the original running with the devil vocal in here(solo trk)

[pucho812]

David what a voice. I thought this would be way bad but oddly enough it is not


http://www.chunklet.com/images/upload/6/audio_file/Runnin' With The Devil.mp3

 

[drpat]

Good one Pucho!

Love the Eventide touch on the screams, and the use of compression is really kickin' my ass... the man's got (had) lungs, that's for sure!

 

[amorris]

Its interesting how, even though obviously a collection of punches, "live" the vocal sounds. I am impressed how the mixer got the track to sit in the mix so well. definitley some serious rides on that mix.

 

[gltech]

Pop it in the computer and brick wall it down about 30db. You can hear print through, punches, and other stuff.

 

[pucho812]

regardless of punch in's and so forth the end result is a vocal that is good. It's has it's voice, no pun intended, in the mix and cuts through.

By modern standards the recording is bad as one can here the punch in's even though in the final mix one never hears such a thing :roll:

 

[gltech]

I wasn't criticizing anything, just saying do it for fun. About any track would probably show a lot of trash if you brought the noise floor up 30db. Give us more oh pucho, more.

It's also interesting that when I lined it up with the orig album cut and "mixed" a little, I noticed right away that the vocal is lower than I would have probably had it. Shows what I know.

 

[pucho812]

[quote author="gltech"]I wasn't criticizing anything, just saying do it for fun. About any track would probably show a lot of trash if you brought the noise floor up 30db. Give us more oh pucho, more.

It's also interesting that when I lined it up with the orig album cut and "mixed" a little, I noticed right away that the vocal is lower than I would have probably had it. Shows what I know.[/quote]

I know you were not criticizing. I was just stating, that by modern record label standards of everything having to be prefect, it would be considered a bad take even though the vocal performance is good. I often will listen to an album in mono and out of phase to hear what is going on if I like the mix.

As for punching in and 1978, a good punch is still a good punch as is a bad one. If you can't notice it at the end of it all then it's all good. However by modren standards with daws and such everyone wants that perfect take be it for real or fixed afterwards. It destroys the humanity of a recording. It's like gating drums. I never will gate each drum track like some engineers. It's the nature of the beast to have bleed through. If you ask me mistakes make it more human. Listen to the John Bonham files sometime. you can find them on the web and you will know what I mean. But not to take away from Bonham as he was an amazing drummer.

Guess the compressor hmmmmm. I am going to say it is a UREI. I would point in the 1176 direction but I could be way wrong.

edit: oh yeah I think the word or words your looking for to describe modern recording is OCD also known as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. People want to fix every nuance because we now can. I spent a month+ several years ago with a then, well known boy band. I was tunning vocals in the pro tools because it had to be prefect. Would have saved them time to get them to sing it in tune but known the band might have taken wasy longer :razz:

 

[drpat]

[quote author="gltech"]Pop it in the computer and brick wall it down about 30db. You can hear print through, punches, and other stuff.[/quote]

You mean these things weren't blatently obvious to you already? :green:

The solo and the BGV's in the cans sound like they were the real ones, which means Dave was possibly the last one to track. Also sounds like the tape was stored "heads out" AND "tails out". You can also hear alternate/additional vocal takes that either didn't get erased completely, or were escaping through his cans. Cool...

Obvious punches were pretty common place in that era, even when accompanied by loud music. Think about it... the choices were not very plentiful. Go for the "once in a lifetime" vocal take, or go for the technically better take and risk not being able to get a better take. Decisions were a lot tougher, and a lot more "final" than they are now. Sometimes I miss those days... sometimes I don't.

Back then, it was easy to mask a punch by executing it on a snare hit... even in the middle of a word. Listen closely, and notice that all of the punches land on beats 2 and 4... :wink:

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="drpat"]Good one Pucho!

Love the Eventide touch on the screams,[/quote]
The Netherlands here, so we have high tide, low tide, but I'm curious to learn what kind of treatment the Eventide actually does.

Thanks

 

[pucho812]

[quote author="clintrubber"][quote author="drpat"]Good one Pucho!

Love the Eventide touch on the screams,[/quote]
The Netherlands here, so we have high tide, low tide, but I'm curious to learn what kind of treatment the Eventide actually does.

Thanks[/quote]

Sounds like an eventide 910 and is doing slight detuning on the high screams to add a chorus effect

 

[clintrubber]

Thanks Pucho... nice touch, that's all level-triggered inside that box ?

FWIW, I recall some vocal distortion on peaks on a few songs on their third, most likely deliberately, effective touch as well, very much suits the material.

 

[drpat]

Naw, the H910 had a hard enough time trying to do a simple pitch shift. I think the H3000D was the first Eventide model to actually dynamically alter parameters. You're probably hearing the inherent glitchiness of the H910...

 

[Butterylicious]

Runnin' With the Beatles

:grin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxZs-pRZ_M&eurl

 

[amorris]

running with the beatles!

I love it!

 

[Butterylicious]

Ringo's expression at 2:28 sums it all up.

 

[gltech]

Sounds like an eventide 910

I could be wrong but I say there's no harmonizer on there -- I think it's just his voice. I've recorded singers before that had an upper "overtone" or "harmonic" just like that when they did certain notes/expressions.

-GLT