Sibilance & Plosives...Tips or Informationals ???

[mark4man]

Hello again...

I know it's part of the job (on a primary mix), but I really get tired of dipping the T's & P's & S's out of a track by drawing variations on automation envelopes. & sometimes you hit the nail on the head; & sometimes you don't, which sometimes requires sliding the nodes to & fro...man, it seems to take forever (w/ an untrained vocalist, anyway). The other thing is, altering the envelope in this way can also alter the way in which a lyric phrase/word is sung/pronounced, which can make it sound weird or unnatural.

So I'm having better luck say for example in rolling off problem plosives w/ a high-pass & a steep Q; & varying between 150 & 200Hz...applying it to just the problem region (& thereby resulting in a natural sounding fix).

But is there a rule of thumb (or papers circulating around) that identify the form & general band of how & where these anomalies occur? [I.e., "the 'T' plosive waveform looks sorta like this_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; & generally occurs below 200Hz", etc., etc.]

Sure would be helpful for me. I'm gaining a better understanding looking at the various types of problem waves in the 3D fr. analyzer in WLab, but it would be really helpful to somehow speed this process along.

Also...how 'bout eq plugs (if there are any around that have specific functionality to this)...like starting off w/ say maybe general problem presets & having a steep Q & the ability to zoom in & fr. sweep a region. I've been using Cambridge, which ain't bad, but if there's something better or specially set up...???

Thanks all,

mark4man

ADK Pro Audio Core 2 | Intel DP35DP MoBo/Chipset | Intel Q6600 Quad Core CPU | 4 GB SuperTalent DDR2-800 CL5 RAM | Seagate 160 GB SATA II Primary HD | Western Digital 320 GB SATA II Audio HD | Win XP Pro SP3 | Lynx Aurora8 ~ AES16 | Echo Audio Layla24 | Universal Audio UAD-1 | SONAR PE 7.0.1 | WaveLab 5.0.1 | GEAR PRO Mastering 7

[bennychico11]

are you using a pop filter?
http://www.zzounds.com/item--MUSASVS6GB

that will take out a ton of the plosives you hear
as far as sibilance...that's more frequency specific and a lot of times it's just bad technique by the vocalist. And of course hyping the higher EQs doesn't help things. A deesser can help with this tremendously. It's a frequency specific compressor that turns on only when triggered.

[masteringhouse]

This may help:

http://www.independentrecording.net/...ndex.php?id=66

Generally sibilance is 6K on up, plosives around 150 down. Try using both bell and shelving EQs to the sidechain and listen for which works best.

As Benny said though, it's best to prevent it as much as possible while recording with a good pop filter and good mic choice.

[loudsongs]

I've been using a dynamic EQ for plosives and esses. You set a threshhold, freq and Q and it dips that band anytime it exceeds the threshold. Works well and it's usually very transparent.

Platinumears IQ4 is good and free (VST).

But it's a lot better to get right at the mic if you can.



Scott
Not an audio engineer

[mark4man]

wow...


thanks...!!! Forgot to come back (& when I did...I found these wonderful solutions). Yes...I did use a pop filter...a pretty sophisticated one to boot (2 nylon layers)...on my most recent location recording gig...in front of an AT 4050. AND...this particular vocalist (who hissed the signal to death…didn't get those, as you all said), but it got most of the plosives, tho...the boomy T's & P's & what not.

But…there's also two schools of thought at work here. I've also heard it said that the pop filters alter the sound to the mike…eroding the shimmery highs to a certain extent…& why pay $1100 for a C414 & not utilize everything it can give you. I wonder about this side of the equation.

Really like the idea of the dynamic EQ on a threshold, tho...have to try that.

Thanks again,

mark4man

[rockerdude]

pop filter and angle the mic up or down , 8" rule.....

[rockerdude]

Originally Posted by mark4man

wow...


thanks...!!! Forgot to come back (& when I did...I found these wonderful solutions). Yes...I did use a pop filter...a pretty sophisticated one to boot (2 nylon layers)...on my most recent location recording gig...in front of an AT 4050. AND...this particular vocalist (who hissed the signal to death…didn't get those, as you all said), but it got most of the plosives, tho...the boomy T's & P's & what not.

But…there's also two schools of thought at work here. I've also heard it said that the pop filters alter the sound to the mike…eroding the shimmery highs to a certain extent…& why pay $1100 for a C414 & not utilize everything it can give you. I wonder about this side of the equation.

Really like the idea of the dynamic EQ on a threshold, tho...have to try that.

Thanks again,

mark4man

try a rode k2.....

[Xeries]

Sorry I couldn't upload the picture

[Supercreep]

A vocalist has to know when to turn your head slightly, soften a pronunciation, or back off/increase volume so that the finished product is as uniform as possible.

Otherwise your Q envelopes are the easiest way.