CLOSER

VERY rough, but one night a few peeps and I jammed and came up with this.

I'm on vocals & keyboard.
What I'm going for using trigger words: Honey vibes, audio kaleidoscope. Feedback so far says voice is a bit frontward and snare is intrusive... though I want to keep the vocals echoing. Thoughts? Criticism?

P.S. I am a writer not a 'sanger' so by no means will I take the time to perfect the vocals lmaooo..
https://soundcloud.com/itsmarisolle/jan-13th

Freebase Dali

First off, let me say that I really dig it. Very nice.

As to the mixing, most of it is good. The snare thing is true. It just needs to come down a bit in the mix so that it doesn't compete with the vocals. Bringing that down might cause need for the hats to come down a bit as well. If the snare and hats aren't on individual tracks, but the drums themselves are separate from the rest of the song's elements, some compression with a reasonably fast attack and fast release will get those peaks down. Just don't put the threshold so low that the kick is triggering the compressor.

As for the vocals, depending on what you're going for, they are either perfect (in terms of level) or too loud if you wanted them to blend in with the background and not be the focus of the track.
If you want them to be the focus, leave them where they're at. If you want something else to feature in the song, you can put some high shelving to bring down the higher frequencies just on the vocal track and that will bring it away from the front and reduce the levels a bit. You'll probably want to also EQ the reverb itself so that it's reverberating in the more mid frequencies rather than the highs of the vocals.

As far as the echo, in either scenario, I'd EQ the reverb/delay itself so that the signal is not reverberating or delaying the higher frequencies. I'd also do a band sweep on the vocals to find that nasally, bathroom sound and cut about 3 or 4 decibels with a narrow Q, assuming it's coming from the vocals and not the reverb/delay. Basically, with a narrow (low) Q, you just bring up the level of that band and sweep around in the mid to upper mid frequencies on your EQ to find this offending frequency, then one you dial it in, bring the level down so that it's in negative territory, versus positive. Making that cut will take some of that bathroom sound you have in the vocals, which will make them sound smoother and less out of place with the tone of the song.

Doing all this, you should be good.
Because of the nature of the song, no heavy compression or anything like that should be done. It's nice and mellow, so we just want to enforce that and not detract from it.

__________________

CLOSER

I love you a little.

Ok thanks for that, I am eagerly noting it all. And really do appreciate it!
To be honest what if we went the other way and wanted a bathroom-y vibe. Just to play the ass.. only because the way I recorded the vocals was with my two hands like a tunnel over my mouth to create a clouded sound...and I think that's the disconnect from the rest of the track.

Freebase Dali

Depends on what you want the outcome to be. If you want it to sound less bathroomy, you can at least to a bit to rectify it with EQ. However, if you want to go for the bathroomy vibe, you're going to need to have the main dry vocal creating that sound, and the reverb/delay should be more ambient about it. As it stands, they're both basically doing that same sound and it's a little much, because the bathroom sound in reality is not a long decay, whereas the reverb/delay is artificially creating that reality. If you want to create a full, spacious bathroom sound, you need to let each element collectively work toward that, but not each element mirroring the same thing, if you see what I mean.

For instance, let's say your recorded vocal is intentionally bathroomy, and you're fine with it. You create your ambience to give depth and space to that not by reverberating and delaying that very effect, but just providing some less apparent backing to it. So, the dry vocal itself might retain that sound, but then you EQ your reverbs and delays so that they're more subdued and more of a supporter of space and depth itself, without over-emphasizing the original bathroom sound.

Or, experimentally, you could go 180 on it, and have the reverbs and delays be bathroomy, with the dry vocal less so. In either case, you create distinction, and the degree at which you do that is simply dictated by the amount of disparity between the dry vocal and the effects.

Ultimately, I'd say it's better to just play around with it and see what works, but from an outside perspective and listening on studio quality equipment, I can tell you that either the main vocal or the effects of the vocal need to give a little more to the other. As they stand now, it's a bit of a wash. Some sort of compromise should be made.

__________________

CLOSER

Ahhh I hear that... in the sense that if I want that ambiance every component can't necessarily be the overt piece of an echo or spaciousness....but play a piece of the equation.

Engineers REALLY have it tough, this stuff is meticulous and the way we recorded this track is each instrument @ one shot, so I might do it from scratch and just plug the keyboard in to the TASCAM..because it's picking up so much garbage convos in the back... anything better to use than Logic? I've really been sticking to Garage Band (****ty as it is) because it's so elementary but Logic is too far on the other side of the spectrum in terms of overwhelming...

Freebase Dali

I would avoid switching programs to something you don't know in order to complete a task. That will be ultimately counter-productive, as you will spend more time trying to figure out a new beast than a particular project benefiting from it in the short-term.
First try to get the sound you want by utilizing the methods and means in which you are comfortable and able to carry out, and simply modify the technique until you achieve the results you're after.

For long-term considerations, you might be better served using something other than Garageband, but it's going to have to be something you weigh against the time it will take to learn a new program and the ability to maintain the current output frequency you enjoy. The better approach may be to still rely on Garageband for imminent projects, but to start learning a new software on the side, and only switching to it as your primary host when you are comfortable doing so.

Of course, deciding what to switch to is going to be subject to much debate, and even then, there may be just as much debate about whether you need to switch at all. The most important thing to realize is that switching to something new is not necessarily always going to automatically equal better results. A very experienced Garageband user might put out the same quality as a moderately experienced Logic user. Or a very experienced Logic user might completely wipe a very experienced Garageband user off the map. The important thing is being able to use what is at your disposal effectively.
If you are hitting a wall with Garageband and are confident that your recording/mixing skills are indeed being hindered by the lack of options in that software, then that is a reason to move up.
However, if you still have room to improve your technique, then I would focus on that. No matter what software you are using, technique and understanding of what goes into creating the type of sound you want is first and foremost, and common across the board. Upgrading the DAW will change nothing in that aspect, and I think most people that are looking to net higher-quality mixes tend to overlook the fact that most of it has to do with technique, rather than what it is you're employing it on.

Obviously, the first thought should be getting a good source sound. If you're mixing badly recorded audio, you can only band-aid the situation, and often times it's impossible to do, depending on the severity of the problem. So focus 1 should be getting the best possible source audio that you will be working with. Like you said, re-recording, if necessary, should always be the first choice. Then approaching proper technique after the fact should be second. And finally, if you are being limited by the tools at your disposal and are sure that your technique is not the problem, then you look at upgrading those tools.

One big "for instance" would be to make sure you are mixing on a decent pair of studio monitors in a room that is at least minimally treated so that what you are hearing is indeed what you should be hearing. A bad set of speakers in a room full of echoes and standing waves are never going to let you hear what is really going on in the mix, no matter how technically proficient you are. So you have to be sure to address the issues that might be affecting your mixing decisions before assuming the issue is a software problem or a lack of options. Only then can you move forward.

__________________

CLOSER

Hmm you're sort of like an instant human music-wiki.
Do you work on music yourself?


When I isolate each track there is an endearing aspect of the sticks falling or me moving the chairs, or even the whispers of another conversation that serve as the eclectics I would say. Will probably re-record the keys and guitar on GB and may even try and ask my friend to limit the range of sound on the kit.

Thanks for sharing di knowledge.

Freebase Dali

Yes, I do. Since '99, although probably not as seriously until around 2006 in terms of mixing, mastering & sound design.

And as far as those phantom recorded sounds, those can be quite great! You have to decide which of them gives something to the song, and which do not. It's about a discerning ear more than it is about a proven technique, but it's ultimately about whether you think it's right for your song, and whether that vision comes out in the final product.
If you think something needs to be re-recorded, make sure you actually think that based on your concept of the song, rather than a strict guideline that may not apply in context. Definitely try to fix small errors in the mix prior, but if you know it needs to be re-recorded, then that's what you do.
Just ask yourself what it is you're trying to achieve, and go for that.

In context with the song you posted, I personally felt like just a couple things needed to be fixed, which I outlined. I won't profess to know your vision there, but as an outsider, those were the things I noticed. Depending on what you're trying to achieve, that may or may not be of importance, but I would posit that no matter what your goal, you should express it, but not at the expense of the listener, unless you're only making the music for yourself, in which case you can go buck wild!

__________________

CLOSER

I strap my own creativity when I begin to micro manage each track... it's the bane of my existence. Working with new musicians, I often hear arguments of today being the age of independent production. There is almost a stigma with sending work to be mastered because of an unfounded fear that the vision is lost - or loses its authenticity. At the same time I believe spectacular production really is the key between mediocrity and magnificence.. regardless of how amazing the song is. Also learning that less is truly more when striving for ambient sounds....

Will post finished product!

Freebase Dali

I agree. Different ears and techniques on a project offer a different perspective. And I don't know anyone who just makes music for themselves, so such a thing is highly beneficial, especially when at the hands of someone who at least has some experience highlighting the positives of a project and minimizing the negatives, as per an opinion outside the subjectivity of the original artist that wishes to appeal to someone other than themselves, in general.

__________________