How to handle input gain variations on voice recording ?

Hello all,
 
I am using Sonar X3, a Fireface UC and a M-Audio Sputnik Mic.
When recording vocals that have a lots of volume variations (Whispering > loud singing > Whispering > normal singing for example) i have to manualy change the input gain on the audio interface all the time in order to avoid either " clipping " or low signal.
 
I'd like to know if there are any solutions (beside managing the distance between the singer and the mix) to get rid of those annoyances ?
 
I was thinking about using a hardware limiter between the mic and the card but i was told those hardware weren't fast enough to handle the signal variations accurately.
 
Any idea or hardware suggestions ?
 
Thanks in advance.

Thanks for your clever answer bitflipper ! ;)
 
I do 100% agree with you, as you said i have to be both the singer and engineer at the same time, which is why a piece of hardware between the mic and the audio interface would help a lot... :)
 
Although it's indeed a clever idea, because of the problem explained above, i won't be able to use two mics at the same time.
 
Any ideas about any hardware able to do the job in a nice and transparent way around $300-500 ?
 
Just saw those :
 
Golden Age Project Comp-54 MkII

 
FMR Audio PBC-6A

 
 
 
 

Thanks for your answer.

Hi J,
 
To add to the great advice you got here, I'd go with a input signal of -12 to -6 and forget touching the input gain. As long as you're at 24.bit you have plenty of room to manipulate your sound after you record. Meaning, compress after you print the track qnd then just automate the parts you want louder or lower or heck, though I try to stay away from this, you can normalize low signals if need be. Years ago that method would never be mentioned by me, but in today's times, the only time you may get noise artifacts from this is if you record with an input signal that is super weak.
 
Personally, I'm a fan of recording individual tracks for individual situations. This way you get the parts exactly the way they should be and they will be closer to the vision you may have in your head. I do use compression going to disc but never in excess. So I don't think that will be as helpful as one may think. The reason being, it can mess up your dynamics if your not careful and there is no undo....you have to re-track.
 
In situations like yours, in all the years I've been doing this, the best fix for me was a happy medium on the input signal, compress in Sonar after, write in your automation and call it a day. Anything like whispers or what I would call "special" I just record on a separate track and process it the exact same way..... Compress and then automate to taste. Good luck!
 
-Danny

this:
 

J-War
Thanks all for you clever advices and feedbacks.
I agree with you all, i'd better have to manage distances and signal gain rather than putting some hardware i won't be able to " undo " after.
 
Thanks again.

Well see, that's another "sort of" misconception. Many of us that have been doing this a long time, didn't have Sonar or some sort of "non destructive" recording situation. So we had to record with effects at times. That said, a majority of the recordings you hear today literally have destructive hardware altering or coloring the sound.
 
The problem arises when someone grabs a piece capable of compressing or limiting...and they go too far. With a little trial and error, you or anyone else could record fully with destructive effects. But until you can get to that point where you know how much is enough, there's really not much of a need. Especially when we can add things in Sonar that do not effect the material permanently unless you want that to happen.
 
A little compression going to disc is a good thing because it can give you a nice, conditioned signal. In other instances, it can give your sounds a coloration that doesn't always make it to the track when you try to use a digital plugin inside Sonar.
 
There are compressors that the serious recording guys use just for this purpose. It may make a track a little more powerful....a little more warm or neutral so to speak....a little more consistent, or heck, it may do something totally funky and artistic to the sound. When used in moderation, stuff like this literally helps you create the sound. When used to the extreme, it can ruin a track which is why I and others had mentioned "you gotta be careful".
 
So you can get one of those hardware devices....but unless you have a specific reason for using one, it is more of a preference, not a necessity. I like the way my vocals sound when I record with an LA2A, Fairchild or 1176 on the track BEFORE it hits the disc better than when I don't use one of those.
 
I don't hit them hard most of the time, but when I do, it's for effect purposes and 98% of the time, I nail it. I always test it out to see how it translates. Since my vocals are the last things I track, it's easier for me to make a decision on how much comp is going in. This method isn't for everyone, but it is something that can be very useful at some point if you ever decide to go down this road. :)
 
-Danny

There's always the method Dusty Springfield used - multiple takes of phrases or even individual syllables at different volumes, vocal tone and distances from the mic and using different acoustic spaces. Then put the whole thing together afterwards.
 
Must have been a nightmare for whoever got the job of cutting and splicing the tape.....