electro_doll Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I have a vocal line that goes "Into the night" and I just want the word "night" to echo, so I've put on the echo insert and then automated it to be bypassed until it gets to the word "night" then it's unbypassed. It's perfect except it clicks right after I say "night" loudly enough to be annoying and bad sounding. The only way to fix it is to move the unbypass to be earlier, but then it just doesn't sound right. Any tips? Is this a lost cause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eriksimon Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 You could simply opt to automate the Wet parameter. Automating an insert bypass may often click, after all, you're flicking a switch. Automating the Wet parameter you're using a fade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev. Juda Sleaze Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 You could simply opt to automate the Wet parameter. Automating an insert bypass may often click, after all, you're flicking a switch. Automating the Wet parameter you're using a fade. +1 I almost never use effect bypasses for that reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Shields Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 As Eric & Rev said but depending on the precise effect you want to achieve and how you want the echo to interact with the words immediately following it there is another option. cut the word night from your vocal track and copy it to another track that has the echo plug-in on it. This gives a lot more independence to the echoes. I use both methods in different situations. Which one I use depends on the context and what I want to achieve. HTH, Alan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fader8 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Pursuant to Alan's suggestion, don't cut the word out of the original track, just copy it down to the new track. When you set up the echo on the new track, set the Dry parameter to 0% and the Wet to 100%. The new track fader will now just control the echoes without disturbing the level of the original word. Makes it more convenient for mixing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Shields Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 That's a great idea F8. I usualy have the second track vol the same and adjust the wet/dry mix but this way is much better. Thanks, Alan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev. Juda Sleaze Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I usually automate the send amount to a delay aux. This saves having to duplicate tracks and double-up on any plugins on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fader8 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I usually automate the send amount to a delay aux. That's always a last resort for me. I hate having to guess which bus on the channel strip is the one sending to that effect, then having to go hunt down the aux that's hosting it just to confirm. If Logic allowed quick bus naming on a per project basis, or allowed for more freedom in mixer rearrangement, I would change my tune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruari Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 If Logic allowed quick bus naming on a per project basis… Totally agree, I've got a handful already labelled in my templates - a few reverbs & a couple of delays but unfortunately that's about as far as I can go with that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev. Juda Sleaze Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I usually automate the send amount to a delay aux. That's always a last resort for me. I hate having to guess which bus on the channel strip is the one sending to that effect, then having to go hunt down the aux that's hosting it just to confirm. If Logic allowed quick bus naming on a per project basis, or allowed for more freedom in mixer rearrangement, I would change my tune. Hmmm. I find it quick and painless to hold-click the send and see my bus labels. Much simpler than duplicating tracks for me. Funny how much workflows can differ. Now, if only plugin sidechain boxes did this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fader8 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Hmmm. I find it quick and painless to hold-click the send and see my bus labels. Those aren't bus names, those are the names of the aux channels those busses are routed to. If you automate the send, then every time you want to change the level you need to edit the automation, or go hunting down the aux channel. Much more convenient to not automate it and just always have a fader right next to the original track that you can tweak anytime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev. Juda Sleaze Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Those aren't bus names, those are the names of the aux channels those busses are routed to. Indeed, my bad. If you automate the send, then every time you want to change the level you need to edit the automation, or go hunting down the aux channel. Much more convenient to not automate it and just always have a fader right next to the original track that you can tweak anytime. I don't find hunting aux channels a hassle, maybe because I've got a fairly consistent colour-coding scheme, and because I rarely have a mixer page that takes more than 3 clicks on the bottom slider to get from end-to-end. If I don't want to find the aux channel, I can just cmd-drag the send automation to change the overall level. And for situations where I want different levels in different sections, automating the send level seems an equal amount of work to automating the volume of a seperate track with delay on it. Plus, I like to see the entire waveform/midi notes all on the same automation lane. It also gives me the option to fade into/out of an effect, which using the seperate track method would involve a region fade, or gain automation before the delay. I'm not saying this is necessarily better, but it works better for me. I've got a bias against duplicating tracks and plugins, if I can avoid it. Probably a result of workflows established when I first used Logic 4.5 on a modest G4, and because I don't have the zippiest computer now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.