Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
recording vocals w compression?
In this place, McSim was recorded saying ...
thanks- but what is best then? record without compr and have VERY wide dynamic, compress later OR record with compression? On a digital systems - especially using 24 bit depth - you have more than enough dynamic range to record without any need for compression. Just turn down the levels so the peaks never hit 0dBFS - a level of -6dBFS is still OK. Compress later when you come to mix. If you need to. -- George Newcastle, England Problems worthy of attack Prove their worth, by hitting back [Piet Hein] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is helpful, with some vocalists is not so much compression, but
limiting while tracking. If you've got, say Steven Tyler in your studio who might go into a scream at any moment...a limiter will be your friend. If you're tracking a lot of vocals in your studio do yourself a favor and grab a decent outboard compressor/limiter like an older dbx160x. Can be had all day long for around $200-300. You can thank me later. m |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If you want to control the dynamic range of the voltage before the
digital converter, you need outboard compression. As stated above, if you track at 24 bits you should have enough headroom to track without compression, even "dynamic" singers. This is what I do with my U87, DW Fearn pre and Motu 24io. If the vocalist wants to hear some compression "live" as they do the take, I patch it in the monitor path and still track pre compression. If you still want to compress before going digital then some recommendation I can make would be a distressor, Buzz Audio or a RNC. Keep Smokin Adam B SNJ Studio http://snjstudio.cjb.net |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Most people compress vocals before recording them
It's hard to say "most " people, but many do and it's going to depend on the style of music being recorded. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"EggHd" wrote in message
Most people compress vocals before recording them It's hard to say "most " people, but many do and it's going to depend on the style of music being recorded. I agree that its something that some people do. I don't agree that the style of music is a controlling factor. I like these quotes: " It's always in my opinion better not to use compression if it can be avoided." "When you use software, record as plain as possible, then process later." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Really?
Why would one do such a thing? Isn't that sort of like heavily salting your ice cream before tasting it? There are situations where it makes sense. For instance, I do a ton of Hip Hop sessions where guys are jumping on the mic one after another. Over the years I ahve come up with an input chain, including compressors, that lets me track without fear of overs and without needing to do a lot of vocal processing afterwards. Basically, like anything, until you do it you're not going to know what works for your situation. John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Most people compress vocals before recording them
It's hard to say "most " people, but many do and it's going to depend on the style of music being recorded. I agree that its something that some people do. I don't agree that the style of music is a controlling factor. I like these quotes: " It's always in my opinion better not to use compression if it can be avoided." "When you use software, record as plain as possible, then process later." The problem is that many times what can be achieved with an outboard unit is not that easy with plug ins. I have no way of knowing what most people do..noone does. I use compression on all kinds of things on the way to DAW...trial and error AND style tells you what works. YMMV John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Blind Joni" wrote in message
Most people compress vocals before recording them It's hard to say "most " people, but many do and it's going to depend on the style of music being recorded. I agree that its something that some people do. I don't agree that the style of music is a controlling factor. I like these quotes: " It's always in my opinion better not to use compression if it can be avoided." "When you use software, record as plain as possible, then process later." The problem is that many times what can be achieved with an outboard unit is not that easy with plug ins. In practice that may be true at least part of the time. It may be a matter of poorly-designed plugins that don't have the functions that people need. The function may be there, but not exposed in a way that people can easily exploit. However, there aren't many limits to what a plug-in can potentially do. But, that does not detract from the concept of recording clean and processing later on. Most if not all DAW software will allow looping a track through an external processor. I have no way of knowing what most people do..noone does. Agreed. I use compression on all kinds of things on the way to DAW...trial and error AND style tells you what works. I was interpreting style more like genre. How about you? YMMV It always does! ;-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Blind Joni" wrote in message
Really? Why would one do such a thing? Isn't that sort of like heavily salting your ice cream before tasting it? There are situations where it makes sense. For instance, I do a ton of Hip Hop sessions where guys are jumping on the mic one after another. Over the years I ahve come up with an input chain, including compressors, that lets me track without fear of overs and without needing to do a lot of vocal processing afterwards. Basically, like anything, until you do it you're not going to know what works for your situation. I'm prone to interpreting what you said as meaning that you've found the right salt for one kind or a few kinds of ice cream that you're being served again and again. Nothing wrong with cutting to the chase if what leads up to the chase is always highly predictable. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
George Perfect wrote in message . co.uk...
In this place, McSim was recorded saying ... thanks- but what is best then? record without compr and have VERY wide dynamic, compress later OR record with compression? On a digital systems - especially using 24 bit depth - you have more than enough dynamic range to record without any need for compression. Just turn down the levels so the peaks never hit 0dBFS - a level of -6dBFS is still OK. Compress later when you come to mix. If you need to. I agree with George that at 24 bits, you probably don't need compression during recording. But at 16 bits, I almost always use a few(1-4) dB of lower ratio ANALOG compression from a good compressor (1176, Distressor, dbx160, etc.)BEFORE the a/d converters, to get a nice, hot signal onto disk - usually peaking at around -2 to -4 dbfs. But don't overdo it! You can't uncompress later. Mikey Nova Music Productions |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Maxime Lenssens wrote:
Most people compress vocals before recording them.. Yes, to capture the sound of a particular analog unit... How does this work using VST plugins? Putting a compressor on INSERT doesn't record the effect with it.. It doesn't. I don't think it's worth even trying. You can just as well use several compressors during mixdown if that's the effect you are looking for. Timo |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
If you have a system that works for you, no reason not to use it. But if you can't route a recording on your computer out to a hardware compressor (or any other signal processor for that matter) you don't have an excuse to process on the way in, you have a routing problem that you should correct. My methodology (?) has always been that what goes on tape is as close to the final product as possible. Normally this means a straight path from source to mic to mic pre to tape. No EQ or compression. But in case of rock vocals, for example, I often know that I'll want the 1176 or say the Manley VoxBox vibe on the track even before recording, so I'll just go ahead and patch it in. If the vocalist wants it removed, it will be. Timo |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I'm prone to interpreting what you said as meaning that you've found the
right salt for one kind or a few kinds of ice cream that you're being served again and again. Nothing wrong with cutting to the chase if what leads up to the chase is always highly predictable. Exactly, it works for this situation..also for screaming hard core vocals...other recordings should be evaluated on their own needs. John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The problem is that many times what can be achieved with an outboard
unit is not that easy with plug ins. In practice that may be true at least part of the time. It may be a matter of poorly-designed plugins that don't have the functions that people need. Don't get me wrong, I use tons of plug in comps on a variety of sources in mixdown. For vocals nothing sounds as good as my Requisite L1 for putting an even slickness that I can count on. Ren Vox is one of my favorites for contemporary vocal sounds. John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I think tracking with a compressor is a very important thing. There's
also a big difference between tracking with a compressor and tracking with compression. Do you need to track with compression into a DAW for a better level? Not really. Can you set a compressor or limiter to protect a performance for distortion cause by unexpected overs? Yes and that's probably a good idea in general. Can you affect the vocal tone with your compressor choice as much as with your mic or pre choice? Yes? Will you get the same sound with a plug-in during mixing? No. Which is better? Unanswerable, but I'd prefer towork in the analog domain. I think if you have to ask whether to compress during tracking or mixing you should compress during mixing until the day where you find yourself saying "I really should just get compressor X and put it in my recording chain." Don't spend the money on a compressor until you know your tastes and habits and you'll make a much better choice. Opto compressors are a good place to start for many different vocal styles. If you think you might quit recording in the next 6 months or so, I'd say buy a cheap compressor. If you plany to do it for a while, save you money and buy the one you really want. That way you can't blame the gear (I first learned this with golf equipment) and you won't have to sell a cheap compressor for next to nothing when you decided to upgrade to something that will last a life time. Fewer pieces of great gear go much further and are much cheaper in the long run. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Caffrey" wrote in message
om... I think tracking with a compressor is a very important thing. I do to but for a very different reason! When a performer is hearing the effect of compression and gain-riding, they will unconsciously adapt their performance to what they hear. I find myself needing less limiting and compression to create an equally consistent vocal presence in the final mix. This in turn gives me a significant reduction in noise and distortion in the final product plus it improves the dynamics of each additional overdub because the performers can hear the final vocal dynamics. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:51:28 +0100, George Perfect
wrote: On a digital systems - especially using 24 bit depth - you have more than enough dynamic range to record without any need for compression. Just turn down the levels so the peaks never hit 0dBFS - a level of -6dBFS is still OK. Compress later when you come to mix. If you need to. I'm sure you've told me off in another place for suggesting that 24 bits gave an increased dynamic range? Something to do with the fact that no practical source has sufficient dynamic range to fill 16 bits, let alone 24? CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote: On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:51:28 +0100, George Perfect wrote: On a digital systems - especially using 24 bit depth - you have more than enough dynamic range to record without any need for compression. Just turn down the levels so the peaks never hit 0dBFS - a level of -6dBFS is still OK. Compress later when you come to mix. If you need to. I'm sure you've told me off in another place for suggesting that 24 bits gave an increased dynamic range? Something to do with the fact that no practical source has sufficient dynamic range to fill 16 bits, let alone 24? If he hasn't, maybe I did. 16 bits is a phenomenal amount of dynamic range. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
I second this, I've tried this thing, and it's a nice little multi-band compressor. Lotsa review sites like it too.-MAtt It's not multiband. It sounds good and it has two different knee configurations, but it's single-band. j But man, it has a left band and a right band... /j (BTW, I got to drive the RNP for a while, and it's a very worthy stablemate to the RNP. Damn nice little preamp, and fully capable of pro results.) -- ha |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Jul 2004 10:32:38 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Something to do with the fact that no practical source has sufficient dynamic range to fill 16 bits, let alone 24? If he hasn't, maybe I did. 16 bits is a phenomenal amount of dynamic range. --scott Scott - a serious question. What, if anything, do you see as an advantage of 24-bit recording? CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:51:28 +0100, George Perfect wrote: On a digital systems - especially using 24 bit depth - you have more than enough dynamic range to record without any need for compression. Just turn down the levels so the peaks never hit 0dBFS - a level of -6dBFS is still OK. Compress later when you come to mix. If you need to. I'm sure you've told me off in another place for suggesting that 24 bits gave an increased dynamic range? In theory 24 does give more dynamic range, but in the real world 16 bits need never cause the dynamic range of a live or studio recording to be less than that of the source. Figure 65 dB as about as good as it gets for a live recording, and maybe 10 dB better in the studio. Something to do with the fact that no practical source has sufficient dynamic range to fill 16 bits, let alone 24? True, and its very hard to fill 16 bits, even with impractical sources. I had to figuratively stand on my head and spit nickels to get about 85 dB dynamic range in http://64.41.69.21/technical/referen...gle-2_2496.wav . |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Laurence Payne wrote:
On 20 Jul 2004 10:32:38 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Something to do with the fact that no practical source has sufficient dynamic range to fill 16 bits, let alone 24? If he hasn't, maybe I did. 16 bits is a phenomenal amount of dynamic range. Scott - a serious question. What, if anything, do you see as an advantage of 24-bit recording? The fact that you can be phenomenally sloppy with levels and still wind up with valid 16-bit data at the end of the line. 24-bit systems (most of which really only have 18 or 20 valid bits to tell the truth) give you added range to be slack about levels and that's a big advantage at times. There are some major advantages to doing processing with much wider words, but that has nothing to do with the word length of the converters. You can record at 20 bit signed int and then convert to 32-bit floats internal representation for processing, then bump the data down to 20-bit int for output again. Lots of workstations do this without necessarily telling you about it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Brown" wrote in message
... We aren't reproducing real life but an amazing simulation. To simulate the actual dynamic range in a recording we don't have to have the actual dynamic range, we just have to make the listener think we have. When you consider the effect of the inverse square law on a vocal sung a few inches from a microphone, you're talking about a dynamic range that vastly exceeds anything that would be heard at any reasonable listening distance from the singer. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
When you consider the effect of the inverse square law on a vocal sung a few
inches from a microphone, you're talking about a dynamic range that vastly exceeds anything that would be heard at any reasonable listening distance from the singer. Say What? "Don't gimme' no grass and call it greens" OldBluesman |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
(OldBluesman) wrote:
When you consider the effect of the inverse square law on a vocal sung a few inches from a microphone, you're talking about a dynamic range that vastly exceeds anything that would be heard at any reasonable listening distance from the singer. Say What? "Don't gimme' no grass and call it greens" OldBluesman If you stick your ear right next to a shouting singer, it's gonna be a whole lot louder than standing 6 feet from the singer. Mics react the same way. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OldBluesman wrote:
When you consider the effect of the inverse square law on a vocal sung a few inches from a microphone, you're talking about a dynamic range that vastly exceeds anything that would be heard at any reasonable listening distance from the singer. Say What? Translation: because sound falls off very quickly with distance, a singer that is close to a microphone and moving his or her head around a lot ends up with radical changes in sound level. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Harvey Gerst" wrote in message
(OldBluesman) wrote: When you consider the effect of the inverse square law on a vocal sung a few inches from a microphone, you're talking about a dynamic range that vastly exceeds anything that would be heard at any reasonable listening distance from the singer. Say What? "Don't gimme' no grass and call it greens" OldBluesman If you stick your ear right next to a shouting singer, it's gonna be a whole lot louder than standing 6 feet from the singer. Mics react the same way. But what happens if we back off to real world conditions - a vocalist working with a hand-held or stand-mounted mic. If the mic is 4 feet away on a stand, the vocalist isn't going to cause a 50 or 100% change in mic-mouth distance unless he signs with figurative track shoes on. If the mic is on the end of his arm, he's not going to be pumping that arm beween 3 inches and arm's length while singing the song. People talk about the inverse square law, but a mouth is not a point source - it has significant size at hand-held distances. More likely IME, is a highly directional mic that is being pointed at different angles. Moral of story - try not to be so dependent on highly directional mics, if you can. Bottom line, intelligent vocalists tend to produce a more consistent musical product if they can hear what they are singing through the mic some other way than just through and around their head. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
If the mic is 4 feet away on a stand, the vocalist isn't going to cause a 50 or 100% change in mic-mouth distance unless he signs with figurative track shoes on. Right. If the mic is on the end of his arm, he's not going to be pumping that arm beween 3 inches and arm's length while singing the song. Oh, yeah he will. I get guys doing that sort of thing all the time and it DRIVES ME UP THE FREAKING WALL. People talk about the inverse square law, but a mouth is not a point source - it has significant size at hand-held distances. More likely IME, is a highly directional mic that is being pointed at different angles. Moral of story - try not to be so dependent on highly directional mics, if you can. The highly directional mikes give considerably better gain before feedback and are almost always a good idea with skilled vocalists. Bottom line, intelligent vocalists tend to produce a more consistent musical product if they can hear what they are singing through the mic some other way than just through and around their head. There are plenty of vocalists who can work a mike without monitors at all, just cupping their ear. There are plenty of vocalists who have not even a vague clue about how to work a mike. We get both kinds here, and a lot in-between. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:40:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: If the mic is 4 feet away on a stand, the vocalist isn't going to cause a 50 or 100% change in mic-mouth distance unless he signs with figurative track shoes on. If the mic is on the end of his arm, he's not going to be pumping that arm beween 3 inches and arm's length while singing the song. Oh yes he is :-) Many club singers think that is "microphone technique". CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ferstler on recording | Audio Opinions | |||
Computer recording vocals over Karaoke | Pro Audio | |||
Recording Vocals, Fighting Overloads, Tips? | Pro Audio |