Anyone else add reverb to vocals while tracking?

[TASCAM MAN]

I give myself a thumbs up !!

 

[Bobbsy]

I've been thinking about it and I think it just gets the vocalist excited to hear the 'possibilities', at least for the vocalist in my band. I was tracking him for a song, and while it was technically OK (in tune, on time) it just didn't have the energy I've seen him have live. So I threw some 'verb on the track, and he said "Is that me? That sounds so cool!" and the next take was light years better. Maybe the effect will wear off on him, maybe it has and I could go back to dry tracking.

Every vocalist is different--and what works for one doesn't always work for another. That's why I try not to have pre-conceived notions of what's "the right way" and prefer to be guided by circumstances.

On a related topic, does anyone else try to have some reverb ready to go for the playback of a take? Like most here, I record dry but almost always have some light compression and reverb ready to go when letting the vocalist hear a take. I'll preface it with a "I'll just put a bit of reverb here--I'll tweak it better during the mix". However, all too often playing a fully dry voice results in a very negative impression of a recording even if it'll work just fine in a mix.

 

[jonny deep]

Every vocalist is different--and what works for one doesn't always work for another. That's why I try not to have pre-conceived notions of what's "the right way" and prefer to be guided by circumstances.

On a related topic, does anyone else try to have some reverb ready to go for the playback of a take? Like most here, I record dry but almost always have some light compression and reverb ready to go when letting the vocalist hear a take. I'll preface it with a "I'll just put a bit of reverb here--I'll tweak it better during the mix". However, all too often playing a fully dry voice results in a very negative impression of a recording even if it'll work just fine in a mix.

When I'm tracking, I do a first take (previously tracking dry, now I have a reverb unit, I'll start experimenting with reverb in the headphones), then compress the hell out of it and add some reverb. Then each take goes onto the same track so when I listen back it has both on so I can give it a more critical appraisal. That said, I work entirely on my own, so I don't have anyone else's ego to massage - just my own to protect as much as I can!

 

[rayc]

I USED to add reverb as I was tracking but made too many bad decisions re the type & amount. When I had a couple of things mastered the reverb was an issue. I do, as most have mentioned, now use it in the box. Miroslav's cue mix is the perfect way to satisfy a singer's longing or insecurities.

 

[gecko zzed]

On a related topic, does anyone else try to have some reverb ready to go for the playback of a take? Like most here, I record dry but almost always have some light compression and reverb ready to go when letting the vocalist hear a take. I'll preface it with a "I'll just put a bit of reverb here--I'll tweak it better during the mix". However, all too often playing a fully dry voice results in a very negative impression of a recording even if it'll work just fine in a mix.

Yep. When tracking a vocal, even though I try to avoid reverb being fed into the headphone mix, I will set up a reverb and compression bus and on playback will add a suitable amount of each; enough to give the take a sense of space.

 

[ritchie]

This has been done since the first recordings were made, and whenever an aux. send was available. (and even before that, a a parallel feed from the mike was sent to a 'reverb room', and the signal from the microphone there mixed back into the singers phones.. A little knowledge of the history of recording goes a long way.

My point was that if it worked and was used by engineers 60 years ago, it will probably be of some value now, and that for me, some of the most valuable and musical innovations were made in those days. History of, and knowledge of recording are important IMO.

eg. flange using tape 'skew' levered away from the replay head using a pencil, and ADT using a second replay head.

If guys (or girls) today don't know how those classic sounds were created, they are IMO the poorer for it, because just adding a short delay with no feedback in cubase or sonar etc. can't give them an authentic ADT sound.(should they want one) Why not?

And just adding a phaser over everything in VST won't give you that 'Itchycoo Park' sound (should you want it) But why not?
Similarly, layering loads of midi pianos and drum kits can't get you anything approaching a Phil Spector sound (if you should want to re-create that or something similar in a mix) why not? That's similar to what Phil did, wasn't it?

How was the classic 10cc 'I'm not in Love' sound made?? (the vocal part in the bridge)? How many people here know anything about that ground breaking studio wizardry? You may dismiss the above as irrelevant in today's music, (I am not saying that you do, of course) but those sounds broke new ground and opened up whole new worlds sonically and technically, and they captured the musical imagination of multiple generations, and each sold very many millions of record units. Who does that now?

 

[grimtraveller]

Though not strictly about vocals, I found this statement in the advertising blurb for the Presonus AudioBox 1818VSL ;

What’s so great about effects and processing on monitors?

Tracking without hearing effects and signal processing is like playing a video game with your eyes closed. Musicians rely on aural cues when performing, and their performance can vary depending on what they hear in their monitors.

Adding just the right amount of compression, EQ, and reverb can make a huge difference in their ability to hear themselves clearly and to experience their performance as if it occurred in a natural space rather than in the artificial sonic environment of the studio. The result is a better performance and ultimately a better recording.

All I'd add to that is "peut ~ être oui, peut ~ être non".

 

[grimtraveller]

You may dismiss the above as irrelevant in today's music, (I am not saying that you do, of course) but those sounds broke new ground and opened up whole new worlds sonically and technically, and they captured the musical imagination of multiple generations, and each sold very many millions of record units. Who does that now?

To be honest, the examples you gave are irrelevant in today's music. Relatively few use flanging or ADT anyway, phasing is so rare and "Itchycoo park" and 10cc aren't exactly bands/songs that tend to be on many peoples' lips and Phil Spector hasn't been musically noteworthy for ages, but he has for other reasons......
{For the record, I dig 10cc, the Small faces and I love flangers and to a lesser degree, phasers}
In every endeavour in life, one group build on the prevailing works/standards of what currently exist. When those new world records were set during the olympics, how many people could recall who had set those records in the first place ? It's true that all your examples were tremendous groundbreakers but when all is said and done, it was the songs and not the sounds or the techniques used to capture them that grabbed people. So very few people have ever gone out and bought a record simply because of production. The record buying public don't give a crap about that. The record buying public barely notice. So in response to the question

Who does that now?

I think there will long be artists that capture the imagination of generations younger than ours and let's face it, love it or hate it, the way alot of music is mashed up nowadays, it's easilly arguable that the sonic and technological pathways are still being explored in ways that they weren't before.

So what's your point?

My point was that if it worked and was used by engineers 60 years ago, it will probably be of some value now, and that for me, some of the most valuable and musical innovations were made in those days. History of, and knowledge of recording are important IMO.

I'm currently reading Ken Scott's autobiography "Abbey Road to Ziggy Stardust" {with help from our very own Bobby Owsinski} and it is absolutely rivetting. He describes alot of the gear used and how and the techniques he can remember from the 60s when he started to the present day. I love books like this, easilly readable stuff and I've been an avid reader on the history of recording since I was a teenager in the 70s, even though I didn't understand anything then. My recording life began in the pre~internet days when the average bod like me gleaned only snippets from biographies and the odd magazine or pamphlet and I've tried many of the things I've read about, with varying degrees of success and failure.
I love all that stuff but I disagree that the knowing the history is important per se. It's important to me because I happen to be interested in it but for alot of people starting off recording now or maybe even that have been recording for a while, it can be largely redundant.

 

[ritchie]

I think that people like Bob Clearmountain have spent so long getting miking techniques right, that to understand how they do that is immensely valuable, and not irrelevant at all. (and Clearmountain is one of the best paid producers/engineers in the world as well as one of the most respected) Do many people here know how to mike a kit so that it sounds correct and full and bright and with the correct dynamic range on all drums? You may say 'Irrelevant and old school... I only use samples or midi drums'.. OK, but IMO an engineer should be able to record everything well, not just synch sample loops..

I think that one of the reasons that music is so 'non-memorable' and disposable now is possibly because that engineering and production creativity has been lost.. The engineering was an integral part of the song in some of the 'old' tracks I quoted, and I think the music was much better and more memorable because of that creative engineering input.. Do you think that Steely Dan arrived at their 'no boost, no cut' theories by accident? No, They purposely developed a way to record that made sure that the best recording fidelity got from the desk to the recording medium.

There are engineering procedures and practices that are common whatever era they are used in. In miking techniques, coincident pair, figure of eight,etc. These techniques were developed many decades ago, and you can either use them, reject them as 'old school' etc. or simply be ignorant of them.. But your mix will always show the difference.

 

[ritchie]

If I'm a paying client and I come into your studio and ask for a retro 'John Lennon Instant Karma' vocal ADT and a similar Instant Karma drum sound on a particular track, are you just going to look at me stupidly and go 'Duh dude..what are you talking about?? I only know how to record scratching turntables and mike up repeated attempts at poetry (RAP) '


If so, I want my money back, and you can compensate me for my wasted time and my gas expenses as well.. I'm the client, and it's your job to know how to get the sounds I want, and that's what you're being paid for, and that's what being professional is all about...

Is it not still true that the best recording fidelity should go from the desk to the recording medium, or is that just 'old school' and irrelevant 'old crap' too..??

 

[grimtraveller]

We're talking at cross purposes here. Knowing how certain retro sounds were gotten in an age where most of those sounds are not really used isn't important to many people that record. I didn't say it's not important to me or that it should be that way, just that that is how it is to many people. Knowing how someone arrived at a certain sound is no guarantee that you'll be able to replicate it. Not to mention, one might not particularly care for Bob Clearmountain's drum recordings or Steely Dan's high fidelity sound if one hates their songs.
Personal taste is personal taste and no longer worth invading Iraq about.
Sure, if you are an engineer working in a commercial set up, you should know the basics and how to work towards certain results but you didn't give the impression that's who you were talking about.
When you say "music is so unmemorable these days", exactly which music are you talking about and to whom is it unmemorable ? I couldn't make a statement like that because I don't hear every recording that comes out and I have no idea of what each citizen of the earth likes, musically.
I can however, say it for myself.

 

[ritchie]

I was talking about fidelity of sound when I quoted Steely Dan. I don't care whether you or anyone else like Becker and Fagin at all.
I think that common elements like 'How to mike up a drum kit well' ..do not change..

The miking angle and distance from the snare or batter head are nearly fixed for a good natural-sounding recording It is not a case of 'I don't like Clearmountain's drum mixes' it's a case of 'Oh.. I can hear every shade of the open and closed high hat, and the snare is exactly balanced, and the kit sounds as if it's right here in the room'

It is irrelevant who does it, but it's very important that they know how to do it and are able to repeat it. IMO you can only break the rules creatively if you know them. If you don't know them, then you have only trial and error and many many mistakes and bad takes from bad mike techniques and even worse mixes, because the mixes are multi-track sums of many bad takes and poor miking techniques, mixed to stereo.

Music is un-memorable to the general public as evinced by the huge downturn in recorded music sales from a decade ago. Music is more and more disposable and less valued.