| freddie lives 28817 08.11.2006 17:24 |
Been going through the HR remixes and others and have come up with these: link link link |
| Adam Baboolal 09.11.2006 05:36 |
Can I just ask why you don't have ONE thread for all these vocal cuts? Adam. |
| freddie lives 28817 09.11.2006 07:24 |
yes, because it takes time to do them and then upload them, and the downsides to having one thread (in my opinion) is that a) if I keep updating the same posting, folks won't necessarily keep checking it so some people will miss out on new stuff and b) If I found one L-o-n-g posting full 0f 30+ songs I'd feel overwhelmed and think "good grief - I can't be bothered to wade through this lot), so I'm generally posting them as I do albums or collections so as not to overwhelm people. Only Brian's stuff to go at next, so there'll only be a few more postings in the next week and then the forum can settle back down to it's usual 'one post a week'... Anyway, isn't it nice to come to a forum and find something new? If there's nothing new, folks will stop coming as regularly! |
| Adam Baboolal 09.11.2006 08:47 |
If there's something interesting posted, people will come back. I, myself, don't find them interesting. More of a novelty value item to discard after a couple of listens. I'd also advise that you simply point people to the software that does this stuff and leave them to hear these kind of things on their own steam. Then they can just put a cd of their choosing into their machine and (in some cases) preview the result in realtime. There are plenty of free software programs on the internet that do this kind of thing. Adam. P.s. nothing against you, ok? I'm just weary of seeing the fan mix board filled with these kind of things. I'll try and reinvigorate the board soon with a Miracle item. Hopefully... |
| Mike Label 09.11.2006 15:04 |
Adam, I think you're pretty unfair! Some of these, erm, mixes are rather interesting (e.g. Dreamers Ball), some are not. What's wrong with that? You don't have to download them, you don't have to listen to them, simple as that. I for one do not have the time nor knowledge nor would I want to experiment with these kinds of programs so I'm very happy to have these tracks offered here without much ado and for free (by the way: thanks to the creator!) Peace, Michael |
| Boy Thomas Raker 09.11.2006 16:35 |
Don't you realize though, that if Adam doesn't find things interesting, then they're not? I asked a legitimate question on the general board today and Adam, who is now the moderator of what can and can't be asked on QZ, replied " I don't think it's worth really explaining otherwise. Is there a reason you'd like to know what we meant?" I don't know what's more humorous, the arrogance of his statement, or the stupidity of his question? |
| Adam Baboolal 09.11.2006 22:54 |
Well... first of all, you don't need to spend any more time or knowledge on these vocal cuts because it's a built-in one-button function in the free software I was referring to before. Secondly, the amount of time and space it takes for you to download these tracks will take longer than opening up a software program, popping in a cd and listening to the result. There really is nothing tricky or time-consuming about that! That's what I find so ironic about that statement. It actually takes longer to download the ones you want to hear, rather than just do what I've said anyone on here, can. B-T-B...there's no need to be rude. My statement had nothing to do with arrogance. That emotion which I dislike from time to time and never use it unless backed into a corner. Your question said, "for us non-audiophiles" and that told me that you probably wouldn't really care what it meant, which is why I said what I did. But, what the hey... close-miking is... when you put a mike close to something. That's it. I just felt you wouldn't have found that very interesting and/or useful! lol I wonder what you would've said if I hadn't answered at all! Anyway, I'm here to guide people on their quests with audio and I like being able to help where and when I can. Adam. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 09.11.2006 23:38 |
Fair enough Adam, I'm not hear to start John Stuart vs Greg Brooks round II. However, and as an infrequent poster, but frequent lurker, I know you've been taken to task for your commentary before, which whether you agree or not comes off as smug and superior. I'm not here to give my life story on every post, so when I say "for us non-audiophiles" don't assume I probably wouldn't really care what it meant, as I'm not going to bore people as for why I would care. I do care, as I'm peripherally involved in the world that recording is part of, and I find you and others to be extremly knowledgeable. I'd like to increse my knowledge, and I don't think that's a bad thing. You often comment on how people's levels are to high or low when they submit songs or mixes. If I were to ask you what the acceptable levels are for guitar recording are you going to dismiss me as an idiot? BTW, if you didn't answer at all I'd have been happier than you trying to guess why I asked the question in the first place, and then dismissing it. I've see you answer and respond to everything under the sun on QZ, I don't know how you determined my question wasn't worthy of a response. |
| Adam Baboolal 10.11.2006 07:39 |
Well, I'd hate to come off as smug and superior. Guitar levels? It's not the acceptable volume as it is the offending frequencies that people record and leave in from time to time. A good place to look is the soundonsound.com website where they run a mixing sos article. This month's talked about a band's guitar recording that was, a mess, basically. Something I can relate to because of a certain band I recorded last year. I probably bring that up quite a bit on these boards! Well, it left its impression on me! Anyway, the idea the re-mixing engineer said was to think about re-recording the guitars as well as the lead vocal. Something that band I mention, didn't care to do. So, you're a slave to what you record. If it's a well rounded sound, you'll have plenty to work with. If it's harsh sounding (as so many home-made ones are), it'll be harder to integrate into the song. My recent comment on the Dreamer's Ball cover was about something similar. It was a decent recording, but there were frequencies that were too up-front and obscured the vocal. Adam. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 10.11.2006 10:48 |
Thanks Adam. I truly respect your comments on sound, as I know you're very skilled. I'm about to dabble into the world of home recording on Garage Bands, and have a very basic knowledge of sound levels. When you say things like the vocals are too upfront or the drums are too low, I hear that but don't quite understand if there are optimal ranges for all instrumentation so they're heard at pleasing levels. Your comments help me to get a better handle on these things. BTW, Freddie Lives, thanks for posting the cut vocals as I hear a bit of instrumentation clearer than I have before on many of these tracks. |
| Adam Baboolal 10.11.2006 12:38 |
Well, there are suggested levels in things like instructional books which I started reading back in 1999. They can help, e.g. The Art Of Mixing. But the only advice is to balance things in comparison to a commercial track that's similar to what you're mixing. This will help in getting your ears familiar with certain sounds in a mix and how to go about achieving them. It also helps to look at a magazine with tutorials on how to do certain things. Sound on Sound really is cool for that at the moment. However, there are some of my own things I listen back to from 1997/8 that sound pretty extreme. This may have been because of my computer speakers, so another piece of advice would be to get hold of a set of studio monitors. These days you can get cheapo speakers that do a good job. Otherwise, I'd suggest investing in a more high-end set. I personally use a set of Tannoy Reveal 6D's. I've used the previous range of Tannoy Reveals, so I had an idea of what I was getting, soundwise. Really, there's so much further I could go into this stuff, because it's not just one element that makes the mixing and recording happen. Another important factor would be a good room to mix in. But I'll leave you to read up on these things as I'm not the most knowledgable in that field. Sometimes wish I was, though! Adam. |
| Deacon Fan 10.11.2006 14:22 |
Adam does have a good point. I use the DSP Center Cut plug-in for Winamp to check for interesting vocal cuts. (sorry I don't have a link, I've only ever found it thru Google uploaded in some forum). It allows for stereo L + R to remain, unlike some programs that turn them mono. On the other hand, if it's making people happy I have nothing against it :-P |
| freddie lives 28817 10.11.2006 15:11 |
it's not just a simple vocals cut I use - I do surround swaps as well and center channel extractions. Sometimes different processes applied to the song on 3 timelines and then mixed together make these recordings i've posted. Takes me about 5 minutes for a basic cut, longer if I do a bit of messing. This can certainly be longer than it takes to download them. Either way, they are here if people don't want to make their own. If folks do want to make their own, I've never kept the process "secret". Use adobe audition and mess about with surround swaps, LR-Midsize swaps, centre channel extractions and vocal cuts. |