Reid also demonstrates the technique with individual plug-ins. The sound produced by the air track can also divert attention from the distortion, particularly in the midrange. Reid says the technique is also useful for adding clarity to a track that was inadvertently recorded with distortion in some spots. He describes the sound it creates as a “pop sheen.” He suggests that once you have the balance between the original vocal track and the air track, you should group them so that when you adjust them in the mix, they’ll maintain their relative levels. He then plays back the original vocal track and blends in the air track. He explains that he also reverses the polarity (which is referred to as “phase” in a lot of plug-ins), which he’s presumably doing to create phase cancellations that thin the track out more. He plays the air track soloed with the processing, and it sounds thin and kind of buzzy. The EQ setting Reid used in iZotope Nectar Vocals in the Air Because he’s cutting out so much of its frequency range, the duplicated vocal would sound extremely quiet without the boost provided by the limiter. He sets the limiter to process heavily, which helps bring the air track’s level up to a suitable place. The idea is to filter out everything but the high-frequencies. In Nectar’s EQ module, he set what appears to be a high-pass filter with its cutoff frequency in the neighborhood of 5kHz, with a steep roll-off. Reid uses a preset that he created, which has the requisite settings.
He says he chose it because it has both EQ and limiting in the same plug-in, and he’ll need both processes for this technique. Next, he inserts iZotope Nectar, an all-around vocal plug-in on the air track. For this article, we’ll refer to this parallel track as the “air” track. He’ll be adding processors to the track copy to create this effect, so you can consider this to be a form of parallel processing. The first thing Reid does is duplicate the vocal track. Reid Shippen shows a handy trick for adding air to vocals. A pleasant high-frequency icing on the top, which can add a little more excitement to a vocal track. If a plugin can take my ears, old habits and new approaches and make it sound better than my other plugins (whether that's soncially, workflow or approach / mindset, then it wins for me.When you hear about “air” on vocals, the reference is to that subtle, frequency halo in the high-end of the vocal sound. And the Pro Q 2 is incredible for making you think about EQ'ing in a way that allows you to focus your ears and not your eyes! If a plugin can take my ears, old habits and new approaches and make it sound better than my other plugins (whether that's soncially, workflow or approach / mindset, then it wins for me. Which therefore makes it worth it to me considering this is only 10 minutes of playing with it! With regards to the mix, it's subtle here, we're talking 1%'s it's still better at the end right? slightly tighter, slightly fuller, slightly clearer. Let me know if you want to take the dive and I'll refer you (I believe it gives you 10% off to us both). There may be better compressors out there but in terms of EQ. I personally feel that the Fabfilter stuff is the best I have used to date for EQ and Compression. Hey Shnaggs! personally I find their stuff absolutely top notch, I got turned onto them recently by a friend of mine and everytime I needed to Compress or EQ I swapped over to the Fabfilter stuff (from my Waves plugins) and evnded up replacing the Waves nonstop. If you like what I do and wish to support me you can drop me a like / check out my EP / Music on the links below. I also had the peak grabber to really see when I'm missing little peaks etc that I'm not experienced enough to catch by ear alone yet. Pro Q v2 let's you do fullscreen editing (really helps me hear things better by removing distractions and putting me in the zone for EQ'ing. "If I mix from scratch using just my ears with Pro Q v1 this is the outcome" vs "If I mix using my ears AND the newly added visual aids of Pro Q v2, this is the outcome".
What's the point in this test then? Well I'm not testing the sonic quality of the EQ's (I'm pretty sure they sound almost identical) I'm testing the concept of: With Pro Q 2 I used the new features it has (peak grabber etc) so YES the EQ's are different in how they sound on the track because they are both EQ'd differently.
Below is a comparison of them both in action, same track, same riff etc etc. Hey guys, been working on mixing all of today and recently got the demo's of Pro Q v1 and v2.
0 kommentar(er)
