The level of the vocals

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What's better: higher in the mix or lower? Some recordings make you think the lyrics are negligible, cuz the vocals are so low. Is it important to be able to decipher the words? Does it sometimes sound better to fit slight vocals in as a compliment to the mix, or is it best to pronounce them so they sit foremost in it?

― Surmounter, Sunday, 18 March 2007 17:05 (eighteen years ago)

Believe it or not, the answer is: depends on the group, depends on the vocalist.

― Noodle Vague, Sunday, 18 March 2007 17:13 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, I'm trying to mix a record, someone tell me the answer quick.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Sunday, 18 March 2007 17:30 (eighteen years ago)

Most of the mixes I've liked most have had vocals somewhat lower in the mix than is the norm. I generally don't like the image of the giant floating head I get when vocals are too in your face.

― Faisal Shennib, Sunday, 18 March 2007 21:40 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry, it depends.

― Rockist Scientist, Sunday, 18 March 2007 21:44 (eighteen years ago)

But if the vocal recording was really nice I can enjoy bigger vocals. This usually requires a mic with the right coloration, a good performance with interesting details in the voice, one that hasn't been noticeably pitch-corrected, etc.

Another major factor in vocal levels for me is the way it changes the perception of the instruments. The louder the vocal is, the less immersing the instruments are.

― Faisal Shennib, Sunday, 18 March 2007 21:46 (eighteen years ago)

lol re: the giant floating head!

it's true, sometimes i find if the vox are too high, there's just not enough room for the instrumentation.

examples of vox too low, too high or just right?

― Surmounter, Sunday, 18 March 2007 21:54 (eighteen years ago)

On the issue of word comprehension - depending on the experience of the listener, whether it's their native tongue/accent, and the clarity of pronunciation, a person will have to listen to a track a certain number of times before understanding lyrics. If lyrics are particularly important to the song, a producer might decide to raise the vocal level but they may also consider the repeatability of the music; how many times will a person listen to the song before they "get it"? Will the words be drawing the listener in to the music or vice-versa? If the music is relatively difficult and "getting it" is a limiting factor to the experience, but lyrics were not intended as primary hooks, then they may be better placed lower in the mix because the song will be listened to a number of times anyway - by then a louder vocal mix could become annoying.

― Faisal Shennib, Sunday, 18 March 2007 21:54 (eighteen years ago)

that's true but there are some recordings where you can just hear like every word, and it's not annoying.

i almost feel like, if i'm listening to a song, shouldn't i be able to understand exactly what they're saying? but a lot of the time, i can't.

― Surmounter, Sunday, 18 March 2007 22:00 (eighteen years ago)

Whether or not a vocal is intelligible is affected by a lot more than just the level, though; how it's EQed is a big part of it.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Sunday, 18 March 2007 22:02 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, eq might affect things - bringing out some clarity with the high ends might make it easier to understand. I think the amount and settings of reverb and delay could be an issue.

Those effects also may effect the general perception of a vocal level - reverb helps to gel a vocal into the mix, and so it may be perceived as less separate, and thus lower and more buried in the mix.

I'll try to come up with some examples of what I see as good and bad usages of vocal levels. I don't want to do this off the top of my head because I have found my memory of these things to be slightly otm!

About the necessity of comprehension - I've come to accept that my enjoyment of a song is not dependent on understanding lyrics, but I know some people who will listen to a song over and over until they've deciphered every word. There is an appeal to vague lyrics - you can misinterpret them and be relatively content... you may even interpret them in a way that is more relevant to you than the actual meaning is, and you may like your own lyrics more (until you ruin the experience by looking the lyrics up!). Then again, until you're sure of what's going on in a song, there's an element of doubt in your enjoyment.

― Faisal Shennib, Monday, 19 March 2007 01:46 (eighteen years ago)

It really does depend. To use examples of two records I've listened to today, I've always thought that Hynde's vocals were way too loud on the first Pretenders album. Part of it is that I don't always particularly care for her voice, but also it often overpowers some of the great guitar work on that album. On the other hand, if you listen to "Thermal Treasure" by Polvo, the vocals are so low they're barely intelligible. It's not a huge disappointment because their guitar work was always more important than the vocals anyway, but you still want to be able to hear each equally in most cases.

― Reatards Unite, Monday, 19 March 2007 01:57 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, eq might affect things - bringing out some clarity with the high ends might make it easier to understand. I think the amount and settings of reverb and delay could be an issue.

Those effects also may effect the general perception of a vocal level - reverb helps to gel a vocal into the mix, and so it may be perceived as less separate, and thus lower and more buried in the mix.

Absolutely. A track with exaggerated highs and lows will tend to sound closer to the listener. And the reverb or delay on a vocal also places it as close or far away.

But it all depends on what else is happening. Having a vocal that just barely rises above the sound of the band can make the band sound bigger and more powerful. On the other hand it can also make the vocal seem distant and difficult to relate to.

I think it's interesting how readily we can accept such different vocal sounds. The vocal is so dry and upfront in, say, The Mountain Goats, and it seems totally natural that way; and then you hear this constant double-tracking and huge reverb in something Band of Horses, but that seems somehow normal as well.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 19 March 2007 02:10 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think intelligibility of vocals is fundamental in all cases. If you can't quite make them out, that can be just another tool of the artist. I mean (realizing how sleepy I am as I try to express this relatively simple thought), it's just another artistic effect. Being able to make out some of what's going on, but not all of it, could work really well at setting a mood. Tantalizing few words understood, or enough uderstand to gather the overall mood. Think of words in a painting, some of which you can read, but some of which are too unclear to decipher. Or even think of figures in a painting: over here, you have a figure that can clearly be recognized, but maybe in another part of the painting things become more blurred and abstract. Just because vocals are language doesn't mean they have to be given privileged treatment in music, you know? They can just be another material being used.

(But, "it depends," because obviously some genres just come with expectations that the vocals are going to be upfront and fairly sharply defined. Lots of music I like is like that. I am not objecting to that at all, I just don't think there's a rule for music in general.)

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 19 March 2007 02:10 (eighteen years ago)

Somtimes I'll think the vocals are too buried. On He Poos Clouds, I think the lyrics are important enough to the overall work, that more pains should have been taken to make the voice clearer. I don't mind the vocals themselves, I think they could have been handled differently in the studio. I feel that I have to strain to hard to hear them.

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 19 March 2007 02:13 (eighteen years ago)

I definitely agree about He Poos Clouds. I feel like that record would be a lot more accessible overall if the vocals were mixed differently.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 19 March 2007 02:26 (eighteen years ago)

higher

― tornup_andhurt, Monday, 19 March 2007 03:27 (eighteen years ago)

re: he poos clouds

yes I agree as well wtih mr. goldberg

― tornup_andhurt, Monday, 19 March 2007 03:28 (eighteen years ago)

I'm trying to think of examples where the vocals were too low and there aren't many.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Monday, 19 March 2007 05:30 (eighteen years ago)

In 2003, the band released Life On Display.This album left the sound "nu-grunge" to focus in a certain old-grunge style in acoustic and electric guitars and bass riffing, also the guitars mix some heavy distorsions and the drums get higher with it creating a sound that lost in the 90's.

― Curt1s Stephens, Monday, 19 March 2007 05:35 (eighteen years ago)

Again, depends on the genre. If it's something in-your-face like metal or funk, the words don't matter too much. But if lyrics are crucial, as they are for singer-songwriters (of all sorts), if the song itself is more important than the performance, it's nice to know the words. Lyric sheets: Some dislike 'em, some don't. I say they're useful, period. If you don't want the words all spelled out for you, fine; don't look at 'em. All I can think of is records that I love, but really think I'd love even more if I could discern more than 40% of the words. I'm thinking of Hex Induction Hour, Isn't Anything, Tago Mago, etc.

― Myonga Vön Bontee, Monday, 19 March 2007 06:21 (eighteen years ago)

The higher in the mix the better. The vocals carry the melody, which is the most important element of the music.

― Geir Hongro, Monday, 19 March 2007 10:15 (eighteen years ago)

well i don't know if it's THE important element of the music, i mean there are so many elements. if someone were going for a textural soundscape thing, they might want the vocals lower.

― Surmounter, Monday, 19 March 2007 13:07 (eighteen years ago)

good point re: blurriness in certain places rockist, i like that!

― Surmounter, Monday, 19 March 2007 13:09 (eighteen years ago)

Aw for chrissakes, Geir - ANY melodic instrument can carry the bloody melody!

― Myonga Vön Bontee, Monday, 19 March 2007 13:44 (eighteen years ago)

Aw for chrissakes, Geir - ANY melodic instrument can carry the bloody melody!

Don't even try to argue with him.

― Jazzbo, Monday, 19 March 2007 13:54 (eighteen years ago)

the ONLY time i've ever wished vocals were even slightly higher is during superchunk's "lying in state" - that's kind of a comical extreme of low-mixed indie vocals. but most of the time lower vocals = less attention i have to pay to lyrics = rad.

low vocals usually only bother me when i can't make out how the singer's singin, rather than what.

― pretzel walrus, Monday, 19 March 2007 13:59 (eighteen years ago)

ANY melodic instrument can carry the bloody melody!

Not if there's a vocalist, no.

And, no, not any melodic instrument either. It has to be some minimum pitch. A bass cannot carry the melody, unless it is fretless and played by Jaco Pastorius.

― Geir Hongro, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:12 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think I have a rule other than to mix everything while the volume is low, and usually on bad speakers. If vocals (or anything else) sounds good in those conditions, they usually sound great when I turn the volume back up.

― Dominique, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:19 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think I have a rule other than to mix everything while the volume is low, and usually on bad speakers. If vocals (or anything else) sounds good in those conditions, they usually sound great when I turn the volume back up.

Dominique on Monday, 19 March 2007 21:19 (1 minute ago)

I've heard this before and it interests me. Any guesses as to why this works well (and not the other way around)?

― Faisal Shennib, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:23 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not exactly sure, but my guess is that when the volume is really low, you're not biased by any particular sound or frequency range (though the high frequencies do tend to stand out more anyway), so you can make an "honest" mix. Also, when things "punch" at a low volume, but everything is still balanced, they sound all the more punchy at a regular volume -- just as making things sound clear on bad speakers usually makes them sound extra clear on good ones.

― Dominique, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:32 (eighteen years ago)

Definitely depends on the music, but I really love the buried vocals on Mission Of Burma's records from their first run. Sort of disappointed that they've been treating the vocals differently on the new stuff.

― factor, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:40 (eighteen years ago)

A lot of rap albums have the vocals mixed pretty low, I've always assumed it's so you'll have to turn them up to the point where the beats are bangin'. Or maybe it's that so that when you do turn up the beats, the vocals aren't piercing.

― Jordan, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:18 (eighteen years ago)

For me an album with buried vocals that work in its favour is Magik Markers' "I Trust My Guitar, etc.". It fckn destroys in fact. The louder it goes, the better everything sounds.

― Drooone, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:22 (eighteen years ago)

Whatever, Geir.

― Myonga Vön Bontee, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 09:37 (eighteen years ago)

I think an instrument can carry melody, even beside the voice.

Melody is a huge deal but so is texture. More and more, voices, along with other musical elements, are used as fabric, and melody successfully takes a backseat to texture. And a lot of the time, it's not so much the tune but rather what the sound is made of that pulls one in.

Melody is amazingly catchy, but it's really easy to make a song worthwhile with a bit of soundscaping, even if it has a negligible melody. I don't know that it's as easy to take a great melody backed by shitty instrumentation and pull it off.

― Surmounter, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:12 (eighteen years ago)

Not if there's a vocalist, no.

What are you saying? If the voice has the melody that another instrument won't have the melody? That's wrong because one of them could be doubling. Or that if there's a voice in the mix it must necessarily have the melody? That's not true either.

And, no, not any melodic instrument either. It has to be some minimum pitch. A bass cannot carry the melody, unless it is fretless and played by Jaco Pastorius.

Not true. Plenty of composers have put the melody in the bass to great effect.

I've heard this before and it interests me. Any guesses as to why this works well (and not the other way around)?

I believe it has to do with the way the ear responds non-linearly to volume. Pretty much all experienced mixers that I've read say that they do most of their mixes at low volumes. Mixes done at high volumes tend to have important elements (i.e. vocals) too low. There's also ear fatigue - you can't mix for several hours on end if you're doing it at high levels.

I wouldn't say it's good to mix on bad speakers, though. You want to mix on speakers that are as neutral as possible and that you're familiar with. Then you'll want to check your mix afterwards on a variety of systems.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 14:54 (eighteen years ago)

Plenty of composers have put the melody in the bass to great effect.

No, they haven't. Because it isn't possible.

― Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 22:19 (eighteen years ago)

Of course it's possible. I have no idea what would lead you to believe otherwise. I'll cite some examples when I have more time.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 22:48 (eighteen years ago)

one month passes...

so yeah i still kinda feel like if it's not a really fuckin beautiful voice i'm listening to, i really like to hear the instruments just as much as the voice. the idea of the vox being correctly POSITIONED in the mix is really important to me, in such a way that parts of it are blanketed by it, and other parts pop out of the instrumentation.

― Surmounter, Sunday, 13 May 2007 01:14 (eighteen years ago)

I wish Morrissey was lower and the guitars were higher in Smiths recordings.

― paulhw, Sunday, 13 May 2007 01:46 (eighteen years ago)

yes!

― Surmounter, Sunday, 13 May 2007 01:53 (eighteen years ago)

I like Faisal's comments on this thread. Of course, it does depend on the song, but there are some conventions that seem to hold in different genres. In folk music the voice is usually up front (the 'giant floating head' effect). In black metal, it's often buried in the mix, creating the much-admired fusing of instrumentation and vocals into a 'whirling blur' which I have heard described as 'sort of untouchable' (by Fenriz, I think).

It depends on what effect you desire. If you want to tell a story, first and foremost, the voice must be more prominent and the lyrics fully audible within 1-3 listens. The instrumentation would then be sparse and relatively quiet.

If you want to create a sound-picture with sonic and lyrical images floating out of the mix with equal intensity, the trick is to get the vocal just quiet enough to allow the instrumental parts to convey their own emotional content without being overshadowed by the vocal.

Burying the vocal, so that it is no louder than, or even quieter than, the music, creates a third impression: that sound is more important than meaning, and that human meaning is dwarfed by pure sonic intensity. This effect is heightened if the singer yells or screams, but still cannot be understood - like a prisoner, or a lost soul - and is a stock in trade of extreme music.

Not to overgeneralise about all this though - rules were made to be broken etc.

― moley, Sunday, 13 May 2007 06:53 (eighteen years ago)

yes i think i like option 2. i'd say lyrics in 2-3 listens is perfect

― Surmounter, Sunday, 13 May 2007 13:08 (eighteen years ago)

six months pass...

Still the louder the better. The vocalist is the boss.

― Geir Hongro, Sunday, 25 November 2007 02:55 (eighteen years ago)

What if it's a kazoo piece with choral backup?

― The Reverend, Sunday, 25 November 2007 03:03 (eighteen years ago)

four months pass...

i don't know i'm confused

― Surmounter, Thursday, 24 April 2008 15:08 (seventeen years ago)

here's the thing: if you like to use the voice as an instrument, right, as like a synth or something. then, you don't necessarily understand all the vox. some people like to be able to hear every word right away. they want to know what's being said. ::shrugs:: tough line.

― Surmounter, Thursday, 24 April 2008 15:12 (seventeen years ago)

Still the louder the better. The vocalist is the boss.
As always, Geir nails it.
I want more Glen Mercer, Stephen Malkmus and Tom Verlaine, and less guitar.

― Jazzbo, Thursday, 24 April 2008 15:24 (seventeen years ago)

haha

in mixing the stuff i've worked on, i always feels like there's a "right" level for everything, where it seems audible and really sticks out of the mix but doesn't feel overbearing in comparison to everything else.

i think a lot of times this "right" level can be accomplished with voice and other things just as much with how you position everything in the stereo field, pure level isn't the be-all end-all in this discussion.

― M@tt He1ges0n, Thursday, 24 April 2008 15:32 (seventeen years ago)

Generally voices annoy me. If a voice is too high in the mix it's worse and more unnatural than if a guitar or a drum or whatever is.

― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 24 April 2008 15:34 (seventeen years ago)

i know, it's not just level... making it stick out is a fine art. SO HARD

― Surmounter, Thursday, 24 April 2008 15:35 (seventeen years ago)

Usually the voice sticking out has more to do with the vocalist than the engineer.

― filthy dylan, Thursday, 24 April 2008 16:25 (seventeen years ago)

two years pass...

Generally voices annoy me. If a voice is too high in the mix it's worse and more unnatural than if a guitar or a drum or whatever is.

― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:34 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

interesting, i appreciate this

― i fake it so real, i am beyonce (surm), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:16 (fifteen years ago)

still amazing how low janet's vox are sometimes

― i fake it so real, i am beyonce (surm), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)

I like a far away vocal sound. But I also believe in good lyric writing.
Basically, if the writing is good, I like to be able to understand it.
If not, eh.

― Trip Maker, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:22 (fifteen years ago)

two months pass...

lol @ the opening responses to this thread. it's like, yeah, it depends... that's why i'm asking.

i just mixed something that people are having trouble hearing all the words to, which kind of bothers me. i mean, i tend to like a mixed-in vocal as opposed to an omnipresent one, but i also like to be able to hear words.

i dunno :/

― janice (surm), Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:14 (fifteen years ago)

the thing to do is get an outside mixer if you can afford it. left to oversee the mix, singers will using want to hear more vocals, horn players will think the horns could be brought up a little, etc etc. This is reliably true in mix. Outside ears will tell you "the words registered with me fine at this level" or not, etc. not sure if you're mixing your own stuff or someone else's though. in my experience usually the vocals can bear to be brought down a little further than the singer wants them to be brought down.

― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:38 (fifteen years ago)

left to oversee the mix, singers will using want to hear more vocals, horn players will think the horns could be brought up a little, etc etc. This is reliably true in mix.

so true and so fucking obnoxious. musicians have a real hard time hearing THE SONG as opposed to a combination of parts where they're particular part is the most important.

― Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)

I still like to not be able to make out every syllable - a little mystery is a good thing.

― flashing drill + penis fan (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)

it seems to be the opposite effect with me - i usually want them lower than other people do, so as to pay closer attention to the composition as opposed to The Singer.

but you're right, i need to have someone look at it from the outside before i call it a day.

lessons learned the hard way...

― janice (surm), Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:42 (fifteen years ago)

so true and so fucking obnoxious. musicians have a real hard time hearing THE SONG as opposed to a combination of parts where they're particular part is the most important.

maybe a little lol but I don't think you can blame guys for focusing hardest on the part they played/sang - human nature imo

― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:45 (fifteen years ago)

i mean, i guess that's not the worst thing, right? for someone to say "i had to struggle to hear some of the words"

there are far worse crits, yeah?

― janice (surm), Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:46 (fifteen years ago)

yeah. "oh god I could hear all of those words" would be one

― flashing drill + penis fan (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:48 (fifteen years ago)

"your voice was booming in my head"

― janice (surm), Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:59 (fifteen years ago)

three years pass...

Pretty much everything about vocals in music nowadays gets on my nerves. The way they're written, the way they're sung, the way they're recorded, the way they're mixed. It all sounds really forced to me!

― death and darkness and other night kinda shit (crüt), Thursday, 6 March 2014 17:47 (twelve years ago)

I've been through phases of that, though usually spurred by hearing a bunch of new bands who all suffer from 'could be good if not for the vocalist', all at the same time. Listen to instrumental music for a while instead.

― emil.y, Thursday, 6 March 2014 17:51 (twelve years ago)

If you listen back to old MBV or whatever the most effective way to do it is wall of sound guitars w drums and vocals mixed underneath. Feel like a lot of modern shoegaze is just standard pop/rock mixed as normal with reverb plugins on the guitars and vocals turned up to 11.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 6 March 2014 17:58 (twelve years ago)

the indiscriminate use of artificial reverb on nu-indie/dream-pop stuff is a real barrier that keeps me from listening to a lot of it. well, that and the terrible songwriting.

― death and darkness and other night kinda shit (crüt), Thursday, 6 March 2014 18:53 (twelve years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.