full and interesting yet so simple How do they do it?

I keep adding tracks to make my songs fuller but then I hear some song or soundtrack that is just a singer and guitar that seems so simple and so full and interesting without percussion bass or padding.
What is the secret to the full singer/guitar mix?
I have a nice melodic acoustic backer that is fine just by itself. IOW a finger style progression rather than strumming.
I have tried the VX64 for the vox and guitar to get some separation
Nothing on the master yet.
I have tweaked the EQ and delay in the VX64 but it doesn't have that fascinating presence I hear on the pro songs.
Is it the difference of a $3500 mic and sound proofed studio that I don't have? (I have an Apex 460 on the guitar and used a SM58 for the vox.)

I do not know near as much as many folks on the forum. But I do know that when I switched my studio vocal mic(10 years ago) from an SM58 to the then new and exciting Studio Projects C1(one of the 1st 100 made way back then when they were accused of copping(or copying) alot of the U87-probably just hype, but........ The difference was night and day in my vocal recordings. Still use that thing today. I also do not have  a real studio. Spare bedroom is my studio. It works for my needs though. But the mic did help.

Thanks guys.
I now tried cloning the guitar and nudging one for more stereo separation.
Then changed the EQ and comp. for each track with the Pro Channel (one "Thick acoustic" and one "high and light acoustic") presets. I took the vx64 off them both.
The guitar(s)sound better now.
Vox is still the vx 64 with everything I can think of and PC with "Vocals warm and smooth" preset and it's still a bit of a disappointment but I'll work on it. 
It really could be just me as Bub says.

Yes silence is an important element just like white space in painting which brings out the best in the rest. I admit I'm a bit afraid of it.

My rough so far: (warts and all) looking fwd to cleaning up the tracks but didn't want to bother if I couldn't get the quality in the end)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2...%20not%20forgotten.mp3

What material are you trying to imitate? Site an example someone may know what was done to get that sound. For certain songs I have mixed I was looking for certain sound or close to it. I basically "re-recorded" an example song and then tried to mix it to get as close as I could to the original sound. What I learned is that every engineer has their style and it was about learning their "kung fu" as you develop your own style. I agree, equipment will only get you so far, but I remember the days when trying to cut demos on a 4-track.  It took a lot of practice, trial and error, just to get a few songs mixed down.

Glenn, Nice writing and playing... I think I understand what you are saying about presence. What preamps do you have?

Thanks so much guys
As I said in an earlier post, the sloppiness ("warts and all") is acknowledged (It's a rough mix, just recorded and not edited) and I intend to fix it with cut and paste, Audiosnap and other of the wonderful Sonar editing functions once I was confident I could get the quality to make it worth the trouble. 
I feel comfortable I can do this editingpart.
I felt what I was missing was the sound quality and I guess I thought plugins might be the answer. 
If by "soft" you mean quiet that's an easy fix but I wonder if "soft" is more about EQ or other qualitative tricks?

Your comment "Some people like to kid themselves that Sonar in a bedroom studio can get there. Not" is right on the mark as I am in an old bedroom as that is what I can afford.
It is discouraging that I might not ever be able to get to a semi professional level until I spend a lot more money on a studio environment.
I'll just have to be content to do my best and take it to a studio in the end once I know what I'm shooting for.
Thanks again

M_Glenn, contrary to what some others might say, IMHO it is a combination of stuff.. the more things you get right, the better it gets.

The "big" boys have an advantage because they can normally walk to the mic cupboard and pick exactly the right one for the job, and the same with pre-amps and compressors. They can choose a room for the job. They can even choose a studio for its sound and character! It helps them get there faster, at a price..

Gear:
A decent mic WILL make a difference, and each mic has a particular character. Now, you CAN use a '58, but it will sound different to a C1, or an '87 for that matter. Get something that is good enough and won't break the bank.

A good pre-amp is the same. It will make some difference. Good stuff is really cheap these days, so almost any stock pre will do (maybe even the BR800).

BUT..

Source:
The most important factor is the performer. A great performer will do 90% of the work for you - seriously. Assertive performances ALWAYS sound good, even at low delivery volume.

Arrangement: If it's cluttered, it wont sound big, because everything will be fighting for the same space.

Acoustics are NB - you won't get a dry punchy sound in the toilet... unless your toilet is padded :O)

Then comes recording technique, and mixing technique. Try and record what you want to hear, or as close as possible. Play with mic position (height, horizontal placement as well as distance), gain settings etc.

Learn to use compression - it's a very effective tool.
EQ is just as important if not more so, esp subtractive EQ, which is trickier to nail.
Check out the HAAS effect - very cool for getting size in a mix. CW Channel Tools can help you achieve it.

Most importantly, NEVER get serious about it. It's supposed to be fun!


Just my thoughts!

Ludwig

A lot of good ideas here.

First, it is the song.  Then performance.  Then the capture. 

For a typical singer/songwriter, if the first two are taken care of, a nice room, mic and preamp are in order.  You don't have to go crazy to capture a good sound, but good equipment helps, esp. if you are talking about capturing a "full" performance.

The room shouldn't get in the way - it would be hard to expect a tuned room for every singer out there, but it shouldn't be nasty, ringy etc.  A good LDC and a pair of SDC's should be in every locker.  Again, you don't need a vintage newman, but something better than the bargin basement.  LDC for vocals, the SDCs for stereo acoustic.  Finally, a mid-priced preamp.  A gap 73 probably wouldn't be apropo for folk, but an ISA One or the RNP.  You can capture more of your not nasty room vibe w/ a high-gain preamp - real air.

Finally, as said above, a good stereo comp is very useful.  A touch going in, a touch or more going out to your master can firm up a good recording.

You don't have to drop $10,000 at once, but a thousand or two over the years as you collect things sin't outrageous.  There are too many mics to give a recomendation - and a ribbon is a nice addition.  And even a RNC compressor can help while you wait to win the lotto.

And while you chase the white whale of good sound you can work on your engineering and songwriting and playing, so when they all come together you'll be ready.

@

At the very least to tame some of a rooms ringing you can place a duvet in a corner and sing and play your guitar with your back to that corner.

It will stop some of the reflections from entering the mic and not muddy up the sound as much as if you place your mic in the middkle of the room and sing and play.

Also keep your mouth about 6" away from the mic. It will eliminate the proximity effect which results in increased bass response from your mic and also adds to that muddy sound because the tendency is to turn the gain down on your amplifier. Good mic technique doesn't cost anything but ensures you get the best sound possible out of the mic you have.

Experimenting with just those 2 things will reap you some of that sound you're looking for. Aend also teach you how to get the best out of what you have. It's easy to throw money at a problem and while better gear will get a better result it still takes the experience to get that better result.

All the best.

M_Glenn_M


I keep adding tracks to make my songs fuller but then I hear some song or soundtrack that is just a singer and guitar that seems so simple and so full and interesting without percussion bass or padding.
What is the secret to the full singer/guitar mix?
I have a nice melodic acoustic backer that is fine just by itself. IOW a finger style progression rather than strumming.
I have tried the VX64 for the vox and guitar to get some separation
Nothing on the master yet.
I have tweaked the EQ and delay in the VX64 but it doesn't have that fascinating presence I hear on the pro songs.
Is it the difference of a $3500 mic and sound proofed studio that I don't have? (I have an Apex 460 on the guitar and used a SM58 for the vox.)

You got some decent info in this thread but in my opinion, some of the advice is not going to make a bit of difference in the size of your sounds. It's actually simpler than people are leading you to believe. It's all in the mic or mic's you choose for a particular instrument as well as the instrument itself, the player and how the room is utilized.
 
For example, on your acoustic guitar, you may want to run an X/Y stereo mic rig along with a few mic's to capture the room from different distances. This gives you "size". A mic pre is not going to give you that. I can plug into the crappiest mixing console you can find, run the mic's of my choice into it and then into a stock, barebones Dell pc with a Realtek soundcard running asio4all drivers and give you pro sound. Don't buy into the hype man. Get a few good mics and experiment with the placement of them.
 
A 58 isn't a bad mic, but in today's times, it's not going to make a voice sound big unless the voice itself is big. You know, like a radio type voice. For those of us that are not gifted in that area, you'll need to buy a mic that captures "big". They aren't cheap....but the sound difference, quality and size of the sound captured will amaze you. You can also use the same technique as the guitars. Your main vocal mic closest to you that you sing into, then a few mic's to capture the room. When you mix them all together, compress and eq...bang...you have more size.
 
Remember...and this is important....when you hear something that sounds big, it was recorded big. It's not something that gets recorded and then enlarged later on in the process. I mean granted, there are a few stereo effects we can add with imagers that can make a difference but big sound is recorded to be big sound, it's not synthetically altered much to sound big.
 
There are various mic's for guitar and voice that you can buy that will take care of this. Once you get them, you add in a few of the ones you already have to grab the sound of your room. Even if you're in a bedroom, the distance/proximity effect you can get from the other mics in the room will make a difference due to the delay between them. When you eq this along with your main mic and do a little panning with the room mics, you are creating a stereo image by eq-ing different takes of the same performance. It adds to the size as well as the depth of the sound.
 
You can do this using a bunch of cheapo mic's but you're best bet is to at least have one really good one that is the main capture/focal point.
 
Mic pre's: You only need one if you can't get your mic level to -6dB. They will not make your sound bigger. They do 3 things.
 
1. Get you at the proper line level.
 
2. Eq and compress if you buy one with that functionality.
 
3. Coloration of your sound due to the guts inside them. Some are warm sounding, some have a bit more presence, some can give you a nice little bit of drive, some just give you the proper signal you need.
 
But NONE of them will make your sound "bigger". Don't confuse coloration, level boost or drive with "big". It's an over-used marketing ploy to sell these things. "Big and fat" are hype words that mean "your sound was colored" and you can do that inside of Sonar once you've recorded your tracks with the plugins supplied. Trust me...a few good mic's and some experimenting is all you need for what you're going for. And, it won't break your bank totally. But you should have one great mic for vocals and a few assorted decent ones for guitars etc. The vocal mic being the most pricey and the best that compliments your voice.
 
Just go to a music store and try a few. You'll hear what I mean as soon as you speak into the right one. Like they say in the Harry Potter movies..."the wand chooses the wizard". This is true for mic's. When you try the right one, the price won't stop you from buying it even if you have to save for a few months. It WILL make an incredible difference, that I promise you. Good luck.
 
-Danny

Understand that the songs that are solo acoustic/voice and sound great, probably are that way for a reason. Meaning, the song and performance were such that there was no need for anything else.
 
When you hear bongos and backing vocals in a major label acoustic song, it's probably because the artist or producer thought the same as you... "how can I get this sounding fuller"? Maybe this particular song of yours just wasn't destined to be arranged this way.
 
Also, you seem to have kind of buried your vocals. In a song like this, I would expect them right up front. If you're shy about your performances, your mixing will always suffer, since you will be covering up elements that should possibly be highlighted. A guitar and voice arrangment is inherently "naked", and should be treated as such. Often the first things that end up on the cutting room floor in self-produced efforts are the moments of true emotion, but those are the best parts. Just my .02.

Here's some work done with some old 58's and I think a '57 or too.

http://harmoniccycle.com/...singles/Summertime.mp3

It's going through a Mackie 1604 (the one with the fancy VLZ preamps) into a Tascam porta DAT (the one with the nifty servo balanced transformerless inputs). In other words it's a board mix that was never meant to be heard by anyone but the musicians. Don't bother listening for the reverb, or a compressor, or special panning... there's none of that to be heard in this example.

I think it serves as an example of how a good performer can sound when it is time to perform.


Here's another example; a guy comes over to spit a beat... I've known him for years but did not know he played any music... at all. I just didn't know.

He sits down at a borrowed electric piano and a '58 and plays this for me:

http://harmoniccycle.com/...illiams_Soul_Shine.mp3

He was at my place for a total of 30 minutes... maybe next time we'll get a keeper... I think of this a sketch. I stuck a little reverb on the mix.


best regards,
mike

+a-whole-bunch on that tuning advice.

It's important.

:-)

re: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2...%20not%20forgotten.mp3

If I may offer a true and honest critique;

1) Very nice singing style that seems to suit the song.

2) Very nice feel with the guitar picking... nice and light with a happy vibe... it may be working against the theme of the song... or not. I don't know what your intent is. Never the less, it seems like nice competent playing.

3) You are singing with your throat. It will never sound as rich and full as a singer who is using all their muscles.

4) Your fingers aren't hitting any bass strings on your guitar... your arrangement is simply not full and rich. You can fix that, or you can simply avoid comparison to an arrangement that does have musical content down to the 80Hz available on an acoustic guitar.


I think you have two easy choices as it stands now... compress the heck out of it and turn it into a stylized emo-acoustic ala Tom Waits or leave it as it is and present it as a light and airy, highly dynamic acoustic recording that may seem more familiar to people who enjoy traditional folk, Celtic, or world music.

I think you have lots of options.


all the best,
mike

Great sounding finished audio starts at the source.
 
Quality instrument>decent quality mic>decent quality preamp>decent quality A/D
You dont' have to have the highest end gear, but it does need to be of decent quality.
 
Then there's mic position.  It takes time/practice to learn how to position mics to capture good results.
A poorly placed mic will capture poor sounding audio.  No amount of processing is a substitute.
 
Now factor in the room/acoustics.  If you're recording acoustic guitar in a horrible sounding room (like an untreated concrete basement), don't expect great sounding results.
 
Finally, there's the skill of mixing.  Assuming the source tracks are pretty close to what you're trying to achieve, you really won't have to do too much processing.  It's a matter of making small adjustments to achieve separation, clarity, and balance.
 
Always strive to capture what you're looking for up front.  If the source sound is too far off the mark, processing/mixing/mastering will likely be polishing the proverbial "turd".