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

[butterfly]

.............I tracked vocals for years without a compressor.....why...'cause I didn't have one, however now that I have a thermionic phoenix and 1176, I use them mainly for the tone they impart in the tracking chain. With the phoenix it's usually just 3 or 4 db's but if I'm recording balls to the wall rock vocals, I'll often be hitting 15db's on the peaks.....and it sounds great. However if I'm self recording, I rarely use compression. Never eq'd on the way in though. Generally I'll stiil use a software comp when mixing CLA 1176 sometimes LA2A or the Neve emulation. If the vocals have never touched hardware on the way in I might run them through a piece of harware.

[Onan]

to tracking with comp because of what it does to the singer's performance. There is no substitute. Fader rides are different. Moving closer to or further from the mic changes proximity effect (for good or ill), so that's different. A singer who simply "controls" the dynamics by the way he/she sings is giving a different performance. None of those things give the same result as having the comp in the chain while recording. ALL of those techniques have their place, and ALL should be used to achieve the desired end.

I'm a hobbyist, not a professional, so take this with a grain of salt, but the only vocalists I do/would record without compression are classical. No disrepect intended to those who do it and love it, but I think classical recording is boring (which is not to say easy)--both to do, and to listen to. It's like the difference between a pristine digital image of a hayfield, or Claude Monet's haystacks. I'll take Monet seven days of the week. So that's my bias.

I like the suggestion that you could split the signal and run the comp on the foldback to the singer's headphones, and record the straight signal. But if the comp facilitates getting the performance you want, I would think that you've got what you want in the compressed signal. So why wouldn't you just use that? Maybe record both tracks to keep your options open, but with limitless tracks and limitless effects, etc., I'm tired of keeping my options open.

And to those of you poo-pooing the use of a compressor during tracking because you think it indicates the singer lacks skill: tutt

That's like saying a guitarist who can only play well with distortion must be a bad guitarist. We are working to achieve an END, not a SOURCE. Guitarists play differently when their signal chain is different; singers do the same. You might as well give Hendrix a Fender Champ and tell him to get the same result he got in Are You Experienced. Similarly, performers give completely different performances when playing alone vs. playing with an ensemble. If you want performers to sound like an ensemble, they have to HEAR the ensemble. If you want a singer to give a performance that works with your ultimate goal (which I assume is a professional-quality final recording), you have to help them get there by putting that sound in their ears during the performance.

The short of it is this: a performer "decides" how to perform based on his/her perception of what the performance sounds like. Take away the comp and you get a different performance. If what you want for the final product is a pure, uneffected recording, by all means, skip the comp when tracking. But if what you want in the end is the glorious warmth and intimacy of a compressed vocal, you are much more likely to get the performance you want by letting the performer hear that sound during the recording.

Just my 2p.
Lee

[mowmow]

It is up to you to choose the method but Mutt Lange used EQ and comp when recording, even moving the input fader which move will be recorded on tape.
The result was fantastic, best recording I've ever heard.
He used more effect during mixing but most is it is done in recording process.
He pust the faders up for rough mix and the song is already brushed up to high level.

[jslevin]

Not the least bit crucial.

Sometimes slightly preferable, sometimes very preferable, never crucial.

Sometimes not even preferable.

JSL

[stagefright13]

I always track Vocals with an LA or 1176. The singer can tell and sing To the box. I don't use A lot of compression on the tracking I can always add more later. But being a singer ya need some stuff going on to perform well. I also add reverb but don't burn it. But how could ya sing the song without hearing yourself as a final? Or at least an aprox. My thoughts anyway.

John

[Johnkenn]

Not important at all. Get the cleanest path in and you can always compress and EQ later...People just love their toys and many times over compress and screw up eq...

[Dean Roddey]

I wonder how much of the differing opinions partly come down to the Greate Divide between the more old school idea of capturing a vibe and a moment even if it has flaws vs. the modern thing where even the slightest flaw is considered unacceptable and amateur?

[Musiclab]

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

not in 28 years, although about having the chops to do what's necessary, I agree completely.

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by chris@theblue

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

momentary bad ride and the same result. How do learn how to use a compressor if you don't try?

[Johnkenn]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I wonder how much of the differing opinions partly come down to the Greate Divide between the more old school idea of capturing a vibe and a moment even if it has flaws vs. the modern thing where even the slightest flaw is considered unacceptable and amateur?

You say that as if recording something without flaws is a bad thing...I would like to think that the source is bringing the vibe and I won't get in it's way. I can bring vibe and creativity when I'm asked to mix. One engineer's vibe might be what I consider shite...I'd rather them capture what's there and we can make creative decisions in the mix.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

You say that as if recording something without flaws is a bad thing...I would like to think that the source is bringing the vibe and I won't get in it's way. I can bring vibe and creativity when I'm asked to mix. One engineer's vibe might be what I consider shite...I'd rather them capture what's there and we can make creative decisions in the mix.

In theory it's not of course, but in practical terms it would be hard to avoid it being so, because the control required for perfection is almost always at odds with the spontaineity and the getting lost in the performance required for capturing real vibes and magic moments.

It just seems to me that the tools have gotten to the point where someone thinking that they'll bring the vibe and creativity in the mix has become the standard, and it'd destroying music. It shouldn't come in the mix, it should come from a great, emotional performance or really good composition that has all the drama and dynamics built in. The mix should enhance it, but most folks have gone way beyond that now. It just seems that it's way too common to just record a bunch of stuff and make it into a song, performance, and composition after the fact.

As various folks around here quote Bruce Swedien as saying, that way too many people today worry so much about not having mistakes, that they lose what was good in the first place, which is the humanity and emotion of the performance.

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by stagefright13

But being a singer ya need some stuff going on to perform well. I also add reverb but don't burn it. But how could ya sing the song without hearing yourself as a final?

I'm sorry, but I think this is preposterous. Singers sing without compression on a daily basis and have done so for years, decades in some cases. Moving into the recording studio, they only get used to hearing themselves with compression if you MAKE them get used to it. It's not like reverb, which is used in vocal tracking to combat the UNNATURALLY dry sound many engineers are recording.

But while the lack of reverberation is an UN-natural condition of recording, the lack of (overt) compression is a natural condition. I see the value in getting a singer accustomed to "singing into the box," where they may be able to tailor their performance in a musical way. But the norm for singers is to hear themselves singing in a reverberant, physical space, without compression, and of course they tend to have little trouble recording that way.

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I wonder how much of the differing opinions partly come down to the Greate Divide between the more old school idea of capturing a vibe and a moment even if it has flaws vs. the modern thing where even the slightest flaw is considered unacceptable and amateur?

I personally see no connection. The best producers of any school are trying to capture a vibe, and most see the value in finding a sound and committing to it.

JSL

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by jslevin

I personally see no connection. The best producers of any school are trying to capture a vibe, and most see the value in finding a sound and committing to it.

JSL

That's pretty heavily at odds with what you hear so much discussion of these days about how music gets made in the pro world. People talking about how it's piecemeal, spread out among many people, decisions left for the super-star mixer instead, hours and hours of artificial manipulation of the content after the fact, etc...

Obviously everyone doesn't do it that way, but it just seems that more and more people are talking about (or complaining about) that's how it works these days. And there seems to be so much more emphasis on just making it in the mix because of the power of the tools today.

[steveschizoid]

I used to do a lot of singing before I gravitated towards this side of the glass, and the first time I heard my voice playing back and thought "wow, that sounds like a f***in rock singer" was also the first time I had been recorded with a good mic through a great pre, with compression.

That was a huge influence, and I always strive to facilitate that sort of experience with my clients.

The thing with singers though is that you don't usally get much time to make up your mind about their sound, and their first or second take may be their best, so it's best to know your equipment, and printing the unprocessed track as well doesn't ever hurt.

[GoochPie]

I have worked in a major studio for a while now and the most I do is run the live vocals through a small bit of compression, just a little bit.

Everyone keeps talking about the fact that its better for the singers performance to Comp and EQ while tracking. This is true, BUT, you can get the same effect without it being permanent. All you have to do (assuming you're working in protools), is send the VOX through an AUX with Comp, EQ, Desser, Reverb, Delay Plugins... Ect... whatever the singer calls for.

This way the singer gets their true performance in their headphones, and you get your clean unprocessed signal.

[Dean Roddey]

But that kind of misses the point that the reason you do it is so that the singer can provide an optimal performance by reacting to the actual processing that will be there in the end, and to therefore end up with minimal processing after the fact. If you end up throwing that away and doing something completely different in the mix, then it kind of losses its meaning.

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

That's pretty heavily at odds with what you hear so much discussion of these days about how music gets made in the pro world. People talking about how it's piecemeal, spread out among many people, decisions left for the super-star mixer instead, hours and hours of artificial manipulation of the content after the fact, etc...

I think that phenomenon is a lot smaller than you think, and the "pro world" is a lot bigger than you think.

About 1% of the music world, and the recording world, gets about 99% of the attention. Not just on E!, but on this very site.

JSL

[Zep Dude]

Originally Posted by mowmow

It is up to you to choose the method but Mutt Lange used EQ and comp when recording, even moving the input fader which move will be recorded on tape.
The result was fantastic, best recording I've ever heard.
He used more effect during mixing but most is it is done in recording process.
He pust the faders up for rough mix and the song is already brushed up to high level.

mowmow, what kind of attack time does Mutt use?

[Johnkenn]

To each his own...

[grrrayson]

If you have to ask, don't do it.

Only try it once you see a very specific reason to do it at that stage (unless you're just having fun recording yourself with no time restraints).

[u b k]

Originally Posted by jslevin

Not the least bit crucial.

Sometimes slightly preferable, sometimes very preferable, never crucial.

Sometimes not even preferable.

I'm putting this on my fridge, because it seems to apply to damn near everything.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[skybluerental]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I wonder how much of the differing opinions partly come down to the Greate Divide between the more old school idea of capturing a vibe and a moment even if it has flaws vs. the modern thing where even the slightest flaw is considered unacceptable and amateur?

good point!

great recordings sound like great recordings when you play the multi track back with the faders at or close to zero because great sounds that meld together were captured by the recorder.
usually, in order to capture great sounds, some compression and eq need to be applied in some way shape or form. not always, but usually.

if your recording does not not sound great when you play back the multi track with the faders at or close to unity gain, it will most likely NEVER be a great recording.

[dxavier]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

Not important at all. Get the cleanest path in and you can always compress and EQ later...People just love their toys and many times over compress and screw up eq...

Bumping an old one. Just came across this when searching for something else.

Best comment for me. I too, just want the truest recording I can get and IF it doesn't fit well in the mix, then I will seek compression or EQ to tailor it to what I want.

Compression is a tool that I only use if I HAVE to. I don't use them as a rule. Alot of guys here appear to be using them as a rule for tracking and I wonder if in doing it so often, they no longer switch the compressor to bypass, to see if the vocal really is better with or without the compression. Everyone has their way of doing things, fine, but tracking with compression is definitely not a rule.

[Johnkenn]

Well...I don't know if my opinion has changed, but I have changed how I record vocals in my own studio. I think it really has to do with really getting to know my equipment. I usually go with a 1073 or Helios into a Retro Sta-Level. Not just for the tone it imparts either...That is a huge reason, but I've found I'm getting better vocals from myself and others when using the Sta during tracking. It's just hard to make anything sound bad with this thing, but easy to make things sound better. I've gotten to the point that I am just occasionally using a fast plugin compressor to take off some peaks and its finished. Oh - and I also use eq because I know my mic well enough.
Now, if I was recording somewhere I didn't know things as well, I might just go mic, Pre, into AD.

[SighBorg]

Since its been revived, might as well post:

Depends on if I notice the vocalist is "fighting" the compressor. Sometimes they will sing more dynamically (in a bad way) than they normally would. What I mean is less sustain and overshooting louder parts.... its just harder to hear because the compressor is covering it up. What I've done for singer/song writers is have them take off the phones while tracking so they're not hearing a compressed version of their voice.... magically they naturally sing more compressed and THAT really responds nicely to a compressor.

If they have to hear the backing tracks and they're fighting it, then I take the compressor off or turn down their vocal mix if it doesnt bug them.

Its true, compressors sound different/better when connected straight to the pre and going in, but the performance comes first.

EQ wise I'll filter off the subsonics and maybe do a minor cut 700-1.6k if needed. Top end I like to leave for mix time.

I live on the edge and toss a dbx 902 desser before the comp (if there is one), hitting it only lightly for safety reasons. Wouldnt try that with most dessers....

[Maschinenraum]

As a vocalist myself, I prefer to track with compression, at the very least in my monitoring chain, precisely because of how it affects my mic technique. I tend to like a fairly squashed vocal for myself, and this gives me a better idea of what the end result is going to be like. I have no issues printing a fair amount of compression from decent hardware.

For other vocalists, it varies. Depends on the vocalist, their mic technique (or lack thereof), performance dynamics and sonic preferences what I'll do.

As for EQ, generally just a highpass, going in. Depends on the singer and the mic choice. I'll fool with it sometimes maybe, but nothing nuts.

[refae]

Originally Posted by Telefunk

Need a better vocal sound? Change the vocalist.

LOL!!!!!!!

[refae]

This is an interesting thread. However, it seems like (maybe I skimmed over it) nobody has mentioned an alternative technique to compression. If you listen to early 70s like Cat Stevens, they are frequently doubling the vocal in key places, which serves two purposes, one to just fatten up the sound & give you panning options, etc. But also it serves a db boost.

FWIW 2Pac used this method a lot too (always drunk/high in the studio & out of breath)-- never thought you'd hear those two in the same paragraph right? lol

However, doubling up will also give your at least a 3db or so boost, meaning you can bypass using a compressor and just use the TRUE ANALOG source (rather than using extra outboard analog GEAR) to get your vocals 'compressed', which means, basically what everyone in this thread is talking about and wants in pop/rock/rap etc music, a vocal that sits loud enough in the mix and is not dominated by the instrumentation of the song.

Now I'm not advising you double-track everyone, or double track all the 'proximity mistakes' in only one or two spots, instead of using your outboard compression or riding the pre output level, etc. I'm just suggesting that, for the rest of us who can't drop $2k+ on outboard tube compressors, there is a cheaper and possibly even better alternative, which is double track your vocalist. (Not to mention easier! Let the vocalist do the work...)

That Michael Jackson video someone posted is a great example of what I'm talking about. You can use the proximity effect creatively and to your advantage, rather than trying to make one light vocal track sound huge, take 3 vocal tracks and make them sound like 1 huge one.... this is easier than ever with DAWs and the multitude of tracks/routing options we have now in the digital era... just some food for thought, y'all...

EDIT: you can also duplicate one track, flip the phase, and use them to widen your stereo image... combine this with double tracking, plus good mic technique, placement, and a great vocalist... possibilities for sculpting your vocal sound without compression are endless. I'm pretty sure the only thing the Beatles ever used was a little bit of tape echo (i.e. de facto reverb) on John Lennon's vocal.... just sayin'

[AllBread]

Doubling vocals and compressing vocals are two totally different sounds and not something where I would substitute one for the other to achieve the same result. I mean, if you just wanted something louder without changing it's dynamics you would just push the fader up a bit, right?


Doubling vocals does, usually, make them sound thicker and t's a great production technique that can make the vocals much more interesting and alive and also blur the pitch line a hair to make a somewhat pitchy singer sit better. Sometimes I will double vocals and heavily compress one of the takes so that it goes no where and leave the other uncompressed but to me the decision to double vocals and to compress vocals (and when to compress them) are still two different decision that I make and use in my bag of production tricks.

All the techniques that you mention are great ones and well worth experimenting with if you haven't but I wouldn't consider any of them a substitution for compression.

[F.M.]

"you can also duplicate one track, flip the phase, and use them to widen your stereo image"

Huh? what am I missing.