Any 1 Looking to trade Mixing presets for vocals?

[Cavvy Studios]

I think the theme of most of the responses was "Hey, that's the wrong way to approach the mixing process. This post could be harmful to the education of newcomers." and not really "Don't share information, we hate you.". If someone who's new to mixing comes here and reads a post about someone using presets on vocals, they're likely to take the same approach instead of learning the basic fundamentals and then dialing in the appropriate settings based on what their ears tell them. Seems to me the resistance against this post is due to the fact some newbies who read stuff like this will bypass the crucial learning process and become dependent on presets instead. In the spirit of sharing info here, it's my opinion that mixing presets usually do more harm than good and it's not a good idea to post a thread encouraging their use on a site that's geared toward people who are new to mixing.

 

[redbearddread]

Exactamentadoodly!!

 

[dvyce]

I think the theme of most of the responses was "Hey, that's the wrong way to approach the mixing process. This post could be harmful to the education of newcomers."

Exactly.

and not really "Don't share information, we hate you.".

Correct.

Nobody was objecting to his desire to share "information"... but more experienced people were just alerting the people who may not know any better that the information they are sharing is of little value.

...and although nobody started off saying "we hate you", he may have been successful in changing peoples opinions on that matter after he told everyone to "kill themselves".

If someone who's new to mixing comes here and reads a post about someone using presets on vocals, they're likely to take the same approach instead of learning the basic fundamentals and then dialing in the appropriate settings based on what their ears tell them. Seems to me the resistance against this post is due to the fact some newbies who read stuff like this will bypass the crucial learning process and become dependent on presets instead. In the spirit of sharing info here, it's my opinion that mixing presets usually do more harm than good and it's not a good idea to post a thread encouraging their use on a site that's geared toward people who are new to mixing.

Yes and no.

Yes, we are worried about someone new to mixing (as I would guess Dugan Fire is, since he is looking for workhorse compressor and eq settings) thinking this is a good and valuable approach...

But, no, the issue is not about "you should learn the fundamentals first" or anything about the learning process.

If there were a way to press a button and have your track EQ'd and compressed properly, I would have no problem with it. But the fact is, these kind of presets just don't work for reasons that would be quite obvious to anybody with some mixing skills.

Do they do more harm than good?

Well, if you are trying to learn and understand the concept of "mixing", then they do harm in the sense that they are not understanding how and why presets don't make sense.

...and if you just want to use presets to make a good "mix" and don't care if you know anything about mixing... well, then, you are not helping or harming anything. It is just doing another random thing to your audio... not necessarily any "better" or "worse" than doing nothing or using some random settings.

It is like if you wanted to paint your car and you randomly picked a can of paint out of a box... you may pick hot pink, or you may pick black, or you may pick tan... if you don't like what you picked, you can pick again...

...it is fine if you want to do that, but it doesn't make you a "designer" or an "artist"... and don't pretend it is a magic box that helps you to pick a good color...

Using presets is like giving a monkey a typewriter.

---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

Realistically, no one is gonna go off themselves over an fp thread

ummm... the point is: don't post forum rules saying "boo hoo, the rules say don't mean things to me" when you are telling everyone to kill themselves.

get it?

I started this thread to encourage sharing knowledge (presets big deal) that most seem to refuse to explore upon.

Instead of receiving replies that could dispute and correct where i may have gone wrong, i get the usual fp responses. Even from a moderator.

I clearly stated that this wasn't an attempt to give an end all solution to mixing vocals.

It's sad to see soo many individuals that would rather go out of their way to discredit another, (not surprising tho) TRYING.

You DID get replies that tried to correct you where you were wrong: presets do not really work.

There is a big difference between trying to discredit bad information and just trying to discredit you.

In this situation, it is the bad information that was being discredited.

What is "sad" is seeing people who do not want to know the real facts about mixing and take personal offense to someone with more knowledge trying to help.

FP is the way it is bc of people like the ones that have replied to this thread with those exact intentions.

The problem here is that you do not realize WHAT the problem is.

You think the problem is that people want to keep you down...

But the real problem is that outsiders look at threads like this and say "FP is a bunch of kids who know nothing and spread ban information and get angry when experienced members try to give them good helpful advice"

And that is the truth.

Its obvious what i was trying to do. Which is a lot more than what others can say.

Yes, you are tryinfg to help... and that is great...

But you need to see that there are people who know more than you... and those people who know more than you are trying to help YOU...

...and they are trying to help everyone else who is trying to learn bty getting good information out there.

i removed the pics b/c apparently i was preaching to the choir.

Those who are interested in seeing them can PM and i'd be glad to send them.

There was no reason to remove your pics. Nobody asked you to remove them (I would maybe make them a little smaller, though... they were very large)

 

[Morning_Star]

Everyone knows I come off strong. I remember when I was learning and I read a ton of bad info and misleading techniques. I have a web page dedicated to learning how to do things the right way and hosting free software for people that can't afford it.

Actually I recommend reading the compression and eq guide on my page and then reading the post I made a while ago about recording vocals.

https://www.futureproducers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=302602

https://www.futureproducers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337957

www.epithetstudios.blogspot.com

This is the type of info that if far more helpful and valuable.

 

[Cavvy Studios]

Yes and no.

Yes, we are worried about someone new to mixing (as I would guess Dugan Fire is, since he is looking for workhorse compressor and eq settings) thinking this is a good and valuable approach...

But, no, the issue is not about "you should learn the fundamentals first" or anything about the learning process.

If there were a way to press a button and have your track EQ'd and compressed properly, I would have no problem with it. But the fact is, these kind of presets just don't work for reasons that would be quite obvious to anybody with some mixing skills.

But, of course, there isn't any magical button or preset so, of course, this is about the learning process. At least to me it is.

Do they do more harm than good?

Well, if you are trying to learn and understand the concept of "mixing", then they do harm in the sense that they are not understanding how and why presets don't make sense.

That's exactly how I meant it. I don't mean they always make something sound worse than it already is. Often times, for the newcomer to mixing, it's the exact opposite. That's exactly why they can be such a pitfall. They throw a preset on a track and notice an improvement from what they had before. This can lead to laziness and/or a misunderstanding of the human element of listening and adjusting that's required to get the best tracks. So, while a mixing preset may quickly make something sound better, it can hurt the learning process. I put "can" in italics, because I'm not saying it's a hardfast rule. If someone new to mixing is disciplined enough not to rely on presets, they can be a learning tool in the sense they can apply a preset, pay attention to the changes in parameters while listening to how it changes the sound and thereby gain a better understanding of the settings and how they work. I say presets usually do more harm than good because so many newbies aren't disciplined enough to avoid relying on them. They've been trying and trying to figure out how to make things sound better and that magical preset makes it sound better than their efforts do so they use it to make their tracks sound "good", but never learn how to make them sound their best. It sounds like we're basically saying the same thing here, just wanted to clarify what I meant.

 

[dvyce]

But, of course, there isn't any magical button or preset so, of course, this is about the learning process. At least to me it is.

I only meant: I don't care if they don't want to learn. If they want to remain ignorant, that is fine by me. I meant that I do not believe they MUST learn... So, my only point there was that, sure, they won't be "learning" anything -- but I don't care... they can learn if they want to or not.

That's exactly how I meant it. I don't mean they always make something sound worse than it already is. Often times, for the newcomer to mixing, it's the exact opposite. That's exactly why they can be such a pitfall. They throw a preset on a track and notice an improvement from what they had before. This can lead to laziness and/or a misunderstanding of the human element of listening and adjusting that's required to get the best tracks. So, while a mixing preset may quickly make something sound better, it can hurt the learning process. I put "can" in italics, because I'm not saying it's a hardfast rule. If someone new to mixing is disciplined enough not to rely on presets, they can be a learning tool in the sense they can apply a preset, pay attention to the changes in parameters while listening to how it changes the sound and thereby gain a better understanding of the settings and how they work. I say presets usually do more harm than good because so many newbies aren't disciplined enough to avoid relying on them. They've been trying and trying to figure out how to make things sound better and that magical preset makes it sound better than their efforts do so they use to make their tracks sound "good", but never learn how to make them sound their best.It sounds like we're basically saying the same thing here, just wanted to clarify what I meant.

If something sounds "better" when using a preset, then it was just dumb luck that it sounded better.

The way the human ear works is that things are perceived as sounding better AT FIRST when they sound louder or just DIFFERENT from what they had been hearing.

I am not giving presets any more validity than I would to (as I said before) a monkey with a sequencer...

Just to clarify: we are talking about mixing presets... not FX presets... you can have an EQ preset that is a "telephone" effect or a "make it brighter" preset... things that work in broad strokes will do what they do... band pass it... boost generic highs... etc...

... but there is no preset that will "make your vocal fit in a mix"... that is a specific thing that is different in every situation.

 

[Foggy]

"It's all about the context"
Sorry about that , just had to post in crazy thread !

 

[wlouch]

Sharing presets will get you nowhere, because of the many reasons already mentioned in this thread over and over. But instead of reiterating this, I will throw a few EQing tips out there, they are purely general views, and are not going to work on every application.

Always try to cut before you boost, you can get the same effect by cutting a frequency sub-harmonic of the one in which you want to boost.

Cutting two frequencies by a little instead of cutting one a lot, is a better way to go.

Cut with a narrow Q, and boost with a wide Q

Remember that boosting EQ adds phase problems, the more you boost, the more issues will occur. So like mentioned above, always try to cut before boosting, and try not to boost too much at a time.

A few vocal EQing ranges for general notes:

Fullness is around 120hz

Boomy at 240hz

Presence at 5khz

Sibilance at 4-7khz

Air at 10-15khz

Of course these areas depend on the recording, depend on the vocalist, but are quite a nice thing to remember in terms of EQing a vocal, no frequency I need to adjust will mean you necessarily need to.

The most important part is to use your ears. Listen to the vocal on its own and in context of the mix, and listen to how it sits.

Does the vocal sounds too fat? if so,

Get a fairly narrow Q, and cut by around 8-10dB, sweep through the frequencies and listen to where the voice sounds thinnest, adjust the attenuation to a more desired level.

EQing like this will make you learn which frequencies do what with each instrument, I always EQ like this, it helps train my ears, I am now sweeping through with 4dB of cut or boost and still really hearing the difference. The better your ears get, the less you will need to boost or cut to really hear the difference.

Does it sound too sibilant, the s's are getting carried away, well go to the sibilance range, and do the same method as before. This works with all EQing, and is quite a nice way to do it.

Listen, think, decide on your action, and listen again. Dont EQ solo'd, always EQ in the context of the mix. As you can get an amazing sounding vocal solo'd and then you put it in to the mix, and it just doesnt work.


Hope this helps, and remember it is very general guidelines.

 

[dvyce]

Remember that boosting EQ adds phase problems, the more you boost, the more issues will occur. So like mentioned above, always try to cut before boosting, and try not to boost too much at a time.

This is not really correct.

Many people hear the term "phase distortion" and equate it with "phasing", but they are two different things...

There are a few different types of EQ's and filters that handle phase distortion in different ways.

It is too much for me to go into here, but you can google eq and phase distortion to get more info...

The audibility of phase distortion in audio is dependent on several factors... and the fact is, you probably won't even be able to hear it at all.

"BOOSTING" as opposed to "CUTTING" does not cause the phase distortion... just the fact that you are using the EQ will introduce the PD (PD = Phase Distortion)...

boost it, cut it, it doesn't matter... either way, there is PD...

There is no reason "cutting" is more desirable than "boosting" from a technical standpoint.

There is no difference between boosting and cutting.

And sometimes PD may be something you WANT.

This is part of what makes EQ's sound different from eachother...

Like I said, it is different from "phasing" in the common sense of the term...

Some signals benefit from PD...

And, like I said, you probably won't be able to hear it anyway.

 

[wlouch]

I meant phase distortion, and only utilising the EQ causes it.

Having the EQ in the signal chain will bring in additional noise due to circuitry, but I have heard from a very reliable source that using the EQ is what causes the phase [distortion] issues.

Either that or Roger Quested is lying to me. Please do point me in the right direction to a website discussing the matter in depth, alternatively, I could have misinterpreted what he was saying to me


Edit:

As far as I was aware, boosting causes the same amount of phase distortion as attenuating, however boosting makes this distortion more audible than subtractive EQ. They are both adding to the signal, either positive or negative polarity, but the positive polarity, i.e. boosting a signal is more audible as it boosts the region it is adding the distortion to.

 

[xXx_Dugan_Fire_xXx]

This thread wasn't aimed at newbies trying to discover mixing. It was for the more experienced, that may have a similar approach to recording vocals.

"Here's my template, whats yours look like?"

I NEVER ONCE SAID ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO "THIS IS HOW YOU DO THIS . . . ."

I have no issue admitting that i have room to improve, theres always something to learn. I also appreciate that ya'll have taken the time to undermine what it was that i was trying to provide.

Clearly this has become more of a debate of wether "you" think presets are acceptable for learning, using, and etc.

I'm good. I wish ya'll the best of luck.

 

[dvyce]

I meant phase distortion, and only utilising the EQ causes it.

Having the EQ in the signal chain will bring in additional noise due to circuitry, but I have heard from a very reliable source that using the EQ is what causes the phase [distortion] issues.

Either that or Roger Quested is lying to me. Please do point me in the right direction to a website discussing the matter in depth, alternatively, I could have misinterpreted what he was saying to me.

that is what I said: "using" the EQ.

Edit:

As far as I was aware, boosting causes the same amount of phase distortion as attenuating, however boosting makes this distortion more audible than subtractive EQ. They are both adding to the signal, either positive or negative polarity, but the positive polarity, i.e. boosting a signal is more audible as it boosts the region it is adding the distortion to.

Yes, they introduce the same PD.

Once again, though, it is not really an issue of hearing the PD...

EQ's function by using PD... that is how they work... the EQ combines a signal with a phase shifted version of itself so they partially cancel eachother out. That is the design of an EQ.

It is not really a matter of "distortion being audible"...

You don't really hear the "distortion"...

But it is said you may hear a particular type of EQ as it affects a certain type of audio, such as a percussive sound with fast transients or a bass sound.

...and there are some other factors involved that will cause one model EQ to handle high or low end in different ways...

this is all part of what makes some EQ's sound "better" and "worse"...

Like I said, there is information regarding this online...

but here is a link with some info: equalizers and phase shift


...and with regard to "boosting a signal is more audible as it boosts the region it is adding the distortion to"...

Whether you are boosting or cutting, you are still using PD to create that change regardless of what direction it is in... and phase is not level dependent in the "i can hear it" sense of the word (not that you "hear" the PD anyway)...

It has been said by some that typically, more PD may actually be introduced (through the user's manner of usage) to a signal when "cutting" rather than "boosting" because people tend to cut MORE than they boost because they can hear the boosting more easily than the results of cutting... therefore they tend to boost less than they cut.

It has also been said (see linked) that people THINK they hear "phase issues" when they boost because boosting is just allowing them to hear how crappy their audio really is, or they can hear the comb filtering in the audio that they couldn't hear previously... but they are not hearing any "phase" anything.

People in the know typically say that the whole PD thing is really just a marketing ploy based on an inherrent function of an EQ with an unfortunate name (i.e., "phase distortion") that can easily be confused for "phasey" (due to intentional marketing ploys and unintentional misinterpretations of the term)

 

[CPhoenix]

Wait a minute.. you guys mean to tell me that if one preset works for one person, it might not work for the next?

OH THE HORROR!!!!

 

[Foggy]

EQ's function by using PD... that is how they work... the EQ combines a signal with a phase shifted version of itself so they partially cancel each other out. That is the design of an EQ.

Hmmm , I am not so sure about that bit there Dvyce , can you explain/elucidate ?

 

[dvyce]

Hmmm , I am not so sure about that bit there Dvyce , can you explain/elucidate ?

i included a link in my previous post

but here is a link with some info: equalizers and phase shift

 

[Perry Grinn]

This is so stupid.

Co-sign.

---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------

This thread wasn't aimed at newbies trying to discover mixing.

The mere fact you are asking for "presets" screams, "for NEWBIES" at a volume of +14dBVU.

What pro uses vocal presets except a lazy AE. Well, besides Charles Dye - who has mastered the occult science of pro audio preset divining.

I hate recalls. So why would I use a preset that is like the ultimate + permanent recall.

 

[Foggy]

i included a link in my previous post

I questioned your previous post and then walked the dog for an hour and had a think .
Perhaps I look at this from the opposite viewpoint (anyone says 180 degrees gets an infraction) is what I thought .

That article ... it is a long arsed one , and not exactly a design spec (Ethan is a nice chap) , but one of the early lines grated :
"Therefore analog equalizers work by intentionally shifting phase, and then combining the original signal with the shifted version. In fact, without phase shift they would not work at all!"

It seems to ignore the reactance of the capacitative elements (eg in a potential divider).

No big deal , just shootin' the breeze

 

[dvyce]

That article ... it is a long arsed one , and not exactly a design spec

It is just one that I found that seemed to give a decent basic overview explanation in a way that was not too technical as to be easy to get the concept across to people...

...was not looking to get into too many technical details as the whole topic is really a bit off topic.

 

[Perry Grinn]

That article ... it is a long arsed one , and not exactly a design spec (Ethan is a nice chap) , but one of the early lines grated :

I read that 'Ethan is a nice chap' like, 'Ethan is well intended but what he writes and says about pro audio makes him appear to be an asshat.'

I remember that article and have had several issues with it since its publication. Thats all I'm gonna go into, don't want this to be another EW bashing session: http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?t=14282

For what its worth, I've had issues with that article since I first saw it.

 

[dvyce]

I read that 'Ethan is a nice chap' like, 'Ethan is well intended but what he writes and says about pro audio makes him appear to be an asshat.'

I remember that article and have had several issues with it since its publication. Thats all I'm gonna go into, don't want this to be another EW bashing session: http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?t=14282

For what its worth, I've had issues with that article since I first saw it.

To be honest with you, I have no prior knowledge of EW... I just looked for something talking about PD as it relates to EQ in the most basic and broadest of terms to make a general point.

It is not an article I had in my files or anything that I use for reference.

I actually had never seen that article until about 30 seconds before I linked to it.