That Backwards Vocal Efx- Like In Avril's "Girlfriend" Song

[M2E]

That Backwards Vocal Efx- Like In Avril's "Girlfriend" Song.

Does anyone know and easy way to do this in Pro Tools? Been wanting to do this on alot of songs but, never get good info on how to do it cleanly, and clearly like on that Avril song.

Thanx

M2E

[max cooper]

Reverse the track, apply reverb, then reverse it back again.

You have to print the reverb after the initial reversal.

[theblue1]

Just as an exercise, let's pretend Max isn't here to answer that one.

The point of this post is NOT the details below -- but the process by which they're arrived at... the sort of "audio forensics" that used to be part of learning to be an engineer/producer (particularly back in the day when people jealously guarded their production tricks and techniques).

Learning how to analyze a sound or effect and achieve something similar is an INVALUABLE skill...

Let's give it a walkthrough...


Now... I haven't heard Avril's song (and if it's that teenybopper punkette I probably am gonna try not to) but I've heard this effect only a few thousand times so I'll wing it.


If I didn't know how to get the sound and no one was around to answer my plaintive question, I'd have to figure out how to get it on my own...

What are the characteristics of the sound?

This typically involves either a swooshing "reverse envelope" (it ramps up instead of decaying) of sound that leads up to a vocal (guitar, sax, whatever) or you may actually hear a series of iterations of the sound mounting up to it -- but with an odd quality that suggests a "backwards" quality -- even though the singer is clearly singing forwards.

[It's different, of course, from the Twin Peaks backwards-talking of the supernatural midget character, which involved the actor actually learning his lines phonetically backwards, delivering them backwards, and having the clip reversed in processing.]


So... we know it sounds backwards (somehow) even though the main vocal appears to be "forwards."

So it's presumably an effect that has been added to the vocal but then is somehow reversed...

How could we do that?

In the tape days, it was relatively easy to record the ever-popular backwards guitar part... you flipped the tape over, found the right track (track 7 on an 8 track multitrack would be track 2 if you flipped the tape over) recorded your part (hearing all the music backwards) and then flipped the tape back, leaving the music bed forwards but the guitar (or vocal or whatever) backwards.

But that's not QUITE what we want. Still if we listen to that (or imagine it) we have the clue to the solution of our problem above...

Part of a backwards guitar sound is the sound of the reversed decay and that's very similar to the effect we want.

So the key is the decay...

How do we get decay effects? Through time based FX like echo and reverb.

So we've got to get that FX on the vocal but in reverse while leaving the vocal forwards...

How do we do it?

Obviously, we're going to have to be "in reverse" when we apply the 'verb or delay.

Today, we don't have to flip a tape -- or even all the tracks in the project... we only did that because the tape forced us to.

We can reverse just the vocal track and print a reverb to it -- and then reverse the whole track back... NOW the vocal is back to forwards and we have a reverse reverb/delay effect on the vocal track.

We've accomplished our goal... there's just one small refinement we can make to our process to give us more flexibility. Let's print JUST the reverb and put it on a NEW track so that we have more flexibility once we're done, with the (virtually) untouched vocal on one track and the reverse verb effect on another and we can mix to taste -- or even perform OTHER tricks with our reverb track, maybe offsetting IT by a certain amount of time to exaggerate the reverse verb effect (by taking it "off the grid" of the echo effect we can give it a particularly unsettling affect, for instance.)


Anyhow... it's nice that we can just ask and often receive the answer -- but we may also be shortchanging ourselves by not doing the brainwork...

[slaves666]

I love the old reverse cymbal trick to enter the last chorus. shhhhhhhhhhhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... BAM........LOVE IT.

[M2E]

Originally Posted by max cooper

Reverse the track, apply reverb, then reverse it back again.

You have to print the reverb after the initial reversal.

Thanx...What reverb do you use from Pro Tools? And is it a plate or hall and what settings work best for you?

Thanx

M2E

[M2E]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Just as an exercise, let's pretend Max isn't here to answer that one.

The point of this post is NOT the details below -- but the process by which they're arrived at... the sort of "audio forensics" that used to be part of learning to be an engineer/producer (particularly back in the day when people jealously guarded their production tricks and techniques).

Learning how to analyze a sound or effect and achieve something similar is an INVALUABLE skill...

Let's give it a walkthrough...


Now... I haven't heard Avril's song (and if it's that teenybopper punkette I probably am gonna try not to) but I've heard this effect only a few thousand times so I'll wing it.


If I didn't know how to get the sound and no one was around to answer my plaintive question, I'd have to figure out how to get it on my own...

What are the characteristics of the sound?

This typically involves either a swooshing "reverse envelope" (it ramps up instead of decaying) of sound that leads up to a vocal (guitar, sax, whatever) or you may actually hear a series of iterations of the sound mounting up to it -- but with an odd quality that suggests a "backwards" quality -- even though the singer is clearly singing forwards.

[It's different, of course, from the Twin Peaks backwards-talking of the supernatural midget character, which involved the actor actually learning his lines phonetically backwards, delivering them backwards, and having the clip reversed in processing.]


So... we know it sounds backwards (somehow) even though the main vocal appears to be "forwards."

So it's presumably an effect that has been added to the vocal but then is somehow reversed...

How could we do that?

In the tape days, it was relatively easy to record the ever-popular backwards guitar part... you flipped the tape over, found the right track (track 7 on an 8 track multitrack would be track 2 if you flipped the tape over) recorded your part (hearing all the music backwards) and then flipped the tape back, leaving the music bed forwards but the guitar (or vocal or whatever) backwards.

But that's not QUITE what we want. Still if we listen to that (or imagine it) we have the clue to the solution of our problem above...

Part of a backwards guitar sound is the sound of the reversed decay and that's very similar to the effect we want.

So the key is the decay...

How do we get decay effects? Through time based FX like echo and reverb.

So we've got to get that FX on the vocal but in reverse while leaving the vocal forwards...

How do we do it?

Obviously, we're going to have to be "in reverse" when we apply the 'verb or delay.

Today, we don't have to flip a tape -- or even all the tracks in the project... we only did that because the tape forced us to.

We can reverse just the vocal track and print a reverb to it -- and then reverse the whole track back... NOW the vocal is back to forwards and we have a reverse reverb/delay effect on the vocal track.

We've accomplished our goal... there's just one small refinement we can make to our process to give us more flexibility. Let's print JUST the reverb and put it on a NEW track so that we have more flexibility once we're done, with the (virtually) untouched vocal on one track and the reverse verb effect on another and we can mix to taste -- or even perform OTHER tricks with our reverb track, maybe offsetting IT by a certain amount of time to exaggerate the reverse verb effect (by taking it "off the grid" of the echo effect we can give it a particularly unsettling affect, for instance.)


Anyhow... it's nice that we can just ask and often receive the answer -- but we may also be shortchanging ourselves by not doing the brainwork...

WOW!!!! You really broke it down. Thanx....I agree on trying something yourself which I've done without any success. After that happened that's when I came to Gearslutz/Digidesign/Womb to see what others do and how they do it and maybe...just maybe when I do it, I stumble on a new way of doing it and share the love back.

What do you say?

So, what reverb do you like to use or delay and in what way?

Thanx

M2E

[theblue1]

I just use whatever is handy... it's the inner game of reverb I'm all about...






Actually, I'm not the guy to ask about reverb.

I'm very ambivalent about reverb. I was a big proponent in the late 70s and early 80s and then I flipped back to lusting after a good dry sound for a long time (I'm basically a contrarian whatever's hot right now is NOT what I'm going to use, as a rule) and then I swung back to heavy verb and echoes, ping pong echoes, spinning echoes... awful excesses (that somehow I still like on those mixes to this day)... and now I'm sort of in limbo (oh, wait, Limbo doesn't exist anymore, does it? I need to get the memos on this stuff)...

FWIW (and that's not much) I'm using Sonar's Perfect Space (by Voxengo) convo reverb, as well as Sonitus fx 'verb... PS is the only working conv 'verb I have and I have to say I've yet to get onto its wavelength. I tend to use one of its plates (warm, dark, or something) and occasionally shop for special FX, usually to some frustration.

I use the Sonitus for basic "conventional" modeled reverb since you can sort of design the space using their parameter faders. I also have Lexicon Something or Other, another "pro version freebie" I got with some Sonar update or other -- but I have to say I've never been a huge Lex 'verb fan. I have one of their hardware boxes and what sounds to some as "creamy" sounds to me as "syrupy," if that means anything.

But really, what we're talking about are my priorities. For purpose of argument: if I had a fixed budget for plug ins (and, in actuality, I use the best of the freebies that come with the pro version of my DAW and what I find for free on the net) -- I personally would put at least 80% of that budget into getting the best compression I could. EQ is fairly easy to do neutrally (character EQ is a whole 'nother can o worms). 'Verb's not that big a deal to me... but COMPRESSION... anyhow, that's off topic, ain't it...


Anyhow, I'm glad you appreciated my process explanation on reverse echo/'verb (I knew I could remember what this thread was about without looking ) and hope it helped in whatever modest way it could to promote an appreciation of reverse engineering a given sound/effect.

Of course, I know all too well that it's one thing to take the high road on self-education on a relaxed Saturday afternoon and it is a whole 'nother thing to need the answer to how to get effect X 5 minutes ago 'cause the producer is breathing down your neck and asking impertinencies like, "Are we still on the clock?"

[Stick]

I usually end up with a dense plate for this effect. I usually like it it without much early reflection slap too. It sounds cool with a long reverb, or a short reverb... depending on what you want.

Here's my process:

Grab the phrase you want the effect on.
Reverse that phrase.
Run said phrase through the reverb... 100% reverb.
Print reverb only pass.
Reverse reverb phrase.
Slide it under the original until you get it to line up how you want.
Sit back and bask in the glory of your mixing brilliance.