How Important Is It To Track Vox with Comp/EQ?

[Ollie]

No hard fast rules. What matters is the end result. Experiment and find out what works for you.

Personally, I track with two compressors chained together and each of them have a different job. My goal is to only lightly compress on the way in. I eq just a bit too.

[studio825]

Originally Posted by RCM - Ronan

I usually track vox with compression, but I can not remember the last time I EQ'd.

thumbsup

[RCM - Ronan]

Originally Posted by Unexplainedbacon

Ronan, I love your show man!

Thanks!!!

[RCM - Ronan]

Originally Posted by wardpike

Same here. Light compression & peak limiting as even those singers capable of great mic technical can still overload with a powerful note or phrase. This can ruin an otherwise perfect take of a great performance.

When I am recording to 24bit digital, I am compressing on the way in for tone/mojo. For levels to prevent clipping, I just record with very conservative levels.

[Dean Roddey]

Yeh, though I'm always quick to take the 'fewer crutches' approach (though Vernier always means I can point to someone a lot worse than me so I'm safe) it's also the case that not all compression is for dynamics limiting. A lot of it is for tone. I mean, guitarists and bassists have been using compression pedals for how many decades? The fact that it was done before it hit the amp doesn't mean it's not real compression whereas if you did it after the mic it is.

They use those pedals for tone reasons, because it can add density and sustain, sometimes it can emphasize the attack, not reduce it, etc... And even if it is for peak limiting, that's often part of the tone of the part, particularly for a peaky type of instrument, which wouldn't be applicable to vocals obviously. And there will be a tonal difference between a compressor compressing and mic technique, and either might be appropriate for the given track, right?

And, though I'm all for more au naturale, there is a middle ground, and I'd have to ask both how many great rock/pop songs in the last four decades had no compression on the vocal ultimately by the end, and if it's going to anyway then why not do it while the performer is performing, so that he/she can benefit from hearing the end result and mix him or her/self?

I do understand that today's process is much more fractional and the person engineering the recording session may not have anything to do with the ultimate production of the song and therefore can't commit to as much as he/she would otherwise. But, where all the people are in the same room, wouldn't it just be optimal to do as much as you can do while the signal is still pristine analog audio on the way in, and where the performances can react to it in their playing? Particularly if you have a band doing a whole backing track at once, where you can hear all the core instruments at once and how they will work together.

Anyway, not saying anyone is right or wrong. The end result is all that matters, just discussing for discussion's sake.

[tpmears]

That question sure is a good way to open up a can of worms

[Telefunk]

Originally Posted by Zep Dude

Instead of using a comp, I call the label and tell them they should drop the singer because he/she is too dynamic. I expect a singer not only to self compress, but these days they should also know how to digitally limit themselves. Kind to think of it, we should all digitally limit ourselves. Go analog!

Play me off Johnny!

Whatever, but it's a fact that very rarely you need to compress when tracking if the vocalist has a good technique. But nowadys maybe 1% of the vocalists who get to be recorded have any technique at all. That combined with obsessive over-compression thats nowadays a norm...you need to use two compressors in a row to not to clip, jeez!

[Unexplainedbacon]

Originally Posted by Telefunk

Whatever, but it's a fact that very rarely you need to compress when tracking if the vocalist has a good technique. But nowadys maybe 1% of the vocalists who get to be recorded have any technique at all. That combined with obsessive over-compression thats nowadays a norm...you need to use two compressors in a row to not to clip, jeez!

Sure, a lot of singers don't know how to back off when they're really belting it out, but for styles of music where a vocalist goes from a whisper to a yell in the same line (Think Linkin Park), even good technique can't control that kind of dymaic range, not like a good compressor can.

[Telefunk]

Originally Posted by Unexplainedbacon

Sure, a lot of singers don't know how to back off when they're really belting it out, but for styles of music where a vocalist goes from a whisper to a yell in the same line (Think Linkin Park), even good technique can't control that kind of dymaic range, not like a good compressor can.

I disagree. Any dynamic range can be compensated with good mic technique, naturally.

But thats not the point, the point is that a vocalist with a good singing technique can control that dynamic range so well that you can predict very accurately the limits. That's the case with singers from Michael Jackson to Placido Domingo.

But honestly, i have never recorded vocalists like the singer of Linkin Park, and i hope i never will. And you are probably right that in those cases comp gives most probably the best sound and can reduce vocalists neck injuries

[Unexplainedbacon]

Originally Posted by Telefunk

And you are probably right that in those cases comp gives most probably the best sound and can reduce vocalists neck injuries

Plus it saves you from spilling your drink in the control room when they decide to rehearse unexpectedly

[rocksure]

Originally Posted by RCM - Ronan

I usually track vox with compression, but I can not remember the last time I EQ'd.

Yep same here. I definitely prefer to compress a bit on the way in. Usually low ratio ( between 2-3:1) and no EQ'ing till mixdown.

[litepipe]

I want it to sounds as close to the finished product a possible. I'll print with comp, eq, reverb, overdrive, etc. If I think it needs it. I commit to sounds. It doesn't mean I'm always going to use all of those tools. It's all about the context.

Some people want the mixer to have all the flexibility. I don't. I know what I'm going for. I pave a pretty clear road and I don't want it to come back radically different.

[RCM - Ronan]

Originally Posted by litepipe

Some people want the mixer to have all the flexibility. I don't. I know what I'm going for. I pave a pretty clear road and I don't want it to come back radically different.

A bit OT, but I am curious why you send things to some one else for mixing?

[audioboffin]

Ideal world, an 1176 set to 20:1 fast attack fast release into another 1176 4:1 slow attack quick release and then into the recorder.

Real world, track a guide vocal then use that waveform as a guide to riding the preamp gain for the "real" takes... manual gain control. It's worked before, and it's even easier if you have a waveform staring you in the face. Embrace the technology.

[dsharpent]

I Honestly don't Think it make a Dramatic Difference. For my entire Career I've Always tracked vocals with a Compressor. Lately ive been Tracking with no Compressor cutting LOUD ENERGETIC Pop Vocals.

The D-Sharp Technique For Tracking & Mixing Vocals:

MIC SIGNAL CHAIN OPTION 1
Neumann U-87> Univeral Audio Solo 610 Mic Pre> Apogee Rosetta 200 (48k/24bit) > Digi OO3


MIC SIGNAL CHAIN OPTION 2
Neumann U-87> Univeral Audio Solo 610 Mic Pre> Apogee Rosetta 200 (48k/24bit) > Digi OO3 > AUX Channel in PROTOOLS with a COMPRESSOR Inserted On The Track > Record Track

Once I'm done tracking all the Lead & Background vocals, I Comp, Edit and Melodyne ALL the vocals and Print.

Background Vocals are Recorded to Stereo Tracks all seperated by Parts; For Example- CHORUS LEAD, CHORUS HARMONY1, VOCAL DOUBLE, HARMONY1, HARMONY2, VOCAL SHOUTS,

Then I'll do my Automation Level Rides on ALL VOCALS and Print. I'll Then Run that Print Through a Compressor of my choice and Print that to New Tracks.

Now That The vocals are PERFECT I'll Mix The entire song. Here is how I Process my vocals when I mix Pop Vocals:

Waves SSL Channelstrip Plugin> Waves De-Esser> URS Compressor> Brainworx Mastering EQ (Boost 15khz by 1 maybe 2 db for Crispness) > Waves L1 Limiter for Presence

I may do a little more Automation rides on the vocals but because I do it before I mix its usually minimal.

EFFECTS FOR VOCALS:

I usually set up 5-8 AUX Tracks for Vocal Effects. I don't understand how some people put the effects directly on the track directly. But hey whatever works!

AUX 1- Room Reverb (ALTIVERB)
AUX 2- Hall Reverb (ALTIVERB)
AUX 3- Plate (ALTIVERB)
AUX 4- 1/4 Delay (Locked to Session Tempo) ECHOBOY
AUX 5- 1/8 Delay (Locked to Session Tempo) ECHOBOY
AUX 6- 16th Delay (Locked to Session Tempo) ECHOBOY
AUX 7- MetaFlanger OR Engima (WAVES)
AUX 8- WAVES CLA Vocal (I love the Stereo Imager/ Widener on this Its really good for adding textures to a lead vocal)

[doorknocker]

Anything goes. The problem with 'rules' about using EQ,etc is that it seems to ignore what often works best - using just a tad.

I often use my Chandler LTD-1 for vocals, sometimes without EQ but often with the EQ engaged (which already changes the sonics) and maybe just a hair of 110hz and some sheen at 12k. It is just about expansion, making the sonics spectrum a bit wider. It won't affect the mixing process where I pretty much always use EQ, again mostly for flavour.

So for me it's both compression/EQ on the way in and then again in the mix.

As for 'it's all about the perfromance', yes I agree but every voice is different. Some voices are easier to record than others and some may need more EQ/compression than others.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Telefunk

I disagree. Any dynamic range can be compensated with good mic technique, naturally.

True but a compressor is often used more as a tone control, or better said the compression changes the tone not only by the circuit the sound is going through but also because 'microdynamics' affect or perception of the sound. It becomes a kind of EQ although technically it is compression/coloring.

And for me at least using a compressor is mostly about gain staging. But then again, the vocal sound of classical singers is about the last thing I want to emulate....

[MichaelAngelo]

Originally Posted by burns46824

Is it crucial to track vox with compression and EQ, or is it fine to leave such processing until mixing?

I would NEVER track with any eq or compression... why?

1) how and why would anyone want to totally commit to the final eqed vocal sound during recording...That should NOT be the focus when recording a performance, especially with the luxury of digital recording..

Guys thats the beauty of digital.. you don't have to commit like we use to in the days of tape.. In the days of tape we had to commit to not only eq but compression also just to keep the noise level undercontrol



2) generally speaking vocals will sound best when you compress AFTER the FINAL EQED AND ROLLOFF SETTING....
and with that being said if you over eq or compress the vocal during recording, you can't undo that in mixing...

Ok now before someone write in and slams me, I want to add the reasons (not that I believe its still a good idea to do it but) why you would process to digital recording...

Lets say you own only 1 killer analog eq and compressor, and you are definitely going to mix it ITB.. then yes,... get as much analog love as you can before it goes to binary bits!!!!

But this is still not the ultimate way

[Silvertone]

Originally Posted by Musiclab

Yes no question the performance is everything, great performance beats crappy engineering hands down! If the track is a nice open spacious thing of beauty, then you can leave lot's of dynamics, and if it's a dense pop tune you probably can't just to get the vocal to cut right without getting hold of the vocalists dynamic range
I'm willing to bet you engineered it while someone else sang, I wonder how many here are going to sing and engineer at the same time. I'll bet you did a fair amount of hand rides, you never blew one? ever? really?

In my opinion a GOOD compressor set right is not a crutch but a useful tool. Compressing on the way in makes life easier in the mix, I find you don't have to compress as much in the mix, and it makes riding a vocal easier. Having mixed projects by people who didn't use a compressor on the way in versus the same client using a decent compressor tracking, I can absolutely tell you it was worlds better and easier to deal with in the mix. But a little goes a long way. Also if you're an ITB user then it's nice to get some analog compression, in the process.

NOW having said that, if you have a crappy compressor don't bother.
As far as eq, I haven't eq'd a vocal on the way in about 20 years. I think that's a decision that's best left to the mix.

In 34 years I can count on one hand how many times I used a compressor while tracking a vocal... I will coach the vocalist on mic technique before I have to reach for the compressor. But if it's a problematic singer or whisper to a scream type material than a compressor makes the job easier and I will use one. usually one (and opto) and sometimes two, opto and fet one as a compressor and one as a limiter.

Now if we are talking for a mojo effect as part of a signal path that is different. In my case my microphones and mic pre's usually handle this duty.

But the question is "how important" and IMHO, not very... especially with over 40 dB of headroom today! More important is making the performer comfortable, a great (not good), great headphone mix (if using headphones... I don't 80% of the time), the mic, the signal path integrity and the room.

Yes, I was hired to engineer so I was controlling the board while cutting... that said, I've cut plenty of my own vocals (that you'd never want to hear) and still just choose to print them with plenty of headroom instead of using a compressor.

I WILL compress after the fact to help the vocal "fit" the track.

Whatever works as the saying goes...

If you listen to the CS-4 mic pre samples I posted you can hear Emma and Tony singing on 4 mics (CS-1, CS-4, M49 and my Popov Russian)... no compression. Look at how low Tonys vocal is cut on one of the tracks...

Lucas CS-4 Microphone

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by MichaelAngelo

I would NEVER track with any eq or compression... why?

1) how and why would anyone want to totally commit to the final eqed vocal sound during recording...That should NOT be the focus when recording a performance, especially with the luxury of digital recording..

Sorry for chiming in yet again but it it really surprises me how folks always talk about 'commiting' by using EQ or compression and fear of painting themselves into a corner.

That's not what it's about. EQ doesn't mean over-EQ and taking off a bit of the boomy low midrange and/or adding sheen on top doesn't mean that the sound becomes 'un-EQ-able' in the mix!! The same is true for (intelligent) use of compression.

For me using EQ in the mix also has a different function, it's more about making the tracks fit together by maybe 'trimming some fat' if necessary but the SOUND of the track is defined in the tracking process - mostly by the voice/perfomance/room/mic but also by possible use of EQ and compression.

[loh90]

I think the most important reason for tracking with a compressor is it will help the vocalist's performance during recording. Depending on the vocal style, it will help to have controlled dynamics in their monitoring so they can really dig into the mic and wail without their vocal level being all over in their headphones.

[MichaelAngelo]

Originally Posted by loh90

I think the most important reason for tracking with a compressor is it will help the vocalist's performance during recording. Depending on the vocal style, it will help to have controlled dynamics in their monitoring so they can really dig into the mic and wail without their vocal level being all over in their headphones.

Very good point.... But I would still not record that monitoring compression

[AllBread]

The beauty of a half-normaled patchbay is that you can print them all - all you have to do is create three patches (which you have to do anyway), create three audio tracks, group them, and you can record the vocals dry, vocals with comp, and vocals with comp and eq all on separate tracks and send the singer whichever one you choose for monitoring.

Then, just turn off and hide the "safety" tracks (they're grouped so even though they're out of sight and out of mind you won't have to redo any edits or automation if you decide to use them down the road) and you don't have to have another thought about them unless you decide down the road that the EQ or compression that you printed is no longer working in the mix.

I can understand the improved workflow of committing to your decisions (and the liberating sense of being a rock n' roll cowboy), but by the time I do the serial patch on my patchbay, I already have mic pre output, comp out, and eq out showing up at different channels of my convertors (I have my outboard wired as inserts so their outputs are already half-normaled to separate channels on my convertors) so there's no reason not to create a couple extra tracks and have a back up. Hard drive space is cheap these days! You can commit to your EQ'd and Comped tracks until you decide you don't want to anymore. This also gives you greater freedom to try more extreme settings/sculpting on the way in since you know that you can always go back to the dry track in the mix if they don't sit right.

And that, my friends, is the solution to all of your problems.

[ronzie]

Ever have a singer say "get that s**t off of my voice"?? Then what??

It would seem to me to best have the chops to be able to do what's necessary. It may be any and all of the above techniques (and then some).

Ron Allaire

[FOURTHTUNZ]

Of course everyone here is right!
Really depends on your situation.
I've tracked lots of demos and vocalists that were not the best and
found that the comp made mixing quicker, 3 songs tracked and mixed in 3 hours tho.
I track my own voice quite a bit and find that I sometimes like the presence and upfrontness that the comp gives.
also the other thing is, using too much eq or fx can give a false impression of the vocal track that is being recorded, for the vocalist and the engineer.
Your vocal may vary.

[litepipe]

Originally Posted by RCM - Ronan

A bit OT, but I am curious why you send things to some one else for mixing?

Hi Ronan, I'm actually sending less and less out to be mixed these days. Occasionally I feel too wrapped up in a project after producing, engineering and performing most of the instruments on it. Sometimes it's nice to have fresh ears.

One things that has been happening is that because of the way I record and work, by the time it's ready for mixing the artists already really like the mixes and haven't wanted to send them out. So we just finish them up in a few hours.

It's kind if weird because I never fashioned myself a mixer (which is also why I used to send them out).

I guess I was also insecure because I'm deaf in my left ear. I thought how could I understand panning, etc..? Mastering engineers have been giving me great compliments tho. Go figure.

[chris@theblue]

Originally Posted by burns46824

Is it crucial to track vox with compression and EQ, or is it fine to leave such processing until mixing?

No ! only if you have the gear and the experience.
until you know what that gear does and how you want to use it,
mult and print both, even if you have good gear.
kiss!
momentary zap in the patch, and the vocal cut is in the trash
ride the small fader
C
peace

[u b k]

Originally Posted by loh90

I think the most important reason for tracking with a compressor is it will help the vocalist's performance during recording.

That's a good reason to compress their cue, but it doesn't necessitate actually recording the comp.

Me, I love 2db max with a tube opto. Takes the edge off, leaves plenty of energy to shape in the mix.

The more I mix the more I prefer using a different vocal treatment in verses and choruses. It's rare that I find one comp setting that works for all the passages of a song, assuming we've got some modicum of dynamic and energy in the tune. So I take it easy on the way in these days, it lets me do what I need to do later on.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[rogerbrain]

you have to find your own path...but for me the comp is in and doing about 3:1 on the last 10DB OF HEADROOM and about the last (loudest) 5db of signal it does not get hit very much or very hard... unless I want that sound... I would usually rather record a little less signal than compress more (usually) it is a safety net for me... EQ.. I usually bump up 1.5k by a db..cut a lot below 80 and maybe lift a self at 10k a little... its gonna happen anyway so i want to record with that feel .. but this leaves me a lot of room to move in the mix

I will also fold back ( but not print) all kinds of stuff - more compression /echo reverb/ chorus... whatever hits the mood...

I think the lighting in the room is just as important as the effects... and I like all the waste baskets full and the coffee to be over 4 hours old....maybe I have been doing this too long...eh

[Bassmec]

Originally Posted by ronzie

Ever have a singer say "get that s**t off of my voice"?? Then what??

It would seem to me to best have the chops to be able to do what's necessary. It may be any and all of the above techniques (and then some).

Ron Allaire

Well if I where Phil Spector I would probably stand up, unholster my weapon, check the chamber for any spent rounds, walk in to the vocal booth and enquire as to wheather the customer still considdered it wise to dispense with good manners as the cutomary means of self defense.
Of course if one where properly brought up and educated before all the handy new digital recording system improvements like, latency and a totally dynamically linear response all the way to the immediate onset of the worst sounding distortion you ever heard.
Then of course one may well be grabbing an outboard compressor to enchain after the wonderfully uncolored totally transparent, transformer free mic pre of choice?.
But then if you where educated at the BBC, then printing any kind of fx at all to the recording medium, would require an edict from the Pope!. before any kind of permanent descision could be made (especially by a lesser god than a producer).
Dont you young gambrinous oiks have chanel inserts and inserts in groups anymore. Thats where we old uns used to stick em you know.