exciter (psyq) question, different wetness per track?

[kensuguro]

I have a vocal track that I want to apply more psyq to, than the accompaniment. Generally, I would tend to think it's better if I just applied it at the end.. but I tried having 2 instances of psyq, and none on the master.. But that seems to be different than having 1 at the master, and then maybe just increasing treble with eq for the vocals.. what's your take on that?

Considering upper harmonics are generated from the content, it seems to make sense to avoid having too many instances in parallel.. (or serial? I can't imagine having one on the vocal AND the master, causing double effect, that'll seriously alter the signal)

[garyb]

i'd be VERY conservative with that type of effect. lot's of not readily apparent bad things can happen that you might not really notice until later...

you can also use a small amount of overdrive to add body and presence to a signal...

[kensuguro]

ya, I ended up doing a parallel setup, with very little on the accompaniment, and more on the vocals / chorus. Not sure what happened in the studio, but the files from the recording in tokyo was sent to me, and it just completely had no high end. Almost like recording a shure 58 with very bad pre amp. Just no definition at all.. Can't believe these studios charge, considering the awesome results you can get with a meager bedroom setup. This was all for the neverending story-ish tune btw.

end result came out like this:
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 17&t=25843

Very much on the "burning shizzling" end, but I guess it's an energetic tune so I thought what the hell. One problem is that at certain places, psyq seems to bring out melodyne's artifacts. But the choice between questionable pitch and a non-audible muffled recording is a tough one... It's just so much easier to work with a recording with enough high end definition in the first place... it's no wonder I don't hear good definition in chorus parts in Japanese recordings. It's always "shove the chorus somewhere underneath the lead vocal", and not my usual "put them in like it's an acappella band". But with all the advancements in pitch correction plugins, maybe they might switch to bringing out the chorus parts more, and maybe more people will write more interesting chorus arrangements. That's definitely something j-pop lacks.

Maybe it's just that lead vocals generally don't do chorus very well, since it's for "the other guys". You know, stuff like synchronizing pronounciation, good diction, and uh... exact pitch? Like, it's near impossible to get leads to hit a 9th on a simple major triad, unless I mute all the other parts, and give him the pitch on the keyboard 10 times. And then of course, since the 9th gets recorded while not hearing all the other parts, the pronounciation and minute timing differences just muck up the mix. Blahh.. If a major 9th is bad, imagine a minor 9th. The half note clash just drives them nuts! Halleluja melodyne, a gift from the heavens.

[alfonso]

I'm not very favorable about using the psyq in the master, unless you're not doing some mastering work of some sort with a particularly poor definitive mix or in special situations like cassette tape digitizing and de-noising. It can be useful, instead, to have few instances, very conservatively tweaked, to give some more cutting power to a vocal track or a sampled drum sound or to some pad that you want to keep at very low volume but still keep its "air".

[garyb]

i don't know where it's best to respond, so i'll do it here....

first, i LOVE J-Pop. it's crazy and you're right, it's about the singer not the backround singers. interesting...

second, i LOVE your work.

third, i think your mix is too loud and too sibilant. you really have to watch that listening fatigue. it sets in quickly. using something like psyq more than just a little makes fatigue happen even faster. the whole thing just seems distorted and the melodyne parts, which i like as parts, make it worse, because they are soo full of artifacts. aren't there Japanese singers in NYC who could do it? if they had the recording to learn beforehand, the session could be very short...there seems to be a lot of extra energy in the upper midrange to treble. i always seem to get the best results on the most playback systems when the energy across bass to treble is pretty even. what's wrong with the first version? i think it's too bright as well!

btw- i agree with alfonso.

[kensuguro]

you think it's over the top? I was wondering if this explosive power should be toned down a bit. It's much more circus in the high end than my usual mixes..

[garyb]

yeah, i do. i think it's pretty rough on the ears...

[dbmac]

It's interesting to look at a wav file in an FFT filter graphic before & after using PsyQ.
The high freq setting can generate enormous boost in the >8K and above. I usually have to tone down those frequencies after PsyQ-ing, but I still use it a lot in mastering.

/dave

[siriusbliss]

I've gotten bit by the 'PsyQ overkill factor' way back when it first came out.
I was trying to 'sweeten' some old mixes (including some old 4-track tape fly-overs), and it started to take over the mix.

Best to use sparingly, and maybe avoid it in the main mix channel.

Greg

[ReD_MuZe]

psyq is great for using on 1 track in a mix that doesn't come often (not on a tambourine for instance) and you want it to "pop" out.

these aural exciters are a no-no for mix and mastering imho. but can make some pretty nifty solo boosts, and airy bg vocals. the bass section is something that should only be used with proper monitoring and good acoustics!

[braincell]

The BBE was a big fad as is a lot of compression. Steve Roach told me he never uses any compression on his music, only a limiter. He might not be the best engineer in the world but there is something to his philosophy I think (in more ways than one). Sorry Steve if you are reading this. I didn't mean you are a bad engineer. Oh well he understands I'm sure . I was lucky to have Steve master a CD I did. He wasn't starting from the highest quality recording. I regret using too much compression on it too.

http://www.steveroach.com/

[garyb]

a compressor IS a limiter and vice-versa...

usually, when we say "compressor", we mean compression ratios of less than 10/1. "limiter" usually means ratios of 10/1 and higher. overuse is bad in either case. underuse will not help a piece of music reproduce properly(in a musical way) either.

[siriusbliss]

The BBE was a big fad as is a lot of compression. Steve Roach told me he never uses any compression on his music, only a limiter. He might not be the best engineer in the world but there is something to his philosophy I think (in more ways than one). Sorry Steve if you are reading this. I didn't mean you are a bad engineer. Oh well he understands I'm sure . I was lucky to have Steve master a CD I did. He wasn't starting from the highest quality recording. I regret using too much compression on it too.

http://www.steveroach.com/

Say hi to Steve for me.
He collaborated and engineered a piece on my 'Welcome' CD back in 1990.

Greg

[braincell]

He's a really nice, cool and talented guy.