[Ben Hanson]

In particular for recording pop vox with fairly consistent dynamic levels,
is there a general consensus with professional recording engineers that gain
staging and mic technique alone is the best way, or do many people still opt
for light compression during the tracking process?

-Ben



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tommi]

"Ben Hanson" wrote in message
...
In particular for recording pop vox with fairly consistent dynamic levels,
is there a general consensus with professional recording engineers that
gain staging and mic technique alone is the best way, or do many people
still opt for light compression during the tracking process?

Compression during tracking was obligatory in the tape age. Nowadays there
is really no sonical advantage to compress during tracking, unless you're
absolutely sure about what you're doing. Some people still use compression
when recording, others don't.

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben Hanson wrote:
In particular for recording pop vox with fairly consistent dynamic levels,
is there a general consensus with professional recording engineers that gain
staging and mic technique alone is the best way, or do many people still opt
for light compression during the tracking process?

Everybody rides gain. Some folks like a little light compression on top
of that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ben Hanson]

Thanks guys...for other sorts of things like recording live drums is it
still very common? Or even with that sort of stuff is compression best left
to a post-tracking/mixing task?

-Ben


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Ben Hanson wrote:
In particular for recording pop vox with fairly consistent dynamic levels,
is there a general consensus with professional recording engineers that
gain
staging and mic technique alone is the best way, or do many people still
opt
for light compression during the tracking process?

Everybody rides gain. Some folks like a little light compression on top
of that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben Hanson wrote:
Thanks guys...for other sorts of things like recording live drums is it
still very common? Or even with that sort of stuff is compression best left
to a post-tracking/mixing task?

Well, in the digital world, the actual recording system itself is pretty
transparent, so it doesn't really matter if you do processing in front of
the recorder in tracking or after the recorder in mixdown.

BUT, if you have a philosophy of trying to get everything right the first
time, tracking to get a particular sound, and knowing exactly what sound you
want, you should do whatever processing you want in tracking.

If you aren't sure exactly what you want, of course, this is bad because you
cannot undo it. So in that case you're better off doing it in mixdown.

And, of course, if you have only limited channels of compression, you can use
them all in tracking and then use them all on different channels at mixdown,
thereby doubling the actual number of channels you can compress.

On top of that, lots of folks are still tracking to analogue tape, which
isn't transparent, and where it DOES make a difference whether you put
compression before or after the tape machine.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Federico]

Everybody rides gain. Some folks like a little light compression on top
of that.


Do everybody ride the gain (the micpre gain) or do everybody ride the
console channel fader to the machine input (direct output)?
F.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:56:40 +0200, "Federico"
wrote:

Everybody rides gain. Some folks like a little light compression on top
of that.


Do everybody ride the gain (the micpre gain) or do everybody ride the
console channel fader to the machine input (direct output)?

I think that's what he meant. It's the usual term but, I agree, not
terribly precise :-)

[Ben Hanson]

So just to clarify, there's not something about recording live drums (or
other types of things with sharp transients and/or wide dynamic ranges) that
would *necessitate* the use of a compressor during tracking to do it
"right", am I hearing you right?

I'm not setting you up for a witty retort BTW, I'm genuinely asking! I
figured gain staging and mic technique was the "secret" for things like vox
but it seems like everyone and their brother uses all the compressors they
can get their hands on to do things like drums. Perhaps this is just
amateurish group-think.

Conceptually, it makes sense to me that if you can set the gains so that you
are not overdriving your inputs then a compressor isn't really going to get
you anything at the recording stage.

-Ben


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Ben Hanson wrote:
Thanks guys...for other sorts of things like recording live drums is it
still very common? Or even with that sort of stuff is compression best
left
to a post-tracking/mixing task?

Well, in the digital world, the actual recording system itself is pretty
transparent, so it doesn't really matter if you do processing in front of
the recorder in tracking or after the recorder in mixdown.

BUT, if you have a philosophy of trying to get everything right the first
time, tracking to get a particular sound, and knowing exactly what sound
you
want, you should do whatever processing you want in tracking.

If you aren't sure exactly what you want, of course, this is bad because
you
cannot undo it. So in that case you're better off doing it in mixdown.

And, of course, if you have only limited channels of compression, you can
use
them all in tracking and then use them all on different channels at
mixdown,
thereby doubling the actual number of channels you can compress.

On top of that, lots of folks are still tracking to analogue tape, which
isn't transparent, and where it DOES make a difference whether you put
compression before or after the tape machine.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben Hanson wrote:
So just to clarify, there's not something about recording live drums (or
other types of things with sharp transients and/or wide dynamic ranges) that
would *necessitate* the use of a compressor during tracking to do it
"right", am I hearing you right?

Not in the digital world, no. But it might be easier sometimes.

I'm not setting you up for a witty retort BTW, I'm genuinely asking! I
figured gain staging and mic technique was the "secret" for things like vox
but it seems like everyone and their brother uses all the compressors they
can get their hands on to do things like drums. Perhaps this is just
amateurish group-think.

Often people will do that, to get a particular drum sound. But there is no
reason you can't compress the crap out of things in mixdown instead of in
tracking; the effect today will be the same.

Conceptually, it makes sense to me that if you can set the gains so that you
are not overdriving your inputs then a compressor isn't really going to get
you anything at the recording stage.

Assuming your recorder is very quiet, it doesn't buy you anything much,
other than that you have the compressed sound you want and you don't have
to do any more processing in mixdown.

This can be a big deal if you are tracking something that somebody else will
mix.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Federico]

Do everybody ride the gain (the micpre gain) or do everybody ride the
console channel fader to the machine input (direct output)?

I think that's what he meant. It's the usual term but, I agree, not
terribly precise :-)

mmm... I thought I just discovered a new trick.....
But, was it the main difference from riding the gain and the console direct
output volume?
F.

[Ben Hanson]

Thanks Scott...what is considered "very quiet", for pro studios? In my home
studio using various different interfaces my iso booth sits at about -85 db.
I think that is pretty good but not sure how it compares to professional iso
booths in pro studios.

Also, is the reason you must have a quite recorder because if you are doing
compression post-tracking, it will amplify the background noise as well? If
that is the case then why would it be any different from using compression
during tracking (wouldn't it amplify the background noise to the same degree
then too)?

-Ben

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Ben Hanson wrote:
So just to clarify, there's not something about recording live drums (or
other types of things with sharp transients and/or wide dynamic ranges)
that
would *necessitate* the use of a compressor during tracking to do it
"right", am I hearing you right?

Not in the digital world, no. But it might be easier sometimes.

I'm not setting you up for a witty retort BTW, I'm genuinely asking! I
figured gain staging and mic technique was the "secret" for things like
vox
but it seems like everyone and their brother uses all the compressors they
can get their hands on to do things like drums. Perhaps this is just
amateurish group-think.

Often people will do that, to get a particular drum sound. But there is
no
reason you can't compress the crap out of things in mixdown instead of in
tracking; the effect today will be the same.

Conceptually, it makes sense to me that if you can set the gains so that
you
are not overdriving your inputs then a compressor isn't really going to
get
you anything at the recording stage.

Assuming your recorder is very quiet, it doesn't buy you anything much,
other than that you have the compressed sound you want and you don't have
to do any more processing in mixdown.

This can be a big deal if you are tracking something that somebody else
will
mix.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Scott Fraser]

Do everybody ride the gain (the micpre gain) or do everybody ride the

console channel fader to the machine input (direct output)?

A lot of recording is now done with no console, so it's just micpre
straight into the DAW interface. In that case, gain riding occurs on
whatever the micpre is equipped with, or not, in the case of preamps
with stepped attenuators.

Scott Fraser

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben Hanson wrote:
Thanks Scott...what is considered "very quiet", for pro studios? In my home
studio using various different interfaces my iso booth sits at about -85 db.
I think that is pretty good but not sure how it compares to professional iso
booths in pro studios.

-85 dB with reference to WHAT?

Also, is the reason you must have a quite recorder because if you are doing
compression post-tracking, it will amplify the background noise as well? If
that is the case then why would it be any different from using compression
during tracking (wouldn't it amplify the background noise to the same degree
then too)?

Because if the issue is the recorder adding noise, you want to compress
before the recorder noise is added, not after. But, if the issue is noise
in the actual room, it doesn't matter where the compression is in the chain
because it will _always_ be after the microphone and therefore after the
noise source.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Lorin David Schultz]

Ben Hanson wrote:

In particular for recording pop vox with fairly consistent dynamic
levels, is there a general consensus with professional recording
engineers that gain staging and mic technique alone is the best
way, or do many people still opt for light compression during the
tracking process?
-Ben

I agree with everyone else that sonically it's a wash whether you do it
on the way in or while mixing. However, if you know what you're after
and compress on the way in, you may free up some DAW horsepower for
other processes by not having to run as many compressors during mixdown.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[[email protected]]

Lorin David Schultz wrote:


I agree with everyone else that sonically it's a wash whether you do it
on the way in or while mixing. However, if you know what you're after
and compress on the way in, you may free up some DAW horsepower for
other processes by not having to run as many compressors during mixdown.


Technically sonically it's a wash, but if you have compressors that you
really like the sound of you end up using them, especially as the sound
relates to certain purposes. Plug ins don't capture them with the
exact vibe, though they imitate well. Also, there are many times
when I want to hit a vocal with several stages, each with low ratios,
to tame it subtley, when one compressor during the mix needs too much
ratio and threshold to do what I want.

Ironically, it's rock singing that doesn't need it the most, because it
doesn't really lose much by having it slapped on later with however
much you need. But theatrical-style singing can sound bad when getting
clamped down on during meaty passages. If you have good sounding
compressors licking it lightly going in and again during the mix can be
barely perceived as being compressed.

I went without compressing going into the DAW for a little while and
went back to using them for tracking. They were doing what I wanted
and making it sound like I wanted. I wasn't as happy with the results
I was getting doing it all during the mix.

[Lorin David Schultz]

wrote:

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

[...] Plug ins don't capture them
with the exact vibe, though they imitate well.

You're not using the right plugs. Some of my plugs sound better than
some of my hardware. Obviously I also have some hardware that has yet
to be supplanted by a plug-in, but I don't automatically dismiss plugs
is "interior" anymore.



Also, there are
many times when I want to hit a vocal with several stages, each
with low ratios, to tame it subtley, when one compressor during the
mix needs too much ratio and threshold to do what I want.

Yeah, me too. That's why I'll sometimes chain two or three plugs on a
track, or have one across a subgroup as well as the contributing tracks.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[Lorin David Schultz]

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

I don't automatically dismiss plugs is "interior" anymore.


@#$%!!!

That *should* have said "I don't automatically dismiss plugs as
'inferior' anymore."

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[Ben Hanson]

I guess I'm not sure...in this case, I was looking at the input level on an
armed track in Cubase/Nuendo...so I guess it would be in reference to 0? I
have Yamaha's Sound Reinforcement Handbook where they talk about this but I
haven't gotten to that chapter yet...

-Ben

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Ben Hanson wrote:
Thanks Scott...what is considered "very quiet", for pro studios? In my
home
studio using various different interfaces my iso booth sits at about -85
db.
I think that is pretty good but not sure how it compares to professional
iso
booths in pro studios.

-85 dB with reference to WHAT?

Also, is the reason you must have a quite recorder because if you are
doing
compression post-tracking, it will amplify the background noise as well?
If
that is the case then why would it be any different from using compression
during tracking (wouldn't it amplify the background noise to the same
degree
then too)?

Because if the issue is the recorder adding noise, you want to compress
before the recorder noise is added, not after. But, if the issue is noise
in the actual room, it doesn't matter where the compression is in the
chain
because it will _always_ be after the microphone and therefore after the
noise source.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ben Hanson]

What compression plug-ins do you guys like, that you consider to be
comparable to excellent hardware compressors in performance? I have used
some that seem to be fairly high-end...Waves (several different ones,
Renaissance, etc.), TC Audio, Timeworks (Mastering compressor/CompressorX),
Voxengo (Voxformer, Soniformer), etc.

-Ben

"Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message
news:l6bKg.6114$rd7.3937@edtnps89...
Lorin David Schultz wrote:

I don't automatically dismiss plugs is "interior" anymore.


@#$%!!!

That *should* have said "I don't automatically dismiss plugs as 'inferior'
anymore."

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[[email protected]]

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
wrote:

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

[...] Plug ins don't capture them
with the exact vibe, though they imitate well.

You're not using the right plugs. Some of my plugs sound better than
some of my hardware. Obviously I also have some hardware that has yet
to be supplanted by a plug-in, but I don't automatically dismiss plugs
is "interior" anymore.


It's true I haven't spent much money to find the ones that I find are
the perfect clones, but in the meanwhile have accumulated enough that I
like and use.

As Scott Fraser said in another thread:

"There is use for both. I track with hardware LA2A's & mix with
software
LA2A's. Do they sound the same or different? I don't know, I use them
at different times for different applications. Both sound good & both
are very useful tools for me."

Which brings it back on topic. Just because I don't -have- to track
with a hardware compressor doesn't mean I won't. : ) Maybe it's
because I'm a pretty old fart and my friends are also, but I think
almost all of us still track vocals with our compressor of choice
because we consider it, along with the mic and the pre, an integral
part of the sound. Not that it's squashed, just to get the sound of
the unit.

I guess what it boils down to is no, you don't have to go out and buy a
hardware compressor to track with if you have the plugs. But thems
that got it like to use it : )

[Jeff Chestek]

In article ,
"Tommi" wrote:

"Ben Hanson" wrote in message
...
In particular for recording pop vox with fairly consistent dynamic levels,
is there a general consensus with professional recording engineers that
gain staging and mic technique alone is the best way, or do many people
still opt for light compression during the tracking process?

Compression during tracking was obligatory in the tape age. Nowadays there
is really no sonical advantage to compress during tracking, unless you're
absolutely sure about what you're doing. Some people still use compression
when recording, others don't.

I didn't see anyone mention that compression during recording usually
means that the performer hears, and RESPONDS to, the compression (unless
you're running some unusual routing arrangement).

Waiting until the mix means they'll not "work" the compression
(intentionally or not).

Chestek

--
Anti-Spam email address in effect.
My real email should be pretty obvious to an actual human being.

[Mark]

Which brings it back on topic. Just because I don't -have- to track
with a hardware compressor doesn't mean I won't. : ) Maybe it's
because I'm a pretty old fart and my friends are also, but I think
almost all of us still track vocals with our compressor of choice
because we consider it, along with the mic and the pre, an integral
part of the sound. Not that it's squashed, just to get the sound of
the unit.

Well I think the more interesting question that nobody has addressed
is:

Do you feed compressed audio back to the singers monitor phones....

Does compression and or verb on the monitor phones in some way impact
the singers performance?

Mark