"Did you save or erase that Tina Session?"

It wasnt really mine to keep or even listen to really...



I dont have it any more. but is sure was awesome to hear her soloed. What a talent!

I am a big fan. I saw her in London when I was 14 in (1974) performing as the ike & Tina Turner Show. The Tina & the Ikettes made a lasting impression on me!

And what a voice if you think of the age of that workhorse! And if I would only have that power and look at that age!!! :eek:

See my reply here: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...&threadid=2699

I have little experience with de-essers. I use and SPL on a record once. I had to be very careful to not hit it too hard, or the vocal would sound very dull. I use the VoxBox de-essers in a pinch. My general take on de-essers is that they do make esses less annoying, but they make the vocal sound bland and lifeless, which is more annoying. I generally prefer to do a bit of EQ to soften the problem a tad and deal with the singer having pronounced esses.

Nope. Lots of records are still mixed in the analog domain with real outboard gear and faders. Also, there are times when a de-esser needs to be placed before or after the compressor and EQ. Usually I de-ess, then compress, then EQ but sometimes the de-esser does it's job better after the compressor.

I've also used them on acoustic guitars to get rid of the finger squeaks, on aux sends before a 'verb, snare drum and overheads. Sometimes de-essing even happens in mastering.

for what it's worth....

It seems to me there are two types of de-essing situations - single channel de-essing, as in the recording/mixing process, and complex program (stereo) de-essing, as done in mastering.

For single channel de-essing of say, a voice, I would prefer to use a fast (attack time zero, fast release), full frequency range compressor with eq'd sidechain inputs to pull down the whole signal when the eq'd sidechain reaches the threshold. The toppy part of the 's' rarely occurs at the same time as another sound from the voice, so it works well. (The C-2 does this very nicely).

For mastering or complex program you need to operate only on the frequency range that causes the problem, so a proper de-esser might be more useful. If you don't have something to do that, it's best left to mastering engineers, it's one of their stock tricks.

Without a doubt it's got to be the DBX 902 or the 263 (I got 2 for a bargain recently). Although I tend to leave the de essing until after recording, so I find the Waves De esser very forgiving.
Mind you, the best method of all is to go in with a pencil tool and drag down the offending ssss in a DAW. It's not a slow as it sounds. Just my .002 cents worth.

DW

Phil Ramone once said that when he was a mastering engineer!?! he would hear sibilance on some albums as 'broken', meaning distorted, as bombguy has said.
Phils quest was to find out why it happened is some studios and not in others. His determination was impedence problems.
I would think that a Vipre should avoid distorted sibilance at the source.
Michael W, Can you weigh in on this?

Lately I´ve been using the waves C4 compressor as a de-esser. I´ve bypassed the low and low-mid bands. This makes the C4 a wonderful 2-band de-esser, very natural!

Why not try to build an analog de-esser that work in the same way? 2-way compressor that works in the 4-12kHz area???!?!!? with crossover freq and threshold only......

Sure. The VIPRE is a very helpful tool in the sibilance department. I haven't tried to mess around with the impedance to get rid of sibilance, because I always set the impedance so the mic has the best sound. But the rise time function helps to reduce sibilance in a natural sounding way, when set to the slower settings. It does not get rid of it completely, rather tames it a bit. If it's still too much trying another mic would probably be my next choice. I have used the VIPRE during mixing to "warm" (there is that word again) up vocals and it works great.

Today I got some great results with the FATSO/HEDD combination to get rid of some sibilance on a recorded track.

Well, if that isn't an arguement for a good engineer and an analog console I don't know what is. I almost always de-ess on the insert and aux sends are always pre-fader unless I'm not using any of the direct sound.

Seems to me Eric and Jay nailed the most important issues....unless sibilance gets recorded well and way below clipping right throughout the recording chain, there can be no mix solution, as the distortion and harmonics introduced by the initial mostly HF can't then be removed by frequency or level dependant techniques or cancellation afterwards. The changes are too extensive. You'd need to start with an un-distorter......maybe this adds to why no definitive box ever quite seems to emerge ?.

In the past recording vocals I've had most success with overall compression to tape. It would seem usual that de-essers often only get introduced post-recording; hence are doomed mostly?

Al.

PS anyone ever record Nusrat Ali Kahn ?

To ess or not to ess, thisss isss the quesstion. Whether it be nobler to tweek the high ffreek or dip the 200Hz before all prevailing ears. It iss not mine to wonder why it iss only mine to dee-ess or die.
De- effing doef all kindf of ftrange fingf