improving VOCALS while mixing?

threshhold2

New member
are there any "basic-rules" for improving/smoothing vocals after recording?...i mean like do you have any hints for eq.?
 
NYMorningstar said:
The basic rule is to retrack it. The mix is not the place to fix your vocals.


What? Is he supposed to boost and cut frequencies in his voice while he tracks? Better get one of those built in voicebox eq's. Great advice buddy/ :rolleyes:
 
try to listen to what's wrong with it. if there's a harshness problem with it, try sweeping through the freequencies with a fairly low Q, boosting it until you find the right frequency. then zoom in and pull down the offending area. you probably won't want too high a Q as this could give a more unnatural quality to it. alternatively you can boosting an "opposing" frequency. say if the voice sounds bass heavy, try adding highs instead of cutting lows.

as for compression, there are various guides floating around that you can find. it's a fairly complex topic. be sure to understand exactly what a compressor does and how it does it.

some reverb can help vocals a lot as well. but this is an extremely subjective matter, and so much depends on the context of the voice, instrumentation and genre that it is very hard to give sensible advice.
 
Compress the snot out of it. Autotune in automatic mode. Cut at 128 & 507, boost at 3592 and 12865. Huge Cathedral reverb. Sprinkle with pixie dust and fairy kisses. Voila! :rolleyes:
 
Avoid compression if you can, (it usually helps if you tell your vocalist before recording to shout a bit into the mic until you find that spot where it begins to clip, not so much to damage the mic, just so he has an idea of his 'space') that is unless you have a high end compressor which gives your track a certain desirable color.

I've always found a bit of reeverb to be helpful, at least for what I've done. Not so much that it gets boomy and muddy, but just enough to enhance the sound a bit. With a large room size, and a small decay length. Also use a low-cut if you can, as this will take away the lower frequencies often recorded with vocals but that can interfere with other instruments in the mix.

And if you are really interested in how to EQ your vocals to enhance them, just take a boost and sweep it through the range until you find a spot containing the sound you want. Just toy with it until you find a better sound to your ears.
 
I think Scrubs pretty well nailed it. :D

Unlike other things, where the best thing during mixing is nothing, and it's all about nailing the tracking and then leaving it alone, I'm more about not getting in the way of the vocalist during tracking. Vocals are all about emoting, and nothing will kill that like doing a bunch of takes while moving mics, swapping out mics, instructing the vocalist on level control, etc. It's almost like a great vocal is a rare animal or bird that you have to be very stealthy to not startle it, and quietly snap a picture of it in it's natural habitat. So, this means that there's going to be work to do on it later in the mix. I've rarely met a vocal take that didn't want some compression, ditto with some light reverb. And I'd rathing fix a couple of flats on an inspired vocal, or even leave them in than to beat the performance to death with a dozen or so takes to get the intonation just right, never mind that the words don't mean anything anymore to the singer.
Really, I'll do whatever the right take needs, with no hesitation, so long as the performance is genuine and not sterilized by the process.
 
MessianicDreams said:
try to listen to what's wrong with it. if there's a harshness problem with it, try sweeping through the freequencies with a fairly low Q, boosting it until you find the right frequency. then zoom in and pull down the offending area. you probably won't want too high a Q as this could give a more unnatural quality to it. alternatively you can boosting an "opposing" frequency. say if the voice sounds bass heavy, try adding highs instead of cutting lows.

Actually, when cutting offending frequencies, a high Q is not always a bad thing. It makes the cut more transparent, because it leaves the rest of the vocal intact. It is usually when boosting that a high Q sounds really obnoxious.
 
WillyDavidK said:
Avoid compression if you can, (it usually helps if you tell your vocalist before recording to shout a bit into the mic until you find that spot where it begins to clip, not so much to damage the mic, just so he has an idea of his 'space') that is unless you have a high end compressor which gives your track a certain desirable color.

Compression is an extremely useful tool for keeping a vocal seated in the mix at a desired level. Avoiding it would be good advice mostly if you don't know how to use it properly.
 
I agree with the others, get it right first, don't try and fix it in the mix. If you have a decent mic and know what you are doing with compression then most put in a "little" reverb. If your mic has some issues (in other words not flat) then a little eq to balance it out is ok. Compression only if the singer is all over the place. Also if you do add reverb keep a track with the previously untouched vocals in case you don't or they don't like what you did the next day.
 
Robert D said:
I think Scrubs pretty well nailed it. :D

Unlike other things, where the best thing during mixing is nothing, and it's all about nailing the tracking and then leaving it alone, I'm more about not getting in the way of the vocalist during tracking. Vocals are all about emoting, and nothing will kill that like doing a bunch of takes while moving mics, swapping out mics, instructing the vocalist on level control, etc. It's almost like a great vocal is a rare animal or bird that you have to be very stealthy to not startle it, and quietly snap a picture of it in it's natural habitat. So, this means that there's going to be work to do on it later in the mix. I've rarely met a vocal take that didn't want some compression, ditto with some light reverb. And I'd rathing fix a couple of flats on an inspired vocal, or even leave them in than to beat the performance to death with a dozen or so takes to get the intonation just right, never mind that the words don't mean anything anymore to the singer.
Really, I'll do whatever the right take needs, with no hesitation, so long as the performance is genuine and not sterilized by the process.

you ever been aware of something but never really understood it until it was spoken or written in just the perfect way ? Well now I have excellent excellent points here. I will become a much better tracking engineer because of this statement. Sometime I forget about the "ART" of recording ... :) yes i have been know to have a vocalist sing a part until she no longer cares why she was there just cause of that one little consonant at the end of a lead.... great friggin post... for me anyway ! Thank you
 
I'm with Robert on this, but I'll go further by stating that I'd rather hear that inspired take with all its imperfections than hear it after fixing everything, pitch included.

That doesn't mean that it can't use some eq and compression to make it sit better in the mix.

Who says it has to be perfect? Music is not perfect. I hate that there is this feeling that recordings have to be perfect, that the humanity has to be driven out of it.

If the musician sucks, let that be reflected in the recording.

If the musician can't sing in tune, is it the same singer after autotuning it to death?

I want to know when I listen to a vocalist that this is how the vocalist sings. This is how the musician sounds wehen he/she plays.

Anyways, I guess I'm wierd that way.

Robert D said:
I think Scrubs pretty well nailed it. :D

Unlike other things, where the best thing during mixing is nothing, and it's all about nailing the tracking and then leaving it alone, I'm more about not getting in the way of the vocalist during tracking. Vocals are all about emoting, and nothing will kill that like doing a bunch of takes while moving mics, swapping out mics, instructing the vocalist on level control, etc. It's almost like a great vocal is a rare animal or bird that you have to be very stealthy to not startle it, and quietly snap a picture of it in it's natural habitat. So, this means that there's going to be work to do on it later in the mix. I've rarely met a vocal take that didn't want some compression, ditto with some light reverb. And I'd rathing fix a couple of flats on an inspired vocal, or even leave them in than to beat the performance to death with a dozen or so takes to get the intonation just right, never mind that the words don't mean anything anymore to the singer.
Really, I'll do whatever the right take needs, with no hesitation, so long as the performance is genuine and not sterilized by the process.
 
fraserhutch said:
I'm with Robert on this, but I'll go further by stating that I'd rather hear that inspired take with all its imperfections than hear it after fixing everything, pitch included.
That doesn't mean that it can't use some eq and compression to make it sit better in the mix.
Who says it has to be perfect? Music is not perfect. I hate that there is this feeling that recordings have to be perfect, that the humanity has to be driven out of it.
If the musician sucks, let that be reflected in the recording.
If the musician can't sing in tune, is it the same singer after autotuning it to death?
I want to know when I listen to a vocalist that this is how the vocalist sings. This is how the musician sounds wehen he/she plays.
Anyways, I guess I'm wierd that way.

Man, I was listening to "Tangerine" by Led Zepplin last night - actually I was watching the great movie "Almost Famous", and it's in there, but I digress. I was struck by how pitchy the chorus is, to a degree I never noticed before, and yet it works. I was thinking to myself how I could never have released it that way if I sang it, and yet it is perfect in it's imperfection. I would love to know what the decision process was to go with it as is. Was it just the best Plant could do (unlikely), was it by design, were they out of time, or was it a case where after 20 or so takes someone decided that the 1st take with it's raw but organic feel was the right take.
Then you have to wonder what today's expectations are. Have we arrived at a point now where that's a nice sentiment, but a romantic notion that's grossly out of line with what's expected today. I don't know the answer to that, but for myself, I find the compromise is in letting almost all lead vocs be the real deal, with just some dynamic smoothing, eq, and some verb, and then pitch tightening the harmonies to give them the modern polish that I think is pretty much expected now.
 
Back
Top