Best solution for de-essing?

J

JLM

New member
I searched a bit here and learned that there are two options for achieving de-essing by using the compressor/eq sidechain method. You can either use a graphic eq or a parametric eq. The general consensus seems to be that the parametric eq is the best choice as it leaves far less chance to screw up a track during de-essing.

I searched for a parametric eq and they're all really pricey compared to a graphic eq. I did find a Presonus parametric eq for $99. Seeing as the only use I'll have for this eq is de-essing, would it be worthwhile to get this cheap parametric eq? All the graphic eq's are pretty cheap. There's a DBX 31 band eq for $150. Any advice would be most appreciated.
 
Since the EQ is not going to be a part of the finished sound, as long as it can isolate the right freq you are all set. Therefore, a cheap parametric should be fine, and will be more precise than a cheap graphic (as long as you can sweep the frequency across the range you need)
 
Can you simply use a different vocal mic?

The Electro-Voice RE15, for example, can usually be found on ebay for around $100 or so in good (or better) condition.

Also correcting it as much as possible at the source always sounds better than de-essing BTW.

Chris
 
I go through the wav/audio file beat by beat and mark/select the range that need to be de-essed (short areas only). Then I use a DirectX de-essing plugin. Think it works ok. It leaves the ok parts of the vocal alone and only deesses where I feel I need it.
 
Emusic -- yes, yes, yes. I've got protools, and that's exactly what I do. This way only fractions of the track are altered as opposed to the entire track. Of course, this only applies to being able to edit waves like that.
 
chessparov said:
Can you simply use a different vocal mic?
Click to expand...

yes, that would be the best solution....

but if you are like my case: having only one mic, I just successfully recorded a vocalist last night who used to have nasty sibilence with my SPC1.

First I tried aiming the mic more towards the chest... that seems to control the sibilence quite a bit, but I still detect some harshness on the high-end...

then I remember the pencil trick and gave it a short... It did somewhat decreased the harshness around 2dB, making the track usable. :)

I had been having headache recording this particular vocalist and was happy with the result I gotten yesterday.

Just throught I shared....
 
Last edited:
Here's a pic of the pencil trick I took last night.... :)
 

Attachments

  • pencil_Trick.JPG
    pencil_Trick.JPG
    9.8 KB · Views: 276
Thanks Bruce (Bear), nice to have confirmation that I've learned a bit from folks like yourself, Harvey, et al.

Much as I respect the C1 for many singers, within their line the B1 and (my fave) the T3 would make life ssssimpler on me :).

Leeking, getting a good vocal track out of the sibilant singer/C1 combo
means your recording skill certainly surpasses mine...

Chris
 
I recorded around 5 vocalist for this particular project. For decent singers, the C1 sounds ok. But for vocalist with great voices, the C1 truly shines in capturing the performance and make it sound awesome on tape. :)

and yes, if I can cough out $400 of my money, I AM gonna get the SP B1 and hopefully solve some of the C1 sibilance woos....
 
pardon my naiveness but what is , in short, the pencil trick?

is it only to aim the mic in a littlebit different angle?
or does it really do something with the sound?

seems pretty weird to me :rolleyes:
 
well earworm,

I think the pencil trick was first mentioned here by Mr Harvey.

The idea is that if you are getting popping or sibilance problem, putting a pencil in the middle of the mic will diverse the wind from hitting the diaphragm...

It may sound funny, but it works. :)
 
Freddy Mercury who had a "pretty good voice" :) in his prime was one of a legion of top pop singers who were notorious for microphone sibilance
among their studio AE's. (just kidding IMO Freddy had a great voice)

I have a mellow mid-range and a bright top (think Mel Torme-ish) for a baritone, and this seems to be a fairly common issue for this vocal type.

Sinatra had sibilance issues on the U47 BTW, and I suspect it was one of the reasons he eventually started using other vocal microphones like the Shure 546 or Beyer M500 instead of it over at his label Reprise later on.

The good news is that these vocal types are able to cut through a loud band
or mix well naturally as long as you've got this mic situation under control.

As you may well know, microphones all hear differently than the human ear
to begin with. Operatic style singers are also problem children because they
e-nun-ciate everthing! :)

Chris

P.S. I tend to believe that good quality analog smooths things out,
and that helped some with the C1 on that singer.
Just using ancient 16 bit mainly here and it's MD (gasp) to boot.
 
Thanks for all the responses. Yeah, I know it's best to get it right when tracking so you can avoid using any extra eq's or anything like that to fix sibilance. I'm using an AKG414uls. It's got to be my mic placement technique that's the problem because a mic that nice should be plenty fine for vocals I would think. Although it is known for an instrument mic. Who knows. I'll work on my placement and will try out that pencil trick too.


boingoman said:
Since the EQ is not going to be a part of the finished sound, as long as it can isolate the right freq you are all set. Therefore, a cheap parametric should be fine, and will be more precise than a cheap graphic (as long as you can sweep the frequency across the range you need)
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just not understanding this but how can you use a parametric eq to fix a track and then not have it be a part of the finished sound?
 
The output of the EQ is not part of the signal chain... it's feeds the side chain of the compressor only. This only triggers compression of the signal applied to the input of the compressor.

If you dial in the silibant frequency on an EQ being fed the same signal source signal as the compressor, and route the ouput of the EQ into the sidechain of the compressor, the compressor will compress the entire bandwidth of the input signal but only when triggered by the silibant frequencies on the sidechain.

Wow... does that make any sense??
 
The thing to watch when de-essing is what can end up being the reverse, an equally obnoxious lisp ("lithp") when you over-de-ess. (Over-de-ess--sounds like lederhosen...sorry.) :>)
 
MOFO Pro said:
The output of the EQ is not part of the signal chain... it's feeds the side chain of the compressor only. This only triggers compression of the signal applied to the input of the compressor.

If you dial in the silibant frequency on an EQ being fed the same signal source signal as the compressor, and route the ouput of the EQ into the sidechain of the compressor, the compressor will compress the entire bandwidth of the input signal but only when triggered by the silibant frequencies on the sidechain.

Wow... does that make any sense??
Click to expand...

Exactement. You split the signal by tapping it at an aux send or using a splitter. The compressor gets inserted on the original, the split goes to the eq and to the sidechain input on the comp.
 
Back in the days of yore (pre-cheap good LDC's), my understanding is that a typical pro level studio would at stock three vocal microphones;

1) Neumann U87
2) AKG 414
3) Shure SM57(!)

Now, a number have pro AE's said that around 70% of the time the U87 was used. 25% the 414, and the other 5% the SM57.
Of course these percentages would change based on musical genre, etc.

Anyway...

The point is that some singers (like me) tend to sound sibilant on the 414,
whereas the U87 or SM57 work better instead.
(I fall into the group who also sound good on the Shure's BTW)

One idea would be to sell your 414, then with the $$$ get something like the
T3. A cool feature of the T3 was that is you wanted to flatten the response more, Studio Projects would tweak it free if you sent it there.
(they probably still do it-check though if interested in that)

The stock T3 works just fine on me though.
(haven't tried the newer Rodes or ADK's)

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top