Mastering vocal for music

Sounds like sidechain processing on a compresser with a soft knee - you feed the vocal into the sidechain, which is processing the entire mix minus the vocal, and the vocal's presence 'ducks' the main feed. Personally, I don't like it at all - it sounds completely artificial, and shouldn't be necessary in a mix done properly, which will create a suitable space for the vocal without resorting to this form of crudery.

It may be 'good' for the vocal, but not good for the backing track at all. Performing musicians will adapt their performance to take account of a singer, but this will involve altering the dynamics of their performance, and often involves leaving out notes that they might have otherwise played that the vocalist is now providing. This is the natural way to accompany a singer, and IMHO it invariably sounds a lot better.

No problem Steve. I understand what you're saying. What about the idea regarding copying envelopes and putting them onto other tracks. Is this possible?

Mark

AFAIK, you can't copy envelopes. But I also know that you are not the first person to ask for this, and it's already gone in as a request some time ago.

Mind you, side-chain access for the dynamics processor has been asked for previously as well, and we don't have that either. What's really required here is an integrated solution that lets you feed the output from a track or a bus to the sidechain input of the dynamics processor in MV. This isn't quite the same as using the envelope generator, which doesn't give you anything like enough control. In fact, it almost doesn't generate what most people would regard as an envelope at all - it jumps about far too much, whatever you do to the settings. What's required is an smoothed average level sensor to control the output - which is what a conventional ducker uses. If you can achieve that, then all of these sorts of processes could be carried out anyway.

Ducking, as an effect, is something that was (is?) very popular in radio production - although it is usually carried out by the jock 'riding the fader' on the background source whilst talking - although auto-duckers have been used too. If it's overdone, you get the same sort of pumping effect that you get with any overdone dynamics process, which is specifically what I don't like the sound of.

In response to those ideas Steve, I wonder could the ideas of paths and masks be introduced from premiere and photoshop and in duplicating envelopes, the technology of layers as well. Also paths can be adjusted using the bezier curve method, the closest we have are to use splines.

Mark

AFAIK, you can't copy envelopes. But I also know that you are not the first person to ask for this, and it's already gone in as a request some time ago.

Mind you, side-chain access for the dynamics processor has been asked for previously as well, and we don't have that either. What's really required here is an integrated solution that lets you feed the output from a track or a bus to the sidechain input of the dynamics processor in MV. This isn't quite the same as using the envelope generator, which doesn't give you anything like enough control. In fact, it almost doesn't generate what most people would regard as an envelope at all - it jumps about far too much, whatever you do to the settings. What's required is an smoothed average level sensor to control the output - which is what a conventional ducker uses. If you can achieve that, then all of these sorts of processes could be carried out anyway.

Ducking, as an effect, is something that was (is?) very popular in radio production - although it is usually carried out by the jock 'riding the fader' on the background source whilst talking - although auto-duckers have been used too. If it's overdone, you get the same sort of pumping effect that you get with any overdone dynamics process, which is specifically what I don't like the sound of.

I realise you don't like ducking (honest I can tell ), but don't engineers "ride" the faders to duck certain instruments when the vocals come in.? I am sure I can hear the softening of (e.g.) rythm guitars on a lot of albums when the vocals appear. Presmably when you have an otherwise good performance but the backing didn't leave enough space for the vocals it is acceptable to duck them?


Oh and just to stir things up - the original post said "I've recieved" NOT "I've just recieved"!  

I realise you don't like ducking (honest I can tell )

I don't like it in recordings when the whole backing is ducked, no... but I'll put up with it in short bursts on the radio.

but don't engineers "ride" the faders to duck certain instruments when the vocals come in.? I am sure I can hear the softening of (e.g.) rythm guitars on a lot of albums when the vocals appear. Presmably when you have an otherwise good performance but the backing didn't leave enough space for the vocals it is acceptable to duck them?

If that's the only thing left, then I suppose that's what you might be tempted to do, yes. I'd be inclined to try several other things first, though - a little EQ thinning on the backing, and pan settings that allow for a vocal to be present in the first place, for starters. And often, dynamic adjustments to the vocal and backing can achieve a more subtle result. If you restrain the vocal dynamics so that the quieter parts don't drop below the backing, and you've prevented peaks from occuring in the backing as well, it's usually pretty easy to get a vocal to sit sensibly without resorting to a plain old duck. But let's face it - any recording where the backing doesn't apear as sympathetic to the vocal probably isn't going to sound too good anyway, is it? In fact, it's inevitably going to sound badly produced...

So yes, you can do it if you must, but I'd still regard it as substitute for having some production values...

I read this in another post.......

"If the whole thing is going to be like that, then I'd say that it is rather bizarre, to say the least. But this is only based on looking at one bit, I have to say."

Is this not basically the same thing that the guy above got chewed out for, making "guesses" without having all the facts? Just wondering. Love the forum and have learned a lot from it so far.

[based on looking at one bit]

I read this in another post.......

"If the whole thing is going to be like that, then I'd say that it is rather bizarre, to say the least. But this is only based on looking at one bit, I have to say."

Is this not basically the same thing that the guy above got chewed out for, making "guesses" without having all the facts? Just wondering. Love the forum and have learned a lot from it so far.

Of course not - it's a qualified comment, based on exactly what was stated. That's completely different from hearing nothing - and the reason, in fact, that it was qualified. What you can't do is guess without having any of the facts, and that's what happened in this thread.

Got ya.