Blame it on 8

[ronws]

What can I say? 8 doing his version inspired me to revisit the song, as well. I did something different, this time. We'll see if it worked out better.

http://dl2.dropbox.com/u/8750209/Holy%20Diver.mp3

[Keith]

Why did ya have to go hit those high notes in head voice I wonder what act of god it will take to get my head voice that high..? nicely done. I'm gonna do Dream On tomorrow I think, the Dio version anyway.

[akarawd]

Ron, I've never heard your voice so "free", unrestrained and solid sounding. You own this song man, that was great tenor singing!!

Awesome job man!

Thanos

PS. I didn't mention the timing issues 'cause I don't give a rat's ass - I know it wasn't your fault and even if it were, it's the voice I care about.

[ronws]

I have a secret to the timing issues and it's partly and Audacity problem.

[akarawd]

That's why it's unimportant and not worth talking about - you can always change the program.

The singing was really good.

[gno]

Great job Ron! That was fun to listen to. Nice tone all the way through and smooth transition to your head voice.

[ronws]

Thanks guys. Now, here's the secret. Yes, part of it is Audacity, the timing issues I have mentioned before. Sometimes, it records an additional track with timing that is out of step with the first track, in this case, a karaoke track. Secondly, my timing was off, a little.

The big secret is that I recorded this months ago, I think in January or February, not long after I got the mic and stuff from Thanos.

What I did different was in the mixing. I had this saved as an Audacity file, which keeps the tracks separate. I put the vocal track through the compressor.

Then, I took the preset acoustic eq and modified it a smidge, with roll-offs at the low and high end outside of the range of this song. True, this might get rid of some possible overtones. But I have learned that in mixing, less is more. A better mix is about taking away what is unnecessary or getting in the way.

Then, I did something I had not thought of, before. I put the karaoke track through compressor, with slightly different values. It made the wind blowing at the beginning a little more "whistle-y" but I was willing to live with that. This is how I was singing at the beginning of the year.

So much of what we perceive, especially through these digital recordings, depends on the equipment and the mixing strategy involved in the recording. As well as recording strategy. I can sing with quite a bit of volume. So, if I were to record this again, today, I would sing it a little differently but I would also place the mic differently, using the orientation of the mic to me as factor. Normally, I have the mic upright and its a condenser studio mic, quite sensitive when singing full-on to the flat of it.

I would instead, change to where the top of the mic is facing me. Then, when I want to sing a part that is softer in volume, I could lean to be over the mic, though not singing directly at it. And when I sing a high pitch at loud volume, I could lean back and sing at the top of the mic. This could reduce the pressure against the mic and it will also pick up the ambience of the room.

And then, put the vocal track through the compressor, almost a necessity when recording to digital. There are simply loses that happen when recording an analog thing digitally. And then, after that, eq. As I know Geno and Thanos could testify, what's just as important in recording and mixing is the order of effects, or effects chain. What does a person do and in what order?

Then, of course, the equipment and its ability to respond. As well as the sophistication of the software used for recording and mixing. As I said in another thread, I started with a reel-to-reel with 1/4 inch tape on 5 inch reels and a little condenser mic (membrane and capacitor, hence, the name condenser, no +48 V phantom power in 1974) that was lower tech than even the mic in a cellphone today.

As I have said before, I stink at recording and mixing but I am getting a little better. So, it's not the time spent, it's the quality of what is done. I've had these various levels of recording technology and still stank at it, after all these years. Just like, I have been singing a long time and could still make mistakes or approach something wrong. And still learn new things, today.

For example, I now totally get Geno's vision of the interaction between TA and CT. Something that was eluding me. That's why I will read something several times and then finally get it. Other times, I can read something once and it clicks right in.

[Keith]

Wait - we blaming me? lol - Oh, and call me Keith..

[ronws]

I was "blaming" you for me resurrecting this because your performance was inspiring to me. When I listened to my recording, I realized that a big problem in listening to it was that the track sounded "scratchy." By mixing it better than I did before, I cleaned up a lot of crap to let more of my voice, as it sounds to me, comes through.

Hence, the big long technical explanation in my last post. I've been trying not to write book-length posts every time. But, sometimes, I just have to express myself and that can take more than a few words, at times.

Biggest lesson learned for me - always, in Audacity, anyway, put the vocal track through the compressor. Yes, it can squash some dynamics of volume, depending on the values chosen, but it leaves more general volume for all the notes in order to better adjust eq.

[Keith]

Lol

[gno]

Biggest lesson learned for me - always, in Audacity, anyway, put the vocal track through the compressor. Yes, it can squash some dynamics of volume, depending on the values chosen, but it leaves more general volume for all the notes in order to better adjust eq.

Yes - Vocal tracks love compressors. They are essential. Especially with the kind of backing track you are using. The Kareoke track is high compressed to start. If you don't use a compressor on the Voice, you'll never be able to match the dynamics of the backing track.