Digital recording limiting?

[Randall Shawver]

I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
to put in the path? Thanks

Randall

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Randall Shawver" > wrote in message ...
>
> Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> to put in the path?


<j> Obviously, the one that they cannot see. </j>

DM


PS: Record at a lower level and process later in PT

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Randall Shawver" > wrote in message ...
>
> Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> to put in the path?


<j> Obviously, the one that they cannot see. </j>

DM


PS: Record at a lower level and process later in PT

[Arny Krueger]

Randall Shawver wrote:
> I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> to put in the path? Thanks

Are you telling me that Digidesign's software doesn't include a proper
dynamics processor with limiting that you can apply at the track level,
after recording?

Yeccch!

/signed/ a happy Audition/CE user

[Arny Krueger]

Randall Shawver wrote:
> I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> to put in the path? Thanks

Are you telling me that Digidesign's software doesn't include a proper
dynamics processor with limiting that you can apply at the track level,
after recording?

Yeccch!

/signed/ a happy Audition/CE user

[John Washburn]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
> Randall Shawver wrote:
> > I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> > studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> > We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> > I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> > their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> > sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> > occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> > tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> > to put in the path? Thanks
>
> Are you telling me that Digidesign's software doesn't include a proper
> dynamics processor with limiting that you can apply at the track level,
> after recording?
>
> Yeccch!
>
> /signed/ a happy Audition/CE user

No, of course it does. He was wondering about a limiter on the way in.

-jw

[John Washburn]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
> Randall Shawver wrote:
> > I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> > studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> > We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> > I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> > their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> > sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> > occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> > tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> > to put in the path? Thanks
>
> Are you telling me that Digidesign's software doesn't include a proper
> dynamics processor with limiting that you can apply at the track level,
> after recording?
>
> Yeccch!
>
> /signed/ a happy Audition/CE user

No, of course it does. He was wondering about a limiter on the way in.

-jw

[Arny Krueger]

Randall Shawver wrote:
> I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> tracking.

Why not just set the mic gains lower, and thereby have enough headroom?

[Arny Krueger]

Randall Shawver wrote:
> I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> tracking.

Why not just set the mic gains lower, and thereby have enough headroom?

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>Are you telling me that Digidesign's software doesn't include a proper
>dynamics processor with limiting that you can apply at the track level,
>after recording?
>
>Yeccch!

Nope, the stock dynamics plugin is pretty nasty sounding and their
limiter is next to useless. The good part is that some of the few
digital compressors on the planet that actually sound good are
available as plugins. My personal favorites: McDSP Compressor Bank,
Sony Oxford Dynamics and sometimes the Waves Renassance compressor.
Yeah, it's a short list - most digital compressors really aren't
useful. (Come to think about it, many modern analog ones are pretty
duff too...)

As for limiters, Waves L2 is available in lots of places. It works
well, and if not, the rest of your house isn't in order. It's third
party no matter where you go.

Come to think about it, the stock plugins are usually no treat, and
IME, this is true across all workstations I've ever used. I'll use a
stock EQ plugin only on floating point systems (or Sonic HD), but all
the rest stink. Oh yeah, delays are usually a safe bet too. Dynamics
from a workstation vendor is usually not useful though.

>/signed/ a happy Audition/CE user

I betcha Adobe's builtin isn't pretty either...! IMNSHO, it's hard to
implement a good sounding compressor digitally. Most of the time,
people waste time with completely unnatural things like lookahead and
forget important stuff like filtering the control signal.

At least I have two compressors that work... basically enough to make
a record.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte P McGuire]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>Are you telling me that Digidesign's software doesn't include a proper
>dynamics processor with limiting that you can apply at the track level,
>after recording?
>
>Yeccch!

Nope, the stock dynamics plugin is pretty nasty sounding and their
limiter is next to useless. The good part is that some of the few
digital compressors on the planet that actually sound good are
available as plugins. My personal favorites: McDSP Compressor Bank,
Sony Oxford Dynamics and sometimes the Waves Renassance compressor.
Yeah, it's a short list - most digital compressors really aren't
useful. (Come to think about it, many modern analog ones are pretty
duff too...)

As for limiters, Waves L2 is available in lots of places. It works
well, and if not, the rest of your house isn't in order. It's third
party no matter where you go.

Come to think about it, the stock plugins are usually no treat, and
IME, this is true across all workstations I've ever used. I'll use a
stock EQ plugin only on floating point systems (or Sonic HD), but all
the rest stink. Oh yeah, delays are usually a safe bet too. Dynamics
from a workstation vendor is usually not useful though.

>/signed/ a happy Audition/CE user

I betcha Adobe's builtin isn't pretty either...! IMNSHO, it's hard to
implement a good sounding compressor digitally. Most of the time,
people waste time with completely unnatural things like lookahead and
forget important stuff like filtering the control signal.

At least I have two compressors that work... basically enough to make
a record.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:14:44 GMT, Randall Shawver
> wrote:

>
>I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
>studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
>We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
>I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
>their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
>sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
>occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
>tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
>to put in the path? Thanks

The most transparent (and one the rappers can't see:-) would be to
turn down the level a bit. Really :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:14:44 GMT, Randall Shawver
> wrote:

>
>I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
>studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
>We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
>I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
>their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
>sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
>occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
>tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
>to put in the path? Thanks

The most transparent (and one the rappers can't see:-) would be to
turn down the level a bit. Really :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Randall Shawver]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:25:48 +0100, Laurence Payne
> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:14:44 GMT, Randall Shawver
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
>>studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
>>We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
>>I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
>>their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
>>sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
>>occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
>>tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
>>to put in the path? Thanks
>
>The most transparent (and one the rappers can't see:-) would be to
>turn down the level a bit. Really :-)
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
>"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect


I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.
Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
moving in if I am concentrating on something else.

The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.Combine this
with the fact they do 3 main vocal tracks, and some adlibs, and this
headphone bleed builds up to way too loud.I need to record hot to
avoid this problem.
These guys like to record with loud headphone mixes, and raw. Limiting
after recording will not do any good if the audio clips coming in, so
I need a hardware limiter that is as transparent as possible to catch
the occasional peak above 0 to avoid distortion.

Randall

[Randall Shawver]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:25:48 +0100, Laurence Payne
> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:14:44 GMT, Randall Shawver
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
>>studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
>>We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
>>I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
>>their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
>>sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
>>occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
>>tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
>>to put in the path? Thanks
>
>The most transparent (and one the rappers can't see:-) would be to
>turn down the level a bit. Really :-)
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
>"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect


I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.
Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
moving in if I am concentrating on something else.

The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.Combine this
with the fact they do 3 main vocal tracks, and some adlibs, and this
headphone bleed builds up to way too loud.I need to record hot to
avoid this problem.
These guys like to record with loud headphone mixes, and raw. Limiting
after recording will not do any good if the audio clips coming in, so
I need a hardware limiter that is as transparent as possible to catch
the occasional peak above 0 to avoid distortion.

Randall

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Randall Shawver > wrote:

> I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> to put in the path? Thanks

Did you explain to them that a compressor will help bring out the
"rawness" of the vocal sound?

ulysses

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Randall Shawver > wrote:

> I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> to put in the path? Thanks

Did you explain to them that a compressor will help bring out the
"rawness" of the vocal sound?

ulysses

[georgeh]

Randall Shawver > writes:
>I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.
>Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
>I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
>moving in if I am concentrating on something else.

[georgeh]

Randall Shawver > writes:
>I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.
>Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
>I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
>moving in if I am concentrating on something else.

[Wayne]

Randall wrote:

>The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
>recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
>makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
>more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
>vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
>parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.Combine this
>with the fact they do 3 main vocal tracks, and some adlibs, and this
>headphone bleed builds up to way too loud.I need to record hot to
>avoid this problem.
>These guys like to record with loud headphone mixes, and raw. Limiting
>after recording will not do any good if the audio clips coming in, so
>I need a hardware limiter that is as transparent as possible to catch
>the occasional peak above 0 to avoid distortion.
>
>
I'm not the swiftest guy around so someone explain to me how a highe recording
level is going to affect the live vocal to headphone ratio? When the mixing
compressor brings the level, up the ratio of vocal to headphone level has
already been established. The compressor could possibly bring up the level in
the dead spots and 'cause a problem but the initial tracking level shouldn't
affect that.

--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-

[Wayne]

Randall wrote:

>The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
>recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
>makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
>more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
>vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
>parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.Combine this
>with the fact they do 3 main vocal tracks, and some adlibs, and this
>headphone bleed builds up to way too loud.I need to record hot to
>avoid this problem.
>These guys like to record with loud headphone mixes, and raw. Limiting
>after recording will not do any good if the audio clips coming in, so
>I need a hardware limiter that is as transparent as possible to catch
>the occasional peak above 0 to avoid distortion.
>
>
I'm not the swiftest guy around so someone explain to me how a highe recording
level is going to affect the live vocal to headphone ratio? When the mixing
compressor brings the level, up the ratio of vocal to headphone level has
already been established. The compressor could possibly bring up the level in
the dead spots and 'cause a problem but the initial tracking level shouldn't
affect that.

--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-

[John Washburn]

"Wayne" wrote:
> Randall wrote:
>
> >The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
> >recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
> >makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
> >more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
> >vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
> >parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.Combine this

<snip>
> >
> I'm not the swiftest guy around so someone explain to me how a highe
recording
> level is going to affect the live vocal to headphone ratio? When the
mixing
> compressor brings the level, up the ratio of vocal to headphone level has
> already been established. The compressor could possibly bring up the
level in
> the dead spots and 'cause a problem but the initial tracking level
shouldn't
> affect that.

Compressing (or limiting) on the way to disc to obtain a higher level is
useful if the media itself is noisy. Since this isn't the case, it wouldn't
make a difference.

-jw

[John Washburn]

"Wayne" wrote:
> Randall wrote:
>
> >The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
> >recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
> >makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
> >more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
> >vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
> >parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.Combine this

<snip>
> >
> I'm not the swiftest guy around so someone explain to me how a highe
recording
> level is going to affect the live vocal to headphone ratio? When the
mixing
> compressor brings the level, up the ratio of vocal to headphone level has
> already been established. The compressor could possibly bring up the
level in
> the dead spots and 'cause a problem but the initial tracking level
shouldn't
> affect that.

Compressing (or limiting) on the way to disc to obtain a higher level is
useful if the media itself is noisy. Since this isn't the case, it wouldn't
make a difference.

-jw

[Arny Krueger]

Randall Shawver wrote:

>
> I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.

That's at least 5 dB too high.

> Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
> I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
> moving in if I am concentrating on something else.

I can't stand it, you're punishing yourself trying to push the levels, and
getting bad recordings for your efforts!

> The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
> recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
> makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
> more.

The problem with more bleeding is due to the compression, not the headroom.
You're probably using the compression to amplify the track. If you want to
bring up the level of the track, do it by amplifying it with your DAW
software. Then apply dynamics processing to get a track with more consistent
levels.

>I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
> vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
> parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.

So don't use compression to bring up the level of the track, use your tracks
level control.

>Combine this
> with the fact they do 3 main vocal tracks, and some adlibs, and this
> headphone bleed builds up to way too loud.I need to record hot to
> avoid this problem.

You can add the gain AFTER tracking. At that point you know the peak level
on the track, and can avoid clipping.

> These guys like to record with loud headphone mixes, and raw.

Shouldn't be a problem.

> Limiting
> after recording will not do any good if the audio clips coming in, so
> I need a hardware limiter that is as transparent as possible to catch
> the occasional peak above 0 to avoid distortion.

No you don't!

You just need to add some gain to the track during the mixdown by means of
amplification, not just by compressing..

[Arny Krueger]

Randall Shawver wrote:

>
> I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.

That's at least 5 dB too high.

> Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
> I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
> moving in if I am concentrating on something else.

I can't stand it, you're punishing yourself trying to push the levels, and
getting bad recordings for your efforts!

> The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
> recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
> makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
> more.

The problem with more bleeding is due to the compression, not the headroom.
You're probably using the compression to amplify the track. If you want to
bring up the level of the track, do it by amplifying it with your DAW
software. Then apply dynamics processing to get a track with more consistent
levels.

>I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
> vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
> parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.

So don't use compression to bring up the level of the track, use your tracks
level control.

>Combine this
> with the fact they do 3 main vocal tracks, and some adlibs, and this
> headphone bleed builds up to way too loud.I need to record hot to
> avoid this problem.

You can add the gain AFTER tracking. At that point you know the peak level
on the track, and can avoid clipping.

> These guys like to record with loud headphone mixes, and raw.

Shouldn't be a problem.

> Limiting
> after recording will not do any good if the audio clips coming in, so
> I need a hardware limiter that is as transparent as possible to catch
> the occasional peak above 0 to avoid distortion.

No you don't!

You just need to add some gain to the track during the mixdown by means of
amplification, not just by compressing..

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:33:06 GMT, Randall Shawver
> wrote:

>
>I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.

That's risky. especially with undisciplined performers.

>Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
>I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
>moving in if I am concentrating on something else.
>
>The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
>recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
>makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
>more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
>vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
>parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.Combine this
>with the fact they do 3 main vocal tracks, and some adlibs, and this
>headphone bleed builds up to way too loud.I need to record hot to
>avoid this problem.

The compression's causing this problem. No matter whether you do it
early or later.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:33:06 GMT, Randall Shawver
> wrote:

>
>I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.

That's risky. especially with undisciplined performers.

>Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
>I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
>moving in if I am concentrating on something else.
>
>The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
>recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
>makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
>more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
>vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
>parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.Combine this
>with the fact they do 3 main vocal tracks, and some adlibs, and this
>headphone bleed builds up to way too loud.I need to record hot to
>avoid this problem.

The compression's causing this problem. No matter whether you do it
early or later.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Scott Dorsey]

Randall Shawver > wrote:
>
>The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
>recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
>makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
>more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
>vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
>parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.

That's not because you recorded at a lower level, that's what compression
does. The whole purpose of compression is to bring lower level material
up and bring higher level material down.

No matter HOW you record, the compression will do this. If you have to
use compression on the vocals, use headphones that bleed less.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Randall Shawver > wrote:
>
>The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
>recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
>makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
>more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
>vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
>parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.

That's not because you recorded at a lower level, that's what compression
does. The whole purpose of compression is to bring lower level material
up and bring higher level material down.

No matter HOW you record, the compression will do this. If you have to
use compression on the vocals, use headphones that bleed less.
--scott


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

[Randall Shawver]

On 22 May 2004 10:23:58 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Randall Shawver > wrote:
>>
>>The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
>>recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
>>makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
>>more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
>>vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
>>parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.
>
>That's not because you recorded at a lower level, that's what compression
>does. The whole purpose of compression is to bring lower level material
>up and bring higher level material down.

The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
occasional word or 2 per take.
Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

Would it be better to record at a lower level, even though we rarely
compress the vocal tracks?I figured it would be better to get as hot
as possible into the computer, and leave a few db's to add what minor
compression we may need to use in the mix.

Randall

[Randall Shawver]

On 22 May 2004 10:23:58 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Randall Shawver > wrote:
>>
>>The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
>>recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
>>makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
>>more.I dont just mean headphone bleed during silent spots in the
>>vocal track, but that the headphones pop out during the actual vocal
>>parts too much when compressing a low recorded signal.
>
>That's not because you recorded at a lower level, that's what compression
>does. The whole purpose of compression is to bring lower level material
>up and bring higher level material down.

The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
occasional word or 2 per take.
Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

Would it be better to record at a lower level, even though we rarely
compress the vocal tracks?I figured it would be better to get as hot
as possible into the computer, and leave a few db's to add what minor
compression we may need to use in the mix.

Randall

[Peter Larsen]

Randall Shawver wrote:

> >>tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> >>to put in the path? Thanks

Laurence Payne commented:

> >The most transparent (and one the rappers can't see:-) would be to
> >turn down the level a bit. Really :-)

> I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.
> Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
> I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
> moving in if I am concentrating on something else.

Not an issue, you have plenty dynamic range.

> The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
> recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
> makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
> more.

Which is why compression and expansion goes hand in hand.

> Randall


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Randall Shawver wrote:

> >>tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> >>to put in the path? Thanks

Laurence Payne commented:

> >The most transparent (and one the rappers can't see:-) would be to
> >turn down the level a bit. Really :-)

> I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.
> Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
> I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
> moving in if I am concentrating on something else.

Not an issue, you have plenty dynamic range.

> The problem with recording at lower levels I have found is, when
> recording with the peaks hitting -10 or -12, and compressing later,
> makes the headphone mix bleeding into the vocal track pop out a lot
> more.

Which is why compression and expansion goes hand in hand.

> Randall


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Randall Shawver wrote:

> The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
> have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
> limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
> when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
> occasional word or 2 per take.

The mic position could be too close then, back away a bit and minor
posture variations will matter less.

> Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

> Would it be better to record at a lower level,

Yes, one simple productivity reason: to let you have your mind on
something other than whether clipping occurs.

> even though we rarely
> compress the vocal tracks?I figured it would be better to get as hot
> as possible into the computer, and leave a few db's to add what minor
> compression we may need to use in the mix.

That concern did apply back in the days of multitracking without noise
reduction. It was not then an aim to use the saturation properties of
tape, it was an unavoidable sonic penalty for keeping the noisefloor
low. What everybody dreamt of then was to be able to record without
saturation issues.

> Randall


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Randall Shawver wrote:

> The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
> have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
> limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
> when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
> occasional word or 2 per take.

The mic position could be too close then, back away a bit and minor
posture variations will matter less.

> Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

> Would it be better to record at a lower level,

Yes, one simple productivity reason: to let you have your mind on
something other than whether clipping occurs.

> even though we rarely
> compress the vocal tracks?I figured it would be better to get as hot
> as possible into the computer, and leave a few db's to add what minor
> compression we may need to use in the mix.

That concern did apply back in the days of multitracking without noise
reduction. It was not then an aim to use the saturation properties of
tape, it was an unavoidable sonic penalty for keeping the noisefloor
low. What everybody dreamt of then was to be able to record without
saturation issues.

> Randall


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Arny Krueger]

Randall Shawver wrote:

> All I want is a limiter to catch the occasional over.

The limiter then serves no useful purpose at all.

>The only time I get clipping is
> when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
> occasional word or 2 per take.

So set your peak levels lower, say -10.

Then bring them up later on, in the mix.

> Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

That's way too high. You're courting disaster. One of the nice thing about
having good converters is the privilege of leaving yourself adequate
headroom.

[Arny Krueger]

Randall Shawver wrote:

> All I want is a limiter to catch the occasional over.

The limiter then serves no useful purpose at all.

>The only time I get clipping is
> when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
> occasional word or 2 per take.

So set your peak levels lower, say -10.

Then bring them up later on, in the mix.

> Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

That's way too high. You're courting disaster. One of the nice thing about
having good converters is the privilege of leaving yourself adequate
headroom.

[Scott Dorsey]

Randall Shawver > wrote:
>
>The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
>have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
>limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
>when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
>occasional word or 2 per take.
>Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

So, record them at -3 to -15, then boost them without compression in
mixing. You got outrageous dynamic range available, you might as well
use it.

>Would it be better to record at a lower level, even though we rarely
>compress the vocal tracks?I figured it would be better to get as hot
>as possible into the computer, and leave a few db's to add what minor
>compression we may need to use in the mix.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Randall Shawver > wrote:
>
>The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
>have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
>limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
>when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
>occasional word or 2 per take.
>Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

So, record them at -3 to -15, then boost them without compression in
mixing. You got outrageous dynamic range available, you might as well
use it.

>Would it be better to record at a lower level, even though we rarely
>compress the vocal tracks?I figured it would be better to get as hot
>as possible into the computer, and leave a few db's to add what minor
>compression we may need to use in the mix.

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

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"georgeh" > wrote in message ...
> Randall Shawver > writes:
> >I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.
> >Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
> >I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
> >moving in if I am concentrating on something else.
>

Too hot for what you "think" will be peaks.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"georgeh" > wrote in message ...
> Randall Shawver > writes:
> >I set the levels so that the peaks come in at -3 to -5.
> >Sometimes they move in on the mic, and sing louder on certain phrases.
> >I do not always have time to adjust the gain, or may not even see them
> >moving in if I am concentrating on something else.
>

Too hot for what you "think" will be peaks.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:27:09 GMT, Randall Shawver
> wrote:

>The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
>have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
>limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
>when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
>occasional word or 2 per take.
>Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.
>
>Would it be better to record at a lower level, even though we rarely
>compress the vocal tracks?I figured it would be better to get as hot
>as possible into the computer, and leave a few db's to add what minor
>compression we may need to use in the mix.

Yes.

Once inside the computer, you're in a whole new ball game. The audio
mixer in your program will have plenty of internal headroom. Just
because you record a wav peaking close to 0dB doesn't mean there's no
scope for increasing the "loudness" with compression. If it was
recorded with lower peaks (and you have a reasonably low noise floor)
you can just turn it up.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:27:09 GMT, Randall Shawver
> wrote:

>The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
>have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
>limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
>when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
>occasional word or 2 per take.
>Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.
>
>Would it be better to record at a lower level, even though we rarely
>compress the vocal tracks?I figured it would be better to get as hot
>as possible into the computer, and leave a few db's to add what minor
>compression we may need to use in the mix.

Yes.

Once inside the computer, you're in a whole new ball game. The audio
mixer in your program will have plenty of internal headroom. Just
because you record a wav peaking close to 0dB doesn't mean there's no
scope for increasing the "loudness" with compression. If it was
recorded with lower peaks (and you have a reasonably low noise floor)
you can just turn it up.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Gary Flanigan]

Randall Shawver > wrote in message >...
> I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> to put in the path? Thanks
>
> Randall

Notwithstanding the good advice you've gotten here about
setting levels-to answer your original question, an Aphex
Dominator II works very well to do what you propose. Of
course, it works best when set to engage only occassionally,
meaning you are better off setting the levels lower anyway.

[Gary Flanigan]

Randall Shawver > wrote in message >...
> I currently work with some rap- hip hoppers at a local recording
> studio, and their vocal techniques leave a lot to be desired.
> We use a digi 002, and a neumann tlm 103 to track most of the vocals .
> I would like to slightly compress their vocals while recording, but in
> their minds, a compressor is not necessary because they want a raw
> sound.I really only want to limit the vocal tracks to catch the
> occasional over that happens when they creep up on the mic during
> tracking. Any suggestions on what would be a good transparent limiter
> to put in the path? Thanks
>
> Randall

Notwithstanding the good advice you've gotten here about
setting levels-to answer your original question, an Aphex
Dominator II works very well to do what you propose. Of
course, it works best when set to engage only occassionally,
meaning you are better off setting the levels lower anyway.

[Ryan]

Randall Shawver > wrote in message >...

> The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
> have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
> limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
> when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
> occasional word or 2 per take.
> Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

Well since no one has really offered any limiters as possibilities.
The best of the best is of course the Weiss DS1.
http://www.weiss.ch/ds1/ds1.html
You won't get much more neutral. But at $4925 it's pretty much
outside of EVERYBODY's price range. Maybe you can rent one.

Another option is to draw attention to what's happening to the
rappers. "You guys hear all that bleed? Is that how you want your
records to sound?" If you bring your clients into the decision making
process, you won't have to feel like you've got to sneak behind their
backs and fight what they're doing. If it really sounds like ****,
tell 'em and show 'em why. Nobody wants their recordings to sound
like ****. They will meet you halfway, or at least 25% of the way.

[Ryan]

Randall Shawver > wrote in message >...

> The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
> have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
> limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
> when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
> occasional word or 2 per take.
> Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.

Well since no one has really offered any limiters as possibilities.
The best of the best is of course the Weiss DS1.
http://www.weiss.ch/ds1/ds1.html
You won't get much more neutral. But at $4925 it's pretty much
outside of EVERYBODY's price range. Maybe you can rent one.

Another option is to draw attention to what's happening to the
rappers. "You guys hear all that bleed? Is that how you want your
records to sound?" If you bring your clients into the decision making
process, you won't have to feel like you've got to sneak behind their
backs and fight what they're doing. If it really sounds like ****,
tell 'em and show 'em why. Nobody wants their recordings to sound
like ****. They will meet you halfway, or at least 25% of the way.

[Randall Shawver]

On 23 May 2004 11:38:16 -0700, (Ryan) wrote:

>Randall Shawver > wrote in message >...
>
>> The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
>> have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
>> limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
>> when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
>> occasional word or 2 per take.
>> Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.
>
>Well since no one has really offered any limiters as possibilities.
>The best of the best is of course the Weiss DS1.
>http://www.weiss.ch/ds1/ds1.html
>You won't get much more neutral. But at $4925 it's pretty much
>outside of EVERYBODY's price range. Maybe you can rent one.
>
>Another option is to draw attention to what's happening to the
>rappers. "You guys hear all that bleed? Is that how you want your
>records to sound?" If you bring your clients into the decision making
>process, you won't have to feel like you've got to sneak behind their
>backs and fight what they're doing. If it really sounds like ****,
>tell 'em and show 'em why. Nobody wants their recordings to sound
>like ****. They will meet you halfway, or at least 25% of the way.

Even though these guys can rap at a steady level, and with consistent
tone, they have little experience with studio recording. I have
mentioned many times the problems they are causing, and they are
slowly seeing it my way.I made them turn down the headphone mix, and
dropped some highs out of the mix to stop the high hat leakage. They
are getting used to this.Their impatience is slowly fading, and the
recording process is getting easier with them.Especially when I told
them to stop getting high and drinking vodka before sessions. lol
I will probably do without the limiter, since their technique will
only get better as they learn. I will adapt in the meantime to
accomodate their technique. Thanks for the tip, though.

Randall

[Randall Shawver]

On 23 May 2004 11:38:16 -0700, (Ryan) wrote:

>Randall Shawver > wrote in message >...
>
>> The vocal tracks do not really need much compression. The vocalists
>> have good tone and punch in with the same intensity. All I want is a
>> limiter to catch the occasional over.The only time I get clipping is
>> when they start moving too much, and creep in closer to the mic for an
>> occasional word or 2 per take.
>> Otherwise the vocal levels stay constant at around -3 to -5.
>
>Well since no one has really offered any limiters as possibilities.
>The best of the best is of course the Weiss DS1.
>http://www.weiss.ch/ds1/ds1.html
>You won't get much more neutral. But at $4925 it's pretty much
>outside of EVERYBODY's price range. Maybe you can rent one.
>
>Another option is to draw attention to what's happening to the
>rappers. "You guys hear all that bleed? Is that how you want your
>records to sound?" If you bring your clients into the decision making
>process, you won't have to feel like you've got to sneak behind their
>backs and fight what they're doing. If it really sounds like ****,
>tell 'em and show 'em why. Nobody wants their recordings to sound
>like ****. They will meet you halfway, or at least 25% of the way.

Even though these guys can rap at a steady level, and with consistent
tone, they have little experience with studio recording. I have
mentioned many times the problems they are causing, and they are
slowly seeing it my way.I made them turn down the headphone mix, and
dropped some highs out of the mix to stop the high hat leakage. They
are getting used to this.Their impatience is slowly fading, and the
recording process is getting easier with them.Especially when I told
them to stop getting high and drinking vodka before sessions. lol
I will probably do without the limiter, since their technique will
only get better as they learn. I will adapt in the meantime to
accomodate their technique. Thanks for the tip, though.

Randall

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>Even though these guys can rap at a steady level, and with consistent
>tone, they have little experience with studio recording. I have
>mentioned many times the problems they are causing, and they are
>slowly seeing it my way.I made them turn down the headphone mix, and
>dropped some highs out of the mix to stop the high hat leakage. They
>are getting used to this.Their impatience is slowly fading, and the
>recording process is getting easier with them.Especially when I told
>them to stop getting high and drinking vodka before sessions. lol

Gee, if the sessions go smoothly when they aren't stoned or drunk--How are you
going to make any money?

Just kidding. Stoned and drunk clients are a PITA.

>I will probably do without the limiter, since their technique will
>only get better as they learn. I will adapt in the meantime to
>accomodate their technique. Thanks for the tip, though.
>
>Randall
>

Some after the fact compression and limiting isn't a bad thing for leveling out
the vocals and keeping them in front of the mix.

I don't understand why studio newbies insist on such extreme levels in the
cans. It makes them sing flat and damages their ears



Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>Even though these guys can rap at a steady level, and with consistent
>tone, they have little experience with studio recording. I have
>mentioned many times the problems they are causing, and they are
>slowly seeing it my way.I made them turn down the headphone mix, and
>dropped some highs out of the mix to stop the high hat leakage. They
>are getting used to this.Their impatience is slowly fading, and the
>recording process is getting easier with them.Especially when I told
>them to stop getting high and drinking vodka before sessions. lol

Gee, if the sessions go smoothly when they aren't stoned or drunk--How are you
going to make any money?

Just kidding. Stoned and drunk clients are a PITA.

>I will probably do without the limiter, since their technique will
>only get better as they learn. I will adapt in the meantime to
>accomodate their technique. Thanks for the tip, though.
>
>Randall
>

Some after the fact compression and limiting isn't a bad thing for leveling out
the vocals and keeping them in front of the mix.

I don't understand why studio newbies insist on such extreme levels in the
cans. It makes them sing flat and damages their ears



Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

Perhaps a used Aphex Dominator is what the Dr. ordered.... in the ballpark
of $300 (+) on e-Bay. AAMOF, there's a post today on this group for a used
Dominator, "best offer".

FWIW, almost never does headphone bleed play any significant role in the
final mix. When all is said and done, and we stop nitpicking every single
track & listen to them as a whole, it's usually *totally* masked.


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

Perhaps a used Aphex Dominator is what the Dr. ordered.... in the ballpark
of $300 (+) on e-Bay. AAMOF, there's a post today on this group for a used
Dominator, "best offer".

FWIW, almost never does headphone bleed play any significant role in the
final mix. When all is said and done, and we stop nitpicking every single
track & listen to them as a whole, it's usually *totally* masked.


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com