The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Which vocal tracking EQ in 2016
Old 30th April 2016
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastByte View Post
There is a great deal to be said for Miking up certain stuff, adding a touch of EQ, compression, and knowing your firm desisive action saved you and...the client time as well as pulling a great sound! In 2016 there are a thousand preamps and equalisers to choose from, so really, do your best, though committing to a recording is my idea of knowing you've got confidence in choices, Sans a safety Mult (Split) can never hurt as insurance etc.

Good luck with choices!
Exactly. Very well said!
Old 30th April 2016
  #32
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
Lotta different vocal concepts on this thread . .. I like 'em all !
Old 30th April 2016
  #33
Lives for gear
 
antichef's Avatar
Well, it's raining down in Texas - probably not flooding, but with what happened on tax day and shortly afterward, the whole city is well-advisedly sort of shut down. What that means is that my chances of getting a good vocalist into my studio to test the Michelangelo are slim.

So taking matters into my own hands, I put the Bock 407 through the NPNG preamp (which has a 80hz cut switch, indeed), into one of the channels of the Michelangelo, into a Retro 176 into my converter/DAW.

Quite a bit of background noise from the rain, which is actually a lot more musical than the foreground noise from my attempts at singing, but as far as I can tell I'm getting just what I wanted -- proximity effect on the 407 is big -- the 80hz cut on the NPNG does manage it quite a bit, but Low control on the Michelangelo (and the low shift switch) lets me dial in pretty much any amount of proximity I want. That's undeniably cool of course, but also I think it will be really useful for tracking. The Air control on the EQ is a little less useful with this mic, but I could see it being very nice with a ribbon or dynamic (and probably some other condensers). The High control has a really nice impact as well - it's really audible because of the background rain noise. The Mid has a dramatic and good sounding impact, but I'll think of that is "advanced" when it comes to tracking and probably not use it until I'm really comfortable with the set up.

Beyond that, I can already tell the Michelangelo is going to be playing a big part in my mixing - adds a ton of dimensionality and seems to emphasize the right bands without much effort on my part.

I'm done! Thanks everyone!!

(edit: and at the first sound of far-away thunder, all this stuff is going off and the plug is coming out of the wall like it usually is - kind of like getting the heck out of the swimming pool )

Last edited by antichef; 30th April 2016 at 03:17 PM..
Old 30th April 2016
  #34
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Another vote for no eq. during tracking and I also record both the compressed and the uncompressed vocal. Why? You can only know the best sounding eq. and compression in the context of the entire arrangement and un-eqing sounds like ass!
Old 30th April 2016
  #35
Lives for gear
 
antichef's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Another vote for no eq. during tracking and I also record both the compressed and the uncompressed vocal. Why? You can only know the best sounding eq. and compression in the context of the entire arrangement and un-eqing sounds like ass!
Thanks Bob - I'm officially getting a splitter
Old 30th April 2016
  #36
Lives for gear
 

certainly none. if its not sounding right, change the mic or its positioning. maybe you do want some artificial pultec kind of shimmer - but tracking is not the stage to imply it in my opinion. or - if you want to get creative split the signal at the micpre and go crazy while printing an un-eqed track. its fun and its safe. killing an important take for no reason is not.btw do not do this with older 600ohms output preamps.
Old 3rd May 2016
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by salomonander View Post
certainly none. if its not sounding right, change the mic or its positioning. maybe you do want some artificial pultec kind of shimmer - but tracking is not the stage to imply it in my opinion. or - if you want to get creative split the signal at the micpre and go crazy while printing an un-eqed track. its fun and its safe. killing an important take for no reason is not.btw do not do this with older 600ohms output preamps.
Sometimes the singer is so shrill or dark that changing the mic , its pickup pattern, and its positioning is not enough. I eq while tracking when there are massive, obvious problems. I don't eq when recording to give something a shimmer or to add low end; that I save for mixing.
Old 30th May 2016
  #38
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge View Post
ride the pre amp fader while tracking.like the old days.
If you are compressing the vocal while tracking, do you ride the fader before or after the compressor?
Old 31st May 2016
  #39
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by american View Post
If you are compressing the vocal while tracking, do you ride the fader before or after the compressor?
sometimes before.sometimes not.sometimes no compressor,just a fader.
usually a comp but to usually grab peaks and some color.
all the crazy stuff later with all tracks/perspective/mix.
Old 31st May 2016
  #40
Gear Maniac
 

I got 20 channels of neve 1-6 splitters here that i use while tracking. Not only on vocals but mostly cause im lazy. I also always track with a totally flat shoeps in tandem with a u47 and c12 in case something doesnt work during the mix. Backups backups. Best hp ive ever heard and constantly end up on lv are the passive maihak w75a and neumann w75k. So mic - neve/v41/v76/api whatever - split - 1) dry 2) 1176 3) 1176 cl1b 3) 1176 la3 4) 1176 cl1b pultec 5) 1176 cl1b 550a vintage

Or whatever i come up with la3 550 la3 pultec

Then theres no tears when mixing and enough parallels if needed

Drums i run thru the neve splits just for the transformer sound after the actual 1066/73/512 pres
Just adds weight

so yes tracking eq but make backups
Old 31st May 2016
  #41
Lives for gear
I was going to say why no one had mentioned a pultec. We track with our retro 2a3 all the time. Sometimes with both channels. The first being used to boost low end and second ch then to dip or roll off that high or rumble mids

But yes. I agree. I typically don't EQ with incoming tracking. I love the mud and hair. Nothing like a good clean shave in the mix
Old 31st May 2016
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
For vox, I used to have a Great River MP-2NV and an EQ-1NV that was patched in for HP filtering and a little cut around 300-400 Hz upon tracking. Worked great, but I'm trying not to do any EQing upon tracking vocals now. My console has a HPF at 100 Hz (in case it's necessary) and I will use a GML eq for parametric "moves" upon mixing. If you use an EQ upon tracking and an EQ upon mixing, you are downgrading your signal path with an extra "layer" of capacitors and inductors. Less is more!
I seriously doubt near straight wire GML Eq will mess with your input and output signal unless your seriously stupid, often getting sounds to sit properly on the way in can negate the "Fix it in the Mix" type hassles you end up with more so with phase and Acoustic type instruments, I mean it's like reamping when is...enough really...enough? I all depends on the way you work and preferred methods etc, alongside factors like, are you and your clients watching the clock or not? Maybe something to think about! Though certainly a touch of filtering and compression on the way into capturing the signal can save you time.
Old 31st May 2016
  #43
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastByte View Post
I seriously doubt near straight wire GML Eq will mess with your input and output signal unless your seriously stupid, often getting sounds to sit properly on the way in can negate the "Fix it in the Mix" type hassles you end up with more so with phase and Acoustic type instruments, I mean it's like reamping when is...enough really...enough? I all depends on the way you work and preferred methods etc, alongside factors like, are you and your clients watching the clock or not? Maybe something to think about! Though certainly a touch of filtering and compression on the way into capturing the signal can save you time.
Yes, I assume the GML is slightly clearer than the EQ-1NV. Still, I only employ equalization upon tracking when I believe a sound needs to be radically changed (like a LinnDrum kick) or when I believe equalization will make a marked improvement (such as when I'm submixing on my MTR-90III from the high-frequency-compromised record heads).

I have to say, I'm shocked how much better vocals seem to "sit" when tracked on tape as opposed to digital. Automatic compression...and no audible pumping! That's at a conservative level, too...
Old 31st May 2016
  #44
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by burns46824 View Post
Yes, I assume the GML is slightly clearer than the EQ-1NV. Still, I only employ equalization upon tracking when I believe a sound needs to be radically changed (like a LinnDrum kick) or when I believe equalization will make a marked improvement (such as when I'm submixing on my MTR-90III from the high-frequency-compromised record heads).
Well, if it were a case of going into an Otari MTR-90 MKIII I'd certainly invest in a rack of Dolby SR as a Dolby XP rack would give you back near that 20dB you may lose, then again it might defeat the purpose altogether though I'd be inclined to keep a XP Rack with a well oiled MTR90!
Old 31st May 2016
  #45
Lives for gear
 
burns46824's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastByte View Post
Well, if it were a case of going into an Otari MTR-90 MKIII I'd certainly invest in a rack of Dolby SR as a Dolby XP rack would give you back near that 20dB you may lose, then again it might defeat the purpose altogether though I'd be inclined to keep a XP Rack with a well oiled MTR90!
? I have 24 channels of Dolby SR, but I don't use them. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to...
Old 1st June 2016
  #46
Lives for gear
 

Doing a simple split will give you safety options in case you guess wrong for anything you put between a pre and conversion. Doing a split will also allow the Motown "Exciting Compressor" trick BEFORE A to D conversion so you eliminate one digital conversion cycle in place of using this method ITB with hardware inserts. THE EXCITING COMPRESSOR So using EQ with that split before initial A to D conversion in this context makes sense. You can use your choice of colored EQ or for surgical EQ (probably a better option to dial in this trick) pick up a used Meyer CP10 or Klark Teknik DN-410 hardware rack unit for around $300 used. Both units will allow you to combine their stereo channels for a single channel 10 band full parametric (is that surgical enough for you LOL). The Meyer unit will also have separate variable Hi and Lo cuts (can't remember what's on the KT unit for this but it's easy to look up yourself). Obviously ITB EQ is pretty good at surgical but that doesn't help you with a compressor used in the chain before initial A to D conversion. IF you want some color from these surgical units you can set slightly different boost /cut broad Q bands (some of what a Pultec does). Bottom line, for the small cost of splitting the Vocal and one of the above units, it might come in handy with some singers or work methods.
Old 1st June 2016
  #47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge View Post
ride the pre amp fader while tracking.like the old days.
I don't know, I've been engineering for over 30 years and I always used a compressor. I think those are pretty old days. And you can add me to the list of no eq while tracking, oddly enough it never seems to need much eq while mixing either.
Old 1st June 2016
  #48
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musiclab View Post
I don't know, I've been engineering for over 30 years and I always used a compressor. I think those are pretty old days. And you can add me to the list of no eq while tracking, oddly enough it never seems to need much eq while mixing either.
Cool.I'm at about 30 years too.
I should add - usually a comp in there for color and peaks.
But still riding gain before it.a fader is easier
than a pot.
In the end less automation needed.and the possibility of over squeezing.
to my ears sounds a bit more natural when hitting other stuff at the mix.
But sometimes no compression.
I'm also a production sound mixer.
The usual MO there is to also ride the gain before any compression and limiting.
Old 2nd June 2016
  #49
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
I'm trying to think of the last time I used my Massive Passive while tracking vocals. It's been a while. I'm not afraid to EQ while tracking, but I guess I mostly rely on mic selection to deal with any spectrum questions when it comes to vox. Lately I've been tweaking the low end a bit using the 1073LBEQ. In the past, I'd either just use the preamp or mic's low cut, but it's nice to do a slight boost above the cut at times. I like doing that before the opto, which I just about always have on vocals. But it's hardly critical.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump