Do you use a hardware compressor/limiter for initial vocal tracks?
muzician21
compressor/limiter before the vocal hits the DAW to given an initial
evening up - at least tame the big peaks and get in the ballpark,
anticipating that more compression will be done with software later.
That's what I do.
However, I talked to a guy who doesn't use one and asserts that using
a hardware compressor makes it harder for software to do its job and
that it's not common for pro studios to use one.
Your thoughts?
hank alrich
This comes down to personal choice. Sometimes I use a comp on the way
in, and sometimes not, and it usually depends on whether or not I want
the specific coloration I will get from a particular compressor.
I now track at such low levels into 24 bits that I don't have to worry
about headroom. So I don't need a compressor to avoid crunching the
signal by crashing into 0 dBFS. However, sometimes I do want what a comp
offers.
The catch is that you have to know what you want and how to get it going
in, because you can't often remove the effects of that compression once
you've tracked it on the source.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
mikea
This piques my interest. Does anyone make a compressor that provides a
signal indicating the compression level, whether as digital or analog?
Because one could record that signal along with the compressed audio,
and use it as the control signal on a voltage-controlled amp to recover
(to some degree, at least) the uncompressed signal -- modulo processing
effects, of course.
Or am I reinventing a very old, well-worn, broken-spoked wheel with bad
bearings?
--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin
Scott Dorsey
>I was under the impression that it's common to use a hardware
>compressor/limiter before the vocal hits the DAW to given an initial
>evening up - at least tame the big peaks and get in the ballpark,
>anticipating that more compression will be done with software later.
>That's what I do.
Not really. You have outrageous amounts of headroom available, ther eis
no reason not to use it.
>However, I talked to a guy who doesn't use one and asserts that using
>a hardware compressor makes it harder for software to do its job and
>that it's not common for pro studios to use one.
I'm not sure what he means by "harder for software to do its job" but if
you do processing during tracking, you can never undo it. This is either
a good or a bad thing depending on your perspective.
>Your thoughts?
I occasionally process vocals on the way in, but then I mostly record to
analogue tape anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
>
>This piques my interest. Does anyone make a compressor that provides a
>signal indicating the compression level, whether as digital or analog?
Most of them do. They'll have a "link" output which provides the actual
control voltage, so you can link multiple compressors together so they
track at the same levels.
>Because one could record that signal along with the compressed audio,
>and use it as the control signal on a voltage-controlled amp to recover
>(to some degree, at least) the uncompressed signal -- modulo processing
>effects, of course.
This was the noise reduction system that 3M developed back in the early
1970s. I can't remember what they called it.
>Or am I reinventing a very old, well-worn, broken-spoked wheel with bad
>bearings?
Yes. The thing is, we got huge amounts of dynamic range today. there is no
reason not to just use it.
hank alrich
All decent compressors do indicate the degree of compression. But
there's more to what happens than just a technical reduction of dynamic
range. All of these color the signal in at least a couple of ways:
firstly, from the effect of the specific manner in which they constrain
dynamic range, and even with a given device, a lot of that can depend on
the settings employed (threshhold, attack and release settings, on very
advanced comps even more, like crest factor), and secondly, via the
distortion components added from transformers and other circuits
components, etc.
This isn't a bad thing. Collectively these effects constitute what can
be a kind of "romance filter" (think Valentine's Day portraits), and be
highly desirable sometimes. However, once part of the signal, the
effects cannot be fully reversed successfully.
Last Thursday working with Jerry Tubb in a mastering session at Terra
Nova Digital in Austin TX I had my first experience with peak
restoration in the digital domain, working with 24/96 files. In one case
we worked what bordered on a miracle. In other cases we couldn't help
the song at all, regardless of attempted settings. It was certainly
fascinating.
Peter Larsen
[quoting Hank]
>> The catch is that you have to know what you want and how to get it
>> going in, because you can't often remove the effects of that
>> compression once you've tracked it on the source.
If one whats whatever hardware's effect then it is best from a quality
viewpoint to apply said hardware while in the analog domain. That is an
artistic choice. If you just want compression, but perhaps some other
compressor or the one in the daw software, then record clean.
> This piques my interest. Does anyone make a compressor that provides a
> signal indicating the compression level, whether as digital or analog?
> Because one could record that signal along with the compressed audio,
> and use it as the control signal on a voltage-controlled amp to
> recover (to some degree, at least) the uncompressed signal -- modulo
> processing effects, of course.
A production consist of a large number of decisions, to avoid stress and to
keep it simple: make then and stick with them. From that viewpoint it can
have merit to "make the vox" or whatever track ready to go into the mix. If
you are unsure and want to dedicate a track to compressor undo info, then it
is MUCH better to dedicate it to the clean sound from the mic, otherwise
you'd still have the overall distortion from the analog electronics even if
it was theoretically possible to compress and uncompress, neither dbx nor
dolby nor highcom were perfect in that craft.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Tobiah
> 1970s. I can't remember what they called it.
I think that this is how DBX worked. Not sure about Dolby.
>>Or am I reinventing a very old, well-worn, broken-spoked wheel with bad
>>bearings?
>
> Yes. The thing is, we got huge amounts of dynamic range today. there
> is no reason not to just use it.
Exactly. My first 4-track cassette recorder running at 1 7/8 ips needed
all the help it could get. I used to max treble on all incoming tracks,
then cut it when mastering out. This dramatically reduced audible hiss
coming off the tape.
Today there is no need for tricks.
Scott Dorsey
>> This was the noise reduction system that 3M developed back in the early
>> 1970s. I can't remember what they called it.
>
>I think that this is how DBX worked. Not sure about Dolby.
No, both DBX and Dolby just were nonlinear transforms. The 3M system actually
had an out of band control signal which was proportional to the gain reduction.
On playback, you took the control track and used it to adjust the gain of the
audio tracks.
HDCD is kind of like this a little bit too.
geoff
> I was under the impression that it's common to use a hardware
> compressor/limiter before the vocal hits the DAW to given an initial
> evening up - at least tame the big peaks and get in the ballpark,
> anticipating that more compression will be done with software later.
> That's what I do.
Why on earth would you feel the need to ? The ballpark is huge and nothing
is gained by pre-compression.
>
> However, I talked to a guy who doesn't use one and asserts that using
> a hardware compressor makes it harder for software to do its job and
> that it's not common for pro studios to use one.
Given there is nothing to be gained from pre-compression, and it is
irreversable, I'd agree. But for some, old habits die hard.
geoff
geoff
> I now track at such low levels into 24 bits that I don't have to worry
> about headroom. So I don't need a compressor to avoid crunching the
> signal by crashing into 0 dBFS. However, sometimes I do want what a
> comp offers.
Which you can always apply subsequently in hardware or software,
non-destructively !
geoff
muzician21
> muzician21 wrote:
> > I was under the impression that it's common to use a hardware
> > compressor/limiter before the vocal hits the DAW to given an initial
> > evening up - at least tame the big peaks and get in the ballpark,
> > anticipating that more compression will be done with software later.
> > That's what I do.
>
> Why on earth would you feel the need to ? The ballpark is huge and nothing
> is gained by pre-compression.
I assume there must be a reason hardware compressors are still being
manufactured?
geoff
Certainly. They can be used for recording and live music.
But there is little-to-no 'compelling' (ha ha) reason to use them when
tracking with current technology as the imperative to tweak the last ounce
headroom out of a track (to maximise s/n).
geoff
Mike Rivers
> I was under the impression that it's common to use a hardware
> compressor/limiter before the vocal hits the DAW to given an initial
> evening up - at least tame the big peaks and get in the ballpark,
> anticipating that more compression will be done with software later.
I like to record tracks that will require the least amount of manipulation
during mixing. If I think that a vocal can benefit from compression, I'll
use it when tracking. I usually don't need to compress further.
But with today's 24-bit converters it's not unreasonable to track without
compression and then go through your repertoire of 37 different compressors
and pick the four that are just right for the track. But you may need to do
some temporary compression in order to get the track in the ballpark if
the singer is really wild, just so you can hear the words while you're
recording
other tracks.
Scott Dorsey
>On Nov 17, 4:27=A0pm, "geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>> muzician21 wrote:
>> > I was under the impression that it's common to use a hardware
>> > compressor/limiter before the vocal hits the DAW to given an initial
>> > evening up - at least tame the big peaks and get in the ballpark,
>> > anticipating that more compression will be done with software later.
>> > That's what I do.
>>
>g
>> is gained by pre-compression.
>
>I assume there must be a reason hardware compressors are still being
>manufactured?
Because not everyone goes through the torture of mixing in the box.
No reason you can't just put a compressor in the console insert when
you're mixing down. Or on the stereo buss. Or both.
--Scott
Mike Rivers
> Why on earth would you feel the need to ? The ballpark is huge and nothing
> is gained by pre-compression.
Depends. Suppose someone is trying to sing a second vocal part along with
a track that had dynamics that you will be expecting to take later. The
singer
putting down the second track, if he or she is good, will try to match
up with the
dynamics of the original track. Then you'll have to mess with two tracks
later.
> Given there is nothing to be gained from pre-compression, and it is
> irreversable, I'd agree. But for some, old habits die hard.
Of course there's something to be gained - time. And also a better
mix to listen to while you're working on other tracks. And why worry
about whether it's reversible or not if you do it right to begin with?
hank alrich
Sure, but when I know what I want I don't need to spend time in software
to get it. I get it while the track is going down. This can save
considerable time, which can turn out to save money, too.
People often don't know what they want, wouldn't know how to get it if
they did know what they want, and nobody wants to commit.
Once upon it was the 1" Studer, mostly, and all of eight tracks. We
committed like mad people and it worked nicely, and very quickly, too.
hank alrich
Hell, yes. And you will find that a lot of very capable recordists use
them while tracking. That's because it's just another musical instrument
in the recording process and if someone knows how to play it and the
part they want to hear, there is nothing to be gained by putting it off
until later, when the time in the studio is going to cost you money.
Not everybody is working in their bedroom at their leisure, trying this,
then that, then the other thing, to try to get to the point of making a
decision about what they want to hear.
Lots of very experienced and competent recordists have most of it
hitting storage much like it's going to sound when finished. Right away
playback sounds like a real mix, and people can get on with their work
in an extremely productive way.
geoff
> geoff <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>
>>> I now track at such low levels into 24 bits that I don't have to
>>> worry about headroom. So I don't need a compressor to avoid
>>> crunching the signal by crashing into 0 dBFS. However, sometimes I
>>> do want what a comp offers.
>>
>> Which you can always apply subsequently in hardware or software,
>> non-destructively !
>
> Sure, but when I know what I want I don't need to spend time in
> software to get it. I get it while the track is going down. This can
> save considerable time, which can turn out to save money, too.
I always find the fiddling involved to 'get it right' at the recordng end
far more time consuming than a few flicks of the mouse, or twiddles of the
knobs to achieve the same thing post-take. Especially if the vocalist is not
super-consistant in volume or position.
But I'm not so good as to know exactly what settings to use straight off,
and that I'm never going to change my mind.
geoff
david correia
<8cff8d4c-5266-45ea...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
muzician21 <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The next full-time, experienced recording engineer I see track a vocal
without a compressor will be my first.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
anahata
> The next full-time, experienced recording engineer I see track a vocal
> without a compressor will be my first.
So what's the usual approach when doing this, given that you don't want
to overdo it?
A high threshold and compression ratio, to limit the occasional peak and
have no effect most of the time, or a low ratio over most of the dynamic
range so there are no sudden surprises?
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk ==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata
Windmill Sound
I used to use a preamp which had a compressor - so I would use this to
catch peaks only and use one in the daw for smoothing. Now I'm using a
preamp without a compressor - so I often find myself using 2
compressors in the daw. But it all depends on the vocalist. If they're
already fairly controlled and the song doesn't have much inthe way of
dynamics then it will probably just need whatever character or gentle
control a single compressor will offer.
Arny Krueger
news:542074c5-fbd6-460c...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
There are still people doing recording who never geared up to DAW.
There are still situations where audio is processed entirely in real time.
Live sound comes immediately to mind.
Heck, analog recording tape is still being manufactured and sold... ;-)
So are buggy whips. BTW, this is not a slam at either buggies or analog
tapes. If you've got the need...
Arny Krueger
news:noemail-B6E16A...@forte.easynews.com
> The next full-time, experienced recording engineer I see
> track a vocal without a compressor will be my first.
Someone isn't getting out enough. ;-)
Peter Larsen
The reasoning I was presented for is about workflow: commit and move on. I
wouldn't want to do it in a live recording scenario because what works there
may not be what works in a recording context, but live recording and studio
type recordings ARE different beasts.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Wecan do it
> muzician21 <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that it's common to use a
>> hardware
>> compressor/limiter before the vocal hits the DAW to given
>> an initial
>> evening up - at least tame the big peaks and get in the
>> ballpark,
>> anticipating that more compression will be done with
>> software later.
>> That's what I do.
>>
>> However, I talked to a guy who doesn't use one and asserts
>> that using
>> a hardware compressor makes it harder for software to do
>> its job and
>> that it's not common for pro studios to use one.
>>
>> Your thoughts?
There are clearly two schools of thought on this one.
A. Commit to the final product which is clear in your minds
eye early on. Record it like it will be in the mix, mix as
you go and then just balance the levels at the final mixdown
session. (Joe Chickerelli and Eddie Kramer come to mind)
B. Dont have a clear idea of what it should sound like in the
end. Delay all treatment decisions till the final final final
mixdown(s) and hope you have something you can use. Also
record lots of alternate parts and decide later what to use
and what to cut.
Peace
dawg
Mike Rivers
> So what's the usual approach when doing this, given that you don't want
> to overdo it?
2:1 or 3:1, threshold set so peaks get reduced by about 6 dB. That's the
magic formula for
a good singer that will usually do no harm. The magic formula for a
lousy singer is to get a
good singer.
Then, set the record level (usually by using the output level/makeup
gain control on the
compressor) conservatively so that you won't hit full scale on peaks.
hank alrich
Or the desire. Newer is better except when it isn't, and often that is
up to personal interpretation.
That said, why would anyone want to whip a buggy??
hank alrich
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:30:12 -0500, david correia wrote:
>
> > The next full-time, experienced recording engineer I see track a vocal
> > without a compressor will be my first.
>
> So what's the usual approach when doing this, given that you don't want
> to overdo it?
> A high threshold and compression ratio, to limit the occasional peak and
> have no effect most of the time, or a low ratio over most of the dynamic
> range so there are no sudden surprises?
When tracking into a modern DAW with 24 bits to work with, I'm not
worried about controlling peaks to avoid overs. Even when using a comp
on the way in, I run _way_ below 0 dBFS. So my usual approach is to set
the comp such that I like the sound of the result, kind of like choosing
an exposure setting for a photo, or a color from a pallette while
painting, or where I'll strike the guitar strings for a particular
sound.
Laurence Payne
>I assume there must be a reason hardware compressors are still being
>manufactured?
The same reason hardware anythings are still being made. Which, as
software develops, are becoming fewer.
Scott Dorsey
And then, in a few years, there won't be any hardware at all and we will
experience the world entirely as a simulation programmed directly into our
brains.
In the year 3535, ain't gonna need no truth, tell no lie. Everything you
think, do, and say is in the pill you took today.
--scott
Richard Webb
> There are clearly two schools of thought on this one.
> A. Commit to the final product which is clear in your minds eye
> early on. Record it like it will be in the mix, mix as you go and
> then just balance the levels at the final mixdown session. (Joe
> Chickerelli and Eddie Kramer come to mind)
Which should be viable if the folks at the business end of
the microphones have done their jobs correctly, or the
producer/arranger has. THis is my preferred method of
working.
> B. Dont have a clear idea of what it should sound like in the end.
> Delay all treatment decisions till the final final final
> mixdown(s) and hope you have something you can use. Also
> record lots of alternate parts and decide later what to use and
> what to cut.
Those sessions are always painful, it's more about consuming large quantities of booze and dope, having a good time,
stumbling through with our lack of talent or lack of
preparation.
MEthod A makes for more pleasant days in the studio let me
tell you <g>.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Mark
> Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>I assume there must be a reason hardware compressors are still being
> >>manufactured?
>
>
the other dry, if you were lucky enough to get it right you can later
use the pre-compressed track..
Also consider you may want to compress the monitor signal you feed
back in the cans to the singer. Since this can effect the singers
performance, this is probably the most important consideration... I am
not a singer but I listened to myself in the cans with and without
compression just to see what it was like...and it is EASY to see how
this could make a difference to the performance.
Mark
Laurence Payne
<WeCa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>There are clearly two schools of thought on this one.
>
>A. Commit to the final product which is clear in your minds
>eye early on. Record it like it will be in the mix, mix as
>you go and then just balance the levels at the final mixdown
>session. (Joe Chickerelli and Eddie Kramer come to mind)
>
>B. Dont have a clear idea of what it should sound like in the
>end. Delay all treatment decisions till the final final final
>mixdown(s) and hope you have something you can use. Also
>record lots of alternate parts and decide later what to use
>and what to cut.
It could be said that A, with a well-prepared artiste, well-schooled
in microphone technique and unlikely to come up with unrehearsed peaks
in the heat of performance, could record through a cleaner signal
chain and omit pre-compression. Whereas B, with his suck-it-and-see
philosophy, might be well advised to stick an outboard compressor in
front of his ADC. Though we can give him credit for listening to his
takes and recognizing when he's got a good one, can't we?
geoff
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:30:12 -0500, david correia wrote:
>
>> The next full-time, experienced recording engineer I see track a
>> vocal without a compressor will be my first.
>
> So what's the usual approach when doing this, given that you don't
> want to overdo it?
> A high threshold and compression ratio, to limit the occasional peak
> and have no effect most of the time, or a low ratio over most of the
> dynamic range so there are no sudden surprises?
Presumably something so subtle that if it didn't come out quite as expected
on the take that turned out otherwise to be THE take, you won't have stuffed
it up too much.
geoff
geoff
> anahata wrote:
>
>> So what's the usual approach when doing this, given that you don't
>> want to overdo it?
>
> 2:1 or 3:1, threshold set so peaks get reduced by about 6 dB. That's
> the magic formula for
> a good singer that will usually do no harm. The magic formula for a
> lousy singer is to get a
> good singer.
Or you could get a 'good singer' to the extent of not need compression at
all.
geoff
muzician21
RAP.
</sarcasm>
But seriously this is good, it underlines that there's more than one
way to achieve success.
I appreciate all the good input, keep 'em coming!
david correia
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
You may not know this, but pro motorcycle riders don't use training
wheels either. Anybody worth a shit compresses their vocals as they
print them.
If you are recording in your spare bedroom and you don't own a great
compressor, then use your plugs.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
david correia
anahata <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:30:12 -0500, david correia wrote:
>
> > The next full-time, experienced recording engineer I see track a vocal
> > without a compressor will be my first.
>
> So what's the usual approach when doing this, given that you don't want
> to overdo it?
> A high threshold and compression ratio, to limit the occasional peak and
> have no effect most of the time, or a low ratio over most of the dynamic
> range so there are no sudden surprises?
The name of the game is to make your vocal sit *in* the mix yet pop out
of the speakers. It is most easily done is with a great compressor. (And
talented singers, let's not forget that ;>)
And that great compressor ain't being subtle, it is seriously fucking
with the vocal. (My fave is a 1967 Urei/Teletronix LA3a I love. It is
incredible.)
Back in the day - long before wav files - once ya had yer feet a little
wet recording, you would develop some balls one day and start
compressing vocals while you recording them. Cuz it was a job that had
to get done.
And at first, with lessor compressors - an Ashly sc-50, a dbx 160xt, an
Aphex 651 - I would compress them so that I would control the levels
some and not hear the compressor.
But with great tools you can do great things ;>
My advice is trust your ears. And your gut. And to have some balls every
once in a while.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Don Pearce
You sound like this is general advice, yet you are clearly talking
only about pop/rock music. None of this applies when you are dealing
with a singer who understands dynamics and has true vocal control.
d
david correia
Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
I been in this biz for 3 decades, and I'd say there are lots more
hardware compressors being made and sold today than ever.
Check out this page:
http://www.mercenary.com/dynproc1.html
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Laurence Payne
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>I been in this biz for 3 decades, and I'd say there are lots more
>hardware compressors being made and sold today than ever.
>
>Check out this page:
>
>http://www.mercenary.com/dynproc1.html
There's probably more of EVERYTHING being made today. Since computers
opened up multitrack production to everyone it's become a huge market.
And many of the people who lack musical and technical skills think
they can compensate by throwing money around looking for that "magic"
piece of gear. Note how much of it is cunningly designed with
retro-looking knobs and VU meters. A professional wouldn't care about
that.
anahata
> The name of the game is to make your vocal sit *in* the mix yet pop out
> of the speakers.
[etc...]
I'm sure that's great advice on compresson at mixdown time, but we were
talking about compressing during tracking, and I was asking about the
safest way to achieve (as Geoff so eloquently put it:) "something so
subtle that if it didn't come out quite as expected on the take that
turned out otherwise to be THE take, you won't have stuffed it up too
much."
I'm assuming that during tracking you want (if you use compression at
all) to reduce dynamic range as transparently as possible.
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>I'm sure that's great advice on compresson at mixdown time, but we were
>talking about compressing during tracking, and I was asking about the
>safest way to achieve (as Geoff so eloquently put it:) "something so
>subtle that if it didn't come out quite as expected on the take that
>turned out otherwise to be THE take, you won't have stuffed it up too
>much."
The obvious answer is - if you're not sure how much compression you
want, don't apply it irreversibly when tracking. All your other
options for monitoring with or without compression remain open.
Scott Dorsey
>You may not know this, but pro motorcycle riders don't use training
>wheels either. Anybody worth a shit compresses their vocals as they
>print them.
Sometimes I don't compress my vocals at all. Well, really most of the time.
But I don't do pop or really much rock at all any more.
Stuart Richards
>
> This was the noise reduction system that 3M developed back in the early
> 1970s. I can't remember what they called it.
Was it Dynatrack?
Peter Larsen
> You may not know this, but pro motorcycle riders don't use training
> wheels either. Anybody worth a shit compresses their vocals as they
> print them.
I'm not worth shit then. I have a nice Audio and Design Recording Gemini,
and it does a great job on vox, single channel or both channels in series,
but inline compression has no place in a classical live recording context.
> If you are recording in your spare bedroom and you don't own a great
> compressor, then use your plugs.
In which case it is post factum and not inline in recording.
> David Correia
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Laurence Payne
<dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If you are recording in your spare bedroom and you don't own a great
>> compressor, then use your plugs.
>
>In which case it is post factum and not inline in recording.
Doesn't have to be, with today's DAW applications.
Scott Dorsey
No, that's another one I'd forgotten about! Dynatrack recorded everything
twice, one at a reduced level and then on an adjacent track at an elevated
level. Then it had a magic box that switched between the two tracks on
the fly based upon the level of the lower track.
hank alrich
I find the whole "either/or" mindset weird. To me, "both/and" makes
perfect sense.
I think folks who have never worked in a situation where the _only_
option was to make a decision or not get anything at all done don't
appreciate how much all the decisions that engineers and producers made
impacted the quality of the final result, for the better.
Reminds me of the joke:
"How many amateur producers does it take to make a product?"
"I dunno; what do you think?"
Carla Fong
hank alrich wrote:
> muzician21 <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that it's common to use a hardware
>> compressor/limiter before the vocal hits the DAW to given an initial
>> evening up - at least tame the big peaks and get in the ballpark,
>> anticipating that more compression will be done with software later.
>> That's what I do.
>>
>> However, I talked to a guy who doesn't use one and asserts that using
>> a hardware compressor makes it harder for software to do its job and
>> that it's not common for pro studios to use one.
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>
> This comes down to personal choice. Sometimes I use a comp on the way
> in, and sometimes not, and it usually depends on whether or not I want
> the specific coloration I will get from a particular compressor.
>
> I now track at such low levels into 24 bits that I don't have to worry
> about headroom. So I don't need a compressor to avoid crunching the
> signal by crashing into 0 dBFS. However, sometimes I do want what a comp
> offers.
>
> The catch is that you have to know what you want and how to get it going
> in, because you can't often remove the effects of that compression once
> you've tracked it on the source.
>
We take what may be a 'belt and suspenders' attitude - we use one track
for 'straight' and a second track for 'compressed' of the same program
material.
The 'straight' track is recorded way down so there's no excursions
beyond 0dBFS and the compressed track is set the 'old fashioned' way
with about 12 dB of headroom.
At mixdown we can select any combination of straight and compressed to
add to the finished product to achieve the sound we want.
YMMV
Carla
A few Cobras in your home will soon clear it of Rats and Mice. Of
course, you will still have the Cobras.
Mark
> hank alrich wrote:
well that is exactly what I suggested a few replies ago....
except for one thing, I would be careful about COMBINING the two paths
because you may get some strange phasing effects due to the delay
through the compressor
Mark
Steve King
news:1j9f44z.x7mmi91xsmvpmN%walk...@nv.net...
LOL! I hadn't heard that one, although I lived it for many years;-) My
favorite client/producer was Willie Dixon. Here's a typical exchange: "Hey!
Watcha doing with that part. When I tell you to play up-chucks that's all I
mean for you to play. I already thought of all that #$#$ you're playing and
didn't like it in my mind and don't like it now."
Steve King
hank alrich
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>> At mixdown we can select any combination of straight and compressed to
>> add to the finished product to achieve the sound we want.
>>
>> YMMV
>>
>> Carla
>
>
>
>well that is exactly what I suggested a few replies ago....
>
>except for one thing, I would be careful about COMBINING the two paths
>because you may get some strange phasing effects due to the delay
>through the compressor
Only if delay compensation isn't working properly in your DAW. I
think this is called "New York compression".
Peter Larsen
Mea culpa, you are right!
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
david correia
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
How often do you record a vocal?
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Scott Dorsey
>In article <he3kvj$6p4$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> david correia <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >You may not know this, but pro motorcycle riders don't use training
>> >wheels either. Anybody worth a shit compresses their vocals as they
>> >print them.
>>
>> Sometimes I don't compress my vocals at all. Well, really most of the time.
>> But I don't do pop or really much rock at all any more.
>
Did lots of them at the opera just last night.
I do a lot of singer-songwriter stuff too. If they're good, I usually don't
have to compress them at all; I leave it to the mastering guy to compress
the 2-buss and I just ride the gain a little bit. Sometimes, though, they
aren't very good and compression is the only answer. But these things are
usually sparse enough that if you try and bring the vocal any more forward
the mix sounds unbalanced.
david correia
"Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> david correia wrote:
>
> > You may not know this, but pro motorcycle riders don't use training
> > wheels either. Anybody worth a shit compresses their vocals as they
> > print them.
>
> I'm not worth shit then. I have a nice Audio and Design Recording Gemini,
> and it does a great job on vox, single channel or both channels in series,
> but inline compression has no place in a classical live recording context.
As I think you know, we're talking pro studio multitrack vocals.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Peter Larsen
>> david correia wrote:
You left that undefined, in that context there can, as I mentioned, be an
obvious workflow advantage.
david correia
sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
A great compressor is not only about controlling dynamics, although that
is one of it's primary functions. It's also about the "effect" a great
compressor has on a lead vocal. It def changes the sound of the vocal.
It enhances the vocal to sit in a mix yet stand out.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
geoff
> A great compressor is not only about controlling dynamics, although
> that is one of it's primary functions. It's also about the "effect" a
> great compressor has on a lead vocal. It def changes the sound of the
> vocal. It enhances the vocal to sit in a mix yet stand out.
Hopefully.
Otherwise , if 'committed', then one may need to alter the rest of the mix
to fit around it.
geoff
Scott Dorsey
>
>A great compressor is not only about controlling dynamics, although that
>is one of it's primary functions. It's also about the "effect" a great
>compressor has on a lead vocal. It def changes the sound of the vocal.
>It enhances the vocal to sit in a mix yet stand out.
Right. It pushes the vocal forward and to some extent it takes some of
the sense of space away from it. If there's a lot of leakage into the
vocal mike (as there often is in live jazz), it can also have some unwanted
side effects on the sound of the instruments leaking in.
It's a great and powerful tool, and it's one that does an important task,
but I am disturbed when I see people grabbing for it by force of habit,
or because all the other records sound like that. I want to sound like it
did live, more than I want it to sound like a record. But if folks want it
to sound like a record, we can do that too.
david correia
anahata <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
No. I am talking about when I record the vocal. I wanna hear it sound
right. I'll bang the living shit out of it if I have to.
You listen and work til you get it. (Which can include moving the mic
and/or the singer. And I am assuming that you've already chosen the most
appropriate mic & mic pre you own for the singer.)
It's easy to do when you know what right sounds like. And if you've got
great tools. It's a guessing game and a roll of the dice if you don't.
Remember, I am talking about what pro's do. Like learning to play an
instrument, it takes a while to get there.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
geoff
>
> You listen and work til you get it. (Which can include moving the mic
> and/or the singer. And I am assuming that you've already chosen the
> most appropriate mic & mic pre you own for the singer.)
>
> It's easy to do when you know what right sounds like. And if you've
> got great tools. It's a guessing game and a roll of the dice if you
> don't.
Assuming the producer ( be that a producer, talent, or engineer) have the
rest of the track already mixed, or know 100% that they are not going to
radically change the way they want it to sound.
Like not everybody will end up *wanting* their mix bunged thru L2 to make it
sound loud like everybody else. Which could totally change the dynamics
needed on the vox.
geoff
Stuart Richards
>
> Stuart Richards <sjr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>
> >> This was the noise reduction system that 3M developed back in the early
> >> 1970s. I can't remember what they called it.
> >
> >Was it Dynatrack?
>
> No, that's another one I'd forgotten about! Dynatrack recorded everything
> twice, one at a reduced level and then on an adjacent track at an elevated
> level. Then it had a magic box that switched between the two tracks on
> the fly based upon the level of the lower track.
Hmm. I've been searching for it and I can't find any others. Are you sure
the system you have in mind was developed by 3M?
hank alrich
I think Telefunken had one, too, but the name escapes me right now.
david correia
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
The beauty of recording is the beauty of any artistic expression: you
create what turns you on, what really moves you, what you think sounds
fucking wonderful.
A recording engineer only stays in business by exceeding what your
client expects.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
david correia
"geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
Smacking the piss out of a mix with a brick wall limiter will change the
dynamics and levels of everything, not just the vocal. Everything softer
will get louder.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
david correia
"geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
Like most any endeavor, it's real easy to nail it if you know what
you're doing and you know what you want. It's kinda fun and simple to
do. (Let's face it, getting the right mic pre output level is something
a 5 year old can do.) And importantly, you can cross off one of the 100
things you still need to do finish the song.
Call it finding the right C spot. When you got it right, you know it.
You can hear it. It should give your ear wood ;>
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Scott Dorsey
>Stuart Richards <sjr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> >
>> > Stuart Richards <sjr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> This was the noise reduction system that 3M developed back in the early
>> > >> 1970s. I can't remember what they called it.
>> > >
>> > >Was it Dynatrack?
>> >
>> > No, that's another one I'd forgotten about! Dynatrack recorded everything
>> > twice, one at a reduced level and then on an adjacent track at an elevated
>> > level. Then it had a magic box that switched between the two tracks on
>> > the fly based upon the level of the lower track.
>>
>> Hmm. I've been searching for it and I can't find any others. Are you sure
>> the system you have in mind was developed by 3M?
Not all that sure, no. It's been thirty years, after all.
>I think Telefunken had one, too, but the name escapes me right now.
They had Telcom C4, which was a Dolby-like compander thing.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Smacking the piss out of a mix with a brick wall limiter will change the
>dynamics and levels of everything, not just the vocal. Everything softer
>will get louder.
Thing is, different things get louder to different degrees, depending on
their peak-to-average ratio. If you have a banjo and a vocal, for instance,
you can crush it way down and the vocal will get a lot louder than the
banjo does.
So heavy limiting doesn't just make things louder, it can also change the
balances in the mix. This is actually a great tool for the mastering
engineer who is given an imbalanced mix in the first place.
--scott
>
>
>
>
>David Correia
>www.Celebrationsound.com
Arny Krueger
news:noemail-C99D30...@forte.easynews.com
>
> No. I am talking about when I record the vocal. I wanna
> hear it sound right. I'll bang the living shit out of it
> if I have to.
David, your recent posts make it looks like you "have to" to make you feel
like you are a professional. According to you, anybody who just records what
people sing is not professional.
Take a well-trained male vocalist and compress his voice even just a little.
If he's got the usual equipment of a man and he hears his voice in your
recording, he'll ask you why he spent all those decades practicing and
training his voice only to have it compacted into a plastic bag of trash by
a tin box.
Predrag Trpkov
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:6pydnbNYP8W4O5vW...@giganews.com...
> "david correia" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:noemail-C99D30...@forte.easynews.com
>
>>
>> No. I am talking about when I record the vocal. I wanna
>> hear it sound right. I'll bang the living shit out of it
>> if I have to.
>
> David, your recent posts make it looks like you "have to" to make you feel
> like you are a professional.
Perhaps, but only to the extent to which those who argue with him seem to
"have to" show their antipathy to some tried and tested recording techniques
and thus to professionals themselves.
According to you, anybody who just records what
> people sing is not professional.
He's made it clear: "we're talking pro studio multitrack vocals".
> Take a well-trained male vocalist and compress his voice even just a
> little. If he's got the usual equipment of a man and he hears his voice in
> your recording, he'll ask you why he spent all those decades practicing
> and training his voice only to have it compacted into a plastic bag of
> trash by a tin box.
True, but such vocalists are relatively rare guests in an average commercial
studio. One might get an entirely opposite impression judging by the views
presented in this thread, but the majority of clients in such facilities are
various pop/rock acts. The (hardware) compressors rarely get patched out of
the vocal chain, for a reason.
Predrag
hank alrich
I guarantee you that while I undestand what you're trying to say, what
David gets using his approach bears zero likeness to crap. He is one who
posts here who works day in and day out for real to wrest his living out
of a very nice studio wherein a whole lot of analog recording still
takes place in a very old school manner. He knows what he's doing, and
his clients come there to take advantage of his skills and experience,
and the high quality equipment he has collected and configured for
efficient professional use.
With respect, I doubt you have ever in your life worked in a comparable
setting, even for a single session. I understand almost all of the
viewpoints expressed in this thread, because at one time or another over
the past 40 years I have worked in a situation that reflects what is
being said here, from the need fix it in the mix to the need to get it
right right now by printing on the way in exactly what's going to be
coming back at mix time.
All of these methods work. Each may be necessary at one time or another.
Some are more efficient than others when time is money and a livilhood
as compared to a hobby or personal enjoyment.
You speak as if David's clients don't know how to sing. I'll wager you
haven't a clue about that, and that you are as wrong as wrong can be.
hank alrich
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:6pydnbNYP8W4O5vW...@giganews.com...
> > "david correia" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:noemail-C99D30...@forte.easynews.com
> >
> >>
> >> No. I am talking about when I record the vocal. I wanna
> >> hear it sound right. I'll bang the living shit out of it
> >> if I have to.
> >
> > David, your recent posts make it looks like you "have to" to make you feel
> > like you are a professional.
>
>
> Perhaps, but only to the extent to which those who argue with him seem to
> "have to" show their antipathy to some tried and tested recording techniques
> and thus to professionals themselves.
Bingo.
> According to you, anybody who just records what
> > people sing is not professional.
>
>
> He's made it clear: "we're talking pro studio multitrack vocals".
Ditto
> > Take a well-trained male vocalist and compress his voice even just a
> > little. If he's got the usual equipment of a man and he hears his voice in
> > your recording, he'll ask you why he spent all those decades practicing
> > and training his voice only to have it compacted into a plastic bag of
> > trash by a tin box.
>
>
> True, but such vocalists are relatively rare guests in an average commercial
> studio. One might get an entirely opposite impression judging by the views
> presented in this thread, but the majority of clients in such facilities are
> various pop/rock acts. The (hardware) compressors rarely get patched out of
> the vocal chain, for a reason.
And the reason has as much to do with the sonic goals of particular
styles of music as it might to do with the capabilities of the
vocalists. It can be difficult for folks who have never done this kind
of work to understand how the work gets done, and why it gets done a
certain way.
> Predrag
david correia
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Gee Scott, I never thought I'd hear you say heavy limiting is a great
tool ;>
And whatever happened to the 50's term heavy petting?
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
david correia
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Actually, the reason I've continued to post on this is to let folks here
learn a little about how experienced pros uses great compressors not
just to control dynamics, but literally as an vocal effect, one that is
incredibly helpful in our work.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Arny Krueger
> Actually, the reason I've continued to post on this is to
> let folks here learn a little about how experienced pros
> uses great compressors not just to control dynamics, but
> literally as an vocal effect, one that is incredibly
> helpful in our work.
A pit David that you have so little respect for the natural human voice.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Gee Scott, I never thought I'd hear you say heavy limiting is a great
>tool ;>
I think of it as a fix-up tool, though. And I get worried when a lot
of things that used to be considered fix-up tools have turned into standard
studio practices.
It's not just autotune and multiband compression that has taken that route.
>And whatever happened to the 50's term heavy petting?
That's still a standard studio practice too. I don't know what kids call
it these days, though.
--scott
Scott Dorsey
hank alrich
Arny, there you go again, spouting bullshit in an area of which you have
no experience. If you were dropped into one of David's sessions and put
in charge, the client would mutiny.
Talk about what you know. Skip the rest.
Arny Krueger
news:1j9irue.1dehjqqqv8fi8N%walk...@nv.net
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "david correia" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:noemail-882BBC...@forte.easynews.com
>>
>>> Actually, the reason I've continued to post on this is
>>> to let folks here learn a little about how experienced
>>> pros uses great compressors not just to control
>>> dynamics, but literally as an vocal effect, one that is
>>> incredibly helpful in our work.
>>
>> A pit David that you have so little respect for the
>> natural human voice.
> Arny, there you go again, spouting bullshit in an area of
> which you have no experience.
Yeah sure Hank, I have absolutely no experience with compression and
vocalists. If you really believe that... :-(
hank alrich
The last album you tracked was released on??
That last time you drove a big analog console in a professional setting
was when??
Get fucking real, Mr. Theorist.
Meanwhile:
http://www.celebrationsound.com/
http://www.celebrationsound.com/Gear.html
http://www.celebrationsound.com/grammy.html
http://www.celebrationsound.com/customers.html
Anything there seem different in the professional audio career sense
from your own career?
Why not think about it? Aren't you all about some kind of "Christian"
"humility"?
For Christ's sake Arny, get real.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>> news:1j9irue.1dehjqqqv8fi8N%walk...@nv.net
>>> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "david correia" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:noemail-882BBC...@forte.easynews.com
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the reason I've continued to post on this is
>>>>> to let folks here learn a little about how experienced
>>>>> pros uses great compressors not just to control
>>>>> dynamics, but literally as an vocal effect, one that
>>>>> is incredibly helpful in our work.
>>>> A pity David that you have so little respect for the
>>>> natural human voice.
>>> Arny, there you go again, spouting bullshit in an area
>>> of which you have no experience.
>> Yeah sure Hank, I have absolutely no experience with
>> compression and vocalists. If you really believe that...
>> :-(
> The last album you tracked was released on??
Hmm, now its the big change up.
The HA definition of "no experience with compression and vocalists" is
really something else than the meaning of the words he says, it is having
recordings you tracked released as major albums and received Grammy(s)?
Are you willing to rate your own work on that scale? How many Grammy's have
you received?
BTW Hank, do you really think that the whole world agrees that a vocalist is
*not* properly tracked until his voice has been audibly compressed?
The bottom line Hank is some of us believe that there are different genres
of music and different markets. Anybody who talks like David with the
absolute generality that he speaks with, very obviously does not believe
that. He seems to be the sort of guy who would have compressed Caruso.
hank alrich
Caruso was already compressed by the media via which he was recorded.
Here's the difference in our approaches here: I get all the angles on
this, and support them all; I do not diss someone who does it
differently. I track vocals with and without compression depending on
the type of music, the client's goals, and what I think I might need to
do to get a usable track.
You attack David for compressing vocals, while David makes his living
recording seriously professional clients, who make part of their own
livings with the results of his work. I.e., David is not a church
hobbyist trying to tell a respected professional how to record vocals.
In the pop and rock 'n' roll worlds a whole lot of vocals get compressed
on the way in. If Terry Manning posted his tracking practices you'd be
the kind of guy trying to tell him, too, how he is supposed to do it.
Back to it: whatever your experience, it does not include the type of
work David does, on any scale. In his world you are without experience,
period. That from your world you think to judge his practices merely
underscores your own ignorance and insecurity.
You have much to offer here, but this ain't it.
Peter Larsen
> You attack David for compressing vocals, while David makes his living
> recording seriously professional clients, who make part of their own
> livings with the results of his work. I.e., David is not a church
> hobbyist trying to tell a respected professional how to record vocals.
> In the pop and rock 'n' roll worlds a whole lot of vocals get
> compressed on the way in. If Terry Manning posted his tracking
> practices you'd be the kind of guy trying to tell him, too, how he is
> supposed to do it.
Something that dawned on me as soon as I began recording live storytelling
with a spot mic and a room pair is that when you go closer to the sound
source you may end up needing compression to get back to a natural crest
factor.
> Back to it: whatever your experience, it does not include the type of
> work David does, on any scale. In his world you are without
> experience, period. ...
> ...
As I explained to a friend of mine the pop and rock vox sound is the sound
of someone that speaks or sings while embracing you. He was surprised to
hear a bass boost make a very neatly and cleanly reocrded female vox sound
"just right", he had just not been able to make that recording/mix work.
"Literature" to this post and the one about the cello sound: my mixes on the
raw-tracks site, I used them to play with compression and with adding a few
milliseconds of offset to tracks to get them to sit right in the
perspective.
For a simplified explanation: if you have a lot of stuff that is miked at "1
foot range" and you want some of the sources to sound as if from a row of
musicians behind a front row, then you need to add a suitabble offset in
milliseconds to the track(s) you want to have sounding as if behind the
other guys.
On my first recording with a spot miked celloist I ended up delaying him
enough to put in into the front row of the symphony orchestra. That was
quite much more than what would have put hin into the "haas window" after
the main pair corresponding to his actual physical positiion.
This is not something I ever heard or read anybody describe, but not all
good techniques get mentioned. To get it right one has to know how to listen
and what to listen for and it can easily go badly wrong, experience with
recording with a single pair is in my opinion - and Eddie Kramers, he has
his traveling talk show, don't miss it if it goes near you! - vital
reference experience when building sonic images and perspectives.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Arny Krueger
> Here's the difference in our approaches here: I get all
> the angles on this, and support them all;
Actually Hank, what you did is melt down when I'm was critical of *someone
else* who baldly says that anybody who doesn't compress vocals is not
professional.
Then you imply that somehow digital consoles aren't professional.
Then you attack me on religious grounds.
Now Hank either own up to your own bad behavior on RAP, or at least stop
trying to make yourself out to be a knight on a white horse when you but-in
to someone elses discussions with weird accusations.
geoff
> He's made it clear: "we're talking pro studio multitrack vocals".
And he's inferring that all real 'pro studio engineers' still haven't got
over the need to track with compression. Or know what they are applying at
that time will be applicable (or won't compromise) in the final mix. Sadly
I've not acheived the latter skill yet ;-(
geoff