Compress then De-ess or De-ess then compress?

[Martini Hill]

Ok brothers, pretty much says it all. Compressing my already recorded female vox track develops a little sibilance after subtle compression. Do you de-ess after or maybe before compression.

Peace~Jeff

[RCM - Ronan]

I might swap around to get the best results but usually its de-ess before compression for me.

[Aaron Miller]

I usually de-ess first.

[Dietz]

I usually de-ess after compressing a vocal track. A compressor (with an unfiltered / unbiased sidechain) will tend to make S-es louder, which is not what I'm after when I needed de-essing. :-)

My typical vocal chain could look like that:

Filter (for lo-cut and taming ugly resonances, if needed) > compressor > (soft) saturation > de-essing > sweetening EQ > limiting (if needed).

[andreaeffe]

First at mix stage - if I absolutely have to.
Never while tracking.

Quite "in hate" of de-essing, if I can get away (any way) without it, I'll do it - i.e. if the slight sibliance is just there & let's leave it there; or if I can maually "tame" the S-curves by editing on the waveform in Nuendo; or if I can apply SPL/Valley People (which use the inverted phase sibilant sound waveform summing, and not the frequency keyed compression type of de-essing) de-essers only on that tiny portion of the waveform and carefully crossfade it in/out on the track; or if I can put a de-esser only on a multed/parallel track being quite heavily compressed and blended in with the main vocal track.

I find it quite bothering when de-essing turns into... re-effing
(because it begins to sound like the singer just got a lisp and it's fffffff everywhere ).

A
F

[jonathan jetter]

For me.... After compression. Always.

Never got the de esser to dig in right when I would put it before

[work2do]

I usually go thru and manually turn down the offending parts in the vocal tracks. Takes longer but keeps the vocals crisp and undamaged. If I do use a de-esser it goes first.

[soundmoves]

Sometimes both. A lil de-essing before compressor and then again after eq. Usually different frequencies. Neither is hitting really hard. For plugin I like the Massey de-esser.


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by RCM - Ronan

I might swap around to get the best results but usually its de-ess before compression for me.

What he said

[Jonathan@FPA]

Originally Posted by RCM - Ronan

I might swap around to get the best results but usually its de-ess before compression for me.

RCM is right, as he is often...

First at mix stage - if I absolutely have to.
Never while tracking.

Quite "in hate" of de-essing, if I can get away (any way) without it, I'll do it - i.e. if the slight sibliance is just there & let's leave it there; or if I can maually "tame" the S-curves by editing on the waveform in Nuendo; or if I can apply SPL/Valley People (which use the inverted phase sibilant sound waveform summing, and not the frequency keyed compression type of de-essing) de-essers only on that tiny portion of the waveform and carefully crossfade it in/out on the track; or if I can put a de-esser only on a multed/parallel track being quite heavily compressed and blended in with the main vocal track.

I find it quite bothering when de-essing turns into... re-effing
(because it begins to sound like the singer just got a lisp and it's fffffff everywhere ).

A
F


I have to agree with the above as well! USE CAREFULLY!

[u b k]

Originally Posted by work2do

I usually go thru and manually turn down the offending parts in the vocal tracks. Takes longer but keeps the vocals crisp and undamaged. If I do use a de-esser it goes first.

My thoughts exactly.

The world's most transparent, controllable de-esser:

[IMG]******//www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f6f2c0f90845c77c77c0d0f29db5da3a6g.jpg[/IMG]


Gregory Scott - ubk

[World Studios]

Originally Posted by u b k

My thoughts exactly.

The world's most transparent, controllable de-esser:

[IMG]******//www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f6f2c0f90845c77c77c0d0f29db5da3a6g.jpg[/IMG]


Gregory Scott - ubk

What he said. The "UBK De-esser" is the only way to go.

[Rob The Viking]

I found the empirical labs Derresser Works nicely. Much better than any plugins I've tried. Also it doesn't make the Esses sound like lisps, even when you slam it. Ive been trying after compression and eq

[Aof]

I have found that all de-essers tend to affect overall sound, so, as others have suggested, the best and most transparent de-esser is to manually edit the volume curves (volume trim if available). It's more work, but it's worth the effort.

[RCM - Ronan]

Originally Posted by Rob The Viking

I found the empirical labs Derresser Works nicely. Much better than any plugins I've tried. Also it doesn't make the Esses sound like lisps, even when you slam it. Ive been trying after compression and eq

Yeah, I use the de-esser in my Emperical Labs LilFreq. I sometimes forget its on.

[Dayo]

Another thumbs up for the Derressor. And we normally de-ess before compression here, so as to let the compressor work on the other stuff. Then a touch of EQ to bring the highs back and voila....

[Ward Pike]

Originally Posted by work2do

I usually go thru and manually turn down the offending parts in the vocal tracks. Takes longer but keeps the vocals crisp and undamaged. If I do use a de-esser it goes first.

+1.

Hate de-essing... but if absolutely needed, it would go first.

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by RCM - Ronan

Yeah, I use the de-esser in my Emperical Labs LilFreq. I sometimes forget its on.

Yep that's a real nice one. I have a Dane Optical de-esser that also works really well. Like Ronan said usually it's first in the chain

[Martini Hill]

Heh ! After the "thousand questions" that I threw at Ronan a couple of years ago at his boot camp, this was one that escaped us both until now! :-) Here's to hoping that you don't remember me! :-)

Although, I have been writing and recording my whole life, I can't tell you how refreshing it was to get back to basics with you Ronan!! Great to hear from you as well as everyone else! Thanx for the replies everyone!

Yes, I think that my vox track ("Beyonce" influenced) was recorded pretty well, as the need for de-essing is minimal after a chain of compressors gently kissing the track. Although sibilance, to me, (unless extreme) doesn't really bother me as much as perhaps other engineers, the "lisp-ness" that de-essers produce really does. I was surprised to hear a lot of it on Beyonce's vocal tracks. I am much more inclined to manually draw them out than to use the Waves de-esser.

That said, it still raised the question that I posted, wondering if I should pre de-ess a bit before the compression reveals sibilance. Certainly, my ears will ultimately judge, but it is really interesting to hear the differing replies.

I love Gear Slutz!! Thanx again!!

Peace everyone!

Jeff

[Marogru]

I noticed that when I got confident with compression I use deessing less and less.
My "Chain" Is:

-Manual automation volume including manual deesing
-eq with automation if needed
-compression
-eq
-Deessing on vocal group if needed

worls 80% of the time

[dented42ford]

I generally loathe De-essers - they do weird stuff to the signal which just bothers me, even when they do their job right - and with a DAW, I find they are rarely needed. Why? Automation takes care of the not-so-bad offenses, and Melodyne can fix the really bad ones. How engineers live without that plug/program, I can't fathom anymore!

[Dietz]

Originally Posted by dented42ford

I generally loathe De-essers - they do weird stuff to the signal which just bothers me, even when they do their job right - and with a DAW, I find they are rarely needed. Why? Automation takes care of the not-so-bad offenses, and Melodyne can fix the really bad ones. How engineers live without that plug/program, I can't fathom anymore!

I'm completely with you regarding Melodyne! :-) I abuse it as manually controlled, pre-processing de-esser all the time.

***

... I just can't understand why people say that the de-esser colours a signal - if used in full-range mode (opposed to "split", a.k.a "HF only"), this shouldn't happen.

Personally I try to tame sibilance because it easily destroys the psychoacoustic illusion of distance that makes the singer sit in a mix nicely. A overly loud makes the voice "jump" up at you for the fraction of a second.

[dented42ford]

Originally Posted by Dietz

I'm completely with you regarding Melodyne! :-) I abuse it as manually controlled, pre-processing de-esser all the time.

***

... I just can't understand why people say that the de-esser colours a signal - if used in full-range mode (opposed to "split", a.k.a "HF only"), this shouldn't happen.

Personally I try to tame sibilance because it easily destroys the psychoacoustic illusion of distance that makes the singer sit in a mix nicely. A overly loud makes the voice "jump" up at you for the fraction of a second.

Well, in Broadband mode, all a de-esser is doing is compressing the signal - which, I suppose, is what you want anyway - but it is compressing the WHOLE signal. I've never seen the use of de-essers in broadband, when a carefully tweaked parallel+sidechain compressor would do the same thing - and wouldn't be frequency limited. By carefully tweaked, I mean using multiple bandpass filters to side chain ALL the offending louder frequencies, not just ones beyond a threshold. I guess what I mean is, what is the point of using a de-esser if it ISN'T frequency dependent? And if you are splitting the signal, it will ALWAYS color the sound.

Frankly, it just takes less time to Melodyne the damn thing...
(which I also find easier than automating, due to the way that Melodyne shows the waveform - but, given that Melodyne has its own issues with causing sonic degradation, automation is certainly better for transparency - though, I've found that around 75% of singers need pitch or timing correction anyway, making the difference moot)

[Dietz]

Originally Posted by dented42ford

I guess what I mean is, what is the point of using a de-esser if it ISN'T frequency dependent? And if you are splitting the signal, it will ALWAYS color the sound.

Broadband de-essing is pure compression, that's right. The idea is to sculpt the sidechain in a way that only the offending parts of the signal gets ducked. This way you get frequency dependent compression without band-splitting or equalizing the actual signal. Look at it as an "automated way to do track automation". :-)

Band-split de-essers tend to introduce lisping because (usually) the spectral components get disarranged when the process kicks in. This won't happen with broadband de-essing: The offending signal part just gets lowered in volume.

[sage691]

The best de-esser is a vocalist who knows how to soften those sssssss moments so they just sound smooth, but not offensive and harsh.

This is why it is usually best to hear all of the final processing on the vocal whilst tracking it; so if you are compressing on the way in as well as post the vocalist should be hearing exactly that sound while they are tracking. In my setup that is usually an 1176 or la2a on the front, and then a mc77 inserted on that channel on the console in post. This way the vocalist can clearly hear what the finished vocal sound will be in the final mix, and adjust his/her performance accordingly.

I dunno about automating a -8db volume drop during those sssssss moments ? I think in a dense mix that would likely be perceived as a drop out of the vocal.

When done properly by a good vocalist the sssses should be pleasent and not offensive.

[Andreas G]

Originally Posted by Martini Hill

Ok brothers, pretty much says it all. Compressing my already recorded female vox track develops a little sibilance after subtle compression. Do you de-ess after or maybe before compression.

Peace~Jeff

I'd say whatever sounds more sexy, no strict rules here.

Esses can sound sexy! e.g. John Lennons Ssssexy Sssssadie :-)

[janjaal]

while tracking, i go compress>deess>eq
while mixing, i go eq>compress>deess(if needed)

[u b k]

If you're gonna use a plugin comp to control your esses, try duplicating your track and shifting it ahead by 10ms or so; put the de-essing comp on the main vocal but key it off the time-shifted copy.

That will allow you to grab the esses before they start, which is what I almost always do when manually ducking them. I also release the ess a few milliseconds before it ends. For some reason, it sounds more natural to me that way.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[Doc No]

Originally Posted by Marogru

I noticed that when I got confident with compression I use deessing less and less.
My "Chain" Is:

-Manual automation volume including manual deesing
-eq with automation if needed
-compression
-eq
-Deessing on vocal group if needed

worls 80% of the time

Nearly the same here.

Btw the Sonnox Surpressor has automatic level tracking following energy levels...

[Red Mastering]

Originally Posted by u b k

My thoughts exactly.

The world's most transparent, controllable de-esser:

[IMG]******//www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f6f2c0f90845c77c77c0d0f29db5da3a6g.jpg[/IMG]


Gregory Scott - ubk

absolutely!
it's also best track compressor, most transparent at least
but sometimes I use de-esser off isa 430 producerpack, as they have a quite clever solution for that- I think there's a phase flip to cancel sibilance, anyway when it's really a lot of work, and hand editing would take ages - isa's de-esser is fine for the job

peace