Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Nice Roger Nichols tips
| Nice Roger Nichols tips [message #72479] |
Fri, 15 September 2006 19:47  |
![John [1] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "John [1] is currently offline")
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Nice Roger Nichols tips:
Summary:
Mix reverb of master mix back in with master mix.
Split vocal to multiple verbs that trigger based on vocal volume (or ride
faders on multiple channels with different verbs).
Today we use individual sends on individual channels to send to individual
reverbs, sometimes lots of them. One thing I have noticed with many older
songs is that it sounds like there are not just certain instruments going
to certain reverbs. Frequently it sounds like there is just one reverb but,
more importantly than that, it sounds like there's only one reverb send and
it's tapped off the master fader (either mono or stereo). I hear the kick
drum, guitars, bass, vocal, strings, everything at mix-relative levels in
the reverb. (I doubt this was a creative call, so much as a "necessity is
the mother of invention" thing. I doubt there were aux sends on the console,
so they tapped from the master fader and sent it to a chamber and then reinserted
it into the stereo mix.) I can take a mix that sounds really far away from
a classic 60s song and toss the "universal 'verb" on it and it transforms
the mix to being nearly identical. It's a mix "glue" thing.
I'm not saying this is a trick that will work for anyone today, but it certainly
makes a "new mix" sound a lot more like an "old mix" from 50 years ago. Sometimes
you just have to strip away 99% of the options we have today to get back
to the methods and sounds they got back when they didn't have 99% of what
we have today.
I like to find one reverb and use it as a main reverb for the whole song,
sending everything to it a little bit, says Nichols. Then for the vocal,
I'll use three or four different reverbs, splitting out the vocal to different
tracks [or channels]. When the vocal gets louder, the quality of the reverb
changes because it's sending to a different unit. When the vocal is soft,
maybe the reverb has a long decay time so it's nice and moody and has all
this big ambience. That long, three-second reverb doesn't work when the person's
screaming into it; it will be two choruses before the thing finally decays.
Taking the vocal apart and splitting it out to different tracks allows you
to give the loud parts of the vocal a completely different reverb send and
completely different compressor or EQ settings than the soft parts. You
can clone tracks so you've got two vocals or two snare drums one for the
cross stick, another when he's playing the snare and make them different.
Doing those things will really make the mix easier.
You want something to go to the back of the mix, put reverb on it. This is
the most fundamental psychoacoustic trick we have.
Usually by the second verse, if you've got a drum machine at pretty constant
volume or parts that aren't dynamic, you're not noticing them anymore, says
Pensado. But if you just kind of yank a drum up here, or something up there,
your ear finds it and you'll remember it for another 32 bars or so. Something
I've learned from the visual analogy is that it's okay to make things loud
for one or two bars, then tuck them back where they should be. It's okay
to take the kick drum and at the beginning of every eight bars turn it up
8 dB. Make it stupid loud. The engineers might say, ‘Ooh, did you hear that?’,
but 99.9 percent of the people who buy the record are going to go, ‘That's
cool!’
Okay, lots of different speakers. But what exactly are you listening for?
A lot of the music I do requires the kick drum to be as important as the
guitars are in a Led Zeppelin song, says Pensado. If you're listening on
the big speakers, you can be thinking ‘Man, it's Grammy time!’ then you go
down to the Auratones and there's nothing there. That tells you the frequencies
below 100 cycles are right where they need to be, but the frequencies above
there are pretty much nonexistent. This gets into the area of psychoacoustics.
You're not ever going to get the low end from the kick drum to come out of
the set of Auratones. But what you can get are the frequencies that make
you think you're hearing the lower frequencies. That could be anything from
200 to 3K.
I'll add another trick to that: If you have a word or just a silable out
of tune, put it in a separate track. Then you can play with auto tune and
just fix that one section without subjecting the whole song to auto tune-
Of course make sure you have the same EQ compression and reverb as the rest
of that section of the song or it'll sound real funny.
John
In Paris you could ride faders on multiple split vocals even automate mutes.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Nice Roger Nichols tips [message #72594 is a reply to message #72479] |
Mon, 18 September 2006 08:00  |
emarenot
Messages: 345
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Great post, thanks John
MR
"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:450b65d0$1@linux...
>
> Nice Roger Nichols tips:
>
>
>
> Summary:
> Mix reverb of master mix back in with master mix.
> Split vocal to multiple verbs that trigger based on vocal volume (or ride
> faders on multiple channels with different verbs).
>
>
>
>
> Today we use individual sends on individual channels to send to individual
> reverbs, sometimes lots of them. One thing I have noticed with many older
> songs is that it sounds like there are not just certain instruments going
> to certain reverbs. Frequently it sounds like there is just one reverb
but,
> more importantly than that, it sounds like there's only one reverb send
and
> it's tapped off the master fader (either mono or stereo). I hear the kick
> drum, guitars, bass, vocal, strings, everything at mix-relative levels in
> the reverb. (I doubt this was a creative call, so much as a "necessity is
> the mother of invention" thing. I doubt there were aux sends on the
console,
> so they tapped from the master fader and sent it to a chamber and then
reinserted
> it into the stereo mix.) I can take a mix that sounds really far away from
> a classic 60s song and toss the "universal 'verb" on it and it transforms
> the mix to being nearly identical. It's a mix "glue" thing.
>
> I'm not saying this is a trick that will work for anyone today, but it
certainly
> makes a "new mix" sound a lot more like an "old mix" from 50 years ago.
Sometimes
> you just have to strip away 99% of the options we have today to get back
> to the methods and sounds they got back when they didn't have 99% of what
> we have today.
>
> I like to find one reverb and use it as a main reverb for the whole song,
> sending everything to it a little bit, says Nichols. Then for the vocal,
> I'll use three or four different reverbs, splitting out the vocal to
different
> tracks [or channels]. When the vocal gets louder, the quality of the
reverb
> changes because it's sending to a different unit. When the vocal is soft,
> maybe the reverb has a long decay time so it's nice and moody and has all
> this big ambience. That long, three-second reverb doesn't work when the
person's
> screaming into it; it will be two choruses before the thing finally
decays.
>
> Taking the vocal apart and splitting it out to different tracks allows you
> to give the loud parts of the vocal a completely different reverb send and
> completely different compressor or EQ settings than the soft parts. You
> can clone tracks so you've got two vocals or two snare drums one for the
> cross stick, another when he's playing the snare and make them different.
> Doing those things will really make the mix easier.
>
> You want something to go to the back of the mix, put reverb on it. This is
> the most fundamental psychoacoustic trick we have.
>
> Usually by the second verse, if you've got a drum machine at pretty
constant
> volume or parts that aren't dynamic, you're not noticing them anymore,
says
> Pensado. But if you just kind of yank a drum up here, or something up
there,
> your ear finds it and you'll remember it for another 32 bars or so.
Something
> I've learned from the visual analogy is that it's okay to make things loud
> for one or two bars, then tuck them back where they should be. It's okay
> to take the kick drum and at the beginning of every eight bars turn it up
> 8 dB. Make it stupid loud. The engineers might say, 'Ooh, did you hear
that?',
> but 99.9 percent of the people who buy the record are going to go, 'That's
> cool!'
>
> Okay, lots of different speakers. But what exactly are you listening for?
> A lot of the music I do requires the kick drum to be as important as the
> guitars are in a Led Zeppelin song, says Pensado. If you're listening on
> the big speakers, you can be thinking 'Man, it's Grammy time!' then you go
> down to the Auratones and there's nothing there. That tells you the
frequencies
> below 100 cycles are right where they need to be, but the frequencies
above
> there are pretty much nonexistent. This gets into the area of
psychoacoustics.
> You're not ever going to get the low end from the kick drum to come out of
> the set of Auratones. But what you can get are the frequencies that make
> you think you're hearing the lower frequencies. That could be anything
from
> 200 to 3K.
>
> I'll add another trick to that: If you have a word or just a silable out
> of tune, put it in a separate track. Then you can play with auto tune and
> just fix that one section without subjecting the whole song to auto tune-
> Of course make sure you have the same EQ compression and reverb as the
rest
> of that section of the song or it'll sound real funny.
>
>
> John
>
> In Paris you could ride faders on multiple split vocals even automate
mutes.
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Dec 24 21:45:33 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00767 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
