|
Post by audioindex on Apr 3, 2017 17:28:03 GMT
please kindly assist me?
I'm having a lots of problems with regards to the applying good reverb settings to a vocal lead and backings.
I've tried to use some of the presets, but they sound really bad.
The two main genres which I'm trying to mixing is hip hop and gospel.
I've type in the template below the only thing that is let is to fill in the numbers
My Reverb has the following parameters.
Gospel Lead Vocal
Pre-delay Decay Room size Damping High cut Low cut Diffusion Damping Dry Wet
Gospel Backing vocals
Pre-delay Decay Room size Damping High cut Low cut Diffusion Damping Dry Wet
Hip hop lead vocal
Pre-delay Decay Room size Damping High cut Low cut Diffusion Damping Dry Wet
Hip hop backing
Pre-delay Decay Room size Damping High cut Low cut Diffusion Damping Dry Wet
Other vocal settings if you have please
Lead Vocal
Pre-delay Decay Room size Damping High cut Low cut Diffusion Damping Dry Wet
Blacking vocals
Pre-delay Decay Room size Damping High cut Low cut Diffusion Damping Dry Wet
|
|
|
Post by rock on Apr 4, 2017 12:51:24 GMT
I can't fill in the values for you but here are some ideas: Reverb and mixing in general is subjective. Presets can be a good starting point but usually need to be tweaked to your own taste. I suggest experimenting. Heres one very basic tip: If you use the reveb in an FX buss, set the reverb to 100% wet (0% dry) and use the channel buss send to adjust the reverb level. Conversely, if you use the reverb "inline" in the channel strip, you'll use the wet/dry as your reverb amount control. Subscribe to this guy's emails for tips: www.recordingrevolution.com/Good luck. Rock
|
|
|
Post by philietes on May 1, 2017 19:16:14 GMT
Makes sense! I know, digital is vastly superior to vinyl for audio fidelity, but it does not imply I will throw away my records at once. On a sidenote, I would like to buy some decent cartridges for my Technics 1210.
Is it true I should match it with my tonearm, take into account capacitance loading? Do anything of the sort? I figured Denon DL-110 and Ortofon 2M red are quite good, but measurements are difficult to obtain for cartridges. Any recommendations?
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on May 2, 2017 18:13:28 GMT
Makes sense! I know, digital is vastly superior to vinyl for audio fidelity, but it does not imply I will throw away my records at once. On a sidenote, I would like to buy some decent cartridges for my Technics 1210. Is it true I should match it with my tonearm, take into account capacitance loading? Do anything of the sort? I figured Denon DL-110 and Ortofon 2M red are quite good, but measurements are difficult to obtain for cartridges. Any recommendations? Cartridge-tone arm matching can take several forms, electrical and mechanical Electrical matching is less important because it can usually be tuned separately by placing additional capacitance in parallel with each channel and adjusting it for flattest response as measured with a test record and a meter of some kind with a sharp high pass filter whose flat response commences above say, 500 Hz. Capacitance values are on the order of 50 to several 100 picofarad. Mechanical matching involves cartridge compliance and tone arm match. The usual rule is high mass tone arm, low compliance cartridge or low mass tone arm, high compliance cartridge. The goal here is to obtain a fundamental tone arm resonance in the range of 8-12 Hz which gives better tracking and improved sound quality, particularly bass definition. The one size fits all cartridge might be the Shure M97xe whose brush acts as a damper and broadens the range of tone arm mass for which it is suitable. Generally, some added capacitance many be needed for flattest possible response.
|
|
|
Post by philietes on May 3, 2017 20:24:28 GMT
Sounds more complicated than I thought to get it just right! I have a Technics 1200 with Shure M44-7 and Hagerman Bugle2 phono preamp. Would a different cartridge improve things audibly? I am hesitant to buy an Shure M97xe because I've seen measurements; it appeared to have quite a high frequency drop-off. Test might have been flawed though.
On what fronts do the highly acclaimed expensive B&W speakers like the nautilus 803,804,805 series try to improve on speakers as the Mackie HR824 (design for one yes)? In other words, I can't see why all Hi-Fi speakers meant to be used in living rooms are designed this large, if the size of the Mackies is already sufficient for practically every living room. As far as I know, larger speakers only produce higher output levels without distortion. Or is different reasoning at play here?
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on May 4, 2017 12:37:07 GMT
Sounds more complicated than I thought to get it just right! I have a Technics 1200 with Shure M44-7 and Hagerman Bugle2 phono preamp. Would a different cartridge improve things audibly? I am hesitant to buy an Shure M97xe because I've seen measurements; it appeared to have quite a high frequency drop-off. Test might have been flawed though. The test was flawed, because proper cartridge loading addresses exactly the problem observed. Properly loaded, IME Shure's better cartridges are pretty darn flat. Improperly loaded they roll off the highs and sound dull. The idea that a speaker has to be physically large to "fill a room" is another audiophile myth. The corresponding more technical truth is that dispersion control is a very important property of loudspeakers. I will grant that a certain amount of physical size is required by most working approaches to dispersion control. However by the time you get to the size of a large high quality SR monitor such as the EV ZX-5 (which also has good dispersion control but more loudness, power handling and efficiency) you are getting into the realm of diminishing returns. Thing is, one of the simplest and most effective means for dispersion control is called a Waveguide, which is basically what the front panel round the tweeter on the HR824 or the ZX-5 or the LSR308, are. While I appreciate the sound quality of Nautilus speakers, to me they are working antiques - hyper-expensive examples of pricing like many of the benefits of modern technology never happened.
|
|