What techniques do you use to make your vocal recordings sound good?

B

bluesunlegends

New member
Yes, a good (most like very expensive) mic will offer great sound quality.
However, no all of us can afford to buy a 1k+ mic.

Like for example, I can tell when someone didn't used the best mic out there (and did a bad mix) when their vocals seem to be displaced from the the music. You know what I mean?

A great mic (and a good mix) will make the vocals sound like they're intertwined with every part of the song.

So what techniques do you use to make your vocal recordings sound fairly good?
Whether it be the way you sound treat a room, mixing techniques, or maybe just the way you sing into the mic.

I want to know your secrets!
 
Okay, so I guess I'll take a shot at this :drunk:. If the room I'm recording in sounds good, I'll sing about 8 inches away from the mic. Nothing too precise, but just to give some space. If the room is kinda bad, I'll get close to the mic and then later put a high pass filter on the track to fix the proximity effect. I usually compress the vocals to taste of the song and mix. Since vocals are always last in my mixes, I turn the volume of the vocal track down completely and slowly raise the volume on it to find the spot where it sits just right. A little reverb never hurts either, but only enough to barely notice in the mix (unless a noticeable reverb effect is wanted). If needed, EQ can be applied to add a little presence. So, yeah that's pretty much how I do it. It's not elaborate but it works every time for me :D
 
i spend quite a lot of the time matching mic's and preamps to the singer to get the best possible sound from the dry vocals. most of the rooms i record it sound pretty nice but with very loud vocalists i still get some unwanted room sound so i'm a big fan of the sE Project Reflexion Filter. also, a decent headphone mix for the singer with some reverb in their can's is a must. i often find if the singer can't hear themselves properly in their cans they really push their voice to hear themselves, and if it's too loud they tend to back off.

in terms of mixing, i normally mix the vocals in third after drums and bass. i find if the drums, bass, and vocals are locked in then you've got the backbone to a really solid mix.

EQ; normally a HPF at somewhere between 60hz - 100hz, maybe a gentle shelve boost at 12kHz-15kHz, and then it's normally one or two cuts; somewhere in the low mids (300hz - 600hz) and somewhere between in the mids (800Hz - 2kHz). Sometimes a gentle boost at 4kHz to 5kHz can help a vocal cut through a bit but this can sometimes sound too aggressive.

Compression; all depends on the style of the track/singer. i normally either run vocals through the comp on the ISA220 or the RNC. the ISA220 seems to really bring the vocals to the front of the mix whereas the RNC seems to help them sit in the mix. I very rarely use parallel compression on vocals but i find it can really work in rock or pop tracks, in which case the parallel comp is pretty aggressive and then blend to taste.

Reverb and delay; sometime one, sometimes the other, sometimes both. i love bright plate sounds on vocals and a short tape delay can work really well, especially if the reverb is messy. On my reverb busses i always set up a HPF at 200Hz before the reverb to keep it clean.

anything else; sometimes a very subtle aural exciter if i've had to compress quite hard just to bring some life back into the vocals. on rare occasions i've used tape saturation on vocals to thicken up a vocal or as a special effect
 
Last edited:
I take my mobile rig (it consists of a couple ISA 828's in a box with my protools interface, a laptop, and a bag full of microphones) to whatever room the singer prefers to sing in. I want them to be as comfortable as possible, and I am not overly attached to reflection free tracking space. If the vocals sound good with a little reverb after tracking. I won't have to add any reverb in the mix. I can set levels and be done.
 
Sometimes it is a good idea to double the vocals (record the same vocal over again on a separate track and then mix them).
The two mixed together can sound more full.
 
Hi,

I use a AKG c1000 condenser mic which cost about $80 - this seems to give me the everything I need for my voice.

When recording vocals, I have the mic about 5 inches from mouth, at around 30 degress. This gives a better, more useable tone, with minimal pops etc.

Once I have it in the PC, I use a pretty straightforward compression plugin (currently Ableton built-in). I tweak this to match the mic, and use generally the same settings every time. EQ wise, I keep it quite flat with a roll off under 200 Hz or so.

Then, depending on the track I might distort the vocals. The track in my signature for example, has some tube saturation and sound slight doubling.

Cheers
 
I tend to set up mic about inch or a bit higher than singers mouth and aim it towards the mouth. And like guys mentioned before I keep the distance between singer and mic about 8 inches.
Using AKG 414 XLS/SE Electronic Z2200a at the moment
 
I know matching mics and pres to singers is probably the best, but I have a couple of matches that haven't failed me yet.

1) SM7B-->GAP (male)
2) AKG C2000B -->API (female and lots of male)
3) Bluebird -->API or GAP (male and lots of female)

#1 is the best overall and works for every male singer I've worked with and every rockish, folky style.

As far as mixing...compress to taste (I use an 1176 for most vocals, but it's not necessary, any comp will do). I don't EQ much if at all. Light reverb to fit the song.

That's it.

Oh, and last thing...I personally have a really hard time with performance and pitch when I use headphones. So I've started recording vocals with the monitors playing and not using headphones. It does bleed, but I think that's way better than the crappy performances I've been getting.
 
This has been an awesome thread, perhaps more for me since I'm ready to take on this knowledge.

Just finished a recording a song with one mic only (Rode NT-1A) , and was both male and female vocals in harmony. Thanks to this thread I plan to remove all the compression and EQ I've added to the vocal tracks and start fresh. I'll treat the male/female separately (cause they were hard to blend) and not be so heavy handed with the gear.

I find that I have to deal with issues that more preofessional people don't have to though. I have a female vocal song from my niece that was fun to do, but hard to obtain - we had to work at it. As a result, I have a vocal track that is loud/soft, and varying in EQ due to proximity effect. How do you begin to deal with this variation?

Anyway, to add to the thread, I learned that double tracking helps give "that professional sound" I always strived for, although only if the two tracks are *very* similar to each other in tone and timing.

FM
 
pure.fusion said:
I find that I have to deal with issues that more preofessional people don't have to though. I have a female vocal song from my niece that was fun to do, but hard to obtain - we had to work at it. As a result, I have a vocal track that is loud/soft, and varying in EQ due to proximity effect. How do you begin to deal with this variation?
Click to expand...

i'd personally chop the tracks into parts and copy them leaving the "loud" parts on one track and the "soft/quiet" parts on the next track. this is where i'm sure people may have different opinions. i'd balance them together with the faders, apply EQ to each part separately (although, in this case it'll probably only be the low frequencies that'd differ) and then send them to one bus to apply compression and reverb (on a send) so that the compression will help "glue" the two parts together back in to one more coherent vocal take and using the same reverb/amount of it will help it sound more consistent
 
Justsomeguy said:
i'd personally chop the tracks into parts and copy them leaving the "loud" parts on one track and the "soft/quiet" parts on the next track. this is where i'm sure people may have different opinions. i'd balance them together with the faders, apply EQ to each part separately (although, in this case it'll probably only be the low frequencies that'd differ) and then send them to one bus to apply compression and reverb (on a send) so that the compression will help "glue" the two parts together back in to one more coherent vocal take and using the same reverb/amount of it will help it sound more consistent
Click to expand...

I wish more people would suggest techniques like this. It's much more natural than compression alone. Another way to do this (at least in cubase) is to scissor out regions in the editor - then you can raise or lower the gain directly on the region. The regions can be words or phrases that pop out or are too low, or the whole chorus, another specific part, etc. I think it's a lot easier to use than automation, and a little more flexible than splitting out into separate tracks and controlling with faders...
 
chuckduffy said:
I think it's a lot easier to use than automation, and a little more flexible than splitting out into separate tracks and controlling with faders...
Click to expand...

I do completely agree and if the only issue is the volume than that's my normal route, but if the singer is swinging wildly in and out of the mic enough to dramatically change how much proximity effect/room is present, and you don't have the luxury of re-recording the vocals whilst reminding the singer they're supposed to be singing not dancing :-)p), then it all depends on how you want the vocals to sound, i.e if you don't want the proximity effects a straight HPF and automation on the volume would be fine. if, however, you like the proximity effect and the louder parts sound to thin then either chopping up the tracks and adding slightly different EQ's or automating the EQ would be the way i'd deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top