|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Live vocal mic bleed [message #60895 is a reply to message #60861] |
Sat, 03 December 2005 12:02   |
Jorsi
Messages: 23
Registered: December 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
3&cat=20& ;id=332
>>>
>>>I heard these yesterday at a music store and was blown away, and was
>>>shocked
>>>to hear the price! If you're out and about, give 'em a listen.
>>>
>>>CL
>>>
>
>I know I'm going to sound like an "old fart" as Deej so eloquently put it a
few posts back, but I see this a lot with "younger engineers" (sorry), that
weren't bought up with analogue.
They are told that all you need to do is set an optimum level, and then fix
it in the mix.....Wrong...........
You must always try and get the most amount of signal to tape, (disk),
allowing for dynamics and song type of course.
Riding record levels was one of the first things we were ever taught, (I
can't remember being taught it, but I know I was), because if you under
recorded with tape, all you got was noise when you had to ride the levels
eventually in the mix, especially vocals.
That's not to say we didn't limit or compress, but we still rode those
levels.
Rant off...thanks for reading.
Cheers
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43b5b29a$1@linux...
>
>
> This is the approach I often take. Or at times, if there's just a couple
> of noticeable sections, I'll just do a volume change on the track itself.
> Simply cut the track boost up the low bit to match better with the rest.
> Often you'll find the performer only uses a couple of different
> intensities
> through the performance, so cutting at the change point(s) and adding or
> subtracting a few db can do the job.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
>
> "Lance Reichert" <lance.rocks@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>John,
>>
>>Another option would be to cut the
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
