From your post its seems the original track was recorded on ADAT. If it was a "blackface" model then the performance is severly compromised by those awful converters. Even the XTs weren't a great deal better. The XT20s are barely acceptable in this regard. "That sound" you're wanting starts with a really good front end (especially converters and mic pre) and of course a good singer. And the verbs used on "that sound" start in $2k range and go way up. Most of the high end studios are using verbs that costs $4-10K! If you are wanting a spacious verb on a vocal, any compromise in this area will sound exactly like what is is: a compromise.

drbam

I can relate to the desire of the original poster, to obtain "that sound," but please don't be fooled into believing that you need a 4-10k front end, or any of that other nonsense to do it. A high dollar studio guarantees nothing but a high dollar production. There is no way to buy "that sound."

In response to your desire for what i believe is a good vocal plate reverb, I have not found a software plate that I like as much as my old outboard favorite, the alesis midiverb vocal plate(ceartainly an economy piece- before you high-brow elitists say anything). Used others, but that just has something about it, it's my favorite.

Yes, sonically 10,000 is better than 1000 but is it neccesary? Definately to Nsync.

The fact remains Sarah Mclachlan, Sade, or Sting would kill you with their vocals sitting across from you in an empty room, a milion dollar studio is just a seasoning. Think about it.

Thanks a bunch to all!

However, to be more specific, here are a few more details (as I need a few more
details and direction as well):

1) yes, it was recorded on the orig. black-face ADAT.

2) I too disagree, that more expensive stuff "automatically" means I will achieve what
I am after sonically.

3) "that sound" could further be described as a very slight "airy" sounding reverb, that
is mostly noticible when the music is at a lull. And yep, listen to any Sade, Gil Scott,
Erica Badu, or Sting ballad, and you will hear "it".

4) I have tried various plate settings in the Waves Rverb the "big warm plate" with a
wet/dry setting of about 5 or 6 is somewhat close i think. Also tried Timeworks
4080L plate setting with some tweaking, the Timeworks delay which sounds good,
and WaveArts Verb etc. These have all sounded pretty good i guess, But with hours
of trial and error, I still seem to be missing "something". As soon as I put on a
commercial piece for comparisson, it's still just not "it". (or close enough to "it").
(Of course if it is not achievable unless that "missing something" is a 10K piece of
gear, I guess it just ain't gonna happen dudes & dudets)!

5) But again, if in post processing there are some particular plugs, chains, and settings
people are using to get "pretty damn close", I would REALLY, appreciate the input
(and yes I know every situation is different and no 1 setting or chain is going to
work in all situations. But what I do think is that there is some basic formula to
geting "close" and then tweak just a few selected parameters from there.

6) For Example, I read an article entitled "The Perfect Mix", that gave some suggestions
for how to mix a typical pop tune. Bass at -10dB, Vocals at 0dB, synths at -20 etc.
It went on to explain what the final mix levels add up to, etc. I have used this
method with a lot of success. And now the balance, tone, punch, of my mixes has
vastly improved (IN MUCH LESS TIME & WITH MUCH LESS TRIAL and especially
ERROR)!

6) Thanks for the suggestion of the Alesis, but I don't own one. Maybe can get one
used for cheep to try. But what were the settings you "typically" use?


Thanks again for everyones input

peace

See 3) above. Those folks you site were born with amazing instruments (they had "it" when they were doing live shows with club gear). Do the best that you can with the singer you have, experiment and have fun.

I couldn’t agree more; It’s 95% the performance you recorded and 5% what you do with it.

You may be a good way towards getting that airy sound you're looking for by using a de-esser combined with some carefully placed EQ. For this attempt, place a de-esser (SPL and Waves make the most popular) after the EQ in the plug-in chain.

Add some very high end (12k-16k shelving) with the EQ. This is what gives you the airy sound tiself, but now whenever there's an "s" sound, it cuts your head off. The de-esser gets rid of this, leaving just the air.

The settings will require quite a bit of experimentation, so I can't go into any more detail, but it's certainly worth the effort. Use this same track to feed the 'verb or delay. Some people use what's known as "Columbia reverb", which is reverb with all the lows and mids cut out, thus only washing over the sibilance and high end. This sound was made popular in a number of Simon and Garfunkel recordings, and isn't used too often anymore, but it's always worth a shot.

>>2) I too disagree, that more expensive stuff "automatically" means I will achieve what
I am after sonically.<<

I agree with this and in no way was I inferring that high end gear will automatically produce the *sound* you want - that would be ridiculous. But I do think its just common sense to realize that recording through cheap converters as in the blackface ADATs will make it virtually impossible no matter how good the performance or engineering skills. Often its commented that "Jagged Little Pill" was recorded on ADATs (which is true) but fail to mention that top of the line converters were used (bypassing the ADAT converters).

Most of the reponses to your post related to "performance" and not necessarily to "that sound" which was the focus of your original post. If I'm not mistaken, your inquiry had to do with a certain sonic character and not "performance." To be clear, I have only responded with this in mind. The artists you cited as your inspiration for this clearly are using high end stuff with first class engineers. If someone thinks that "that sound" can be duplicated with "prosumer" gear then in my view they are either delusional or pure genius which in the latter case I would love to hear an example of their work, and in addition, if they are able to do it, I would pay very good money to have them teach me how they accomplished such a feat! There's a reason why studios spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the better gear and its not just for marketing purposes.

That being said, in terms of a decent outboard verb, I would suggest that you look around for a used Alesis Wedge. They are incredibly underrated and can be had for under $100 on ebay. The midiverb doesn't even come close to the wedge. (Note: a really good verb sound typically requires that you get very deep into the verb's parameters). And NO *current* plugin will ever produce the kind of lush verb sound you're looking for (with the exception of using ProTools TDM system). Some plugin verbs sound pretty damn good tho. . . until you A/B them with a good outboard unit. I've done this for countless hours, purchasing yet another plugin package, always hoping to find a verb that comes close to any Lexicon PCM model. Not only have I not been successful, I can't even find one that compares to the Wedge either.

I will make a comment regarding performance: Hit records have been recorded on 4 track cassette portastudios. ;-)

my $.02

drbam

"6) For Example, I read an article entitled "The Perfect Mix", that gave some suggestions
for how to mix a typical pop tune."

Keep reading and experimenting around. Like anything, you don't become good at it until you've put the blood, sweat, and tears into it.

There's no guidelines. There's EQ, Compressors, FXs(reverbs,Harmonizers,Chorus,Flange, distortion,..etc.), Mic Pre's, The Microphone, Recording platforms....and as mentioned, the most important factor the performance. As you practice using all these things, you eventually start to recognize what sound each particular device adds or takes away from the sound. Eventually, when you become a skilled engineer, you can listen to a Mix and know almost exactly how to achieve "that sound" you're hearing. Just like a good cook can taste something and instantly know how to cook it.

Here's one trick among many that have been used. Take your vocal track and duplicate it on 2 tracks. On one track don't use any compression. On the duplicate track use a lot of compression....8:1 ratio. Now blend the tracks together by adjusting the faders. What this does it that the compressed track gives you that "in your face" vocal, while the uncompressed track gives you the wide dynamic vocal performance....So what do you get when you mix them together. A dynamic in your face vocal performance. Now you have to take that and add your plate reverbs, your EQ....you mentioned "airy" in your first post. Put a 12Khz-15Khz boost on the vocal, and that's what you get more air.

To answer your question more precisely: "That sound" is what seperates the men from the boys and you have some growing to do before achieving "that sound".

drbam,
Usually I agree with all the info you give, but I disagree with your black face Adat reasoning. I actually thought the converters where pretty good in those Adats. Maybe not as good compared to today's standards. I preferred them much more than the Tascam DA-88 at the time. They definately sounded better than 2inch tapes, and a lot of hit records where made off of 2inch tape, as where black Adat recordings. You mentioned "Jagged lil pill" being recorded on black Adats, but the converters where not used. It's been a long time since I read that article in EQ magazine, but from my memory the Adat converters where used, but there where high quality mic pre's used. Infact the arcticle states the original tracks used for the album, was for pre-production purposes only and was why it was recorded on the Adats, but the "performance" was so chilling that Glenn Ballard decided to use it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if external converters where used, maybe you could tell us what was used? The Adat only has an optical digital input. I don't know of any A/D converters made at that time which took 8 analog input signals and converted it to ADAT lightpipe signal.

red

Red: I never liked the blackface converters. They always sounded "gritty" to me and seemed to squash the signal somehow. That being said, I recorded some nice stuff on them but was blown away by the improvement when I moved up to the XT20s and then into my DAW system with the Laylas (originally the 20 bits and now the 24).

I'll try to locate the article about "JLP." I could be wrong about the coverters but this issue really stood out to me in light of my experience with the blackfaces. ;-)

drbam

thanks a bunch Red and midigod:

I will try your suggestions to see if it gets me "closer" to "it" !

However, is the 8:1 compressed track higher in level (or the original dry track)
before going to the bus chain with reverb?

Also, by doing the track doubling method, won't this produce a flange effect?
or that won't happen because of the compressor on the other track ?

just curious.


thanks again.


PS:
i know the difference in achieving that sound is what "separates the men from the
boys". But with guidance, boys can grow into responsible men much, much sooner.

Yoda had to train many a jedi. Without him, Luke would still be just another punk on a
desert planet !



again, thanks a bunch !!!


peace

"However, is the 8:1 compressed track higher in level (or the original dry track)
before going to the bus chain with reverb?"

I'm sorry, but the answer is "it depends." ;) Different people prefer it different ways. If you use the original uncompressed track, the reverb will get louder on peaks, but the signal won't (since you're not hearing the original singal, only the compressed version). This is quite desirable... for some people. Others don't like that method, and prefer to have the reverb follow the new dynamics.

"Also, by doing the track doubling method, won't this produce a flange effect?
or that won't happen because of the compressor on the other track ?"

It won't flange, but not because of the compressor. The tracks will still be in perfect sync (assuming you haven't moved one of them right or left in time), so they will only add to each other. The flange is heard when the time between the two tracks shifts, and a comb filter (nasally or robot-like) appears when the tracks are shifted by a few milliseconds, but remain that way throughout the track. Try shifting one of the tracks in time a few milliseconds and you'll hear it. Then put it back. Unless you like it!

Black face A/d's are not going to stop you getting a good vocal sound.

However the blackface D/A's are absolutely unusable.

The AT mic will also be fine, though it may take some work to force it into a different sound that you may want. It is neutral enough to respond well to eq etc.
Compression techniques are important. One plugin comp is not likely to do it.
De'ssing will be necessary.
With the reverbs mentioned, a result could be had but only with eq pre reverb

I just reread the original post......

"( that smooth, airy, silky, warm ambience, like reverb with space), that is prevalent in all
commercial releases."

I say F**k that sh*t!!! I'm into industrial music and none of those commercial releases have any of those qualities. When my vocals for my industrial music, start sounding "Smooth, airy, and silky" someone take a gun and shoot me in the head. Someone tell me the best compressor and distortion technique to give me that Harsh, distorted, overcompressed, Al Jorgensen/ Ministry vocal and leave that sweet Pop crap vocal sound to those pu**ies.

Thanks,
Red

Thanks midigod:

just 2 final questions before I start my experiments (armed with my new knowledge
and ideas):

1) since most verbs and delay plugs have "wet/dry" settings, do I want only the
"wet" signal for the aux track's effects" (since the dry is already on a seperate
track)? (I will try both ways just to see. But just wondering which is likely to
produce better results). If on a bus insert, it's obvious.


2) you said the two identacle tracks will not flange but "add". I'm assuming that
the aux tracks addition in level should be subtracted to from its mix level.
(e.g. Orig voc dry trk at -3dB peak. now doubling the track gives a combined
level of say -1. does this mean the new aux track is to be backed off by 2dB in
in the mix level) ? I'll try this too to see what happens. I'm guessing "how much"
it adds depends on what i'm using on the aux track and which mix balance sounds
better.


well ....."off to the lab again"


Thanks to all


Peace
on what


and I add this on the same bus with identacle -3dB level.

Suprised. Never figured you for the industrial music type Red. But, there goes to show what assumptions will get ya.
Steve S.

>>Someone tell me the best compressor and distortion technique to give me that Harsh, distorted, overcompressed, Al Jorgensen/ Ministry vocal and leave that sweet Pop crap vocal sound to those pu**ies.
Thanks,
Red>>

Ahhh now I know why you like the blackface converters. The sound you're looking for is somewhat built in! ;-D LOL

drbam

Just for the record regarding the blackface ADATs...

Roger Nichols claims some of the coolest stuff he's done was on those old things and an O2r.

Just goes to show ya...an expert with a slingshot can be more deadly than a baboon in a medium tank.

I'm with Red on the convertors. They stood up well at the time for 16 bits, you just had to hit them hard and make prudent use of limiting to keep the levels hot. Back then we used them with Sonorus DACs and excellent external clocking which made a huge difference in terms of quality. The biggest pain was the slow lock up time. Remember Francis Buckley posing proudly with "his" 128 track ADAT rig? Good grief...that would have taken half a day to sync up.

We still get mastering jobs that were recorded on ADATs and I gotta say in the right hands these old dogs are still kicking bootie to go.

You Pros are so WAY OFF TRACK with your technical jargon!!
It takes an amateur like me to point out the obvious to ya!
All that high-priced equipment...for what??
Just so you MIGHT be able to get "that sound"?

Alright, get a pen and paper, cuz I ain't gonna type this twice! OK, maybe you can copy/paste...your choice.

What you need to do is get the singer into one of two locations to record... my shower or my car!
I swear to God, I sound great in these two locations! I sound like CRAP elsewhere!
You do the math.

So, you can go with their expensive, time consuming suggestions; or you can use my proven suggestion (Now who DOESN'T sound great in their shower/car?).

M

>>Roger Nichols claims some of the coolest stuff he's done was on those old things and an O2r.<<

Yes, exactly! This setup bypasses the ADAT's D/A converters which simply underscores my point, and which, if you read my posts carefully, is the ONLY point I was making about the blackface ADATs. No need to make more of it than that. . . unless of course it turns you on by doing so. . . ;-)

drbam

Rahman,

I can tell you how to get "That Sound" if you tell me exactly what part on what song you are referring to. Give me a song title (or two), artist, recording (LP or whatever) and the time location on the track.

Front end will make a little difference in the final outcome, but I will need to know exactly what your talking about in order to tell you the correct answer.

It could be all technique and that can be seperated into two categories:

1. Mic Technique
2. Vocal Technique

...and potentially a combination of both.

...or...

It might be a piece of gear...

Here's something I recorded (tenor male lead vocalist) with many vocal techniques used on the lead vocal and on the BGVs:

Missing You Now

Listen to it and see if there's something in the track that is hitting "That Sound" you are after.

I will tell you exactly how the part was recorded and the techniques that were used.

Hope this will help!

Just joined the thread, so scuse me if it's been said already, but old neither ADATs or AT4033s are the most likely devices to allow anything 'silky and airy' to get through. The 4033 is reputed to be a little on the harsh and glarey side, but not as much as the C1000.

geoff