Lead vocal compression + automation?

[Segosha]

I have a vocal lead track that works fairly well with the plugin compression except for a couple of spots where the vocal is too loud. Should I use automation for these loud spots and if so how should I do this? Can a compressor plugin be inserted into the lead vocal track as well?

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!

 

[Dags]

Hi.
I am uncertain what software you're using but most multitrack DAW programs allow you to use plugins on every channel, so yes, you should be able to put a compressor into the lead vocal track.
Volume automation is something that happens separate from whatever the plugin is doing.
Consult your audio software manual as to how to access the volume automation component.

Automating changes to your plugin settings can also be done within your DAW, so if you're wanting to lower the threshold or increase the ratio or whatever, you'll also be able to access them using the automation editor.

Have fun!
Dags

 

[Segosha]

Thanks Dags. I'm just trying to figure out if a compressor plugin will work in conjunction with automation.

Thanks again!

 

[Armistice]

Yes it can... but if you lower your volume via automation, depending upon how you have your compressor set in terms of threshold, it may not work exactly as intended.

The general advice round here of late is to control volume in a track via automation, rather than compression - so I'd tend to approach it the other way around. YMMV....

 

[dudernut]

I have found that volume curves can help with those spots compression leaves behind. Using that little pencil, I have been able to smooth out spots with surprising accuracy.

 

[mixsit]

Compression obviously is generally first thought of for it's leveling, but the fact of the mater is that the type, the style of reaction or how it's set up and leveling via automation can have quite different sounds. So yes, very often we use a mix of both.
Another to consider if you have the option is in either 'correcting levels or creatively, picking automation feeding into the compressor in addition to the typical after comp fader automation.

 

[rayc]

lesson #1 Compression & how NOT to use it.
Fader automation is how you should mange volume and get the vocal at the right volume for each instance or change in dynamic.
Compression really is another, often very colourful, beast.
It's a mistake to use the compressor to raise or lower volume generally. I know because I've been down that path and some time later went back to everything I'd done previoulsy, removed the compressor & automated the volume faders. the results were uniformly better.
lesson #2 - Reverb & how NOT to use it.

 

[mixsit]

lesson #1 Compression & how NOT to use it.
Fader automation is how you should mange volume and get the vocal at the right volume for each instance or change in dynamic.
Compression really is another, often very colourful, beast.
It's a mistake to use the compressor to raise or lower volume generally. I know because I've been down that path and some time later went back to everything I'd done previoulsy, removed the compressor & automated the volume faders. the results were uniformly better.
lesson #2 - Reverb & how NOT to use it.

Well put. And it leads to saying while automation can be creative color tool (in limited way perhaps, or at the micro level), fader moves are in large part mixing!

 

[Massive Master]

Automation controls the volume of the source - Compression changes the dynamic range of the signal. The two are different things for different purposes.

IMO/E, volume automation first, always, taking care of basically any volume change needed. Compression 2nd, to make the signal's dynamic range fit better into the mix's natural dynamic range.

 

[MrWrenchey]

IMO/E, volume automation first, always, taking care of basically any volume change needed. Compression 2nd, to make the signal's dynamic range fit better into the mix's natural dynamic range.

In the several years of studying engineering, I'm still not 100% sure I understand this concept.
Not to jack the thread or anything, but do you have any supplemental reading that'd help with understanding the concept of "signal" vs "volume"? Because I always thought the signal level WAS volume level.

 

[mixsit]

In the several years of studying engineering, I'm still not 100% sure I understand this concept.
Not to jack the thread or anything, but do you have any supplemental reading that'd help with understanding the concept of "signal" vs "volume"? Because I always thought the signal level WAS volume level.

In this context they're the same. If I may presume he only used 'signal's dynamic range to mean the volume compactness' or not of the track in question. The distinction is in one is controlling the various mix levels, the other how sets and tucks' in among the mix.

To me 'signal = power/voltage what have you- the carrier,
'Volume = amount, loudness.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Compression affects dynamics in a way that is impractical to do with editing or automation. You can't shape a transient response with editing or automation. Trying to get the feel of a particular release setting with editing or automation would be difficult and time consuming.

I fix longer time scale dynamics problems (e.g. a punch in that was a little low) by chopping up the audio and adjusting the gains of the individual parts, then apply compression to condition the dynamics to taste. Then I use volume automation to make it fit the song. Of course "if needed" applies to every stage. Editing first lets the signal drive the compressor consistently.

 

[TripleM]

The only thing I'd add to what's been said already is that I would automate the signal coming *out* of the compressor, not the signal coming *in* to the compressor. If you start farting around with the signal coming in to the compressor, you'll change the compressor's reaction to that signal.

 

[ashcat_lt]

But if you don't fart around with the level before the compressor it will react differently to different sections of the song. You might have like 3db reduction in the verse and then 12db when they belt out the chorus. By automating before the compressor you can keep the action of the compressor more consistent. Then if you actually want the vocal a little louder in the chorus you can automate after also.

This is generally considered the best way to things. OTOH, if there's meant to be a large difference in volume level between the sections, and this difference is well represented in the track, but you want a bit of compression for transient control, you might try automating the threshold of the comp instead. Or you might even try that "two stage" thing that was blowing peoples minds a couple years back...

 

[Bristol Posse]

This is one of those things that will vary greatly depending on the experience and expertise of the person in front of the mic. With a really great vocalist you may just need a little compression, more for character,and then fader rides.
When it's an idiot like me up in front of the mic it become a muti stage process. a fast compressor set with a fairly high threshold just to catch those odd moments where I've gotten a little over enthusiastic, then a rough fader ride automation to get the levels more or less right across the whole song, then perhaps something a little LA2Aish to smooth things out and and some "Flavor" before the final mix automation.

Horses for courses and YMMV

 

[mixsit]

The only thing I'd add to what's been said already is that I would automate the signal coming *out* of the compressor, not the signal coming *in* to the compressor. If you start farting around with the signal coming in to the compressor, you'll change the compressor's reaction to that signal.

Yeah you're just looking at it from the wrong side. It would be a conscious choice to make the move going into the comp (or not
Actually I look at pre insert clip automation as the first pass to rough in the mix.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

The only thing I'd add to what's been said already is that I would automate the signal coming *out* of the compressor, not the signal coming *in* to the compressor. If you start farting around with the signal coming in to the compressor, you'll change the compressor's reaction to that signal.

I do both depending on need.

 

[miroslav]

i fix longer time scale dynamics problems (e.g. a punch in that was a little low) by chopping up the audio and adjusting the gains of the individual parts, then apply compression to condition the dynamics to taste. Then i use volume automation to make it fit the song. Of course "if needed" applies to every stage. Editing first lets the signal drive the compressor consistently.

ditto.......

 

[RAMI]

The only thing I'd add to what's been said already is that I would automate the signal coming *out* of the compressor, not the signal coming *in* to the compressor. If you start farting around with the signal coming in to the compressor, you'll change the compressor's reaction to that signal.

I guess there's no right and wrong, but I see it the exact opposite from the way you do. I always do my levelling out before the compressor so that the compressor gets a relatively smooth signal and doesn't have to squash the hell out of the occasional stray signal.

 

[Farview]

I use compression for the sound of compression. Very rarely do I use it to deal with problem dynamics.

I will use volume curves, or cut the audio and adjust the pieces, to make the vocal hit the compressor the same way in all parts of the song. That way the sound and feel of the compression is consistent. Then I automate the fader (after compression) to adjust the volume of the vocal so it sits the way I want it to in all the parts of the song.

Compression for the sound, automation for the mix.

Obviously, if the song is fairly simple and doesn't have quiet and loud parts, volume automation won't be necessary.