Trying to get a handle on eq'ing and otherwise dealing with vocals

[docsavage20]

Treating vocals for a mix is something of a bugaboo for me.

Vocals on commercial releases sound bright yet warm, they're prominent
in the mix but generally you really have to crank the volume before
the spikes start to bang your ears.

Trying various fx chains, eq, dynamic eq, compression - I have a hard
time getting that clear but not spikey sound. Further, trying to have
enough "bite" but not sound buzzy. What I find happens with
compression is it starts to take on a compressed sound and some of the
spikes still come through.

I can come closer if I make obsessive use of a volume envelope to
dampen the spikey moments but end up with a very involved envelope
that's extremely tedious to create. This can't be the right way to do
it.

In particular below is a link to a sample of a vocal I'm dealing with
that pretty well shows the issues I'm talking about.

It's the raw vocal with no processing. I've posted it before. At least
one person thought it could be put in a mix as is but there's no way.
I have to seriously question if their hearing is shot. There's way too
much variance in dynamics and prominent spikes to leave this like it
is.

All input will be appreciated.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6iRQt85G2dFYkxpc1VnT3FTU1U/edit

[Paul]

Are you using, or have you tried multi-band compression?

With a fast attack, so you get the spikes?

[docsavage20]

On May 9, 9:04 pm, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>     Are you using, or have you tried multi-band compression?
>
>     With a fast attack, so you get the spikes?

Yes. The one I have is the Slim Slow Slider 3 band. It's a freeware
vst plugin. Also IQ4 dynamic eq.

I allow for the possibility that I'm not applying them as expertly as
could be, but haven't found the magic combination yet.

Also possible that there are issues with their functionality.

[Here In Oregon]

Why such a short clip and why can't you post it in the context of the mix as
well?

Mixing vocals is my favorite thing in the world to do other than singing and
playing music. With that said there is some spiking that could be tamed
with some compression and EQ, etc.

I can take a *quick* shot at the whole mix for free if you want to drop the
wave files into my air drive. I have some great tools and plugs to help
make this work better if you want me to give it a shot.

I am about ready to launch a major project and am recruiting for a modern
day "Wrecking Crew" (fantastic studio musicians) and have a tiny bit of time
on my hands right now and am kind of bored. No offense to you or the
singer.


HIO


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
"docsavage20" wrote in message
news:71bd4f74-b50e-4c80...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

[Paul]

What have you set the compressor "attack" at? The minimum?

Also, what is your ratio? Making it a bigger ratio will help
tame the spikes.

Also, where is your threshold at? Low enough so you can
see some gain reduction during the spikes?

[Mark]

On May 9, 10:16 pm, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 6:30 PM, docsavage20 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

I'm not a pro but I have picked up a few pointers here...

Maybe you should change your focus from the vocal to the rest of the
mix.

Consider using EQ to "carve out" the vocal frequencies from the rest
of the mix so the vocal has less competition.

Mark

[docsavage20]

On May 9, 10:19 pm, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Maybe you should change your focus from the vocal to the rest of the
> mix.
>
> Consider using EQ to "carve out" the vocal frequencies from the rest
> of the mix so the vocal has less competition.

The problem isn't the vocal getting buried, but that it has inherent
excessive spikiness even with no track.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/9/2013 7:39 PM, docsavage20 wrote:
> Treating vocals for a mix is something of a bugaboo for me.
>
> Vocals on commercial releases sound bright yet warm, they're prominent
> in the mix but generally you really have to crank the volume before
> the spikes start to bang your ears.
>
> Trying various fx chains, eq, dynamic eq, compression

Hate to rain on your parade of gadgets, but the secret to getting a good
vocal sound isn't with signal processing, it's with starting with a good
vocalist, a good microphone, and at least a workable recording
environment. Read any of the "great engineer" interviews in the trade
magazines and you'll find that if they use any processing on a vocal,
it's maybe 2 dB of compression and very little frequency tweaks.

Try spending enough time recording the singer so that you don't feel
that it's necessary to significantly change the recording.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

docsavage20 <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Treating vocals for a mix is something of a bugaboo for me.
>
>Vocals on commercial releases sound bright yet warm, they're prominent
>in the mix but generally you really have to crank the volume before
>the spikes start to bang your ears.

What kind of commercial releases are you talking about? Pop stuff? Rock
stuff? Acoustic stuff?

>Trying various fx chains, eq, dynamic eq, compression - I have a hard
>time getting that clear but not spikey sound. Further, trying to have
>enough "bite" but not sound buzzy. What I find happens with
>compression is it starts to take on a compressed sound and some of the
>spikes still come through.

If you're going for pop music, you want that compressed sound, and on top
of that you want overall compression to make the vocal blend into the
rest of the tracks.

>I can come closer if I make obsessive use of a volume envelope to
>dampen the spikey moments but end up with a very involved envelope
>that's extremely tedious to create. This can't be the right way to do
>it.

If you're having to do that (and folks still do that in realtime with a
fader), it's a sign that you need a better vocalist, or at least a different
kind of vocalist. Or maybe you need an arrangement that is more open to
allow the vocalist to do that.

>In particular below is a link to a sample of a vocal I'm dealing with
>that pretty well shows the issues I'm talking about.
>
>It's the raw vocal with no processing. I've posted it before. At least
>one person thought it could be put in a mix as is but there's no way.
>I have to seriously question if their hearing is shot. There's way too
>much variance in dynamics and prominent spikes to leave this like it
>is.
>
>All input will be appreciated.

This a very breathy track, recorded too close to the performer in a room
that sounds like a closet. The dynamics are not excessive for the style
at all, but this is not a pop vocal and won't sit in a pop mix.

If you can't retrack in a better room, consider using some light chamber
reverb with a pre-delay of 10-20 mS... not so much, just enough to bring
a reverb tail in right after that first slapback in the original. It will
make things sound much more natural and less constricted.

Compression will not help this track; if anything compression is going to
make it worse by exaggerating that close-echo.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

docsavage20 <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

That style is just that way. It's okay.

[John Williamson]

+1. It applies to *any* acoustic instrument, IMHO.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Sean Conolly]

"docsavage20" <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd4f74-b50e-4c80...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Hoo boy. Are you mixing with your ears or your eyes?

Those spikes are called transient impules, and they are critical to getting
making a track sound natural. If you don't over-compress the other tracks
you may find that they blend together nicely by leaving those peaks in.

Just for giggles and grins, try starting with a mix from the raw tracks, and
then add as little processing as you can in small increments - but always
while listening to whole mix. You may be surprised.

Sean

[Here In Oregon]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

>>>Hate to rain on your parade of gadgets, but the secret to getting a good
vocal sound isn't with signal processing, it's with starting with a good
vocalist, a good microphone, and at least a workable recording
environment.

Yes, but many times they cannot go back and do a retake for one reason or
another.

>>> Read any of the "great engineer" interviews in the trade
magazines and you'll find that if they use any processing on a vocal,
it's maybe 2 dB of compression and very little frequency tweaks.

Yes, but usually they had a good vocalist to begin with. Celine Dion
ridiculously uses like four engineers for her vocals alone and she just
happens to be like one of the most monetarily successful artists of all
time.

There is sooo much signal processing done on artists that cannot sing, and
that is the the reason that much of the music done today sounds like pop. I
mean poop.

>>>>Try spending enough time recording the singer so that you don't feel
that it's necessary to significantly change the recording.

I got the feeling the recording was done and there was no going back.
This guy has asked for help now in how to fix this twice and the easier
thing to do is a simple retake. Her voice isn’t bad at all it just needs a
little help fixing it in the mix so to speak if a retake is not possible.

Anyway my free offer is now rescinded. I am drinking coffee right now and
not vino.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/10/2013 2:14 PM, Here In Oregon wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" wrote in message

> vocal sound isn't with signal processing, it's with starting with a good
> vocalist, a good microphone, and at least a workable recording
> environment.

> Yes, but many times they cannot go back and do a retake for one reason
> or another.

This is exactly why you need to get it right the first time. The only
reason you should have to re-take a vocal is if the words change or the
singer (or producer) wants something different about the style. I
realize that sometimes there are technical problems that you discover
after the fact, but with experience you'll learn to recognize and fix
those before that "never that good again" take.

>>>> Read any of the "great engineer" interviews in the trade
> magazines and you'll find that if they use any processing on a vocal,
> it's maybe 2 dB of compression and very little frequency tweaks.

> Yes, but usually they had a good vocalist to begin with.

Is there any reason to record a vocalist that isn't good? Vanity,
perhaps. That's when, in the pre-production phase, you figure out how to
take advantage of the deficiencies of the vocalist and make the voice
work with the song. Is Bob Dylan a great singer? Does that stop his
records from selling?

> There is sooo much signal processing done on artists that cannot sing,
> and that is the the reason that much of the music done today sounds like
> pop. I mean poop.

This is true, but it's usually not to fix the engineer's mistakes.

> I got the feeling the recording was done and there was no going back.
> This guy has asked for help now in how to fix this twice and the easier
> thing to do is a simple retake. Her voice isn’t bad at all it just needs
> a little help fixing it in the mix so to speak if a retake is not possible.

We've all had days like that. You do the best you can. And give the job
to three different engineers and they'll each have a different approach
and end up with a different sound. But, you know, if I was a songwriter
and had some good songs to record, I woudn't record myself singing them,
because I'm not a good singer. I know it, and I wouldn't expect a team
of engineers and producers to turn me into one with technology. I'd get
another singer. Probably if I was doing an album of songs, I'd get
several singers, choosing the best one I could get for each song. Heck,
I'd get the same royalties anyway, and the reviews (hopefully) woudn't
be "Great songs, awful singer."

[Here In Oregon]

Mike Rivers" wrote in message

>This is exactly why you need to get it right the first time. The only
>reason you should have to re-take a vocal is if the words change or the
>singer (or producer) wants something different about the style.

I have to disagree here. I have seen dozens of takes and a lot of comping
in my years even with great vocalists. I heard through the grapevine that
Mariah Carey in her prime averaged around 114 vocal takes per song.

>Is there any reason to record a vocalist that isn't good? Vanity,
perhaps.

Money? There are a lot of people out there that think they can sing and
are willing to put their hard earned dollars into it or their sugar daddies,
so you try to accommodate. <g>

>That's when, in the pre-production phase, you figure out how to take
>advantage of the deficiencies of the vocalist and make the voice work with
>the song.

True!

> Is Bob Dylan a great singer?

In my opinion yes, I like the way he sings, and he never has actually landed
on a note yet to this day. He changed everything though and I really like
what he did for music in general. Where would Neil Young, Tom Petty, and
Sheryl Crowe be today along with a *ton* of other talented artists?
Typically music critics (the professional type) like the rawness and cannot
stand the polish and they can help sell your records as well.

I *also* like vocalists who seem to have almost pitch perfect, who can belt
it out, and are great singers from a technical side of things as I have
always appreciated both sides of the fence.

I am a singer/guitarist and have studied voice and have taken voice lessons
and I have an appreciation for both camps. Some days I sound good and some
days I sound like crap. For me, I have to have an emotional moment to get
that take.

My voice coach always told me to drink tea with honey and lemon in it.
I come to find out years later that many singers take a *shot* of something
to relax the anatomy of the vocal body. Anyway the tea was good for my
throat but not my voice. I tense up if it is caffeinated. You would never
want to hear my voice caffeinated. I almost went to prison once after a
recording session where everyone almost died after hearing my voice.

>And give the job to three different engineers and they'll each have a
>different approach and end up with a different sound.

So true.

>But, you know, if I was a songwriter and had some good songs to record,

> I wouldn't record myself singing them, because I'm not a good singer.

> I know it, and I wouldn't expect a team of engineers and producers to turn
> me into one with technology. I'd get another singer. Probably if I was
> doing an album of songs, I'd get several singers, choosing the best one I
> could get for each
> song. Heck, I'd get the same royalties anyway, and the reviews (hopefully)
> woudn't be "Great songs, awful singer."

Wonderfully stated. Are you spying on me? You see, I have been back and
forth
recently with just screw it and get a "Wrecking Crew" in here from L.A. or
something
and even if I have to replace my own parts. :-( I have decided to do this
and am looking for personnel.

Royalties for retirement. Yep that's the ticket and thank you Mike. I think
I will just sell out. <g>

[Mark]

op,
i'm not sure what you mean by spikey..

try cutting 4 to 5 kHz by 3 to 4 dB,,, see if that "smooths" it out
for you.

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <kmk8eb$3gj$1...@dont-email.me>, Here In Oregon <H...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Mike Rivers" wrote in message
>>This is exactly why you need to get it right the first time. The only
>>reason you should have to re-take a vocal is if the words change or the
>>singer (or producer) wants something different about the style.
>
>I have to disagree here. I have seen dozens of takes and a lot of comping
>in my years even with great vocalists. I heard through the grapevine that
>Mariah Carey in her prime averaged around 114 vocal takes per song.

Yeah, but... after all that comping, did it really sound any better?

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers <mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I realize that sometimes there are technical problems that you discover
> after the fact, but with experience you'll learn to recognize and fix
> those before that "never that good again" take.

And sometimes one must work with what one is offered, and realize that
one will not get the vocal one is imagining in one's head from the
singer in front of the mic.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/10/2013 9:59 PM, Here In Oregon wrote:
> Mike Rivers" wrote in message
>> This is exactly why you need to get it right the first time.

> I have to disagree here. I have seen dozens of takes and a lot of comping
> in my years even with great vocalists. I heard through the grapevine that
> Mariah Carey in her prime averaged around 114 vocal takes per song.

Yeah, but I'll bet that before they got started on that, they got her
vocal sound right and she knew where to stand and not to look all around
the room while she was singing. Personally I don't go for this sort of
production, but I guess I'd prostitute myself if I was getting paid what
it costs to make a Mariah Carey record. Maybe once anyway.

> Money? There are a lot of people out there that think they can sing and
> are willing to put their hard earned dollars into it or their sugar
> daddies,
> so you try to accommodate. <g>

Like I said, "vanity." But you can't make a bad singer good with EQ.

> I like the way he [Bob Dylan] sings, and he never has actually

> landed on a note yet to this day.

OK, then he's using his style to advantage. I like Roscoe Holcomb too,
but Doc Watson was a better singer. I can't stand Neil Young's voice,
but there are many who love exactly what I don't like. But Young's
records are all very well engineered and bring out the best in his vocal
style for those who like it.

> I am a singer/guitarist and have studied voice and have taken voice
> lessons and I have an appreciation for both camps. Some days I sound
> good and some days I sound like crap. For me, I have to have an
> emotional moment to get that take.

At least you realize that. Hopefully you don't try to record yourself on
days when you sound like crap and then try to fix it later. You know you
can do it better.

> You would never want to hear my voice caffeinated.

What do you suppose Tom Waits does to get his characteristic vocal
sound? At least you don't get lung cancer from drinking tea.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/10/2013 10:39 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> Mariah Carey in her prime averaged around 114 vocal takes per song.

> Yeah, but... after all that comping, did it really sound any better?

Probably to her, and she's paying the bills. I expect that I'd be happy
with the first take, but then I'm not likely to listen to the song over
and over and over when wearing earphones. When you love a song enough to
do that, the little imperfections that you don't notice on first playing
(or in a live performance) start to get to you.

[S. King]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:59:02 -0700, Here In Oregon wrote:

> Mike Rivers" wrote in message
>
>>This is exactly why you need to get it right the first time. The only
>>reason you should have to re-take a vocal is if the words change or the
>>singer (or producer) wants something different about the style.
>
> I have to disagree here. I have seen dozens of takes and a lot of
> comping in my years even with great vocalists. I heard through the
> grapevine that Mariah Carey in her prime averaged around 114 vocal takes
> per song.
>

BIG SNIP

I've recorded a lot of singers. Just considering those who can actually
sing, I find that they fall into two camps. Those who are really
comfortable with their talent and those who doubt themselves. The first
group do a few takes and say, "That's a good one. I like it. We're
done." The other group does take after take until their voice tires.
Then someone else makes a decision for them, or they come back the next
day and realize that Take 5 really nailed it. From an engineers POV you
have to accommodate both of those groups.

Steve King

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/11/2013 10:19 AM, S. King wrote:

> I find that they fall into two camps. Those who are really
> comfortable with their talent and those who doubt themselves. The first
> group do a few takes and say, "That's a good one. I like it. We're
> done." The other group does take after take until their voice tires.
> Then someone else makes a decision for them, or they come back the next
> day and realize that Take 5 really nailed it. From an engineers POV you
> have to accommodate both of those groups.

Either that or you tell them to go away and come back when they're ready
to record the song. They'll probably go annoy someone else. I can afford
to say this because recording isn't how I make my living. If it was my
only source of income, I'd probably take whatever came along and do
whatever it took to get paid for the job. But at least I won't have to
listen to it after the project is done. ;)

[Here In Oregon]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Well if your talking about Messiah Carey, I have no idea. Not a fan at all.
When she first started out she did show vocal prowess but then all
the songs she did after her big launch sounded really bad with her trying
to appeal to rappers and hip hopsters.

The attempted crossover was a certifiable train wreck.

[Here In Oregon]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 5/10/2013 10:39 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> Mariah Carey in her prime averaged around 114 vocal takes per song.

> Yeah, but... after all that comping, did it really sound any better?

Probably to her, and she's paying the bills. I expect that I'd be happy
with the first take, but then I'm not likely to listen to the song over
and over and over when wearing earphones. When you love a song enough to
do that, the little imperfections that you don't notice on first playing
(or in a live performance) start to get to you.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

>>>Probably to her, and she's paying the bills.

No, it was Tommy Mottola paying all of the bills. He discovered her when
a cassette was given to him by a girlfriend of Careys when he was getting
into his car.
He was her splendora daddy and they eventually married.

[Here In Oregon]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

>>>What do you suppose Tom Waits does to get his characteristic vocal
sound? At least you don't get lung cancer from drinking tea.

I dunno. Maybe he practices his singing under water with a frog in his
throat.

Described by critic Daniel Durchholz as sounding "like it was soaked in a
vat of bourbon,
left hanging in the smokehouse for a few months, and then taken outside and
run over with a car."


Wonderful songwriter and talent though, in my opinion.

Younger studio version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXunos4IXDU

Older live version: Warning (prepare your ears)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6CDa-z1MUY

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <kmm47p$qj0$1...@dont-email.me>, Here In Oregon <H...@nospam.net> wrote:
>No, it was Tommy Mottola paying all of the bills. He discovered her when
>a cassette was given to him by a girlfriend of Careys when he was getting
>into his car.
>He was her splendora daddy and they eventually married.

No relation to Tony Mottola the guitarist?

[Here In Oregon]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

>, Here In Oregon <H...@nospam.net> wrote:
>No, it was Tommy Mottola paying all of the bills. He discovered her when
>a cassette was given to him by a girlfriend of Careys when he was getting
>into his car. He was her splendora daddy and they eventually married.


>>>No relation to Tony Mottola the guitarist?

Distant cousin.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <kmlhlp$hta$2...@dont-email.me>, Mike Rivers <mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 5/10/2013 10:39 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> Mariah Carey in her prime averaged around 114 vocal takes per song.
>
>> Yeah, but... after all that comping, did it really sound any better?
>
>Probably to her, and she's paying the bills. I expect that I'd be happy
>with the first take, but then I'm not likely to listen to the song over
>and over and over when wearing earphones. When you love a song enough to
>do that, the little imperfections that you don't notice on first playing
>(or in a live performance) start to get to you.

Sometimes the imperfections are what make it good.

But usually if you have two or three good takes, you can comp together
one perfect take. That isn't to say the take will have the feeling and
intonation that the producer wants, though.

I think most of the time when things are getting into the dozens or
hundreds of takes level, it's because the producer has something in
his head that the vocalist can't achieve, either because they don't
have the chops to do that exact one thing or more likely because the
producer cannot explain precisely what he want. Sometimes, of course,
the producer isn't really sure exactly what he wants, only that the
last take wasn't it.

Sometimes it's even worse for orchestral work, especially when the
producer and the conductor are at odds or one of them is inexperienced.
But the good news is that I get paid by the hour and most of the time
I get pre-negotiated overtime.

[docsavage20]

On May 10, 8:52 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> This a very breathy track, recorded too close to the performer in a room
> that sounds like a closet.

Yes, close mic'd but it was recorded on a stage in a large room. Not
recorded by me. Re-recording not an option.

>>Vocals on commercial releases sound bright yet warm, they're prominent
>>in the mix but generally you really have to crank the volume before
>>the spikes start to bang your ears.
>
>What kind of commercial releases are you talking about? Pop stuff? Rock
>stuff? Acoustic stuff?
>

> The dynamics are not excessive for the style
> at all, but this is not a pop vocal and won't sit in a pop mix.

Pretty much any commercial release. If you set it at a moderate to
loud-ish level, the peaks don't bang your ears, which I see as the
goal. With this vocal they do.

Good example. Jennifer Nettles has a big, resonant voice but hear how
the vocal here is crisp, prominent but doesn't bang your ears on the
resonant vowels like it does on my example?

http://youtu.be/Gp5foT32tKM

[Scott Dorsey]

docsavage20 <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 10, 8:52=A0am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> This a very breathy track, recorded too close to the performer in a room
>> that sounds like a closet.
>
>Yes, close mic'd but it was recorded on a stage in a large room. Not
>recorded by me. Re-recording not an option.

Where is the slap from, then? Were they in front of a table or is that
coming off the stage?

>Pretty much any commercial release. If you set it at a moderate to
>loud-ish level, the peaks don't bang your ears, which I see as the
>goal. With this vocal they do.

I think what you're noticing is that it's so dry and slappy, not that
it is terribly dynamic. Put way too much reverb on it, and listen to
what it does. Then put less on. Then a little less.

[docsavage20]

On May 12, 7:29 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> docsavage20  <docsavag...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> Where is the slap from, then?  Were they in front of a table or is that
> coming off the stage?

Dunno. Here's where she is.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6iRQt85G2dFT3plUXBDRUJIRmc/edit?usp=sharing

[Scott Dorsey]

docsavage20 <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 7:29=A0am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> docsavage20 =A0<docsavag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Where is the slap from, then? =A0Were they in front of a table or is that

>> coming off the stage?
>
>Dunno. Here's where she is.

>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6iRQt85G2dFT3plUXBDRUJIRmc/edit?usp=3Dshar=
>ing

It's most likely leakage from that speaker right in front of her. Is this
someone's crazy idea of a sound reinforcement rig, or is this just a tracking
session?

If this is being done for sound reinforcement, I'm very surprised it is as
good as it is... the leakage is slappy but tonally fine and should clean
up with a little delayed reverb. If it's being done for recording, I really
wonder why.