Vocals

[Songstar]

I use backing tracks and sing over the top of them but I'd like my vocals to sounds more pro.....Im using adobe audition 1.5.....what would you recommend I do with the vocal wav to make it sound better. I am not using a condensor mic or anything Im just using a half decent karaoke mic

What reverb should I add?

What about dynamics processing....is it a good idea?

Have you any other tips?

[Change of POETS]

You will be forever limited by the equipment you're using.

With a half-decent Karaoke mic, you'll get a half-decennt karaoke sound. Time to buy some equipment, if you want to sound professional.

[lpdeluxe]

ain't no other way.

[Songstar]

ok.....Im using a philips MD650 mic.....should I upgrade. I dont want to have to buy a pre-amp could I not just buy a better mic

[dobro]

No. You *must* buy a better mic. It's the most important link in the whole audio chain.

(dobro looks into songstar's eyes with a powerful, hypnotic gaze and quietly starts crooning: 'Buy a good condenser, buy a good condenser, buy a good condenser...')

[Farview]

Let me see... You want to sound professional without having to do all the stuff that professionals do. It won't happen.

If you aren't getting a good sound in the first place, you can't make it better with processing, you can only make it different.

[JLinardi]

you have to buy a pre amp anyway, otherwise you will be stuck recording through the soundcards mic socket, using line-in will get you 1 step closer to better quality.

[Alteezza]

Dumb question number 586. Can I use an amplifier with a line out for a Mic Pre amp and take the line out into the soundcard line in?
Sorry that this is the wrong topic/forum but you'all kinda lead it here

[chills]

try messing around with the different eq's look in graphic equalizer and play with the different presets.. different presets will give you a better sounding vocal..

also you want to use reverb to simulate an accoustic space.. use alot of reverb to increase the distance between listener and your voice.. and use a smaller reverb to decrease that difference, you can also fuck around with the different pan levels

[Strryder]

Dropping 100 bucks on a cheap condenser mic and 80 bucks on an audiobuddy preamp would give you a better sound to work with, but even that is not anywhere near a professional setup, it's a good starter setup and cheap as hell too.

Hell, even buying an SM-57 (80 bucks), and running it through an audiobuddy preamp then into the computer's line input would sound much better than a kareoke mic.

[chrisharris]

dobro, dammit...will you ALWAYS have more posts than me?

[Bijan]

damn, people in this forum are all about wasting their money and "buy"ing things.
the answer to everything is you should buy ...
damn, to answer the main question, just try messing around with them.
after you combine it with music, its gon' get better.
i know people who record with "pc mic" and they sound really good.
if you want, i can send u some songs recorded with pc mic 2 c wutsup

[lpdeluxe]

There's something to that. For sure there's no microphone, or preamp, or software that you can buy that will write a cool song or make a great arrangement. There's a lot of need for creativity and hard work, instead of buying something you hope will be a silver bullet.

That said, there's a quality issue. My own way of saying it is that when you record you are trying to polish the glass in front of the Picasso (assuming your song is a Picasso), and while dirty glass in a frame may make a statement ONCE, when you see a whole gallery of it you start reaching for the Windex. This requires something more than a karaoke mic. Sorry, but there's no other way. Still there are lots of inexpensive mics and other gear and it can be worthwhile to get at least a minimum setup. The rule is that you've got to be smarter than your equipment. If you buy crap gear, you'll get crap results. You can also buy decent gear for the same price as the crap, and get decent results. And you'll find, if you're serious, that you have started a lifetime career of acquiring something better than what you've got!

For myself I have inexpensive gear and I like the results I get...but I spent months researching each mic that I bought and each piece of software I use. In that sense you trade time for money. Buy what's hot, for a steep price, or find something that does what you need for less.

[dobro]

"damn, to answer the main question, just try messing around with them."

Messing around with them? What did you have in mind? A bit more specific, and you might be a bit more helpful.

Okay, I stand by what I said about the need for decent equipment. It's *one* of the two most important requirements for recording good tracks. The other requirement for recording good tracks is to use your gear right - mic placement and levels and maybe a touch of light compression sometimes.

Having said that, here are some things to 'mess around with' that might help to get a better sound.

Panning: put the main vocal in the center. Pan backing vocals 20 cents to either side, or more if you like. If there are more than two backing vocals, just keeping panning 'em away from each other.

EQ: EQ the main vocal and the backing vocals differently. Try a small boost at 5K for the main vocal (1.3 Q, maybe 2 dB boost). Try cutting the backing vocals at exactly the same frequency by exactly the same amount. Boost the backing vocals at 3K (1.3 Q, maybe 2 dB boost). Use a highpass filter on each of the vocal tracks. Set it just under your lowest note (for me that's about 95 Hz.)

Reverb: Try making the lead vocal a bit drier than the backing vocals - they'll come across as spacier and further away, and the lead vocal will come across as closer to the listener, more upfront, more present.

To make it drier: reduce the reverb total length, increase the attack time, or reduce the Reverb (wet) setting. Or any combination of these three.

To make a track wetter: increase the reverb total length, reduce the attack trime, or increase the Reverb (wet) setting.

If that doesn't work, buy a better mic. You didn't hear it here first.

[crispycutz]

(Quite possibly the most straightfoward thread EVER)

Yeah try all that stuff out, Use the "Parametric EQ" in "Filters" to do the EQ.

I use a 35$ Radio Shack mic, equipped with a make shift stocking cap filter, and after learning and experimenting, I feel my recordings could compete with the best. Itsa confindence not a cockiness...hehe.

CEP is saturated with all the tools and fx u need to make a decent mix.

"Dynamics Processing" is a big YES in my opinion, type in "Vocal Compression" into your search engine to research what it does more in depth...
2 start, click the "4:1 -24" preset and change the threshold to like -13, -15db.
Keep it up..

[dobro]

Dynamic Processing should be used only when it's required, otherwise don't touch it.

These days I'm using it less and less. Instead of compressing vocals (which squashes the waveform, so that it has less dynamic range, but makes its level easier to control and makes the 'quieter' bits easier to hear), I work the whole track with a volume envelope, basically bringing down the biggest peaks. It takes a lot longer, but it's more precise, and it sounds better I think.

[gasal69]

Hello!
Here comes my question to you, xfinsterx , Blue Bear Sound and others.

I use a ZOOM guitar processor a lot.

As you know Zoom is multiefect pedal and I try to multi-use it because it’s only one I’ve got.
There is Noise Reduction on this pedal and in this case pedal is connected in between Mic-amplifier and my sound card.

The result is OK.
I almost kill all brrrrooming of amp and mic noise.
In many cases I use NR on Cool edit afterwards to do fine cleaning.

I wonder if my vocals are being affected when I’m using equipment in this way?!?

When noise is big and I use only NR on cool edit vocals are being deformed in some way.
Deformed is wrong word, I hope you’ll know what I mean.

They are a little, little bit different. That’s way I began to use my guitar pedal for NR.

I know professional equipment is one of the main conditions for professional sound.
I am not professional and never expect my projects would sound professionally.
I experiment a lot with all kind of results but important thing for me is to know what is right and what is wrong.

P.S. Does word “dobro” mean good?

I’m just curious about that word! No need to answer if it breaks some privacy boundaries.

[chrisharris]

Originally Posted by dobro

Dynamic Processing should be used only when it's required, otherwise don't touch it.

These days I'm using it less and less. Instead of compressing vocals (which squashes the waveform, so that it has less dynamic range, but makes its level easier to control and makes the 'quieter' bits easier to hear), I work the whole track with a volume envelope, basically bringing down the biggest peaks. It takes a lot longer, but it's more precise, and it sounds better I think.

I couldn't agree more. It took me a long time to get to that point, but it's better. It's just manual compression, but it doesn't hype ugly frequencies in the vocal...like sibilance. I just listen with my eyes closed and bring it up or down wherever it needs it. Takes about :45 minutes for me to do a vocal this way in a typical 3:30 song. There are definitely outboard compressors that color a vocal track in a GOOD way, but I haven't found a digital one yet that I like.

[dobro]

gasal - I don't know about the Zoom pedal. But my guess is that pedals generally are not as quiet and don't process signals as precisely as a lot of hardware and software that's dedicated to audio processing. Dunno.

Yeah, some Russian guy told me dobro means good. It also means duncan's brother. (I figured dobro sounded better than dubro.) When I become a popstar, the guitar company's probably gonna try to shut me down. I will claim linguistic immunity, however. Anyway, it was the best I could do at the time. If I'd had *real* imagination, I would've called myself chrisharris or something.

[lpdeluxe]

As you probably know, "Dobro" is short for "DOpera BROthers", the inventors of the resonator guitars. It also (as you pointed out) means "good" in the Slovak languages. I don't know what it means in Klingon.

[dobro]

"As you probably know, "Dobro" is short for "DOpera BROthers"

That's what it means to the guitar company, yes. But he was asking me what my nick meant. My nick has never had, nor will it ever have, anything to do with the guitar manufacturer or their instruments.

Unless they offer to give me a free instrument out of respect for the striking congruence between our names, of course. My guess is all they will ever offer me is a lawsuit. Companies are like that. No imagination. No tolerance. Maybe I ought to work harder at staying underground...

[lpdeluxe]

Ah, too bad, I was going to send you my Dobro as a keepsake. Guess I'll have to hang onto it now.

[Cold Fusion]

Dobro, which is better to use for manual compression, the amplification effect in wave view and then decrease the volume of a selected piece of the wave to bring it within the desired range or to create an envelope in multi track view? I find the effects of multi track view volume enveloping is hard to hear and often I am put to drastic enveloping in order to hear whats happening. when I use the amplification technique I mentioned earlier I get good clean vocal sounds and there is no unnecessary increase in other quiter parts of the track like when I use the dynamic effects.

[dobro]

"which is better to use for manual compression, the amplification effect in wave view and then decrease the volume of a selected piece of the wave to bring it within the desired range"

I don't use this effect, but if I understand its use, I think all you're doing is 'turning down the volume' on the whole wave, leaving the basic structure of the wave untouched. If that's the case, why bother? Why not just turn it down in Multitrack?

"...or to create an envelope in multi track view? I find the effects of multi track view volume enveloping is hard to hear and often I am put to drastic enveloping in order to hear whats happening."

Try soloing the track first, while you're applying the volume envelope. Way easier to hear what's going on.

"...when I use the amplification technique I mentioned earlier I get good clean vocal sounds and there is no unnecessary increase in other quiter parts of the track like when I use the dynamic effects."

Again, why not just turn down the track volume in Multitrack if that's what you want? But it's interesting that you *don't* want the quieter parts of the track to be heard more clearly, cuz that's the very reason why people apply compression to a vocal track usually - it squashes the dynamic range so the overall track level can be turned up without clipping *so that the quiet parts can be heard better*. But if, like you say, you're getting good clean vocal sounds, and if you can hear all parts of the vocal, then my advice is DON'T TOUCH THE FUCKER! LOL That's the definition of a good vocal track.

[dobro]

Or maybe I'm just feeling bitter cuz lpdeluxe ain't gonna send me a shiny texas guitar now.