OldG

If the synth is still the same as the LD300 then its pretty much useless...

[quote name='lowdown' timestamp='1359389400' post='1953995'] We did this because we were having some odd things happening with some brass and string section stems/busses which were Reverb and Delay related. Garry [/quote] Good point - I hadn't thought about delay sync and reverb tails and time stretching, thank you!

It would be simple in Reaper - hold alt and drag the end of the audio track ( make it smaller will speed up while preserving pitch)... tweak till happy. Reaper will run on an old P3 (and I doubt if your box is that old) - why not down the [url="http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php"]demo[/url] and play around with it?

Here's a pretty straightforward vid on setting up an aux send reverb track in reaper - should apply to most DAW's. Forgot to mention, the effect on a send should be 100% wet... [media]http://youtu.be/LRrPc2ZQJsA[/media]

Not 'wrong' really, inserts are very limiting though (as described above) - a compressed vocal will prefer an aux send reverb treatment too... Found a video describing this - try and get round the 'chipmunk' vocal [media]http://youtu.be/omT9RPsVYhc[/media] Insert reverb effects start getting tedious when you need to apply a little ambience reverb to several groups(busses) - in a large project that's a lot of setting up time and CPU power taken up unnecessarily ....

quote 51m0n Set out the tracks and group them all into sensible and useful groups and subgroups, I ended up with:- FX group - Plate reverb - Ambience reverb - Delay Lurksalot said: Does this mean you have groups of effects that apply to the whole mix as opposed to applying effects to each track? This also means you have an FX rack to use now... the best way to use it would be to 'send' tracks to the effect you want, this way you have a clean and effected signal to balance to your taste. As an example: Take your lead vocal track and click on the i/o button to open the track routing window > click on 'add new send' and click to choose which effect you want. You can send as many tracks to whichever you wish. I will typically ( in my FX group) set up a main vox reverb track to send to, balance to my taste and maybe send just the vox reverb off to a delay track for a subtle extra something.. I did pick up on heavy reverb use when commenting on the competition tracks,maybe I'm talking about real basics you all know- but hopefully the following will help... If you place reverb as an effect to the track directly it tends to overpower or take the voice 'back' into the mix with limited control over whats happening. Using the FX group method lets you adjust very precisely and send again to other FX either wet dry or a combination. HTH Mick

Good job - got me dancing!

Thanks for posting - I enjoyed that! Great bass tone and I do so like to hear a telecaster giving it some! Good solid,class performance from all.

As Simon and Skol have covered this in detail... I'll add my notes jotted as I listened: Redstriper .I like the slightly laid back feel to your mix, but it could do with opening out with eq,and pan positions. The vocal sounds like you have placed reverb directly onto the track - rather than being fed to a separate reverb track, I may be guessing wrongly but the vocal needs to come out of the pool of verb somehow... Butler, love the filtered guitar work and general mix dynamics but was wishing for more vocal - had to try to hear it... 51m0n A lot to be learned from this one - an expert at work for sure. I do feel I'm being physically beaten with the snare tho'. Charic Nice work -but a tad itchy in eq and the cavernous reverb needs taming for me. Skol Would have voted for this if 51m0n's mix was absent, still a little toppy on eq for me really - probably cos I grew up with tape and vinyl. Lurksalot Good start - advice above (see 51m0n's review). Using that advice try to get the sound out of the speakers and into the room more... RockfordStone Full and punchy, maybe a tad too full (only a tad) - vocals need a clear copy dominant with that double track version to work imho... As above, no offense intended - I'm using this comp to improve (after hearing my mix you'll agree I need it ) so honesty is needed here methinks...

Just finished my tax return - should be able to sit and listen and comment soon..

The point I,m labouriously flogging is..... As stated above, we don't really hear what is coming out of our mouths - due to our ears listening mostly to the inside resonance. Difficult then, to bring a voice that has had no prior practice whilst amplified to a pumped up PA - and expect to hear good things... This doesn't mean the voice is bad - it just means practice is required to adjust to the required result. I stand by good equipment being helpful - trying to learn vocals on your daughter's karaoke machine is like trying to learn bass on an old Kay.You just won't get results to inspire you.

[quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1359020271' post='1948458'] mmm... sound source can be sound, and the singer can be happy singing along, but that doesn't mean the tonal quality is in any way good.[/quote] I was crediting the OP with enough objectivity to honestly assess this in his voice - we are a musician's forum,after all. [quote] If you sound good, it doesn't matter what mic you use the quality in the voice will be self-evident. If you don't sound good, no amount of mic technique or flattering mic is going to fix the underlying issue.[/quote] Agreed to a point... until you start using the mic/monitors it's difficult hear whats really going on - then the decent equipment and good mic technique will help you shape your tone and style... [quote] +1. We often think we sound fine/awful, but in reality we are each incapable of getting a true representation of what we sound like from inside our own bodies. This is because we hear more internal resonance, experience resonance shifts that others do not, and hear things sooner than the rest of the world listening, but we also hear less of what we sound like as a complete package or inside a given space. [/quote] Totally agree! see above...

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1359017272' post='1948415'] I think the OP was suffering more from "voice inside the head" syndrome. Basically not sounding the same outside their head as they did inside their own head. [/quote] Totally agree! not disputing that in any way... [quote] No amount of fancy Microphones or PA will resolve this as it requires training (which the OP already has said).[/quote] I'd use the term 'practice' myself [quote] Unfortunately for some of us microphones only amplify what is put in (and put a "generally" minor EQ on the voice as part of the process) so it is somewhat different to your guitar analogy I'm afraid. [/quote] All those different mics pre's and Pa's available out there are not gonna give identical sound... The guitar analogy was to compare to singing acoustically,then using a rig that was last used at a gig to be heard over the rest of the band. I thought it relevant...

Wouldn't have thought I'd need to simplify that - but here goes... The OP found that his voice wasn't what he expected to hear when amplified,even though he was happy to sing generally. This indicates to me the 'sound source' is 'sound' - but the mic/amplification wasn't set up for him. Combine this with little or no experience of using a mic/PA - and you get the same result as the OP described. I've seen it happen a few times myself.... A bit like learning on an acoustic guitar and then trying out on a Strat through a Marshall stack for the first time.

[quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1358949635' post='1947473'] Yes and no. The voice is the sound source, so it's important to get that right first. [/quote] Yes and no to this...... the OP said he he could sing, but was disappointed with what was coming from the mic/PA

It's a bit of a shock, innit! Room acoustics/eq, mic type, reverb settings etc,etc will all need consideration - before you get near hearing what you want back from your voice. Singing through amplification needs practice, and[b][i] with a mic that suits you[/i][/b]... paying close attention to your [url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct98/articles/20tips.html"]mic technique[/url] as you go. Monitor yourself through headphones as much as possible - you'll get the best of how you sound out front this way. Shame you're not closer, I almost guarantee that if you sang through the Valve mic in my studio you'd be impressed...

[quote name='Fat Rich' timestamp='1358862249' post='1946154'] Good advice, although I wouldn't try it on my '78 Jazz as the neck pocket is routed so badly I'd end up with a short scale bass. There's best part of a centimetre gap all around the end of the neck under the pickguard. [/quote] Ah...I did say this is for a standard set up. Obviously check before trying this on something you haven't fitted the neck to.... I'd be packing that gap to make a nice tight fit if it were mine...

Both... if it sounds right - do it. In the verses or if you want to 'support' certain parts of the song It does sound better to my ears to play the root on the change.

Useful tip for seating the neck: Refit as described above, when the strings are on and have some tension - slowly undo the screws ( in diagonal order) about a quarter turn, until you hear the neck 'click' back against the body. You can then centre the neck by aligning with the strings and re-tighten. The intonation will need looking at after this... Instant sustain and tone upgrade! I do this to all my standard boltie guitars and basses.