[Desertrose]

I have a keyboard indent in my forehead! (why do I keep doing this to myself!)

Could someone please listen to the vocals in this (don't mind the piano I know it sucks, but it's best I can do to remix it!) and tell me if you hear anything amiss?
This is the sixth time I've tried to mess with this. Having major problems suddenly with de- essing things too.
Are you supposed to use the R de-esser - which I presume is the reverb de esser as WELL as just the standard one?
Maybe if I could take my teeth out I wouldn't be so damned essy!

It's the first song. "Stone Angels".

http://www.soundclic...8&content=music

thanks!

Oh and also, am I doing something wrong or does the de -esser do something to the EQ as well? Kind of similar to if you use a hiss reduction thingy?
Ended up using minimal de-essing on this because it was doing my head in.

[DannyDep]

Waking up today and realizing the selfishness of my prior reply , made me aware that it was not helping anybody.
Now that I have removed the keyboard indent from my rear-end let's try something completely different.

Tracy, you mentioned a couple of tools that you have at your disposal to help with de-essing.
One is the "R de-esser" and the "standard one".

I am unware of a Reverb de-esser. Do you have a plug-in from Waves called Renaissance?
Waves Renaissance De-esser

Waves also makes a "standard" de-esser. Do you also have this plug-in from them?
Waves De-esser

If not, it might be good if you were to tell us the names of the plug-ins (software) that you do have at your disposal
so that folks here who also use the same, could suggest how they use them.

I think we could all benefit from knowing more about how to incorporate a de-essing plugin into our vocals.
For instance, i use a product called Alloy from izotope that has a De-esser as one of its mixing plug-ins.
Izotope Alloy

i like a tool like this because I don't have to remember where in the mix chain i should be putting the de-esser.
For instance, should it go before or after a compressor?

But it might be a good idea for someone who knows about mixing to explain where a de-esser should go in the chain of plug-ins regarding a vocal track.

Any folks who have experience with mixing care to shed some light on the subject to help Tracy and probably quite a few of us as well?
Thx.

ciao, Dan

[m24p]

Desertrose, on 13 March 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

Oh and also, am I doing something wrong or does the de -esser do something to the EQ as well?

It only does that if you're doing something wrong. All a de-esser is is essentially a compressor for the 's' frequencies. Which one are you using? I use spitfish a lot.

I often heavily de-ess reverb sends but de-ess the main vocal less.

Vox sounded nice to me, you have a lovely voice.

[Desertrose]

Thanks. Ok well here's the thing. Twice now I have been the only one able to hear something amiss with vocals. The other time was when I uploaded the video to "In my skin" and I thought it may have been a file compression thing that had occurred on Vimeo.
What I'm hearing is like.... well, the only thing I can liken it to is microphone "noise". Like as though you are spitting "p"s or even bumping the mic and causing rustling sounds.
I'm super careful when I sing especially when it comes to P's and of course I have a P shield. Don't touch the stand or mic etc while recording...
It's very odd and frustrating that I'm the only person hearing this!

[Desertrose]

Dan, yes I use the WAVES (sony waves?) effects.
Perhaps it IS the Renaissance de -esser ? That's maybe what the R stand for? I'm clueless. I thought well maybe since reverb does accentuate siblance then maybe there's a special de esser specifically for reverb?
I'm wondering too if it's the use of the de esser that is causing some kind of noise anomaly (the thing I'm hearing) to occur.
But then again....I could just be losing the plot here and hearing things.

[DannyDep]

Desertrose, on 14 March 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

........................
What I'm hearing is like.... well, the only thing I can liken it to is microphone "noise". Like as though you are spitting "p"s or even bumping the mic and causing rustling sounds.
I'm super careful when I sing especially when it comes to P's and of course I have a P shield. Don't touch the stand or mic etc while recording...
It's very odd and frustrating that I'm the only person hearing this!

Okay Tracy,
Let's take this one step at a time.
Can you give us an idea of where in the song you are hearing this "noise"?
You know, can you say it's on this word at m:ss (e.g. 0:54) or 54 seconds into the piece.
This way we can perhaps hear what it is that you're hearing.

Oh, as far as the plug-in you are using, the Song plug-ins are called Sonnox.
Does the GUI (what you see on your screen) look like this,
Sonnox Oxford SuprEsser
or does it look like this,
Waves Renaissance DeEsser

If neither, perhaps being an older version, what names does it say on the screen for the de-esser plug-in?
Thx,
ciao, Dan

[CapM]

Tracy, I hear it too. I can understand your wanting to tame that a tad. I just looked it up in my book on mixing, and it looks like there are several pages on different methods to resolve this. I can take my book into the office tomorrow and copy the pages and send to you to see if you can understand them.

[Desertrose]

I hear it mainly in the beginning where the instrumentation is quieter Dan.

Glad someone else can hear it Darin! If it says anything specific in your book, sure I'd like to have a read. Thanks! (It's not like an instruction manual from Hell is it though? lol!)

[DannyDep]

Got my ears on and the only thing I'm hearing, close to around 0:24 is your inflection of the first part of the word,
weath-ered. I compared it to the other two versions that you have and did not hear it on those two.
It sounds like you are using a different reverb on this one though, is that correct?

But as David said, if you could tell us either the word or the time in the song, in seconds, that you here the problem, it would be a big help to anyone trying to help you on this.

[Desertrose]

I'm hearing it at 21...27... 32 .... ?
God, maybe I need the wax sucked out of my ears or something? LOL!

[m24p]

It sounds to me like what you're talking about is the low frequency the mic picks up from wind on it when you blow a little air on the mic.

For example, on 0:27 you sing "crumbled" and the 'b' sound is followed with a low frequency whoosh or pop.

A pop filter WILL fix this, it has nothing to do with the proximity effect and everything to do with when you blow on a mic, it's gonna make noise. It also has NOTHING to do with de-essing. Use a pop filter next time and it will mitigate this problem if not make it go away completely.

Do you know how to use automation? A really easy way to fix these on something already recorded is to listen with the vocals solod, and then for ever "pop" sound, automate a high-pass filter to a cut out all that low frequency stuff. Usually it's worst with 'p's and 's's which don't really have any low frequency content, so you can automate the filter to have a pretty high cutoff. I've done this with great effect before. A static high-pass filter would probably help some, but you can't get a high enough cutoff to completely remove it without negatively effecting the vox.

It is audible, but I was listening for problems in the 8 kHz range since you were talking about de-essing, and ignoring the 100 Hz range. It's fairly subtle, but you can fix it.

I hope this helps.

[Alistair S]

Listening through headphones (I'm away from home) I can pick up some sibilance in the spots you mention, but not to any point that it should be a concern. An "s" should sound like and "s" sometimes (rather than a "z"), after all.

However, if it bugs you, I'd avoid using deessers in this case. They will act on a frequency range. Instead, zoom in on the audio and find the "sss". Once you find one, the others will be easy to find visually as they have a fairly distinctive shape. You can then either make a cut on each side and drop the volume of the "s" or use volume automation (probably pre-fx volume). Compression can accentuate esses, as can reverb.

I quite often only deess the reverb track.

Really, I don't think you have a problem on this track.

As an aside, it's probably a good idea to hi-pass vocals. There's not much below 100Hz you'd ever want anyway.

[m24p]

Gravity Jim, on 15 March 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I have to disagree. I don't' hear anything in this vocal trek that is loud or obnoxious enough to be anything like a plosive.... a "p" pop would be in your face. Besides, Desertrose said up above that she's using a pop filter already.

I definitely hear the "air blowing on mic" sound. If she already has a pop filter that may be why it's subtle - the pop filter is already mitigating the problem. She may be using it incorrectly. How far was the pop filter from the mic?

From http://audiogeekzine...cal-recordings/

Quote

Always use a pop filter – A pop filter in an absolutely essential accessory for vocal recording. A pop filter doesn’t look like much but they very effectively stop blasts of air from distorting the mic. For the pop filter to be effective it needs to be at least a few inches away from the mic*.

* – The technical reason is turbulence. It takes some space for the turbulence to dissipate after the air hits the filter.

[Bruce N]

Good song and nicely preformed, and now the bad news. You're quite welcome to tell me to take a hike for saying this, but you do seem rather critical of this recording, and as such I'll tell you what hear.

The whole recording is overly compressed imo, and sounds like it's being choked too within an inch of it's life, which may well be the reason for the "esssing" on the vocal track as you try to compensate the vocal to reconcile with the rest of the tracks, I can definitely hear it with the strings, as being far too compressed

As an result, the depth of field seems too narrow to me, chocking out the naturalness a song like this one should have, it should have more breath and ambiance to it

My only suggestion would be, is to strip all the FX off the tracks and start re-mixing again, starting with the strings track and getting that sounding right to begin with, which in turn should help you get the vocals setting just right, and if you're still getting the esssing on the vocals, it should then be easier to deal with. Of course this is only my opinion and suggestion.

Bruce

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

yeah, I've started to notice the ssssss when you mentioned it...mind you I probably wouldn't have if you hadn't mentioned.
I remember reading something about using a pencil to tame the sssss sound when recording and used it a few times.Then I thought that was just my imagination and late night beer but it's true...apparently a pencil can help tame them a bit if they're driving you crazy

[Desertrose]

"Pencil ?" that had me boggled. I read the article. Yeah, makes sense!

Ok, so first of all, thanks for all the very helpful suggestions and ideas (and thank you for your ears!!!)
Much food for thought here!

A few things make complete sense to me. Yes I AM singing VERY close to the mic. Practically eating it in fact and the P Popper is WAAAY too close to the mic (and my mouth) - from what's been said here.
Reason being is that I've just recently been using this new recording "device". Before I used to use a desk but there was too much noise - hiss - terrible!
So my husband bought me this "thing". I don't know what you call it. It's a small black box thing that my keyboards and mic run into. WAY better for recording the keyboards as there is almost zero noise BUT I'm having terrible trouble adjusting the volume levels for the microphone. It's too quiet but if I turn it up my waveforms are alarmingly too LOUD and cut off flat at the tops. So I've taken to eating the microphone just so I can hear myself sing and get a decent recording level. (I know, I know....this could be easily fixed if I fiddle more and it would be a good thing if I could find the damn instruction manual for this "thing' - but it seems to have mysteriously vanished!)

Bruce - I wonder if this compression thing you're hearing is a result of me whacking on (just because it was there and tempting me) a stereo imager thing.
I don't know how to use it and should probably leave these things well alone but it was there and so I just added and played with it.
Could also be to do with the L2 thing. Dunno what that is either. I use a setting called "High resolution CD master" which brings the volume levels up - (always careful though to keep it from going into the red) I was told ages ago by a producer friend to use this 'thing" when done mixing the track - so for once I did as I was told.
I just don't understand what it is I'm doing though - obviously!
But as far as actually using a compressor. I don't think I am ? Not knowingly.

So I am revealing just how little I know here.
You guys are saying things I don't understand. What do you mean by "high pass the vocals" ? Automation? Nope. Don't know what that is either

There are no switches on my microphone either. Nothing, zip. Just the input for the cable.

I'll look at the low end frequencies Jim. Thanks.
I'm wondering if the de esser, by removing some of the top frequencies ? (surely that IS what it does?) then if magnifies some of the bottom frequencies by that process at the same time?

Oh my lordy me, this stuff is so darned confusing! The technical terms alone confuse me greatly.

I think though first things first - I need to sort out this microphone volume level thing out because it must be the greatest factor here in contributing to the noise problems.

Thanks again everyone!

[DannyDep]

Desertrose, on 15 March 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

.................
So my husband bought me this "thing". I don't know what you call it. It's a small black box thing that my keyboards and mic run into. WAY better for recording the keyboards as there is almost zero noise BUT I'm having terrible trouble adjusting the volume levels for the microphone.

If you can find out the name of this black box thingy it might help.
Also, where are you adjusting the volume levels?
Are there knobs on this black box thing or is it in your recording software?
Last time i remember, you were using Cool Edit Pro I or II, is that still true?
I believe that what Jim was talking about (EQ settings for low frequencies e.g. below 100 Hz) would solve your "noise" problem.

Quote

..........................
I'm wondering if the de esser, by removing some of the top frequencies ? (surely that IS what it does?) then if magnifies some of the bottom frequencies by that process at the same time?

I also believe, as he mentioned, that it has nothing to do with your de-esser.
A de-esser will usually have presets for male (4500Hz) or female (6800Hz) vox that you can set and these frequencies (with very small ranges + or - ) are way above the noises you're talking about.

Quote

........................
I think though first things first - I need to sort out this microphone volume level thing out because it must be the greatest factor here in contributing to the noise problems.

Thanks again everyone!

Agreed, so please let us know the microphone brand and model, the name of that black box thing as well as the name and version of the recording software you're using
and I'm sure the guys here can help you sort it out.

[Desertrose]

This is the "thing". http://www.motu.com/...o/ultralite-mk3

I'm adjusting volume levels wherever it seems volume levels CAN be adjusted. On the mixer, on the black box.

I'm still using cooledit, yeeees. I don't like change much.

It's a Rode NT 1000 microphone.

Yes, I think I was understanding that Jim meant the EQ?
I'm still wondering though whether or not the de esser can affect EQ though. Seems reasonable that it would? I can definitely hear a change to the overall "sound" when a de esser is used - especially if you crank it up and use it heavily you can definitely hear a difference in EQ. (Nobody agree's with that?)

But yes, it may be that the de esser is the least of the problem here on this track (but in the future?)

As a side note - today I'm hearing far less of a "problem" than what I did originally.
Perhaps I was being far too critical? Sometimes when you listen and listen and LISTEN you lose perspective?

I have to say too though that on the word "crumbled" I AM hearing what sounds similar to P "pops", which is what I think m24p is saying.
I think the problem really is that I'm just too close to the microphone.
Usually I angle the mic slightly so I'm not singing straight ONTO it because even with the P popper sometimes you still get breaths blowing into it.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

this might be more to do with the microphone than anything.
I used to own a Rode NT1000 as well but found it really ssssssssssssss-harp with vocals if I remember correctly.
It was a really good microphone for my acoustic guitar but when recoding the vocals I found it a bit harsh and clear, and a bit unforgiving. I eventually just sold it as the vocals never sounded right and tried a different microphone.

[NigeQ]

Hi Tracy

I can hear the sibilance but I think all it just needs is attenuating slightly (-2 or -3db) . If you want to try the e.q. approach one trick is to find the offending frequency and then cut it. One way of finding the offending frequency is to boost (+6db) around the 5k to 8k and sweep through that range until the sibilance really spikes (say 6.5k). (Note when you do this make sure that the vocal is dry and unprocessed e.g. don’t have your de-esser on). Then when you have found the problem area, attenuate it (-3 to -6db) using a narrow band e.q. so it only effects that sibilance frequency and not the whole vocal timbre.

Nige

[Desertrose]

Jackie. Yes, I know this is not the best microphone, especially for toppy female voices. It's all I've got though - for now
If I can just get better with the whole EQ thing I'm sure it will help.

NigeQ , thanks. I'll follow your directions and see if that helps.

I'm thinking maybe I need to write songs without any damn S words! lol!

[Alistair S]

Desertrose, on 16 March 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

As a side note - today I'm hearing far less of a "problem" than what I did originally.
Perhaps I was being far too critical? Sometimes when you listen and listen and LISTEN you lose perspective?

^^^^^ This

As an aside, the L2 is a limiter. Limiters do a kind of compression. They are a way of getting the volume up and do have their purposes. While I support your producer friend in telling you not to put one on until you have finished mixing, there are more subtle ways of increasing volume (if you even need to).

Use it sparingly

[DannyDep]

I had added a reply with how you might remove the noises by editing your track in Cool edit pro.
But i'm just now viewing the CueMix FX software tutorial video on the link you provided on the Motu website and this certainly
looks like a non-destructive and much better approach to removing the noises.
I'd have a look at this video, especially when they start talking about EQ (starting around 2:15).
You have a 7 band Equalizer available with that software.
There are two bands that have high and low shelving filters.
There are a few youtube videos on this product.
I'm checking to see if any show handling setting the low shelf filters.
Wish me luck.

[DannyDep]

Tracy,
Have you used the Motu Ultralite's CueMix FX software at all?
On page 72 of the User's Manual there is a screenshot of the EQ section.
Making sure that you are in the yellow EQ band, highlight the shelf liter button.
Then in the top left section of the EQ (pg 72)move the yellow Freq knob until the yellow Freq in the graph shows 100 Hz.
You might have to raise or lower that Frequency until you do not hear those low noises (e.g. like on the word "crumbled")
Here is a dynamic link that MOTU has to show that section.
MOTU 7-band EQ
Once you get this and other things that you always want to use on your vocals figured out, you can save the configuration for the next
time you want to use it.
btw, before I forget, are you recording in 24-bit mode with the Ultralite?
I should check if you can do that in Cool Edit Pro and it looks like CEP works internally at 32-bit float if the Google replies are correct, so there is no problem.
Hope this helps.
Jim, m24p, anyone, could you please confirm that what I'm telling Tracy looks correct?
Thx,

[Desertrose]

Thanks Dan.
To be honest I hadn't thought too much about the EQ thingies in the actual Motu itself.
I was told by my husband NOT to touch the EQ in the desk I had before - to leave it for fiddling with in Cooledit's effects etc. (Not that I use the ones that come with cooledit but these extra - and better, Sony ones?)
Wouldn't it make sense to leave all that fiddling for the mixing process that takes place in cooledit iself?
I can also fiddle with EQ in my actual keyboards themselves, but I rarely do that for the same reason. 1) because I know very little about what I'm doing and 2) I'm relying on the fact that whoever programs these keyboards would have eq'd the sounds to get them sounding as "best" as they can. (wouldn't they?)
I suppose vocals are a little different though just because microphones and vocal tones vary so much.
Thing is though, once you mess with EQ outside of cooledit for recording purposes then it can't be changed once it's IN the multitrack session.
Am I making any sense?

I'll have to have another look, and do more playing.
I'm sick at the moment. My brain is not working right.(pity that can't be my excuse all the time.)

[m24p]

For the rumble/pop sounds I would actually use a high pass filter rather than a shelf.

I was just looking on-line and it doesn't look like cool edit actually supports arbitrary automation. Best I can ttell it only supports volume and pan automation, and it calls it either "rubber banding" or "Edit envelopes".

Anywho, I guess my best suggestion is out. Put a HPF (high pass filter) as high as you can without negatively affecting the vocals and it would reduce the issues. And when tracking next time make sure you have the pop filter at least an inch away from the mic.

If you want to get a better DAW... Reaper is free to try and only $60 if you like it. No crippling, it's fully functional. If you want to try it I'll give you step-by-step instructions for automating a HPF to remove pops.

[m24p]

Another reason to get Reaper is it makes it really easy to do parallel compression and distortion, both of which would be very useful for your dance kick issues.

[DannyDep]

Desertrose, on 16 March 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Thanks Dan.
To be honest I hadn't thought too much about the EQ thingies in the actual Motu itself.
I was told by my husband NOT to touch the EQ in the desk I had before

If by your old desk you're talking about an analog mixing board, I can understand his request because you would be physically changing the settings by turning knobs or faders for example.
It would be difficult to return to the original settings.
But in the Ultralite software, you are saving a configuration that you can choose to use later. You can always reset the default values.

Quote

- to leave it for fiddling with in Cooledit's effects etc. (Not that I use the ones that come with cooledit but these extra - and better, Sony ones?)
Wouldn't it make sense to leave all that fiddling for the mixing process that takes place in cooledit iself?

Not really. When using the FX inside Cool Edit, at least as I observed it, you are physically changing the audio track.
Unless, you're making backup copies all the time, it could get disk space intensive.

Quote

I can also fiddle with EQ in my actual keyboards themselves, but I rarely do that for the same reason. 1) because I know very little about what I'm doing and 2) I'm relying on the fact that whoever programs these keyboards would have eq'd the sounds to get them sounding as "best" as they can. (wouldn't they?)

Ah, not exactly. Just like you have the ability to articulate your voice in a way that attracts the listener's emotions, editing a keyboard sound can produce the same results.
i can't tell you how many times, I've had comments about something or other of one of my keyboard patches not being enjoyable to listen to. (Sure I'm blaming the Keyboard manufacturers)

Quote

I suppose vocals are a little different though just because microphones and vocal tones vary so much.
Thing is though, once you mess with EQ outside of cooledit for recording purposes then it can't be changed once it's IN the multitrack session.
Am I making any sense?

Some. By setting up the type of filter we're talking about, one to remove the low end noise, we eliminate it from the recording process in the first place.
It will never get into the Cool Edit track you just recorded.
Now with regards to other types of FX, reverb, for instance, i totally agree with your comment.

Quote

I'll have to have another look, and do more playing.
I'm sick at the moment. My brain is not working right.(pity that can't be my excuse all the time.)

Sorry to hear that.
Sounds like a good time to go out in the garden and just chill.
Some of us are lucky to have any brain.
My cells are like the stars in the night sky, few and far between.
Hope you're feeling better tomorrow.
take care.

[Desertrose]

"Not really. When using the FX inside Cool Edit, at least as I observed it, you are physically changing the audio track.
Unless, you're making backup copies all the time, it could get disk space intensive."

No. Not forever changing it? You can just "remove" any effect or EQ setting and you're back to exactly what was recorded into cooledit.

I DO have my doubts about the piano sounds they have chosen in regards to "trusting" the keyboard manufacturers - on mine anyway.

Go out in the garden and chill?
and tread water...
It's a wonder we're not all growing the same mould in our lungs as we are our houses here in Australia.

[DannyDep]

"Friends, Romans, Aussiemen..."
Just thought I'd pop in to see how the mixing class is going.
Any luck with removing those low end noises?

Quote

"It's a wonder we're not all growing the same mould in our lungs as we are our houses here in Australia."

Well, can i send you a few sponges from the Sponge Capital of the World, a town just north of me called Tarpon Springs?
Would that help at all?

[Desertrose]

Been a bit caught up with other things.
That's a lot of sponges!

[DannyDep]

Desertrose, on 21 March 2012 - 04:17 AM, said:

Been a bit caught up with other things.
That's a lot of sponges!

I guess they were telling the truth about it being the sponge capital of the world, hey?
Hope the sun is shinning brightly in your neck of the woods.
Peace.

[Simple Simon]

Hi Tracy

What always gets me is how you claim such little technical understanding of the tools you're working with, and yet your sheer innate and intuitive musicality generally enables you to achieve results that many with far greater technical nous would envy.

Anyway, I know this is a bit late, and the relevant points have already been made, but I thought I'd have a listen and pass of my own thoughts anyway, for what they're worth.

What I'm hearing in this is largely to do with the proximity effect already been discussed. In itself, mic proximity is not necessarily a "bad" thing. On the right track, with the right voice and the right delivery, it can create a lovely sense of intimacy. But it does require caution - particularly with regard to those consonant plosives. Some of what I think you're hearing hear relates to those plosives . The "B" on "Crumbled" that was already mentioned is an example of these. But there is also a slight guttural element in places that I actually find rather appealing. Example: the "f" on "for eternity" at 21 secs in.

Having said that, I think it would be worth sacrificing a little of that guttural "growl" in order to clean up the few plosives, and that's where a high-pass filter or shelving (as already suggested ) would be the best approach. These are simply uses of EQ to filter out the lower frequencies. 100hz is probably a good starting point, but if it was me, I'd want to solo that vocal track and experiment with that eq until I felt that enough warmth was still retained while the pops and bumps were gone.

On another matter, I don't think your use of the L2 is doing you any favours. As Alister noted, limiters are a form of compression and, as such, they can be detrimental to a track or mix if used indiscriminately or without a real understanding of them. I would be very interested in hearing this track without the L2, as I suspect the sound would be more open and alive. I could be wrong, but there's also a slight graininess I sometimes associate with some forms of compression/limiting.

As for the minor sibilance in places, I would support Alister's suggestion of a fairly surgical approach to this if it really concerns you. I don't think it's too bad. What I do find a bit odd, though, is that the frequency curve of your vocals in general is definitely not flat. It's almost like they've been scooped out right in the center of that critical 3k area, but I'm buggered if I can understand why or how. I'd love to hear a mix of this track with ALL the processing you have there turned off. That would be a great starting point.

Cheers

Simon

[Desertrose]

I'm not simply claiming it Simon. I promise you!Even my kids have now taken to the term of endearment my hubby affectionately calls me (technically spastic)
It is mere bumbling determination that enables me to create what I create.

I will return to this. Been a few personal things going on.
Might be a good idea to show you/here the track - without all my fiddling.

Thanks for having a listen and giving your thoughts.

[FunkDaddy]

Is it that bit of muddiness you're talking about? If you're de-essing the wrong frequency too much, you'll lose a lot of presence (lose presence, gain muddiness)

Or are people hearing something else?