I have found Matt's questions about the importance of EQ, Compression and Reverb to be very interesting; along with the answers that I have read so far.  So here is another question that has been going through my head lately.  

Does some mic bleed between instruments and vocals actually contribute a spacial element to the song that we don't get by using sim's, midi and perfectly isolated instruments?

Recently I have been listening to some of the old artists tracks, like the Queen You Tube Video or Rude Studio's (McCartney) where you can listen to the individual tracks from these songs.  I was actually surprised to here a lot of mic bleed, when say, you are listening to the vocal track and you and slightly here the guitar or piano in the back ground.  So it started me thinking about this dynamic a little.

I am on the road,  traveling and having fun with my browser, not reacting the way it should...won't let me edit.  So let me correct that last sentence.


I was actually surprised to hear a lot of mic bleed, when say, you are listening to the vocal track and you slightly hear the guitar or piano in the back ground.  So it started me thinking about this dynamic a little.  Is the bleed adding a certain depth to a mix that might not be achieved through completely isolated instruments?

I'm thinking it might just add some depth but I'm kind of wondering about it still....

This is an amateurs guesswork:

I assume it very much depends on how "ready" the sounds are when recorded, ie. how heavy processing is done to the individual tracks afterwards.

I'd think if you, say, heavily compress the track with the bleed, or use long delays, the bleed might become very disturbing.

In general, it may be we're used to such a high level of "signal hygiene" nowadays, that a normal live sessions tracking results may sound "primitive" to us.

That may be it, now that I think f it. We are probably more used to the clean sounds that something like this may sound a bit 'primitive'.

A case of recording history perhaps then...

In my experience, mic bleed can certainly add depth and cohesion, so long as you know what you're doing with it;

Cheap mics can sound really cheap in their reproduction of off axis sounds, so this is definitely something to look out for. 

You also have to spend some time and thought planning the layout of the room, and often move things around so that, not only are the spot mics picking up a great tone, but the spill sounds as good as possible too. 

And as has been mentioned, any processing you plan to do during post will certainly have an impact on the result - if you want to to severely compress the vocal and use drastic EQ on it, then that will usually have a negative impact on the mix. This is because the vocal is usually the most prominent element, therefore that leakage (which you've made sound a whole lot worse through compression and EQ) will be much more audible. 
 
I really think it comes down to the style of music you're recording - if you're tracking a really great acoustic band, then 'embracing' the leakage will be a much better idea than if it were a rock band. Obviously you're going to do heavy processing on a rock mix, and you'll find you'll be very limited in what you can do if you haven't planned ahead.

If you want to hear an example of how a really good engineer can use leakage to his advantage, have a listen to pretty much anything recorded by Al Schmitt. That guy is hardcore - he only uses mics in omni, no EQ whatsoever, and his mixes sound so lush and have so much depth, it's ridiculous. If you have access to a good 5.1 system, have a listen to the work he did with Diana Krall in surround - it will change your life.

But I certainly wouldn't go out and start recording all my dates here like that - the reason Al gets such a good sound recording in this way is he always records in the nicest sounding rooms available, and he's not compressing or EQ'ing. And to get away with that, well...you kind of have to be Al Schmitt 

So in short, yes, leakage can certainly add depth and cohesion, but watch out for phase problems, do lots of experimenting, think things through, and choose the projects you try this on wisely. Have fun!

jamescollins


In my experience, mic bleed can certainly add depth and cohesion, so long as you know what you're doing with it;

Cheap mics can sound really cheap in their reproduction of off axis sounds, so this is definitely something to look out for. 

You also have to spend some time and thought planning the layout of the room, and often move things around so that, not only are the spot mics picking up a great tone, but the spill sounds as good as possible too. 

And as has been mentioned, any processing you plan to do during post will certainly have an impact on the result - if you want to to severely compress the vocal and use drastic EQ on it, then that will usually have a negative impact on the mix. This is because the vocal is usually the most prominent element, therefore that leakage (which you've made sound a whole lot worse through compression and EQ) will be much more audible. 

I really think it comes down to the style of music you're recording - if you're tracking a really great acoustic band, then 'embracing' the leakage will be a much better idea than if it were a rock band. Obviously you're going to do heavy processing on a rock mix, and you'll find you'll be very limited in what you can do if you haven't planned ahead.

If you want to hear an example of how a really good engineer can use leakage to his advantage, have a listen to pretty much anything recorded by Al Schmitt. That guy is hardcore - he only uses mics in omni, no EQ whatsoever, and his mixes sound so lush and have so much depth, it's ridiculous. If you have access to a good 5.1 system, have a listen to the work he did with Diana Krall in surround - it will change your life.

But I certainly wouldn't go out and start recording all my dates here like that - the reason Al gets such a good sound recording in this way is he always records in the nicest sounding rooms available, and he's not compressing or EQ'ing. And to get away with that, well...you kind of have to be Al Schmitt 

So in short, yes, leakage can certainly add depth and cohesion, but watch out for phase problems, do lots of experimenting, think things through, and choose the projects you try this on wisely. Have fun!

+1000! Great post James!
 
Mike: Just few other things to consider....do you own any drum programs like EZD or BFD etc? If so, try killing the bleed on them to hear the difference it makes inside the kit. Try adding more bleed or more room in and listen for the differences.
 
Most definitely bleed is an awesome tool especially in drums and there are even times when instruments have been recorded live in the same room where the bleed literally enhances things. The good thing about it is you most times have control unless something is so severe it becomes a problem.
 
I recently did a mix for a client that had so much bleed through his drums mics, the music bed showed up. He of course was limited in how he could record and actually did a good job capturing the instruments, but there was only so much he could do. So he was left with way more bleed than there should have been.
 
But as I worked on his mix, the bleed was actually used as an enhancement in some ways. By eq'ing the bass and allowing a little of it through the other mics he used, it made the sound better. Controlling bleed can be the tough part. You should eq it first to try and make it compliment what you have going on and if that fails, you can always use a gate and control it further. You can also cut up the track and clone it using different aspects of the bleed.
 
For example, this client I mentioned had no tom mics. So we had to rely on the over-heads. I cloned the track, removed everything that wasn't a tom hit, eq'd the track to compliment the toms and gated out the instruments that DID bleed through the over-heads that didn't belong.
 
Bleed can really work well on acoustic guitars too if you get a handle on it. I've not liked it much on vocals as they need to be pretty isolated in my opinion, but even there we can make it work as long as we know how to deal with it. So yeah brother...most definitely it can help. But it can also kill you you if you don't know what to do with it. :)
 
-Danny

Danny and James, thank you for your responses this is great information.

My room probably does not sound good enough to enhance mic bleed and I know that I am not at the point where I know what I am doing with it.  I may mess around with the process in my spare time just to see what it does and learn a thing or two about capturing mic bleed to add depth.

I was just really fascinated by listening to these old tracks.  In some of the guitar tracks,  especially the McCartney stuff, you could here a lot of sloppiness to the guitar work.  Even in the vocal tracks you hear him kind of carrying on with his little vocal noises that are n't part of the lyrics.  Yet, in the finished mix, they are almost inaudible, or at least for me, I  have to really focus in to hear this stuff when the song is playing.  

Now I know that this particular set of songs he has thrown up there at Rude Studio are more of a home recording style after the break up.  Some were recorded on a 4 track Studer at his farm home in Scotland.  However, they really sound great for the time, as a completed piece of work.  

So the lesson that this kind of reinforces for me is;

a.  Great song writing wins over.
b.  Talent out weighs the recording process.
c.  Unpolished and imperfect doesn't always sound bad. 

In addition to what these guys have said, bleed can be a very bad thing if you're recording vocals and have to pitch correct them.  artifacts will be much more prominent in vocal tracks which are pitch corrected with bleed from the other instruments.

if you think about it that makes perfect sense.  the bleed is going to be from headphones normally, and the instruments are going to be ON pitch bleeding into that mic, but when you pitch correct the vocals, the bleed thru of the on pitch instruments gets distorted.  that causes a lot of headache when you lay that back into the mix with the instruments which are not distorted and on pitch!

Yep, I understand what you are saying Reese and agree with you.  In my case, I know I would have to make some vocal tweaks, so I would need the vocals to be separated.  

But see, on these McCartney tracks, it sounds as he is tracking his vocals while playing the piano or guitar at the same time.  Different mic's, pointed at there source, are picking up the bleed from the other mic picking up its source.  That is, I believe, where the talent comes into play.  He can play the instruments in time while singing in tune.....at the same time....recording both sources.  I've got to imagine that the acoustics of the rooms he is recording in at the Scotland farm are not that of Abbey Road studios, either.

Its an interest test subject for me; again, I might give it a go sometime just to see what happens.  I would have to be spot on with my vocals if I did, because I know I won't be able to correct them.