Re: recording vocals w compression?

[George Perfect]

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]

[chetatkinsdiet]

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

[Adam B]

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

[EggHd]

<< 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"

[Arny Krueger]

"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."

[Blind Joni]

>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

[Blind Joni]

>> << 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

[Arny Krueger]

"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!

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Mikey]

George Perfect > wrote in message >...
> 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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> 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

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.

Or maybe you have a hangup about D/A and A/D converters.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Timo Haanpää]

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

[Timo Haanpää]

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

[Blind Joni]

>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

[Blind Joni]

>> 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

[Mike Caffrey]

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.

[Bob Olhsson]

"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

[Laurence Payne]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[hank alrich]

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

[Laurence Payne]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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/reference/triangle-2_2496.wav .

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Laurence Payne]

On 20 Jul 2004 17:37:10 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>>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.

Thanks. That was about my thinking too. Good to have it confirmed.

>
>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.

Thus making internal overload almost impossible, despite users
insisting on normalising all wav files to the maximum and mixing at
the top of the faders :-)

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

[Bob Olhsson]

"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

[OldBluesman]

>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

[Harvey Gerst]

(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/

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Laurence Payne]

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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> But what happens if we back off to real world conditions - a vocalist
> working with a hand-held or stand-mounted mic.

Two potentially very different conditions.

> 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.

True, but it's rare to record a screaming (or genuinely dynamic "work
the mic") vocalist at 4 feet. You'd get too much room sound. It can be
a special effect, sure, but not a substitute for getting both the
proper vocal sound and the correct recording level.

> 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.

No, but 1/2 an inch to a foot is a pretty good difference to square.

> 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.

Intelligent volcalists? That's apparently something we don't have
enough of. Otherwise we wouldn't have people wanting to compress
vocals as a rule.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo