr. Parrish,
totally agree, with one addition: know your monitors.
cheap monitors may have a bump (peak) somewhere.
that'll cause you to mix differently.
Kind Regards
Jan
On Nov 29, 2009, at 17:10:34PM, manparrish wrote:

>
>
> Hey
>
> Man Parrish here. I've mixed and produced over 80 released records  
> in my 25+ year career. A few even hit the top of the charts. I ONLY  
> mix and Dj on headphones ( currently Sony MDR series). Any one that  
> tells you that you need to spend major money on monitors, doesn't  
> know what they are saying, flat out wrong.
>
> Mixing is an artform, like composing. Do you need an orchestra to  
> write a symphony? Not at all. You can look at it this way for  
> simplicity. If composing is a relationship of notes, then mixing is  
> a relationship of levels, frequencies and stereo imaging. If you  
> know your mixing craft, you can mix on a huge system or tiny  
> speakers. We used to do that back in the 80's. I've mixed many a  
> commercial release record on AuraTone speakers (5 inch populat  
> speaker cubes). I can tell you honestly, I had better mixes on the  
> small speakers that the huge ones.
>
> Yeah it's great to blast away on a big rig. I LOVE it, but mixing  
> on the small set forced me to be more aware of what's going on.  
> Here's a great tip I learned from a famous engineer.... Turn you  
> mix way down in volume, I mean way down. Now listen to you track.  
> Are the levels and relationships where you want them? You may be  
> suprised. Tweak it and turn it back up. 8 out of 10 times it's  
> better. Why? Psychologically as humans, we hear differently at  
> different frequencies and differently volumes.
>
> For instance evolution has made us more sensitive to frequencies in  
> the human speech range. You know, that annoying harsh mid-range  
> that can drive you nuts. Ever heard of shreaking bass? No..
>
> Bigger louder systems can fatigue your ears quickly. We used to  
> take breaks every hour or two to "refresh" our ears while mixing in  
> the studio.
>
> So, basically what I'm saying is that it is WAY more importiant to  
> learn your craft then rely on fancy stuff to fix it for you. I own  
> fancy stuff, but that's after years of learning my craft and making  
> some great choices. Look at it this way.. If it sounds like sh*t in  
> the first place, a bigger system will only put lipstick on that  
> pig. You're the one who has to fix it, not the speakers.
>
> How do you know what works? Do a few test mixes. Listen on your  
> iPod, in your car, on your home computer import it into iTunes,  
> etc.. You'll get an idea of what's going on. Also give it a rest! I  
> do a few test mixes and give it 24 hours till I listen again. My  
> ears and brain are refreshed. You'd be shocked what you missed.  
> That's an absolute rule on anything serious I mix.
>
> Mixing is all about POINT OF REFERENCE and once you learn the  
> limits of your system, headphones or huge concert rig, then you're  
> good to go. I too get hung up in the "gear thing" so you're not  
> alone...
>
> This has been a long post, but hopefully it can help.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Man Parrish
>
> www.ManParrish.com
>
> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Andy Brook <bbgrove@...> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, this isn't a strictly Logic query, but I am looking for
> > monitors to use with logic, which I am running on my imac:
> >
> > Model Name:	iMac
> > Model Identifier:	iMac9,1
> > Processor Name:	Intel Core 2 Duo
> > Processor Speed:	2.93 GHz
> > Number Of Processors:	1
> > Total Number Of Cores:	2
> > L2 Cache:	6 MB
> > Memory:	4 GB
> > Bus Speed:	1.07 GHz
> > Boot ROM Version:	IM91.008D.B00
> > SMC Version (system):	1.37f3
> >
> > I was told by an audio engineer that you need to spend �400 a  
> speaker
> > or its money down the drain, which rather made me gulp (I guess  
> that's
> > about $400) so I did some research and got totally and utterly
> > confused. In the end the speakers that I guessed might be best  
> are these
> >
> > http://store.solutions-inc.co.uk/product/krk-rp8-g2-monitors-pair
> >
> > The KRK RP8 from Rokit
> >
> > I would anticipate having them about three feet away from me, in a
> > room that is about 12' x 20'. I don't have a studio to work in, and
> > the room has wooden floors and lots of windows. That, I know, is far
> > from ideal but there's not much I can do about it.
> >
> > Given that, does anyone have any advice as to what speakers I should
> > get. I don't even know if the ones above are right for using with an
> > imac, so any help would as always be much appreciated
> >
> > thanks in advance
> >
> > Andy
> >
>
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Again I also agree.  But I, personally, like to use monitors as I personally
get a little more tired using can’s.. 

But I always listen on monitors  (6”) and on crap speakers, and old
gettoblaster and in the car.  I also always listen on my cans as well as I
often pick stuff up there that I missed elsewhere - but I do have a rather
good pair of AKG’s for that.

I prefer open backed headphones as it adds less “head sound” and feels more
natural and airey than closed back..   But would never use open back in a
live room as too much bleed.   I prefer not to use in ears.  Hate them
personally, just don’t like teh feel of them but I do think using them can
also give an idea of what music l sounds like for the punters that buy the
music as so many people use these with iPODS etc. 

 

Totally agree on the quiet listening..  But occasionally like to blast the
track as well just to blow the cobwebs out and see what it is like belting
out the beats.

 

Steve

From: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of manparrish
Sent: Monday, 30 November 2009 05:11
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Speaker Monitors / Mixing Tips Primer (from Man
Parrish)

 

  



Hey

Man Parrish here. I've mixed and produced over 80 released records in my 25+
year career. A few even hit the top of the charts. I ONLY mix and Dj on
headphones ( currently Sony MDR series). Any one that tells you that you
need to spend major money on monitors, doesn't know what they are saying,
flat out wrong. 

Mixing is an artform, like composing. Do you need an orchestra to write a
symphony? Not at all. You can look at it this way for simplicity. If
composing is a relationship of notes, then mixing is a relationship of
levels, frequencies and stereo imaging. If you know your mixing craft, you
can mix on a huge system or tiny speakers. We used to do that back in the
80's. I've mixed many a commercial release record on AuraTone speakers (5
inch populat speaker cubes). I can tell you honestly, I had better mixes on
the small speakers that the huge ones. 

Yeah it's great to blast away on a big rig. I LOVE it, but mixing on the
small set forced me to be more aware of what's going on. Here's a great tip
I learned from a famous engineer.... Turn you mix way down in volume, I mean
way down. Now listen to you track. Are the levels and relationships where
you want them? You may be suprised. Tweak it and turn it back up. 8 out of
10 times it's better. Why? Psychologically as humans, we hear differently at
different frequencies and differently volumes. 

For instance evolution has made us more sensitive to frequencies in the
human speech range. You know, that annoying harsh mid-range that can drive
you nuts. Ever heard of shreaking bass? No.. 

Bigger louder systems can fatigue your ears quickly. We used to take breaks
every hour or two to "refresh" our ears while mixing in the studio.

So, basically what I'm saying is that it is WAY more importiant to learn
your craft then rely on fancy stuff to fix it for you. I own fancy stuff,
but that's after years of learning my craft and making some great choices.
Look at it this way.. If it sounds like sh*t in the first place, a bigger
system will only put lipstick on that pig. You're the one who has to fix it,
not the speakers. 

How do you know what works? Do a few test mixes. Listen on your iPod, in
your car, on your home computer import it into iTunes, etc.. You'll get an
idea of what's going on. Also give it a rest! I do a few test mixes and give
it 24 hours till I listen again. My ears and brain are refreshed. You'd be
shocked what you missed. That's an absolute rule on anything serious I mix.

Mixing is all about POINT OF REFERENCE and once you learn the limits of your
system, headphones or huge concert rig, then you're good to go. I too get
hung up in the "gear thing" so you're not alone...

This has been a long post, but hopefully it can help.

Thanks!

Man Parrish

www.ManParrish.com

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Logic_Cafe%40yahoogroups.com> ,
Andy Brook <bbgrove@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, this isn't a strictly Logic query, but I am looking for 
> monitors to use with logic, which I am running on my imac:
> 
> Model Name: iMac
> Model Identifier: iMac9,1
> Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
> Processor Speed: 2.93 GHz
> Number Of Processors: 1
> Total Number Of Cores: 2
> L2 Cache: 6 MB
> Memory: 4 GB
> Bus Speed: 1.07 GHz
> Boot ROM Version: IM91.008D.B00
> SMC Version (system): 1.37f3
> 
> I was told by an audio engineer that you need to spend £400 a speaker 
> or its money down the drain, which rather made me gulp (I guess that's 
> about $400) so I did some research and got totally and utterly 
> confused. In the end the speakers that I guessed might be best are these
> 
> http://store.solutions-inc.co.uk/product/krk-rp8-g2-monitors-pair
> 
> The KRK RP8 from Rokit
> 
> I would anticipate having them about three feet away from me, in a 
> room that is about 12' x 20'. I don't have a studio to work in, and 
> the room has wooden floors and lots of windows. That, I know, is far 
> from ideal but there's not much I can do about it.
> 
> Given that, does anyone have any advice as to what speakers I should 
> get. I don't even know if the ones above are right for using with an 
> imac, so any help would as always be much appreciated
> 
> thanks in advance
> 
> Andy
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good thread and all great advice.  As another recommendation for well priced monitors I've been using the Wharfedale Pro Diamond 8.2 actives for a few years now.  They're remarkably cheap even here in Australia but I find them more revealing, "colder", and less flattering than my Dynaudio BM6's which are a great deal more expensive.  I know they are the dirty little secret of more than a couple of mastering engineers.  Be interested to know if anyone else here uses them.  And one more possibility are the Avantone Mixcubes which are designed to replace the old Aurotone 'snotblocks'.  If you can get a your mix sounding alright on these it should translate to just about anything, and given most people listen on crap gear now that's a plus.  Don't think you need to spend 400 pounds, just listen to some well built ones and then spend some months getting used to them.

Just one little caution about the mixing-on-small-speakers/headphones issue: if you don't check your mix on big speakers (and there are some other conditions as well), you may run the risk of getting too much bass on your mix --- which you'll only hear on systems that have bigger speakers.  It could be very embarrassing if you do a mix that sounds great on Auratones (for example) or on headphones and then on a system that has woofers of some kind, you suddenly hear some huge bass sound covering up the rest of your mix.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: bloodychoir 
  To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 4:10 PM
  Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Speaker Monitors / Mixing Tips Primer (from Man Parrish)


    
  Good thread and all great advice. As another recommendation for well priced monitors I've been using the Wharfedale Pro Diamond 8.2 actives for a few years now. They're remarkably cheap even here in Australia but I find them more revealing, "colder", and less flattering than my Dynaudio BM6's which are a great deal more expensive. I know they are the dirty little secret of more than a couple of mastering engineers. Be interested to know if anyone else here uses them. And one more possibility are the Avantone Mixcubes which are designed to replace the old Aurotone 'snotblocks'. If you can get a your mix sounding alright on these it should translate to just about anything, and given most people listen on crap gear now that's a plus. Don't think you need to spend 400 pounds, just listen to some well built ones and then spend some months getting used to them. 



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So, I got the chance to mix an album on Adam s3A speakers earlier this year. All I can say is WOW! I worked all day without ear fatigue and got some of nicest mixes ever. And I, like Man Parrish, have done quite a few "released" albums the past 30 years. Everything from Jazz, to Punkrock, to foreign language Asian music. I have owned/used Auratones (wish I still had a pair), NS-10 (glad I tossed then), Spika Speakers, many types of JBL's (used to call them BLURR), EV's, Altec Lancings (now I'm really dating myself) Tannoy red and blue, Genelec 1030 and 1031, Dyna Audio (ouch my ears hurt already, all digital is distorted, all digital is distorted, ALL DIGI... you get the picture)and my favorite, Meyer HD1's (yeah, yeah, yeah, reverb trails...) And, too many amplifiers to name (that's right the amps colored the sound too). Instead of mixing consoles (SSL, NEVE, AMEK, Trident, Tascam, Yamaha, Euphonix) we now live in a world of A/D converters and PCM algorithms to add to the mix (if you're a Pro Tools user you still "need" a console ... JK)!

My advice: find something you like that's within your budget right now (take your favorite CD of Wheezer, Coldplay or whatever and test), listen to what others have mixed (not mp3's or iTunes crap, get the real CD's) in the genre your aiming for on your new speakers and try to emulate the balance and EQ on your new speakers (with your music). Don't expect to get it right/perfect the 1'st, 2nd, or even 3rd time. You are learning to "paint" with sound which is a process that starts from the first recorded note (maybe you need to change the mic placement, rent a Yamaha C7, or get an Ovation to match the sound...) Speaking of which, microphone use is half the battle to achieving great sounding mixes. Oh yeah, and listen, Listen, LISTEN to everything! We perceive 3 dimensions with our 2 dimensional ears (not to mention that we feel the Low Freq with our entire body), your job, should you decide to accept it, is to make an impact on the auditory sense(SP)! Please don't hurt yourself...

Good luck,

John Tomlinson
Logic Studio Master Trainer
Apple Certified Final Cut Trainer
Adobe Certified Instructor

P.S. notice I didn't mention M-Audio, Mackie, Fostex, or ...

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Tim McLane" <timmclane@...> wrote:

>
> Just one little caution about the mixing-on-small-speakers/headphones issue: if you don't check your mix on big speakers (and there are some other conditions as well), you may run the risk of getting too much bass on your mix --- which you'll only hear on systems that have bigger speakers.  It could be very embarrassing if you do a mix that sounds great on Auratones (for example) or on headphones and then on a system that has woofers of some kind, you suddenly hear some huge bass sound covering up the rest of your mix.
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: bloodychoir 
>   To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 4:10 PM
>   Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Speaker Monitors / Mixing Tips Primer (from Man Parrish)
> 
> 
>     
>   Good thread and all great advice. As another recommendation for well priced monitors I've been using the Wharfedale Pro Diamond 8.2 actives for a few years now. They're remarkably cheap even here in Australia but I find them more revealing, "colder", and less flattering than my Dynaudio BM6's which are a great deal more expensive. I know they are the dirty little secret of more than a couple of mastering engineers. Be interested to know if anyone else here uses them. And one more possibility are the Avantone Mixcubes which are designed to replace the old Aurotone 'snotblocks'. If you can get a your mix sounding alright on these it should translate to just about anything, and given most people listen on crap gear now that's a plus. Don't think you need to spend 400 pounds, just listen to some well built ones and then spend some months getting used to them. 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Thanks again for all the advice, and I'm as lost as ever. I guess the  
sheer number of different options is why everyone has a different view!



Andy

On 30 Nov 2009, at 18:35, logicmixer wrote:

> So, I got the chance to mix an album on Adam s3A speakers earlier  
> this year. All I can say is WOW! I worked all day without ear  
> fatigue and got some of nicest mixes ever. And I, like Man Parrish,  
> have done quite a few "released" albums the past 30 years.  
> Everything from Jazz, to Punkrock, to foreign language Asian music.  
> I have owned/used Auratones (wish I still had a pair), NS-10 (glad I  
> tossed then), Spika Speakers, many types of JBL's (used to call them  
> BLURR), EV's, Altec Lancings (now I'm really dating myself) Tannoy  
> red and blue, Genelec 1030 and 1031, Dyna Audio (ouch my ears hurt  
> already, all digital is distorted, all digital is distorted, ALL  
> DIGI... you get the picture)and my favorite, Meyer HD1's (yeah,  
> yeah, yeah, reverb trails...) And, too many amplifiers to name  
> (that's right the amps colored the sound too). Instead of mixing  
> consoles (SSL, NEVE, AMEK, Trident, Tascam, Yamaha, Euphonix) we now  
> live in a world of A/D converters and PCM algorithms to add to the  
> mix (if you're a Pro Tools user you still "need" a console ... JK)!
>
> My advice: find something you like that's within your budget right  
> now (take your favorite CD of Wheezer, Coldplay or whatever and  
> test), listen to what others have mixed (not mp3's or iTunes crap,  
> get the real CD's) in the genre your aiming for on your new speakers  
> and try to emulate the balance and EQ on your new speakers (with  
> your music). Don't expect to get it right/perfect the 1'st, 2nd, or  
> even 3rd time. You are learning to "paint" with sound which is a  
> process that starts from the first recorded note (maybe you need to  
> change the mic placement, rent a Yamaha C7, or get an Ovation to  
> match the sound...) Speaking of which, microphone use is half the  
> battle to achieving great sounding mixes. Oh yeah, and listen,  
> Listen, LISTEN to everything! We perceive 3 dimensions with our 2  
> dimensional ears (not to mention that we feel the Low Freq with our  
> entire body), your job, should you decide to accept it, is to make  
> an impact on the auditory sense(SP)! Please don't hurt yourself...
>

Yep spot on, sorry I should have mentioned that also.  The Avantones are certainly a step up from the Aurotones but should be reference set to a larger set.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Tim McLane" <timmclane@...> wrote:

>
> Just one little caution about the mixing-on-small-speakers/headphones issue: if you don't check your mix on big speakers (and there are some other conditions as well), you may run the risk of getting too much bass on your mix --- which you'll only hear on systems that have bigger speakers.  It could be very embarrassing if you do a mix that sounds great on Auratones (for example) or on headphones and then on a system that has woofers of some kind, you suddenly hear some huge bass sound covering up the rest of your mix.
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: bloodychoir 
>   To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 4:10 PM
>   Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Speaker Monitors / Mixing Tips Primer (from Man Parrish)
> 
> 
>     
>   Good thread and all great advice. As another recommendation for well priced monitors I've been using the Wharfedale Pro Diamond 8.2 actives for a few years now. They're remarkably cheap even here in Australia but I find them more revealing, "colder", and less flattering than my Dynaudio BM6's which are a great deal more expensive. I know they are the dirty little secret of more than a couple of mastering engineers. Be interested to know if anyone else here uses them. And one more possibility are the Avantone Mixcubes which are designed to replace the old Aurotone 'snotblocks'. If you can get a your mix sounding alright on these it should translate to just about anything, and given most people listen on crap gear now that's a plus. Don't think you need to spend 400 pounds, just listen to some well built ones and then spend some months getting used to them. 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Just get some used computer speakers from Goodwilll to check cheapo 
speaker mixes rather than spending $400 for cheap speakers.

The Adam 3's are like $3000 and no longer sold by Sweetwater. There 
must be something good inbetween.

-----Original Message-----
From: bloodychoir <bloodychoir@...m>
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:26 pm
Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Speaker Monitors / Mixing Tips Primer (from 
Man Parrish)

 
Yep spot on, sorry I should have mentioned that also.  The Avantones 
are certainly a step up from the Aurotones but should be reference set 
to a larger set.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Tim McLane" <timmclane@...> 
wrote:
>
> Just one little caution about the 
mixing-on-small-speakers/headphones issue: if you don't check your mix 
on big speakers (and there are some other conditions as well), you may 
run the risk of getting too much bass on your mix --- which you'll only 
hear on systems that have bigger speakers.  It could be very 
embarrassing if you do a mix that sounds great on Auratones (for 
example) or on headphones and then on a system that has woofers of some 
kind, you suddenly hear some huge bass sound covering up the rest of 
your mix.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: bloodychoir
>   To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
&gt;   Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 4:10 PM
>   Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Speaker Monitors / Mixing Tips Primer 
(from Man Parrish)
>
>
>
>   Good thread and all great advice. As another recommendation for 
well priced monitors I've been using the Wharfedale Pro Diamond 8.2 
actives for a few years now. They're remarkably cheap even here in 
Australia but I find them more revealing, "colder", and less flattering 
than my Dynaudio BM6's which are a great deal more expensive. I know 
they are the dirty little secret of more than a couple of mastering 
engineers. Be interested to know if anyone else here uses them. And one 
more possibility are the Avantone Mixcubes which are designed to 
replace the old Aurotone 'snotblocks'. If you can get a your mix 
sounding alright on these it should translate to just about anything, 
and given most people listen on crap gear now that's a plus. Don't 
think you need to spend 400 pounds, just listen to some well built ones 
and then spend some months getting used to them.
>
>
&gt;

>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>;

I'm sorry, I can't find the message someone posted recently about a  
couple of tutorials - one was about mixing vocals. Would you mind  
reposting please?

thanks

Andy

I've been practicing my singing for a few weeks now because I'd love  
to be able to do my own vocals, if only backing vocals. As with many  
male vocalists I sing slightly flat, but my intervals are fine (i.e.  
if I lift the pitch throughout slightly, it all comes back true to  
pitch) but I have a bit of a thin voice that sounds more boyband than  
male soloist. I read the tips of EQing and I've been messing around  
with reverb, chorus, ensemble and delay which enhance the sounds  
somewhat, although of course it then starts to sound muddy or processed.

Does anyone have any secret tips to share on how you make singers  
sound as if they have a fuller voice?

By the way, if anyone reading is a novice like me and feels shy to ask  
simple questions then please do so, as I would love to give answers as  
well as just asking questions! And I really do appreciate those who  
take the time to reply!


Andy

I've done lots and lots of vocals and here are some tips:RECORDING: 1-When you record use a good mike--- it's worth it --- depending upon the project and depending upon the singer and depending upon what kinds of problems the singer has--- to rent one, such as a Neumann U-47 tube vintage or some others.  This and a few other things SOMETIMES can work wonders.  2-Use (rent if you can't buy one)  a good pre-amp, such as a 3 band EQ NEVE or some other; it will give body to the vocal and make it sound "expensive" 3-Use a bit of compression when you record the vocal and when you mix it use a little more--- this will make the singer sound like they have much more control than they do. DEVELOPMENT: A few lessons from a vocal coach that really knows what they are doing can cause miraculous changes --- if you live in or near the Los Angeles metro area, I recommend Seth Riggs or one of his authorized students.  2-Failing that, get his book and do the exercises.  One of the exercises, which is basically to sing the first five notes of any scale up and down (ZB C, D, E, F, G, F, E, D, C and then to slur up from the I to the V and back to the I , ie, C slur up to G and then slur back), then do the same thing down 1/2 step, (ie, the first 5 notes of the B scale, etc. using the same form as the C scale), and so on until you have reached the lowest note that you are able to sing comfortably. When you have reached the lowest, you go up in this same way until you reach the highest note you can comfortably sing--- This exercise, if done daily, I have seen to work wonders, too. 

Those are some basics which I have seen help alot.

However, seeing Seth is truly an experience because he knows the voice so well and deals with such things and proper centering and focus, tone quality and a load of other things, too numerous to mention.

t

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Andy Brook 
  To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:05 AM
  Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?


    
  I've been practicing my singing for a few weeks now because I'd love 
  to be able to do my own vocals, if only backing vocals. As with many 
  male vocalists I sing slightly flat, but my intervals are fine (i.e. 
  if I lift the pitch throughout slightly, it all comes back true to 
  pitch) but I have a bit of a thin voice that sounds more boyband than 
  male soloist. I read the tips of EQing and I've been messing around 
  with reverb, chorus, ensemble and delay which enhance the sounds 
  somewhat, although of course it then starts to sound muddy or processed.

  Does anyone have any secret tips to share on how you make singers 
  sound as if they have a fuller voice?

  By the way, if anyone reading is a novice like me and feels shy to ask 
  simple questions then please do so, as I would love to give answers as 
  well as just asking questions! And I really do appreciate those who 
  take the time to reply!

  Andy


  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree with most if not all Tim has said..

If you don't own or wanna want to rent a good (read expensive)  mic there is often a lower cost option that gives great results.   But mic choice always depends on the voice and sometimes one mic works better than others and sometimes you get surprised by the one that is the best so I suggest experiment a little with mics.

Check Sessionswithslau.com.   Slau did a few experiments with some interesting and low cost mics that are fab for vocals.
His podcast and write up on the "The Fetish Stiletto" subject is also very interesting.
Slau also did a shoot out for a guy using some mic and presented the shootout on a forum somewhere but I can't quickly locate it..  It proved very interesting and the best mic for the particular person who requested the test (I  stress that it was for that guy's voice) was not the most expensive.  It was a blind shootout and the forum guy's were really surprised at the mic they found to be best for that particular persons voice.

Re vocal improvement.. If you have a good mens barbershop group in your area you can't go far wrong with joining them for a while.. They teach & practice great technique.  Barbershop/acappella style may not be your thing but I can assure you good technique and the skills they use is always transferable to any type of singing you do.   I sang barbershop for a while and have never ever regretted it because they taught me so much about good singing practice and vocal technique.

Steve


On 18/12/2009, at 12:45 PM, Tim McLane wrote:

> I've done lots and lots of vocals and here are some tips:RECORDING: 1-When you record use a good mike--- it's worth it --- depending upon the project and depending upon the singer and depending upon what kinds of problems the singer has--- to rent one, such as a Neumann U-47 tube vintage or some others. This and a few other things SOMETIMES can work wonders. 2-Use (rent if you can't buy one) a good pre-amp, such as a 3 band EQ NEVE or some other; it will give body to the vocal and make it sound "expensive" 3-Use a bit of compression when you record the vocal and when you mix it use a little more--- this will make the singer sound like they have much more control than they do. DEVELOPMENT: A few lessons from a vocal coach that really knows what they are doing can cause miraculous changes --- if you live in or near the Los Angeles metro area, I recommend Seth Riggs or one of his authorized students. 2-Failing that, get his book and do the exercises. One of the exercises, which is basically to sing the first five notes of any scale up and down (ZB C, D, E, F, G, F, E, D, C and then to slur up from the I to the V and back to the I , ie, C slur up to G and then slur back), then do the same thing down 1/2 step, (ie, the first 5 notes of the B scale, etc. using the same form as the C scale), and so on until you have reached the lowest note that you are able to sing comfortably. When you have reached the lowest, you go up in this same way until you reach the highest note you can comfortably sing--- This exercise, if done daily, I have seen to work wonders, too. 
> 
> Those are some basics which I have seen help alot.
> 
> However, seeing Seth is truly an experience because he knows the voice so well and deals with such things and proper centering and focus, tone quality and a load of other things, too numerous to mention.
> 
> t
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Andy Brook 
> To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:05 AM
> Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
> 
> I've been practicing my singing for a few weeks now because I'd love 
> to be able to do my own vocals, if only backing vocals. As with many 
> male vocalists I sing slightly flat, but my intervals are fine (i.e. 
> if I lift the pitch throughout slightly, it all comes back true to 
> pitch) but I have a bit of a thin voice that sounds more boyband than 
> male soloist. I read the tips of EQing and I've been messing around 
> with reverb, chorus, ensemble and delay which enhance the sounds 
> somewhat, although of course it then starts to sound muddy or processed.
> 
> Does anyone have any secret tips to share on how you make singers 
> sound as if they have a fuller voice?
> 
> By the way, if anyone reading is a novice like me and feels shy to ask 
> simple questions then please do so, as I would love to give answers as 
> well as just asking questions! And I really do appreciate those who 
> take the time to reply!
> 
> Andy
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,

I'll echo the sentiments on Seth Riggs' technique.  Google for more  
info.  Many of his authorized instructors can do lessons online as  
well (using something like iChat with video, etc.).  It would however  
be better to see someone in person though.

Fernando

On 17-Dec-09, at 3:45 PM, Tim McLane wrote:

> I've done lots and lots of vocals and here are some tips:RECORDING:  
> 1-When you record use a good mike--- it's worth it --- depending  
> upon the project and depending upon the singer and depending upon  
> what kinds of problems the singer has--- to rent one, such as a  
> Neumann U-47 tube vintage or some others.  This and a few other  
> things SOMETIMES can work wonders.  2-Use (rent if you can't buy  
> one)  a good pre-amp, such as a 3 band EQ NEVE or some other; it  
> will give body to the vocal and make it sound "expensive" 3-Use a  
> bit of compression when you record the vocal and when you mix it  
> use a little more--- this will make the singer sound like they have  
> much more control than they do. DEVELOPMENT: A few lessons from a  
> vocal coach that really knows what they are doing can cause  
> miraculous changes --- if you live in or near the Los Angeles metro  
> area, I recommend Seth Riggs or one of his authorized students.  2- 
> Failing that, get his book and do the exercises.  One of the  
> exercises, w
>  hich is basically to sing the first five notes of any scale up and  
> down (ZB C, D, E, F, G, F, E, D, C and then to slur up from the I  
> to the V and back to the I , ie, C slur up to G and then slur  
> back), then do the same thing down 1/2 step, (ie, the first 5 notes  
> of the B scale, etc. using the same form as the C scale), and so on  
> until you have reached the lowest note that you are able to sing  
> comfortably. When you have reached the lowest, you go up in this  
> same way until you reach the highest note you can comfortably  
> sing--- This exercise, if done daily, I have seen to work wonders,  
> too.
>
> Those are some basics which I have seen help alot.
>
> However, seeing Seth is truly an experience because he knows the  
> voice so well and deals with such things and proper centering and  
> focus, tone quality and a load of other things, too numerous to  
> mention.
>
> t
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Andy Brook
>   To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:05 AM
>   Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
>
>
>
>   I've been practicing my singing for a few weeks now because I'd love
>   to be able to do my own vocals, if only backing vocals. As with many
>   male vocalists I sing slightly flat, but my intervals are fine (i.e.
>   if I lift the pitch throughout slightly, it all comes back true to
>   pitch) but I have a bit of a thin voice that sounds more boyband  
> than
>   male soloist. I read the tips of EQing and I've been messing around
>   with reverb, chorus, ensemble and delay which enhance the sounds
>   somewhat, although of course it then starts to sound muddy or  
> processed.
>
>   Does anyone have any secret tips to share on how you make singers
>   sound as if they have a fuller voice?
>
>   By the way, if anyone reading is a novice like me and feels shy  
> to ask
>   simple questions then please do so, as I would love to give  
> answers as
>   well as just asking questions! And I really do appreciate those who
>   take the time to reply!
>
>   Andy
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi Andy. This may also be a great way to practice as well. Double your vocals. Sing along with your recorded vocal track as accurately as possible. Keep both panned center but bring down one until it blends to barely perceptible. A light touch of short room or plate reverb with a 20 to 40 ms predelay keeps it crisp and modern. Not the only way just something I would try on a "thin" male vocal. I would also consider using a dynamic mic like an Sm7 so you can sing right on the mic and get some proximity boost. Works good for me. 
Practice is still the best way to improve the sound of your voice. 
-Duane

On Dec 17, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Andy Brook wrote:

> I've been practicing my singing for a few weeks now because I'd love 
> to be able to do my own vocals, if only backing vocals. As with many 
> male vocalists I sing slightly flat, but my intervals are fine (i.e. 
> if I lift the pitch throughout slightly, it all comes back true to 
> pitch) but I have a bit of a thin voice that sounds more boyband than 
> male soloist. I read the tips of EQing and I've been messing around 
> with reverb, chorus, ensemble and delay which enhance the sounds 
> somewhat, although of course it then starts to sound muddy or processed.
> 
> Does anyone have any secret tips to share on how you make singers 
> sound as if they have a fuller voice?
> 
> By the way, if anyone reading is a novice like me and feels shy to ask 
> simple questions then please do so, as I would love to give answers as 
> well as just asking questions! And I really do appreciate those who 
> take the time to reply!
> 
> Andy
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have a bit of a thin voice that sounds more boyband than male soloist.


All people have at least a couple of voices in them so if you don't like one 
try to find another or love the one you're with. One thing that is 
impossible is to go from A to even C in a couple of weeks, it takes a long 
time. There are many examples in rock history where the singers don't have 
great voices in the sense that would make teachers would clap their hands 
but where it still works. Think Cohen, Gahan, Dylan, Springsteen and many, 
many others so sometimes it's a matter of finding an approach that works for 
you.

I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual sound of your voice 
so I would suggest taking the long road and start rehearsing but be prepared 
to spend years and not weeks on this. There are far more brain surgents in 
the world than singers that have soul, great intonation and being 
distinctive and recognizable at once so you'd be hard pressed to find a more 
difficult task if that's your goal.

On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
>  so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
> difficult task if that's your goal.

Well thank you, Debbie Downer!

> I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual sound of  
> your voice

But seriously, I am curious that the only response that mentioned EQ  
was this one.  I am in a similar situation to Andy's and have been  
focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals sound.   
Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our voices, as I have  
a very big voice that does well in barbershop and broadway style  
music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!).  But  
descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") to contrast  
my voice with what I want.

Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the singing in the TV  
show Glee.  It's really striking how much processing is involved in  
the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they go from  
speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds fairly  
natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed.  But I don't  
know what processing is involved.  While the girls mostly have  
exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre singing  
voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat, compressed and  
"in your face".   So my thinking is - Hey!  I have a mediocre singing  
voice!  Maybe I could sound like that too!

Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition from  
speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.

http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3

What is it that is being done to the singing that is so noticeable?   
The closest I've come to involves two layers of compression and  
channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, and pitch  
correction.  When I run a match EQ on my voice using boyband vocals  
as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high frequency  
gain and low frequency dropoff.  Duane mentioned utilizing the  
proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have not tried  
that yet.

Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very interesting,  
and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, so any  
discussion would be greatly appreciated.

Gregory




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Did you try adding some distortion to the vox? Some of the UAudio 
compressor plugs add some (LA2a, La3a), or use Antares Tube or Wave 
Arts' new one or Waves V-series. They all give some analog warmth which 
adds some body and heft to a vocal. You can also add some aural 
excitement - like the BBE plug in. I think thats what you hear on pop 
songs like Britney Spears new song "3" - it can sound artificial but 
you can back it off too. Another trick is to double track the vocal 
line and then put the 2nd one way down - and/or put different eq and 
compression on the second one so it adds body - that worked for the 
Beatles and we all know how miserably they failed in their musical 
careers. You might also get on the mic and get some proximity affect.

Greg Moore

By the way, guys, I don't know where you are but in LA, you can rent a 
Neumann U47, tube, vintage (just like mine) for about 100. for a day---  
maybe even less.  Along with that, I recommend a Neve 3 band EQ for about 
40-80/day.  They key is: how much do you want to invest in the singer?  It 
makes a huge difference --- if they can sing.


----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Stephen Currington" <steve@...>
To: <Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?


>I agree with most if not all Tim has said..
>
> If you don't own or wanna want to rent a good (read expensive)  mic there 
> is often a lower cost option that gives great results.   But mic choice 
> always depends on the voice and sometimes one mic works better than others 
> and sometimes you get surprised by the one that is the best so I suggest 
> experiment a little with mics.
>
> Check Sessionswithslau.com.   Slau did a few experiments with some 
> interesting and low cost mics that are fab for vocals.
> His podcast and write up on the "The Fetish Stiletto" subject is also very 
> interesting.
> Slau also did a shoot out for a guy using some mic and presented the 
> shootout on a forum somewhere but I can't quickly locate it..  It proved 
> very interesting and the best mic for the particular person who requested 
> the test (I  stress that it was for that guy's voice) was not the most 
> expensive.  It was a blind shootout and the forum guy's were really 
> surprised at the mic they found to be best for that particular persons 
> voice.
>
> Re vocal improvement.. If you have a good mens barbershop group in your 
> area you can't go far wrong with joining them for a while.. They teach & 
> practice great technique.  Barbershop/acappella style may not be your 
> thing but I can assure you good technique and the skills they use is 
> always transferable to any type of singing you do.   I sang barbershop for 
> a while and have never ever regretted it because they taught me so much 
> about good singing practice and vocal technique.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 18/12/2009, at 12:45 PM, Tim McLane wrote:
>
>> I've done lots and lots of vocals and here are some tips:RECORDING: 
>> 1-When you record use a good mike--- it's worth it --- depending upon the 
>> project and depending upon the singer and depending upon what kinds of 
>> problems the singer has--- to rent one, such as a Neumann U-47 tube 
>> vintage or some others. This and a few other things SOMETIMES can work 
>> wonders. 2-Use (rent if you can't buy one) a good pre-amp, such as a 3 
>> band EQ NEVE or some other; it will give body to the vocal and make it 
>> sound "expensive" 3-Use a bit of compression when you record the vocal 
>> and when you mix it use a little more--- this will make the singer sound 
>> like they have much more control than they do. DEVELOPMENT: A few lessons 
>> from a vocal coach that really knows what they are doing can cause 
>> miraculous changes --- if you live in or near the Los Angeles metro area, 
>> I recommend Seth Riggs or one of his authorized students. 2-Failing that, 
>> get his book and do the exercises. One of the exercises, which is 
>> basically to sing the first five notes of any scale up and down (ZB C, D, 
>> E, F, G, F, E, D, C and then to slur up from the I to the V and back to 
>> the I , ie, C slur up to G and then slur back), then do the same thing 
>> down 1/2 step, (ie, the first 5 notes of the B scale, etc. using the same 
>> form as the C scale), and so on until you have reached the lowest note 
>> that you are able to sing comfortably. When you have reached the lowest, 
>> you go up in this same way until you reach the highest note you can 
>> comfortably sing--- This exercise, if done daily, I have seen to work 
>> wonders, too.
>>
>> Those are some basics which I have seen help alot.
>>
>> However, seeing Seth is truly an experience because he knows the voice so 
>> well and deals with such things and proper centering and focus, tone 
>> quality and a load of other things, too numerous to mention.
>>
>> t
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: Andy Brook
>> To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:05 AM
>> Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
>>
>> I've been practicing my singing for a few weeks now because I'd love
>> to be able to do my own vocals, if only backing vocals. As with many
>> male vocalists I sing slightly flat, but my intervals are fine (i.e.
>> if I lift the pitch throughout slightly, it all comes back true to
>> pitch) but I have a bit of a thin voice that sounds more boyband than
>> male soloist. I read the tips of EQing and I've been messing around
>> with reverb, chorus, ensemble and delay which enhance the sounds
>> somewhat, although of course it then starts to sound muddy or processed.
>>
>> Does anyone have any secret tips to share on how you make singers
>> sound as if they have a fuller voice?
>>
>> By the way, if anyone reading is a novice like me and feels shy to ask
>> simple questions then please do so, as I would love to give answers as
>> well as just asking questions! And I really do appreciate those who
>> take the time to reply!
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I've automated a vocal track and the relative volume is ok, but the  
whole of the track is now too soft. How should I increase it all  
without having to redo all of the automation? Should I use gain or is  
there a better way?

Thanks guys

Andy

Have you tried sending it to a bus then simply increase the gain on the bus??
If there are multiple vocal tracks..  Group them and then send the group to a bus and use the bus to add gain.
Or I guess you could also simply carefully add some compression to give the effect of increasing volume using the compressor?
Another way is simply bounce (bounce in place) the automated track(s) to an new audio track and then use the new audio track in a new channel strip and simply add volume to that strip?

I have never tried to do a "select all" on the automation and seeing if you can simply lift everything by a notch or two?  Somehow I doubt that will actually work but also worth considering.


These are just a few ideas..  There are probably others but hell at least these are a starter.



Steve




On 8/01/2010, at 10:34 AM, Andy Brook wrote:

> I've automated a vocal track and the relative volume is ok, but the 
> whole of the track is now too soft. How should I increase it all 
> without having to redo all of the automation? Should I use gain or is 
> there a better way?
> 
> Thanks guys
> 
> Andy
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You can select all automation -

* Adjust your zoom setting so that the whole track is visible.
* Shift-click to the right of the last automation node.
* Drag the mouse to the beginning of the track to select all automation
nodes.

You should now be able to click/hold the mouse anywhere in the track along
the automation line and raise or lower all the nodes together.

 - P

> Have you tried sending it to a bus then simply increase the gain on the bus??
> If there are multiple vocal tracks..  Group them and then send the group to a
> bus and use the bus to add gain.
> Or I guess you could also simply carefully add some compression to give the
> effect of increasing volume using the compressor?
> Another way is simply bounce (bounce in place) the automated track(s) to an
> new audio track and then use the new audio track in a new channel strip and
> simply add volume to that strip?
> 
> I have never tried to do a "select all" on the automation and seeing if you
> can simply lift everything by a notch or two?  Somehow I doubt that will
> actually work but also worth considering.
> 
> 
> These are just a few ideas..  There are probably others but hell at least
> these are a starter.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/01/2010, at 10:34 AM, Andy Brook wrote:
> 
>> I've automated a vocal track and the relative volume is ok, but the
>> whole of the track is now too soft. How should I increase it all
>> without having to redo all of the automation? Should I use gain or is
>> there a better way?
>> 
>> Thanks guys
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

> You can select all automation -
>
> * Adjust your zoom setting so that the whole track is visible.
> * Shift-click to the right of the last automation node.
> * Drag the mouse to the beginning of the track to select all automation
> nodes.
>
> You should now be able to click/hold the mouse anywhere in the track along
> the automation line and raise or lower all the nodes together.
>

Thank you. I'll try all the suggestions but that was the one I thought I
had read about

>  - P
>
>
>> Have you tried sending it to a bus then simply increase the gain on the
>> bus??
>> If there are multiple vocal tracks..  Group them and then send the group
>> to a
>> bus and use the bus to add gain.
>> Or I guess you could also simply carefully add some compression to give
>> the
>> effect of increasing volume using the compressor?
>> Another way is simply bounce (bounce in place) the automated track(s) to
>> an
>> new audio track and then use the new audio track in a new channel strip
>> and
>> simply add volume to that strip?
>>
>> I have never tried to do a "select all" on the automation and seeing if
>> you
>> can simply lift everything by a notch or two?  Somehow I doubt that will
>> actually work but also worth considering.
>>
>>
>> These are just a few ideas..  There are probably others but hell at
>> least
>> these are a starter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/01/2010, at 10:34 AM, Andy Brook wrote:
>>
>>> I've automated a vocal track and the relative volume is ok, but the
>>> whole of the track is now too soft. How should I increase it all
>>> without having to redo all of the automation? Should I use gain or is
>>> there a better way?
>>>
>>> Thanks guys
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Lily Allen just won three Ivor Novello awards in the UK. It is the  
most prestigious award show we have for songwriters and is very highly  
regarded in the industry. She and her writing partner won best song  
musically and lyrically for The Fear. It was a huge hit in the UK last  
year, and it is one of the demo songs that ships with Logic 9. I think  
it is a very good song indeed, and am spending hours happily learning  
the tricks of the trade from pulling the song apart in Logic.

Andy B

This was a message from Greg on a similar topic to the current one on  
delay and reverb in vocals, and I was wondering if you ever found out  
how to produce the sound that is made in Glee? (By the way, I had no  
idea what Glee was when you posted. Since then its been a big hit in  
the UK)

Andy Brook

On 18 Dec 2009, at 23:09, Gregory Anderson wrote:

>
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
> > so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
> > difficult task if that's your goal.
>
> Well thank you, Debbie Downer!
>
> > I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual sound of
> > your voice
>
> But seriously, I am curious that the only response that mentioned EQ
> was this one. I am in a similar situation to Andy's and have been
> focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals sound.
> Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our voices, as I have
> a very big voice that does well in barbershop and broadway style
> music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!). But
> descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") to contrast
> my voice with what I want.
>
> Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the singing in the TV
> show Glee. It's really striking how much processing is involved in
> the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they go from
> speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds fairly
> natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed. But I don't
> know what processing is involved. While the girls mostly have
> exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre singing
> voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat, compressed and
> "in your face". So my thinking is - Hey! I have a mediocre singing
> voice! Maybe I could sound like that too!
>
> Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition from
> speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.
>
> http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3
>
> What is it that is being done to the singing that is so noticeable?
> The closest I've come to involves two layers of compression and
> channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, and pitch
> correction. When I run a match EQ on my voice using boyband vocals
> as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high frequency
> gain and low frequency dropoff. Duane mentioned utilizing the
> proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have not tried
> that yet.
>
> Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very interesting,
> and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, so any
> discussion would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Gregory
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

I have spent a happy two or three evenings reading all of the Logic  
tutorials here

http://audio.tutsplus.com/

They are free, but I think I will subscribe in any case, as they have  
been fantastically helpful to me. I read some a few months ago and it  
didn't all go in. On re-reading it all becomes a lot clearer. If the  
writer is on this mailing list, thanks a million.

Andy Brook

Andy,

Thanks for link.  I know it will definitely help me.  

Eric H
On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Andy Brook wrote:

> I have spent a happy two or three evenings reading all of the Logic 
> tutorials here
> 
> http://audio.tutsplus.com/
> 
> They are free, but I think I will subscribe in any case, as they have 
> been fantastically helpful to me. I read some a few months ago and it 
> didn't all go in. On re-reading it all becomes a lot clearer. If the 
> writer is on this mailing list, thanks a million.
> 
> Andy Brook
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I want to say thanks as well Andy, I will be using this site quite often.
Thanks so much for the heads up!
Jack

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Eric Hightower <edhlaurita1@...> wrote:

>
> Andy,
> 
> Thanks for link.  I know it will definitely help me.  
> 
> Eric H
> On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Andy Brook wrote:
> 
> > I have spent a happy two or three evenings reading all of the Logic 
> > tutorials here
> > 
> > http://audio.tutsplus.com/
> > 
> > They are free, but I think I will subscribe in any case, as they have 
> > been fantastically helpful to me. I read some a few months ago and it 
> > didn't all go in. On re-reading it all becomes a lot clearer. If the 
> > writer is on this mailing list, thanks a million.
> > 
> > Andy Brook
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I did not get very far on capturing that sound.  I know that reverb does not play much of a role in it.  It's striking when I listen to CD's from the 70's and 80's and hear how much reverb was on the vocals back then.  You don't hear any of that on today's pop.

What I'm wrestling with right now is pitch-correction.  The "auto-tune" effect is very prominent in all the vocals I hear, but I'm having trouble getting the same sound.  I think it's because I'm using Logic's own Pitch Correction tool, which is only automatic, vs. AT, which has a graphical mode where the target pitch is assigned, rather than determined algorithmically.  When I set it for a slow response time (100ms), I can't hear any difference in the vocals at all.  I think you need a really fast response time to generate the noticeable artifacts that are the new "normal" in contemporary recordings.  However, when I set it fast enough to hear the effect, it then catches my vibrato and turns it into a trill!

I don't know if I heard it on this list or elsewhere, but singing really close into a dynamic mic for the proximity effect was a good tip and has resulted in something a little closer to what I am looking for.  But I have a long way to go!

Gregory

On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Andy Brook wrote:

> This was a message from Greg on a similar topic to the current one on  
> delay and reverb in vocals, and I was wondering if you ever found out  
> how to produce the sound that is made in Glee? (By the way, I had no  
> idea what Glee was when you posted. Since then its been a big hit in  
> the UK)
> 
> Andy Brook
> 
> On 18 Dec 2009, at 23:09, Gregory Anderson wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
>>> so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
>>> difficult task if that's your goal.
>> 
>> Well thank you, Debbie Downer!
>> 
>>> I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual sound of
>>> your voice
>> 
>> But seriously, I am curious that the only response that mentioned EQ
>> was this one. I am in a similar situation to Andy's and have been
>> focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals sound.
>> Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our voices, as I have
>> a very big voice that does well in barbershop and broadway style
>> music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!). But
>> descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") to contrast
>> my voice with what I want.
>> 
>> Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the singing in the TV
>> show Glee. It's really striking how much processing is involved in
>> the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they go from
>> speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds fairly
>> natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed. But I don't
>> know what processing is involved. While the girls mostly have
>> exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre singing
>> voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat, compressed and
>> "in your face". So my thinking is - Hey! I have a mediocre singing
>> voice! Maybe I could sound like that too!
>> 
>> Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition from
>> speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.
>> 
>> http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3
>> 
>> What is it that is being done to the singing that is so noticeable?
>> The closest I've come to involves two layers of compression and
>> channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, and pitch
>> correction. When I run a match EQ on my voice using boyband vocals
>> as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high frequency
>> gain and low frequency dropoff. Duane mentioned utilizing the
>> proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have not tried
>> that yet.
>> 
>> Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very interesting,
>> and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, so any
>> discussion would be greatly appreciated.
>> 
>> Gregory
>> 
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

The sound depends on the microphone too. thats why people spend $10,000 
on an old U47 or C12.

Re autotune - try to use different amounts on different parts of the 
track - not just one setting for the whole thing. you can bring the 
audio up and put it on several parallel tracks, and then put a 
different setting on each.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Anderson <glists@...>
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:29 am
Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?

 
I did not get very far on capturing that sound.  I know that reverb 
does not play much of a role in it.  It's striking when I listen to 
CD's from the 70's and 80's and hear how much reverb was on the vocals 
back then.  You don't hear any of that on today's pop.

What I'm wrestling with right now is pitch-correction.  The "auto-tune" 
effect is very prominent in all the vocals I hear, but I'm having 
trouble getting the same sound.  I think it's because I'm using Logic's 
own Pitch Correction tool, which is only automatic, vs. AT, which has a 
graphical mode where the target pitch is assigned, rather than 
determined algorithmically.  When I set it for a slow response time 
(100ms), I can't hear any difference in the vocals at all.  I think you 
need a really fast response time to generate the noticeable artifacts 
that are the new "normal" in contemporary recordings.  However, when I 
set it fast enough to hear the effect, it then catches my vibrato and 
turns it into a trill!

I don't know if I heard it on this list or elsewhere, but singing 
really close into a dynamic mic for the proximity effect was a good tip 
and has resulted in something a little closer to what I am looking for. 
 But I have a long way to go!

Gregory

On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Andy Brook wrote:

> This was a message from Greg on a similar topic to the current one 
on
> delay and reverb in vocals, and I was wondering if you ever found 
out
> how to produce the sound that is made in Glee? (By the way, I had 
no
> idea what Glee was when you posted. Since then its been a big hit 
in
> the UK)
>
> Andy Brook
>
> On 18 Dec 2009, at 23:09, Gregory Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
>>> so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
>>> difficult task if that's your goal.
>>
>> Well thank you, Debbie Downer!
>>
>>> I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual 
sound of
>>> your voice
>>;
>> But seriously, I am curious that the only response that 
mentioned EQ
>> was this one. I am in a similar situation to Andy's and have 
been
>> focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals 
sound.
>> Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our voices, as 
I have
>> a very big voice that does well in barbershop and broadway 
style
>> music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!). But
>> descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") to 
contrast
>> my voice with what I want.
>>
>> Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the singing in 
the TV
>> show Glee. It's really striking how much processing is 
involved in
>> the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they go 
from
>> speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds fairly
>> natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed. But I 
don't
>> know what processing is involved. While the girls mostly have
>> exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre 
singing
>> voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat, 
compressed and
>> "in your face". So my thinking is - Hey! I have a mediocre 
singing
>> voice! Maybe I could sound like that too!
>>
>> Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition from
>> speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.
>>
>> http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3
>>
>> What is it that is being done to the singing that is so 
noticeable?
>> The closest I've come to involves two layers of compression and
>> channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, and 
pitch
>> correction. When I run a match EQ on my voice using boyband 
vocals
>> as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high 
frequency
>> gain and low frequency dropoff. Duane mentioned utilizing the
>> proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have not 
tried
>> that yet.
>>
>> Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very 
interesting,
>> and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, so any
>> discussion would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Gregory
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>;
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
&gt; Yahoo! Groups Links

>
>
>

Perhaps more important than spending thousands on a name microphone is finding a mic that suits the singers voice and style. I have used an EV RE20 to great effect, and even an SM58 if suits the voice and track. A cheap mic and a good match can produce results as good as a mismatched Neumann!

Best Wishes
Steve Coates

On 14 Sep 2010, at 18:06, GAmoore@... wrote:

> The sound depends on the microphone too. thats why people spend $10,000 
> on an old U47 or C12.
> 
> Re autotune - try to use different amounts on different parts of the 
> track - not just one setting for the whole thing. you can bring the 
> audio up and put it on several parallel tracks, and then put a 
> different setting on each.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Anderson <glists@...>
> To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:29 am
> Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
> 
>  
> I did not get very far on capturing that sound. I know that reverb 
> does not play much of a role in it. It's striking when I listen to 
> CD's from the 70's and 80's and hear how much reverb was on the vocals 
> back then. You don't hear any of that on today's pop.
> 
> What I'm wrestling with right now is pitch-correction. The "auto-tune" 
> effect is very prominent in all the vocals I hear, but I'm having 
> trouble getting the same sound. I think it's because I'm using Logic's 
> own Pitch Correction tool, which is only automatic, vs. AT, which has a 
> graphical mode where the target pitch is assigned, rather than 
> determined algorithmically. When I set it for a slow response time 
> (100ms), I can't hear any difference in the vocals at all. I think you 
> need a really fast response time to generate the noticeable artifacts 
> that are the new "normal" in contemporary recordings. However, when I 
> set it fast enough to hear the effect, it then catches my vibrato and 
> turns it into a trill!
> 
> I don't know if I heard it on this list or elsewhere, but singing 
> really close into a dynamic mic for the proximity effect was a good tip 
> and has resulted in something a little closer to what I am looking for. 
> But I have a long way to go!
> 
> Gregory
> 
> On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Andy Brook wrote:
> 
> > This was a message from Greg on a similar topic to the current one 
> on
> > delay and reverb in vocals, and I was wondering if you ever found 
> out
> > how to produce the sound that is made in Glee? (By the way, I had 
> no
> > idea what Glee was when you posted. Since then its been a big hit 
> in
> > the UK)
> >
> > Andy Brook
> >
> > On 18 Dec 2009, at 23:09, Gregory Anderson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
> >>> so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
> >>> difficult task if that's your goal.
> >>
> >> Well thank you, Debbie Downer!
> >>
> &gt;>> I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual 
> sound of
> >>> your voice
> >>
> >> But seriously, I am curious that the only response that 
> mentioned EQ
> >> was this one. I am in a similar situation to Andy's and have 
> been
> >> focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals 
> sound.
> >> Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our voices, as 
> I have
> >>; a very big voice that does well in barbershop and broadway 
> style
> >;> music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!). But
> >> descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") to 
> contrast
> >> my voice with what I want.
> >>
> >> Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the singing in 
> the TV
> >> show Glee. It's really striking how much processing is 
> involved in
> >> the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they go 
> from
> >> speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds fairly
> >> natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed. But I 
> don't
> >&gt; know what processing is involved. While the girls mostly have
> >> exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre 
> singing
> >;> voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat, 
> compressed and
> >> "in your face". So my thinking is - Hey! I have a mediocre 
> singing
> >> voice! Maybe I could sound like that too!
> >>
> >> Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition from
> &gt;> speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.
> >>
> >> http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3
> >>
> &gt;> What is it that is being done to the singing that is so 
> noticeable?
> >> The closest I've come to involves two layers of compression and
> >> channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, and 
> pitch
> >> correction. When I run a match EQ on my voice using boyband 
> vocals
> >> as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high 
> frequency
> >> gain and low frequency dropoff. Duane mentioned utilizing the
> >> proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have not 
> tried
> >> that yet.
> >>
> >> Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very 
> interesting,
> >> and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, so any
> >> discussion would be greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >> Gregory
> >&gt;
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >&gt;
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Perhaps. The sm58 and and other mics have been used at times. But I 
wonder why the expensive mic market is not only booming, but there are 
numerous copies of the expensive mics costing several thousand just for 
the copies (e.g. Peluso etc) or similar ones (Brauner, etc). People who 
can afford any mic often use the expensive ones.

And even in using a cheap mic, what about the preamp, compressor, and 
converters which can cost thousands each.

It would be great to sing into dozens of different mics - but where can 
you do that - without being invited to a top studio to do it? You can't 
do that in Guitar Center?

There is a CD someone made for about $40 where they rented a bunch of 
expensive mics and then made a test recording so you can judge for 
yourself.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Coates <sbcoates@...>
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com <Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?

 
Perhaps more important than spending thousands on a name microphone is 
finding a mic that suits the singers voice and style. I have used an EV 
RE20 to great effect, and even an SM58 if suits the voice and track. A 
cheap mic and a good match can produce results as good as a mismatched 
Neumann!

Best Wishes
Steve Coates

On 14 Sep 2010, at 18:06, GAmoore@... wrote:

> The sound depends on the microphone too. thats why people spend 
$10,000
> on an old U47 or C12.
>
> Re autotune - try to use different amounts on different parts of 
the
> track - not just one setting for the whole thing. you can bring 
the
> audio up and put it on several parallel tracks, and then put a
> different setting on each.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Anderson <glists@...>
> To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:29 am
> Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
>
>
> I did not get very far on capturing that sound. I know that reverb
> does not play much of a role in it. It's striking when I listen to
> CD's from the 70's and 80's and hear how much reverb was on the 
vocals
> back then. You don't hear any of that on today's pop.
>
> What I'm wrestling with right now is pitch-correction. The 
"auto-tune"
> effect is very prominent in all the vocals I hear, but I'm having
> trouble getting the same sound. I think it's because I'm using 
Logic's
> own Pitch Correction tool, which is only automatic, vs. AT, which 
has a
> graphical mode where the target pitch is assigned, rather than
> determined algorithmically. When I set it for a slow response time
> (100ms), I can't hear any difference in the vocals at all. I think 
you
> need a really fast response time to generate the noticeable 
artifacts
> that are the new "normal" in contemporary recordings. However, 
when I
> set it fast enough to hear the effect, it then catches my vibrato 
and
> turns it into a trill!
>
> I don't know if I heard it on this list or elsewhere, but singing
> really close into a dynamic mic for the proximity effect was a 
good tip
> and has resulted in something a little closer to what I am looking 
for.
> But I have a long way to go!
>
> Gregory
>
> On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Andy Brook wrote:
>
> > This was a message from Greg on a similar topic to the 
current one
> on
> > delay and reverb in vocals, and I was wondering if you ever 
found
> out
> > how to produce the sound that is made in Glee? (By the way, I 
had
> no
> > idea what Glee was when you posted. Since then its been a big 
hit
> in
> > the UK)
> >
> > Andy Brook
> >
> > On 18 Dec 2009, at 23:09, Gregory Anderson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
> >>> so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
> >>> difficult task if that's your goal.
> >>
> >> Well thank you, Debbie Downer!
> >>
> >>> I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the 
actual
> sound of
> &gt;>> your voice
> >>
> >> But seriously, I am curious that the only response that
> mentioned EQ
> >> was this one. I am in a similar situation to Andy's and 
have
> been
> >> focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals
> sound.
> &gt;> Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our 
voices, as
> I have
> >> a very big voice that does well in barbershop and 
broadway
> style
> >> music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!). But
> >> descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") 
to
> contrast
> >> my voice with what I want.
> >;>
> >> Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the 
singing in
> the TV
> >> show Glee. It's really striking how much processing is
> involved in
> >> the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they 
go
> from
> >> speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds 
fairly
> >> natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed. But 
I
> don't
> >> know what processing is involved. While the girls mostly 
have
> >> exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre
> singing
> &gt;> voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat,
> compressed and
> >> "in your face". So my thinking is - Hey! I have a 
mediocre
> singing
> >> voice! Maybe I could sound like that too!
> >>
> >> Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition 
from
> >> speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.
> >>
> >> http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3
> >>
> >> What is it that is being done to the singing that is so
> noticeable?
> >> The closest I've come to involves two layers of 
compression and
> >> channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, 
and
> pitch
> >> correction. When I run a match EQ on my voice using 
boyband
> vocals
> >> as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high
> frequency
> >> gain and low frequency dropoff. Duane mentioned utilizing 
the
> >> proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have 
not
> tried
> >> that yet.
> >>
> >> Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very
> interesting,
> >&gt; and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, 
so any
> &gt;> discussion would be greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >> Gregory
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> &gt;
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree get the mic that works is as good or better than spending thousands on a "Named brand".

A Shure SM7b is low cost and works week or an Avantone CV12 Tube mic  (C12 clone) is fabulous on female voices etc   But you have to test them to find out and that is not always easy.
And as Gary says  You have to also  factor in the preamp quality comrpessor, EQ etc quality .. And room acoustics.   They all make a difference.

S.

On 15/09/2010, at 7:00 AM, Steve Coates wrote:

> Perhaps more important than spending thousands on a name microphone is finding a mic that suits the singers voice and style. I have used an EV RE20 to great effect, and even an SM58 if suits the voice and track. A cheap mic and a good match can produce results as good as a mismatched Neumann!
> 
> Best Wishes
> Steve Coates
> 
> On 14 Sep 2010, at 18:06, GAmoore@... wrote:
> 
> > The sound depends on the microphone too. thats why people spend $10,000 
> > on an old U47 or C12.
> > 
> > Re autotune - try to use different amounts on different parts of the 
> > track - not just one setting for the whole thing. you can bring the 
> > audio up and put it on several parallel tracks, and then put a 
> > different setting on each.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregory Anderson <glists@...>
> > To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:29 am
> > Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
> > 
> > 
> > I did not get very far on capturing that sound. I know that reverb 
> > does not play much of a role in it. It's striking when I listen to 
> > CD's from the 70's and 80's and hear how much reverb was on the vocals 
> > back then. You don't hear any of that on today's pop.
> > 
> > What I'm wrestling with right now is pitch-correction. The "auto-tune" 
> > effect is very prominent in all the vocals I hear, but I'm having 
> > trouble getting the same sound. I think it's because I'm using Logic's 
> > own Pitch Correction tool, which is only automatic, vs. AT, which has a 
> > graphical mode where the target pitch is assigned, rather than 
> > determined algorithmically. When I set it for a slow response time 
> > (100ms), I can't hear any difference in the vocals at all. I think you 
> > need a really fast response time to generate the noticeable artifacts 
> > that are the new "normal" in contemporary recordings. However, when I 
> > set it fast enough to hear the effect, it then catches my vibrato and 
> > turns it into a trill!
> > 
> > I don't know if I heard it on this list or elsewhere, but singing 
> > really close into a dynamic mic for the proximity effect was a good tip 
> > and has resulted in something a little closer to what I am looking for. 
> > But I have a long way to go!
> > 
> > Gregory
> > 
> > On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Andy Brook wrote:
> > 
> > > This was a message from Greg on a similar topic to the current one 
> > on
> > >; delay and reverb in vocals, and I was wondering if you ever found 
> > out
> > > how to produce the sound that is made in Glee? (By the way, I had 
> > no
> > > idea what Glee was when you posted. Since then its been a big hit 
> > in
> > > the UK)
> > >
> > > Andy Brook
> > >
> > > On 18 Dec 2009, at 23:09, Gregory Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > >&gt;
> > >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
> > >>> so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
> > >>> difficult task if that's your goal.
> > >>
> > >> Well thank you, Debbie Downer!
> > >>
> > >>> I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual 
> > sound of
> > >>> your voice
> > >>
> > >&gt; But seriously, I am curious that the only response that 
> > mentioned EQ
> > >> was this one. I am in a similar situation to Andy's and have 
> > been
> > >> focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals 
> > sound.
> > >> Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our voices, as 
> > I have
> > >> a very big voice that does well in barbershop and broadway 
> > style
> > >> music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!). But
> > >> descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") to 
> > contrast
> > >> my voice with what I want.
> > >>
> > >> Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the singing in 
> > the TV
> > >> show Glee. It's really striking how much processing is 
> > involved in
> > >> the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they go 
> > from
> > >> speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds fairly
> > >> natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed. But I 
> > don't
> > >>; know what processing is involved. While the girls mostly have
> > >>; exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre 
> > singing
> > >> voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat, 
> > compressed and
> > >> "in your face". So my thinking is - Hey! I have a mediocre 
> > singing
> > >> voice! Maybe I could sound like that too!
> > >>
> > >> Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition from
> > >> speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.
> > >>
> > >> http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3
> > >>
> > >> What is it that is being done to the singing that is so 
> > noticeable?
> > >> The closest I've come to involves two layers of compression and
> > >> channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, and 
> > pitch
> > >> correction. When I run a match EQ on my voice using boyband 
> > vocals
> > >> as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high 
> > frequency
> > >> gain and low frequency dropoff. Duane mentioned utilizing the
> > >> proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have not 
> > tried
> > >> that yet.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very 
> > interesting,
> > >> and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, so any
> > >> discussion would be greatly appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> Gregory
> > >>
> > &gt;> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

its like everything. Great recordings are made with cheap mics, cheap 
guitars, cheap strings, cheap preamps, cheap software. But not many. 
And when people have a choice they often use better quality stuff - 
which does not guarantee greater results - but if it was all a fraud 
then these things would not continue. It also depends on your voice, 
your style of music, the mix of your voice and the musical components, 
the degree of processing, etc. Also how picky you are. I have 
personally tried a number of mics, and preamps and made a bunch of test 
CD's and I found myself gravitating toward the better stuff. Just like 
a $4000 Les Paul will only sound 2% better than a $2000 one, sometimes 
the differences may not be worth it.

there are no short answers. and the tough thing - unlike test driving 
cars - is that is quite hard to test a bunch of different mics and 
preamps.

thats why I like Mercenary Audio in Boston. They allow you to try out 
mics and preamps and return them or exchange them if they don't work 
out.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Currington <composer@...>
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?

I agree get the mic that works is as good or better than spending 
thousands on a "Named brand".

A Shure SM7b is low cost and works week or an Avantone CV12 Tube mic  
(C12 clone) is fabulous on female voices etc   But you have to test 
them to find out and that is not always easy.
And as Gary says  You have to also  factor in the preamp quality 
comrpessor, EQ etc quality .. And room acoustics.   They all make a 
difference.

S.

On 15/09/2010, at 7:00 AM, Steve Coates wrote:

> Perhaps more important than spending thousands on a name microphone 
is finding a mic that suits the singers voice and style. I have used an 
EV RE20 to great effect, and even an SM58 if suits the voice and track. 
A cheap mic and a good match can produce results as good as a 
mismatched Neumann!
>
> Best Wishes
> Steve Coates
>
> On 14 Sep 2010, at 18:06, GAmoore@... wrote:
>
> > The sound depends on the microphone too. thats why people spend 
$10,000
> > on an old U47 or C12.
> >
> > Re autotune - try to use different amounts on different parts of 
the
> > track - not just one setting for the whole thing. you can bring the
> > audio up and put it on several parallel tracks, and then put a
> > different setting on each.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregory Anderson <glists@...>
> > To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:29 am
> > Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
> >
> >
> > I did not get very far on capturing that sound. I know that reverb
> > does not play much of a role in it. It's striking when I listen to
> > CD's from the 70's and 80's and hear how much reverb was on the 
vocals
> > back then. You don't hear any of that on today's pop.
> >
> > What I'm wrestling with right now is pitch-correction. The 
"auto-tune"
> > effect is very prominent in all the vocals I hear, but I'm having
> > trouble getting the same sound. I think it's because I'm using 
Logic's
> > own Pitch Correction tool, which is only automatic, vs. AT, which 
has a
> > graphical mode where the target pitch is assigned, rather than
> > determined algorithmically. When I set it for a slow response time
> > (100ms), I can't hear any difference in the vocals at all. I think 
you
> > need a really fast response time to generate the noticeable 
artifacts
> > that are the new "normal" in contemporary recordings. However, when 
I
> > set it fast enough to hear the effect, it then catches my vibrato 
and
> > turns it into a trill!
> >
> > I don't know if I heard it on this list or elsewhere, but singing
> > really close into a dynamic mic for the proximity effect was a good 
tip
> > and has resulted in something a little closer to what I am looking 
for.
> > But I have a long way to go!
> >
> > Gregory
> >
> > On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Andy Brook wrote:
> >
> > > This was a message from Greg on a similar topic to the current 
one
> > on
> > > delay and reverb in vocals, and I was wondering if you ever found
> > out
> > > how to produce the sound that is made in Glee? (By the way, I had
> > no
> > > idea what Glee was when you posted. Since then its been a big hit
> > in
> > > the UK)
> > >
> > > Andy Brook
> > >
> > > On 18 Dec 2009, at 23:09, Gregory Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
> > >>> so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
> > >>> difficult task if that's your goal.
> > >>
> > >> Well thank you, Debbie Downer!
> > >>
> > >>> I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual
> > sound of
> > >>> your voice
> > >>
> > >> But seriously, I am curious that the only response that
> > mentioned EQ
> > >> was this one. I am in a similar situation to Andy's and have
> > been
> > >> focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals
> > sound.
> > >> Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our voices, as
> > I have
> > >> a very big voice that does well in barbershop and broadway
> > style
> > >> music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!). But
> > >> descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") to
> > contrast
> > >> my voice with what I want.
> > >>
> > >> Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the singing in
> > the TV
> > >> show Glee. It's really striking how much processing is
> > involved in
> > >> the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they go
> > from
> > >> speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds fairly
> > >> natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed. But I
> > don't
> > >> know what processing is involved. While the girls mostly have
> > >> exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre
> > singing
> > >> voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat,
> > compressed and
> > >> "in your face". So my thinking is - Hey! I have a mediocre
> > singing
> > >> voice! Maybe I could sound like that too!
> > >>
> > >> Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition from
> > >> speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.
> > >>
> > >> http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3
> > >>
> > >> What is it that is being done to the singing that is so
> > noticeable?
> > >> The closest I've come to involves two layers of compression and
> > >> channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, and
> > pitch
> > >> correction. When I run a match EQ on my voice using boyband
> > vocals
> > >> as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high
> > frequency
> > >> gain and low frequency dropoff. Duane mentioned utilizing the
> > >> proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have not
> > tried
> > >> that yet.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very
> > interesting,
> > >> and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, so any
> > >> discussion would be greatly appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> Gregory
> > >>
> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Great post, GA. I've come, at this grey and grizzled time of my life, to realize that while talent and creativity are almost universal, real genius is rare. Unfortunately, we now live in a world where we're surrounded by the distilled essence of the stuff. Is it worth making home movies when Industrial Light+Magic shows us every day the fruits of its brilliance? Used to be we had our illusions. Now, we know that there is luminous genius all around us. 

Recently, Apogee posted a song done by a few kids (I mean that cheerfully) in Garage Band, using only the ONE. Apogee is a great company, they've been around the block with me on my apparently unique problem with the ONE as an output device (gorgeous, radiant, but keeps switching itself off). Point is, these youngsters did a wee song called "Forever" that had me smiling from ear to ear. It's wonderful. You can hear it on the Apogee site or even download the GB session and examine it. These guys would make chopsticks and a tin can sound good. 

So as GA points out, yes, we'd all like to use the Great Stuff. It's technically better to some degree, and perhaps its real value is that it excites us to greater effort by some audio placebo effect. :) I think the point is to keep doing your thing as lovingly and devotedly as you can, grow chops as best you can, and see if brilliance takes root in that fertile soil. 

A video on the song, "Forever" can be found here:

http://video.apogeedigital.com/2009/11/record-an-entire-song-in-garageband/


On Sep 14, 2010, at 5:45PM ~9/14/10, GAmoore@... wrote:

> its like everything. Great recordings are made with cheap mics, cheap 
> guitars, cheap strings, cheap preamps, cheap software. But not many. 
> And when people have a choice they often use better quality stuff - 
> which does not guarantee greater results - but if it was all a fraud 
> then these things would not continue. It also depends on your voice, 
> your style of music, the mix of your voice and the musical components, 
> the degree of processing, etc. Also how picky you are. I have 
> personally tried a number of mics, and preamps and made a bunch of test 
> CD's and I found myself gravitating toward the better stuff. Just like 
> a $4000 Les Paul will only sound 2% better than a $2000 one, sometimes 
> the differences may not be worth it.
> 
> there are no short answers. and the tough thing - unlike test driving 
> cars - is that is quite hard to test a bunch of different mics and 
> preamps.
> 
> thats why I like Mercenary Audio in Boston. They allow you to try out 
> mics and preamps and return them or exchange them if they don't work 
> out.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Currington <composer@...>
> To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 2:02 pm
> Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
> 
> I agree get the mic that works is as good or better than spending 
> thousands on a "Named brand".
> 
> A Shure SM7b is low cost and works week or an Avantone CV12 Tube mic 
> (C12 clone) is fabulous on female voices etc But you have to test 
> them to find out and that is not always easy.
> And as Gary says You have to also factor in the preamp quality 
> comrpessor, EQ etc quality .. And room acoustics. They all make a 
> difference.
> 
> S.
> 
> On 15/09/2010, at 7:00 AM, Steve Coates wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps more important than spending thousands on a name microphone 
> is finding a mic that suits the singers voice and style. I have used an 
> EV RE20 to great effect, and even an SM58 if suits the voice and track. 
> A cheap mic and a good match can produce results as good as a 
> mismatched Neumann!
> >
> > Best Wishes
> > Steve Coates
> >
> > On 14 Sep 2010, at 18:06, GAmoore@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > The sound depends on the microphone too. thats why people spend 
> $10,000
> > > on an old U47 or C12.
> > >
> > > Re autotune - try to use different amounts on different parts of 
> the
> > > track - not just one setting for the whole thing. you can bring the
> > > audio up and put it on several parallel tracks, and then put a
> > > different setting on each.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gregory Anderson <glists@...>
> > > To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:29 am
> > > Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
> > >
> > >
> > > I did not get very far on capturing that sound. I know that reverb
> > > does not play much of a role in it. It's striking when I listen to
> > > CD's from the 70's and 80's and hear how much reverb was on the 
> vocals
> > > back then. You don't hear any of that on today's pop.
> > >
> > > What I'm wrestling with right now is pitch-correction. The 
> "auto-tune"
> > > effect is very prominent in all the vocals I hear, but I'm having
> > > trouble getting the same sound. I think it's because I'm using 
> Logic's
> > > own Pitch Correction tool, which is only automatic, vs. AT, which 
> has a
> > > graphical mode where the target pitch is assigned, rather than
> > > determined algorithmically. When I set it for a slow response time
> > > (100ms), I can't hear any difference in the vocals at all. I think 
> you
> > > need a really fast response time to generate the noticeable 
> artifacts
> > > that are the new "normal" in contemporary recordings. However, when 
> I
> > > set it fast enough to hear the effect, it then catches my vibrato 
> and
> > > turns it into a trill!
> > >
> > > I don't know if I heard it on this list or elsewhere, but singing
> > > really close into a dynamic mic for the proximity effect was a good 
> tip
> > > and has resulted in something a little closer to what I am looking 
> for.
> > > But I have a long way to go!
> > >
> > > Gregory
> > >
> > > On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Andy Brook wrote:
> > >
> > > > This was a message from Greg on a similar topic to the current 
> one
> > > on
> > > > delay and reverb in vocals, and I was wondering if you ever found
> > > out
> > > > how to produce the sound that is made in Glee? (By the way, I had
> > > no
> > > > idea what Glee was when you posted. Since then its been a big hit
> > > in
> > > > the UK)
> > > >
> > > > Andy Brook
> > > >
> > > > On 18 Dec 2009, at 23:09, Gregory Anderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
> > > >>> so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
> > > >>> difficult task if that's your goal.
> > > >>
> > > >> Well thank you, Debbie Downer!
> > > >>
> > > >>> I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual
> > > sound of
> > > >>> your voice
> > > >>
> > > >> But seriously, I am curious that the only response that
> > > mentioned EQ
> > > >> was this one. I am in a similar situation to Andy's and have
> > > been
> > > >> focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals
> > > sound.
> > > >> Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our voices, as
> > > I have
> > > >> a very big voice that does well in barbershop and broadway
> > > style
> > > >> music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!). But
> > > >> descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") to
> > > contrast
> > > >> my voice with what I want.
> > > >>
> > > >> Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the singing in
> > > the TV
> > > >> show Glee. It's really striking how much processing is
> > > involved in
> > > >> the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they go
> > > from
> > > >> speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds fairly
> > > >> natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed. But I
> > > don't
> > > >> know what processing is involved. While the girls mostly have
> > > >> exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre
> > > singing
> > > >> voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat,
> > > compressed and
> > > >> "in your face". So my thinking is - Hey! I have a mediocre
> > > singing
> > > >> voice! Maybe I could sound like that too!
> > > >>
> > > >> Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition from
> > > >> speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3
> > > >>
> > > >> What is it that is being done to the singing that is so
> > > noticeable?
> > > >> The closest I've come to involves two layers of compression and
> > > >> channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, and
> > > pitch
> > > >> correction. When I run a match EQ on my voice using boyband
> > > vocals
> > > >> as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high
> > > frequency
> > > >> gain and low frequency dropoff. Duane mentioned utilizing the
> > > >> proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have not
> > > tried
> > > >> that yet.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very
> > > interesting,
> > > >> and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, so any
> > > >> discussion would be greatly appreciated.
> > > >>
> > > >> Gregory
> > > >>
> > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 

Voice over site: http://www.bob-vo.com
Art site: http://www.bobbogoldberg.com







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for all the tips on recording vocals. You are lucky to be able  
to road test the mics and take them back if they aren't right - here  
in the UK the shop would not be allowed to sell them as new after that  
and I'm not sure I would spend a lot of money on something that had  
been opened before, personally. Mind you, I am not about to spend that  
sort of money on a mic or preamp, so I'll be stumbling around trying  
to get a kookie unique sound from my cheapo gear, like lots of us.

I came across this in a web newsletter called popbitch: Rihanna's  
Umbrella uses a Logic sample

http://www.popbitch.com/home/2010/09/09/fruit-loops/

How cool is that? Certainly shows that you don't need to spend a lot  
of money to make a world wide smash, even if it does help....

Andy B

In my experience, once you have decided upon the style of the project  
and capabilities and potential of the singer, then the right mic, pre- 
amp, compressor take the next highest priority.  Years ago when I  
first started producing, I searched for ways to get good vocal sounds.  
I was lead to buy a Neumann U-47 tube vintage and my life has been  
different ever since.  Even when I was producing rap, for which a  
little SM-56 or 57 would be fine, the rappers still loved the U47  
because it allows you to hear all kinds throat noise (is my theory)  
that is simply not available on most other mics.  When it is a big  
project, then I'll go out and rent a Neve 3 band EQ (the classic for  
giving low-end warmth, and I usually get them from audio rental places  
here in LA for between 40 and 80/day) but the rest of the time, just a  
cheap pre-amp  (my Firestudio preamps sound OK, or my Jo-Meek VC3) and  
it still sounds great.  Here is a track recently did for a client.  I  
think it sounds just fine...your thoughts?

https://www.box.net/shared/static/j8ayc0mbra.mp3

t




On Sep 14, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Andy Brook wrote:

> Thanks for all the tips on recording vocals. You are lucky to be able
> to road test the mics and take them back if they aren't right - here
> in the UK the shop would not be allowed to sell them as new after that
> and I'm not sure I would spend a lot of money on something that had
> been opened before, personally. Mind you, I am not about to spend that
> sort of money on a mic or preamp, so I'll be stumbling around trying
> to get a kookie unique sound from my cheapo gear, like lots of us.
>
> I came across this in a web newsletter called popbitch: Rihanna's
> Umbrella uses a Logic sample
>
> http://www.popbitch.com/home/2010/09/09/fruit-loops/
>
> How cool is that? Certainly shows that you don't need to spend a lot
> of money to make a world wide smash, even if it does help....
>
> Andy B
>
> 

Tim McLane
www.timmclanemusic.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think its worth it to have one good mic and one good preamp - which 
you can run mics, synthes, and basses through. The Neve design is not 
copyrighted, so there are a bunch of copies - from the Great River to 
the Chameleon to the Brent Averil copies. The chameleons are made in 
China and pretty cheap. You can also get those little "six pack" units. 
There are also some kits to build your own Neve or API copy if you can 
use a solder gun. I forgot the name of that outfit, but they have a 
bunch of kits for you to build your own preamp based on famous designs.

My experience with mics - and I not an expert at all - but they good 
mics seem to sound natural, creamy, smooth. The cheaper mics sound 
artificial, harsh, fake, etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McLane <timmclane@...>
To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 6:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?

In my experience, once you have decided upon the style of the project
and capabilities and potential of the singer, then the right mic, pre-
amp, compressor take the next highest priority.  Years ago when I
first started producing, I searched for ways to get good vocal sounds.
I was lead to buy a Neumann U-47 tube vintage and my life has been
different ever since.  Even when I was producing rap, for which a
little SM-56 or 57 would be fine, the rappers still loved the U47
because it allows you to hear all kinds throat noise (is my theory)
that is simply not available on most other mics.  When it is a big
project, then I'll go out and rent a Neve 3 band EQ (the classic for
giving low-end warmth, and I usually get them from audio rental places
here in LA for between 40 and 80/day) but the rest of the time, just a
cheap pre-amp  (my Firestudio preamps sound OK, or my Jo-Meek VC3) and
it still sounds great.  Here is a track recently did for a client.  I
think it sounds just fine...your thoughts?

https://www.box.net/shared/static/j8ayc0mbra.mp3

t




On Sep 14, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Andy Brook wrote:

> Thanks for all the tips on recording vocals. You are lucky to be able
> to road test the mics and take them back if they aren't right - here
> in the UK the shop would not be allowed to sell them as new after that
> and I'm not sure I would spend a lot of money on something that had
> been opened before, personally. Mind you, I am not about to spend that
> sort of money on a mic or preamp, so I'll be stumbling around trying
> to get a kookie unique sound from my cheapo gear, like lots of us.
>
> I came across this in a web newsletter called popbitch: Rihanna's
> Umbrella uses a Logic sample
>
> http://www.popbitch.com/home/2010/09/09/fruit-loops/
>
> How cool is that? Certainly shows that you don't need to spend a lot
> of money to make a world wide smash, even if it does help....
>
> Andy B
>
>

Tim McLane
www.timmclanemusic.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

On 15 Sep 2010, at 02:42, Tim McLane wrote:

> In my experience, once you have decided upon the style of the project
> and capabilities and potential of the singer, then the right mic, pre-
> amp, compressor take the next highest priority.  Years ago when I
> first started producing, I searched for ways to get good vocal sounds.
> I was lead to buy a Neumann U-47 tube vintage and my life has been
> different ever since.  Even when I was producing rap, for which a
> little SM-56 or 57 would be fine, the rappers still loved the U47
> because it allows you to hear all kinds throat noise (is my theory)
> that is simply not available on most other mics.  When it is a big
> project, then I'll go out and rent a Neve 3 band EQ (the classic for
> giving low-end warmth, and I usually get them from audio rental places
> here in LA for between 40 and 80/day) but the rest of the time, just a
> cheap pre-amp  (my Firestudio preamps sound OK, or my Jo-Meek VC3) and
> it still sounds great.  Here is a track recently did for a client.  I
> think it sounds just fine...your thoughts?
>
> https://www.box.net/shared/static/j8ayc0mbra.mp3
>

Sounds great. Of course the rest of the production is spot on as well,  
which helps!

Andy B

Check out the Golden Age PRE-73 (Neve 1073 clone).
(http://www.zenproaudio.com/goldenagepre-73.aspx)

These are pretty good and an excellent price point
And they offer some mods tat might also interest you.

S.


On 15/09/2010, at 5:44 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> I think its worth it to have one good mic and one good preamp - which 
> you can run mics, synthes, and basses through. The Neve design is not 
> copyrighted, so there are a bunch of copies - from the Great River to 
> the Chameleon to the Brent Averil copies. The chameleons are made in 
> China and pretty cheap. You can also get those little "six pack" units. 
> There are also some kits to build your own Neve or API copy if you can 
> use a solder gun. I forgot the name of that outfit, but they have a 
> bunch of kits for you to build your own preamp based on famous designs.
> 
> My experience with mics - and I not an expert at all - but they good 
> mics seem to sound natural, creamy, smooth. The cheaper mics sound 
> artificial, harsh, fake, etc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim McLane <timmclane@...>
> To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 6:43 pm
> Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
> 
> In my experience, once you have decided upon the style of the project
> and capabilities and potential of the singer, then the right mic, pre-
> amp, compressor take the next highest priority. Years ago when I
> first started producing, I searched for ways to get good vocal sounds.
> I was lead to buy a Neumann U-47 tube vintage and my life has been
> different ever since. Even when I was producing rap, for which a
> little SM-56 or 57 would be fine, the rappers still loved the U47
> because it allows you to hear all kinds throat noise (is my theory)
> that is simply not available on most other mics. When it is a big
> project, then I'll go out and rent a Neve 3 band EQ (the classic for
> giving low-end warmth, and I usually get them from audio rental places
> here in LA for between 40 and 80/day) but the rest of the time, just a
> cheap pre-amp (my Firestudio preamps sound OK, or my Jo-Meek VC3) and
> it still sounds great. Here is a track recently did for a client. I
> think it sounds just fine...your thoughts?
> 
> https://www.box.net/shared/static/j8ayc0mbra.mp3
> 
> t
> 
> On Sep 14, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Andy Brook wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for all the tips on recording vocals. You are lucky to be able
> > to road test the mics and take them back if they aren't right - here
> > in the UK the shop would not be allowed to sell them as new after that
> > and I'm not sure I would spend a lot of money on something that had
> > been opened before, personally. Mind you, I am not about to spend that
> > sort of money on a mic or preamp, so I'll be stumbling around trying
> > to get a kookie unique sound from my cheapo gear, like lots of us.
> >
> > I came across this in a web newsletter called popbitch: Rihanna's
> > Umbrella uses a Logic sample
> >
> > http://www.popbitch.com/home/2010/09/09/fruit-loops/
> >
> > How cool is that? Certainly shows that you don't need to spend a lot
> > of money to make a world wide smash, even if it does help....
> >
> > Andy B
> >
> >
> 
> Tim McLane
> www.timmclanemusic.com
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Going to show my ignorance here. I'm in the process of having a drum  
part recorded for a song I am working on in Logic and one of the  
questions was what was the bit rate, 16 or 32, and 32 was shown as the  
default. It seems I am working in 16 although I don't know why that is  
or which is better.

Then, I have just downloaded Session Strings, which on first listening  
has much more authentic string sounds than Logic, but it has stopped  
working, saying that my memory is too low. I am working on an imac 9.1  
with 4GB of memory and I have never had this message before. I have  
very little other than Logic and Native instruments running on my  
computer at the moment.

Mr Google, who is one of my best friends, seems to be suggesting that  
I would be better off working in 32 bit, but I have no idea whether  
this is actually the case, or whether I can switch from one to the  
other and still access my material on Logic, or indeed whether I will  
have a problem with my 16 bit drum part when it comes back.

This probably sounds like a dreadful old ramble, but if anyone can  
help me make any sense of it I would be grateful. The one thing I am  
loathe to do, although probably ought to, is to increase the memory of  
the imac. I wouldn't know where to begin!

Andy B

On Sep 15, 2010, at 6:57 PM, Andy Brook wrote:

> . It seems I am working in 16 although I don't know why that is  
> or which is better.

Technically, bit rate is how much data is used to blah blah blah.  What I know is that commercial CDs are 16-bit, 44.1k (sampling rate), and they sound fine to me, so I work with those specs.  Logic probably allows you to mix audio files with different bitrates, though I'm not sure about that.  And to be sure, 16-bit audio is WAYYYYY better sounding than 8-bit audio, so if 32-bit gives the same benefit, then it might be worth whatever processing ding you might take.  I know that the difference between my high-quality material and my low-quality material has nothing to do with bitrate.

> Then, I have just downloaded Session Strings, which on first listening  
> has much more authentic string sounds than Logic, but it has stopped  
> working, saying that my memory is too low. I am working on an imac 9.1  
> with 4GB of memory and I have never had this message before. I have  
> very little other than Logic and Native instruments running on my  
> computer at the moment.

That you know of.  Run Activity Monitor (in your Utilities folder) to see how much ram is still available when you have Session Strings loaded.  If there's lots of available RAM, then that's not your problem.  But some instruments require MASSIVE amounts of RAM, so if Activity Monitor shows little available RAM, you might see if there's a streaming option for that instrument

Gregory

>
> > Then, I have just downloaded Session Strings, which on first  
> listening
> > has much more authentic string sounds than Logic, but it has stopped
> > working, saying that my memory is too low. I am working on an imac  
> 9.1
> > with 4GB of memory and I have never had this message before. I have
> > very little other than Logic and Native instruments running on my
> > computer at the moment.
>
> That you know of. Run Activity Monitor (in your Utilities folder) to  
> see how much ram is still available when you have Session Strings  
> loaded. If there's lots of available RAM, then that's not your  
> problem. But some instruments require MASSIVE amounts of RAM, so if  
> Activity Monitor shows little available RAM, you might see if  
> there's a streaming option for that instrument
>
> Gregory
>
Thanks for that tip. Yes, Session Strings is using 2.5GB ram, which is  
all there is free.

Andy B

From what I've been told more bits equals more dynamic range???????????

Okay, so here is the deal with bits.  A bit can be a 0 or a 1.  If you had a 1 bit audio interface, it could either be on or off at any given moment.  Now, you could still do something with that.  I mean, we all know such an interface as the square wave oscillator, right?  It's off or on.  The other factor, the sampling rate, gives you the ability to turn it on or off really fast, thus creating various frequencies and so on.  But you can't make a lot of sounds with a square wave.

So if you add a second bit, you get a 0 or a 1 followed by another 0 or 1.  You can make the numbers 00, 01, 10 and 11.  That's four settings.  With that you can capture a little more complex of a sound, you have a few more subtleties.  Your interface can be either full on, pretty high, pretty low, or off, and it can vary those at the sampling rate.  So instead of just being able to make square and pulse waves you can now make a whole bunch of different waves, including extremely crude sines, triangles, etc., as well as sampled or recorded sounds with some more veracity.  But try to imagine drawing a sine wave with only four levels -- it still won't be that accurate a reproduction.  

The number of possible values for each bit depth is easy to figure out -- it doubles each time:

1 bit: 2 values
2 bit: 4 values
3 bit: 8 values
4 bit: 16 values
5 bit: 32 values
6 bit: 64 values
7 bit: 128 values
8 bit: 256 values
9 bit: 512 values
10 bit: 1024 values
11 bit: 2048 values
12 bit: 4096 values
13 bit: 8192 values
12 bit: 16384 values
13 bit: 32768 values
14 bit: 65536 values
15 bit: 131072 values
16 bit: 262144 values

So once you get to 16 bits, you are effectively drawing your sound wave with 262,144 possible values for its height at any given point.  You can draw curves with extreme subtleties to them with that kind of accuracy, and at that point we can more or less not hear the difference anymore between the real thing and our stair-stepped approximation, for most people. 

So why ever use more than 16 bits, especially if you master to CD, which is a 16 bit medium? The answer is that you sometimes process sounds in ways that make the teeny tiny bumps more apparent.

Suppose you've recorded a wave in 3 bits, so it has 8 possible values.  And let's suppose that wave is a straight diagonal line.  Your values look something like this:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8

That makes an okay line, right?  Right.  (Well, assume it is for the purposes of our discussion.) I mean, you have a "stair height" of at most 1 unit, and we'll suppose that looks pretty good.

However, suppose the line you were recording were half as loud.  Your values would look like this:

1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4

Still the stair stepping is about the same, one unit at a time.

Now you normalize it.  Do you wind up with our original line above?  No.  The computer says that the maximum value was half as loud as the maximum possible loudness, so it will double every value.  Now your line looks like this:

2,2,4,4,6,6,8,8

The stair steps are twice as apparent now. The volume jumps by 2 each time it changes. Also, we're only using 4 of our 8 possible values.  It's as if our recording was made with 2 bits instead of 3.

Now think how many times you cleanse, fold and manipulate your audio in a given project.  If you're like me, you run it through the wringer and back.  Every manipulation stretches and mutates the resolution of your recording.  The more possible values, the more resolution your data had, at the outset of the process, the more data you're likely to be left with at the end.

This is exactly why many good instruments will have 16 bit outputs but perform their internal processing at 24 or 48 bits.  And that's why, if you do a lot of processing, you can benefit from recording or processing at a higher rate and then dithering down to the target format at the final mastering stage. 

-- 
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
http://www.ramp-music.net

On 2010-09-16, at 11:48 PM, brianmc7@... wrote:

> From what I've been told more bits equals more dynamic range???????????
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

Thank you for spending so much time giving such a detailed answer  
Ifron,  that was very easy to follow and I understand what you are  
saying now. I just have two follow up questions, if I may: can you  
switch bit rates in the middle of a project, and can you import audio  
recorded in one bit rate into a project in a different bit rate. I  
think the answer to the second is going to be yes you can, but not  
sure about the first!


thanks again

Andy Brook

On 17 Sep 2010, at 05:50, Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote:

> Okay, so here is the deal with bits. A bit can be a 0 or a 1. If you  
> had a 1 bit audio interface, it could either be on or off at any  
> given moment. Now, you could still do something with that. I mean,  
> we all know such an interface as the square wave oscillator, right?  
> It's off or on. The other factor, the sampling rate, gives you the  
> ability to turn it on or off really fast, thus creating various  
> frequencies and so on. But you can't make a lot of sounds with a  
> square wave.
>
> So if you add a second bit, you get a 0 or a 1 followed by another 0  
> or 1. You can make the numbers 00, 01, 10 and 11. That's four  
> settings. With that you can capture a little more complex of a  
> sound, you have a few more subtleties. Your interface can be either  
> full on, pretty high, pretty low, or off, and it can vary those at  
> the sampling rate. So instead of just being able to make square and  
> pulse waves you can now make a whole bunch of different waves,  
> including extremely crude sines, triangles, etc., as well as sampled  
> or recorded sounds with some more veracity. But try to imagine  
> drawing a sine wave with only four levels -- it still won't be that  
> accurate a reproduction.
>
> The number of possible values for each bit depth is easy to figure  
> out -- it doubles each time:
>
> 1 bit: 2 values
> 2 bit: 4 values
> 3 bit: 8 values
> 4 bit: 16 values
> 5 bit: 32 values
> 6 bit: 64 values
> 7 bit: 128 values
> 8 bit: 256 values
> 9 bit: 512 values
> 10 bit: 1024 values
> 11 bit: 2048 values
> 12 bit: 4096 values
> 13 bit: 8192 values
> 12 bit: 16384 values
> 13 bit: 32768 values
> 14 bit: 65536 values
> 15 bit: 131072 values
> 16 bit: 262144 values
>
> So once you get to 16 bits, you are effectively drawing your sound  
> wave with 262,144 possible values for its height at any given point.  
> You can draw curves with extreme subtleties to them with that kind  
> of accuracy, and at that point we can more or less not hear the  
> difference anymore between the real thing and our stair-stepped  
> approximation, for most people.
>
> So why ever use more than 16 bits, especially if you master to CD,  
> which is a 16 bit medium? The answer is that you sometimes process  
> sounds in ways that make the teeny tiny bumps more apparent.
>
> Suppose you've recorded a wave in 3 bits, so it has 8 possible  
> values. And let's suppose that wave is a straight diagonal line.  
> Your values look something like this:
>
> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
>
> That makes an okay line, right? Right. (Well, assume it is for the  
> purposes of our discussion.) I mean, you have a "stair height" of at  
> most 1 unit, and we'll suppose that looks pretty good.
>
> However, suppose the line you were recording were half as loud. Your  
> values would look like this:
>
> 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4
>
> Still the stair stepping is about the same, one unit at a time.
>
> Now you normalize it. Do you wind up with our original line above?  
> No. The computer says that the maximum value was half as loud as the  
> maximum possible loudness, so it will double every value. Now your  
> line looks like this:
>
> 2,2,4,4,6,6,8,8
>
> The stair steps are twice as apparent now. The volume jumps by 2  
> each time it changes. Also, we're only using 4 of our 8 possible  
> values. It's as if our recording was made with 2 bits instead of 3.
>
> Now think how many times you cleanse, fold and manipulate your audio  
> in a given project. If you're like me, you run it through the  
> wringer and back. Every manipulation stretches and mutates the  
> resolution of your recording. The more possible values, the more  
> resolution your data had, at the outset of the process, the more  
> data you're likely to be left with at the end.
>
> This is exactly why many good instruments will have 16 bit outputs  
> but perform their internal processing at 24 or 48 bits. And that's  
> why, if you do a lot of processing, you can benefit from recording  
> or processing at a higher rate and then dithering down to the target  
> format at the final mastering stage.
>
> -- 
> Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> http://www.ramp-music.net
>
> On 2010-09-16, at 11:48 PM, brianmc7@... wrote:
>
> > From what I've been told more bits equals more dynamic  
> range???????????
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>

To answer the second question first, yes.  You can import any audio 
file in any supported format into the project.  You can have Logic leave 
it as-is or convert it.  The relevant section of the manual has this to say:

"Audio files imported into a Logic Pro project can be at any supported 
bit depth and sample rate. Logic Pro supports bit depths of 16, 20, and 
24 bits, and sample rates of 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, and 192 kHz. 
Logic Pro can use the file’s sample rate, or can perform a real time 
sample rate conversion (see “Setting the Project Tempo” on page 145)."

The answer to the first question is both simpler and more complicated.  
:)  It's simpler in that there really is no over-arching bit depth 
setting for a project, so there's nothing to set.  It will handle files 
in whatever format you gave it to them.  The way in that it's more 
complicated is that Logic Pro uses 32-bit floating point processing 
internally (I have heard some tell that it uses 64-bit "where 
appropriate", but I haven't looked into it in much depth so I can't 
verify that or say what exactly "where appropriate" is).  The "floating 
point" part is the bit that actually wasn't covered in my explanation at 
all, but can be more or less translated into "You don't need to worry 
about it."  You CAN set the bit depth for your audio interface, but that 
just affects what the signal you hear is sent to the interface it -- it 
doesn't affect Logic's processing at all.  And when you bounce to export 
audio, you can select a bit depth each time, and you could select a 
different one every time if you wanted to, but usually if that's a final 
export (i.e. you're not moving it into another app afterward for 
mastering), you'll be exporting to 44.1khz, 16-bit anyway.  If you *are* 
going to process it after in a separate mastering tool, or you're going 
to send it to a service to be processed, you could export at 24-bit 
(although you'll want to verify with the service what formats they accept).

On 10-09-17 2:07 AM, Andy Brook wrote:
> Thank you for spending so much time giving such a detailed answer
> Ifron,  that was very easy to follow and I understand what you are
> saying now. I just have two follow up questions, if I may: can you
> switch bit rates in the middle of a project, and can you import audio
> recorded in one bit rate into a project in a different bit rate. I
> think the answer to the second is going to be yes you can, but not
> sure about the first!
>
>
> thanks again
>
> Andy Brook
>
> On 17 Sep 2010, at 05:50, Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote:
>
>> Okay, so here is the deal with bits. A bit can be a 0 or a 1. If you
>> had a 1 bit audio interface, it could either be on or off at any
>> given moment. Now, you could still do something with that. I mean,
>> we all know such an interface as the square wave oscillator, right?
>> It's off or on. The other factor, the sampling rate, gives you the
>> ability to turn it on or off really fast, thus creating various
>> frequencies and so on. But you can't make a lot of sounds with a
>> square wave.
>>
>> So if you add a second bit, you get a 0 or a 1 followed by another 0
>> or 1. You can make the numbers 00, 01, 10 and 11. That's four
>> settings. With that you can capture a little more complex of a
>> sound, you have a few more subtleties. Your interface can be either
>> full on, pretty high, pretty low, or off, and it can vary those at
>> the sampling rate. So instead of just being able to make square and
>> pulse waves you can now make a whole bunch of different waves,
>> including extremely crude sines, triangles, etc., as well as sampled
>> or recorded sounds with some more veracity. But try to imagine
>> drawing a sine wave with only four levels -- it still won't be that
>> accurate a reproduction.
>>
>> The number of possible values for each bit depth is easy to figure
>> out -- it doubles each time:
>>
>> 1 bit: 2 values
>> 2 bit: 4 values
>> 3 bit: 8 values
>> 4 bit: 16 values
>> 5 bit: 32 values
>> 6 bit: 64 values
>> 7 bit: 128 values
>> 8 bit: 256 values
>> 9 bit: 512 values
>> 10 bit: 1024 values
>> 11 bit: 2048 values
>> 12 bit: 4096 values
>> 13 bit: 8192 values
>> 12 bit: 16384 values
>> 13 bit: 32768 values
>> 14 bit: 65536 values
>> 15 bit: 131072 values
>> 16 bit: 262144 values
>>
>> So once you get to 16 bits, you are effectively drawing your sound
>> wave with 262,144 possible values for its height at any given point.
>> You can draw curves with extreme subtleties to them with that kind
>> of accuracy, and at that point we can more or less not hear the
>> difference anymore between the real thing and our stair-stepped
>> approximation, for most people.
>>
>> So why ever use more than 16 bits, especially if you master to CD,
>> which is a 16 bit medium? The answer is that you sometimes process
>> sounds in ways that make the teeny tiny bumps more apparent.
>>
>> Suppose you've recorded a wave in 3 bits, so it has 8 possible
>> values. And let's suppose that wave is a straight diagonal line.
>> Your values look something like this:
>>
>> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
>>
>> That makes an okay line, right? Right. (Well, assume it is for the
>> purposes of our discussion.) I mean, you have a "stair height" of at
>> most 1 unit, and we'll suppose that looks pretty good.
>>
>> However, suppose the line you were recording were half as loud. Your
>> values would look like this:
>>
>> 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4
>>
>> Still the stair stepping is about the same, one unit at a time.
>>
>> Now you normalize it. Do you wind up with our original line above?
>> No. The computer says that the maximum value was half as loud as the
>> maximum possible loudness, so it will double every value. Now your
>> line looks like this:
>>
>> 2,2,4,4,6,6,8,8
>>
>> The stair steps are twice as apparent now. The volume jumps by 2
>> each time it changes. Also, we're only using 4 of our 8 possible
>> values. It's as if our recording was made with 2 bits instead of 3.
>>
>> Now think how many times you cleanse, fold and manipulate your audio
>> in a given project. If you're like me, you run it through the
>> wringer and back. Every manipulation stretches and mutates the
>> resolution of your recording. The more possible values, the more
>> resolution your data had, at the outset of the process, the more
>> data you're likely to be left with at the end.
>>
>> This is exactly why many good instruments will have 16 bit outputs
>> but perform their internal processing at 24 or 48 bits. And that's
>> why, if you do a lot of processing, you can benefit from recording
>> or processing at a higher rate and then dithering down to the target
>> format at the final mastering stage.
>>
>> -- 
>> Irfon-Kim Ahmad
>> http://www.ramp-music.net
>>
>> On 2010-09-16, at 11:48 PM, brianmc7@... wrote:
>>
>>>  From what I've been told more bits equals more dynamic
>> range???????????
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Of course, everyone with experience will tell you, how much you spend on a mic will never do much compared to the results, which you can get using a really good singer. When you're recording a song, never forget that the lead vocal should be the center of attention. Everything else in the arrangement should complement it and not the other way around.

Generally, any condenser will tend to pick up any little stray noise in a room. Although you don't get the nuisances of a singer's voice with a dynamic mic, when it comes to dealing with ambient noise in a home environment,  a dynamic mic is often  way more forgiving. Although an SM58 might not be the best mic for vocals, I've gotten great results with one. Some singers sound better with certain mics. Although they're not expensive, an SM58 is often a mic of choice for some producers on some vocalists. 

Besides rolling off some low end, I'm not one to EQ vocals. Logic has a lot of good compressor presets, which you can use as a starting point and tweak to even out your vocals. A trick, which I've learned is when I start mixing, as soon as I get a fairly basic balance on the basic tracks is to put the lead vocal in and find the spot where it needs to be in the mix as soon as possible. After I get the basic tracks and lead vocal where they need to be, I'll take all of the stuff, which is pretty much just the icing on the cake, and put it in around the vocal. A lot of people like to mix everything and put the vocals in, which never really works for me. Another thing, which I'll pass on here is, it's easy to get carried away using too much reverb or delay on a vocal. Generally, when I can really hear the effect on a vocal without having to concentrate to listen for it is when I've found that I'm using way too much.
 
--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Steve Coates <sbcoates@...> wrote:

>
> Perhaps more important than spending thousands on a name microphone is finding a mic that suits the singers voice and style. I have used an EV RE20 to great effect, and even an SM58 if suits the voice and track. A cheap mic and a good match can produce results as good as a mismatched Neumann!
> 
> Best Wishes
> Steve Coates
> 
> On 14 Sep 2010, at 18:06, GAmoore@... wrote:
> 
> > The sound depends on the microphone too. thats why people spend $10,000 
> > on an old U47 or C12.
> > 
> > Re autotune - try to use different amounts on different parts of the 
> > track - not just one setting for the whole thing. you can bring the 
> > audio up and put it on several parallel tracks, and then put a 
> > different setting on each.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregory Anderson <glists@...>
> > To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 9:29 am
> > Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Tips for improving vocals?
> > 
> >  
> > I did not get very far on capturing that sound. I know that reverb 
> > does not play much of a role in it. It's striking when I listen to 
> > CD's from the 70's and 80's and hear how much reverb was on the vocals 
> > back then. You don't hear any of that on today's pop.
> > 
> > What I'm wrestling with right now is pitch-correction. The "auto-tune" 
> > effect is very prominent in all the vocals I hear, but I'm having 
> > trouble getting the same sound. I think it's because I'm using Logic's 
> > own Pitch Correction tool, which is only automatic, vs. AT, which has a 
> > graphical mode where the target pitch is assigned, rather than 
> > determined algorithmically. When I set it for a slow response time 
> > (100ms), I can't hear any difference in the vocals at all. I think you 
> > need a really fast response time to generate the noticeable artifacts 
> > that are the new "normal" in contemporary recordings. However, when I 
> > set it fast enough to hear the effect, it then catches my vibrato and 
> > turns it into a trill!
> > 
> > I don't know if I heard it on this list or elsewhere, but singing 
> > really close into a dynamic mic for the proximity effect was a good tip 
> > and has resulted in something a little closer to what I am looking for. 
> > But I have a long way to go!
> > 
> > Gregory
> > 
> > On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Andy Brook wrote:
> > 
> > > This was a message from Greg on a similar topic to the current one 
> > on
> > > delay and reverb in vocals, and I was wondering if you ever found 
> > out
> > > how to produce the sound that is made in Glee? (By the way, I had 
> > no
> > > idea what Glee was when you posted. Since then its been a big hit 
> > in
> > > the UK)
> > >
> > > Andy Brook
> > >
> > > On 18 Dec 2009, at 23:09, Gregory Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 6:15 AM, HKC wrote:
> > >>> so you'd be hard pressed to find a more
> > >>&gt; difficult task if that's your goal.
> > >>
> > >> Well thank you, Debbie Downer!
> > >>
> > >>> I doubt that EQ will do it if you don't like the actual 
> > sound of
> > >>> your voice
> > >>
> > >> But seriously, I am curious that the only response that 
> > mentioned EQ
> > >> was this one. I am in a similar situation to Andy's and have 
> > been
> > >> focusing mainly on EQ to get that contemporary pop vocals 
> > sound.
> > >> Maybe Andy and I have very different goals for our voices, as 
> > I have
> > >> a very big voice that does well in barbershop and broadway 
> > style
> > >> music, but doesn't play well in pop (forget rock!). But
> > >> descriptively, I would use similar terminology ("thin") to 
> > contrast
> > >&gt; my voice with what I want.
> > >>
> > >> Pardon my geekdom here, but an example would be the singing in 
> > the TV
> > >> show Glee. It's really striking how much processing is 
> > involved in
> > >> the singing voices, and it sounds very jarring when they go 
> > from
> > >> speaking right into singing, because the speaking sounds fairly
> > >> natural and the singing sounds WAYYYYYYY Y processed. But I 
> > don't
> > >> know what processing is involved. While the girls mostly have
> > >> exceptional voices, the guys seem to have fairly mediocre 
> > singing
> > >> voices, but the processing makes them sound very fat, 
> > compressed and
> > >> "in your face". So my thinking is - Hey! I have a mediocre 
> > singing
> > >> voice! Maybe I could sound like that too!
> > >>
> > >> Here's a cut up 24-second audio example of the transition from
> > >> speaking to singing that I find so jarring in the show.
> > >>
> > >> http://brokenpick.net/myfiles_files/Mattress.mp3
> > >>
> > >> What is it that is being done to the singing that is so 
> > noticeable?
> > >> The closest I've come to involves two layers of compression and
> > >> channel EQ with Low cut at 240 and High shelf at 2800, and 
> > pitch
> > >>; correction. When I run a match EQ on my voice using boyband 
> > vocals
> > >> as a source, it sounds horrid and is just a massive high 
> > frequency
> > >> gain and low frequency dropoff. Duane mentioned utilizing the
> > >> proximity effect, which sounds on the money, and I have not 
> > tried
> > >> that yet.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but I find it very 
> > interesting,
> > >&gt; and have been meaning to seek advice for some time now, so any
> > >&gt; discussion would be greatly appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> Gregory
> > >>
> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Nov 6, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Brian wrote:

> Although you don't get the nuisances of a singer's voice

Please don't take this the wrong way, but as someone who has worked with many annoying singers, I have a real appreciation for this Freudian slip. :-)

Gregory