Hyperdynamic Vox Compression

I almost do a rough vol mix of vox before using the comps as  you say above.  It can get really really anal, tho.  But if you even out the rough parts the comp can sand out the rest fairly well.

Even better is a good hardware compressor and slam it.  Usually sounds better than software used so.

@

  Consider yourself lucky, blessed or whatever you like but
to get to the point of being able to notice things as you describe
is something some people can't grasp. I talk to people who
just simply just can't hear or notice issues such as you describe.
And if you can't hear it then of course how could you/a person
do anything about it?

  When we speak of (lets call it pleasant sounding vocs) it
isn't only about level/volume. Its also about the balance
of the frequency spectrums level also. You did an excellent
job of describing things in your thread so I feel you are
accomplishing something.

  The ultimate type comp for vocs is to not notice there
is any comping. (on a mix too as far as that goes). My
experience is that a ratio of about 13 db between
average and max level is good but it cant be
described as the answer to greatness.

  I have voxformer. don't use it. I'll leave that comment
as such. I've tried envelopes and done it enough to say
been there done that. It don't work either. It's much like
beating a dead horse.

  You mention artifacts with the sonitus comp. Any comp
can do that. Hardware comping while recording?
Is it good or bad? The answer to that is the same as
comping after recording. In other words the better it
goes in the better (or less treatment) the outcome needs.

  Once again the answer is in (not noticing) the treatment
be it while recording or after the fact. Session players
use all kinds of effects when laying down tracks.
(this exaggerates but I hope my point is taken).

  Ratios and settings in comps are very often totally
meaningless. You may have a ratio equal to the distance
from the earth to the sun but if the comp don't respond
then its all meaningless. I.E threshold settings.
 
  If I could say there is a simple solution to this subject
I would but I doubt comping can't be considered a
subject without regard to tone quality. There is much
that can be learned from this "brick" wav subject.

 The fact is a wav can look like a porcupine and still
sound all squashed while a wav can look like a brick
and have beautiful dynamics. I have a bunch of
different comp/plugs. I have tried so hard to make
things work using any plug for that matter but
the sonitus comps always end up being the "go to"

  Doing experiments and tests will help determine
the desired outcome. The better the recorded part
the less fixes needed.   
 

 

Bristol_Jonesey

Sometime I even using 2 compressors in series - one for levelling, one for loudening.

After years of ho-hum experiments, I discovered this method while goofing around, and it's amazing. I posted a thread (at another forum) asking more, but I got a somewhat lukewarm response leading me to think not many people know about it. Please share your strategy!

Like you said, I use 2 compressors in series. The 1st is set to the fastest attack & release possible, and I try to keep the threshold pretty high just to "shave a little off the top" (peak levelling). The 2nd compressor gets a slower attack & release, for the sake of smoothness, and this serves as the loudening stage.

The result: vocals that are perfectly consistent & rich sounding, even though I often go for months between vocal takes. It all sounds like it was done in the same session.

jimmyman

When we speak of (lets call it pleasant sounding vocs) it
isn't only about level/volume. Its also about the balance
of the frequency spectrums level also.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. You don't even need ears of gold to notice when the EQ or room or mic has changed, and that translates into "bad" sounding. In the epic Yes piece Close to the Edge, check out the vocals immediately following the 3rd chorus where the verse goes "Sudden cold shouldn't take away the startled memory..."

The vocals sound muffled & not consistent with the other verses. Even as a kid, I thought they screwed up something. Lucky for Yes, the song is so cool you can overlook technical flubs like that, but if *I* were to do it on one of my songs, it would get flushed in a heartbeat

Bristol_Jonesey

NOTHING would sound the same, from a simple change of strings, to synth patches, hell - I bet even the routing into the console had changed.

Poor old Eddy Offord had to make sense of this mess, and rumour has it, the final mix tape of CTTE was assembled by him by splicing bits of tape together, hoping it would work, even using bits that had been chucked on the floor.

And what an album!!!!

"All in all the journey takes you all the way"
"As apart from any reality that you've ever seen and known"

You said it--what an album! I heard that same rumor (actually it was confirmed in an Eddy Offord interview published not long ago), and that gave me a whole new appreciation for the "science of imperfection". That muffled verse bothered me as a kid, but that's because I was growing up in the 80s where everything had to be computer-perfect. Now I hear the quirks of CTTE and think "that's character!" That verse was probably one of the scraps on the studio floor, rescued by Mr. O. It's almost like the mix tells a story in itself.

I'd love to hear music go back to that level of creativity. CTTE, Sgt. Pepper, etc. Maybe then I wouldn't be so stressed out over engineering my tunes, and instead I can focus more on writing them

foxwolfen

I initially envelop by sight, not sound. Then once the chain is in place, I listen to the mix and hear where the compression is failing, adjust it, and then adjust the envelop.

I found with the spoken word song, the envelop was critical (and needs to be redone) due to the noise differences between clip takes. In a sense I manually add the ADSR with an envelop.

That must be really time consuming. But I imagine your results are more dynamic and 'authentic' than anything a compressor can do.

Straying a little OT, just because you mentioned using different clip takes, do you have a special method for smoothing it all out once you're done assembling the final Franken-vocal? (a special reverb or FX setting to blend it all together?)

I often go back to re-record individual words if the original didn't sound right. Sometimes it's sorta obvious (to my ears). Having all the clips compressed/limited the same helps, but I was wondering if there's something else I could do to keep things consistent.

Spaceduck

foxwolfen

I initially envelop by sight, not sound. Then once the chain is in place, I listen to the mix and hear where the compression is failing, adjust it, and then adjust the envelop.

I found with the spoken word song, the envelop was critical (and needs to be redone) due to the noise differences between clip takes. In a sense I manually add the ADSR with an envelop.

That must be really time consuming. But I imagine your results are more dynamic and 'authentic' than anything a compressor can do.

Straying a little OT, just because you mentioned using different clip takes, do you have a special method for smoothing it all out once you're done assembling the final Franken-vocal? (a special reverb or FX setting to blend it all together?)

I often go back to re-record individual words if the original didn't sound right. Sometimes it's sorta obvious (to my ears). Having all the clips compressed/limited the same helps, but I was wondering if there's something else I could do to keep things consistent.

The best advice I can give... don't listen too closely

Verb for vox will go on the subgroup the vox tracks are assigned to, along with potentially a mastering EQ and compressor (more for volume boosting at this that point).

jimmyman

I often go back to re-record individual words if the original didn't sound right. Sometimes it's sorta obvious (to my ears). Having all the clips compressed/limited the same helps, but I was wondering if there's something else I could do to keep things consistent.

Hey spaceduck

  You might try using 2 tube pre-amps in series. Each pre having
a pre/ post control. A tube will "compress" before it distorts.
Finding that sweet spot by adjusting the pre/ post gain
can yield some very good results and sound very nice and
unprocessed.

Thanks! I remember you mentioned this technique before, and I tried it with great results. Since then I've just gotten lazy, but I think I'll go back to that method. Interesting, I never thought of tubes as natural compressors, but it makes sense ...they definitely do something to the sound, and it's not necessarily distortion.

Just as I'm typing this, it occured to me I could "re-amp" the vocal tracks I've already recorded, the way some folks described re-amping guitars in another thread. Only I guess I would be re-pre-amping?

That plus some light verb & subgrouping, as Foxicus & Skully mentioned, should ensure a seamless surgical edit.

And of course not listening so hard. I really doubt it's noticeable to anyone but the obsessed fool at the mixing desk.

Jimmy (and all): Thanks much for chiming.

Jimmy, which (2) tube pre-amps (or emulators) are in your mind?  

2 outboard (Presonus, Neve, or such, ... in series) ... and/or in-the box (Sonar-TL-68 tube leveler)?

I've already got 2 pre-amps: the Portico (Neve solid-state) and RME FF-400 (solid-state) in series ...

G-Hacker, Duck, Shad, Bristol, Skull ... I'm studying your great suggestions.

Excess processing is not desireable.  I've thought of playing with the parallel compression buss with pre-(track) enveloping ... its upward expansion and all ... even Katz-recommended, IIRC.

It oft takes several vox tracks to make a thick lead (and/or clones).  Obviously, the main vox gets the most consistent leveling.  Its not too difficult to copy-paste painstaking envelopes (especially since side-panned vocs are oft 10-20 decibels lower).

As per Jimmy, IIRC, and for tidiness sake, and despite, perhaps, some of you suggesting bus fx's.  I leave at least the final vox buss-stem untouched by envelopes and fx's. 

... Of course, I/you/we oft have to fight dynamic levels with those additional harmony-vocs, backing vocs, choirs, and such ... all of which compound the job ... that can add-up to a lot of compressors ... depending on your config(s).

Jimmy (and all): Thanks much for chiming. Jimmy, which (2) tube pre-amps (or emulators) are in your mind? 2 outboard (Presonus, Neve, or such, ... in series) ... and/or in-the box (Sonar-TL-68 tube leveler)? I've already got 2 pre-amps: the Portico (Neve solid-state) and RME FF-400 (solid-state) in series ...

   Phillip there was no particular model of pre but I was
referring to "tube only" hardware pre's. I have ran tests
to see what the result of driving a tube pre to "just before"
saturation and found that a pure sine wav would still
remain a pure sine wav but limit its dynamic range.

  I also found that (to my ears) this type of comping worked
much faster than any hardware comp I had. All of my
hardware comps are solid state and can't react nowhere
near as fast a the tube can.

  Can this be done with solid state pres?  I don't know?
Ive never tested this on solid state pres. I would like to
know the difference between how the two react.
I don't use any vst tube simulators/ plugs. I don't like
the way they sound.

  At the present time I'm not running two pres inline
because I'm trying to simplify as much as possible and
do more with less but having done that was a great help
because it taught me what it sounds like and gave me
something to try to emulate.

 You mention layering vocs for fatness. I don't do that
either but i respect and understand why some people do.
for me doing that causes "issues". I always use only a
single "mono" voc.

  I may seem to be a "tech nut" when it comes to all this
fancy this and that analytical mindset but it's a means
to an end for me. Some people just want to "turn a knob"
and that's great if it works.

  But I've never owned any "high dollar gear". I have
however kept in mind that the pros do more with less.
So that's my basis for constantly doing complicated and
radical and outside the box things.

  In a way it's like building and designing my own
"virtual" hardware gear. Maybe that's how to describe
how I think in terms of gear be it hardware or vst.
Anytime a person starts doing any sort of comping
there can be or always is a loss of some crispness even
if it's only minimal.

   This isn't necessarily a problem but knowing it does
happen does help in being aware of things. (At least
in the analog or simulated analog world). I think
what may happen sometimes is (on the subject of
vocs and comping) is that we may working so hard
on treating the vocs to make them fit without being
too out front is that the other instruments (and
combination of) are the problem.

  I don't even have a sub bus for the instrument mix
(most of the time). everything goes right to the
mains. In other words any sub bus is a last resort.
(of course I have a sub bus for verb and such)

  There are so many "little things" that affect everything
that we may not be aware of that "little thing" being
the cause. Sometimes focusing on the term "stereo
field" causes (say a voc) to become thin. Then we are
eq-ing and comping this voc.

   It can sometimes be very difficult to be good at
diagnostics such as fixing one part when another
part is the problem. In practice I doubt a voc can
sound stunning if the instruments only sound so so.
A voc might be too dynamic sounding because
some other parts are powerful.

  its like 1+1+1+1 does not equal 1. A dynamic vocalist
singing into a very dynamic mic of course can have a very
wide dynamic range and leave one with a lot of work
on they're hands. I'm always searching for new and
better methods. sometimes disregarding what I once
thought was a good approach.

   I sometimes even go back to using a method or
a piece of hardware gear that I came to think wasn't
working well. But it sure seems that the "dynamics"
subject is so very very very important in achieving
a great sound.   

 

 

I've got a solution for this within my mixing template.   I won't go into the particulars here, but it does involve using two compressors and it works very well.

I use envelopes for major level changes and then use Voxformer for just some more gentle compression to help it sit in the mix better. I've been doing a lot of recording for singers who aren't really skilled at mic control, so their levels aren't very even. The compression settings I would need to bring the softer parts up would overcompress the louder parts and suck out the dynamics. But I will also say the presets for Voxformer have very low threshholds and always need to be adjusted to more appropriate settings.

Edited after I realised I replied to the wrong thread DUHHHH
kev
 

Lance -- doubtless thats at least half of it

U2Bon -- Thats quite a list; TBH the last 5/6 I'll have to look up.

DLog -- I've been doing it sort-of exactly like you ... for the last year or so: Envelopes and voxformer.  The presets are, indeed, over-kill ... I've foolishly bounced a few (as a beginner) ...

It appears you don't use a limiter 1st.  I can imagine what a -20dcb threshold with 0sec attack would sound like
... as it squashes out blood-curdling-vox-scream-wave spikes ... into pleasant conversational chimes and such ... haha!

Thanks Bristol for looking that up.  Likewise, I'm not sure I 'deserve' such a golden chain either ... (my Neve Portico, FF-400, and AKG mic have already exceeded me)