Recording solo voice with VI orchestra and choir

[Morodiene]

@storyteller Thanks so much for your help!

-I agree that getting the right mic for my voice is a piece of this puzzle. What I used, while it's an expensive mic, is still not right. I have my eye on the Oktava MK-319, but your idea of a ribbon mic that you mentioned earlier intrigues me. Do you have any you can recommend?

-Singing in a sound-proof space presents a challenge. I know you can buy vocal booths or make your own, but I was advised against that for operatic singing. So do I need to find a recording studio that has a large soundproofed room? Or is a small one going to work if I get the right mic?

-Also, how does one work with libraries that are wet and then those that are dry? Or do you just not buy ones that are wet at all?

Mixing is such a new thing to me - all of this is, really - so I know it will be a long process. Not afraid of that and making improvements as I go, but I don't think I'm going to learn it all on this one piece, either. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing my piece at this point.

 

[storyteller]

@storyteller Thanks so much for your help!

Of course! Anytime.

I agree that getting the right mic for my voice is a piece of this puzzle. What I used, while it's an expensive mic, is still not right. I have my eye on the Oktava MK-319, but your idea of a ribbon mic that you mentioned earlier intrigues me. Do you have any you can recommend?

Ribbon mics are for specific purposes, such as choirs placed at a distance, etc. I wouldn't use one for close vocals at all. Instead, I'd explore the large diaphragms condensers from the usual suspects such as Neumann, Manley, AKG, etc. Rode is an honorable budgetary consideration for the mics they immitate. Along the lines of Rode, I especially like the K2 tube mic, but that is not for everyone's voice. Incredible mic for the price though. With that said, a microphone purchase is one of those situations where people seem to spend $300-$1000 over and over again and never find what they are looking for. I fully recommend to buy something you like within your budget today (so you can get some work done), then immediately save for a mic north of $2000. Even though you get 95% of the sound in a smaller price range, that last 5% is what sets them apart from everything else. As for the mic you borrowed, I personally dislike the sound of Shure condensers. They sound lifeless to my ears. You'd be surprised how much the preamp and AD converter makes a difference as well. Your NT1 is a fine mic for your purpose. But recording within its sensitivity range in a vocal booth is important.

Singing in a sound-proof space presents a challenge. I know you can buy vocal booths or make your own, but I was advised against that for operatic singing. So do I need to find a recording studio that has a large soundproofed room? Or is a small one going to work if I get the right mic?

The pre-built vocal booths are nice for instruments, but will not dampen your voice as well as well-constructed panels or a well built room within your house/studio. Especially for your voice...you need appropriate paneling. Most high-end professional studios will have 2 rows of the thickest insulation you can buy with additional drywall panels separated by about a foot of air space. You can probably get away with one set of panels if you buy the right kind. Seek out Mineral Wool or Rockwool on google and you will find some good examples. The goal is to absorb as much sound as you can to have a dead sound in the room. Wrapping the insulation with canvas and framing them with 1x4 slats is an easy way to build them. They are heavier than you'd think, though!

Also, how does one work with libraries that are wet and then those that are dry? Or do you just not buy ones that are wet at all?

It is kind of an art. Some people like all of the instruments to be in the "same room." To do this, some people here will use one vendor with wet samples primarily and supplement it with alternative libraries in simulated space of the primary vendor. An example, a person may have a Spitfire orchestra, but simulate the space on a harp by recreating the hall Spitfire uses for the harp. Others will use only the dry mics and then place everything by using reverb/IRs to recreate space. I'm of the belief that you can mix hall sounds together in many cases and create stunning results. An example here would be using Spitfire Redux percussion with all of the hall mics and then adding say, Berlin Woodwinds into the mix using their Teledex stage. Both blend well to my ears. But, an additional reverb on the entire mix will help "glue" them all together. Depending on skill, some can mix many different spaces together very well. Others, may choose to do so sparingly to support a self-acknowledged lack of strength in mixing. Typically, choirs sound good with their room mics when added to anything. This is because choirs are typically recorded in different spaces than orchestras anyway, so the ear expects the spaces to be slightly different.

Mixing is such a new thing to me - all of this is, really - so I know it will be a long process. Not afraid of that and making improvements as I go, but I don't think I'm going to learn it all on this one piece, either. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing my piece at this point.

Don't be intimidated! Each aspect is a tool to have in your toolbelt as you work through all of the stages. You can always revisit mixes etc. So focus on composition first. Enjoy the composing side, and just work on pieces of the mixing process a little at a time. Play with an IR reverb and try to replicate a sound you like on the choir using the dry mics only. Little things like that will build into an incredible end product when all of the wheels are greased and running smoothly. Most string libraries of similar size can sound close to others when proper mixing/reverb is employed. I've long wanted to post a mockup using NI Session Strings (when mixed properly) compared to something like Spitfire's Chamber Strings. Though there are some notable differences in articulations, I think many people's jaws would hit the floor when comparing the two. They'd be that close...and one is included in Komplete! Ha. But "out-of-the-box" they are very very different animals.

So what I would say is take portions - like the string section you've written - and try to make it sound close to a live recording you like. A touch of EQ may be needed. But mostly it will be a good test of learning how reverb should sound. You may find that once the proper mix is happening, that the way you rode the CCs is not behaving the same in the space as it did dry. That's good though! Just revisit the CCs and eventually you will find the balance.

 

[storyteller]

Also - to add...

I once recorded acoustic guitar in a square shaped bathroom by throwing 4 twin mattresses in the room to box in the player and mute the shower/tub reverberation It was utterly the epitome of a poor-man's soundroom, but the product turned out way better than most budget vocal booths. In fact, it rivaled studio recordings in the best recording booths I've used. Ugly though. And a little smelly. That's for sure.

 

[Svyato]

Also - to add...

I once recorded acoustic guitar in a square shaped bathroom by throwing 4 twin mattresses in the room to box in the player and mute the shower/tub reverberation It was utterly the epitome of a poor-man's soundroom, but the product turned out way better than most budget vocal booths. In fact, it rivaled studio recordings in the best recording booths I've used. Ugly though. And a little smelly. That's for sure.

how have you improved your mixing / recording skills? What are the best advices you would give to people who begin in it? In other terms, what are the advices you would have liked to get when you began?

 

[storyteller]

how have you improved your mixing / recording skills? What are the best advices you would give to people who begin in it? In other terms, what are the advices you would have liked to get when you began?

Hmmm. Good questions. Maybe I should bring this all into a small guide like I did on the "Starting with 20k" thread. But for now, let's see...

1) Trying to mix on bad monitors will not only drive you nuts, but doesn't do much to help your mixing skills. It is like spinning your wheels in a mud pit.
2) Bad D/A will also induce a mud-slingin', tire-spinnin', drive-you-crazy state of mind
3) Get 1 & 2 correct, then you have a golden foundation. You really can "hear" things in great monitors that you cannot hear in speakers you may love but are not intended for mixing.
4) No matter how much you think you can immitate the sound you love in speakers you know, it still will not do you much good if they are not flat studio monitors. If it is not clear by this point, get 1 & 2 right first.
5) Learn subtractive EQing. Basically, don't boost (only rarely). Instead, pull down the problem areas in the spectrum.
6) Speaking of the spectrum, I think a lot of live sound/monitor engineers get great practice learning how to mix because they have to be quick at notching out feedback and setting sound for a variety of environments. For example, that high-pitched squeal you might hear in a live concert is caused by a mic being too hot where certain frequencies are occurring. A live sound guy knows immediately to pull down 1.6k or 4k (just examples here) on the mains/monitors when they hear that frequency in the feedback.
7) If you don't have an opportunity to do live sound, then practice learning the 31 bands of frequency used in many band EQs. When you can hear them and name them by sonic recognition, then you will start to hear favorable/unfavorable aspects of recording gear.
8) #7 is very important
9) Reverb solves a lot, but can ruin everything. There really isn't an in-between state here. It is either DRY or SWIMMING if not done perfectly.
10) Don't turn knobs because you think you are supposed to.
11) Perhaps my favorite and the most eye-opening for me. When recording with less than stellar gear, there are a lot of adjustments that have to be made to get a good sound. This is obvious. But when using top-end gear - and this is what surprised me in a counterintuitive kind-of-way - a great mic+great A/D + great preamp + great cables = almost no EQ at all. The mic and the preamp define the color of the recording. The A/D conversion keeps the digital version of the sound on par with the analog version. The cables....well you just have to hear it. Good cables just bring the sound "here" rather than it being "there."
12) Learn bussing and submixing when it comes to trying to mix everything. This is typically a live sound engineer's skill, but it is important to know. In a live environment, most engineers get the sound they like once and can reuse the settings with only minor changes every now and then. The same can be said for your orchestral template.
13) When it comes to learning settings, there are basic settings for certain instruments and vocals that work 98% of the time regardless of the "brand instrument" etc. A kick drum should be compressed nearly identically to the next kick drum....etc. unless there is something specific you are trying to create that is outside of a normal mix.
14) Engineering/recording is an entirely different skill set than composition. It is boring when it comes to reading literature on it. But the characteristics of sound should certainly be explored. Nearly every engineer I've ever met has a copy of the most boring book in the world...otherwise known as "The Sound Reinforcement Handbook." Buy it. Learn to be okay with hating it. Then, suck it up, and read it all. Thank me later. I'm sure you'll curse me first...maybe for an agonizingly long time while trying to read through it. But we can high five after the Hallelujah moment happens.
15) Sound treatment. Know why it is important and how to use it effectively in both mixing and recording.
16) It is covered in the "Sound Reinforcment Handbook" but know the microphone types and why/how they are used in certain situations. Then, try it out on your own. Have mic shoot-outs, etc. Have fun with it all while you are learning. There is a tremendous amount of eye-opening moments to come from experiments like this.

That's about all I can think of for now (when starting out). But that is also a lot to take in. Ask away if you have questions. Hope this helps!

 

[storyteller]

@Svyato - I just read in another thread that you are French. Pardon moi, mais... I may have used some *very* English terminology above... such as "mud-slingin." I speak a little French, but I am not sure how to chance the slang English analogies into slang french. Hopefully they will make enough sense or someone can help translate appropriately. Sorry about that.

 

[Hannes_F]

@Morodiene, you have got plenty of advice in this thread. I am not sure everything is compulsary, especially recording an opera soprano with an LDC in a small recording booth sounds more like a pop singer approach to me, but then I have never recorded an opera singer.

What I know is that if you are not in a good sounding room then you'll need at least some reverb on your headphones or you'll be in trouble intonation-wise. Musicians who are used performing in an ambience need the feedback from the walls.

Instead of adding more setup ideas ... perhaps you can find advice from some engineers that do exactly such recordings frequently:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/rem...g/69204-need-mic-suggestion-opera-singer.html

And: Before you buy a microphone (or two) it would be good if you can lend or rent it for a test.

 

[storyteller]

@Morodiene I should add that in live recording or in a hall, small diaphragms in stereo are the norm for at least one set or so. Ribbons are more exotic, but sound awesome in the right situation. They are not great in the wrong situation. Also, +1 to everything @Hannes_F said.

 

[Morodiene]

OK, not that I'm arguing, because you all know more than I do about these things. But here's a video of Birgit Nilsson in a recording session with Georg Solti and the Wiener Philharmonic:



Notice every time she sings higher, she takes a big step back. There's even a spot where she had to move forward because it's low and she needs to be heard, so there's a guy who moves the stand out of the way for her to do that (around 1:17).

You can see the mic is suspended in front of her at 3:09, maybe a good 8 feet or so.

While I'm not Birgit, I have a hard time imagining singing something like this in a booth. It's not that the concept offends me, or that I don't know what it's like (I have sung in a booth before), but can a booth absorb 83+ db of sound and not adversely affect the mic by being bombarded with reflections all over the place?

 

[storyteller]

All questions are good! Don't worry about asking even if you feel like it is conflicting with the advice given. That's how the process is better understood.

Live recordings are certainly one approach. To an audience in the venue, the acoustics are primarily what is heard in a hall with a loud operatic voice. The microphone supplements the sound to add presence. The combination of close mics and room mics are what makes recording in a hall special. Mic technique is super important and is an art every vocalist must learn to record properly, whether it is in a studio or live. For live opera, it is extremely important to perform in a manner as you presented in the video (due to everything I mentioned above, as well as the gain staging of the mic). It is often hard for the singer to know precisely what to do in a hall because of the acoustics, so they are generally assisted by the recording engineer in identifying any potential "harsh" parts in the performance. Backing off 8 feet in a studio vocal booth isn't gonna happen though. It isn't needed because the recording is about the accurate representation of the voice sans acoustics of a room. The engineer will know how to set the gain properly and then mix the quiet and loud parts together perfectly.

Just for reference, Pavarotti recorded in a booth (and also had many live recordings as well). Christina Aguilera records in a booth. Not to try to put a pop singer in the same category as an opera singer, but volume/dynamic wise, this example is very, very similar. Videos of studio sessions with opera singers are rare, but you may stumble across some Christina Aguilera behind-the-scenes videos where she talks about mic placement and technique during her recordings. I know it may seem like apples and oranges, but it really isn't. Josh Groban (a sort of hybrid opera-pop voice) may have some videos as well. In the end, a large diaphragm condenser is the best way to capture the human voice. A dry room is the best way to do this unless the intention is for it to be "live." But if all of the variables are difficult to control (such as room treatment, etc), then the shortcomings will probably be most apparent with loud operatic voices.

EDIT: To answer your question about sound absorption - yes, proper sound treatment in a vocal booth will completely deaden the sound of a opera singer. Low quality sound absorption, or a poorly conceived/constructed booth will also cause problems.

 

[Morodiene]

Are there any videos, or books/articles that talk about Pavorotti's recording sessions? I'd really like to learn more!

I think it's difficult to find recording engineers that actually know how to record operatic singing (I know of some who do live mic'ing for outside events, but not studio recordings). Many of them assume it's the same for recording other vocals, and it's not.

Anyways, I think my main struggle is to first find a mic that I sound good on. My church has a sound room that may not be 100% sound proof, but greatly reduced. So it may be a decent enough space to test out things without having to invest in renting space. If that has better results, then maybe I could invest in soundproofing or reduction in my home.

I know I should do some treatment in my production room as well. Would I be able to use the same space for production and vocal recording do you think? Or is it bad for a production room to be soundproofed to that extent? (it's about 11'x12' with 10' ceiling).

 

[storyteller]

Here is a great article about a hall recording with Pavarotti. As I was explaining about hall space earlier, the microphones are used for presence, but it is really the entire hall that is being recorded through numerous microphones. In this case, Pavarotti (like Birgitta in your video) stands about 8 feet behind the microphone. It is not because the mic is being used to solely pick up his voice. Rather, it is to add a presence to the entire room recording. It is probably the ideal way to record this type of music, but trying to recreate this using one microphone while standing 8 feet away won't work. It is a combination of all of the reflections of the room plus the presence of the vocalist.

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/luciano-pavarotti-nessun-dorma-classic-tracks

In a studio setting, the intention is to record the vocal just as any other vocal. It seems counterintuitive to many opera singers because live recordings are so different than pop/rock. However, there are only minor differences. For example, you would usually choose a more transparent sounding microphone like a large diaphagm DPA (which Pavarotti used I believe) or a Schoepps for opera/classical vocals. You wouldn't use these on Christina Aguilera, but they are great for classical/opera. For example, with CA, you may choose something like a Manley Reference Gold. It has a very frequency response from 10hz to 30k hz (above and below the audible frequency range). But it is a tube mic, which gives it a certain warmth that would probably not be ideal for an opera singer. This mic can handle up to 150db SPL. Its noise floor is -120db, which means that you can record really quiet instruments without picking up audible noise from the mic itself. Silky clean sound! So, if you set yourself in a well crafted vocal booth that absorbs very loud sound (consider that most studios can absorb the cracks and pops of a loud drum player in an isolation room), and set the gain of the mic for your loudest note at say 12-18" back from the mic, then you would sing normally about 6" away from the mic and slightly pull back when you let it rip. If your whole song is constantly loud, then set the gain for the mic singing 6" away for your loudest notes. Then don't move. The engineer may have to ride the vocal fader a bit for your mix, but it captures your voice purely.

https://www.manley.com/products/view/refgold - check out the specifications on this page

As for being unhappy with the mic you have, if you are considering home recording, I would recommend to consider spending $1k - $2k on a do-it-yourself isolation room with the heaviest rockwool available first rather than buying a $1k-$2k microphone that won't serve you well until an isolation room is built. An isolation room is not the same as a treated studio - they each have different purposes with sound baffling, so I am not sure how that may or may not fit into your plans. I'm certainly not trying to over-complicate your recording process. This is all intended to help you figure out how to capture your voice in the best way with the resources you have available. And, opera requires much more attention to detail than a rock singer may need as a starting point.

In response to your concern about recording techniques being different...I hope what I am about to say comes across constructive - because that is solely my intention. But while there are recording engineers that are not good at what they do, many are. And, in truth, recording an opera singer in a studio is exactly like recording any other vocalist. However, many opera singers are not trained in mic technique and do not record in studios often. The ability for a singer to know how to use a studio microphone with respect to the volume and attacks of their voice is extremely important. When these techniques are not used, vocalists are quick to place blame on the engineers. And while it is true that the engineers should be assisting the vocalist in mic technique, it is part of the skills a vocalist needs to make sure recordings come off very well. In contrast, doing all of the above and recording in a low-mid quality space with low-mid engineers with poorly selected gear (especially in opera) will result in a disasterous product.

Below is a thread discussing recording opera singers from gearslutz. It is filled with people that have no idea what they are doing as well as experts. Posts 21 & 23 that discuss recording 1 foot away with 2 mics is because of the singer not knowing mic technique. So that is a possible solution too.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/950995-how-record-opera-vocals.html

Lots more to read and absorb. Ha. But it is all good stuff that will help you in the long run.

 

[Morodiene]

Looking at the Reference Gold mic's frequency response chart, there's a bump around 2-3kHz that concerns me. In operatic singing, it is these frequencies that we train to maximize (the singer's formant) so any mic that I've used with a bump there sounds bad. Looking at the DPA mics they generally are pretty flat there (and $4k?!? ouch). Pricey for the Schoeps too. Someday when I actually get paid the big bucks I can justify it .

I get what you're saying about opera singers not having good mic technique. In fact, for most of us, it's an insult to have to use one. But I sing with my church band and I've done other gigs where I use a mic for both pop and opera, so I've learned how to manage that. But I do think that many engineers haven't worked with operatic singing - or can I say it? *good* operatic singing - and they assume that the same things that work for someone like CA will work for us, and as you pointed out, mic choice would be very different. So I do wonder what else is different in the process.

Thanks for the references...I'll take some time to read through them! My thoughts on using my sound production room was perhaps to treat it, and then be able to bring in additional temporary soundproofing for singing. Not a perfect solution, but I can't quite commit myself to sacrificing my closet for a vocal booth...but maybe hubby's closet...hmm :D

 

[storyteller]

Looking at the Reference Gold mic's frequency response chart, there's a bump around 2-3kHz that concerns me. In operatic singing, it is these frequencies that we train to maximize (the singer's formant) so any mic that I've used with a bump there sounds bad. Looking at the DPA mics they generally are pretty flat there (and $4k?!? ouch). Pricey for the Schoeps too. Someday when I actually get paid the big bucks I can justify it .

Yep. That's why I was saying that you would use something more like the DPA or Schoeps for an opera singer in the studio. I mentioned the Manley mic in reference to Christina Aguilera (which would sound great on her voice), though she records with a Neumann Elam I believe. But ribbon mics from Royer or Coles would probably sound nice on her too. Pop/rock mics tend to have a slight bump in presence in the 1.6-5k range. You probably have the same boost in the NT1. You can always EQ it out though - but it is probably what was so distressing to you in your original recording that had too much shimmer to your opera ears. You'd also want to use a very clean preamp from the likes of Grace Designs or maybe even Great River, etc. Pop/rock recordings would use preamps from Neve/API/Manley/etc.

As you go through all of the "wants" just make sure to take your time. It makes sense to do it right once. In the interim, based on your recording you posted, there is a lot of music to be made with the tools you have! In photography, there is a saying that "the best camera is the one you have with you." The same applies to music equipment. Hans made a comment here along the lines of "a synth can buy me a house, but a house won't buy me a synth." I'm sure I messed that quote up, but the meaning is the same. Use what you have. Accent what you have with new pieces when you can. Use the church, but learn how to get a great room recording. Then you will be tasked with matching your synth orchestra to that room. Or try one of the other methods discussed earlier. But all the while, work toward your master plan. Above all, don't let these ideas become overwhelming. They will get learned over time.

 

[Svyato]

Hmmm. Good questions. Maybe I should bring this all into a small guide like I did on the "Starting with 20k" thread. But for now, let's see...

1) Trying to mix on bad monitors will not only drive you nuts, but doesn't do much to help your mixing skills. It is like spinning your wheels in a mud pit.
2) Bad D/A will also induce a mud-slingin', tire-spinnin', drive-you-crazy state of mind
3) Get 1 & 2 correct, then you have a golden foundation. You really can "hear" things in great monitors that you cannot hear in speakers you may love but are not intended for mixing.
4) No matter how much you think you can immitate the sound you love in speakers you know, it still will not do you much good if they are not flat studio monitors. If it is not clear by this point, get 1 & 2 right first.
5) Learn subtractive EQing. Basically, don't boost (only rarely). Instead, pull down the problem areas in the spectrum.
6) Speaking of the spectrum, I think a lot of live sound/monitor engineers get great practice learning how to mix because they have to be quick at notching out feedback and setting sound for a variety of environments. For example, that high-pitched squeal you might hear in a live concert is caused by a mic being too hot where certain frequencies are occurring. A live sound guy knows immediately to pull down 1.6k or 4k (just examples here) on the mains/monitors when they hear that frequency in the feedback.
7) If you don't have an opportunity to do live sound, then practice learning the 31 bands of frequency used in many band EQs. When you can hear them and name them by sonic recognition, then you will start to hear favorable/unfavorable aspects of recording gear.
8) #7 is very important
9) Reverb solves a lot, but can ruin everything. There really isn't an in-between state here. It is either DRY or SWIMMING if not done perfectly.
10) Don't turn knobs because you think you are supposed to.
11) Perhaps my favorite and the most eye-opening for me. When recording with less than stellar gear, there are a lot of adjustments that have to be made to get a good sound. This is obvious. But when using top-end gear - and this is what surprised me in a counterintuitive kind-of-way - a great mic+great A/D + great preamp + great cables = almost no EQ at all. The mic and the preamp define the color of the recording. The A/D conversion keeps the digital version of the sound on par with the analog version. The cables....well you just have to hear it. Good cables just bring the sound "here" rather than it being "there."
12) Learn bussing and submixing when it comes to trying to mix everything. This is typically a live sound engineer's skill, but it is important to know. In a live environment, most engineers get the sound they like once and can reuse the settings with only minor changes every now and then. The same can be said for your orchestral template.
13) When it comes to learning settings, there are basic settings for certain instruments and vocals that work 98% of the time regardless of the "brand instrument" etc. A kick drum should be compressed nearly identically to the next kick drum....etc. unless there is something specific you are trying to create that is outside of a normal mix.
14) Engineering/recording is an entirely different skill set than composition. It is boring when it comes to reading literature on it. But the characteristics of sound should certainly be explored. Nearly every engineer I've ever met has a copy of the most boring book in the world...otherwise known as "The Sound Reinforcement Handbook." Buy it. Learn to be okay with hating it. Then, suck it up, and read it all. Thank me later. I'm sure you'll curse me first...maybe for an agonizingly long time while trying to read through it. But we can high five after the Hallelujah moment happens.
15) Sound treatment. Know why it is important and how to use it effectively in both mixing and recording.
16) It is covered in the "Sound Reinforcment Handbook" but know the microphone types and why/how they are used in certain situations. Then, try it out on your own. Have mic shoot-outs, etc. Have fun with it all while you are learning. There is a tremendous amount of eye-opening moments to come from experiments like this.

That's about all I can think of for now (when starting out). But that is also a lot to take in. Ask away if you have questions. Hope this helps!

I thank you very much for this detailed answer, it is really appreciated. Although I'm french and I don't understand every terms, I note your kind and personnalized answer. I keep it somewhere because I know it will help me.
In return, I dare asking you some precisions
1°) what do you mean by D/A ?
2°) regardless of the price/firm maker, is this better to mix with speakers monitors or headphones monitors? If they're bot made for monitoring, is that okay ? I'm afraid that speakers can be covered by the reverb of the mixing room (even if it's a little).
3°) Have you a practical advice for exercing what you say here (an idea of exercice for example): "7) practice learning the 31 bands of frequency used in many band EQs"
4°) What's the differences between bussing and submixing (12) ?

"Nearly every engineer I've ever met has a copy of the most boring book in the world...otherwise known as "The Sound Reinforcement Handbook." Buy it. Learn to be okay with hating it. Then, suck it up, and read it all. Thank me later." Ahahahaha so it's a real book ! I'll check this. I thank you again storyteller

 

[storyteller]

I thank you very much for this detailed answer, it is really appreciated. Although I'm french and I don't understand every terms, I note your kind and personnalized answer. I keep it somewhere because I know it will help me.
In return, I dare asking you some precisions
1°) what do you mean by D/A ?
2°) regardless of the price/firm maker, is this better to mix with speakers monitors or headphones monitors? If they're bot made for monitoring, is that okay ? I'm afraid that speakers can be covered by the reverb of the mixing room (even if it's a little).
3°) Have you a practical advice for exercing what you say here (an idea of exercice for example): "7) practice learning the 31 bands of frequency used in many band EQs"
4°) What's the differences between bussing and submixing (12) ?

"Nearly every engineer I've ever met has a copy of the most boring book in the world...otherwise known as "The Sound Reinforcement Handbook." Buy it. Learn to be okay with hating it. Then, suck it up, and read it all. Thank me later." Ahahahaha so it's a real book ! I'll check this. I thank you again storyteller

No problem! I think your answers should be pretty quick to go through. So let's see...

1. Digital-to-Analog Conversion. It takes the 1's and 0's of the audio in you computer and turns it into analog sound. The opposite of this happens when you record. It is called A/D (analog-to-digital conversion). In recording, it takes the analog sound and translates it into 1's and 0's for a computer to use.
2. Both! But speaker monitors are a more accurate representation of sound. I love my HD650 headphones - and I can mix on them - but they are "colored" compared to great monitors. You have to know your headphones really really well to mix on them exclusively, and even then I think you are shortchanging your mix potential. But using both is a great practice. Also a set of cheap speakers should be used to see how your mix will sound on what most people have in their homes to listen to music. In my opinion, if I was limited on money, I would rather have my HD650s + something like an Apogee Groove rather than settling on a monitor setup that is less than stellar. Others may disagree with that though. Compromises either way...
3. Play/Memorize sine waves @ each frequency of the 31 band EQ. You may have to record each one into a separate wav file and randomize playback, but I'm sure there are resources online too.
4. Technically, in terms of audio flow, they are the same thing. In practical terms, I consider busssing to be what you do for FX and submixing what you would do with VCAs (though you can use busses if your daw does not have VCAs). Think of submixing like a master control for drums, another for guitars, another for background vocals, etc.

 

[Morodiene]

Both! But speaker monitors are a more accurate representation of sound. I love my HD650 headphones - and I can mix on them - but they are "colored" compared to great monitors. You have to know your headphones really really well to mix on them exclusively, and even then I think you are shortchanging your mix potential. But using both is a great practice. Also a set of cheap speakers should be used to see how your mix will sound on what most people have in their homes to listen to music. In my opinion, if I was limited on money, I would rather have my HD650s + something like an Apogee Groove rather than settling on a monitor setup that is less than stellar. Others may disagree with that though. Compromises either way...

Boy, is this ever true! I have a pair of JBL LSR305's for monitors, and Sennheiser HD598s for headphones. I tried mixing on the headphones, then listened on monitors and was appalled at how heavy-handed it seemed my mixing was! I checked out frequency response charts for both, and it became clear that the monitors were far better for a "flat" sound than the headphones - which are colored and are great for listening on, but not mixing.

 

[Svyato]

No problem! I think your answers should be pretty quick to go through. So let's see...

1. Digital-to-Analog Conversion. It takes the 1's and 0's of the audio in you computer and turns it into analog sound. The opposite of this happens when you record. It is called A/D (analog-to-digital conversion). In recording, it takes the analog sound and translates it into 1's and 0's for a computer to use.
2. Both! But speaker monitors are a more accurate representation of sound. I love my HD650 headphones - and I can mix on them - but they are "colored" compared to great monitors. You have to know your headphones really really well to mix on them exclusively, and even then I think you are shortchanging your mix potential. But using both is a great practice. Also a set of cheap speakers should be used to see how your mix will sound on what most people have in their homes to listen to music. In my opinion, if I was limited on money, I would rather have my HD650s + something like an Apogee Groove rather than settling on a monitor setup that is less than stellar. Others may disagree with that though. Compromises either way...
3. Play/Memorize sine waves @ each frequency of the 31 band EQ. You may have to record each one into a separate wav file and randomize playback, but I'm sure there are resources online too.
4. Technically, in terms of audio flow, they are the same thing. In practical terms, I consider busssing to be what you do for FX and submixing what you would do with VCAs (though you can use busses if your daw does not have VCAs). Think of submixing like a master control for drums, another for guitars, another for background vocals, etc.

Thanks again. I'll check more precisly what DAC means. That EQ exercice tips looks very interesting, it helped you?

Can I have a feedback about a recording / mixing ?
I used a Zoom H4n for recording a violinist playing the Harry Potter theme intro, over an orchestral arrangment I made.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzRuDNJIN9QvQWhEcXVMMXU3RGM/view

I'm just wondering if I have just a correct sound. I'm not aiming a perfect recording, but just a decent/correct one enough for diffusion/broadcast on social media (Youtube). I mixed with Sony MDR-7506 monitoring headphones. But you're right, after listening to it on my speakers (lower-end ; standard ; not made for monitoring) , the violin sounds louder...

thanks

 

[storyteller]

Thanks again. I'll check more precisly what DAC means. That EQ exercice tips looks very interesting, it helped you?

Can I have a feedback about a recording / mixing ?
I used a Zoom H4n for recording a violinist playing the Harry Potter theme intro, over an orchestral arrangment I made.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzRuDNJIN9QvQWhEcXVMMXU3RGM/view

I'm just wondering if I have just a correct sound. I'm not aiming a perfect recording, but just a decent/correct one enough for diffusion/broadcast on social media (Youtube). I mixed with Sony MDR-7506 monitoring headphones. But you're right, after listening to it on my speakers (lower-end ; standard ; not made for monitoring) , the violin sounds louder...

thanks

I definitely agree the violin is too loud compared to the rest of the instruments. It also needs a darker EQ since much of you track is heavy in the lower end. Aside from that, I'd say the gong/crash is a little loud as well. If you can iron those out, I think you'll be good to go for your intentions. If you wanted to spend a little more time on it, I'd work on cleaning up the lower end a bit to help your mids have more definition. Hope that helps.