Does Anyone Else Do This With Vocals?

dewhitt

dewhitt

Dave DeWhitt
This might fall into the category of Captain Obvious, but maybe not, so I have to ask...

Lately, I've been "manually compressing" my vocal tracks by going into the editor in Logic and increasing the gain on soft parts and reducing the gain on loud parts. I'm not talking about riding the fader, but actually using the editor to change the wave. The result is a smoother sounding vocal part (duh, compression), and visually a more consistent wave form without the normal huge range of peaks and troughs. The cool thing is, I can carefully control how much or how little I change each phrase, word, or even partial word. It takes some time, and it's tedious, but as long as I don't overdo it, I don't notice any artifacts or drawbacks and I'm liking the results.

Now, I'm pretty sure that if I knew how to expertly configure a compressor, and if I had a top-notch hardware box, or even a decent software compressor, then I'd probably be able to get the same results in a much easier fashion with a couple of turns of the dial. But I'd swear at this point that doing it manually like this is yielding better results than I get when I slap a compressor on the vocal track, do my best with the settings, and let it ride.

Am I crazy? Does anyone else do this with their vocal tracks?

Best,

Dave DeWhitt
SoundClick artist: Dave DeWhitt - page with MP3 music downloads
 
I do this too. I have a quieter voice, so there are not a ton of dynamics anyway. And, I like a very dry, vocal sound so I don't EQ, compressor or Reverb a ton. I'll just go through and automate the volume or change the volume at each point in the track.

I think this is something a lot of people should be doing more. That's not to say compressions is bad or unnecessary, but you don't need to compress a whole track to get a 20 second part to the same volume as the rest of the track.
 
When I went into the studio about a year and a half ago, the engineer was using Pro Tools and did exactly what you describe. It seems to give more control over where you put compression...
 
I do this too, and it's got nothing to do with knowledge of setting the compressor properly. Proper compression can be enough sometimes, but automating your volume/gain can be quite valuable in getting it perfect. Start with getting it as close as possible with compression though.
 
I sometimes do something similar. In Sony Vegas there are Normalize and Gain settings for each block of audio that is before everything else in the chain, including inserts, volume, pan, sends etc. So when there's a section that's low I can split it to its own block, normalize, then adjust the gain to match the other parts of the track. I like this when I want those parts to hit the compressor like the other parts of the track. Volume automation would be applied after the compressor so those low parts would not get compressed the same as the strong parts. Both methods have their uses.
 
Are those edits reversible? I'd just do some fader automation, it's a lot easier to disable or edit if you don't like the results later on. Boulder, in your scenario you could run a compressor after the fader automation, whats the diff?
 
Whenever I start playing around with my tracks, I always make a copy of the original, paste to a different track number, then mute the original track. That way, if I screw something up, I still have original to work from. Depending on how much modulation and effects I plan on using, I'll sometimes just make a copy of all the tracks, paste them down to the virtual tracks and mute them. Just takes a few extra second and it's less stressful that way...
 
dewhitt said:
Am I crazy? Does anyone else do this with their vocal tracks?

Best,

Dave DeWhitt
SoundClick artist: Dave DeWhitt - page with MP3 music downloads
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I do. Its like custom compression, no matter what setting you use on a compressor your stuck with it on the whole track. I know exactly what your saying, with this method you can "sit" the vocal in the mix exactly as you want word by word. I use a tiny bit of light compression going in and I dont like de-esser(s), so I do it manually.
 
suprstar said:
Are those edits reversible? I'd just do some fader automation, it's a lot easier to disable or edit if you don't like the results later on. Boulder, in your scenario you could run a compressor after the fader automation, whats the diff?
Click to expand...

In Sony Vegas all the editing I do is non-destructive. It doesn't alter the source file so it's pretty reversible.

I use the gain, at the input of the channel, and volume, at the output of the channel, for different things. I get consistent level to drive the channel inserts first, and then I may want to automate volume downstream of them.
 
This is a great technique for controlling the dynamics without squashing the life out of the track. My preferred method.
 
Thanks everyone, it's nice to know I'm not the only one doing this. Yeah, I make a copy of the vocal track first and then edit the copy, so not to worry about the destructive nature of the edit.

Ido1957, I'm using Logic, and in all fairness, there are some good compressors in there, I just haven't taken the time to really learn the art of compression. Plus, as PDP said above, I think this is a little different, as it allows you to sit the vocals in the mix pretty much word by word, and even to a finer degree than that if you like.

I also use fader automation, but that's more for bigger cuts, whereas I consider the manual method more like a scalpel :)

Best Regards,

Dave DeWhitt
SoundClick artist: Dave DeWhitt - page with MP3 music downloads
 
bouldersoundguy said:
...So when there's a section that's low I can split it to its own block, normalize, then adjust the gain to match the other parts of the track. I like this when I want those parts to hit the compressor like the other parts of the track. Volume automation would be applied after the compressor so those low parts would not get compressed the same as the strong parts. Both methods have their uses.
Click to expand...
? I could see going through 'normalizing (or we have 'gain process in Sonar as well) if the whole clip is way out of whack, but why do splits', normalize, then have to do your gain work on top of that? (.. seems extra moves
Mostly aggreeing here though. I very often start with clip automation- at the section, line, phrase -partial phrase if need be- pre' everything else for the basic editing. Then add the fader automation. Here you're also picking at times whether these automation rides are pre or post compression!
Yeeha :D
 
this is a great way of addressing peaks and troughs if you dont have access to a daw just keep a copy of the origin for future referance and re use
your heading in the right direction
 
Dewhitt...

No disrespect to you, or anyone in replying in this thread, but, I think it's overkill. That said, we all know there are no rules. Do whatever you want, however you want. If you think it's important that your wave form have a more attractive appearance, that's your business.

However, many people on these boards often complain about the state of popular music being over-compressed, over-processed, and auto-tuned. Your methods, while meeting your needs, would not disuade further advance of that opinion.

Sometimes you gotta let the music 'speak' for itself. Would you ask a vocalist to please sing at a constant volume? A drummer to always strike the head at a constant speed and velocity? A guitarist to not bend strings because that affects the wave form?

I'm not critisizing, cuz I'm often guilty of overthinking a mix. I'm just venting. Trying to remind myself that it's not about me, it's about the music, the expression, the emotion and the moment.
 
It is about you though. If the vocals jump out in one part of the song then YOU are going to think it doesn't sound right. I would disagree that this is over thinking the problem. Sometimes a little critical thinking can come up with a better solution than the most popular or common solutions.

I just think the line of thought that every vocal track is made better with compression is bogus. Sometimes a simple thing like moving a fader up and down for a few seconds will fix the problem without adding or taking anything away (except volume). Other times (like with my weaker voice) no dynamic control is needed. Just different approaches to make the song sound like what you want it to sound like.
 
mixsit said:
? I could see going through 'normalizing (or we have 'gain process in Sonar as well) if the whole clip is way out of whack, but why do splits', normalize, then have to do your gain work on top of that? (.. seems extra moves
Click to expand...

Because normalizing just makes the peaks 0dBFS, and then I just grab the Gain bar and pull it down to match the other sections. Fairly simple, and it's totally undoable, even after saving and quitting, because it's non-destructive. I don't have to copy the track as a safety.

mixsit said:
Here you're also picking at times whether these automation rides are pre or post compression!
Yeeha :D
Click to expand...

Well, level changes before and after compression sound different. Doing them before is reinforcing the performance, getting it consistent as if it were performed that way. Doing volume automation after all the inserts is more of an artistic mixing decision. It's a sort of conceptual division of labor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top