Ultra-smooth rock vocal compression help

[dasbin]

I was just thinking that in lots of really good-sounding rock vocals (I'm thinking newer Death Cab for Cutie, Nada Surf (Proximity Effect... I don't like the mix on Let Go), The Format, etc), it seems like the compression on the vox plays an even bigger part in the vocal sound than the mic or possibly preamp.

So my question is, how the heck do they get the super-smooth, ultra-compressed-without-sounding-like-it-and-still-retaining-the-high-end sound?
I'm mixing ITB (Nuendo) and using what I consider to be totally decent software compressors that I pick over depending on the situation (Sonalksis, Ultrafunk, Waves RComp). Lately I've been "stacking" 2 or 3 RComp's in series on a track, with each of them set a little lighter than I normally would for just one. This helps a bit, but it doesn't quite get all the way there.

Is there some magic recipe? Or is this strictly a gear issue? Maybe it's time to start saving for a wicked outboard compressor.
I have a hard time believing that's all there is to it, though. A compressor just does a simple job. Some are better than others, yeah, but they can't be the 400% better that I'm hearing. What kind of settings are you guys using? I'm specifically interested in the best way to set release time. Attack is fine, I usually go anywhere between 4-9ms. Release... I usually set it low (50ms or so) or just auto. I have a feeling that a key to smoothness lies in this, but I've been unable to find it by playing around with release times.

Then there's the whole issue of sibilance. I'd rather not have this thread get into a huge discussion just about sibilance, but I just wanted to comment that I usually do a bit of high-end boosting after compression to make up for air that tends to get sucked out. But all that usually does it increase the sibilance, sometimes really badly so.


I'll add a post to this thread in a bit with some specific audio examples.

[dasbin]

Ok, here's where I'm at now:

Mine

And this is what I'm trying to achieve:

Theirs


Their sound is bigger, smoother, more even in volume (listen to how loud the intakes of breath are!), yet the transients are super pleasing (listen to the "g" in "given you a reason to stay")
What's my problem?

[T_R_S]

Volume graphing the Vocals and Automated Vocal EQ take about 8-10 hours to do. Depending on how picky you wanna get.

[dasbin]

Whoa, there's two concepts I've never heard of.


Volume graphing... is this some fancy form of volume automation? Riding the fader, so to speak, throughout every word and transient in the song?

"Automated Vocal EQ" didn't even turn up in Google. What is this? FFT Analysis then comparison to an "ideal" spectrum and EQ to suit? I always assumed that kind of thing was a little sketchy.

[Absolute]

First..I would not call that rock vocals tutt

I have no problem getting that type of upfront sound with Voxengo Voxformer or crushessor. The Voxformer has 2 compressors chained together, presence, eq, saturation, dehesser. I think it even has a preset upfront vocals. try a demo.

Im sure others with better abilities than mine can help you out--but Im a singer--a ROCK singer and Im very used to that sound and you just dont have enough compression dialed in. Im sure others can help with tips on keeping the highs crisp.

[dasbin]

Originally Posted by Absolute

First..I would not call that rock vocals tutt

What would you call it? It's a form of rock music, and there's melodic vocals to it

The Voxformer has 2 compressors chained together, presence, eq, saturation, dehesser. I think it even has a preset upfront vocals. try a demo.

Hmm, it doesn't even let you play with attack and release though. All-in-one plugs like this always seem a bit "toyish" to me because they usually don't do any one thing very well.
I'll try a demo though. I have a hard time believing this is going to be the ticket though, since I'm already doing all these things seperately, and with more control (and probably better quality).

Im sure others with better abilities than mine can help you out--but Im a singer--a ROCK singer and Im very used to that sound and you just dont have enough compression dialed in.

I really can't hit it any harder without getting super squashed and lifeless sounding.
Thanks for the advice though, I'll try everything you suggested.

[desol]

I would say it's fair to assume...that most awesome recordings...have analog processors in them...digital couterparts...i don't think stack up...also...i would think that most things remain mostly uncompressed...then crushed in the end...... retaining the awesome dynamics or naturality under compression sound that your describing. With vocals...maybe it's better to record with compression...maybe not so good with drums....maybe the reverse...maybe a bit of both...

In my opinion, the combination of mixing and processing in analog gives a much more authentic type of represenation/seperation that digital mixing can't achieve...ie: total amassed, summed headroom.......and the act of running massive amounts of audio energy through natural circuitry until its ready to melt produces a sound akin to the function...natural......digital mixers can't and won't do that...

ultimately...i think that mixing...pales in importance to tracking. Anyone can mix...few can record.

[Ahellam]

well Nada Surf for example where the vocals are very hifi and very well done (hes a good singer)
you would want to get as clean of a signal as possible, which means very little preamp drive and being as open as possible sounding before you compress.

You should check out Rvox instead of Rcomp its more of a limity sound and doesnt FATTEN the sound as much, moreso just pushing it to the front of the mix.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by desol

Ido that...

ultimately...i think that mixing...pales in importance to tracking. Anyone can mix...few can record.

Personally I would say whole heartedly its the opposite.

[ixnys]

Have you been using a DeEsser?

[desol]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Personally I would say whole heartedly its the opposite.

I was just saying that...i believe...that the album starts with the recording...
and that...i think...mixing is subjective...whilst recording is objective....referring to the direct reproduction of something real.

The best records i've ever heard have a naturally good recorded sound to them....
ie: Tom Petty's 'Wildflowers'...
to me mixing is the idea of executing something that is already great...How much can you screw with something that is recorded horribly? How much synthetic reverb would you like on your overheads...how much eq can you use....

In a perfect world everything would be recorded beautifully in a beautiful space...but i guess that's not the case.

All the early great records that i've loved for all these years...how much of a technical emphasis was placed on mixing as compared to the vibe and skill present during tracking...what has more effect on the sound?

Logic tells me that their equally important...but then old sayings come back...you can't get blood from a stone...

I don't want to seem so black and white...it's just that it seems that there is an overemphasis on mixing/mastering these days to achieve a great recording???...it's a paradox...
somehow...it seems simpler to adjust something that your hearing rather than record something that is to be heard...

I don't know...lol

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by desol

I was just saying that...i believe...that the album starts with the recording...
and that...i think...mixing is subjective...whilst recording is objective....referring to the direct reproduction of something real.

The best records i've ever heard have a naturally good recorded sound to them....
ie: Tom Petty's 'Wildflowers'...
to me mixing is the idea of executing something that is already great...How much can you screw with something that is recorded horribly? How much synthetic reverb would you like on your overheads...how much eq can you use....

In a perfect world everything would be recorded beautifully in a beautiful space...but i guess that's not the case.

All the early great records that i've loved for all these years...how much of a technical emphasis was placed on mixing as compared to the vibe and skill present during tracking...what has more effect on the sound?

Logic tells me that their equally important...but then old sayings come back...you can't get blood from a stone...

I don't want to seem so black and white...it's just that it seems that there is an overemphasis on mixing/mastering these days to achieve a great recording???...it's a paradox...
somehow...it seems simpler to adjust something that your hearing rather than record something that is to be heard...

I don't know...lol

It depends on the genre.

And the individual.

For example 2 of my all time favorite records(Seal 1 and Seal 2) were made basically pieced together.

The mixes were an integral part of the production.

Sure it helps to have well recorded tracks, but nowdays your lucky if that's so.

Personally i prefer mixing songs that have great production value and not so great recorded tracks as compared to great recorded tracks that have no production value.

On the former i feel there is more room for experimentation and you have more gaps to take it higher as compared to the latter which normally is pretty limited.

[84K]

Originally Posted by Absolute

Originally Posted by Absolute

First..I would not call that rock vocals

Originally Posted by dasbin

What would you call it? It's a form of rock music, and there's melodic vocals to it

That is no where near rock music. No form of it. It is a form of "pop." To be rock... it has to... Rock. make sense?

The vocal efffect you want can be achieved by ganging mulitple good compressors tastefully. Many boxes can do that. It is in your hands. Double or Triple compress it... Just don't slam any of the compressors... let them all do just a little bit.